Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.200 s aspen Hotel Lenado.54-83 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen No. 54-33 Staff: PROJECT NAME: Hg-P Liatea& — APPLICANT: / �(.<e.44uco //s O Phone: 9ZS 62 REPRESENTATIVE: Phone:' €DU S, Aspek, S-f- TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Fee) `/ I. GMP /SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) X__ 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,840) 2. Preliminary Plat ($1,120) 3. Final Plat ($ 560) II. SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,290) 2. Preliminary Plat ($ 830) 3. Final Plat ($ 560) III .EXCEPTION /EXEMPTION /REZONING (2 step) ($1,010) IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 465) 1. Special Review 2. Use Determination 3. Conditional Use REFERRALS: i Date Referred: 10 "6,-83 x Attorney V Sanitation District School District 'x Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat.Gas 51 Housing Parks State Hgwy. Dept. Y Water Holy Cross Electric Fire Chief City Electric X Fire Marshall /Building Dept. Other F,nb t rat\ 44 FINAL ROUTING: Date Routed: ✓ Attorney ✓ Engineering � \ ilding Other `w1J, 1 «%' O DISPOSITION: CITY P&Z REVIEW: 1063 \ y -e CIO 1Th. - tt ( . ,f3 in.4 0 I _-- r • c C t4 •• rk. 0 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: 17117 I ;( ° ft ) \)° ri (a , k\l 1==. Ordinance No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. Laserfiche WebLink r ., a Page 1 of 1 `.✓ Laserfiche' WebLink Help Logout My WebLink Browse Search A Page 1 of 2 Go ®® 31:1100e 36.02% - ±) Pages 1 to 2 Template: resolution -cc LFRecords > City of Aspen > City Clerk > Coundl > Resolutions > 1983 > cc.res 03383 resolution -cc - resolution-number 039-83 date - adopted 1/18/1984 topic resolution -cc - parcel -id parties RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 leaves resolution-cc-address RESOLUTION NO. 3 resolution -cc -type (Series of 1983 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 11.6(a) of the Code, October 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for lodge development allotments within the L -1, L -2 and L -3 zone districts in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, two projects competed for lodge units in the L - 3 zone for a total of seven (7) units; and WHEREAS, the quota available in the L -3 zone for this competition is ten (10) units: and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on November 8, 1983, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the L -3 Growth Management Applications and evaluate and score then in conformance with criteria established in Ordinance 38 (Series of 1982) which amended Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the projects met the required thresholds in the Planning and zoning Commission scoring; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to Council that the Hotel Lenado be awarded the four (9) lodge units they requested and that action on the three (3) lodge units requested by The Aspen be delayed until they prove the existence of twenty (20) parking spaces or receive a variance for less than twenty (20) spaces. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado: Section 1 A lodge development allotment is hereby awarded to the Hotel Lenado for four (9) lodge units. Section 2 The allocation of four (4) lodge units to the Hotel Lenado shall be subject to the following condition: Powered by Lased¢he WebLink version 1.0.5. Laser is a registered trademark of Compulink Management Center, Inc. This copy Is registered to: City of Aspen .,onve):,l —AAOIS 1 /22./T11l7 Laserfiche WebLink Page l of I Laserfiche' WebLink Help Logout lay WebLink Browse Search A A Page 2 of 2 Go '2 ®® IMMO a 36.02% - J Pages 2 to 2 Template: resolution - LFRecords> City of Aspen> City Clerk > Council > Resolutions > 1983> m.res.039 -83 resolution -cc - resolution- number ^ " — 039 -83 date - adopted 1/18/1984 topic resolution -cc - parcel -id parties RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 108 Loves resolution -cc - address The units must be condominiunized with a condominium plat resolution - - type recorded for the entire project. The proposed employee unit which was part of this applica tion has been exempted from growth management competition and an exemption from the provision of a parking space for the employee unit has also been given by the Planting and zoning Commission. The FAR increase for the area in which these four (41 units will be located was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in August of 1983. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that action on the three (3) lodge units requested by The Aspen will be held until the parking situation is resolved- (� '/ DATE; 2*. FLS -ct •-y / r e�! ,, 19811 � 111 / '[ling, or I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the city of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing i• a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the ,.17 day of . A9eS 4wut— , 1983. J t�. Kat yn K• • y er Powered by Laserfiche WebLink version 7.0.5. Laserfiche is a registered trademark of Compulink Management Center, Inc. This copy le registered to Ciy of Aspen 1 MA /1(111 r .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Allocation of L -3 Quota DATE: February 27, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM: At the November 8, 1983, meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, two projects were evaluated in the 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Competition. These were 4 units requested by the Hotel Lenado and 3 units by the Aspen (a /k /a Applejack). Both projects met the required thresholds and Council allocated 4 lodge units to the Hotel Lenado at the regular meeting of December 12, 1983. The available quota in the L -3 zone was 10 units. Action was tabled on the Aspen's allocation pending solution of their parking situation. They were required to provide twenty parking spaces or to receive a variance for less than 20. The Parking Plan attached shows that they have been able to reconfigure the parking lot to accom- modate 20 spaces. The memo from the City Engineering Department, which is also attached, sets out conditions which make this parking arrangement acceptable. They also request architectural elevations and sign specifications indicating sign location and type. 4 . The Aspen must still receive special review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to increase to an FAR of 1:1. COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is attached which allocates three (3) lodge units to the Aspen. The appropriate motion is: "I move to approve, Resolution No. / , Series of 1984." ,1 I. a 1. I i 09K 1 y .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Allocation of L -3 Quota DATE: December 12, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ At the November 8, 1983, meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, two projects were evaluated in the 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Competition. The projects were presented, discussed, public comment was heard, and scoring was done individually by each Commission member. The projects were as follows: The Aspen (a /k /a Applejack) 3 lodge units (corner of Second and Main) Hotel Lenado 4 lodge units (corner of Aspen and Hopkins) The quota available in the L -3 zone is 10 units. Thresholds and Eligibility To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a minimum of 60% of the total points available under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 60 points, and a minimum of 30% of the points available in each Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 to meet the basic competitive requirements. Category 1 is Public Facilities and Services, Category 2 is Quality of or Improvements to Design, Category 3 is Amenities Provided for Guests, and Category 4 is Conformance to Public Policy Goals. The minimum points required are as follows: Category 1 = 3 points; Category 2 = 11.7 points; Category 3 = 6.3 points; and Cate- gory 4 4.5 points. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an appli- cation over the minimum thresholds, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding allotments. The scoring of these projects by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows: THE ASPEN 1. Public Facilities and Services 6.85 points 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design 14.92 3. Amenities Provided for Guests 13.42 4. Conformance to Public Policy Goals 30 TOTAL 65.19 points HOTEL LENADO 1. Public Facilities and Services 6.57 points 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design 30.71 3. Amenities Provided for Guests 17.57 4. Conformance to Public Policy Goals 30 TOTAL 84.85 points BONUS POINTS 1.86 TOTAL 86.7 points Both projects met the required thresholds and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the projects with the exception that the Aspen must provide twenty (20) parking spaces or receive a MEMO: Allocation of L -3 Quota December 12, 1983 Page Two variance for less than 20. If they are unable to fulfill this re- quirement, P &Z's approval becomes null and void. Subsequent Approvals The Hotel Lenado will be required to condominiumize the units. The Aspen must receive special review approval to increase to an FAR of 1:1 and must get final approval from HPC. Council Action A resolution is attached which allocates four (4) lodge units to the Hotel Lenado and holds action on the Aspen until they resolve their parking problem. The appropriate motion is: "I move to approve Resolution No. ,39 , Series of 1983." ;ti.,� to .. • ro 0 1:1 an z N 0 4 C to O V N mwOtrw C (DQJQb 0 H • z t' ttl Z H H 1-1 0 ',il 0 0 z H C hi t (n )0' H :U 371 co c n m r - PJ (D H r• Pi 0 r• H 'C O P. rt m P) Z O Z O m tl1 to 11 m rt O 11 H O S rt "1 P1 m H. CD a m x 0 m m r1 1 0 W N W H. W 'V H 'C t7 rt 'V H 0 rt r+ W W m m 0 (i l7 (n to a xl H. 17 1 r• 0 H O N O ',il O 1 - 1 m m H CD O W (D C 5PiOr•rt rt P)HH H 0 Z 0 N h H '0 0 0 G H (D H -< < H H to N r• m O co Pi a W H 3 (n O r• r• t9 r , C H h' P ' 3 t9 C 0 (D Pi C rt Pi O O (n td H. W 0 ttl rt n 1 H Pi b1 r -4 (D m H 'art - H r•< 0 H O m > P1 0 Pi H. h1 0 hPJ 0 < 0 7 Z Z H O(D a 0 H O rt m t H 0 0 t - ' H U) a t - ' H O r• P1 t' (n 0 .. r• (Y 0 •• PJ 0 4 Z •• th rt P. C rt H 7J H•• 0 0 r- CD C ID - H p H 0 (n 0 t=i 0 N O 0 O b1 1-h U1 m H 'b m 0 5 O z H O z., m H CO z4 0 r >1 zw 0 I t 0 -4 aP iP LO Ni 01 01 N 0 0 -4 H N N H H ' M Z 0 K H H Z H 0 r t J a a lO CO J C1 N l0 l0 J H N N H H tP k 3 •fj In N (n ^H 0 ^� 0 Vl tr7 t9HZ N N 'Z1 H O H H 01 01 1/40 0 01 01 N 01 0 •b Z J H N N H H ''3 b t O Z H Z Z H (n 4 01 � Py Z J a a 10 0 J 01 N 01 l0 01 H H N H H H t (n N In 2 O (n t9 n H H' O H z H ,Kl 0 0 z J a s 0 100 01 01 N 01 'O C1 H H N H H t0 11 E PI H N t" J a s 0 l0 01 01 N d\ 0 01 H H N H H 1-3 0 Z J a s lO Ni J C1 N J 0 J H N N H H C H N 01 0 r w > J 0 `. . Pi -4 H J H N - 0 , t9 N W N N M an he 1-3 he Hi Al I> dr LLD (D H ,P C '< he o • • 0 0 £ Cn o.r Z Z H 0 G" G (.J cn 0 0 (D M0 Z >4 b' 0 Z td o H H• H• I< tri t1 0 to ror xi a3 rr H. (D 0 to rtw H-rt it 0 'J H H cn W rt. 0 hi LQ -3 O � el c 0 M th t" t" H H. t'' !D O H. H he he 3 m P) i° C] rt o 0 r a ro It H H •• 0 H Z Z ( H G 01 cn 0 0 it cn r r p C 01 ,p rrt 0 0 r m 0 U1 w rr H w 0 O ro to Lo m w H H Z r 01 01 o 01 In )-< r tTi co CO W r r t:] J -1 0 lP U1 In 01 I t CO 0D W H H J J 0 In N H 4 01 NJ 0) 0 In 01 01 01 H z e' Z m Co w H r 0 N N 0 V1 01 tri to co co 01 co O 01 01 y 0 z 0 co co W H H C 01 01 o 01 01 H 0 C 0] CO 0) bi 01 r ,P. o o 0 0 01 to to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications PROJECT: ( O�/ 2d/7Q0 Date: /7 P S- 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: / MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 • Comments: 92 j/It /97J P 77 e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. • RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 • Comments: • - 2 - 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 - 3 - Comments: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: n! MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro - posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 5 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. Availability df or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 9 MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 9 MULTIPLIER• 2 Comments: - 5 - • *its 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 t 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: . ,<J MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). • The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed! RATING: 1 /� MULTIPLIER: 1 - F - Comments: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.6(b).(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: S MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: • 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: f l 2 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: / 7 (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 3 O (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: - Points in Categories � 1, 2,'3 and 4: ° (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: iS TOTAL POINTS: / Name of Planing and Zoning Member: / e,7177;/ / //-C L9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications p PROJECT: 1 LE d Date: U l / b i 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 2_ MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: .SAY- v�Glp/i •- e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: - 2 - • 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). • The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 " MULTIPLIER: 1 - 3 - r' N. ,nom N. al Nord Comments: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. C o RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro- posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. / r RATING: 2 ' /, 5 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: 9 ( e- - S / 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - -A, ..s The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING:( C' MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: - 5 - 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 paints). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). • The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. C RATING: 0 MULTIPLIER: 1 - 6 - Comments: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the • upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: • 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: _ (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: 2 - (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: l (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 3 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: - Points in Categories Cll 1, 2, '3 and 4: (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planing and Zoning Member: - 7 - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications 1 / PROJECT: //( c "7'hv/ ��, Date: ' .C‘6 / )1 b ��. / % -`��. 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: - e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. • RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 • Comments: - 2 - 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 - 3 - Comments: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: - e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro- posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: l / MULTIPLIER: 3 :;› Comments: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). - � y The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: `. MULTIPLIER: 3 7 >5 ; Comments: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: T) MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: C / - 5 - 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: • 0.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: / — MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: / MULTIPLIER: 1 - F - Comments: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt • portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10).percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: • 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: / 1' (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: g Y (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 36 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1, 2,'3 and 4: • (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: ( 7 Name of Planing and Zoning Member: i � /(/( / //)/ ~ l PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications PROJECT: OVrer ) Date: �\)0V ta$3 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: -- e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. • RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: - 2 _ *wire ‘401 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: k& i 1M YQf IrQ O ?in I' y9 fl�. ea l pA ,tyV a i)� Lzr �- 6 e WI/ILLS rR s ( c� , d��e�► oc� S CQ (1QP*iC�W O+ -flLP.rLQ gal b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 2 (r' ,.,',gy X} p ( MULTIPLIER:: 3 omm Cents:()(\+ OC (Y 2 P. WI PP. I S ,mi -€4 Ioc) V c c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 1 - 3 - Comments: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. h RATING: .2— MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro- posed buildings or any addition - thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: -2-( 2/2 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: kAkA E t t61Q4j(1 -r- (a t[1Z W ✓V* -Q i1) 40 be (€-W , l w Q - \tc.e. hug WL \t 1n,O Irv* 1 Al sn7 (?rr�- b.Ct \rern. - H� Ssi R4 j • pecce 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. S 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - 0 The following shall be rated accordingly:. a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: ' tAg-4 , tL)bk i 4 ' \ \ I U_ 'kW _ U t flv ) b. Availability df or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 9— MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: - 5 - 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: • 0 t 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: t 5 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 1S MULTIPLIER: 1 _ c _ Comments: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: 2 • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: 1 , \ n2 Cc2AR_A_l&Q 0AI CnS{- %0.4-inn butte__ t!\O h011 KtA C s\YUUh-t)r -eo tiro poSea 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: l0 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: 3(• 5 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: 11 (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 5( (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: - Points,in Categories �( 1, 2, 3 and 4: fR ,;5 (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planing and Zoning Member: V/9-Q. 1 d 0 1174-); PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications PROJECT: `— �`-` CJr.J Date: 9� ) f 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: —� MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: -- e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. • RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: - 2 - 0 ., 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: Z MULTIPLIER: 1 - 3 - Comments: - - d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro- posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - The following shall be rated accordingly:. a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. Availability df or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 2_ MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: `�— MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: - 5 - L... V 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: O.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - • 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. / RATING: /' MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 7 MULTIPLIER: 1 - 6 - Comments: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: • 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: - Points , in Categories 1, 2,•3 and 4: (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planing and Zoning Member: L .� 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications PROJECT: ` PAta 4 Date: 5 /''(w 9, 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: ' MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: .- MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: I MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: - e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. • RATING: I • • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: - 2 - ,^ j 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: (- MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. n/ RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 - 3 - • Comments: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: - e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro- posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: v 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - W 0 The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. /J RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. /J RATING: MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: - 5 - 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: l ) MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: /5- MULTIPLIER: 1 - s - Comments: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge iS marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. /, 2 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). �'� /" a The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: V e2 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 6 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: /l (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 11, (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points An Categories 1, 2,•3 and 4: iMinimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: /O TOTAL POINTS: 9 4 Name of Planing and Zoning Member: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications PROJECT: be Dater I' 0 2 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: / MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: . n c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: v (J j � //, MULTIPLIER: 1 Co`nnts: - Vitt - t y� s E� t &rThtlinl� SI qerb d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: ✓�G �r�� �+�, / /, MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: 1 vIK ++i" i ��417C 5 HNHS+ -6"�- sYS( . ... e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; " and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. • RATING: I • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: 51,6 j Z2— 2 - 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: 3 p� �y �� / v&" MU TIPLIER: 3 Comments: — U�� Ts 7Y616t� - / . b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: \ n MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: 04,0%12t 9 A - 3 c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 4, MULTIPLIER: 1 - 3 A Comments: 4 4a`L4e4 "J' "`""t , R" d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: (IMO S��I' J, / MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: I� V& 40 e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro- posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2.6 l 1. I' obi 1y� MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: y y ;3 A �- 4 © oa u 6f--- j 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: • 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - The following shall be rated accordingly:. a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 1 Comments: l 7 (:!i: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: / �c�/� �— MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: ��' "1 " ,A bl I T /Fedl fib . (l(9 c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. *win RATING: Z MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: 400b IBC.. C� (/ cws7a„rL_ /9-- - 5 - 3 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: i MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off - site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 - ti - • 7N Comments: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.5(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: • 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: 3Z (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: / (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 30 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1, 2, .3 and 4: (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planing and Zoning Member: ,�9 1 PROJECT PROFILE 1984 L -3 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: Long Run /Daniel Delano 2. Project Name: Hotel Lenado 3. Location: 200 South Aspen Street 4. Parcel Size: 9,000 square feet 5. Current Zoning: L -3 6. Maximum Allowable Build -out: 9,000 square feet 7. Existing Structures: The Edelweiss Lodge was demolished on this site and the Hotel Lenado has been under construction for'five months. 8. Development Program: These four lodge units will complete the southeast corner of the Hotel, which presently contains thirteen lodge units. An FAR increase was approved in mid - August for this area. Construction completion is anticipated to be December 24 with opening on January 28, 1984. If these four units are alloted, they will be completed near the opening date. 9. Additional Review Requirements': GMP Exemption for employee unit; Exemption from Parking for employee unit 10. Miscellaneous: Four additional off - street parking spaces are being provided. Limousine service is planned for the 84/85 ski season. Common areas include an atrium space, a library opening to a terrace on Bass Park, a breakfast room /piano bar, covered porch on Aspen Street, a roof deck with hot tub, a recreation /conference area and screening room. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications PROJECT: HOTEL LENADO Date:November 8, 1983 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and 'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula:. 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The lodge is on City Water with a 6" main in Hopkins Avenue. A 4" line has been installed into the Hotel. b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant`s commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the ' development. • RATING: 1 'MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The Aspen Consolidated District has responded that the four additional units can be served. c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 2 • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: The drainage plan includes subgrade drain tiles and 1500 gallon capacity drywells, as well as surface drains and two shallow rock trenches. Since drainage is being retained on -site, this represents improvement in the area service quality, since the storm sewer system will not be impacted. • d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department • to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring.addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. • RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: A fire hydrant exists at the corner of Hopkins and South Aspen. The Hotel Lenado is two blocks from the fire station. An automatic sprinkler system is being installed throughout the Hotel. e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road .system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to • the development. RATING: 1 • • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: This project is located at the corner of Aspen and Hopkins Streets, which can handle the impacts of this project. There may be some additional on- street parking due to the Hotel, but that is not attributable to the four new lodge units. SUBTOTAL: 6 - 2 - • • • 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be accordingly: • a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location • and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. • RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: This addition is the "finishing" of the building in terms of its symmetry. The design adds to the neighborhood in a unique way. The mass is large but so is the surrounding build -out with the Victorians across the street, the Mountain Forge building, Park Central office building and Park Central West. • b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: The underground service access, landscaping and the re- lationship to Bass Park are all good as well as the addition of a bench and antique street lights, however, the building coverage on the site limits the amount of usable open space to the degree that we cannot justify an "excellent" score. c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 • - 3 - Comments: The energy aspects of the Hotel include five natural gas fired very high efficiency (85%) boilers for space heat and hot water heat, high R -value insulation, double - glazing throughout, destratification fans, and a Rumford fireplace. d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: Four off - street parking spaces are being added for the new rooms, but only two exist for the remainder of the Hotel. An exemption from the parking requirement for the employee unit is being requested. The parking area is off the alley and screened from view of the park by lilacs. Service access, to the basementt for level is provided directly from the alley. Lime. VISUAL IMPA - Considering gthe sca an season. e. and location of the pro- . VI posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views • of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2 • MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: 4 •• •• •- • •••• - .- .• n. •ve- ment over the Edelweiss of such magnitude that it is rather dramatic. It does, however, impact public views, especially from Paepcke Park. Views from within the structure are maxi- mized b the clerestor windows and oth-r w'•••. • - - u - • SUBTOTAL: 29 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: • 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - • The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation .to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: The atrium /lobby space is very inviting and is a cen- tral focal point. A library is being provided with french doors opening onto a terrace on Bass Park. There is also a room in the basement which will double as a conference /recreation room and day care room. A T.V. /screening room is adjacent to the recreation room, Relative to the lodge size, these are more than adequate amenities. b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: The present plan includes a semi - circular breakfast room in which a full breakfast will be served for guests. The same space will be used for a piano bar. The plans show a "future" dining (and related kitchen) facility of 1000 sq. ft. for service to the conference aspect of the Hotel. c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 3 MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: These amenities include the recreation /conference room (which the applicant indicates may serve a day -care function for guests) and a roof deck hot tub. There will be a porch swing i en the front porch. A T.V. /screening room is provided adjacent to the recreation room. SUBTOTAL: 17 l y - 5 - 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: • 0.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the • project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the • project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5%- housed. RATING: 15 MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: 465 sq uare f oot em ployee unit is b ein g p rovided •, - ite to house an additional em•lo ee for the service of the four new lodge units. • The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. - REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each S% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 15 MULTIPLIER: 1 - 6 - • Comments: The demolition of the old Edelweiss Lodge and the building of h Ho t nado r presents 100% reconstruction ai- a project cost_ exclusive of land of $950 000 For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. • For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include • those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. SUBTOTAL: 30 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: • • 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 6 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: . 29 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: --17 (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 30 (Minimum of 9 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1, 2,•3 and 4: • 82. (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: Q ,_.,( TOTAL POINTS: .g'2 -- iJ / l Name of Planing and Zoning Member: Planning Office - 7 - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -3 Lodge GMP Applications PROJECT: v , i : L-__ /— ± `_ ..i Date: /1 , iJ' ` 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: I MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: 7 I ,, i Y JC �: � : �J y\ !-A 4 (/ AK.. _k 4i ? (( tea: i I1'1�Fa': t< .,t _ 74 . _ I ) ! b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: ' MULTIPLIER: 1 � Comments: ���� � ( `,� �• ]"` . 4i1 ! . ! . �, ; � t i f � •, j )l ),S Y'�`' 1J I - � ✓'i A -� I d _i ce �"'?t_1_�� �� 'y c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: t; -. l� t i'; � ( 1. IEPs. �� ' � I ;R)( 9 . '' 7 1 .�•. � - b \ l I , °� ID ' I Y v � �� a 1, �. r \ d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 f Comments: ' Ski ' Z A , _ r L i ;\ , k e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: I • MULTIPLIER: 1 1 � Comments: 1 1 , a ;y ,. c.,,:., • � . 2 - 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 c Comments: I VI I { J � L v �� 1 I, { • b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments: 1 ' .- ((1' 1:: , 3 t 1. ,� � I' 1 t 1 1 c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 - 3 - Comments: I/ , L '-: r J lE / . � 0 � Spa`-‘-a _ £ . , 1,. "i > . '\- — ( ' k yI, I, u _ r C\ \ . d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: ,, MULTIPLIER: 3 Vo str s I Comments: 1 r Lk . _ L. t a . , r 1 i ` I bt6.1� 17 �,���±� °�+ k i pit \ fi r_ ' 0, , , . ,�. , r' ■ t r r ,_ -+ Ft _ j I C ‘ \ 1' v \ --, k \ . ki f _. '>. j 1.) _ C2� " \J l ` c ' C ri i..+) •... . { _. e. VISUAL IE4PACIF - Considering the scale and location of the pro- posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: ----- 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 Comments. t, ., i f x ` i _ - ! / I I f 1 1?1/4 , IM-r4,Ver - , UaI'C. 1 � V ■ \ - _ . .e .. .A C 21 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points)._ The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. - 4 - The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: ` ,J MULTIPLIER: 3 I / Comments: I - , 'k ' � r1. -c � :: . i. y r ` i_ j". -r U, c,\ a r)'"), 1‘.. ' ' f" - ' 1 ' _. = . I c c -4. �� . if' - --A-- 1 -N, Esc t ,:9_t,✓li 1 t"7_- 0YYV 0.ii'1c—nv -- 4 4 n. Y'f CA`P/: Or rt trr! . b. Availability �f or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments: 1 , I.,. r / r Lit "(. ' /'_R_ . . ).' � , 1 _ 1 . 1 , 1 r 1, (1 1 : • — , 1 , 1 t - U L C1 c. -. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: MULTIPLIER: 2 Comments , 77 , r I17,, i14 t i, ,' -; r / , tr. • 1/ 1 / -s- . 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: /5 MULTIPLIER: 1 i { Comments: i ' 101.) *, J 1-1: ._w_ q . t , l� �' (. l The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: l TD MULTIPLIER: 1 - 6 - Comments: • For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of • non -unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge'is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion of the lodge is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: • MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: • 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 6 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: 2 1 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: , (Minimum of 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: J . 4 Y .) (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1, 2, .3 and 4: ,� (Minimum of 60 points required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: 8 Name of Planing and Zoning Member: ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 750 Environmental Health Department DATE: October 24, 1983 RE: 1983 GMP - Hotel Lenado The above - referenced application has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns. Air Pollution: Compliance with Section 11 -2.3 of Aspen Municipal Code concerning solid fuel burning devices is evident in the submittal. Due to the fact that a building permit was issued prior to Passage of Ordinance 12 series of 1983, Section 11 -2.3 of the ordinance will not be applicable. It is understood that there will be one fireplace in the lobby and five wood burning stoves in other hotel rooms. Should, in the future, any or all of the five wood burning stoves be replaced, the replacement units shall be chosen from the approved solid fuel burning device list available from this department. This opinion and interpretation was made by the City Attorney's office, the Building Department and this office. The second part of the ordinance addressing restaurant grills will apply in total. Noise Abatement: No adverse noise impacts are anticipated from this project. However, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Noise Abatement" will apply should complaints be received from such activities as amplified music generated from the hotel. Water System: Service of this project by the Aspen Water Department distribution lines is in conformance with policies of this office. 130 South Galena Street Aepen, Colorado 131811 303/925-2020 Page Two October 24, 1983 1983 GMP - Hotel Lenado Sewage System: Service of this project by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District collection lines is in conformance with policies of this office. Food Service: At this point the proposed food service and bar facilities are intended for guest use only. However, it is recommended that these amenities be constructed in compliance with the Rules and Regulations Governing Food Service Establishments in Colorado. This will help assure a certified restaurant and lounge will be available for licensing should the food service facility be opened to the general public at a later date. NOTE: To posess a Colorado Liquor License it will be necessary to also posess a Colorado Food Service License. Therefore, this office will assume compliance with the above - mentioned food regulations and consequent licensure of the kitchen. Site Drainage: The submittal indicates that drainage from this project will be retained on -site by the use of dry wells. This is in conformance with policies of this office. Swimming Pool - Hot Tub: The Colorado Regulations and Standards Governing Swimming Pools will apply to the proposed hot tub. Specifically, plans and specifications for the hot tub shall be submitted to this office for review and approval. As a point of reference, no red wood interior hot tubs will be approved for public or semi - public facilities. This hotel would be considered semi - public in use. TSD /co • t: rr. CITY I !JY� SPEN .k., 130 iiii( # ; reet aspe 1611 30342 -2620 WATER DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: COLETTE PENNE, PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1983 RE: HOTEL LENADO As stated in the application on page four, a new fire line is being installed into the premises the additional units requested will not have an adverse im- pact on the water system. JM:lf f C'Sl,(kc?n1 \\\ OCT 1819a ASP NIt °FOCI pLO MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office Building Department FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: City Lodge GMP Submissions - L -3 zone DATED: October 6, 1983 Attached are this year's applications competing in the City for the 1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L -3 zone. One application is submitted by Daniel Delano /Longrun. The applicant has already gotten approval for reconstruction of the Edelweiss Lodge as the Hotel Lenado. This submission involves the addition of four new lodge units and one employee unit to the Hotel. Hotel Lenado is located on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins Streets. The other application received was submitted by the Tor Corporation. The applicant requests the addition of three units to The Aspen lodge (formerly known as the Applejack Inn) and enlargement of the already existing unit to house more employees. The Aspen is located on Main Street. Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments to the Planning Office by October 28, 1983, in order that we may adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 8, 1983. Thank you. he Lis 7AcI , Tot A SO2.- LJ.- SO4..anA -ttl. /) /t rt , ci j.. /« No r /ta'— /fin t f'.41-0H rHs Ahn.r — /. 5 ur,rs P <a/'o :rr> art.. THii P,. re'cr # /ti T E L ,& E' t" r/f.F /9 bA /T /,34-AL V N 1T S ti 01 5 /bY rn s its a.-0 t' :. S Pa' -ar. isv /He AS PE c °Si ,aryre o 5 4 ...i t,F I7 is Ng-ice- )2„;44:,:t / / — • • M E I1 D R P H D U M TO Aspen /Pifkin County Housing Aufhorily FROM: Gail Schwartz, Assisfanf Director DATE October 23: 1933 RE Review for the GMP Submission for the Hotel Lenado L - 3 zenvg The projecf is in fhe location of the Edelweiss Lodge. Thirfeen units are being reconstructed. The GMP submission is for four addifional new units fofaling 960 sq.ff. with one additional employee unit fo be exempf from +he GMP. The project consisted of one existing employee unit before fhe fear down. Tofal square foofage for employee unifs is 865 sq.ff. The developer has exfimafed fhaf between one and fwo employees will be required fo service +he four additional rooms considering fhe type of service level anficipafed for fhe operation. They have demon- strated two other comParables of 19 units which operate uifh five fo six employees. They feel fhaf fheir employment ratio shall exceed That. Utilizing the ratios of 13 employees per 100 beds or 23 employees Per 100 beds based upon qualify level, fhe project actually exceeds fhe requirement for employee housing. The entire project would be anficipafed +o require 8 employees whereby +hey are providing 865 59.11. for employee units miff' a ratio of 1 employee per 100 sq.ff. Therefore, +he Housing Aufhorify recommends approval of +he application and fhe demonstration safisfacfion of housing all +he employees +o be genera +ed by fhe project. The conditions of approval should include a deed restriction on fhe unit according fo income level and also a deed resfricfion requiring fhe unit fo be occupied by employees of fhe project. CHOTEL LENAIiO September 23, 1983 Mr. Alan Rickman Aspen /1'itkin Planning Office Re: Hotel Lenado's Board of Adjustment Hearing - Sept. 29. 4:00 pm Dear Alan: Enclosed is copy of our BOA appeal application and letter to Bill Druedirg explaining our case. I draw your attention in particular to the third paragraph of my letter to Bill. Another case of careless writing of the zoning regulations - a basic rule of statutory construction being that none of the words of a statute be redundant. As City setback requirements read at present, either something's redundant in the 0 zone or something's missing in L-3. Not a point I'll push with the Board or Adjustment, but for what it's worth. Needless to say, we'd appreciate any support the Planning Office might give us at our hearing next Thursday. Please call if you have questions or comments regarding this. Thanks once again. Sincerely, Daniel Delano LongRun 200 South Aspen Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 3031925 -6246 .— _. "` "` "' "" r� ++ ry uvruw v+` ivsf:lru fVUJUJITIi_T1I CITY OF ASPEN DATE September 8, . 1933 • . - CASE NO. • APPELLANT nnnlel iThlnnn ADDRESS 200 South Aspen $trees • General. Partner, LongRurt PHONE 920 -1196 • 925 -5370 OWNER LongRun • ADDRESS 200 South Aspen Street' • Aspen, CO 81611 • LOCATION OF PROPERTY 200 South Aspen Street Mock 75, Lots A, B & C; City and Townsite of Aspen •�. .(Street•& Number of Subdivision Bik. & Lot No.) • Building Permit and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of - CASE NO.,` ' THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS•APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN - ° ALE THE FACTS IN QUESTION. . IDESCRIPiION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTIO'I SHOWIfNG JUSTIFICATIONS• Lon of Hotel Lenado, requests a variance from setback require- menfs (Section 24- 3.7(f)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code) to allow the projection • into required yards of part of a roof ° (147 square feet) over the hotel's service area and part of a roof (sixteen square over its gardenlevel entranceway, for the purpose of relieving the new hotel from the practical difficulty . of keeping ' •its area and required emergency exits free of snow and. ice. The areas • concerned have been redlined on the site plan of the drawings . accompanying this application. . Will you be represented by counsel ? Yes No x '(T' 7 - -c • SIGNED: /------• . /---) . Appellant • \ PROVISICSNS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ' TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: • . ... • . . .Sty ;tus Signed • prRIIIT REJECTED, DATE DECISION DATE ?',PILICATION FILED DATE IF HEARING .:4ILED - SECRETARY • September 12, 1983 Mr. William Drueding Zoning Enforcement Officer Aspen /Pitkin Regional Building Department 110 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hotel Lenado's Appeal to Board of Zoning Adjustment Dear Bill: Thanks for your time in discussion of our Board of Adjustment appeal application filed with your office last week. I write now in response to the question you raised at our meeting in regard to a potential - problem presented by our application in that roofing Hotel Lenado's service yard might represent an unjustifiable FAR increase. On several points, I believe some clarification of our case is in order; and I ask you please to forward the enclosed copies of this letter to the Board together with our application. The rear yard setback requrement in the City's L -3 zone district (Sec. 24 -3.4) is ten feet. No distinction is made between principal building and accessory buildings. Perhaps then it should be understood that the setback requirements for principal and accessory structures are one and the same; however, this is open to question, as one note's way,. of contrast that the Office zone district rear yard setback requirements, for example, are written: "Principal building - 15 Accessory building - 15." The Mrnicipal Code requires that service yards be fenced so as not to be visible from the street (Section 24 -3.7 (h)(1)). Nothing is written con- cerning the roofing of such yards, but taking into consideration Aspen's climate it would seem appropriate that such areas be covered. As a matter of fact and practicality, two properties adjacent to Hotel Lenado, the Park Central offices and the Hearthstone House, have covered service areas including stairways within their rearyard setbacks, and sheds can be seen abutting alleys throughout the West End. As to FAR, our architect, Harry Teague, anticipated the requirement that the hotel's service stair, if covered, be counted as part of the hotel's floor area; and he did count forty-two, square feet of the service area in computing the project's FAR. The other part of the service yard he considered being dedicated to the mechanica] operation of the building and therefore not to be counted in calculating FAR as provided for in the Code (Sec. 24 -3.7 (e)(4). This would seem entirely appropriate in that this 1 2 area is to be taken up by transformer, electric meter, telephone pedestal, etc. Of course, it may be argued that the service yard roof shown on the Hotel Lenado plans covers a larger area than is absolutely necessary. The fact is, however, that the width of this space is dictated by the location of an existing transformer. Harry Teague did inquire last Fall about the possibility of moving that transformer; the city Electric Dept. informed him that to move it even a few feet would cost a thousand dollars or more, which seemed to our partnership to he an unreasonable and unnecessary expense. In closing, I believe it may be fitting that the Board of Adjustment know that the issue of the service area was brought up by us at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing given the Hotel Lenado project lasC Fehxuary. There was a brief discussion of the matter, and no member of the Commission voiced objection. Jay Hammond of the City Engineer's office was questioned in regard to accessibility of the transformer if the service area was roofed, and he indicated he had no problem there. I understand the Board of Adjustment must look to the letter of the law; I hope the Board will agree that Hotel Lenado's request for a variance is not inappropriate, our plans being quite in keeping with the spirit of the City's zoning regulations. Thank you once again for the help you have been in the filing of Hotel Lenado's appeal. Sincerely yours, Daniel D. Delano, General Partner Longrun 200 South Aspen Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 920 -1196 cc: Board of Adjustment Alan Richman, Planning Office MEMORANDUM TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: October 31, 1983 RE: City Lodge (L -3) GMP Applications I have enclosed copies of the City Engineering Departments recommended scoring for this years L -3 zone GMP applications. The only item of note, which is common to both applications, is the lack of parking provided to accommodate the proposed expansions. Let me know if you need any further clarification of these engineering related GMP scores. JH /co Enclosure Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name +U P( [ , „A„4h Address Zeit 5,// Atet Owner _22 Attorney /Agent / Representative ar / ` ceo t>p Address 73O S , a La.._ (/ Reviewed by Date in - 3( - 3 I. Residential Application (section 24 -10.4) /L0 11Q, 417:). A. Public Facilities & Services 0 - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) 3 - No forseeable deficiencies *Water ( 3 pts.) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. r 4.et �ad�c� nen�� �sZ u�a�c. w✓a ( Joie_ * Sewer (3 pts.) Capacity without system upgrade. ok 2. Storm Drainage (3 pts.) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. 1 CIA_ - viT°L a¢Y � o vl Q Ph_ O k� C Q^'LC E , `0 -6-.Lj. Parking Design (3 pts.) Off street park'ng, visual, paving, safety, And convenience. 0 us,(U t 6e ( (wen - ulna 4 aitAt Roads (3 pts.) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more maintenance. I/ re + prof ases `I o r (� �{�� ��V�4u b Page 2 Growth Managem& Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service Public Transportation (2 pts.) 2 - On existing route. 1 - Within 520 feet of route. 0 - Not near service area. Bike Paths Linked to Trail system (2 pts.) • Design Features for Ha aicapped (2 pts.) II. Commercial and Office 'development Application (section 24 -10.5) A. Quality of Desi• 0 - Totally d_'icient 1 - Major fl- 2 - Accepta.le 3 - Excel -nt Site De=ign (3 pts.) Qualit; and character of landscaping, extend of under - grou sing of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of rculation. Amenities (3 pts.) Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways. Trash and utility access areas (3 pts.) III.Lodge Development Application (section 24 -10.6) A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) Page 3 Lem-qS. Growth Manageme%.: Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. Public Transportation (6 pts.) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. -t- Within 520 feet of bus route or lift. C. Quality of Design 3 Site Design (3 pts.) &4M w�.d o f r^o,_ Serve i o -tea.A , tY l t4 I Q 1 a.+� �c t 1 4te - v� � 0 3ow 1 70.4• • 1 Ameniti (3 pts.) w r �euCh, ve4 -ta _ (7Y-S , CSC. ?, Visual Impact (3 pts.) Sale and loc as it affects public views of scenic areas. b�, i1MQ0.e L LOLL+, Jt craws f . a ec� P Cal CC • Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt.). Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.). Prohibition of employee pfrking on site (1 pt.). L e . ; c ? v. Z" IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area Lot Area /Unit Lot Width Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submissions L -3 Zone NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 8, 1983, at a meeting which begins at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider the application submitted by Daniel Delano /Longrun, for addition of four new lodge units and one employee unit to the Hotel Lenado (f /k /a Edelweiss Lodge), and the application of Tor Corp. for the addition of three units to The Aspen Lodge (f /k /a Applejack Inn) and enlargement of an already existing employee unit. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (303) 925 -2020, ext. 223. s /Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on Thursday, October 13, 1983. City of Aspen Account. putc. V IJoT� Nor reezzon sy evO MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney �n,t�prl { City Engineer Arty Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office Building Department FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: City Lodge GMP Submissions - L -3 zone DATED: October 6, 1983 Attached are this year's applications competing in the City for the 1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L -3 zone. One application is submitted by Daniel Delano /Longrun. The applicant has already gotten approval for reconstruction of the Edelweiss Lodge as the Hotel Lenado. This submission involves the addition of four new lodge units and one employee unit to the Hotel. Hotel Lenado is located on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins Streets. The other application received was submitted by the Tor Corporation. The applicant requests the addition of three units to The Aspen lodge (formerly known as the Applejack Inn) and enlargement of the already existing unit to house more employees. The Aspen is located on Main Street. Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments to the Planning Office by October 28, 1983, in order that we may adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 8, 1983. Thank you. (H TEL LENAr)O October 3, 1983 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hotel Lenado GMP Application; Additional Lodge Unit Condominiumization; Employee Housing Unit GMP & Parking Requirement Exemption Dear Alan: Sulmfitted herewith please find 21 copies of our GMP application. And please consider this letter concurrent application by LongRun to the City in request of exception from full subdivision procedure for the purpose of condominium - ization of any additional lodge units which our GMP application may win us the right to create in Hotel Lenado. Also at this time we request favorable review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and special approval by City Coun- cil of our proposal to create at Hotel Lenado one additional employee dwelling unit - a one - bedroom or studio of 465 SF, deed- restricted to low- income guide- lines - exempt from GMP procedure; and we seek special review approval by P &Z for exemption from any parking requirement for that employee unit. Finally, we would like P &Z to re- review a part of our original project plan, the hotel's utility /trash enclosure - such re- review of the utility /trash enclosure having been recommended to P &Z by the Board of Adjustment, which Board has granted LongRun a continuance in its September 29th hearing of the matter. It would appear to me that the Planning Office should require no additional documentation related to this multiple ap lication at this time, however if anything in the way of additional information is required of us please let me know. Floor plans included in our GMP application show the location of the proposed additional employee unit; also, the question of parking is discussed therein at some length. Revised condominium documents - providing for inclusion in The Hotel Lenado Condominiums of four additional lodge units, we would hope - will, of course, be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Enclosed is LongRun's check for $1840.00. I expect the City's coffers will have swallowed it before you read this. Hope you had a good vacation. Sincerely, Daniel Delano LongRun 200 South Aspen Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303(925 -6246 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO SERVE FOUR PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LODGE UNITS IN THE HOTEL LENADO LongRun estimates that 1 to 2 additional employees will be required to serve an addition of four lodge units to Hotel Lenado, assuming that a rel- atively high level of service is to be provided in the new lodge as a whole. At two lodges in town comparable in size to Hotel Lenado with its addi- tion inclusive - The Hearthstone House and The Brass Bed, each containing 19 units and each being listed in the Expensive division of the ARA lodging guide - a staff of 5 to 6, including manager, proves adequate. It is difficult to imagine Hotel Lenado, even sized at only thirteen units, getting by with a staff of less than five or six - so assume this as a base line. To serve the increased number of guests resulting from the addition of four rooms, add one or two employees - perhaps not absolutely required, but necessary to the elevation of service level, which with the addition of lodge units would make sense at the bottom line. One_or both additional employees, due to the small overall size of Hotel Lenado, would likely have double or triple functions. My own best guess is that if only one additional employee were hired that this employee would be a maid /breakfast person; any second additional employee would likely be a front desk /bar person & maid's understudy. The additional employee unit at Hotel Lenado (465 SF) proposed in conjunc- tion with our GMP application will serve to house 100% of the additional lodge employees which will be generated by the addition of four lodge units to Hotel Lenado. Respectfully submitted I I, SEP 2 ". 1983 ___ ______ Daniel Delano, LongRun PEN / Pi fioN CO. Pi ^ i` NINIG OFFICE September 27, 1983 Th 1 GMP APPLICATION 14/1 .A .1 Aihiztliape1/4)(iiisi OCTOBER 1, 1983 OWNER /PROJECT: LONGRUN /HOTEL LENAUO 200 South Asoen Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 APPLICANT: DANIEL DELANO/LONGRUN 200 South Aspen Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 925 -6246 ARCHITECT: HARRY TEAGUE 230 South Galena Street Aspen: Colorado 81611 925 -2034 BUILDER: FRANK PETERS /ROCKY MOUNTAIN STRUCTURE 609 West Smuggler Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 920 -1196 RMS CREW: JOHN ALLARD PETER DELANO JOHN BARCELIANO PAUL HARRY JIM "SKYWALKER'• CAHILL TOM MARIS JASON CAMPBELL TIM MURRAY DANIEL DELANO THOM RUDE PAYROLL: MARJORY MUSGRAVE PETERS ENGINEER: COLLINS ENGINEERING EXCAVATION: STUTSMAN /GERBAZ PLUMBING: ANDERSON PLUMBING HEAT /SPRINKLER: ASPEN PLUMBING & HEATING WIRING: YAEGER ELECTRIC MASONRY: CHIP CHILSON FLATWORK: JOHN TRIPPE TELEPHONE: WRIGHT SYSTEMS LOGO: MARGARET MATHERS FOREWORD Hotel Lenado now enters its fifth month of construction at 200 South Aspen Street. A small lodge designed in the tradition of grand lodges of another era. this new hotel will offer its quests an atmosphere that is not to be found in Aspen's condom- iniums or motel -type accommodations together with amenities un- available in the town's older small lodges. Extensive common area will include an atrium space with grand staircase. fireplace. and clerestory windows offering a magnificent view of sky and moun- tain: there will be a library opening to a terrace on Bass Park. a breakfastroom /oiano bar and covered porch on Aspen Street. a roofdeck with hot tub. and downstairs a recreation /conference area and screening room. The guest rooms of the hotel will be distinctively appointed and furnished: vaulted ceilings and pri- vate balconies. whirlpool baths and pedestal lavatories, direct - dial telephones and track lighting will be among the amenities offered. There will simply be no place in town quite like it. Standing among old cottonwoods and newly planted aspens and red maples. with hip roofs suggestive of Victorian architecture and lodgepole pine columns cut above the old logging town of Lenado, the building will be uniquely and perfectly suited to its site. LongRun. the partnership developing Hotel Lenado. has good reason to believe we are creating here not only a splendid little hotel but also a new Aspen landmark. And to the purpose of this application - the creation of four additional lodge units at Hotel Lenado. which. if this application • proves a winner. will be located in the southeast corner of the same building that is to contain the thirteen units being reconstructed from the ruins of the old Edelweiss Lodge. That same southeast corner is now nearly framed and roofed. subsequent to the FAR increase approved in mid - August by the Planning & Zoning Commission: now. in accordance with Ordinance 35 (series of 1983). LongRun submits this application in pursuit of the development allotment necessary to make use of that area as lodge unit space. The body of this application is divided into three parts. First, as required by Ordinance 35. the proposed development is briefly described. providing our analysis of the impact upon the City of Aspen and adiacent land uses related to creation of four additional lodge units in Hotel Lenado. Secondly, the relevant area of the City's zoning map and architectural drawings of the development as a whole are presented. prefaced by written com- ments of the architect. including a general description of sur- rounding land uses. Finally. I address the various criteria for judgment and scoring of GMP lodge development - area of concern by area of concern. according to the formula provided for in Ordinance 35. • I. PROJECT IMPACT Reconstruction of the Edelweiss Lodge as Hotel Lenado should be seen as a dramatic change for the better at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Aspen Street. Within the context of this sea- change, as it were, the creation there of four additional lodge units should have but a minimal ripple effect upon adjacent land uses and the City at large. To put it positively - 4 lodge rooms of the highest quality will be contributed to Aspen's inventory. growth on the order of four- hundredths of one percent. which small increase will substantially increase the viability of the new lodge. And the success story of Hotel Lenado. it is to be hoped, will create more than a minimal ripple effect - perhaps even a good little wave. Water Inherent in the creation of four new lodge units in Hotel Lenado will be the addition of four full baths. which will be served, like the rest of the new hotel and the Edelweiss before it, by Aspen's public water supply system. Jim Markalunas of the Water Department has informed Frank Peters of LongRun that this proposed addition should cause the City no problem - i.e., the excess capacity required to serve this project is available in the public water supply system. The City's water main nearest to the Hotel Lenado property • is six inches in size and runs east -west beneath the south side of Hopkins Avenue. At the corner of honking E Soutn Aspen, imme- diately adjacent to the northwest corner of the property there is located an existing fire hydrant ( #773). Water main pressure was tested at this hydrant in May. 1983. with the following results: Static pressure, 110 psi: Residual pressure. 15 psi: 100 gal. flow through 2" opening in 9 seconds. A new water line has been installed by Anderson Plumbing for Longkun to supply Hotel Lena- do: this new line is sized at four inches. as necessary to pro- vide automatic sprinkler fire protection throughout the new ho- tel, including the area of the proposed additional units. Sewage Treatment Hotel Lenado will be using Aspen's public sewage treatment system. The nearest trunk sewer line to the project runs east to west beneath the north side of the public alley adjacent to the south side of the Hotel Lenado property: a new four inch waste line has been installed to connect with this trunk line beneath • the west end of the public alley. Applying the Colorado State Department of Health sewage demand standard of 100 gallon per person per day and assuming double occupancy of the four proposed additional lodge units. estimated sewer demand of the proposed units at 100'c occupancy is 800 gallons per day: assuming a 60% average annual occupancy rate - somewhat above the Aspen average - estimated annual sewer de- mand of the proposed additional units is 175.200 gallons. Heiko m Kuhn of the Sanitation Department has informed LongRun that the public sewage treatment system can handle four additional Hotel • Lenado lodge units without any proplem - i.e.. the excess capaci- ty exists to serve the sewage demands of those units LongRun here proposes to create. Drainage Architect Harry Teague in consultation with the City Engi- neering Department has developed a comprehensive drainage system plan for Hotel Lenado. approved by that Department. The plan provides for subgrade drain tile and drywells with a total capa- city of 1500 gallons already installed and surface drains and two shallow rock trenches to be installed in the course of land- scaping. Design of this drainage system anticipated the building of that corner of Hotel Lenado in which four additional lodge units will be located when and if the necessary GMP development allotment is secured by LongRun. Development Area Gross floor area of the four proposed additional units amounts to 1115 square feet with approximately 66 square feet of interior hallway and 196 square feet of exterior balconies or decks appurtenant thereto. Net interior unit area proposed is approximately 960 sauare feet. Concurrent with creation of the four additional lodge units here proposed. LongRun proposes to create one additional employee unit in Hotel Lenado. subiect to the City's granting approval of exemption for this employee 1 housing from GNP residential development allotment procedure. Net • b interior area of the additional employee unit proposed is approx- imately 465 square feet. The table below includes the above figures to show total proposed development area: Lot size: 9000 SF Gross Floor Area (Above - Grade /Less Mechanical): 8778 SF External FAR: 1:1 Subgrade Gross Floor Area: 4205 SF Total Gross Floor Area: 12983 SF Lot Coverage by Principal Building: 4462 SF Utility Enclosure: 229 SF Parking Area: 1080 SF Open Space: 3229 SF Net Unit Area: 4502 SF (40x) Net Non -Unit Area (Open February, 1984): 4860 5F (43%) Net Potential Diningroom /Kitchen Area: 1022 SF (09X) Net Employee Housing Area: 865 5F (08X) Total Net Floor Area: (Less Mechanical & Walls) 11249 SF (100X) Traffic Count & Parking It is likely a safe assumption that the majority of Hotel Lenado's ski season guests will be arriving in Aspen by air rather than car and that many hotel guests, if not a majority, 7 will fly in rather than drive during the summer as well. Precise. albeit theoretical. estimate of traffic count increase attributa- ble to the creation of four lodge units at Hotel Lenado may be made by correlation of two relevant. published studies - " Aspen In -House Survey. 1979/80° (by C.F. Goeldner & Aletta Stamp: Business Research Division. University of Colorado) and U.M.T.A. Technical Memo #3 (1977) - and multiplication according to the following formula thereby established: 4 (Lodge Units) x .35 (Vehicles) = 1.4 (Vehicles Per Winter Week) 4 (Lodge Units) x .53 (Vehicles) = 2.1 (Vehicles Per Summer Week) However, as these formula are based on average Aspen occupancy rates and as Hotel Lenado expects to achieve a better than ave- rage occupancy rate. it is perhaps appropriate to round our estimate upward by approximately 50% - to 2 vehicles per winter week and 3 vehicles per summer week. Assuming an on- season total • of 32 to 36 weeks the traffic count increase attributable to the creation of four lodge units in Hotel Lenado will amount to 80 to 100 vehicle arrival /departures per year. Considering Hotel Lena - do's central location and proximity to public transportation it is likely that the in -stay use of private vehicles by hotel • guests will be relatively low. By extension of the above figures. the numerical range of quest vehicles that can be expected to arrive /depart the develop- ment as a whole on a weekly basis is seven to fourteen. The most likely time of arrivals will be late afternoon and evening. and 0 of departures. early to midmorning. 8 During its second winter season, Hotel Lenado plans to institute limousine service. The limousine. to be stationed on the property, can be expected to help reduce the usage of private vehicles by hotel guests to a minimum. We estimate that the new hotel will be visited four to eight times per week by service vehicles providing trash collection, deliveries. etc. The hotel's service entrance is undergrounded off the alley, ensuring against congestion of the public streets which might be caused by double - parked trucks. It can be expected that the resident manager of Hotel Lenado will own a private vehicle and /or be making some personal use of the hotel limo on a day to day basis. This would not seem to cause any significant traffic count increase on adiacent streets. Considering again the central location and proximity to public transportation of Hotel Lenado. and considering also the provi- sion of employee housing in the hotel and the economic strings to ownership of motor vehicles. it is likely that little if anv use of private automobiles will be made by the line -staff of Hotel Lenado on a daily basis. As a requirement of City approval of reconstuction of the Edelweiss as Hotel Lenado. our site plan provided for the reloca- t.ion of the one off - street parking space existing at the Edel- weiss and in response to the Engineering Department's comment in regard to an apparent on- street parking reduction, our plan provided for one additional off- street parking space. To serve the four additional lodge units we now propose to create. our ■ site plan also provides for four additional off- street parking 9 spaces, one per additional lodge unit as required in the L -3 zone district. Now while the development's total of six on -site spaces will he sufficient to meet 85: of the hotel's estimated winter narking needs. in the peak of summer some hotel guests will certainly be parking their vehicles on- street. An apparent problem, however our experience during the con- struction of Hotel Lenado this past summer indicates it may be no real problem at all. Twenty on- street parking spaces exist on the block of South Aspen toward which the new hotel is oriented - or literally, occidented - and on which no other property fronts. With permission of the Engineering Department, throughout this past summer Rocky Mountain Structure's office trailer and stock- piled construction materials have occupied five narking spaces on this block of South Aspen: in addition. ten to twelve of the fifteen spaces remaining available on the block have been taken up by the vehicles of Rocky. Mountain Structure's crew and the lob's subcontracted labor, leaving only three to five spaces for the use of others. Next summer, by way of contrast. even with eight vehicles belonging to Hotel Lenado guests Parked on this block of South Aspen there will be a dozen spaces available for use by others. In any event, it is unlikely that any seeker of a narking spot will be terribly inconvenienced by the creation of four additional lodge units at Hotel Lenado: just a block away. along the west side of Paepcke Park there is a public lot with the capacity to Dark two dozen vehicles. which lot is rarely if ever full. 10 Most significantly, i£ obviously. in the way of auto-disin- centive. Hotel Lenado's site plan provides for installation of sidewalk where there has never been sidewalk and new curbs with a wheelchair ramp and bench at the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. at which point City bus routes intersect. Provision of limousine service, beginning during the 84/85 ski season, should also prove a significant auto - disincentive. Effect on Adjacent Land Uses The overall effect of Hotel Lenado on adjacent land uses can be stated in a single word: Positive. Though creation of four additional lodge units in the hotel may represent a small in- crease in competition to other lodging_ facilities in town. the very smallness of the increase limits any negative effect. In- deed, Aspen's image being somewhat tarnished in this area. the polishing effect of a little competition may prove most benefi- cial. Construction Schedule The construction of Hotel Lenado will be completed on or about Christmas Eve of this year. We will open to the public on January 28. 1984. If LongRun is awarded the necessary development allotment, the four additional units here proposed will be finished on or about that date. 11 II. PROJECT ARCHITECTURE A Preface Hotel Lenado is located on the southeast corner of the • intersection of Aspen Street & Hopkins Avenue. in a transitional neighborhood one block west of downtown Aspen. In this location the hotel must relate to two parks. a residential condominium. a log house. and several fine examples of mining era Victorians. To Paepcke Park. diagonally across the intersection of Aspen & Hopkins, the landscape plan of Hotel Lenado presents a blue spruce tree. matching in smaller scale those standing at the southeast corner of the park. On the Bass Park side the hotel building is set into the hillside so that only one and a half stories are seen from the park. a height that corresponds to the height of aspen trees existing at the park's western border. Landscaping that makes the best possible transition between the grounds of the hotel and the park has been arranged with advice from the Parks Department. This involves a natural stone wall and stone steps, and the hotel's augmenting the park's vegetation with additional ornamental shrubs. Lilacs from the building site have been transplanted so that the hotel's parking area off the alley will not disturb the effect of the park. In relating to the Victorian residences across Hopkins. the hotel building attempts to recall the scale and effect rather than trying to imitate Victorian architecture itself in detail. Using color, roof Ditches, and articulation the greater mass of Hotel Lenado is broken up into three distinct volumes that cor- respond in size and shape to those houses across the street. The effect of the transition between residential and lodging use is thus minimized. A variety of construction materials have been specified for the project in an attempt to achieve the overall desired architectural effect. The building is sided in cedar stained tan and green: Lenado log columns serve as structural support and lend aesthetic interest to both the exterior and interior of the hotel: the roof is metal with a dark red finish: the exposed aggregate concrete rubble -wall fireplace and chimney includes red stone from Lenado: gardenlevel retaining walls and sidewalks alike are washed aggregate concrete. The approach to energy conservation in Hotel Lenado is wholistic. While the dictates of the hotel program and the re- strictions of the site have ruled out some methods of energy conservation. the project incorporates various features that cause it to be an extremely energy- efficient building. First of all. the building as a whole has a very low surface area to volume ratio. This coupled with high R -value insulation and double - glazing throughout results in a design heat load of 123,937 BTU /hour or 10.3 BTU per square foot /hour. significantly less than the strict 18 BTU per 5F /hour local requirement. Because more energy is required to heat water than space in a hotel. the efficiency of boilers becomes critical. For both space heat and hot water heat Hotel Lenado is equipped with five natural gas -fired Very High Efficiency (85%c) boilers. In addition to these major energy- conservative factors. the project incorporates other significant energy - saying features: air lock entry, southern -bias glazing, destratification fans. direct- response thermostats with topsets, and a Rumford fireplace with substantial internal masonry mass. An Invitation Architecture is difficult. at beat, to read in black & white. Words, drawings, a photograph of a model - these pages will not tell the whole story. The reader is invited to visit the construction site of Hotel Lenado to view the project itself. Please call Daniel Delano or Frank Peters at 920-1196 to arrange a date and time for such a visit. 14 HH aL 1 " II,:ri I 1I • 1t 1 I I I 1 1 - +--- f F �• b PARKING l.C? 1 ti r - - - --' r .`... —fir .J J E L.I__H ¢ LI 11111111 a 73 o Alps' ww- + �www i w w —w -� - -ww i 1111 111 � ft..) B. 1 Z" II I Ii . H I ._. ( ") O r��r -� ! i VP•/ f 1 PAEPCKE 1 IIPd j H 1111111 mo w— ww �. - II" (D, PARK y rd. S EMI o . l h , I H$ilIII , L ," PS9H r -- - -� 0 k lmnoPOr a �+ 11111101 ' I IIIIHIN H R- M . 4. VPO /3 ' it;ilie tf - -Y- _- ^ ma uoi 1� F L -4 H 1111111; 1111 b . - -• . 1 WAGNER 2 1 Suiii gj h i a (D,T,H, ) �� y U - - -- - - - - J z PARK J• - -- - - -• 111 f y y % 1 — ^DURANTrAVE." ' I. 5 7 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 ` { � `. 1 2 3 4 }(+:� 8 9 IC I I ' �� [' 3 ' — .wDEAN_ F i b 5 I 21345 C 7 8 9IIC11 p 1 1 213 1 2 3p� t 'i `) ■ 3 - 1 1 13 1516 171e =, ! 4 LAWN ST. (PUD) 8 I uuu cT I H 5_ I I[ I` 1( 4 1 7.---' - --_'__�'__'--_-_- � ^_-_--_'---'_-- -...~^~_-_.--�-_~_-^^-_� . ^ „,,, it „ ?4"kk; I /c„, , , 1 k N 411 4 O al ______ I L --7:---: - .. 4, \ ,C` , , M .,. . L-. c--N T 1 : r r ' zees s a'n0m.\e . Y L 0 Aa .:cc tc a , e'- sl ° IIIIOR i! - +S•t R . 9 s < _ ,. 4 , H a 3 Y d o ' . � : ® ' f ` ,4 ' e � : � R s , ; 4 i T.:t !,. �. 0 y al ' - xP - � : c M `Y. a ^ Z 14 aa R a:a a is _ — __ -- — t • .a :a • si= W 7 , • • 4t r 2 " i 2 1. - ."55 T— i4 R P 3 ! '11' W4 -_ — Q :I, y 7 A V 9 �i a ?4,: 49 A iP – 1i il' 1 y • Ia ai ii �– -1 a o f .1 11 1 .— ,..� O y a 7.. • II - 4--- , t- -- 7–•e – J \� jar 5 ' „zsete' V/ 6 f0Y / \ / 1 le i - 17 J _ _ _.- — 4 a _, �II o d i - w �3 l O J dQ� 3 ttr J .... _ IA a � , j am ii N NNN N N ' ^ ' • i - of - f ° -- - _____ w � r - 1_=_, _- O 0 _ -_1 * 1? _ t e j W _ afar s, a . a1,_ ‘1 1 - ? . ..,„ • \ , , Y [ e 4 v e M 1 a 1 I d 1 , I \, �t H ! ii. q x :� ‘,; ” :r sY7 Z O 0, ‘"••°° 26EB Y 'vii Y .4„, „,/,‘` r y` � n .. �l �' i . - 4n C. 0-_,—. O = n _ _ 2 t �/ ■. - - - 7 _4_4_7 L �_ J rim ,o O — c Ott H II I o I w z 0-___ 3t J O- M ,111 : 19e - - -s _ , �_.. _ _ --ail '', �i L:, i I �, o o- ...,____A - O • qt N- I h \V a\,1-7-: • • i) _ ; Li_ � • a I • • r VI o . = o . _ ._ � ._ 04 _ v ij 1 • w ii Mi NT'. !.. " _....amir_i E J rims S ti ScLp l 0 s a.. - -1 s (I n;�0 4 ll L q VV — .F ° _ ti;, °1= won o o — ■ r r o r N. • r r r �l 1� r _ W f 1 F F H z. % 0 ' o F a Z 0 D L - i} ■ 0, ' /i s : _1t__ . _ — I 5 1 - T: _. - _ _ - -__ 1 _ fr 6 ? f - O , `�' i tt 7: 2 � _ J I #I`i -- 7 • r,, C, 71. a) ® s' �t r - - - 00: - >- - i■NI, III. SCORING Availability of Public Facilities & Services It would appear clear that the public water system and sewer system are perfectly adequate to serve the proposed creation of four additional lodge units in Hotel Lenado: also. it might be maintained that additional tap fees paid by LongRun to the Water Department and Sewer Department. $3686.40 and $1819.75, respec- Lively, would provide these departments with a certain balance to draw upon in making any necessary general service improvements in the area. as extension of additional service in a case such as this involves no hard costs borne by the City. In the area of storm drainage. it would appear that as a result of LongRun's installation of drywells. surface drains, and shallow rock trenches to retain runoff on site - in accordance with a plan approved by the City Engineering Department - overall quality in the neighborhood of Hotel Lenado will be improved. Hotel Lenado is located three blocks from the Aspen Volun- teer Fire Department's station house on East Hopkins. It would appear clear that the Department can provide fire protection to four additional lodge units in the hotel. according to its estab- lished response standards. without the necessity of establishing a new station or acquiring additional equipment: it is also clear that water pressure and rate of flow at the existing hydrant adjacent to the project is adequate for fire fighting purposes. Installation of smoke detectors and alarms and automatic sprink- ler fire protection throuanout the new hotel and proposed addi- tion thereto, above and beyond requirements of City regulations and the Uniform Building Code. will significantly reduce the likelihood of any fire spreading from Hotel Lenado to adjacent properties. It would appear that the City's existing road network can provide for the needs of the proposed addition to Hotel Lenado without substantial alteration of existing traffic patterns. and it would not appear that any overloading of the existing street system will occur. A traffic safety hazard formerly presented by right angle parking in the Aspen Street right -of -way is being remedied in the location of the new hotel's parking in a paved. well- screened area on -site off the alley. Provision of an off - alley service entrance should ensure that service vehicles do not cause congestion on adjacent public streets. Quality of Design • LongRun believes that the high quality of Hotel Lenado's architectural design speaks for itself. Replacing a delapidated hodgepodge of non - conforming structures. the new lodge and its inclusive addition would appear perfectly compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Hotel Lenado's site design also. we believe. speaks for itself. Existing cottonwoods have been preserved and a variety of new trees. shrubs and lawn in carrying out a comprehensive land- , scape plan designed to frame the new hotel in a parklike setting. 24 Utility/trash and parking areas are to be screened from public view. and service access is to he provided off the alley. under- ground. New .sidewalk will be provided, with a bench and wheel- chair ramp at the corner of Aspen & Hopkins. LongRun has made a commitment to the City Engineering Department to install the concrete pad necessary to replacement of the flourescent street- light opposite the northwest corner of the new hotel with a streetlamo of old- fashioned design like others bordering Paepcke Park, which should serve to enhance the pro)ect's landscaping and architectural design and the atmosphere of the neighborhood in general by night. LongRun has also made a longterm commitment to the Park Department to water the east border of Bass Park. which is left dry by the Park's existing sprinkler system. (The reader will please see Appendices A & 3 to this application, below. And here I now see I should perhaps retract that "speaks for itself." above.) Our pro)ect's energy conservation features have been de- tailed in Part II of this application: clearly. Hotel Lenado is an energy- conservative development. In the area of internal circulation. Hotel Lenado would appear most exceptional - the classic "Grand Hotel - , on a small scale. The guest will not be faced with the prospect of dark. icy exterior stairs and hallways but will en)oy the convenience of interior ski storage at the hotel's front door, the spaciousness of the hotel's atrium with its grand staircase and entry to private rooms off semi - private hallways. For efficiency of ser- a vice, a separate enclosed stairway. located centrally behind 25 fireplace and chimney, connects all levels of the building. As remarked above. service access to the basement level is provided directly from the alley, underground. Also as noted above, par- king - four spaces serving the proposed addition - is located. appropriately. off the alley. Lilac bushes will screen this parking area from Bass Park to the east. cotoneaster shrubs will be planted to screen this area from the hotel's rear garden and south - facing quest rooms, and the hotel's architecturally inte- grated utility /trash enclosure. set behind newly planted aspen - and lilacs. will serve to screen this area from Aspen Street to the west. In its architectural scale and suitability to its hillside site, Hotel Lenado and its inclusive addition would appear to improve public views at all surrounding points of the compass. As a result of the careful design consideration given to the place - • ment of windows. views from within the public spaces and guest - rooms of the new hotel will be outstanding. Amenities Provided For Guests Common meeting areas at Hotel Lenado will include the atrium /lobby with its aforementioned grand stair and totally awesome fireplace, a library with French doors opening to a terrace on Bass Park, and a basement level conference area (which will double as a recreation room.) The size of this common area is exceptionally generous in relation to the overall size of the hotel and•its inclusive addition. 26 Hotel Lenado will be offering its guests a full breakfast in its semi- circular breakfast room. which space will double as a piano bar. While this space is not large, the hotel's architectural plan allows for future dining /kitchen facilities of 1000 square feet. which would allow Hotel Lenado to cater on a full service basis to small conference Groups. Accessory recreational facilities at Hotel Lenado will in- clude its roofdeck hot tub. recreation room - envisioned as in- house kidsitting center - and a screening room. Total size of these recreational areas amounts to approximately 900 square feet which in ratio to total unit area translates .2:1. Also, of course. there will be a swing out on the front porch. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals Concurrent with creation of four additional lodge units in Hotel Lenado. LongRun proposes to create one additional on -site employee unit of 465 square feet, sufficient to house 100k of the employees required to serve those additional lodge units - cf. Appendix C. below. While the proposed additional employee unit may be seen as relatively small. it should be recognized that in • any lodge project which, like Hotel Lenado. provides for internal circulation. habitable. above -grade space will be at a Premium. The overall proposed ratio of employee housing area to lodge unit area is a relatively generous .2:1. It should also be understood that the basic purpose -of this additional employee housing unit is to accommodate seasonal employees on a seasonal basis. not to provide a place of permanent residence. Reconstruction The Hotel Lenado protect amounts to 100% reconstruction of the old Edelweiss Lodge. As of October 1, 1983. a total of $229,167.50 has been spent in the new hotel's development and construction. LongRun estimates total project cost, including the proposed additional lodge units and additional employee unit - exclusive of land - will amount to $950,000. Bonus Points LongRun respectfully submits that the Hotel Lenado project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of the Aspen Municipal Code's Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2). (3) & (4), as amended by Ordinance 35 (Series of 1983), but has also exceeded the provisions of the Code and achieved an oustanding overall design meriting special recognition. 28 APPENDICES A: Letter from Frank Peters to Jay Hammond. City Engineering Dept. 3: Letter from Daniel Delano to Jim Holland. City Parks Department C: Additional Employees Required to Serve 4 Additional Lodge Units in the Hotel Lenado • e September 27, 1983 • Mr. Jay Hammond City Engineering Department 130 Galena Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Jay: This letter is to confirm Hotel Lenado's offer to pour the concrete pad necessary to installation at the Southwest corner of Aspen and Hopkins of an old- fashioned streetlamp in keeping with the character of the other streetlamps bordering Paepcke Park. Thanks very much for your efforts in tracking down the streetlamp itself. Please let me know when and if, etc. Sincerely, Frank S. Peters LongRun 200 S. Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 920 -1196 1 _. 200 South Aspen Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 3031925 - 6246 LongRun Ltd. 0::ner /Developer of Hotel Lenado 200 South Aspen Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 May 5, 1933 Mr. Jim Holland City of Aspen Parks Department RE: Hotel Lenado Landscaping Contribution to Bass Park Dear Jim: Harry Teague and I enjoyed meeting you and talking with you yesterday at the site of the future Hotel Lenado. We consider our brief discussion a fine beginning to coordinaticr: of the construction and landscaping of the new ho- tel with the existing green space of Bass Park. As we agreed, prior to demolition of the old Edelweiss Chalets, the line of the City's irrigation system at the west side of Bass Park shall be flagged by us to prevent the possibility of its being damaged in the course of demo- lition and excavation. Inside the line of the irrigation system we shall erect snow fence to screen the Park from our construction site and protect the aspen trees in that area from construction activity. (I should mention here, "we" includes Frank S. Peters, a partner in this venture, who is to be acting as general contractor for our partnership.) At present, the east side of Bass Park bordering our property appears to be in need of re- sodding. As you pointed out, there has been something of a problem in that area due to lack of coverage by the irrigation system. Hotel Lenado is firmly committed to re- sodding this area subsequent to construction and to sprinkling this area in the future. We look forward at the time of demolition to transplanting a number of lilacs and rosebushes from our property to the southwest corner of Bass Park, a location in which they will serve to screen the hotel's parking area from the Park. We expect to begin demolition of the Edelweiss May 12th or soon there- after, and will let you know when the exact date is set. It appears now that the rear yard setback question we spoke of has been • resolved, and so we should be able to save the better part of the cluster of We will follow the re- cottonwoods at the southwest corner of our property. commendations of landscape architect Gary Luhnow as to the best means for care and protection of these on- -site treesand those in the Hopkins Avenue right -of -way during excavation and construction. As we told you, the spruce and fir at the center of our property will have to be removed. Al Blomquist has expressed an interest in transplanting these two trees to his property. Frank Peters will soon be in touch with you to secure any necessary tree permits. Thank you very much for meeting with us yesterday. We appreciate your support of Hotel Lenado and are pleased to contribute to the uptrading of Bass Park. Sincerely, Daniel Delano General Partner, LongRun Ltd. cc: Francis Whitaker Harry Teague • ADDITTONAL EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO SERVE FOUR PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LODGE UNITS IN THE HOTEL LENADO LongRun estimates that 1 to 2 additional employees will be required to serve an addition of four lodge units to lintel Lenado, assuming that a rel- atively high level of service is to be provided in the new lodge as a whole. At two lodges in town comparable in size to Hotel Lenado with its addi- tion inclusive - The Hearthstone House and The Brass Bed, each containing 19 units and each being listed in the Expensive division of the AR1 lodging guide - a staff of 5 to 6, including manager, proves adequate. It is difficult to imagine Ilotel Lenado, even sized at only thirteen units, getting by with a staff of less than five or six - so assume this as a base line. To serve the increased number of guests resulting from the addition of four rooms, add one or two employees - perhaps not absolutely required, but necessary to the elevation of service level, which with the addition of lodge units would make sense at the bottom line. One or both additional. employees, due to the small overall size of Ilotel Lenado, would likely have double or triple functions. My own best guess i.s chat if only one additional employee were hired that this employee would he a maid /breakfast person; any second additional employee would likely be a front desk /bar person & maid's understudy. The additional employee unit at Hotel Lenado (465 SF) proposed in conjunc- tion with our. NMI application will serve to house 100% of the additional lodge employees which will be generated by the addition of four lodge units to Hotel Lenado. Respect sul,m:itted, • P.an:ie7. Delano, Lon p,Run September 27, 1983