Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.gm.Lodge at Aspen.1981
MAXWELL ALEY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 5098 May 6, 1985 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 13031925 -3697 Mayor and Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Lyle Reeder's 1982 Allotment of Lodge Units Dear Mayor and Council: In 1981, my client, Lyle Reeder, applied for a 1982 lodge development allotment for The Lodge at Aspen project com- prising a requested 31 lodge units with four employee units, pursuant to the City of Aspen Growth Management Plan and Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code. The only competing bid for the 1982 lodge unit allotments at that time was filed by Hans and June Cantrup for their project called the "Aspen Inn." Both projects passed the point scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but the Cantrups received the higher score and obtained the entire 1982 allotment. However, the City Council, on the advice of the Planner, later rejected the Cantrups' application for failure by the Cantrups to comply with applicable land use or building regulations in the City of Aspen. See, Resolution No. 2 (Series of 1982) dated February 11, 1982 (copy attached), which also confirmed Lyle Reeder's allotment of 31 units. Immediately after such resolution was adopted, the Cantrups, through their attorney, Spencer Schiffer, commenced a lawsuit in the District Court of Pitkin County, naming as defendants the Aspen City Council, its then council members and Lyle Reeder. The Cantrups sought court orders to award the entire 1982 allotment to their Aspen Inn project, to vacate Lyle Reeder's allotment, to grant a preliminary injunction to prevent Reeder from utilizing his allotment, and to award damages and other relief. In March, 1983, the Cantrups filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, and all proceedings in the District Court were stayed thereby. Right from the start the Cantrups' actions have effectively prevented Lyle Reeder, then, from moving forward to obtain a building permit, securing financing and building his project. Mayor and Council City of Aspen May 6, 1985 Page Two Mr. Reeder's attorney in March, 1983, wrote to the City Attorney about this problem, asking that the time be tolled for taking action under Reeder's allotment. See, attached letter of Jeffrey Sachs, Esq., dated April 4, 1983. Finally, in April of 1985, with the settlement of the sale of the properties from the Cantrup Estate in Bankruptcy, the Cantrups entered into a stipulation with the defendants in the District Court action to dismiss their 1982 lawsuit, excepting for Mr. Reeder, who did not join in the dismissal because he had never theretofore been consulted. Lyle Reeder now wishes to join in the dismissal respecting all claims against the other defendants arising out of the lawsuit, but he requests that the Council first confirm and ratify his 1982 allotment as set forth in Council's Resolution No. 2 (Series of 1982); and further that Council expressly acknowledge that the 33 -month period provided by Section 24.11 -7 of the Municipal Code, as amended in 1984, is and shall be applicable to Reeder's 1982 allotment, commencing April 1, 1985, because of the tolling period created by the Cantrup lawsuit and bankruptcy; that is, because Mr. Reeder has never been able to take action under his allotment until this time. In a nutshell, it is as if the Reeder allotment had never been issued until now. Respectfully, 0 Maxwell Aley MA:me cc: City Clerk City Manager City Attorney Planning Director Lyle Reeder CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION - 1982 LODGE G.M.P. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves — . RESOLUTION NO: (Series of 1982 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 11.6(a) of the Municipal Code, September 1st of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for lodge development allocations in the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, two applications for lodge projects were submitted to the Planning Office for evaluation involving a total of 127 lodge units and 4 employee units, the latter of which are exempt from the available quota, and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on October 6, 1981 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, to evaluate and score these lodge applications in conformance with the criteria established in Section 24- 11.6(b) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did rank and score the two projects submitted in the following order: Project Units Requested Score 1. Aspen Inn 96 lodge rooms 51.8 points 2. The Lodge at Aspen 31 lodge rooms and 49.2 points 4 employee units and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did forward their ranking and scoring of the lodge applications to City Council and recommend . that the City Council award development allotments to both projects since, pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(c) of the Code., only 35 points are needed to be eligible for a Growth Management lodge allotment, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the of the applications by the Planning Commission, both applicants did file with the Planning Office appeals of the points awarded to their respective projects, and WHEREAS, on Nobember 19, 1981, the City Council did hold a special meeting to con,ider the issues of the available quota for lodge allocations in 1982, the appe.rls by the applicants of the scoring of the lodge - -5 -- ma no — — al ® io1 ii at ''fir "' "" n s a if THE �.- a AT ►SA li • A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves r". w 1. .. accent .. I. t . "a - competition by the Planning Commission and the award of quota to the success- ful applicants, and WHEREAS, City Council did determine at its November 19 meeting that a total of 78 units is available for allocation in 1982, based on previously awarded allocations which have expired and based on previously unallocated lodge units, and WHEREAS, City Council did table from the November 19 meeting to its regular meeting on November 23 the issues of the appeals of the scoring and the award of quota for the 1982 lodge competition, and did then table these issues from the November 23 meeting to a date uncertain, and WHEREAS, according to Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Code, the City Council shall allocate the lodge development allotments among the eligible applicants in the order of, priority established by their rank prior to December 1st of each year, and WHEREAS, both applicants did indicate to the Planning Office that they did agree to allow the December 1st deadline to pass without the • award of quota, pending the resolution of certain issues which had arisen regarding the 1978 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP development as they relate to the 1982 competition, and WHEREAS, on December 28, 1981, at a regular meeting, City Council did consider the amendments to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP application and did not approve the deviations which have occurred from the original applica- tion, and WHEREAS, as the Aspen Inn is a phased application, a fundamental com- ponent of the 1982 Aspen Inn application is the 1978 application, which is the basic building block upon which all subsequent requests must be evaluated, and WHEREAS, as a result of the substantial deviations now existent from the 1978 application and their currently unapproved status, the Planning Office did determine that the 1982 Aspen Inn application fails to comply with the requiremrnts of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Municipal Code, and 6 -- Ali Ill CI IS III ill 7 " 4111 PI IS fir RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves WHEREAS, as required by Section 24- 11.3(c)(3), the Planning Office must reject any application which fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land use or building regulation of the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in a letter from the Planning Director to the representative of the Aspen Inn application dated January 20, 1982, the Planning Office did reject the 1982 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP application, and • WHEREAS, on January 25, 1982, at a regular meeting, City Council did concur with the determination by the Planning Director that the 1982 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP application should be rejected and did therefore unanimously direct the Planning Office to prepare a resolution awarding a development allocation of 31 lodge units to The Lodge at Aspen, and authorizing the applicant to proceed further with additional approvals required from the City prior to obtaining a building permit, and WHEREAS, the applicant for The Lodge at Aspen has agreed to withdraw his appeal at such time as he should be awarded an allocation while the appeal by the Aspen Inn has become moot since it has been found to he an ineligible application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 1. A lodge development allotment of 31 units is hereby awarded to The Lodge at Aspen. 2. The Lodge at Aspen is hereby authorized to proceed further with additional approvals needed from the City before a building permit is secured. _ 6 ,;Dated: r g /7 .. 1 3 r i • � Fenno/17i - - — — - - — - -- Mayor -- 7-- am al am am dir mm "Ts tZ3 arra—ir RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves — — — -- _— — I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City cy of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the 4!f+/ day of /! , 1982. Kathryn S. ); c City Clerh L 1 � - -8 -- SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE JEFFREY H. SACHS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE HERBERT 5. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13031 9256700 JON DAVID SEIGLE 201 NORTH MILL STREET JAMES H. DELMAN B. JOSEPH KRABACHER ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 April 4, 1983 • Mr. Paul Taddune Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 82 CV 60 Cantrup v. City of Aspen, et al. 1982 GMP Dear Paul: This firm represents Lyle Reeder who received 1982 GMP approval for his development project known as the Lodge at Aspen including 31 lodge units and 4 employee housing units. As you know, the 1982 GMP lodge competition results are in limbo due to the filing of the captioned lawsuit by Mr. Cantrup seeking to overturn or modify the 1982 GMP results. Although Mr. Reeder has answered the captioned lawsuit and is willing to litigate the matter to defend his development rights, the lawsuit has been delayed pending certain settlement negotiations which were being conducted between Mr. Cantrup and the City of Aspen. Now that Mr. Cantrup has filed bankruptcy procedings, this matter is further complicated by the automatic stay issued by the bankruptcy court pertaining to the captioned litigation. I am writing this letter to you to confirm that Mr. Reeder continues to assert his right to develop the subject 31 lodge units and 4 employee housing units which he competed for and won. Nevertheless, there is no possibility that Mr. Reeder may proceed with the development until the captioned lawsuit is resolved. Thus, it is my understanding that the two -year development period required pursuant to Section 24 -11.7 of the Code\ was tolled on February 19, 1982, when Mr. Cantrup instituted the captioned litigation. When such litigation is resolved, M1 . Reeder should then be given the remainder of his two -year development period in which to complete planning and construction of the project. Moreover, I understand that in the 1983 GMP competition pertaining to lodge rooms, the existence of the 1982 award to Mr. Reeder will be recognized and not carried forward for any allocation to other persons. • Mr. Paul Taddune April 4, 1983 Page Two Please confirm your understanding of the foregoing matters. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to telephone the undersigned. Very truly yours, SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE By , d/ .. I Ada J- -y H. 'Mr s' JHS:sf cc: Lyle Reeder G�MA ARESENTATT -N eM "PPM 61-19E0 AT AMMON SEATgM = ER 1 , 1 ss1 T1-IM 6. -ee0 AT AMMON A PROPOSED LODGE PROJECT CONSISTING OF: 31 RENTABLE ROOMS 4 EMPLOYEE UNITS LOCATED AT UTE &ORIGINAL ASPEN, CO. APPLICANT: LYLE D. REEDER P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, Co. 81612 925 -5360 ,It ` - Bag fl ASAighi GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PRESENTATION SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 SUBMITTED TO: Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925 -2020 APPLICANT OWNER: Lyle D. Reeder P. O. Box 4859 Aspen, Colorado 81612 925 -5360 ARCHITECT: James Von Brewer and Associates P. O. Box 3892 Aspen, Colorado 81612 925 -6789 INTERIOR DESIGNER: Ms. Jan Gunn 417 West Hallum Aspen, Colorado 81611 925 -6170 Solar Consultant: Howard Rivers, AIA 1159 Delaware Street Denver, Colorado 80204 Structural Consultant:Michael H. Long Ltd. - PE 1159 Delaware Street Denver, Colorado 80204 LANDSCAPE DESIGN: Henry J. Pedersen P. O. Box 144 Aspen, Co. 81612 ,25 -7517 1 T1-Ig e ASA1!!!!N GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION PROJECT NAME: The Lodge at Aspen LOCATION: The corner of Ute Avenue, Original Street and Aspen Mountain Road in Aspen, Colorado. STREET ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 771 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 PARCEL SIZE: 15,386 square feet CURRENT ZONING: Lodge "one" ZONING UNDER WHICH APPLICATION IS FILED: Lodge "one" MAXIMUM BUILDOUT UNDER CURRENT ZONING: 15,386 s.f. (1:1 F.A.R.) PROPOSED ZONING: Same TOTAL BUILDOUT PROPOSED: 15,386 square feet SPECIAL PROCEDURES REQUIRED: None VIEW PLANES: Property is unaffected by either the Glory Hole Park view planes or the Rubey Park view plane. See Property Survey NOTES on page and View Plane overlay on page . STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: No SPECIAL REVIEW: No HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW: No PUD: No SUBDIVISION (CONDOMINIUMIZATION): Yes 2 TH• ` ...... elag AT fl 4 VICINITY MAP Location Of Site , a •r L �.' • 0 r I ` tai P 't � '� < • 4 C ! L � , '' et .l 1 mg ' r UTE CHILDREN S Uf •f , k V i { r +` i „,,,1 PdRX � � •< 'O :� J _ �1 Ei D Shadow n n e a 4 � J ( a .aat4II II I + A'F' J • ( 1 y Avenue YF n L Mo f. II I� I f I , ! �/M i.i L �� I Du ran Condo nnv o a5 Gs„ L Ti IA J 11 1 +1I AAp^ / .II ST (' 9 ! - i! Cplpp V �� yaw J BT Y:, I P 4 E y Club WATERS AVENUE I Develop 4 0. , NELL pk ' GOnonem 61G:FT isa FY ]' ' Club a q s/ reel Corp pipe YY WATERS .n L droe Sbr N Kapp Lillie I I_I Inn Asp n n AINM L H L. LINT- A I nch a School 00 ce •` •µ � Piaui '2 • LOOy1 SCXOM 011iw S r u ill aJ i Spruce I Une L 0 - a'- i' I , Lmmew y v n Ski A II ' : p^ Inverness El Lodge LOEEe m ■ . y Sew. CM° ■ s GO C el {i,. M a n o I 5 W ; ,agi SV r- P o a e WAGNE = C R = 0 Alpine - brewer T i _ alai:Fi1SE PARX cn i i j < O LOUEe` Clralpu ■ P o Loe9e I m l Cnale f 1 Y ro Mpnn 6 L a ; 9 9 y BNnc Mo 9e 1a09e re 2 nun - • A S. a . •9a:IV 0 4J nun r Aepn seen z 0 comm a A we :pe Konen Goad)! o 9nr O F ; = LL p E Mee r - ■ R • Is • s Act A CB C ¢s yIB C id I on SLAY I l a s I Hai day 1 p L l0 5nopp ua eryY�+ ��"nn House Or LOOpE Re Is P Wing n r House •a A •s w Ne' AVE • Y GIY H I Moli GOSOd OmcY MAIN 4---k-IU m NaI1 m Wnalea M m PA PO Aspen Ski ISpons I I nn pl¢IacYl ROARING FORK RIVER PARX * Lodge motel Wasn Rwloing � =i ce p IN 5 n l m I N de l ' I 1 I Na99el L p lroflmOp WRRISN PARK N T 9 , I Jero I Lodge T r ae C Pe if Sl Hom Carle if Parm �c MA E I g , E : Il:l•Fyd:ji /� Connor 1 I I I I 1 ( -,m AR 1 / Onevon M° Gob, A,yu 31 NALI AM T A OKLAHOMA FLATS I I TI 1 T p I L Clarks 1 'ILSTRE —JET 11 = Markel 2 rysypC Is iii V tn. lw s l a c �C LAKE VIEW ADDITION r GreSCM• 41„ •4 11 L- mit ASPEN Lie SILv L ONE PINE gOAO 1 ER ATpOAPAAE 1 41 /qa L ``` HALLAM LAKE • TRAI.• J 0404 T FgC,p, ssr ;b -E T v'A E 3 9"'FIO 6- nem a agrigi PHOTOGRAPHS OF MODEL - _ .1*it ( 11114 .0 0 ,4 ; 41.3"4 1/4r net:' , • • t ',;' . , '1;C! „ ev: AA, 1.‘ ' „ 4 4 04.:(4 'I M/0 • , 0 4 !WO -eE0 AT 'Mg AON APPLICATION - General This is an application for construction of a 35 room lodge consisting of 31 rentable rooms and 4 employee units, under the Tourist Lodge Quota of the Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 48. The project is to be known as THE LODGE AT ASPEN. The site is at the corner of Ute Avenue and Original Street in Aspen. For refer- ence, a Vicinity Map is on page 3 and a Zoning Map is on page 40. Proposed construction schedule is to start construction in Spring, 1982 with completion by December 15, 1982. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Lodge project will be built into a high quality luxury Lodge directed toward an affluent market which the applicant believes is not being catered to in the Aspen area. By today's standards a 35 room lodge is relatively small. Therefore in order to build and operate a small lodge profitably, it is the aim of this Lodge to offer very luxuriously furnished rooms, a very social intimate atmosphere in the lounge which features a fireplace, and first class food service for guests. An appeal will be directed toward the non -skier who may accompany a skier to Aspen or the non -skier who may travel on their own for a vacation in snow country. The lounge area will feature a stained - glass ceiling of approximately 25 feet by 30 feet, which will provide a social area for non - skiers during the day. No adverse effects are anticipated on adjacent properties in the vicinity. The Lodge site is surrounded by the Glory Hole Park, Billing's Apartments, Ajax Apartments, Aspen Alps Condominiums and Ms. Hyde's House. The Hyde House is densely landscaped with trees. The primary Lodge guest will stay for a time period of one week. Thus, check -in and check -outs will be kept to a minimum. The use of automobiles after arrival will be minimized due to the Lodge being located near the central part of town. 5 mg ` -Beg AT ASAmN The site has a one story, 3 bedroom, 1 bath house. The house is presently occupied by the applicant, Lyle D. Reeder. Except for occasional guests, Mr. Reeder is the only occupant. No employees working in the Aspen area will be affected by the removal of the improvements on the lodge site. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION This GMP Presentation is organized by showing photocopy excerpts from Article X. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, Chapter 24 of Aspen's Zoning Code. After each excerpt, which is shown the applicant states his information, comments and opinions relative to that particular facet of the GMP section. SECTION I AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Chapter 24, page 1508.20 indicates rating guideline as follows: (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maxi- mum 15 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0— Indicates a total infeasiblity of providing serv- ices 1— Indicates a major deficiency in service 2— Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3— Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies. The following services shall be rated accordingly: aa. Water (aa) Type of water system to be used and including information on main size and pressure and, if public, the excess capacity available for such public system; the location of the nearest main; the estimated water demand of the building. 6 THE ` - wan AT fl pJ Rating Guidelines per page 1508.21 states the following: (aa) Water (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to pro- vide for the needs of the proposed develop- ment and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without sys- tem extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Applicant' s Comments.: Based on a preliminary conversation with Mr. Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Department, he stated the possibility that the lodge project would be adequately serviced with water by the addition of a 6" water main loop from the corner of Spring and Durant Streets, which would run South on Spring to Ute Avenue, turning East on Ute Avenue, going in front of the subject lodge site, connecting with the existing 6" water main at the corner of Original and Ute. He indicated that this would improve and correct a neighborhood defi- ciency in the area while servicing the proposed lodge. He indicated that the applicant would be required to pay for the water main which would run in front of the lodge site. He indicated that a fire hydrant could be installed near the subject property and that the water main loop would service any sprinkler system required by Code. The applicant agrees to share the cost, to be determined during later approval process, of the water main and the fire hydrant, if required. The applicant also agrees to pay the City's predetermined fee to tap into the water main. bb. Sewer- Sanitary: Chapter 24, regarding sewage information and comments asks for: (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used and, if public, the existing excess .capacity available from such public system; the loca- tion of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building. 7 T I-I 10 - e g AT fl pJ Rating Guidelines state: (bb) Sewer (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions be- yond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Applicant's Comments: A sewer man -hole is located approximately 34 feet Northeast of the Northeast corner of the Lodge site. Another sewer man -hole is located approximately 25 feet from the Northeasterly corner of the Lodge site. These man -holes are shown on the property survey, page 41. A phone conversation with Mr. Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Department indicated that the present sewer line on Ute and Original would adequately handle the addition of a 35 room lodge. Also, the present sewage treatment facilities appear to be adequate to service the lodge. No additional equipment or cost to the City appears to be required if the lodge is built. 8 TI-Ir L. :sss AT ASArN UTILITIES 1. Sewer, Sanitary 2. Water 3. Gas, Natural 4. Electric, Holy Cross 5. Telephone 6. Cable TV ALL UTILITIES ARE 10 BE UNDERGROUND FROM THE POINT OF HOOK— UP. L.,-"N -R AL GAi LIM • -- W W I N C 'WA7E LINE (P o / r, E E LE CT FI ko - �'ELE P!-4o NE \ E T ro r ScALC J L& 17 LOT 1 (, Loy IE t I 1 9 op gm eGig AT ASAp cc. Sewer - Storm: Chapter 24 states the following about drainage infor- mation and comments: (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff waters. Rating Guidelines state: (cc) Storm drainage (max'mum 3 points) consider- ing the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system exten- sions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Applicant' s Comments: The drainage control objective of the project is to collect and retain site runoff on the site. The project will have several drywalls sufficiently sized to retain site and roof water runoff. Consistent with standard engineering practices the drywalls will have over -flow outlets extending to adjoining streets. A 12" or 18" storm sewer main with man -hole is located on the Northeast corner of Ute Avenue and Original Streets. The Applicant agrees, at his expense, to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen Mountain Road to the Southeast corner of the lodge site in order to catch the runoff from the Aspen Mountain Road. Appli- cant agrees to install the storm sewer extension and two drop -box inlets according to City specifications. The Applicant's proposed plan for storm -sewer extension is shown below: 10 T It 6 - !gag AT Asagm4 Proposed Storm Sewer c..,3,t4. s 1 - ,3 . .. Extension • �S (Size o e Determined) \ — — u - t b D id \ A — w _ ,„, Lio 4' . a_,_ 5c.,,-, Mz_ Lof t LA + ii, 4 j New 7r op - i • — ‘ \ \ \ \ • �• , \ ■ r i i , 1 o S is ,r k i T E T. Y N 4\ \ _i I L.) , ■•-- IS . • 1111 1 /V ., 17 1 , _ dd. Fire Protection: The Rating Guidelines relative to Fire Protection state: (dd) Fire protection (maximum 3 points) consider- ing the ability of the fire department of the appropriate fire protection district to pro- vide fire protection according to the estab- lished response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of estabiishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. ?1 eag AT ASAg Applicant's Comments: The applicant believes that the Aspen Fire Department has the ability to provide fire protection according to established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. The lodge site is approximately nine blocks from the Aspen Fire Station. For reference, see Area Map on page 17 . An existing fire hydrant is located approximately 160 feet East of the lodge site on Ute Avenue. It is anticipated that at least one new hydrant at applicant's cost would be added near the North- western corner of the project. Appropriate fire safety equipment will be installed to meet Building Codes. ee. Roads: Rating Guidelines indicate: (ee) Roads (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed deevlopment with- out substantially altering existing traffic pat- terns or overloading the existing street sys- tem or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Applicant' s Comments: Applicant believes that the existing streets have the capacity to provide for the needs of the proposed development without altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or requring increased road mileage and /or maintenance. The proposed lodge site's convenient location is 'well suited for the auto -free tourist. The CAR GENERATION ANALYSIS shown indicates that the 31 rental units will generate approximately 12 to 16 cars in the winter and summer respectively. 12 THE e Ig AT AShEN CAR GENERATION ANALYSIS Winter Summer High Use Period High Use Period GMP rental rooms 31 31 Average room occupancy x95% x80% Occupied rooms 29.5 24.8 Average people per room x 2 x 2 People lodged 58.9 49.6 Average people arriving by car x60% x95% People arriving by car 35.3 47.1 Average people per car _ 3 _ 3 Estimated cars 12 16 Footnotes and Assumptions 1/ Winter high-use g period is two weeks Christmas and 2/ February and March. 3/ Summer high -use period is average weekend. Room occupancies from UMTA Technical Mermorandum 4/ No. 3, April, 1977. People per room estimate based on actual Aspen Inn 5/ pillow count. People arriving by car estimate from UMTA Technical 6/ Memorandum No. 3, April, 1977. Ibid. The UMTA study identified three tourist trip types as follows: 1. Arrival and Departure - The Inn's limousine service will handle a majority of the fly -in arrival and departure trips estimated by the UMTA analysis. As concluded in the UMTA study, summer auto use is greater than winter. Because of the Lodge's convenient location, it is expected tourists arriving by car will be able to park and store their cars during their visits without inconvenience. 13 THr Beg AT ASAgN 2. Skiing and Summer Recreation - Because of the Lodge's convenient walking distance to Aspen Mountain's lifts, Little Annie Ski Area (Proposed) and the Rubey Park ski buses, skiers will not need cars. 3. Shopping and Entertainment - Because of the Lodge's con- venient location to downtown shopping and entertainment plus the provision of on -site facilities, the tourist will have little need for a car for these activities. The Lodge is only a five minute walk from the mall system. The estimated 14+ additional cars resulting from the Lodge are likely to generate little daily car usage. Of the limited trips generated, they will primarily be once a week arrival and departure trips. In conformance with Ordinance 48, Section 5 (cc), employee parking will be provided on site to encourage employee use of public transit, if this is agreeable with the City of Aspen. Current traffic count information along Ute Avenue and Original Street is not available to quantitatively estimate detail traffic impact. SECTION 1C AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Rating Guideline is quoted below. Applicant's information and comments are given after each section: (2) Availability of social facilities and services (maxi- mum 10 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula (except for public transporta- tion) : 0— Project requires the provisions of new services at increased public expense 1— Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2— Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area The following services shall be rated accordingly: 1� oppg Bag amp agegpti aa. Public Transportation: (aa) Public transportation (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (five hundred twenty (520) feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four • (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public•transit stop. And no points shall he given if not within a reasonable walk- ing distance of either. Applicant's Comments: The lodge site is located approximately 405 feet from the Little Nell Lift (No. 4). The lodge is within two blocks abutting the Durant Avenue transit route. The Rubey Park transit stop is within a five minute walk. The proposed LITTLE ANNIE SKI AREA Transportation System Route is shown below: Lodge Site --, LI1TLE ANNIE BASE TERMINAL z DIRECT ROUTE � i� : 40 CIRCULATION ROUTE .,■ - i IJ im _a -- - - — ROARING •RK : ' R ?t tea' ■ i RUBY PARK TRANSPORTATION CENTER The LITTLE ANNIE Bus Service will travel on Original and Ute Streets turning at the corner of the Lodge. The Lodge will abut the Little Annie Ski Area Transportation Route. The proposed Little Annie Terminal is within walking distance, a three to four minute walk. The Lodge will provide limousine service for its guests. 15 TAM _ ee SIP' 'Mg A1g P4 bb. Police Protection: Rating Guideline states: (bb) Police protection (maximum 2 points). Con- sidering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Applicant's Comments: The applicant believes that the Aspen Police Department has the ability to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. The Aspen Police Department is located approximately eight blocks from the Lodge site. cc. Commercial support: The Rating Guideline states: (cc) Prokimity to commercial support facilities (maximum 2 points). Applicant's Comments: The proposed Lodge site is approximately four blocks from the Mill Street Mall, approximately a five minute walk. Two public restaurants are located within the same block as the Lodge site; i.e., within 400 feet. The Lodge will provide limited guest sundry shopping within the Lodge. 16 ,.t ` -eCr AT ASIlgN AREA MAP Scale I' =400' z r ` a '' 1 �? � 1 I 11 HE RROry � - -- _ 1 9 ■ z a ,61, I 4.1 I a I1. _ i. I.,i ,1, i I ,_4_,_k I P AIR )/ _fuel" ET Er COu RT IIOU \ y C r -- 1 . T . tr 1111;1131:111 r-Tr 11 '?J 1 f i r W r f1?" 1" 1 ` =-� / + L LJ. Ll_I J u 6111 ' 11 I I r T 1 I -1 T1 •)7 1 , Fr l 1 T T I i 1 LLl -I [LL 1 1 � ii L x I. 1 1. It 111, _1 I . - i � 1 J ! f I EL E. HOPKINS AVE E C " ' W 0 J 1. 1 Z I, �� UPI; ' i, 1 ., z �� I r i � � � z B j I �1 • `T PI rl 11 I V II in l O 1 1 ' M I r 1 l p I ;I fl z l y ' � I - L I . ; i1J 1 I . i lily 11 � Z LL L _I I I I Q . _1J V E N W i J Y W�ITi1� T N Lil ul.j_�]IdI I W 1 i � ' 1� I ... ��T flc'. EF 6N 1E1 IT h � 1 1,"�I t I maw • U .. T _1 ( j 1 , .Ilk_ I A ; � 1_L_I V i ' 1 _�� o U1J Y WAGNEF3 i E. , COPE E NUE J i11 iT1 Tl I I1 S IT ( ' I I T (f 11 I I I III I l � 1 ' 1/ Q PARK F i ! t;! I IL L J � N r I T Z ; L LL 1.1 . 1 _ L W LA RAN1" AVENUE I, I f1 4H , I 1 '111[P 'TUj111r�I7 1r I]ifi1111 p I o c J} +�' - �� II I l ! L L Li_, i L 1 ttd 11 fi I L.. L1 L tt { t r r 4 Il:: 11 I i 11. Ind rl GI 1 LAWN 5r. - � - -. 1. I WATERS •VEI � m HO I �j ��J I1 F 1� / ( o ff PARlE K `Yi I T14 f� / (i A. Ib /1� -to i i IL, � 5 i JuNUTA 9 1 - • 1 i r ,e D.R. s , , n t , -' �I J ' 24 1S ;. .. _ • � i /z it 1 . emu : • 5.e „ 1 `S� ; r yi '')C\ ! 9 . F NN 4T, ri: LA Ell 7UE�1� r 1 / ) Y F e, \ N / ric \ 1 ,,.V /hr,_ �� '� \\ LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED: \ \\ Fire Department \\ \\ Police Department \\.. Ski Lift —Aspen Mountain,Number Proposed Lodge Site Proposed LITTLE ANNIE Ski Area (Base) 1 . 7 THE `eeGM AT fl P4 SECTION IB QUALITY OF DESIGN Chapter 24, page 1508.23 states the following for evaluating Quality of Design: (3) Quality of design (maximum 15 points). The com- mission shall consider each application with re- spect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0— Indicates a totally deficient design 1— Indicates a major de=ign flaw 2— Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3— Indicates an excellent design The following shall be rated accordingly: aa. Architectural Design: (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neigh- boring developments. The building design is expanded from a B1- nuclear plan - as observed from the renderings and model studies. The massing of the building is low on the Ute Avenue elevation and is modulated to a three level mass - in scale with the structures that exist to the south and west of the site. The connection is a glass link both at the wall and roof. From a visual standpoint the connection is light and transparent. The plan is organized with the administration on Ute Avenue. The community area (lounge) and the private area (lodge rooms) are at the rear of the site. 18 TI-I0 6.d!!1e0 AT AShMN il . ,t= , II. 11M �' it i H 1/4 I [ r c.,d� fj r � ; i 9 �\ i al . —1 XJ Cn lit � ,, 1 �r,� "_I .III \�k \ ql \�IIIII I J p f 1i i:�•. A \\ lk\lillys..r 0 k11\ i MLA. : ' ' . /i 4 - 1-r II isi 1 11# , 1 : ! -1 ,, . • 4 „ 4 . , a 11/4 \ 'f �.. 1 �\ OP i . co \\ I, � r � :u � ' "I IIn ''' C, �i �� �i o d .. ,, ' ' iIIfIINI.i� - a�lllllllllllllllrl c 3 1 „ 11111 1_ ' 1 ` s I "IIIIIiiiiIIIIIiIIItIIlllll11uJ , z t - �IIiI�IIiD�� hIIIIjlll y i _ 11 4111: 6 I 1 1 1 4; it:: --= I '1 ii TI-1M Sri. nee • • IP _ _�illlllfllllrlllllllll� I , i ; .unar :w�mnu r4 ( , 0 11 �� nouiin7iiirr n w ilinun u nrir j j Ai u .... / _= I tii ■ // //„////// / / ///////////L%%%Hbh ii/ We � 1 ■ v I‘ i . / / / /Y/ / / / / //L�//�AYU /fq /Meg z 'i _ t. �- ' 41 1 1\ 41i ��\ e`` `4 ' �. a D ' 41‘‘ t ‘ t . , ' , WO / , puil lit / iv 11` 0.111i) I s ‘r V \ i t: . Mallillianallitar S V. win Mr 1 1 Idyl I s . a \\, -`- '� Z L ilk,: , / I 4 r r „ ; "\ \uo IlrX t � i A" ...." ! I SI II". I O �� �� f % 7 , O o :I� %�o '' ��,, �� IA li flit/ t i >m 1 114 n 4 i 1 t . : S \ ilil I ►► / 1I r —c .---- - r. i '0' 1041 �\ II ■ 004 'l \ tii , .111 �' ill � 4 at i t 401 I1/4 \\ \/ ‘ 4 ifr i 1 /, N, I'IIN i 1 - \ . A l 1 , r 1 � - e• - z i; I I _mss ,11�1I j ' 1 `T ',1' • � '' A g p ! 20 TI-10 6. - eGM AT AMMON J JL Hiji n il 7 Q ❑ ' GbRN M-r5 4 10 ABR ALPS •1[0 N. GLOBE I tor ly ll \ / PARK I _ \ DG T ASPEN i iti. AQAts SITE CONTEXT . A ir \)t 0 25 50 100 150 200 v THE 1.191.er AT ASAEN 21 ?FM ` e Mint AT' AMMON UTE AVE. s STO RAGE � RECEPTION OF • C LOBBY ARRRML L OUNGE C - ... o ��� - ' HOT TUB Li T _ SERVICE —• KRCHEN i l 1 a rtm T/ -- c RAMP El E2 E3 E4 \\ \ JA LEVEL A PLAN ....___— (e 8 1 4 32 THE L.sDer AT A91EJElV 22 TEE `-- eGn AT AMMON ROOF OM 1411.11P=E- " 0,1111." WNW' rms° Elio • LEVEL B PLAN Co 0 4 8 18 24 32 THr 1.1.151ee AT A9AEN 23 TItO 6 eCg AT aSAgN ROOF ZIPPER CANOPY SKYLITE - st Err g s la i LEVEL C PLAN O 4 8 16 24 32 1 e _ THE Veeer AT ASAEN 24 ME 1= • PARKING HANDICAP PARKING RAMP • GARAGE LEVEL PLAN (© 0 4 8 16 24 32 'NE Imeeer AT ASArN 25 -rill `- s AtT ASAgN • -0, "I.I ► ''' .' 7y` LEVEL C - ' ''I, 1 IIII LEVEL B I � in -Y : n . � � � I LEVEL A PARKING GARAGE SECTION A 0 4 8 16 24 32 THE LeeGE AT AMA EN 26 - r ri S ` A►s A N _ __ WEST ELEVATION I 1 L_ 111] En m= NORTH ELEVATION 0 4 8 16 24 32 THE `eseM AT AMMON • 27 AS - rul e ` AgN IIIi\ , EAST. ELEVATION SOLAR COLLECTORS ID -m 7 -ID JID m m SOUTH ELEVATION 0 4 8 16 24 a2 THE 6eusec AT ASPEN 28 - r - G a N bh. Site Design: (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed land- scaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrange- ment of improvements for efficiency of circu- lation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Applicant' s Comments: The area of the site is 15,386 square feet. The building foot print is 7,000 square feet. The building is composed on three basic elements: 1. Administration - arrival 2. Community - lounge 3. Private - lodge rooms If one arrives at the site by vehicle (two limousines are provided), the arrival area visual terminates Original Street. The main pedestrian access will probably be from the existing path system through the Alps complex. There is an entrance on the North corner of the building to accommodate this traffic pattern. The lounge exterior court (hot tub area) is intended for the occupants of the complex. The building is modulated in plan to enhance the feeling of openness on this site. The proposed lodge is 405 feet from Lift No. 1 at Little Nell. 29 1 .,= e ve AIM N OPEN SPACE 4 E ® u a m m .T r B x o FJa 41 1 " P a pp „„ 6�. a�o. e Ir. � y U.� � - � ' _ p t " t � ti j ® „ 1i ' a 30 Ta 99 a N o" > � - . -. // n ^ F . f z , m � /X' /.a` I 21 " 0 0 t . O / //' �d o o� z F ' , oc /� ✓ / / / s m o 9 C , °, a --k... .— a " Fa z " o .`"( �`� n — n � a �N" o Ni .. � m<m 'r u ca Fa4� IF n "$ £____ B' [... ..F °.,,.. a � t8 __ —_ __ o r ni - o• _ e : zo m 0 o "; ., ; 0 C F" I# ,'; r c n , i ti u) f m m a z f. a - 30 r ., SAMN cc. Energy: (cc) Energy (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation • of energy and use of solar energy sources. Applicant's Comments: The Aspen Ordinance is used as the minimum standard. Insulation proposed to increase the efficiency approximately 20% above the Aspen Ordinance. The solar collectors are located on the high roof also below the skylight and above the stained -glass canopy over the lounge area. The hot water realized will be utilized in the domestic hot water system. There is only one fireplace and it is located in the lounge area and exceeds minimum requirement of the Aspen Ordinance. Vestibules are incorporated at the points of main egress and entry to minimize heat loss at these points. dd. Amenities: (dd) Amenities (maximum 3 points) considering the provisions of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Applicant's Comments: The Lodge site is located diagonally across the street from the Glory Hole Park which has a pond and park benches. The Park will provide a relaxed atmosphere which the Lodge guest may use. The Ute- Benedict Bike Path originates approximately 260 feet East of the Lodge site. The trail leads to the proposed Little Annie Ski Area and points to the East. 31 -- —e 0 A A►SAIg N STAIN GLASS CEILING IN LOUNGE - ICTURED BELOW IS A 25 ft. by 30 ft. STAINED GLASS WINDOW MADE AROUND 1910. APPLICANT HOLDS A OPTION TO PURCHASE SAME. CONSIDERATION IS BEING GIVEN TO USING A CONTEMPORARY STAINED GLASS WINDOW OF EQUAL SIZE IN LIEU ONE SHOWN BELOW. - l� \�\ /� % iii -- ---- \\SZ. -- - iii f "Cr/ n Ar'reer h. % i j a at - ilea' j / C \ \ I �, ���� � �� \ • trill 4 a l J iJ( 9 V�il a' in iVINV row 're7` .. As t l\ _ . • ,1 .. • • • • • • 1 ._ a 914._ . ;i__. i „Icy 3,-.. ail I im '1' -sr ; ; at -1 111 e l ®Ir�i4: > t ii itli of � .. \- . �c� SOW S40c - - ^^. - - ca IC" Ri: t� : t — — ".'mil_ tr P^ Par NM 1* III 4. ®ir;. +v • _t ia.p!?._}I.JR '"-:� -1�' .. -=' " �• �• L F» "- anal 1a �16 � c I\ I, ; -II *? fi �_ _- 1 IN111r 1St Si$: 4 - 41111t, AS .I ® 6i 1 . ..--r — :: - �� j ' C r a ;IS e r! —a in 'u- ri� .� . 1 a as ._- 32 gm Fir 6 - sag AT ASIwgN ee. Visual Impact: (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) consider- ing the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Applicant' s Comments: The scale of building was developed to minimize the impact of a structure on this site - using a combination of transitional massing with modulated and articulated roof and wall forms. The vertical surfaces are wood and glass and the roof is treated metal and glass. The frontage on Ute Avenue is one story thus maximizing the views of Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic view interior and exterior. 33 TI-10 6 -. eGIn AT ASAgPi SECTION LQ SERVICES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS Chapter 24, page 1508.24 indicates the following for consideration and rating: (4) Services provided for guests (maximum 6 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The commission's consideration shall include but not be limited to the following: aa. Meeting Areas: (aa) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Applicant' s Comments: The lounge /lobby area will provide a meeting place for the guest. The lounge area will be multi - purpose for such activities as dining, apre -ski activities, lodge parties and conference area. The size of the lounge is approximately 26 feet by 32 feet. bb. Dining Facility: (bb) Dining facilities on site. Applicant's Comments: The restaurant will provide food service for lodge guests. The serving area will be in the lounge in the winter and in the summer, and also on the terrace in the summer. No puhlic restau- rant requiring Conditional Use Permit is anticipated. 34 1.4g _nag AT age! cc. Recreational Facilities: (cc) Accessory recreational facilities. Applicant's Comments: Recreational facilities will include a whirlpool and sauna. The courtyard lawn area will accommodate general activities. The Glory Hole Park is diagonally opposite from the Lodge. The Park will be of recreational benefit to the Lodge guests, particularly during the non -ski season. dd. Conference and Banquet Facilities: (dd) Conference and banquet facilities. Applicant's Comments: The lounge area will provide a limited conference use area. Banquet facilities will be set up for the occasion in the lounge. In the summertime, the terrace area will also be used. The kitchen facilities on the premises will aid in food preparation and on -site catering. ee. Ski Proximity: (ee) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Applicant's Comments: The Lodge site is located approximately 405 feet from Aspen Mountain's Little Nell Lift, No. 4. "Ski -In" to the Lodge site is possible from Aspen Mountain when snow is on the Aspen Mountain Road. The proposed Little Annie Ski Terminal is approximately 740 feet East of the Lodge. The proposed terminal is within walking distance, a three to four minute walk by the bike path. 35 Tim `- eCIM AT ASAIgN ff. Overall Tourist Appeal: (ff) Overall tourist appeal. Applicant's Comments: The Lodge's objective is to establish itself as an elegant, small, intimate lodge catering to an affluent market. Factors which contribute to the overall tourist appeal are: 1. Prime location providing convenient access to skiing, downtown shopping and entertainment. 2. Luxuriously furnished tourist rooms. 3. On -site dining. 4. Luxurious lounge with stain -glass ceiling and fireplace. 5. On -site recreation facilities. 6. Limousine service. 7. Glory Hole Park is located across the street. SECTION M CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL POLICY GOALS Chapter 24, page 1508.24 states: (5) Conformance to local public policy goals (maxi- mum 12 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: aa. Reduction of Tourist F.A.R.: (aa) Reduction of tourist rental space below maxi - mum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points). Reduction of greater than: 15% —3 points 10%.-2 points 05 % -1 point 36 g era r nip am egg IN Applicant's Comments: The maximum internal floor area space is .75:1, if 33 1/3% of the area above .5:1 is devoted to employee housing. Maximum internal floor area: 75% of 15.386 square feet = 11,539.5 sq. ft. Less: Required employee space 33 1/3% of 25% = 1,282.2 sq. ft. Maximum tourist rental space = 10,257.3 sq. ft. Less: Designed tourist rental space = 8,835.0 sq. ft. Reduction in tourist rental space = 1,422.3 sq. ft. Percentage reduction in tourist rental space: Square footage reduction in tourist rental space Divide: - 1,422.3 = 13.87% Maximum allowable tourist rental space 10,257.3 The tourist floor rental space reduction calculates to be 13.87% less than the maximum allowable internal F.A.R. bb: Provision for Employee Housing: (bb) Provision of bonus employee housing (maxi- mum 6 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site -6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site -4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site -2 points Applicant' s Comments: The Lodge will contain four employee units. An occupancy of two people per room should provide 100% housing for Lodge employees. Some service requirements of the Lodge may be provided by commercial services such as maintenance, laundry and landscape maintenance. 37 mmHg ` - Beg a, a pJ cc. Auto Disincentives: (cc) Auto disincentive (maximum 3 points). The commission shall award points based upon the degree to which the application provides al- ternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. Limousine Service 1. One limousine with regular service per twenty -five (25) guests (based on theo- retical capacity of lodge) - point. Applicant's Comments: The Lodge will operate two limousines with regular service. Based on a theoretical capacity of 1.6 people per room results in a need for two limousines. A theoretical capacity of two people per room would indicate a need for 2.48 limousines. Due to prox- imity to commercial core the guest will have a tendency to walk reducing the demand for limousine service. Two limousines should adequately accommodate the guests. 2. Parking Reduction: • 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in code when done in coordi- nation with limousine service -1 point. Applicant's Comments: In conformance with Ordinance 48, the Lodge shall provide parking at a reduced rate from zoning. The Lodge shall provide 18 spaces with 15 spaces in the underground garage and 3 spaces in the entry zone for short -term use. Under zoning requirements the Lodge would be required to provide 35 spaces. 3. Employee Parking Prohibition: 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant -1 point. 38 sr LIM - BEM AT AMMON Applicant's Comments: In conformance with Ordinance 48, the Lodge will provide no on -site employee parking by covenant restrictions. BONUS POINTS Chapter 24, page 1508.25 indicates bonus points may be awarded: (6) The commission may, when it shall determine that a project has incorporated the criteria of section 24- 10.6(b) (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) and achieved an outstanding overall design recognition, award additional points not exceeding twenty (20) per cent of the total points awarded under section 24- 10.6(b) (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Applicant's Comments: The outstanding overall design recognition bonus points are based on Section 24 -10.6 (b) (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). The sub - section headings are as follows: (1) Availability of public facilities and services. (2) Availability of social facilities and services. (3) Quality of design. (4) Services provided for guests. (5) Conformance to local public policy goals. it is respectfully requested that the Lodge project be con- sidered for bonus point evaluation on the merits in this application. Submitted By, Lyle Reeder • 39 TI-IM 1. - l!!lGM AT ASI5101R1 GLORY HOLE PARK VIEW PLANE OVERLAY AND ZONING The subject Lodge property is located diagonally from the GLARY HOLE PARK. The Lodge Property Survey is included on page 41. The PATES on the Property Survey indicate 1 PROPERTY IS UNAFFECTED BY EITHER THE GLARY HOLE PARK VIEW PLANES OR THE RUBY PARK VIEW PLANE." TIN ,.:',.0::.i*': •• ♦•:*.r •♦. .♦•• 1 IBIRITLIAirt!Iii IM .'' I T «♦••••• o.•••.• : r:•:.. +F,:? X 11111 .iJ:�:�E Mille•; '.:: .:.!: ;i c iaii It o' .«. C'�:f:y:: ..?.• }:il': ^. I' "ii '1$ U h111 ������ - _ t 1 1 : � 111111 .' I<< i I" Ill�I E ;: ii E- :•.. N i ' •• 1111 III' '] ' • O'!I rr :d t r • i i I -� L F�� ,, ‘ 'poise I a ,• r : . . - •" - d•••••••• 1 i o i — Ii r : ! ft , I �II II 'i IIII • I ,4 9'x � . I 01 �� � 11 11Z11� ;iv Q�I' 1 0` . '� � i i , Ill !! . # ., ar ... y j.�i -. r, I ! 1 k:Mille ::'" :4: ? OIIIO ; `:. A • `t I Kai II,� + ti Ipl • o. ��__ Imo '!:I II U �c : ! i p 111 II !! 2" • .., / '' R. S, -:;, ill Bo 1 ori ji o wes f ii „„,f4;:1,, a ,r104,0 23 ' * a *? vf.:,:(;,§‘ :: - wi \ e � `� ; _ �' * a. / 44 48... / ° ? :. e ; LODGE SITE LEGEND Zoned- L odge one 1 ,1,,,;;Iy.111;1 II' I i L I 1_O DG L' ONE I' ' ' ll,u'1 `' l VIEW PLANE OVERLAYS P PARK VPO /A GLORY HOLE PARK ` I I (See Ordinance 17 Series of 1973) : R -6 RESIDENTIAL .._ ADOPTED: AMENDED: MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1975 ASPEN PLANNING a ZONING ORDINANCE I I, SERIES 1975 COMMISSION — MAR.23, 1976 4o THg ` -el Er AT ner RI PROPERTY SURVEY- August 20 5 1981 LOCATIONS OF ELECTRIC LINES, NATURAL GAS LINE, SEWER LINE, TELEPHONE LINES AND TV CABLE ALONG WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE SURVEY BELOW. rl ,} ; w it E \ 'Go \ 1 60. ' a �" m n m o i o 8 i t n A _ E I Z t ' £ a \ .• "„ — .f "fo .. o a.v ID ti. \T'Z'co. m a o H 4. o rt "o i. FL an o v m (v \ r^ i . v \ reas ' / ��: . E - n u D )- 271 m� a te/ /�X f > ° aU 0 i i c° " - zgm C. /. L. Oo rvl c gy 0 ' L 7 0 o r LL IL y r 1 1 m ° 0 *0 ; o ; • r < : < x .," ;° ma m / ` 41 E" MEMORANDUM TO: GMP Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: Lodge and Commercial Quota Status DATE: July 21, 1981 (updated on September 1, 1981) Based on my investigation of previous allocations, the following is the status of the quota available for competition on September 1, 1981. Office and Commercial 1. There have been five previous competitions with 24,000 square feet availa- ble each year, for a total of 120,000 square feet. Last year 6,000 addi- tional square feet were made available as a bonus. 2. Of the 126,000 total square feet available, 108,063 square feet have been awarded. However, 2,184 square feet which have been allocated have expired. As a result, the total amount of space which has either been unallocated or has expired is 20,121 square feet.* 3. The maximum square footage available for competition this year is 24,000 + 20,121 + 6,000 (potential bonus) or 50,121 square feet. 4. Among the projects which received allocations, only two are in danger of having their quota expire. The Smith Building (5,100 square feet) and the First National Bank Addition (4,203 square feet) both submitted applications on September 1, 1979. These allocations will expire on September 1, 1981, unless the applicant submits plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a permit. Conversations with each applicant indicate that the former probably will submit the plans but that the latter appli- cant will not make a submission and will let the allocation lapse.* * Note: On September 1, 1981, the First National Bank Addition did let its allocation expire, while the Smith Building did submit plans suffi- cient for the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, of the 108,063 square feet which have been awarded in the past, 6,387 square feet have expired, resulting in a total of 24,324 square feet which have expired or are unallocated. Lodge 1. In the five years since the lodge competition was initiated, 18 units have been available each year for a total of 90 lodge units. During the first competition Council awarded 60 units to the Aspen Inn (36 tourist and 24 employee) and 16 units to the Mountain Chalet (8 tourist and 8 employee). 2. The allocation to the Mountain Chalet has expired. The 60 units for the Aspen Inn totally used the quota for the first three years of competition as well as 6 units from the fourth year of competition. This means that 12 units were left over from the fourth year and 18 were left over from last year for a total of 30 units which are unallocated or expired from previous years. 3. The maximum number of lodge units available for competition this year is 18 + 30 + 6 (potential bonus) or 54 units. ' GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RONALD GARFIELD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING . ANDREW V. HECHT (303) 925 -1936 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE TELECOPIER CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 r'1rrY?n ' 303 K. ROULHAC GARN L' !. i . CABLE ADDRESS RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. August 20, 19811 nr) l "GARHEC" SPENCER F. SCHIFFER 1 f'I 1; ❑';G, o e %'I I I .� H1. �:i , IJU J Mr. Alan Richman `.. AF 2 LJ4 r l ha uJ F \ F a OF ; reE Assistant Director Planning Department • City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lodge GMP Quota Status Dear Alan: As you know, it is our position that the lodge quota for 1982 should be 72 units, excluding any potential bonus. Consequently I must object to the position you are taking as indicated in your memo of July 21, 1981, that the maximum number of lodge units avail- able for competition this year is 48 plus a potential bonus of 6 for a total of 54 units. The difference between our respective positions relates to the 24 employee units alloted to the Aspen Inn pursuant to Resolut- ion No. 11, Series of 1978. Our position is that employee units are now, and should always have been, exempt from the allotment procedures as well as the allotments themselves. The fact that the ordinances confirming the exemptions had not been adopted prior to the aforesaid Resolution No. 11, should not preclude your carrying out the intent and purpose evidenced by those ordinances. Those ordinances which were codified into sections 24-11.2(g) (h) and 24 -11.10 were not adopted to create new exemptions. Rather, they were adopted to remedy a technical defect in the original legislation. Even assuming, for argument sake, that this was not the case, that is that the exemptions were in fact newly created, it cannot be denied that the deductions should have been made against residential quota rather than lodge quota. This should be obvious, since employee housing units were dwelling units which are residential in nature and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered lodge units. Therefore, to deduct them from the lodge quota would be like deducting apples from oranges. Moreover, given that there are only eighteen lodge units available per year, it is not inconceivable that through the application of the 70/30 bonus and R.B.O. most of the lodge quota could actually be used up by employee housing. This latter point is substantiated by examining the language of §24- 11.10. "Low, moderate and middle income housing units approved under the provisions of §24- 11.4(b)(3) shall be allowed in addition GARFIELD & HECHT to those housing units authorized by §24- 11.1(a) above." Section 24- 11.1(a) provides "Within all zone districts, thirty nine (39) residential dwelling units." Thus, if the intention were to deduct employee housing units from each of the respective districts, should not the exemption then also be applicable to all zone districts. The fact aht the exemption only applies to the residential clearly indicates that the deduction was intended to be only against the residential. In conclusion, I would strongly urge you to reconsider your position. I think we all recognize that a mistake was made in Resolut- ion No. 11 of 1978 and we should take this opportunity to correct it. After all, what we would be doing would be merely restoring the lodge quota to its correct status. I would like to discuss this further with you at your con- venience but would request that if you are not willing to reconsider your position that the subject be placed on the next available City Council agenda for their consideration prior to the processing of the 1982 lodge applications. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, GARtIELD & HEC T 4 ' 'Spe cer F./‘chifIr SFS /pp cc: Hans B. Cantrup Mark Danielson Sunny Vann Paul Taddune, Esq. GARFIELD & HEC HT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RONALD GARFIELD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT (303) 925 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE TELECOPIER CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -3008 K. ROULHAC GARN CABLE ADDRESS RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. October 20, 1981 "GARHEC-' SPENCER F. SCHIFFER HAND DELIVERED Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Aspen Colorado 81611 Re: 1982 Lodge GMP Quota Dear Council Members: The Planning Department has taken the position that the available lodge quota for 1982 is 48 units plus a potential bonus of 6 for a total of 54 units. In response to a memo from the Planning Department in support of that position I submitted a letter dated August 20, 1981 contesting that position, a copy of which is attached hereto. At the request of the Planning Department we have not yet made our position known to you or the P & Z with the under- standing that this is the appropriate time for such consideration. Consequently, the P & Z recommendation to,you for 54 units is made without any consideration of our position. Simply stated, we believe that the 24 employee housing units alloted to the Aspen Inn pursuant to Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978 should not have been deducted from the lodge quota. Our reasons are as follows: 1. Employee housing units are exempt from the GMP. Those exemptions are contained in Sections 24- 11.2(g) and (h) and 24- 11.10. We believe that an error was made in not excluding those 24 units from the quota in 1978. The mere fact that those ordinances were adopted after Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978 should not preclude correction of the error now. Rather, those ordinances serve to verify the existence of the error. To acknowledge an error, correct it prospectively by legislation, and yet refuse to correct a specific application which itself led to the corrective legislation, flies in the face of the con- stitutional requirement for "equal protection ", and is nothing less than hypocritical. 2. Even if employee housing units were not exempt from the GMP, they should not have been deducted from the lodge quota. GARFIELD & HECHT Employee housing units are residential dwelling units. They are not lodge units. If any deduction should have been made it should have been from the residential quota. The Code clearly recognizes this. Section 24 -11.10 states: "Low, moderate and middle income housing units approved under the provisions of Section 24- 11.4(b)(3) should be allowed in addition to those housing units auth- orized by Section 24- 11.1(a) above. (Emphasis added) Section 24- 11.1(a) is the residential allotment, stating: "Within all zone districts, thirty -nine (39) residential dwelling units." Section 24- 11.1(b) is the lodge allotment and 24- 11.1(c) is the commercial allotment. If employee housing units were intended to be deducted from lodge and commerical quota as well as residential quota, why then is the remedial legislation directed only to the residential quota? The answer obviously indicates that they were never intended to be deducted from any quotas other than residential. Thus, we feel it was a mistake to have deducted the 24 employee housing units from the lodge quota. If any deduction should have been made, it should have been from the residential quota. It is now recognized that employee housing units should not be deducted from any quota, and the mistake has been corrected prospectively by legislation. We submit that it is obligatory to now correct an obvious mistake in application which you have the power and authority to do. You will not be increasing the quota. All you would be doing would be restoring it to its correct status. Respectfully submitted, � 9 GARF'IELD & HECHT /t ; /1 Sp nicer F. /Schiffer/ J f; SFS /pp '! cc: Wayne Chapman Paul Taddune, Esq. Sunny Vann Alan Richman Flans B. Cantrup 4 CITY e SPEN A 130 so h galenastreet aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 1980 TO: Sunny Vann - FROM: Ron Stock, RE: 1981 Lodge Allocations I have reviewed the history of lodge allocations to determine the number which will be available September 1, 1980. I have deter- mined that there will be 30 lodge unit allocations available. In 1978, the City awarded 76 lodge unit allocations, 60 to the Aspen Inn and 16 to the Mountain Chalet. The City thus awarded all of the allocations for the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 together with 4 of the 18 allocations available for 1981. Therefore, we anticipated the availability of 14 allocations in September. However, the Mountain Chalet failed to submit plans as required by Sec. 24 -10.7 of the Municipal Code of the City. By the terms of this section their 16 allocations "automatically expire" and "shall be added to available allotments" for future award. RWS:mc MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director RE: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations DATE: November 17, 1981 Background On October 6, 1981, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the 1982 Lodge GMP competition. The scoring which emerged from that process is as follows: Aspen Inn Expansion - 51.8 points The Lodge at Aspen - 49.2 points Since only 35 points are needed to be eligible for a development allotment, both projects were clearly judged as meriting such an award from City Council. However, P & Z only recommended that an allotment be awarded to the Aspen Inn Expansion since that project requested 96 units (which is in excess of the quota) while The Lodge at Aspen requested 31 units, the total of which (127 units), is far in excess of the available quota. In addition, appeals have been submitted by both applicants which question the scoring by P & Z which you must consider. On November 3, 1981, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the 1982 Commercial GMP competition. The scoring which emerged from that process is as follows: A Garden Office Building - 25.8 points The City Plaza Building - 24.0 points The Red Onion Addition - 19.9 points Since only 14.4 points are needed to be eligible for a development allotment, P & Z recommended that all three projects be awarded their requested amounts. However, since the total request of 27,521 square feet exceeds the annual quota of 24,000 square feet, &'ou must also determine whether or not to award an excess commercial allotment this year. Summarizing, then, there are three issues before you tonight: 1. Consideration of the appeals of the scoring of the 1982 Lodge GMP competi- tion, as submitted by Hans Cantrup and Lyle Reeder. 2. Determination of the appropriate lodge quota which must be allocated by City Council by resolution prior to December 1, 1981. 3. Determination of the appropriate commercial quota which must be allocated by City Council by resolution prior to December 1, 1981. The Planning Office hopes that we may come to a general consensus tonight as to the method of resolving each of these issues, so that we can return to you at your meeting on November 23, 1981 with resolutions allocating the quotas for this year. Lodge Scoring Appeals Project Description: The two projects which applied for 1982 Lodge GMP allotments can be briefly described as follows. The Aspen Inn Expansion is a proposal to add two new wings to the existing Aspen Inn (located at 701 South Mill Street) while providing the amenities originally proposed in the 1978 GMP submission (conference center, health facility and employee rooms) and to take another Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Two November 17, 1981 step toward the development of the major lodge complex proposed by Hans Cantrup for the Base of Aspen Mountain. The Lodge at Aspen is a proposal to build a small new lodge at 771 Ute Avenue, at the corner of Original which would be the first new lodge to be built in Aspen since prior to the implementa- tion of the GMP. Code Interpretation: Section 24- 11.6(e) sets out the method by which an appeal of the scoring of a Lodge GMP applicant may be heard and acted upon by City Council. The Code reads as follows: "Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that no challenge shall be heard by the council on grounds other than matters which have not previously been considered by the commission. Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolution and prior to December 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank." This section of the code has previously been interpreted to indicate that City Council has delegated to P & Z the authority to score the individual categories and criteria involved in the GMP competition, and did not intend to become involved in challenges where an applicant felt that a "3" was deserved for a certain feature, while a P & Z memeber had given a "1" or a "2 ". Instead, Council only wished to intervene in the process when it could be shown that P & Z (or a member of P & Z) bad abused its discretion or had not acted within the bounds of due process in its overall conduct of the public hearing. Therefore, should you find that either appeal demonstrates an abuse of discretion or absence of due process related to matters which have not previously been considered by P & 7, then you may amend the number of points awarded to either applicant, since both are protesting. Cantrup Appeal: The appeal submitted by Hans Cantrup is predicated on the concept that various P & Z members were arbitrary in their award of points in categories where the criteria measuring the project's features are quite objective. The appeal states that since these measures are objective, any scoring which is inconsistent with the facts presented by the applicant should be considered an abuse of discretion. The Planning Office has two basic problems with an appeal based on this concept: 1. There is a certain amount of subjectivity inherent in any supposedly objective criteria, no matter how hard one works to remove that subjectivity from the analysis. The fact that the applicant, the Planning Office and the seven P & Z members often deviate in their supposedly objective assessment of certain criteria indicates that absolute objectivity cannot be expected in any scoring procedure. 2. Regardless of the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity as it relates to an abuse of discretion, this appeal is squarely based on matterswhich have previously peen heard by the Planning and Zoning Commis ou have delega to P & Z the responsibility tor scoring sewer, storm drainage, fire protection, roads, public transportation, energy and tourist FAR reduction. P & Z heard the Planning Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Three November 17, 1981 Office present an analysis of the criteria for scoring each of these categories, heard clarifications by the applicant of what was being proposed as regards each category, and each member made an individual interpreta- tion of the degree to which each project conformed to that measure. We do not recommend that you adjust the score of either applicant based on the appeal of Hans Cantrup, as the P & Z members' actions are clearly within the powers delegated by Council to the Commission, as outlined in the Code. Reeder Appeal: The appeal submitted by Lyle Reeder is based on quite a different case than was made by Hans Cantrup. This appeal examines the overall scores given by P & Z members to both projects and finds an aberration in comparing the total scores given by six P & Z members to those given by the seventh member. Mr. Reeder suggests that P & Z member Al Blomquist had prejudged the lodge competition in advance of the hearing and was biased in his overall scoring of the projects. The appeal provides some mathematical evidence of the deviation between the Blomquist score and the average of the other scores, noting that Blomquist gave the Aspen Inn 65 points, including 11 bonus points, while the other members' scores averaged 49.6 points. Only one other P & Z member gave a bonus to the Aspen Inn and this was for 3 points. Al scored The Lodge at Aspen 42 points while the other P & Z members averaged 50.4 points. Mr. Reeder's appeal introduces a second concept, beyond bias and abuse of discretion, the so- called "appearance of fairness" doctrine. The appeal suggests that even in cases where no obvious predisposition or bias can be documented, courts have held that a member of a public body should be disqualified to vote in cases where even an appearance of unfairness exists. The appeal therefore requests that Al Blomquist's scoring be discarded and the average of the other six members retained, on the basis of bias, and the deprivation of the right (or the appearance of a deprivation) to a fair and impartial hearing. Alternatives Available: The above discussion of the two lodge appeals would suggest that Council has only two alternatives available. These alternatives include: (1) the disqualification of Al Blomquist's scores, resulting in the reversal of the ranking, giving The Lodge at Aspen a total. of 50.4 as compared to 49.6 for the Aspen Inn Expansion; or (2) leaving the scores as they previously were, retaining the ranking of Aspen Inn Expansion having a total of 51.8 and The Lodge at Aspen having 49.2. The Planning Office believes that there is a third alternative available to you. The day after the scoring of the applications occurred and before any appeals had even been contemplated, the City Attorney suggested that we take the high and the low scores for each application and drop these, averaging the remaining five scores. He felt that this approach would indicate if any unfairness existed in the scoring since it would eliminate all of the extreme scores given by the seven P & Z members. We did this calculation and found that this resulted in the Aspen Inn Expansion receiving a 50.3 while The Lodge at Aspen received a 49.9. Planning Office Recommendation: We believe that the above calculation demonstrates that there was not a fundamental flaw in the original scoring which ranked the Aspen Inn Expansion ahead of The Lodge at Aspen. We there- fore recommend that despite the fact that both applicants have protested the scoring by P & Z, that you not adjust either score and maintain the original ranking of the two projects as follows: 1. Aspen Inn Expansion - 51.8 points 2. The Lodge at Aspen - 49.2 points Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Four November 17, 1981 Lodge Quota Determination Code Interpretation: The determination of the lodge quota available for allotment this year is typically not an issue for you to decide since the code,in Sections 24 -11.8, 24- 11.6(e) and 24- 11.7(a), provides a methodology for reporting on past construction, carrying over unallocated or rescinded allotments and setting the yearly quota. On the basis of these code sections, we provided a memo to the applicants (attached for your review) based on prior calculations by Ron Stock (also attached) documenting that 30 units were unallocated or expired from previous years, 18 units were available, as always, for this year, and a 6 unit bonus could also be awarded, for a total of 54 units. However, Hans Cantrup questions our interpreta- tion of the quota which leads us to discuss this issue with you. Cantrup Appeals: The argument made by Cantrup is that City Council erred in 1978 when it awarded 36 tourist and 24 employee units to the Aspen Inn and specifically required (in your Resolution 11, Series of 1978) that both the tourist and employee units be deducted from the lodge quota for forthcoming years. Mr. Cantrup is asking that the 24 units subtracted from the lodge quota in 1978 be added to this year's quota, resulting in a total quota of 78 units. The two principal arguments made in this regard are as follows: 1. Employee housing units are now exempt from the GMP and are not deducted from available quotas. 2. Even if you were to deduct employee units from the quota, they should have been deducted from the residential and not the lodge quota, since they are housing units. Planning Office Analysis: The Planning Office finds the above reasoning faulty because of the following points: 1. At the time of the 1978 competition, very different and substantially more limited legislation existed regarding the exemption of employee units from the GMP quota. This fact results, in part,from your resolution adopting the Growth Management Policy Plan, which clearly stated that exemptions should be specifically discouraged. Since that time, we have created numerous exemptions, primarily for employee housing, which have resulted in a dual growth rate, regulated and unregulated, and a rate of growth far in excess of expectations. We believe that the original premise of the GMP, that all units should be deducted from the quota, is a very sound one. We will be recommenting to you, as part of the GMP update, that we return to this approach when we develop our new quotas next year. We strongly recommend that you not go back and reverse what was a well thought out action by City Council in deducting all units from the quota. 2. If there was an error in judgement during the 1978 lodge allocation, it may have occurred when the employee units were deducted from the lodge rather than the residential GMP quota. The possible rationales for deducting the units from the residential quota rather than the lodge quota is as follows: A. Employee units are housing units, not tourist units. Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Five November 17, 1981 B. We have had an excessive growth in the residential sector, while we have only witnessed one lodge development since the initiation of the GMP.' How- ever, the major problem with this option is that it would wipe out the residential quota for this year and preclude us from obtaining any new develop- ment within the GMP for another year. Planning Office Recommendation: We do not recommend that you alter, in any way, the decision made to deduct the 24 employee units at the Aspen Inn from the GMP quota. Should you find that these units should not be deducted from the lodge quota, we urge you to deduct them from the residential quota. Either of the above approaches would be consistent with the original GMP and would help to foster the concept we are proposing, that of a unified rate of growth in Aspen. We recommend that the quota awarded for this year should be only 18 units, and should be awarded to the Aspen Inn. We very strongly recommend that you not award any excess allot- ments nor carry over any previously unallocated quota. Our reasons for this position include: 1. We are currently re- evaluating the growth rates in Aspen over the past five years and determining the future buildout potential and appropriate growth rates for next year. Given the fact that we have exceeded our planned growth rates, we are consistently recom- mending to you and the Board of County Commissioners that you limit your allotments to no more than the quota for this year alone. 2. Due to time constraints, the Planning Office was unable to revise the Lodge GMP criteria, as we were able to do for the commercial- office and residential competitions. We are well aware that several scoring categories may not be of continuing signficiance to the community, while many of the scoring criteria are poorly worded and often ambiguous. We also know that too many bonus points are available to be awarded. We have placed this pro- posed code amendment on our work program for early in 1982. Our inability to amend the lodge criteria may be partly responsible for the appeals which have resulted from the difficult scoring task faced by P & Z in the lodge sector. We feel certain that we can improve upon the quality of the review procedures for next year. At that time, these and other applicants would be provided with an opportunity to compete for a new allotment again next year on what we are certain will be a more objective basis. Commercial Quota Determination Project Descriptions: The three projects which applied for allotments under the 1982 commercial- office GMP competition can be briefly described as follows. The Garden Office Building (615 E. Hopkins) is a pro- posal to build a two -story office building, with retail uses on the first floor, consisting of 9,656 square feet of space plus a 985 square foot two - bedroom employee housing unit. The City Plaza Building (517 E. Hopkins) is a proposal to build a three -story office - retail building on the site presently occupied by Poor Pauls, consisting of 15,300 square feet of space, plus 2,700 square feet dedicated to four low - income studio employee units. The Red Onion Addition (414 E. Cooper) is a proposal to build a one -story addition above the portion of the Red Onion Building which is to be occupied by Stefan Kaelin consisting of 2,565.5 square feet to house a local office (Reese Henry Associates) but without any employee housing pro- posed on or off site. Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Six November 17, 1981 The Planning Office scoring of the Red Onion project was only 14 points, which would have denied this request. P & Z , scored this and the other applicants highly enough that each has qualified for consideration of a quota award. The total of 27,521.5 square feet requested is in excess of the 24,000 square foot quota for this year. There is 24,324 square feet of quota which is unallocated or expired from previous years, plus a 6,000 square foot bonus from last year which should be offset this year (see attached calculations). The Planning Office recommends that no more than 24,000 square feet of office - commercial quota be allocated this year, thereby awarding 9,656 square feet to the Garden Office Building and 14,344 square feet to the City Plaza Building and denying the Red Onion Addition. Our reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. We have been experiencing a growth rate of 45,000 square feet of commercial- office space per year in the City of Aspen due to GMP- approved projects and developments in the NC and 0 zones. These projects have fueled an employee housing demand which we have not been able to meet. 2. We have recently extended the coverage of our commercial - office GMP to include all development in the City. We will next be developing new quotas which will have the effect of bringing our commercial- office development boom under control. We do not believe that it is appro- priate to award an excess allotment at the same time that we are questioning our ability to handle the growth rate we have been experiencing. The Planning Office further recommends that you determine not to carry over the 24,324 square feet left over from previous years. This action, which would "wipe the slate clean ", seems particularly appropriate in light of the excess buildout we have been experiencing (i.e., 50,000 square feet so far in 1981) and our intent to formulate new quotas next year. MEMORANDUM TO: 1982 Lodge GMP Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: December 1 Quota Award Deadline DATE: November 25, 1981 Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Code requires that City Council "shall by resolution, and prior to December 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank." To meet this deadline, the Planning Office set up a work session with City Council on November 19 so as to permit a resolution to be written for their regular meeting on November 23. However, questions have recently arisen as to whether the Aspen Inn Expansion application qualifies for an award of quota, due to certain basic zoning and building code requirements. Until the Cantrup organiza- tion is able to answer the questions which have been posed by the Planning Office, we are unable to determine whether to reject their application or to move ahead with the allocation process. Furthermore, both applicants have appealed the scoring by P & Z, throwing the rating of the two projects (Aspen Inn Expansion 51.8 points; The Lodge at Aspen 49.2 points) into confusion. In any case, Council has determined that 78 units are available for award this year. The Cantrup organization has indicated their willingness to accept a 54/24 split on the award, while the Reeder group has stated that their project will not be viable without at least 31 units. They have therefore asked for an award of 7 units from next year's quota, and would drop their appeal on this basis. Both applicants have agreed to permit the December 1 deadline to pass without the formal award of quota by Council. The City Attorney has stated that this deadline can pass, as long as both applicants agree that it is acceptable to them. Nevertheless, we should attempt to make the award as soon thereafter as is possible. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: 1982 Lodge GMP Competition / DATE: January 21, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Municipal Code requires that Ci ouncil f by resolution, and prior to December 1st of each year, alloc e develop nt allot- ments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank." To meet this deadline, the Planning Office held a work session with Council on November 19 to discuss the 1982 Lodge Quota and to hear appeals filed by both applicants contesting the scoring by P & Z of their applications. While Council determined the available 1982 quota, the appeals were tabled to your November 23 regular meeting. Several problems were identified by the Planning Office, subsequent to P & Z's October 6 scoring of the 1982 applications, with respect to the validity of Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Lodge request and the status of the 1978 Lodge allocation. The appeals were tabled again on November 23 per resolution of the issues surrounding the Cantrup application. Both applicants agreed to permit the December 1 deadline to pass without the formal award of quota by Council. On January 20, 1982, the Planning Office, upon the advice of the City Attorney, rejected Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Lodge GMP application. As a result, Mr. Cantrup's appeal of P & Z's scoring is moot. Similarly, Mr. Reed's appeal is no longer necessary as more than enough quota exists to insure the award of an allocation to the Lodge at Aspen. The Planning Office therefore requests that you direct us by motion to prepare a resolution awarding a development allocation of 31 lodge units to Mr. Lyle Reeder and to authorize Mr. Reeder to proceed further with additional approvals required from the City prior to obtaining a building permit. TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Resolution Allocating 1982 Lodge GMP / DATE: February 1, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 59• / Background: Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Municipal Code requ r•s that Ci Council "shall by resolution, and prior to De -mber 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank." To meet this deadline, the Planning Office held a work session with Council on November 19 to discuss the 1982 Lodge Quota and to hear appeals filed by both applicants contesting the scoring by P & Z of their applications. While Council determined the available 1982 quota, the appeals were tabled to your November 23 regular meeting. Several problems were identified by the Planning Office, subsequent to P & Z's October 6 scoring of the 1982 applications, with respect to the validity of Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Lodge request and the status of the 1978 Lodge allocation. The appeals were tabled again on November 23 pending resolution of the issues surrounding the Cantrup application. Both appli- cants agreed to permit the December 1 deadline to pass without the formal award of quota by Council. On January 20, 1982, the Planning Office, upon the advice of the City Attorney, rejected Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Lodge GMP application. As a result, Mr. Cantrup's appeal of P & Z's scoring is moot. Similarly, Mr. Reeder's appeal is no longer necessary as more than enough quota exists to insure the award of an allocation to The Lodge at Aspen. At your regular meeting on January 25, 1982 we asked you to review our action whereby we rejected the Aspen Inn 1982 Lodge GMP application and to direct us to prepare a resolution awarding the appropriate allocation to The Lodge at Aspen. You concurred with our determinations and unanimously requested that we prepare a resolution allocating the 1982 Lodge GMP quota. The attached resolution provides a history of the process we have followed in evaluating the Lodge GMP applications these past four months. The resolution awards a lodge development allotment of 31 units to The Lodge at Aspen and directs the applicant to proceed further with additional approvals needed by the City before a building permit is secured. Council Action: The Planning Office recommends that you approve the attached resolution. Should you concur with our recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to read Resolution a , Series of 1982." "Move to approve Resolution 4, Series of 1982." MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 1982 Lodge GMP Applications DATE: October 1, 1981 Introduction: Attached for your review are project profiles for both of this year's lodge GMP submissions, the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for each application and materials summarizing the proposed development program for the Aspen Inn Expansion and The Lodge at Aspen. A copy of each application has also been provided to you for your review purposes. Quota Available: The available quota for this year is based on the provisions of Section 24 -11.8 (Building Inspector reports to Planning Office on lodge construction during previous year), 24- 11.6(e) (unallo- cated allotments may be distributed during later years), and 24- 11.7(b) (rescinded allotments shall be added to available allotments). The Planning Office has calculated the quota for this year's competition. We find that during the five previous competitions, 18 units were available annually, for a total of 90 units. During the first competition, Council awarded 60 units to the Aspen Inn (36 tourist and 24 employee) and 16 units to the Mountain Chalet (8 tourist and 8 employee). The resolution awarding these allotments specified that both the employee and the tourist units should be deducted from the lodge quota. Since the initial allocation, Mountain Chalet has allowed its 16 unit award to expire. No additional applications have been received until this year. Therefore, the 60 units awarded to the Aspen Inn used the 18 unit quota for each of the first three years of competition, as well as 6 units available for the fourth year of competition. This means that 12 units were left over from the fourth year and 18 were left over from last year, for a total of 30 units which are unallocated or expired from previous years. An additional 18 units are available for this year, plus a possible bonus of 6 units (33% of those available for the year), Summarizing then, the total quota for this year is as follows: Quota unallocated or expired from previous years - 30 units Quota available for 1982 - 18 units Maximum 33% bonus - 6 units Total available for 1982 54 units The Lodge at Aspen is requesting 31 lodge units while the Aspen Inn Expansion is requesting 96 lodge units. Since the Aspen Inn request exceeds the available quota, should the project be granted an allotment it could only be for a portion of the project,either for the units remaining after The Lodge at Aspen receives its quota, or for all 54 units available, thereby precluding the award of any allotment to The Lodge at Aspen. Process: The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on October 6 to explain the GMP procedures and to provide you with a suggested assignment of points to each application. Next, each of the applicants will be given 15 minutes to present their proposal to you. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to score the applicants' proposals. To ensure a reasonable comparison of the relative merits of each application, the Planning Office suggests that both applications be scored at once on a category -by- category basis. Memo: 1982 Lodge GMP Applications Page Two October 1, 1981 The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. Please note that a project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points in categories A through E, amounting to 35 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category A through E to meet the basic competitive requirements. Applications which score below these thresholds will no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. Remem- ber that bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum threshold, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding the allotments. Planning Office These two applications represent significantly different proposals Review: for utilizing the available lodge quota. The Lodge at Aspen proposal represents the first attempt, since prior to the imple- mentation of the GMP, to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen. This applicant has no previous performance in the GMP competition, and is presenting a proposal for an entirely self - contained facility. The application also signifies an oppor- tunity to upgrade a key corner location at the base of Aspen Mountain and in close proximity to the proposed Little Annie Ski Terminal. The Aspen Inn Expansion, on the other hand, represents a second phase development of a prior GMP- approved project which is currently under construction, and to further the concentration of quality lodge accommodations in the vicinity of Lift 1 -A. The project also is a part of the major lodge development proposal by Hans Cantrup. In as much as the current Aspen Inn GMP application does make numerous references to aspects of that prior GMP approval and to the ultimate development of the site, there is good reason to consider this application in the context of past and future proposals. The Planning Office has been closely monitoring the progress of the on -going construction at the lodge and has been extremely concerned with the numerous deviations from approved plans which have taken place and which are acknowledged by the current application. Specifically, whereas the original GMP submission involved 36 lodge units, the applicant is in the process of building 71 lodge units, with the intention of demolishing the 35 unit Blue Spruce and transferring these units to the contiguous Aspen Inn. City Council is currently reviewing this proposal and has recently given conceptual approval to it, pending the submission of a GMP amendment. Additionally, the applicant apparently has also deviated from the approved architecture of the building and has not yet fulfilled commitments such as the construction of 24 employee units or the amenity package (conference facility, health club and lobby) which were the original basis for the points awarded to the applicant. Nevertheless, the Code does not yet provide any basis for evaluating previous performance as regards a current application, and these factors should not enter into the scoring you perform tonight. Similarly, any claims made by either applicant which do not specifically refer to the current requests before you or which refer to extraneous issues (quota, lodge inventory in the community or various code interpretations) should be similarly disregarded by you. Please, remember also, that your scoring policy has always been that unless an applicant specifically guarantees that proposed features will be provided, no points should be awarded (that is, if an applicant only sug- gests that a feature may be provided, it should not receive any points). Memo: 1982 Lodge GMP Aoplications Page Three October 1, 1981 The Planning Office would also like for you to know that both applicants have, as required, satisfied the submission needs for a conceptual application and have conformed to the underlying area and bulk requirements of their respective zone districts. Planning Office The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applica- Ratings: tions as a recommendation for you to consider. We have rated the applications both objectively, on their own merits in comparison to each criteria, and relatively, by comparing the positive and negative features of each proposal to the other. The following table is a summary of the Planning Office analysis and ratings for the two projects. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion, is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. 1982 Planning Office Lodge GMP Points Assignment A B C D E F Public Fac. Social Fac. Quality Services Goals Applications & Services & Services of Design for Guests Conformance Bonus Total Aspen Inn Expansion 10 8 10 6 11 0 45 The Lodge at Aspen 12 9 10 5 11 0 47 The above summary indicates that both of the 1982 Lodge GMP applications score well above the minimum competitive threshold of 35 points. Both applications do qualify for an award from the quota on the basis of these rankings. Planning Office Recommendation: Based on the analysis contained within the attached score sheets, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z concur with our recommended point assignments and effectively approve the Aspen Inn Expansion and The Lodge at Aspen applications. The Planning Office further recommends that P & Z recommend to City Council that the quota from previous years be carried over to this year and that a bonus of 6 units be added to this year's quota (to be offset next year) for a total of 54 units available to this year's applicants. Finally, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend to City Council that development allotments of 31 units be awarded to The Lodge at Aspen and 23 units be awarded to the Aspen Inn Expansion under the auspices of the 1982 lodge GMP competition. November 17, 1981 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission . From: Al Blomquist Subjett: Perry Harvey Letter and Reeder Appeal ' As indicated by Perry Harvey, things may be getting out of hand. He has predetermined my guilt in the Reeder Matter. It is time we 'met together in private to clear the air. No cases,_no press, just P & Z, the Director, the City Attorney and the City Manager. The Reeder Appeal to the lodge GMP scoring will be heard by Council on Thursday. A related Cantrup Appeal is also scheduled. The Reeder Appeal asks that my scores be set aside. The Cantrup Appeal challenges your scores. Both appeals are dangerous to the GMP, because technically both repudiate the P & Z score: Mr. Taddune indicates that he and the staff may offer that both the high and the low scores be set aside. This would be pure capitulation • to avoid the central issue. I insist that my scores stand, and not be tampered with, for your sake as well as mine. The Reeder Appeal, in particular, opens a pandora's box. It does not just attack my scoring, but yours, by asking . for a precedent that whenever your score varies from either the statistical average of the Commission or from the staff score, it is wrong. The above tentative defense by Taddune and Vann endorses that position by Reeder. The staff appears to be defending its score against our score. My objective in this letter is to urge to Commission to obtain copies and read very carefully both the Reeder and Cantrup Appeals. I also ask that you read my attached defense against the Reeder Allegations of Miscoriduct on my part. The problem for the rest of you, and I, is that as of right now P & Z as a body has taken no stand and prepared no defense except whatever Sunny Vann and Paul Taddune intend. My information is that they intend a weak defense or no defense. Taddune excuses that approach by the claim that it is best to wait and let Reeder "prove" his case (and Cantrup). If Council, in the absence of a P & Z defense, does not deny the \ Cantrup and Reeder Appeals in their entirety, but, for example, I accepts the Times /Taddune/Vann notion of dropping the high and low scores, Council will have told each of us to BE "average" as we score, i.e. "ape" the staff score to be safe. It is toward such an end that the Reeder Appeal, Times Editorial, Harvey letter and the • staff are leading us. • I recommend we meet tomorrow evening, after all have had time to read the relevant materials. It is a combination legal and personnel matter and can and should be behind closed doors. When he saw my statement, Mr. Taddune told me not to go direct to Council, but that P & Z was the proper forum. Accordingly, I request that the Commission as a whole review the attached statement and formally transmit copies of my statement to Council, before Thursday, with general endorsement, and such other comments and argument as • the Commission as a whole may elect. Further, that individual statements be prepared and included to demonstrate that the October 22 comments of Perry Harvey do not speak for every member. I would, of course, hope that Perry, upon rending'my statement, and upon further consideration, of what both the Reeder and Cantrup Appeals actually say, : 'Juld tender a new statement. Preliminary Allan Blomquist Statement (11- 10 -81) before Aspen City Council in the natter of The Appeal of Lyle Reeder Pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(E) of the Aspen-Municipal Code (GMP Lodge Scoring) THE ALLEGATIONS OF LYLE REEDER (My summary evaluation in parentheses): 1. I was biased against the applicant's project. (False). 2. I prejudiced the applicant's project.(False). 3. Therefore, the Board action violated due process. (False). • 4. I abused my discretion. (False). 5. I denied applicant a fair and impartial hearing. (False). 6. There was a mathematical error by someone else. (Perhaps). 7. The staff scored both projects in their memo of 10/6/81 and scored the Lodge at Aspen 2 points higher than the Aspen Inn. (True). 8. The staff scoring gave no bonus points. (True). . 9. The results of the P &Z scoring (averaged) gave the Aspen Inn 2.6 more points than the Lodge at Aspen. (True). 10. I " consistantly" scored ,the Lodge at Aspen low and "consistently" scored the Aspen Inn high. (False). 11. My scoring was "aberrant" because of the Planning Office score and the P&Z average. (False). 12. I scored the Aspen Inn 11 points higher than did Welton Anderson and 20 points higher than did the staff. (True). 13. My score on the Aspen Inn exceeded the average of the other six members by 15.42 points. (True). 14. I gave the Lodge at Aspen 5 less points than did Olaf, and 8.42 less points than the average of the other six members. (True). 15. A charge re "categories" A and C, which I will deal with as "items" within those categories (See Text). 16. My note "concept is ugly. 61 dorm look" indicates I was not fair or impartial. (False). 17. I'gave bonus points, an "unbelievable" 11 points. (True). 18. My score sheets exhibit extreme bias and prejudice in favor of the Aspen Inn. (False) • e 19. GMP Scorings are historically "close" affairs. (Perhaps). . 20. My scoring was aberrant and clearly an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process. (False). 21. I am reputed to favor a large•commercial conference center at the base of Ajax Mountain. (False — principal use versus accessory use). 22. My action is similar to that of an elected official who has made campaign promises, and I therefore denied the applicant a fair and impartial hearing. (False).. 23. My "radical" scoring indicates bias and predisposition in favor of one applicant over another. (False). 24. A proceeding must avoid even the appearance of bias. (True). 25. I should have disqualified myself for the "Appearance of Fairness" Doctrine. (False). 26. The council should rectify the "appearance of unfairness." (No need.) 27. My scores are so aberrant that they represent an abuse of discretion "on their face." (False). 28. Mine was "an extreme act" by one member which affected the average of all seven.(True, mathematically...but see text). 29. The result was an abuse of the GMP process. (False). 30. Requested Relief: that Council discard my scores, or add points to compensate for my scores, and Council grant the applicant an exemp- tion from the GMP, so that both projects can proceed. (Should Deny). ALLAN BLOMQUIST'S RESPONSE TO THE REEDER ALLEGATIONS:. I was NOT biased, prejudiced, unfair, partial, abusive or extreme. I was studied, prepared, knowledgeable, experienced and professional in my approach and conduct re the scoring. I was "reasonable" in doing every score. I had visited both sites and had both projects pre- scored and annotated with comments and questions appropriate to this preliminary "homework" before the hearing. I changed several of the pre - scores during the course of the hearing as new material was introduced. I then voted, and even debated and changed a few again at that time. I was objective to the maximum possible on Categories A -E and intentionally and clearly subjective on Category F, the bonus section. 3 r. • It is clear that the entire Reeder appeal hinges on whether or not I personally scored "right," ie the issue of bias versus reasonable best judgment. The proof that Reeder gives to show that I scored "wrong" is purely statistical, namely a few numbers showing how different my scores were from those of the staff and the other six members of P&Z. I did score.differently than the other six members on eleven of the forty- four required scores, i.e. on only 25% of the items scored. My scoring did differ from that of the staff, also. Statistical correlation does not prove smoking causes cancer. It only suggests that it would be profitable for scientists to look to the relationship for cause and effect, with the proof to come from science tests, NOT from the mathematics of correlation. There are now enough science tests to prove that smoking, or parts of it, are a cause of cancer. But the mathematics of correlation are not the proof. The science tests . are the proof. I do not contest Mr. Reeder's mathematics revealing I scored "dif- ferently." I only resent and abhor his assertions that I was biased and scored "wrong" by deliberate intent. I scored RIGHT on all eleven items upon which no other member gave the same score as I did. Mr. Reeder apparently agrees that I was right only when I scored as "they" did (sic) on the 33 uncontested items. • I will try to prove my case without challenging the score by any other member. I rejoice in the fact that each of us is different, that P &Z comprises a variety in background and judgment, and that "averaging" works. It was significant that Mr. Reeder's allegations show the staff scores without bonus points differed by only two points and the P &Z scores; including bonus points, differed by ONLY 2.6 points, a variation of ONLY 4.6 points considering the reversal. By itself, that would not justify an appeal. However, the Aspen Times "discovered" a "story" and then editorialized on MY scores. They used the statistical approach, and then proposed a mathematical "solution" that didn't work. In both the Reeder and the Times allegations there is a presumption about numbers that is nothing but a simplistic smoke screen that avoids the real issue, i.e. the reasonableness of each and every score, not just mine. 4 • • The fact is that most of them cannot be right or wrong in the absolute sense. They are each relative as an individual best judgment. They are then "averaged." The result is a "team" score. Were the scoring 100% an objective matter, the ordinance would have given the respon- sibility to the staff. Instead, the ordinance acknowledges the need for " judgmenf" and "variations" in judgment and sets up the method of " averaging." Even it is not perfect, so the GMP also provides for Council review and this appeal procedure. No such scoring system will ever work to everyone's satisfaction. But it does produce a winner, and when there are several applications, it really works well because it ranks each 1, 2, 3, etc. That is why it is required in the ordinance instead of straight voting. It seems wrong to many this time only because there are only two applicants. Thus, I urge Council not to change the method just on the basis of the current situation. The Reeder claims summarize as asking that my low scores on the Lodge at Aspen be struck and that all my high scores on the Aspen Inn also be struck. The attached Table identifies those specific highs and lows. Reeder claims they were each WRONG. I claim they were each RIGHT. After the Table, I give you my "proof" as to why I scored "right," i.e. what I used to decide. The real question is only "was I reasonable," since right or wrong on most of the criteria is usually pretty hard to determine. Try it. • • 5 BLOMQUIST SCORE IF LOW 3' Lodge at Aspen or HIGH foiapen Inn (OK means I was within jfiat at least one other voted) Item Lodge at Aspen Aspen Inn A. Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Service • LOW OK 2. Sewer Service OK OK 3. Storm Drainage LOW OK 4. Fire Protection LOW HIGH 5. Roads OK HIGH B. Social Facilities and Services 1. Public Transportation LOW OK 2. Police Protection OK OK 3. 'Commercial Support Proximity C. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design LOW OK 2. Site Design OK HIGH 3. Energy LOW OK • 4. Amenities OK • • OK 5. Visual Impact LOW OK D. Services for Guests • 1. Meeting Areas OK OK 2. Dining Facilities OK OK 3. Recreation Facilities OK OK 4. Conference Facilities OK _— OK 5. Ski Proximity OK OK 6. Overall Tourist Appeal OK OK E. Conformance to Policy Goals 1. Tourist Rental Reduction OK OK 2. Employee Housing OK OK 3. Auto Disincentives OK OK F. Bonus Points OK HIGH TOTAL POINTS LOW HIGH Total OK 15 18 Total High 0 Total Low 7 0 Total Items 22 22 6 Let us now take each of the eleven alleged "acts of bias" I am supposed to have committed point by point: 1. Low on Water Service to Lodge at Aspen. The Lodge at Aspen got 6 3's and my 2. The Aspen Inn got 7 3's. The instructions say a 2 means "acceptable, but standard service" and 3 means "no foreseeable deficiencies." The staff memo reported no problems at the Aspen Inn but that for the Lodge at Aspen a new 6" main loop and fire hydrant were required, with the applicant agreeing to "share" the cost, with NO timing or quantification provided. P &7, allowed this same kind of "loose" deal to Little Annie, over my same objection that "anything can go wrong" with a deal like that. I "foresaw" problems and scored 2. • 2. Low on Storm Drainage to Lodge at Aspen. The Lodge at Aspen got 6 3's and my 2. The Aspen Inn got 3 2's and 4 3's. In the case. of the Lodge in Aspen my 2 was because it was on the flat right at the bottom of an alluvial fan, a foreseeable problem, es- pecially with a big storm, even with the storm sewers, gutters, etc., to be provided when and if a district to construct is provided. No timetable was offered. . • 3. -4.. Low on fire protection to Lodge at Aspen and High at Aspen Inn The Lodge at Aspen got 5 3's and my 2. The Aspen Inn got 3 l's, 3 2's and my 3. The fire run (distance) to the Lodge at Aspen is about a third longer than to the Aspen Inn and a 6" water line and fire hydrant are needed at the Lodge at Aspen (see 1 above). Problem at rear of Aspen Inn was reported solved by letter from Clapper (I was giving a 2 until letter introduced). 5. High on Roads to Aspen Inn. • The Aspen Inn got 3 l's, 3 2's and my 3 -. The Lodge at Aspen got 3 1's 3 2's and one 3. I gave it a one for the extra driveniay confusing the intersection. On the Aspen Inn I considered the underground parking and PUD as solving any road problems, plus its significant pedestrian, bus and ski -in advantages as significant auto disincentives. The internal, skylighted malls in the PUD were a factor, as was the self- sufficiency of this kind of hotel (versus small lodge). 6. Low on Public Transportation to the Lodge at Aspen. The Lodge at Aspen got my 4, 5 S's and one 6. The Aspen Inn got one 4, one 4.5, 2 5's and 3 6's. I gave it 6. The instructions were clear: "Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within walking distance of both a 'ski lift and public transit stop." By my reading, 4 was all you could give, and that the five 5's and one 6 all assumed Little Annie, which is far from a certainty. 7. Low on Architectural Design to the .Lodge at Aspen. The Lodge at Aspen got 6 3's and my 2. The Aspen Inn got 5 2's and 2 3's. I gave it 2. Thus I rated both as "acceptable but standard design." My fellow P &Z members thought the Lodge at Aspen was a 3, or "an excellent design." I thought the room wing looked like a barracks, with no innovation and that the lounge and office area were very common. I thought the underground parking excellent and gave it one bonus point. I did not see the overall architectural design as excellent, only acceptable, a 2, just like its competitor. 8. High on Site Design to the Aspen Inn. The Aspen Inn got 6 2's and my 3. The Lodge at Aspen got two 1's and 5 2's. I gave it a one. I considered the Lodge at Aspen siting poor in relation to access and the Mountain shadow. The Aspen Inn site design was excellent for the ski -in easement and its relationship to the PUD concept as described briefly at the hearing, and which I had seen and studied before after a Council Meeting. The staging of a' whole PUD is a key site design consideration. It explains the Blue Spruce decision, etc. The skylight covered•inner mall system is a major feature. Exactly what the Aspen Flap, Zoning and GMP seem to ask for. The staff memo called it a massive and box -like structure. It is, BUT that's what happens when you follow the 1973 Land Use Plan, s• Zoning, small lodge transfer, employee bonus and CMP requirements of the City of Aspen. In this case, site design is really a building design staging plan, i.e., the PU.D is for a two block plus building, to be built in stages. 9. Low on Energy to the Lodge at Aspen. The Lodge at Aspen got 6 3's and my 2. The Aspen Inn got 6 2's and one 3. I gave it a 2. I score both the same, i.e., "an acceptable but standard design." Neither was sited or designed to maximize solar, they "play" with doing something easy to get paints. It takes more than that to deserve "excellent." A site in the Mt. shadow is not a good solar site. 10. Low on Visual Impact to Lodge at Aspen. The Lodge at Aspen got 4 3's, 2 2's and my one. The Aspen Inn got one 1 and 6 2's. I gave it 2. The Aspen Inn is high density in a high density area. The Lodge at Aspen is Medium Density in a Medium Density area. The visual impact question in both cases is hardest to do. The two driveways (5 above), barracks look at back (7 above) and the site design (7 and 8 above) combined to make me score the low 1 for visual impact. It's a personal judgment: There was no landscape or other evidence to make me feel otherwise. As indicated above (and proven), the above ten contested highs and lows were all scored conscientiously, reasonably and with knowledge and good judgment. No bias, prejudice or abuse of discretion can be proven. Mr. Reeder only "says" or "asserts" such based on the inappropriate use of statistical "tests" on Sub- totals and totals, never on the basis of the individual point allocation to each item and my reasoning for each. He only "asserts," "implies" and "infers." In short he plays havoc with the truth. That which he addresses was about something in my mind, and he has never talked to me to find out what was "in there." So much • for the "objective" portion of the test. THE "SURPRISING" BONUS POINTS The above ten contested standard factors in A -E accounted for an approximate ten point deviation from how the rest of P &Z voted. My one itsr bonus point to the Lodge at Aspen if subtracted from the eleven I gave the Aspen Inn adds another ten and puts my total contested deviation at 20 approx. points out of a total possible score total of 70 each or 140. So, now, let's discuss the eleven bonus points to the Aspen Inn since they are where I drastically varied from the norm. Here I voted as an "expert" in both "lodging" and in "planning." It is here that my heavy thinking went, and where one should look very closely at "WHY" I scored as I did. It is the one area where the scoring can and should be subjective. What are the bonus points for? The instructions merely allow up to 12 points or not more than 20% of one's total score on A -E if the project "merits recognition" due to its "outstanding quality." This is where a member can compensate for inappropriateness in the A -E objective portion, and can search his inner self for factors "left out" in A -E. And, if he elects to be stingy with bonus points, he risks the possibility that he is in effect issuing penalty points and /or highlighting the • bonus given by another. Jasmine gave the Lodge at Aspen 2 bonus points and I gave it 1 for underground parking. The others gave it five zeros. Since bonus points are only given for "outstanding quality," this record shows that the majority of the members believed the Lodge at Aspen was NOT of "outstanding quality." Except for my eleven bonus points and Lee's 3, the Aspen Inn scored five zeros, meaning the majority of the members thought the Aspen Inn was not of "outstanding quality" either. Clearly, I, personally, was liberal both with the one point I gave the Lodge at Aspen for its underground parking and the "unbelievable" eleven points I gave the Aspen Inn. NOW, why did the lodge owner in me give the maximum allowable bonus points to the Aspen Inn? These are the lodge reasons: 1. The Aspen Inn of today is an incomplete project, a half searching for its other half. It is a BLIGHT on its neighborhood in the very HEART of the Tourist Accommodations Area. The application is outstanding in that it eliminates that blight and got one bonus • point from the lodging point of view for completing the Aspen Tnn. The nature of the tourism industry requires that blight be minimized. �., l It is f_known strategy of the Planning Office and P &Z to "slow" l{ � R growth by tactics of information overkill and administrative lu delay in addition to the creation of difficult codes like the GMP. One negative impact of this strategy is the blight in this case. I gave one bonus point for mitigation of this negative impact, 2. The GMP detail criteria only allow one point for the conference function. I gave one to both projects, and then used one of the bonus points for the "outstanding" conference concept designed into the Aspen Inn. I have been impressed with the Cantrup "track record" at the Continental with its new conference facility and full time management and sales and their successful effort • at strengthening the local economy by catering to conferences as a "shoulder season" supplement to our WEAK Summer Economy. The average lodge does 60 -70% of its annual gross in the four months of Ski Season aid only 30 -40% in the other eight months. Compared to the Aspen Inn design, the Lodge at Aspen fails seriously at helping this situation by comparison, even though it did very well for its size, i.e. for small meetings. In my pre -score homework stage I was going to give the Lodge at Aspen a 0 and the Aspen Inn a • 1. On further consideration I felt that was the wrong way to score, so I used a bonus point or two to make this distinction between a small meeting facility and a larger conference facility and service. • 3. The Aspen Inn application "fits" into a larger plan for a resort • conference hotel which was made a part of the record. The model was before the Commission and the staff revealed that discussions have been underway and that the PUD application would soon be before P&Z. For several years, Cantrup has been "buying" land and lodges to "put together" his public dream. It is not coming as a surprise to anyone. He has made steady progress, and the current Aspen Inn application and the pending PUD make clear that the project overall is a "quality design," and important to lodging and the resort for the variety a large conference /resort hotel will add to the • resort mix. I once opposed his concept as Vailification, but my fellow lodge owners and research indicated one such "big" hotel would be helpful in adding variety to the lodge offering, that V�i]ifieation :eeuld occur only if there were several that big. In my lodge owner perspective, I was unhappy that Item 4, "Services for Guests" only can get 6 points, total. I Felt the whole section was poorly weighted. As illustrated by the above three reasons, I felt 11 required to use bonus pCSts as compensation for the s: loading that made no provision for the "outstanding quality" that "size" and range of " guest services" give to a lodge /hotel project. Now, in my professional planner role, I gave the bulk of the eleven bonus points for "planning reasons ": 1. The 1973 Land Use Plan, the Downzoning and the GMP combined to create the Cantrup strategy: to follow the law and get major resort hotel by doing exactly as the City officially requires. Hans, June and Andy make this point, daily, and it is TRUE. I regard the Aspen City Plan, Zoning and the GMP as each being a land use requirement of the City, AND as each being land use obligation of the City. I regard both Cantrup and the City as obligated to carry out Aspen City Plan, Zoning and the GMP as they impact any private property. If the Aspen Inn stands unfinished and a blight I find BOTH responsible. BOTH have knowingly participated at all stages of the Cantrup strategy to create a large conference hotel. The City has gone so far in that direction as to make 50% of its lodging non - conforming, • creating thereby a mandate that all current and future lodging changes,especially expansions, take place at the base of the Mountain in the Lodge Zones, a large portion of which Cantrup now owns. When you deal with a monopoly, where you did half the job of creating it, presumably you have a responsibility and obligations in the matter. • Thus when the PO and P &Z started some time ago to consider "penalty points, for past performance" I saw it as an action against their own 1973 Land Use Plan, Zoning and the GMP. I saw them as abandoning their responsibility to plan, zone and score just for "planning" reasons, and to mistakenly also take on the role of Building Inspector and the Courts. The law provides the penalty for violations. If the penalty is insufficient, like one dollar for a. parking violation, the law is often not taken seriously. Our building code is somewhat that way. Whose fault is it? If the penalty is given by a Court, should P &Z then presume to cause double jeopardy, and violate, thereby, one's constitutional rights? That is what the "penalty points 12 a e for past performance" was all about. I decided not to be a party to that, deciding that positive bonus points could be given for positive past performance. From previous activity by the staff and P &Z by raising the penalty point alternative I suspect that if there was any "prejudice" in the recent scoring it might be " against" Cantruup for building code violations, a matter which I believe should stay with the courts and be denied entry into the GMP scoring. Changing the building code penalty section is a more proper approach. • Thus, a few of the bonus points were for carrying out the intent and goals of the Aspen City Plan, Zoning and the GMP, and doing it in the manner of a "grand design," exactly what the City has been promoting for several years, at the base of the ski mountain and convenient to Rubey Park and Apres Ski. 2. Aspen has lost between 1,000 to 2,000 tourist pillows since the downzoning and other actions in the grand strategy to wipe out the small lodges. The Aspen economy is being damaged by this trend. A large portion of the loss is due to Cantrup purchases for City incentives to enable the large hotel where the City Plan wants it. So long as the City and Cantrup remain intent on this dream and the set of interlocking legalisms forcing it, and stretch out the process, the costs will go up, and the consumer (guest) and the local economy will suffer. Since - the PUD is now ready, and the Aspen Inn completion is a necessary phase if later disruptions in our already delicate room count are not to be too severe, the City should PUSH CANTRUP TO COMPLETE, not slow him down. That is, the time consuming preliminaries, like planning and buying, are over. Thus the rest of my bonus points went to a "speed -up" by finishing the Aspen Inn and filing the PUD as an admirable and exceptional quality of the Cantrup design (Total Plan for the Aspen Inn Completion Project) intended to replace a significant recent loss in pillows without further jeopardizing the pillow count in the process. 13 REQUEST OF ALLAN BLOMQUTST • 1) That Council find that the Reeder appeal has no basis in fact. That the appeal be denied. 2) That Council find the Reeder appeal unfairly attacked the very heart of the planning and zoning process, the volunteer citizen member, and me personally. That Council make "findings of fact" about my scoring, namely that it was based on the facts before me, that I • used reasonable judgment and that no bias was apparent. 3) That Council and P &Z go away on a weekend retreat, get to know each . other better and discuss and share planning insights and objectives in a rational manner with the objective of setting the stage for a good 1982. Such a seminar, with no case load, is long overdue. CONCLUSION You can disagree with me on any of the above scoring actions and explanatory statements, but not rule me "wrong" for them. They are • mine, just as each member of P &Z sees each item "a little different" and. that subtle or blatant difference is his or hers. That is why we "average" in this case and "count the votes" normally. Mr. Reeder's charge slanders me in a borderline way, as did the Aspen Times and, apparently, one or more statements by the staff and P &Z. My dictionary defines "slander" as "a false report maliciously uttered and tending to injure the reputation of another." As a public official I am to "expect" slander and borderline slander, and am entitled to no court award because of my status as an official, since by court logic I "ask for it" when I get elected or appointed. Council gets it every day and we understand. But, that does not mean we should "take it lying down" when to do so only makes it harder to get qualified people to run for office or to agree to be appointed to a Board or Commission. The Perry Harvey letter (exhibit B) illustrates the quandary such slander can generate, setting one member of the official family against another. I have been in public life for over 25 years. I am guided by • the statutes (exhibit A). The junk part of this entire proceeding is not new to me. It is a disease and a cancer that upon eruption must be •contained (exhibit C). I request that the Council be thorough in its investigation and decisive in its action. We need such a case once in a 14 • \ l while, but not on a regular basis. I appreciate Mr. Reeder's action in allowing me to look inwardly at a past action. I trust the exercise has shown that I used the facts before me, drew properly upon my background as a planner, lodge owner and citizen, and used reasonable judgment in the scoring. • • I attach 3 exhibits: Exhibit A. My memo of 5/6/81 to P &Z providing important segments of the City Charter and Colorado Statutes proving the need and requirement for P &Z to stop just doing zoning and to ALSO do "planning." Exhibit B. .The'Perry Harvey letter of 10/22/81 demonstrating the NEED of P&Z members for education and consensus with Council about what they are doing. The Reeder Appeal is just the tip of an iceberg of a full range of problems in P &Z because of no "planning" to allow the membership to "see things whole." Exhibit. C. My memo of 7/1/81 which was never sent because the P &Z chairman didn't think the time was right and the Planning Director felt that the Council had other priorities for the staff work program. It concludes by urging Council to schedule a seminar with P &Z. • • X 14 I 5 IT , �,. a p fr }Cr ober 22, 1981 ® Z' 711 OA ' t z M ck i $tt TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission V FROM: Perry Ifarvey Against my initial desire to make a public comment last Tuesday, but in difference to the Commission members, I am d writing this letter to each of you. My letter is triggered by ' % my recent reappointment to the Commission and by the scoring \(` 1 process for the Growth Management Lodge applications. ID a V .n� 7 e n I �• ' 1 r .. -_ � .. . .s . • • •.' . & Zoning Commission 'I was not charged by Council or instructed in i' uties. But K1 adcep an iiuportan responsibi ity for my ac ions, a responsibility to the community of Aspen, to create and adjust legislation to accomplish stated and perceived community goals, i to synchronize thes • — • - s and within •arameters. Because I am not autonomous or omniscient C must avoid voting from ill: own perspective, either as a resident of a specific neighborhood or as a community business person. I may hypothetically want a larger commercial core, a more liberal policy toward lodges or a four lane highway, but I must .h Ari respond to community desires. I will not and cannot use my position or voting power .r penal goals, nor can I subvert or warp the planning process to approve projects I may feel are . nee d — now. • We recently asked for negative discretionary points in GMP scoring because we were responsible, not abusive. • Council dis- agreed and I questioned their decision, but now I understand. Specific to the recent Lodge Growth Management scoring, 1 despite the rough edges, the approval process must be adhered * c'-'00 to. It required me to score each project category by category, award bonus points where earned and let the final totals fall where they may. My own totals suprised me but I made no changes to e in any categories. Points cannot be awarded only le one application over another. `�� • I feel Aspen needs quality lodging and a convention facility and The Aspen Inn is the ideal property. Things are r ng in the GMP process and we will rectify these but I canno( warp he pro- cess to achieve my goals. Ii b, ),,, Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission e N A.... R �y , • � 0 October 22, 1981 ` •t S'z Page Two ki e £, ,- Q� h e x • I protect rimy implied charge to earn the rommninity's trust. GiI In the last week 1 have been embarrascd by public commcuit reg the recent scoring. I feel the Conwus action in the lodge j scoring has ridiculed the Planning & Zoning Commission, made a mocker' ut the Growth M: process and harms 1 Conunis- lvnn s credibility. No member has the right to abuse his power but when such abuse slander; me by implicaL14211 I will stand up. I w i l l not ::gain :.cc. pL k•h:nt. has happrnccd without using the public forum to register my full (i sc nt.enl.. i tat lair , 5/4, / D /O P Z/ 7 ` f rots^: /111 fb me z .• ttt e : � ur J laittAllp9 • as 0 -n414e 1 4 -YO Platt • bW1.2. l�7 bL wens flan/ w r l� Q, mot. Stn.. ✓� y c qt r- Cy 000 ea d 0 / S c� w�fi e h. 407 `�( ) 1i CU S / l as Oy�,� yon ou-1 e j .,t Ti q - la.A •L CtA ` i lug„ ,.e.A ..AAA Cer(rnado .t4't 1 5'6 haw. vdacci A'"` / 6�u7 cuat$i lull a 04 0 . 4 „.. "_.� x 't W 11 lnn2.t/J , Wjttu. `! `u- a%`u jd s ant,. c?a -ubt) ` - Cotm C an 0 wS p r l� a c G► p l� t ¢� 'l�te -- A 6a� vi o ow, cs..- — to uss e CIFCCI "Are s • ARTICLE III. CITY PLANNING COM §ISSION* Sec. 2 -33. Established. I There is hereby established a city planning commission. Co UtitCt t N ^ (Ord. No. 17 -1970, § 1) • *Charter reference Authority for city planning commission, § 8.1. • ( +7 Nuts, ___ Sec. 2 -37. Powers and duties. -00 U W i--iu The city planning commission shall have such duties and powers relating to planning and zoning as shall be conferred C.j 4 upon it by the statutes of the state and by this Code. (Ord. 1 Px��t 1 e S No. 17- 1970, § Sees. 2- 35 -2 -47. Reserved. Supp. No. 21 - 156.1 • 2, • _ 1 -* 0 \.. a..r • L (PP s (� C� �� C't� 1.L. u- � (Y 6I 31 -23 -202. Grant of power to municipality. Any nutnicipal1ty is authorized to make, adopt, amend, extend. add to or carry out a plan as provided in this part 2 and to create by ordinance or resolution a planning commission with the powers and duties set forth in this part 2. • Source: R & RE, L. 754 p. 1 146, § I. • • • • 1Wi t N 31-23-205. Staff and [finances. The commission may appoint such Iti k� is employees as it deems necessary for its work: except that the appointment. `'� ,7 • promotion, demotion. and removal of such employees shall be subject to the �t� t"f Z same provisions of law as govern other corresponding civil employees of the municipality. The commission may also contract. tvith the approval of the See I � governing body, with municipal planners. engineers, and architects and other V consultants for such services as it requires. The expenditures of the commis - b b a 54cs J • sion. exclusive of gifts, shall be within the amounts appropriated for the purpose by_the governing body, which shall provide the funds. equipment, and accommodations necessary for the commission's work. • Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1147, § 1. • 31 -23 -206. Master plan. (I) It is the duty of the commission to make and d 5 adopt a master plan for the physical development of the municipality. includ- dQ - -� ing any areas outside its boundaries, subject to the approval of the govern- ..4} mental body having jurisdiction thereof, which in the commission's judgment {IS -- NOT bear relation to the planning of such municipality. Such plan, with the accom- panying naps. plats. charts. and descriptive matter. shall show the commis - t S1 ti 1 lion's recommendations for the development of said territory including, but not limited to: • (a) The.general location. character, and extent of streets, subways, eLt ILI bridges, waterways. waterfronts, parkways. playgrounds, squares, parks, 11 aviation fields, and other public ways. grounds. and open spaces: •(b) The general location and extent of public utilities and terminals. t t ff 1° (, r whether publicly or privately owned or operated. for water, light, sanitation, transportation. communication. power. and other purposes: (c) The removal. relocation, widening. narrowing. vacating. abandon- /� meat. change of use, or extension of any of the way's, grounds, open spaces, • 0 14 H huifdings, property. utility. or terminals referred to in paragraphs (a) and (h) of this subsection (I): and n10 /Ca (d) A zoning plan for the control of the height. area. bulk. location. and use of buildings and premises. 1 f� (21 As the work of making the whole master plan progresses. the commis- N o t a _rr� O(%C sion may from time to time adopt and publish a part thereof. Any such part shall cover one or more major sections or divisions of the municipality or pl o.n . one or more of the foregoing or other functional matters to be included in �l the plan. The commission may amend. extend. or add to the plan from time it 1t PlAp5 to time. • 0 N 1 Source: R & RE. L. 75, p. 1147, § I. • ( d csi • • • • 1 ( fa titES 4•5 Jipped art ref cmuPleit,rektkf ft' s tk05 • • • • • • • • • • AL 1- G4u4es *a is 3 . s N I LA A M -Ott -?cac1 - 31-23-207. Purposes in view. In the preparation of such plan. the commis- ' sion shall make careful and 'comprehensive surveys and studies of present `''t conditions and future growth of the municipality. with•duc regard to its rcla- lion to neighboring territory. The plan shall be made with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted. and harnwnious devel- opmcnt of the municipality zinc! its environs which will, in accordance with • present and future needs, hest promote health. safety. morals, order, convcn- ience, prosperity, and general welfare.: as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development. including, among other things, adequate . - provision for traffic. the promotion of safety from fire. flood waters. and other dangers. adequate provision for light and air, the promotion of healthful • and convenient distribution of population, the promotion of good civic design • and arrangement, wise and efficient e \penditure of public funds, and the adequate provision of public utilities and other public requirements. Source: R & RE, L. 75. p. 1147; § I. • . -- 41 5 as 31-23-208. Procedure of commission. The commission may adopt the plan (-1 I'S m y as a whole by a single resolution or may by successive resolutions adopt . s ueces.ive parts of the plan (said parts corresponding with major geographical 1 � 11 sections or divisions of the municipality. or with functional subdivisions of 1'' f 1 b h the subject matter of the plan) and may adopt any amendment or extension. . thereof or addition thereto. Before the adoption of the plan or any such part. ' n j_ -IL 6M? amendment. extension. or addition, the commission shall hold at least one ` public hearing thereon. notice of the time and place of which shall be given t' t , 1t pe ut f) &V% by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality and in the official newspaper of the county affected. The adoption of the ,} plan any part. amendment. extension. or addition shall he by resolution of ICeo. ca. o% Lit the commission c :rric• by the affirmative votes of not Icss than t vo- thirds Of the entire membership of the comm issrur�i. 1 iTc resolution shall refer E tp16.AKt.� c\pressly to the maps and descriptive and other matter intended by the ISt 1 � I commission to for the %%hole or part of the plan. and the action taken shall lou. / C Iti be recorded on the m :rp and plan :aid descriptive matter by the identifying a s xi a3ttC La w' signature of the chairman or secretary of the commission. An attested copy ' (� of the plan or part thereof shall he certified to rich governmental hod" of `f /} �� . the territory affected and, after the approval by each body. shall be filed r with the county clerk and recorder et each county wherein the territory is G j4 T fetus ' located. Source: R & RE. L. 75, p. 1148. § I. I,sz ske4 tees %bade. No ykt,en ∎L t.Q 6 , .• 5 pi e (1e I 5 _ 1 itus we 5 k ketot "4 p av, ( pi i4t 1 3 ants � o - E--lte..'�' foe btu, t,u-2,� tttW,t. GUJSt u '-1,tr. ao } zit 4 Ott t(oah+ ctt4• • • - • • • • • C'1 y • • • 4 _ -._..✓ t .1 • •• • • • ?Li L«t 31 -23 -209. Legal status of official plan. When the commission has adopted N LL the ouster plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections or dis- . ! v` 5�IJ �/ tricts thereof. no street. square, park or other public way. _round or open G space. public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned public mil- � � /5 0C �L� S ity shall be constructed or authorized in the _municipality or in such planned n� section and district until the location. character. and extent thereof has been 1 - ----,E, submitted for approval - by the commission. In case of disapproval. the cum - communicate its reasons to the municipality's govenung body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval a recorded vote of not i� less than two- thirds of its entire membership. If the public way. ground Y space. building, structure. or unity is die Tic authorization or financing of Foe C OLti•L.JC..IL which does not. under the law or charter provisions governing the same. fall within the province of the municipal governing body. the submission to tl:e T 0 CUE fZ Zt DE commission shall be by the governmental body having jurisdiction. and the planning commission•s disapproval may he overruled by said governmental • j4- 7. body by a vote of not less than two- thirds of its membership. The failure • of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval. • Source: R & RE. L. 75. p. 1 148. § 1, ec Hoot , City in advisory role. There is nothing in unincorporated areas in the county. In effect. L. section 31 -23- and this section which indi- a city is gisen only an advisoy role. Robinson gales a legislative intent to broaden a city's v. City of Boulder, Colo. —. 547 P.2d I A .r-s �� authority. They place ultimate goccrnme nt:d 228(1976). E J� t " J t authority in matters pertaining to land use in F T-C- 31 -23 -210. Publicity - travel - information - entry., The commission has power to promote public interest in and understanding of the plan and to • that end nta piruli h uTra siribute curies of the plan or any report and may • employ such other means of publicity and education as it may determine. t ^� ' Members of the commission may attend city planning conferences. meetings U p I t j w1 t 1E14 MST of city planning institutes, or hearings upon pending n nicipal planning legis- �t lotion, and the commission may pay. by resolution, the reasonable traveling f11 W expenses incident to such attendance. The commission shall recommend, I t ests front time to time. to the appropriate public officials programs for public f_ V I' `ict -&.II structures and improvements and for the financing thereof. It shall be part o il` a Doses to consult anti advise with public officials and agencies. public utility companies. civic..educational. professional, and other organizations. and with citizens in relation to protecting and carrying out the plan. The commission has the right to accept and use gifts for the exercise of its fund- .. lions. Alt public officials shall furnish to the commission, upon request, within a reasonable length of tins. such available information as the commis- • lion ma) require for its work. The commission and its members. officers. • and employees. in the performance of their functions. may enter upon any land and make examinations and surveys and place and maintain necessary —� marks and monuments thereon. In general. the commission has such powers as are necessary to enable it to fulfill its functions. to promote municipal planning. or to carry out the purposes of this part ''. 7 Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1148. § 1. Do Ca.p t+a.I • j • • • • • • • • i e "� ,�„� We re * z , 31-23-211. Zoning. Where a commission is established in accordance with the provisions of this part 2. it has and shall exercise all of the powers and • ri__hts granted to the zoning commission by part 3 of this article. \Vhen there lur is a zoning commission in existence at the time that a commission is created, `17 the zoning commission shall deliver to the commission all of its records and shall thereafter cease to exercise the powers and prerogatives previously SU -e exercised by it: except that if the existing zoning commission is nearing it completion of a zoning plan. the governing body of the municipality may postpone. by resolution, the transfer oLthe zoning commission's powers until L p 4t't completion of the zoning plan: but in no event shall the period of such post - Y `Q ponement exceed six months from the date of the creation of the commission, 1 Nothing in this section shall invalidate or otherwise affect any zoning law • • or regulation or any action of the zoning commission adopted or taken prior . to the creation of a commission. Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1149, § I. - C.I.S. See 62 C.J.S.. Municipal Corpora- • 31 -23 -212. Jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction of any commission over � thc subdivision of land includes all land located within the legal boundaries ' a; ht�y a of the municipund. limited only to control with reference to a major . V 1 \l `1 street plan and not otherwise, also includes all land lying within three miles o e of the boundaries of the municipality not located in any other municipality; \\\v‘ except that in the case of any such land lying within five miles of more than one municipality. the jurisdiction of each commission shall terminate at a • G boundary line equidistant from the respective municipal limits of such municipalities. The jurisdiction over the subdivision of lands outside the • boundary of a municipality shall apply equally to any municipality. Source: R& RE. L. 75, p. 1144, § 1. . 31 -23 -213. Scope of control. When a commission has adopted a m;titx \ street plan for the territory within its subdivision control. or any part thereof, ., 4 as provided in section 3I -23 -20X. and has filed a certified copy of such plan \vt El in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county in which such €11\Y territory or such part is located, no plat of a subdiyision of land within such - 14pN territory or such part shall he filed or recorded until it has been approved by such commission and such approval entered in writing on the plat by the chairman or secretary of the commission. , Source: R & RE. L. 75. p. 1149, § I. - . 31 -23 -225. Major activity notice. When a subdivision or commercial or industrial activity is proposed which will cover five or more acres of land, I E(Z the governing body of thc municipality in which the activity is proposed shall 0" send notice to the Colorado land use commission, the state geologist, and 4 the hoard of county commissioners of the county in which the improvement . 5 iv,. is located of the proposal prior to approval of any zoning change. subdivision, or building permit application associated with such a proposed activity. Such notice shall he in a standard form, shall he promulgated as a rule and rcgula- . Sion prescribed by the Colorado land use commission, and shall contain such information as said Land Luse commission prescribes. • • Source: R & RE. L. 75, p. 1154. § 1, -e • • PART 3 • ' ZONING . 31 -23 -301. Grant of power. (1) Except as otherwise provided in section . 34 -1 -305, C.R.S. 1973, for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, - O or the general welfare of the community, including energy conservation and • the promotion of solar energy utilization. the governing body of each munici- ZO 1 h pality is empowered to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may l be occupied. the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces. the density • Af t,+610 f1-34. of population, the height and location of trees and other vegetation, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, resi- dence, or other purposes. Regulations and restrictions of the height, number of stories, and the height and location of trees and other vegetation shall not apply to existing buildings. structures, trees, or vegetation except for new growth on such vegetation. Such regulations shall provide that a board of adjustment may determine and vary their application in harmony with their general purpose and intent and in accordance with general or specific rules contained in such regulations. Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section and to the end that adequate safety may be secured, said govern- ing body also has power to establish, regulate, restrict, and limit such uses .• i . . on or alone any storm or floodwater runoff channel or basin, as such storm or floodwater runoff channel or basin has been designated and approved by Ir C. ft the Colorado water conservation board, in order to lessen or avoid the haz- ards to persons and damage to property resulting from the accumulation cf storm or floodwaters. Any ordinance enacted under authority of this pan 3 shall exempt from the operation thereof any building or structure as to • which satisfactory proof is presented to the board of adjustment that the present or proposed situation of such building or structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the - public. • Source: Amended, L. 79, p. 1163, § 13. t 31-23-302. Districts. For any of the purposes enumerated in section 3 23 -3u1. the governing body may divide the municipality into districts of M number. shape, and area as may he deemed best suited to carry out Ile purposes of this part 3. and within such districts it may regulate and restrict the erection. construction, reconstruction- alteration, repair, or use of buildings• structures. or land. All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. Source: R & RE. L. 75, p. 1156. § 1. • 1 ( — 31 -23 -303. Legislative declaration. (1) Such regulations shall be made in -- - accordance with a comprehensive Plan and designed to lessen congestion in _ the streets; to secure safety from fire. panic. floodwaters, and other dangers; IJkAIxi 1 to promote health and general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to • prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of popu- ) -atalgED lation; to promote energy conservation; and to facilitate the adequate provi- I sion of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public bet& e requirements. Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consid-_ration, i among other things, as to the character of the district and its peculiar' suit- • 201111CA i ; ability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings (91- u , ; i and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such municipal- ity. re,. ) cnh1k . Source: Amended, L. 79, p. 1164, § 14. 0■ Cti,,vte„11ttt S . • • • V if ce f atellu Cke 31-23-206. Master plan. (1) Id) A zoning plan for the control of the height. area, hulk. location. and use of buildings and premises. Such a zoning plan may protect and aysurc access to sunlight for solar energy devices: how- ever. regulation; and restrictions of the height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, and the height and location of trees and other . vegetation shall not apply to existing buildings, structures, trees, or vegeta- tion except for new growth on such vegetation. • Source: Amended, L. 79, p. 1162, 3 10. • 31 -23 -214. Subdivision regulations. (1.5) Subdivision regulations adopted under provisions of this section may protect and assure access to sunlight for solar energy devices by considering in subdivision development plans the use of restrictive covenants or solar easements, height restrictions, side yard and setback requirements. street orientation and width requirements, or other permissible forms of land use controls. Source: Added, L. 79, p. 1163. 3 12. CO NGI,U S l 0 a /V eh AAel tit/. PLA,.,,. S+-4 C�vtt .&&p Mtoi t a- S'�e�� d2s s Cer3a. Jf 1 �f z sAoa n O W t T S } c7 (3/1.a /o :^mot e.t.,at Q . Jf X�/l ! t ! s Quo A `i CU� cX • � b 4, tAil 1tt E c-p ww1.. I e k± Cott C�1'yvtifL (�t 14. (.U�Gtit� C ttQrJ JG+NYLt1 h t e 0 ( btt o c- e -�- h s r m s pioi >ti,.� f oa: o -1 r a c.EZ . cagA 4 a ctvv t v etA trwAtapPet.. cc ui2 W , c li u &-�u -a tC acLu A l l�� \ l . � f f tt'1�AL`1� e / Q � .0-1 a /hQw l��Pi 4M �°j� mess • U 1 V • • • • • • CONCERNS ABOUT TILE POLICIES, PLAN AND LAND USE REGULATIONS OF TIIE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a discussion paper for the pending P & Z and Council Review of 1982 Planning and Program Needs, by Al Blomquist, 7/1/81. A. INTRODUCTION (Being Devil's Advocate) • The Policy still is: - 1. To slow or stop growth both directly when being being clear, indirectly by legal, technical and procedural tactics of delay, confusion, frustration and expense. • 2. To prevent bad by regulations, over-kill, and accepting the simultaneous prevention of good as an acceptable trade -off. 3. To emphasize exemptions and special conditions as the norm, relegating "rights" to secondary prothinance, to roll back the economy. 4. To keep one -third of the lodging supply non - conforming so as to create conditions of monopoly at the base of Aspen Mountain. Over the last several years Aspen has lost at least 1000 tourist pillows, a trend that is • continuing. The above "unspoken" policies are easily (mistakenly? Partially ?) inferred from the codes and ordinances and actions of the City of Aspen, 1 . • • es • � J `m M` • and explain the current trend to mediocrity (the non - premier resort and angry town). These unspoken policies are the product of "planning," or the lack of it. They are NOT truly current or right or true for this P & Z or Council. Yet, what, then, ARE the policies? • • THE PLAN still is the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan, which; even as amended by the CMPP, is very much out -of -date and seldom used as the guide to the orderly development of Aspen. The result is that City officials appear to "play it by ear," as did Topsey. Actually, the current P &Z and Council have a different plan, but what is it? (Midland is still transit corridor and Garmish is still edge of downtown on the 1973 Land Use Plan). THE LAND USE REGULATIONS are so lengthy, unclear and confusing that • enforcement is a questionable consistancy. Exceptions are the rule. One would be foolish to proceed without expensive professional help. Once a town of exciting do -it- yourself., Aspen today is a duller . place with its laws requiring cookie cutter conformity. What are the specific changes the current P&Z and Council intend to make to improve the Code? • The above is a deliberate attempt to be totally negative, the kind of thing an attorney would do to us in Court, though more subtly and with the evidence to suit the needs of his particular case. The truth is that the planning achievements of the last 15 years have been often nothing short of fantastic. Specializing on things is absolutely • . 4 • • • w 3 essential if there is to be achievement, just as neglecting to see the whole picture can be catastrophic. But, now the need is for a new specialization. It is to put together a public facilities program that will leverage the Aspen Economy into a better position as a Summer Destination Resort. The clamor for the Performing Arts Center, Wheeler, Visual Arts, trails, more ball fields, etc., is a clamor for more things for businesses, visitors and locals to do during the eight months skiing is not available. Concurrent with this clamor are problems caused by noisy buses, made noisy when windows are open and the realization that winter pays for bus service and summer bankrupts it, i.e. that the summer economy and summer resort plan are unhealthy. One experiences a shortage of employee housing in winter, but not in summer. Specialized attention by the planners to the seasonal imbalances in our economy is long overdue: Gearing up to do something about this "basic" problem is what the rest of this memo is mostly about,•but in the context of seeing things whole, i.e. doing some "comprehensive" planning before jumping in with both feet. B. RESEARCH AND WISDOM (ANALYSIS) are the "basis" of comprehensive planning: Research Identifies: Wisdom Produces: 1. Facts 1. Goals 2. Trends 2. Policies 3. Problems 3. Standards 4. Opportunities 4. Strategy (Work Program) • • • 1 4 • C. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNTNC PROCESS applies - a methodology, to the products of Research and Wisdom. It seeks a design link from Wisdom to implementation. It makes ideas workable. It tries to see things whole, seeks the interrelationships, and creates the diverse but linked elements of the plan. It is a comprehensive, continuous • and cooperative process. It involves all types and levels of expertise and concern. It constantly amends and improves. It is both art and science. It is both theoretical and pragmatic. It can and does "blow the whistle" when appropriate. It's concern is the future: what we can and should do now and next that will improve the future of the place, economy, society and spirit being planned. Planning is a change agent for betterment. Defining good and better is its basic challenge. But, enabling good is its task. D. THE 'OFFICIAL" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN itself is a codification of the RE.SUI.TS of Research and Wisdom and the Comprehensive Planning Process. It is amended daily to keep it best and current. It never grows old and out of date. It is today's best thoughts and ideas for tomorrow. It is the City's guide to decision- making. It is a compilation of functional plans, area plans, project plans and program plans. It is adopted only by P &Z and only serves P &Z as the basis for recommendations to Council on matters up for implementation. _ . • • 5 • E. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION is any activity program or project by Council order that converts a plan element from its recommended form to reality. Some implementation activities in Aspen are: 1. Zoning Code 6. Education 2. Subdivision Code • 7. Citizen Involvement 3. Building Code • 8. Administration 4. Annexation 9. Capital Budget 5. The GMP . 10. Other Implementation • F. THE PLANNING MODEL: ( ( ( (4) _ ( Research Wisdom Process Plan Implementation G. CRITICISM OF ASPEN PLANNING: 1. The research is incomplete, out of date and generally forotten. Problems are emphasized - opportunities are lost. • 2. The goals, policies, standards and strategy are not totally supportive of one another, stray from the fact base, and are not always carried through the process into the plan and on to implementation, i.e. wisdom is often lacking. 3. The process is ass - backwards with an almost total neglect of planning for the economy, public facilities, the resort, etc., • concentrating instead almost exclusively on regulatory planning. What little other planning that is done is hard to describe or criticize, except to say that it needs to be done. 4. The plan itself is a maze of dusty.documents, hard to find, 4 • 6 .•, seldom used, internally vet inconsistent, and not really very appropriate as a guide to current decision - making. The plan is In total neglect, and therefore either "forgotten" or " used" only when either course is politically expedient. • 5. Inrplenientation is the regulatory tail wagging the planning • dog in Aspen. Because of the slow- growth goal of the last 10 years (wisdom), the planning process produced a regulatory strategy and plan to slow growth by regulatory overkill. The Downzonings and GMPP were the major devices, acknowledged publicly, but procedural delay was the third tactical element of the strategy. Unfortunately, the procedural delay element now consumes amounts of staff, NZ and Council TIME to the detriment of other aspects of a true comprehensive planning . process and program on behalf of a- better Aspen. H. TO IMPROVE ASPEN PLANNING 1. Separate Aspen planning -from the rest. the Joint Office does. Account for Aspen hours. Then plan the use of those hours to benefit Aspen, with specific people totally responsible to Aspen. 2. Reduce the regulatory work load to make time for the other planning activity needed by Aspen. Take a "zero based" approach to cleaning up the mess: a) Keep the regulatory requirements tough, but eliminate procedural delay, i.e. make regulatory decisions more quickly. • b) Eliminate un- needed steps. ' . • • 7 c) Assign more decisions to staff. d) Eliminate superfluous requirements (shorten text) e) Reduce the number•of exceptions, conditional uses and other requirements for special handling. f) Make condominiumization purely administrative. g) Reduce the number of zone districts. 3. Formalize the planning "process ", setting specific roles and • methodologies for Council, P & Z,the staff, consultants, citizens and others. 4. Codify the "Plan" in text and map format, and conduct a .crash program to get all past plans up- dated, made internally consistent, and into the codification. 5. Formalize the Research and Wisdom basis for planning in a series of Technical Working Papers (make R and W available), useful to the process, plan and implementation activities. 6. Institute public facility planning and capital improvement programming in cooperation with the City Manager, Department Reads and other entities having public facilities within the City. 7. Add Resort Planning to clearly recognize the importance and needs of the economy as the cause of most problems and source of most opportunities. . 8. Reevaluate the existing approach to public education, citizen involvement, other commissions, other agencies, the county, the region, the state and federal levels, other resorts, etc. Redesign such relationships for cost - effectiveness. Work to • • • • • 8 shorten and simplify the joint review process by eliminating the extraneous and irrelevant. ($2,000,000 for Little Annie review is an absurdity.) I. TILE CITY COUNCIL AND P&Z. ROLE The Colorado Statutes place the "planning" responsibility in the Aspen Planning Commission, and suggests that it have the • authority necessary to perform the task. The City Charter and ordinances concur, but P &Z does not actually have the authority. The budget and joint contract with the County give most of the authority to plan to the staff, instead. • The Statutes and Charter charge the City Council and Manager/ • Administration with Land Use implementation. The Council has assigned the administration of Land Use Regulations to the • Planning Office, making it both a staff and line function. It has then made the. regulations excessively complex so that the staff time allocated to the regulatory function has left almost no time for planning, research, etc. The statutes charge the Planning Commission with the responsibility to do capital improvements, planning and programming. The Charter places that responsibility in the City Manager. Neither can do the job well alone. It is necessarily a cooperative function. • • • • a r 9 The literature of management describes platuiing as a function of management, and makes management responsible to the policy body (Council) . The literature of urban planning and the Colorado Statutes) set up a citizen planning board to advise Council on the basj.s of the planning the citizen board has done, and suggests that it needs a budget and staff help to do the job. • The reality is that the Manager, Council and Planning Commission should seminar together and be together on the what, why and how of the planning process, the budget, the staff, the work program, the priorities, etc. The place to start is with a review of the statutes, joint planning office contract and 1982 budget and work program. A seminar of just Council and P &Z, led and moderated by • the City Manager, is long overdue. The City Attorney and Planning Director should also be present, but primarily as a resource. J. THE LACK OF PLANNING • The motivation for the above is in the Colorado Statutes, and their perception of planning as "comprehensive." Comparing current status of planning in Aspen shows the primary gap to be in the area of planning for the economy and public facilities, i.e. their neglect due to the over - emphasis on land use and growth control. —Thus, Aspen planning. is NOT comprehensive. Because of this, Council has jumped in and directly DONE the planning for streets, sewer, water, the Wheeler, Visual Arts Center, Rio Grande, Meadows, etc., WITHOUT P&Z participation. The Elementary School situation will also be • • 10 resolved without P &Z participation. Transportation is totally OFF the P &Z agenda. Parks and Open Space seldom appear. Consideration of economic problems and the Resort are notably absent. Instead, each "idea" for one of the above is handed off to a special ad hoc single purpose group for study and recommendation, with NO STUDY of the important interrelationships between the parts. P &Z is too busy with "Land Use" cases. It never seeks out the inter— , relationship, i.e. the overall impacts and how they work together or against each other. In short, P &Z is only a "Zoning" Commission, not also a "planning" commission. They have never sat together or with Council to "get philosophical," to consider where all this is leading. Naturally, they get "inconsistent" in some of their decisions and recommendations on cases. They don't see the "big picture" -- have little sense of what the future "ought" to be. Is this also true of Council?. I don't know. All I do know is • that some off the record seminars work of a philosophical nature is a desperate need. No actions. Just some solid thinking and sharing. And that thereafter P &Z should spend at least half its time on "planning." • 1 . • • TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: WHEREAS, Lyle Reeder has filed an application for allocation under Section 24 -11.6 of the Aspen Municipal Code for construction of a 31 unit lodge, plus an additional 4 units of employee housing, to be called The Lodge at Aspen to be located at 711 Ute Avenue, and WHEREAS, as a result of scoring by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Lyle Reeder did not receive any Growth Management Plan allocation for 1982; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code, hereby appeals to the City Council of the City of Aspen the action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981, which action denied applicant any development allocation under the Lodge Development Application Procedures. The appeal is made on the following grounds: 1. A member of the Planning and Zoning Commission was biased against applicant's project, had prejudged same, and the action of the Board was therefore a violation of due process. 2. A member of the Planning and Zoning Commission abused his discretion in scoring the competing application denying the undersigned applicant a fair and impartial hearing. 3. It appears there is a mathematical calculation error in the scoring of a competing application giving said applicant one point more than is allowed by Section 24- 11.6(B)(5)(AA). The basis for applicant's appeal is more fully set forth in memorandum attached hereto. Respectfu y ubmitted, John Thomas Kelly Attorney for Lyle Reeder Date: October 20, 1981 JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 1109 TELEPHONE 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET 13031 925 -1216 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 October 20, 1981 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office (Hand delivered) Re: The Lodge at Aspen Lyle Reeder Dear Alan: Enclosed herewith please find notice of appeal together with supporting memorandum. One other additional matter has come up since I last spoke to you. It appears that there was an error in Welton Anderson's scoring of the Aspen Inn under Section E -1. Welton gave Cantrup a 3, whereas all others gave a 2. The appropriate code provision does not seem to be discretionary. As you requested, I am submitting the appeal to you within two weeks of the hearing date, although I do not believe the code requires this. I do reserve the right, however, to submit further data prior to the hearing. Yours � truly, Jo n Thomas Kelly JTK /jeo enc. cc: Paul Taddune, City Attorney All City Council Members • PROJECT PROFILE 1982 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: Lyle Reeder 2. Project Name: The Lodge at Aspen 3. Location: 771 Lite Avenue (corner of Ute Avenue, Original Street and Aspen Mountain Road) 4. Parcel Size: 15,386 square feet 5. Current Zoning: L -1 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 15,386 square feet (F.A.R. of 1:1 may be achieved with 0.67:1 tourist rental space; 0.08:1 employee housing; and 0.25:1 nonunit space) 7. Existing Structures: A one story, three bedroom house is located on the site, presently occupied by the applicant 8. Development Program: The applicant proposes to build 31 lodge units and 4 employee units. This new lodge will also include a lounge and an exterior court. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Full subdivision; exception of employee units from GMP; special review to reduce on -site parking requirement. Property is not affected by view plane limitations or other special review procedures. • • 10. Miscellaneous: This application, if successful, would result in the construction of the first entirely new lodge in Aspen since prior to the implementation of the GMP. • • . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen DATE: October 1981 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 3 Comment: Water Department has requested that the applicant share in the cost of a new 6" water main loop and fire hydrant to improve service to the entire neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to do so. b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 2 Comment: Aspen Metro Sanitation District can serve this development with a standard service level and is not requesting any system improvements from the applicant. c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 3 Comment: The applicant proposes to extend the storm sewer main located at Ute Avenue and Original Streets. Main will be extended up Aspen Mountain Road to catch its runoff. Applicant should also provide curb and gutter improvements on all streets affected by the storm sewer extension. d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 3 Comment: The applicant notes that there is one fire hydrant in the vicinity of the project and has proposed to add a second fire hydrant to improve the level of service to the entire area. The proposed improvement to the water service in the area will also add to the quality of fire protection. e. ROADS - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system. or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Rating 1 Comment: Engineering Department states that the applicant should be required to participate in street improvements proposed by Little Annie Corporation and also improve the right -of -way on Aspen Mountain Road, which has not been promised in the submission. 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): O - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points), Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating 5 Comment: Lodge is located within 400 -500 feet of Little Nell lift. The lodge is certainly within reasonable walking distance of Durant Avenue bus route and directly abuts proposed Little Annie transit route. 2 b. POLICE PROTECTION . (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response. standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating 2 Comment: Project is within the standard service area of the Aspen Police Department, c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating 2 Comment: Project is proximate to the downtown commercial core, providing the full range of tourist commercial services. 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 3 Comment: The scale of the proposed lodge is similar to the Aspen Alps and adjacent apartment condominiums. The design concept breaks up the bulk of the building with a gradual modular elevation change. • b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 1 Comment: Property suryey states that 6940. square feet (45% of site) will be open space but no specific proposal for landscaping is included in application. • 3 c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 3 Comment: The applicant proposes insulation In excess of code standards, solar collectors on the roof and a single efficient fireplace in the lounge. d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating 1 Comment: The applicant has not addressed the usable open space on site but notes that Glory Hole Park is directly across the street while the Ute- Benedict bike path is 260 feet east of the lodge site. e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 2 Comment: The transitional height between the front and rear of the building enhances public views, while the glassed-4n lounge provides maximum scenic quality for guests. Project does not fall within any view plane limitation. 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: The applicant proposes a lounge /lobby area of approximately 825 square feet, b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1.point). Rating 1 Comment: The applicant proposes an in- house restaurant for lodge guests only, serving food in the lounge and on the terrace. 4 • c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: The applicant proposes a wh.irlp0Q1 and sauna, d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating 0 Comment: While the applicant proposes that the lounge area may be used for conferences, this small area is viewed as too limited for any reasonable conference use. e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: The lodge site is within easy walking distance of the Little Nell lift and ski -in access is possible off the Aspen Mountain Road. The proposed Little Annie terminal is also within walking distance. f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: The applicant proposes luxury rooms, a unique lounge setting and a location proximate to the ski area and to the downtown . commercial services. 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R..(maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating 2 Comment: Applicant proposes to reduce the tourist rental space by 1,422 square feet out of a maximum F.A.R, of (1.667;7 (10,257 square feet) for a total reduction of 13,9% below maximum tourist F.A.R. 5 • b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating 6 Comment: The applicant proposes to provide four units on site, with a two person occupancy per room. The eight employees housed represent 100% of the employees of the lodge, with some laundry and maintenance services provided commercially. c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives.to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 3 Comment: The applicant proposes to operate 2 limousines,to provide 18 parking spaces (15 below ground, 3 aboveground, short term) and to prohibit on -site employee parking. 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points 0 Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 47 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points 0 Total Points 47 Name of P & Z Member: Planning Office 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1982 / LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS /� n PROJECT: I,UCC P\T � C t� DATE: �� C ( I`le 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if • a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 3 Comment: b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: • c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 3 Comment: E • d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 3 Comment: e. ROADS (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system. or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Rating Z Comment: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 0 - Project requires the provision of new.services at increased public expense 1 Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points), Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating 5 Comment: 2 b. POLICE PROTECTION - (1naximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response. standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating Z Comment: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Ratin§ 2- Comment: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indi_cates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 3 Comment: • b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements • for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: 3 c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources, Rating 3 • Comment: • d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways, Rating 1 Comment: • • e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 3 Comment: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and • conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: • b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: 4 • • c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating O Comment: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1. point). Rating 1 Comment: • f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R.•(maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating 2 Comment: 5 b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating Comment: c. Auto disincentive considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives.to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point ? Rating Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points 2- Comment: CO ty 44 (144 1.6N-ex 1) I c41 Q Y S • 2Al L 643 e I \n I .In) s a -e bfVa.l, YYZ tat w&4 40-Lk° tc ro t W K moR b€ -1 C fct& I es.. C CAA Mr e. wU\ kitinct a cThrecuut. Quidom (that a n Pmhamcemna -Pc • 7. TOTAL POINTS , U Points in Categories 1 - 5 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points 2 Total Points 5 Name of P & Z Member: vGSYYI V\A-� -11 ` 6 • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: i(C)c1 of 172- DATE: /0 -& -w 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service _2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 — Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 3 Comment: I(Uc c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: • • d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: e. ROADS - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Rating 1 Comment: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): • 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be • given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating Comment: • • • • 2 • L0 • b. POLICE PROTECTION - (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating 2 Comment: • - c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating Comment: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design 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 • Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building. (in terms of size, height; location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 3 Comment: • b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. / Rating • Comment: /U hi ; 3 • c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 3 Comment: • • d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating o • Comment: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 3 Comment: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and . conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1. point). Rating Comment: 4 • (0 c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating 0 Comment: • e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A,R, (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating Si Comment: • 5 b • • • b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points / // Q ' Rating I I ( 2 cby+/ iekx. AC .-C, ecy94 / C3 �u A- Min 44e. < c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 3 Comment: • 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory continent must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points 0 Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points • Total Points °yq • Name of P & Z Member: G 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: f 0 J7Ca AT -rPg -/ DATE: / c' d-/ 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con - sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating - Comment: b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating -5' Comment: c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 3 Comment: • d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating - 5-1 Comment: e. ROADS (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Rating Comment: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 0 - Project requires the provision of new.services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points); Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop, And no (0) points'shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating `J Comment: • • 2 b. POLICE PROTECTION - (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating o? Comment: c, PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating Comment: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Comment: • b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 2 Comment: • 3 • c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 3 Comment: • d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating Comment: • • • e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 3 Comment: • • 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating / Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1. point). Rating Comment: • 4 • • • c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: • • e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: • • f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment; . 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree .of conformity with. local planning policies as follows: • a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating 02 Comment: • • 5 • b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating < Comment: C. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point • 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 3 Comment: • 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 ,1 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points Total Points • Name of P & Z Member: RA / /ene 6 • C PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: ,[nt,sz fl-T f4 -SPFjV DATE: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission s all con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if • a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating .3 Comment; b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating , Comment; • • c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating I Comment: • • 4 d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 3 Comment: e. ROADS (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system. or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. • Rating / Comment: • 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 0 - Project requires the provision of new.services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given. area Rate the following features accordingly; a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points); Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating J Comment: 2 • b. POLICE PROTECTION - (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response. standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. • Rating I. Comment: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Ratinb a • Comment: • 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design 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 Rate the following features accordingly; a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 4 Comment: • b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating ,Z- Comment: 3 • 6 c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources, Rating ,3 • Comment: d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways, Rating / Comment: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating d Comment: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and - conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: 4 • _ ., c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating i Comment: • d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating_ Comment: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rattng Comment: • 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating ..�.... Comment: 5 b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating 4 Comment: • c. Auto disincentive considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives.to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withiimousine service - 1 point 3, Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating J Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points Comment: • 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points Total Points 1f Name of P & Z Member: /,a/A 6 eflolv PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: L-r Yt c` DATE: / 012.?" F / 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER'- (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 1 Comment: b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system . to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rati ng_22„_ Comment: • c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating Comment: • • a • d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating Comment: e. ROADS (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Z Rating Comment: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public ' expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area '2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route, Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating Comment: • 2 , fi b. POLICE PROTECTION - (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response. standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating Comment: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating °z- .Comment: • 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Comment: • b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating • Comment: • 3 • • c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. (r Rating r Continent: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating • Comment: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum l point). r Rating 1 Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point), • Rating Comment: • 4 • • • • c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating ( • Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating 0 Comment: e, Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: • 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating_ Comment: • • 5 b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points • Rating Comment: • c. Auto disincentive considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 7 Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points (9 Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS • a r Points in Categories 1 - 5 ' (rc7 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points • Total Points Name of P & Z Member: 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 198 L'DGE GMP PROJECT: - ' ,/, DATE: 4 0C1 C/ 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC CILIT ES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con - sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service -2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: Dillielli • b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. /f Rating ' Comment: c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating i Comment: • • • t d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. v/ Rating Comment: • e. ROADS (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. Rating Comment; 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating) Comment: • • 2 • • b. POLICE PROTECTION - (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response. standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating i) Comment: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating y . 4 Comment: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each.application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum .3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Comment: b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. L �(1"�✓ Rating Comment: '� � 5 • / / /V 3 it- c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources, �` Rating Comment: d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating_ Comment: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Comment: • 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Comment: • b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum l point). Rating Comment: 4 • • t;; c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: • e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: • f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). 1 Rating Comment: 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating q Comment: 5 . • • • b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating 4 . Comment: c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based �n theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withltmousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 17 Comment: • 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 71. (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points 0 • Total Points Name of P & Z Member: ( War-0U (100 6 • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGEE APPLICATIONS PROJECT: r ,kJ(i��� �I �( E�_ DATE: (2171> 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies • Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER-- (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. • Rating t/ Comment: • b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those 'normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating Comment: • • • c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating l� Comment°: • • • d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 7/ • Comment: e. ROADS - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street • linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without • substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance. rr Rating Comment; 01,° rin +s it ��n � o c i t 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public • expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area • '2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly; a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points), Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or publics stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. / Rating Comment: 2 b. POLICE PROTECTION - (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. • Rating 'L.— Comment: • c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating 2/ .Comment: • 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating Comment: ('mvi rp ( f c _ . e • • b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating or Comment: 11^^ o cQs pert • AAA Ar,Fcuf cT Q c<<°sz, .� � CliziadeLet • • 3 • • • c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 2, Comment: 1 J f i A: d ) r tA6 0-c4i d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways, Rating Comment: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Comment: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1. point). Rating Comment: 4 c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating r Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating Comment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating • Comment: • 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider • each application and its degree of conformity with locaFplanning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points • 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating `2 • Comment: • " • 5 • • • • • b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating (p Comment: c. Auto disincentive considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating - 3 Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points / Comment: ivtkt e t(9 Lnng p cfn �ti` c 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 b l j (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points Total Points — -- ''2— Name of P & Z Member: �� L LO N (,(1 `,jC 6 • • T • m o n v z w ao o CO CO CO N—& n 01 t71 A W N --- N tT A W _N3 -� 0 N m O 0 .3 J rs r O 0 O N c3 A 0 3 < D m w D— G —4 0 C 0 c � � ' C o < 0 0 in 0 0 K 0 c1• c c * 0 VI 0 v 9S - � , -4 c m C 0 z m '< -.• m • 0 0' • 01 v CD m 0 • U -( 0 c+ 0 to _1 OJ• —I N 1 * 0 O N 1 CO -A ''. N n 4 3 0 O S O = 0 x 0 . - O CD — 4-1- -1 N 0 —I 0 O N D '1 a VOi - K o 0 V1 > 73 t" O 0 0 J. m 0 N O •1 tO C N r r r c s x as cr 1 � Q 0 x 0 N C K 0 J K T - n A) C' f1 0 t �3 tO 0 V1 0.1 r N 0 f'4-t• N N so t"F 0 V1 CD • _ D xi 0/ o I-1 Z Z r 0 0 0 t'• --' -, 0 (1 N 03 (1 • N 0 0 —' D .4. .+. (n w tel h m N N 0- "0 j cl• (O D 3 C -v . ..1. O to m ID al CA y D N n c N (D to N C I CO C — m m ---I --i -1 p 0 O 0 0 0 0 r z v o D r r m N r < N J. n D 1 c IT T m m 0 0 —1 Co O —1 CO Cu • (0 N . (D N J Z LI1 01 —1 CO 01 N) 01 CO CO N W Na W Z CO 0 CO I --e 0 A A (T —' —' p —J —' N CO N CO --- CO (D 40 0 CO t0 CO A N s O_ O A ( _+ _+ p —' N —' W N CO -11 V 0 V t0 W P N —, J J • L N N 01 CT 01 —' —' O —1 —1 —1 N W —' W Na W 3 N N 0 CO 01 N 7 N A o J (0 (0 0 1.0 —, A '� N —' co N co to 1.0 CO O1 N) tT —, —, O •S 01 01 Ul 01 CD CT 01 -' —1 —1 W W N W NCO 0 N 0 N) W ,Ol N [T O O 0 • • D N _' p —' W 01 N 01 . . . . . . V ...J N N ...� -1 D A 0 0 LO O CO O cn -g N) A W A co a .0 • 0 • • -- CO > v v • 77 Ro 0 W N • N • A W N -• v C • 0 c N m c v v j.., A - n Vf N "c Q C -4 oo o C a 0 c+ m w 0 Cr w -s o F c+ ( i �. - n .. N al 3 5 Z T r 9 m n w v w 1.10 -1 o j T O N V1 0 S 0 Z (D N 3 N w 9 9 - c• 0) 9 (D r �, 0 CO m N - h + • 0 N n 0 (D d C 0 a f CO (D (D (D 9 (O '0 c+ 0 N 0 (D N N N O o Cam+ w = w w Z = w O 3 d- el- C n o. n v O V1 N 9 O (D (D v N O -5 N Z (D C X < c < r co _•• co -4 a n -1 n o a. m 0 (D > C n tit r r v --/ (D IC) N N Vs A N) CO Co CO W Z V S l G CO N r 0 0 U7 M .-1 _, r v 0 N N 01 W h-• W CO CO CO N v 0 (D !2° O F NJ -1 v -I 0 3 r a r z z a r -I 0 < co 0 (0 N3 N (Ti CO h+ CO W CO W 0 p 3 rn w 2 x r m n m r z m O -I n • > v -1 r a z o z z • C. C w C N W (0 N) N 01 CO - N) CO CO N, W a • 7 N (D Cr) . 6-1 0 Z 77 0 l0 N N U1 CO - N CO CO N co N • rD - (0 N N 01 A Co W W N• W c+ O . 7 n CO N N) A (O I-• N N N N n --/ m • 9 N w O • V N • CRAM ArlOSMNTAT' — N .1-1g 61-19E0 AT AMMON S61II515•EMMNTAL 'NM— IMMAT! —N MD et A � z — CT —glOrl s, IsEVI T NT �. SGT AT M 1 INTRODUCTION The applicant of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Lodge project is submitting this as a supplement to the original Lodge GMP application. This supplement was prepared for the purpose of clarifying the original application by addressing the deficiencies indicated in the Planning Office Memorandum, dated October 1, 1981. SUMMARY OF PLANNING OFFICE SCORING In summary, the Planning Office memorandum indicates a scoring less than the maximum point for THE LODGE AT ASPEN in the following categories: SECTION CATEGORY NO. POINTS SHORT OF MAXIMUM 1 -b. Sewer 1 1 -e. Roads 2 2 -a. Public Transportation 1 3 -b. Site Design 2 3 -d. Amenities 2 3 -e. Visual Impact 1 4 -d. Conference and Banquet 1 5 -a. Reduction of Tourist Rental Space Below Maximum Allowable Internal F.A.R. 1 TOTAL 11 APPLICANT'S COMMENTS After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to make the following comments and guarantees relative to each of the above categories: 1 -b. SEWER. The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees an' the periodic sewer assessments as calculated by the Asper Metro Sanitation District. Also, the cost to make the connection will be paid by the applicant which includes street cut permit, excavation, sewer line to sewer main, backfill and repair of pavement. Supplement Page 1 ° PE E 11111e SI C ATAgAIg ' 1 - e. ROADS. A proposed sidewalks, curbs and gutters plan is shown on Page 6 of this report. The applicant agrees and guarantees to partici- pate in and pay for street improvements proposed by the Little Annie Corporation which abuts the lodge site . The applicant guarantees to install curb and gutters on Ute Avenue and the Aspen Mountain road which abuts the lodge site which meets the specifications of the City of Aspen. At the option of the City of Aspen the applicant will guarantee to pay for the cost of curb and gutter should the City prefer to install the same. The Aspen Mountain Road abutting the lodge site will be resurfaced with blacktop at applicant's expense after curb, gutters and storm drains have been installed, if approved, and recommended by the City's Engineering Department. 2 -a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. Applicant believes that the LODGE AT ASPEN qualifies for a six point rating since the site is within 400 -500 feet of the Little Nell Lift and abuts the proposed Little Annie transit route. With the approval of the Little Annie Ski Area by the Pitkin County Commissioners, applicant respectfully requests that P & Z consider the Little Annie transit route a viable transit system for this scoring purpose. Supplement Page 2 J ,. -I l L- SilE0AT AS A iM N 3 -b. SITE DESIGN. 1. Utilities - All utilities are to be underground. 2. Landscape - The proposed landscaping plan is shown on page of this report. 3. Trash Removal - Trash container will be located in an area near the Southeast corner of the property near the Ajax Apartments trash container. 4. Snow Control - The Lodge will incorporate the following systems: a). Engineered snow stops will be installed to retain the snow on the roof. h). Heat tape system to be installed on to edge of roof to control ice buildup. c). Heat systems will be installed in the sidewalks and driveways for snow elimination. On -site dry wells will handle any run -offs. d). Snow plow kept on the site will be used for clearing Aspen Mountain Road and Ute Avenue. e). Contract snow removal will be used for emergencies involving excessive accumulations from street build -ups. 3 -d. AMENITIES. Open space amenities on the site are to include a hot tub and related recreational activities. The hot tub is to be finished with ceramic tile. 3 -e. VISUAL IMPACT. The Planning Office comments clearly indicate that this project incorporates the criteria for a positive evaluation on visual impact and the applicant feels that it should he given a three point value. Supplement Page 3 T 1-Is Sew AT►SIMIMN 4 -d. CONFERENCE AND BANQUET FACILITIES. The applicant believes that the lounge area would be suitable for a conference facility of approximately 50 persons. This is in keeping with the scale of the proposed lodge. 5 -a. REDUCTION OF TOURIST RENTAL SPACE BELOW MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INTERNAL F.A.R. Applicant agrees with Planning Office rating scoring of two points. BONUS POINTS CONSIDERATION 1. The Lodge at Aspen's proposal represents the first attempt since the GMP adoption to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen. The submission addresses the upgrading of a key corner location with proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain (405') and the proposed base area for the. Little Annie Ski Area. 2. All employee housing will be located on the premises. There will be no living quarters below grade. 3. The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develop an intimate scale lodge, in keeping with the Aspen tradition, as opposed to a megastructure approach. 4. The lodge has been designed with a 14% reduction in the maximum Floor Area Ratio. The 14% reduction has been used to increase the common space such as lounge and lobby, thereby increasing guest enjoyment and sociability within the Lodge. 5. The project can be built without any deficiencies in water, sewer, storm sewer drainage, fire protection, sidewalks, curbs, paved driveways and streets ajoining the site. 6. The location is within walking distance to the commercial core and public transportation. The nearness of the Police Department enhances guest security. Supplement Page 4 1 6- lag G. AT AS A N 7. The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain. 8. The applicant is willing to guarantee in writing prior to issuance of a building permit to do the following: a). Complete the construction within one year from issuance of building permits notwithstanding acts of God. b). Provide licensed engineering supervision during construction. c). Adhere to the issued building permit and plans and to correct any construction defects within 10 days of notification of the defect. d). Accept the decision of the Aspen City Attorney regarding interpretation of building codes. In view of the initial submission on September 1, 1981 and the supplementary data submitted this October 6, 1981, the applicant believes that the project is qualified for evaluation under the bonus point criteria. Respectfully submitted, Lyle Reeder October 6, 1981 Supplement Page 5 lirUM 6- Sem ATst ___________„ .. , , i ___ ____ , _____________ D M m m y3 z o ._____, zim(7.r_ DO 0 1 O C r cow 00 , i -IX :K------_ CO m C O— C w UI m xi .. 1m r ^ m I yn Ina 11 � c r z xn m m �t Zm III m < i _ > �m m S. ° A Z S C n ( ) r t� m = l o T n m • ( ) ( ) z r y 0 C.1 r a 3 v t __ �� 1 • El r 0<0 005>c II. = 330m003 m33 33 Cn i m y co D 7 II / O A CO r � L A A W N 14) Supplement Page 6 TNg `- Cg AT ASAgN 4,,is ,,_ c i n0 -, m a mb �z ihiii, m -,o, t , .„,,,,... .f, __ , Mat Mill' , :�:, 1?-:.:'.- F . .. F , , ,, �IIII Z m W nr 1 >CO m 3 z z I c� 1 c I 11140 0 ..- 1-1 io , i l l U ;tt `'' y> cn \I ;LI t o ; �' ^;, � ► 1 l c r — m S < 2 S - _ t� me m f0 m ..� J 1�1 tip - 111 I �� _ Z ; • * 1 T ... . Ai -; r :Maria Ilk rill ,. MI _i n • .....c ,, ,„ V - F 3 - �� 1 I 1 IT 1 ilw 4 Pingi i :twr irH .-- // I ik 11 M T •Z , V "'! , �• 0 .` D !; s I i ii i jr� r 0r ' a „,„ 4 0‘. 1 D .,_ , 1/4. 0 A CO 2 Of 71 / A r D FS 2 Supplement Page A fr CITY PEN ` "� . 130 r`.. asp i —•`', _ ` ' 1611 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 1983 TO: Planning Director FROM: City Attorney Tn RE: Lyle Reeder GMP Allotments Please comment on the annexed correspondence from Jeff Sachs, suggesting that the two -year development period with regard to the Reeder GMP allotments has been tolled pending a resolution of the Cantrup litigation. PJT /mc Attachment cc: City Manager SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE JEFFREY H. SACHS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1903) 025.8700 JON DAVID SEIGLE _ 201 NORTH MILL STREET JAMES H. DELMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 B. JOSEPH KRABACHER April 4, 1983 Mr. Paul Taddune Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 82 CV 60 Cantrup v. City of Aspen, et al. 1982 GMP Dear Paul: This firm represents Lyle Reeder who received 1982 GMP approval for his development project known as the Lodge at Aspen including 31 lodge units and 4 employee housing units. As you know, the 1982 GMP lodge competition results are in limbo due to the filing of the captioned lawsuit by Mr. Cantrup seeking to overturn or modify the 1982 GMP results. Although Mr. Reeder has answered the captioned lawsuit and is willing to litigate the matter to defend his development rights, the lawsuit has been delayed pending certain settlement negotiations which were being conducted between Mr. Cantrup and the City of Aspen. Now that Mr. Cantrup has filed bankruptcy procedings, this matter is further complicated by the automatic stay issued by the bankruptcy court pertaining to the captioned litigation. I am writing this letter to you to confirm that Mr. Reeder continues to assert his right to develop the subject 31 lodge units d 4 em•.. • -- •• ••• •. ■•• • _ • -•• won. evertheless, there is no possibility that Mr. Reeder may procee: he development un i captione lsuit i_a_xesolved-._ Thus, it is my un erstanding that the two -year development period required pursuant to Section 24 -11.7 of the Code was tolled on February 19, 1982, when Mr. Cantrup instituted the captioned litigation. When such litigation is resolved, Mr. Reeder should then be given the remainder of his two -year development period in which to complete planning and construction of the project. Moreover, I understand that in the 1983 GMP competition pertaining to lodge rooms, the existence of the 1982 award to Mr. Reeder will be recognized and not carried forward for any allocation to other persons. t I Mr. Paul Taddune April 4, 1983 Page Two Please confirm your understanding of the foregoing matters. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to telephone the undersigned. Very truly yours, SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGIJE By Ai v ♦ ,___ ef i fey H. " "s JHS:sf cc: Lyle Reeder MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune FROM: Alan Richman RE: Lyle Reeder GMP Allotment DATE: May 18, 1983 I have reviewed the letter from Jeff Sachs to you, dated April 4, 1983, concerning the potential expiration of the approval for the Lodge at Aspen project. I concur with the conclusions reached by Jeff which would indicate that the two year deadline for submission of building plans should be held in abeyance until the Cantrup suit is settled, and that the 31 unit allocation should not be made avail- able for award in the upcoming competition on October 1, 1983. If you have any other thoughts on these matters, please let me know of them at your convenience. P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, Colo. 81611 925 -5360 September 28, 1981 Mr. Allan Richmond Aspen Planning & Zoning City Hall Aspen, Col. 81611 Re: GMP Application of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Dear Allan, On page 14 of the Application of THE LODGE AT ASPEN the word "not" was inadvertently omitted from line 14. The line should read: " "parking will not be provided on site to encourage employee use of public..." Yours truly, 2 1 1 \__..c_c L. Lyle D. Reeder, Applicant LDR /Jg Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 / MEMORANDUM TO: ' Paul Taddune, City Attorney ,4Dan McArthur, City Engineer yCJim Markalunas, City Water Stogie Maddalone, City Electric ✓ Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation /Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal /Building Department V Rocky Mountain Natural Gas /Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1982 Growth Management Competition Lodge - City of Aspen DATE: September 3, 1981 The attached application is one of two competing in this year's Lodge Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981; there- fore, may I please have your ritten comments concerning this proposal no later than piiember 18 1918 Please Include sufficient information in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competition. Thank you for your assistance. • R r$ �F `�Y Q, Le . rct+a • September 24, 1981 c)p co 5 L.re -� C s `^^ .552 ' _f The Lodge at Aspen 1. Water - Written comment should be obtained from the water department regarding the applicants statements about the main extension size as well as cost responsibility. 2. Storm Drainage - While the proposal requests an improved drainage plan for the Aspen Mountain runoff, it should also include curb and gutter improvements on all streets commensurate with the storm drains. 3. Roads - The applicant should be required to participate in proposed street improvements in coordination with improvements proposed by Little Annie Corporation. Additionally, the existing twelve foot right -of -way on the Aspen Mountain Road is inadequate in terms of fire access, existing, and proposed loading. The applicant should be required to provide further right -of -way along the entire frontage as well as widening of the roadway and provision of curb and gutter to serve the new lodge and facilitate proposed drainage improvements. 4. Amenities - This lodge should provide pedestrian improvements and functional landscaped areas. 5. Policy Goals - The application is confusing regarding provision of employee parking on -site. 6. Trash and Service Access - This application, like the Aspen Inn Submission, is vague regarding how service access and trash will be handled. • Growth. Management Rgview Checklist • City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name IN-e_ DIA Q1 Ar Address rr ' 7 1- ( 34p Q, , , , * owner (c, Via¢ tio L • Attorney/ gent /Representative " • Address Reviewed by • a`N Date q Z - f • I. Residential Application (section 24 -10.4) A. Public Facilities & Services • O - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) ' 3 - No forseeable deficiencies j_ *Water ( 3 pts.) • Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upj e ra t public , ex q �'h. nsee pp eit CCi tS°-il f oir∎ ( p t , 17047 E v 4'.4t.&o -fl �y C� ��� p arotuk. -5 * Sewer (3 pts.) „f,/ / • nit )I • Capacity without system upgrade. + r c41 Ce"tridera 3 Storm Drainage (3 pts.) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. A Yet>nuE cS��' -c9(� } Cif l7 )nt P.nIQ l C o-evtyn , t.5,4 _ tA_740',.-rrL cirto.A_ Parking Design (3 pts.) Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. 1 ,, / Roads (3 pts.) v Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more /_ maintenance. ( � (re_ratt ta in imU tir,.rr itrn.QA =, �` / J c$,t r / r ®�;9.�a 1/(������ A7st ro- us rn¢.rtiL Ao- <iC1. � r /f ` Page 2 ,,., Growth Management y.,.oview Checklist B. Social Faci ities and Se O - Requires new servile at public expense 1 - Existing service .idequate 2 - Project i 1proves/quality of service 1 / Public Transports ion (2 pts.) 2 - On existing 'route. 1 - Within 520' feet of route. . 0 - Not near service area. Bike Path Linked o Trail System (2 pts.) 1 Design /Features for \Handicapped (2 pts.) II. Commercial ari Office / Development Application (section 24 -10.5) A. Quality o Design / 0 - Totally deficient 1 - Major fl r 2 - Acceptab e ''3 - Excellent • Site Design (3 opts.) Quality an character of extend of under- grounding of uti ities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of circu tion. Amenit (3 pts.) Usabl open space, edestrian and bicycle ways. Tra h and utility access areas (3 pts.) III.Lodge Development Application (section 24 -10.6) A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) • Page 3 !'„ Growth Management R Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. X( Public Transportation (6 pts.) • 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. . 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - ..'fWithin //520 feet of bus route or lif t. t1 ti L 1 - R E. t / �( Ci4 & `EXStYr, cq,tce a . rs . 41-44 A ��4 vxrz I 1.) „,‘ ayo4 C. Quality of Design Site Design (3 pts.) ( _. Amen ties (3 ptss. )) J 00-‘5 err-& `to pre-v>6 . I ;� � � Cc vnu 1 r u_ Visual Impact (3 pts.) Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt.). 1.!I yo� Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.). ( p rohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt.). ekt IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone ) NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area Lot Area /Unit fflCO 51 Lot Width, N Front Setback Side Setbacks NE Rear Setback IMIl trR„. I ( S Page 4 ,,•� Growth Management I „iiew Checklist Required ' Actual Maximum Height 7 SS Building Dist. ID Bldg. Sq. Footage Open Space 7 c External F.A.R. Internal F.A.R. V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption V/ Exception (A'+ Stream Margin View Plane * Areas to be checked'by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. • • • • • ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN RICHMAN - PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: THE LODGE AT ASPEN -1982 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION -LODGE -CITY OF ASPEN DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 As stated in the applicant's comments on Page 7, the Aspen Water Department would require an extension of the line easterly along the front footage of said property, terminating at a fire hydrant. The existing facilities in the neighborhood are seriously deficient by virtue of the fact that there is not an interconnect between Spring Street and Original along Ute Avenue. Ute Avenue in this area fronting the Alps is closed to vehicular traffic and has been land- scaped. However, it has been reserved as a fire lane and utility easement. In order for the Water Department to adequately service any development in this area, it is absolutely essential that at some future point in time the extension, as proposed by the applicant, be extended westerly to Spring Street by other developers and /or the City Water Department. Because the applicant has indicated a willingness to cooperate in the extension of this interconnect, we recommend approval be granted subject to the main extension. �^ _YV\ n Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 • MEMORANDUM • TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Stogie Maddalone, City Electric Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal /Building Department Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office • RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1982 Growth Management Competition Lodge City of Aspen DATE: September 3, 1981 The attached application is one of two competing in this year's Lodge Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981; there- fore, may I please have your written comments concerning this proposal no later than September 18, 1918? Please include sufficient information in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competition. Thank you for your assistance. / f—r17,t Z o T- • 7 144iepe•-- - . ���� • Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 • or') • l :i;l MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer -' Jim Markalunas, City Water Stogie Maddalone, City Electric Heiko Kuhn; Aspen Metro Sanitation ! SE J � Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal/Building Department Rocky Mountain Natural as \, ASPEN i P TT Co Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer PLANNING OFFICE jv FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1982 Growth Management Competition - Lodge City of Aspen DATE: September 3, 1981' The attached application is one of two competing in this year's Lodge Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981; there- fore, may I please have your written comments concerning this proposal no later than September 18, 1918? Please include sufficient information in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competition. Thank you for your assistance. aD v 0 NA L1,. tt N r -AAn lM � c A l ���� T • • Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Stogie Maddalone, City Electric Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal /Building Department Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer - FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1982 Growth Management Competition - Lodge City of Aspen DATE: September 3, 1981 The attached application is one of two competing in this year's Lodge Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981; there- fore, may I please have your written comments concerning this proposal no later than September 18, 1918? Please include sufficient information in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competition. Thank you for your assistance. 174/-1 /'L€Otosa JS i O r7 < A! GA'- /3 S6 r> /u ser.- rip Tdon oUArn• -. $ArA r/�ri.>A- A / srA.-,cr . TN irR A ga /f A$ Abs o CAPScity re /'l-A• -n “e TN/s PC / / t L / T > • t. tf P tic > 'f •_.: 1 r. I - 1 N. 0 .t • ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Assistant Director,/ Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 1) Environmental Health Department DATE: September 16, 1981 RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1982 GMP, Lodge - City of Aspen This application has been reviewed by the Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department for the following topics. Water Supply: Service of this project by the City of Aspen Water Department lines is in conformance with policies of this office. Sewer Service: Service of this project by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District is in conformance with policies of this office. Site Drainage: The retention on site of all surface and roof run -off through the use of dry wells is in conformance with policies of this office. Air Pollution Control: The submittal makes reference on Page 31 to the single fireplace exceeding the minimum requirements of the Aspen Ordinance. It is not clear as to which ordinance is referenced. The City has no maximum numbers of fireplaces allowed or design criteria for fireplaces, only recommended standards. It is recommended that the single fireplace in the lodge be equipped with glass doors and outside combustion air. Swimming Pools /Spa's: Pool /Spa Plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the Colorado Health Department and this office. TSD /co 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81511 303/925 -2020 0 0 (303) 925 -4444 ASPEN TITLE COMPANY P. O. BOX 9590 - 530 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 September 4, 1981 Planning and Zoning City of Aspen RE: Lots 15B, 16 and 17 Ute Addition to the Townsite of Aspen Lyle D. Reeder TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that Aspen Title Company has examined the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado pertaining to the above captioned property as of September 1, 1981 at 8:00 A.M., and has found the owner of said property to be: LYLE D. REEDER. Said property is subject to the following easements and covenants: 1. 12 foot wide access easement for Aspen Mountain Road as shown on Replat of Lot 15, Ute Addition to the Townsite of Aspen, recorded December 22, 1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 91. (Affects Lot 15B). 2. 10 foot wide easement for gas, sewer, and water lines as evidenced by Quit Claim Deed recorded March 23, 1964 in Book 206 at Page 264 and on Replat of Lot 15, Ute Addition to the Townsite of Aspen, recorded December 22, 1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 91. (Affects Lot 15B). 3. Terms and conditions of Covenants that Lot 15B shall be developed with Lot 16 of Ute Addition, as evidenced on Plat recorded December 22, 1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 91. (Affects Lot 15B). Very truly yours, ASPEN TITLE COMPANY /40 5. ' Bill E. Tom BET /sw 'Representing the following underwriters: First American Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Pioneer National Title Insurance and USLIFE Title Insurance ". • LYLE D. REEDER Real Estate Development P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 - 925 -536 303. 925.25 •