Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.European Inn Lodge.801 W Bleeker.78A-89 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 8/1/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2735 - 123 -08 -003 78A -89 STAFF MEMBER: L - ftt.. \ PROJECT NAME: The European Inn Lodge GMOS, Code ,;Amevdment, GMOS Exemption v S �, a. ! /'_'. r r P w , ,A Project Address: 801 West Sleeker Street. Aspen. CO Legal Address: Lots d, e. f. g, h. i, Block 12 APPLICANT: Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. Applicant Address: 121 South Galena Aspen, Co REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn Representative Address /Phone: 300 E. Human Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 5 -6587 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $2905.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 21 TYPE OF APPLICATION:• 1 STEP: 2 STEP: ✓ P &Z Meeting Date / J! /0/3 PUBLIC HEARING: NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Cit ;;;) CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: 40 NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES 0 Planning Director Approval: Paid: Alba Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFEFRALS: • 7� ✓ City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District ✓ City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas ■ ✓ Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) ✓ /Aspen Water ✓ Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric / Building Inspecto ✓ Envir. Hlth. ✓ Roaring Fork V Other R,FT4 ✓ Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. I /y� DATE REFERRED: $ - / 'II INITIALS: _ ^� ` -•♦ FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED J j )(t 4 ` INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: /0 o.-A- Ow vlr-� MYLER, STULLER & SCHWAR' v1� �� y/ R ff/fJ UL/Cl� 106 S. Mill #202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LETTER (303) 920 Date February 5, 1990 To Leslie Lamont Subject Bavarian Inn Planning Office J 7 Section 6 -203 requires an applicant to have an ownership interest (over 50 %) to process an application. See also the definition of "Owner" in the code. Absent an ownership interest, or consent of an owner, a developer cannot process a land use application. Given Doug Allen's letter of January 23, 1990, it is my opinion that you cannot process the Cunningham application for development of the Bavarian Inn property. Sandy Stuller SIGNED Please reply [ No reply necessary MEMORANDUM TO: Sandy Stuller FROM: Leslie Lamont RE: Bavarian Inn DATE: February 1, 1990 Enclosed is a letter from Doug Allen for his client, Mr. Knirlberger, rescinding the original letter of consent for Mac Cunningham to process development applications on this property. At Mac's request I have sent a copy of this letter to him. However, Mac would also like an interpretation from the City re: what does this mean to him. Is that appropriate? Please advise. r '1 r LAW OFFICES OF Doug Ls P. Allen COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING 530 EAST MAIN STREET. FIRST FLOOR ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -8800 3 DOUGLAS P. ALLEN January 23, 1990 Leslie Lamont Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Bavarian Inn Lots D through I, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen Dear Leslie: Mr. Knirlberger has requested that I write this letter rescinding his previous letter of July 28,1989, authorizing Cunningham Investment Co., Inc., to process a Growth Management Application for the above property. At the time the previous letter was written, Cunningham Investment had an option to purchase the above property. That option has since terminated and Cunningham Investment has no present authority to process such an application and has no interest whatsoever in the real property. diallyY at/ oug .s P. Allen DPA /pjo Enclosure LTR \041 FEB - 5 FAX (303) 925 -9398 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum and Tom Baker FROM: Leslie Lamont RE: Bavarian Inn - Site Analysis DATE: December 18, 1989 In response to the Hadid interest in the Bavarian Inn parcel for affordable housing, the following are the specifics regarding the site. Dave Mylar had worked up some numbers when the City was considering the site for purchase. * *SITE: 36,000 square feet 18,000 zoned LP 18,000 zoned R -15 * *EXISTING: 18 lodge rooms, manager's apart., approx. 8,300s.f. * *PROPOSED: HADID: 90 TO 100 EMPLOYEES MYLAR: REZONING TO 1:1 FOR AH ZONE (AH CAN ZONE TO 1.1:1) DAVE FIGURED 45 UNITS, APPROX. 800S.F.= 15 STUDIOS, 10 ONE BR., 15 TWO BR., AND 5 THREE BR. TOTAL: 70 employees VARIATIONS: 45 two br. units = 90 employees renovate existing Inn = 15 units and construct a new building of 18,700 square feet = 23 units TOTAL 38 UNITS FOR APPROX. 76 - 80 EMPLOYEES GMP App. renovate existing Inn build new building for 15 units; construct new building total 22 units TOTAL 37 LODGE ROOMS ON 18,000 S.F. * *ISSUES: a. 45 units represents a maximum buildout. Dave's figures assume a complete demolition of the site, no constraints. b. open space and parking requirements were not considered during calculations c. the surrounding neighborhood includes the Villas a multi - family apartment complex d. there is significant vegetation on the site zone LP 2 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID 3. MYLER 106 S. MILL STREET. SUITE 202 SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ALAN E. SCHWARTZ (303) 920 -1018 FAX 920 -4259 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: David Myler DATE: December 7, 1989 RE: Acquisition and Redevelopment of Bavarian Inn Property I have today submitted a Contract to Purchase the Bavarian Inn from Erwin Knirlberger. The property consists of 36,000 square feet of land on which are located the Bavarian inn (18 r ager s apartment and common areas - approximately 8,300 square feet), several small cabins and a small sin - g family residence. Although the property is listed for $1,900,000, the Contract calls for a purchase price of $1,700,000. As of this memo I have not received a response from Mr. Knirlberger or from his broker. I will, of course, provide an update at the December 11th Council meeting. In addition to customary provisions and representations, the Contract contains the following special provisions: 1. Requirement for ratification of the Contract by the City Council after acceptance by the Seller. 2. A diligence and inspection period of 120 days, during which time the City may determine the feasibility of developing affordable housing on the property. The City may cancel the Contract and obtain a return of the earnest money if, for any reason, such development does not appear to be feasible. 3. Closing within 60 days after the end of the diligence/ inspection period. 4. The ability to process an application for rezoning to "Affordable Housing" during the diligence /inspection period. Such rezoning will only be effective if the City buys the property. To aid you in your decision as to whether or not to proceed with the Contract, I have undertaken a very preliminary and very conceptual analysis of several development options which indicate a range of development possibilities and the potential subsidies of each to be funded from the cash -in -lieu account or the GRETT account. I have outlined three such scenarios below: 20/D2 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Aspen City Council December 7, 1989 Page Two A. All Affordable Housing Under this scenario, all existing structures will be demolished and replaced with an apartment complex in which all units will be restricted to Housing Authority guidelines. The Affordable Housing Zone will allow 36.000 square feet of habit- able space in a var'et of confi•urat'., . If an average unit t + size o :s, square feet is assumed 45 uni can be constructed. ill l For the purpose of my analysis, I assume. 15 studios, 10 one bedrooms, 15 two bedrooms and 5 three bedrooms. The potential cost and public subsidy is estimated as follows: 1. Land Cost $ 1,700,000 2. Cost to Demolish and Reconstruct 3,600,000 3. Loan Proceeds* (2,875,000) 4. Total Subsidy 2,425,000 a. Subsidy per unit $53,890 b. Subsidy per square foot of affordable housing $68.05 *It is assumed that 40% of the project will be rented at low income rates ($0.63 per square foot per month) and that 60% of the project will be rented at moderate income rates ($0.89 per square foot per month). The gross rental income is projected to be $339,730 per year. Assuming that 80% of the amount is avail- able for debt service, the projected revenues will support a loan of $2,950,000. Assuming loan costs of $75,000, the loan proceeds available to pay the cost of acquisition and development are estimated to be $2,875,000. B. Combination of Restricted and Unrestricted Housing Under this scenario, 9,000 square feet of the parcel will be developed for resale without restrictions in order to reduce the public cost as much as possible while still providing 38 units of affordable housing. The cost of affordable housing will be further reduced by rehabilitating the existing Bavarian Inn instead of replacing it. The following outlines the development costs, income potential and resulting public subsidy: 1. Unrestricted Development. Unrestricted development will consist of four 2,250 square foot condominiums. I estimate the cost to construct this project at $150.00 per square foot, or $1,350,000. I estimate that the units will sell for $300.00 per square foot, or $2,700,000. The gross profit will be $1,350,000. 20/D2 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Aspen City Council December 7, 1989 Page Three \ 2. Affordable Housing. Under this scenario, the existing Bavarian Inn will be rehabilitated to accommodate 15 units within 8,300 square feet. A new apartment building will be constructed consisting o 8 70 square feet of habitable space and 23 units., resulting 'S.ffordable housing units. I estimate the reha- bilitation c. at $30.00 per square foot, or $250,000, and the cost to construct the new apartments at $100.00 per square foot, or $1,870,000. Total cost: $2,120,000. 3. Loan Proceeds. If the 8,300 square feet in the remod- eled Bavarian Inn is rented at low income rates and the new units are rented at moderate rates, the project will produce a gross income on an annual basis of $262,464. If 80% of that amount is available for debt service, the project will support a loan of $2,250,000. Assuming loan costs of $50,000, $2,200,000 will be available to pay development costs. 4. Subsidy. The public cost is estimated to be: - Land Cost $1,700,000 - Affordable Housing Cost 2,120,000 - Gross Profit on Sale of Unrestricted Units (1,350,000) - Loan Proceeds (2,200,000) - Total Subsidy 270,000 - Subsidy per unit of affordable housing $7,100 _ Subsidy per square foot of affordable housing $10 C. Affordable Rental Housing and Resident Occupied Sale Units Under this scenario, the affordable housing rental project will be the same as that described in scenario B, above. Instead of producing four unrestricted units, the City will produce 5 1,800 square foot units on the same 9,000 square foot parcel and will resell those units as "Resident Occupied" housing. I estimate the cost to construct the 5 units at $115.00 per square foot, or $1,035,000. I estimate that those units can be resold for $150.00 per square foot ($270,000 each), or $1,350,000. The City will realize a gross profit (not including land cost) of $315,000. The resulting subsidy can be calculated as follows: 20/D2 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Aspen City Council December 7, 1989 Page Four - Land Cost $1,700,000 - Affordable Housing Cost 2,120,000 - Gross Profit on Resident Occupied Units (315,000) - Loan Proceeds (2,200,000) - Total Subsidy 1,305,000 - Subsidy per unit of affordable housing $34,350 - Subsidy per square foot of affordable housing $36.25 D. Summary At $48.00 to $50.00 per square foot of land, the acquisition cost of the site is about as low as it gets for developable land in the City limits, and there are not many sites of this size available. The proposed uses are generally compatible with the neighborhood and ideally located with respect to transit routes, both within the City and downvalley. Depending on the development scenario chosen, the expenditure of housing funds could be very modest or fairly high. Certainly, there are other development and financing options which have yet to be identified which will also affect the extent to which the cash -in -lieu and GRETT funds must be utilized. Although many issues remain, I do believe that the City should pursue acquisition of this property, since the location seems to be ideal, as long as we Irave adequate time for evaluation. 20/D2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Leslie Lamont and Amy Margerum, Planning oc RE: Lodge Preservation 1989 GMQS Allotment DATE: December 11, 1989 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission forwards a score of 79.9 points to the City Council for an allocation of 12 lodge units for the 1989 Lodge Preservation GMQS, please see attached Commission resolution 89 -12. Staff recommends approval of the Council's resolution allocating 12 lodge units, with conditions of approval, for the redevelopment of the European Inn a.k.a. the Bavarian Inn. Until the applicant can comply with an open space requirement, the Council should not allocate the 12 development rights. Please refer to the Problem Discussion section for more detail. COUNCIL GOALS: The allocation of Lodge Preservation Units meets Goals 2, 10 and 14. BACKGROUND: The available LP quota for 1989 is 20 units: 10 units annually and 10 units carried over from previous years. The annual submission date for tourist accommodations is August 1. Pursuant to Section 8 -106 D. of the Code, a development application shall be scored by the Commission at a public hearing. The scores are then forwarded to the Council for allocation. According to Section 8 -106 J., the City Council shall, by resolution, allocate development allotments to those applicants that have met the minimum threshold. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: At their October 3, 1989 meeting the Commission reviewed the LP GMP Application for the European Inn. The project successfully met the 63 point minimum threshold having received 79.9 points with conditions of approval. The Commission established, through special review, the external FAR of .91:1. In addition, the Commission has recommended approval of the open space code amendment as proposed by the applicant. The Commission's resolution regarding the Code Amendment is part of this package under a separate cover memo. Staff is recommending denial of this code amendment. Staff seeks direction from Council regarding which open space option to pursue. Until a reduction in open space is approved, the Council cannot allocate the GMP development allotments. Of the options presented to Council in the preceding open space memo, 3 out of the 4 options will require adoption of an Ordinance before the applicant can comply with an open space requirement. Therefore, the 12 development rights should not be allocated until adoption of the Ordinance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST KEY ISSUES: 1) Establishment of external FAR at .91:1. 2) The project does not conform with the required open space and has proposed a code amendment which is subject to separate review by the Council. The Commission has recommended approval of the Code Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the allocation of 12 units to the European Inn for the 1989 Lodge Preservation GMP. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution # allocating 12 lodge units from the 1989 Lodge Preservation quota. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Commission Resolution Council Resolution bay.gmp.cc 2 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN ALLOCATE THE 1989 LODGE PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT TO THE EUROPEAN INN Resolution No. 89 -11 - WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -106 of the Aspen Land Use Code, August 1 of each year is established as the deadline for submission of applications for Tourist Accommodation allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office has calculated the Lodge Preservation (LP) quota available for 1989 as 20 units: 10 units being the annual allocation and 10 units carried over from previous years; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") at their October 3, 1989 meeting reviewed the LP GMP Application for the European Inn; and WHEREAS, Commission found that the project successfully met the minimum required threshold of 63 points by having.. received - 79.9 points (not including bonus points); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -404 of the Land Use Code the Commission, through Special Review, established the external FAR of .91:1; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -1102 of the Land Use Code the Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the open space code amendment as proposed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommended the adoption of the Planning Office's scoring subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the issuance of a demolition permit and a building permit, a final site plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Departments, shall be submitted which includes landscaping and site improvements. 2. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit the applicant shall research the historic significance of the log structures and an HPC referral comment shall be made. Should research indicate these structures as historically significant, then the applicant shall make a significant effort to relocate these structures. 3. Before the issuance of a demolition permit, tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department for trees to be removed with a caliper of 6" or over. 4. All trees indicated on the site to be relocated must be relocated before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall supply three (3), deed restricted to low income, dormitory units as represented in the Growth Management Plan proposal. 6. The applicant shall install a drywell with a capacity of 190 cubic feet to maintain the historic drainage pattern. 7. Before a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall license the kitchen as a food service establishment. Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchases, the operator must submit kitchen renovation plans and specs to the Environmental Health Department. 2 8. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install a District approved grease. interceptor between any kitchen facilities and the sanitation collection system tap. 9. Before the issuance of a building permit, the removal of the 7th Street curb cut and replacement along Sleeker Street, as represented in the Growth Management proposal, shall be subject to review and approval by the State Highway Department. 10. If it is found that it is required by the UBC than the redevelopment should incorporate an adequate means of egress for all rooms and an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all structures. 11. The proposed development must meet all required State and Federal codes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby forward its score of 79.9 points and the above conditions to the Aspen City Council. APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on - October - 17, - 1989 ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND n ZONING COMMISSION / J. Carney, Depu.y City Clerk C. W M1en An dccrraon A. /rove. :s to form: A proved as to content Fred Ga&t., City Attorney Amy Margeru, Plannir Director 3 RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1989) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING 12 LODGE ROOMS TO THE EUROPEAN INN IN THE LP ZONE DISTRICT THROUGH THE 1989 LP GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -106 of the Aspen Land Use Code, August 1 of each year is established as the deadline for submission of applications for Tourist Accommodation allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office has calculated the Lodge Preservation (LP) quota available for 1989 as 20 units: 10 units being the annual allocation and 10 units carried over from previous years; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on October 3, 1989 to consider the Growth Management Quota System competition for Tourist Accommodations, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the application for the European Inn; and WHEREAS, Commission found that the project successfully met. the minimum required threshold of 63 points by having received 79.9 points (not including bonus points); and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant in scoring the European Inn project and granting Special review approval to increase FAR with the following conditions: 1 . Before the issuance of a demolition permit and a building permit, a final site plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Departments, shall be submitted which includes landscaping and site improvements. 2. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit the applicant shall research the historic significance of the log structures and an HPC referral comment shall be made. Should research indicate these structures as historically significant, then the applicant shall make a significant effort to relocate these structures. 3. Before the issuance of a demolition permit, tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department for trees to be removed with a caliper of 6" or over. 4. All trees indicated on the site to be relocated must be relocated before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall supply three (3), deed restricted to low income, dormitory units as represented in the Growth Management Plan proposal. 6. The applicant shall install a drywell with a capacity of 190 cubic feet to maintain the historic drainage pattern. 7. Before a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall license the kitchen as a food service establishment. Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchases, the operator must submit kitchen renovation plans and specs to the Environmental Health Department. 8. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install a District approved grease interceptor between any kitchen facilities and the sanitation collection system tap. 2 9. Before the issuance of a building permit, the removal of the 7th Street curb cut and replacement along Bleeker Street, as represented in the Growth Management proposal, shall be subject to review and approval by the State Highway Department. 10. If it is found that it is required by the UBC than the redevelopment should incorporate an adequate means of egress for all rooms and an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all structures. 11. The proposed development must meet all required State and Federal codes. WHEREAS, the Commission further recommended approval of a Growth Management Exemption request for 3 on -site employee rooms; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -1102 of the Land Use Code the Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the open space code amendment as proposed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Commission's scoring for the European Inn project does wish to grant the requested 12 room allotment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that 12 rooms of the LP Zone District Tourist Accommodations quota is hereby allocated to the European Inn. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 8 -108 of the Municipal Code, this allocation shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific 3 development plan unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of the approval is obtained. Dated: , 1989. William L. Stirling, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held , 1989. Kathryn. S. Koch, City Clerk 11 /resobavarian.cc 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Mana r FROM: Leslie Lamont and Amy Margeru4 Tanning RE: Open Space Code Amendment for the LP Zone District DATE: November 27, 1989 SUMMARY: In conjunction with their GMP application, the developer of the European Inn, a.k.a. Bavarian Inn, requested a code amendment to vary the open space requirement. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a code amendment allowing Special Review for open space in the Lodge Preservation Zone District. This would be a first reading of an ordinance amending the code. Staff however, recommends denial of the code amendment and suggests options. In the event Council directs staff to work on one of the options, we will present an ordinance for your review. COUNCIL GOALS: The GMP application with the requested code amendment is consistent with Goal #14 - to develop a consistent and fair government so that citizens know what to expect from elected officials, employees, and government processes. BACKGROUND: The European Inn won the GMP lodge quota for 1989. As part of their application, the developer requested a code amendment to vary the open space on site. Pursuant to Section 7- 1103 of the Land Use Code, a code amendment is a two step process, to P &Z then Council, with public hearings at both. At a public hearing, October 3, 1989, the Commission approved the code, amendment for the LP Zone District, please see attached resolution (A). For development in the LP Zone, FAR is established by the Commission through Special Review not to exceed 1:1. Staff had recommended that the proposed FAR be reduced to increase the amount of open space on the site. This project was short by 3 %. The Commission chose to establish the FAR at .91:1 and recommended the code amendment for open space. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Land Use Code requires 35% open space in the Lodge Preservation Zone District. Open space must also be viewed from the street. During the review process, the applicant maintained that the preservation and renovation of a significant portion of the existing lodge prevented the project from complying with the open space criteria with only 32% open space viewed from the street. Please see attached memo (B). The applicant proposed to set the required amount of open space by Special Review. The Commission believed that the intent of the LP zone is to preserve existing small lodges and provide incentives for developers to upgrade and preserve them. Setting open space by Special Review would enable developers and the Commission to develop a site plan that is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which, in many cases, is residential. Staff is reluctant to amend the Code for a specific project. Without a focused review of the LP Zone, to determine if most lodges are constrained by the existing Code, a code amendment may be too general an approach. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST KEY ISSUES: whether the Code should be amended for a specific proposal; whether it is appropriate for all other lodges in this zone district; whether it is necessary to provided appropriate incentives to preserve existing lodges. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the code amendment and requests Council to direct staff to pursue one of the following options. OPTIONS: 1) Adoption of the Code Amendment as proposed by the applicant and recommended by the P &Z. 2) Setting a minimum percent of open space required, e.g. open space may be reduced to 30% through Special Review. The Commission felt that this was not flexible and encourages applications with only 30% open space. If Council wishes to pursue this option, the attached Code Amendment can be modified prior to second reading. 3) Establish the external FAR that enables compliance with the open space requirement. Staff originally recommended this . approach for the Bavarian Inn application. The P &Z instead recommended the code amendment and setting the FAR at .91:1. Although staff prefers this approach, as a next best solution a PUD overlay for this parcel is recommended. 4) Applying a PUD overlay either on specific parcels or on the whole LP Zone. The applicant would have requested this, however an applicant cannot request a PUD overlay for a parcel that is less than 27,000 square feet. Staff can suggest a PUD approach for a more effective review. A PUD overlay would enable variations in dimensional requirements including open space. A PUD was used during the development of the Holiday House project. Staff is somewhat concerned that a PUD review process may become too discretionary for this parcel and prefers option 2. If Council recommends a PUD overlay, staff would consolidate the 2 usual four step review process into two steps: conceptual at P &Z, final at Council. At final, the first reading of an Ordinance would be required. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to deny the proposed Code Amendment as approved by the Commission and direct staff to pursue Option CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: P &Z Resolution (A) Staff's October 3 memo (B) ccopen.amend 3 ATTCHMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE OPEN SPACE CODE AMENDMENT IN THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE Resolution No. 89- /3 WHEREAS, The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") at their October 3, 1989 meeting reviewed the GMP Application for the European Inn; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a code amendment for the open space dimensional requirements in the LP zone; and WHEREAS, the Commission believed that the intent of the LP zone was to preserve existing small lodges and provide incentives for developers to upgrade and preserve them; and WHEREAS, the current definition of open space requires that open space be viewed from the street; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment of a lodge in the LP zone may face open space constraints when the preservation of existing structures may prevent all the open space from being viewed from the street; and _ WHEREAS, open space is important to ensure lodge compatibility with adjacent residential zone districts and that open space should be viewed from other properties as well; and WHEREAS, the Commission, using a Special Review for the reduction of required open space, would encourage flexibility for the redevelopment of small lodges while preserving existing buildings; and WHEREAS, a reduction to a specified amount would only encourage applicants to design to that specific amount; and WHEREAS, an unspecified reduction in the required open space would enable the Commission and developer to work toward a better project; and WHEREAS, the Commission agreed to approve an open space code amendment for the LP zone that sets the required amount of open space by Special Review only for projects that will preserve existing structures on site; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That is does hereby recommend that the Council repeal and readopt the following language in Section 5 -216 (D)(9): 9. Percent of open space required for building site: 35% A special review to reduce the open space below 35% may be approved only when a reduction is necessary to preserve an existing structure(s) on the site. In establishing required open space for a specific development, the Commission shall consider: 1. The configuration of and the amount of existing structure(s) on the site to be preserved; 2. The unique, natural or manmade conditions; and 3. The quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site and is open to view from neighboring properties but does not otherwise meet the definition of open space. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 17, 1989. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: / / ' /6/ JPSM H3C- - sYGRc_ ) v ■CL- C.446-g 2_PC-R �,�J ATTEST: By= 4j 01A4dir Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Pr Fred Gan -tc, Attorney 4,1 Marg- Planning Director ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: European Inn a.k.a. Bavarian Inn LP GMP DATE: October 3, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicant requests a 12 unit Lodge Preservation growth management allotment for the renovation and redevelopment of the Bavarian Inn. Please find attached staff's recommended scoring of this proposal. The score exceeds the minimum competitive threshold. BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to entirely renovate the existing Inn which has 18 tourist accommodation units. The applicant also proposes to remove four (4) cabins which supply seven (7) tourist accommodation units and in their place, construct a 22 unit lodge building. Please see attached plans. Out of the 22 new units to be built the applicant is seeking an allotment for 12 lodge units. Removal of the seven (7) tourist units and conversion, into employee housing, of three (3) existing tourist units, will give the applicant 10 credit units thus requiring a GMP allotment of only 12 units. Review of this proposal also includes an open space code amendment submitted by the applicant, and special review for external floor area. The Land Use Code requires City Council to review the proposed code amendment and allocate the allotment for the 1989 LP GMP. APPLICANT: Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. LOCATION: 801 West Bleeker Street, Aspen ZONING: Lodge Preservation REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral agencies have submitted comments: Engineering Department Aspen Water Department Aspen Fire Protection District Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Environmental Health Department Schmeuser Gordon Meyer Inc. consulting engineers Colorado Department of Highway Kopf and Kopf Electrical Engineering Roaring Fork Energy Center Herbert S. Klein, direct abutter Please see attached comments from the various referral agencies. STAFF COMMENTS: Review of the proposal pursuant to the criteria for the code amendment and for special review for external floor area is as follows: 1. Code Amendment for Section 5 -216 Lodge Preservation Dimensional Requirements Section 5 -216 requires 35% open space for the building site. The proposal provides 32% open space. The' applicant is proposing a Code Amendment regarding the open space requirement. The amendment reads as follows: Percent of open space required for building site: Special Review. In establishing required open space for a specific development, the Commission shall consider the quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site but does not meet the definition of open space. Pursuant to Section 7 -1102 the Commission and Council shall consider the following criteria for a code amendment: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The propose of the LP zone is to preserve existing lodges and permit their limited expansion when the expansions are compatible with the neighborhood. Without setting a limit on the minimal amount of open space that is required, the expansion of lodges within the LP zone may jeopardize the compatibility of the lodges with surrounding land uses. Of specific concern, is that the reduction of open space may allow too much massing on site and overwhelm surrounding residential zones. The applicant must also establish external floor area by special review. It is staff's opinion that the FAR, through special review, may be reduced to enable the applicant to provide the adequate amount of open space. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Plan is not specifically applicable to the proposed amendment. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. 2 RESPONSE: Most of the LP zones are located on the edge of or within residential zone districts. The proposed amendment could provide a better level of comfort for the community if there was a minimum requirement. For example: required open space may be reduced to 30% by Special Review. Not to have a minimum reduction percentage would encourage small lodge expansion with only the providing only a small amount of open space. Reduced open space may result in the perception of an overbuilt site. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: Not applicable. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: Not applicable. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The purpose of the open space requirement, especially the provision that the open space can be viewed from the street, is to prevent a more urbanized and congestive feeling from the built environment. Many citizens have expressed concern over the fences /walls that have been erected recently on some parcels. The LP zone enjoys a unique relationship with the surrounding zone districts and this is predicated upon the compatibility of small lodges with their surrounding land uses. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Open space, viewed from the street and integrated into the fabric of the town's landscape, is a strong characteristic of this Community. If the reduction of open space is by special review, there should be some parameters as to the amount of reduction allowed. Staff is concerned however, that some developments would only propose the least amount required. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. 3 RESPONSE: The parcel is proposed for a substantial redevelopment thereby reducing the amount of open space. This however, does not necessarily support the need for an open space code amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The potential reduction in open space, without specific guidelines, may encourage large lodge expansions with increased site coverage. This may create a conflictive relationship with the surrounding land uses. The LP zone district, although flexibility designed to encourage the upgrade and expansion of small lodges, must continue as a good neighborhood and not infringe upon the less intensive land uses which are primarily residential. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the applicant's requested code amendment. It is recommended that the applicant either submit a new amendment that identifies specific parameters for a reduction in open space or reduces the overall floor area of the GMP project, through special review, to provide 3% more open space to meet the dimensional requirements. 2. Special Review for Establishment of External Floor Area - Not to exceed 1:1 In the LP zone district the external floor area is established by Special Review. The floor area shall not exceed 1:1. The parcel is 18,000 square feet, and the total external floor area for the existing and proposed addition is 16,414 square feet. This is a .91:1 FAR. Section 7 -404 outlines the review standards for Special Review for dimensional requirements: A. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. RESPONSE: The siting and design of the new addition is very compatible with the existing Inn building and the character of the duplex adjacent to the parcel. The preservation of mature vegetation and the breaking up of the building's mass by preserving the open space in the middle helps deflect the feeling 4 of a large amount of building on the site. The open space however, does not comply with Code requirements. B. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to supply three (3) deed restricted dormitory units on site for'employees. The amount of parking supplied for the new rooms is sufficient and meets the code requirements. The open space is deficient. If the floor area was reduced that reduction may be applied as open space. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve, with the following conditions, the external floor area of .91:1. Staff would also recommend approval of a lower floor area if the applicant proposed to reduce the floor area by 3% to meet the Code requirements for open space. The following conditions are: 1. Before the issuance of a demolition permit and a building permit, a final site plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Departments, shall be submitted which includes landscaping and site improvements. 2. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit the applicant shall research the historic significant of the log structures and an HPC referral comment shall be made. Should research indicate these structures as historically significant, than a relocation or on -site renovation plan will be required. 3. Before the issuance of a demolition permit, tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department for trees to be removed with a caliper of 6" or over. 4. All trees indicated on the site to be relocated must be relocated before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall supply three (3), deed restricted to low income, dormitory units as represented in the proposal. 6. The applicant shall install a drywell with a capacity of 190 cubic feet to maintain the historic drainage pattern. 7. Before a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall license the kitchen as a food service establishment. Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchases, the operator must submit plans and specs to the Environmental Health Department. 5 8. Before the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall install a District approved grease interceptor between any kitchen facilities and the sanitation collection system tap. 9. One of the two curb cuts along 7th Street shall be removed and a curb cut along Bleeker Street shall be added as represented on the plans. 10. Before the issuance of a building permit, and the removal of the 7th Street curb cut, the applicant shall receive an Access Permit from the State Highway Department. 11. During renovation an adequate means of egress shall be provided for all rooms and an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all structures. 11 /bavarianpz 6 pie ' l i l 1 i u t 0 I 41. , , 401: 4 .. , 1 ® . , • IIII . , L II t V A, \ f L tt -s ; . L 1 . it °}1 : _ P.:'' _.„, l',. . ii 14r71 .. [-e--- , lek ' a orterstrA 4 NO. 1 EXISTING SITE PLAN AIRCHliflC E I B U I R O I P E I A N II RI N theodore 1. mnlarz + associates j 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associates 89 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 1 _ /co/ .. . \ -_ i r - ' G - � W I mum-2 il q 1 .... __at 1 / \ 1 1 .:71 F. / it a ,y4 tAC a� j � Yom'*" ■ 4 , V stifil ■ p .rn look 1 ■ a� :<w = I w�v a aws��s - . : : ; :I Ems``. �jljA�lilllill_ tom. :.? : ::.. 1 {� : ..: �_ 1 : ilp C •i C ` te ■ N ' • O i : It" �r I E N 4 a3»e NO. PROPOSED SITE PLAN AlIC E17113C70 I E U M O I P E A N N ]I N N theodore 1. mnlarz + associa 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + ( )R, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Mana r FROM: Leslie Lamont and Any Margeru4 Tanning RE: Open Space Code Amendment for the LP Zone District DATE: November 27, 1989 SUMMARY: In conjunction with their GMP application, the developer of the European Inn, a.k.a. Bavarian Inn, requested a code amendment to vary the open space requirement. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a code amendment allowing Special Review for open space in the Lodge Preservation Zone District. This would be a first reading of an ordinance amending the code. Staff however, recommends denial of the code amendment and suggests options. In the event Council directs staff to work on one of the options, we will present an ordinance for your review. COUNCIL GOALS: The GMP application with the requested code amendment is consistent with Goal #14 - to develop a consistent and fair government so that citizens know what to expect from elected officials, employees, and government processes. BACKGROUND: The European Inn won the GMP lodge quota for 1989. As part of their application, the developer requested a code amendment to vary the open space on site. Pursuant to Section 7- 1103 of the Land Use Code, a code amendment is a two step process, to P &Z then Council, with public hearings at both. At a public hearing, October 3, 1989, the Commission approved the code• amendment for the LP Zone District, please see attached resolution (A). For development in the LP Zone, FAR is established by the Commission through Special Review not to exceed 1:1. Staff had recommended that the proposed FAR be reduced to increase the amount of open space on the site. This project was short by 3 %. The Commission chose to establish the FAR at .91:1 and recommended the code amendment for open space. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Land Use Code requires 35% open space in the Lodge Preservation Zone District. Open space must also be viewed from the street. During the review process, the applicant maintained that the preservation and renovation of a significant portion of the existing lodge prevented the project from complying with the open space criteria with only 32% open space viewed from the street. Please see attached memo (B). The applicant proposed to set the required amount of open space by Special Review. The Commission believed that the intent of the LP zone is to preserve existing small lodges and provide incentives for developers to upgrade and preserve them. Setting open space by Special Review would enable developers and the Commission to develop a site plan that is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which, in many cases, is residential. Staff is reluctant to amend the Code for a specific project. Without a focused review of the LP Zone, to determine if most lodges are constrained by the existing Code, a code amendment may be too general an approach. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST KEY ISSUES: whether the Code should be amended for a specific proposal; whether it is appropriate for all other lodges in this zone district; whether it is necessary to provided appropriate incentives to preserve existing lodges. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the code amendment and requests Council to direct staff to pursue one of the following options. OPTIONS: 1) Adoption of the Code Amendment as proposed by the applicant and recommended by the P &Z. 2) Setting a minimum percent of open space required, e.g. open space may be reduced to 30% through Special Review. The Commission felt that this was not flexible and encourages applications with only 30% open space. If Council wishes to pursue this option, the attached Code Amendment can be modified prior to second reading. 3) Establish the external FAR that enables compliance with the open space requirement. Staff originally recommended this approach for the Bavarian Inn application. The P &Z instead recommended the code amendment and setting the FAR at .91:1. J Although staff prefers this approach, as a next best solution a � y •UD overlay for this parcel is recomme Q) r- \ �Y {q ' _ ' - r`ct PUD overlaD either on specif c parcels or on the -. e LP Zone. The applicant would have requested this, however an applicant cannot request a PUD overlay for a parcel that is less than 27,000 square feet. Staff can suggest a PUD approach for a more effective review. A PUD overlay would enable variations in dimensional requirements including open space. A PUD was used during the development of the Holiday House project. Staff is somewhat concerned that a PUD review process may become too discretionary for this parcel and prefers option 2. If Council recommends a PUD overlay, staff would consolidate the 2 usual four step review process into two steps: conceptual at P &Z, final at Council. At final, the first reading of an Ordinance would be required. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to deny the proposed Code Amendment as approved by the Commission and direct staff to pursue Option CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: P &Z Resolution (A) Staff's October 3 memo (B) ccopen.amend 3 A ATTCHMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE OPEN SPACE CODE AMENDMENT IN THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE Resolution No. 89- /3 WHEREAS, The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") at their October 3, 1989 meeting reviewed the GMP Application for the European Inn; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a code amendment for the open space dimensional requirements in the LP zone; and WHEREAS, the Commission believed that the intent of the LP zone was to preserve existing small lodges and provide incentives for developers to upgrade and preserve them; and WHEREAS, the current definition of open space requires that open space be viewed from the street; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment of a lodge in the LP zone may face open space constraints when the preservation of existing structures may prevent all the open space from being viewed from the street; and WHEREAS, open space is important to ensure lodge compatibility with adjacent residential zone districts and that open space should be viewed from other properties as well; and WHEREAS, the Commission, using a Special Review for the reduction of required open space, would encourage flexibility for the redevelopment of small lodges while preserving existing buildings; and WHEREAS, a reduction to a specified amount would only encourage applicants to design to that specific amount; and WHEREAS, an unspecified reduction in the required open space would enable the Commission and developer to work toward a better project; and WHEREAS, the Commission agreed to approve an open space code amendment for the LP zone that sets the required amount of open space by Special Review only for projects that will preserve existing structures on site; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That is does hereby recommend that the Council repeal and readopt the following language in Section 5 -216 (D)(9): 9. Percent of open space required for building site: 35% A special review to reduce the open space below 35% may be approved only when a reduction is necessary to preserve an existing structure(s) on the site. In establishing required open space for a specific development, the Commission shall consider: 1. The configuration of and the amount of existing structure(s) on the site to be preserved; 2. The unique, natural or manmade conditions; and 3. The quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site and is open to view from neighboring properties but does not otherwise meet the definition of open space. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 17, 1989. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: C/; / JASM l T-s2cc- V iCc. C.43,1 -PerRsoIC ATTEST: BY: Ill, _ Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: lie T 4- i 0,-,--A /IL/ a _ vir .C Fred Gan -t:;, Attorney g Margjn, Planning Director L__ , f- l 1 u %Th ... l`� 1 Mr . i % , t 4 MI 11 Wall I lk l : k �; y -7, ....•• - .. . , i ft - 7 7 i Air. \'' '_a, 1. in t r1 . : 1 0 ' il a R., _n.. _ Se.s.rti 5$ .NO. EXISTING SITE PLAN AIRCLETTI3CTS I B U F R O T T E I A M II H H theodore 1. mnlarz + associates 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associates aim ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 r 1 • 1 "i n ,y grit ual• num! u l.i w I � 1 ;N — I • tql111".aLa���� ial ri1, li '���Illllll�j • % r; I ,„%, .,, i iforne IC.-- AA /1IA� (�'/ I � 1mi °' 1 \ / /�`:\ e k . a 3 - Elk • � ..�►:.: i 1. H . : :ice ...... . .. .. .. I 1'• i:ii:i:i . i' f5 b. 1 : .BR:: is ( V ei J ^> 1 j • II a _ •• F ,. 1 - . a.. 2 gat 47t rIA 17.1 NV r • iASOit I. No. PROPOSED SITE PLAN AIRCIFIIIIIITC TO i3 ia i IR 0 PP/BAH II 1f IlJ theodore 1. mnlarz + associates 801 W. B L E E K E R STREE roger n. ken + associates 303 925 -3365 8289 x.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN ALLOCATE THE 1989 LODGE PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT TO THE EUROPEAN INN Resolution No. 89- WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -106 of the Aspen Land Use Code, August 1 of each year is established as the deadline for submission of applicationSfor Tourist Accommodation$ allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office has calculated the Lodge (U') Preservationtquota available for 1989 as 20 units', 10 units being the annual allocation and 10 units carried over from previous years; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") at their October 3, 1989 meeting reviewed the LP GMP Application for the European Inn; and WHEREAS, Commission found that the project successfully met the minimum required threshold of 63 points by having received S te} 79.9 points (not including bonus points) ; and bT fe L A y�AM• 9 A WHEREAS, the Commission also proved, through Special Review, the external FAR of .91:1 and the open space code amendment as proposed by the applicant, and the following conditions: 1. Before the issuance of a demolition permit and a building permit, a final site plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Departments, shall be submitted which includes landscaping and site improvements. 2. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit the applicant shall research the historic significant of the log N structures and an HPC referral comment shall be made. Should research indicate these structures as historically significant, then the applicant shall ,ake ark significant effort to relocate these structures. 11 3. Before the issuance of a demolition permit, tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department for trees to be removed with a caliper of 6" or over. 4. All trees indicated on the site to be relocated must be relocated before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall supply three (3), deed restricted to low income, dormitory units as represented in the proposal. 6. The applicant shall install a drywell with a capacity of 190 cubic feet to maintain the historic drainage pattern. 7. Before a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall license the kitchen as a food service establishment. Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchases, the operator must submit plans and specs to the Environmental Health Department. 8. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install a District approved grease interceptor between any kitchen facilities and the sanitation collection system tap. 9. One of the two curb cuts along 7th Street shall be removed and a curb cut along Sleeker Street shall be added as represented on the plans and subject to the approval by the Colorado Department of Highways. 10. Before the issuance of a building permit, the removal of the 7th Street curb cut, shall be subject to the approval by the State Highway Department and the applicant shall receive an Access Permit from that Department. 11. During renovation an adequate means of egress shall be provided for all rooms and an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all structures if required by the UBC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby forward its score of 79.9 points to the �Asppeen City '�` Council. ( a°L N.0 pt`w.___ , vielucaff<jSdrY APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on October 17, 1989. ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk C. Welton Anderson C kAXn p.c I PQweD loc 1 PPkwEo firs To CwdiEta sAWG.tv•-t oy\)( u ` � ? l tA. lit t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1989 Vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Welton Anderson, Richard Compton and Graeme Means were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES AUGUST, 8 AND 22, 1989 Bruce made a motion to approve minutes of August 8 and 22, 1989. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. CONSENT AGENDA BUTERA STREAM MARGIN REVIEW SHADOW MOUNTAIN BUILDING GMOS EXEMPTION FOR OFFICE SPACE Roger made a motion to adopt the consent agenda. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. CRESTAHAUS LODGE REZONING, SPECIAL REVIEW & GMOS EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Jasmine:— It has come to -mattention this a pia is to be tabled. -- ✓ Tom Baker: This applicant is requesting tabling. They would-- - like to have the option to come back before P &Z to compete for the unallocated 1989 LP allotment. That would be for 8 units. In discussions with the staff and members of the P &Z to recollect on this I guess this was done once before with Mr. Cantrup where we allowed him to come back and compete for unallocated allotment. However the applicant has been informed that they 'would still have to abide by the GMQS section of the Landuse Code which prohibits substantial amendments to their application. Additionally we have told them that there is no reliance that they will be awarded the allocation in the future. This does not compromise the Bavarian's application at allf a l PZM10.3.89 app1icAnt waid be . -r- except -at the a = in . c. ing =es 'on with th- -Count ch is - un.: :y. Staff doesn't see any problem with the request. Michael: I don't know that we have the authority to go ahead and do something like that. Tom: We are going back through channels to see if that is a doable deal. 0 Michael: The Cantrup precedent is one that not well received. Bruce: What did City Council do to the other competition for 1989. Tom: Those have—bea-extended-gecause of the administrative delay,_ those were extended to April 15th for Commercial GMQS and June 1st for Residential. Bruce: # Weren't there leftover allotments in some of the categories for 1988? Tom: Yes. Nothing was carried over. But the LP Zone District was carried over. There was a 10 unit allotment in 1989. }\ Mari: If they are not going to change their application then what is the point? Tom: Well, I don't know if they can successfully do anything. I think there are some major flaws. Mari: They can change it in a minor way. Tom: They will have no reliance from us that they /are going to be awarded any allotment. They would still have to meet threshold to get approvals. I don't think they have had time to research all their options. This may give them time to research all of their options. And they may never come back. It is the staff's call on whether the changes would be considered substantial. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to table action on the Crestahaus Lodge Rezoning and GMQS scoring at the request of the applicant with the 2 PZM10.3.89 (` applicant Ong- understand that there is no reliance of the applicant getting whatever remaining allotment is left. Mari seconded the motion. Michael: I am concerned about what we are doing by doing that. Whether there is reliance or whether we are creating some kind of a right that they have to come back at a later date. I don't know whether we should be doing that. If they have withdrawn their application then they have withdrawn it. If they Piave the right to come back then they should come back. Roger: They have not withdrawn. They have requested tabling. Tom: What I will do is condition this with the Attorney's approval. Roger: I will add that to my motion. That this action is conditioned on approval of the City Attorney. Mari: I accept that for the second to the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. / BAVARIAN INN CODE AMENDMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW & GMOS EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Tom: Now we have the situation where the Bavarian Inn no competition. And when there isn't competition the P &Z has the ability to accept the staff scoring. There have been some changes since the memo went out. Roxanne will elaborate on those. P &Z has the option to accept the score, recommend approval and direct staff to submit a recommendation for the lodge unit allotment in resolution form to City Council. Roxanne explained staff's scoring. (attached in record) Glenn Horn' Repr-esentativte —for— app -l-i-cant^ Let me just explain the problem we ran into in preparing the site. It is a similar problem we ran into when we did the Holiday House - -the application for the Ski Company. Based upon the idea that you have to see the open space from the public street for it to count in the calculation of open space and this building is unusual because it fronts on 2 streets. Our whole idea was to re- orient to Sleeker because it is a little�� mellower street and lends itself to our site plan. So we tried 3 PZM10.3.89 `` to get the open space so it would be visible from Bleeker Street and 7th. Street. Mac Cunningham: A lot of the open space focuses around the existing pool area in the back. When we did the calculations none of this is calculated as open space because by viewplane it has to be cut off because open space has to be able to be seen from the street -not from an alley. So we have a chunk of open space that would have brought us over the limit dsere that we can't use. So that is one of the problems with the definition of oxen space. Glenn: The upshot is we thought that open space really benefits ----- the project but based upon the definition of the code, it doesn't. Right now the way the Landuse Code is set up for the LP Zone you calculate the floor area based upon a special review not to exceed 1 to 1. And I think that was put into effect to create some flexibility for the small lodges and tried to give them a break given the fact that they are working in small areas in existing residential neighborhoods. I suggest that we have a code amendment whereby open space in the — LP Zone for these small lodges would be determined by special review -and Leslie and I in talking about it thought that was a little too wide open to just make it straight out special review. She suggested why not look at either trimming down this building a little bit or putting a minimum on the amount of reduction that you could have by special review if the code wasn't to allow open space by special review. She said say that open space is 35% _requirement but by special review it could be reduced to 30 %.01/ We think that is a good idea because by trying to trim this building down and it is already really tight. We would go ahead and amend our application based upon Leslie's suggestion that the code be amended to make the calculation of open space in the LP Zone a special review consideration provided that open space would never be less than 30% of the site. Jasmine: And the 30% would still be following the definition of "Open to view from the street ". Glenn: Yes. And the whole definition of open space -I don't suggest that we tinker with that definition whether it is open from the street or not because I think that is a huge problem,and- 4 e-woui _ Jasmine: This would not affect our previous definition. Glenn: No. Not at all. I think Leslie had a pretty good idea and we would go ahead and amend the code amendment to say that it would not be less than 30 %. C 4 PZM10.3.89 [` Jasmine: That seems like a reasonable approach. Roger: I can foresee other places where that 5% may or not be significant. Jasmine: But it would be special review. Roger: I am saying is 5% the right amount. Mari: I feel that instead of just saying fly special review there should be some language athici giving some standards by which a special review would be warranted. Glenn: I put that in the language. "Taking into consideration open space which benefits the site itself ". It may not necessarily be open to a public street. Because this site has some open areas that will definitely benefit the project but won't fit the definition so that would be a consideration. Mari: I feel it is more important that the open space benefit the neighbors than the site, a I think it is important that the open space is still defined as being open to view from some neighboring property. C Tom: Staff's conclusion was that we wanted to have the applicant see if they could change some of the decks or balconies to get that extra 3 %. We didn't know if they could or not. While we/ prefer not to mess with the code that seemed to be a reasonable compromise if they were unable to squeeze out that extra 3% by messing around with the balconies or overhangs. Jasmine: This is a code amendment though. We are talking about a code amendment in general and whether or not the applicant can amend his plan at this point really should have no bearing on whether we decide to adopt this code amendment. If we think this code amendment is a good idea then itfioesn't matter if the applicant can still chop balconies off,, ghat is fine it is part of the GMQS but that really is not relevant to the code amendment itself. Mari: I think that the special review -the guidelines should state that only if there is still at least 35% which is open to neighboring properties. That doesn't mean that you have to see if from the front street but from other properties. So that it has benefits to the neighborhood - someplace other than from within the project. Jasmine: I think it should say "Unimproved lot area which enhances the site and is open to view from neighboring properties if not the street ". So that it becomes very clear. 5 r o (I PZM10.3.89 Mari: I am just afraid that if the special review allows it to be cut to 30 %, there will only be 30% on the site that is undeveloped. And if we keep that 35% figure as far as unbuildable and viewable from neighbors I think that insures against that. Jasmine asked if there was public comment. Ted Mularz: I have a couple of things that I think are worthy of your attention. One is the fact that if we are only dealing with the development of the 3 lots that this building is on the open space would exceed the required 35 %. The other thing is that in dealing with the 35% or no less than 30% I think that something that would be in our favor here and I know it doesn't meet the strict definition of open space because we have space that is open that is more than 3 or 4 feet below grade. But we are not actually creating our FAR within the open space. It is not as though we have solid building over that area. It is open to the sky from that point up. Roger: I don't know whether the 5% is the correct amount or not when you look at the general thing. But my concern is that as soon as we make it 30% instead of 35%, people will start C designing to that relying on that 5 %. I think we should get in the criteria that this is allowed because of existing structures that remain in this redevelopment as this is. I think we should set up for the criteria for this to take action is that it had to be a design problem resulting from an existing plan or an existing building. Michael: This is only going to be applicable in the LP Zone. And the LP Zone is all built. Glenn: OK. How about this? "Percent of open space required for site building - -35% but may be reduced to 30% by special review. In establishing required open space for specific development the Commission shall consider 1. Site constraints resulting from existing structures. 2. The quantity of unapproved lot area which enhances the site and is open to view from neighboring properties but not the street but does not meet the definition of open space. Roger: Well, it doesn't quite do it but it /is almost there. And you still leave open the possibility that through their design of the new portion of it they could, in effect, aggravate the problem and I would like to see the problem not aggravated by the re- development. But if it is there and existing I don't mind addressing it. 6 PZM10.3.89 Bruce: I must say that I actually prefer the proposed amendment as it reads in the memo. And the reason for that is I would rather not say anything other than 35% that the code already says and leave it up to special review. We are talking about 3% here in the case of this applicant. We may have another applicant next year that may come in and maybe they are at 29% but it is a great project. I don't think we want to constrain ourselves over 1, 2 or 3 %. I think there may be very $good projects that come j in and it is open to special review. We then have the ability in that case to say "Yes this is a great small lodge. This is a wonderful improvement they are doing to it and let's go with 29% open space in this case ". I would rather see it go just as it is proposed here, by— special review we approve this project at 32% or whatever rather than try to come up with some change in the definition and putting a cap on it. Tom: The thing we were concerned about at staff is that all these LP lodges are in mature neighborhoods and perhaps there is special need to insure that those neighborhoods get compatible development. We are trying to keep these lodges viable and we are trying to make sure they still fit into the neighborhood. That 35% open space thing was a pretty big constraint. /` Ted Mularz: When you are dealing with existing conditions you have to make some allowances to the existing condition. We felt that shrinking the rooms in order to meet the 35% would greatly diminish the quality of what we are trying to do,an4 I don't see any benefit to the community relative to that. Michael: I would be concerned about considering an amendment reducing open space in the other zones. But I think this is a peculiar zone -the LP Zone. And because of what the intent of what that zone is is to preserve the small lodges then we should give it consideration as opposed to something we wouldn't do in the Commercial Zone or the C -1 Zone. The underlying intent of the LP Zone was to create incentives so that developers would take these lodges and preserve them -and upgrade them and keep them where they Faree and hat is an important enough benefit to the City, tha.if we find that there are special review provisions or special circumstances applicable to reducing the open space in situations such as this is probably a benefit to everybody to do that. I would' be in favor of it. I wouldn't like saying 30% because I think that is something that C 7 PZM10.3.89 somebody shoots for. I would like to see us be able to stay more flexible. Jasmine: What we are trying to arrive at is to arouse flexibility and to give us review criteria that are going to discourage applicants from designing to special review. R oger: I would like to see an amendment not specifying an / absolute minimum because that is what designers will design to. Jasmine: You have a minimum already. 35 %. Roger: The way I feel about it is -- reduced by special review where we determine that is presented to us and P &Z determines that reduction is necessary due to the existing site design or the site design of the existing facilities and it was a constraint that in effect they had no control over and they did the best job possible to minimize the adverse effects of. That is sort of how I would like to see that code amendment read. The goal is still 35% and I would like to see the Board be able to reduce that as necessary for the project. Bruce: That section on page 4 - -that section 7.404 where it says }\ that open space is -- Glenn: It is really easy. Just say "Based upon these standards and 7.404 and that is special review for open space in the LP Zone and it is a simple cross reference in the Code. Bruce: That is the easiest way to deal with that. Glenn: Somebody spent a lot of time thinking of what those criteria were. Jasmine: The only thing it doesn't include is the fact that this would be the result of an existing development. Glenn: Maybe this solution is closer. "In establishing the open space minimum the Commission shall consider the configuration of the existing structures on the site which are to be preserved. Unique natural or man made site conditions quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site is open to view from neighboring properties but not the street but does not meet the strict definition of open space ". I What you are trying to get at is the—ixlefr=a1=was to try to create l l�some flexibility for these existing lodges where they are working L 8 //// PZM10.3.89 (` round something unique on the site or a building that you don't want to tear down. This is closer to what you are shooting for. — Mari: The only problem is that language just tosses in existing buildings as one of the things that may be considered instead of requiring such an application to be using an existing building. I think it leaves a loophole. Glenn: You could say "Considering foremost the configuration- - Jasmine: No. That the need for special review is necessitated y the configuration of existing building or feature. Glenn: So that if someone is razing everything on the site and starting over then they wouldn't be qualified for special review. Jasmine: The point is that the deviation from the open space requirement is necessitated by the fact that they are preserving these existing features. Mari: I think that special review can only be if there is an existing building which is going to be preserved. Glenn: Then you say "Special review be permitted for the preservation of an existing structure ". )` Amy Margerum: I would highly recommend that if you are going to do this that you make it such that it is flexible under special review without changing the definition of open space. Glenn: You could just say "Special review to reduce the open- space requirement below 35% may be permitted only when the reduction is necessary to preserve an existing structure or structures on the site. In establishing the required open space the Commission shall consider configuration of the existing structures on the site which are to be preserved )6nique or natural or manmade site conditions ruantity of unimproved lot area which enhances neighboring fact This then keeps the definition of open space the same. Jasmine asked if there was any further public comment. There was noe_and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to carry forward what Glenn has come up with as an amendment to the code. The Planning Office will come back with this amendment in resolution form. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. 9 r PZM10.3.89 (` SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FAR Jasmine: In this particular application the external floor area added will bring the FAR to .91 to 1 FAR. And we do have special review criteria which according to the Planning Office the applicant has mettfThere are conditions for the approval. Tom: Staff does not have a problem with the FAR. We recommend approval. / /The conditions /are /conditions /of /the entire application. (attached in record) MOTION Bruce: /I move that we adopt the staff recommendations to the FAR. -PEER. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. GMOS EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE UNITS Tom: The applicant is meeting their employee housing obligations. The GMQS exemption is for the 3 affordable housing units that are part of the requirement. The commitment that they made in their scoring is pretty straight forward. Jasmine: So we just need to approve that? Tom: It is a Commission action only. MOTION Michael: I move that we approve the GMQS exemption for affordable housing as set forth in the Planning Office memo dated September 21, 1989. (attached in record) Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine asked for public comment on the Bavarian Inn expansion. Joe Wells, representing Crestahaus: I want to make it clear on the record that it is our intent to effectively waive our rights to quota so that if this applicant meets threshold requirements they stand first in line for the quota. And we would perhaps at some point in the future compete for the remainder of the quota if there is any. I wanted to make it clear that we are stepping down from the competition so that this applicant can receive his quota and proceed if he is eligible. 10 PZM10.3.89 MOTION Michael: I would like to make a motion that we adopt the Planning Office's scoring to the only applicant who meets the threshold. I would like to recommend that we have covered everything else in the application - -all the requests that they have made. The one condition we have backed off of a little bit is the 32% that they came in on. I would like to recommend this along with our approval that we actually oppose the conditions that are contained in the Planning Office memo or at least let the applicant address where they have problems with those conditions. So my motion would be that adopt ;the scoring but we approve the application subject to these conditions with the 32% limitation on open space if the City Council approves that code amendment. If they don't do that then all we have done here tonight is for nought anyway. Bruce seconded the motion. Glenn: The technical aspects first. On the curb cuts on 7th street. This is at the end, #9. We would love to do what this- - we intend to do this what is asked for here in 9 and 10 -- remove? the curb cuts. We have to point out that the City is not the j authority that is responsible for that. And if ;the highway department by some chance has -can't abandon those curb cuts then we are going to be stuck with them. I don't think that is going to happen because usually they are thrilled to get rid of curb ( cuts. But I just would like the language to say "Subject to approval by ;the Colorado Department of Highways ". Jasmine: For both 9 and 10? Glenn: Yes. Michael: I amend ;my motion to that. Bruce: I amend my second. Glenn: Another technical thing - -It is going to be hard to install these grease interceptors for the kitchen facilities before we get a building. We are going to have to do that prior to CO because we are going to need the building permit to do it. It is a catch 22. Tom: Can you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Department that you are going to do that? 11 PZM10.3.89 Glenn: Mac, are you intending to go right in there and start the renovation as soon as possible? Mac: That is our intention. We were not aware that there was not a restaurant license until one of the reviewing boards brought it up. So obviously that would be one of the things we would be doing immediately relative to renovation of the existing inn. Michael: I would add to my motion that they have an Environmental Health approved grease trap prior to issuance of the CO. Bruce: I would amend my second to that. Glenn: #11 has to deal with the sprinkler system. I am not very familiar with sprinkler systems and what they mean. But Roger Kerr, one of the architects on the project is and I he wants to address the sprinklers and how they would affect this building. Roger Kerr: Up until now we designed buildings according to the fire code established by the uniform fire code. And for the new building what we have designed to meet the code was a 1 hour construction building. And we could under the code build a building about 2 and 1/2 to 3 times as big as that. We have got about 3,000sgft for floor. The building code would allow 10,500 and that is the standard for the whole United States. I don't know anything about any changes in the Uniform Building Code to require 'us to do that. The way we have designed it it will resist a fire for 1 hour and according to the information given us there is a 4 minute response time to the building. We have got smoke detectors in the building. I think it is designed for safety doublefold. It has got a system that alerts people to get out of the building, alerts the fire department to get there in short enough time. Tom: In your packet is included the Fire Marshal's referral. Now there are 2 referrals from the Fire Marshal. The first one says this project would require the installation of an automatic sprinkler system in all structures. I guess we use the Fire Marshal's recommendation in building these conditions. But I see he has excluded that from the September 14th memo to Leslie. What I would like to do is request that we have the opportunity to talk to the Fire Marshal and we would go with his recommendation if that is OK with you. Roger Kerr: I serve on the Building Department Review Committee and we have been in discussions over this. Wayne decided to adopt an ordinance. No one is quite sure what it's status is. 12 ( PZM10.3.89 The Building Department is the final word in that environment. Wayne's position is he wants to see sprinklers in every building in Aspen. The United States not only doesn't require it but it takes the position that it is not appropriate in certain structures. I think that the Building Department at the time is the one that really should be the arbiter over that. Jasmine: I think we as a P &Z Commission normally our procedure is to adopt the recommendations of the Fire Marshal. I think that is what we are going to have to do. Michael: Except that I don't think the Fire Marshall can just sit down arbitrarily and impose conditions. It is either part of the Building Code adopted by the City- - Jasmine: I agree with you but I don't think we have the right to waive this. Michael: I would like to amend ;my motion so that if the Code requires that, then it is there if he imposes it. But if the Code doesn't require it I don't want to just give Wayne the _discretion to do that. Mari: I don't know why anything has to be put in our condition that is contained in the code anyway. (Michael: You are right. So make it as required by existing Code. Glenn: Condition #2 has to do with log structures - -when we were working on the site plans we were preparing it - -I checked to see whether the site was in the District and it is not within an historic district. We checked to see whether the buildings are on the inventory and they are not. But nonetheless we are sensitive to the desire to preserve historic buildings. And the applicants have no problem at all in researching these buildings to see whether they have an historic significance. And they commit to undertake that research. If the structures are historically significant what we would like the Commission to say is that we will seek to find a place to relocate them and renovate them. But I am not sure we can commit that we can relocate these to another site. It is getting harder and harder to find places to relocate buildings to. And because the code does not require it I think it is kind of onerous to ask the applicant to commit to relocating the buildings when it is not required by code. Mari: The same thing came up when we were doing the Mountain House Lodge. And I felt then and I feel too that it is onerous. 13 \ PZM10.3.89 But as it turned out the :Mountain Lodge was able to relocate it. But it was not required. So I think we should do the same thing here. Michael: I make that amendment to my ;motion. Jasmine: So actually what we are going to do then is strike part of 2. "The applicant has agreed to research the historic significance of the log structures ". The applicant has already said they will do that. Bruce: I think we had language in the other "To make every effort to relocate ". They ran adds in the paper and all kinds of 4! \ things. Glenn: Mac's is on the local historic trust and he is really sensitive to this thing and he wants to find a home for them as muc a s a e Tom: "The applicant shall make a significant effort to relocate the structures." Jasmine: So now Mickey has made a motion with the conditions as amended, seconded by Bruce. Is there any further discussion? ( Everyone voted in favor of the motion. \\ Jasmine closed the public hearing. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:10pm. _ Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk 14 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 3, 1989 - Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Butera Stream Margin Review B. Shadow Mountain Building GMQS Exemption for Office Space IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS /NEW BUSINESS A. Crestahaus Lodge Rezoning, Special Review & GMQS Exemption B. Bavarian Inn Code Amendment, Special Review & GMQS Exemption V. 1989 LODGE PRESERVATION ZONE DISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING SESSION A. Crestahaus Lodge B. Bavarian Inn VI. FORWARDING OF SCORES /RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLOTMENTS VII. ADJOURN MEETING MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Tom Baker and Leslie Lamont, Planning d ^V RE: 1989 Lodge Preservation GMP Scoring DATE: October 3, 1989 Attached for your review is the recommended scoring for the two Lodge Preservation GMP projects. The Planning Staff met to review these recommendations and we provide them to you as a consensus of the Office. The two Lodge Preservation GMP applications are as follows: Name Number of Lodge Unit Affordable Allotments Housing Crestahaus 18 19 total -1 mgrs unit, 18 dormitory Bavarian Inn 12 3 dormitory The Planning Office has calculated the Lodge Preservation quota available for 1989 as 20 units. The annual quota is 10 units. During the last several years, not all of the quota was allocated. Therefore, 10 units remain to be carried over making a total of 20 units available for 1989. To summarize the review process, the Department recommends that the rezoning application and General Submission reviews not related to scoring, proceed first for each project followed by the scoring for each project. For your information, we have included a table summarizing the staff recommended scores of both projects. Scoring Minimum Points Categories Threshold Bavarian Inn Crestahaus 1. Public Facilities 4.0 5.5 8.0 2. Quality of Design 14.4 27.0 16.5 3. Resource Conservation 3.2 5.5 10.0 4. Amenities for Guests 8.4 17.5 17.5 5. Provision Affordable Housing 9.0 15 11.0 6. Rehabilitation/ Reconstruction of Existing Units 9.0 9.4 15.0 7. Bonus Points 0 0 0 Total Points 63 79.9 78 11 /cover89 /LPGMP 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: European Inn a.k.a. Bavarian Inn LP GMP DATE: October 3, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicant requests a 12 unit Lodge Preservation growth management allotment for the renovation and redevelopment of the Bavarian Inn. Please find attached staff's recommended scoring of this proposal. The score exceeds the minimum competitive threshold. BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to entirely renovate the existing Inn which has 18 tourist accommodation units. The applicant also proposes to remove four (4) cabins which supply seven (7) tourist accommodation units and in their place, construct a 22 unit lodge building. Please see attached plans. Out of the 22 new units to be built the applicant is seeking an allotment for 12 lodge units. Removal of the seven (7) tourist units and conversion, into employee housing, of three (3) existing tourist units, will give the applicant 10 credit units thus requiring a GMP allotment of only 12 units. Review of this proposal also includes an open space code amendment submitted by the applicant, and special review for external floor area. The Land Use Code requires City Council to review the proposed code amendment and allocate the allotment for the 1989 LP GMP. APPLICANT: Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. LOCATION: 801 West Sleeker Street, Aspen ZONING: Lodge Preservation REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral agencies have submitted comments: Engineering Department Aspen Water Department Aspen Fire Protection District Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Environmental Health Department Schmeuser Gordon Meyer Inc. consulting engineers Colorado Department of Highway Kopf and Kopf Electrical Engineering Roaring Fork Energy Center Herbert S. Klein, direct abutter Please see attached comments from the various referral agencies. STAFF COMMENTS: Review of the proposal pursuant to the criteria for the code amendment and for special review for external floor area is as follows: 1. Code Amendment for Section 5 -216 Lodge Preservation Dimensional Requirements Section 5 -216 requires 35% open space for the building site. The proposal provides 32% open space. The applicant is proposing a Code Amendment regarding the open space requirement. The amendment reads as follows: Percent of open space required for building site: Special Review. In establishing required open space for a specific development, the Commission shall consider the quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site but does not meet the definition of open space. Pursuant to Section 7 -1102 the Commission and Council shall consider the following criteria for a code amendment: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The propose of the LP zone is to preserve existing lodges and permit their limited expansion when the expansions are compatible with the neighborhood. Without setting a limit on the minimal amount of open space that is required, the expansion of lodges within the LP zone may jeopardize the compatibility of the lodges with surrounding land uses. Of specific concern, is that the reduction of open space may allow too much massing on site and overwhelm surrounding residential zones. The applicant must also establish external floor area by special review. It is staff's opinion that the FAR, through special review, may be reduced to enable the applicant to provide the adequate amount of open space. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Plan is not specifically applicable to the proposed amendment. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. 2 RESPONSE: Most of the LP zones are located on the edge of or within residential zone districts. The proposed amendment could provide a better level of comfort for the community if there was a minimum requirement. For example: required open space may be reduced to 30% by Special Review. Not to have a minimum reduction percentage would encourage small lodge expansion with only the providing only a small amount of open space. Reduced open space may result in the perception of an overbuilt site. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: Not applicable. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: Not applicable. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The purpose of the open space requirement, especially the provision that the open space can be viewed from the street, is to prevent a more urbanized and congestive feeling from the built environment. Many citizens have expressed concern over the fences /walls that have been erected recently on some parcels. The LP zone enjoys a unique relationship with the surrounding zone districts and this is predicated upon the compatibility of small lodges with their surrounding land uses. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Open space, viewed from the street and integrated into the fabric of the town's landscape, is a strong characteristic of this Community. If the reduction of open space is by special review, there should be some parameters as to the amount of reduction allowed. Staff is concerned however, that some developments would only propose the least amount required. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. 3 RESPONSE: The parcel is proposed for a substantial redevelopment thereby reducing the amount of open space. This however, does not necessarily support the need for an open space code amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The potential reduction in open space, without specific guidelines, may encourage large lodge expansions with increased site coverage. This may create a conflictive relationship with the surrounding land uses. The LP zone district, although flexibility designed to encourage the upgrade and expansion of small lodges, must continue as a good neighborhood and not infringe upon the less intensive land uses which are primarily residential. ._1, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the applicant's requested code amendment. It is recommended that the applicant either submit a new amendment that identifies specific parameters for a reduction in open space or reduces the overall floor area of the GMP project, through special review, to provide 3% more open space to meet the dimensional requirements. 2. Special Review for Establishment of External Floor Area - Not to exceed 1:1 In the LP zone district the external floor area is established by Special Review. The floor area shall not exceed 1:1. The parcel is 18,000 square feet, and the total external floor area for the existing and proposed addition is 16,414 square feet. This is a .91:1 FAR. Section 7 -404 outlines the review standards for Special Review for dimensional requirements: A. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. RESPONSE: The siting and design of the new addition is very compatible with the existing Inn building and the character of the duplex adjacent to the parcel. The preservation of mature vegetation and the breaking up of the building's mass by preserving the open space in the middle helps deflect the feeling 4 of a large amount of building on the site. The open space however, does not comply with Code requirements. B. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to supply three (3) deed restricted dormitory units on site for employees. The amount of parking supplied for the new rooms is" sufficient and meets the code requirements. The open space is deficient. If the floor area was reduced that reduction may be applied as open space. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve, with the following conditions, the external floor area of .91:1. Staff would also recommend approval of a lower floor area if the applicant proposed to reduce the floor area by 3% to meet the Code requirements for open space. The following conditions are: 1. Before the issuance of a demolition permit and a building permit, a final site plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Departments, shall be submitted which includes landscaping and site improvements. 2. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit the applicant shall research the historic significant of the log structures and an HPC referral comment shall be made. Should research indicate these structures as historically significant, ' - •.- 'to re . . '.. : • .- -..' -_ -l4, � o Ita 3. Before the issuance of a demolition permit, e , tree remo � 4 permits shall be obtained from the Parks Department for trees to 44 be removed with a caliper of 6" or over. .1„ 4. All trees indicated on the site to be relocated must be relocated before the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy. 5. The applicant shall supply three (3), deed restricted to low income, dormitory units as represented in the proposal. 6. The applicant shall install a drywell with a capacity of 190 cubic feet to maintain the historic drainage pattern. 7. Before a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall license the kitchen as a food service establishment. Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchases, the operator must submit plans and specs to the Environmental Health Department. 5 8. - - -- ' .. -_ _ s.' _- -'- the applicant shall install a District approved grease interceptor between any kitchen facilities and the sanitation collection system tap. 9. One of the two curb cuts along 7th Street shall be removed and a curb cut along Sleeker Street shall be added as represented on the plans.q,.,$ 4.o m-p. Lbo4 10. Before the issuance of a building permit, and the removal of the 7th Street curb cut, the applicant shall receive an Access Permit from the State Highway Department. 11. During renovation an adequate means of egress shall be provided for all rooms and an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all structures. ��i rcgu�; 61 Wk %. 11 /bavarianpz ) / 6 • /so ' ______,,,,.. ,... ,,, ,..._ , 1 1 , , L 1 ; _..... WS . ! O U t .t9 ® dis I F ir 1 ill . 4 vs N ���� e3 __ [ , \ . i 1. f t j O 7 pet J t . . , o 1 1 Ali\ 6 . k _ It/ - - -- _- ,� £tOD - L— - . NO. EXISTING SITE PLAN AIRCEIT 3 C 0 Ili II IR ® IP DI A Ii II N Er theodore 1. mnlarz + associates 801 W. S L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associates 3.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 I , ., / a �` trot ,. =■I 1 mini �, Vii • 1 . j 7< - � .- - - ,,r_ _ _ _ _ _,,,, - -4, 4, . . ,_ .. • _ _ . • i I • i `. _. a L I 1 , F • 1 L tg EMIIIONMEOPRoloffin-1 ' tiiiilIIIIIIt '! fi% h n \ I ■ r. �S eft iS it 1 • Igliffigigki:;:;:;:0:: :::::::::::: \ ( :, :::::. s::::,::::::: ERB : : : ::::::::.:;j:.. e ,.:: 0 ,11,:::. , \ .t. /1: H . : . : .•.:. : ::: A ::: : :: : :: : : (7 ‘ r efs..: i. C c. : i : ' : : ' : : : . : : • : • : -. • : • : - : . : • : • : • 1 ".118 NOS f : :: :. i ] •: : : \I �l . f _ ... l i 1 e...r . r .l, .w.. -} araltgraTaly,11Wah .4 ■ S- 4 fiucf— .. 13. Na PROPOSED SITE PLAN AIRCIRI]IflCTO Z U R C D I P E A H 11 3 K 1I ] theodore 1. mnlarz + associates 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associates 'Wa.>19e9 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 9;2 DATE: September 20, 1989 RE: European Inn Lodge GMQS Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department recommends the following scoring: 1. Availability of public facilities and services- recommended scoring: 5 points (a) Water- recommended scoring: 1 point The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and no improvements have been proposed. (b) Sanitary Sewer- recommended scoring: 1 point The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and no improvements have been proposed. (c) Storm Drainage- recommended scoring: 1 point The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and no improvements have been proposed. (e) Parking design- recommended scoring: 0 points The proposed development may not be handled by existing public facilities because the required off - street parking spaces that have been proposed are not adequate. These parking spaces which the applicant has proposed to place off the alley are only 16 feet in length whereas the Engineering Department requirement is that these spaces should be 18 feet in length. (f) Roads- recommended scoring: 2 points The applicant proposes to move the entrance to the existing parking lot from 7th Street to Sleeker Street which will improve the traffic circulation in this area considerably. 2. Quality of design- recommended scoring: 2 points (b) Site design- recommended scoring: 2 points An acceptable design. (c) Trails- recommended scoring: 0 points To receive any points in this area, it is suggested that the applicant offer funding for a City trails project. (Also, it is a Code requirement that the applicant construct a sidewalk along the part of his property that fronts on Highway 82. Because the applicant is not offering to construct this sidewalk, I consider this a totally deficient design). 4. Proximity to support services- recommended scoring: 4 points (a) Public transportation- recommended scoring: 3 points The proposed development is within 2 City blocks walking distance of an existing bus route. (b) Community commercial facilities- recommended scoring: 1 point The proposed development is located further than 6 blocks walking distance of commercial facilities in the City. Total recommendation: 11 points jg /European cc: Chuck Roth Bob Gish �.... MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal Roaring Fork Energy Center State Highway Department Roaring Fork Transit Agency " FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: The European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption & Special Review DATE: August 9, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Cunningham Investments, Inc. requesting Lodge GMQS allotments, etc. Please review this material and return your comments no later than September 20, 1989. Thank you. August 31, 1989 W The Colorado Department of Highways offers the following comments: J n Access Permit is required. The proposed access on Bleeker Street ` should be moved as far west as possible as it may be a safety { problem as proposed. Direct questions to Charles Dunn, 248 -7232. l r l [ , Kopf ' C Kopf Electrical Engineering Utility, Industrial, and Commercial Electrical Systems Designed 941 County Road 129 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) - 945 -5576 September 6, 1989 Mr. Cunningham Cunningham Investment Company, Inc. 121 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: European Inn - Electrical Service Dear Mr. Cunningham, We are consulting engineers to the City of Aspen Electric Utility Department. At the request Mr. Don Gilbert, Superintendent, we have investigated providing electric power to the European Inn located at Seventh and Bleeker Streets, Aspen, Colorado. The City Electric Departments existing transformer located just across the alley south of the proposed new structure will be charged out to a larger unit. 120/240 volt, single phase, 3 wire electricity will be provided at this location. Your electrical contractor will construct an underground service from this location to the new structures in accordance with the current National Electrical Code. Sincerely, Kopf and Kopf E�lec a En 'neering 4 / / Clemons M. Kopf, Princ pal cc: Don Gilbert ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • 303)963 -0311 September 14, 1989 TO: Leslie Lamont - Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford - Director RE: Review Comments on the European Inn Lodge GMQS Insulation: The stated insulation levels for the walls and roof exceeds code and is adequate. We would like to see a project go beyond R -40 for the roof and approach R -60, if possible. There is no mention of floor, slab, pipe and duct insulation levels which should be addressed. Glazing: The use of Low -E windows will help reduce heat loss thru one of the weakest parts of the building envelope. We do not understand why the project limits their use to areas that are "within six feet of the floor ". The applicant should also look at other types of window units such as the ones using utilizing argon gas. It is appropriate to replace the single "pain" (a good typo) windows and "antiquated door systems" to further reduce heat loss. Replacing the uninsulated cabin /tourist units will greatly benefit the overall energy use of the Lodge. Water Conservation: The amount of water used by showerheads, faucet aerators and toilets should be specified, as in other projects (e.g., 2.5 gpm, 2.5 gpm, and 2.5 g respectively). Insulating the plumbing to R -3.7 to R -6 levels is another good idea to save energy. Utilizing high- efficiency water heaters will also help. Air Quality: Removing the two woodburning devices in the cabins and not including any new devices in the new building will help conserve a natural resource while helping to clean the air. Lighting: There is no mention of using compact fluorescent lightbulbs or eliminating excessive lighting. Summary: There is a clear intent of providing an energy - efficient project. But, there is a lack of detail so that evaluating the overall energy use is very difficult. They need to put more thought into these components or they will miss some significant opportunities to save energy and help conserve natural resources. CITY, O F :ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado "81611 303- 925 -2020 July 31, 1989 , Mr. Mac Cunningham 121 S. Galena, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Bavarian Inn Dear Mac, This letter is to notify you that there is sufficient capacity to provide water to the Bavarian Inn's 10 - 12 new rooms. Water will be supplied upon application and payment of the prerequisite tap fees. t incer e�G k,40 I im Markalunas, Director • spen Water Dept. CA6,22 _ WAYNE L. VANDEMARK. FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303).925 -2690 TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark RE: The European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption and Special Review DATE: August 14, 1989 We have reviewed the application from Cunningham Investments. The site is within a four minute response time from the Fire Department. The project will require the installation of an automatic sprinkler system in all structures. An adequate means of egress from all units must be addressed in the renovation. le- A t4 ,.f WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -2690 TO: Leslie Lamont FROM: Wayne Vandemark, RE: European Inn, 801 W. Bleeker DATE: September 14, 1989 This project is within a four minute response time from the Fire Department. Fire protection can be provided without any degree of difficulty. There is ample water supply in the area to provide the required fire flow. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation OI istlrict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Tele. (303) 925 -2537 September 11, 1989 Leslie Lamont Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: European inn Lodge GIW S Dear Leslie: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project at this time. District regulations require the applicant to install a District approved grease interceptor between the building containing the kitchen facilities and the District collection system tap. All connection fees must be paid prior to the connection of the improvements to the District system. The applicant will also need to take out a tap permit through the District office, which will estimate the total connection fees due. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District manager cc Glen Horn Planning Consultant 300 East Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rick Bossinghavironmental Health Department Date: September 21, 1989 Re: European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption and Special Review The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above - mentioned land use submittal under the authority of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, section 6- 201.B.3, for the following concerns: SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The project is served with public sewer. This conforms with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: This project is served by the City of Aspen water system which is in conformance with policies of this department. AIR OUALITY: The Applicant notes that existing woodburning devices will be removed leaving none in the project. This is beyond what regulations require and is desirable for air quality. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: The kitchen design must comply with the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in Colorado" and will be licensed as a food service establishment. Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchase, the operator must submit plans and specs to this office. SCHMUESER GOR6„ .NEVER INC. a j P.O. Box 2155 III ; -a \ Aspen, Colorado 81612 Mar was' August 28, 1989 U��� amp (303) 925 -6727 ��O�I I, WNW. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/ Mr. Glenn Horn Planning Consultant 300 East Hyman Avenue, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Drainage Report for the European Inn CMGS Submission Dear Glenn: At the request of Ted Mularz, I am providing this letter report regard- ing drainage needs for the European Inn G QS submission. The European Inn is to be located on a portion of the property now known as Bavarian Lodge on Block 12, Original Aspen Tbwnsite. The property is bounded on the north by Bleeker Street and on the east by Abrth Seventh Street/ Highway 82. I have reviewed the proposed site plan as it relates to existing site improvements and have calculated on -site detention requirements suffic- ient to comply with Aspen Municipal Code section 20- 17(f). In short, the European Inn will replace several existing small cabins with a single lodge structure. The proposal will add sidewalk and patio area as well as paved parking along the alley frontage. The existing pool, which may add some artificial groundwater recharge, will be unchanged and I have therefore ignored it for purposes of this report. I have also generally ignored the east half of the parcel for drainage calcu- lation purposes as it is too will be unchanged. On -site drainage requirements can be met via installation of a drywell with a capacity of 190 cubic feet. This drywell could be located in any of several courtyard landscape areas and should offer access capa- bility via a manhole cover or surface grate (for cleaning and mainten- ance) and should have a daylighted overflow routed away from any struc- tures. Roof and area drains for patios or pool areas should be routed to the drywell. The capacity requirements are met by two sections of 6 -foot diameter perforated concrete pipe, each four feet long. The drywell should be bedded in minimum 1 -1/2" washed rock. I hope you will find this sufficient for GIP application purposes. Please feel free to contact me with questions or if we may provide detail design assistance. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER OJRLON MEYER, INC. 4111 hillis WS ay W. Hammond, P.E. Pr incipal - Aspen Office JWH:lec /9182 cc: Mr. Ted Mularz Mr. Mac Cunningham 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945 -1004 LAW OFFICES OF SE: 2 � i HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 13031 9258700 TELECOFIER (303) 925 -3977 September 27, 1989 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Leslie Lamont Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Bavarian Lodge GMP Application Dear Leslie: I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, Marsha, as owners of the property adjacent to the Bavarian Lodge. We reside at 831 West Sleeker Street. I have received a notice of the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on the Growth Management Plan application for the Bavarian submitted by Mac Cunningham. I have reviewed the application and discussed it in detail with Mr. Cunningham. Both my wife and I are very supportive of Mr. Cunningham's application. His proposed redevelopment of the Bavarian is a much needed improvement in our neighborhood. The Bavarian is somewhat of an eye sore and its' prominent location on the main entrance to Aspen is deserving of the architectural treatment proposed by Mr. Cunningham. We believe his plans for the Bavarian will substantially upgrade and enhance the aesthetics of our neighborhood. The improvements to the Bavarian will be consistent with the trend in our neighborhood of upgrading which has occurred in recent years. This trend is evidenced by the construction of our home and the improvements and renovations to the Villas Condominiums. Mr. Cunningham's site plan is sensitive to the mature trees on the property and will maintain a mass and bulk consistent with a style reminiscent of small but high quality European hotels. His use of interior open space as a small campus like setting for his visitors will maintain the swimming pool area of the Bavarian and the relatively small scale of its existing buildings. The replacement of some of these older "shacks" will enhance both the experience of the hotel guests and those of us who are residents in this neighborhood. City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 27, 1989 Page 2 We also believe that the community at large will benefit due to the survival of smaller hotels disbursed throughout the community which has been, in the past, one of Aspen's most notable features. Unfortunately, the "glitzy" trend of recent large scale hotel developments has tended to diminish the interest in renovating neighborhood lodges. Mr.- Cunningham should be congratulated for his effort in restoring this ambiance where others would rather demolish neighborhood lodges and replace them with luxury residences. We hope that the Planning Commission will approve Mr. Cunningham's proposal without imposing significant changes on his original design as submitted. Thank you very much for your interest. Very truly yours, cT C- Herbert S. Klein HSK /nwt /2145 • CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMP COMPETITION - LP ZONE DISTRICT Project: The European Inn a.k.a. Bavarian Inn Date: 10/3/89 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to the impact of the proposed development or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development can be handled by the existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. The following public facilities and services shall be rated accordingly. a. WATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the water system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: According to Jim Markalunas, there are adequate facilities to provide water to the proiect. There is an old Ludlow Hydrant that should be replaced on the corner of 7th and Main, the applicant has not volunteered to replace it. b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install and sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. r � _ 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 2 RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The Aspen Sanitation District has indicated that there is sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve the proiect. The applicant will be required to install a grease interceptor between the kitchen and City system. but has not vet agreed to do so. c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires the use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The applicant has proposed to maintain the historic drainage patterns. A 190 cubic foot capacity drywell is necessary as identified by the applicant's engineer. The drywell will only benefit the development. d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection facilities and services according to its established response standards, without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire - fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide those fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The fire marshal has indicated that there is a 2 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 3 four minute response time. A sprinkler system is required throughout the development (existing and proposed) and adequate egress from all units. Improvements are proposed only for the development. e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system, or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5 COMMENTS: The applicant is replacing one of the hazardous curbs cuts along 7th Street with a cut along Bleeker to access the front parking area. An Access Permit is required from the State Highway Department for any curb cuts removed or added. Although this will reduce the current traffic hazard on 7th, the additional parking is proposed along the alley and traffic enter onto 7th from the alley may increase. The development is right on the bus route. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw. 3 . e-a 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 4 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- An excellent design. The following design features shall be rated accordingly. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighborhood development. RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 7.5 COMMENTS: The proposed building has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding buildings, using gabled roofs and similar materials as the existing Inn and the private residence next door- a duplex. The footprint is smaller than the existing Inn and the massing similar to the duplex next door. The new building is detached to break up the massing on site. The garage of the duplex separates the living space from the adiacent LP parcel. b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and character of the proposed development and its improvements to existing landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development, and for snow storage areas. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 4.5 COMMENTS: Pedestrian paths link the two buildings, and the 4 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 5 siting of the new building preserves the open space corridor and vegetation between buildings that also runs through the entire block. However, the development is deficient in required open space by 3 %. The application makes no mention of the potentially historically significant structures, the cabins. We understand that the structures may not be on their original siting thus their potential significance may be diminished. These structures should have been considered within the development's site design. There is also a question whether the trees to be relocated. which provide a substantial buffer from surrounding developments, can be moved and preserved. Many large tress are identified as being relocated but a new location is not identified on the plan. Perhaps a new development could be designed around them. c. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal traffic circulation and parking system for the proposed development or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public view. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 5 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 6 COMMENTS: The curb cuts in front are being improved. The required additional parking is located off the alley and very effectively does not interfere with the internal pedestrian circulation and open space. These parking spaces, however are only 16' long thereby some cars may not fit entirely off of the alley. Again, traffic entering 7th Street from the alley may become hazardous. d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: 3 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 9 COMMENTS: There are no designated viewplanes. The new building takes advantage of its rare location to provide views of Red and Shadow Mountains. The preservation of vegetation and the center open space will maintain the open space corridor down the middle of the block from the north to south. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points). Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the degree to which it includes resource conservation 6 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 7 techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources. 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in a standard level of resource conservation. 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation. a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development uses passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) 1.5 COMMENTS: The insulation values of R -40 exceeds Code. yet according to the Carbondale Energy Center, it is best if the roof reaches R -60. Use of Low -E windows and replacement of inadequate windows and doors will increase the overall energy use. but they may still be missing some conservation opportunities. There is no mention of eliminating excessive lighting. b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures and /or wastewater reuse systems in its design. 7 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 8 RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) 1 COMMENTS: The type of fixtures used should be specified. Although repairs will be made to an "antiquated" system, the application does not provide the "information with which to measure the increase in conservation. c. AIR (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 2): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measure are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (2) 3 COMMENTS: The two woodburning devices will be removed. There is no discussion about treatment of the alley or construction site to mitigate dust. 4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points) Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of points according to the following standard. 0 -- A total lack of guest amenities and services. 1 -- Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of 8 w 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 9 quality and spaciousness. The following amenities shall be considered in this review and rated accordingly. a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE COMMON MEETING AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) 7.5 COMMENTS: A 1,384 square foot bar /lounge and meeting room is proposed in the existing Inn. A lounge /kitchen area is to be provided in the new building. The garden patio will be improved with access to the lounge and meeting rooms. b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE DINING FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 X MULTIPLIER (2) 6 COMMENTS: The 45 seat dining area and kitchen are to be upgraded. The proposed lounge /bar will be added in the existing inn and the lounge /kitchen will accommodate guests in the proposed building. The applicant will need a license /permit to operate the kitchen. 9 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 10 c. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (2) 4 COMMENTS: The pool /spa /patio area is to be linked to the buildings by landscaped pedestrian paths and the interior open space between the buildings will be greatly improved. The area around the small pool and spa are to be improved, however the additional parking spaces seem to abut right next to the pool area (albeit a vegetative buffer is planned). 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City and with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. Points shall be assigned as follows: Zero (0%) to sixty (60%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; One (1) point for each six (6%) percent housed; Sixty -one (61%) percent to one hundred (100%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; one (1) point for each eight (8%) percent housed. If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. Rating: 15 10 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 11 COMMENTS: Three deed restricted to low income units will be provided on -site. The restricted units are only 240 square feet which are considered dorm units and house 1 employee each. In reference to the .2 -2.0 employees /room generation figures for Lodge accommodations of the Housing Guidelines, the applicant is using the .2 calculation for the 12 new rooms, thus 2.4 employees need to be accommodated. The three dorms provide housing for 3 employees. The applicant is providing 100% affordable housing for the employees generated by the additional rooms. 6. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points): Development applications for projects located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only shall be assigned points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. Points shall be assigned as follows. Zero (0 %) to fifty (50 %) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten (10 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. Fifty (50 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each five (5 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 9.4 COMMENTS: The application proposes to rehabilitate /upgrade 72% of the units and demolish and replace 28% of the units (the cabins) with the proposed addition. The applicant is also improving the common space. Because of the potential 11 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 12 historic significance of the cabins, it is staff's opinion that there should be some effort to research and preserve either on site or relocate those cabins that are of historical significance. The conceptual program did not include a discussion regarding the potential historical structures on site. 7. Bonus Points (maximum 5 points). When it is determined that a proposed development has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Secs. 8- 106(G)(1) through (6) but has also exceeded the provision of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, additional bonus points not exceeding five (5 %) percent of the total points awarded under these sections may be made. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: COMMENTS: 12 1989 LP Lodge GMP Score Sheet The European Inn Page 13 THRESHOLD OF MAXIMUM SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: POINTS: 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.5 4.0 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 27 14.4 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION 5.5 3.2 4. AMENITIES FOR GUESTS 17.5 8.4 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 15 9.0 6. REHABILITATION /RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS 9.4 9.0 7. BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 79.9 63.0 Name of P &Z Commission Member: ss.european 13 0 LAW OFFICES OF SEP Q 7 HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (3031 925-8700 TELECOPIER (3031 925 -3977 September 27, 1989 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Leslie Lamont Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Bavarian Lodge GMP Application Dear Leslie: I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, Marsha, as owners of the property adjacent to the Bavarian Lodge. We reside at 831 West Bleeker Street. I have received a notice of the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on the Growth Management Plan application for the Bavarian submitted by Mac Cunningham. I have reviewed the application and discussed it in detail with Mr. Cunningham. Both my wife and I are very supportive of Mr. Cunningham's application. His proposed redevelopment of the Bavarian is a much needed improvement in our neighborhood. The Bavarian is somewhat of an eye sore and its' prominent location on the main entrance to Aspen is deserving of the architectural treatment proposed by Mr. Cunningham. We believe his plans for the Bavarian will substantially upgrade and enhance the aesthetics of our neighborhood. The improvements to the Bavarian will be consistent with the trend in our neighborhood of upgrading which has occurred in recent years. This trend is evidenced by the construction of our home and the improvements and renovations to the Villas Condominiums. Mr. Cunningham's site plan is sensitive to the mature trees on the property and will maintain a mass and bulk consistent with a style reminiscent of small but high quality European hotels. His use of interior open space as a small campus like setting for his visitors will maintain the swimming pool area of the Bavarian and the relatively small scale of its existing buildings. The replacement of some of these older "shacks" will enhance both the experience of the hotel guests and those of us who are residents in this neighborhood. City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 27, 1989 Page 2 We also believe that the community at large will benefit due to the survival of smaller hotels disbursed throughout the community which has been, in the past, one of Aspen's most notable features. Unfortunately, the "glitzy" trend of recent large scale hotel developments has tended to diminish the interest in renovating neighborhood lodges. Mr. Cunningham should be congratulated for his effort in restoring this ambiance where others would rather demolish neighborhood lodges and replace them with luxury residences. We hope that the Planning Commission will approve Mr. Cunningham's proposal without imposing significant changes on his original design as submitted. Thank you very much for your interest. Very truly your, C , Herbert 5. Klein HSK /nwt /2145 Glenn Horn Planning Consultant &J 2 1 August 18, 1989 Leslie Lamont Aspen- Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Leslie, This letter addresses the request for additional information for the European Inn tourist accommodations growth management quota system allotment application. 1. Authorization Letter - Attached for your review is a copy of a letter from Cunningham Investment Co. Inc. authorizing me to act as a representative of the Company. 2. Parking Special Review - The European Inn is not seeking special review approval for a reduction in required parking. Presently, there are six parking space serving the Bavarian Inn. The application proposes an additional 13 parking spaces to accommodate the additional 12 tourist accommodation units. The application satisfies the LP zone district requirement of one space per bedroom. All of the incremental parking impacts created by the additional development will be mitigated. 3. Floor Area Special Review - Within the LP zone, external floor area is established by special review provided that the floor area ratio is less than 1:1. Section 7 -404 of the Code establishes the following review criteria. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. 300 East Hyman Avenue, Suite B • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303- 925 -6587 The project team has spent a considerable amount of time and effort analyzing the design characteristics of the original Bavarian Inn located to the east of the proposed new building and the characteristics of the Klein duplex located to the west. Through the use of similar elevation profiles, building materials, and massing, the applicant has created a compatible and complimentary design to the other structures on the block. Specifically, the new building has a smaller footprint, the same width and height, less length and a more compact massing than the Existing Bavarian Inn. Compared to the neighboring Klein duplex; the new building is the same height, comparable in streetscape massing and incorporates similar residential gables and balconies as the Klein duplex. Herb Klein has reviewed the plan and we anticipate Herb to write a letter expressing his support for the proposed site plan. Materials in the new building shall be stucco, wood and glass of similar feel and design to the neighboring Bavarian Inn and Klein residence. The new building is of similar or smaller scale to the aforementioned existing structures and all structures on the south side of the block have effectively the same roof heights. As illustrated in Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan, the new building is sited on the westerly portion of the unimproved lots. Covering only 37 per cent of the westerly unimproved lots, this new building focuses upon the heavily landscaped courtyard area which provides a central access to both the new and old lodge buildings. This central courtyard area is designed to function as the primary pedestrian access to all uses including; parking, guest drop off points, pool, spa, outside seating areas meeting rooms, restaurant and as the principal entry to both new and existing lodge buildings and will also be utilized as an adequate snow storage area. The existing extensive vegetation will be greatly enhanced with additional evergreen and deciduous trees, plants and planter beds. Lighted pathways access the amenities and building structures including the below grade guest room patios, meeting room patio and alley parking. All new parking for the site has been located off the alley with a planted buffer between the parking lot and the courtyard to reduce the visual impact of a parking lot on the surrounding area. The overall purpose of the central courtyard design is to create a campus like environment for guests of the European Inn. The courtyard creates a transitional buffer between the new and original buildings and provides a landscaped central access to the buildings, guest amenities. 4. GMQS Exemption Criteria For Affordable Housing - The applicant request a GMQS exemption to provide three low- income lodge affordable units. Section 8 -104 C. establishes criteria for a affordable housing GMQS exemption. All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the ren- tal /sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. The Housing Authority has documented a major community shortfall of low- income affordable housing. The European Inn is proposing to address this need. The proposed lodge units will each be approximately 240 square feet in size. The units are anticipated to be used by employees of the European Inn. The applicant's affordable housing commitment exceeds Code standards. 5. Clarification of Tables - I will be happy to meet with you at your request to discuss the tables. Please contact me when you are ready. 6. Referral Fees - Enclosed is a check for $170.00 for referral fees. This letter addresses all the application deficiencies noted in your correspondence. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the application. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. incere y, Glenn Horn AICP 81889.LL V.. CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT Co,. INC. St I ]01 111 SUl)I H GAI Rt.! I ASI I (4)1 ( )HAITI) HI(I1 li0 %I V2i -NH0% August 1, 1989 Mr. Glenn Horn Planning Consultant 300 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The European Inn GMQS Submission Dear Glenn: This letter hereby authorizes you to prepare and submit documents relative to The European Inn GMQS submission for the property currently known as The Bavarian Inn, located at 7th and Bleeker Streets here in Aspen. We believe that this authorization should satisfy the needs of the City relative to your acting on our behalf on The European Inn GMQS submission. Sincerely, I. CA Cunningham, P= ident Cunningham Investmen o., Inc. IMC /pjo cc: Richard A. Knezevich COlOBI ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 August 9, 1989 Glenn Horn 300 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: The European Inn Dear Glenn, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application is complete, however, additional information is needed. Please submit the following within 10 days: 1. A letter from Cunningham Investment, Inc. authorizing you to submit an application on their behalf. 2. Please address the Special Review criteria for Parking and FAR and the GMQS Exemption criteria. 3. Please contact Leslie Lamont about clarification of some of the charts. 4. Please submit a referral fee of $50. for Environmental Health and an additional $120. for Engineering for a total of $170.00. We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on October 3, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal Roaring Fork Energy Center State Highway Department Roaring Fork Transit Agency FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: The European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption & Special Review DATE: August 9, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Cunningham Investments, Inc. requesting Lodge GMQS allotments, etc. Please review this material and return your comments no later than September 20, 1989. Thank you. MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: October 30, 1989 RE: European Inn Lodge GMQS Addendum The applicant will be required to construct a sidewalk according to Engineering Department specifications in the public right of way on 7th St. adjacent this development. jg /Eurol cc: Bob Gish Chuck Roth MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal Roaring Fork Energy Center State Highway Department Roaring Fork Transit Agency FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: The European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption & Special Review DATE: August 9, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Cunningham Investments, Inc. requesting Lodge GMQS allotments, etc. Please review this material and return your comments no later than September 20, 1989. Thank you. — ... August 31, 1989 W The Colorado Department of Highways offers the following comments: n Access Permit is required. The proposed access on Bleeker Street should be moved as far west as possible as it may be a safety problem as proposed. Direct questions to Charles Dunn, 248 -7232. 0 fl") (I-' ,-/ r4 r ; r'r r V SE I Kopf FXopf Electrical Eng Utility, Industrial, and Commercial Electrical Systems Designed 941 County Road 129 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) - 945-5576 September 6, 1989 Mr. Cunningham Cunningham Investment Company, Inc. 121 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: European Inn - Electrical Service Dear Mr. Cunningham, We are consulting engineers to the City of Aspen Electric Utility Department. At the request Mr. Don Gilbert, Superintendent, we have investigated providing electric power to the European Inn located at Seventh and Bleeker Streets, Aspen, Colorado. The City Electric Departments existing transformer located just across the alley south of the proposed new structure will be charged out to a larger unit. 120/240 volt, single phase, 3 wire electricity will be provided at this location. Your electrical contractor will construct an underground service from this location to the new structures in accordance with the current National Electrical Code. Sincerely, Kopf and Kopf El�ri a En . neering Clemons M. Kopf, Princ pal cc: Don Gilbert to- ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 4 fr3)963 - 0311 September 14, 1989 TO: Leslie Lamont - Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford - Director RE: Review Comments on the European Inn Lodge GMQS Insulation: The stated insulation levels for the walls and roof exceeds code and is adequate. We would like to see a project go beyond R -40 for the roof and approach R -60, if possible. There is no mention of floor, slab, pipe and duct insulation levels which should be addressed. Glazing: The use of Low -E windows will help reduce heat loss thru one of the weakest parts of the building envelope. We do not understand why the project limits their use to areas that are "within six feet of the floor ". The applicant should also look at other types of window units such as the ones using utilizing argon gas. It is appropriate to replace the single "pain" (a good typo) windows and "antiquated door systems" to further reduce heat loss. Replacing the uninsulated cabin /tourist units will greatly benefit the overall energy use of the Lodge. Water Conservation: The amount of water used by showerheads, faucet aerators and toilets should be specified, as in other projects (e.g., 2.5 gpm, 2.5 gpm, and 2.5 g respectively). Insulating the plumbing to R -3.7 to R -6 levels is another good idea to save energy. Utilizing high- efficiency water heaters will also help. Air Quality: Removing the two woodburning devices in the cabins and not including any new devices in the new building will help conserve a natural resource while helping to clean the air. Lighting: There is no mention of using compact fluorescent lightbulbs or eliminating excessive lighting. Summary: There is a clear intent of providing an energy - efficient project. But, there is a lack of detail so that evaluating the overall energy use is very difficult. They need to put more thought into these components or they will miss some significant opportunities to save energy and help conserve natural resources. ti ' y CITY ,,1'.. r,. PEN 11 130 - :' reet asp. r z. 611 I 1 July 31, 1989 Mr. Mac Cunningham 121 S. Galena, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Bavarian Inn Dear Mac, This letter is to notify you that there is sufficient capacity to provide water to the Bavarian Inn's 10 - 12 new rooms. Water will be supplied upon application and payment of the prerequisite tap fees. incer *Q�/ im Markalunas, Director spen Water Dept. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal Roaring Fork Energy Center State Highway Department Roaring Fork Transit Agency —F°et Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: The European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption & Special Review DATE: August 9, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Cunningham Investments, Inc. requesting Lodge GMQS allotments, etc. Please review this material and return your comments no later than September 20, 1989. Thank you. QQ Q,"¢/ 44 a cs DIMS / ...„." Q * I-ill - ifratai C I Nib 11-- icit IP , 1 1/4 ),zi. atyt--e---a-- ..,, . „t6 I ge , . ' 0,A) e-<- ,g-e- l etAi v ‘ AA) C 0 / A- /) M 1 7' CC° sAli c - _ WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -2690 TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark RE: The European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption and Special Review DATE: August 14, 1989 We have reviewed the application from Cunningham Investments. The site is within a four minute response time from the Fire Department. The project will require the installation of an automatic sprinkler system in all structures. An adequate means of egress from all units must be addressed in the renovation. r 4_I' b W p LL/ Oi Pratt WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -2690 TO: Leslie Lamont FROM: Wayne Vandemark3 RE: European Inn, 801 W. Sleeker DATE: September 14, 1989 This project is within a four minute response time from the Fire Department. Fire protection can be provided without any degree of difficulty. There is ample water supply in the area to provide the required fire flow. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Di stlrict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Tele. (303) 925 -2537 September 11, 1989 Leslie Lamont Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 pz: European Inn Lodge GMQ Dear Leslie: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project at this time. District regulations require the applicant to install a District approved grease interceptor between the building containing the kitchen facilities and the District collection system tap. All connection fees must be paid prior to the connection of the improvements to the District system. The applicant will also need to take out a tap permit through the District office, which will estimate the total connection fees due. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District manager cc Glen Horn Planning Consultant 300 East Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 t/ A., MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rick Bossinghavironmental Health Department Date: September 21, 1989 Re: European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption and Special Review The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above - mentioned land use submittal under the authority of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, section 6- 201.B.3, for the following concerns: SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The project is served with public sewer. This conforms with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: This project is served by the City of Aspen water system which is in conformance with policies of this department. AIR QUALITY: The Applicant notes that existing woodburning devices will be removed leaving none in the project. This is beyond what regulations require and is desirable for air quality. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: The kitchen design must comply with the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in Colorado" and will be licensed as a food service establishment. Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchase, the operator must submit plans and specs to this office. '` p �in�� P.O. Box 2155 SCHMUESER GORL�AEYER INC. /.�aa*' Aspen, Colorado 81612 a. ,.ono Oar Min ' (303) 925 -6727 August 28, 1989 Suu►=4 ell I/ Sn l CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/ Mr. Glenn Horn Planning Consultant 300 East Hyman Avenue, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Drainage Report for the European Inn G4GS Submission Dear Glenn: At the request of Ted Mularz, I am providing this letter report regard- ing drainage needs for the European Inn CGS submission. The European Inn is to be located on a portion of the property now known as Bavarian Lodge on Block 12, Original Aspen Townsite. The property is bounded on the north by Sleeker Street and on the east by North Seventh Street/ Highway 82. I have reviewed the proposed site plan as it relates to existing site improvements and have calculated on -site detention requirements suffic- ient to comply with Aspen Municipal Code section 20- 17(f). In short, the European Inn will replace several existing small cabins with a single lodge structure. The proposal will add sidewalk and patio area as well as paved parking along the alley frontage. The existing pool, which may add some artificial groundwater recharge, will be unchanged and I have therefore ignored it for purposes of this report. I have also generally ignored the east half of the parcel for drainage calcu- lation purposes as it is too will be unchanged. On -site drainage requirements can be met via installation of a drywell with a capacity of 190 cubic feet. This drywell could be located in any of several courtyard landscape areas and should offer access capa- bility via a manhole cover or surface grate (for cleaning and mainten- ance) and should have a daylighted overflow routed away from any struc- tures. Roof and area drains for patios or pool areas should be routed to the drywell. The capacity requirements are met by two sections of 6 -foot diameter perforated concrete pipe, each four feet long. The drywell should be bedded in minimum 1 -1/2" washed rock. I hope you will find this sufficient for GIP application purposes. Please feel free to contact me with questions or if we may provide detail design assistance. Respectfully submitted, SCBMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. qu a, y W. Hammond, P.E. Principal - Aspen Office 3WH:lec /9182 cc: Mr. Ted Mularz Mr. Mac Cunningham 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945 -1004 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal Roaring Fork Energy Center State Highway Department Roaring Fork Transit Agency .. -i Leslie Lamont, Planning office RE: The European Inn Lodge GMQS, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption & Special Review DATE: August 9, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Cunningham Investments, Inc. requesting Lodge GMQS allotments, etc. Please review this material and return your comments no later than September 20, 1989. Thank you. 6-2.----' 4 a,3,cs udiee efr a) e P A t tS1-.49-1‘. e ff i l j t a o re PM) ■ Di j . Nib we- // , 0 1 --frArlav340,,,,a_ k I VA c--< ,gre- A -v /v1 I P4 V" / C\\--° • 1 •ri+ ..n Zl • ' / / ii , I • � - �.? S \ _ NZ • i � ` -�. , •-. . . • : , „..--..:_, .•.:„_____...,„: 2 * U E uOi „... -, 0 _ -:-.. -._:.---.---. \1.... co.) , .•.:_._____ ___ ... 1 ,' .i. ___ ■ 6 CO 1' I I \! J _ Jull CA 7 . =_j • .c.1:1- AA • I1 , �..'. ail ,L1 I1I1 2 ,. , /..._ ...._ ,, ,i____ , • . 1 ,,....,..... . .„...._...--1, : ....= 1 ;i Li, .,..„... _.. 1,1. ,___,.._,-- III ::.. ...-my 1 , 1 :‘,, ;, ` �I 1 ' , - -'j • ��' : ,..0••'.' _ 0. 1 1 1 EUROPEAN INN M TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM APPLICATION 1 Prepared for Cunningham Investment Co.Inc. ^° 121 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -8803 r Prepared by Glenn Horn Planning Consultant ✓ 300 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -6587 and Roger Kerr and Associates au Ted L. Mularz and Associates Architects ✓ (303) 925 -8289 r (303) 925 -3365 c TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION 1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 A. Existing Conditions 3 B. Proposed Upgrading 10 Exterior Improvements to Inn 11 Improvement to Common Areas 11 Improvements to Rooms 12 C. Proposed Addition 13 D. Development Data 14 ^° E. Water System 2 F. Sewage System 2 G. Drainage 22 H. Fire Protection 22 I. Traffic and Parking 23 .. J. Affordable Housing 2 K. Woodburning Devices 24 L. Proximity to Public Facilities 25 • M. Proximity to Retail Outlets 25 • N. Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses 25 .. O. Construction Schedule 26 ' P. Site Utilization Maps 26 1 • c TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page II. LAND USE REVIEWS 33 A. Tourist Accommodations GMQS Standards 33 1. Availability of Public Facilities 33 ., A. Water 33 B. Sanitary Sewer 33 C. Storm Drainage 34 D. Fire Protection 34 E. Roads 34 2. Quality of Design 35 A. Architectural Design 35 B. Site Design 36 C. Parking and Traffic Circulation 37 D. Visual Impact 3 �. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques 38 A. Energy 38 B. Water and Wastewater 39 C. Air 40 4. Amenities Provided for Guests 40 A. Availability of or Improvements to on -site Common Meeting Areas 40 B. Availability of or Improvements to on -site Dining Facilities 41 C. Availability of or Improvements to 41 on -site Accessory Recreational Facilities TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 5. Provision of Affordable Housing 42 6. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of 43 Existing Units B. Amendment to the Text of Land Use Code 46 III. APPENDIX 48 1. Proof of Ownership 48 2. July 28,1989 Letter from Erwin Knirberger Authorizing Application 52 w an .• r, AIM LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Bavarian Inn: Description of Existing +� Improvements 7 2. European Inn: Description of Proposed Improvements 16 3. European Inn: Development Data 21 ew LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Figure 1 : Site Vicinity Map 2 .. 2. Figure 2 : Existing Site Plan 5 3. Figure 3 : Proposed Site Plan 15 4. Figure 4 : East Elevation 17 5. Figure 5 : North and South Elevation 18 6. Figure 6 : West Elevation 19 7. Figure 7 : Main Floor Plan 29 8. Figure 8 : upper Floor Plan 30 9. Figure 9 : Lower Floor Plan 31 10. Figure 10: Roof Plan 32 11. Figure 11: Existing Lower Floor Plan 8 12. Figure 12: Existing Upper Floor Plan 9 c INTRODUCTION Cunningham Investment Co. Inc. requests land use approval from the City of Aspen to upgrade the Bavarian Inn and construct a net addition of 12 tourist accommodation units. The Bavarian Inn is located on a 18,000 square foot lot at 801 Sleeker Street, more specifically described as lots d,e,f,g,h and i Block 12 City of Aspen, original townsite (refer to Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map). The Inn contains 18 traditional lodge rooms, seven lodge /cabins and one five -room manager's apartment. The following land use approvals are requested: * Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemption for construction of three affordable housing lodge dwelling units to be restricted to the low income and occupancy guidelines (Section 8 -104 D.[1] [c]); A GMQS allotment for 12 new tourist accommodation units to be located in the LP (Lodge Preservation) zone district (8 -103 A. [1] [a]); and • * Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code (Section 7 -11). The application is divided into the following three sections: .r I. Project Description; II. Land Use Reviews; and III. Appendix. The applicant has attempted to prepare a complete land use application addressing all relevant City review standards. In the event further information or clarification is necessary, the applicant will be pleased to accommodate the staff as required. 1 X/ V feat IF\ giS T , . • .._ 0.t P "IWII41614114 I a / NO'� Y� ... - y , � t1 �� S�BET ❑ lir - a a� - o / -' �� v%! _ ' N «AQiD p Q 4 � , , ., 11 S CP�� k � C� w C I / / ' Riczza,„,,,, \,\ it ,, # II / // \ I ..• - -: -_-- . - c ... -. . • . - - - N % ) . • TAO. NO. SITE VICINITY MAP AIRCCIBIIIflCTS .1 I B U I R O I P I R A H II 1J H theodore 1. mnlarz + associate 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kern + associate 1 U3.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 828! r 4.. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section of the application describes the existing conditions of the Bavarian Inn and proposed upgrading and addition. The facility will be renamed the European Inn. A. Existing Conditions ' The Bavarian Inn is one of several remaining small, family operated lodges in the City of Aspen. The Inn was built in three phases over the last 25 years by Erwin Knirberger the operator • since it's inception. The original portion of the Inn was constructed in 1965, with the first and second additions to the original lodge being constructed in the 1970's. During the 1960's and early 1970's the lodge cabins to the west of the facility were constructed and subsequently renovated to be part of the lodging facility. Unlike many of the small tourist accommodation facilities in the LP zone district, the Bavarian Inn has not been renovated. Erwin Knirberger, who is in his 70's, has decided to sell the Inn to the applicant and retire rather than taking on a renovation project at this point in his life. Proposed is a major upgrading of the existing facility and a net addition of 12 tourist accommodation units on the three lots to the west, which are currently occupied by several substandard cabins. The Bavarian Inn has a prominent location at the entrance to Aspen. It is the first tourist accommodation facility encountered 3 r ig s when someone enters the City of Aspen from the west. As shown on Figure 2, Existing Site Plan ,the original building, located on " lots g, h and i is a highway oriented facility fronting on Seventh Street. The existing seven tourist accommodation /cabin units, a patio, pool and spa, are located to the west on the remaining lots d, e and f oriented toward Bleeker street and the surrounding permanent residential neighborhood (refer to Figure 2). The west lots are protected from the heavy traffic on Seventh Street by the main building to the east. w As noted on table 1 and Figures 11 and 12, the original building contains a total of 18 tourist accommodation units, a two- story managers apartment and accessory spaces. The original wing of the original building contains three tourist accommodation units on the first floor and four on the second floor. A guest bar /lounge and storage spaces are located in the basement of the original wing. The first addition to the original lodge building contains laundry and storage in the basement, a 45 seat dining room, kitchen, and reception office areas on the first floor. The second floor houses three tourist accommodation units, and the first floor o- of the manager's apartment. The first addition loft contains two loft rooms of the managers apartment (managers apartment loft). The second addition to the original lodge contains three tourist accommodation units on the first floor, three on the second floor and two tourist accommodation units in a loft. A large, unfinished space is located in the basement /garden level, adjacent 4 l '1) II 11 I 1 2 .. ti I w- . L 1 0 4. u 0 l`" ,W 4111 : 4 was 1 , ... . f ......., .. IN - esm _ ____...,- me, 7 _ •/ , v, f , k ... ‘ , , ,... - , ,...., .... a __ v en . ji v I ra - a ..• 0 r _ , r---7:1i77-1-7 „.. , \', 1 \ „ Il i. Nei - . 1-- j mo - "^o.NO. EXISTING SITE PLAN A RtCIHIEnCT0 W.A 3 I Ia ®IP E A jJ R NI �I theodore 1. mnlarz + associates �, 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n . kerr + associates 7.J10.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 to the sub -grade bar /lounge. This space is presently used as Erwin's workshop and as a mechanical space. Erwin Knirberger built the Bavarian Inn himself over the past 25 years. Like many self built structures, the Bavarian Inn is characterized by many unfinished areas which Erwin never had the time or energy to complete. The original building and first and second additions of the Inn appear to be structurally sound, however, there is evidence of water damage from a leaking metal roof. The exterior of the building is composed of yellow /brown stucco with intermittent exposed stone complimented by an unappealing dark brown wood trim. Exterior common areas and walkways are sided with rough, dark, .. discolored wood finish. Exterior entry doors are painted in a weathered yellow /brown color. The patio area, pool and spa appear to be in moderately good condition. The existing reception area located in the first addition is worn out and due to poor configuration conflicts with the dining room. The 45 seat dining area,located adjacent to the kitchen, is in fair condition, but needs to be redecorated. The kitchen facilities are nearing the end of their useful economic life. The laundry facilities are inoperable. For the past several years Erwin has contracted for off -site linen and towel laundering. The bar /lounge, located adjacent to the laundry in the basement of the original building, is run down and characterized by 1960's decor. Limited natural light and ventilation is provided by small window wells. Adjacent to the bar /lounge is the unfinished 6 y Table 1 •• BAVARIAN INN: DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS* Non- Tourist Unit # Tourist Wing /Floor /Cabins Improvements Accommodation Units Original building W Basement bar /lounge /storage 0 First ski storage /maids room S� Second ski storage 4 First Addition Basement laundry /storage 0 First kitchen /dining room /office 0 reception /kitchenette Second ** 5 -room managers apt. 3 Loft ** 5 -room managers apt. 0 Second Addition Basement /garden unfinished space /workshop/ 0 level mechanical First none 3 Second none 3 Loft none 2 Cabins pool /spa /patio /storage shed Total Tourist Accommodation Units 25 * Description of existing improvements based upon site inspection and discussions with present owner, Erwin Knirberger. ** The manager's apartment is a two story apartment located on the second floor and first addition loft. * ** Refer to Figures 11 and 12 for sketches of Existing Lower and Upper Level Floor Plans. Source: Glenn Horn, Planning Consultant, July 1989 7 .. ; .Az tr i N ° i+fip. z+lim ,y„ae Ada/ a 47 � I - IIII111111III 1 1 J ;A ierjuitac HM pdagagg f , G. NO. EXISTING LOWER FL. PLAN AIRCHTT3CITS 1 III 13 ilk ® IP 13 A 1F II 1kTir theodore 1. mularz + associates 801 W. S L E E K E R STREET roger a. l err + associates ',Va.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 c T`\ `" 4 M Zi 4;44. Lie fdringo L. I 1111 • Hon El - L .5-mcon fit rent 044_, - .G.NO. EXISTING UPPER FL. PLAN flCCIfiIIIThC fl 1 1� U 1 2 . ®1P1� A S 1� II H N theodore 1. mnlarz + associate: 801 W. S L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associate rruc.1989 .ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 828! garden /level of the second addition. The garden level patio is unfinished concrete and earth with no landscaping. The tourist accommodation units located in the original building and first and second additions are in good repair, but y are furnished and carpeted with outdated and dull decor. The bathrooms are in good condition. The rustic cabins, located on the west side of the property, are not insulated and the chinking is need of repair. The exteriors of some of the cabins have been stuccoed and there is evidence of many areas where stuccoing was initiated but not completed. The cabins contain a total of two woodburning devices. The interior of the cabins are finished in rough pine. Appliances, flooring /carpeting and bathrooms are heavily weathered and in poor condition. The furnishings and fixtures have not been replaced or upgraded in years. Generally, the cabins are sub - standard and unfit for tourist accommodations. B. Proposed Upgrading This section describes plans for the upgrading to the European Inn as well as the operational plan. The applicant intends to create an inn replicating the style of a European Relais /Auberge as found in Switzerland and France. There will be resident management providing hospitality and dining for guests similar to that provided in European inns. Immediate improvements are proposed to the facility prior to the demolition of the cabins and addition of 12 new tourist accommodation units. The first task will be to complete many of 10 Erwin's unfinished projects. Immediate improvements are anticipated to be completed prior to December of 1989. The applicant is seeking to operate a moderately priced facility offering rooms for $ 65.00 to $ 85.00 in the summer and $ 85.00 to $100.00 during the skiing .. season. These rates are substantially less than many of the rates in recently renovated LP lodges and are consistent with the City of Aspen's objective of maintaining moderately priced short -term accommodations. Exterior Improvements to Inn. The following immediate improvements are proposed to the exterior of the original building, first and second additions and landscaped areas: 1. Replacement and /or repair of the original building and first and second addition roofs with the addition of loft dormers; 2. Painting of all exterior wood surfaces including vertical siding, windows, railings, doors and restuccoing or painting of the exterior stucco; 3. Replacement of all signs with signs consistent with the existing City of Aspen sign regulations; 4. Completion of the garden level patio accessible to the meeting rooms to be located in the unfinished space presently utilized as Erwin's workshop (refer to figure 3). 5. Reconfiguration of east parking area to improve safety on Seventh Street; and M 6. Upgrading of present deteriorated lawn and landscaped areas. Improvements to Common Areas. The following immediate improvements are proposed to the common areas inside and outside of the original building and first and second additions: 1. Reconfiguration, renovation and completion of the entire basement and garden level to accommodate: 11 * A working laundry facility; * Bar /lounge for 50 -60 guests of the Inn in approximately 960 square feet of space; * Meeting room for 40 -45 people adjacent to the lounge and accessible via sliding glass doors to the garden level patio in approximately 640 square feet of space; and * Improved lighting and ventilation of the entire sub -grade space. 2. Reconfiguration, renovation and refurnishing of the existing office /reception area and 45 seat (1,683 square foot) dining room kitchen to create a high quality experience for guests. 3. Renovation and restoration of the stairs /hallways and interior common areas including installation of certain skylights, replacement of all carpet, repainting throughout, replacement of light fixtures to a standard more in keeping with the quality of new City of Aspen lodging facilities (approximately 1,269 square feet of space). 4. Renovation of the spa and pool areas including new landscaping and lighting. Improvements to Rooms. The following immediate improvements are proposed to the rooms in original building and first and second additions: 1. Replacement of carpet and light fixtures. 2. Refurnishing with European style antique pine furnishings and fabrics. 3. Replacement of existing doors and certain windows with high quality doors and windows; 4. Upgrading of all bathrooms; 5. Reconfiguration of the second floor and loft of the first addition to: * Orient the manager's apartment toward Seventh street; 12 * Orient the tourist accommodation units toward Shadow Mountain and the open space to the west of the building; and * Complete the partially finished loft area of the second addition. C. Proposed Addition Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan, depicts the location of a new building housing 22 tourist accommodation units proposed for the west side of the site. As summarized in Table 2, European Inn: Description of Proposed Improvements, seven cabin tourist accommodation units will be removed and replaced in the new building. Three tourist accommodation units located on the first floor of the original building will be converted to low income affordable housing units subject to a GMQS exemption (pursuant top Section 8 -104 C.[1] [c]). The three credits for the existing tourist accommodation units will be transferred to the new building. An additional allotment for 12 tourist accommodation units is requested for the new building. Presently, the Bavarian Inn is a highway oriented facility. The site plan seeks to re- orient the tourist accommodation rooms in the original building and first and second additions and design the new building facing toward the open space court yard separating the buildings (refer to Figure 3). The focal point of the court yard will be the pool, spa and patio which are surrounded by mature landscaping. The new building will be buffered from the heavy traffic on Seventh street by the open space and the existing lodge 13 c building. The parking for the project will be accessed from the alley to the south. The entry to the facility will be from the parking area into the central courtyard. The new structure has been located to take advantage of spectacular views of Aspen, Shadow and Red Mountains, Aspen Highlands, Willow Basin and the Maroon Bells (refer to Figures 4,5,and 6 for elevation drawings). The entry to the building will be through the central court yard linked to the pool and existing building by lighted and landscaped walkways. roowill have patios and balconies fronting on the open space area. The new building's design has been influenced by the residential character of the properties located to the south and east. The project architects have designed building massing and rooflines to compliment adjacent residential buildings. The south, rear yard setback has also been increased to a distance of 18 feet in order to preserve the views from the adjacent duplex. D. Development Data Table 3, European Inn Proposed Development Data, summarizes pertinent development data for the subject site. The data indicate the Inn will contain 16,414 square feet of floor area which is less than the City's external floor area ratio (FAR) 1:1. Approximately 10,370 square feet of floor area will be devoted to tourist unit rental space. This exceeds the internal FAR standard. However, consistent with the Code, 33 per cent or 721 square feet of the additional space will be devoted to low- income affordable housing (2,164 square feet of space in excess of .5:1) 14 2 v))1s4e,A. : ANN �< B f.] i ■ 11111111 , 1 pe 1 'kip r-- -� il' lets, .441 • I 44 4 4,7 r lef A \ . 40110 41114r t y t ' is ■ � . �. J (L 4°11E rte, co �� , Mai 11111 ; Tzet:/ bellP6 3 A2ti) .r rlflIl:Ell;Ilill - I s N1/4. • 1 - . `• • • o - •i :•� I 'III% \' t ;).i;. , r t ... -still rlitir Y i► e:Wi S n r w G. No. PROPOSED SITE PLAN AIR C HIIIIT3 ( T 0 3 I U IZ ®I I 11 ]f ]J theodore 1. =Jars + associate: 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. ken + associate: [ 1( 1989 ASPEN_ COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 828S 1 1 1 I .- ii: 1 P I . Pk', \ l 1 '`= ut�N , !' , , __....„ 1 ' 1 i 1.,, :-...,i0:,•-::.i.:.:11 I milimm____, ,,.,,,..,. 1 Win, , ., - • , : •, .., ... u : .1 tt. 1. ... i_._:,: ___ , \ , g ,-.. • i nso li k ui . :., i . 1 lu j • .1 , i� L I . _ _-; - I`�,_ a`4. __.— I 1 1 • 1 4 • TG. NO. EAST ELEVATION ARO:E N CT 4 I E U I R ®FLD 3 AM I( 1 J H theodore 1. mularz + associate " 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kern + associate 1� G.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 828 Table 2 EUROPEAN INN: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS* Non - Tourist Unit # Tourist Wing /Floor Improvements Accommodation Units II Original building 1 Basement bar /lounge /storage 0 First maids /linen /3 low income affordable 0 I I lodge units /ski storage Second ski storage 4 I I First Addition Basement laundry /storage /mechanical 0 First kitchen /dining room /office /reception 0 I I Second ** manager's apartment 3 Loft ** This space may be split between managers I I apartment and tourist accommodations living space Second Addition 1/ Basement /garden Bar /Lounge /meeting rooms/ 0 workshop /mechanical II First ski storage 3 Second ski storage 3 I I Loft storage 2 New Building r 6 Lower ski storage /laundry /lounge /kitchen /maids 6 I I First vestibule lounge 8 Second vestibule lounge 8 11 Total Tourist Accommodation Units 37 * Refer to Figures 7, 8 and 9 for floor plans for new building. I Source: Glenn Horn, Planning Consultant, July 1989 I/ 16 II Oq P ' jrce � � 11 f — �= , w iu\ :' , I lit) I . 1 i 1� a 111 1 1u, ,i ' '! n I . : 1 1 I C Ilia fIt IC _�l I I��� �triliki. ti o _ lit 1 1 I[ AM _ et 1 i - • tenuous 1 11111 1 1 ! I ! G ; % M t i __ ____. ___ - - - --- 1 I 1 ni z 4 / , 10 ,‹ i ._, 1 -• I -4 4 1- a -,41/4/,, v ., , .c \pe, _ I „r '■> r'' Alb 4 \44- � ; iiJ■froP- ..... ---, , - A . 1 , - ,.. h.........: - .� / . . I , 1 ,.� : < ° iaali� ■ 1 6/1 ■ ICI I;; ; � � ;I . i1����101�1 , WI LIi - - r.; i „' --.'3;f?'; A) l I�� i�l� 11111 l i_IlI1,1;!� 111 ∎ il ... iml m l il u�,� ■ - � _ _- I; j , — - - � � 1 - 4 1 - -... M "4 1 1 tG.NO. NO. & SO. ELEVATIONS AncrEIIloIhCTO 5 ® ]P 3 AM j[ j�(H theodore 1. mularz + associate 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET. roger n. kerr + associate liili 19R9 ASPEN. COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 828 1 c, 1 I , 1 ,i, ." ,� _ 111 .�.� ii I ''- — tiL:, NI* wil , ``I 1 ,1 I C ; • 1 II r ra I ------) 1 E I ,-,,, ill 1 1 NOV 1 '-\ I i 1 a I - - u 1 t .3-- c i.. y 1 \ I -, i 1 �� 1 A 1 I, i ll WI 1 I _ _ i l'i I 1 1 i • , L r o.No. WEST ELEVATION AIRCIHIII�PI�C� I i. 6 III VII a ®]P 1E1 A H 11 1J 1J theodore 1. mnlarz + associates i . 801 W.BLEEKER STREET rogern.kerr + associates 1 va1989 ASPEN. COLORADO asp en, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 The European Inn will provide 13 new parking spaces to mitigate the impacts of the 12 new tourist accommodation units. The applicant is able to provide one parking space for the three low- income affordable housing lodge rooms and requests a special review approval for this proposal. When considering the original and new buildings together, the European Inn fails to meet the open space requirement of 35 per cent. The entire site plan provides for 5,760 square feet of open space or 32 per cent of the total site area. However, the new building meets all requirements when considered individually. The applicant is proposing a code amendment to establish open space in the LP zone by special review. In the alternative, the staff may wish to recommend to the City Council that the subject site be designated PUD so the open space standard may be varied. An applicant may not request PUD designation for a site less than 27,000 square feet in size. E. Water System Section 8 -106 B.2.(a) - "How the proposed development shall be connected to the public water system, including information on main size and pressure; the excess capacity available in the public water system; the location of the nearest main; and the estimated water demand of the proposed development.“ The City Water Department has indicated to the applicant that the City is capable of providing acceptable water service to the European Inn. 20 r^ -' Table 3 EUROPEAN INN DEVELOPMENT DATA Category New Building Original Building Total - Parcel Size 9,000 sq.ft. 9,000 sq.ft. 18,000 sq.ft Setbacks front 10 ft. 10.4 ft. NA side 5 ft. 7.1 ft. NA rear 18 ft. 6.2 ft. NA Height 25 ft 25 + / -ft. NA Parking 13 spaces 6 spaces 19 spaces Open space 3,150 sq.ft. 2,610 sq.ft. 5,760 sq.ft. 35% 29% \ 32% Tourist units 22 15 37 - External floor 7,677 sq.ft. 8,737 sq.ft. 16,414 sq.ft. area* <9,000 sq.ft. <9,000 sq.ft. <18,000 sq.ft .2-- Internal floor 5,915 sq.ft. 4,455 sq.ft. 10,370 sq.ft. area ** <6,750 sq.ft. <6,750 sq.ft. <13,500 sq.ft. Internal floor 1,762 sq.ft. 4,282 sq.ft. 6,044 sq.ft. area * ** >1,919 sq.ft. >2,184 sq.ft. >4,103 sq.ft. Other floor 487 sq.ft. 675 sq.ft. 1,163 sq.ft. area * * ** * City standard appears in bold. ** City standard for lodge rental space appears in bold. The European Inn contains less lodge rental space than the standard of 13,500 square feet. * ** City standard for non -unit space appears in bold. The European Inn contains more non -unit space than the standard of 4,103 square feet. * * ** Other floor area including balconies and roof projections exceeding 3 feet. Source: Roger Kerr and Associates, July 1989 21 F. Sewage System Section 8 -106 B.2.(b) - °How the proposed development shall be connected to the public sewage treatment system; the excess capacity available in the public sewage treatment system; the nearest location to the building site of a trunk or connecting sewer line; and the expected sewage treatment demand of the proposed development." Tom Bracewll, Line Supervisor, for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, has indicated the development can be served by the closest District line located in the alley between Main and Sleeker Streets. There is sufficient treatment capacity available to service the proposed development. G. Drainage Section 8 -106 B.2.(c) - °The type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff waters from the proposed development, and the effect of the development on historic drainage patterns.” The applicant commits to maintain the historic drainage pattern on the site. An engineer has been retained by the applicant and is in the process of completing a drainage p} for 1' �c (LfU,' the site. The plan will be submitted upon receipt. t)�190 H. Fire Protection 1 Section 8 -106 B.2.(c) - u The type of fire protection systems to be used, (such as hydrants, sprinklers, wet standpipes, etc.); and the distance to the nearest fire station and its average 22 response time.! "< )KC )t % Wayne Vandemark has indicated the Aspen Fire Protection district is capable of serving the site. A fire hydrant is located adjacent to the site on the corner of Sleeker and Seventh Street. I. Traffic and Parking Section 8 -106 B.2.(f) - " The estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed develop- "" ment; a description of the type and condition of roads to serve the proposed development; the total number of vehicles expected to use or be stationed in such development; the hours of principal daily use on adjacent roads; the on and off -site parking to be supplied to the proposed development; location of alternate transit (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any automobile disincentive techniques incorporated in the proposed development; whether roads or parking areas will be paved; and methods to be used for snow and ice removal on streets and parking lots. According to engineering trip generation standards, the proposed development will generate approximately 70 additional vehicle trips per day. However, due to the location of the facility on local bus routes, the applicant anticipates the vehicular trip generation to be less. A new 13 car parking lot will be accessed off of the alley located on the south side of the site. - The applicant proposes to eliminate one of the existing curb cuts on Seventh Street and reconfigure the entrance to the parking lot off of Sleeker Street. Although this proposal will require the relocation of tree, the improved parking lot circulation pattern 23 will alleviate a dangerous problem created by the existing two curb cuts on Seventh Street. J. Affordable Housing Section 8 -106 B.2.(g) - " The method by which affordable housing will be provided, in conformance with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109, and a description of the type and amount of such housing to be provided." In the past the Inn managers have been capable of performing all of the tasks required to run the facility in a few hours per day. The existing staff is capable of providing adequate service to the expanded facility. Despite the lack of need for additional employees, the applicant will provide three low- income lodge affordable housing rooms. These rooms will be in addition to the manager's apartment which will not be deed restricted for affordable housing. The additional affordable housing units will house three additional employees. The Code requirement is .2 -.4 employees per tourist accommodation room. According to discussions with the Housing Authority, the 12 new tourist accommodation rooms will at a maximum generate a need for 2.4 additional employees. Therefore, the applicant intends to supply in excess of 100 per cent of the affordable housing which may be required. K. Woodburning Devices Section 8 -106 B.2.(h) - " The type of stoves and fireplaces to be installed, including those using wood, coal, gas or other fuels, the number of such stoves and fireplaces, and any emission control devices used on the stoves or fireplaces." 24 ;. ■ .s- Ther- will not be any woodburning devices in the new building. The two woodburning devices in the existing cabins will be removed. L. Proximity to Public Facilities Section 8 -106 B.2.(i) - " The location of the proposed development relative to proposed or existing parks, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, airports, mass transit systems, and the estimated increased usage of such facilities by the proposed ti development.° The subject site is located proximate to parks, trails and the mass transit system. The Aspen Highlands and Snowbunny buses pass by the site. The Snowmass and Buttermilk skier shuttle stop is one block to the north. The Marolt property is located across Castle Creek and may be accessed via the pedestrian bridge on Seventh Street. The additional visitors to the European Inn are not anticipated to place an undue burden on public facilities. M. Proximity to Retail Outlets Section 8 -106 B.2.(j) - ° The location of the proposed development relative to existing and proposed retail and service outlets, and the estimated increased demand on such outlets from the proposed development. This does not apply for a Development Application for commercial /office development.° Most of Aspen's retail facilities are located within walking distance of the development. Increased demand on retail outlets < � r �° 1 from this development should be negligible. �- L N. Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses Section 8 -106 B.2.(k) - ° The effect of the proposed 25 �.... 'T, Nose development on adjacent land uses." The applicant has been very sensitive to the character of the .. adjacent permanent residential neighborhood in designing the project. The new building is to be located 18 feet from the south property line exceeding the Code requirement. The increased setback will help preserve the view of Shadow Mountain from the adjacent Klein duplex. The Klein's driveway is located on the east side of their property providing transitional buffer between the Inn and the living areas within the adjacent residences. The project architects have examined the architecture in the neighborhood and carefully designed the new building to compliment the existing architecture in the site vicinity. The new building incorporates design elements consistent with the existing Bavarian Inn and the Klein duplex such as wood pitched gabled roofs and stucco finishes. 0. Construction Schedule Section 8 -106 B.2.(1) - " The construction schedule for the proposed development, including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing construction." If the application is approved, improvements to the existing facility are anticipated to begin immediately and be completed by December of 1989 at the earliest and the summer of 1990 at the b e , latest. � � . P. Site Utilization Maps Section 8 -106 B.3. - " A site utilization map including: (a) Preliminary architectural drawings in sufficient detail to show 26 building size, height, materials, insulation, fireplaces, stoves, solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conservation or solar energy utilization features), type of units, internal configuration of principal, accessory and other spaces, and location of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the site. (b) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, amenities to be provided on -site, and proposed underground utilities. (c) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops, and improvements proposed to insure privacy from such areas. (d) Any major street or roads, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, and greenbelts. (e) A general description and location of surrounding existing land uses, and an identification of the Zone District boundary lines,if uY applicable. Please refer to the following figures: 1. Figure 1 : Site Vicinity Map; 2. Figure 2 : Existing Site Plan; 3. Figure 3 : Proposed Site Plan; 4. Figure 4 : East Elevation; 5. Figure 5 : North and South Elevation 6. Figure 6 : West Elevation; 7. Figure 7 : Main Floor Plan; 8. Figure 8 : Upper Floor Plan; 9. Figure 9 : Lower Floor Plan; 10. Figure 10: Roof Plan; 27 11. Figure 11: Existing Lower Floor Plan; and 12. Figure 12: Existing Upper Floor Plan. 28 P la t ee't S W,. . b._ _ 1 naitv _, II _ r 1111 � r y -8 w ��s ..... __ �_ � _ l __,Jcrir.,,„ I. r ri 1 . - -- \ r /O / 1 v ,.. # —Joille-- — /3 i — 7 // W. i, ,N4 m ".o ,a, . 1 - 5 to' 20 i 70. NO. MAIN FLOOR PLAN AIICCIffiIITECCf a 7 Z U R O P E A N II 1M N theodore 1. =tiara + associates ,.. 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associates Ann iaeo ASPRN_ COLORADO aseen_ colerado 303 925 - 3365 & 8289 II w - now uw 1 - I — /13 22 2/ I �o CI% 5 , a up,. fit...L. „tn... "% G. NO. UPPER FLOOR PLAN /t �IRCIH[LThCE'l I U IR ©IP IE tni N II IJ N theodore 1. mnlarz + associates 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associates 11U0.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 r :7iitaC i I, law a I 1111. e /;, —� 1 �l s 5 , 11117 ice. — t0 ll fit. 0 j g —11 1 ....1 oft. M � if ..., fre:7104t(4 — 1 AI -. r j, , 9 •o 20 ' + eu:at • 73. No. LOWER FLOOR PLAN AIACIBIIITISCZP0 i o Il;� U I ®IIP I3 A If II H l�f theodore L mnlarz + associates "7 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kerr + associates •XU0.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 ,r, e r r .. _ j1 r u / -- su -- - - - I r r -, _. . r 7---) I . ' J g 1 ' \- l' t4 t L AI.No: ROOF PLAN ARCHITECTS i n IZ I IR C IP E A ITT II It`tf Nf theodore 1. molars + associates _ 801 W. B L E E K E R STREET roger n. kern + associates. ,.,10.1989 ASPEN, COLORADO aspen, colorado 303 925 -3365 & 8289 1., II . LAND USE REVIEWS This section addresses the tourist accommodations GMQS development standards and the applicant's request for an amendment to the Municipal Code. A. Tourist Accommodations GMQS Development Standards .,' 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services The development's impact on public facilities and services is described in this section. r � t (a) Water. (maximum two (2) points times multiplier of 1). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the proposed development. The City Water Department has indicated to the applicant that the City is capable of providing acceptable water service to the European Inn. The applicant commits to meet Code standards. (b) Sanitary Sewer. (maximum two (2) points times multiplier of 1). + \ Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve \ \ \ \ - the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. As noted previously, Tom Bracewell, Line Supervisor, for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, has indicated to the ® applicant that the development can be served by the closest District line located in the alley between Main and Bleeker Streets. There is sufficient treatment capacity available to service the proposed development. The applicant commits to meet 33 Code standards. y I) (c) Storm drainage. (maximum two (2) points times multiplier of Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires the use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. As noted previously, the applicant commits to maintain the ma historic drainage pattern on the site. An engineer has been retained by the applicant and is in the process of completing a " drainage plan for the site. The plan will be submitted upon as receipt. 4 " � (d) Fire protection. (maximum two (2) points times multiplier of As' l 1). Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire «. protection facilities and services according to its established response standards, without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire - fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide those fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. As previously stated, Wayne Vandemark has indicated the Aspen Fire Protection district is capable of serving the site. A fire hydrant is located on the corner of Sleeker and Seventh Street. The applicant commits to meet all Code requirements. Vi e) Roads. (maximum two (2) points times multiplier of 1). Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system, or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the 34 w { increased usage attributable to the proposed development. According to engineering trip generation standards, the M proposed development will generate approximately 70 additional vehicle trips per day. However, due to the location of the w. facility adjacent to local bus routes, the applicant anticipates . the vehicular trip generation to be less. Presently, the two curb cuts on Seventh Street create a traffic hazard. The site plan r eHa.proposes to alleviate this hazard by abandoning one of the Seventh street curb cuts. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design. The quality of or improvements to design are addressed in this section. w `}� (a) Architectural design. (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 1 3). v Considering the compatibility of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighborhood development. The project team have spent a considerable amount of time and ✓ effort analyzing the design characteristics of the original Bavarian Inn located to the east of the proposed new building and the characteristics of the Klein duplex located to the west. Through the use of similar elevation profiles, building materials, and massing, the applicant has created a compatible and complimentary design to the other structures on the block. Specifically, the new building has a smaller footprint, the same width and height, less length and a more compact massing than the Existing Bavarian Inn. Compared to the neighboring Klein r 35 c ., duplex; the new building is the same height, comparable in streetscape massing and incorporates similar residential gables and balconies as the Klein duplex. Materials in the new building shall be stucco, wood and glass of similar feel and design to the neighboring Bavarian Inn and Klein residence. The new building is of similar or smaller scale to the aforementioned existing structures and all structures on the south side of the block have effectively the same roof heights. In summary the new building has been designed to compliment and be architecturally compatible with the structures that surround the new building and existing Inn. (b) Site design. (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3). c jj Considering the quality and character of the proposed c development and its improvements to existing landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent — of underground utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to enhance the i (( °° design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development, and for snow storage areas. As illustrated in Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan, the new building is sited on the westerly portion of the unimproved lots. an Covering only 37 per cent of the westerly unimproved lots, this new building focuses upon the heavily landscaped courtyard area which provides a central access to both the new and old lodge buildings. This central courtyard area is designed to function as the primary pedestrian access to all uses including; parking, guest drop off points, pool, spa, outside seating areas meeting rooms, restaurant and as the principal entry to both new and existing lodge buildings and will also be utilized as an adequate snow 36 storage area The existing extensive vegetation will be greatly enhanced with additional evergreen and deciduous trees, plants and planter beds. Lighted pathways access the amenities and building structures including the below grade guest room patios, meeting room patio and alley parking. All new parking for the site has been located off the alley with a planted buffer between the parking lot and the courtyard to reduce the visual impact of a parking lot on the surrounding area. The overall purpose of the central courtyard design is to create a campus like environment for guests of the European Inn. The courtyard creates a transitional buffer between the new and original buildings and provides a landscaped central access to the buildings, guest amenities. v (c) Parkins and traffic circulation. (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3) Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal traffic -;7? circulation and parking system for the proposed development or any ‘, addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public view. ti As depicted in Figure 3, the new parking lot will be accessed off of the alley located to the south of the site. The applicant proposes to eliminate used• one of the existing curb cuts on Seventh Street and to reconfigure the entrance to the reception parking lot off of Sleeker Street. Although this proposal will require the relocation of tree, the improved parking lot circulation pattern j will alleviate a dangerous problem. ( (d) Visual impact. (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3). Cv 37 r Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. The applicant and architects have designed the new building in order to minimize the perceived mass and scale of the new structure. This has been achieved by designing a building whose elevations, roof lines and building materials are very similar to the surrounding structures on the block. Additionally, the new building is similar in size or smaller than the surrounding .. structures. The undesirable alternative to the proposed siting of the new "° building is to attach the new lodge rooms to the existing Bavarian Inn. Attaching these rooms would have greatly increased the perceived mass of the new and original buildings and would have ,,, closed off Sleeker Street from the open space. By siting the new building on the westerly portion of the site, the design establishes a 50 foot greenbelt view plan from Sleeker Street to Aspen and Shadow Mountains. The siting also provides outstanding views from the new building lodge rooms. There are no designated viewplanes impacting the site. ... 3. Resource Conservation Techniques . This section addresses the standards for Resource Conservation. .. » (a) Energy conservation. (maximum 2 points times multiplier of Considering the extent to which the proposed development uses passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, °' passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems 38 and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. The exterior of the building shall be wrapped with an infiltration barrier wrap such as Tyvek. Insulation values for the `t _ E buildings walls and roof will be R -30 and R -4 or better. The City` standard is R -20. High quality Low E windows wi utilized within six feet of the floor to reduce energy loss. State- of -the- - art efficient heating systems will be utilized. Skylights made of high R value glass will be utilized in both buildings to take advantage of passive solar heating gain. Many of the existing single ain` windows and antiquated door systems in the existing ■' facility will be replaced with high insulation value materials. As noted previously, the existing cabin /tourist accommodations units are not insulated. There will be a significant energy savings attributed to the seven new units which are to replace the existing cabins. (b) Water and Wastewater. (maximum 2 points times multiplier of . : t 1). \ \\ Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures and /or wastewater reuse systems in its design. Plumbing fixtures and fittings will be conservation fittings of a low- flow -water consumption type and incorporate faucet aerators and shower heads. Plumbing will be insulated to fqm reduce hot water consumption. The water heaters will be the latest state -of- the -art electric or gas water heaters. The piped water 39 -",, ., heating system in the old building is in need of upgrading. The furnace is leaking and is need of repair. Repairs to the heating - system will help conserve water. , 3- ) (c) Air. (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 2) Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced •- by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measures are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. The project will have a significant positive impact on air quality by removing two woodburning devices located in the cabins. There will not be any wood burning devices in the new building. - 4. Amenities Provided for Guests . This section addresses the standards for guest amenities. - 4 111 (a) Availability of or improvements to on -site common meeting .. areas shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any - addition thereto (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3). The applicant is proposing an exceptional guest amenity package exceeding standards for a facility of this size. A 1,584 square foot bar /lounge and meeting room accessible from both the - new and old buildings is proposed for the garden level of the , original Inn. These spaces are presently unfinished and under- . utilized0Additionally, the applicant intends to greatly improve the - outside garden level patio area that is adjacent to the lounge/ meeting room area in order to further enhance the functional and -, aesthetic use of this under - utilized area. The garden level patio and meeting rooms will have direct access to the outdoor pool, spa A 40 and landscaped courtyard areas. The central pool /spa /courtyard area is intended to provide an intimate, all season, outdoor amenity for the Inn guests. Additionally, both new and original buildings have naturally lit vestibule seating areas on most floors. The new building has been designed with its own central lounge /kitchen area (approximately 500 square feet) that includes a gas log fireplace, as well as separate sofa and bar seating areas. The proposal represents a significant improvement to the original building facilities and provides additional separate facilities for the new building. r N � (b) Availability of or improvements to on -site dining facilities ,.- shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2). The European Inn will feature a dining facility of 45 seats and adjacent kitchen facilities totaling approximately 921 square feet. As noted in the previous section, there will be additional bar /lounge /meeting rooms on the garden level of the original M building that may accommodate 80 to 100 people. The lounge /kitchen area in the new building may also double as an intimate snack bar facility for the lodge guests. In total, these facilities will provide an enormous, high quality, amenity for the European Inn's 35 guest rooms. (c) Availability of or improvements to on -site accessory recrea- tional facilities shall be considered, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2). The central landscaped courtyard, pool and spa will serve as 41 r a focal point for outdoor, on -site recreational amenities. In summer, the courtyard pool area is intended for use as an institute style setting for music school recitals for the guests, etc. The downstairs lounge areas in both buildings are intended to serve as passive recreational game areas for the guests and will have video entertainment centers. The availability of the private pool, spa and extensive lounge areas is unusual for a facility of this size and are significant amenities of the lodge renovation and new development 5. Provision of Affordable Housing (maximum 15 points). (a) General. Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City and with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. I / c (b) Assignment of Points. Points shall be assigned as follows: Zero (0 %) to sixty (60 %) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing: One (1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed; Sixty -one percent (61 %) percent to one hundred (100 %) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing: one (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent housed. The applicant has met with the Housing Office to develop an affordable housing proposal for the European Inn. Presently, the employees of the Bavarian Inn are housed in the manager's apartment. In the past the Inn managers have been capable of performing all of the tasks required to run the facility in a few hours per day. The existing staff is capable of providing adequate service to the expanded facility. 42 According to discussions with the Housing Authority, 12 new tourist accommodation rooms will generate a need for 2.4 additional employees. The Housing Office has told the applicant the City will base the determination of need for additional employee housing on the number of employees to be generated by the 12 additional lodge rooms. The 1989 Affordable Housing Guidelines call for ( .2 -. employees per room to be generated by tourist accommodation facilities. The applicant has discussed the proposed operation of w _ the European Inn with the Housing Office and determined the housing .• needs will fall at the low end of the range. Based upon the standard of .2 employees per tourist accommodation unit a demand for 2.4 employees will be created by the project. The applicant proposes to deed restrict three existing tourist accommodation rooms ow income affordable housing. The rooms LL` are each approxima = . ti• are feet in size. Three low income employees will be housed in the rooms-agcounting far more than n 100 per cent of the affordable housing regu ri ememt 6. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. (maxi 15 points). Development applications for projects located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only shall be assigned points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. Points shall be assigned as follows. Zero (0 %) to fifty (50 %) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the .. applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten (10 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. -, Fifty (50 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each five (5 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. 43 r 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 of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes 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 different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. In the case of both rehabilitation and reconstruction, the units and the non -unit space shall be required to meet all other provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identifying the proposed improvements to be made to the lodge units or the non -unit space and the timetable for their restoration or rebuilding which provides that the rebuilt portions of the lodge are suitable for occupancy prior • to or at the same time as the new units for which an allotment has been requested. In the alternative, an applicant may submit an affidavit itemizing the expense incurred during the previous twenty -four (24) months and documenting that the expenditures have met the criteria of this section. As noted in the text, one - hundred per cent of the facility will either be rehabilitated or reconstructed. The proposed improvements are summarized below. Exterior Improvements to Inn. The following immediate improvements are proposed to the exterior of the original building and first and second additions and landscaped areas: 1. Replacement and /or repair of the original building and first and second addition roofs with addition of loft dormers, with the inclusion of shingle finished surfaces; 2. Painting of all exterior wood surfaces including vertical siding, windows, railings, doors and restuccoing or painting of the exterior stucco; 3. Replacement of most doors and windows with high quality door /window installations; 4. Replacement of all signs with signs consistent with the ., existing City of Aspen sign regulations; 5. Completion of the garden level patio accessible to the ° 44 c meeting rooms to be located in the unfinished space presently utilized as Erwin's workshop (refer to figure 3); 6. Reconfiguration of east parking area to improve safety on Seventh Street; and 7. Upgrading of present deteriorated lawn and landscaped areas. Improvements to Common Areas. The following immediate improvements are proposed to the common areas inside and outside of the original building and first and second additions: 1. Reconfiguration, renovation and completion of the entire v basement and garden level to accommodate: - * A working laundry facility; * Bar /lounge for 50 -60 guests of the Inn in _ approximately 960 square feet of space; * Meeting room for 40 -45 people in approximately 638 square feet of space adjacent to the lounge k and accessible via sliding glass doors to the garden level patio; and • Improved lighting and ventilation of the entire sub -grade space. 2. Reconfiguration, renovation and refurnishing of the existing office /reception area, refurbishing of the 45 .. seat, 1,683 square foot dining room and kitchen to create a high quality experience for guests. 3. Renovation and restoration of the stairs /hallways and interior common areas including installation of certain skylights, replacement of all carpet, repainting throughout, replacement of light fixtures to a standard more in keeping with the quality of new City of Aspen lodging facilities (approximately 1,269 square feet of space). 4. Renovation of the spa and pool areas including new landscaping and lighting. Improvements to Rooms. The following immediate improvements are proposed to the rooms in original building and first and second r 45 • c additions: 1. Replacement of carpet and light fixtures. 2. Refurnishing with European style antique pine furnishings and fabrics. -�- 3. Replacement of existing doors and /or windows with high quality doors; 4. Upgrading of all bathrooms; 5. Reconfiguration of the second floor and loft of the first addition to: * Reconfigure and orient the manager's apartment toward Seventh street; .. * Orient the tourist accommodation units toward Shadow Mountain and the open space to the west of the building; and * Complete the partially finished loft area of the second addition. B. Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code Based upon the Municipal Code's definition of open space there will be 5,760 square feet of open space on the entire site (32 per cent of lot area). The Code requires 35 per cent of the lot area to be open space in the RMF and LP zoned districts. The Code does not credit a development for open space if it is not visible at .. pedestrian level from a public street. A back yard on an alley is not included in open space calculations. The original intent of the L -3 zone district and subsequently the LP zone district was to create incentives for existing small lodges to upgrade and provide limited expansion potential. To permit flexibility, floor area in the LP zone is established by special review. The applicant is requesting a Code amendment to 46 c also make the open space requirement a special review determination. The applicant proposes the following Municipal Code amendment. Section 5 -216 D. (9) of the Code would read: ' 4, Per cent of open space required for building site: Special review. In establishing required open space for a specific development, the ° i' Commission shall consider the quantity of unimproved lot area which enhances the site but does not meet the definition of open space. An alternative to the proposed Municipal Code amendment would \ be for the staff to recommend designating the site PUD and a variation in the minimum open space standard. An applicant is not permitted to request a PUD designation for a site less than 27,000 square feet in size, however the staff my propose a PUD designation. 47 WI HH/ lmp fir•• % SCHEDULE A Order Number: 16865 Commitment Number: I. Effective date: July 18, 1989 At 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance Premium s 1,900,000.00 $3,Cg1 CO A. ALTA Owner's Policy Proposed Insured: Cunningham Investment Co., Inc. Tax Cert. $ 10.00 B. ALTA Loan Policy $ Proposed Insured: C. $ 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and tide thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: Irwin P. Knirlberger AKA Irwin Knirlberger 4. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows: Lots D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0 and P, Block 12, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN County of Pitkin, State of Colorado / 4- L ' PBge 2 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY i SCHEDULE B — Section 1 Order Numberi6865 Commitment Number: Requirements The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: 2. (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Graduated Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 14 (Series of 1989). NOTE: The Graduated Real Estate Transfer Tax is calculated based upon the length of time since the current vested owner acquired title. Our records indicate that the current owner acquired title by Deeds recorded January 23, 1974 in Book 283 at Page 703 as Reception No. 165053 and November 17, 1987 in Book 551 at Page 620 as Reception No. 295176. 3. Release of Deed of Trust dated April 05, 1974, executed by Erwin P. Knirlberger, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $67,606.00, in favor of Anna Rosa Knirlberger, recorded April 05, 1974 in Book 285 at Page 765 as Reception No. 166477. 4. Release of Deed of Trust dated November 20, 1987, executed by Erwin Knirlberger, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $250,000.00,._in__favor of.The Bank.of_ Aspen, recorded November 24, 1987 in Book 551 at Page 621 as Reception No. 295177. 5. Deed from Anna Rosa Knirlberger, vesting fee simple title in purchaser(s). NOTE: This requirement is necessary to dispose of any interest created by document recorded July 21, 1986 in Book 514 at Page 809 as Reception No. 279691. 6. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in purchaser(s). STEWART TITLE '� Pane 3 GUARANTY COMPANY A srp c SCHEDULE 8 — Section 2 Exceptions -"' Order Number: 16865 Commitment Number: The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 7. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 8. Exceptions and Mineral Reservations as contained in Patent to Aspen Townsite recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 — as Reception No. 60156. 9. Mineral rights being expressly reserved by Harry G. Koch, in the Deed to Sarah Harrison recorded March 17, 1892 in Book 73 at Page 195 as Reception No. 46828. (Affects Lot D) 10. All mineral rights being expressly reserved by Harry G. Koch in the Deed to Anna K. Wentworth recorded August 09, 1892 in Book 73 at Page 270 as Reception No. 48524, affects the South 35 feet of the North 75 feet of Lots H and I. 11. The full, free and perpetual right to dig, work, search for, mine and remove all ore and mineral bearing rock and earth underneath Lots D, G, H and I, Block 12, as granted to A.P. Mackey by Harry G. Koch in Deed recorded July 17, 1892 in Book 106 at Page 07. 12. A restriction stating that the premises are to be used only for residental and /or professional purposes as set forth in Deed recorded September 08, 1952 in Book 177 at Page 244 as Reception �- No. 99541, and in Deed recorded November 20, 1961 in Booke 196 at Page 29 as Reception No. 112451. 13. Easement and right of way for utility purposes granted to the City of Aspen by Easement Agreement recorded December 11, 1986 in Book 524 at Page 929 as Reception No. 284008. See Continuation Page Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted. Page 4 STEWART TITLE wr ^_ GUARANTY COMPANY P i ! CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE - Section 2 Order Number: Commitment Number: 16865 NOTE: Exceptions No. 12 and 13 affect Lots K, L, M, N, 0 and P. NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1987 Policy form. Copies of the 1987 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon request. • ar Page STEWART TITLE 0055 (SOM 3/89) GUARANTY COMPANY a �.I July 28, 1989 Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Bavarian Inn Lots D, E, F, G, H and I, block 12 City and Townsite of Aspen Gentlemen: This letter is to confirm that I am the owner of the above referenced lots and I have authorized Cunningham Investment Company, Inc., a Colorado corpor -tion to process a Growth Management Quota System, Lodge •teservation Application in regard to the foregoing lots B Or z 0 fZ_ Erwin Knirlberger I/ 1.90 /rakltr s. 0 r • a .x. -7.a 3 -0a' CZ 3 2 �✓ CITY OF ASPEN PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: A PPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: _ j. 4LL 1 '1_ a ' fl - REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: — zfc4 OWNER'S NAME: SUMMARY 1. _ I 1. Type of Application:G Y ( S( W 19 ll T7 I' c Qatemns.e �� h P 2. Describe action /type of development being requested: • . , / .! - - , •.I _I ' A A. demons! 1 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments 52 A V i, ny JZTT,! V QM� _ 4. Review is: (P &Z Only) (CC Only) (P &Z then to CC 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: IO _ 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:, 7 - 8. Anticipated date of submission: 9. COMMEN S UN QUE CONC RNS: h� '. • "* .. as C. ti.. - • _ 41.1 t ► , ... . if ...o Sf_ai.a= frm.pre app AUG — I