Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Lodge at Aspen.1983 r A a 6.yug Qsgen 'TEM 6-19e0 AT' AMMON AAI�`TCATTeN ANe AQgsONTATT -N AsISMN, IMAM Beg GeMeAe EeMAOTTT'eN eATO; EleTEMOM !on TNT 61_ecM . AT ASAg A G.M.P. APPLICATION REQUESTING 1984 ALLOTMENT OF 46 LODGE ROOMS 6EMPLOYEE UNITS A PROPOSED LODGE PROJECT LOCATED AT CORNER OF UTE &ORIGINAL STREETS ASPEN, COLORADO 410 FEET FROM LITTLE NELL SKI LIFT APPLICANT: LYLE D. REEDER P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, Co. 81612 925 - 5360 - -1 -- T I-I 6 - l!!!11E0 AT agempi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Pictures of Lodge Model 3 1982 Quota Allocated to THE LODGE AT ASPEN 4 Application - General 4 City Council's Resolution - 1982 Lodge G. M. P. 5 Applicant's & Consultants' Addresses 9 Vicinity Map 10 Area Map 11 Development - Area Calculations 12 Lodge Room Layouts and Furnishings i3 G. M. P. Application Data , 14 Outline of Presentation 15 SECTION 1 - AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES 15 (aa) Water 15 (bb) Sewer - Sanititation 16 Utilities - Plat 18 (cc) Sewer - Storm 19 " (Proposed) Plat 20 (dd) Fire Protection 20 (ee) Roads 21 Traffic Count - Estimate 22 Auto Generation Analysis 22 (ff) Effects on Adjacent Land Uses 24 Lodge Site - Current Use 24 (gg) Construction Schedule - Proposed 25 SECTION 2 - QUALITY OF DESIGN 25 Preliminary ;rchitectual Drawings. 25 1. Site Context Map 26 2. Photo Of Model 27 3. Building Elevations - West & North 28 4. - East & South 29 5. Cross Section - Vertical "A" 30 6. Floor Plan - Level "A" (Site Plan) 31 7. Floor Plan - Level "B" 32 8. Floor Plan - Level "C" 33 9. Floor Plan - Garden Level 34 10. Floor Plan - Parking Level 35 (aa) Architectural Design 36 (bb) Site Design 37 Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters 38 Landscaping Proposed 40 Landscaping Plan 41 Open Space 42 4cc) Energy Conservation 43 (dd) Parking & Circulation 45 Pathways, foot, Bike trails & Parks 46 Zoning Districts 46 Zoning & View Plane Overlay_ 47 (ee) Visual Impact 48 SECTION 3 - AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS .' 49 (aa) Common Meeting Areas 49 (bb) Dining Facilities 59 Ski Proximity 51 (cc) Recreational Facilities 57 SECTION 4 - CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS 52 (aa) Provision of Employee Housing .53 SECTION 5 - BONUS POINTS 54 APPENDIXES; Appendix "A" Lawsuit 56 Appendix "B" Certificate of Incorporation - "The Lodge" 69 - Appendix "C' Articles of Incorporation - "The Lodge" 70 Appendix "D" External Floor Area Calculations 71 Appendix "E" Internal Floor Area & Room Calculations 72 Appendix "F" Room Layouts and Furnishings 73 Appendix '.'G" Property Survey 77 - -2-- ' A . I ra r I puil tell Jail. Mill °MI II. T �► g Ag PICTURES OF LODGE MODEL PHOTOGRAPHS OF MODEL - 19b2 • I'r::sentat y/ / / a C • F /p ���c 6f�or a rr Lams ' r %i 9L � i ii 0000 s, i 8 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS t� PPLICATION' S MODEL 1984 G. M. P. Presentation Model (This represents a modification of the 1982 G. M. P. Bu ilding). a � �u�� y $ 8 �s a arm . x V Inc 9FC .,, � : S!1 Y# "�e l Wi bk gi`SS C A ` £ 195 b � $ g; - xn s3 5_ a xis a ° z 4r s a g %: � �` ` k� c;� s y , � z �' � .: ' 3 � 1z �`'u a ��.'z '��s .z� "� ; � RM. ��, �5 £s r � � �t a ��: .7114f �S e �� xg ` L s ;a gar °fir � � a� zi \ - @�x� '� �"C` �'a�� � fi, x fi � � - � , g. .. a a @ s .� O �xt - - 3 -- - -. MR MN um MI A= 112111 E=11 1110 IIIIII T pig 6 e ing ski. Aging 1982 QUOTA ALLOCATED TO THE LODGE AT ASPEN GMP QUOTA GRANTED IN 1982 THE LODGE AT ASPEN was granted a GMP allocation of 31 lodge rooms and 4 employee units by the Aspen City Council with the adoption of Resolution No. 2 (Series of 1982) on Febr- uary 8, 1982. A copy of that Resolution appears herewithin starting on page 5 . LAWSUIT FORESTALLING CONSTRUCTION The applicant, Lyle Reeder, was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed February 19, 1982 by the only other applicant in the 1982 Lodge GMP allocation competition. A copy of that lawsuit appears herewithin starting on Page 56 :appendix "A ". The lawsuit asked for among other things "G. That tile Court issue a preliminary injuction ordering that the defendant Lyle Reeder cease and desist from utilizing the 1982 Growth Management Plan allotment for Lodge units until such time as the Court can determine whether or not such allotment was lawfully made." As of the date of filing this application with the Planning Office this lawsuit has not been resolved to the knowledge of the applicant. APPLICATION -General This application is a request for a G.M.P. quota of 46 Lodge Rooms and 6 Employee units. The Aspen City Council by Resolution in 1982 granted a quota of 31 Lodge rooms and 4 Employee Units to the THE LODGE AT ASPEN Project. A copy of that Resolution is included herewithin starting on page 5 . The applicant hereby agrees to surrender the 1982 Allocat- ion of 31 Lodge Rooms and 4 Employee units upon receiving the allocation requested in this application. The technical name of the project is THE LODGE AT ASPEN, INC. which is a corporation owned by the applicant. Incorporation papers are shown as Exhibit "B" and "C" on pages 69 and 70 of this report. - -4 -- TNT �. _ e�� A"r ASA�N CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION - 1982 LODGE G.M.P. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RESOLUTION NO: v3__ (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 Nobemher 19, 1981, the City Council did hold a special meeting to con idr'r the issues of the available quota for lodge allocations in 1982, the appeals by the applicants of the scoring of the lodge - -5 -- TH ing g asp nerN F. , .. +, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves row* 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 AMP 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 niust 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 requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Municipal Code, and - -6 -- Tim 6 !gag agegp4 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. • '� II Dated: 711 . / /9f2 1'4'11:3 c W a YI N.% t• • / Herman — - -- — Mayor -7- T Fir 6 Beg AT fl 4 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��cil of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the 4 day of 1982. K athryn S. c City Cler -- 8 -- !mg ear AT ASA.N GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PRESENTATION APPLICANT'S &CONSULTANTS' ADDRESSES APPLICANT / OWNER; Lyle D. Reeder P. 0. Box 4859 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925 -5360 ARCHITECT OF 1982 PRESENTATION; James Von Breuer & Associates P. O. Box 77 Old Snowmass, Colorado 81654 (303) 923 -2569 SOLAR CONSULTANT OF 1982 DESIGN; Howard Rivers, AIA 1159 Delware Street Denver, Colorado 80204 LANDSCAPE DESIGN; Henry J. Pedersen P. O. Box 144 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925 -7517 INTERIOR DESIGNER; Ms. Jan G. Gunn 417 West Hallam Aspen, Co. 81611 (303) 925 -6170 - -9 -- TI-I. ` -eag AT ASAgN VICINITY MAP Location Of Site Y , e : ,44A a . 4 I'A xlN • i l L6! ` uTE CHILDREN ,r PARK o¢E a k M anal d (.4, r ,�; y r ■ r E � • } ' rl �.. �� I Ynr, a�a� 7 r Fur 0, �n� ' r I �L '! Ave o M Shadow 1 I ••;21 4{ J II # �an (+ fdl 1 . ' '. 1 1 I G L FT IA 1 � 1 I 1 1 a H �1' »I .• • OumnrCodo stn g vnas I Y e, re ii Aspen �!/ J: J tam J :WM. L r ° 6 CSI Cnaluu I LITTL ST E gJ r: 1 P Aspen WATERS AVENUE O"'I� AepN NELL ff • r Club rm.. Corp Alps I Conlmem pets nn UU: F'e ) , $drerglo I Non, Stu 0. Aspen Lithe Nell Ilan Inn Aspen nn / 1 AIpM 3°41339 Le Cliff A GIory.HoN Kayak T¢ usu. ael • A Naua r k lodge Sono. Out. m One 9 • .T• �1J $plu[e - eesWauE 3 UBY PA x la in Legge Loop, AI V IW rd AN . Shr CO _ Cn � e C ii lll " W m ■ Laundry SVW% ■'' OIIKa WAGNER I- Ill Z U Agin a- 1__1.1_.4, 1 fl_a ..I.T.M15 E PARK L mel r us ae µ B • p LOu m Cndlel �Z1O1 LoBga A \ IMK p ■ • M en 6 per E. Lodge ea 4 O i 6 • M Os % rouge Luuge A' (V�� $j pen , Spell 1 0 namene Properr 'its Lpatnli nl ill O =l C ` F p yY . ■ CM ACliviliefi BC Rum $w o f A spe I west 1 x I gObuaY Cnaler '. > — 6' . • a Lotlq CWWI° 1 A 6 C ' m el eeY UP M $hope L 1rr/'p'' MHe's. L A . r • Prinlmg a > m • -NIN$1111ArVE- m 'rural Pl �� M Y InneUluclr m ma,6 W n ,•;, Miner PAE PLx e ROARING FORK RIVER i y o • f a u • I PAR Aspen 311 Spo M Applepu WsnN Bm101nq Lodge motel Inn GMRISM PARK • y2 $urb f I I h ole 1111 I I Rugger ro boas C III MAI ST - or N - t Hor, Jelpme LoCge T Alan ! I .le y Pn arm I' avy L Y P ! P9 'E : u:kFi /.lq //JS Canna. • .� 1 / CMVO N • /a � V Conner % �aI MALI AM OKLAHOMA FLATS I p� Al • Clarks O Z Ia,. Markel 2 g '. yplj 4i a r trill H e I lti nE i vice.. Ex a l LAKE VIEW AOGITION i G FB�OIVAL'EN�,Q \� \ \\ 1 ,-- 9 o ASPEN � 1 &L LONE PINE ROAD 1 Vf'R AYArG APA R � ENTS / `. �L r 7{t, Y 1s ` YWLLAM LAKE C 4„1.011"...: /s ` Ou ay re, • - -10 -- 9 ` -BEM AT AMMON AREA MAP Scale 1" =400' ' I . .11 11 � _ _ -l1 - L. - 1 _ 1 JJ 1 L ...i 1 1 111 I .1 I N l 1 JJ �' N / � 3 Z I (' I l I I �? a - ff r 1* �l l I / � R R �ti L___ /9 ? L .�i - _11. . 11 _ LILI i - I LI �.1.lii 11 Pa /-- Ecn sT Er n0.E.JEMUMI COURT NOu lu \ R � / / r rr - 1 - 711 rf l _ - 1 1 : I W rr l rr I 1 ' ___T- S! _ ...i I 1 �_ .1! I 1 ,. L �,.J a :inuUU MN 1 • FT �I IIlJ II ,, 11 'k r 1 �� -s =, Tl� 1fir 1 h 1 IIJ I': FT Hi) [Li , 111 Il iI1 IL "1 E. HOP1ti1N5 AVE E CiTY HA ` W Z I J I- r II � 1 uTTT -1 f J r 1 . Lz ! I ' n .I ¢ 11 . �� I1_ Ga w 1, 1,1 IT I I I a ! I m 1 , �: �� = n trotin 1.. rn ."-r r, T fn 0 � 1 X1IV] PIIIII II ! 1i�� I...111'P LIl Q E I I'Z I �. L1.1_ � � ,, 111 ! �_ 0 �Li Z loll I I I I Q L I I � r' Al Si , \ r1 T Tl � I I ' y /1 I Y V` F- II 4 " 1� it 'TTj, ft F6nl I I r I h r ;k:111 I ,. � L1 ll. r Fr W v • ' w I L •iE� • I i �, , C.) n 1 IIIiii � l � �ii�' I��� ! ► % "i1 I WAGNER '" E. , COPE VENUE Q OJ ��7T I T P T T (I I l f 911 E 1 I T I � l I i� J r r J .JJ..11 __J U`N AVENUE i i Li LI L L ii 2 w 0 + „ 1T 1 LE -4w T ,,I , -,I j117,TT E I Fr PI 1111111'1 1 F ! 1 0 I Il, I! 111 I g Tim 1 I� L, � 1 ' [11 s 1i-I I REE EO _ I I � 5 i et 1 ' _ s \ \ \ \\ 1 L -11 1 1.. I .I l I I I i 1 i. I LAWN T. u I 1 - -2,•-it \ / a , WATERS ' T EI ',Elf 1.9 y � �< PARK iu1T_. -1. j B LA I Ib v do V j I :NtT I A a G r\ n om • • R Il ky 1l.li/ � � ..(:<, I A 1 I ' 7 1 �� J % \ �T D 9 . l ?uEgr J 3 w.a' f4i7 A ‘\ \ \ \\ LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED: ‘ \\ Fire \\ Police Department \ Ski. Lift —Aspen Mountain,Number4 Proposed Lodge Site — Proposed LITTLE ANNIE Ski Area(Base) ...„„_) - -11 -- "ENO 6 e 1E9 AT ASArN DEVELOPMENT -AREA CALCULATIONS Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: Total development area including lot coverage, internal square footage, and areas devoted to • open space or landscaping. • Applicant's Comments: Building Square Footage The following development calculations are based on the regulations for AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS contained in Aspen's Zoning Code, Chapter No. 24: LODGE SITE SQUARE FOOTAGE, TOTAL 15,386. sq. ft. Maximum External Floor Area Ratio Calculated 1:1 15,386. Maximum Internal Floor Area Ratio Calculated .75:1 with 33 1/3 percent of all rentable space above the Floor Area Ratio of .5:1 must be devoted to employee Housing 11,540. Less; Required Employee Hous- ing of 33 1/3 % of 25% Site Area 1,282. Maximum Tourist Rentable Space 10,258. sq ft. PROPOSED EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS Attached as Appendix "p" is the calculations of the External floor area. The total external square feet is 15,164. square feet above grade with 216. square feet of living space below grade for a total of 15,380. Square feet or 8. square feet below the maximum allowed. PROPOSED INTERNAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS Appendix "E" shows the total internal floor area calculations of the proposed 52 rooms to be 11,232. square feet which is 308. square feet below the maximum allowed. - -12 -- r . .. r e - 1 R ♦ ♦ 1 r '♦ f - r w i e. "rug L. - l! I MT AS A IT N FOOTPRINT OF LODGE BUILDING The total square feet of the building footprint consists of the following; A. Lobby Section of building 735. sq. ft. B. Rooms Structure 4,934. sq. ft. Total sq. ft. 5, 669. sq. ft. .PERCENTAGE OF SITE OCCUPIED BY PROPOSED BUILDING The percent of the site which will be covered by the building is determined by dividing the footprint square feet by the total square feet in the site; Footprint sq. ft. 5,669. sq. ft. 36. % site sq. ft. 15,386. sq. ft. LODGE ROOM LAYOUTS AND FURNISHINGS Proposed room designs are shown on Appendix e F o , included on page 73 . Several designs are shown which will permit a variety of room layouts. A feature of the room designs is the utilization of wall bed units. Two commercially made units are shown on page 75. and page 76 . The wall units provide daytime conversion of the sleeping area into a sitting area. OPEN SPACE Areas devoted to Open Space are shown on the Open Space Plat which is included on Page 42 of this application. LANDSCAPING Landscaping area are shown on the Landscaping Plat shown on Page 41 of this report. • --13-- Iring L. - Beg AT ASelgN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION DMA Total of Lots 15B, 16 & 17 Ute Addition 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: 15,380.sauare 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 72 and View Plane overlay on page 47. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: No SPECIAL REVIEW: No HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW: No PUD: No SUBDIVISION (CONDOMINIUMIZATION): Yes - -14 -- r 9 q s a w OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION This GMP Presentation is organized by showing photocopy excerpts from the GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, CHAPTER 24 -11.6 of Aspen's Zoning Code as amended by Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983). Following each excerpt the Applicant states his information comments and opinions relative to that particular facet of the GMP Section. SECTION 1 AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICE Ordinance No.35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon pub- lic facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning poihts according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level • of service in the area or any service improve- ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. • aa. Water Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: (aa) Type of water system t� be used, including information on main size and pressure, the excess capacity available in the public water supply system to serve the proposed building or the addition thereto; the location Of the nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanks. - -1 5 -- TI-11M _eCIM AT ASAgN WATER (Continued) Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (aa) Water (maximum2 points) considering the abil- ity of the water system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. Applicant's Comments: Based on a preliminary conversation with Mr. Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Department, he stated tie 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. b b. Sewer — sanitation Application procedures calls for the following information to be supplied: (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used, the existing excess capacity available in the sewage treatment system; the location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building or the addition thereto. - -16 -- T111 -MCA AT 'Mg AON SEWER (Continued) Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows; (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the abil- ity of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. 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, p age 77, 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 52 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. The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees anH 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. - -1 7 -- g -Es g AT ASAIMN UTILITIES— PLAT 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. er— a — G — 4' N. mus. GAf Lin — — w w� yy -- 6"wA -ER LINE -- Sews R SEW ERIAM MARY MAN HOLE P A�yo1 E — Snamilir INNS 4 1Z 1 7 1 1 C ite l nctn / TE1 EF TV k4 ic \CA eli • \ • SCALt c S ea If se 'sr ,p UT E D AI7IoN ' ` x` \ Lot %If Le r 14 Lot 158 ‘ - -18 -- TEO asemP4 cc. Sewer— storm Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff water from the building or the addition thereto. Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drain- age control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. 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 drywells sufficiently sized to retain site and roof water runoff. Consistent with standard engineering practices the drywells 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. Should the Engineering Department of the City of Aspen prefer that the sewer be connect to the line lying on the West side of Original Street the Applicant.a9rees to run the Storm Sewer line to their prefered connection point. - -19 -- mmHg ` -eCig AT ASAgN SEWER -STORM (Proposed) PLAT Proposed Storm Sewer 1 Ex,r * . Stn. / SQteeva, L,` . Extension `� (Size to be Determined) 6— G — 4" Gas Lisa — w— w_ Wa +e.(o" L.Iti4 r S /NITA4t/ t In& . L -1 n t4 cew.e . — S a ta•Sewev".. h.Ie. Ca � en. u *I) is (Prepared)-Skfa Re_ w. -Be Pele+� • • yo r w ASpek "14144 11k Ito J,fa \\\ 1NX r \ SCALE law+ �i e S Is o� \ UTE ADD.ITIoN Lor 17 Let 16 1+T KB • I 0 (Prot., cA — ret Watt t'at -B dd. Fire Protection Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addi- tion of major equipment to an existing sta- tion, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may lbe necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. - -20 -- TEO 6 - eClg AT AMMO!' FIRE PROTECTION (Continued) 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 ii. 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. A fire alarm system consisting of the latest and best Technology will be installed during construction. The system will allow complete fire sure=liance from the office and From the Front Desk. ee. Roads Rating Guidelines indicate: (ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capa- city of major linkages of the road network to • provide for the needs of the proposed develop- ment without substantially altering the exist- ing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve • the increased usage attributable to the • development. 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 46 rental units will generate approximately 18 to 23 cars in the winter and summer respectively. - - 2 1 -- .11-10 6 - !Slag AT ASA0N TRAFFIC COUNT — Estimate Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed building or the addition thereto; total number of vehi- cles expected to use or be stationed in the proposed buildings; hours of principal daily usage; on and off street parking to be sup- plied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disin- centive techniques incorporated into the pro- posed building or the addition thereto. Applicant's Comments: AUTO GENERATION ANALYSIS Winter Summer High Use Period High Use Period GMP rental rooms 46 46 Average room occupancy X 95 % X 80 % Occupied rooms 43.7 36.8 Average people per room X 2 X 2 People lodged 87.4 73.6 Average people arriving by car X 60 % X 95 % People arriving by car 52.4 69.9 Average people per car --. 3 — 3 Estimated cars 17.55 23.3 Footnotes and Assum•tions 1/ Winter high-use g period is two weeks Christmas and February and March. 2/ 2 � 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 - -22-- TI-I0 6 - ame AT ASAgN arriving by car will be able to park and store their cars during their visits without inconvenience. 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 23 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. Employee parking will be restricted and limited on the site to encourage employee use of public transit, if this meets with the preference of the City of Aspen. Current traffic count information along Ute Avenue and Original Street is not avail- able to quantitatively estimate detail traffic impact. 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. -- 23 -- T I-10 6 - e AT ASI'Ig F EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: (ff) Effects of the proposed development on adja- cent land uses in the vicinity of the project. Applicant's Comments: No adverse effects are anticipated by the proposed develop- ment on the adjacent land uses in the vicinity of the project. The Glory Hole Park which is located diagonally from the site is expected the be used by the guest particularly in the summer and fall. The Park contains eight park benches at the present time. Additional benches can easily be added without adverse effects to the Park in order to accomodiate the increase usage. Due to the sites' close proximity to the Aspen Mountain ski lifts and Aspen's commercial core vehicle traffic is expected to be very limited after c: guests' arrival. Guest are expected to walk. 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. LODGE SITE—Current Use 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. - - 24-- T Ng eGr AT AS A�N • CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE — Proposed Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: • (gg) The proposed constt`f*Ction schedule including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing con- . struction. Applicant's Comments Construction can start as early as May 1, 1984 with complet- ion by February 1, 1985. Time period to complete the construct- ion is expected to be nine months. SECTION 2 QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN Preliminary Architectural Drawings Application procedure calls for the following information to be supplied; (2) A site utilization map including: Preliminary architectural drawings in suffi- cient detail to show building size, height, materials, insulation, fireplaces or solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conserva- tion or solar energy utilization features), type of commercial spaces or units, and loca- tion of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development site. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS The following photographs /Architectural drawings are • included; Page SITE CONTEXT MAP 26 PHOTO OF MODEL 27 BUILDING ELEVATIONS - WEST & NORTH 28 - EAST & SOUTH 29 BUILDING - VERTICAL CROSS SECTION "A" 30 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL "A" 31 " - LEVEL "B" 32 " - LEVEL "C" 33 " - GARDEN LEVEL 34 " " - GARAGE LEVEL 35 - - 25 -- TEO ` -eCn AT ASAOPI SITE CONTEXT MAP 1 n , 11 7 7 • 1 �6 n - ei Q o 1 EIS 1 '-,,,,,, i li t AMLLN Alr9 iIG9 Ha* /I I (NICK I •00 ' ASPEN rTh V ox A` .(' ir a SITE CONTEXT W2;70 so 100 150 200 THE LeeCE AT ASPEN - -26 -- r 1 s r r w r '� L� - SSr AT ASA�N PHOTOGRAPH OF MODEL --27-- , . _ TI-Ig `- !Beg AT ASeigN BUILDING ELEVATIONS- WEST & NORTH t A:: 1 � . IMPS a 1 4/ 1 4 k .41 t` Y3 WEST ELEVATION 1 1_ U l ' °M: a ,,L7. 11 n + Q fi r N� * � ++, . • ,rF si _ - ° '� .. �,�� 4. 7+ "' IM IN U i � � � f � , l , iy �„ l NORTH ELEVATION . _ -- 0 � 4 8 16 24 32 TI-Ir LeeEE AT ASAEN - -28 -- .. w i. r , i . i , ,4 r - .. .. TNg 6 - eag AT ASAgN BUILDING ELEVATIONS- EAST & SOUTH i il �. -'� r r _ + 4 n - )1w c ` ti Y T a EAST ELEVATION SOLAR COLLECTORS — 7 1 1 I 1 111111lIl■ • Lw s :q + n Y 1r y N i .1..t w r y e • ■■ Mg ■I■ ■I■ �■ _ ■I■ so NM _ VI f tl � iii , �� ,, F. , 1'I n nil nil 1 1 1111 ' , ow- soma SOUTH ELEVATION __ 0 i� _ 4 8 16 24 32 THE LESSEE AT ASAER - -29 -- _.,,. - gill N0 6_eaig nor ASh BUILDING - VERTICAL CROSS SECTION LEVEL C LEVEL 0.,3/44.46„..,; � `rr LEVEL A I gir5t n a ( PARKING AND FITNESS CENTER 4 PARKING SECTION A 0 8 16 24 a THE Lane= AT ASIEEN - - 30 -- TI-le L. - eeg AT ASeIMN FLOOR P LAN - LEVE L'A" (SITE PLAN) SIDEWALKS CURBS UTE AVENUE AND GUTTERS / ---------'72 BICYCLE PPARKING n \, \,t1,0_ 0 L 5W SETBACK ‘ PARKING ., \ . 1 2 + 1 \ < � Q ARRIVAL I CURBS, GUTTERS, ,9 \ '(_, _ PAVED DRIVES - _ - i(1_ - \ - __ . _- -9, - �� AND STREETS �SO�. 1 \ � LOUNGE AND DINING \ • sPO� Q wy SZ It e SERVICE Lamy All C • KITCFEN • 0 0 S -- ! == \ • t AN w ��Z 1 rl q %J nel a MI ; DO PO IM Me On DI Datli wpm / h -- -- -- -- -- 5Lo. sETeA -- -- PROPERTY LME LEVEL A PLAN — (e o A �� a a 16 24 32 THE LSSCE AT ASAEN - -31 -- TIM ` -.Er AT aft IsIgN FLOOR P LAN - LEVEL "B" • L@E OF ROOF BELOW �I MECH. II IP en rl = n 7N W1 is [�] la] MA Cpl 17 erne W INN a L7 Imam] as O -Q- 0 n 0 0 m. - N=H G7 lid . - j LEVEL B PLAN 1© 0 4 8 16 24 32 THE LeeCE AT ASAEN • -- 32 -- TEO `eeeg AT AMMON FLOOR P LAN - LEVEL LIE OF ROOF BELOW 11 _ - 'I - MECH. F EC plc C7D CI Ell • • C. MI T _w Z7 o [•Z•] NZ•] N] N] NZ•] [•Z•] u LEVEL C PLAN (© O 4 8 16 24 32 TH@ VeeeE AT ASAEN - -33-- v e w a r r 1 e • . • R , AI - • am 1 it 6..a Beg a. AneigN "GARDEN" LEVEL PARKING SPACES - SUMMARY NUMBER GARDEN (PARKING & FITNESS) LEVEL -23 GARAGE LEVEL 28 SURFACE - LEVEL 'A' 1 TOTAL— 52 ra H I, L ii l; STOR. (-_..1 % 3 y S 1. 1 e, I -J q . 1.• .-a. .1 •A .0 lie 11 t$ w] I I i Al IN �r, RAMP U IIGiii, .. li, , t�d I •S Ix - LAUNDRY MECH .— /SKI STORAGE 1..... ' Le ! ,. =_ — 1 I STOR. I 31 HOT i.z Ma aa -..__ p W. M. 0 EXERCISE AREA -4�-j. a; iiiii6 7 GARDEN (PARKING & FITNESS) LEVEL 4 8 1B 24 3 0 THE LEBEC AT AMMER --34-- iY .. s y A ; J t v ♦ y k ; y TI-Ig 6 _wag AT AS "PARKING' • LEVEL ' r� k I!1, iii 1 6 i s, 1 1 M /tt STOR' 1. 1 Y 5 I. 1 It 1 j •• .t .1 w ,S A♦ •1 Oil i I r it ( - \\\— ts hI i____ � � It jai � i - 11 , �I, E a ... J ;,..,9,,:i I�1 " J ,clI ` r 7 1'1 c` II RAPAP GARAGE /PARKING LEVEL . • (© 0 • 4 8 16 24 32 THE LSeEE AT AsAEN - -35 -- TI-I. `- !'C AT AShgN Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (2) Quality of or improvements to design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each appli- cation with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: Q -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: • Architectural Des'g Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) con - sidering the compatibility of the proposed - building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. .applicant's Comments; The massing of the building is low on the Ute Avenue elevation and elevates to a three level mass - in scale with the sturctures that exist to the south and west of the site. The plan is organized with the Administration and Lounge on the Ute Avenue side. The private area (lodge rooms) are at the rear of the site. The materials used on the outside of the building is cedar siding with an appropriate brown stain while the fireplace chimney stack will be covered with Lichenstone which is the same as the Hyde House located across the street from the site. -- 3(5-- TI-I� �. eG� AT ASA�N bb. Site Design Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. • Applicant's Comments; The Site Plan is shown on Page 31 . The area of the site is 15,386. square feet. The building footprint is 5,669. square feet, covering 36 % of the Site. The building is composed on three basic elements; 1. Administration - Arrival & Departure. 2. Community - Lounge & Dining. 3. Private - Lodge Rooms. The building is modulated in plan to enhance the feeling of openness on the site. The proposed Lodge is located 410 feet from the Ski Lift No. 4 at the base of Aspen Mountain near Little Nell. If one arrives at the site by vehicle the arrival area visually terminates Original Street. The main pedestrian access to and from the Commercial Core will be through the existing path system through the Ute Avenue Pathway. • There is an entrance on the North Corner of the building to accommodate this traffic pattern. r • TM, r y 1 S IDEWALKS, CURBS &GUTTERS A proposed sidewalks, curbs and gutters plan is shown on page 39 of this application. The applicant agrees to install curb and gutters on Ute Avenue and the Aspen Mountain Road which abuts the Lodge Site which shall meet the specifications of the City of Aspen. At the option of the City of Aspen the Applicant will guarantee to pay the cost of curbs and gutters should the City prefer to install the same. The applicant Agrees to participate in and pay for the Lodge's share of costs for street improvements to Ute Avenue should the Little Annie Ski area someday be built. -- 38_ TI-I� I. - l9G� AT ASA�N SIDEWALKS CURBS & GUTTERS LAYOUT SIDEWALKS CURBS UTE AVENUE AND GUTTERS • / / \1 F..t P.'Fit 0.-- \ n / BICYCLE PARKING /♦ .)�' At __ -- __ . 5'-0"SETBACK PARKING • ■ - H . \ ARRIVAL CURBS, GUTTERS, .9 �' PAVED DRIVES �1 %% AND STREETS `, w II Z W Y _ Y U 9 1 4 E • \ 090 if 1 Jz i o- RTY LNE • LEVEL A PLAN (© 0 � 4 8 16 24 32 TEE LeEEE AT ASAEN -39 -- "Fug 6_ Bag alp S AAcN SITE DEIGN (Continued) 1. Utilities - All utilities are to be underground. 2. Landscape - The proposed landscaping plan is shown on page 41__ of this report. 3. Trash Removal - Trash container will be located in an area near the Southeast corner of the property near the Ajax Co::uominiums 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. b). Heat tape system to be installed on to edge of roof to control ice buildup. c). Heat systems will he 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 he 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. Landscaping—. Proposed Application procedures calls for the following information to be supplied: Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, and • undergrounding of utilities. Applicant's Comments: The Landscaping Plan is shown on Page 41 and Open Space Plan is shown on Page 42 All Utilities are to be Underground. -- 40 -- ,It ig 6 - eae asp ASAgN LANDSCAPING PLAN Design by; Henry J. Pedersen SIDEWALKS CURBS B NRH t$ UTE AVENUE AND GUTTERS r- Q / ,,, R K :YCLE nn // 2,aito,,\,,,r\, 1:: PARKMIG �' I �� � '� �i/ / , - " �.. A \PARKIN v� r�;, p,p� A RRIVAL 1 J, � �� -- -= 9 s,�\ u i ; ,\-; rip 1.`~. 'p0 g • BUILDING , 4/1/7 ifi^ o ■ fi ' a \o, , h n\ - , *r , 4e14, wlr u u�6 SckEWLE: _ ° - =r. O41.‘1J . 50 CAL NAME. CCMMW WNE. SIZE - I �� E 4 30 PICEA PuWXNS Couco c , SSE � � 0 POPuLU OELTO OEt co- LIJLE.SS CO la' -19' M • ( �1 4 .fi L' Rzuw9 rlee>+� 'LLaoE.S ..xtrJ to di r / \ / \ I - <a �iuLfP/EQS `vF ircm wI�LCLOUrRe 1 ceeS +FD wHF1S - -Xr� w. I Min '� s ' 7.74 � ' RGIER m , i w «ice A l� r It LEVEL A PLAN . ( © 0 4 8 16 24 32 - -41 -- TH0 6 - eGIE AT AShIMN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE The footprint of the building occupies 36.% of the site (See page 13 for calculations). The Open Space area is shown below and exceeds 25 % of area of the Site. SIDEWALKS CURBS UTE AVENUE AND GUTTERS // BICYCLE / / PARKING I I e % O � 4 SPARKING A '� \ ,, 2 ARRIVAL S CURBS, GUTTERS, 1: L S � '. AND DRIVES f1 Q ` ;`� _ AND STREETS AN L r 9 ` Ify \ 4, SEIRVICE A _ >. T -N \ DINING , OPEN SPACE . W g r \ 9 0 y - - -- � W T. O LOBBY o CHEN _ 1 7 T i f , 1T , rl ;1--7, 7 ' r ' JI , I OPEN SPACE I \\ I, 1 OPEN SPACE I PROPERTY LINE LEVEL A PLAN .... � 6 16 24 - 32 THE LeSee AT AMBER • - -42 -- THE - e AT AS15011 cc. Energy Conservation Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (cc) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the use of insulation„ solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. • Applicant's Comments: The Aspen Ordinance is used as the minimum standard. Insulation proposed to increase the efficiency approximately 20o above the Aspen Ordinance. The solar collectors are located on the high roof also below the skylight. 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. - - 43 -- _ . , . or 140 L. _ eGIM AT AsAIMh1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The Lodge Site is located approximately 410 feet from the Little Nell Ski Lift, No. 4. It is also within two blocks abutting the Durant Avenue Transit route. The Rubey Park transit stop is within a five minute walk. The future of the proposed Little Annie Ski area development is uncertain at this time. The relation- ship of the Lodge Site to the Little Annie project is shown below; Lodge Site J LITTLE ANNIE BASE TERMINAL z lal y DIRECT ROUTE � A" 'w CIRCULATION ROUTE a - - -l= 1 1AM I H HHH = -HEC HEIH_, =H , e E{H 8hf -►fl r ROARING •RK 'R to ' me ∎R p:RE4 F . RUBY PARK TRANSPORTATI 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. - - 44-- oppg L. — nag AT ASAg dd. Parking & Circulation Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to ensure privacy from such areas. ordinance No. 3D (Series of 1983) indicates rating yuiaeilne as follows: (dd) Parking and cirulation (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, includ- ing the proposed automobile and service vehi- . cle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. Applicant's Comments; PARKING AND CIRCULATION Guest auto parking is provided on the basis of one vehicle per guest room and is located on the Garden and Garage Levels ot the Building. The Architectural plans of these levels are shown on pages 34 and 35_. The Check -in parking, Limo parking and service vehicle parking are shown on the Site Plan shown on page 31 General Circulation of traffic is also shown on the Site Plan. Automobile Elevator - In the development ot detail plans the installation of an automobile elevator will be given consideration as an alternative option to the ramp. The automobile elevator would lower and lift the automobiles to /from the two parking levels located below grade. Building Codes will be consulted Lo determine if the ramps may be replaced with an automobile elevator. LIMOUSINE SERVICE The Lodge will operate a limousine service for its guests. Normal limousine service is based on 1 limousine per 25 guests. Based on a theoretical capacity of 1.6 people per room this results in a need for 2.94 limousines. A theoretical capacity of two people per room would indicate a need for 3.68 limousines. Due to the proximity to the commercial core the guests will have a tendency to walk thus reducing the demand for limousine service. Three limousines are planned and should adequately accommodate the guests. -- 46_ TNT RIM AT AS I��N Pathways, foot, bicycle trai Is & parks Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following: Any major street or road links and school sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian • trails, greenbelts. 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. a Foot Path is shown on the Sidewalk, Curbs & Gutters Layout shown on Page 39 This Path leads to the Ute- Benedict Bicycle Path and thru the Walkway leading to the Little Nell Ski Lift. Zoning Districts Application procedures asks for information and comments on the following; General description of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning or historical dibtrict boundary lines, if any. Applicant's Comments: A Zoning and View Plane Map is shown on the next Page. -- 46-- TI-In 61-eC0 AT ASAON GLORY HOLE PARK ZONING . AND VIEW PLANE OVERLAY The subject Lodge property is located diagonally from the GLORY HDLE PARK. The Lodge Property Survey is included on page 7.7. The DATES on the Property Survey indicate "PROPERTY IS UNAFFECTED BV EITHER THE GLORY HOLE PARK VIEW PLANES OR THE RUBY PARK VIEW PLANE." Ta I ♦ 1♦ ♦ ♦11• ♦ ♦1 i ♦•1 •.r .] {s F. • • • 1 ♦ • 1 • • • 1. « ♦ ♦ 1. r l ♦ 1 l% } [I I i i,d •• • 1.4• J ... . ; .4.: • : •: ' �1i 111111 2 �.A• ��1 •«•• i•� • •!•.1♦ ii1• <,• �. y .. �•t. r,.flJ},f uj.;r - !. . '«• 1♦•• ♦�1 .•H !.' is }:• : • l•• � �t <'� �� ' LLB � ' c1t�f: #�� Ff6AMAaYaO 1 1 1 •• • ♦♦ 1 I. 9 i �. K ri1+ :?:::*:::::".:t i •i••• i Lx •i AlI1��AA L VIII .v ,lr->i' i r.Rlw�If ';;:-::•.::':; /•1• ;♦ l ! 1 � A ? ' �/ ' : fJ: *• “ : :±Z__ } : :f.: 1 Mall M � • ♦ 1' 1 ••: III III al 111111 :: - 1 i :. * lot 1 ; : .. j :, < # . : .c. � � n o -,S.. MI MI ' a f � ro1ii grit _ + I f s. : :r• . : 4 1 I 1 LIE I : . V _� 1 • r . . „S � p I I • 1 ° (I`r ' �' i Ifni III I ! II 1[ &� ° ' g e I I IIJ 11IIIililp I.;1::. : ` . :. •` !�!! "��11 i I' �I �iD I ' " , II ijJ 1 I I I I II II 1.:' S ..- � n I . �i `!,`; • =• ".. II �viiil���" rr O 41 liv A'11tl1r11 � Y � Tir. 1 \"17 Vi � .r 1 pi : . • � W R W . 04 1 B A R ` `� !&' r�' % 4 .141A.. / 0 ..,.i'i(p.. .. . i LODGE SITE LEGEND Zoned — Lodge One [I', Hi. I L I LODGE ONE iii uli VIEW PLANE OVERLAYS P PARK VPO /A GLORY HOLE PARK `" ``� (See Ordinance 17 Series of 1973) R-6 RESIDENTIAL ADOPTED: AMENDED: MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1975 ASPEN PLANNING 8 ZONING ORDINANCE II, SERIES 1975 __ 47 __ COMMISSION— MAR.23,1976 ,.t 6-ear AT ASAIMN Visual Impact Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of the proposed build- ings or any addition thereto, 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. The vertical surfaces are wood and glass and the roof is treated metal. The frontage on Ute Avenue is one story thus maximizing the views of Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic view interior and exterior. The building is placed to the rear of the site in order to enhance the view of pedestrain traffic on Ute avenue. -48 -- 1- I0I.eeer AT ASAIMN SECTION 3 AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its pro- posed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The commission shall rate each develop- ment by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spacious -. ness. The following shall be rated accordingly: aa. Common Meeting Areas (aa) Availability of or improvements to the exist - ing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,,in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). 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 and lodge parties. The size of the lounge is approximately 15 feet by 32 feet. % <e° ~' The size of the Lodge Site does not permit the development of any Conference facilities. • --49-- 1.4 g L. - eCg AT AS N bb. Dining Facilities Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (bb) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in • relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). Applicant's Comments; The restaurant will provide food service for lodge guests. No public use of the restaurant is anticipated which would require a Conditional Use Approval from the City of .'.spen. The service area will be in the lounge in the winter and in the summer and also on the terrace in the summer. An Apre' ski bar will be operated in the Lounge area for guests. 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. - -50-- g ` _ BE. OPP AS A g Skiing Proximity 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. Commercial Support; 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. Police Protection; 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. -- 51 • IP I-I 0 L. - B IE M AT AS A o N • cc. Recreational Facilities Ordinance No.35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (cc) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maxi- mum 3 points). Applicant's Comments; Recreational facilities will include a whirlpool and saunas. An Exercise room will supply weight lifting and general exercise equipment. Two Commercial Health Clubs, the Aspen Athletic Club and The Aspen Club are located within walking distance of the Lodge Site. Both offer a variety of health activities and it is expected that both clubs will be utilized by the lodge guests. The Glory Hole Park is located diagon- ally opposite from the lodge site. The Park will be of recreational benefit to the Lodge guests, particularly during the non -ski season. • SECTION.4 CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL POLICY GOALS Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows; . (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 30 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: - - 52 -- THE `. - eC� fl ASA�N aa. Provision of Employee Housing • (aa) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 •points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the additional' lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. • 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the plan- ning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any. addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. APPLICANT'S COMMENTS; all employees will be furnished housing either on -site or off -site. Applicant will work with the Housing office of Pitkin County in order to provide the housing within their regulations. FULL TIME EMPLOYEES Fulltime employees during the Ski Season are estimated to be a total of 15 employees. The list of the employee jobs are as follows; Title Number Manager 1 nss't Manager 1 Day Clerk 3 Night Clerk 2 Domestics 4 Cook 1 Janitor & Maintanence Man 1 Hellman & Lomo Driver 2 Total 15 ON -SITE HOUSING Based on the size of the planned lodge, employee housing of 1,282 square feet is required on the site. Using 100 square feet of floor space per employee 12 employees can be housed. Since the lodge rooms are standardized at 216 square feet per room, six rooms will house the 12 employees. OFF -SITE HOUSING Three employees will be housed off -site. The V\ 0 lodge will either lease long -term or purchase three 'e condominiums in the Aspen Area for housing the three • c.P•r. 5 �Q - 53 -- e;:_:loyees. y . r • SECTION 5 BONUS POINTS • Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline as follows: (5) Bonus points (maximum 6 points). The commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting 'recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the cor- responding multiplier. Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written jus- tification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS CONSIDERATION Applicant's Comments: 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. 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. 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. The location is within walking distance to the commercial core and public transportation. The nearness of the Police Department enhances guest security. - - 54 -- • "Hg Bag sir ASAgN The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain. 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. The outstanding overall design recognition bonus points are based on Section 24 -13..6 (b) (1), (2), (3), (4). 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. APPENDIXES FOLLOW THIS PAGE -55-- r Tug ` -Beg nip ASAg APPENDIX "A" LAWSUIT - Copy (Included as "background information ") c IN THE DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF PITKIU, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action - COMPLAINT HANS B. CANTRUP and JUNE M. CANTRUP, Plaintiffs, v. . THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation, the ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, v HERMAN EDEL,YCHARLES COLLINS, ✓SUSAN MICHAEL,YGEO ?GE PARRY, and /RICHARD KNECHT, individually and as members of the City Council of the City of Aspen,VSUNNY VANN, individually and as Director of Planning of the City of Aspen, andwlaYLE REEDER, Defendants. Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, complain of the defendants as follows: First Claim for Relief 1. Plaintiffs are the owners of certain real property (Real Property) located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, upon which is located a lodge known as the Aspen Inn. 2. Plaintiffs are, and at all times material hereto, have been residents of the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 3. Defendant, City of Aspen, is a municipal" corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado. 4. Defendant, Aspen City Council (City Council), is composed of the duly elected, qualified and acting members of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado and Defendants Herman Edel, Charles Collins, Susan Michael, George Parry, and Richard Knecht are the present members of the City Council. 5. Defendant Sunny Vann is and was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting Director of Planning of the City of Aspen, Colorado during the time relevant to this Complaint. -- 56-- 9 6- BEM AT ASAIMN t 6. Defendant Lyle Reeder is, and at all times material hereto, has been a resident of the Citv of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 7. On or before September 1, 1981, in accordance with and pursuant to Section 24 -11.6 of the :unicical Code of the City of Aspen, the plaintiffs submitted an acp icaiion for a Growth Management Plan allotment for 96 lodge units on the Real Property to be known as the "Aspen Inn Expansion." 8. On or before September 1, 1981, the defendant Lyle Reeder, submitted an application for a Growth .Management Plan allotment for 31 lodge units and 4 employee housing units to be located on property owned by him in the City of Aspen. 9. In accordance with and pursuant to Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code of the.City of Aspen, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 1981 for the purpose of comparing the two projects, awarding points pursuant to the requisite criteria, and ranking the projects according to the points awarded. 10. As a result of said public hearing the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission awarded the greater number of points to the Aspen Inn Expansion, and upon the recommendation of the planning office adopted a motion recommendina to the City Council that the quota available to be allocated should be 54 lodge units. Upon motion duly adopted, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded the results of the public hearing to the City Council. 11. By letter dated January 20, 1982, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, the defendant Sunny Vann notified the plaintiffs of the rejection of the plaintiffs' application for a 1982 Growth Management Plan allotment for the Aspen Inn Expansion; which letter was delivered to the plaintiffs on Janaury 22, 1982. 12. Said rejection is based upon the contention that the 1982 Growth Management Plan application for the Aspen Inn Expansion is predicated upon an amendment to a 1978 Growth Management Plan application and since the amendment has not _vet been approved, the 1982 application must be rejected. 13. The 1982 Growth Management Plan application for the Aspen Inn Expansion is not predicated upon any previous application or amendment thereto. 14. The rejection of the 1982 Growth Management Plan application for the Aspen Inn Expansion is without authority, has - -57 -- T 4 6 ©GIg AT AgeMN • t no basis in law or in fact, and by reason thereof the defendant Sunny Vann has exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion. 15. Plaintiffs have no plain, speed_, or adequate remedy except to .apply to this Court for relief. • Second Claim for Relief . 16. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15 in their First Claim for Relief. • 17. By reason of his actions the defendant Sunny Vann has unlawfully precluded the plaintiffs from rights to which they are entitled. • Third Claim for Relief 18. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15 and 17 in their First and Second Claims for Relief. 19. Section 24- 11.6(b) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen provides in part that: "The Planning Office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of September, reject those that are ineligible under Section 24- 11.3(c) and present its recommendations at the Planning and Zoning Commission no later'than October 1st of each year or at the Commission's first regular meeting subseauent to that date...." • 20. The Planning Office did evaluate plantiffs' development allotment application for the Aspen :nn Expansion during the early weeks of September, 1981. 21. The Planning Office did present its recommendations at the Planning and Zoning Commission at its frist regular meeting subsequent to October 1, 1981, but did not reject plaintiffs' development allotment application. 22. By .failing to reject plaintiffs development allotment application on or before the first regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981, the defendant Sunny Vann is precluded by Section 24- 11.6(b) of the ' Municipal Code of the City of Aspen from thereafter rejecting said application. Fourth Claim for Relief • 23. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17 and 19 through 22 in their First, Second and Third Claims for Relief. • • --58-- • . T I-I 0 6- e C M AT Ag IM • 24. If valid grounds did exist for rejection of 'plaintiffs' development allotment application, such grounds existed • at the time the Planning Office evaluated the application in September of. 1981, the Planning Office knew such grounds existed, and that it had a right to reject the application therefor. 25. By failing to reject the plaintiffs' development allotment application on or before the first regular meeting of the • . Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981, the defendants waived any rights they had to so reject t:_e application. Fifth Claim for Relief 26. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 th rough 22, 24 and 25 in their First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief. 27. Between September 1, 1981 and January 20, 1982 the defendants, by their words and actions, led plaintiffs to believe that their development allotment application was valid. 28. Between September 1, 1981 and January 20, 1982 the plaintiffs justifiably relied on defendants' words and actions in spending substantial amounts of time and money in processing their development allotment application. • 29. As a consequence of their words and actions and by • failing to reject plaintiffs' development allotment application on or before the first regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981 the defendants were estopped from rejecting the application. • Sixth Claim for Relief • 30. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation • contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 2 ?, 24, 25 and 27 through 29 in their First, Second, Third,' Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief. 31. If valid grounds did exist for rejection of plaintiffs' development allotment application, the def endant Sunny Vann had a duty and obligation to reject said app1ication on or before the first regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981 and by failing to reject the application on or before said date, the defendants subsequent rejection of said application is barred by the doctrine of laches. Seventh Claim for Relief • 32. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allectaion contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27 • • • -59 -- • • °PIM L. - L'GIn AT AM 091011 • • through 29 and 31 in their First Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief. 33. Defendant Sunny Vann's letter cf ear :ary 20, 1982 is purportedly based upon Section 24 -11.3 of the 2.0 :icipal Code of the City of Aspen. • 34. Section. 24 -11.3 of the _ _unicipal Code of the City of Aspen authorizes the planning office to reject any application for a development allotment which fails to satisfy certain conditions or meet certain requirements of the Code or other land use or . building regulations of the City of Aspen. • 35. Said Section violates the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Colorado in that it denies to the plaintiffs due process and equal protection of the laws, constitutes an unlawful delegation of power to the planning office, .and fails to set forth adequate stapdards. 36. The application of said Section to plaintiffs interferes with and impairs the rights and privileges of the plaintiffs to due process of law and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and of the State of Colorado. Eighth Claim for Relief 37. Plaintiffs reallege each and ever-: allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27 through 29, 31 and 33 through 36 in their First, Second, Third, • Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief. 38. At a regular meeting held on January 25, 1982 the defendant City Council and the members thereof awarded a development allotment of 31 lodge units to the defendant Lyle Reeder. - 39. Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Municipal Cod& of the City of Aspen provides in part that: "Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section...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...." 40. The plaintiffs,, having ranked first in priority with respect to the 1982 Growth Management Plan quota are entitled to receive the entire development allocation of 54 lodge units. 41. By reason of their actions in awarding the aforesaid development allotment to Lyle Reeder, the defendant City Council __60__ I- 0 `_ Bag AT AS A�N and the members thereof have violated section 24- 11.6(e) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 42. By reason of their actions in awarding the aforesaid development allotment to defendant Lyle Reeder, the defendant City Council and members thereof acted arbitrarily, capriciously, abused their discretion, and exceeded their jurisdiction. 43. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy except to apply to this Court for relief. Ninth Claim for Relief 44. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27 through 29, 31, 33 through 36, and 38 through 43 in their First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims for Relief. 45. By reason of their actions in awarding the aforesaid development allocation to defendant Lyle Reeder the defendants have unlawfully precluded the plaintiffs from rights to which they are entitled. Tenth Claim for Relief 46. Plaintiffs reallege each and evert' allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22,. 24, 25, 27 through 29, 31, 33 through 36, 38 through 43 and 45 in their First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, . Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Claims for Relief. 47. If the defendant Lyle Reeder is permitted to utilize the development allotment which was awarded to him prior to a determination by this Court 'as to whether or not such allotment was lawfully made, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury. 48. The plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Eleventh Claim for Relief 49. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27 through 29, 31, 33 through 36, 38 through 43, 45, and 48 through 49 in their First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and.Tenth Claims for Relief. 50. The individual members of the Aspen City Council, the Director of Planning, and others have had numerous private meetings and discussions for the purpose of determining and - -61-- TIM ` =eEM AT ASAMN formulating a method and policy to prevent the plaintiffs from developing the Real Property and other real property owned by plaintiffs in the City of Aspen. - 51. The individual members of the City Council, Director of Planning, and others have adopted and implemented a policy to prevent the plaintiffs from developing the Real Property and other real property owned by the plaintiffs in the City of Aspen. 52. The actions taken by the Director of Planning and the City Council are part of a series of actions intended to prevent the plaintiffs from developing the Real Property and other real property owned by the plaintiffs in the City of Aspen. 53. In taking the actions described in paragraphs 51 through 53, and as incorporated by reference in paragraph 50, as well as other related actions, the defendants acted under color of the laws of the State of Colorado and under color of the ordinances of the City of Aspen, Colorado. • 54. Said actions are intended to, and have the effect of invidiously discriminating against plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights, including without limitation, their rights to freedom from unlawful taking of property, to due process and to the equal protection of the laws, as secured by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 55.. By reason of such discrimination the plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for the following: A. That the Court issue an order pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) directing that the defendants reinstate the plaintiffs' 1982 Growth Management Plan application for the Aspen Inn Expansion and award entire allotment of 54 lodge units to the plaintiffs. B. That the Court issue an order pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a) (4) directing the City Council and the City of Aspen to certify to the Court, no later than 30 days after the date of the order, the entire record and transcript of proceedings had before the Council relative to the 1982 Growth Management Plan allotment for lodge units including all exhibits and other documents presented to the City Council. • C. That the defendants Sunny Vann, City Council, and City of Aspen be ordered to show cause, not later than 30 days after the date of the order, why the actions taken by Sunny Vann and the City Council in rejecting the plaintiffs 1982 Growth - - 62 -- "PO i._eCIE AT asAlgN Management Plan application and in awarding the 1982 Growth • Management Plan allotment for lodge units to Lyle Reeder should not be vacated, set aside, and reversed. D. That the Court find that the plaintiffs reasonably • and justifiably relied to their detriment on the words, actions and conduct of the defendants and that by virtue of such justifiable detrimental reliance and in order to prevent a fundamental injustice, the defendants were estoppel from rejecting the plaintiffs 1982 •Growth Management Plan application and from awarding the 1982 Growth Mangement Plan allotment for lodge units to Lyle Reeder. • E. That the Court find that the actions of the • defendant Sunny Vann in rejecting the plaintiffs 1982 Growth Management Plan application is barred by the doctrine of laches. F. That the Court find that the defendants waived any rights that they might have had to reject the plaintiffs 1982 Growth Management Plan application. • G. That the Court issue a preliminary injunction ordering that the defendant Lyle Reeder cease and desist from utilizing 'the 1982 Growth Management Plan allotment for lodge units . • until such time as the court can determine whether or not such allotment was lawfully made. H. That the Court find that by reason of the actions of the defendants in rejecting the plaintiffs 19x2 Growth Management Plan application and in awarding the 1982 Growth Nanagement Plan allotment to defendant Lyle Reeder, the plaintiff have been denied due process of law and equal protection of the la::s•as guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution and by the Constitution of the United States. 1. That the Court declare that Section 24 -11.3 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is not applicable t_:. plaintiffs or that it is void, unconstitutional, ineffective, and without force of law, and that defendants and each of them be restrained and enjoined by order of the Court, pending final determination of the issues stated herein, and on such determination, be permanently restrained and enjoined from exercising any of the powers,. rights, or duties respecting the enforcement of said Section against plaintiffs. S. That the Court find that the defendants acted wilfully, in bad faith and under color of lac, to deny plaintiffs the rights, privileges and immunities secured to plaintiffs by the due process and equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and that as a result of • • - -63 -- _ s • }+ a • T 1-1 1g L- !Mr AT A S h M N such action plaintiffs are entitled to compensetory damages, exemplary damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and their costs herein. _ • K. That the Court award the plaintiffs the cost of this 'action and such other relief as the Court nay deem p ror , er _ RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of February, 1982. GARFIELD & HECET B y fl NL Spenc‘..2 F. Sch'_fer, /o. 1764 601 Ea; Hyman Aspen,"Colorado 8161 (303) 925 -1935 • • -- 64__ TI- I�L.eeC�ATfl P4 EXHIBIT "A" ( • 1'ARCEi. 1: Lots A, It, C and U BLOCK 84 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN • • PARCEL 2: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 BLOCK 2 CO: :XOR'S ADDITION TO THE CITY ;c :p ;t : :':j :7i_ PARCEL 3: ,\ tract of land, being all of Lot 6, ';J:: I and rt of the unplattcd portion of CU...J : :'S '....'` :;• - l . -_� �� - c:.sc of • said Lot 6 and adjacent to the CITY F.:� said tract being more fully dcscri :, -•.1 LE :GIN ::ING at the Northeast corner of ,. :,f:! : 'c , •.• ,IJI CIO:' • whence the Northwest corner of Sett__._ 1c }•'- I� South, Range 84 hest of the 6::: P.M., North , • :it ,v +:egrcrs, 8 minutes, 40 seconds Huse, 773.E _fc =_ :; • THENCE South 15 degrees hest, :don:: :`c : +, ;,c of CO::;:OI''S ADDITION 99.99 feet to the !forth iine of i : _c- Street; TUEGCI: North 75 degrees hest, alon the North line of 1..._„ ^ Street 57.75 feet to the Southwest corer cf ' -•az_ Lu: G AEi_ : :CE North 15 degrees 49 minutes 50 seco:.:is , along ch_ West ' o ' the line of said Lot 6, a distance of 103 fret _ :- :force -:cst corner of said lot, -being a point on tc,c S :,; if ::c of Dean • Avenue; THENCE South 75 degrees East. ::lone South line. of Dean Avenue, 56.3 feet to the Yor :. Cc• E: `'' cF Lots 1, 2 and 3, DEAN'S ADDITION, ,+ _ TOWNSITE or A;'TE\'. 1', \',;CEL 4: Lots 7, 8, 11 and 12 BLOCK 3 CON.` :U3'S Ai, iIT10N TO HE CITY AN!) C_ _ li ?: :•_ 1 •':tCE1. 5: lots 1, 2, t, 4, 5, 6 and the strip 5- fee; _ of Lot 6 and Lot 12 in Block 3, CON ::(.r:': _.!.:DIT_`' :: TO : CITY • OP ASPI ::1, together with one -dais of ! :, _ u +y a:1_j a _ • cent to and at the rear of raid Lo: 1 . c. PARCEL 6: A tract of land described as be gia : :i • ro :; whenCr the Northwest corner of Section 1j, 1_ 10 S., f..: ;;• 6th P.M. bears North 15 57' 43" hest 1003 then:e North , 14 33' 22" Fast 4 feet; th 129.6ence r ' '• o a 75 v :� ..esc 70.72 . feat; thence South 1) 00' Vest 129.1•: fee:; t : ;tn e South 75 00' East 71.73 feat to the poi: :: of 5eitinning, f° :_ erly known and described as Lots 4 and 5, : is _:r +- • - t_: i, .. :.: th City of Aspen, Colorado PARCEI. 7: A tract of land being Lots 6, 7 and C. 1 : :. :; : :'s ADDITION TO THE • CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, eNccpt that part of Lots 7 ead S lying within the following described parcel: • BEGINNING at U.S.ii.S. 2535, Corner • , ;_ :.• rte No. 4 bears N 85 12' 50" 1 . , 2090.1?, fee: ; U;-'r.: e as 15 00' t. _ 3.79 feet; thence S 75 09' I1" E., 6 ' fee:; thence S 14' • 33' 22" E 307.20 feet to the true poi: 75 30 42" D., feet; thence S. 29' " •' t- _. .5 W. 104.03 feet; thence S 75 00' 1:., 60.41 feet; .::c• :e 14 33' 22" E. 104.5 :1 feet to the true point of I:i :CI : :::L::G_ -- 65 -- • • ' !,^ • TtI g AS A M N • • k ( • t'AItCEt_ S: A parcel of land Lein,; part of ,..:_. i, Z.; 70 TEE C1:11' OF ASPEN. Safe, r::.:, I i:. ;:ar _ cl e-_ C� : Sect a ' ecc :: follows: BEGINNING at - Ut.e No. 4 bears N 85 12' 5!:" t•'_ , 3, 79 feet; thence S 75 t )' 11" ' �, ; y - 33' 22" F:., 307.20 feet t.. c:,t _ t h S N 75 30' 42" 1 :,,60.57 feet ; t!ic: :z . 1 :�' •,), c: _ ! :..03r 3 feet; thcnc.c feet to the true poi,:: of S 75 00' E ( - t; ` " . " " 2.) 104.53 3� 2 • • Situated 1■ t County of I'i'.i:iu, 5 :,: o_ t.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • __66 r f " op Fig 6 - eGg fl ASI��N EXHIBIT B Aspen /Pitkin ,Planning Office • 130 sou galena :street aspen, colorado:=81611 January 20, 1982 Mr. Spence Schiffer - Garfield and Hecht 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Spence, Pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(c) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Office hereby notifies you of the rejection of Mr. Flans Cantrup's application for a 1982 Lodge GMP allocation. As you know, compliance with the requirements of Chapter 24 of the Code, "Zoning ", or any other applicable land use or building regulation Of the City of Aspen is a basic prerequisite to the receipt of any GMP allocation. The considerations with respect to Mr. Cantrup's 1992 request which have led the Planning Office to the above decision may be summarized as follows:. 1. Inasmuch as the Aspen Inn is a "phased application ", a fundamental component of Mr. Cantrup's 1982 request is his prior 1978 GMP allocation. The 1978 proposal is the basic building block upon which all subsequent requests must be evaluated. 2. The Planning Office cannot realistically utilize the original 1978 proposal to review the 1982 application since your client has already substantially deviated from the-1978 proposal in his construction to date, and has indicated no desire to return to the original concept. 3. In light of the unapproved deviations from the original 1978 application, it is the Planning Office's determination that Mr. Cantrup's 1982 lodge application fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. 4. Since the Planning Office cannot predict whether or to what extent an amendment to Mr. Cantrup's 1978 allocation may be allowed, we have no other alternative but to re- ject his 1982 GMP application pursuant to Section 24 -11.3 (c) (3). --67 -- Mr. Spence Schiffer( Page Two January 20, 1982 In summary, given Council's expressed desire to review the entire hotel complex (i.e., submission of a PUP) •prior to address- ing further Mr. Cantrup's request to amend his 1978 allocation, it seems only logical that requests for additional expansion of the Aspen Inn are inappropriate at this tirne. I personally believe,. however, that this action of Council represents a commitment on their behalf to address the concept of a major hotel development at the base of the Mountain and, furthermore, to consider the necessary mechanisms to bring such and idea to fruition. Should you have any questions or,if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sin•-rely, u nny Vann •lann' g Director SV:ans CC: Alan Richman Paul Taddune • -- 68 -- SS AT A SS APPENDIX "B" THE LODGE AT ASPEN, INC. - Incorporation of The Name The Name "The Lodge at Aspen, Inc." was incorporated by Lyle D. Reeder in the State of Colorado on May 19, 1982. This proposed Lodge can operate• with the name under which this application is being filed. The Certificate of Incorporation is shown below. The Articles of Corporation are shown on Page 70 . • � �C...ftU 410 0.0„...0 1jIlk . .-'41404-. ne �4t j1i � 1 i DEPARTMENT OF f i b _ . ,,, • STATE CERTIFICATE MARY ESTILL BUCHANAN, Yee/le/my o/ Nate o/ the Nak `7` %&a% hay f � /hal tl e ,6teneru4i/e4 k /ate iO4uaince o/ a4 ceJn ak have teen /a/ h/ed in contAliktnce emith hue and aite bend to con km 4 lava. dccotdin4, /he eondeta ned, ly th4ee a/ Le aea%o iy mad to tne "4 AP/t6y t44ue4 A CFPTTEICNTF. OF 1. JccI PORATIC'N TO THE LODGE AT ASPEN. TNC. %, - = -° z �1'' .yG J n' �x�. 1. Z :� - o. ) •l •0, • 11 ,� cc: •„ ,,„„ T / SECRETARY OF STATE 1 8 7 6 DATED: I1A Y :1.9. 1.922 !t 2 - -69 -- ut r L. - e e AT A S AP PENDIX "C" NO. 15-11)11 Her. '711 ARII(IIS Or INCOHI &BON — Ilrullord Publishing Co., 11146 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado (5735011) - -4.7u • • ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION I'ItI)lar CORPORATION F I t_. E 0 ISF.t. INSTRUCTIONS RF.I.OW) 1, the unders natural person of the age of eighteen years or more, acting as an porator of a corepptipf un1ik:�tte Corporation Act, adopt the following Articles of Incorporatltn .- oNltt4 : The name of the corporation is_ THE LODGE AT ,15PEN, TNC. SECOND: The period of duration is (perpetual). l r THIRD: The purpose for which the corporation is organized is the transaction of all lawful businessfOr which corporations may be incorporated pursuant to the Colorado Corporation Code (B(rIIII)f — FOURTH: The aggregate number of shares which the corporation shall have authority to issue is 3 Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (150, 000. L_Sha res�_ - No Par Value. FIFTH: Cumulative voting of shares of stock is (not) 4 authorized. SIXTII: Shareholders shall (not) 5 have the preemptive right to acquire additional unissued or treasury shares of the corporation. SEVENTH: The address of the initial registered office of the corporation is 771 Ute A 17P.. r Aspen, Co, 81611 _Address: P. 0. Rnx 4859, Aspen, n. 81672.. and the name of its initial registered agent at such address is I.v1e D.__leeder EIGHTH: Address of the place of business: _77111te Aye. ,__A =p.cn 2x -- — Mailing Address.:— l'.__Q._Snx_.1R AC.pen, rn— P.1r)1?. 7 NINTH: The number of directors constituting the initial hoard of Directors of the corporation is " and the names and addresses of the persons who are to serve as Directors until the first annual meeting of shareholders or until their successors are elected and shall qualify are: NAME ADDRESS Lyle D. Reeder P. 0. Box 4859,, Aspen. Co. 81612 Jan G. Gunn _ —_- 417 V. fla 11. m, Aspen, CO. 81611 Glenn P. Garrett, Sr . P. 0. Box 8029, tsp_en, rn_ 81612__ TENTH: The name and address of the incorporator is: NAME ADDRESS Lyles D. Reeder _ P. O. Box 485 Aspen, C'o 81612 AMIIW • A. (Signature of Incorporator) • STATE OF __ —__ Colorado _ —_ - -- ) ss. COUNTY OF Pitkin __ ) LYLE D_, REEDER _ personally appeared before me, and being by me first duly sworn, declared that the foregoing Articles of Incorporation were executed by LYLE D. REEDER and that the statements therein contained are true. -- In witness whereof 1 have hercunto set my itand and seal this 17th d o f Aka V. ,i9 82 My Commission expires: ,,•.�__ -2- • Notary Public ) po.9... n/0 Footnotes: C u Imo'}"``"• t /� O // If definite period desired, strike "perpetual" and insert number of years. If desired, state a specific purpose or purposes or strike word "and ". 3 State number of authorized shares, par value per share in dollars or statement of no par value. If more than one class of shares, see 1973 C.R.S. 7 -2 -102. 4 Strike if cumulative voting is to he authorized. 5 Strike if preemptive right to acquire additional or Treasury shares is to be granted. Address must include Building number, Street (or rural route number), Town or City, County and Zip Code. 7 Complete only if different from registered office, • N There must be at least three Directors. __70 __ • Duplicate executed copies which are typed or printed must he submitted. TEM 6-BEM AT ASAMN APPENDIX "D" FXTtRNAL FLoo'R ,ARE- CALCGL- N7-ioSis: � 4, x7X. v: k te, (c I = 30' C 31.,..1r - 4 b>,... ( .,L ) 13 or/ 1.1 Eh 'r4' otd 1 ra A. I_ e B1y: GvoSS Lvaa_ — AS x 4 q' = 75S - 5.P t JooMS ST'Suct'ARE G,o Rsc4 l�( bst I a4 - 3:040, . La-fl 2 C«....,.t -(oa +) to a X 6 Y — 90, 4ss Z to +r Pec.e$'i2S,OM En/j X4 — /4, to ea - et _ rt. L.ra4 ill 9PI S,f /I a 14 , r ( b y 3 /.wit TOF rr Sq 43..! -reek Fr, Or we 4velu. ,u Att4 r' 1.4 it, 5 Sf Less : chtQ -4 S e ta a, EG.,� -e• -? 1....olrlC = — ;77 Cis A) 4.4-i .v4 >?sn.r o Lea I s r 2.> %4:It I x — — L4` �. To-4 a d 4= l S a 'ems+ - 6 eve— 0 -aie is, i6gr S A z x 1r•, 4 w. S a.sa- -Cat i/ /+awkc& Tors- 'R . ,1 ,. /6 8'43 - -71 -- i 4 ! tI r 6 _. eGM AT ASAMN APPENDIX "E" rNTp1WAL FLoaa AREA CILC (-4 L4T Cs2 a.r> Typic 1 ZoAW Srz2: Aix /8'n St wk. 1 _ /P' C - 2 c l 3 - • T..- C t -l-e 4 vi h 4t , x' 4 F - 4 r-! 2 5 2- r�► ens-s x 8' x 1 i = // 3 2 S. ,+, �l 3 b Z 1-2. a b E� e A zyuaWin rat ,- IA , Si a i 7S70 ISr 3“ sc. _ /A Slo. r fa- �� 1 / 3 /s ®`"' 'is- k " : 6r 1,2n- 5.f. try- 5.qt b- e.+..i. TArs ak`►I,oad /k (4 1,24 Ci e.,.tLi rwnn. i o 4+ . 04- t'-. 3'2 tar"""s p I ' N . - . - -72-- TI-I0 L. = BEM AT ASAMN APPENDIX "F" The lodge rooms will be developed using several of the room designs from the following eight layouts - Plans "A" thru "H ". LODGE ROOM LAYOUT DESIGNS BY: Ms.Jan Gunn c CI Ili R/F O R/F O • ILI re FOLD OUT BED In 0 ... _... ,_... — _.. ROOM PLAN B ROOM PLAN A II c: 1 . c: 1 tat 0 iv, O I R/F i O CD ill 1 111 *Wei 21 ?, 0 FOLD OUT BED ROOM PLAN C -73 "' ROOM PLAN D TI-10 `- e G r AT fl In g PJ LODGE ROOM LAYOUT DESIGNS BY: Ms. Jan Gunn 1 ED. . .c !_____T - ! . ._ ry I VF fn R/F O _-) I I I I -.N; 1 4 i _.‘ K ,--, , f. ��„_� , OUNI(OED r� , j �. I Y ____- . 0 00 J — I tWall Bed BEDROOM PLAN E ROOM PLAN F TYPICAL EMPLOYEE UNIT . . i J R /F , 1 moma . „\:14 :3 ___D _, -� - -- - - - -- i _\ , , 4 1 Tt r ll \I ' �� ROOM PLAN G ROOM PLAN H - -74 -- - -91 -- Q W 5. 0 r0 pQ u 0 1 O tD = N N Z 0 1 L U ` ^ ,: m S — ,, Ln z . & W u lel a Q 1.1.1 Lij w tt H W 0 Ja ik VI �\` t� t ' A fl! r - J Y it T.,,,, jl :5 f t 22 < z f 6 z i l w i ... x. \ i 989L-B6Z (£0£) ZOZO8 00 'aanuap aazeM 1961 Jo;nq J sia relew woos ooi8 a31IWi1Nl Sa3a 11vM ' 3o A s a; ino0 ojotld ,,V,, aT -- 4TUn Pa8 TT'M Tn.,TdA,I, - SDNIHSINZrna W00 3 aOi ,ti iiii sNiiirmilli/ ao El mili Hi .11, -- 9L -- O 1- N V 30 • W W mz am I" Q V Q I x �z CI a= I , W W — o 'n .. ► .� m om' ` , � - a 4 a W 1 II 1 Q� W 2 v e F s . f Y i , y . / fin;.. ,:s lL, ` �A ♦!i• 4 i 1 y, 1 a �- • ,:f w ,,e,4‘410 ' 1 (N 1 N � � v 4. ' l 1„ •, ; ?1 a J ° tt N 44i•4 , 1<11i + +ff� ,,I % .1► N 4W t f f Y I / ,, 1 x 1,1 11I.1 0 -� y- r' t , 1 1 ,• d0 ' f f I p 11 ZI f 1 C y . Vi. 4 ( °° 1 ,: r 1 /• N1 : °I�.:::: :ii{111 /° /i s i I'1. ' cr ... 1 /� e A 11 1 ° 11`' +11111 F .� h � , ,.4 I WV ' i l r���, i i "��,'�1.1 °�fff�' 1' \o 1 <i �1 ° I °1n '1�( ° ° ♦ I I , I �� 989L-S6Z (E0E) ZOZO8 00 '- +anuaa aezeM 1961 Jo4ng1i1si4 ..183181A11.0001:1 031S 4311WI1Nf1 S4339 11VM :Io icso43 o:1oua 'IS,' aTA4S - a-TUfl Paff TTPM TP &s - SJNIHSINUfl3 140021 E0007 ti 6i1 I iii f NINNii a U Ili HI Ii• SEW hEISt by bgrggw APPENDIX "G" - PROPERTY SURVEY- August 20,1981 LOCATIONS OF ELECTRIC LINES, NATURAL GAS LINE, SEWER LINE, TELE?HONE LINES AND TV CABLE ALONG WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE SURVEY BELOW, G 3 3 .4 z �"'.... >. r. .... ,,. " g;,° ioo J 6 o g w o \ , P J y Z z m e a m a \ + C , i n _ v : n e D � n N t " O ' z 4 t ( r) \ ` u mj .• ,,,.r ., m .o. i n m 9 1 - - - - 51S1 '- ‘n r\e t C �4 0 O P \ 0 I v °v > Q, i - • z a -� o ff/ i ce / , -r � iv o� z 10 .00 /15' ,, 2 ° • , T y° Z Z ° s x° dada ° M. • +n P O 3 m3 / • ° s ac o ° _ 3 / /." a 0 n S+ u p • �/ `v .° 9: y' °6 Yi ' Q )f -N _ / V `. i ^_ :1 ^ + z° J ^ 1 n+ zo n l ^ _ s< s y f V s c, cf , >o - oc L— o a ^g F� e ti > ';Z s; v O p R v FJ a-1 n /,/ V I ° "T'Tn y m C.o T N gg 43 V I , i uF v FS p ° °m V a L t , WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. frn Attorney at Law qi "f F SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920 -2233 November 22, 1983 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 1984 Lodge GMP Competition; Application of Lyle Reeder; The Lodge at Aspen Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent Lyle Reeder, an Applicant in the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition in connection with the hearing before your Commission on November 22, 1983, to select a winning score between the two Applicants -- my client, Lyle Reeder and The Lodge at Aspen, and the other applicants, Alan Novak, Sahm.: and American Century Corporation and the Aspen Mountain Lodge cant.y.eec.c e. - Cat7_,ve. Gu s„! . This letter is written to become part of the formal proceedings of the hearing and to set forth certain legal objections and irregularities that have been discovered by my client and myself in connection with the procedures of the City of Aspen regarding the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen in general as it pertains to this Competition. I have presented copies of this letter to the Counsel representing the Mountain Lodge, the Aspen City Counsel, the Director of the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office and each of the members of your Commission. Specifically incorporated herein are the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen which are pertinent to these applicants and to the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition. I shall set forth these objections and irregularities in numerical order for your convenience and reference: 1. In scoring each of the two applicants, the Planning Director gave a decidedly unfair advantage to the Mountain Lodge project because of the procedure which allows that project to qualify as a PUD project and still have to compete as a project in the GMP Competition. Certain advantages were obtained by the Mountain Lodge by it being allowed to be of greater height and having more amenities, thus enabling it to receive a greater point score. WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920 -2233 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 22, 1983 Page Two 2. The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for having amenities for guests, at least a part of which score was due to having a larger number of amenities than the Lodge at Aspen and so receiving a higher score. This treatment would discriminate against a smaller project in general, since points are scored against each other on a one -to -one basis, and in particular since the Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and exterior space. 3. The Mountain Lodge is proposing to gain credit for the demolition and reconstruction of 269 existing units, and consequently is seeking only 211 units from the Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their project, the Planning Office considered the entire 480 units in granting points for the various categories when they should have only considered the actual number of the units that were being requested. This would have resulted in only scoring 211 units as a percentage of the overall project (43.95 %). 4. The proposed Mountain Lodge project is obviously the most complicated and most expensive to be proposed for Aspen. It is also the largest in terms of number of units, size of buildings, etc. For this reason, it is hard to see how it can be equated with any other project, especially one of the size of the Lodge at Aspen. However, it is being scored against it and is being considered as a part of the Lodge GMP Competition in spite of its unique size and complexity. In fact, it should be a separately considered project. 5. The procedures of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, in general, and the Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, provide for certain qualifications before an applicant can submit an application. Obviously, these requirements are necessary in order to determine if an applicant actually has the necessary interest in the property to be seriously considered. The interest of the Applicants for the Mountain Lodge appears to be no more than an Assignment of the Right to submit the mw application by the actual landowner, Hans Cantrup, who, in turn, is unable to legally handle his own legal affairs, including his real estate holdings, without WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 9202233 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 22, 1983 Page Three the express approval and participation of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, it would appear that the applicants for The Mountain Lodge have no standing to file the application being considered by this Commission. 6. The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50 as unused previous years' units; and 126 more from future years' units up to 1987. This unprecedented request for the use of so many future years' units would be a violation of the intent, if not the rule, of having an annual Lodge GMP Competition, No one can predict the future, and it would be impossible to determine the needs of the City five years from now, but since the years would be used up by The Mountain Lodge project, others would be denied the right and privilege of even being able to compete in a competition designed, and legally constituted, for the determination of weighing interests. 7. Under the Law of the City of Aspen in effect at the time of the deadline for filing 1984 Lodge GMP Applications, an applicant who proposed to utilize City -owned land in their project, must be joined in the application by the City of Aspen; also, such an application must be judged in two ways by the Planning Office: one as if the City -owned land were included and one as if it were not included. At a City Council meeting on September 26, 1983, a proposal was introduced to allow applicants (specifically The Mountain Lodge project) to file an application including City -owned land, without the joining of the City. This proposal was not formally passed at that session and was, in fact, tabled until the next session of the City Council, held on October 12, 1983, when it was passed. The Mountain Lodge filed its application for Lodge GMP Competition by the October 3, 1983 deadline but before the effective date of the new law allowing it to file without the consent and joining of the City of Aspen. Therefore, the application should not have been allowed since it did not conform to the law of the City in those two respects. WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920 -2233 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 22, 1983 Page Four Thank you for your consideration. W t Hugus, Jr. WHJR:klm 6 , C r 7 kw' csSb 6 r NI r Trirmarsintiatirem mem r a crns" Rag M " TN M ionum rIggescrmig 6 ISITIEM A g rs e 111, 0 as el IMAM I!! /9151 ag ReMerie -- M r! 0 TTTT!!! RI 1M r2 4 November 22, 1983 TNTRODI!CTTON - GENERAL The proposed 52 room Lodge, The Lodge At Aspen, consists of 46 Lodge Rooms , 6 Employee rooms. The project proposes to cater to Ski C and budget- minded skiers. Applicant believes that the proposed demolition of the Continental Inn and Aspen Inn which are to be replaced with a First -Class World hotel, will create a deficiency in accommodations in the low and medium price range. The Lodge At Aspen with smaller rooms can offer more reasonable price accommodations thc_n a hotel offering large rooms, energy consuming swimming pools and f elaborate ltealtlt facilities which some guests may never use. rte OBJECTIONS TO ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE: 1. Ordinance No. 35 (Sorter of 1983) is the legal document of the City eF Aspen which governs the 1984 Lodge C.M.P, Competition. On Page 2, Section 1, the following is stated: "All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there shall he constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more than the following: ".... Within the L - 1, L CC and CL Zone District, thirty five (35) Lodge or hotel units;" This applicant believes that the intent of (b) is that any application for a quota is restricted to land which has a zoning of L -1, L-2, CC or CL as of the filing deadline which was October 3, 1983. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application includes • 11,000 sq. feet of City owned property which is zoned, "Public." It also includes 78,161 square feet of R -15 (PIJD)L with proposed rezoning which would allow a higher density than presently allowed. This applicant believes that the Aspen Mountain Lodge cannot legally include these parcels in its application. 2. Apparently the City of Aspen is not a co- applicant to the Aspen Mountain Lodge's application. The City is the owner of 11,000 square feet of "Public" zoned lands included in the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project. This applicant believes that the "llth hour" attempt by the City Council on September 26, 1983 (8 days prior to filing deadline) and October 12, 1983 (9 days after G.M.P. filing deadline) which would allow City owned property to be included in a proposed G.M.P. application does not and will not legitimatize an improper G.M.P. application. Even if the "11th hour" attempt succeeded, a question of possible discrimination occurs. This applicant requested permission from the Planning Office to include 7,280 square feet of the U. S. Forest Service Lot 41 in the Lodge At Aspen's application. This land is contiguous to The Lodge At Aspen site and is involved in an exchange with this applicant. A Statement of Intent to exchange Lot 41 from the Forest Service was presented to the Planning Office. The City Attorney's office notified this applicant to the effect that the Forest Service parcel could not be included. This applicant was never notified that the City was considering a change in Ordinance 35 which would allow Government lands to be included in a G.M.P. application. 3. This applicant believes that a principle of "Competition" is that the rules are the same for all competitors. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application proposes to demolish the following: Aspen Inn 67 rooms Continental Inn 178 rooms Blue Spruce 32 rooms TOTAL 277 rooms -2- is The plan proposes to reconstruct 269 rooms to replace the demolished units. It appears that the proposed 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge Hotel will consist of 56% reconstructed units and 44% new quota units which would come from G.M.P. allocation. This applicant objects to the Planning Office's scoring procedure of the Aspen Mountain Lodge which was for the total hotel. It is felt that The Lodge At Aspen should only be scored against 44% or 211 rooms of The Aspen Mountain Lodge application. Two swimming pools will be demolished, one at Aspen Inn and one at Continental Inn. Two new swimming pools will be built. If these amenities are applied to the reconstructed units, then there is no swimming pool to be applied to the 211 new lodge rooms. Existing Conference, Health Spa facilities and two restaurants will be demolished. Thus, the proposed new facilities used in the Planning Office scoring are not indicated to be net increases in facilities. I -3- 413 -1,& a a J, i i HEIGHT COMMENTS: The Aspen Mountain Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The Forth of Nell Building by approximately 16i feet. According to Aspen's Zoning Code Area and Bulk Requirements L-1 and L-2 Height limitation is 28 feet with possible variation of up to 33 feet. The Lodge At Aspen is restricted to this height limitation. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 58 states: " Generally speaking, around the Lodge perimeter, maximum heights from natural grade will vary from 30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the visual impact upon pedestrians. Within the interior of the Lodge footprint, set back from the street facade, heights in some locations of 40 to 50 feet TY are proposed, If The Lodge At Aspen had the same freedom to go to the 5S' height the project could have a height appearance as shown below: U<' 55 flee+ a be.•-•. Gn • 01111111111....— r 4 %et^ CS__= c t M c_4, c_4, 4 �c INTRODUCTION THE LODGE AT ASPEN 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 November 22, 1983 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: Short of Maximum Section Category Rating Multipler Points la. Water 1 1 1 lb. Sewer 1 1 1 lc. Roads 1 1 1 2a. Architectural Design 2 3 6 2b. Site Design 2 3 6 2d. Parking and Circulation 1 3 3 2e. Visual Impact 1 3 3 3a. Common Areas 2 3 6 3b. Dining 1 2 2 3c. Recreational 2 2 4 4b. Employee Housing 1 1 4 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: -5- The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding the Planning Office's Evaluation and Scoring of THE LODGE AT ASPEN's presentation. These comments are in those areas which did not receive the maximum point rating by the Planning Office. 1. a. WATER COMMENTS: Since Mr. Markalunas has indicated a neighborhood deficiency The Lodge at Aspen's proposal to share the cost of the looped of water main would bring about the correction „the neighborhood water system inadequacies, The water consumed by The Lodge will be metered and paid for resulting in increased revenue to the City's Water Department. Applicant believes that a 2 rating would be appropriate. b. SEWER COMMENTS: The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees and the periodic sewer assessments as calculated by the Aspen 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. Since the sewer facilities are adequate according to the Planning Department's evaluation, the applicant believes that a 2 rating is appropriate. c. ROADS COMMENTS: 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 Tatter 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. The Aspen Mountain road is access to the Ajax Condominiums and a house. The road continues up and over Aspen Mountain past the Sun Deck and down into Castle Creek. In view of the Planning Office's comments, applicant believes that a scoring of 2 would be appropriate. -6- t III 1!!!! In f!!!! SI !!!!! I!!!! i!!!!Ord)!!!!k!!!!! MI IT Ril 2. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMENTS: The proposed building will be built within the legal constraints of the 33 foot height limitation while the Aspen Mountain Lodge is proposing heights up to 55 feet. Since PUD procedures and exemptions are not available to The Lodge At Aspen, restrictions are imposed which limit architectural design potential. Compatibility with existing neighborhood developments is to be considered for evaluating Architectural Design. The size of rooms are not a factor for evaluation under Ordinance No. 35. Applicant believes that The Lodge At Aspen fits into the neighborhood and should be considered for a higher rating than 1. b.- SITE DESIGN COMMENTS: The site design was prepared observing setback requirements of the City's Area and Bulk requirements. The Applicant is willing to reduce _ curb cuts from the proposed three to two as recommended by the City Engineering Department. It appears that concentration of tourist rooms at the base of the mountain will have desired results such as reducing automobile usage by Lodge guestsand encourage gueststo take the short walk to the commercial core. Trash Removal - Trash container will be located in an area near the Southeast corner of the property near the Ajax Apartment's trash container. 14- Snow Control - The Lodge will incorporate the following systems: a. Engineered snow stops will be installed to retain the snow on the roof. b. 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. Y i b. PARK I NC ANT) C: TRCIJLATION COMMENTS : Park ing is provided on the basis of one space per lodge and employee bedroom which :is a requirement of the L-1 and L-2 Area and Bulk Requirement. The Aspen Mountain Lodge under PUD proposes 380 parking spaces for 1 180 rooms. The Lodge At Aspen has it ratio of one parking space per bedroom while the Aspen MonntEL in Lodge has .79 space per bedroom. The turning radius for cars entering the parking area was laid nut according to the City of Aspen's Parking Standard as shown below: GI i Y : PARKING STANDARD DRIVEWAY AND TURNING AREAS UM CURVE: c'iPt 11-251' K.-- 011:cr curves may be found in TIME-SAVER SIAr!DAi-:DS e. VISUAL IMPACT COMMENTS: The height of the building will be reduced slightly to stay within the Area and Bulk Requirement of the Zoning Codes. The highest point of The Lodge At Aspen's building will be 22 feet less than the hightest point on the Aspen Mountain Lodge. The Lodge At Aspen building sits back off of Ute Avenue in order to enhance visual appearance from the street. 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS: The rating guidelines states "The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project...." (underlining added). The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 480 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms as The Lodge At Aspen which has 46 tourist rooms. It appears to this applicant that a smaller lodge will be limited in its ability to provide amenities. a) COMMON MEETING AREAS COMMENTS: Applicant believes that the common area of 1,120 square feet consisting of lounge and lobby areas is sufficient and adequate for a 46 room lodge. With the restrictive nature of Aspen's Area and Bulk requirements, conference facilities in a small lodge are unrealistic. b) DINING FACILITIES In L-1 zone a restaurant for public use is prohibited by Zoning Code, except by Conditional Use. With this Lodge being located within walking distance the guest will patronize public dining facilities in the commercial core. Applicant believes that the proposed dining facilities are adequate for a small lodge. e) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES COMMENTS: Two commercial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance; namely, Aspen Athletic Club located at 720 E. Hyman Avenue and The Aspen Club located down the street at 1300 Ute Avenue. It is anticipated that these clubs will be used by the guest with Limo service available for transportation. The indoor hot tub is proposed at the Garden Level and will conserve more energy than an outdoor tub. • 4. a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMMENTS: The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 100% of its employees. The application states, "Three employees will be housed off -site. The Lodge will either lease long -term or purchase three condominiums in the Aspen area for housing the three employees." This can provide a better life style for the employees, particularly if they have families. -9- The employee unit in the Garden Level shown on page 43 will be built to meet building code requirements for habitation. A door to the outside of the building will he provided. Minimum window requirements will he designed into the unit. The applicant believes that The Lodge At Aspen qualifies for the 15 points for Employee Housing. BONGS POINTS CONSIDERATION 1. Tlw Applicant believes that 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. The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develop an intimate scale lodge, in keeping with the Aspen tradition, as opposed to a magastrueture approach. 3. The project can be built without any deficiencies in water, sewer, storm sewer drainage, fire protection, sidewalks, curbs, paved driveways and streets adjoining the site. 4. The location is within walking distance to the commercial core and public transportation. The nearness of the Police Department enhances guest security. 5. The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain. In view of the initial submission dated October 1, 1983 and the supplementary data submitted this November 22, 1983, the applicant believes that the project is qualified for evaluation under the bonus point criteria. Respectfully submitted, 1 Lyle Reeder -1.0 -- • CD November 16, 1983 Members: Aspen City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: I am the General Manager of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado, an instructor in Property Management for the University of Colorado, Chairman of the Resort Condominium Committee of the Colorado - Wyoming Hotel & Motel Associa- tion, and a resident of Aspen for twenty -five years. As such, I would like to make the following comments on the proposed fifty -two unit "Lodge at Aspen" to be located at Ute and Original Streets in Aspen. As a representative of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed project, I have carefully reviewed the current and previous G.M.P. submissions made by the applicant. A detailed site inspection was also made, accompanied by Alan Richman of the Planning Office. The following comments are therefore submitted for your review and consideration. A. With regard to actual design: 1. Traffic, access, and limousine parking: Parking and access is to be adjacent to the Aspen Alps' exit, through which there is heavy traffic. Ute Avenue is narrow at that point and is not adequately maintained by the City. The proposed structure will shadow the street and cause additional ice buildup. The design of the roof will cause the snow and ice to slide and drain to the north side and into the street. Snow plowing would have to be done to the mall and Hyde house side. The project as designed would therefore create an unacceptable condition that would aggrevate an already poor situation. Should not a development approved pursuant to a G.M.P. allocation improve existing conditions in the area - not make them worse? J Aspen City Council Planning & Zoning Commission November 16, 1983 Page Two 2. The parking area as designed now goes two levels underground. What is the slope of the ramp? Is it realistically accessible for medium and large - size vehicles? Is the proposed parking structure really adequate (17 vehicles) for a lodge that size? Our experience has been that 50% of the rental guests use vehicles. Employee parking, vehicle storage and visitors' automobiles most likely will end up having to park on South Original or on Ute Avenue, both of which are very narrow from snow buildup and are already inundated with Aspen Mountain skiers' vehicles. 3. The site is not perceived to be an efficient solar location. Areas with similar distances from Aspen Mountain were thoroughly analyzed by solar consult- ants and found to be highly inefficient for solar purposes. In the case of the 700 S. Galena St. project site, the P &Z allowed the applicant (via rescoring) to eliminate previously made passive solar commitments. The same will most likely be true for this site as well. B. With regard to the social aspects of the project as it affects visitors and employees: 1. Office Area: The proposed size of the area seems to be extremely small to accommodate front desk, ac- counting, reservations, service personnel and administra- tion. Minimal operating areas create minimal attitudes, and maximum frustration! 2. Employees: The area devoted to employee quarters is some 1,300 sq. ft. for twelve people. Having two people live in a 216 sq. ft. unit is not a healthy situation. Also, are 15 employees enough for a 46- unit lodge on a 24 -hour, 7 day per week basis? A full service hotel usually has one employee per rental unit. In Aspen, one employee for each two rooms can be satisfactory. The Aspen Alps has approximately 65 -70 employees for 77 condominium units, not includ- ing the restaurant, health spa, and beauty parlour personnel. Aspen City Council Planning & Zoning Commission November 16, 1983 Page Three 3. The lounge area is significantly smaller now than in the original 1982 application. With 50% more rooms and potential population, the area should be increased accordingly, not decreased. A 480 sq. ft. lounge that also doubles as a restaurant area for 46 tourist units does not appear to serve anyone adequately! The "non- public" restaurant could not operate without a substan- tial loss. Design questions include adequate kitchen vents and odors, kitchen refuse, storage & refrigera- tion, liquor license permit, delivery entrance, and kitchen noise. C. With regard to overall market and economic viability: 1. Does this lodge, with its small (216 sq. ft.) rooms, really serve the current Aspen market ?? This proposed project certainly cannot be considered as an upgrading of overall lodge facilities in the area! This new lodge seemingly serves an old 1950's market that is no longer in existence. Is not the intent and purpose of the lodge G.M.P. to upgrade the inventory of lodging in this community? If points are given primarily on the basis of "excel- lent design" and improving the "quality of services in the area," then are we not defeating our own policies by considering a project that does not reflect today's market, aggrevates existing conditions by its design, and creates an automatic handicap for those who are to work there? 2. The land does lend itself to development, but is the proposed lodge "the highest and best use ?" The first and underlying point is that according to accepted theory, a hotel operation will break even with 100 to 150 rooms. Less than that will cause an undue burden on the owners. It would appear that the plans and economics of the proposed Lodge at Aspen inditate a "lodge" complex only to allow acceptance under present zoning, and that conversion to condominiums would be the next logical step to make the property marketable. Aspen City Council Planning & Zoning Commission November 16, 1983 Page Four It is apparent from the current Real Estate market that high quality, high cost condominiums are amongst the few properties that are selling. I feel that it would be more realistic to allow the developer, via rezoning to L -2, to construct free market luxury condo - minimums in keeping with the surrounding area, rather than going through the exercise of developing a lodge which would be of questionable sales value, and eventually be converted to a condominium complex with limited sales appeal. Very my you 7 a/ ew� H: "c Aspen Alps Condominium Association November 19,1983 Aspen City Council Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Members City Hall Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 The following are comments concerning the application by Lyle Reeder for an additional increase of approximately 50% over the 1982 GMP allocation for construction of a new lodge to be called "The Lodge at Aspen ". These comments relate to the Application and Presentation for Reeder's "The Lodge at Aspen" dated October 1,1983. Pages 12 & 13 - Development - Area Calculation As a graduate with a degree in Hotel Administration, an officer and Director of Hotel Association and a practitioner of the business for 39 yearti 1 question whether, as well as where, necessary administrative areas, such as front desk area, reservations area, accounting area, maid's rooms and storage, maintenance work and storage areas, including flammable and non - flammable materials, equipment storage and guest storage for arriving guests, as well as restaurant space, is addressed, and if so, is it addressed adequetely. Page 15 - AA Water The applicant comments that the Aspen Water Department will run a new line from Durantbouth on Spring and east to Ute Avenue to the site. This plan would entail digging up - Spring Street (the entrance to the Aspen Alps, side entrance to the Woodstone, and the maintenance entrance to the Aspen Skiing Company). The route east would entail digging up the Ute Street Mall along with extant landscapping and trees. Who would be responsible for re- placing the landscaped mall and trees, who would be responsible for paying and how will the timing affect our business.? Also, the Aspen Alps' sewer lines connect in the center of the area. Per my discussion with Jim Markalunas, he is not certain who would be responsible for replacing the mall. Page 16, BB Sewer If the west manhole were used, the landscaping for the Hyde House would have to be dug up. Box 1228 • Aspen. Colorado 81611 Phone 925 -7820 Page Two November 19,1983 Page 22 & 23 - Auto Generation Where, on the site, will employee cars be parked? Are limousines considered in the parking areas? Page 24 - Effects on Adjacent Land Uses The front parking and limousine parking is at the egress of all check in /check out vehicles from the Aspen Alps, as well as egress for all maintenance and housekeeping and guest vehicles. The building will throw shadows on the narrow street and will increase the ice buildup. We are concerned about safety problems that could occur. Page 36 - Architectural Design The mass of the building will cause ice build up and shadow in the 200 Building Aspen Alps parking area and egress. The rooms in the Lodge will face the Ajax Condominiums, plus the 200 and 800 buildings of the Aspen Alps. (The mass could be demonstrated by comparing the design and mix with Lionshead at Vail.) Page 38 - Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters The lodge agrees to participate in the lodge's share of street improvements "if Little Annie is built ". What if Little Annie is not built? Page 40 - Site Design snow plow will be kept on site." This vehicle will further aggrevate the parking problem. Page 43 - Energy Conservation As per the attached letter from Colorado Engineering Association pertaining to another project to have been constructed on a similar site, it is possible that solar energy might not be feasible on the Reeder site. Page 45 - Limousine Service Parking, care and maintenance of 3 limousines is more than the Lodge needs. Where would they be parked, where would they be moved in the snow etc. Three limousines used from 7:O0AM to 11 :00PM would require two eight hour shifts for 7 days which would require 7 plus drivers at a 40 hour work week. Page 50 - Dinning Facilities Question on the kitchen area, storage, venting, waste facilities, security and personnel requirements of the proposed restaurant and bar. Page 50 - Tourist Appeal It is questionable if a 216 square foot room with minimum amenity area is appealing to a tourist visiting Aspen. The tourist appeal is directly proportional to the rentability of the room which, with a small lodge, is very critical as far as survival is con- cerned. Page 53 - Full Time Employees The applicant estimates 15 full time employees during the season. If each employee works a 40 hour week, the front desk could be open 120 per week with one person. Four maids at 80% occupancy would make up 52 rooms which would be 13 rooms each • Page Three November 19, 1983 seven days a week, plus all common area. No housekeeper or houseman is included and one cook is listed for a seven day three meal a day restaurant? No assistants, waiters or buspeople. One janitor is mentioned without relief. The limousine driver has been mentioned earlier. The size of the employee units could cause some interesting problems. Will there be cooking facilities for the employees Page 77 - Property Survey The insert at the upper right of the page depicts Ute Avenue as a thoroughfare, when, in actuality, a landscaped mall area extends from the proposed site to the west. (Attached Exhibit) I hope that these notes have been constructive and will assist you in your deliberations concerning the application. Sincerely, Gerald G. Hewey General Manager GGH:pmc DTP 31 •pTogsaagq sguTod wnwTuTw aqq gaaw oq gueTTadde egg MOTTP oq squTod quaToT33ns buT;EootTE qou uT uoTgaaosTp sqt pasnge Z'3d aqq aaggaiM aopTsuoo Plnogs TTOunoD aqq. 'puooag •Z •ssaooad anp oq ggbTa TpguaWPpun3 s,gupTTadde aqg pageToTA gPgg aanpaooad MaTAGI S,uoTSSTUnuo3 aqq uT A ;TIPTnbaaaT 9UOS SPM aaagg QaggagM oq sP appw aq pTnocts uoTstoap e 'gs1Tj •1 :SMOTT03 SP paztapwwns aq AEw gopoaddp sTgg •buTaoosaa ao3 Z5d oq uoTgPoTTdde sTg buTpupw -ea 3o ssaua;PTadoaddP agq pup TPadde S,Qapaag •aw 3o uoTquaapTSUOo s,TTouno oq goPoaddP paaaT; aaagg P pagsabbns set' Aauioggy AgTD aqy •pTaagTao MaTAaa agq gaw seq qupoTTddp aqq goTgM og aaabap aqq oq SP uoTuTdo 3o saOUaaa33Tp aTgP - UoSPaa uodn ao 'aoT33O buTuupTd aqq pup gueoTTddP agg Aq pagnTwgns uoTgewao;uT uo pasPq aa0M saaoos ,saagwaw aqq uagt anssT aTgeTeadde up aq oq panagsuoo uaaq you sEg pTaagTao buTaoos aTquoTTddP aqg oq • goedsai ggTM saagwaw Z'3d TPnpTATpuT Aq pasToaaxa uoTgalOSTp acty •oqa 'uoT;Pguasaadaa TpbaT oq ggbta agg wTq buTAuap 'buTapag egg. gP Npads oq ggbTa agg guPoTTdde egg. buTsngaa " b•a 'sggbTa Teguawppun3 s,qupo -TTddP uE pageToTA aanpaooad MaTAaa s,uoTssTwwo aqq. uT AgTaPTnb - aaaT awos uagM pallonuT uaaq ATTPOTdAq SPg UOTsTAOad ssaooad anp 3o TPTuap agg 'ATIQTTwTS •ATrUPUTWTa3STpUT goaCoad agq paaoos suq puP uoTquoTTddu IPTnOTgapd P og buTUTPgaad uoT;PwaojuT quPAaTaa buTaoubT Aq uoTgaaosTp aaq ao sTg pasngp spq aaqwaw uOTsSTUwio e 'aidwexa ao3 'uagM paxonuT uaaq sEq apoo aqq. 3o uoTstnoad sTgg 'ATTPOTT04PTg (•pappu sTspgdwg) „•buTioos sgT UT UOTSSTUJUIOJ aqg Aq uoTgaaosTp 3o asnqu ao ssaooad anp 3o TpTuap p SPM aaagg QaggagM buTuTwaagap oq pa4TwTT aq TTpgs MaTAaa TTOUnop AgTO aqq gPgq 'QanaMoq 'papTAoad = squuoTTddp Aq ogaaagg sabuaTTpgo AuE aapT TTpgs TTouno3 AgTO aqq '(buTaoos egg. 3o svTnsaa aqq '-a-T) gaodaa s,uoTSSTwwoJ aqq paATaOaa bUTAPpi ;pg gapd uT sagegs apoj TPdToTunw aqq. 3o ( -5Z uoTgOaS •wnpuPaowaw sTgg uT pazTaew -MIAs anP SuoTgebaTTs s,gu2TTaddP agq oq goadsaa ggTM sguawwoo anp •uOTquwaoguT anoA ao3 pagopggp sT g0T1M 3o Ado P 'TPaddP s,Qapaau •aw paMaTAaa aAEg ao1330 buTUUPTd egg pup quawgaPdaQ bUTaaauTbUJ aqq 'Aauaoggw Al-TD aqy •ssaoo.zd anp 3o UOTgPTOTA p pagn;Tgsuoo uoTssTuwio3 aqq 3o SUOTgoP Ogg. ';Tnsaa P SP 'pup suoT;POtTddP buTgadwoo aqq buT;PnTPAa uT uoTgaaosTp a -agg pasnge uoTSSTUnuop butuoz pup buTuueTd P puP 00T330 buTUUpTd aqq gpgg Tpadde sTg uT s359112 guPTTedde aqy •uoT4POOTTp quawdoTanap P 103 uoTg2aopTsuoo Qaggan3 woa paTJTTunbsTp uaaq sEg 'aao ;aaagg 'pup pTogsaagg sguTod wnwTuTw am; gaaw oq paTTE3 uoTgeo -TTddu S,aapaag •aw 'bucaoos s,uoTssTunuo3 buTuoz pup buTuUPTd aqq 3o glnsaa P sy •anuany agn TTL gp pagonagsuoo aq oq uadsy qv abpoq 4TUn gV am; 103 UOTg200"[TP quawdOTanap P buTxaas sT guPTTadde aqy •apoo TudTOTunw aqq. 3o (a)9•1T -VZ uoTgoag og gupnsand Tpaddp up pa1T3 sect 'uoT ;Tgodwoo dwo abpoi V861 aqq uT ;UEoTTddP UP 'aepaag aTAZ -ay,' • • £861 'LZ iegwaoaa :gyya Teaddy uoT ;Tgadwo dwO abpoq V861 - uodsy qP abpoq aqy • aogoaaTQ buTuuwTd 'uueA AuunS :w02Id TTounoD AgTD uodsy :oy wnaNVHow2w %n \ yn • . butgadwoo zabauT gonw aqg Aq paptnozd esog; og pazedwoo ATgezone3 -un azam goaCozd sTg ggTM uotgounCuoo uT papTAozd aq og SOTgTUawe aqg gulp spuaguoo guPTTaddP egg 'ATIuTguassg• •sgoaCozd butgadwoo egg og saTgtuawP og goadsaz ggTm PTzagtzo MaTnaz dw0 aqg ATdde ATgOazzo3 ■ og buTTtP3 Aq uotgazostp sgT pasnqu Zgd gegg sabeTTe gueTTedde eta i j •pTogsazqg sgutod wnwtuTm egg gaaw og guPTTaddP agg MOTTP og sgutod guaTot33ns buTguooTTP you uT uotgazostp sgT pasngP Zgd aqg zaggagM'go anssT aqg og euewzab sT uoTgsanb satgtuome aqg ATu0 'uoTutdo zno uT •TPZauab uT PTzagtzo pue ssaoozd die egg og suotgoaCgo uo puP 'uOTguoTTddP gegg 3o buTzoos s,Zgd 0114 uo 'uoT eoT ddP bur adwoo g g 1 g alp uT saTouaTo -T3ap uo SzaguaO TPaddP sTg 3o zapUTPwaz aqg 'PTzagtzo dwp agg 3o uotstnozd saTgtuawP egg og goadsaz ggTM azoos sTg 3o ssauagPtzdozdde alp uoTgsanb saop guPTTaddP agg eTTgM •ATzadozd pazoos 3T pantaoaz ' anug pTnoM asTMlaggo goaCozd aqg goTgM sgutod 51 patuap ATTIPZgtq -re SPM goaCozd sT ,g P gg bur ua suowa g ,g g p ;o upping aqg sPg guPTTaddP aqg 'gno sgutod Aauaoggy AgTD agg eV •33TTaz zo3 gsanbaz s,gueT i -Taddu agg uT pagsabbns SP „azoos 'flog S,guPOTTdde agg og sgutod S1 TPUOTgtpp2„ uP p1PMP og TTounoz r,7 agg zo3 stsPq TPbaT iCue pabaTTe ■ sum guPTTaddP agg gum; zeedde you saop gT 'uot4PZaptsuooaz zo3 uots - sTwwop butuoz pue butuuPTd egg og uoT ge0TTddP sTg puPwaz og JO Sa.100S i s,guPTTaddP agg gsnCpu og Agtzoggnu egg sug TTOUnop AgT3 agg a1TLIM I •Z'Qd all; Aq pazoos puP paMaIAa.T a1aM SuOTgPOTTdde butgadwoo aqg goTgM uT aznpaoozd aqg og goadsaz ggTM JO 'Swnpuuzowaw ZZ puP gT zagwanoN s,a0T330 butuuPTd agg 3o Sguagu00 agg zaggta • Og goadsaz ggTM buTzeag agg ge Aauzogg2 s,gueTTadde egg Aq pastez azaM suotgoa[go ou 'TasunoO Aq paguasazdei SPM guPTTaddP aqg gbnoq;Ty r •goaCozd butgadwoo aqg og buTgoaCgo pue uoT;PoTTdd2 sTg SuTA3T1e10 • uoTgEwzo3uT TPguawalddns 'pzooaz agg 203 'gtwgns og paMOTTP SPM puP buT1Pag agg ge u0T;POTTdde sTg guasazd og Agtungzoddo aldwe UOAT5 SPM guPTTaddP egg 'gong uT •pagezgsuowap ueaq seq sbutpaaoozd MaTnaz aqg uT ssaoozd anp 01 ggbrz TPguawPpun; s,guPTTaddu agg 3o uoTg2Totn ou Tug; uT ag2TzdozddeuT ST eTJagT10 Teedde STgg 30 u0T;POTTdde • I s,gu2TTaddP agg gulp zeadd2 pTnoM gT •uoTgebaTIP sTq 30 gzoddns t uT uoTssTwwoo all; 3o AgT1Plnbaz1T Teznpaoo•d AuP 01 TPaddP srg uT 1 aouaza3az OT3Toads ou saxum guPTTaddP egg 'azowzaggzng •UotgebeTTe ssaoozd anp 3o TPTuap s,guQTTadd2 agg aguTguugsgns pinom goTgM AgTreT nbaz1T Tuinpaoozd ou sageotpuT (pazoos azaM suoTgeoTTdde dw0 abpoT 17861 agg goTgM gP buTgaaw aqg) buTgaaw Zgd £861 '3Z zagwanoN egg 3o sbutpaaoozd 3o pzooaz agg 3o Ma1Aaa P 'anssT gs2T3 egg og goadsaz ggTM ( •guaptna sT uOTga10STp 3o asnge agg zo /puP ssaoozd anp 3o Tutuap guava agg uT butzoosaz z03 Zgd og )(pug uoT;PoTTdde s,4UPTTaddP egg puPwaa TTOUnop gulp puawwooaz pTnoM Aauzoggy Ag.T3 I agg puP OOT330 butuuPTd Ogg '2tzagt10 &WE) aTgeoTTddP aqg puP uoTgPO -TTddP egg ggoq ggTM A4T1PT1TwP3 S,uOTSSTUUUOO butuoz pup butuuPTd agg uantb 'zanaMO} •azoos S,uOTgPOTTdd2 egg- pueuP 'Cum TTOUu0D agg 'uoTgu3 -TTddP s,gueTTaddP agg buTzoos uT uotgazostp SgT pasngP sPg Zgd egg E zo /pue ssaoozd MaTAa.t agg uT Agt1PTnbazzT awns 3o ;insp.' 2 SP ssaoozd anp paTuap•uaaq 924 guPTTadde agg gugg autwzaga.p TTOUnoD agg PTnogg 6 •guPTTadde butuuTM egg og sgutod AUPw oog buTpzeMe uT 1TP3un (q so 'guPTTaddP egg og sgutod guaTot; -3ns butpIPMP you uT lTP3un (e zaggta sum Zgd zaggagm aq pinogs anssT egg uagg 'pTogsazqg sgutod wnwtutw agg gaaw o; guPTTaddP agg MOTTP og sgutod guaToT33ns butgeooTTe you uT uotgazostp sgT pasnge Zgd gegg put3 TTOUnop pinogs 'ATTPUTd •£ a I •goaCozd butgadwoo agg og uaATb sazoos am. NOPgge og but -pungs Sx0PT guPTTaddP aqg uagg '31005 pTogsazqg 2 SUTpIPMQ you zo3 a1eu0tgez guaTOT33ns peg Zgd agg gPgg sbutpaaoozd r agg 3o Matnaz sgT uodn apnTOUOO ATgeuoseaz U20 TTOUfoD I t OMy abed £861 'LZ zegwaoaa Teaddy - uadsy gy abpoj aqy :owaw •pabuegoun utewel sazoOS UOT4T4aduloO aW0 abpoT 1786T s,gueTTadde am gegg puaululooaz an? 'gTnsaz e sy 'uoTTeoTTdde szq 3o buTaoos am 04 goadsaz g4FM uOTSSTUIWOD am 30 3TE4aq uo uoT4azosTp 3o asnge Aue 9gez4suou10p 04 paTle3 seq gueTTadde 044 anaTTaq am 'goa3 uI •a•oos Sig og pappe aq sgutod ST TeuoT4Tppe ue gegg gsanbaz s,gueTTadde am zo3 sTseq TebaT ou aq 03 szeadde 01943 'AI12ITlTS 'suot; ssaoozd anp 3o TuTuap s,}ueTTadde am agetguegsgns pTnoM gotgM saTgT eTnbaaaT Teanpaooad ou 9ag23tpuT sbutpaaOoad ZZ zagUl0noN s,Z'sd 943 3o MaTAaz a 'AIPUn1InS uI •paT3t3snC aq APu1 uoT3dwox9 UP STaa3 01 4 4OTMM zapun sTseq am uteTdxa 03 butgaaul LZ zaqulaoao znoA lie Agtungaoddo we uantb aq 1apaou •zw gP43 gsabbns am 'Teadde sT4 uT gsanbaz P lions 103 not ;PoT ;T3snC ou paptnozd gueTTadde am SP 43nuWSPUI •uotgdulaxa UP lions gueTTadde am gueab pTnoo TTOUnoD AgTo agg g0I4M zapun uotsTAo1d ap00 AUP 30 912MP 912 a3T330 butuuPTd am zo Aeuzoggy A3TD aqg za43T0N •su0T3PTnbaz guawa62u2W 41414010 s,A3T0 am. Woz3 uotgdulaxa UP uot3POtTddP 9Tg g1121b TTOUno0 gegg -Paddy 9 4 uT sgsanba1 zapaau •1W 'azoos 9T14 butgsnCpP 04 ant3PUlagTe UP sy •pTogsazgg sgutod umUltutW am gaaW og 4u am moue og sgutod gua1O143ns butpaeM2 you uI uoTgaIOSTp sliT pasnge rid am 3 pUT3 IT °uno0 pTnogs 991039 s,goaCozd butgadwoo am. 04 g0ad991 143114 suoT3Eb9TTP 3T3T3ads s uE adde a g ssaz P og pazedazd 9I 19A914o '93I 0 BUTUUE ,3 TT 4 pP ' 4 33 d T 9431 •anssz uotgaaosTp 3o asnge am 3o uotgesaptsuo0 110un00 19441'13 ou aq paau 91943 pue g0OnI azojazam 91P g0aCold buT4adwoo am 30 buTaoos s,uoTssTWW03 am 04 goadsaz ggTM Teadde sT4 TIT pauTequo0 9u0132b3112 a4y •300001d buT3aduloo am uantb sazoos am x32332 og butpueis 9N321 gueTTadde am 'UlnpuEZOUIaUI 914 uI 90tP3S Aauzoggy A3T0 am s2 'uagg '(Z'4d am 3o 312d a4g uo pazzn000 uoTgaaostp 3o asnge ou pTogs9143 Sgulod UmUIIuIUI am a)PU1 03 sgutod guaToTggns p3TUap ATTZ214Tgze 9214 goaCozd 914 gegg agP13su0Ul9p og paTIP3 set' gueTTadde am. 3243 1TI0110O 110uno0 pmnous •91039 914 04 sgutod TPuoT3Tppe 3o plume agg zo3 gsanbaz 9,gu2TTadd2 agg zo3 sTseq ou aq og szeadde 919144 '3111991 2 sy •03 T1do1ddeuT sI 21193113 dW0 butu1Plual 943 og goadsaa 4gTM goaCozd 914 3o buTaoos s,uotsstunuo0 am ag20lput pTnoM gegg Teadde 9T4 uT sguawnbze TPuoIgtppe ou paptnozd sex.' gueTTadde ow, •anssz 9143 03 g0adsaz 41114 uotsstunuo0 am. 3o 3TPgaq uo uoT4az0stp 3o asnge ou ag231pu1 cog 12adde pTnoM '910391943 '2tza4tz0 AgtuaUl8 am 04 gu21191nd uot3 - POTTddP s,gu2TTadd2 am 3o but1o09 S,2 943 3o Matnaz y •A1059320 ST43 uI 0Tg2TIPn2 s gutod TP403 am MoTaq ATI eTque4sgns 912 saaoos , szaqulaul Z '3d TPnptntput aqg 30 112 ' ab23OPd A3Iu901P s , gueTTadde am. 30 ssausnotoeds pue A;IT2nb 943 04 se szaqulaw buTaoos agg buoul2 uotutdo 30 0O1131833Tp 2 3031301 991039 Z'4d TPn3O2 343 9114M •303C01d 943 30 azts am uantb pzepusgsgns 010M 9314TUa112 pasodozd a4g gegg butpuT3 9,Z'3d 943 uo paseq A10bag20 slog uI azoos 1401 AT9AIg2T0z 2 pantaO - -az - OaCozd s,gu2TTadd2 agy uotgsanb uT 3OaCozd am 3o 9119 am 04 paaudUloO SP 9gsenb 103 900TA1as pasodozd s3T 3o S9ausnot32ds pue A41T2nb am 04 gOedsaz 44TM 3OaCozd 4329 p31009 Z'3d am pU2 001 330 butuuPTd am 'suotsstUlgns dW0 alp 3o UOT3P1TPna sliT uI •s3OaCo1d buTgadwoo buow2 sobs A3Tuawe 3o 1OST12d110O 2 03 g0u PUP g0aCo1d ot3toads 2 Aq paptnozd 9beNoed A3TUaUI2 oTgToads am. 03 uOTgeaapJS -uo3 S,uotssTUnuo3 a43 pue 931330 butuuPTd 9 43 3TWTT ATTe °t3Toads 04 papuaquT sT abenbuPT sT41 (•pappe stsPgdwg) 0 •0391943 uotg -Tpp2 AUP z0 1.39C01d burSpoT pasodozd am 30 92TS am 04 pazeduloo s2 Fe sgsanb zo3 9901A109 pasodozd sgI 3o ssausnoTOPds pue A3TTenb am. j O} 33adsa1 44TM uotgeoTTdd2 4329 1apTsu03 melds uotssTUnuop a4y„ 4244 gaud uT 993239 eTaa4T13 5140 abpoT am 3o uotstnozd salgtuaule 9431 •Azobogeo sTM3 uT 91009 MOT 2 110132Otidd2 stg butntb pue uotg kf - epuaunuo0az 9,901330 butuuPTd am but1OTTo3 uT uotgaz0stp s3T pasnge Z'9d 044 sanatTaq gueTTadd2 am '303Cozd 1ab12T g3nw 2 s2 591311191112 ' AUPW 5P apTAozd 04 pagoadxa aq gouu2O g0aCo1d Trews e aOuts •300(02d aa14y abed E861 'LZ zaqui0000 T2addy - uadsy 32 abpoq 9431 :0142W EA i h(f "3 MEMORANDUM • TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition DATE: November 22, 1983 INTRODUCTION .Attached for your review are the project profiles and the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for the two projects submitted October 1, 1983 for the L -1 /L -2 lodge GMP competition. The applica- tions are for the 46 unit Lodge at Aspen to be constructed at 771 Ute Avenue and for the 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge located south of Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets. The Lodge at Aspen has a prior GMP allocation for 31 units and the Aspen Mountain Lodge is proposing to reconstruct approximately 269 units. The two projects are therefore requesting GMP allocations of 15 units and 211 units, respectively. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Lodge at Aspen is a proposal to build an entirely new lodge at the corner of Ute Avenue and Original Street. The Lodge would contain 46 tourist rooms and 6 employee units, each of which is approximately 216 sq. ft. in size. Since the applicant won an allocation to build 31 tourist units and 4 employee housing units on this site in 1982, and would relinquish those units upon the approval of this revised submission, the net effect on the lodge quota is a request for 15 additional units. Features of the project meriting attention include underground parking, proximity to Little Nell, use of solar collectors, and the proposal to upgrade neighborhood storm drainage and fire protection. The appli- cant also proposes on -site amenities for guests (dining and health facilities) and on -site housing for 80% the Lodge's employees. The proposal, however, does place a substantial number of lodge rooms on a 1/3 acre site. The rooms themselves are small and the site includes substantial paving in addition to a building footprint covering approxi- mately 36% of the site. In our opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior proposal in several respects. The rooms are smaller than before (216 sq. ft. versus 320 sq. ft.), the architecture is not nearly as in- teresting, and the common areas are considerably less spacious and elegant. However, the footprint of the new building is substantially less than the prior proposal and much more attention has been given to landscaping and pedestrian circulation. The Aspen Mountain Lodge involves the reconstruction of approximately 269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicant is requesting a GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel project to 480 tourist units. The applicant also proposes to construct on -site an approximately 22,500 sq. ft. conference facility, a 4,500 sq. ft. health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various recreational amenities including swimming pools, an ice skating rink, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. Additional features of the project meriting attention include underground parking, proximity to Little Nell and Lift 1A, the proposal to upgrade l ' y 1 MEMO: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition • November 22, 1983 Page Two ' neighborhood water service and fire protection, and the various aspects of the proposed lodge improvement district which the applicant intends to implement. The lodge proposes to house approximately 60% of its employees off -site in three separate employee housing projects. The applicant's objective is to provide Aspen with a high quality, full service hotel with a full array of year -round tourist facilities and services and extensive on -site amenities and public spaces. The ability to provide these support facilities is directly related to the size of the hotel project. While the Planning Office supports the reconstruction and upgrading of existing facilities as well as the provision of much needed tourist conference facilities and • amenities, a project of this size will invariably impact the City in a variety of ways and trade -offs between competing Community objectives will obviously be required. PROCESS The Planning Office will summarize the projects at your meeting on November 22, 1983, will review procedures with you, and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the applications. The applicants will have an opportunity to present their proposals and a public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing, each Commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposals. The total number of points awarded by the Commission, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to each project. Any project not receiving a minimum of 60% of the total points available under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, or a minimum of 30% of the points available under each of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. The total minimum points which an applicant must score in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 51 points. The minimum points requirement in each Category are 3 points in Category 1, 11.7 points in Category 2, 6.3 points in Category 3, and 4.5 points in Category 4. A maximum of 5 bonus points may also be awarded in the event a Commission member determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. Bonus points, however, cannot be used to bring an application above the minimum points threshold. SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS Both projects will require additional review and approvals pursuant to the Municipal Code. The Lodge at Aspen is requesting condominiumi- zation and exemption from Growth Management for its employee housing units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge will require PUD /Subdivision review, two rezonings, exemption from Growth Management for the project's employee housing, a change in use exemption, an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP Submission, two street vacations and view plane review. The additional reviews for the Lodge at Aspen will be accomplished subsequent to the applicant's successful receipt of a development allotment. The applicant for the Aspen Mountain Lodge, however, has requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission hear their additional review requirements concurrent with their lodge GMP application. Given the complexity of the project, the applicant would like to know as early in the review process as possible whether there are any substantive problems with their proposal. In view of the extensiveness of these additional review requirements, their consideration has been scheduled for a special P &Z meeting on November 29, 1983. The Planning - i MEMO: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition November 22, 1983 Page Three Office will produce a separate memorandum addressing the various additional review requirements which will be available for your consideration sufficiently in advance of your November 29th meeting. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS • The Planning Office has assigned points to the applications as recom- mendations for your consideration. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored the proposals. The following table summarizes the Planning Office's recommended points assignment. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criteria is provided in the attached score sheets. Availability of Public Quality Amenities Conformance Facilities/ of for Local Public Total Services Design Guests Policy Goals Points LODGE AT ASPEN 7 21 9 11 48 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE 7 24 21 7 59 As the above table indicates, the Planning Office scored the Lodge at Aspen three points short of the minimum 51 point threshold. Should you concur with our scoring, this application would be effectively denied at this point in the process. The Aspen Mountain Lodge exceeds the minimum point threshold by eight points. It also meets the 30% minimum point requirement in each of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. REQUEST FOR MULTI -YEAR ALLOCATION The Aspen Mountain Lodge's request for a 211 unit allotment necessitates a multi -year allocation. Such an allocation is provided for pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(b) of the Municipal Code. The Planning Office's evaluation of this request is contained in Alan Richman's attached memo dated November 16, 1983. • • -- 3_ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Analysis of Award of Allocation • DATE: November 16, 1983 • 4 Should you concur with the Planning Office's recommended ranking of the two L -1 /L -2 lodge development applications, you will also need to address the request by the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge for an allocation beyond the 35 units available this year. Specifically, the applicants request that the project be awarded the 50 lodge units that remain as unallocated /expired from prior years, as well as 126 units (31/2 years of quota) from future years. While the ultimate de- cision on this matter rests with City Council, the Planning Commission has traditionally made a recommendation as to its feelings on the award of an allocation. Following below is an analysis of the pros and cons of awarding the full 211 unit quota request to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. PRO CON 1. Full allocation would permit 1. Granting the full allocation the substantial upgrade in the will result in an unusually quality of our lodging inven- high rate of growth in the tory in return for the expan- Aspen Metro Area over the sion of that inventory (Note: short term, particularly if the reconstruction of approxi- combined with construction of mately 269 lodge rooms repre- the Centennial, Hotel Jerome sents about 25% of.the entire and Highlands Inn projects. inventory of lodge rooms in Aspen). 2. The allocation of future years of quota will virtually pre - 2. The development of this faci- elude any other L -1 /L -2 appli- lity would constitute the cant from obtaining a substan- first addition to the lodge tial allocation to expand an inventory in Aspen since the existing /build a new downtown 54 unit expansion to the lodge (Note: the code requires Woodstone in 1976. that we make 12 units per year available if the quota 3. The proposed addition of units has been used. Note also that on this site is consistent the construction of the Hotel with the intent of the 1973 Jerome project will require Aspen Land Use Plan to cen- us to further use future years tralize our tourist accommoda- of quota, amounting to about 65 tions at the base of Aspen units. Finally, note that the Mountain. 10 unit per year L -3 quota will continue to be available 4. Full allocation provides the regardless of this project). developer with the capability of building a full service 3. The construction of such a • hotel complex, including sub- large project may be a sign to stantial tourist amenities such the skiing industry that the as conference rooms, ballroom, next growth cycle in Aspen is and recreation facilities. underway and it is time to plan for ski area expansion. There 5. The development of a facility may also be a cyclical impact of this magnitude in this high on the commercial sector, where profile location may change the vacancies and underemployment popular image of the quality of at existing businesses may be • Aspen's lodging in one shot. replaced by full occupancy and maximum employment, with com- mensurate impacts on the Community. 9 ` .F,MO: Analysis of Award of Allocation November 16, 1983 Page Two 6. By awarding a full allocation, 4. There may be a short term we permit the master planning inability of certain portions of the entire area, the accom- of the infrastructure to plishment of the total upgrade accommodate the growth associated of that area, and the minimiza- with this project, particularly tion of the length of construc- if combined with a community -wide tion impacts upon Aspen. economic resurgence such that units with low occupancy and 7. There is no substantial benefit commercial space which is vacant to be gained from making the pro- are once again full. Facilities ject compete again for an allo- which we feel will be especially cation in a future year pro- hard hit include the sewage treat - vided that you support the de- ment plant, transit center and velopment of a project of this the road network (both into scale. Aspen and inside Aspen). 8. Since it will take two years 5. The increased competition in to construct this facility, the lodging industry may re- there is an automatic phasing sult in the attrition of some mechanism built into the project. of the smaller, somewhat mar- ginal operations. 6. The addition of 211 new units will further concentrate lodging in Aspen while the bulk of our skiing capacity is outside of Aspen or in Snowmass. As can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and opposed to the allocation of the full 211 units requested. The up- grade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the creation of a major conference facility are consistent with the growth policies which the Planning Commission has been developing. The accomplishment of a master plan for lodging in this area is con- sistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, as well as the wishes of City Council, when it last reviewed the proposed amendments to the Aspen Inn construction project. However, building this facility in a single increment is not consistent with the growth rate policy and will virtually preclude any other major downtown lodge expansions in Aspen for several years. By its very magnitude and importance, the project is likely to have spin -off impacts on other portions of our economy and may set off a new growth cycle in Aspen. Given the very real need in Aspen for lodging facilities which provide both quality and value, the Planning Office has no problem in recom- mending that the 50 units which remain as unallocated from prior years be given to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. However, we find it somewhat more difficult to address the question of future years allocation. We are concerned about the short term growth rate and its impact upon Community facilities. We also must question what social and psychological impacts upon permanent residents of the Community will result from compressing several years of planned growth into the construction of a single project. The decision on this issue must therefore be predicated on whether or not you believe that Aspen needs a major new loding facility which will not only existing units but also be large enough to justify the creation of substantial conference capabilities. If you feel that this need exists, then it is probably reasonable to make the required trade -off in terms of the growth rate. However, if you feel that obtaining the tourist amenities being proposed is not worth the trade -offs in terms of the growth rate and the scale of the project, you should not support the request for 31 years of future quota. However, you should recognize that you probably cannot obtain substantial tourist support facilities which essentially are not generators of revenue without allowing a substantial number of lodge rooms to offset the cost of such facilities. We believe that we have provided you with the necessary information upon which to make this fundamental choice. • . 1 PROJECT PROFILE 1984L-1/L -2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: Lyle D. Reeder 2. Project Name: The Lodge at Aspen 3. Location: 771 Ute Avenue - Corner of Ute and Original at Aspen Mountain Road • 4. Parcel Size: 15,386 sq. ft. 5. Current Zoning: L -1 6. Maximum Allowable Build -out: 15,386 (1:1) 7. Existing Structures: A single family house '(one story, 3 bedroom, 1 bath) occupied by the applicant. 8. Development Program: 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. Proposed buildout is 3 sq.ft. or virtually 1:1. Internal FAR breakdown is as follows: tourist units = 9936 sq. ft. or 0.65:1 employee units = 1296 sq. ft. or 0.08 non -unit space - 4148 sq. ft. or 0.27:1 9. Additional Review Requirements: Condominiumization, GNP exception for employee units 10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be granted an allocation, he would relinquish the 31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net additional units requested by this project is 15 lodge rooms. .. (1 • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition • PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen 11/22/83 Date: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 • • MULTIPLIER: 1 • • POINTS: 1 Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood deficiency but applicant only commits to sharingthe cost of the improvement. • Therefore, applicant is only paying to improve the quality of service to his own project. b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed lodge. No upgrade is proposed nor requested. _7- c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: Applicant proposes drywells of sufficient size to retain site and roof water runoff. Applicant commits to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen Mountain Road adjacent to his property at his own expense. Engineering rates proposed as excellent. d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro- vide fire protection according to its established response standards with- out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit- ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: Project can be served by the fire protection district. Applicant proposes to locate a new hydrant at his own expense near the Northwest corner of the project. Fire chief would prefer hydrant on Northeast corner. e, ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over- loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Engineering department finds roads in the area to have adequate capacity, although constrained by winter skier parking and "dead end" nature of this -corner. Project will not substantially impact existing roads. Applicant proposes to blacktop Aspen Mountain Road at his own expense, an improvement which is largely cosmetic, not service oriented. CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 7 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. • 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing heighborhood developments. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 3 POINTS: Comments Building is generally compatible with surrounding developments, although the design is very standard. The peak of the roof is about 35 or 36 feet above grade, whereas the code limits the height to 28 feet plus 5 additional ' feet for the angled roof, for a maximum allowable height of 33 feet. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 COMMENTS: Site design includes benches and bicycle racks near Ute Avenue; sidewalk along Ute Avenue underground utilities, adequate peripheral landscaping, a building footprint of only 36% and heated sidewalks and driveways for snow control. The engineer feels that 2 curb cuts on Ute Avenue are excessive er ) as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on Aspen Mountain Road: this situation is magnified by the existing driveway for the Aspen Alps along the property on Ute Avenue. The density of this proiect is approximately 130 units per acre. c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de- vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con - servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 3 Comments: Insulation is proposed at 20% above code. Solar collectorson the roof will be utilized in the domestic hot water system. d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for.the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 6 Comments: Parking is provided underground on the basis of one space per lodge and employee bedroom. Parking is also shown for three limousines. The turning radius for cars entering the parking area may not be adequate. Detailed information on trash access was not provided. The three curb units for cars are excessive, as noted above. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 6 Comments; The building is set back from Ute Avenue by approximately 85 feet and from Aspen Mountain Road by approximately 30 feet. The height of the building as shown is approximately 2 -3 feet above that allowed by code and must be reduced, but the overall design does not affect public views due to the already existant Aspen Alps Building. • • • CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 21 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 Comments: The only common meeting areas in the lodge are the lounge /lobby which are 640 and 480 sq. ft. respectively or about 7% of the entire internal floor area. The total internal floor area in the lodge devoted to "non- unit" space is 27% just above minimum 25% requirement. b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 2 POINTS: 4 Comments: The restaurant'wiflprovide food service for guests only in the lounge (winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an.Apres Ski Bar, also in the lounge. • • . ) c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re- creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 2 POINTS: 2 Comments: A hot tub, male and female saunas, and an exercise room are provided below grade in the garden level parking area. No outdoor recreational amenities are provided on site. Health facilities amount to about 850 sq. ft. and do not count against FAR. CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 9 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro- ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: 11 MULTIPLIER: 1 11 POINTS: Comments: Applicant proposes to house 12 employees on site, while lodge is projected to require 15 employees. The off -site housing proposal contains no specifics and therefore cannot be evaluated. Applicant's total housing proposal = 80% (note: the employee unit in the parking garage may not meet minimum building code habitationrequirements.) 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. • n It RATING: 0 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 0 Comments: j 6. TOTAL POINTS . Points in Category 1: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: 21 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: 9 (Minimum 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 11 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1,2,3 and 4: 48 (Minimum of 51 points required) Bonus Points (Maximum of 5 points allowed) TOTAL POINTS: 48 Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office • • ' I I • PROJECT PROFILE 1984 L -1 /L-2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: American Century Corp., Commerce Savings Assoc., Alan Novak 2. Project Name: Aspen Mountain Lodge 3. Location: South of Durant Ave. between Galena and Monarch Streets at the base of Aspen Mountain. 4. Parcel Size: sq. ft.. or approximately 11;;7 acres 5. Current Zoning: CL, L -1, L -2, R -15 PUD (L), Public and Conservation 6. Maximum Allowable Build - out: Subject to proposed rezoning and PUD review and approval. 7. Existing Structures: Continental Inn, Aspen Inn, Blue Spruce Lodge, The Hillside Lodge and several small apartments and miscellaneous dwelling units. 8. Development Program: A 480 unit condominiumized hotel with extensive conference facilities on the northern portion of the site; an approximately 33 unit residential condominium complex on the southern portion of the site; and a 12 unit residential condominium complex at 700 South Galena Street. An additional residential unit is also proposed for the existing Summit Place Duplex. 9. Additional Review Requirements: P /Subdivision review, three rezonings, exemption from growth management for the project's employee housing, a change in use exemption, an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission, three street vacations, view plane review and 8040 greenline review. Note: Some of these additional review requirements are associated with the residential portion of this PUD. 10. Miscellaneous: 14 - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition • PROJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge 'Date: 11/22/83 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 • POINTS: 2 Comments: The applicant proposes to install a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street which will upgrade the distribution network in the immediate area by providing increased fire flows for both the proposed project and for the surrounding neighbor- hood. The applicant also proposes to install a valve interconnect in Monarch Street which will increase the overall reliability of water service to the area. b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed hotel project. No upgrade to the system is proposed or required. The applicants relocation of the Mill Street sewer main, however, may result in the elimination or replacement of some existing lines which currently present maintenance problems. • • c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment • by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments:' The existing storm sewer system has sufficient capacity to carry 5 -year developed runoff. The applicant proposes to detain on -site the difference between the 100 - year developed storm runoff and the 5 -year historical runoff in order to . reduce peak flows. d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro- vide fire protection according to its established response standards with- out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit- ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 2 • MULTIPLIER: 1 • POINTS: 2 Comments: The applicant's installation of a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street will provide increased fire protection to both the proposed hotel and the surrounding area. The applicant is also proposing to install approximately four new fire hydrants to further enhance fire protection to the project'and to adjacent uses. The proposed hotel will employ state -of -the -art fire protection methods and devices. e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over- loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: The capacity of the existing road network is adequate to handle the net traffic volume change resulting from this project. The proposed reduction in curb -cuts and on street parking may result in better traffic flow and reduced accident potential in the vacinity of the project. /69 -'- CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 . -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 . -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing heighborhood developments. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 Comments While the architectural design is innovative in that it makes use of extensive excavation to reduce the preceived bulk of the buildings and to maintain public views of Aspen Mountain, there are elements of the project which are, in our opinion, clearly incompatible with surrounding developments and with the overall scale of the lodge district and central core area. Traditional architectural treatment and the use of compatible building materials help to blend the buildings into their surroudings. However, both the main hotel and conference entrance areas substantially exceed the heightlimitaion of the zone district resulting in major building masses which are out -of -scale with the surrounding lodge district. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS:. 9 COMMENTS: Existing mature vegetation". is retained and supplemented with extensive landscaping; all utilities will be placed underground; the applicant proposes to implement varihos elements of the Aspen Lodge District Plan (e.g., sidewalks, lighting, signage, street furniture, etc.); on-site Links to pedestrian and bike • trails are provided; open space areas are internalized and oriented for maximum . solar exposure and the privacy of hotel guests. Total PUD open space exceeds minimum requirements. c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de- vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con - servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. • RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 3 Comments: Insulation exceed minimum requirements; buildings oriented to maximize passive solar Rain; maior hotel support functions are located sub -grade to reduce exterior walls and roof thereby further reducing energy consumption; HVAC system is computer controlled. d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition • thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 6 Comments: Approximately 380 underground spaces are provided for the proposed 480 unit hotel. Limo service and proximity to Ruby Park, the commercial core, employee housing and Aspen Mountain offset parking demand. Valet service will he provided. Internal circulation is excellent with main hotel and conference entrances set back from Durant Avenue. The parking garage exits via the conference entrance area further minimizing impact on Durant. Truck loading areas appear adequate. Guest loading areas are heavily ianuscaped. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 Comments: The substantial building masses associated with the main hotel and conference entrances and their attendant support areas significantly restrict public views of Aspen Mountain. The approximately 50 foot height of the Durant Avenue and conference entrance facades will, to varying degrees, alter scenic background views from /8 " Durant Avenue, Ruby Park and Wagner Park. • CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 24 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 9 Comments: Applicant proposes to provide an extensive conference center (22,500 sq. ft.) including an 8,000 sq. ft. ballroom and 10 meeting rooms. The conference center has its own separate entrance and support facilities and is sized to accomodate up to 600 persons. Lobby areas for both the hotel and center are expansive and contain accessory restaurants, lounges and slopes. b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 2 • POINTS: 6 Comments: On - site food and beverage fadlities are extensive (minimum of 15,000 sq.ft.), include three dining formats: coffee shop, grill and specialty restaurant, and total approximately 525 seats. A minimum of four lounges are provided throughout the hotel and conference center. The hotel's main kitchen is sized for full banquet service. /1 c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re- creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 2 • POINTS: 6 Comments: On -site recreational facilities include: two swimming pools, an outdoor skating rink, a 4,500 sq. ft. health club, a 1,900 sq.ft. game room, extensive sun decks, ski access from Little Nell and Lift 1 -A, and a picnic amplitheater area at the base of Aspen Mountain. The applicant also proposes to complete the Dean Street trail through the hotel site to provide summer access to Aspen Mountain and adjacent areas. CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 21 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro - ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: 7 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 7 Comments: Applicant proposes to house 180 employees off -site or approximately 63 percent of the hotel project'sprojected employee generation. The hotel's projected employee generation is 287 employees. Forty -seven employees are to be housed at the Alpina. liaus, 43 at the Copper Horse and 90 in a new project to be constructed off Ute Avenue on the Benedict parcel. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. 1 0 /, RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: Comments: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: 24 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: 21 (Minimum 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: a 7 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1,2,3 and 4: 59 (Minimum of 51 points required) Bonus Points (Maximum of 5 points allowed) TOTAL POINTS: 59 Name- of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office nd Fxf4fGt f • i✓ ro ro • N co 0 • 4 C M o v a Nonva C N • • • C ,-.1 0 A I • •L• H H 0 H CroMte)9 H xfh tnE n itn (917 ID CD H 1 Di 0 r•n K a n o£ CD rt M n 0 n N M N f 9 N rt O r n I- P. ( to w rt N 0 0 " !P N 0 b o CI P w P. -0 i '' I . `< (D m 0 n O cn En r z P1 rt rt W 0 !-1 n N N b f 0 i N hi M 4 1-4 N a o a m 11 C 5 a o r•r+ N r•< < 1-1 Cr) a °• m. e to a am 0 n a to 0 + 0 o (. N C rr a M C 0 N a V C t O N ••41 n tel P. N 0 y rt n • H r• ',ii I H rorr M 0 P. O < 0 O N 2 2 H 0 A 0 rr N [*f r• N 0' r r 0 P. ti r to r i 0' •• a 0 .w z t� rt P. C r • N N H . r• N t+1 N N tn 0 N 0 O 0 N ,d . M H r N Ni z zH. N Z m a zl 0 N 0 r I yr � Or . z t 'CI N N O O F V I I H I IIICN 9 x • r �Z r Hr Nrr I[�Tf fC WW` I I I I I to H 0 I x to I I t*] fn X s \ IR?? lolo‘ _ loo Itc4sou, t*7H3 • ro H Pz z if' ~ J T IN IN If✓ H N N a` J Ol W N colt,' colt,' I I H IIII I I 4 to to r to V;) N T W H W W W Oi J N N H.1. H r Z M Y En H H H O 1 .-. I el el ° z r Ir J N N W T � W N W O F-.1 H I III I I z O Lti c I I N �-+ .J C t O (T D` WIW ice' f I .n H N IIII I N . . I J ���I ~ r Io`I°`I I°' ...I .n H 1,7; I N W r O 0 1� N .P- l' I '• r M l- ON W • N CO O • • O N • 4 .1 N W W O N ON J y" r J CO W lJi N ON J O M • . . to a ro b • at a a' u N D N N (U . C ro to tra n 0 HO t O . Z O z H o a 1' a 0 Z tn r O Pli M IT '0 Ho H K 5' o Z w o" y H. I 'G M tr1 h. ro to to r to x1 a rt F•• a' O to rt m . N• rt ro r• . pax otr 1-3 O C • W H. G C P- . r r 0 N• 0 N I-'N• la 111 t1 m 0`° n K 0 • 0 0 r Cu I'd N (n 0 0 0 0 • t< rt . N 1 I 1 to 0 a r 0 N et . N. 0 . ro is vn Z [ d t.) C w • ~ in -' K r N o • Hi Z M It v 0 V ~ ' I•' I-' 1-3 C-I > A A 1•' Z H to 00 O tp I-a N Z ›. H Z Pi 0 '0 r I' H . O z 0 to t r z r > tJ O tJ - N C U '> Ln H O LA 7:1 . 'tit U ), to • •t A N C . '0 .O H th U 0 • . t_n 0 M W N 2' 0 N 0 • 4 C M O t r w E tD an va { 0 • m a0 17 D) c 0 0 21 H H 0 H < ro ttl to 9 H Z1 ■ '1 to to E 0 M O M cD H F•• a 0 P• H '< w P. o E ill n 0 o M N t*1 N ft fD ft (] 11 N. F,. it to G 7C hi fD G' 0 N, M g r� t n V fD 7 1-0 N. a 1-0.4 N. "`y h:1 1-4 M fn aW 1'•0 ro 1- GK 0rt Fy ty r b r1 P /.0 7r/ F-, `° 0 ttn n 0 O W 1-1 0 H 1-3 CO 'L P. • 0 f '> 0 5 a o P. rt (D F'• d 4' 1-4 • t) N fD 1-4 to N Q+ N 0 hi X to n 0 1'• F'• t 0 C c �P- w 0 C m a 0 hcl 01 01 F Q 0ID (/) z tp 1..• • to 0 y rt r) 11 H O H a) D" Z F H Mf+ O a 1- III 0 0 0 1 1 w t7 0 0 0 z H t) W 0 r 0 H G r• N 3 9 r • H Y N 0 ' r F + o 1'• t7 r U) O • a o w z rt is 0 • rt 0 � • C m 1'. (1) t) 0 H 0 `n S( 0 • N o 0 0 � ro 0 /• 1 N n 0 z� 0 zfA . al 0 H a 0 H O r 1 z� o r 1 • hi N N 1 1;1 O O N N 1-' Cr T T t1'°' lO ' I F' N I 11 N I I H 0 H y x H � Hr ZX N rV W T W 1 I I I I ' Mtwo ttr1 I 1. y H Zz IH H N ro J W T W �O T I OD I1✓I NI N N N I I I I I H z • 4 N to 0 t CW cn r T S T II; O T W T W J ♦✓ N r F' N H rr • H H )S N H F4 CI O Z CI N r z T 1/4.0 IJ ITITIWTT J F'N ill--, N z ItF1,3 IC ta. N N N i M±V T I� I ~Il/-, N d ICIN t N IO • N • H°'-» W I Ir IN 1-'1� OT fr/ I . up . 'Y r. J M • • in J . W M 1.n ,n ro ro a H a. 0 e N t0 N W m its C ro • 1n 0 O m t" • ro r 9 N �°' a H X :'o n w .0 o 3 H P. Y•K b7 M (b o ro to N 1-- m 1 1 ,0 rt 1-1• M O Ul z rt V1 N. rt by 0 P. G d N x c O tY O O • C P. G C rt G N• C 9 H 0 0 1N-. C 0 W N t'l ti 0 Y• G H H. P. ro ro 9 N 0 i° n 0 I < a 0 0 • r a o Z z x t" 0' of m o H m . 0 K rt • r r m 1 . 1 m 0 •• •. ft G 0 . 0 In . • rt . t1. 0 • • • ro o. I rn z CI O. W I r W V : • V I< r cr. cr. Z Pi ' tn V In N V V • ••0 Z 9 . . o+ o• \ H . W O lea V > V • . 4 r Z In ON 0 rn V V H Z . M '. E al o N o N V -.0 H O • Z ' r N Z Si • N In \ In C to In > H 0 • In U. z o . r of • LA o • V > V M x • o r e t7 V • N V r W tD F-1 a . M • I S' " . . trrirrl L 4! iti,7,..r. r7rti i 7.7 r7 ., .. 3 1, 7971 rif/t .cri ' --' .— iii.,:?. 3 ic:::::: C.: 'WI t tr ' r.r 7.— 7 T.---4 777 r -7,-.7 77 Is-L---79 c i ' t '■ i ''' is C: . , 77! , pi. ,,: 771 7-77.71 .1_,,...„ F, w r - , i - ..- i .. t :...,.: .%...,;:-., -:,-.,.. f ; - ,..i.-.. -” :,..•:-..;,,...,.!:.■ 7:,:7. , : , ....4.:1 ::. t :.■.''. 7-4. Z-3 :-..... .:1-ni . 1 CeAti, Ci...asaCt I 11 ..... s, 14 rt:\F t #41,1 ::., , rit ti .,.x. :.:;k:,, ,,,, , .,, .(3-:: I ,' ;:lic,; tj',' A tig tc,,:w7;:,) c - lt - 4A '747 7 ' r..'; 7". • 1 4 I - ;,,...,?, ..--t ) ,‘ ....s:-It s..::-. ..,.„: •,.:. fr, c-A "'t: ":":1/:"'''.1f1:..11. C41;f1;;;:-.();;;;', . • ::. .. 11 . if gf: ri; .y. : - # . : : •• • — : , !•• : •-#...••”•° ° , .,.. tii-#.2,.;-,#•;4: -,.., .. , 0...:.,',..:6-: :4i. ..'.., . ::. •:. :: 4, C...;;;., .k..'„:.c-:::- 44A, : ..,“..4'....4.` . . ,•....- 17:17 c:7 '''• : :I tt./- a , . :ligt Arita lik C71 .._____,, ,., ._..., . , k S t i i k $3 t .,■..,■.!: VLSI ' '. p _ ins es - cl ! E' J.' `: i! • nil -.: ::., ri.), II r7.9 n a 1 I I ••• , • •._ • 1 uC (771 r77.1 • November 22, 1983 • INTRODUCTION - GENERAL, The proposed 52 room Lodge, The Lodge At Aspen, consists of 4G Lodge Rooms and 6 Employee rooms. The project proposes to cater to Ski Clubs and budget - minded skiers. Applicant believes that the proposed demolition of the Continental Tnn and Aspen Tnn which are to be replaced with a First -Class World Hotel, will create a deficiency in accommodations in the low and medium price range. The Lodge At Aspen with smaller rooms can offer more reasonable price accommodations than a hotel offering large rooms, energy consuming swimming pools and elaborate health facilities which some guests may never use. • OBJECTIONS TO ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE: 1. Ordinance No 35 (Series of 1983) is the legal document of the City of Aspen which governs the 1984 Lodge G.M.P. Competition. On Page 2, Section 1, the following is stated: "All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more than the following:" "....(b) Within the Lr1, Tr2, CC and CL Zone District, thirty five (35) Lodge or lintel units;" This applicant believes that tiro intent of (b) is that any application for a quota is restricted to land which has a zoning of Lrl, L-2, CC or CL as of the filing deadline which was October 3, 1983. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application includes 11,000 sq. feet of City owned property which is zoned, "Public." It also includes 78,161 square feet of R -15 (PUD)L with proposed rezoning which would allow a higher density than presently allowed. This applicant believes that the Aspen Mountain Lodge cannot legally include these parcels in its application. i' r _ - � 1 .�. k • : 11 -"' 2. Apparently the C:i.ty of Aspen is not a co- applicant to the Aspen Mountain Lodge's application. The City is the owner of 11,000 square feet of "Public" zoned ].ands included in the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project. This applicant believes that the "11th hour" attempt by the City Council on September 26, 1983 (8 days prior to filing deadline) and October 12, 1983 (9 days after C.M.P. filing deadline) which would allow City owned property to be included in a proposed G.M.P. application does not and will not legitimatize an improper C.M.P. application. Even if the "11th hour" attempt succeeded, a question of possible discrimination occurs. This applicaht requested permission from the Planning Office to include 7,280 square feet of the U. S. Forest Service Lot 41 in the Lodge At Aspen's application. This land is contiguous to The Lodge At Aspen site and is involved in an exchange with this applicant. A Statement of Intent to exchange Lot 41 from the Forest Service was presented to the Planning Office. The City Attorney's office notified this applicant to the effect that the Forest Service parcel could not he included. This applicant was never notified that the City was considering a change in Ordinance 35 which would allow Government lands to be included in a C.M.P. application. 3. This applicant believes that a principle of "Competition" is that the rules are the same for all competitors. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application proposes to demolish the following: Aspen Inn 67 rooms Continental Inn 178 rooms Blue Spruce 32 rooms TOTAL 277 rooms _-2- r ed r i ,,.. t Y`V.'E ". . r... nrst2 . . i., ;;;:ir:,, :Li: Fri .'...1 :2: 1-;,:),..‘k:1 go ;::;_ii, , 1 t • The plan proposes to reconstruct 269 rooms to replace the demolished units'. • It appears that the proposed 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge Hotel will consist of 56% reconstructed units and 44% new quota units which would come from G.M.P. allocation. This applicant objects to the Planning Office's scoring procedure of the Aspen Mountain Lodge which was for the total hotel. It is felt that The Lodge At Aspen should only be scored against 44% or 211 rooms of The Aspen Mountain Lodge application. Two swimming pools will be demolished, one at Aspen Inn and one at Continental Inn. Two new swimming pools will be built. If these - ' amenities are applied to the reconstructed units, then there is no swimming pool to be applied to the 211 new lodge rooms. Existing Conference, Health Spa facilities and two restaurants will be demolished. Thus, the proposed new facilities used in the Planning Office scoring are not indicated to be net increases in facilities. • . -3- ::, ,... �1 Pt � .is- i r„.. , li t � t :l: .. s.:J j% _ i .15 t '7T 1,� ,,,,,:;,'4, . . Y ' \I .1 � � i.. t �'S�r"_ as.d.�,.!� fin. -. ! °,•f llll .'"EJ7 i HEIGHT COMMENTS: ' 1 The Aspen Mountain Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The } ?forth of ` Building by approximately 10 feet. According to Aspen's Zoning Code Area and Bulk Requirements L-1 and L-2 Height limitation is 28 feet with possible variation of up to 33 feet. The Lodge At Aspen is restricted to this height limitation. I The Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 58 states: " Generally speaking, around the Lodge perimeter, maximum heights from • natural grade will vary from 30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the visual . impact upon pedestrians. Within the interior of the Lodge footprint, set back from the street facade, heights in some locations of 40 to 50 feet It are proposed, If The Lodge At Aspen had the same freedom to go to the 55' height the Y project could have a height appearance as shown below: K'"__' fife+ 2 tia.re- ! v..'aa... a r - . ' y 7 Lam, re n `� II _ . _ L 1 ks.. .-/L r -4 x • r INTRODUCTION THE LODGE AT ASPEN 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 November 22, 1983 • • 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: Short of Maximum Section Category Rating Multipler Points la. Water 1 1 1 . lb. Sewer 1 1 1 • lc. • Roads 1 1 1 2a. Architectural Design 2 3 6 2b. Site Design 2 3 6 2d. Parking and Circulation 1 3 3 2e. Visual Impact 1 3 3 3a. Common Areas 2 3 6 3b. Dining 1 2 2 3c. Recreational 2 2 4 4b, Employee Housing 1 1 4 APPLICANT COMMENTS After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to make the following comments and guarantees relative to each of the above categories: The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding the Planning Office's Evaluation and Scoring of THE LODGE AT ASPEN's presentation. These comments are in those areas which did not receive the maximum point rating by the Planning Office. • 1. a. WATER COMMENTS: Since Mr. Markalunas has indicated a neighborhood deficiency The Lodge at Aspen's proposal to share the cost of the looped of water main would bring about the correction „the neighborhood water system inadequacies,. The water consumed by The Lodge will be metered and paid for resulting in increased revenue to the City's Water Department. Applicant believes that a 2 rating would be appropriate. ' b. SEWER COMMENTS: The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees and the periodic sewer assessments as calculated by the Aspen 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. Since the sewer facilities are adequate according to the Planning Department's evaluation, the applicant believes that a 2 rating is appropriate. c. ROADS COMMENTS: 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. The Aspen Mountain road is access to the Ajax Condominiums and a house. The road continues up and over Aspen Mountain past the Sun Deck and down into Castle Creek. In view of the Planning Office's comments, applicant believes that a scoring of 2 would be appropriate. -5- • 2. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMENTS: The proposed • building will be built within the legal constraints of the 33 font height limitation while the Aspen Mountain Lodge is proposing Heights up to 55 feet. Since PUD procedures and exemptions are not available to The Lodge At Aspen, restrictions are imposed which limit architectural design potential. Compatibility with existing neighborhood developments is to be considered for evaluating Architectural Design. The size of rooms are not a factor for evaluation under Ordinance No. 35. Applicant believes that The Lodge At Aspen fits into the neighborhood and should be considered for a higher rating than 1. b. SITE DESIGN COMMENTS: The site design was prepared observing setback requirements of the ,City's Area and Bulk requirements. The Applicant is willing to reduce curb cuts from the proposed three to two as recommended by the City Engineering Department. It appears that concentration of tourist rooms at the base of the mountain will have desired results such as reducing automobile usage by Lodge guestsand encourage gueststo take the short • walk to the commercial core. Trash Removal - Trash container will be located in an area near the Southeast corner of the property near the Ajax Apartment's trash container. Snow Control - The Lodge will incorporate the following systems: a. Engineered snow stops will be installed to retain the snow on the roof. b. 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. e h. I'AI:G i Sr, AND (: 1 RcI I. \•PION COMMENTS : 1 is llrrrvi(led on the has is of o space per lod and elnpl woo bedroom which is ;1 requ(ronton': or Lile and 1• -2 Area and I:11 I I. new( i remld:. 'I'lte Aspen Mnnntu in Lodge under PIlll ln•nlnirns iHI) porl.11ig spnc•es I 1 151) n mis- Tim Lodge AC Aspen has 41 1411 in ni. one parking spare per bcdrunnt wit 1.Iu the Aspen Nonni n in Lodge has .79 space per bcdrnnnt_ The turning .r11(1 his I:or cars entering the parking area was nn 1- areor(1 ing to the C.i Ly c, I: Aspen Parking Standard as shown helot,: l., i ‘t f . PAR (1NG STAN.)ARD f)Pd\I[ /:Y T ND TUF_RP.I?JG /, ry.A tit Ii`IJ VI ^Li ;tit.. , `:1 , 1 1 .. ,i,r : 1 • Ont. I CUFY(.5 fly hr: found in Fl�.i 1:- �!\ •� r•_. �. c. VISUAL INIPAC'f (:ON1NIENI'S: The height of the Int 1(1ing i11. be reduced slighL.ly Ln stay w i Lh in the Area 1)11(1 Iiul.1: Re(pi iremenl o f the Zion ing Codes. The 11ighesL pninL of The Lodge AL Aspen's building will be 22 feet less than the 11igl1test pninL on Lite Aspen Noun Lain Lodge. The TO Idly' AL Aspen hu i.L(t ing sits back (MT oi: IIte Avenue in order to enluulc.: visual appearance From the s (-reet. 3. AMEN TICS PROVIDED FOR GUESTS : The rating guidelines states "The Connnthsfon shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed HP1VICOS for chests as compared to the size of the proposed 11o(wiig project...." (underlining added) . The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 480 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms as The Lodge At Aspen which has 46 tourist rooms. It appears to this applicant that a smaller lodge will be limited in its ability to provide amenities. a) COMMON MEETING AREAS COMMENTS: • Applicant believes that the common area of 1,120 square feet consisting of lounge and lobby areas is sufficient and adequate for a 46 room lodge. With the restrictive nature of Aspen's Area and Bulk requirements, conference facilities in a small lodge are unrealistic. b) DINING FACILITIES In L-1 zone a restaurant for public use is prohibited by Zoning Code, except by Conditional Use. With this Lodge being located • within walking distance the guest will patronize public dining facilities in the commercial core. Applicant believes that the proposed dining facilities are adequate for a small lodge. e) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES COMMMENTS: Two commercial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance; namely, Aspen Athletic Club located at 720 E. Hyman Avenue and The Aspen Club located down the street at 1300 Ute Avenue. It is anticipated that these clubs will be used by the guest with Limo service available for transportation. The indoor hot tub is proposed at the Garden Level and will conserve more energy than an outdoor tub. 4, a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMMENTS.: The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 100% of its employees. The application states, "Three employees will be housed off -site. The Lodge will either lease long -terns or purchase three condominiums in the Aspen area for hnusing the three employees." This can provide a better life styl.e for the employees, particularly if they have families. n- The employee unit in the Carden Level shown on page 1 13 w1.1.1 be built to meet building code requirements for habitation. A door to the outside of the building will be provided. M.in:innun window requirements will be designed into the unit. The ;applicant believes that The tnclge At Aspen qualifies for the 15 points for Employee ]lousing. BONflS POINTS CONSIDERATION - - " -_- ro osal represents 1. The Applicant believes that The Lodge at Aspen's prop 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 ( and the proposed base area for the Little Annie Ski Area. 2. The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develop an intimate scale lodge, in keeping with the Aspen tradition as opposed to a magastructure approach. 3. The project can be built without any deficiencies in water, sewer, storm sower drainage, fire protection, sidewalks, curbs, paved driveways and streets adjoining the site. 1 1. The location is within walking distance to the commercial core and public transportation. The nearness of the Police Department enhances guest security. 5. The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain. In view of the .initial submission dated October 1, 1983 and the supplemcatt;iry data submitted this November 22, 1983, the applicant believes that the project is qualified for evaluation under the bonus point criteria. Respectfully submitted, Lyle Reeder • • -].0 -• • • WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920 -2233 December 6, 1983 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Competition Award; Challenge of Lyle Reeder, Applicant for The Lodge at Aspen. Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent Lyle Reeder, an Applicant in the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition in connection with the hearing before the Planning & k Zoning Commission held on November 22, 1983, to select a winning If( score between the two Applicants -- The Lodge at Aspen, and the [iv Aspen Mountain Lodge. That Commission awarded all the units to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and none to the Lodge at Aspen. (r1 This letter is written to set forth certain legal objections and irregularities that have been discovered by my client and myself in connection with the procedures of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City of Aspen regarding the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen in general as it pertains to this Competition. Specifically incorporated herein are the provisions of the'Municipal Code of the City of Aspen which are pertinent to these applicants and to the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition. I shall set forth these challenges, objections and irregularities in numerical order for your convenience and reference and suggest that they are clear violations of my client's rights to due process and /or represent abuses of discretion: 1. In scoring each of the two applicants, the Planning •y S Director gave a decidedly unfair advantage to the V 4'` Mountain Lodge project because of the procedure which ' f +'� allows that project to qualify as a PUD project and n � still have to compete as a project in the GMP 6 Competition. Certain advantages were obtained by the Mountain Lodge by it being allowed to be of greater height and having more amenities, thus enabling it to receive a greater point score. • j) ) nt if ,/ ,n • • ,, () 1 WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. - Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA - (303) 9202233 Aspen City Council December 6, 1983 . Page Two 2. The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for having I. amenities for guests, at least a part of which score �( was due to having a larger number of amenities than the P t Lodge at Aspen and so receiving a higher score. This •V 4 treatment would discriminate against a smaller project (�.1�. L� in general, since points are scored against each other on a one -to -one basis, and in particular since the , ti Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and r rr�t/ � exterior space. v ( ' ''v 3. The Mountain Lodge is proposing to gain credit for the U demolition and reconstruction of 269 existing units, and consequently is seeking only 211 units from the k Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their k j' A) k\ project, Planning Commission considered the entire 480 r(V - V ) units in granting points for the various categories when they should have only considered the actual number i'k t t of the units that were being requested. This would , ku n � have resulted in only scoring 211 units as a percentage 4 ,, �� / �' of the overall project (43.95%). (� 4. The proposed Mountain Lodge project is obviously the most complicated and most expensive to be proposed for As en. It is also the largest in terms of number of 1 h \ t, h y' units, size of buildings, etc. For this reason, it is t4 µ \ hard to see how it can be equated with any other project, especially one of the size of the Lodge at Q ": , ; Aspen. However, it is being scored against it and is \ R\ � ro l 1.1 be considered as a part of the Lodge GMP Competition 1.11 y in spite of its unique size and complexity. In fact, it should be a separately considered project. 5. The procedures of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, in general, and the Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, provide for certain qualifications before an applicant can submit an application. Obviously, these requirements are necessary in order to determine if an applicant actually has the necessary interest in the property to be seriously considered. The interest of the Applicants for the Mountain Lodge appears to be no more than an Assignment of the Right to submit the application by the actual landowner, Hans Cantrup, who, in turn, is unable to legally handle his own legal affairs, including his real estate holdings, without • ( ) • WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. - . Attorney at Law SUITE 202 • 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 9202233 Aspen City Council December 6, 1983 Page Three °� the express approval and participation of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, it would appear that the applicants for The Mountain Lodge have no i1/4 standing to file the application being considered by V J� this Commission. I. The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50 � as unused previous years' units; and 126 more from \)):- ,1 future years' units up to 1987. This unprecedented p V, request for the use of so many future years' units �` , � would be a violation of the intent, if not the rule, of having an annual Lodge GMP Competition, No one can U predict the future, and it would be impossible to N determine the needs of the City five years from now, but since the years would be used up by The Mountain f Lodge project, others would be denied the right and v privilege of even being able to compete in a s4r A ' " ,�C competition designed, and legally constituted, for the (' (t determination of weighing interests. 7. Under the Law of the City of Aspen in effect at the time of the deadline for filing 1984 Lodge GMP Applications, an applicant who proposed to utilize City -owned land in their project, must be joined in the application by the City of Aspen; also, such an 7 - application must be judged in two ways by the Planning \ \t Office: one as if the City -owned land were included and one as if it were not included. At a City Council `\ (' meeting on September 26, 1983, a proposal was d n, v introduced to allow applicants (specifically The Mountain Lodge project) to file an application l including City -owned land, without the joining of the �� City. This proposal was not formally passed at that \ session and was, in fact, tabled until the next session y of the City Council, held on October 12, 1983, when it ` ,r li was passed. The Mountain Lodge filed its application n ( for Lodge GMP Competition by the October 3, 1983 N ut deadline but before the effective date of the new law allowing it to file without the consent and joining of the City of Aspen. Therefore, the application should . not have been allowed since it did not conform to the law of the City in those two respects. • • 1 • • J • WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920 -2233 Aspen City Council December 6, 1983 Page Four Thank you for your consideration. Wright Hugus, Jr. WHJR :klm •