Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Crestahaus Lodge.1985a Crestahaus Lodge (193 1 , V/a",� V/// 1 0 U Mr. Leonard W. Koval, President Michigan Avenue Management, Inc. 1440 N. State.Pkwy., Suite 6D Chicago, IL 60610-1509 RE: Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986, Bikeway along Highway 82 in Aspen, CO ASPEN PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 5, 1997 Dear Mr. Koval: We are in receipt of your letter dated Sept. 26, 1997 regarding your inquiry of the $4000 contribution for a bicycle path along Highway 82. Please be advised that a bicycle path has been constructed along Highway 82 as planned, and to the best of my knowledge all funds contributed for this project were used to cover construction costs. If you have any other questions regarding this issue, please feel free to call the Community Development Dept. at (970) 920-5090. Sincerely, Z/Julie Ann Woods, A.I.C.P. Deputy Director ' cc: David Hoefer Crestahaus File 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • Fax 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper R Pool Whir o 1 1 istin 12 o m I B ild" lh1/` � � J1 1 New 20 Ro 1 Struc ure �1 Bus Parking Prohibited 32 1 DEVELOPEMENT AREA: 11 Lot Area: 56,192 SF (eternal Floor Area: 17,017 SF Impervious Coverage: 26,270 SF Open Space: 29,922 SF Rooms. 35 Parking Spaces.: 33 (1.29 Ac.) (�30 FAR) (47%) (53%) (Incl. 2 Employee) SITE PLAN RF= TAHAUS Mk] �.1 6 "M *d4OM50 00 10 20 ' 0 • Michigan Avenue Management, Incorporated 1440 N. State Pkwy, Suite 6D Chicago, Illinois 60610-1509 312.280.2229 Fax 312.944.7626 City of Aspen Sept.26,1997 Attn: City Clerk 130 Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Resolution #1, (Series of 1986) a resolution establishing the 1985 L-3 City of Aspen Growth Management allotment Dear Sirs, was the owner of record for the Crestahaus Lodge when this resolution was adopted. I proceeded with the terms of this resolution. Page 2, paragraph 3 requires a $4,000.00 contribution for the construction of a link to a bicycle path on Highway 82 (South side) in front of this property. If said bicycle path is not constructed within 10 years of dated resolution, the $ 4,000.00 plus interest will be refunded. At present there is no evidence of a constructed dedicated bicycle path in that location. would appreciate the return of the monies of this fund to me. V ryiru your /Leonard W. Koval President Kug.21.1997 1:23PM S No.7817 P. 2/5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - - -- 1 nPc RESOLUTION NO. I (Series of 1986) A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 1985 L--3 CITY OF ASPEN GROWTH M&NAGEMT ALLOTNOIT { WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.6(a) of the !Municipal Codc of the City of Aspen, Colorado, as amended, October 1 of each year i! established as the deadline for, submission of applications for lodge developnent allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, one application was submittec 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 WHERE, a duly noticed public hearing was held on November 26, 1985, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), ai which time the Commission did evaluate and score the project, and it die successfully meet the minimum required threshold of 63 points by havin< received 74.3 points (not including bonus points) J and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made by th, Applicant in scoring this project and in granting approvals for specia: reviews related to this application, including, but not limited to th, following 1. Three (3) drywells will be installed to retain the "hilltop' surface runoff originating on the Crestahaus property. When soi: studies are done for foundation designs they shall include determination of historical water runoff onto adjoining properties. The drainage system shall be designed ant constructed to not increase groundwater problems on adjacent AuP.21.1997 1:23PM • No.7817 P. 3/5 properties. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 en T.Pavoc 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 Aug. 21. 1997 1:24PM • No.78i7 P. 4/5 ; and REOORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leave 8. The rebuilt and renovated lodge units and common areas will bE suitable for occupancy prior to, or at the same time as the nee units for which an allotment has been requested. Tbf 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 tc recommend to City Council to allocate the ten (10) units in the L-3 quot< 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 reviei the recommendation and scoring by the Commission at their regular meetin( on December 16, 1985 and did concur with the Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, C OLORADO That ten (10) units from the 1985 quota and four (4) units from thi 1986 quota in the L-3 lodge zone category are hereby allocated to th( Crestahaus upon the condition that the above stated representation an( 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 permP 3 ,dug, 21. 1997 1:24PM • No. 7 817 P, F; 5 RECIORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 [1(l T.PaOPfL __ for the proposed reconstruction and new construction project are not submitted on or before July 1, 1988. Dated: • William L. Stirling, May ATT EST : Kathryn S. och, City Clerk S I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the Cit: of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true an, sccurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City -of Aspen, Colorado, a' a meeting held on the^ day of 1986. SB . 3 4 Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 4 • f kLGIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS Mr. Steve Burstein, Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Steve, 1 January 8, 1988 i Re: Crestahaus Certificate of Occupancy As of today, we have acomplished the proposed changes to the Crestahaus Exterior Lighting Plan which I discussed in my letter to you of 12/30/87. The overall aesthetic effect of the lighting at night is subdued, gentle and very low-key. I am extremely pleased with what has been accomplished and I commend you and Tom for your helpful input in arriving at this pleasing solution. I hope at some point you will view it personally. All 4 modifications proposed in the letter of 12/30/87 have been fully accomplished; including cutting down light poles, removing sodium ballasts, relamping with 60 watt incandescent bulbs and the shielding of certain fixtures. (Because of snow and frost, the light at the north end of the property along the highway will be temporarily delamped for now, and will be moved 30' in the Spring, as proposed.) Since we have made a "good faith" attempt to create an acceptable lighting plan, and I think have created a highly successful result, I would request that you take the necessary action to renew and/or reissue our Certificate of Occupancy issued 12/10/87, which carried a 30-day limit on the lighting solution. Please let me know when we may pick up the Certificate. Thank you. Si erely, avid F. Gibson, AIA DFG: gc cc: W. Dreuding, Zoning J. Edwards, Esq. L. Koval M. Schreiner, Alpine C.M. W. Sherman, Chadwick Electric T. Vorhees, Electrical Inspector Norris -Williams, Contractor 418 E. COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORAOO 61611 303/925 5968 0 • Aspen/Pit 130 s aspei Mr. Dave Gibson Gibson Reno Architects 418 E. Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 A ing Of f ice treet 91611 January 8, 1988 Re: Crestahaus Exterior Lighting Plan Rectification Dear Dave, I have reviewed your December 30, 1987 letter detailing the modifications to the Crestahaus lighting plan to bring it into compliance with Resolution 86-1 and make it commensurate with the Building Permit plans. We agree that this plan appears to be in compliance with the Crestahaus approval. The Planning Office accepts your proposed lighting plan with the caveat that follow- ing installation, we will conduct an on -site inspection to insure the actual compliance with representations. We understand that considerable cost is involved in changing the lights and lowering bollards and we will only request further modifications if the resulting lighting remains too bright. Please inform me when all proposed modifications have been installed so I can schedule an inspection. I want to thank you and Len Koval for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, JC "94 Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official Tom Voorhies, Electrical Inspector cresta.2 GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS Mr. Steve Burstein, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Dear Steve, JAN 4 Dee er 30, 1987 Crestahaus Exterior Lighting This proposal is in response to our meeting at the site last night with you, Tom Voorhees, Len Koval and Bill Sherman, in which we looked at two modifications to the existing lights (shields and incandescent retrofits) and discussed other ideas. After further discussion with Len Koval (the Owner) and Bill Sherman of Chadwick Electric, we would like to offer the following modifications as a proposed permanent solution to the exterior lighting plan which will comply with the spirit and intent of Resolution 86-1 governing the project: 1. Exterior Walkway Lights (36). Remove all high pressure sodium ballasts and retrofit for incandescents, relamp with 60 watt incandescent bulbs. 2. Pole Lights (18). a. Reduce height of 14 fixtures from 9'-8" + to 4'-10". (This will place the light source at approximately 4'-2 1/2" above ground level.) The four fixtures to remain at their present height shall be the two by the pool and the two in the remote (southwest) parking lot. b. Remove all 18 high pressure sodium ballasts and retrofit for incandescent bulbs, 60 watts each. 3. Flood Lights (2) at West End of property along highway. a. Both fixtures to be relamped with 150 watt incandescent bulbs. b. Fixture at remote corner to be relocated 30' further from highway. 4. Lights at Auto Entrance. The two ground mounted sodium lights will be moved closer to the archway and shielded. The "B" flood fixture will be relamped with a 150 watt bulb. The two fixtures mounted to the underside of the arch will be retrofitted with shields. 418 E. COOPER AVENUE ASPEN. COLORAOO 81611 303/925 5968 Mr. Steve Burstein Page Two C7 December 30, 1987 5. Schedule. Our Certificate of Occupancy allows until January 9, 1988 to resolve the exterior lighting design and we are to accomplish all the work described above before that date. The relocations, shortened poles and incandescent relamping will all be accomplished immediately and the shields which must be fabricated, will be installed by January 9th. We are eager to resolve this matter to our mutual satisfaction and look forward to your affirmative response. Please reply before January 9th so that we may affirm and/or reissue the Certificate of Occupancy and not interrupt the operation of the Lodge. Thank you for your consideration, and if you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, A& • I David F. Gibson, AIA DFG: gc cc: W. Dreuding, Zoning Officer J. Edwards, Esquire L. Koval, Owner M. Norris, Norris -Williams Construction T. Voorhees, Electrical Inspector • k—= GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS i DEC 2 4 December 22, 1987 i Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen City/County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Crestahaus Exterior Lighting Dear Steve, Please allow me this opportunity to respond to your letter of 12/3/87. We wish to mitigate the lighting by modifyng the present plan to create an exterior lighting which is "sufficiently obscured to prevent glare as viewed from State Highway 82 and the surrounding neighborhood," thus complying with the requirement of the Resolution 86-1. We have prepared for your inspection and site review, two different techniques for modifying the perceived "glare" and "illumination levels" of the existing lights: 1. Shields around walkway lights and pole lights directing the light downward and preventing any visibility of the source; and 2. Changeover of the balasts of fixtures from sodium to incandescent (70 watt). We invite you and Tom Vorhees to come by Tuesday evening the 29th after 5:00 PM to view our propposed mitigation measures and perhaps we may be able to determine through observation what is a mutually acceptable modification. Thank you for your cooperation. Sineereli avid F. Gibson, DFG: gc cc: L. Koval T. Voorhees J. Edwards, Esq. AIA 418 E. COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORAOO 61611 303/925 5968 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Cestahaus Employee Dorm Deed Restriction and Trail Contribution DATE: December 11, 1987 The proposed Deed Restriction appears to satisfy condition 6 of Council Resolution 1 of 1987. Ann Bowmanshould only sign the Deed Restriction and Agreement once she is satisfied with the physical configuration and condition after her site visit. Joe Edwards tells me she is satisfied. I think an escrow account and agreement is most appropriate for the specially ear -marked $4,000 trail contribution. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III December I� ft a LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 9, 1987 Paul Taddune City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Koval/Crestahaus; Certificate of Occupancy Dear Paul, TELEPHONE (303) 925-7118 We delivered the $4,000.00 check made payable to the City of Aspen to Bill Drueding on December 8, 1987, in order to comply with condition 3 of Resolution 1-86. This was the money to be held in an interest -bearing account until the City builds the bicycle path along State Highway 82 provided that, if such path is not built within ten years, the money and interest are to be returned to Crestahaus. I had assumed that the City had already established some sort of trails trust account into which these funds would be placed. In speaking with Mr. Bernstein, he indicated he was not aware of any such account and that one would probably have to set set up. I will defer to your judgment as to whether such an account should be set up in the City accounting programs and this be the first deposit to such account or, in the alternative, that we create a one-time escrow agreement and escrow account for this one contribution. I will be glad to draft any such escrow agreement or take care of the opening of any such account, should that be your determination. Please advise. Very truly yours, J eph dwards, Jr. JEE ch L/36 cc eve Bernstein Bill Drueding ab LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 814511 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III December 3, 1987 Bill Drueding Building Department City of Aspen 517 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Koval; Crestahaus Dear Mr. Drueding, <�; C.,. �' 101V'(C S OEC TELEPHONE (303) 925.71145 In order to comply with the requirement of condition number three of the Planning Commission as recited in Resolution No. 1, series of 1986, granting the quotas in the L-3 lodge zone to the Crestahaus, we are enclosing a check for $4,000.00 to be placed in an interest -bearing account by the City until such time as the City commences the construction of a bicycle path along the south side of State Highway 82. That resolution provides that, if no bicycle path project is built within ten years from the date of the filing of the application, which was shortly prior to October 1, 1985, this amount plus the accrued interest thereon will be returned to Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. The recent case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission-,, v�,c� may have bearing on the legality of this condition. That ^��e�A . case held that a condition on a building permit requiring granting of an easement for beach access wasn unconstitutional. We request that, if the City, on review \J������ of that case, determines that requiring this payment by the IQ!,.P Crestahaus was inappropriate or that future contributions -_.AQ� may not be exacted and that the trust fund should be g` terminated prior to the expiration of the M so 00 Bill Drueding December 3, 1987 Page 2 ten-year period, we would appreciate the return of these funds. Very truly yours, ph�E; oseEdwards, J JEE ch L/17 Enclosure cc Paul Taddune XXlan Richman Leonard Koval �cember Mr. David Gibson Gibson Reno Architects 418 E. Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Crestahaus Exterior Lighting Dear Dave: 3, 1987 Since our meeting on December 2 I have had a chance to look at the Crestahaus at night and review the electric plans in the building permit submittal in some detail with Tom Voorhies. Following are my comments: 1. The Crestahaus received an allocation of fourteen lodge units through the 1985 L-3 GMP competition. Approval of allocation was made through Resolution 1 (Series of 1986) of City Council, including Representation #5 as pertains to exterior lighting quoted below: 115. 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." The Building Department and Planning Office have determined that your present lighting does not comply with this condition or the lighting plan presented in the Building Permit submittal. Please note that we have also gotten some complaints about the intensity of illumination on the property. 2. There are several options from which you can chose to mitigate the present problem. We ask you to either bring the lighting plan strictly into compliance with the plan presented in the building permit submittal or present a modified plan demonstrating that the light levels do not exceed the plan represented as certified by a registered electrical engineer and to the satisfaction of the Building 1 ow w 3. Department and Planning Office. Another alternative avail- able to you is to amend the approved Crestahaus GMP plan pursuant to Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code. Following are the specific areas of concern that we have identified where the lighting deviates from what was approved: a. The Building Permit plans show baffled incandescent lights ("D" and "E") along the hallways and covered walkways. Exposed lens high pressure sodium lights have been installed instead, giving off at least five times the light in Tom Voorhies' judgment. We believe that the intensity of light, the yellow color and visibil- ity of the light source are all factors that should be addressed in any modified plan. We suggest that you consider using the fixtures now in place, replacing the bulbs with incandescent and devising a shield around the lights. At least one light, in the northeast corner stairway, is not shown on the plan and is directly visible from the Highway. A number of the lights, particularly on the second floor, are still visible even with the horizontal trim board. b. The numerous landscape lights (Fixture A) were repre- sented to be bollard lights, indicating to us fixtures 4 feet tall or less (as defined in the County's Illumination Code, in the GMP application they were referred to as "landscape lights"). The glare problem from these lights seems to be due to the 9' height and the reflective material in the top of the fixture. The fact that the Highway is lower than the site makes those tall lamps even more visible. Furthermore, the 9' high lamps are prominent features on the site that may be considered obtrusive. You might consider lowering the height of the lights, decreasing wattage, and changing the reflective material in the top of the fixture. C. The projector flood lights shining on the west wall of the old Crestahaus building were not shown on the electrical plans. Removal would be most appropriate. One of the lights shines in motorists' eyes as you drive west. We suggest that you at least consider reducing the wattage from what appears to be 300 watts to 150 watts and that they be flood type lights rather than spot type lights. d. The flood lights on the entrance arch were represented to be high pressure sodium, as installed. They are not as close to the arch as represented which results in glare for motorists exiting the property and giving 2 w « excessive illumination to the arch. We suggest that they be moved closer to the arch and shielded. The lamps on the arch should be shielded. An additional "B" fixture has been installed near the arch that was not shown on the plan. Please contact me when you have decided on the course of action you wish to follow. If you intend to amend the plan, we should set up a pre -application conference. The Building Department and Planning Office are also happy to meet with you if you would like any clarification of the points in this letter. Please be advised that we will be informing the Building Department to hold off on any final Certificate of Occupancy on the project until the problems are rectified. Sincerely, Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Tom Voorhies, Electrical Inspector Bill Drueding, Zoning Official cresta 3 ft MEETING NOTES GIBSON s RENO • ARCHITECTS ECT: Crestahaus Lodge ENT: Steve Burstein, Planner; DATE: ri 229, 1987,' Dave Gibson :___Jl.60 TES: The following adjustments must be made to the plans of 13/87 in order to conform with GMP conditions & representations d other requirements: 1. Landscape Plans a. Add 7 deciduous trees around parking area @ SW corner of lot and add 2 evergreens (per 12/16/85 sketch). 2. Site Plan a. Adjust SW parking area to be 85 ft. long (:i.e. 5' shorter) and to be no closer than 3 ft. to South property line @ closest point. b. Sign must be posted at SW parking lot; "No Bus Parking". C. Add a sign, warning exiting drivers of "Traffic- Approching From Blind Curve to the Left". d. Add a "Fish -Eye" mirror directly across Highway 82 to facilitate views of on -coming traffic for exiting cars. 3. Entrance Sign. Letters "Crestahaus Lodge" must be smaller and conform to Aspen Municipal Sign Code, "Wall Sign" limiting size of letters (to 12") and overall area of sign (20 ft.) (24-5.6). 4. "Day Room" must have exercise equipment installed before certificate of occupancy can be issued. 5. $4000 must be escrowed with the city for bike path before C.O. will be issued. 6. Drainage plan should substitute a "retention pond" North of the new units (18 Cu.Ft.) in lieu of the daylighting to ditch pipe system now shown. 7. Employee unit must be configured as one room (not two) i.e. move entrance out into hall and eliminate separate entrances. 8. Extensive list of additional electrical upgrades has been requested in the existing building by the electrical inspector (List attatched) (to be contested by Gibson & Reno). TO: Len Koval, Mike Rich, Max Goracke BY: David F. Gibson 418 E. COOPER AVENUE *207 ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 303/9255960 TRANSMITTAL LETTER • AJA DOCUMENT G810 PROJECT: Crestahaus (name, address) • F so %. 00 GIBSON �'. F'E 'O - �! ^^0-iITRRCTT� 418 E. r-:43PER • -- - CCLORADO IMIA TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Planning 517 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTN: L Mr. Steve Burstein J WE TRANSMIT: ( X) herewith ( ) under separate cover via _ ( ) in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: ( ) approval ( ) distribution to parties ( ) review & comment ( ) record X) use ( ) THE FOLLOWING: C 1%7 II 1 PROJECT NO: 8504.5 ( ) information DATE: April 10, 1987 If enclosures are not as noted, please inform us immediately. If checked below, please: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures. ( ) Return enclosures to us. ( ) Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles ( ) Product Literature ( ) Change Order ( X) Traffic Study COPIES DATE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE 1 1/6/87 Leigh, Scott & Cleary Traffic Study Report E ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmitted D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS CODE B. No action required E. See REMARKS below C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS If you should have any questions, please contact me. COPIES TO: (with enclosures) El El 11 o, AIA AIA DOCUMENT G810 • TRANSMITTAL LETTER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIA6\"P0YRIGH © J.W6 ONE PAGE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 0036 7-] 71 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Offices in Denver and Oalarado,Springs ry 6, 1987 Mr. David Gibson Gibson & Reno Architects, Inc. 418 Cooper Street, *207 Aspen, CO 81611 1889 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 (303) 333-II05 r- JAN � Git St. in ArC11hL,a15 RE: Crestahaus Lodge Access Sight Problem Dear Mr. Gibson; As you requested, we have assessed the driver sight distance situation at the access point to the Crestahaus Lodge along State Highway 82 immediately east of Aspen, Colorado. After inspecting the site, reviewing the accident history at the location and assessing the potential mitigation measures, we have identified a series of feasible measures which will minimize the traffic hazard at the location. Site Description The Crestahaus Lodge is a small (15 units) lodge on the eastern fringe of Aspen which is currently undergoing renovation and expansion to a future total of 35 units. As part of the improvement program, the sight distance condition at the access point along Colorado State Highway 82, which has been a longstanding source of concern, is being reconsidered. The legal speed limit on Highway 82 at the access point is 30 miles per hour. Eastward from the Town of Aspen, Highway 82 crosses the Roaring Fork River as it curves to the right. Near the end of this curve, as the top of the hill is reached, the Crestahaus Lodge is located to the south (on the inside of the curve). As shown in Figure A, the sole existing driveway serving the Lodge is located at the end of the curve, approximately 1100 feet east of the Roaring Fork Bridge. To the east of the access point, the highway is relatively straight and level, affording at least 1000 feet of sight distance. Sight distance to the west of the access point is more than adequate. To the west of the access point, however, the vertical and horizontal curves, combined with a 7' high stone retaining wall adjacent to the Lodge structure, combine to limit sight distance for a vehicle wishing to turn left from the existing driveway to approximately 190 feet, as defined by the methodology set forth in The State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-1), Transportation Systems 0 Transit • Parking • Vehicular Access 9 Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning 0 Traffic Operations & Safety • Signal Design 9 Traffic Impact Studies • • • • Mr. David Gibson Page 2 January 6, 1987 as amended by the Colorado Highway Commission on August 15, 1985. The sight distance for eastbound vehicles on the highway approaching the access point Is also approximately 190 feet. Sight distance must be considered for both the driver approaching the access point from the east on the highway (to enable a safe stop if a vehicle is blocking the highway), and for the driver wishing to exit the lodge and turn left towards Aspen (to allow the identification of adequate gaps in the eastbound traffic stream). The State Highway Access Code calls for a minimum of 180 feet of sight distance for the first case, the eastbound driver on the highway, and 390 feet for the vehicle exiting the lodge. Thus, sight distance is adequate for vehicles approaching the access point on 82 travelling at the posted speed limit, but is not adequate for exiting vehicles to safely identify acceptable gaps in the traffic stream. Accident History A review of the accident history for the access location revealed no reported accidents in the last six years which are attributable to the existence of the driveway. A record of one accident was uncovered, however, in which the access point was a factor. On August 25th, 1979, two motorcyclists proceeding east on Hwy 82 at or above the posted 30 mile -per -hour speed limit came around the curve immediately west of the access point as a car was turning left onto the highway from the access point. The motorcyclist in front was able to avoid the car by passing in the empty westbound lane. The second trailing motorcyclist apparently had his view of the exiting car blocked momentarily by the leading motor- cyclist; by the time the second motorcyclist was aware of the obstruction he was unable to avoid the vehicle, and slid into the side of the exiting car, resulting in injuries to the motorcyclist, as well as extensive damage to the vehicles. Potential Alternatives Remove and reconstruct the retaining wall further to the south of the present location. As the existing lodge structure is only 10 feet from the retaining wall at the closest point, the wall could only be moved approximately five feet to the south before the foundation to the structure would be endangered. This course of action would be expensive, and would result in the loss of the two large trees currently between the building and the retaining wall. Moving the wall back 5 feet from it's present location would increase sight distance for exiting vehicles by only 40 feet (to 230 feet); moving it back the maximum amount without modifying the lodge structure (which would nevertheless entail extensive foundation work) would increase this distance to 300 feet. Even with extensive reconstruction, therefore, sight distance would still fall appreciably below the 390 feet called for in the State Access Code. •i 06 Mr. David Gibson Page 3 January 6, 1987 Move the existing access point. The exiting access point could be moved by approximately 50 feet to the west while remaining on the Crestahaus parcel. This would effectively extend the sight distances by 50 feet, to approximately 240 feet. For a vehicle travelling eastbound on Highway 82, this distance would provide slightly more than a second of additional time to react to a vehicle exiting from the Lodge. As the sight distance problem is for exiting vehicles only, it would alternately be effective to move the exiting lane to the east, keeping the entering lane at its present location. Provide additional warning devices along Highway 82. Currently, the access point is preceded in the eastbound direction with a yellow "Hidden Entrance" warning sign. Additional warning devices, including flashing yellow warning lights, could potentially be installed on the eastbound approach. The existing sign, however, is the appropriate response considering the low historical accident rate at the location, as spelled out in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, 1978. Additional warning devices are thus not warranted and would lead to a "cluttered" roadside. Provide a paved driveway clear of sand, gravel, ice and snow. A clean paved surface will increase the ability to quickly accelerate or brake to avoid a potential accident. For exiting drivers who are faced with the need to react to the sudden appearance of an eastbound vehicle rounding the curve, the ability to quickly take evasive action could well spell the difference between accident and near -accident. Install and maintain a mirror, mounted on the north side of the road opposite the exit driveway and angled to provide a view of the eastbound approach. These mirrors have been proven useful in wide application in European countries, as well as in scattered application in the this country. Versions of such mirrors are available constructed of plated steel which are virtually indestructable. This mirror could be mounted part way up the embankment on the north side of the highway such that the post does not pose as an additional encroachment on the highway or safety hazard. Provide signage along the exit driveway. As many drivers unfamiliar with the location use and will continue to use the access point to the Crestahaus Lodge, signs indicating the potential danger, such as "WATCH FOR APPROACHING VEHICLES," or "CAUTION, LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE" would be a prudent step. In addition, if the mirror discussed above is installed, a sign stating "USE MIRROR WHEN EXITING" would also be appropriate. Recommendations Based upon the analysis presented above, it is recommended that the following mitigation measures be implemented. These measures, depicted in 00 • 0 Mr. David Gibson Page 4 January 6, 1987 Figure B, will assure that the hazard posed by the limited sight distance will be minimized: o Reconstruct the driveway as far east as possible on the property; o Provide a paved driveway surface adjacent to the highway, and maintain this driveway clean of sand, gravel, ice and snow; o Install and maintain a mirror opposite the exit point to provide an indication of approaching eastbound traffic on the highway; and o Post and maintain a sign on the exit driveway warning drivers leaving the Lodge of the potentially dangerous conditions and Instructing them to use the mirror to check for oncoming traffic. 0 0 0 We trust that this analysis will assist you in the further planning of the Crestahaus Lodge. Please call if we can answer any questions regarding this analysis, or be of any further assistance. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. 0 RFC/ By_ le. Gordon R. Shaw, PE _ 24398 A • � Enclosures: Figures A & B�'o,�.� �`<Q 'ALCULITE Precision Do ti est Light Output,., -.11FJLFCION otically_engineered-Alzak _F •flectorwith its polished mirror, 7*i Ash provides the ultimate controlling the downward k frost bf.1i hf-for �.. o 9 74 /o MORE LIGHT aximulm efficiency.THAN 7.11 (936 iunr & IODN "A" Wmp) ng Best Glare Control Deep, highly polished reflec- ;k r tor provides a low -brightness effect and the greatest shielding ang!e—par- ticularly. important In ceil- ings over 8'. Unobtrusive. OPEN REFLECTOR A Lamp) Very soft, even Im o illumination. Wide distribution. Clear or gold ° , >I Alzak reflector Specular 7053 7054 7059 7055 has a quiet glowClear Alzak. Specular Gold Alzak 7053-Al 7054-Al 7059-Al 7055-Al A19, A19. A21, A19, A21. A23. PS25, 100W max. 150W max. 150W max. 30OW max. MULTI -GROOVE BAFFLE Concentrated distribution. Finely grooved optical black baffle assures ultra -low aperture brightness, Black loss 7760 reduces glare. R30, ER30, PAR38, R30, 75W max. ER30, R40, ER40, 250W max. OPEN REFLECTOR �� re R. ( g XtV R Lam p) Low brightness, U a high efficiency I and 45' visual 1 _l cut-off to lamp and I-6 lamp image in Specular 7701 7705 i reflector cone. clear Alzak Concentrated Specular Gold 7701•A1 7705-Al distribution. _ ._50YLDax. 75W.,._._. _ REGRESSED LENSLITE Soft -edged, wide distribution. Fresnel lens, supported in deep conical aperture, diffuses light, Matte White 7790 filters out glare. A19. A21, 150W max. ADJUSTABLE "ELBOW" ACCENT LIGHT Versatile, compact. Adjusts up to 50' from vertical and 358' horizontally for accent lighting. Retracts for fully recessed downlighl. ' 1-1 C3,1-1 T 01_ 11=1? Matte White Elbow/ 7045 Matte Black Aperture Polished Chrome Elbow/ 7046 Matte Black Aperture PAR38, R40, 30OW max. SR = Spacing Ratio. Multiply the SR times the mounting height above the lighted area to get the maximum distance between fixtures for uniform illumination • 3 • / JLTI-GROOVE BAFFLE hightlighting or general lighting fro"igh eilings. Iti-Groove baffle reduces glare. -, i k s J 4. �,,, j h i—�o a� Matte White 7068 6605 7065 6606 6607* } Bronze 7078 6610 7075 6611 6612* s R30,ER30, R30,ER30, PAR38, PAR38,R40,ER40, 75W max. 75W max. R40, ER40, 30OW max. .� 150W max. 'Top Glass Cover Provided +: For indoor or outdoor use. EN REFLECTOR Wall Washer ie distribution with "A" lamp, narrow distribution with U 7 i/R lamps Specular Alzak cones. C> 1 - Exterior Aperture "- Matte White Clear 7018-AO 7026-AO 7040 ;. Matte White Gold 7018-A1 7026-A1 Bronze Clear 7019-AO 7028-AO 7039 i Bronze Gold 7019-A1 7028-A1 AR38, PAR38, R40 Flood, R30, 300W max. 15OW max N x For indoor or 150Wmax. outdoor use. 'ECASTEFP T i Ness, one-piece aluminium cylinder. Black aperture. R Matte Black 1821 1801 1831 Matte White 1823 1803 1833 Bronze 1826 1806 1836 R30,ER30, PAR38.R40. 75W max. 150W max. For indoor or outdoor use. DRILLV Wall Washer squares in a variety of functions and mountings. 1 q T :e of aperture accessories. w u:y 'ASH 1-P, + �-6 -IJ n Exterior Aperture ,0 6 Bronze Bronze 7862 7864 7262 7264 7265 * 7267 Matte White Black 7882 7884 7242 7244 7245* 7247 ER30 75WR30,max. ACCESSORY 12 7894 Crystal Block For indoor or R30 Flood, 75W outdoor use. max. recommended. PAR38, R40, ER40, R40 Flood, 300W max. 150W max ACCESSORIES 'Top Glass Cover Provided 7298 7299 "Fit -In" Black "Fit -In" Specular Multi -Groove Baffle Black Alzak Reflector F' } •• ... � `--�/ /ram a E NEW STRUCTURE %� ELE. i9y5.0 D 1 ��f D --- D _ D D--- --- E E D f> i I ' i , 1 l I i I �x . W Y • ! D. `A 5�y r ..F December 11, 1986 ,• Mr. Richard DeCampo Gibson & Reno Architects ,i ? Page two ;3• Secondly, I recommend',tt at ttie :1oaatio for the retention area be some- where in the northwest.,.corner of 64'j. koperty. This retention area should be located -such that it will intercept flow from the new build- ing and parking'Jot.4area. -The shape and depth of the pond can be of your choice as 17ong"as the,.final., product retains 18 ft of runoff and limits the outflow to historic rates. Final design should be aceomp- lished by a registered engineer. I would like to thank you for. using the professional services of Schmueser Gordon, Meyer, Inc.`_ to address the drainage for this site. I rt you have any. questions, please do not hesitate to call. " `X ' Sincerely, 4 " SCHMUESER GORDCN MEYER, INC.,, j eff Simonson �L.^ f :+� , . y } 0�`1e.o.ee ��f/�►•//% 'i Y Zs�• YdEfd •.��,� , ,^ ry JS:lc/6188 . ' ,� .. +a.�.. i... ..+�> � __ a5e •�� '� . _ On 3910 10 ' ° s T �kY p� rXj l ,F a f".. z � r _ Grand Avenue, Suite 212 SCHMUESEA GOh MEYERAdL INC. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS December 11, 1986 f a Mr. Richard DeCampo Gibson & Reno Architects 8 10)86 418 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 r P. F en0 RE: Crestahaus Drainage Study b'- �:t�2a.$S Dear Richard: This letter will serve as a report presenting the findings of the drainage study performed on the Crestahaus by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Our approach to the study looked at two major concerns: 1) Limiting the "developed" rate of runoff to equal the "historic" rate of runoff, thereby, not affecting neighboring properties. 2) Limiting the "developed" groundwater level to the "historic" groundwater level. Utilizing the rational method, we first determined the historic and developed rates of runoff for the site. We have determined that it might be of your best interest to handle the "developed" runoff by a surface retention pond versus drywells. Our determination was founded on the fact that only 18 cubic feet of retention volume is required for the site. By retaining the 18 cubic feet of runoff on the surface, there is no longer a need for drywells; thus, solving the groundwater concern. To solve the developed runoff affecting neighboring properties, a oon- trolled outlet, or 12" CMP, can be utilized to limit runoff leaving the property to historic rates. It should be located just downstream of the retention pond. The following table presents the results of the calculations: 100-year historic runoff - 2.91 cfs 100-year developed runoff - 3.18 cfs 5-year historic runoff - 1.21 cfs 5-year proposed runoff - 1.24 cfs Retention pond volume required = 18 ft3 I would like to make two further recommendations concerning drainage for the site. First, I recorarnend that consideration be made in keep- ing flow coming down Highway 82 from entering the site. Topography indicates that flow historically bypasses the site and continues down to the Riverside Ditch. Special attention in grading may be needed to ensure that this flow pattern is maintained. • 10 MEMORANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manager . (-;w— FROM : Steve Burstein, Planning Office �� RE: Crestahaus L-3 Lodge GMP Allocation Resolution DATE: January 8, 1986 --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that you adopt the attached Resolution establishing the 1985 L-3 City of Aspen Growth Management allotment. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On December 16, 1985, Council did review the recommendations and scoring by the Commission and concurred with those recommendations. Council directed the Planning Office to prepare the attached L-3 Lodge GMP Allocation Resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read Resolution No. (Series of 1986) ." "Move to approve Resolution No. I (Series of 1986) ." ME MDRANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Crestahaus L-3 Lodge GMP Allocation Resolution DATE: January 8, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that you adopt the attached Resolution establishing the 1985 L-3 City of Aspen Growth Management allotment. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On December 16, 1985, Council did review the recommendations and scoring by the Commission and concurred with those recommendations. Council directed the Planning Office to prepare the attached L-3 Lodge GMP Allocation Resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read Resolution No. (Series of 1986) ." "Move to approve Resolution No. (Series of 1986) ." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS inn LPaypa RESOLUTION NO. (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 absolutely eliminate the possibility of any increase in runoff to adjacent 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 findings of the study. 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 paid by the Applicant at the time the City formally authorizes commencement of the project to add this link to the bicycle path. C • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 T,Pan_r,_ 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. 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 employee housing guidelines. 7. The new two-story construction will minimize visual impacts by keeping the median height of pitched roofs at 22 feet, or 6 feet lower than allowable under zoning requirements. 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. and 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. 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 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Inn T.PauPA for the proposed reconstruction and new construction project are not submitted on or before July 1, 1988. Dated: William L. Stirling, Mayor ATT EST : Kathryn S. Koch, 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 S. Koch, City Clerk 3 (Bus Parking' Prohibited PARK NG 32.1 1�1 .A I k - PARKING 6 LANDSCAPE CRESTAHAUS Cresi-4Aus TAC 16'a 00 0 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: Decem�er 10, 1985 Re: Crestahaus bodge GMP Conceptual Submission The new proposal for the parking lot and landscaping plan does not change my comments from October 22, 1985. The only change made was to the southwest corner. The applicant angled the parking lot area and added several more aspen trees. This resulted in the loss of only one parking space. This new plan should minimize the visual impact on the adjacent Riverside Subdivision. ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THRU : Hal Schill inq, City Manage 2 FROM: Steve Burstein, Planninq Office `� RE: Crestahaus Lodge GPIP Allocation DATE: December 10, 1985 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council grant to the Crestahaus a L-3 lodge growth management allot- ment of 10 units in the 1985 quota and four units from the 1986 quota. The proposal scored well above the threshold required for consideration of allotment. REQUEST: The applicant requests a GMP allocation of fourteen (14) units from the L-3 lodge quota. The fourteen units are part of a program to renovate the existing main lodge of the Crestahaus and the modular house, tear down the outlying cabins, construct a major new wing in the southwest portion of the property, and reconfigure the parking and landscaped areas. BACKGROUND: The L-3 lodge growth management application for the Crestahaus was submitted October 1, 1985. It was the only application submitted in the 1985 competition. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: At the November 26, 1985 meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Crestahaus was evaluated in the 1985 lodge growth management competition. Each Commission member individually scored the project; and an average score was compiled that exceeded the thresholds for eligibility of allocation. The Planning Commission also considered and approved three special reviews. Unanimous approval was given for a 32 space parking plan, and therein not requiring extra spaces for employee residents, subject to the condition that the parking area be reconfigured to reduce conflicts with neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision. The Planning Commission voted to grant approval of a GMP exemption for the purpose of a change in use f rom one residential unit to one lodge unit (the modular house) . P&Z voted unanimously to grant approval of the proposed increase in F.A.R. on the site subject to conditions of providing: (1) a new parking and landscaping plan prior to Council's action on allotments (2) a traffic engineering study with regard to problems with the Crestahaus entrance onto Highway 82, (3) soil studies and design correction to eliminate the possibility of an increase in run-off to adjacent properties, (4) an exterior lighting plan, and (5) a corrected plan reflecting technical amendments • represented to the Planning Commission. Finally the Planning Commis- sion voted 4 in favor and 2 opposed to recommend to Council to allocate the 10 units available in the 1985 L-3 quota and four units from the 1986 quota to the Crestahaus. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Quota Available: Quota for the L-3 lodge GMP competition is calculated as follows: Carry -Over Quota Exemption Remaining 0* 10 units 0** 10 units *In the two prior years of the L-3 competition, all twenty available units were awarded to the following projects: 1. Applejack - 3 units. 2. Hotel Lenado - 4 units. 3. Nugget - 13 units **The Shadow Mountain Lodge demolished two rooms in their 1985 upgrading program; and the Molly Gibson Lodge added two rooms through a change in use approved as part of their 1985 improvement program. THRESHOLD AND ELIGIBILITY: In order to meet the basic competitive requirements a project must score a minimum of 60% of the total points available under categories 1,2,3 and 4 of the GMP competition, amounting to 63 points; score a minimum of 30% of the points available in each category 1,2,3 and 4 (c); and provide housing for at least 35% of the employees generated by the project. Should the application score below these thresholds, it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over the minimum threshold. The scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows: Crestahaus 1. Public facilities and services 2. Quality of or improvements to design 3. Amenities provided for guests 4. Conformance to public Policy goals 5. Bonus points TOTAL Average 5.66 25 16.16 27.5 1. 75.32 This score exceeds all required minimum thresholds. 2 FUTURE YEAR ALLOCATION: Besides the request for the 1985 allocation of 10 units, a request is being made for 4 units of the 1986 units. In addition, 1 unit from the L-3 quota would need to be deducted through the change in use granted by the Planning Commission to convert a residential unit to lodge use at such time as a building permit is issued for this conversion. In our analysis of this issue, we typically examine two aspects of the project: 1. The growth impacts of the project, including whether the request for future allocations will have significant effects on community facilities, and whether the request is for a substantial number of units. 2. The overall quality of the project, including whether having the applicant compete again would result in any practical benefit to the community. In terms of the first criteria, this is the first time a project in the L-3 zone has asked to borrow into the future. When the 10 unit L- 3 quota was established in 1983, it was recognized that some borrowing to make a quality project possible might be needed. It should also be noted that our inventory of L-3 units may be decreasing significantly in coming years due to approved changes in use of the following lodges to employee housing: 1. Alpina Haus - 40 units. 2. Copper Horse - 14 units. 3. Cortina - 17 units. Also proposed is the change in use of 15 units at the Holiday House to meet the needs for housing for the Little Nell Hotel. These potential losses of a total of 86 units, plus the fact that only 4 units are being requested from next year, would provide a basis to support this request, despite the fact that we are also involved in extensive borrowing as regards the L-1/L-2 quota. This action can therefore be seen as an effort to maintain an inventory of quality units in our "small lodge" sector, and not be judged in relation to the Aspen Mountain PUD or Little Nell allocations. As regards the second criteria, in our review of the Crestahaus application, the Planning office noted several problems with the application that relate to size and number of units of proposal. These problems include the sight - distance of the intersection on Highway 82, the ability to address visual impacts of a larger structure and more intense activity as the impacts effect neighbors, and possibly exacerbated drainage problems. The conditions of special review approvals passed by P&Z in our opinion adequately address these concerns. We therefore recommend approval of the future year allocation of four units. RECOMMENDATION: The project met all required thresholds and the Planning Commission recommends that 10 lodge units be allocated out of 3 the 1985 available L-3 quota and that 4 units be allocated out of the 1986 quota. PROPOSED MOTION: SB.14 "Move to approve the allotment of 10 lodge units from the 1986 (L-3) quota and 4 lodge units from the 1986 quota, and to direct the Planning Office to draft a resolution formalizing this action". 4 .j s 0 November 109 1985 Steve Burstein Aspen/pitkin planning Office 130 5, Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. Burstein: In correspondence of October 31 to your office we indicated concern with reference to the proposed expansion and re —zoning of the Cresthaus Lodge property. It has come to our attention that the hearing has been re— scheduled. We would very much appreciate your office sending specific and pertinent information with respect to this project so that we might study its impact on our property and the surrounding residen— tial neighborhood. Thank you very much for your assistance and consideration. Cordiallyq &4L 61&q_tt_� Dede Duson 9030 Greenville Ave. Dallas,, TX 75243 214/348-7061 • 0-I. ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM,: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Crestahaus 1985 L-3 Lodge GMP Submission/FAR Special Review/Parking Reduction DATE: Nov fiber 5, 1985 INTRODUCTION Attached for your review is the Planning Off ice's recommended points allocation for the one application submitted on October 1, 1985 for the 1985 L-3 Lodge GMP Competition. The Crestahaus currently contains 15 lodge units and 3 residential units, two of which are for em- ployees. The applicant originally proposed to have 33 lodge and 2 employee units on the site through a combination of GMP allocation of 14 new units and the change in use of 1 residential unit. However, changes to the program have occurred since its original submission including the finding that the three bedroom residence on the site is a single unit and can be changed in use to a single lodge unit, albeit a three bedroom suite which reduced the count by two units. The applicant lost another unit to meet the employee housing requirements of the Housing Authority and a fourth unit is in dispute as to its legality and may be part of the final program if it can be verified. See the charts below for clarification of the number of units. Crestahaus Unit Count Lodge Units Residential Units Employee Units Total Exi st ing 15 1 (+1*) 2 Floor Area (sq. ft.) 11,282 FAR. .20 Original Proposal 33 35 16,349 .29 Crestahaus Redevelopment Proposals Lodge Units to be Renovated Lodge Units to be Rebuilt Residential Units to be Converted to Lodge and Renovated Employee Units to be Renovated New Lodge Units thru GMP Total Original Proposal 10 6 3 2 14 Current Project 29 (+1*) 2 31 17,017 .30 Current Proposal 9 5 (+1*) 1 2 14 31 *Cabin C-2 is a one bedroom unit with a kitchen. It must be verified whether or not it is a legal unit and whether or not it has been used historically as a short-term (lodge) unit or long-term (residential) unit. The applicant also proposes to undertake a renovation and reconstruc- tion program. Of the twenty-one (21) units represented as existing, 15 would be renovated and six would be reconstructed. In addition, the applicant requests review of the increase in external Floor Area Ratio (FAR) based on the requirement in Section 24-3.4 of the Muni- cipal Code for the Commission to establish the FAR in this zone. QUOTA AVAILABLE Quota for the L-3 Lodge competition is calculated as follows: 10 units 2* 12 units * The Shadow Mountain Lodge demolished two rooms in their 1985 upgrading program. PROCESS The Planning Office will summarize this project at your meeting of November 5, 1985, and will review procedures with you and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the application. The applicant will give a brief presentation of the proposal. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points aw-arded to the project . A project must score a minimum of 60% of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 63 points, and a minimum of 30% of the points available in each category 1, 2, 3 and 4(c) and provide housing for 35% of the employees generat- ed by the project to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 3 points; Category 2 = 11.7 points; Category 3 = 6.3 points and Category 4 = 10.5. Should the application score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum threshold. This project, should it receive a development allotment, requires additional reviews to be conducted at this meeting, as discussed below in this memorandum. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the proposal. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explana- tion of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Public Facilities Quality Guest Public Policy and Services of Design Amenities Goals Total 5 20 16 23 64 PROBLEM DISCUSSION According to the Planning Off ice's recommended scoring, the Crestahaus project meets the threshold number of points in each scoring cate- gory. There are some positive features of the proposal that make it an acceptable project, including the architectural design, increase in amenities for guests, general upgrading, of the lodge, and willingness to help finance the adjacent bike path. 2 There are also some significant problems with the site plan and design aspects of the proposal mainly relating to the hazardous intersection and the compatibility of the project with adjacent neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision. The eastern parking areas would be very close to several residences, causing possible problems with noise, fumes and snowpile meltage draining onto the adjacent, lower properties. In addition, there would be some effect on residents' views due to the proposed new wing of the lodge. RESIDENTIAL PARKING REVIEW The Crestahaus parking plan would accommodate 33 parking spaces for the lodge units and no spaces for lodge employees. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to establish the number of parking spaces required for residential uses in the L-3 zone district. The question posed by this application is whether 33 spaces is sufficient to serve the units of the lodge as well as the addition- al three employees generated by the new units created. At the present time there are three employees, all of whom live on -site. The Planning Office believes that the Crestahaus has functioned and will continue to function primarily as a motor lodge, meaning most guests will drive into the facility. We feel that the thirty-three parking spaces are not excessive for this project, as there would be a deficit of 6 spaces for employees. However, it is reasonable to expect that a few guests and some employees will be using alternative transportation. This may particularly be the case because of the proposed bike trail improvement. Furthermore, there is adequate room within the circulation and parking area for cars to park temporarily if all spaces were taken. The Planning Office believes that 33 parking spaces should be adequate for this development. We would like to see the parking spaces reconfigured to eliminate or reduce the problems associated with the eastern parking areas. UNIT VERIFICATION AND CHANGE IN USE GMP EXEMPTION Based on a memorandum from Zoning Inspector Bill Drueding dated October 29, 1985 (attached) , the following number and type of units are identified as existing on the property: Lodge Units 17 (including Manager's Unit and 1 employee unit) Residential Unit 1 dwelling unit with three bedrooms Lodge/Residential Unit 1 cabin unit with kitchen There is a discrepancy between the Building Department's inspection report and the applicants' representation of 18 existing lodge units, which would be renovated and rebuilt, and 3 residential units, for which a change in use is requested. Verification must be provided as to whether the cabin with a , kitchen (C-2) is a short-term lodge unit or a residential dwelling unit. If it is shown that the unit has been used for lodging purposes -- although not conforming to the definition of a lodge room because of the kitchen -- then there are 18 existing lodge units. Another verification issue concerns the same cabin, C-2, as identified by Mr. Guido Meyer, that was moved onto the site illegally in 1970. A variance was requested from the Board of Adjustment in April of 1971, and was denied. In 1973, it was stated in the Board of Adjustment's minutes that the building had still not been moved or demolished. Information provided to the applicant indicates that an addition to C- 2 is the illegal cabin. The applicant should verify if the illegal status of the whole cabin or a portion of it has changed. If the whole cabin is illegal then the Crestahaus has one less existing lodge unit for which the applicant has the right to rebuild. Both of these verification issues should be solved before the allocation is granted, as they may ultimately affect the number of units which will be built 3 • in this proj ect . The applicant's request to change the use of the existing modular house can be considered as a change of one residential unit to one lodge unit pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (j) . This would allow a three bedroom residential unit to be used as a three bedroom lodge suite. The Planning Office believes that the request has merit as it would have minimal growth impacts and would, in fact, bring a non -conforming use into conformity within the L-3 zone district. It should be noted that there is some neighborhood opposition to this change in use based on the history of the residence. The modular house had only been allowed in 1973 because it was to be a residence and not f or lodge use. At that time the Crestahaus lodge was non- conforming in the R-15 zone and a residence would be conforming. It was felt that a residence in that location was more agreeable and compatible with the residential neighborhood. However, the Crestahaus became a conforming lodge use when it was rezoned to L-3 in 1982. 1.•7ith this act, the residence became non -conforming and the legitimacy of the lodge use was established. The L-3 lodges are almost invari- ably adjacent to residential neighborhoods; and the policy behind the creation of L-3 is that small lodges can be compatible in their neighborhoods. we believe that the Crestahaus can be a good neighbor, and this change in use does not threaten the residential neighborhood. AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS It appears that the main lodge encroaches into the 10 foot front yard setback and the modular house encroaches into the sideyard setback. Section 24-13.10(B) specifies that if the reconstruction and renova- tion investment is more than 500 of the appraised value of the structure, then the area and bulk requirements of the underlying zone must be met. Based on conversations with the applicant's representa- tives it appears that more than 50% of the appraised value is being spent. Therefore, the applicant will either have to meet these setback requirements or obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment if a hardship can be demonstrated. INCREASE IN FAR The additional 5,735 s.f. requested by the applicant would raise the FAR from the present .20:1 to .30:1. The following issues are associated with this request: 1. Neighborhood impacts including (a) blocking residents' views and (b) the lack of landscaping along the eastern property line that would help screen the new structure as well as the parking area. 2. Circulation problems related to the inadequate sight distance of the intersection worsened by additional traffic generated from the larger development. Based on a motorcycle/car accident at the intersection in 1979, the City Engineer's Office provided a "No Left Turn" sign to be posted at the Crestahaus gate. It is no longer in place. A "Hidden Drive" sign was posted on the eastbound side of the Highway at that time. The situation has been known to be dangerous for many years, and should be studied by the applicant , so as to propose some way to mitigate the impacts of additional development and traffic. 3. Possible parking shortage for the project. In our view, the main purpose for reviewing all FAR increases in the L-3 zone is to determine whether any special problems would be created in the somewhat fragile relationship between the lodge and residential neighborhood. It appears that the Crestahaus site is large enough to accommodate the level of development proposed herein. However, problems associated with the project's increased size should be mitigated, as noted in the conditions below. 4 0- RECOMMENDAT IONS 1. The Planning Off ice recommends that you concur with its point assignment to approve the project. We also recommend allocation of the 10 units available in 1985. We do not support the applicant's request for future year allocations because, in our opinion, this is an acceptable, but marginal quality project, as represented by the score it has received. We f eel that next year there may be a far more desireable project which is submit- ted, or that this applicant may be able to improve upon the current proposal by that time. 2. We recommend that the Commission approve the parking plan for 33 spaces, and therein not requiring extra spaces for employees, on the condition that there be a reconfiguration of the parking areas to eliminate or reduce conflicts with neighbors. 3. We recommend approval of the change in use from one residential unit to one lodge unit on the condition that the applicant a. Verify that the illegal status of Cabin C-2 has changed or does apply to only additions to that cabin; and b. Present evidence that Cabin C-2 has historically rented short-term or long-term. This condition must be met prior to the City Council meeting for considering GMP allocation to this project. 4. The Planning Office recommends approval of the increase in FAR, subject to the conditions that: SB.78 a. A landscaping plan which is acceptable to the Planning Office with screening along the eastern property line shall be submitted. Landscape improvements shall be included in the project timetable. b. The applicant shall present an engineering report with respect to improving the intersection sight distance. C. Variances for the setback encroachments of the main lodge and the modular house must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. d. A corrected plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office reflecting all the technical clarifications and representa- tions upon which the Planning and Zoning Commission has based its scoring of the project. This plan shall be submitted prior to the City Council meeting for considering GMP allocation to this project. 5 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-3 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: _ Crestahaus _ DATE: 11/5/85 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 point s) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing 1 ev.el of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) RATING• 1 POINTS: 1 b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 1 POINTS: 1 COMMENTS A 10" trunk sewer line is located along Highway' adjacent to the property and can serve this development existina treatment plant can accommodate the additional femand. C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City 's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 1 POINTS: 1 lorqw-t M60 Nall It } . I UtUvaiwei IRWIN } . i �• 113a • } 1 1 1-.0 •. } • • • • } . • • } • - • •t Lc • - 1 • 1 f • •- • /• • } }�- drainage off the road d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection 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 cormitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RAT ING : 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 COMMENTS: There are two fire hydrants within 150 feet of the property. Water pressure and capacity are adequate to serve the site, according to the Water Department evaluation The main fire station is 75 miles from the project;, and response time is stated to be under 3 minutes e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RAT ING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 to Highway 82, ! • • •1 increase in Highway traffic from this i)roiect. - • ! II 1 1 ftelza 0 IV 1! 10!0111twe CQUI 2 • QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any, improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: Ca . ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) RAT ING : 2__ POINTS: 6 COMMENTSThe • • pg- • renovation and new • 1 -1 •! • ! program will increase the total developed floor area f rom 11 .950. • ft. to approximately 17,017• ft. on a 56,197• ft, par- cel feet. There would be no change in height or bul of the modular house on the east side Qf the property, T1"small! 1 • elements, arcade•••-! lattice -work and replacement of outbuildings should make the project more attrac- This •ject would - ! a a scale mainly •11 p- • le with the abutting Riverside Subdivision neighborhood, a! • for ! • I -nce • 1 the hilltop. However, someneighbors' beaffected, b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc. ) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development . (Multiplier: 3) RAT ING : POINTS: 3 IWT_4�wlim WE ! - 1! !� • !- !-MIEW I !• --� • } • • �; 11 1 11 !• �. • •! • • �. !� C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation .of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 2 • ! •! !• •• • !• . •. ! - . !. -. I 11 smile d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RAT ING: 1 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 tip • 1• ! ! 1' �6019 W 4=99s 1•=-.kV IWILeM19 ! YdLz1 91=*J qsAdi--f1 • • 1iww�l 1INWAZIW4 ! • MOMRZE301 • INEM-• - 1 • 1 ! ! 1 • Y 1 !- t• • • • P pl- • • • '1 1 • ! ' 1 • t• t! -� -• • 1 - • ��• • IR. Y 1� •1� •! • 1. -11 e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RAT ING : 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6 COMMENTS: An attempt has been made to minimize visual impacts by locatina buildinas in the ••ck (north andwest)of !- parcel1• keeping •w roof line in 2 story construction.The visual impact from Highway 82 would not be significantly greater that at present,from Riverside Subdivision Lots 2 and to the west and south would be • ! - 1 blocked by 1 - newstructure 1 though this wing will • ' 175 feet away from the •uses- If landscape and building lig1 1 kept • the keyed there should not be a significant niQbt visual impact from AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition. thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 6 b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RAT ING : 2 0—i (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 4 COMMENTS:-t1. kitchen will be remodeled. c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. Wultiplier: 2) RAT ING : 3 POINTS: 6 • / - 1!1- y . • 11111filmI 1 1 R • - • • 11 11919 little) W611AN 11 I t 1 � 1 1 �- , • • • 1 • 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B, maximum 15 points in Category C) The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employee generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point f or each 12% housed. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 15 POINTS: COMMENTSThe • 1 • determined 1 •. - • . 1 ne unit) the 14 new units wojld generate 3.08 employees. T -has provide an emt>lovee housi, --na, etA-i,,, b . CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate- or middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the f ol1owing schedul e: PO INT S 1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and 1 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted. 3 4%-66% of all low-, moderate- and 3 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted. 67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and 5 middle --income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted. RATING: 5 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: • its view III=@%@ L-7!MZ#;V 'mew 19 ! ! MW- -1 • • pq - c . REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCT ION OF EXISTING UNITS ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 500 of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5 0 rehabilitated or reconstructed. RAT ING: 3 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 3 "1 !• • ! Y IS •••- !- •• 1 1of the rema ning.-c-xi-sting units and the non -unit space (two cQmmon rooms, exercise roQm, and ski storace) of -the exist* •••- The number of -i 1g units as determined by 1 • 1 It Inspector is • The applicant should--p-r-o-y-ide more information at your meeting to ascertain what pQrtion of the existing facility will • - rehabilitated • - • 1 the 31% reconstruction -,- which is the basis of our recommended scorina in this category. • •- • • • �� 1he applicantsubmit pQrtions are suitablor • p. /prior to or aa the new ! • 1 ! - - •le should-beavailable Rd-ox-to or • 1• For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment (s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or diffe- rent size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also t" exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition► award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: None, 6. TOTAL POINTS RAT ING : 0 POINTS: 0 Points in Category 1: _5 (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: ,20 (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: 1— (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: 23 (Minimum of 10.5 pt . required) SUBTOTAL 64 (Minimum of 63 pts. required) Bonus Points: 0 TOTAL POINTS: 4 Name of Planning and Zoning Members: ASS/Pitki n Planning Office CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUAT ION L-3 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: _ S rth �ti�------- -- --- --- E : _.L_�C 1 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND S '(Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building, or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING: 1 POINTS:, COMMENTS: An 8" Water line is located along Highway 82 adiacent to the Pr verty an-d-_can serve this development,- demandadequate treatment plant ca-pacity available for the increase i-f caused by the projea b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING: 1 POINTS: 1 -1 - 11- • • u • • . �' • • • • • - y c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING: POINTS: __L . ,•-1 • .. W-- f. WA tell vnvisl Mr -A ...- - .- a d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection 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 fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RAT ING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1__ 10 -1 •! • • • . 10 �� 1 -L • • • 1 • 1 e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RAFT ING : 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 ITTMEW M1', 1 • 1 •• ! • • •: 1 • ! 1 *WM • -1 •JOW • • oPMETWOM.ri 1 1=71621 P qL*=-- 191016. 1 a 019=4 - • ! c 1 ! 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each develor nent by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 6 IIZIWZ�.L@11 P KOM I OW}—OWIPP ! • • • - Jd•• top V-1 } • • } • • } • • } - n . ! S 1 t ! • • • • ! • ! • - n - } • • • • 1 . • • } - • • - y i • 914 L0101 L I a we -n ! ! V WAW4w—ojhoZ;A0 I QI IL b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc. ) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development . (Multiplier: 3) RAT ING : 1 POINTS: 1 - 1 • 1 • ! ! • • -1 •_- 1 ! • • • } • y • ! } • } ! • i ! • } • • c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 2 d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RAT ING: 1 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 • Y 1 • ! 1 • 1 � ! ! 1 ! '1 1 t • ! • • ! • • • e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RAT ING : 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6 structurekeepin-S a relatively low roof line in 2 story construction. The vis al from Highway 82 would not --be- ' Hicantly areatell that at present, Views from iverside Subdivision Loti f and I to the west and south would be somewhat blocked by the new i though this wing will he 175 feetfrom }- houses- Tf landscape and building lighting is kept very low keyed there should not he a significant night visual impact from the project. 3 . AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 3) CO Mt'ENTS RAT ING: 2 POINTS: 6 ea, ane a secone smaller common room will ne mace avallanle to guests of the lodge. b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RAT ING : 2 0 0 (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 4 COMMENTS: The existing kitchen will be remodeled. c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. RAT ING : 3 Wultiplier: 2) POINTS: 6 • --1, . . •- 1 . • 1 � 1 1 . .. . q___U*LZ= 4101ORLYMMI1 • ' 1 • • • � - • 1 • � 1 • - 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B, maximum 15 points in Category C) The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employee generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point f or each 12% housed. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 15 POINTS: 15 • ! • 1 . . . 1 - . 1 .. - . • 1 agplicant has comin-itted to providing for 100%of the employees b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate- or middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the f ollowing schedule: PO INT S 1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and 1 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted. 3 4%-66% of all low-, moderate- and 3 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted. 670-100% of all low-, moderate- and 5 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted. RAT I NG : 5 (r'ultiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 100% of the deed -restricted employee h ill=�he .provided 1 the exl�iina Crestahaus Lodge. c . REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCT ION OF EXISTING UNITS ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 500 of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 100 rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 50 rehabilitated or reconstructed. RAT ING : 3 (F_ultiplier: 1) POINTS: 3 • . ! • - • • 0171-246MW am tZleT 1 to •WRITEMVETWI1 • • • - ! • • ! ! . FZ11V I IL4,741 PO • V In. 1 111 •- �-! •! -I. • •! • - ! 1 ! 1 t 1 ! • M4 MM Mol III, IN- •. . • • • ! • • •• ! -1 • •- • - rig 1 • • • - ! - Itouli• - • - -1 1 ! _ •L-11til 414.9IV-is WOYMINTEMMMlip ! ! L- K • ' ! - ! • • • • - • - ! • i • ! • to 11144 ! • • I I �• •! • !- - !t . i 1 •. • • •�� -l�-• • 1• 1 I -�• �• 1119141 ! all • • i. ! • • MMME41 - For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment (s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or diffe- rent size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (l) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. RAT ING : 0 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 0 COMMENTS • None. 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 5 (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: 20 (Minimum of 11.7 pt s. required) Points in Category 3: 1— (Minimum of 6.3 pt s. required) Points in Category 4: _23 (Minimum of 10.5 pt . required) SUBTOTAL . 64— (Minimum of 63 pt s. required) Bonus Points: —_ TOTAL POINTS: 6— Name of Planning and Zoning Members: Assn/Pitkin Planning Office (ILq $ 5 _-3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION AN AND ZONING COMMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLYSHEET PROJECT: ----- _E`N--L f±1-- - ------------------------------------------------- P3Z VOTING MEMBERS Jr DUD WF' } �P_ ��_ ,� MULTIPLIER AVERAGE PUBLIC FACI_ITIES AND SERVICES ;I. Water' Service --� -- --�--- --� -- --1--- --1--- --L-- ------ ! 1) ___t- - Sewer Service C. Store Drainage 1:. Fire Protection e. Roads --1-- --�- �- �- --�`--- Z 1 PTOTAL. --�'---- - -- - -- - -- --`� -- --Z-- ------ -`��-'- F' Z. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVr�ENTC TG DESIGN a. Architectural Design __— Z Z ------ Z ------ Z ------ 3 (3)------ -- - b. Site Design -Z— - - -- - --1--- --1-- --�-- - z -- ------ (3) _ s� _ =. Energy Conservction -- — ------ _-� - _—Z _ Z ------ Z ------ ------ (') t. Park.:'!; and Circu'LiatlCn _—�_-- Z — __---- (3) J` e. Visual Impact Z Z Z J?�- i3) .� i Tr:T i . --Q— - -- _ -- ____--�- ?. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS Meeting Areas, Lohb:es, Cm ference Facilities b. Dining Facilities .. Recreational Faci'_fties SUBTGTAL: a. CONFORMANCE OF P!i?LIC PGL?CY GOALS a. Emplogee Housing b. Conve-sion of Existing Units c. Rehab_litat.on .,-., ReCc'',=Lr�c*:or. of Exist"ng Units '2E' nlT AL : TOTAL POINTS 1-4: ?ONUS PE,'k'S TOTAL POINTS --Z ---- z- -- - Z - -- Z ------ ? = - - - 3_ -- - ------ (3) - �jj z ---Z --- - - ^ IG,1 5 L — — —52�— S2— S2�� — ------ -.`_O _1_ VO— —(— —7 —7— -- A- — ------ � ' ------ rs� A rc ; 0 10 PUBLIC NOP ICE RE: CRESTAHAUS LODGE GNP GENERAL SUBMISSION AND SCORING S ESS ION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be conducted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 26, 1985, at a meeting to beging at 5: 00 P.M., in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Asper., Colorado, to consider an application requesting a lodge growth management allotment for the L-3 zone district for the Crestahaus Lodge. The applicant proposes to add 14 new units and to reconstruct the existing lodge. For further information, please contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C . Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Daily News on P:OVOmber 6, 1985. � Published in the Aspen Times on Novembei 14, 1985. City of Aspen Account. • JOHN THOMAS BELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 SOUT11 SPRING: STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 430:1) 92:r1216 N vember 5, 1985 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Crestahaus Lodge Expansion To the Commission: I represent Terry and Molly Swanton who are the owners of Lot 1, Riverside Subdivision, which adjoins the Crestahaus property on the East on Highway 82. While my clients are not opposed to renovation of the Lodge per se, they do believe that the project as proposed has several problem areas which need to be mitigated. They are as follows: 1. Height. The proposed buildings are too high and will directly impact the views of adjacent residences as well as the Swantons. The project should have a lower profile. The lights from the project will shine directly into my clients' sleeping quarters. 2. Parking. The proposed plan calls for 17 parking spaces facing east along my clients' boundary line. This will obviously cause lights to shine directly into their house. It appears the developer wishes to keep the parking away from the main portion of the Lodge, to the detriment of the neighbors to the east. In addition, the noise, fumes and lights will negatively affect our vegetable garden and open space. The proposed plan appears to be devoid of any attempt to mitigate the foregoing problem. 3. Increase in F.A.R. As the Planning Office memo states, the main proposal for reviewing F.A.R. increases is to determine whether "special problems would be created in the somewhat fragile area between the Lodge and residential neighborhood". My clients believe the height and parking as referred to above create just such a "special problem" and the increase should be denied. 4. Entrance. The entrance is dangerous and "blind" to easterly traffic. Some steps should be taken to mitigate this danger and further to prevent guests from using my clients' Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 2 driveway as a turn around. 5. Future Year Allocations. In my clients' view, the borrowing of future year allocations is an extremely poor practice for any project, and should be denied. In the planning office's view, this project was entitled to only a score of 64 (63 is the minimum needed) and certainly should not be entitled to future year allocations. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Very truly ours, JTK/og John Thomas Kelly Attorney for Terry and Molly Swanton • AFFIDAVIT OF HORST J. BALKE STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The Affiant, being duly sworn and upon his oath, states as follows: 1. I am HORST J. BALKE also known as H.J. BALKE. 2. I was part owner and manager of the Crestahaus Lodge in Aspen, Colorado from the early 1970s until August, 1985, when we sold the lodge. 3. Cabin #2 as indicated on Exhibit "1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference was always used as a short-term rental unit during the time I was part owner and manager of the Crestahaus Lodge. 4. The log building portion of Cabin #2 as indicated on the attached Exhibit "1", is that portion of that building added by Guido Meyer without a building permit. Dated: November 1, 1985. IL-L Q. HORST J. ALKE crlhecT and worn to before me this day of rb6vember" 1985, by:HIST J. BALKE a/k/a H.J. BALKE. =Wi s my hand and offici seal. My commission expires: L "UotanW Public balke aff/DOC2 • 0 GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS I D' November 1, 1985 Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Steve Burstein "-1W RE: CRESTAHAUS LODGE G M.P_; CONSTRUCTION SECHEDULE_ Dear Steve: As stated on page 3 of our application of October 1 , 1985, no phased construction is planned. The construction project is projected to commence Spring of 1986, and be completed by Fall 1986. The Rebuilt and Renovated units and portions of the lodge will be suitable for occu- pancy prior to, or at the same time as, the new units for which an Allotment has been requested. If you have need any further information please feel free to contact me. Yo s truly, r David F. ibson, AIA c: Gideon Kaufman Leonard Koval DFG/rm 41B E. COOPER AVENUE *207 ASPEN. COLORAOO B1611 303/925596B • Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Hello — and thank you for accepting this correspondence with reference to the November Sth hearing regarding the Crestahaus Lodge and their application for re —zoning and expansion. As co —owners of the 1360 Riverside Drive home directly adjacent to the Crestahaus property, Lizabeth Kerr and I wish to express concern with several aspects of the proposed expansion. The limited information that we have received indicates that the size, design, and placement of the new units is somewhat out of proportion to the shape and size of the property itself. In particular, we would not welcome the increased size and placement of the parking area, which is directly adjacent to our property line. While respecting the positive outcome of renovation to this prime Aspen space, it seems appropriate that the Crestahaus Lodge owners and the Planning Commission give due consideration to the impact of such severe re —structuring, affecting all neighboring properties. We shall appreciate your attention and response to our concern. Cordially, Dede Duson "?=5 NFJ = M [�Z-® GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS PROJECT: GeSi�� Lc�D D/E: 3 / TALKED WITH: TIME: OF: P ,' vXJ/Av REGARDING: L— �I `fTI NOTES: < ca > 7k/(D 51AJ 1_� ef A29- DECISIONS MADE: FOLLOW-UP ACTION REQUIRED: COPIES TO: BY: 4113 E. COOPER.AVENUE "207 ASPEN, COLORAOO 131611 303/9255960 0 0 %a GIBSOV & PENU a ARcHrrECTS _-- - 418 E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPM CCLOF AM 81611 0 MEMORANDUM Datle October 29, 1985 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning � FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoningc," SUBJECT: Crestahaus Today I made a physical inspection of the above property and observed the following: Main Lodge - 10 (Ten) Lodge Rooms ( one lodge room has bathroom in hallway.) 1 (One) Employee Lodge Room (bath in hallway). 1 (One) Managers Unit with bath and full kitchen (The kitchen could possibly be used as a common kitchen) Log Cabin - 4 (Four) Lodge Rooms Cabin (C-1) - 1 (One) Self Contained Lodge Room Unit Cabin (C-2) - 1 (One) Dwelling Unit (1 Bedroom, living room, bath and kitchen) (Appears to be a long term use) House - 1 (One) Three bedroom dwelling unit with two (2) baths, living room, dining area and full kitchen (appears to be a long term use) Section 24-3.7(d) Open Space Requirements. It would help if applicant would point out the areas that they consider open space instead of siting a 53% figure. I believe this open space definition is more applicable to the downtown area and this lot may require some interpretation of the intent of the open space code. In calculating the existing square footage of the buildings, for purposes of F.A.R. credit, did the applicant deduct existing garages and mechanical rooms? Was the pool building counted in existing F.A.R.? It appears by eyeballing that the house located on the easterly portion of the lot may encroach into the 5 foot sideyard setback by 1/2' to 1' at the SE corner. The main lodge appears to encroach currently into the 10 foot frontyard. Any new entry way arches (over 6 ft) would be required to stay out of the frontyard setback. It appears that the steps located adjacent to Highway 82 at the auto court (page 26 of the submission) would be located on City property. On page 27 of the submission, the area shown as exercise is currently being used as a garage and boiler area. Would like to remind the applicant that the maximum building height is 25'. BD/ar IOUR 0Is] ii.l Z,IPIN a TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE JIM MARKALUNAS CRESTAHAtJS L©£�E�S OCTOBER 29, 19 8 We have reviewed the application and wish to advise you that there is water available from an 8" water main. However, there seems to be a discrepancy between the applicants information and what our records show. Our records indicate that there is a 1�" service from an 8" main in Riverside Drive near the intersection of Highway 82, to the property. We wish to advise the applicant that there is water in sufficient quantities for his needs. However, we would recommend that the applicant check in with us prior to construction or renovation in order that we can determine how best to service the property. Also, the applicant should be advised that any alterations or additions to the historical use will be subject to assessments. JM:ab NE VORATIDU M TO: Gr'P Allocation Fi' e C(': Plannino Offic.c Staff- FROri: Alan Richman ^r: Updc.te of 71,vailable (,uota: PAT^ : Oci ober 25, CITY OF ASPEN o RESIDENTIAL r:c unit ; to car. r- over f rom 19c 4. �'�, 1 unit allocat-ion to the t?hvle of a ?-lash and a 12 unit allocation to 700 S. Calena hZ.ve expired . 19F5 nuota nh )L,1d be 39 -- 13 r-inus builclout in 19F5 (ectir:,tc that about 10 will be available on 12./l/85) . o COMMERCIAL Reso. F5-29 e tabl.ishc:c the quotas for 1�r6 CC/C-1 - 10 -000 I,C/SC' - 1 4; 000 Office - 4 OOn CL and other - 5,500 Thi s is bases'. on not carryinr over the unused quota from CC/C-1 (3,691 s . ft. unuscO 5,810 sr. ft. of Pubey Park Visitors Center e::pirec,) ant' the Office (4,000 sr . ft.) and carrying over the r,ucta in NC/SCI and C'L and other. o LODGE In lst two years of L-3 quota, a total of 20 units were available and were cr,, nted. - Shadow r:ountain I,ocloc demolishes unit.^ in .19P5 , to be a6decl to quota. - 19f5 L-3 quota - 12 ,�n_ts. - Aspen t•Iountain Lodge rrantcc' L-l. %r-2 quota thrcuc;h 1986. - 20 units at Sar617 Kouse mint he deducted from quota. - 11 units at Hotel Jerome to be added to quota, future developmcrt ha.; not yet rcceivcc building permit and is not yet deducted. - Alpina Maus and Copper Horce (40 and 14 units respectively) to he to aCi.,ed to the L-3 quote uron their conversion (alto to be deductcCi from residential quotas) Technically, firct available quota is 26 units in 1987, depencina on Cit,., Council actions on Little Nell and whether F'otcl Jerome pull_; a. building permit. PITRIN COUNTY 0 RESIDENTIAL Metro Ouota = 33 units Must deduct 18 units for Centennial 13 units built in 1984 to be deducted - Remainder = 2; Code requires that a minimum of 30% of original quota be available, 1985 quota = 10 units Downvalley nuota = 24 units - 11 units built in 1.984 to be deducted 1985 ()uota. =: 10; 14 awarded to Lazy 0 gust off -set 4 units in 1-0E6 - it will start �,rith 20 o COMMERCIAI 19L6 ('uota == 43 EGU' s o LODGE Carry over makes 60 units available from 1984-85 20 additional unit, available in 1S86 1986 total available = 80 units HELEN KALIN KLANDERUD 13OX 1558 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 28 October 1985 -Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Crestahaus Lodge expansion -- GMP application, special review, and conformity with zoning To the Commission: I own Lot 2, Riverside Subdivision, which adjoins the Crestahaus Lodge property. The applicant proposes to replace three cabins and a log building with a two-story, 20-room building. This construction will have more bulk than the existing 12-room lodge which will be remodeled and retained, along with a residence which is to be converted into a lodge. My residence on Lot 2 has an external FAR of .127:1. By special review, the applicant is requesting the establishment of an FAR of .30:1 for its property, a ratio more than twice my FAR. The applicant proposes to compact a parking area of 16,094 square feet used by 19 cars to a 15,525 square foot area for 33 cars, 15 of which are lined up facing into Lots 1,2, and 3 of Riverside Subdivision. The height (more than 22 feet) and bulk of the new building and the proposed line of parked cars (where there are now none), especially when viewed from my residence which is 10 to 15 feet below the grade of the lodge property, hardly make the project as presently proposed compatible with the existing use of adjoining residential property. The site design seems to address itself to visual impacts when viewed from a high point on Highway 82, and ignores viewplanes of and visual impacts on the adjoining Riverside residential property. The drainage sketch in the applicant's proposal does not show the 10- to 15-foot drop-off along the boundary between the lodge property and my lot. I am concerned that snow removed along the line of parking spaces facing me will find its way into my back yard as snow or runoff. Presently there is no need to remove snow from the strip that is Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 • 28 October 1985 proposed to become parking spaces. I am also concerned that underground drainage may be affected by the reconfiguration of the gravel parking surface and increased coverage by the proposed lodge building. I have had basement flooding problems in the past and don't want surface or subsurface runoff from the new lodge building and parking arrangement to make matters worse. In 1970 a log building was moved onto the Crestahaus property. In 1971 a request for a variance to allow the building to remain on the property was denied because the Crestahaus was then a nonconforming lodge in a residential zone. In addition, one of the members "Felt the building is a log shack with a tin roof and does not conform to building codes." In 1973 another variance was sought for adding another building, a modular home to be used as a residence, and it was noted in the proceedings that the illegal log building of the 1971 hearing was still on the property. Riverside Subdivision neighbors vigorously opposed the variance because, among other things, the previous variance denial had never been enforced. The variance for the residence was granted. The lodge was nonconforming because it was in a residential zone, but the proposed residence was not nonconforming, so it was allowed with the agreement of the owner of the Crestahaus property that it would not be used in connection with the lodge, but only as a residence so long as the lodge remained a nonconforming use. When the Crestahaus parcel was rezoned L-3 in 1982 (pursuant to public notice but no notice to adjacent landowners) the lodge became conforming and the residence nonconforming. (It is unfortunate that while nonconforming lodges' owners were individually contacted to determine whether they wished their lodge to be considered as part of the so-called "class action" L-3 rezoning, the nonconforming lodges' neighbors were not so consulted.) Now the applicant proposes to change the use of the existing single-family residence (labelled "Existing 3 rooms" on the site plan) to lodge. While the applicant may believe the variance rulings are past history, to me this history means that the applicant will be allowed to exempt from GMP as "existing lodge units" units in a building which should have been removed in 1971 but wasn't because there was no City enforcement, and (if the Commission finds that the change of use of three rooms will result in negligible growth impacts on the community) will be allowed to exempt from GMP three rooms in an existing residence building which building was only allowed because it was to be a residence and was not to be used in connection with lodge operations. 0 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 28 October 1985 The planning office is required to reject any appliction for GMP development allotment which fails to comply with zoning requirements and any other applicable land use or building regulations of the City. The side yard setback in L-3 is five feet. It is not obvious that the existing residence which it to be retained as part of the project for which a GMP allocation is sought meets that setback, nor is it obvious that the existing twelve -room building, which is also to be retained, meets the ten -foot front yard setback when measured from the Highway 82 dedicated right-of-way line. The stated purpose of the L-3 zone is to "preserve existing lodges in their existing locations and to permit the limited expansion of these lodges wherever appropriate." The special review criteria for establishing L-3 zone FAR is the "compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses and zoning." The Crestahaus proposal as presently stated is hardly a limited expansion and has serious incompatibilities with the surrounding R-15 zoning. I urge you to visit the site as part of your evaluation of this project. cerely, H ali K anderud HAND DELIVERED 4 MEMORANDU T7 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Ann Bowman, Housing Office RE: Crestahous Lodge GMP COnceptual Submission/Special Rev i e_z_ -- - DATE: / ctober 28, 1985 ISSUE: Is the employee housing generation of one employee accurate and does the proposed housing meet the Housing Authority Guidelines? BACKGROUND: The Crestahous Lodge is expanding their lodge operation by upgrading 15 existing units, tearing down 6 units and completely rebuilding them. In addition, they are creating 14 new lodge units. They are representing that there are three employees currently and that the addition of 14 units will only generate one employee. They are proposing an employee housing unit of 360 sq.ft. as a sleeping area (dorm) witn joint access to a kitchen, bath and living quarters of 1,030 sq.ft. The Housing Office using the Aspen City Code Section 24-1.6(b)(4) "The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project is expected to generate. The housing designee shall make available standards for employee generation representing the various levels of service which reflect the types of lodge operations in existence or proposed for the City of Aspen." computes 14 units x's .22 (lowest level of service) = 3.08 employees generated. The shortfall then becomes 90 sq. ft. of space for the third employee if the equation for the dormitory is used (150 sq.ft. per person sleeping area). The applicant has proposed 360 so. ft. which accommodates 2 employees plus 60 sq. ft. ACTION NEEDED: The Housing Office is recommending that the employee generation be increased from one employee to three and that an addition of 90 sq. ft. of sleeping area be incorporated in the applicants design. If this is accomplished the Housing Office would recommend approval with the following deed restric- tion would be incorporated at time of issuance of Occupancy permit: 1 / A parcel of land being part of the Riverside Addition to Aspen, Colorado. Said into n more fully described as follows! beginning at a point being plast ie cep on a No. 5 rebar st.mpnd L.S. 2376 whence cor o[ the Riverside lacer U.S.M.S. No. 3905 A M. bein ass cap dated 195-4 bears N 85.08'N, 556.05 feet; then c 5./1'N, 92.08 feet; thence N 1A•06'S9'w, 122.02 feet; thence N 13.13'32"E, 40.54 r feet; thence N 78.22.0Sr 33. 31 feet: thence N 37"36'01"C, 56.45 feet; thence N 68.2.'15"E, 27.55 feet; thence 5 50.37•E, 77.76 feetr [hence S 36.21'E, 150.08 feet, thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 260.00 fee[ (the chord of which bears S WOVE, 93.00 feet); thence S 77•45'50"W, 235.32 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 1.2.33 acres more or less. ' I,HAROLD W. JOHNSON. A'REGI STEREO SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, 00 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THE 29'TH DAY OF JULY 1985 OF THE PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN HEREON AND IMPROVEMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE LOCATED AS SHOWN. ALL EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE • `,'` OR KNOWN TO ME ARE AS SHOWN. SAID SURVEY IS TRUE AND CORRECT 16 1 e6.;,a.• �` TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH , ARTICLE 51 SEC 38. 51-100.3--CCLORA00 REVISED ST TUES. u o�c��i�Qtiy •aa. HAROLD W. JOHNSON LS. 9018 ti r F ._—en ' 0% cot�'�' 46 CO • � r r to yerG. Rt n • ` �, n • I , I ! , i• � / 0a�d ,n.. jj ee "• 1 'f •./.+ as _ V", Cab in #2 by \ � , , • '. (/� .••,•.'- " o,•: IL � F'F•D (r�1 / 1 w r Log bu i Id ing 0 -w '09 — EXISTING CONDITIONS: y added by Guido Meyer Araa` %''f9; SF (I" ' ��AR) Int `i Inle+rrl Floor A—:71;�0-SF (.2P FAR)) • ` . I,npeniow Co.erye: 24.%3 SF (..•F) Open Spec.: 31,229 8F (56%1 raaYr.. �.. EXISTING a 24 CRES"1i"AHAU fi7"5 102L) t RM It.R ficD • GIDEON I. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 October 22, 1985 1 Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Crestahaus Lodge GMP Application Dear Alan: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925.8166 In follow-up to your recent request, enclosed please find Authorization of Owner from Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. If you need anything further, please let me know. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By (�g , David G. Eisenstein DGE/bw Enclosure MEMORANDUM. To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department From: Elyse _Elliott, Engineering Department Date: October 22, 1985 Re: Crestahaus Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission/Special Review After reviewing the above application and making a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Utilities The existing water and sewer services available to this site are adequate for this proposal. If the applicant installs or upgrades electrical lines, they should be undergrounded. The installation of drywells will improve the historic site drainage. Trash Aspen's trash company, BFI, has indicated that a lodge of this size would generate enough trash to require two, two -yard dumpst- ers. The area proposed for dumpster space would adequately accomodate these. Traff is There would be no significant impact on the traffic flow on Highway 82. Trails The applicant is proposing to contribute $4000 toward a $6000 bike path along Highway 82 frontage of their property. The State Highway Department should be contacted regarding this proposal, as it might change the drainage pattern. If the Highway Department is amenable to this construction, they should be asked to contribute the remaining $2000. Parking The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate 21 lodge units and is seeking allotment for 14 lodge units for a total of 34 bedrooms. The parking proposal allows spaces for 34 vehicles which meets Code requirements. • 1 • MEMORANDUM Date• October 25, 1985 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning FROM: Jim Wilson, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Crestahaus Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission/Special Review Addressing the fire protection section of the review criteria: 1) In addition to the smoke detector protection, a manually operated fire alarm system designed to NFPA Standard 72A is required by Section 9-3(y), Aspen Municipal Code. 2) The applicant, in addition to the statement "Avail- able water pressure and capacity are more than adequate to provide for fire flows," should substantiate the basis for the claim. Fire flows are typically computed using ISO "Procedures for Needed Fire Flow," 1980 Edition. JW/ar • 0 IqTol q3 (-()c-) '*ASPEN*PITKIN • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 15'0 to Environmental Health Department DATE: October 21, 1985 RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission/Special Review The above -referenced submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns. WATER SUPPLY Service to this project by the City of Aspen Municipal Water distribution system is in conformance with policies of this office. SEWAGE DISPOSAL Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District collection lines is in conformance with policies of this office. AIR POLLUTION This concern will be discussed in three sections. 1. Woodburning Devices (fireplaces, woodburning stoves) . Since this issue is not discussed in the proposal, it will be simply stated here that compliance with the City of Aspen Ordinance 47 series 1985 must be met by the applicant. Further, should amendments be made to the referenced ordinance in the future, compliance with that ordinance as then written or the State of Colorado law on woodburning devices must be complied with. Certified woodburning devices or natural gas fireplaces are two options available to the applicant. 2. Restaurant Grill Emissions Should the remodelled food service facility include an open char -broiler compliance with City of Aspen Ordinance 12 series 1983 or it's amendments or interpretations must be complied with. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 Page Two October 22, 1985 Crestahaus Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission/Special Review 3. Construction/Demolition Should dust become a visible problem or a concern of neighbors remedial actions will be required. The dust would obviously be generated from grading soils, demolition or trucks carrying mud or dirt onto Highway 82. Should the latter become a problem, the applicant will be required to remove daily, by means of a mechanical street sweeper, any mud or soil from the highway. That soil will in turn be redeposited on the project site. Recommended remedies for controlling windblown dust would be watering the immediate site, use of dust suppressants on disturbed areas or fencing of the disturbed soils. Prompt revegetation would be a logical action as soon as the project is completed. NOISE ABATEMENT No permanent long term noise impacts on the neighborhood are expected. Short term construction noise impacts may be realized, however. Should this office receive complaints concerning excessive noise from this project the City of Aspen Noise Abatement Ordinance 2 series 1981 will be the governing enforcement document. FOOD SERVICE It is recommended that the "substantially improved" food service facilities be constructed in compliance with the State of Colorado Food Service Rules and Regulations. It is very likely that in the near future this facility will be required to obtain a Colorado Food Service License due to changes in enforcement policies of the State. Compliance with governing regulations at the time of remodel will assure ease of licensing when the time comes. SWIMMING POOL/SPA Compliance with the State of Colorado Swimming Pool Regulations and Standards will be required. Improvements to the existing pool and installation of an eight foot jacuzzi will require plans be submitted to this office for review and approval prior to constr- uction. Copies of all referenced ordinances and rules and regulations may be obtained from this office by the applicant. TSD/co/Crestahaus 0 • AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER CRESTAHAUS LODGE, INC., being the Owner of certain real property situate in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and described on Exhibit "1" atttached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and commonly known as the Crestahaus Lodge having the street address of 1301 Highway 82, Aspen, Colorado, hereby authorizes and approves of the filing of the Crestahaus Lodge Application for GMP L-3 Allotment dated October 1, 1985, which was submitted to the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office on October 1, 1985, and which also included a request for Special Review approval for employee parking, change of use, and increasing the FAR. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner by its President, ha -Is executed -,this document this day of i%'Z -,I1/ , 1985. CRESTAHAUS LODGE, INC. BY L Leonard W. Koval, President STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ss. COUNTY OF C Oo {G ) Acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this day of p c}-be-4- j0t�9 ,5_ , 1985, by Leonard W. Koval as President of CRESTAHAUS LODGE, INC. Witness my hand and o f f it3�lao'n�ires March 1, 1--I My commission expires: Notary Public auth of owner/CRESTA • . aNMT A parcel of land being part of the Riverside ;\('(?i tion to Asr>n, Colorado. Said paroel is mre fully described is fol k)�S: Beginning at a point being a Plastic cap on a 11o. 5 rear staq)ed L.S. 2376 whence corner 8 of the Riverside Placer U.S.M.S. No. 3905 A M. being a brass can dated 1954 bears M 85008' W, 554.05 feet; thence N 15°41'W, 92.08 feet; thence N 14°06'59" W, 122.02 feet; thence N 13°13'32" E, 40.54 feet; thence N 78°22'05" E, 33.31 feet; thence N 37034'04" E, 56.45 feet; thence N 68°24'15" E, 27.55 feet; thence S 50*37' E, 77.76 feet; thence S 34°21' 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, 93.00 feet) ; thence S 77145'50" 11, 235.32 feet to the point of beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ME MORANDU M TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Zoning Inspection Officer FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMP Conceptual Submission/Special Review DATE: Oc ber 9, 1985 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client the Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. This application requests consideration with respect to a growth management allotment in the L-3 zone district for the Crestahaus Lodge. The applicant proposes to add 14 new units and to reconstruct the existing lodge. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than October 22, 1985 in order to give us adequate time to conduct an in office scoring session and complete our research in time for a packet deadline of October 31. This item will go to the Planning Commission on November 5. If you have any questions, or anticipate problems meeting this deadline, please contact me immediately. Thank you. T/ 1-� Cit3rn& ))? ,' f , -t 1 c 1z ^' iD Y rr�F- A ur r- C0- sa-i--.l-rF, -. �)^-Ir/,J'.'a - c'>t 5I'2IC-I . /A�nF— G0.-SCcI,Nrgn. SAtia>..r10-- n!�.'lA,L, rj~. a . LAW OFFICES GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN October 9, 1985 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN i Mr. Alan Richman, Planning -Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 OC T 10198,5 Re: Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. Application for Award of Development Allotment in L-3/ An Application for Special Review Approval for Employee Parking and Change of Use Dear Alan: ---*6AXXJ O N E AREA CODE 303 925-8166 As per your recent request enclosed please find copies of Warranty Deed from Dr. Bruno Balke, Annmarie Balke and H.J. Balke to Leonard W. Koval conveying Crestahaus Lodge property, and copy of Warranty Deed from Leonard W. Koval to Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. conveying Crestahaus Lodge property. These deeds demonstrate that title to the property is now held in the name of Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. which is the applicant under the above -referenced application filed with the Planning Office on October 1, 1985. Also enclosed is copy of the title policy showing Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. as the owner. I will is returned me know. DGE/bw Enclosures deliver the Authorization of Owner as soon as it to me. If you need anything further please let Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GI a Professional Cq By E' v David G. Ei oenste N I. KAUFMAN, ration n CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen l )ATE RECEIVED /I I CAS E N0. DATE RECEIVM COMPLETE: f% STAFF: lI , PROD ECT NAME APPLICANT: Applicant Address/. hone : 9 RE PRES EN TAT IV E • / Representative dress/Phone f�/ / Type of Application: 62 U`61r I. GMP//SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission ($2,730.00)• Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00) Final Plat ($- 820.00) II. SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00) Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00) Final Plat ($ 820.00) III. EXCEPT ION/EXEMPTION/REZ ON ING (2 step) ($1, 490 .00 ) - �/ IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00) Special Review Use Determination Conditional Use Other : P& CC MEETING DATE: �`� s PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: REFERRALS V/City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr. Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: 'oni ng/Inspectn �- Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: ':"NAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: y Z INITIAL: City Attyy City Engineer ► Building Dept. Other: Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: CASE DISPOSITION: C resf,(�A"1 CmP ftlt 't, _ .Reviewed by: A.en P&Z City C uo n � ,�'j F' =Z ,(-'��'1'�r�l� fry+ 1���,�. i�tvn�.►'tt� 0 �' J��se ti� �/J,'�i(/�;' 1+'; 13 (� Dv �� i6vLl.�„j L l j�1V7U/Yk,dkcj,'� /�'� �' ���{ . •1 Imo% L 4l,'.ct l� ! � D . I (�J G'rt{f ; � � � b � � � �C �✓' Ne� /I" A 1 1 F.evi Ewcd' E,�: -,spen P&Z City Council Reviewed by: T,s en L City Council LrC$T(hfROJL-Od t &MPaPPlicst'onM4 � (' R� P�rh„� • Rc ��rci�t�s—s - ,�' �f t� �� %,c� L,4MA4A. Pd-2 aJ u r,,,vrxe�Q, 4 � P4Z T A,,,Yifan did �o xfcom/rQ�l<o.�,i crr i it tL & P P ip►., �, WlkP �4 Va V Tp rojut{ 4k A vlv,Or I re pia J-M s�►e,t,� 1l. �pfrrlAlvie, to 404 t4A 't n^1 efta1^4 ILOW (/AI111.VA .�L Fn, t%z��t -� oXi?c atue , ac �t ns���z4 'L1,�; �o C,fy �•:;l Gc'Yil :/1�.t• h G Ihf +tf%� , J/.'1'1 s���p 11j^GI.Bt,�i �r'rut( IJ� Ub( c4%f,J r Qh YY.� ijL^AY L ^•� �IUV'1 113� ' � ^ !!k/1[ :Q1t�L�7 S: %1�(�►/� 3,When soil studies are done for foundation designs they should include a determination of historical water run off onto adjoining properties and design corrections should be made to absolutely eliminate the possibility of any increase in run off to adjacent properties; and q-c ,�X r� !M �>ti .► t-c,�rr t,.� . �G U GL` u t y2 U !Jl /Ul:. I /IEl s+ N h D 2 Q•'y�l z11a 4L�":Cx�i :� L: ultil �.c'' . �. .4('L`.� n corrected plan shall be submitted to the Planning Off ice reflectinc- all the technical clarifications and representa- has ticns upon which the of Planning anel the project. Zoning This Commission plan shall be ba ccd its scorir.,, subrAtted prior to the City Council meeting for consieering GI.F allocation to this project. SCuernl -il�,f:l dUJ :: q-&;, , ;•Y'k f, G,^�Yr!�1" C,,•�•1�.. fb�7iL{Y;1i<'r ciF�l��,N�v.,�1vs1-e tie TRANSMITTAL LETTER A/A DOCUMENT G810 PROJECT: Crestahaus (name, address) Aspen, Colorado r TO: Planning Department 130 South Galena Streit Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTN: E31BS 0N & RE"1NJO - ARC!-tITECT9 41a i. CDOF�AR AVENUE • %a&PEN, CO.C)PA 0 elelf, -71 L J WE TRANSMIT: (x) herewith ( ) under separate cover via _ ( ) in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: ( ) approval ( x) distribution to parties ( ) review & comment ( x) record ( ) use ( 1 THE FOLLOWING: ( ) information ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 850 DAT�*O��ctobe r 1 , 1985 If �elosures are -not -as noted, please inform us immediately. If checked below, please: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of"enclosures. ( ) Return enclosures to us. ( ) Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles ( ) Product Literature ( ) Change Order ( x) lodge G.M-P. application COPIES DATE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE 15 10-1 -85 Crestahaus G.M.P. Application, L-3 E , 1 10-1 -85 Letter from Gideon Kaufman 1 10-1 -85 Check in the amount of $3,410.00 ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmitted D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS CODE B. No action required E. See REMARKS below C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS We have submitted 1 5 copies per Glen Horn More copies available upon request COPIES TO: (with enclosures) Gideon Kaufmann (3) Len Koval (3) Jerry & Joanne (1) BY: avid qGio , AIA AIA DOCUMENT G810 • TRANSMITTAL LETTER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIA® • COPYRIGHT © 1970 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 ONE PAGE LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN-AVENUE, SUITE.305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN October 1, 1985 TELEPHONE DAVID G. EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925-8166 HAND -DELIVERED Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. Application for Award of Development Allotment in L-3/ An Application for Special Review Approval for Employee Parking and Change of Use Dear Alan: Enclosed please find 15 copies of Crestahaus Lodge Application for GMP L-3 Allotment along with our check made payable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Plannning Office in the amount of $3,410.00 for GMP-Conceptual Review and Special Review. In addition to seeking an allotment for 14 lodge units, by this application, applicant also seeks special review approval for determination of the number of parking spaces it needs to supply for the lodge pursuant to the sections of the Municipal Code addressing L-3 residential uses and employee parking. Applicant seeks approval for its parking plan to provide 33 on -site parking places. Applicant also seeks approval for a change of use for 3 units at the Crestahaus Lodge from residential use to lodge use. A special review approval is also being sought to increase the FAR. If you have any questions on the enclosed or need any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By Gi.d on Kau r GK/bw • i City Code Deed Restriction The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and occupancy to the rental or sale guidelines established and indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the Occupancy permit by the City Council's designee for low income employee housing units. Verification of employment and income of those persons living in the low income employee units shall be completed and filed with the City Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These covenant shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate legal action including injunction, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be greater. 2 Reviewed by: fs► it 3 "reMtn'/s - s� j/ e 1 a•18� � �( rig-/ '�t(l�t Fa- Z v� u�.r�oO rna lkM 6W u cme City Counci' Crea 4AeJI L0dy GMP,PPiIcvf,onti�sii 06pecid Reu+ews /k4/,?? � � e4tw e� fo et s A6 e, Aki %car 4 m,114 died fo �f«,;,,�e�,l (64e)TD4Wgk AVA40r�r .1d fV .In' jfiff'`to rcr'o . 14aAl ",tv"Q �, P i,y1Vl�a�l4 t t,� r. A • Il , ) t4'Ufg �'�►'1 e" �Lht (/)t/(P�hG?1� Ij�"FTl/ �it�Qc�, tlr r2�ilrnti,;l Z���< R �' �1"WG ' L#�,�, (�,�y� �„(� CM `�' �'�G,O'(�1t� �G'wj IRAs � 9�M�t� .{YC .[%LU11r/A►'lnr�� �1�.Ls� �6 ��fy (�7lsi t dw 4( c ate"i c� � uns i Ub bVIUiAl Pzm�d . 3,When soil studies are done for foundation designs they should include a determination of historical water run off onto adjoining properties and design corrections should be made to absolutely eliminate the possibility of any increase in run off to adjacent properties; and M�/► ��� )) y/Q LtievItW , .J�.11'. 1 N1 �K`!M A '1LVWkb( fl lG' QQk'►�t kl�! M �t�L 5+09 e KUUS'ccvter(t (14^�� Av N�e;� �� , �h, He , 2 a our !kxAk LLVJ.A� � pe UV -� �1. A corrected plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office reflecting all the technical clarifications and representa- tions upon which the Planning anc7 Zoning Commission has bac,cd its scorir.,, of the project. This plan shall be submitted prior to the City Council r.eeting for consicering mir allocation to this project. �' Z �t'�tr � �►'� J�Z1f%`', off• +p-��=+�, -tk L-3 pollf I Crea7RH.Io e- Sev e r/, ( Mat t cii, i dUJ ; ; w-c-C A.AWJ to a f�►,�Iv s P'N be 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CRESTAHAUS LODGE GMP AND SCORING SESSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on November 5, 1985 at a meeting to begin at :OO-a.m: before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Colorado, in C Ry Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a growth management application in the L-3 zone district for the Crestahaus Lodge. The applicant proposes to add 14 new units and to reconstruct the existing lodge. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext . 223. S/C. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 10, 1985. City of Aspen Account. t \0 76 M \HkA\11 lot 1lr sA,.,�. ti 40,01,...1r.....r1•=....1..►�.Y,��K7V� THIS UEED, Made this 15TH do) of AUGUST ,)Y85 between ~ Dig. 3RU`1''O BALKS. ANNEMAAIE BALK)' AND R,J. BALKE oflhe Countyef PITKIN and ElateofCulorada,ofthe first loan. and �j LEMAR.D W. KOVAL C/O MICHIGAN AVENUE MANAGEMENT 910 CIO. XICHTCAN �101MseCHICAGO ILL. 60605 andfiated / „a,tj •' OhM County of COOK oftrond part: a LI110IS " M'ITNI:fSCT N.?iat the as►i Dsr1 11e of the Ara#"% ter and M een94tre"06 of the suw st ::: • i M 4. ,AXD OTHER GOOD AND VALOAp,= C�tgl!!lr l►liO�t-*y► .. .._ _. _.»_ _..., 4,Aa _ 1 tol1w aeid Pawl «titii Ara lipoot ft aphid w dw saw wi Sss .f tbo -IN I .n. the le00 f wbt rtd i► h taei�.e*tba*.d aN W&M+' 40 #0 . M * . - �r+at. ►sn.+.. Lwtrwx aot:I�n.�.., ah� .. 0*.w gon 041 ti'i" AV atlaq, 'wad A1RWt. all tBe MAali� /1RrdN�/ � !� i � r vim is •t -x_ iae - � .. aetaltastt. r % r e�Ul� ttaarrti M a� i1 hairs air "&%M r O(OA a Masts tbo are well "is" of tlw Premises As" /sll f Asd. • M' 1. a irs tadlltdshow" M&W of Ifth"itettae, in law, in tee *latch. sad b/ee geed Mfht. NM /litter sad hwlttl wthst'Iq p bMpilb sea ad tlearey Ow in waanar and (am as afwoassid cad f, that Ow save are fire sad etew hm all al""T and O.Wr prests, bergaitta, sale►, lwvw tapes, assorsatwoeta sad ear' braar'eefwhoorver►fade.aatweMwor, Oxcept general taxes for 1985 due and payable y in 1985 and subject to Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and 99 remove his orO thecefrou should the same be found to penetrate or intetseet the 7 + premiseu and right of vay for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in the Vnitad States Patent recorded October 11. 1955 in look 100 at Pass 545 and as recorded June 17. 1949 in Bxk 175 at Page 246. and tM •bare batpined premises in t M curet and peaceable po►►esnon of t►w sad party of tM aeconl part, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or Persons lawfully claiming or to rlairn the whole or any part thereof, the said pan Joe of the first part *hall and w ill WARRANT AND FOREVER DCIrEND. IN%ITNI:FSNII[REOf,Thesaid part its ofIhefirst pan hayE henurµPsel their hand a and►eale the da)sud>ea►flntobv%rwniton. Swrwd.lGabdandlrelrreredontf.epreseneeof BRITO DAIKE-0tALI Is STATE OF COLORA0O. _founty of PIM N t, VINCETT J . HIGENS , a Notary Public in and for said PIMaN County, In the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that jR, =W BATM, ANNEK RIE BAIKE aho ARE perwnally lnoun to mr • • !.. tho AM H.J. BAUD Persons whose name 8 subscribed to the foregoing DocJ, appeared before me thufN�d "d nogism a AS that t ay signed, sealed and delivered the said instrument of writu,g an Thal f free grid voluntary set and deed for th r uses and purposot ' herein set forth. Given under my hand and official seat this 15th day of ALULIST v 7 + ilT immmuslaa expires NOVEMBOt 8, 1985 JAN 601 E. ASPEN. OkI w < � X x T O L �r J t t • i ,Ir,fI:. '. • to kAh-'A%'I'i DI GI vaG�9�l7 ,py tlALKI /Kt�C.11. A paroel of larA being fArt of the Riverside Arl it inn to Aspen, rblorac Said paroel is rrotr fully deecribmi a.R folln.rs: . Beklinning at a point being a plastic can on a fk). 5 rrhar sta lx.d I,•S. 237f, w/,mct corner 8 of the Plvsrsi<ir. Plaoer C.S.'t. ,, t:O. 3905 A M. heirg .► brass cat, dated 1954 bears N 85"08' W, 554.05 feet; thence N 15"41'W, 92,08 feet; thence N 14006'59" W, 122.02 feet; thence N 13"13'32" E, 40.54 feet; thence N 78*22105" E, 33.31 feat; do N 37°34'04" F, 56.45 feet; thence N 68*24' 15" F., 27.55 feet; thence S 50*37' E, 77.76 feet; thence S 34.21' E, 150.08 feet; thenoe 93.50 feet along a curve to the right havi nel a ra(b us of .'r.0, r•0 f.rt (the chord of which bears S 14'03' F, 93.00 feet) ; thence S 77.45'50" W, 235.32 feet to the point of tx-wiinninq. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO • 1,Ii.f,:, ' • 4W I(i HAKRAK7•i f�1�i�,►� Fw%)7 BALM /KOVAL A parcel of larIII heirv] Part of the Riverside Ad-Ii t inn to A.snen, rolor& Said parcel is rroir fully dcriw bed &, follows;. es BPyinniny at a point beinq a plastic can on A r:o. 5 mbar starT. d L.S. 237(, wl,wm comer 8 of the Piverside Placer C.S.M.S. No. 3905 A M. heirq a brxss car, dated 1954 bears it 85"08, v., 554.05 feet; thence N 15'41'W, 92.08 feet; thence N 14'06'59" W, 122.02 fc.Vt; thence N 13"13132" E, 40.54 feet; thence N 78°22'05" E, 33.31 fleet; tlesoo N 37034104" F., 56.45 feet; thence N 68°24'15" F., 27.55 feet; thenoe S SO°37' E, 77.76 feet- thence S 34.21' E, 150.08 feet; thence 93.SO feet along a curve to the right having a rarbtis of ?�,9,r•0 feet (the chord of which bears S WU3' F., 93.00 feet) ; thence S 77045150" W, 235.32 feet to the point of }xwginninq. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO �V 1, y ..M sic J 4 • _yam � •n. ` ^ � A eft'. 1t %N1( \\ i l Ill 1 l) Ilils M 1). .,I,, , . Nuglatit 1„ 85 ta''. LLIONARu KO VAL M /�+�, rh,•w h.al rhir. ,, ,• i I Cook CRLSTAIIAUS LODGE/ INC. 1301 lhry. 82, Aspen, CO 81611 OR J. ._ c� .ter •1 4� :r J N w • i nt �. ' !1 Pitkin Q N'It�1:.11.A1 ill. I hat 111, y r�rw.r i,x er.J ,r, •,Y,.nh/sb.w ..f ❑x .ur,. ,.. ii on T 'lrs and other good and valuable consideration (S10.00)----------- 46"4m. 11a ..ul b. x11.I .a r!1lA■11111. •M ^►I. aw.e. {h•.`I�.d. lu, Ctanhll A.Ntr/M.1 .,.1,1 .rul . .. .., ..n..• •' � r:.. n: ..1... )•I,JJ i.w ;.•a .. II f d.,•nleMI tor"" tlk' �fa,l�, .1C �t}Rfi R.IrIeT all ll% Iral ptegn'r1. 1..)h•Ih;• - . .w'.,• I.m•,..NuaR LnlaantlllrmFmtlw ji,wrrNl„1 Pitkin slot �4..trIII l..l. a,xh..h tir•AJ .. hJLw.. THAT PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" I ATTACKED HERETO AND INCORPORAT1:n HEREIN " rf kt aNh all and .wilwUr 111t A YrhunwrIt, amid apllwtY'w,rl. c. wl1)tthilf"Ftne. I* Alll\'ItAft"..F. aril d+a n-.. r.;.....,,.i . { Forma M. t awl NnLmnL t.. )ettl, t.NM•..uxt pndN. ftmI 1. and All w eRM , vow. talk. 11q -", . taNN ..exl ,h In.tld ,ahr„t'.rI ,A Mr . vows. cwiw in 14% ,a r4I1NI..,I Ill aMl u, the aA.. RM1' IN\'d ptanl.,. MIIh 1}II IYMiIt)alA'NI. and yglN.kmiap.s. �I f � its successors NA�F. ANI►'tll tN )I.p uI; .red phew..', at>,et♦ hal YsuN•.I atIJ .A•u'l •tat IA' ,VII'w'\"nalR t'.. wM. ION it ,e,"' 1flnKbbtgw1-apJ � IYA. it lelft .Aw1Y\IFtatwn, 1-tell I,. 11 htOwtn.atyl lk'T•, glalnpf�ynlAlf„\.S\>..nehalu. l•talN IM1 Cain A%la►k'eu.A �, I,L �i iNF�+'71i�.e.yl,d (1 a�u�n.. Me at etx ttmc r.t ih• ;n.�a11n� sIW 41t.t•r I .d 11N.; pn•..M.. iR I. Mtll • rii�vl,.f IIw• {�snN..'• ah�r .,•IKMnaI. hw. yNeJ. uYn•, p'f I; , t. ah.rduu' _ 11 AlltlydekalM..•NM,MInI\•I/taatr.tolw..Inby.,uMh',.wlh.,c,MM11IVW.!AplNtel.nal1w.1 %46 .11a1Ja.M.;t11k.;Wnr' `{ is swam and km a. Awr.*W' Amid "d,Y aim a II., .0 l .kw N, m i so.hrmf'lMitr111i71tiJ•1♦.b,1/gal1A. ,eta. )IttW Iric. MYs.A'knh. ' !� ahYw++.+ws.mill.atnYtaw..+alulnw�N\/.M111111'n'.,�,,, ;�e�+l and subject to Aenerai taxes for 1995 due `i 1} and payable January 1, 1986; and subject to Uineral Reservations and right-of-way reservatioaa as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 180 at Phre 545 and as recorded in book 175 at Page 246 f r. C4wI an, ryA;#eF4mw y1AKk AINt ANO MIN yyyl It l 111 M)th' ilAwr lur au .4 nN� . Nr the me aaJ t �� y �' y praeahlr rw,r..N v,.a lA. yraMtr. 'i w Owal As aillo %W A r9pA h, all Ilr" I, "lta.c%e.yMlf h;J,w,11..L. ,,.I,nlhAJ 1' it ] S ♦'I A11 111 lit 1 ,wna..•e Cook } J. Nr.u-Ilk 01 .a. A,L,k-k'd}•;Jtrl.N. nN it, lit, 1.win".a Cook \Hlr,a �� o ► \4 ` da, 1G�,GZ C5 II Le.mard U. • Koval. 1 � 1 \ ,w:�c,attenl.N..ar �. �STfiTt. ill 1' rT. t• t • ! IJ85 3�,��, Crmrrt��4lk.:t-wf.ixr�, ,�•� _ f� � • I.?:NINIT "A" • • TO WARRANTY DELI) A parcel of lend being part of the Riverside AAdition to Aspen, Colorado. Said parcel is yore fully described as f(. lbws, Beginning at a point being a plastic cap on a no. 5 rebar stwT)ed L.S. 237G whence corner 8 of the Riverside Plaoer U.S.►I.S. No. 3905 A M. being a br.v dated 1954 bears H 65008' ii, 554.05 feet; thence N 250411M, 92.08 feet; tlssnoe N 14'06'59" N, 222.02 feet.; thence 11 13.13432• E, 8Q.'!6 feet; r- thence N 78.22,050 E, 33.31 feet; tlwroe N 37034 `04" E, 56.45 feet; tlwe�oe N 66 24115" E, 27.SS feet; thence s 50.37' a, 77.76 beet; t?S 34021' E, H0.08 feet; �MfOe 63.S0 fest alag a curve to the right having a radius of 2F0.00 feet tthe Aged of %bich bears 5 24'03' E, 9 3. 00 feet) ; _"hence s 77•65'S0• N, 235.32 feet to the point of beginning. ODV'17 or PITKIP. STATZ OF CMD&M w FORM NO. C-5000-1 • • FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -FORM B- 1970 (AMENDED 10-17-70) SCHEDULE A Amount of Insurance S600,000.00 Date of Policy AUGUST 15, 1985 @ 2:56 P.M. 1. Name of Insured: CRESTAHAUS LODGE, INC. Policy No. COB-501133 ORDER NO. 7303658 Sheet 1 of —3_ COO p%7 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: CRESTAHAUS LODGE, INC. FORM NO. C-6000-2 FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY 1970 (AMENDED 10.17-70) FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -FORM B-1970 (AMENDED 10-17-70) S C H E D U L E A —Continued The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of Colorado, County of PITKIN , and is described as follows: 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 N 85*08' W, 554.05 feet; thence N 15*41' W, 92.08 feet thence N 14°06'59" W, 122.02 feet; thence N 13°13'32" E, 40.54 feet; thence N 78022'05" E, 33.31 feet; thence N 37034'04" E, 56.45 feet; thence N 68024'15" E, 27,55 feet; thence S 50*37' E, 77.76 feet; thence S 34°21' E, 150.68 feet; thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 260.00 feet (the chord of which bears S 24°03' E, 93.00 feet); thence S 77045'50" w, 235.32 feet to the beginning. FORM NO. C-6000-3 FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY 1970 (AMENDED 10-17-70) FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -FORM B-1970 (AMENDED 10.17-70) SCHEDULE B PART I This Policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 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 cor- rect 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. S. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 6. Right of the proprietor of vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises and right of way for ditches and canals constucted by the authority of the United States all as reserved in the United States Patents recorded October 21, 1955 in Book 180 at Page 545 and as recorded June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246. • Endorsement Issued By Transamerica Title Insurance Company Said policy is hereby amended by deleting paragraph 4 of Schedule B. The total liability of the Company under said policy and any endorsements thereto shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the face amount of eaid policy and costs which the Company is obligated under the conditions and stipulations thereof to pa). This endorsement is made a part of said policy and is subject to the schedules, conditions and stipulations therein, except as modified by the provisions hereof. This endorsement is not to lie construed as insuring the title to said estate or interest as of any later date than the date of said policy, except as herein expressly provided as to the subject matter hereof. Date AUGUST 15, 1985 Policy Number COB-501133 Transamerica Title Insurance Company By nn President i Endorsement Form C-110.1