Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.L'Auberge.435 W Main St.A27-95 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 03/15/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2735 - 124 - 50-051 &053 A27 -95 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: L'Aubercte 1994 Tourist Accomodations GMOS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review Project Address: 435 W. Main St. Legal Address: Lots A -I, Block 38; Lots 1 &2, Perkins Subdivision APPLICANT: ALH Holding Company Applicant Address: 435 W. Main St., Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Gibson, Gibson & Reno 925 -5968 Representative Address /Phone: 210 E. Hyman Ave., #202 Aspen, CO 81611 FEES: PLANNING $ # APPS RECEIVED 24 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 1 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X P &Z Meeting Date /M g PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney X Parks Dept. School District City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. 'X Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross X Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. X ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center / Other "'WE_ DATE REFERRED: I / U INITIALS: I S A-) DUE: FINAL ROUTINGOCc4 DATE ROUTED: Id 3/ 7 6 INITIAL: City Atty City EngineerZoning Env. Health Housing Open Space e rr- FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE FOR A LODGE IN THE OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT FOR L'AUBERGE LODGE LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET (LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38) CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Resolution No. 95 -41 WHEREAS, the applicants proposed a code amendment to allow a lodge in the office zone district in order to legitimize the current use of the lodge and to allow an expansion of the lodge; and WHEREAS, the Commission approved the proposed code amendment at a public hearing on April 18, 1995, but tabled the associated conditional use review to May 9, 1995, in order to allow staff and the applicant to continue work on the conditional use application; and WHEREAS, the lodge proposal was reviewed by the Engineering Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Aspen Fire Marshal, Parks Department, and the Environmental Health Department, and referral comments were sent to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, Planning staff reviewed the request and referral comments and recommended approval for a conditional use for the proposed lodge, with conditions, pursuant to Section 24 -7 -304; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing, reviewed the proposal and staff recommendations, and voted unanimously to approve the request with conditions; and WHEREAS, in addition to the conditional use approval, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend to City Council the addition of a parking requirement for lodges in the Office zone district as stated in staff's May 9, 1995 memorandum and amended on the same date. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby approve a conditional use for the L'Auberge Lodge with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the lodge GMQS allocation by the City Council, the applicant shall submit a revised service utility plan that has been reviewed and approved by the ACSD, and the water, electric, and engineering departments. 2. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or upgraded shall be borne by the applicant on a partial or full basis depending upon the specific agency's requirements. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file restrictions against future installation of fireplaces and woodstoves with the Environmental Health De artment. P 4..r currently exist on the site. 10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. 11. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded. 12. All work in the alley and public right -of -way shall require a permit from the Streets Department. 13. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m. 14. Early warning devices and fire extinguishers shall be provided in all cabins and the manager's residence. 15. If the applicants intend to use the ditch for irrigation, a utilization plan must be reviewed by the Parks and Water Departments which may include a raw water agreement. The agreement must be signed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 16. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall apply for an encroachment license. 17. This conditional use approval is conditioned upon successful completion of the variance request process or PUD review, Council approval of the text amendment, and Council allocation of the lodge allotments. 18. The applicant acknowledges Municipal Code sidewalk maintenance requirements for all sidewalks abutting the applicant's property. These property owner obligations include timely snow removal as provided for in Section 19, Article VIII, and sweeping and maintenance against hazardous conditions as provided for in Section 19, Article IV. 19. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and joint GMQS Commission meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 20. Any substantial change in the use of this conditional use as a lodge shall require an amendment to the conditional use review and other applicable requirements of the code. (,_, 000017k 04 1k / Vrw,Anr APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on May 9, 1995. ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING MM l ZONING COMMISSIOONN 9J • (yfext, Jan Ca ey, Deputy City Clerk Bruce Kerr, Chairman .� �l 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1995 L'AUBERGE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Chairman Kerr stated this was a continued public hearing of L'Auberge Conditional Use Review and he re- opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman represented the applicant and stated on April 18th while it was tabled, they got two components that were approved and have come back for the Conditional Use Component; there had been some questions relating to utilities, as well as parking. Since that time, and what was spelled out in Lamont's memorandum, they had a meeting with the various utility entities, and have resolved most of the issues. He said staff had recommendations of approval and he stated he and Lamont had met earlier today, and they went over just a few minor changes that he requested. He said he would go over those, but otherwise they are in agreement with staff in terms of the conditions. He said the first condition was Condition #1, it includes Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. At the meeting it was explained that Rocky Mountain Natural Gas does not participate the way everybody else does; they don't respond. What he felt would be helpful, was to say that the plan has been reviewed and approved by the water, electric and engineering departments and he does not think they will ever get a response from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, and they will submit to them, but he did not want to have it as a condition, in case they do not respond, and therefore we cannot move forward. Kaufman stated, in terms of Condition 7 -d, it says, "the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing Office for the deed restricted dwelling unit ". He said the only thing there was to add, "if approved by Council ", because Council is the one making the decision whether or not they want cash -in- lieu or the deed restriction. Kaufman said the only other change had to deal with Condition 17, which reads, "this conditional use approval is conditioned upon successful completion of the variance request process ", and he said they added to that, "or PUD ", because, in the event, we do not get the variance from the Board of Adjustment, we would have to go through the PUD process. Kerr stated this was a public hearing and asked if there were any comments regarding this application. There were none, and Kerr closed the public hearing. 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1995 MOTION Blaich moved to approve the Conditional Use of the L'Auberge Lodge with the conditions outlined in staff's memorandum dated May 9th, with the added condition, "any substantial change in the use of this conditional use as a lodge shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Review and other applicable requirements of the code ". Garton seconded. Discussion of Motion Hunt stated he had one concern. He felt this was a great lodge project, but he could also see in the future, possibly the desirability of condominiumization. Kaufman said to forget the condominiumization, for the moment; if ". this goes to a lodge use to a residential use, the code says that yo is a change in use, and we would have to come before you again. • So, what I am saying, is since the code requires us to come before you for change in use, don't you have your protection, under the 4 code (addressed to Lamont)? Lamont answered, We do, very technically, we do. Kaufman asked if Lamont wanted him to put in the conditions, in the event the applicant changes the use from a lodge to a residential, it has to -4, come back to the P &Z, because it was approved under Conditional Use a' for a Lodge. Use„ : 1 1 ,- stated, since they were discussing the above, why did Tom Bracewell, in the Aspen Sanitation District memorandum, Item 4, say that the applicant will provide the District with written assurances that the cabins will continue to be operated as a lodge under one ownership..? Kaufman answered that they had had a meeting on that and it was all resolved. The concern that the Sanitation District had was the kind of system that we are being obligated to put in; they do not want to be dealing with a lot of different situations, a lot of different owners. It was discussed, and as long as there was a condominium association, if that ever happened, the association would work it out. Garton stated she was agreeable to this added condition; the one Lamont is working on right now. - Hunt requested to include the modification 7 -d, the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing Office for any approved deed restricted dwelling. Blaich questioned how necessary the additional condition was, because he said they would have to come back anyway for a change in condition, so he felt it was writing something in there that 22 a, - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1995 wasn't necessary. If legal council says we should have it, it is something that will protect us, I am not against it. Hunt stated he would be happier to vote with the condition in. Mooney said he did not know if it really gets to what we are talking about here. He asked, where do we draw the line, and how do we enforce the line, between someone who condominiumizes these and individually then uses them as a time share that they are still a lodge entity that is running them, but the nature of the business is changed. They are privately owned, they are not really on the market 100% of the time as a lodge; it can be someone that privately owns that condominium uses it as a residence part of the year, and then it is back in a lodge -pool part of the year. He again asked, where do we draw the line here? He said, I think the essence is not the residential use, but whether or not it is going to become condominiumized and we are going to have twenty -two different entities on this property making private ownership decisions about any aspect of this expansion. VOTE Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Kerr addressed Lamont concerning parking. She brought up the text amendment to allow a lodge as a Conditional Use in the Office Zone District, and said they really did not focus on what the parking requirement would be. Parking in all our zone districts is listed by residential, commercial, etc., and in the Office Zone District where it says Lodge it says non - applicable. She said what she was recommending was to propose a change to the Office Zone that would allow .7 spaces per lodge room which is consistent with our other lodge zone districts. Kerr said that it doesn't apply to this applicant, does it, because they have more. Lamont said, they have more. Kerr stated, so, this is a general...Lamont said, as they could tell from her conditions of approval, staff is working with the applicant on their parking plan. Kerr asked if this was a recommended text amendment? Lamont stated, yes. Kerr then asked, does this have to be noticed as a public hearing? Lamont answered, that the last time a situation like this arose, the City Attorney advised us that since a public hearing was kept alive regarding the site, those who are interested are put on notice. Also, text amendments are not final approval, you are recommending to Council, so there will be a public hearing in June. Hunt said he was wondering because most of the lodges in the Office Zone District are probably under Lodge Preservation or something I Li 23 23 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1995 like that or non - conforming. He said he did not mind this as a guideline, but there could be the present attitude of the Council that they want to help these lodges stay, or do something; a lot of the old lodges may not be able to comply with this, he felt it did not give flexibility to deal with old lodge issues. Tygre stated that if a lodge is already under a lodge Overlay, whatever it is, then this wouldn't apply to them, would it? Lamont answered, it would apply to those lodges in Office Zone District. She said Hunt mades a good point, but if we don't do something now, then we are going to forward the text amendment that says lodges are Conditional Use in the Office Zone and then you don't have a parking requirement for lodges in that zone. Other than L'Auberge, no one has talked to us about expanding their lodge; if the text amendment passes, people may want to make their lodge conforming and it would be an issue we would be dealing with. Gideon Kaufman said, following up on that could you not do that by instead of .2, maybe reduce via payment in lieu and make that a larger number. That takes into account that some of the existing lodges that may not be able to physically on site provide it, by via payment in lieu you may not be penalizing some of the older lodges. Kerr stated, if you make the two numbers the same it doesn't mean you will allow them to do cash -in -lieu, but you are giving yourself the flexibility to do it that way. Lamont stated, so, just say, .7 per bedroom, which may be reduced via cash -in -lieu, and our special review process is designed to decide whether is is appropriate or not. Kerr and Kaufman agreed. MOTION Garton moved to recommend to Council the addition of a parking requirement for lodges in the office zone district as stated in staff's memorandum dated May 9, 1995, and amended here. Hunt seconded, vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION SPA AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW Kim Johnson represented on behalf of staff, and she said in preparation for tonight's meeting, I was thinking that we should be reviewing the individual review categories, so in taking the original list of 42 conditions, she listed them as to being I 24 PLANNINIG & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1995 L'AUBERGE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Chairman Kerr stated this was a continued public hearing of L'Auberge Conditional Use Review and he re- opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman represented the applicant and stated on April 18th while it was tabled, they got two components that were approved and have come back for the Conditional Use Component; there had been some questions relating to utilities, as well as parking. Since that time, and what was spelled out in Lamont's memorandum, they had a meeting with the various utility entities, and have resolved most of the issues. He said staff had recommendations of approval and he stated he and Lamont had met earlier today, and they went over just a few minor changes that he requested. He said he would go over those, but otherwise they are in agreement with staff in terms of the conditions. He said the first condition was Condition #1, it includes Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. At the meeting it was explained that Rocky Mountain Natural Gas does not participate the way everybody else does; they don't respond. What he felt would be helpful, was to say that the plan has been reviewed and approved by the water, electric and engineering departments and he does not think they will ever get a response from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, and they will submit to them, but he did not want to have it as a condition, in case they do not respond, and therefore we cannot move forward. Kaufman stated, in terms of Condition 7 -d, it says, "the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing Office for the deed restricted dwelling unit ". He said the only thing there was to add, "if approved by Council ", because Council is the one making the decision whether or not they want cash -in- lieu or the deed restriction. Kaufman said the only other change had to deal with Condition 17, which reads, "this conditional use approval is conditioned upon successful completion of the variance request process ", and he said they added to that, "or PUD ", because, in the event, we do not get the variance from the Board of Adjustment, we would have to go through the PUD process. Kerr stated this was a public hearing and asked if there were any comments regarding this application. There were none, and Kerr closed the public hearing. 21 ' I t 26.100.080 These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character, including, but not limited to the following: a. restoring structures listed in the inventory of historic structures; b. improving and maintaining the appearance and function of alleys for commensal, office and residential uses; c. ensuring design compatibility with existing buildings in the vicinity of the proposed project, in terms of scale, massing, building materials, fenestration, other architectural features and open space; d. including porches or other "pedestrian- friendly" features; e. retaining and promoting eclectic and varietal businesses along main street thatmaintain and enhance the special character of the historic district; f. ensuring the site's useability for social activities. (Ord. No. 54-1994: Code § 8 -108) 26.100.090 Amendment of development order. Any request to change an element of a development order or any substantial change to a condition or representation of an original development order shall constitute a development order amendment A development order approving a development allotment pursuant to the requirements of this chapter shall only be amended pursuant to the following provisions. A. Exception The following activities shall be exempt from these development order amendment procedures, provided they are reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to construction: 1. any change required to be made to a development order to respond to conditions imposed upon the proposed development by the Growth Management Commission or the City Council during the review of other development applications relevant to the proposed development and 2. any insubstantial modification to the development order, which shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process, or any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project review. B. Prohibition. In no event shall the following activities be approved as development order amendments. 1. Any change that is proposed to a development application prior to its receipt of a development order. A development application that has not yet received a development order shall only be amended for purposes of clarification or technical correction. 2. Any proposal that would change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial or lodge. 3. Any proposal that the City Council determines to be inappropriate by finding that it renders the proposal a new application, and not an amendment, or by finding it to be inconsistent with any action taken during the original project review. C. Procedure. The procedure for review of a development order amendment is as follows. A development application for amendment shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and reviewed for completeness pursuant to Common Procedures, Chapter 2652. Upon a determination of completeness, the application shall be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission at a public hearing noticed pursuant to Section 2652.060(E)(3)(a) through (c). Following the close of the public hearing, the Growth Management Commission shall accept the recommendation for rescoring, or shall re-score the application itself, shall consider whether conditions should apply or if any of the proposed activities are prohibited, and shall forward its action to City Council. The City Council shall consider any challenges by the applicant, and, following the review of challenges, the City Council shall affirm the allotment to the proposed amendment, with any conditions that may apply, or shall deny the amendment, in which case the original allotment shall stand. 1 680 26.100.090 D. Application contents. Applicants for amendments to approved projects shall be required to submit a complete application consisting of the following materials: 1. A written description of the proposed amendment, including a category-by- category evaluation of whether the proposed development will continue to meet or is proposing to change its previous commitments. 2. Site drawings prepared with the equivalent level of detail to those submitted with the original application depicting the architecture, site design, proposed landscaping, building locations, and utility, road and parking installations as originally approved and as proposed for amendment 3. That information required in Common Procedures, Section 2632.030. E. Standards. In detemiin ng whether ornot to grant an ametdmem, the Growth Management Commission and City Council shall compare the scores awarded by the Growth Management Commission to the original approval and the proposed amendment The development allotment shall be amended if the City Council determines that the score under each scoring criteria of Section 26.100.080 awarded to the amended project is equal to or greater than that awarded to the originally approved development. (Ord. No. 54 -1994: Code § 8 -109) 26.100.100 Expiration of' development order. A. Developments that have been awarded allotments under the provisions of this growth management quota system shall be considered to have complied with the requirements of approval of a site specific development plan, as defined herein, on the date of approval of the project's final subdivision, planned unit development (PUD), specially planned area (SPA), or other development approval, whichever is the latest date. Development allotments and all other development approvals shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of this date, unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of the approval is obtained, as provided for below. 1. Subdivisions composed of detached residential or duplex units shall be eligible for exemption from these expiration provisions. To obtain an exemption, an application for exemption shall be submitted at any time prior to the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Council that: a. Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its final approval that were to have been met as of the date of application for exemption have been complied with; and b. Any public or private improvements that were required to be installed by the applicant prior to construction of any dwelling unit have been installed. 2. Developments of any type other than a subdivision composed of detached residential or duplex units shall be eligible for extension of these expiration provisions. To obtain an extension, an application for extension shall be submitted prior to the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Council that: a. Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its final approval that were to have been met as of the date of application for exemption have been complied with; b. Any improvements that were required to be installed by the applicant prior to construction of the project have been installed; and c. The project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable respects, and the extension is in the best interests of the community. 3. An exemption from these expiration provisions that is granted to a project shall have no time limit. An extension of these expiration provisions that is granted to a project shall be for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Additional extensions shall require repetition of the extension procedures. (Ord. No. 54 -1994: Code § 8 -110) 681 4 26.52.020 4. Application contents. The planning agency staff should establish the contents of the development application required to be submitted for the proposed development This should include descriptions of the types of reports and drawings required, the general form which the development application should take, and the information which should be contained within the application. 5. Application copies and fee. The planning agency staff should identify the number of copies of the development application that is requited to be submitted for the proposed development, along with the amount of the fee needed to defray the cost of processing the application, and the number of hours of staff review time associated with the fee. At the conclusion of the conference, the applicants will be presented with a written summary of the meeting. One copy of this written summary should be submitted back to the planning agency at the time of' submission of the development application. (Code 1971. § 6 -201) 2652.030 Application and fees. A. General. A development application shall be submitted in the form, and shall include the information and materials specified for that application in this section, and Chapters 26.56 through 26.96 and Chapter 26.100, if additional information is required. The development application shall be accompanied by a fee, as is established from time to time by the city council, to defray the cost of processing the application. B. Application. All development applications shall include, at a minimum, the following information and materials. 1. The applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map Locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. (This requirement, or any par thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 6. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. C. Consolidation of applications. If an applicant has requested the consolidation of development applications, the director shall waive any overlapping application submission requirements in the consolidated development application. D. Copyrighted materials. The City of Aspen will not accept for development application or recordation purposes any materials to which copyright applications have been made unless the applicant shall waive all claims and indemnify the city. Any person submitting a development application shall consent that any document submitted to the City of Aspen as par of a development application may be utilized by the city in any manner deemed necessary, including, but not limited to, recording at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, to preserve the representations made during the development review process. (Ord. No. 6 -1989, § 8; Ord. No. 56 -1994, § 12: Code 1971, § 6 -202) 566 � y ' "' �Ri� at. .. 7Ni _ ti ��' .. ) _ ■ 0 1 /. ' V v *t x kp44 .ti;. , Q F p. • 2 2 '� SM YQ p ia9 7 11 ' a+� ' t 'x icr Ma p a � ' ?4Y-i , .t t '1 ' n a'r" 4sS d YG' rt y ' kY t h a,P4A" 44r. j s�. ° L t F�.�9 � I ;,4444,01.1.- l s* e C_ � � � yr4 A • L < t .' t . I 1 4 2 .4;')e.5+b.*'fMk' ..e. lip �. Z ImV I a ,. gilllul te 1111 I la ' 4fi yry ,ham �� a vv ..��hh� r di el 1 M� J �V 1 � ( y Y S�i t G �L3 �� ( V iff `4 4 ARp.A 1 T it" •c'‘'' x 0 t T v x,4110: "k ? _ .' — 't Fr K 4.1.21 'TAM i , r �. H. we...a.i,Yt+su.b a ' f y T y __ _ �� G c Ii - Zr JJ]I , or Is as r limy N \ \, 7� ` � r fl fY y � / r #t / - � '.t v ,• S+` Y{ `. ' 109.171, . • J ' y C1'te.yr 'g4 4 +S,a.' ,, ° y j �, I;' f. AR O �, WWI !f /% �_• i f ,- • y II *4 383635 B -788 P -43 07/24/95 03:34P PG 1 OF 4 REC DOC Ni SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 21.00 ORDINANCE NO. 29 (Series of 1995) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE HOUSING MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE 1994 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FOR THE L'AUBERGE LODGE, 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission reviewed the L'Auberge in conjunction with growth management scoring; and WHEREAS, the city's Planning and Zoning Commission also reviewed a proposed text amendment and contitional use review for the proposal; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 1995 the City Council of the City of Aspen awarded a lodge development allotment of eleven units from the 1994 quota and one unit form the 1995 quota pursuant to ) Resolution No. (Series 1995) under the growth management quota J system as set forth in Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the expansion of the lodge requires the mitigation of .4 employees; and WHEREAS, the applicants originally requested that the City Council approve an affordable housing mitigation package in which it would pay cash -in -lieu for approximately 100% of the employees generated and a deed restriction on the manager's unit that would be enforced if the unit is ever sold or rented to a non - manager of the lodge; and WHEREAS, the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Office reviewed the proposed mitigation package on April 10, 1994 and forwarded the 1 383635 B -78R P-44 07/24/95 03:34P PG 2 OF 4 Housing Board's preference to first provide on -site housing, secondly i:ovide off -site housing, and lastly provide cash -in -lieu for affordable housing mitigation; and WHEV..FSS, based on typical incomes of general lodge employees, the Housing of :fice also recommends that any on -site housing be deed restricted as a Category 2 unit; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission was split as to whether. ithe applicant should provide on -site housing or cash -in- lieu and acknowledges that Council is required to accept the method of mitigation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the L'Auberge Lodge should mitigate required employee housing by the conversion of an existing cabin on -site to a category 2 deed restricted dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management application; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Aspen Municipal Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for a site specific development plan for a period of three years from the date 01 final development plan approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED SY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: In accordance with Section 24 -8 -111 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council does hereby accept the employee housing Htigation plan for .4 employees as required by the 2 • • 38363.5 8-788 P -45 07/24/95 03 :34P PG 3 OF 4 L'Auberge Lodge project to be as follows: 1) The applicant shall deed restrict an existing cabin on the parcel to category 2 price and income guidelines. 2) The applicant shall record a deed restriction that has been reviewed and approved by the Housing Office. 3) The Housing Office shall inspect the deed restricted unit and the applicant shall upgrade the unit, if necessary, to Housing Office specifications. 4) The above housing mitigation conditions shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, Ci Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the 43' W. Main Street, L'Auberge Lodge, site specific development plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by Resolution No. , Series of 1995, shall remain vested until June 12, 1998. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance or Resolution No. , Series of 1995, shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance, Resolution No. , Series of 1995, or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, 3 ,� r • 383635 B -788 P -46 07/4/95 O3:34P PG 4 OF 4 1 the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: / Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /2_ day of, 1995 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council SL6g— ' ' 1 Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the e .2 'd day of / , 199 Tiro /5 6 pp • f 4S p�4i% John ennett, Mayor X / % A. e' .$.- / Foch, City Clerk 1 ,% FIeA44C, adopted, passed and approved this /E3 day of \y::ie_ ", 1995. h l (5 ��5 u000000 John E2.4.--, �nnett, Mayor �fi n t, k. / • _ h, City Clerk / 4 : ,r C . * * j(b °: , TIE b) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manage THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Developme irector FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: May 22, 1995 RE: L'Auberge Lodge Affordable Housing Proposal for 1994 Lodge Growth Management Allocation and Vested Rights - First Reading of Ordinance c p,5 , Series of 1994 SUMMARY: The owners of the L'Auberge Lodge have submitted a GMP application for the 1994 Lodge competition. As required during competition, the applicants shall mitigate for additional employees generated by the proposal. The applicants have proposed to mitigate with a cash -in -lieu payment. The Planning Office recommends denial of this project's housing proposal of the cash - in -lieu for employee mitigation. The Growth Management Commission which reviewed and scored the L'Auberge GMP application forwards a split vote of 4 -4, with one abstention on the all -cash mitigation proposal. Council shall review and approve the method of employee mitigation by Ordinance. Please find Ordinance , attached for your review. The Ordinance reflects a mitigation of on -site housing, specifically the conversion of an existing cabin to a category 2 deed restriction. PROCEDURE: Housing mitigation is proposed in conjunction with the Lodge GMP application. Although the AACP requires joint Planning Commission review for GMP competitions in the metro area, the jurisdiction in which a development is proposed shall award GMQS allocations. Therefore, Council shall allocate, by Resolution, the lodge allotments for the L'Auberge Lodge. For allocation of the lodge allotments, a separate staff memo and resolution will be presented at the June 12, 1995 public hearing. Pursuant to Section 24- 8- 106.c., no growth management allocation shall be awarded unless the City council and Board of County Commissioners both accept the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission. A memo forwarding the Growth Commission's score, and a Resolution to accept the score, will be presented to the BOCC at their May 24, 1995 meeting. Therefore, staff recommends that Council review the Growth Commissions score and allocate by Resolution at the regular meeting June 12, 1995. This will also be second reading of the housing mitigation and vested rights Ordinance. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) STAFF DISCUSSION: I. Proposal - The applicants request 11 units from the 1994 allocation and one multi -year allocation from the 1995 lodge quota. The applicants have also proposed to amend the City Land Use Code to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and a conditional use review for the expanded lodge. The text amendment is reviewed in a separate memo with Ordinance. The conditional use was approved by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently, there are nine guest cabins, a laundry facility, an office, and a two bedroom manager's residence. The applicants propose to add 12 new cabins, a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, and minor upgrades to the existing cabins. II. Housing - The expanded lodge will increase the full time equivalent employees by .68. However, the applicants are required to mitigate for .4 employees which is 60% of the increase in employees. They have proposed a cash -in -lieu payment of $108,330, which mitigates over 100% of employees generated. In addition, the applicants propose to maintain the manager's residence as a free market unit but deed restrict the unit to provide for mitigation if the unit is sold and not used as a manager's residence. The Growth Commission has reviewed the housing mitigation package and found the applicant's proposal, as outlined, exceeds the minimum thresholds. However, during the initial scoring of the proposal and in the memo to the Growth Commission, staff recommended that on -site housing be provided as employee mitigation. The Commission acknowledged that the method of mitigation shall be decided by Council. Whether a payment -in -lieu is accepted or whether a unit is provided on -site, the Commission voted to accept the proposal. In addition, the Growth Commission moved to recommend the conversion of unit 7 for on -site housing, deed restricted to category 2 or 3, and not accept a payment -in -lieu. However, the motion failed to carry because of a split vote and one abstention. The Housing Board has established the following priorities in the 2 Affordable Housing Guidelines for housing mitigation: 1. on -site housing; 2. off -site housing, including buydown concept; 3. cash -in- lieu /land -in -lieu. Section 24 -8 -109 J. lists five factors with which to consider a GMP housing proposal: 1) Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees. 2) Whether the City has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing. 3) Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental constraints or historic preservation concerns. 4) Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the community. 5) Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs. Some Commission members believed that the cash -in -lieu offer was sufficient because the payment represented more than the required 60% minimum. Others believed that on -site housing was a preferred method and was easily accommodated by an existing cabin. Per the Housing Office's recommendation, if cash is accepted for housing mitigation, the payment should be indexed to the current Housing Guidelines. The new Guidelines would require a $124,030 payment. If a unit was deed restricted, it should be restricted to category 2 based on incomes of a typical range of lodge employees. III. Vested Rights - Vested rights for the project shall commence on the date that the Council approves the GMQS allocation as the applicant does not need to pursue any additional land use approvals to pull a building permit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of the L'Auberge Lodge housing mitigation proposal based on the Housing Board's priorities to provide on -site or ready -built units and recommends approval of on -site housing. ALTERNATIVES: The Council may elect to amend the Ordinance to 3 accept cash -in -lieu mitigation indexed to current Housing Guidelines when the payment is made. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance , Series of 1995." "I move to recommend approval of Ordinance , Series of 1995, for the housing mitigation proposal at the L'Auberge Lodge converting an existing cabin to a category 2 deed restricted dwelling unit." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Ordinance , Series of 1994 EXHIBITS A. April 10, 1995 Housing Office Referral Memo 4 EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 10, 1995 RE: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -50 -051 & -053 ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to -add 12 guest cabins, a laundry /employee locker area, and a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, for a total of 4,534 gross square feet of new construction. The applicant presently has a two - bedroom manager's unit located within the residence. They are proposing that this remain in free- market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requires that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu fee of $108,330 (1.57 X $69,000) for the additional employees. The cash -in -lieu fee is presently in the process of being increased with the adoption of the 1995 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. This could go into effect as early as mid May, which would require the cash -in -lieu payment of $124,030. POINTS: Appendix 3 does seem in line with the FTE's required, which represents that the proposed development would increase FTE's by .68 (1.83 - 1.15). The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu payment for 1.57 low income employees, which represents 'a 100% housing mitigation. This results in a score in this category "of 11 points. The Housing Board has established priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. The priorities are as follows: 1. On -site housing; 2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept; 3. Cash -in- lieu /land -in -lieu. The Housing Office recommends that the housing mitigation be met on -site. MANAGER'S UNIT: The applicant is requesting that the manager's unit remain in free - market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requests that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The Housing Office recommends deed restricting this manager's unit to Resident Occupied, which limits the unit to occupancy by qualified employees, but not as to price or income limitations. This would also restrict the use and occupancy of the unit to residents and '"`,. their families who are either employed by the owner or who are residents of Pitkin County and fall within the Housing Authority qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. If approved as requested and prior to building permit approval, the Housing Office will require the net liveable square footage calculation for the unit, a copy of the floor plans of this unit, and a recorded deed restriction. The Deed Restriction should be obtained from the Housing Office. \word \referral \lauber g m q 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Suzanne Konchan, Community Development Director$C. FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: May 24, 1995 RE: Accepting the GMQS Score of the Growth Management Commission for the 1994 GMP Lodge Allocation SUMMARY: The GMQS system for residential and lodge development was recently amended as recommended by the Aspen Area Community Plan. The revision process began in early 1993 intending to affect the 1994 GMQS competition. Because the revisions were adopted in January of 1995, the 1994 submission deadlines were February 1995 for residential and March 1995 for Lodge. The available quota for the 1994 lodge competition, as adopted with the revisions, is 11 units. One application, the L'Auberge Lodge located at 435 Main Street, was submitted requesting all 11 units, and one future allocation from the 1995 quota. The joint Growth Management Commission (City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions) reviewed the L'Auberge application and found that the application exceeded the minimum thresholds established by the Municipal Code, Section 24- 8- 108.C. PROCEDURE: The Aspen Area Community Plan recommended, among other changes to the GMP system, the creation of a metro area growth management competition system. One result of the metro area system was the establishment of a joint Growth Management Commission comprised of both the city and county Planning and Zoning Commissions to review and score GMP applications. In addition to the joint review process, both the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council must accept the scores awarded by the Growth Commission before development allocations may be granted. Please see attached draft Resolution for the Commissioners acceptance of the Growth Commission's score. Although joint review and scoring is required, the jurisdiction in which a development is proposed shall award the GMQS allocations. Review and acceptance of the Growth Commission's score is scheduled for the June 12, 1995 City Council meeting at which time Council, provided the BOCC has also accepted the Growth Commission's score, may award the development allocation. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) STAFF DISCUSSION: I. Proposal - The applicants request 11 units from the 1994 allocation and one multi -year allocation from the 1995 lodge quota. The applicants have also proposed to amend the City Land Use Code to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and a conditional use review for the expanded lodge. The conditional use was approved by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently, there are nine guest cabins, a laundry facility, an office, and a two bedroom manager's residence. The applicants propose to add 12 new cabins, a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, and minor upgrades to the existing cabins. The existing floor area on the parcel is 4,937 square feet, the proposal will add 4,244 square feet of floor area for a total of 9,181 square feet and a total floor area ratio of .34:1. (The allowable FAR in the office zone district is .75:1 which may be increased to 1:1 by special review.) In addition to upgrading the cabins and adding new cabins, the applicants propose to provide 24 on -site parking spaces and two hot tubs. The zone districts surrounding the lodge are: R -15 Moderate Density Residential on the other side of the alley, and Office to the north, east and west of the site. II. Allocations - According to the Section 24- 8- 106.c., applications for a GMQS allocation shall be scored by the Growth Management Commission. The Commission reviewed and scored the L'Auberge application at a public hearing April 18, 1995. According to the scores, the applicant scored above threshold (which is a score of 3) in all four categories: revitalizing the permanent community; providing transportation alternatives; promoting environmentally sustainable development; and maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character. The applicant requested an allocation of 11 lodge units from the 1994 quota and one unit from the 1995 quota. In a preliminary review and recommended scoring to the Commission, the Community Development staff found that the applicant did not 2 meet threshold in all categories except maintaining design quality, historic compatibility... Staff found that the lack of on -site affordable housing, insufficient provision of additional public amenities such as sidewalks, the auto - orientation of the proposal, and the continued existence of 7 fireplaces were not consistent with the standards established by the AACP. Prior to the scoring by the Growth Commission, the applicant's representative made several amendments to the submitted application: * elimination of the curb cut next to the manager's unit; * addition of sidewalks on both 3rd and 4th streets from Main St. to the alley; * provision of bicycles for guests and employees; * curb -side service for guests to avoid guests renting a car; * installation of a streetlight; * paving the alley; and * elimination of one fireplace. The Growth Commission unanimously voted that the applicant has met threshold in all four of the categories and recommends a 1994 Lodge Allocation from City Council for 11 units as amended by the applicant at the meeting. The Growth Commission also voted to approve the application as amended at the public hearing April 18, 1995. Finally, the Growth Commission voted (with one opposed) to recommend to Council the multi -year allocation of one lodge unit from the 1995 lodge quota finding that this is a small lodge project and is at a disadvantage with the present growth management quota system; so therefore, it would be very burdensome for this applicant to have to return to compete. Eight members favored the motion and one opposed. RECOMMENDATION: The Growth Management Commission recommends acceptance of the scores for eleven 1994 lodge units and one 1995 lodge unit for the L'Auberge Lodge GMP allocation. 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO, ACCEPTING THE 1994 GMQS SCORES FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FOR THE L'AUBERGE LODGE, 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RESOLUTION 95- RECITALS 1. Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code sets forth a growth management quota system governing new development within the City of Aspen. 2. Section 4- 606.I., requires the review and scoring of GMP applications to be conducted by a joint Growth Management Commission comprised of both city and county Planning and Zoning Commissions. 3. Before any allocation of development allotments, both the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council must accept the scoring of the development proposal from the Growth Management Commission. 4. The Growth Management Commission has found that the development proposal for the L'Auberge Lodge proposal, as amended, has exceeded the minimum thresholds established by Section 3 -1605 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 5. The Growth Management Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners acceptance of the scoring as approved at the April 18, 1995, public hearing. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that the Board of County Commissioners does hereby accept the GMQS scores for the L'Auberge Lodge, as amended at the April 18, 1995 public hearing, and forwarded by the Growth Management Commission. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 24th day of May, 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO By Michael C. Ireland, Chairman Date ATTEST: Jeanette Jones APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Ely, Suzanne Konchan, Acting County Attorney County Planning Director 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: June 13, 1995 RE: Adoption of Resolution #____, Allotting Lodge Units from the 1994 Growth Management Quota System SUMMARY: Growth Management allotments are granted through a resolution adopted by City Council. Attached is Resolution # for your consideration and adoption. The GMQS system for residential and lodge development was recently amended as recommended by the Aspen Area Community Plan. The revision process began in early 1993 intending to affect the 1994 GMQS competition. Because the revisions were adopted in January of 1995, the 1994 competition was held in February 1995 for residential and March 1995 for Lodge. The available quota for the 1994 lodge competition, as adopted with the revisions, is 11 units. One application, the L'Auberge Lodge, was submitted requesting all 11 units, and one future allocation from the 1995 quota. The joint Growth Management Commission (City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions) reviewed the L'Auberge application and found that the application exceeded the minimum thresholds established by the Municipal Code, Section 24- 8- 108.C. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) STAFF DISCUSSION: I. Proposal - The applicants request 11 units from the 1994 allocation and one multi -year allocation from the 1995 lodge quota. The applicants have also proposed to amend the City Land Use Code to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and a conditional use review for the expanded lodge. The text amendment is reviewed in a separate memo with Ordinance. The conditional use was approved by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently, there are nine guest cabins, a laundry facility, an office, and a two bedroom manager's residence. The applicants propose to add 12 new cabins, a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, and minor upgrades to the existing cabins. The existing floor area on the parcel is 4,937 square feet, the proposal will add 4,244 square feet of floor area for a total of 9,181 square feet and a total floor area ratio of .34:1. (The allowable FAR in the office zone district is .75:1 which may be increased to 1:1 by special review.) In addition to upgrading the cabins and adding new cabins, the applicants propose to provide 24 on -site parking spaces and two hot tubs. The zone districts surrounding the lodge are: R -15 Moderate Density Residential on the other side of the alley, and Office to the north, east and west of the site. II. Allocations - According to the Section 24- 8- 106.c., applications for a GMQS allocation shall be scored by the Growth Management Commission. The Commission reviewed and scored the L'Auberge application at a public hearing April 18, 1995. According to the scores, the applicant scored above threshold (which is a score of 3) in all four categories: revitalizing the permanent community; providing transportation alternatives; promoting environmentally sustainable development; and maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character. The applicant requested an allocation of 11 lodge units from the 1994 quota and one unit from the 1995 quota. The Growth Commission unanimously voted that the applicant has met threshold in all four of the categories and recommends a 1994 Lodge Allocation from City Council for 11 units. The Growth Commission also voted to approve the application, as amended, at the public hearing April 18, 1995. Finally, the Growth Commission voted (with one opposed) to recommend to Council the multi -year allocation of one lodge unit from the 1995 lodge quota finding that this is a small lodge project and is at a disadvantage with the present growth management quota system; so therefore, it would be very burdensome for this applicant to have to return to compete. Eight members favored the motion and one opposed. 2 III. Housing - Council must also review and approve the method of employee mitigation. The Housing mitigation proposal was discussed in a separate Housing and Vested Rights memorandum that Council reviewed at the May 22 meeting and at this meeting. IV. Amendments to the Proposal - Prior to the scoring by the Commission the applicant's representative made several amendments to the submitted application: * elimination of the curb cut next to the manager's unit; * addition of sidewalks on both 3rd and 4th streets from Main St. to the alley; * provision of bicycles for guests and employees; * curb -side service for guests to avoid guests renting a car; * a streetlight will be installed; * the applicant will pave the alley; and * elimination of one fireplace. V. Utilities /Service Plan - The applicant has revised the utility /service plan. The plan has been reviewed by pertinent agencies which have approved of the revisions. RECOMMENDATION: The Growth Management Commission recommends adoption of this allotment by Resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution # , Series 1995, allocating eleven 1994 lodge units and one 1995 lodge unit to the L'Auberge Lodge as amended at the Growth Management Commission public hearing April 18, 1995 and the submitted utility /service plan." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Resolution # 3 RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1995) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING 1994 GMQS LODGE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS AND 1995 GMQS LODGE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS WHEREAS, Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code sets forth a growth management quota system governing new development within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24- 8 -104.A of the Aspen Municipal Code, eleven (11) lodge units are available for development allotments within the metro area on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, only the L'Auberge Lodge submitted an application requesting eleven lodge units from the 1994 allocation and one unit from the 1995 allocation; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Community Development Department and forwarded to the Growth Management Commission (the Commission) ; and WHEREAS, the Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 1995, did evaluate the proposal and found that the development proposal for the L'Auberge Lodge, as amended, has exceeded the minimum thresholds established by Section 24 -8 -108 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners did accept the Commission's score at their public meeting May 23, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission recommends to the City Council the allocation of eleven 1994 lodge units and one 1995 future allocation as amended and approved at the April 18, 1995, public hearing; and WHEREAS, no challenges to the Growth Management Commission's scoring have been submitted as allowed Under Section 24- 8- 106.D. of the Aspen Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: In accordance with Section 24 -8 -106 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council does hereby grant to the L'Auberge Lodge development proposal an allotment of eleven lodge units from the 1994 growth management quota and one future allotment from the 1995 growth management quota. Section 3: In accordance with Section 24 -8 -110 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the development allotments as awarded herein shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific development plan for the project as identified herein, unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or an extension to the approval is obtained. Date: , 1995. John Bennett, 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 , 1995. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Vif MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: tan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: slie Lamont, Deputy Director CC �� DATE: June 13, 1995 RE: L'Auberge Text Amendment for the Office Zone District - !econd Reading Ordinance 31, Series of 1995 SUMMARY: The applicants propose to expand their existing lodge operation and propose a text amendment to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the tex amendment and approved the conditional use subject to Council'b approval of the text amendment. At first reading, Council recommended that the conditional use for a lodge in the Office zone district only apply to small lodges and requested a definition for small lodges. Due to the proposed scope of work with the small lodge community, staff intends to accurately define a small lodge. At this time the proposed text amendment before Council recommends lodges as a conditional use. The conditional use review process is a public hearing at the P &Z and the review criterion for a conditional use refers to compatibility with surrounding neighborhood and existing zoning. In addition, consistency with the AACP is also a requirement. Staff believes the conditional use review process will lend enough protection against large -scale operations while the definition for a small lodge is developed with the lodge community. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: A text amendment to allow a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district. STAFF COMMENTS: I. Text Amendment - A lodge is not a permitted or conditional use in the Office zone district. However, there are many lodges located along Main Street. Several are not zoned LP but enhance the character and mix of uses along Main Street. L'Auberge is zoned Office. Both a rezoning of the property to Lodge Preservation or amending the Office zone district were explored with the applicant. If L'Auberge were rezoned to LP, the lodge would be non - conforming with respect to the Internal floor area ratio. In the LP zone the maximum internal FAR rental space is 0.5:1 which can be increased to 0.75:1 if 33 1/3 % of the additional floor area is approved for affordable housing. With the expansion, 75% of the floor area is lodge rental space and 25% of the remaining floor area is accessory lodge uses including the manager's residence. Because L'Auberge is comprised of small cabins and guest amenities are external, there is little internal floor area that is not rental space. The AACP recommends that additional incentives be considered to preserve and enhance small lodges. The LP zone district is coming under heavy scrutiny by small lodge owners and they are also recommending flexibility. Therefore, the applicant has proposed a text amendment to the Office zone district to allow a lodge as a conditional use. There may be some concern that by not pursuing a rezoning of the lodge to LP, staff has left the door open for a conversion of the lodge. With the present zoning, Office, the applicant could convert the lodge at any point in time. However, the revisions to the GMQS section of the Land Use Code limit the number of conversions on an annual basis. There are two free - market residential exemptions in the metro -area for items such as conversions, lot splits, etc. In addition, if a lodge is reviewed as a conditional use and converts to another use both the change in use review and potentially an amendment to the conditional use approval will be required. In addition, the applicant requested that kitchens be allowed in the lodge unit. However, the Commission recommended that kitchens in lodge units should be discussed during the broad small lodge discussions that are occurring between staff and lodge owners. The language of the text amendment is as proposed: Section 5 -213. Office (0) C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted a conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 9. Lodge units. E. Off - street parking requirement. The following off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 2. Lodge uses: N/A 0.7 space /bedroom which may be reduced via a payment in lieu that is approved by the Commission by special 2 e MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager 2 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: June 13, 1995 RE: L'Auberge Lodge Affordable Housing Proposal for 1994 Lodge Growth Management Allocation and Vested Rights - Second Reading of Ordinance 29, Series of 1995 SUMMARY: The owners of the L'Auberge Lodge have submitted a GMP application for the 1994 Lodge competition. As required during competition, the applicants shall mitigate for additional employees generated by the proposal. The applicants have proposed to mitigate with a cash -in -lieu payment. The Planning Office recommends denial of this project's housing proposal of the cash - in -lieu for employee mitigation. The Growth Management Commission, which reviewed and scored the L'Auberge GMP application, forwards a split vote of 4 -4 with one abstention on the all -cash mitigation proposal. Council shall review and approve the method of employee mitigation by Ordinance. Council passed Ordinance 29 on first reading. Please find Ordinance 29 attached for your review. The Ordinance reflects mitigation through the provision of on -site housing, specifically the conversion of an existing cabin to a category 2 deed restriction. PROCEDURE: Housing mitigation is proposed in conjunction with the Lodge GMP application. Although the AACP requires joint Planning Commission review for GMP competitions in the metro area, the jurisdiction in which a development is proposed shall award GMQS allocations. Therefore, Council shall allocate, by Resolution, the lodge allotments for the L'Auberge Lodge. For allocation of the lodge allotments, a separate staff memo and resolution has been prepared for this meeting. Pursuant to Section 24- 8- 106.c., no growth management allocation shall be awarded unless the City Council and Board of County Commissioners both accept the recommendation of the Growth Management Commission. The BOCC accepted the score for the L'Auberge lodge proposal at their May 24, 1995 meeting. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) STAFF DISCUSSION: I. Proposal - The applicants request 11 units from the 1994 allocation and one unit allocated from the 1995 lodge quota. The applicants have also proposed to amend the City Land Use Code to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and have requested a conditional use review for the expanded lodge. The text amendment is reviewed in a separate memo with an attached Ordinance. The conditional use was approved by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently, there are nine guest cabins, a laundry facility, an office, and a two - bedroom manager's residence. The applicants propose to add 12 new cabins, a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, and minor upgrades to the existing cabins. II. Housing - The expanded lodge will increase the full time equivalent employees by .68. However, the applicants are required to mitigate for .4 employees which is 60% of the increase in employees. They have proposed a cash -in -lieu payment of $108,330, which mitigates over 100% of employees generated. In addition, the applicants propose to maintain the manager's residence as a free market unit but deed restrict the unit to provide for mitigation if the unit is sold and not used as a manager's residence. The Growth Commission has reviewed the housing mitigation package and found the applicant's proposal, as outlined, exceeds the minimum thresholds. However, during the initial scoring of the proposal and in the memo to the Growth Commission, staff recommended that on -site housing be provided as employee mitigation. The Commission acknowledged that the method of mitigation should be decided by Council. Whether a payment -in -lieu is accepted or whether a unit is provided on -site, the Commission voted to accept the proposal. In addition, the Growth Commission moved to recommend the conversion of unit 7 for on -site housing, deed restricted to category 2 or 3, and not accept a payment -in -lieu. However, the motion failed to carry because of a split vote and one abstention. The Housing Board has established the following priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for housing mitigation: 1. on -site housing; 2. off -site housing, including buydown concept; 2 3. cash -in- lieu /land -in -lieu. Section 24 -8 -109 J. lists five factors with which to consider a GMP housing proposal: 1) Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees. 2) Whether the City has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing. 3) Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental constraints or historic preservation concerns. 4) Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the community. 5) Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs. Some Commission members believed that the cash -in -lieu offer was sufficient because the payment represented more than the required 60% minimum. Others believed that on -site housing was a preferred method and was easily accommodated by an existing cabin. Per the Housing Office's recommendation, if cash is accepted for housing mitigation, the payment should be indexed to the current Housing Guidelines. The new Guidelines would require a $124,030 payment. If a unit was deed restricted, it should be restricted to category 2 based on incomes of a typical range of lodge employees. III. Vested Rights - Vested rights for the project shall commence on the date that the Council approves the GMQS allocation as the applicant does not need to pursue any additional land use approvals to pull a building permit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of the L'Auberge Lodge housing mitigation proposal based on the Housing Board's priorities to provide on -site or ready -built units. It is recommended that the Council require on -site housing. An Ordinance requiring on -site housing is attached. ALTERNATIVES: The Council may elect to amend the Ordinance to accept cash -in -lieu mitigation indexed to current Housing Guidelines when the payment is made and to accept the deed restriction of the manager's unit as proposed by the applicant. 3 PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance 29, Series of 1995, for the housing mitigation proposal at the L'Auberge Lodge converting an existing cabin to a category 2 deed restricted dwelling unit." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Ordinance 29, Series of 1994 EXHIBITS A. April 10, 1995 Housing Office Referral Memo 4 EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: April 10, 1995 RE: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -50 -051 & -053 ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to -add 12 guest cabins, a laundry /employee locker area, and a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, for a total of 4,534 gross square feet of new construction. The applicant presently has a two - bedroom manager's unit located within the residence. They are proposing that this remain in free - market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requires that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu fee of $108,330 (1.57 X $69,000) for the additional employees. The cash -in -lieu fee is presently in the process of being increased with the adoption of the 1995 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. This could go into effect as early as mid May, which would require the cash -in -lieu payment of $124,030. POINTS: Appendix 3 does seem in line with the FTE's required, which represents that the proposed development would increase FTE's by .68 (1.83 - 1.15). The applicant is proposing a cash -in -lieu payment for 1.57 low income employees, which represents a 100% housing mitigation. This results in a score in this category`of 11 points. The Housing Board has established priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. The priorities are as follows: 1. On -site housing; 2. Off -site housing, including buydown concept; 3. Cash -in- lieu /land -in - lieu. The Housing Office recommends that the housing mitigation be met on -site. MANAGER'S UNIT: The applicant is requesting that the manager's unit remain in free - market ownership with a binding Housing Authority deed restriction which requests that mitigation be paid, if and at such time as the dwelling may be sold. The Housing Office recommends deed restricting this manager's unit to Resident Occupied, which limits the unit to occupancy by qualified employees, but not as to price or income limitations. This would also restrict the use and occupancy of the unit to residents and their families who are either employed by the owner or who are residents of Pitkin County and fall within the Housing Authority qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. If approved as requested and prior to building permit approval, the Housing Office will require the net liveable square footage calculation for the unit, a copy of the floor plans of this unit, and a recorded deed restriction. The Deed Restriction should be obtained from the Housing Office. \word \referral \lauber g m q 2 r. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CITY /COUNTY JOINT GROWTH APRIL 18, 1995 MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr. Answering roll call for the City were Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, and Steve Buettow. Jasmine Tygre, Robert Blaich, and Marta Chaikovska were excused. Answering roll call for the County were Suzanne Caskey, George Krazoff, David Guthrie, Shellie Harper, G. Steve Whipple, and Cathy Tripodi. Excused were Jack Hatfield and Jake Vickery and Ben Dorman. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. 1994 GMOS TOURIST ACCOMMODATION - L'AUBERGE LODGE Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing and requested Leslie Lamont to proceed. Leslie Lamont: There is one item on the agenda for the joint Growth Management Commission to review and score. The application is requesting a 1994 lodge allocation, and they are requesting 12 lodges. She submitted for public record to the clerk, Affidavit and Proof of Public Noticing (attached in record). Lamont said that there was a possibility that applicant will be making amendments to their applicant and would come forth in their presentation to the commissions. However, she said she would make her presentation based upon the application submitted. In presentation, she stated the applicant is requesting 12 lodge units and there are currently 9 cabins on site, with 1 manager's residence. There are fireplaces and wood stoves in the cabins and in the manager's residence. The applicant is proposing to expand their lodge use within the office zone district. Right now, a lodge is not an allowed use in the office zone district, and as part of further review of this application by the City P &Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 ( Commission, the applicant will be pursuing a text amendment to allow lodge use in the office zone district. They will also be seeking a Conditional Use Review by the P &Z Commission for the lodge. Lamont said the criteria to be scored is: 1. Revitalizing the permanent community. A strong emphasis is placed on family- oriented housing. The application, when submitted, proposed a cash -in -lieu payment to mitigate their employee housing needs. Their cash -in -lieu payment far exceeded the minimum requirement of providing housing for the increase in employees. It was nearly 100 per cent. 2. Providing transportation alternatives. Applicants have stated will provide a fleet of bicycles for guest residents and employees, and a "curbside service" for guests, so that guests do not have to rent a car, they will provide bus passes for employees, and the applicant's prime location on Main Street is the primary bus route from the City and the County and there is currently a RFTA bus stop on the site. Applicant has provided a nice little bench at the bus stop. It is proposed by applicant to provide on parking space per cabin. 3. Promoting an environmentally sustainable development. Applicant included materials that would be used in construction and feels are environmentally sensitive. Applicant is not proposing the heat any of the parking pads or driveways, and will not install air conditioners. Applicant has emphasized they will have bicycles, new cabins will be installed with gas log fireplaces. There is one wood stove, 7 wood - burning fireplaces on the property in individual cabins. The application, as proposed, does not change what presently exists in regard to the wood - burning in the present units, only in the new units. 4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and Community character. This site is on Main Street, and is considered an historic district, and has been reviewed by the HPC. The character is very pedestrian - friendly, the site plan has small cottages and compatiable with historic setting. Lamont said that in three of the four categories, staff scored ' applicant less than threshold. Presentation was then made by Gideon Kaufman, attorney, presenting 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 ( the applicants, ALH Holding. Kaufman introduced Dave Gibson, architect on the project, Jay Hammond, who has worked on the engineering, Tracy and Michael, managers of the Lodge, and Audrey, the owner. Kaufman said that this project was slightly different from what one is used to seeing. It was a project to preserve cabins, vintage 1950's, and incorporate design and structure around the cabins. Emphasis on preserving the small lodge and uniqueness qualities were pointed out. Dave Gibson, architect, also made presentation to give physical understanding of what was being done architecturally in terms of construction on the site. He pointed out some of the character of the Lodge such as: small seating areas and flower boxes in windows, small -scale architecture, preservation of mature aspens, cottonwoods, pines and lilacs, parking spaces allow the grass to come through, gardens and walkways. Spacing between buildings was pointed out -open space vistas. The Site Plan was viewed, as well as other architectural maps in summary. Kaufman went over criteria 1 as first issue. He stressed the fact that applicant mitigated almost 100 per cent of cash -in lieu, and applicant is willing to take one of the units and convert to affordable housing and did not meet threshold with staff scoring. ( The second issue of providing transportation alternatives, Kaufman added that the lodge is willing to provide sidewalks on both sides of the site. The applicant chose to ask for one parking space per cabin next to each cabin. Kaufman went to criteria 3, promoting environmentally sustainable development. Again, he pointed out also the applicant will pave the alleys and eliminate the tremendous amount of dirt at the site. One of the criticisms of the project has to do with the fireplaces that the applicant is not proposing to eliminate, and Kaufman defended the fact that one does not want take away those amenities that make a small lodge desirable; wood- burning fireplaces being one of those amenities. - • Chairman Kerr: What is the heat source in both the old cabins and the new cabins? Is there heat available in each of the units beyond the wood- burning fireplaces? Gibson: Natural gas. In terms of criteria 4, maintaining design quality,' historic compatibility and community character, Kaufman stated discussion was open before scoring. 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 Harper asked what would happen with the manager's residence. Kaufman stated that the manager's residence is on one portion of separate property and the lodge is on the other. What the applicant is doing is combining the two together, but wishes to reserve the option to sell the manager's residence as a house in the future. Kaufman stated also that the applicant is eliminating one of the three existing curb -cuts and will grass it over, reducing by 33 per cent, the amount of curb -cuts that exist onto Main Street. Mooney asked if the applicant intended to condominiumize the project and sell individually. Kaufman did say at one time the owners looked at the option before this application, but determined not to do so. Mooney expressed concern regarding the environment, nature of the design, and made it very clear that if the design was going to stand with him, it would have to remain and long' -range qualities maintained. Kaufman defended applicant stating that all the applicant was trying to do was keep flexibility and preserve options in the future should the City decide to offer such options. It is not part of the applicant proposal at this time to condominiumize. Lamont stated that any substantial changes in the use of the site would open it up for re- scoring and /or amendment for conditional use review. Chairman Kerr asked applicant and staff, what kind of buildings could we be potentially looking at on this site if property was redeveloped as office? Kaufman: It is a .75 in the 0 office zone, up to one to one, so you could have a 27,000 sq. ft. building on this property, instead you are ending up with .34. You are ending up with a third of what would be appropriate. Lamont added that in addition the maximum height in the office zone district is 25 ft. and another important aspect is there is no open space requirement. Chairman Kerr asked what were the setback requirements. Lamont answered the minimum front yard is 10 ft. The applicant is requesting a variance to the Board of Adjustment of 1 -1/2 ft. Chairman Kerr asked how to insure the shuttle service would continue in the future. Kaufman thought it would be a condition of approval that the shuttle would stand. Harper suggested that a free taxi to and from the airport for guests might be a cheaper solution; she felt committed that people have free transportation to the lodge. Caskey stated concern regarding the wood - burning fireplaces in the 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 ( present units and asked if gas appliances could replace them; Kaufman stated that the applicant did not want to lose the nature of what brings people to the lodge - the wood - burning fireplaces. At this particular time to commit to eliminating the fireplaces was not feasible, but perhaps sometime in the future. Chairman Kerr opened public comment and Lisa York, and 5 month resident of Aspen who resided at the lodge, spoke in support of the expansion of the lodge. Steve Goldenberg, a neighbor of the lodge, also spoke and was supportive of the lodge and the transportation issues. He felt the project represented the community and was pleasant. Doug ( ? ), a businessman in Aspen, has brought several large groups into Aspen to stay at the L'Auberge. Recently, the lodge has not had the capacity to hold the groups and he was in favor of the expansion. Chairman Kerr then closed the public hearing. Kaufman went through areas where the applicant is amending the application and requested flexibility in decisions of scoring. First area the applicant is amending has to do with affordable housing. There is a proposal for cash -in -lieu for about 100 per cent of the employees. Second, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the curb -cut, add sidewalks, in addition to the bicycles, curb -side service and a streetlight. Third, applicant proposes to pave the alley and pave and eliminate the dust problem that now exists. Last, applicant is willing to eliminate one fireplace. Scoring commensed by paper. Whipple chose not to vote. Buettow chose not to vote due to conflict of interest, for the record. Five county members and four city members voted, totaling nine. Lamont did scoring count and passed to Chairman Kerr. The applicant made above threshold in all categories; 3.7, 3.5, 3.7, 4.4. MOTION Hunt moved to recommend to City Council application has met threshold in all four of its categories and recommends a 1994 Lodge Allocation from City Council for 11 units. Guthrie seconded, roll call vote was unanimous, motion carried. MOTION Caskey moved to eliminate Conditions of Planning Office memorandum dated April 18, 1995 as purpose of meeting was to score, that was done, applicant already made representations and amendments and is expected to adhere to those. Tripodi seconded, vote was unamimous, motion carried. 5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 MOTION Hunt moved to recommend to City Council to decide regarding on site housing versus and /or cash -in -lieu, and if decision is that housing shall not be placed on the property and City Council accepts cash - in -lieu instead, that one unit be allocated from the 1995 Lodge Growth Management Allocation. This Commission recognizes that this is a small lodge project and is at a disadvantage with the present growth management quota system; so, therefore, it would be very burdensome for this applicant to have to return to compete. Tripodi seconded, vote commensed, eight favored, Krazoff opposed, motion carried. MOTION Guthrie moved to recommend to City Council to not accept cash -in- lieu, but that they decide to convert housing; recommends Category 2 or 3 also, and accept an on -site unit number 7 as mitigation. Krazoff seconded. Roll call vote commensed; motion was split, 4 approved, 4 opposed (Caskey, Tripodi, Hunt, Mooney), with one C abstention (Harper). Motion failed to carry. Chairman Kerr adjourned the first meeting of the Joint Growth Management Commission. Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 6 h - 3 -20 -95 L'ATIBERGE LODGE 1. SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION F OR GMQS ALLOTMENT (a). WATER. An 8" C.I.Pipe exists in 3rd Street along the eastern boundary of the property, with at least 60 p.s.i. pressure. We propose to tap into the line with a 4" line, which will service 12 new cottages. Daily additional water usage for all new cabins is estimated to be in the 2400 gallons/day range during tourist seasons (8 months) and about 400 gallons per day (2 cabins occupied) during off -season (4 months). The City has sufficient capacity to service the project. (b). SEWER. An 8" line exists in the Alley of Block 38 along the south boundary of the property, running east. The 12 new cabins will connect with the main line via a new 6" sanitary line near the mid -point of the Block. The new development will generate approximately 2400 gallons per day from the cabins, plus another 800 estimated G.P.D. from the additional Lodge laundry activity. Ejector pumps may be required from cabins 12, 15, 19, and 20, since the alley sewer line is buried only 5 feet deep. March 20, 1995 L'Auberge Lodge Application for GMQS Allotment Page 2 (c). SURFACE DRAINAGE. No curb and gutter hardscape presently exists on the site; the current parking areas are gravel and are bordered by lawn areas. Surface drainage presently re- enters the ground and percolates back to the water table. This pattern of on -site retention of precipitation will continue. The twelve new parking spaces will each be constructed of a permeable surface, such as "grass- crete ", structural landscape matting, or gravel, as requested by H.P.C., in order to allow the "greening" of auto storage areas. The cabin will typically be bordered by lawn or flower beds and small planting areas which retain roof runoff. Therefore, no curb and gutter or valley pan constructions for concentrating and directing drainage are proposed or contemplated. The historic pattern of on -site retention of surface drainage will be maintained. (d). FIRE PROTECTION. Three City hydrants currently exist within 200 ft of the property: hydrant #464 is 70' to the east, at the SE corner of Main and 3rd; hydrant #573 is 190 ft. away at the SE corner of 3rd and Hopkins; and hydrant #572 is 190 ft. away, at the SW corner of 4th and Hopkins. The Project is well - served by water for fire protection in the event of a fire. Fire equipment has free access approach to all four sides of the property, which are bordered by public rights -of- way. Each new cabin will be equipped with a "dry" fire sprinkler system as required by the fire Marshall. • / March 20, 1995 L'Auberge Lodge Application for GMQS Allotment Page 3 (e). DEVELOPMENT AREA. The proposed development is for an additional 12 guest cabins, a laundry/employee locker area, and a bathroom addition to the Manager's residence. A total of 4534 S.F. gross, of new construction is proposed, increasing the property to a .34 FAR. A tabular analysis of the Bulk and Area characteristics is given in Appendix 1 and 2. The employee staffing requirements are shown in Appendix 3. Manager housing is provided on -site for two resident managers. Housing mitigation for the 1.57 additional housekeeping workers required for the new development are to be satisfied through an in- lien cash payment to the Housing Authority. (f). TRAFFIC. All required parking is proposed to be provided on site: 12 spaces for the 12 new guest cottages. It is known that auto usage by Lodge guests is somewhat less than the required one space per bedroom, and averages about .7 per bedroom for all Aspen Lodging establishments, therefore, we expect about 15 cars on -site during season. Given the proximity to Town, and the bus service as well as free bicycles and "Family Curbside Service" offered by the Lodge will result in minimal new traffic generation. Traffic counts will be below the 30 round trips per day estimated during season (8 during off - season) which would result without the auto disincentives. The location on Main Street/Hwy. 82 is a major collector, and the additional traffic represents less than one tenth of one percent of daily roadway capacity. i 1 March 20, 1995 L'Auberge Lodge Application for GMQS Allotment Page 4 A full discussion of the mass transit and alternative transit incentives and programs offered by the Lodge is given in the text above, in "2. Providing Transpiration Alternatives" section, and should be referred to in this regard. Hourly usage of autos is expected to be dispersed throughout the day. Unlike commercial business with typical 8 to 5 hours of operation, Lodge guests may be expected to come and go at various times. Snow - ice removal and storage will be continued by management as presently practiced, which is to establish several small snow storage areas on -site, adjacent to the parking places. (g). AFFORDABLE HOUSING. The staffing plan is shown in Appendix 3. Housing for two resident managers is to be provided on -site, while the 1.57 F.T.E. Housekeepers will be provided for through an in -lieu cash payment to the Housing Authority of $108,330.00. (h). STOVES/FIREPLACES. Each of the 12 new guest cabins will be equipped with a gas appliance fireplace, which is equipped with outside combustion air, power venting, and a sealed combustion chamber for efficiency and safety. (i). CENTRAL LOCATION. The Main Street location gives the development good access to systems of mass transit, as well as proximity to Paepke and Wagner Parks, and to the Music Tent area. This small development will have no significant increase in the uses of parks, hospitals, and the airport. S March 20, 1995 L'Auberge Lodge Application for GMAQ Allotment Page 5 (j). PROXIMITY TO RETAIUSERVICE OUTLETS. The location of the site is 5 blocks from the central core, and within easy walking distance, as well as convenient bus line access to the mass and central business district. The small scale of the proposed development will place minimal demands upon retail services. (k). ADJACENT USES. The adjacent uses are the West Main Street mix: offices, small lodges, multifamily dwellings. The L'Auberge Lodge concept of small scale cottages and of low density development (.34 F.A.R.) is one which enhances the entire neighborhood, by upgrading the quality, but keeping the scale, density, and congestion to a minimum. (1). CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. Approvals May, 1995 Detailed Drawings June & July, 1995 Bidding August, 1995 Construction Sept. -Nov. 1995 Occupancy November 1995 2. SITE UTILIZATION MAPS. (These drawings have been submitted and bound into the Application Books, dated 3- 15 -95.) Two new drawings are herein included: 1.) Utilities' Plan 2.) Area Zoning Map I all ©� a � ; (. aim .,.. , ST. R- 6 ® IIIIIilC 11111111 H H W. HALLAM ST. i �I 1 e i HITE 11111111 rip 1 H _ z W. SLEEKER ST. 111P1111_1 IIII.11111 .a , H o _ _ _ 7 ____. - -.. 9 —___. TfT !IIIIIIOII: H1 N 1 L z 1 II 7 1 - - 1 1_i L_ 6._1 600W 1 500W '400W'400W() 300, Is. . � 200W 11111111 3 1 1 illgliANE : IIIM!!'I 1111111111 1 = it:IIiiI 1 N N H —� — ' - - -- • - - -- W. + HOPKINS _ AVE,-- R -6 '44 1 ! 111 11 : H 1 2 1 1 1 LL 1 U 1 - S I I irir ri.....! il_P I 7 !, Ld , 1 L'AUBERGE LODGE c/ry w iiimaii 435 E. Main St. / r s SURROUNDING ZONING /co ? I O m 50o Pr- MEMORANDUM TO: Joint Growth Management Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: April 18, 1995 RE: 1994 GMQS Tourist Accommodation - L'Auberge Lodge SUMMARY: The applicants, ALH Holding, are seeking twelve, 1994 GMQS Tourist accommodation units to expand the L'Auberge Lodge. Please review the submitted application order to effectively score this proposal. The revised GMQS process requires the proposal to be scored by both the County and City Planning and Zoning Commissions acting as the Joint Growth Management Commission. The process prescribes that Community Development staff review the proposal and recommend a score for the proposal to the Commission. The Commission shall then hear presentation from the applicant and provide a final score for the application. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request 12 tourist /lodge accommodation units from the 1994 GMQS Lodge allotment. The applicants also propose to amend the City Land Use Code to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district and other dimensional requirement amendments, and conditional use review for the expanded lodge. The text amendment(s) and conditional use review will be performed by the City Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to GMQS scoring. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please review referral comments attached, Exhibit A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The lodge parcel is located in the Office zone district. The parcel is approximately 27,000 square feet and is bounded by Main street and a public alley to the north and south. Third and Fourth streets are on the east and west. Currently, there are nine guest cabins, a laundry facility, an office, and a two bedroom manager's residence. The applicants propose to add 12 new cabins, a bathroom addition to the manager's residence, and minor upgrades to the existing cabins. r The existing floor area on the parcel is 4,937 square feet, the proposal will add 4,244 square feet of floor area for a total of 9,181 square feet and floor area ratio of .34:1. (The allowable FAR in the office zone district is .75:1 which may be increased to 1:1 by special review.) In addition to upgrading the cabins and adding new cabins, the applicants propose to provide 24 on -site parking spaces and two hot tubs. The zone districts surrounding the lodge are: R -15 Moderate Density Residential on the other side of the alley, and Office to the north, east and west of the site. The site is relatively flat. Three curb cuts onto Main Street exist. The City just completed installing a new sidewalk the entire length of the property. Please review the attached application for a full statement of the project. GMQS SCORING: The Community Development Department has reviewed the application and has scored the application. The revisions to the GMQS section of the Land Use Codes amended the available scores and created new criteria by which to score an application. Please review the first section of the attached land use application for the applicant's response to the scoring criteria. The scoring criteria are based on the visions and goals of Aspen area residents, as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The criteria are universal in nature; they will be used in evaluating both residential and lodge development. It is recognized that different types of projects will be able to address the criteria in different ways, and that not all of the specific objectives and sample implementation methods are applicable to all types of development. Points shall be awarded for performance relative to each of the four scoring criteria. Possible scores for each criterion shall range from zero, the lowest possible score, to five, the highest possible score. It is recognized that small projects could be at a competitive disadvantage when scored against large -scale projects. It is intended, therefore, that projects be evaluated according to reasonable expectations regarding what could be accomplished given their size and scale. A score of zero shall be awarded to projects that, although they had the opportunity to comply with scoring criteria and had the ability to advance stated community goals, will actually contribute nothing to implementation of the articulated vision and may, in fact, move the community further away from its stated goals. A score of three indicates that a project will move the community closer toward attainment of its 2 stated visions and make a positive contribution toward the implementation of articulated goals. A score of five indicates that a project demonstrates exceptional sensitivity to the stated vision of the community and will result in significant movement toward implementation of those goals. Other scores along the continuum from zero to five will be awarded based on the degree to which projects will implement stated goals. No growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria. Criteria. The four character -based scoring criteria described below are intended to encourage imaginative, innovative, and flexible approaches to advancing the visions of Aspen area residents. Each criterion is presented in the form of general background and vision statements. Examples of methods that might be used to implement the vision follow the background and vision statements. It is recognized that some statements may have no relevance to certain types of projects; projects will not be penalized by low scores when that is the case. 1. Revitalizing the permanent community. Residents of the Aspen area have long recognized the need to preserve the community's character and identity as more than just a resort, a collection of second homes, and a tourist shopping mecca. They recognize that a "critical mass" of permanent residents and local serving- businesses is necessary to make any community function. They recognize, too, that the vitality brought to the Aspen area by full -time residents is being seriously diluted by the inability of working people to live in their own community. As a result of these concerns, one of the community's central goals is to create a community with a size, density, and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement, and vitality and one that provides opportunities for its workers to become a permanent part of the social fabric. RESPONSE: staff score 1 The applicant proposes to provide a $108,330 cash -in -lieu payment to the Housing Fund to mitigate the additional employees generated. In addition, the applicant proposes to maintain the manager's residence as a free market unit but deed restrict the unit to provide for mitigation if the unit is sold and not used as a manager's resident. The applicant calculates that .68 employees will be generated as a result of the expanded lodgd for a total of 1.83 full time employees. The Land Use Code establishes that an applicant be required to mitigate at least 60% of the employees generated. In the case of L'Auberge, this is only .4 employees. However, the 3 Pa- cash-in-lieu payment mitigates 1.57 employees almost 100% of the employees generated by the entire lodge operation. Although the applicant proposes to mitigate for a significant number of employees generated by the lodge, staff recommends a score of 1 for this proposal. This first review criterion discusses the necessity to revitalize the permanent community. The AACP recommends as a goal that 60% of employees that work in Pitkin County also reside in Pitkin County. The scoring criteria also states that one of the community's central goals is to create a community with a size, density, and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement, and vitality for its workers to become a permanent part of the social fabric. In staff's opinion, this proposal does' not move the community closer toward stated goals. No affordable housing is being provided on -site nor within the community such as a buy -down. There is no opportunity for employees of the lodge to reside near where they work or within the community. Although the resident manager may not qualify for category 1 -4 deed restricted housing, and RO housing does not comply with mitigation requirements for GMQS, the Housing Office has used the special review process for small lodges to enable an owner /occupied manager's residence to be located on the site and become fully deed restricted. A score of zero would indicate that the applicant's proposal will move the community further away from the stated goals. It is because of the cash -in -lieu offer, which mitigates almost 100% of employees at the lodge, that staff did not score a 0 but scored a 1. Staff realizes that the applicants have attempted to provide a small scale improvement on the property. Nevertheless, with 9 small cabins and 12 new small cabins being proposed, the applicant had the ability to provide some level of housing for permanent /working residents. 2. Providing transportation alternatives. Residents recognize that reducing dependency on the automobile is vital for the long -term livability and health of the Aspen area. Their plan is so bold as to envision a time in the not - too - distant future when the automobile is not the dominant means of moving people in and around the community. They are seeking a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. RESPONSE: staff score 2 The application states that a fleet of bicycles will be provided for guests and a "curbside service" and courier service for guests that chose not to rent a car. The application also states that RFTA bus passes are provided for employees. The City has recently 4 installed a sidewalk along Main Street and a RFTA bus stop is located adjacent to the property. The Lodge provides a "funky" bench for bus patrons to use. The site plan indicates 24 parking spaces for 21 cabins and a 2- bedroom manager's residence. The application includes a request to vary the dimensions of four parking spaces. Staff recommends a score of 2 for this proposal for several reasons. The application responds to an example standard for criteria #2 - creating, improving or expanding public commuter trails, walkways...such as pedestrian /bikeway plan - by discussing the proximity of the project to the new sidewalk constructed by the City on Main Street and the location of the curb to enable the irrigation watercourse to exist along the of the property. However, the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan of 1990 identifies both 3rd and 4th streets as pedestrian streets thus requiring complete sidewalks. The applicant does not offer to construct sidewalks on either 3rd or 4th streets. The applicant provided supplemental information calculating the amount of additional traffic that is to be generated by the expanded lodge. However, the applicant does not discuss what levels of traffic or actual PM -10 reductions are expected to occur with implementation of the auto- disincentives. Although the applicants believe that the lodge use generates .7 spaces /bedroom, one space per cabin is being provided. The site plan is very auto oriented. The proposal maintains the 3 existing curb cuts onto Main Street, rather than better utilizing the alley as access for more parking. Although the Office zone district does not allow lodges, the applicant is proposing a text amendment is for a lodge as a conditional use in the office zone district. The Office zone district allows parking to be reduced by special review via a payment -in -lieu. This location and the type of use may warrant a special review for parking to reduce the amount of land devoted to the automobile and enhance the open space. In addition, the request to vary the dimension of 4 parking spaces will make those spaces very difficult to use due to the proximity to the driveway or the need to parallel park. The applicant has taken advantage of the location of the lodge on Main Street, a primary RFTA bus route with a stop directly adjacent to the property, and the City's recent installation of the Main Street sidewalk. Staff finds that the applicant is doing very little on their own accord to reduce the auto dominance of the proposal, to.enhance, expand, or improve pedestrian orientation of the parcel or the public right -of -ways. 3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development. 5 Residents of the Aspen area recognize that the natural environment is one of the community's greatest assets. As a result, they wish to allow only that development that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes individually responsible, ecological lifestyles. The community seeks to foster a high level of consciousness relative to resource conservation, wildlife protection and environmental sustainability. RESPONSE: staff score 2 The proposal includes a recycle area and a bicycle fleet for guests. The development represents a floor area ratio of .34. The development will preserve much of the existing vegetation on- site but 2 scotch pines are proposed to be relocated. It is unclear from the site plan what vegetation is being preserved and what vegetation is being eliminated or relocated. A landscape plan was not submitted. The application also states that "grass - crete" will be used for driving and parking areas. As stated above, the proposal is very auto - oriented. However, staff commends the applicant for not using heated driveways. The cabins are proposed to be small with pedestrian walkways and view corridors laced throughout the project. No air conditioners are being provided. The 12 new cabins will have gas -log fireplaces. According to the records at the Environmental Health Department, there exist seven fireplaces on -site and one woodstove. The applicants do not propose to replace existing wood - burning fireplaces as part of the expansion or the minor upgrades made to these cabins. Primarily for this reason, staff recommends a score of 2 for this criterion. The applicant is not moving the community closer toward the attainment of its goals. The new cabins are required by current city legislation to provide only gas -log devices if any devices are proposed. The applicant is maintaining the status -quo on this project with respect to PM -10 and air pollution. As mentioned in the previous criterion, the application does not calculate the reduction in PM -10 the would be realized by the proposed auto - disincentives or transit alternatives that are being provided. More information is required to evaluate if the traffic and PM -10 attributed to this project as a whole will in fact be reduced or only the status -quo will be maintained on this parcel after the expansion. 4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character. Area residents recognize the importance of design within the larger historic setting of the community. It is a vital component of the community's economic well -being and cultural heritage. 6 They believe that public architecture should support and enhance community life. Their goal is to ensure the maintenance of community character through design quality and compatibility with historic features. RESPONSE: staff score 4 The applicants have proposed an expansion to their lodge operation that maintains the character of the existing lodge and preserves the quality of the small cabins with pedestrian walkways, view corridors and open space. The floor area on the 27,000 square fool parcel is only 9,181 square feet. The project was reviewed by the HPC because of its location on Main Street. The HPC approved conceptual review. There was much discussion about the reduced front yard setback verses the preservation of the interior space. The HPC supported the low floor area ratio of the site but recommended that the elevations and 1/2 story massing on Main Street be studied. A pedestrian feel along Main Street was encouraged. In addition an extensive landscape plan should be presented (no plan was included in the GMQS application). Although the existing cabins are not historic in nature, the proposed new cabins support the character of the lodge which are small individual lodge units, a type of lodging that is being lost in the community. Although staff found that the project is supportive of the goals and recommendations of this section, staff also expressed concern that the walkways within the project seemed constrained. Moreover, the parking and the loop driveway cuts -off and infringes on the interior courtyard. The orientation of buildings could have been more varied if parking and driveways were reduced in extent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Growth Management Commission denial of this proposal as submitted finding that the project does not meet the minimum threshold score for criteria #1, 12, and #3. However, this is the first review and scoring of a proposal since the adoption of the revised GMQS section of the Land Use Code. There is new criteria that has shifted the emphasis by which an applications is scored. In addition, residential and lodge criteria have been combined into a single set of criterion that applies to all residential and lodge development applications. It is for these reasons that staff would recommend that the applicant, if they so choose, be allowed to present, to the Growth Commission, amendments to the proposal. EXHIBITS: A. Application B. Referral Comments 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director RE: L'Auberge Conditional Use Review- Continued Public Hearing DATE: May 9, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicants propose to expand their existing lodge operation and have proposed a text amendment to enable a lodge as a conditional use in the Office zone district. The Commission approved the text amendment for a lodge in the office zone district, however at staff's request tabled the conditional use review in order for the applicant and staff to continue to work on the conditional use application. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use L'Auberge. The applicants are seeking several variance from the Board of Adjustment for the existing structures and the proposed cabins: Existing Proposed Front 10 ft. 1.5 ft. Rear 15 ft. 1.5 ft. Side 5 ft. 0 Between Bldgs. 10 ft. 3 ft. A hearing date has been established for May 25. The applicants have also received final HPC review on April 26, 1995. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Company represented by Gibson and Reno Architects and Gideon Kaufman, Attorney LOCATION: 435 West Main Street, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Office (0) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: A conditional use review for the L'Auberge lodge in the office zone district. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments, exhibit A. STAFF COMMENTS: I. Conditional Use - Staff, for the April 18 meeting, recommended tabling conditional use review primarily due to the insufficient utility /services plan. However, the various utility /service entities have since met with the applicant's representatives and have identified changes to the service plan in order for the •� ,.*,, utilities to sign -off on the plan. A revised plan shall be approved prior to Council's allocation of the GMQS allotments. In addition, the applicant has revised their site plan. A curb cut was eliminated and one parking place was deleted from the plan in order to provide better parking and auto circulation. For a review of the conditional use standards please see Exhibit B. II. Parking - The office zone district requires 3 spaces /1000 square feet of office space and does not list a requirement for a lodge. Last month when the Commission reviewed the text amendment for a lodge in the office zone district, language regarding parking for a lodge was not included. Therefore staff would recommend that the Commission also recommend to Council, the administrative body that will ultimately approve a text amendment, a parking requirement for lodges in the office zone district. Staff would suggest consistency with other lodge zones which is .7/bedroom-et. which ri-may be reduced via a payment in lieu. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the L'Auberge Lodge with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the lodge GMQS allocation by the City Council, the applicant shall submit a revised service utility plan that has been reviewed and approved by the ACSD, b.... ,iz Mt ** t ura GaS and the water, electric, and engineering departments. 2. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or upgraded shall be borne by the applicant on a partial or full basis depending upon the specific agency's requirements. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file restrictions against future installation of fireplaces and woodstoves with the Environmental Health Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that includes: a. all transformer and utility easements; b. a detailed drawing of the area for all service /trash and recycling areas; c. proposed and city specified sidewalks on 3rd and 4th streets between Main Street and the alley; 2 d. a revised parking plan to be reviewed and approved by the engineering and planning staff; e. elimination of the curb cut adjacent to the manager's residence. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits: a. tree removal permits and a mitigation plan for removing or relocating any trees 6" in caliper or greater shall be required from the Parks Department and any trees proposed to be saved shall be protected during construction, including no digging or over digging within the drip line; b. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in the future; c. the applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer tap fees; and d. the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing OfficF for rthe deed restricted dwelling unit. -0 C 2@, _ Yw •, L ; 8. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be incompliance with the Water Conservation Code. 9. As required in Section 24 -7 -1004 C.4.f, the applicant shall maintain the historic runoff patterns that are found on the site and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that currently exist on the site. 10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. 11. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded. 12. All work in the alley and public right -of -way shall require a permit from the Streets Department. 13. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except 3 r r.. P between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m. 14. Early warning devices and fire extinguishers shall be provided in all cabins and the manager's residence. 15. If the applicants intend to use the ditch for irrigation, a utilization plan must be reviewed by the Parks and Water Departments which may include a raw water agreement. The agreement must be signed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 16. Prior to the issuance of any building permits th,e■app.micant shall apply for an encroachment license. \rt Sk;t'',, 17. This conditional use approval is condition d upon successful completion of the variance request proces , Council approval of the text amendment, and Council allocation of the lodge allotments. 18. The applicant acknowledges Municipal Code sidewalk maintenance requirements for all sidewalks abutting the applicant's property. These property owner obligations include timely snow removal as provided for in Section 19, Article VIII, and sweeping and maintenance against hazardous conditions as provided for in Section 19, Article IV. 19. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and joint GMQS Commission meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless r othewise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for the L'Auberge Lodge with the conditions outlined in staff's memo dated May 9, 1995." "I move to recommend to Council the addition of a parking requirement for lodges in the office zone district as stated in staff's memo dated May 9, 1995." ATTACHMENTS: A. Referral Comments B. Conditional Use Standards C. Landscape Plan n ICJ et i CELe C��-2 c( t Cs tee. ca- 1460 s kAvik (7.te 4 uat offita , I ( ' • , ,, e 4 — P — Ike a, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: April 18, 1995 G47 / RE: L'Auberge Text Amendment and Conditional Use Review Conditions of Approval SUMMARY: Based upon information submitted by the application between printing of the memo and tonight's meeting, staff is recommending the following conditions of approval if the Commission recommends approval of the text amendment and the conditional use review of the L'Auberge Lodge. Teat Amendment: Recommended Motion: "I move to recommend to Council approval of the text amendment amending Section 24 -5 -213 to allow a lodge n as a conditional use review in the Office zone district." . ,c, '.(' .ar ;Lc_ ^�_ clt Conditional Use Review: ,_ Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised sewer service plan that has been reviewed and approved by the ACSD. The service plan shall also be reviewed by other necessary services and utilities to confirm ability to adequately serve. 2. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or upgraded shall be borne by the applicant on a partial or full basis depending upon the specific agency's requirements. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file restrictions against future installation of fireplaces and woodstoves with the Environmental Health Department. 4.. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that includes: a. all transformer and utility easements; b. a detailed drawing of the area for all service /trash and recycling areas; c. proposed and city specified sidewalks on 3rd and 4th streets between Main Street and the alley; d. revised parking plan indicating the reduction in parking from 24 spaces to 23 legal spaces; and e. elimination of the curb cut adjacent to the manager's residence. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits: a. tree removal permits and a mitigation plan for removing or relocating any trees 6" in caliper or greater shall be required from the Parks Department and any trees proposed to be saved shall be protected during construction, including no digging or over digging within the drip line; b. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in the future; c. the applicant shall pay all application water and sewer tap fees; and d. the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing Office for the deed restricted dwelling unit. 8. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be incompliance with the Water Conservation Code. 9. As required in Section 24 -7 -1004 C.4.f, the applicant shall maintain the historic runoff patterns that are found on the site and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that currently exist on the site. 10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. 11. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded. 2 • RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1995) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING 1994 GMQS LODGE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS AND 1995 GMQS LODGE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS WHEREAS, Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code sets forth a growth management quota system governing new development within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24- 8 -104.A of the Aspen Municipal Code, eleven (11) lodge units are available for development allotments within the metro area on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, only the L'Auberge Lodge submitted an application requesting eleven lodge units from the 1994 allocation and one unit from the 1995 allocation; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Community Development Department and forwarded to the Growth Management Commission (the Commission); and WHEREAS, the Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 1995, did evaluate the proposal and found that the development proposal for the L'Auberge Lodge, as amended, has exceeded the minimum thresholds established by Section 24 -8 -108 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners did accept the Commission's score at their public meeting May 23, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission recommends to the City Council the allocation of. bleven 1994 lodge units and one 1995 future allocation as amended and approved at the April 18, 1995, public hearing; and WHEREAS, no challenges to the Growth Management Commission's scoring have been submitted as allowed Under Section 24- 8- 106.D. of the Aspen Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: In accordance with Section 24 -8 -106 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council does hereby grant to the L'Auberge Lodge development proposal an allotment of eleven lodge units from the 1994 growth management quota and one future allotment from the 1995 growth management quota. Section 3: In accordance with Section 24 -8 -110 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the development allotments as awarded herein shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific development plan for the project as identified herein, unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or an extension to the approval is obtained. /, //�,/ p Date: Z' (/ LGKt' O , 1995. John Bennett, 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 r t meeting held / , 1995. �r!tali ,_ 11 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk • •635 B- -788 P -43 07/24/95 03:34P PG 1 OF 4 REC DOC IVI LVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 21.00 ORDINANCE NO. 29 (Series of 1995) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE HOUSING MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE 1994 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FOR THE L'AUBERGE LODGE, 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission reviewed the L'Auberge in conjunction with growth management scoring; and WHEREAS, the city's Planning and Zoning Commission also reviewed a proposed text amendment and contitional use review for the proposal; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 1995 the City Council of the City of Aspen awarded a lodge development allotment of eleven units from the 1994 quota and one unit form the 1995 quota pursuant to Resolution No. (Series 1995) under the growth management quota system as set forth in Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the expansion of the lodge requires the mitigation of .4 employees; and WHEREAS, the applicants originally requested that the City Council approve an affordable housing mitigation package in which it would pay cash -in -lieu for approximately 100% of the employees generated and a deed restriction on the manager's unit that would be enforced if the unit is ever sold or rented to a non - manager of the lodge; and WHEREAS, the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Office reviewed the proposed mitigation package on April 10, 1994 and forwarded the 1 383635 B -7B8 P -44 7/24/95 03 :34P P6 2 OF Housing Board's preference to first provide on -site housing, secondly provide off -site housing, and lastly provide cash -in -lieu for affordable housing mitigation; and WHEREAS, based on typical incomes of general lodge employees, the Housing Office also recommends that any on -site housing be deed restricted as a Category 2 unit; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission was split as to whether the applicant should provide on -site housing or cash -in- lieu and acknowledges that Council is required to accept the method of mitigation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the L'Auberge Lodge should mitigate required employee housing by the conversion of an existing cabin on -site to a category 2 deed restricted dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management application; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Aspen Municipal Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for a site specific development plan for a period of three years from the date of final development plan approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: In accordance with Section 24 -8 -111 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council does hereby accept the employee housing mitigation plan for .4 employees as required by the 2 383635 B -788 P -• 07/24/95 03:34P PG 3 Or- 4 L'Auberge Lodge project to be as follows: 1) The applicant shall deed restrict an existing cabin on the parcel to category 2 price and income guidelines. 2) The applicant shall record a deed restriction that has been reviewed and approved by the Housing Office. 3) The Housing Office shall inspect the deed restricted unit and the applicant shall upgrade the unit, if necessary, to Housing Office specifications. 4) The above housing mitigation conditions shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24 - - 207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the 435 W. Main Street, L'Auberge Lodge, site specific development plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by Resolution No. , Series of 1995, shall remain vested until June 12, 1998. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance or Resolution No. , Series of 1995, shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance, Resolution No. , Series of 1995, or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature anc are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, 3 383635 B -788 P -46 '24/95 03:34P PG 4 OF 4 the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Sect 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Sec tioon 4 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of 1995 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the a .aa day of i 19 9 ppZ, ' A John 1 j� Y k f a::',.., irL.4 ' 4./ ennett, Mayor / Rach, City Clerk X 0 0 ' F ;oLvi, adopted, passed and approved this '�a•. o' , 1995 day of ;AJ PF John • -n A t '. nett, Mayor i ktaii t do if a8#'S'ri? Eil och, City Clerk 393t526 06/10/96 02:09P Pb 1 OF 'NEC UCC .SIL,VIA 'AVIS PITKIN COUNTY LeirERK & RECORDER 0.00 A RESOLUTION OF TBE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, ACCEPTING THE 1994 GMQS SCORES FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FOR THE L'AUBERGE LODGE, 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A - I, BLOCK 38 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RESOLUTION 95 j12 RECITALS 1. Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code sets forth a growth management quota system governing new development within the City of Aspen. 2. Section 4- 606.I., requires the review and scoring of GMP applications to be conducted by a joint Growth Management Commission comprised of both city and county Planning and Zoning Commissions. 3. Before any allocation of development allotments, both the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council must accept the scoring of the development proposal from the Growth Management Commission. 4. The Growth Management Commission has found that the development proposal for the L'Auberge Lodge proposal, as amended, has exceeded the minimum thresholds established by Section 3 -1605 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 5. The Growth Management Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners acceptance of the scoring as approved at the April 18, 1995, public hearing. 1 393526% 06/10/96 02 :09P .0 2 C ''2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that the Board" - of County Commissioners does hereby accept the GMQS scores for the L'Auberge Lodge, as amended at the April 18, 1995 public hearing, and forwarded by the Growth Management Commission. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 24th day of May, 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITEIN CO , COL By Michael airman Date :735mland, j • T -T: / 'Ic Je nette Jones APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John E i Sus ne Ron than, Acti.g County Attorney Co Pla ing Director 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1995 L'AUBERGE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Chairman Kerr stated this was a continued public hearing of L'Auberge Conditional Use Review and he re- opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman represented the applicant and stated on April 18th while it was tabled, they got two components that were approved and have come back for the Conditional Use Component; there had been some questions relating to utilities, as well as parking. Since that time, and what was spelled out in Lamont's memorandum, they had a meeting with the various utility entities, and have resolved most of the issues. He said staff had recommendations of approval and he stated he and Lamont had met earlier today, and they went over just a few minor changes that he requested. He said he would go over those, but otherwise they are in agreement with staff in terms of the conditions. He said the first condition was Condition #1, it includes Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. At the meeting it was explained that Rocky Mountain Natural Gas does not participate the way everybody else does; they don't respond. What he felt would be helpful, was to say that the plan has been reviewed and approved by the water, electric and engineering departments and he does not think they will ever get a response from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, and they will submit to them, but he did not want to have it as a condition, in case they do not respond, and therefore we cannot move forward. Kaufman stated, in terms of Condition 7 -d, it says, "the applicant shall file the appropriate deed restrictions with the Housing Office for the deed restricted dwelling unit ". He said the only thing there was to add, "if approved by Council ", because Council is the one making the decision whether or not they want cash -in- lieu or the deed restriction. Kaufman said the only other change had to deal with Condition 17, which reads, "this conditional use approval is conditioned upon successful completion of the variance request process ", and he said they added to that, "or PUD ", because, in the event, we do not get the variance from the Board of Adjustment, we would have to go through the PUD process. Kerr stated this was a public hearing and asked if there were any comments regarding this application. There were none, and Kerr closed the public hearing. 21 • § 5 -213 ASPEN CODE restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one -third (1/4) of the total floor area of the two (2) dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 4. Day care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Satellite dish antennae; • 7. Reserved; and 8. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 5-510. D. Dimensional requirements. The following diroPncional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling. 6,000 Duplex 3,000 per unit 4 — For multi - family dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet, the fol- lowing square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,200 • 2 bedroom: 2,000 3 bedroom: 3,000 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. For multi - family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,250 2 bedroom 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. Supp. No. 3 1650 § 5 -213 ASPEN CODE DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 0 -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of floor area. 3,000 -6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square ' feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,240 square feet of floor area. 6,000 -9,000 3,240 square feet of floor area, plus 14 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,660 square feet of floor area. • 9,000- 15,000 3,660 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot, area, up to a maximum of 4,020 square feet of floor area. 15,000- 50,000 4,020 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of floer area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 5,770 square feet of floor area. 50,000+ 5,770 square feet of floor area, plus 2 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. DUPLEX Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 0 -3,000 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,700 square feet of floor area. 3,000 -6,000 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 square feet of floor area. 6,000 -9,000 • 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. Supp. No. 3 1652 § 5-214 ASPEN CODE F •\ 111 ,__ 2. Boardinghouse; 3. Hotel; 4. Multi - family dwellings; 5. Detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less; 6. Dining rooms, customary accessory commercial uses, laundry and recreational facil- ities located on the same site of and for guests of lodge units, boardinghouses, hotels and dwelling units; 7. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; and 8. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted es conditional uses in the Lodge/ Tourist Residential (IdTR) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Restaurant; 2. Timesharing 3. Satellite dish antennae; and rTh 4. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 5 -510. 5. Commercial parking utilizing excess or vacant spaces on a parcel occupied by a lodge, hotel, or other commercial operation. A commercia. parking operation shall include traffic management methods to reduce vehicular congestion and improve air quality in the community. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (LITR) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling. 6,000 Duplex: 3,000 Multi- family dwellings: One (1) bedroom per oiie thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, provided that a studio shall be considered a one (1) bedroom unit. Lodge units: No requirement. For multi - family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on -site an restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 500 Supp. No. 3 1652.2 To: E LAM are TRANSMITTAL Project: Sort AVelf/eCTE Arch. proj. # eN3G Date: 0 6 • Q15 • " We Transmit $-lerewith LETTER Under Seperate Cover Per Your Request Via: Mail For Your: Information M essenger _Record / Use Fax Review Federal Express UPS 4pproval ist. to Parties The Following: Action Taken: r9 _.e _Specifications Approved —"Vas": —� $Drawings _Reviewed Addenda _Revise & Resubmit GIBBON RENO Payment Application Make Corrections •ARCH 1 T E C T S Product Literature Submit Specific Item III Samples No Exceptions Change Order _Rejected _Shop Drawing Other Copies: Date: Description: C try• 95 u 77 u TICS' 0 sv SAN. 210 E. HYMAN No 202 ASPEN COLORADO /� /�� 81611 Remarks: 75 /014141 eNC�Se pp�g /N 303925.5968 3 MEt7N 1.4/ 177f FACSIMILIE antic. I _ Say # iVic e ; C � , 7*7 ��) 303.925.5993 OPltci YI/���j1�� � �i1 f./�/ PO. BOX 278 Copies To: (With encl.) 117 N. WILLOW Not TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 303.728.6607 FACSIMILIE 303.728.6658 Submitted by: G-jf Exhibit "A" MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 435 W. Main Street- L'Auberge, HPC review DATE: April 13, 1995 Overall, there was a lot of support for the design of the project and the applicant's effort to respect the scale of the existing cabins on the site. Some concerns were expressed about the project's relationship to the street and the "interiorizing" of the open space. Some members felt that there should be more of a linkage between the project and the streetscape. The landscape plan and significant amount of parking were also cited as issues to be discussed further. The conditions made at conceptual approval were: 1. That the cabin unit 22 is removed and 21 is set back 10 feet from the property line. 2. That all new construction be differentiated in a very positive and hopefully contemporary way from the existing structures. 3. That the detailing of the existing cabins not be significantly altered. 4. As many parking spaces as possible can be surfaced with grass - crete or a similar porous and non -hard surface. 5. Study the Main Street elevations, especially the story and a half massing and looking at the opportunities for combining buildings. circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The applicants have submitted a landscape plan that indicates an of one the three curb cuts on the street. A revised site -plan was also submitted. It appears from the revised plans that some of the parking spaces have been reconfigured. However, placement of the parking space directly in front of the office, perpendicular to Main Street is inappropriate. One of staff's original criticism of this site plan is the auto domination on the site. Completely blocking the front of the office with a parking space, even though it is grass -crete exacerbates the auto intensity of the site. The parking requirement for lodges is .7 spaces per bedroom. Currently there appear to be twenty -one parking spaces for 20 cabins, an office, and a manager's residence. If the parking were reduced to .7 per lodge unit only 14 spaces would be required. It is staff's opinion that on -site parking may be reduced. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to revise the parking plan. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: The applicant continues to work with the service /utility agencies. A revised utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the allocation of GMQS allotments by City Council. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and RESPONSE: In the GMQS application the applicant proposed to mitigate employee generation via cash -in -lieu. Staff recommended the provision of housing on -site. The applicant was successfully scored for a lodge allocation by the Joint GMQS Commission without on -site affordable housing. City Council will ultimately accept the form of housing mitigation. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: Conditional use approval with the conditions outlined in the memo, and adhering to the representations made at the joint GMQS Commission meeting, will enable the applicant to comply with all the standards of the Land Use Code. 2 12. All work in the alley and public right -of -way shall require a permit from the Streets Department. 13. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m. 14. Early warning devices and fire extinguishers shall be provided in all cabins and the manager's residence. 15. If the applicants intend to use the ditch for irrigation, a utilization plan must be reviewed by the Parks Department. 16. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant the applicant shall apply for an encroachment license. 17. This conditional use approval is conditioned upon successful completion of the HPC final review, the variance request process, Council approval of the amendment, and Council allocation of the lodge allotment. 18. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 3 .23&:- _2 Consolc/aleciaar lafion Jisfricf 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 - Tele. (970) 925 -3601 FAX #(970) 925 -2537 Syy • Chairman Michael Kelly Albert Bishop • Trcas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. April 17, 1995 Jay Hammond Schmueser Gordon Meyer P.O. Box 2155 jsa'N` CO 8'12 RE: Sewer Service Configuration, L'Auberge: Conditional Use Permit Dear Jay, I am writing this letter in response to your letter dated 4- 14-95 requesting a variance to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Rules and Regulations requiring individual structures to have individual sewer service lines to the District main line. As we have discussed, I cannot grant a variance from this section of our Rules and Regulations; only the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Board of Directors can grant a variance from our Rules and Regulations. The next available Board of Directors meeting is May 2, 1995. Please contact Mr. Bruce Matherly at 925- 3601 as soon as possible so that he can schedule a spot on the agenda for you at this meeting. Since this project is unique in that the applicant is endeavoring to build small structures resembling the existing cabins on this site as requested by the Historic Preservation Committee and since there may not be an adequate utility corridor to provide a main line extension, our Board of Directors mat entertain discussions allowing . a well engineered internal collection systc: designed Ly a registered professional engineer providing: 1. The applicant would commit to working with the District through -your office to design a professional internal collection system that would be acceptable to the District and the District's consulting engineer that would be owned and maintained by the applicant and execute shared service agreements for this private , system. 2. That the applicant will address the concerns as stated in the enclosed letter dated 4 -6 -95 to Leslie Lamont, Planner -City of Aspen, since the referral is a "Conditional Use Review" and since this referral is the last time that the District may be able to comment on this application 3. That the applicant will replace the existing inadequate on -site system currently in use as stated in your letter of 4 -14- 95. EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 . 1990 Memorandum To: Leslie Lamont, Planner CC: From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Date: April 12, 1995 Subject: L'Auberge, Parcel ID #2735 -124-50 -051 & 053 Leslie, April 3, 1995 I met with Dave Gibson and Gary Lyman re: L'Auberge fire protection. We concluded that the individual sprinkler systems in the units are not required due to their size. However, early warning devices and fire extinguishers shall be provided. If you have any questions please contact me. Ed • MEMORANDUM • • To Leslie Lamont, Planning Office • From: Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department i • .• Through: Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer vf KCASPEN • PInKIN • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Date: April 4, 1995 • Re: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & • • Conditional Use Review • Parcel ID # 2735 - 124-50 -051 & -053 The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the L'Auberge land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11 -1.7 ,E sham a unlawful Eaa,eea or occupant or any building used for midanee or business purposes within the city to p t uct or meensbuct an on-site sewage disposal device.' • • The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the • • increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. • The applicant must provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development.. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23 -55 w bWIdin s, taciate; pedm. or the like vegan the city limits with use water al be connected to the municipal water utility system.' The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with • Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe - water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The . City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking Water quality. • A letter of service must be provided from the City of Aspen Water Department • documenting that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. 1 • 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.9203070 • FAX 303.920.5197 • MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Date: April 10, 1995 c2`e Re: L'Auberge 1994 Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment & Conditional Use Review (435 West Main Street, Lots 1 and 2, Perkins Subdivision - to be nullified and revert to Lots A -I, Block 38, Original Aspen Townsite) Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Site Drainage - The application is not thorough concerning site drainage. If the project is approved, a storm runoff plan must be prepared by a registered engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Percolation into landscaped areas of flows from newly constructed impermeable surfaces may suffice, but the percolation rates and flow quantities must be verified. 2. Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - "Standard: Facilitating and encouraging year round pedestrian transportation." - During the past summer, the City constructed sidewalk along the Main Street frontage of the property. It is of course unfortunate that City funds were used instead of the applicant providing the sidewalk as other private property owners must do. In spite of complaints from City staff and from the public, proper snow removal was not performed on the sidewalk. Snow was not removed from the sidewalk consistently throughout this past winter, and snow from the driveways was piled up on the sidewalk at both corners creating a hazardous pedestrian situation and discouraging pedestrian use. Sidewalk also needs to be constructed on the property frontages on 3rd and 4th Streets. This is required by City Code for new construction and 'is also identified by the "Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System" Plan. This should be a condition of approval for any development. The condition of the curb and gutter cannot be determined at this time due to snow. Any sections 1 into spaces #11 and #17. No access is currently shown to those spaces, and a parallel parking space is 22' long in order to permit the parallel parking tuming movements. It is recommended that if "grass - crete" is permitted, board, stone, paver or concrete tire tread "rails" some 16" in width be required to clearly define the intended parking space and the access. This would permit considerable "greening" versus a completely paved or surface parking space and access. This is a detail that the Engineering Department would support verbally at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. 9. Site Design - The new cabins will be a major change to the Main Street corridor by filling in an existing open space. It might be preferable to retain the open space and provide development of increased height and below grade at the existing footprints. 10. Street bights - The Neighborhood Advisory Committee is increasingly concemed about the lack of street lighting in town, especially in lodging areas. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to install an antique light on Third Street at the alley. A street light is needed at the other end of the same alley, which the applicant also abuts, but the property owners across the alley would potentially be responsible for that light. 11. Bicycles - The applications discusses bicycle storage but is not specific as to the number of bicycles for which storage is provided. Sufficient storage for all bicycles of guests, visitors and employees should be provided. 12. Other Improvements - The applicant is not offering to pave the alley. Paving alleys is a current trend because of dust and mud reduction for adjacent properties. There is also a PM -10 benefit. 13. Other Conditions of Approval - a. No tracking of mud onto City streets shall be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way. c. It is suggested that the applicant provide 2 sets of mylars, one for recording together with fees, of the approved development plan together with the existing conditions survey. For the applicant's protection, as well as any possible grantees, the survey should state that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy No. , dated , have been shown on the survey. 14. Work in the Public Right -of -way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development ein public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5088) for design considerations of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: CHUCK ROTH, ENGINEERING E TO: LESLIE LAMONT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR 137,42 14' DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1995 SUBJECT: L'AUBERGE WATER SYSTEM The Water Department has reviewed the utility plans for 12 new lodging units at L'Auberge. While the plan provides for an adequate water system for the newly constructed units, it does not address changes in the water system for the 9 existing units on the site. The water department recommended, but did not require, any modifications to the water system for these units as part of the current development proposal. The system serving existing units 1 -9 is inadequate in several respects. There is a common water line serving the units which will not provide for isolation of an individual unit in order to service or make repairs on another part of the system without interruption of service to the other units. There is no individual metering of the units. Finally, fire protection for the existing units is questionable. While the new system will improve fire protection, it will not address problems with repairs and providing for service repairs to individual units. While the Water Department does not believe that it is appropriate to require changes to the system as part of the current site development proposal, we are aware of potential future plans to condominimize both the existing and new units. By copy of this memo, I am advising the L'Auberge owners of the Water Department position on any existing future project to provide for individual ownership of the existing units. If any future plans are submitted for review which include this concept, the Water Department will require improvements to the water system to correct the deficiencies identified in this memo at that time. If it is the current plan of the owners to proceed with a proposal to create individual ownership of the existing units, it appears that it would be more practical to make these corrections concurrently with the site improvements for utilities in order to avoid disrupting the site twice. cc: Neal Goldsborough, Water Department Steven Kanipe, Building Official Jay Hammond, Schmueser Gordon Meyer Dave Gibson, Gibson & Reno Architects Audrey Haisfield, L'Auberge PO :r1 /mem.30 .2 Cionsol dafedcSanifafton pis/rib/ 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925 -3601 FAX #(970) 925 -2537 Sy Kelly - Chairman Michael Kdly Albert Bishop • Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Motherly, Mgr. April 6, 1995 ,Leslie Lamont, Planner Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: L'Auberge GMQS Dear Leslie, The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient wastewater treatment and collection system capacity to serve the proposed additional development on this property. Service for the project will be contingent upon compliance with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and Specifications. Total connection costs as well as any impact fees for the project can be estimated once detailed plans have been made available to the District and a tap permit has been completed at the District office. Since this property has had historical problems with their sewer service lines, we would not recommend running additional sewer service lines throughout the property. The plan as provided ) in the referral shows gas, water and sewer lines running too close together. Shared service line agreements would need to be executed for the sewer service lines connecting free standing buildings. Sewer lines should not be routed under buildings. The Aspen Pitkin County Health Department will require the spas be connected to the sewer system. We will need to review drainage plans to assure clear water connections are not tied into the sanitary sewer system. Since most property owners do not want to own and maintain extensive sewer service line systems, the District would propose a new sewer line that could be deeded to the District for future ownership and maintenance as we have sketched on an enclosed drawing running through the middle of the property and connecting into the main line at the intersection of the alley and Third St. New individual sewer service lines could then be run for the existing cabins as well. Easements on standard District form would need to executed for this installation. Please contact our -office if you have any questions. Sincerely, '' ThordL R. rnewel Collection Systems Superintendent EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National ' SENT BY:Xerox Teleeopier 7020 ; 4 -17 -95 ; 1:12PN ; 9205439;# 2 Upon Conro�idaldc5anrlahan JJ13117G'l 565 North Mint= Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tde.(970)925 -3601 BAS #(970)925 -2537 SY KY •Chairman Michai XeBy Albert Birhop • '1 Prank Lcwhln Louis Popish Secy. Bruce Mahe*, Mgr. April 17, 1995 Mr. Jay Hammond Sobmueser Cordon Meyer P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, CO 61612 RE: Bower Service Configuration, L'Aubergs: Conditional Use Permit Dear Jay, I am writing this Ietter in response to your letter dated 4- 14-95 requesting a variance to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Rules end Regulations requiring individual structures to have individual sewer service lines to the District main line. As we have discussed, I cannot grant a variance from this section of our Rules and Regulations; only the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Board of Directors can grant a variance from our Rules and Regulations. The next available Board of Directors meeting is May 2, 1995. Please contact Mr. Bruce Matheriy at 925- 3501 as soon as possible so that he can schedule a spot on the agenda for you at this meeting. Since this project is unique in that the applicant is endeavoring to build small structures resembling the existing cabins on this site as requested by the Historic Preservation Committee and since there may not be an adequate utility corridor to provide a main line extension, our Board of Directors age entertain discussions allowing a well engineered internal collection system designed by a registered professional engineer providing: 1. The applicant would commit to working with the District through your office to design a professional internal collection system that would be acceptable to the District and the District's consulting engineer that would be owned and maintained by the applicant and execute shared service agreements for this private system. 2. That the applicant will address the concerns as stated in the enclosed letter dated 4 -6 -95 to Leslie Lamont, PIanner -City of Aspen, since the referral is ■ "Conditional Use Review" and since this referral is the last time that the District may be able to comment on this application 3. That the applicant will replace the existing inadequate on -sits system currently in use as stated in your letter of 4 -14- 95. EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1966 • 1990 Rcglonal and National SENT BY:Xerox Te'ecopi4r 7020 ! 4-17 -95 : 1:13PN : A C. S, D,-0 A2C5439 :4 3 • 4. That the applicant will provide the District with written assurances that the cabins will continue to be operated as a lodge under one ownership and that the individual cabins will not be sold to individual owners. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely,. Thomas R. Bracewell Collection Systems Superintendent SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4 -17 -95 ; 1:13P1.1 ; A.C.S. D.-• 32054334 3 4. That the applicant will provide the District with written assurances that the cabins will continue to be operated as a lodge under one ownership and that the individual cabins will not be sold to individual owners. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Thomas 1r. Bracewell Collection Systems Superintendent HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant partial demolition approval to 202 W. Francis lots R,S, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colo. with the following conditions: (1) That the applicant understand that this is a design review and that HPC request that the Board of Adjustment look closely at this project. We find that the variances requested are encouraged, that the Board of Adjustment grant these variances for the following reasons: (1) In opinion this is an excellent project of preservation of an historic structure and the blending of the structure with a new design. (2) That FAR is in fact being reduced. (3) An employee housing unit on an upper level is being provided which is certainly unusual in this community. (4) We find no problem with the fact that one parking space is being asked to be withdrawn and that we feel this is a strong project in the goals that we are trying to achieve as the HPC and the blending of old and new; second by Les. DISCUSSION Jake: I want to go through the variances one at a time. As I understand it you are reducing your site coverage. ) Gretchen: We are going from 50% to 49%. Jake: It is currently a non - conformity and you are reducing the non - conformity. The HPC supports the reduction. Jake: I will add a few thoughts for the Board of Adjustment. It should be stated in the motion that HPC approves demolition of the non - historic elements. The applicant will return for more detail review. The applicant will return for ordinance 35 review. We • also need conformation of the legality of the partial demolition and interpreted by the city attorney. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to state that we approve partial demolition of the non - historic element and as far as the other items they are inclusive except for the legality. The legality of the demolition to be finalized and reviewed by the city attorney; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: The applicant is reducing nonconformities and improving the situation. 435 W. MAIN - L'AUBERGE - SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PH Amy: This site was previously called the Swiss Chalet and is in the Main Street Historic District. At some point this site might 4 • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 want to be designated historic as the cabins were built in the 50's. It is zoned office and the applicants are proposing to do an expansion which includes the addition of 13 lodges in the character of the existing detached lodges as well as 206 sqft. addition to • the existing manager residence which is previously approved by HPC in addition to the laundry. This project will be going on for a GMQS allotment competition. The lodge may at some point have historic significance as its detailed as a chalet style architecture and I think it should stay that way. On the two story cabins proposed they reference victorian architecture and also the windows are six feet above the street and you do not see an entry way so I propose a restudy of that and eliminating the victorian detailing. Also proposed that the two story cabins be located at the rear of the site. I do support the applicants concept that they stick with detached small cabins because that is what is compatible with what is on the site. I feel personally that the design has become complex with a lot of roof lines and possible they combine some of the buildings into a single mass to give variation on the site. I also though we should support the applicants request at P &Z that the number of parking spaces be reduced. Some of the cottages actually have two parking spaces and it turns the site into a parking lot. Grass -crete should be used where possible. Beyond that I will let the committee discuss it. I recommend tabling with the conditions I described realizing that the applicant does have a January 13th deadline for GMQS. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: We have had discussions with neighbors and have taken into account their concerns. It is zoned office and in the growth management plan we plan on doing a conditional use to allow lodges in the office zone. David Gibson, architect: The managers Michael and Tracey Haisfield are here as resources on the operation of the lodge. There are a lot of pedestrian amenities on the site and they will be retained. The existing cabins have a lot of character and river rock fireplaces. We tried to space the buildings and make an interesting rhythm. We are using corrugated roofing. The urban cottage fabric of Aspen has changed to a larger fabric on Main Street and it has happened on every block except ours. We have 1/4 of the allowable build out and it occupies a full block. We had looked at keeping the cabins and maximumizing the office potential of the site. It would propose 50 parking spaces and would require eight or ten employees. Upon doing the drawings it really has a distressing scale change to it so we backed away from that option. We are proposing 13 new cabins. There are two fountains that will be visible while walking through. In order to vary some of the height of the buildings we have been proposing 1 1/2 story buildings for the two center cabins and along the back. We are flexible in our designs and the neighbors concerns. We will remove the cabin to the east #22 and would propose 12 instead of 12 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 cabins. The site coverage would drop. Neighbors asked us to increase the set back 10 feet which we are agreeable to. I understand the concern about staff reducing the height to one story and I feel this commission would not like that. If you have a .vertical monotony you wouldn't like it. The height difference that we have proposed gives a little relief and variety to the procession down Main Street. The proposal for the existing cabins was to simply add trim and window boxes and alternate batten from ten inches to five inches. I think it enhances the cabins but again we are open to leaving them exactly as they are if the commission feels it is the thing to do. Gideon Kaufman: The items that the neighbors had concerns about were first the elimination of one unit and in addition to that there will be no development or parking in that area to preserve it as open space. We will also preserve the majority of the lilac bushes that exist back there. One of the larger cabins will become a one story cabin. There will be limitations on dogs for guests that reside for less than 20 days in particular units. Trash pickup will be maintained in its current location, south east corner and monies will be escrowed for the paving of the alley in the event that the City allows it to be paved. Linda: What are the larger units going to be used for? What is the height to the ridge? ) David Gibson: Deluxe units for an alternative choice. The plate height would be nine feet with trussels which would take it to 12 feet. Martha: Are you asking for variances? Gideon: We are going under a PUD and because it is a 27,000 sqft. we have the ability to ask for variances through the process. Joe: The plan calls for variances along Main Street. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Herb Kline, attorney: I represent Steve and Cheryl Goldbenberg and I submitted a letter which outlines the details of those changes. Cabin #21 would be set back 10 feet from the property line. We are in agreement of the changes. Francis Plache, architect: I represent the Scott Condominiums and in the past there has been problems with garbage and at time the dumpster is over loaded and it is all over the street. Also we have had dog problems. In the proposal it is recommended that the parking be reduced and we have some concerns about that. Are the units going to be long term rentals. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 Gideon; It is run as a lodge right now and we haven't thought about it. Francis Plache: What I have heard is that there have been three cars at one cabin. In the summer there have been cars up along the block and we would like that addressed. Bob Throm: I have been in Aspen for numerous years and believe that the project before you is more of what we should be doing. We can't all stay at the Ritz and Little Nell nor do we want to. I have know the Haisfields for numerous years and they are a good family and local people and their kids are going to be running this. You should be just as excited about this project as the last one. Gideon Kaufman: I am submitting three letters, one from Charles Israel 522 W. Francis and the other is from Kathleen Ryan and the other from Art Burrows Bond communication who all are in support of small lodges. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Donnelley: I feel this is a very good project and would recommend approval and feel the existing cabins could be cleaned up just as / David suggested. I agree with Staff on the two story cabins being not so explicitly Victorian. I also agree about the elimination of cabin #22 and #21 moving back and being one story. Jake: I just have a few comments in general I would like to see some variations between old and new. Donnelley: Is the elimination of #22 going to eliminate the parking spaces that were adjacent to it? David Gibson: It would eliminate one space. Les: I have always felt that the small lodges were the heart and soul of Aspen and this is wonderful and is a good project. Joe: I feel it is difficult to evaluate a project like this from an historic perspective because I am not sure how historic this is other than it being small cabins. Generally I feel it is good that the applicant has about 1/2 of the allowable FAR on the site. When you come back at final I would like to see the differentiation between old and new. Gideon: Are we talking subtle or significant differences? Donnelley: There are significant differences when you get near the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 buildings than when you read it from the street. They may have to do with fenestration and detailing materials. We are not asking for different building forms and it is something that David understands. Tom: It is my opinion that Aspen per'se is not a victorian town. The unique qualities and charm of Aspen are based on the variety of styles and periods whether they are wonderful architecture or not. That is my feeling about the first time I drove into Aspen. In that regard I wish the project was less rigid in its organization and designed and detailed more to now. I wish the Main Street composition was less rigid like a soldier, less repetition. The facades of each of the buildings are identical so it makes it look like soldiers. Jake: I support Tom's comments also. If this project falls short it is the relationship to the street. Part of guidelines are to provide linkage to the streetscape. This is our main boulevard. Amy made comments of hooking the units together. Roger: I feel this is a good project and my concern is the landscape, streetscape plan. I would encourage you to open up the center court yard to the street in some manner so that there is a connection, a community. I like the idea of the single story and possibly one or two could be masked together. Allow an inner plan / along the street with benches or something. I have no problem with interesting detail on the cabins. Linda: Possibly shift the open space from the corner of the property to make it centrally open. Gideon: That was a situation worked out with the neighbors to try and mitigate concerns and impact on the duplex that sits over there. Roger: Our concern is for the entire community not just one neighbor. David Gibson: This landscape only shows existing trees and we will have a landscape plan that shows all the trees. There will be numerous materials added. In stead of a fence we want to do hedges, shrubs. We want to have a soft space between the buildings. This is the only block in town with an interior. By virtue of that it will beacon people to go in. One thing this does is shield the cars from the public. Amy: There is a sign permit also and want to situated by the manager residence. It is four feet wide and three feet tall. It seemed a little over sized to me. i 8 ll HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 J MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the conceptual development plan for 435 W. Main Street be approved with the following conditions: 1. That cabin unit 22 is removed and 21 is set back 10 feet from the property line. 2. That all new construction be differentiated in a very positive and hopefully contemporary way from the existing structures. 3. That the detailing of the existing cabins not be significantly altered. 4. As many parking spaces as possible can be surfaced with grass -crete or a similar porus and non -hard surface. Motion second by Joe. Gideon: I was told we could not use that. Amy: We discussed this in the Planning Office and a certain percentage of site coverage could be grass - crete. • Jake: I do not support the proposed setback from Main Street. Our guidelines address the maintenance of a setback and I feel the setback is too close. I feel cabin 13 and 14 should be located somewhere else on the site and the setback be reduced. You are basing a setback line on one cabin at each end. Gideon: I would like to address that. Main Street has gone from a street that had some traffic to a major thorofare and the desirability of rooms on Main Street has greatly dropped. One of the things we have tried to accomplish is the orientation toward the center so that we were able to get some kind of feeling inside. Jake: Playing around with the buildings and joining them might get you the same density and still contribute to the streetscape for the pedestrian. Gideon: It is a balance in terms of what we are trying to do. Roger: If a neighbor and a developer have a private agreement, that limits our ability to make suggestions to move buildings around and so on. I do not think that is something we necessarily want to allow in the future. We certainly should listen to the neighbors and what their thoughts and requests are and if we can do anything that is good. The way the discussion is going with the regard to the last unit may not be in the best interest of the project. We need to be very careful with that. We need to do what is best for everyone. Joe: My thoughts living on Main Street I know what it is like and 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 if you move it in you eliminate the advantage of the interior space and it is that great of a benefit to the community to have another five feet of green space on Main Street when it screws up the center of the design. I do agree with Amy's comment about the windows but I think we are at a conceptual level right now and it has its back toward Main Street and one of our guidelines is have a pedestrian feel but I feel that can be handled in other ways than changing the setback. Is it a better benefit having 5 feet more on Main Street where nobody will be walking out there. Linda: If they can give up a unit for the neighbor they can give up a unit for the streetscape. Gideon: We are at .36 FAR and this is a small project to begin with. We did not come in with maximum. Once you start cutting units it gets complicated. Linda: You cut a unit for a neighbor and we are saying that this is very dense. Donnelley: I feel there is a misunderstanding and I also disagree with Jake. This is a unique block on Main Street and the scale of all the development on this block is very small. Everything on both sides of this will develop out in office scale, with residentially detailed. I am not concerned about it being pushed 1 out and also not concerned about the benefits to accrue to the interior because Joe knows full well even if you set back another three or four feet it would make no difference in terms of the traffic impact and traffic noise. Joe: There are so many good things about this project: They are at about 1/2 of their FAR and the height is under 20 feet and I think there are a lot of positive things. Martha: I do not feel we have been given the benefit of a landscape plan which will be supplied at the next meeting. David Gibson: We will have a model at that time also. The breaks of the masses exist already. Les: What benefit to the neighborhood have you received by pulling out #22 cabin? Gideon: One of the things I have seen in working with public bodies is trying to deal with neighbors and solving those problems, then here is the situation that you get criticized for working with them. Neighbor: we have lived there for nine year and the past neighbors all had children playing in the back yard with lilac trees and more 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 people walk down the alley rather than wait out front and I know that because I wait for the bus. The alley is really beautiful and it is like a residence. I feel it is appropriate that cabin #22 was eliminated. It is such a neighborly thing for them to do to listen to our concerns and become responsive. Tom: I am a neighbor and I live across on Third and Main and feel it should have more contrasted masses, a neat composition and I also catch the bus there three times a day. Jake: Maybe the real street is the alley rather than Main Street. AMENDED MOTION: Donnelley amended his motion to recommend studying the Main Street elevations especially the story and 1/2 massing and looking at the opportunities for making a combination building; second by Joe. All in favor of motion and amended motion. 316 E. HOPKINS AVE. HOWLING WOLF - MINOR Amy: They have brought in the information on the airlock and submitted a drawing. I proposed approving it minus the turn post at the corner and it should be as simple as possible. Roger: What is the problem with the turn posts? Amy: Because it is adding victorian detailing to something that doesn't have to be detailed. It also interferes with the porch. Donnelley: I agree with staff and this is to be considered a temporary addition and those vertical elements should not try and replicate. Paul Levine, owner: We wanted it a very temporary structure but visually pleasing. Donnelley: If you wanted to use half round post that were plain all up and down that would work. Tom: The airlock will be removable. Stephen Levitt: It will probably be constructed of small little brackets. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the request to construct an airlock to 316 E. Hopkins Ave. with the conditions that the airlock be as simple as possible and be in place between Nov. 1st and April 15th; second by Roger: All in favor, motion carries. 11 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: L'AUBERGE LODGE AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMQS ALLOCATION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 12, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by ALH Holding Company, requesting approval for amendments to Section 24- 5- 213(C) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code to include "lodge" as a conditional use in the Office zone district. The applicants are also requesting GMQS allotments for tourist accommodations to add twelve new guest cabins on the property, and GMQS exemption for affordable housing. The property is located at 435 W. Main St.; Lots A - I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5101 s /John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on May 27, 1995 City of Aspen Account PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1994 METRO AREA TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) ALLOTMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 18, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the joint Aspen /Pitkin County Growth Management Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider the following application submitted for 1994 GMQS allotments for tourist accommodations in the Metro area. 1. L'AUBERGE LODGE: ALH Holding Company is requesting GMQS allotments for tourist accomodations to add twelve new guest cabins on the property. The applicants are also requesting the following: amendments to Section 24- 5- 213(C) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code to include "lodge" as a conditional use in the Office zone district and also to allow retail use in historic landmarks as a conditional use in the Office zone district; and conditional use review approval for a lodge in the Office zone district. The property is located at 435 W. Main St.; Lots A - I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5101 s /Bruce Kerr & Jody Edwards, Chairs Aspen / Pitkin County Growth Management Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 1, 1995 City of Aspen Account 61 Sill &in 5/ 2 g i v etc It , iA 9-1A1 ma G.V L L. c1/0 r 1 4 4 f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr. In attendance were: Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney and Steve Buettow. Excused were Jasmine Tygre, Robert Blaich and Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. MINUTES \ There were none. L'AUBERGE TEXT AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Leslie Lamont, Staff Planning Office, made presentation. The applicants are partially zoned office, and are proposing to keep the property zoned office, however, they are proposing a text amendment to the office zone district to allow a lodge as a conditional use on Main Street. Lamont stated her memorandum had two sections: a Text Amendment for lodge as a conditional use and also the Conditional Use Review, and recommends approval of the text amendment, but recommends tabling the Conditional Use Review. Chairman Kerr asked why not table the whole proposal as he was reluctant to draft text amendments on this one particular lodge when it may effect other lodges. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated the importance of the approved text amendment and Conditional Use Review in terms of the time element and the goal to start construction before next year. Garton and Mooney voiced concern about more kitchens in the new units and Lamont informed Garton decisions would come under \ Conditional Use Review. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 Chairman Kerr asked for any public comment in regard to amending the land use code to allow lodges as a conditional use in the office zone district. There were no comments; Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing. MOTION Garton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the text amendment, amending Section 24 -5 -213, to allow a lodge, and a lodge unit with kitchens as a Conditional Use Review in the Office Zone District. Hunt seconded, roll call vote commensed; vote was split 2 approved, 2 opposed (Kerr and Mooney). Motion not carried. MOTION Garton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the text amendment, amending Section 24 -5 -213, to allow a lodge as a Conditional Use Review in the Office Zone District. Mooney seconded, roll call vote commensed; 3 approved, 1 opposed (Kerr). Motion carried. Chairman Kerr brought forth item of Conditional Use and Lamont C recommended tabling as she has not seen, nor has the engineering department, the revised site plan for the project. The applicant is proposing to reduce one of the parking spaces on site and that needs to be addressed with some form of special review. Neither Lamont or the parks department has seen a landscape plan, and Lamont felt the project has been very rushed and to approve as a conditional use, she reiterated tabling. MOTION Hunt moved to table action on the L'Auberge Conditional Use Review to May 9th, hopefully at the beginning of the agenda, to allow applicant and staff to work out solutions to the application; to continue the public hearing. Garton seconded, vote commensed and was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. Stan Clauson presented staff initiated text amendment. Clauson recommended to amend the office zone district to expanding retail as a conditional use in Historic Landmarks. Mooney voiced opposition to the proposal stating he was concerned about losing 2 • • PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 the historic value as "retail" is so wide open. Garton asked if there were any other areas other than Main Street that have historic landmarks in the office zone district. Lamont answered that the majority of the historic landmarks were in the C -1 zone district. Parking issues, foot - traffic along Main Street, were also concerns of the commission. Buettow questioned if the commission should be placed in position to judge this application, and Hunt stated their were difficulities, and sited Pierre Famille Jewelry as inappropriate for C -1 zoning, as an example. Hunt felt it was becoming more difficult to deny such applications for the commission. Mooney stated he felt that the application was pushing growth into an area where it is not needed and not in the best interest of the community. Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing. MOTION Mooney moved to recommend to City Council that we deny the proposed text to allow retail commercial establishments, and as an amendment to allow retail commercial establishments as a conditional use in historic landmark and office zone district. Buettow seconded, vote commenced, 3 in favor, 2 opposed. Motion did not carry. MOTION Hunt moved to forward the office zone text amendment forward to City Council with a recommendation that in Paragraph IC -1, instead of retail commercial establishments being a separate enity in that group of established commercial activities, that it be placed at the end after visual arts gallery and similar retail establishments. It was not seconded. Motion did not carry. PITKIN COUNTY JAIL EXPANSION FINAL SPA REVIEW AND GMOS EXEMPTION Mary Lackner, Planning Office, presented. Temple Glassier represented the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. The applicant is seeking to add approximately 1,500 square feet onto the Pitkin County Jail to provide more space for the communication and police departments. The Commission viewed the Site Plan and Hunt agreed that the communications space is definitely cramped and an absolute essential for expansion, with currently only 456 square feet. Hunt felt his only problem with the application was the flat roof with no depression with three major air handling units there. Fie felt that would be very unsitely and recommended blending the roof treatment into the new building and it would also create screening 3 - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 of all the equipment on top of the roof. Garton agreed, but voiced concerns on possible spoiling of the "plaza experience ", and how close it would be to the Courthouse. Glassier stated that the site was the only feasible place to put the addition to the jail. Buettow stated he felt the addition was poorly thought out and being next to the Library, Courthouse, it needed more work. MOTION Buettow moved to table the application until the earliest date possible, when the commission can view some thorough drawings of the adjacent buildings and if the proposal would fit into that entire plaza area. Garton seconded, vote commensed, all were in favor; motion carried. Chairman Kerr adjourned the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted: ( S+ - Lwwn . ea to Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 4 4TH STREET i - 1 .1 1 0 •1 ---. ,gy m = � � E Tj-- ' - , �( . 1 • • \ o i Cs m m , II P u. =..---- ` I 15- _ __ t — , Ws — 1 rc• ;< b. alp �1 • , � -- - m . `w 6\ pC - .1 A Q t / 4 a �o_ a *; A ■(z Ss . a li 0. );.1 -,•... 0 .___ ., • g -_____ i i= . ...._____: • m a -I i .: .tea — j � - 1 M SS a 1 p �_ �, \ I � _ — , , R mi v ▪ u — < 11-- i :‘'..'...0-2.-=:. : IIII ...__r I, 1111: l 111111 : . f 1 0 E ,0=-.___e_____- ., _ , _ r _ I lr---- Y 155 e. I.r. s" Q. I.P. W W — ° °.O STREET W f L ' AUBERGE Z i,r. p � N i _ Z,r 135 WEST MAIN STREET x� ' I .. 1 • cl t 1 i i . A yl '' AS EN PRADO 1 n t O t -17 il i /.. I Z .r 0 • • EXHIBIT A LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5 -213 3. All other uses: 4 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area. (Ord. No. 47 -1988, § 8) Sec. 5-213. Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwellings and multi - family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and • 8. A mixed -use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3 of this chapter. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft in- dustry, visual arts gallery, and provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) off- street parking is pro- vided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one -third (1/4) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, of which one unit shall be Supp. No. 3 1649 r^ § 5 -213 ASPEN CODE restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one -third ( of the total floor area of the two (2) dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 4. Day care center, 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Satellite dish antennae; 7. Reserved; and 8. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 5-510. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling. 6,000 Duplex: 3,000 per unit 4 ^ — For multi- family dweri;ngs on lot between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet, the fol- lowing square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,200 2 bedroom: 2,000 3 bedroom: 3,000 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. For multi family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 • 1 bedroom; 1,250 2 bedroom: 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of • lot area. Supp. No. 3 1650 M - ,. _.._,..,.._....... ....._....._ti.. - _. LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-213 For multi - family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 500 1 bedroom: 600 2 bedroom: 1,000 3 bedroom: 1,500 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area For multi - family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when one hun- ' dred percent (100 %) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 300 1 bedroom: 400 2 bedroom: 800 3 bedroom: 1,200 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60 4. Minimum front yard (feet): Principal building. 10 Accessory building. 10 5. Minimum side yard (feet): 5 6. Minimum rear yard (feet): Principal building 15 Accessory building 15 7. Maximum height (feet): Principal building: 25 Accessory building. 21 on front 2 /a's of lot, 25 on rear of lot 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): 10 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Supp. No. 3 1651 § 5-213 ASPEN CODE DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 0 -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,400 . square feet of floor area. 3,000 -6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,240 square feet of floor area 6,000 -9,000 3,240 square feet of floor area, plus 14 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,660 square feet of floor area. 9,000- 15,000 3,660 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,020 square feet of floor area. 15,000- 50,000 4,020 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of Hoer area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 5,770 square feet of floor area. 50,000+ 5,770 square feet of floor area, plus 2 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. DUPLEX Lot Site Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet 0 -3,000 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,700 square feet of floor area. 3,000 -6,000 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 square feet of floor area. 6,000 -9,000 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. Supp. No. 3 1652 LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5 -214 Lot Size Allowable (Square Feet) Square Feet • 9,000- 15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,440 square feet of floor area. 15,000- 50,000 4,440 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 6,190 square feet of floor area. 50;000+ 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area. All uses other than detached residential and duplex dwellings: 0.75:1; however, the 0.75:1 external floor area ratio may be increased to 1:1 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 11. Internal floor area ratio: 0.75:1, increasable to 1:1; however, if the external floor area ratio is increased by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, then sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area must be approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing. • E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off - street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each use in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. All residential uses: 1 space/bedroom, fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, for historic landmarks only. 2. Lodge uses: N/A 3. All other uses: 3 spaces /1,000 square feet of net leasable area; these spaces may be mitigated via a payment in lieu of off-site parking that is approved by the commission by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. (Ord. No. 47 -1988, §§ 2, 5, 7, 16; Ord. No. 6 -1989, § 4; Ord. No. 7 -1989, § 1; Ord. No. 17 -1989, § 2; Ord. No. 35 -1992, § 1; Ord. No. 60 -1992, § 1) Sec. 5 Lodge /tourist Residential (L/TR). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district is to en- courage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist- oriented detached, duplex and multi- family residential dwell- ings. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district. • 1. Lodge units; • Supp. No. 3 1652.1 § 5 -214 ASPEN CODE 2. Boardinghouse; 3. Hotel; 4. Multi - family dwellings; 5. Detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less; 6. Dining rooms, customary accessory commercial uses, laundry and recreational facil- ities located on the same site of and for guests of lodge units, boardinghouses, hotels and dwelling units; 7. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; and 8. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Lodge/ Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Restaurant; 2. Timesharing, 3. Satellite dish antennae; and 4. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 5 -510. 5. Commercial parking utilizing excess or vacant spaces on a parcel occupied by a lodge, hotel, or other commercial operation. A commercial parking operation shall include traffic management methods to reduce vehicular congestion and improve air quality in the community. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached residential dwelling. 6,000 Duplex: 3,000 Multi - family dwellings: One (1) bedroom per one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, provided that a studio shall be considered a one (1) bedroom unit. Lodge units: No requirement. For multi - family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at Least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 500 Supp. No. 3 1652.2 SENT BY :Xerox Telecopier 7520 ; 4 -17 -95 ; 1:14PM ; A, C. S. D, -4 9205439;# 4 MITI SPX; -it -----. . -.I : .:;....,........ i . I I 1 ; i 9 .,.... 1 -s : ! 0 ,, . w7 att.- -I. . • 1 tl: . i . ' i bLr. 1 � I _ t it [t �.: _ 1 A r — r ` � � i NEW ' _ . . Ill 71 tir- Nt. \ I T I .. I • - J e COM "A ••■■ in • c . V, ••••■••■411P12 na y________ V/ • . ._ n ' • .. g ," L'AUBERGE .. ! . . 1 1 1, Iit";, r . • • t 1 \ tr. .7. e , A , gp 11,1 1!(• 1 I t ,• .. ,. ( - ! 1 ' c ,•U -,,,->>i — RJ J r'^ 1 `i`'• L(1.- " !,. C' v "' - ' \ -, ; _ , A. 4 ) J L , L . y v 4 4 ., ;. i r -z. r ^a -_ ce .. 1 C re 1 CI O S t f : 1x - F, 4 . .._.„ .. , . , ,- 9 L..� - -I 3 -' , .., E---. , C , , '' r -.' t . .) t f. i " ? 1 . V (�4 t �""^^_,,..,. f ' f / F ' P 1 ,„ , ,4±,______q k + , ,/,.. _ .L.,_,,,,,, 0 ,.._,c„..,,-- , ,, -7, :, , ,,:,i2sk 1,-. Cr..., , t ; j_ _ a it' 2 , i . r d LAI 'ij S �` / e 1 t r' -r <.,1 - l , ti', 1 kip, (____ 1 i 0 f