The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.Lodge at Aspen.1983Gr,- Ot As Lodge At Aspen 9-1 1 1983 Lodge GMP MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1984 Lodge GMP Competition Appeal DATE: December 27, 1983 Mr. Lyle Reeder, an applicant in the 1984 lodge GMP competition, has filed an appeal pursuant to Section 24-11.6(e) of the Municipal Code. The appellant is seeking a development allocation for the 46 unit Lodge at Aspen to be constructed at 711 U'-e Avenue. As a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring, Mr. Reeder's appli- cation failed to meet the minimum points threshold and, therefore, has been disqualified from further consideration for a development allocation. The appellant alleges in his appeal that r:he Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission abused their discretion in evaluating the competing applications and, as a result, the actions of the Commission constituted a violation of due process. The City Attorney, the Engineering Department and the Planning Office have reviewed Mr. Reeder's appeal, a copy of which is attached for your information. Our continents with respect to the appellant's allegations are sum- marized in this memorandum. Section 24-11.6(e) of the Municipal Code states in part that "Having received the Commission's report (i.e., the results of the scoring), the City Council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the City Council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Commission in its scoring." (Emphasis added.) Historically, this provision of the Code has been invoked when, for example, a Commission member has abused his or her discretion by ignoring relevant information pertaining to a particular application and has scored the project indiscriminantiy. Similarly, the denial of due process provision has typically been invoked when some irre- gularity in the Commission's review procedure violated an appli- cant's fundamental rights, e.g., refusing the applicant the right to speak at the hearing, denying him the right to legal representation, etc. The discretion exercised by individual P&Z members with respect to the applicable scoring criteria has not been construed to be an appealable issue when the members' scores were based on information submitted by the applicant and the Planning Office, or upon reason- able differences of opinion as to the degree to which the applicant has met the review criteria. The City Attorney has suggested a three tiered approach to Council's consideration of Mr. Reeder's appeal and the appropriateness of re- manding his application to P&Z for rescoring. This approach may be summarized as follows: 1. First, a decision should be made as to whether there was some irregularity in the Commission's review procedure that violated the appellant's fundamental right to due process. 2. Second, the Council should consider whether the P&Z abused its discretion in not allocating sufficient points to allow the appellant to meet the minimum points threshold. If the 0 to MEMO: The Lodge At Aspen - Appeal December 27, 1983 Page Two Council can reasonably conclude upon its review of the proceedings that the P&Z had sufficient rationale for not awarding a threshold score, then the appellant lacks stand- ing to attack the scores given to the competing project. 3. Finally, should Council find that P&Z abused its discretion in not allocating sufficient points to allow the appellant to meet the minimum points threshold, then the issue should be whether P&Z was either a) unfair in not awarding suf- ficient points to the appellant, or b) unfair in awarding too many points to the winning applicant. Should the Council determine that the appellant has been.denied due process as a result of some irregularity in the review process and/or the P&Z has abused its discretion in scoring the appellant's appli- cation, the Council may amend the application's score. However, given the Planning and Zoning Commission's familiarity with both the appli- cation and the applicable GMP criteria, the Planning Office and the City Attorney would recommend that Council remand the appellant's application back to P&Z for rescoring in the event denial of due process and/or the abuse of discretion is evident. With respect to the first issue, a review of the record of proceedings of the November 22, 1983 P&Z meeting (the meeting at which the 1984 lodge GMP applications were scored) indicates no procedural irregu- larity which would substantiate the appellant's denial of due process allegation. Furthermore, the appellant makes no specific reference in his appeal to any procedural irregularity of the Commission in support of his allegation. It would appear that the appellant's application of this appeal criteria is inappropriate in that no violation of the appellant's fundamental right to due process in the review proceeding: has been demonstrated. In fact, the appellant was given ample opportunity to present his application at the hearing and was allowed to submit, for the record, supplemental information clarifying his application and objecting to the competing project. Although the appellant was represented by counsel, no objections were raised by the appellant's attorney at the hearing with respect to either the contents of the Planning Office's November 16 and 22 memorandums, or with respect to the procedure in which the competing applications were reviewed and scored by the P&Z. While the City Council has the authority to adjust the appellant's scores or to remand his application to the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion for reconsideration, it does not appear that the appellant has alleged any legal basis for the City Council to award an "additional 15 points to the applicant's total scare" as suggested in the appel- lant's request for relief. As the City Attorney points out, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that his project was ar- bitrarily denied 15 points which the project otherwise would have received if scored properly. While the appellant does question the appropriateness of his score with respect to the amenities provision of the GMP criteria, the remainder of his appeal centers on defi- ciencies in the competing application, on the P&Z's scoring of that application, and on objections to the GMP process and criteria in general. In our opinion, only the amenities question is germane to the issue of.whether the P&Z abused its discretion in not allocating sufficient points to allow the appellant to meet the minimum points threshold. The appellant alleges that P&Z abused its discretion by failing to correctly apply the GMP review criteria with respect to amenities to the competing projects. Essentially, the appellant contends that the amenities to be provided in conjunction with his project were un- favorably compared to those provided by the much larger competing MEMO: The Lodge at Aspen - Appeal December 27, 1983 Page Three project. Since a small project cannot be expected to provide as many amenities as a much larger project, the appellant believes the P&Z abused its discretion in following the Planning Office's recommenda- tion and giving his application a low score in this category. The amenities provision of the lodge GMP criteria states in part that "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 addi- tion thereto." (Emphasis added.) This language is intended to specifically limit the Planning Office and the Commission's con- sideration to the specific amenity package provided by a specific project and not to a comparison of amenity packages among competing projects. In its evaluation of the GMP submissions, the Planning Office and the P&Z scored each project with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the project in question. The appellant's project re- ceived a relatively low score in this category based on the P&Z's finding that the proposed amenities were substandard given the size of the project. While the actual P&Z scores reflect a difference of opinion among the scoring members as to the quality and spaciousness of the appellant's amenity package, all of the individual P&Z members' scores are substantially below the total points available in this category. A review of the P&Z's scoring of the appellant's applica- tion pursuant to the amenity criteria, therefore, would appear to indicate no abuse of discretion on behalf of the Commission with respect to this issue. The appellant has provided no additional arguments in his appeal that would indicate the Commission's scoring of his project with respect to the remaining GMP criteria is inappropriate. As a result, there appears to be no basis for the appellant's request for the award of additional points to his score. Should Council concur that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that his project was arbitrarily denied sufficient points to make the minimum points threshold (i.e., no abuse of discretion occurred on the part of the P&Z), then, as the City Attorney states in his memorandum, the appellant lacks standing to attack the scores given the competing project. The allegations contained in his appeal with respect to the Commission's scoring of the competing project are therefore moot and there need be no further Council consideration of the abuse of discretion issue. The Planning Office, however, is prepared to address the appellant's specific allegations with respect to the competing project's scores should Council find that the P&Z abused its discretion in not awarding sufficient points to allow the appellant to meet the minimum points threshold. As an alternative to adjusting his score, Mr. Reeder requests in his appeal that Council grant his application an exemption from the City's Growth Management regulations. Neither the City Attorney or the Planning Office are aware of any Code provision under which the City Council could grant the appellant such an exemption. Inasmuch as the appellant provided no justification for such a request in his appeal, we suggest that Mr. Reeder be given an opportunity at your December 27 meeting to explain the basis under which he feels an exemption may be justified. In summary, a review of the P&Z's November 22 proceedings indicates no procedural irregularities which would substantiate the appellant's denial of due process allegations. Similarly, there appears to be no legal basis for the appellant's request that an additional 15 points be added to his score. In fact, we believe the appellant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion on behalf of the Commission with respect to the scoring of his application. As a result, we recommend that the appellant's 1984 lodge GMP competition scores remain unchanged. 0 CITY GF, ASPEN 130 seuth galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 1983 TO: Planning Director_. FROM: Paul Taddune�/' RE: Lodge at Aspen GMP Lodge Appeal FLANNiNG a I have reviewed the documentation dated December 6, 1983, sub- mitted by Lyle Reeder in connection with the P&Z's rejection of the 1984 GMP application for the Lodge at Aspen, and I have the following comments: 1. Although the Planning Office acts in an advisory capacity, neither the Planning Director nor any other employee of the Plan- ning Office has any "discretion" in connection with the scoring 's and evaluation of lodge GMP applications. Therefore, appellant complaint that the Planning Office abused its discretion is inap- propriate. Any appeal pursuant to Section 24-11.6 of the Munici- pal Code should more properly relate directly to the actions of the P&Z. 2. I assume that appellant was provided a copy of the November 16 and November 22 Planning Office memoranda and that the appel- lant was present at P&Z's November 22, 1983, meeting. Therefore, I suggest that the record of P&Z's proceedings be reviewed to ascertain whether the appellant (or his counsel) objected to the memoranda being considered by the P&Z. Generally, in appellate review situations, an appellant is deemed to have waived an irregularity upon failure to make the objection during the course of the proceedings under review. 3. I have not verified the facts contained in the "statement of case��portion of the appellant's memorandum in support of appeal. I assume that, for the most part, the underlying facts are a mat- ter of record. Nonetheless, I suggest that the Planning Office review the facts contained in the "statement of case" and comment as appropriate. 4. A GMP appeal has three levels of analysis: Memorandum to Planning Director December 20, 1983 Page Two (i) Has the appellant met the scoring threshold? In the context of the Reeder appeal, the question to be decided by the Council is whether the P&Z abused its discretion in not allocating sufficient points. If the City Council finds upon its review of the proceedings that there is sufficient rationale for not award- ing a threshold score, the Council should determine that there was no abuse of discretion by the P&Z, and there should be no further appellate inquiry by the City Council with respect to the abuse of discretion issue. (ii) If the appellant had made the threshold but has not been awarded a sufficient number of points to win the competition, the inquiry should then be whether or not the P&Z abused its discre- tion in either (a) being unfair in not awarding sufficient points to the losing applicant, or. (b) unfairly awarding too many points to the winning applicant. (i.ii) Aside from the abuse of discretion ground discussed above, was there some irregularity in procedure that was so egre- gious that it violated the appellant's fundamental right to due process. Instances of such irregularities may include refusing to allow the appellant an opportunity to speak at the hearing, deny- ing him the right to legal representation, denying the application solely on upon the applicant's race or religion, etc. If it can reasonably be concluded that the appellant did not make the threshold under the first level of analysis, then the appellant lacks standing to attack the scores given to the compet- ing project. However, it would be helpful in reviewing the merit of appellant's contentions for the Planning Office to analyze what effect, if any, conceding each contention in favor of appellant would have on both the appellant's application and the Aspen Moun- tain Lodge application. For example, I am curious as to what real effect the proposed grease trap and energy conservation measures would have one way or another on the Aspen Mountain Lodge applica- tion. 5. Although the City Council has the authority to adjust scor- ing, it does not appear that the appellant has alleged any legal basis for the City Council to award an "additional 15 points to the total score" as suggested in Paragraph 1 of the requested relief. In this regard, the appellant has the burden of demon- strating that his project was arbitrarily denied 15 points which the project otherwise would have received if scored properly. 1 6. I am not aware of any Code provision under which the City Council can grant the appellant an "exemption" to the Growth Management Plan as requested in Paragraph 2 of the requested relief. I suggest that the appellant be given an opportunity to explain the basis.upon which he feels an exemption may be justi- fied. PJ T/m c cc: City Council Wright Hugus Art Daily MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant Citv Engineer �/ DATE: December 15, 1983 RE: Reeder GMP Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- ---- Per your request, the City Engineering Department would offer the following comments regarding the memorandum in support of appeal submitted by Lyle Reeder. Mr. Reeder is requesting a hearing before City Council to appeal the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission not to recommend that the Lodge at Aspen be granted a development allocation under the City's Growth Management Plan (GMP) for 15 additional units. We would comment on several items contained in the appeal memorandum as follows: 1. Regarding the evaluation of the Aspen Mountain Lodge item 1, the existence of the Durant Street encroachment has been a matter of consideration from the start. The request by the applicant for the encroachment is not of particular concern relative to GMP allocation criteria and is a separate aspect of the project requiring specific approval of the City Coulicil. As it happens, we are currently of the opinion that the Durant encroachment is not appropriate and have made this recommendation to the P & Z. 2. Item 2, regarding the "grease trap," is another potential encroachment request that is a design detail again not appropriate to GMP. The applicants various requests for encroachments do not impact our comments on the project relative to GMP criteria and their disclosure of the potential "grease trap" encroachment is more an example of the applicants general effort to disclose all items that may affect the City in as timely a manner as possible. 3. Finally, Mr. Reeder's assertion that 36% of the Aspen Mountain Lodge employee housing on Ute Avenue is proposed to be located in an avalanche hazard area is simply not true. Parcel B was identified as an avalanche zone some time ago and was excluded from consideration for development back when Little Annies had the property. The Aspen Mountain Lodge applicants have not proposed housing structures on Parcel B and they are aware of the development constraints on that site caused by the avalanche potential. Let me know if I may provide any further elaboration or answers ri�rrarrli nrr thi g anneal . i A li DEC01333 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: A(,LAfff1I;15lr 1�,NININN7, P.1-r�1.[. , WHEREAS, Lyle Reeder has filed an application under the 15813' V Lodge GMP Competition Section 24-11.6 of the Aspen Municipal Code for construction of a 46-unit lodge to be called THE LODGE AT ASPEN to be located at 711 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, as a result of scoring by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Lyle Reeder did not receive any growth management plan allocation for 1984; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 24-11.6(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code, hereby appeals to the City Council of the City of Aspen the action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983, which action denied applicant any development allocation under the Lodge Development Application procedures. The appeal is made on the following grounds: 1. The Planning Office abused its discretion in scoring the competing applications and in evaluating the two applications. 2. The Planning Office, in its Memorandums to the Planning and Zoning Commission, dated November 16 and 22, 1983, conveyed information which was biased against the applicant's project and favored the competing application. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission relying upon information in the Memorandums abused its discretion in scoring the two applications, and the actions of the Board was therefore a violation of due process. The basis for applicant's process and abuse of discretion memorandum attached hereto. Dated: December 6, 1983 appeal as to violation of due is more fully set forth in the Respectfully submitted, l Lyle Reeder Applicant 1. . MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-11.6(E) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE Statement of Case Applicant, Lyle Reeder, has submitted an application for two Lodge GMP development allocations for 1984 under the provisions of Section 24-11.6 "Lodge Development Application Procedures." Applicant's project called for 46 new lodge rooms. Applicant agreed to surrender his 1982 allocation of 31 lodge rooms upon receipt of the new 46 lodge room allocation; thus having the net allocation effect of requesting an additional 15 lodge room quota. The applicant's project represents the first attempt to try to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen under GMP procedures. There was only one other applicant for the 1984 GMP quota; namely, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Assoc. of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan Novak's Aspen Mountain Lodge. The application consists primarily of properties involved in the Hans Cantrup bankruptcy. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application was a request for 211 new lodge rooms and reconstruction of 269 lodge rooms. The total 480-room project was to consist of 44% new lodge rooms and 56% reconstructed lodge rooms. According to Planning Office calculations, there were 85 units available for 1984. U .. Planning and Zoning Commission action on the Lodge GMP was q" (� set for November 22, 1983. The Planning Office submitted to the Vmembers explanatory memos dated November 16 and 23, 1983 (copies attached as Exhibit 3). The November 16, 1983 Memorandum was conveyed as an attachment to the November 22, 1983 memorandum. The Planning Office rated the competing projects in the Memorandum of November 22, 1983. The results of the 1984 Planning- Office Lodge GMP points assignment were as follows (copy attached as Exhibit 3): Lodge at Aspen 48 Aspen Mountain Lodge 59 Both applicants made presentations at the November 22, 1983 meeting, and the members of the Commission scored the project pursuant to score sheets provided. The results of the voting gave "The Lodge at Aspen" a total average score of 49.5, and "The Aspen Mountain Lodge" a total average score of 60.71, thus granting the entire 1984 allocation to The Aspen Mountain Lodge. `ll Under the category of "Amenities Provided for Guests", Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983, page 6, paragraph (3) 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 or any addition thereto..." (underlining added). 0C The Commission abused its discretion by failing to apply the above guideline to its scoring of the two projects. y 1. By generally following the Planning Office's v N recommendation and giving a low score of 10.54 points (average) out of a maximum possible of 21 points to The Lodge at Aspen �� project. A small lodge cannot be expected to provide amenities r1y such as energy consuming swimming pools and outdoor skating rinks. ` 2. By giving The Aspen Mountain Lodge a high score, 19.86 points (average) out of maximum of 21 points, the Commission failed to consider the "any additions thereto..." portion of the project but instead considered the total project which is 56% t' reconstruction. Apparently, The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposes to P`f' demolish three swimming pools and to reconstruct two new swimming rp pools; thus, .if logically allocated to reconstruction portion, 0 the new 211 lodge rooms will have no swimming pool amenity. The Planning Office in its Memorandums of November 16 and 22, 1983 failed to convey material information of a negative nature to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the competing application. The Aspen Mountain Lodge: 1. The Memorandum in its evaluation of Aspen Mountain Lodge's "Parking and Circulation" failed to indicate a proposed encroachment, namely, "underground vehicular access into the eastern parking structure will loop into the Durant \r right-of-way." (from subsequent Memorandum of November 29, 1983, . ?N page 4 ) . 2. The Memorandums failed to indicate that The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposed a "grease trap" to be located in the City street. This was mentioned in the subsequent Planning and Zoning meeting of November 29, 1983, and represents a violation of due process. 3. The Memorandums' comments regarding The Aspen Mountain Lodge under "Energy Conservation" failed to indicate the negative impact of heat loss from the two r--oposed swimming pools to be located out of doors, a violation 'oi due process. The Planning Office errored in accepting the competing application for the following reasons: 1. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983 under Section 1 indicates that "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:" and under subsection (b) "within the L-1, L-2, CC and CL zone districts, thirty-five (35 lodge or hotel units." It appears that the intent of (b) is for applications to be submitted only for land -2- with the existing zoning of L-1, L-2, CC or CL as of the GMP filing deadline. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 74 includes a proposed parcel rezoning of: L-1 to CL of 27,107 square ' feet. The application made an assumption that the rezoning would be approved whereby the allowable floor areas for the parcel would be increased from 27,107 to 54,214 square feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently on November 29, 1983 denied the rezoning request, thus changing the character of the project. The Planning Office Memorandums failed to mention that thirty-six percent of the Aspen Mountain Lodge employee housing is proposed to be located within a potential avalanche area. Parcel "B" which .is Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision lies between Ute Avenue and a line whose evaluation is slightly above the 8040 elevation line. The Hoag Subdivision plat (Plat Book 4, page 218) has the following notation "No building permit will be issued on Lots 1 and 3 until it has been demonstrated that there is adequate avalanche protection to be engineered and certified by individual or individuals with professional avalanche control experience." Off -site employee housing for The Aspen Mountain Lodge consists of Parcel "A-2" and "B". The total size of the two parcels is indicated to be 190,617 square feet. The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposed employee housing for Parcel "B" consists of 68,954± sauare feet of land (taken from subdivision plat filed in Pitkin County Clerk's in Plat Book 4 at page 218). Parcel "B" i is also known as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision in the City of Aspen. Parcel "B" represents 36% of the employee housing land. The application indicates that 90 employees would be housed on the two parcels. If the housing is allocated uniformly then Parcel "B" would house 32 employees.' In the scoring of Amenities provided for quest the rating guidelines states that the amenities shall be rated "in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto". The Aspen Mountain Lodge's site of more than 11 acres is 33 times as large as The Lodge at Aspen's site of 15,386 square feet which is slightly larger than 5 city lots. The Planning Office memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated November 22, 1983, Exhibit 3, on page 1 in reference to The Lodge at Aspen's application indicates "In our opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior proposed in several aspects..." This applicant believes that his 1984 project application should not be compared to his earlier 1982 project for the same site. It appears that some mythical standard exists for establishing the point scoring. Six exhibits are attached, namely: Exhibit 1 - Letter of Lyle Reeder to Planning Office, dated 10/5/83. -3- r 4 I Exhibit 2 - Reply from Planning Office to Lyle Reeder, dated 11/9/83. Exhibit 3 - Memorandum from Planning Office Director, dated 11/22/83, 2nd 11/16/83. Exhibit 4 - GMP Commission Tally Sheets Exhibit 5 - Supplemental information for The Lodge at Aspen submitted to P&Z Commission on 11/22/83. Exhibit 6 - Letter from Mr. Wright Hugus Jr., attorney for applicant, setting forth additional incidents of violation of due process and abuse of discretion. Relief Reauested This applicant hereby requests that the Council grant him relief in one of the following manners: 1. That the City Council, pursuant to Section 24-11.6(c), award an additional 15 points to the total score granted to this applicant, to compensate for the abuse of discretion of the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission members. 2. That the City Council grant this applicant an exemption from the Growth Management Plan. Conclusion In closing, this applicant would like to point out the consequences in the event the present scoring is allowed to stand. If appropriate relief is not granted, The Aspen Mountain Lodge will receive the entire growth management allotment and possibly the allotment for the next 32 years of quota, while Mr. Reeder's "The Lodge at Aspen" will not receive the net 15 lodge rooms needed to construct a viable lodge project. While the Planning and Zoning Commission's motives may have been the best, we believe that clue process and fundamental fairness require that they be discounted. The record clearly reveals that, irregardless of motive or intent, the process was abused. Dated: December 6, 1983 Respectfully submitted, P Lyle Reeder Applicant -4- .. oPY P. U. Box 46:.)9 hsperl, Co. uiGi: 925-:.i360 October �), 19E33 Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 8J Gll r.ttn; Mr. Sunny Va,,:,, Direc toi Re, 1984 T.:od;e (i-]) U-2) G. 1'i. P. Competition :;pplicat-ions Dear Mr. Vann; Irl reviewin:�ji the c:ompetiting applic,2nt.:s' presentation in preparation for the P & Z hearing scheduled for November 22, 1963 I would aFprcciale your assistance: with the following .iuestions which I ant tiavirla difficulty in irlteir.u;ptil:c3 I note that on _,itge of the ..SPEN iiGUPiT.-%I?, LODGE a�oolic_. Jon "Bee-"i.u.ie we r__ _E'::t'tcli Ilia L'iic:er thu Uni is aic. ve..C-- [.tcIi�: I��c�llir+tl:,nS, /i:r-latlons- in the �:L:.C,t'li: 1.ln:lt c. t�1IJ 1ShN�^ for the Zone, Dis %r :'L �: t o r E' and ,-:-in be apt7L cvecI L`y the City..." .arid later. "... Ge.•norally s uakir_g, around the Loc.ye: per?Il1eter, '.:a:�:1mum hC1!JhLs fj.(; `i 11at.ur&I grade will. v:,i� 30 to 50 ee't 1n or(lo to I:educe the VisuI.11 impact Upon- "peues ri ans, within the it:tcrior of the Lodge f outpr i nt, se tic:c.:1. from th`:.' st.le-et f:3uodol h-_?ights !Il some loC=tlons of 40 Lo ✓5 feet are proposed..*. " I find .n the ;S` _t! Zc.,ni q Code at t)_,✓pL. 1490, Ck:_ctlon 24-8.. General Requiremcr..s urtuer. po-r ;ral,„ (1J) "The pial_I1trd :.11t dG%relopme'.nt must c:unstitute an area of at least thousand (27, 000.) s:_ivare feet unless the land is in ar. aI-F a designated mandatory planned unit development on the district map or is otherwise reLiuj red by the Zoning; Coo-- Li I;U developed according to the provisions of this article." Also, Section 24-6..3 Variations from Zoning Code require:Ia:::;:t.s. "To facilitate the ob-lective-s of planned unit development there may be permitted variations from the provision: of ttlir. Chapter 24 as hereinafter specified: - (a) Variations may be permitted in the following zcn,: code requirements: Open space, minimunt distance: between I:u* ].d-- ings, maximum height: ( including view planes) , minimum frorlt yard, minimum rear yard", minimum side yard, minimum lotwiattl, minimum lot area, trash access area, external and inter.,,al floor area ratios, and number of off-street parking s-aces . (b) Variation shall not be permitted in allowable uses nor from the requirements of specially planned area and hi.sturic designation, or from use square Foot limitations and sign regulations of this code. Planning Offic - City of Aspen Page October 5, 1983 Under the AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS on page 1451 of the Aspen Code it is indicated that for L-1, L-2 Zones the Maxi- mum height is 28 feet, External Floor area ratio is 1:1, and Internal Floor Area ratio is "Lodge -Rental space .5:1 — .75:1* Nonunit space .25:1 with *33 1/3 percent of all renta.l space above the FAR of .5:1 must be devoted to employee housing." Question 1; Can the Aspen Mountain Lodge application compete under the Planned Unit Development regulations while The Lodge At Aspen cannot because The Lodge At Aspen's site o'f 157386 square feet is less than the 27,000 square feet minimum? There is no PUD designation for The Lodge At Aspen's site. .Question 2; If the answer to the above question is yes, how will the Planning Office reconcil to an equitable basis the heights proposed of upto 55 feet for the kspeh Mountain Lodge while The Lodge At Aspen's height is limited to 28 feet by the Zoning Code? In the Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 63 and 64: No employee housing has been provided on -site to the hotel because it is felt off -site housing is both more desire - able and manageable from the employees' viewpoint and from the hotel's operations view..." Question 3; Apparently the above is possible under an approved PUD Plan. Will the Planning Office allow the PUD applicant to compete with no on -site employee housing and require The Lodge At Aspen to devote 33 1/3 percent of all rental space above the FAR of .5:1 to employee housing? On the subject of rezoning as proposed by the other applicant on page 14 which reads; "R-15(PUD) (L) and L-2 L-2 zoning i_s requested for the lots owned by the City (11,000 square feed of land area) which are involved in the land trades proposal and which are presently zoned Public..." and on Page 74, I note that 11,000 square feet is included in the calculations of the Total Floor Area. Question 4; Doesn't the LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO G.M.P. competition allow only existing LODGE ONE and LODGE `1'WO properties to compete? Question 5 ; Is the City of Aspen a co -applicant to the Mountain Lodge application, since they apparently own the 11,000 square feet which is included in the application's total floor Area? t :! 1 1 Tanning Office - City of Aspen Page 3. October 5, 1983 :t appears to me that one applicant in the competition tay have available and is using the Planned Unit Develop - tent procedures which allow a freedom in variations from normal zoning codes that is not available to the other applicant. Your comments, answers an_d thoughts on the above questions and my comments would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Lyle D. Reeder ldr sed _. __ _ . : 3 Aspen/Pith "j ring Office 130 sf�h_gaie:street asp en;...c6ilo'raao 81611 4a� fi� November 9, 1983 / Mr. Lyle D. Reeder P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Lyle, Sunny asked that I respond to your letter dated October 5, 1983, regarding the 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition. Given my fami- liarity with the Lodge at Aspen due to my review of the prior appli- cation on the site, I will be the person responsible for analyzing the current submission. Following are my comments on the five questions you pose in the letter. 1. Section 24-8.5(h) of the Municipal Code provides that "An application may be made for PUD approval for development of lands within any zone district .7i thin the City of Aspen . . . However, as you noted, Section 24-8.5(b) states that "The planned unit development must constitute an area of at least twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet unless the land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit develop- ment on the zoning district map or is otherwise required by the zoning code to be developed according to the provisions of this Article." Therefore, it is true that the Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant may request to be reviewed as a PUD, while the Lodge at Aspen applicant may not. However, you should note that the applicant has only requested consideration as a PUD and must now demonstrate compliance with same. You should be aware that in order to show such compliance, the required reviews for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be much more lengthy than those imposed upon your project, giving you a possible advantage in completing your project in a timely manner. 2. The Planning Office will review each application with respect to the specific criteria and requirements of Sec- tion 24-11.6 of the Code, Lodge Development Application Procedures. We will not compare the proposed height of the Aspen Mountain Lodge building to those of the Lodge at Aspen. Instead, we will evaluate how well each site accom- modates the specific development proposed for it. Further- more, with respect to the height variance, Section 24- 8.5(i) of the Code states that "The burden shall rest upon In ,yle D. Reeder November 9, 1983 Page Two an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of this article, the lack of adverse effects of the proposed develop- ment and the compliance with the intents and purposes of planned unit development." 3. Article VIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Planned Unit Development, does not refer to the review of on -site versus off -site employee housing for lodges. However, Section 24-11.6(b)(4) does specifically provide for housing the employees of a lodge on or off -site. The appropriate_. FAR for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be determined by PUD procedures. 4. The land to which you refer, zoned R-15 (PUD) (L) , is not part of the lodge development application. This land is proposed for residential development and will be the subject of a separate application for a residential allocation. The data concerning this land has been provided for informa- tion only and does not relate to the lodge application. 5. The lots owned by the City are also included in the area for which a residential development application may be submitted. However, for your information, the following statement has been excerpted from the City Council minutes of September 26, 1983, as an interpretation -regarding CitY owned property with respect to GMP/PUD applications. "Regarding GMP/PUD applications, which would include City - owned property as part of that application, the City Council declines to be a joint applicant in this process, nor does it wish to discuss with the applicant any disposition of the City -owned land prior to application, in order to maintain impartiality in all subsequent reviews. However, with the goal of encouraging all opportunities for discussion of the community good in a public forum, the Council will deem the non -ownership of City land not -to be sufficient grounds for disqualifying the application from further public review through the appropriate process. The Council reserves all rights not to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of such City -owned land which is the subject of the application. The Planning Department and the P&Z are instructed to score such GMP/PUD applications in two ways with and without the City -owned land. Should the City subsequently not agree to sell or transfer such•City-owned land the score will be what it would be without the City -owned land." Lyle D. Reeder November 9, 1983 Page Three Lyle, I hope my responses are of assistance to you in preparing your presentation for the meeting on.November 22. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you in this regard. Sincerely, Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director AR:jlw cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune i Ex h� h,-C� "3 '/ 0 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Sunny Vann, Planning Director . 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition 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% t-he 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 '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 applicant's 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 600 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 • • ML'MO: 1984 L-1/L-2 November 22, 1983 Page Three Lodge GMP Competition 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 Facilities/ of Services Design LODGE AT ASPEN 7 21 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE 7 24 Amenities Conformance for Local Public Total Guests Policy Goals Points 9 11 48 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 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 (32 years of quota) from future years. While the ultimate de- cision on this matter rests with City Council, the Planning Commission has traditional-ly 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 1. Full allocation would permit the substantial upgrade in the quality of our lodging inven- tory in return for the expan- sion of that inventory (Note: the reconstruction of approxi- mately 269 lodge rooms repre- sents about 25% of.the entire inventory of lodge rooms in Aspen) . 2. The development of this faci- lity would constitute the first addition to the lodge inventory in Aspen since the 54 unit expansion to the Woodstone in 1976. 3. The proposed addition of units on this site is consistc.- 1 with the intent of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan to cen- tralize our tourist accommoda- tions at the base of Aspen Mountain. 4. Full allocation provides the developer with the capability of building a full service hotel complex, including sub- stantial tourist amenities such as conference rooms, ballroom, and recreation facilities. 5. The development of a facility of this magnitude in this high profile location may change the popular image of the quality of Aspen's lodging in one shot. CON 1. Granting the full allocation will result in an unusually high rate of growth in the Aspen Metro Area over the short term, particularly if combined with construction of the Centennial, Hotel Jerome and Highlands Inn projects. 2. The allocation of future years of quota will virtually pre- clude any other L-1/L-2 appli- cant from obtaining a substan- tial allocation to expand an existing/build a new downtown lodge (Note: the code requires that we make 12 units per year available if the quota has been used. Note also that the construction of the Hotel Jerome project will require us to further use future years of quota, amounting to about 65 units. Finally, note that the 10 unit per year L-3 quota will continue to be available regardless of this project). 3. The construction of such a large project may be a sign to the skiing industry that the next growth cycle in Aspen is underway and it is time to plan for ski area expansion. There may also be a cyclical impact on the commercial sector, where vacancies and underemployment at existing businesses may be replaced by full occupancy and maximum employment, with com- mensurate impacts on the Community. • eMO: Analysis of November 16, 1983 Page Two Award of Allocation 6. By awarding a full allocation, 4. we permit the master planning of the entire area, the accom- plishment of the total upgrade of that area, and the minimiza- tion of the length of construc- tion impacts upon Aspen. 7. There is no substantial benefit to be gained from making the pro- ject compete again for an allo- cation in a future year pro- vided that you support the de- velopment of a'project of this scale. There may be a short term inability of certain portions of the infrastructure to accommodate the growth associated with this project, particularly if combined with a community -wide economic resurgence such that units with low occupancy and commercial space which is vacant are once again full. Facilities which we feel will be especially hard hit include the sewage treat- ment plant, transit center and the road network (both into 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 Lodye 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.upgrade 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 3� 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. PROJECT PROFILE 1984 L-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 4. 5. 6. 7. Road Parcel Size: 15,386 sq. ft. Current 'Zoning: L-1 Maximum Allowable Build -out: 15,386 (1:1) 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 15,380 sq.ft. or virtually 1:1. Internal PAR 10reandou,m 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, GMP exception for employee units 10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be granted an allocation, lie would relinquish the 31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net additional units requested by this project is 15 lodge rooms. (0 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 (tdaximum 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. 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 shar.inthe 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: l 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 riew 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 ourn 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 t,,iil.tinn fnntnrint of nn1v i(i% anti heated sidewalks and driveways for snow control. The engineer feels that 2 curl) cuts on Ute Avenue are excessive as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on As en mountain Road: this situation is magnified by the existing driveway for the Aspen Alps along the Property on Ute Avenue The density of this Project 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: E 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 t already existant Aspen Alps building. r. % O — 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: p -- Indicates a total ladk 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% lust above minimum 25% requirement. I b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. Comments: RATING: t MULTIPLIER: 2 POINTS: 4 The restaurant, will provide 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: Commentsi 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 habitat ion requirements.) 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- / --4— . u JINGLE BELLSI JINGLE BELLS, JINGLE ALL THE WAY, OH WHAT FUN IT IS TO WORK IN CITY HALL THESE DAYS, HEY, WITH BUDGET CUTS, A MAYOR NAMED PILL AND CHARLOTTE IN THE DARK, COUNCIL GRINS AND MOTIONS FOR ANOTHER USELESS PARK, HEY, DO YOUR JOB, DO IT WELL AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO FRET PAY YOUR WAY AND DONIT BUY LUNCH AND LET US NOT FORGET, HEY EQUAL_ RIGHTS, INSURANCE HIKES AND MONDAYS ON THE MALL, I'M SO GLAD, WE ALL AGREE THERE'S JOY IN CITY HALL... • • Comments: 6• TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4: SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3. and 4 : Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS: Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: RATING: 0 ------------ MULTIPLIER:�1 POINTS: 0 (Minimum of 3 Points required) 21 (Minimum of 11.7 Points required) 9 (Minimum 6.3 points required) 11 (Minimum of 4.5 Points required) 48 (Minimum of 51 points required) (Maximum of 5 points allowed) 48 Planning Office 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 ar rhP base of Aspen Mountain. 4. Parcel Size:510,025 sq. ft.. or approximately lL7 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 Lode 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: PUD/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: 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 networkin 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. )z- - 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. 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 neighborhood 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 height limitaion 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 various elements of the Aspen Lodge District Plan (e.g., sidewalks, lighting, signage, street furniture, etc.); -on-site links to pedestrian and bike -7- trails are provided; open space areas are internalized and oriented for maximum solar exposure and the privacy of hotel gitests. 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 gain; 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 _un_i_t hotel. Limo service and proximity to Ruby Park, the commercial core, employee housing and Aspen Mountain offset parking demand. Valet service will be nrovided. 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 landscaped. 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 n • 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. 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 motel 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 Alpin'a. Haus, 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. M i o • • Comments: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4: SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 : Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS: Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: RIFT I N G : MULTIPLIER: POINTS: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) 24 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) 21. (Minimum 6.3 points required) .7 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) 59 (Minimum of 51 points required) (Maximum of 5 points allowed) 59 Planning Office rid z z0 O H M 4 cn U H O �a wa :D 4 L z E4 4 z a ►-+ w0 a4 EH W O F+ W U) W c� cn x Hui Boa x � E-H C7 H Vz O H xz 0 H O N N I aQ z r-A 1 a c� z V� H 00 'Zi 0,%z r-4 4 a a 00 p co •-1 O M co CV W r-1 CV H � M I N �t 10 CD�7 M N O ,' 1- r 1 E-+ u w h 0 W. a r-1 v 0 v v b� •r1 U U ro 4J •rl •r•1 L: U !4 ?4 0 +J rovs40 cn cn Q 4 N v v v d +)30�4 rov4-)•r+0 (n v) w oc ro A 616 v H 0 H cn a U0 V1 �n 7 D V) N O N O M N M D "7 r-i %,p C1 M M �o N M M N M �D n M y N N .a N z u H U) w Q O H 0 � •rl E-i 4J � N •O � W N 11 U q c0 f4 r► a r-4 i4 U J-) H 04 41•1 O ro U 1n U H O 4-)Q ?1 C04 H �.14 O v x U 4J 11) �4 N Er-, ginww> H a of �i .n ci b ai EA 0 Ei c� a • I / �7l , --� I 1 I � x -3 0 � � u•1 d M N O r-i � N ri C1 Cl) --T C4 �p N ri M o0 110 s H v U 1~ N v W 0 U In � � v W v A � a PG 0 N •r1 r>r o a (a o °; w EH Q b q N r1 ro cn H �4 N U 1~ Q 0 r1 Cv a rn 4J +� N � •rl •ri �1 W (1) U U H v ro •r+ v E 1 f-4 H z w ro A U M W ON rn 2 � W V) zC14n o n Q z o -� rn o 01 r, M 3 W F—( z r I \ r—I 00 O 00 K4 h ,-� a �-+ o a CD N N a `^ `^ a \ M W 2 un Ln a 0 .,i 4J U) U a 0 4 4J 0 z a z a o a �>1 :N O U tT cd 41 Ei U(niE+ QQ U) Oa H CE-( � � -A a 0 0 F a O +1 tT U) E4 EH ..a 0 x (TJ f: �:$ •-I cL +3 •,1 U) 4J cn 0 -,A +J (d lZ Q) .-1 (A U) a U W W >. •, • H E-1 ::: O W U 04 x 2 ca r-I 2 •-i m w t-+ a 04 F- Q) w wx0 a 0 0 U) \ +1 2 G. D C: 0 H 2 2 a 0 0 UU (o A a0 4 a -r N (TJ q z z0 0 H H H cn U H 0 Q z E-+ 4 z a ►-+ w0 a H zz W O H � H W W cn W Ucnx Q H U) 0a x � E-H U EA 3 z 0 ►-1 z (� H 0 N N I aQ �z 1 a� z C H co z rn z r-i� a a W U r M � oc W ^ � Q E-H U W O a a N rl N ri I� � U"1 ri N N r--I •-� N r--I t� cV r 1 N H CV r{ N N 1--, in �l1 N N N - r{ CO N CV N N . 13, N w U H cz W U) Q z W H H H a H U r14 U H a a a CV cV �1 Ul 00 N N M �O M �o O co N N cV z c� H N w A 0 H O N •r1 CP � td HO • -3 U q td �4 O O H a >U+� N O tT •--4W r1 U U rt) 4J U a a' � uUi 'zJ r1 rl ri 0) H � CT o �U C)a 0 04 41 •,1 U N U H v U cn cn l.r Q a O 41 1a > 1 S4 :4 0 -,A C,v�x� M • A {6 vvlav'a 4J 3 0 S4 rd U� O N b vfL4 ;� U) o U) cn L4 Ri H Qci ww> H a Q td A U 'U v pi td A U 'O v N E•+ 0 E-+ CA a U) H W W U a O 44 Q w Q H 7 0 a w W H EH H z �4 M v U v v 44 0 U N N N 1 4-) H $4 v U ,� rd 0 w ul v .1 rtS U) }4 Ul U r� v td O P4 •r1 al 4J +J -4 al v�•�v �wAx rd A U W h N �Y h W O\ r-4 O > Ln %0 a h \ h O a z V) V) L, LI) N z Oh F4 h N O N w z �O 3 W z O �O U) z h h Q h 'n O M N �O z a a a � M 10 a 0 .1i U� U a a O +1 a 4J r O U U U N N H E-4 E+ a !A 0° O a• H H a b O O C. >1 O �-. N � W W OHa `cn .H U) 0a m H H a � -4 a O O a O +1 Cn cn H EH .n0 :) xm�: �l •-1 0 rL4 4j •r-i cA 4-1 cn O N •-i ►� ro a v r-I cn P� U a)W W ?, •14 . IA E-H p• U 0 .� X z 6 z W NQ ¢..A O wa0 w a U) O cn z �r-00 H z 3 ,4 O O u rtJ A a 00 N M N O'k W 0 W r-+ a a a vi rF 7777l MI, 7717! I 4'. , 1;1 � F��7 7p 777- 7777* F-4 PE=12, 11 November 22, 1983 INTRODIK"I'l'ON - GI:NERAT, Thr. pl,opcyse_d 52 room Lodge, 'Clue Loclge At Aspen, consists of 116 Lodge Roc,ms and (i i:nlp.loyee rooms. The project proposes to cater to Ski Cl nbs 'nlcl budget -minded sk i.ers . Applicant believes t}la L the proposed danuy], i. t i �yyy o F tlye C.nnt i nent-al. Tnn and Aspen Tnn which are t,) he replaced wi t-h a P.i.r.st-Class World 1Tote1_, 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 (Serres of 1983) is the legal document of the City (-)f Aspen wll i.ch governs the 19811 Lodge G.M.P. Competition. (ln Page 2, Sec t i oll 1, the f03_1_0wi llg is stated: , "All other prov i s.i on , of this zoning code notw�.thstal7d.i.n�; , there shall. be constrlicted within the C:i.ty of Aspen in each year no more than flit fol.l ow i rlg +.... (b) 1`' i tlt.i n file Lr-1, Tr 2 , CC and CL Zone District , th i.rty five (3 5) Lodge or hotel ull:i.ts ; „ This appl..icallL believes that the intent of (b) is that any application for a quota :i.srestr-icted to land which has a zoning of L,-1, ir-2, CC or CL as of the f i.l i.ng deadline which was October 3, 1983. The Aspen Mountain Lodge alypl.i r.a t' i.nyt i yycl.udcs 11,000 sq . feet of City owned property which is 7.olicd , "Publ i c . " i't also :includes 78 ,l61 square feet of R- 1. 5 (PUT)) L with proposed ruzon i nc; which would allow a h i.gher density th;yn presently allowed. T1.1is appl..icont believes that the Aspcil Mountain T,odge cannot legally include these parcels in its appl. i ca t i on . ITI �D' L3 C� E:-.1. /D�, 2. Apparently the City of Aspen i.s not a CO -applicant to the Aspen Maur to i.n 1_4)d$;e's application. The C i.ty is 'tile owner of 11,000 square feet O-f. "1iib.l. i.c" zoned lands included in the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project. This applicant bel. ieves that -the 1,1.1. tli hour" attempt by the City Council on September 26, 1983 (8 clays prior to filing deadline) and October 1.2, 1983 (0 clays a.f:ter C; .M . P. filing deadline) which would allow C i.ty 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 "l1_th 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 III 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 Tntent to exchange Lot 41 from the Forest Service was presented to the Planning Office. Tile City Attorney's office notified this applicant to the effect that the Forest Service parcel coulcl not be included. This applicant was never notified that the City was considering a change in Ordinance 35 which would allow ,owe.r. nment lands to be included in ci G.M.P. application. 3. This 1ppl_i.cant believes that a principle of "competition" is that tlu� rules ar. e -tile same for all competitors - Tile Aspen Mou)itai.n Lodge application proposes to demolish the following : Aspen Inn Continental Inn illue Spruce TOTAL 67 rooms 178 rooms 32 rooms 277 rooms -. 2 - l�J� A�•.1 `:, ��+.-^ ��^ .i. `y .t� ,y rt'�t 'rr`I, '3L' µ.a .-+w .��J �.i�:��IlI' •�a[."�.{r �:..�.. ,�+_�.x .�� 1��'.:_l:1 Tile plan proposes to reconstruct 269 rooms to replace the demolished uni.ts'. It appears that the proposed 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge Hotel will consist of 56% reconstructed units and 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 21.1 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- k �w i FIS � 11EIG}}a' COMMENTS : I The Aspen MMITIL'ZIin Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The ?orth of Nell Building by approximately 162 feet. According to Aspen's Zoning Code Area and Bulk Requirements L-1 and If-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 are proposed,....." If The Lodge At Aspen had the same freedom to go to the 55' height the project could have a height appearance as shown below: ` -4- --�C' e INTRODUCTION THE LODGE AT ASr.EN 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 Cate-zory Rati.n�� Mu.ltinler Points la. eater 1 1 1 lb. Sewer 1 1 1 1c. Roads 1 1 1 2a, Architectural Design 2 3 6 2b. Site Design 2 r 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 ]'lousing 1 1 4 APPLICANT'S COMMENTS After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to make the following convents and guarantees relative to each of! the above categories: -5- • �!'' !V �•I�.'I�R�+7'w �� .. y '' �ti•�•,.,�� I�i.,: 1'1 � �.. �'; �L1.1�1..�.�1 � ' The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding file 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 correctionhthe 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 l.i.ne 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 ICity's Engincer:i.ng 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 is comments, applicant believes that a scoring of 2 would be appropriate. -6- . 1 a 1 41 2. a. ARClITTECTURAL DESIGN COMMENTS The proposed building will be built within the legal constraints of the 33 root height limitation while the Aspen Mountain Lodge is proposiiig heights up to 55 feet. Since PUD procedures and exemptions arc net available to The Lodge At Aspen, restrictions are imposed wh i(:li li.m.i t architectural design potential. Compatibility with exist.i.rng neighborhood developments is to be considered for evaluating; Arc]-litectural 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. SITr DESIGN COMMENTS: The site design was prepared observing setback requirements of the .Cityts 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 guests and encourage guests to 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. lleat 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 l Mountain Road and Ute Avenue. e. Contract snow removal will be used for emergencies involving excessive accumulations from street build-ups. . . ••` `Rr . [//RS�."�.� �,• .. II. P V,1, 1 Xf'. ANSI) C I R('I'I,AT I HNI (A)iN1NIENTS : I'i'trl,irt i� I)t'I,\ icic!cl .,II tltc! hiIsis ()F c)nw space pc!r. lncl;�c! itttcl c'1111O,tIwdl'r)r)m whic h is it Ceclllii'ent(!llt Or 1-1u! i/-.1 mid r,-2 Are;i ;rrtll Itlrll. hr!cltlir'r.rnenl'. 'I'll(! Aspen Mminl-iritt I,c)cl�;c ttltcic r 1'lll) ));Irk in}; s1mves h-w 1180 rr)r)ms. The l.,,cl;, c At Aspen ()I.' r)Ilc! pur.•k in'." ;p;lc c! per I edl'ur)m wh i 1 (, Ulu! Acgwn l`Ifmml :I iu I.c)clge lots 71) sp;rc•c! per 1)c!clrur)m. 'I'IU' .r';Irl Illti C()1:' cilC'ti (?IIteI` Itl� Hit! pork111f ill'('.it Wilti j;IJCI mI t il,•rr)rcl ill, to Hie C.i ty OI' Aspen's Parking ;IF tihcndn E'ARK'INIG SiM-!f. ARID `t\ f ti a •, V.! ). ..i.I..I �; tli. •.'('i II. (1 y� I'; !� I(,I l; i; �i III T 1I'_A 1,'I .�.'•.'. Ii :,1/��i�l�Ai it r. c VItiI]Ai, rPll'AC'I' Cc)�Ir1rN'I'fi The Itc! i911L r)f Hw I)tl l.l.(l i]lt \dill. Ix! r eclnc?c!cl to s y \di l'hin tlt(! 1lreil iln(I lhil.k R(,clu i1'enwilt of 1.11(! %'r)It ilt�; Cr)cl(?ti. Tj10 lti};Itc!�L pr)illt ()f' The T,()(Ig(! At Aspull's hni.l.cl.inf, will. be 22 feet ](!Ss 1-Imll the llightesit print ()It the Aspen 1`'inurlL;Iin T.(')(Igc!. '1'lte in)clt;r! A t A>;pc!n Ixl i s cl i n; s i. is Avr.nuw ill rrrcicr: tc) enluln�'! visim.l. ;Ippcilt,zilice I'rcnn the titrevt. I Lj I 3 . AMEN.I:T LES PROVIDET) POR GUESTS The r.atinv; guidel.:ines states "7'lle Commission shall consider each appl il i(i>> w:i.th respect to the g0ality and spaciousness of its l)r-e►Iu);c!(l scry ices i'oI, k�lieGts as enmpared to the size. of the proposed lodt,inc; 1�►'otec'L• •.." (underlining added) . The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 1180 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms as The Lodge At Aspen which has 116 tourist rooms. It appears to this applicaii-t 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 116 room lodge. With the restrictive nature of Aspen's Area and Bullc requirements, conference facilities in a small - lodge are unrealistic. b) DTNTNG. FACILITIES In I�1. zone a restaurant for public use is prohibited by Zoning Code, except by Conditional Use. With this Lodge being located w:i.-tll:ill walking distance 'the guest will patronize public dining facilities in the commercial core. Applicant believes that the proposed dining facilities are acl(!(luatc for a small lodge. c) RECREATT.ONAL FACILTTIES COMMENTS Two ef)mmer.cial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance; namely, Aspen Athletic C].ub .located at 720 E. Hyman Avenue and T}1e Aspen Club located clown the street at 1300 Ute Avenue. It is Lill ti.ci:pated 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. rROVTS TON OF EMPLOYEE HOUSTNG COMMENTS : The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 100%. of its employees. The application states, "Three employees will be housed off -site. The I,n(lgc will either lease long-term or purchase three condominiums .1.11 the Aspen area for housing the three employees." This can prnv.ide a better 1 i.fe style for the employees, particularly i f they have faini l .i es . 'I'luv tnl i t ill the Garden hovel. showrt ml pag'U. 113 w i.1.1 l'c hit i 1 L' to mcct- lnt i 1 cl irlg code requ i.rentents for habitation. A dor,r tc, 1'Lu� cttt tti id(! o f the W 11-d:i.ng w.111 be provided. M i n i nnnn w i ndt v rr.tltr i rc�ments w il_1 be designed into the unit. I'hc� +t}ttt l i r•att t Itc.l i c!vr,ti that 'I'lte TA iclt;e A t A�, ten cttrtt]. i C i ct ; Pur the 1 5 J)c► i tt is for Employee llous i rt�,' BONUS I'()1 N'I'S CONSI-DERATTON ].. The A}tJt:l- i c�,ttt t he1 i_evc�: that The Lodge at Aspen's proposal represents GMP adoption to construct an entirely ttew the first �.tttc�mpl' since tltc loclge i.rt Aspen. The stthttt:i.ssion addresses the upgrading of a ]<ey corner location w.i t-lt pvoximity 'to the base of Aspen Mounta:i-n (1105') ,tncl the proposed base area for t]ue Little Annie '. 2; The des i�;n of the ]_adc�e represents S1<i Area. an attempt to devcl.op ate intimate scale lodge, ]<ecp:i.nc; w-i.tl1 the Aspen tradition, as opposed to a ntagastruetttre approach. 3. 'L'lu� pro jcx! t callbe bu i.l t w i t]inu t any ilr.f :i.c:i.enc=i.eti in tea ter , sewer , dr- a inage, fire protect:irtn, sidewalks, curbs, paved driveways s L'c.tr.m tic�wcr autd str-ects adjoining the site tl, The l.ctccttictn is within wal.l<ing dist<<ncc to the commercial core and publ:i c tr. ruttipnrtatican. The ttc trttess of the Police Department enhances �;ue5l srcrtr-i ty. S. The des-ig"I of the proposed lodge wil-1 not interfere with the pedestrian tra f: f.:i c S i.g 1-:i Iles of Aspen Motntta ill Tn 'virw ref.' the .in_it.i.al suhm:i.ss:i-can dated October 1, 1983 and the su,ppl.rnxmntary delta sulmtittcd 'this November 22, 1983, the appl.:icant beli.evcs that t the project is qual:i.f ied for evalua t ion under the bonus point cri.ter ia. Respectl'u]-ly submitted, --__ I,y.l.e Reeder -.1.0-- WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law December 6, 1983 SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920-2233 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 & Zoning Commission held on November 22, 1983, to select a winning score between the two Applicants -- The Lodge at Aspen, and the 1✓��1` Aspen Mountain Lodge. That Commission awarded all the units to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and none to the Lodge at Aspen. 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: l.' In scoring each of the two applicants, the Planning S 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 VL4 still have to compete as a project in the GMP N► 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 City Council December 6, 1983 Page Two 2. The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for having y amenities for guests, at least a part of which score �?IJ� was due to having a larger number of amenities than the hi 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 �� 1) Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and exterior space. 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 l Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their project, Planning Commission considered the entire 480 units in granting points for the various categories when thev should have only considered the actual number " � of the units that were being requested. This would r �� have resulted in only scoring 211 units as a percentage ry l 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 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 Lavv SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920-2233 Aspen City Council December 6, 1983 Page Three the express approval and participation of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, it would appear Gthat the applicants for The Mountain Lodge have no �standing to file the application being considered by this Commission. �V 6. The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50 nnly� ' as unused previous years' units; and 126 more from �7th1 future years' units up to 1987. This unprecedented request for the use of so many future years' units n� ► would be a violation of the intent, if.not the rule, of ,A 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 s/ m 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 Y` meeting on September 26, 1983, a proposal was introduced to allow applicants (specifically The ^� Mountain Lodge project) to file an application 1 including City -owned land, without the joining of the City. This proposal was not formally passed at that r v 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 c� 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. 0 WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. At;omey at Law Aspen City Council December 6, 1983 Page Four Thank you for your consideration. Wright Hugus, Jr. WHJR:klm SUITE 202 450 S GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920-2233 • • PROJECT PROFILE 1984 L-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 15,380 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, GMP 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. • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen 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: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood deficiency but applicant only commits to sharing the cost of the improvement. Therefore, applicant is only paving 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. 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 statior, 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 2 POINTS: 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 • • 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 project 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. Comments: RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 2 POINTS: 4 The restaurant wiilprovide food service for guests only in the lounge (winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an Apres Ski Bar, also in the lounge. • 0 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 500 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 roposal = 80% (note: the employee unit in the parking garage may not meet minimum building code habitation requirements.) 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. • Comments: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4: SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1,2,3 and 4: Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS: RATING: 0 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 0 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) 21 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) 9 (Minimum 6.3 points required) 11 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) 48 (Minimum of 51 points required) (Maximum of 5 points allowed) 20 Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office DE_C 0 G 183 i TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: /►;f'Er,! Nf9� PLANNINGc� {{�� r-ICE WHEREAS, Lyle Reeder has filed an application under the 198 Lodge GMP Competition Section 24-11.6 of the Aspen Municipal Code for construction of a 46-unit lodge to be called THE LODGE AT ASPEN to be located at 711 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, as a result of scoring by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Lyle Reeder did not receive any growth management plan allocation for 1984; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 24-11.6(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code, hereby appeals to the City Council of the City of Aspen the action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983, which action denied applicant any development allocation under the Lodge Development Application procedures. The appeal is made on the following grounds: 1. The Planning Office abused its discretion in scoring the competing applications and in evaluating the two applications. 2. The Planning Office, in its Memorandums to the Planning and Zoning Commission, dated November 16 and 22, 1983, conveyed information which was biased against the applicant's project and favored the competing application. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission relying upon information in the Memorandums abused its discretion in scoring the two applications, and the actions of the Board was therefore a violation of due process. The basis for applicant's appeal as to violation of due process and abuse of discretion is more fully set forth in the memorandum attached hereto. Respectfully submitted, Lyle Reeder Applicant Dated: December 6, 1983 • • MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-11.6(E) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE Statement of Case Applicant, Lyle Reeder, has submitted an ,application for two Lodge GMP development allocations for 1984 under the provisions of Section 24-11.6 "Lodge Development Application Procedures." Applicant's project called for 46 new lodge rooms. Applicant agreed to surrender his 1982 allocation of 31 lodge rooms upon receipt of the new 46 lodge room allocation; thus having the net allocation effect of requesting an additional 15 lodge room quota. The applicant's project represents the first attempt to try to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen under GMP procedures. There was only one other applicant for the 1984 GMP quota; namely, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Assoc. of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan Novak's Aspen Mountain Lodge. The application consists primarily of properties involved in the Hans Cantrup bankruptcy. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application was a request for 211 new lodge rooms and reconstruction of 269 lodge rooms. The total 480-room project was to consist of 44% new lodge rooms and 56% reconstructed lodge rooms. According to Planning Office calculations, there were 85 units available for 1984. Planning and Zoning Commission action on the Lodge GMP was set for November 22, 1983. The Planning Office submitted to the members explanatory memos dated November 16 and 23, 1983 (copies attached as Exhibit 3). The November 16, 1983 Memorandum was conveyed as an attachment to the November 22, 1983 memorandum. The Planning Office rated the competing projects in the Memorandum of November 22, 1983. The results of the 1984 Planning Office Lodge GMP points assignment were as follows (copy attached as Exhibit 3): Lodge at Aspen 48 Aspen Mountain Lodge 59 Both applicants made presentations at the November 22, 1983 meeting, and the members of the Commission scored the project pursuant to score sheets provided. The results of the voting gave "The Lodge at Aspen" a total average score of 49.5, and "The Aspen Mountain Lodge" a total average score of 60.71, thus granting the entire 1984 allocation to The Aspen Mountain Lodge. Under the category of "Amenities Provided for Guests", Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983, page 6, paragraph (3) 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 or any addition thereto..." (underlining added). -1- The Commission abused its discretion by failing to apply the above guideline to its scoring of the two projects. 1. By generally following the Planning Office's recommendation and giving a low score of 10.54 points (average) out of a maximum possible of 21 points to The Lodge at Aspen project. A small lodge cannot be expected to provide amenities such as energy consuming swimming pools and outdoor skating rinks. �kQx� 2. By giving The Aspen Mountain Lodge a high score, 19.86 }� k/ points (average) out of maximum of 21 points, the Commission failed to consider the "any additions thereto..." portion of the project but instead considered the total project which is 56% reconstruction. Apparently, The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposes to demolish three swimming pools and to reconstruct two new swimming pools; thus, if logically allocated to reconstruction portion the new 211 lodge rooms will have no swimming pool amenity. (, The Planning Office in its Memorandums of November 16 and 22, 1983 failed to convey material information of a negative nature to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the competing application. The Aspen Mountain Lodge: 1. The Memorandum in its evaluation of Aspen Mountain Lodge's "Parking and Circulation" failed to indicate a proposed encroachment, namely, "underground vehicular access into the eastern parking structure will loop into the Durant right-of-way." (from subsequent Memorandum of November 29, 1983, page 4 ) . 2. The Memorandums failed to indicate that The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposed a "grease trap" to be located in the City street. This was mentioned in the subsequent Planning and Zoning( meeting of November 29, 1983, and represents a violation of due process. 3. The Memorandums' comments regarding The Aspen Mountain g, Lodge under "Energy Conservation" failed to indicate the negative U impact of heat loss from the two proposed swimming pools to be located out of doors, a violation of due process. The Planning Office errored in accepting the competing application for the following reasons: 1. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983 under Section 1 indicates that "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:" and under subsection (b) "within the L-1, L-2, CC and CL zone districts, thirty-five (35 lodge or hotel units." It appears that the intent of (b) is for applications to be submitted only for land -2- with the existing zoning of L-1, L-2, CC or CL as of the GMP filing deadline. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 74 includes a proposed parcel rezoning of L-1 to CL of 27,107 square feet. The application made an assumption that the rezoning would be approved whereby the allowable floor areas for the parcel would be increased from 27,107 to 54,214 square feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently on November 29, 1983 denied the rezoning request, thus changing the character of the L, project. CIO The Planning Office Memorandums failed to mention that thirty-six percent of the Aspen Mountain Lodge employee housing is proposed to be located within a potential avalanche area. Parcel "B" which is Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision lies between Ute Avenue and a line whose evaluation is slightly above the 8040 elevation line. The Hoag Subdivision plat (Plat Book 4, page 218) has the following notation "No building permit will be issued on Lots 1 and 3 until it has been demonstrated that there is adequate avalanche protection to be engineered and certified by individual or individuals with professional avalanche control'-''t'ViL experience." Off -site employee housing for The Aspen Mountain Lodge consists of Parcel "A-2" and "B". The total size of the two parcels is indicated to be 190,617 square feet. The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposed employee housing for Parcel "B" consists of 68,954± square feet of land (taken from subdivision plat filed in Pitkin County Clerk's in Plat Book 4 at page 218). Parcel "B" is also known as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision in the City of Aspen. Parcel "B" represents 36% of the employee housing land. The application indicates that 90 employees would be housed on the two parcels. If the housing is allocated uniformly then Parcel "B" would house 32 employees. In the scoring of Amenities provided for Quest the rating guidelines states that the amenities shall be rated "in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto". The Aspen Mountain Lodge's site of more than 11 acres is 33 times as large as The Lodge at Aspen's site of 15,386 square feet which is slightly larger than 5 city lots. The Planning Office memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated November 22, 1983, Exhibit 3, on page 1 in reference to The Lodge at Aspen's application indicates "In our opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior proposed in several aspects..." This applicant believes that his 1984 project application should not be compared to his earlier 1982 project for the same site. It appears that some mythical standard exists for establishing the point scoring. ,S31c� Six exhibits are attached, namely: ks f_Q-- Exhibit 1 - Letter of Lyle Reeder to Planning Office, dated 10/5/83. -3- Exhibit 2 - Reply from Planning Office to Lyle Reeder, dated 11/9/83. Exhibit 3 - Memorandum from Planning Office Director, dated 11/22/83, 2nd 11/16/83. Exhibit 4 - GMP Commission Tally Sheets Exhibit 5 - Supplemental information for The Lodge at Aspen submitted to P&Z Commission on 11/22/83. Exhibit 6 - Letter from Mr. Wright Hugus Jr., attorney for applicant, setting forth additional incidents of violation of due process and abuse of discretion. Relief Requested This applicant hereby requests that the Council grant him relief in one of the following manners: 1. That the City Council, pursuant to Section 24-11.6(c), KA award an additional 15 points to the total score granted to this applicant, to compensate for the abuse of discretion of the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission members. 2. That the City Council grant this applicant an exemption 3zt� from the Growth Management Plan. Conclusion In closing, this applicant would like to point out the consequences in the event the present scoring is allowed to stand. If appropriate relief is not granted, The Aspen Mountain Lodge will receive the entire growth management allotment and possibly the allotment for the next 3? years of quota, while Mr. Reeder's "The Lodge at Aspen" will not receive the net 15 lodge rooms needed to construct a viable lodge project. While the Planning and Zoning Commission's motives may have been the best, we believe that due process and fundamental fairness require that they be discounted. The record clearly reveals that, irregardless of motive or intent, the process was abused. Dated: December 6, 1983 Respectfully submitted, Lyle Reeder Applicant -4- r °Y.;r ,�i Ac�r.�r7'Trwll9 FW-- rf'7'fFJ?mF9 SMRT�Tl' Pkl MN 6 +ee►7�"r �,,,.,,.,,, �I^mom •.+ry 'Ar� �� Y � {f ` 6V-6r= Mr=r=Mr=M'!9 T-- IH 9 6 19 1"- &N 9 fimmmmpq 9MON; ES60M MR 61919cr= R m KA m Is eq IEISRAMM.9mml9mmlSF4 November 22, 1983 TNTRODUCTTON - GENCRAL The proposed 52 rocrrn Lodge, The Lodge At Aspen, cons ists of 146 Lodge Rooms and 0 Employee rooms. The project proposes to cater to Ski (:1 a bs and budget -minded skiers. Applicant believes that the proposed demolition ()f the Continental Inn and Aspen Inn which are to be replaced with it First -Class World ilotel, 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 accommodationsthe.n 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 (Sertc.s 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 thali the follow i.ng : " ".... (b) Within the Lr-1, L-2, CC and CL Zone District, thirty five (3 5) 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 Lrl, Lr-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, "Ribl i c- . " 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. 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 legi.timatize an improper G.M.P. application. Even if the "llth hour" attempt succeeded, a question of possible discrimination occurs. This applica ht 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 Continental Inn 67 rooms 178 rooms Blue Spruce 32 rooms TOTAL 277 rooms -2- ,.. !S3- C-win � 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 1I1-I 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- • HEIGI[T COMMENTS : The Aspen Mountain Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The Forth of `dell Building by approximately 16z feet. According to Aspen's Zoning Code Area and Bulk Requirements L-1 and Lr-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 are proposed,....." If The Lodge At Aspen had the same freedom to go to the 55' height the project could have a height appearance as shown below: 5 S fi �P e -1 a � a .,_e_• rs-"-a. � m...• , 'P'HE Leb"P K INTRODUCTION THE LODGE AT ASPEN The applicant of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Lodge project is submitting this as a supplement to the original Lodge GtIP 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 Cate�zory Rating Multipler Points la. Water 1 1 1 11) . Sewer 1 1 1 le. 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 1I1). 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 oft the above categories: -5- THE L9F 0ASI�EN The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding the Planning Officers Evaluation and Scoring of THE LODGE AT ASPENrs 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 correctionhthe 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 nutter 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 Officers comments, applicant believes that a scoring of 2 would be appropriate. . . k .. I 1 . i 1 V i• THE LebC� AT�N 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. 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 I Mountain Road and Ute Avenue. e. Contract snow removal will be used for emergencies involving excessive accumulations from street build-ups. b. PARKING AND CIRCULATION COMMENTS: Parking 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 1180 rooms. The Lodge At Aspen has a, ratio of one parking space per bedroom while the Aspen Mountain Lodge has .79 space per bedroom. The turning radius for cars entering the parking area was laid out according to the City of Aspen's Parking Standard as shown below: f ? r r- PARK'INIG STANDARD C-1;i\/F'k`,'/AY AiNT TU[;fqiNG AREAS MINliIUM CURVE 011)ar cur%!cs may b(i found in ill✓E- SAVf:R STANDARDS c. 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. WIM P-9 10ASAEN 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 euests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging prodect.... "(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 If-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. c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES COMMENTS: Two commercial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance; namel.y, 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. it. al PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMMENTS: The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 100/ of its employees. iThe 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. -q- 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 be provided. Minimum window requirements will be designed into the unit. The applicant believes that The Lodge At Aspen qualifies for the 15 points for Employee Housing. BONUS POINTS CONSIDERATION 1. The 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 (405T) 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 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 secur.:ity. 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, Lyle Reeder -10-- LIM • November 16, 1983 Members: Aspen City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: Di NOV 1,s1983 NSPE+v rI i KIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE 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? 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 indicate 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. z z0 O H H E-i U) a H O � a ma U� U] z P z aH a0 a Ei zz w0Ei � H W W U) W a H U] Boa x � Ei 0 Ei �3:z U H 0 N N E-4 U W r] 0 a a W � C� n � � r- 1,0 N v1 rb n � O GO -I c O M O0 N H Lf �O L l tIMN�t� O -tMN O u") L,) ifl W U•1 n r- n vl �rl OH N M N O (li Q H ir'1 u•1 O z 0 E-i C14 CN -A O M N M �O -:I- M N N n w W z r-I r-i N N r-i M M M "O r-1 M -7 N ON N h E1 a 00 a w N a v U z v U �4 H v V) 4-4 w � Q O � U W0 V) U p E-, f { Cp U1 N •11 W N rl a b� 41 z � cd • • C7 A .. cn < F< U)ri �j 1:4 O rl Q P W v +-) U E-4 O a v U E-1 z O > C] rd �4 0 f� r I rd O �4 5" � -° z -P Q rL rd v U w r1 r+ W U H U)U)> Q > H � t3) � 04 S 1 rA U Q E-i Y-a CO � +) r I O rd E~ > v rd O 1-+ v v SA O C>~ U Ul U H O • r-I w- H a n O a w 4 4aa >1 tp u ��E~ rL4 0 •li is -era A v �4 ��v 4-) -H �4 < 44 a) v� v zs - 3 0 :4 (d -'4 U a-) N 1-4 U) w v U t~ U •11 O 3�ncnr14 >1 Ei f4 •r-I M- 4 cnwa> H H N rd • A N r1Q04 U H � w Ei z O P+ rd A U rd v 01 rd A U v b A U N a N W o W ON rn C� Q rI z rI � LO if1 to Q Q� z O Lr) Lr) z O W z H z00 O 000 h E- o a a L, ao w z a 0 Cn U O r +� �+ 0 v U U cn .. a z z co O H H a b a O O 0 H a a u �(d -4 H O a a In E-4 W N 0 m E�-+ EEj r �j •4 �D O O � O a a CO x0 � 0) � -j G� +- H v� 4-) O v -11 +1 cd ro a v —A (n cn a U w w >,-r+ -ri p C7 .0 °C z rAd W H 07 5� N W 4 a a O v, \ +-) z w �D O a4 0 E--i 0 U c� A m �' N oo N ID) N m (d Lz � .:ZL4 a a �r Sri ` i PROJECT PROFILE 1984 L-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 15,380 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, GMP 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. ,♦ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen 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: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood deficiency but applicant only commits to sharing the 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. 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 2 POINTS: 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 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 project 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 r•estaurant,willProvide food service for guests only in the lounge (winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an Apre' 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 habitation requirements.) 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. r-I L-J Comments: I TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4: SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1,2,3 and 4: Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS: RATING: O MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: O 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) 21 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) 9 (Minimum 6.3 points required) 11 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) f•] (Minimum of 51 points required) (Maximum of 5 points allowed) Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office M ob MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer � ity Water Department V Aspen Metro Sanitation District 'Housing Office I Building Department Parks Department City Manager * .Transportation Department FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director -I,/Irn i11nrsF,l- RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submission - L-1/L-2 Zone DATE: October 6, 1983 Attached are this year's applications competing in the City for the 1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L-1 and L-2 zones. One application is submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas and Mr. Alan Novak. The applicant proposes to demolish the Continental, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce and replace them with a 480 unit hotel. The other application received was submitted by Lyle D. Reeder. The applicant requests a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. The project is the Lodge at Aspen which is located at the corner of Ute and Original Streets. Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments to the Planning Office by November 4, 1983, in order that we may adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983. Thank you. * These referral departments are receiving the application submitted by American Century Corporation only. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office Building Department Parks Department City Manager * Transportation Department FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submission - L-1/L-2 Zone DATE: October 6, 1983 Attached are this year's applications competing in the City for the 1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L-1 and L-2 zones. One application is submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas and Mr. Alan Novak. The applicant proposes to demolish the Continental, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce and replace them with a 480 unit hotel. The other application received was submitted by Lyle D. Reeder. The applicant requests a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. The project is the Lodge at Aspen which is located at the corner of Ute and Original Streets. Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments to the Planning Office by November 4, 1983, in order that we may adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983. Thank you. * These referral departments are receiving the application submitted by American Century Corporation only. rlye 4O9"F_ nr ASe CA, Rd P4Y r/ie i'z�,st-(c., A S r C-tj o -' n I A 0 13 P_ ; a_ A- Y T H tr A&ri��AaS o 1 //oa- ]o RP_ L.�.ci��•n V �r /� c S r> To: Planning _ Re: The Lodge at 771 Ute Ave. From: Jinx Canarrella (Fire Dept.) Date: Nov. 15, 1983 There are two existing fire hydrants in the near location of the building site. With a new 6" proposed water main, it would be nice to have a. new hydrr.nt installed at the intersection of S. Spring and Ute Ave. on the northeast Conner. Access to the back (south) side of the building seems to be of minimal, altough no worse than the usual we encounter. To: Planning _ He: The Lodge at 771 Ute Ave. From: Jinx Ca.parrella (Fire Dept.) Date: Nov. 15, 1983 There are two existing fire hydrants it the near location of the building site. Vith a new 6" proposed water main, it would be nice to have a new hydr^nt installed at the intersection of S. Spring and Ute Ave. on the northeast conner. Access to the back (south) side of the building seems to be of minimal, altough no worse than the usual we encounter. C ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning 1i/�� FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning " DATE: November 11, 1983 RE: The Lodge at Aspen - GMP In reviewing the above application I have the following comments: 1) L-1 height limit is 28 feet. Scaling this project, it appears to exceed that limit by 2 feet. 2) There is a lodge room located on the garden (parking and fitness) level; we need detail to determine if this room will meet U.B.C. requirements for natural light and ventilation and egress. (Page 34) 3) Ord. #23(series of 1982) Employee Housing Guidelines states that studio units should be between 300 and 600 square feet. These units are 216 square feet and, therefore, below the minimum. 4) The application does not appear to indicate handicap access. This is a current issue and should be looked into considering this would be new construction. 5) Location of trash facilities is not clear and needs to be addressed. 6) If we consider this site to be a corner lot bordered on two sides by intersecting streets, the Ute Avenue setback would be 6 2/3. Section 24-3.7(3) cc: Jim Wilson, Building Official Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official BD/ar offices: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado B1611 MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer DATE: November 10, 1983 RE: City of Aspen Lodge GMP Scoring ---------------------------------------------------- Attached are copies of suggested scoring for engineering related Growth Management Plan concerns for the 1984 Lodge quota. The two projects scored were Lyle Reeder's The Lodge at Aspen and the proposed redevelopment of the Cantrup properties, Aspen Mountain. Both application are generally excellent, providing amenities for public use and accommodating neighborhood needs for storm drainage and street improvements. The major differences in the applications are more a matter of degree than quality. Let me know if I may clarify any of the recommended scores or participate in further scoring discussion. JH/co Enclosure Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name aaL A-n-pc-A,,� Address ��e (�jr;o c 1 ( &JQ-• Owner ! . A Attorney/gent/Representative Address qs 9 Reviewed by _L Date I. Residential Application (section 24-10.4)�� A. Public Facilities & Services O - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2- Acceptable (standard) 3 - No forseeable deficiencies * Water ( 3 pts.) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. S, a? tQ4 CI 4o c)4 —. 0.� . A(r1Y.-0Jtm 4a vim°-, Sewer (3 pts.) Capacity without system upgrade. A c)-G. (-P- d C" 4N" Storm Drainage (3 pts.) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. I 3 Parking Design (3 pts.) Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. �;9 n LcoJ (0// ^ A 1C�-tie. 50-► �- Sb ,'c(. `f� { "b- ;W!�\ �P (}C-.F Roads (3 pts.) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more maintenance. C- t G eow�0. Page 2 Growth Management Roew Checklist • B. Social Facilities and Services O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service Public Transportation (2 pts.) 2 - On existing route. 1 - Within 520 feet of route. 0 - Not near service area. Bike Paths Linked to Trail Sy em (2 pts.) Design Features for Han capped (2 pts.) II. Commercial and Office I�6velopment Application (section 24-10.5) A. Quality of Desi 0 - Totally d icient 1 - Major Fnt 2 - Accept 3 - Excel Site De ign (3 pts.) Qualit and character of landscaping, extend of under- grou ing of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of rculation. Amenities (3 pts.) Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways. Trash and utility access areas (3 pts.) III.Lodge Development Application (section 24-10.6) A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) - Page 3 Lo1 C G Ay Growth Management RAew Checklist • B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. Public Transportation (6 pts.) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. �j 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of bus route or lift. 410 ' L,,4 4e k(J L ; f � C. Quality of Design �Site De 60�. o-rQ..,Q �� ( n��. �-� � s e�� Q k� ea.a N e- , Amenities (3 pts. / f Visual Im/a'ct (3 pts. ) Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. ` � 'to Apt& or ! Q L r►1: x �x ; �� Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt.). Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.). Proh'bit'on of employee parking on site (1 pt.). I IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area Lot Area/Unit Lot Width Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name V66,0(0,4A Address ' Owner Attorney/Agent/Representative Address T� Reviewed by T-- Date 10 - -,,Sl - c6-z-, I. Residential Application (section 24-10.4) A. Public Facilities & Services O - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) 3 - No forseeable deficiencies * Water ( 3 pts.) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. Z * Sewer (3 pts.) Capacity without system upgrade. ©k- . Pt" 4z' 4 Storm Drainage (3 pts.) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. or�e ,tie --). r ate. r n Parking Design (3 pts.) Off street parking, visual, pavin , safety, and convenience. ego UIVILAS-y r/a,�.� sPa.cuA ' qTC oX� Vn;/�� of ZLe/ ��tr � ` Roads (3 pts.) Capacity of road system to handle needs traffic patterns or overloading streets maintenance. �yplj �1 without altering or requiring more Page 3u- Growth Management R&ew Checklist I B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. (o Public Transportation (6 pts.) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - y Within 520 feet of bus route or lift. C. Quality of Design Site Design (3 pts d(A•tid�c , f ; �dde�4� Amenities (3 ts.) Visual Impact (3 pts.) Sale an ,P location s it affects public views of scenic areas. Ce�c�•-a l c-4, M : � � �A- . [or', d.9 �o yea �s -p %j i` CAZ c-, Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt.). Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.). Pr hib'tion o employee parking on site (1 pt.). / IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area Lot Area/Unit Lot Width Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback r • r . • -� lA Aspen/Pitk.in`.`P1a.nning Office 130 south':galeriastreet �,::;- ,a aspen; c6 6rado 81611 November 9, 1983 Mr. Lyle D. Reeder P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Lyle, Sunny asked that I respond to your letter dated October 5, 1983, regarding the 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition. Given my fami- liarity with the Lodge at Aspen due to my review of the prior appli- cation on the site, I will be the person responsible for analyzing the current submission. Following are my comments on the five questions you pose in the letter. 1. Section 24-8.5(h) of the Municipal Code provides that "An application may be made for PUD approval for development of lands within any zone district within the City of Aspen " However, as you noted, Section 24-8.5(b) states that "The planned unit development must constitute an area of at least twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet unless the land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit develop- ment on the zoning district map or is otherwise required by the zoning code to be developed according to the provisions of this Article." Therefore, it is true that the Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant may request to be reviewed as a PUD, while the Lodge at Aspen applicant may not. However, you should note that the applicant has only requested consideration as a PUD and must now demonstrate compliance with same. You should be aware that in order to show such compliance, the required reviews for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be much more lengthy than those imposed upon your project, giving you a possible advantage in completing your project in a timely manner. 2. The Planning Office will review each application with respect to the specific criteria and requirements of Sec- tion 24-11.6 of the Code, Lodge Development Application Procedures. We will not compare the proposed height of the Aspen Mountain Lodge building to those of the Lodge at Aspen. Instead, we will evaluate how well each site accom- modates the specific development proposed for it. Further- more, with respect to the height variance, Section 24- 8.5(i) of the Code states that "The burden shall rest upon Lyle D. Reeder November 9, 1983 Page Two an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of this article, the lack of adverse effects of the proposed develop- ment and the compliance with the intents and purposes of planned unit development." 3. Article VIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Planned Unit Development, does not refer to the review of on -site versus off -site employee housing for lodges. However, Section 24-11.6(b)(4) does specifically provide for housing the employees of a lodge on or off -site. The appropriate FAR for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be determined by PUD procedures. 4. The land to which you refer, zoned R-15(PUD)(L), is not part of the lodge development application. This land is proposed for residential development and will be the subject of a separate application for a residential allocation. The data concerning this land has been provided for informa- tion only and does not relate to the lodge application. 5. The lots owned by the City are also included in the area for which a residential development application may be submitted. However, for your information, the following statement has been excerpted from the City Council minutes of September 26, 1983, as an interpretation regarding City owned property with respect to GMP/PUD applications. "Regarding GMP/PUD applications, which would include City - owned property as part of that application, the City Council declines to be a joint applicant in this process, nor does it wish to discuss with the applicant any disposition of the City -owned land prior to application, in order to maintain impartiality in all subsequent reviews. However, with the goal of encouraging all opportunities for discussion of the community good in a public forum, the Council will deem the non -ownership of City land not to be sufficient grounds for disqualifying the application from further public review through the appropriate process. The Council reserves all rights not to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of such City -owned land which is the subject of the application. The Planning Department and the P&Z are instructed to score such GMP/PUD applications in two ways -- with and without the City -owned land. Should the City subsequently not agree to sell or transfer such City -owned land the score will be what it would be without the City -owned land." Lyle D. Reeder November 9, 1983 Page Three Lyle, I hope my responses are of assistance to you in preparing your presentation for the meeting on November 22. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you in this regard. Sincerely, 'P� Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director AR: jlw cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 WATER DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: SUNNY VAN, PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1983 RE: THE LODGE AT ASPEN - LYLE REEDER As stated under aa. Water - Applicant's Comments, page 16, we would support the applicant's request for water service should the recommendations made by us come about. However, this should not be construed that the Water Depart- ment would or could share in any costs, as all City funded water improve- ment expenditures must be approved by the City Council. This would also in- clude any projects which we might participate in. If the applicant is willing to provide the referenced improvements at his own expense without any concrete assurances that the City would participate, we would certainly endorse the application as an improvement to the local distribution system. C� ING ' AS OFFS PLANN 9 • TO: AspenlPi tk•in County Housing Authority FROM: Gail Schwartz, Assistant Director - DATE: October 28Y 1983 RE: The Lodge of Aspen, Developed by Lyle D. Reeder - GNP Submission. Zone L-11L-2 The Lodge of Aspen is a proposal for a neu hotel on a parcel zoned Lodge 1 at the base of the Aspen AIPs. Road on We Avenue. The project in 1982 received a GNP allotment for 31 hotel rooms and four- employee units. Due to a Iau5ui f by the Aspen Inn (the other GNP applicant) the Hotel Lenado is requesting Vok they surrender- the 1982 allocation and resue_i 46 hotel rooms and 6 employee units in the 1983 GNP submission. The employment Projection for the Prroject is for 15 employees. Accordine to our estimates of 13 employees per 100 beds this exceeds the minimum standard for employee generation. They have represented Thai 12 of the employees will be housed on site in six rooms of 216 sa.fi. each. Three employees will be housed off -site in either units owned by the project or under long-term lease. Therefore the Project should be approved for P 4 Z review condi- tioned upon a technical clarification by the applicant. This clarification should Provide a demonstration of either ownership or long-term lease of the off -site uni+.s being Proposed by the developer. Should a Pre-existing unit be deed restricted; it should be noted that the Project is creating a benefit for the community by not producing any additional units to support the Project. The number of bedrooms and the rent for these units should be identified and consistent with the income distribution of the employees Proposed for the Project. Additional conditions shall include: 1) the definition of rents and the deed restriction according to income level and employment be Placed upon the off-s•iie units. 2) a deed restriction must also be developed for those 6 units to be used on -site, with rent and income definition. •ASPEN PITKIN 40 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 7!�-,p Environmental Health Department DATE: October 22, 1983 RE: 1983 GMP - Lyle Reeder's The Lodge at Aspen -------------------------------------------------------------- The above -referenced submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns. SITE DRAINAGE: All drainage from paved areas, roof drains and disturbed soil areas shall be retained on site. This may be accomplished by the use of dry wells, non -discharging holding ponds or discharge across vegetated areas. Discharge of this tyre of effluent into the City storm sewer system and ultimately into the Roaring Fork River shall be minimized. AIR POLLUTION: It is apparent that this project will be in compliance with Section 11-2.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Solid Fuel Burning Devices." The submittal states on Page 43 that the complex will only have one fireplace in the lounge area. Any food cooking devices shall comply with Section 11-2.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Restaurant Grills." Demolition of any existing structures on the site may necessitate dust control measures (fugitive dust) being implemented. The use of sprinklers or hoses to apply water at the work site during demolition is an approved control method. NOISE ABATEMENT: No adverse noise impacts are anticipated as the result of this projects approval. Short term construction noise will be regulated by the Aspen Noise Abatement Ordinance (Industrial Zone levels) . 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 Paae Two October 22, 1983 1983 GMP - Lvle Reeder's The Lodge at Aspen WATER SUPPLY: Service of this project by the Aspen Water Department distribution system is in compliance with policies of this office. SEWER SYSTEM: Service of this project by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District collection system is in compliance with policies of this office. FOOD SERVICE: It is uncertain at this time as to the regulatory capacity of this office concerning the proposed dining facilities. However, as the plan is finalized a clear decision will be made. In the meantime, it will be recommended that the food preparation and lounge area be constructed in conformance with the Rules and Regulations Governing Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado. A cony of the referenced regulation can be picked up by the applicant at this office. ST+IIMMING POOL .AND SPA: This project shall comply with the Swimming Pool Regulations and Standards of Colorado. TSD/co Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 UUry P. O. Box 4859 Aspen, Co. 81612 925-5360 October 5, 1983 r Attn; Mr. Sunny Vann, Director Re; 1984 Lodge (1-1, L-2) G. M. P. Competition applications Dear Mr. Vann; In reviewing the competiting applicants' presentation in preparation for the P & Z hearing scheduled for November 22, 1983 I would appreciate your assistance with the following questions which I am having difficulty in interrupting; I note that on page 58 of the -.SPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE applicat- ion "Because we are preceeding under the Planned Unit Develop- ment regulations, variations in the height limit established for the Zone district are permitted and can be approved by the City..." and later "...Generally speaking, around the Lodge perimeter, maximum heights from iiatural grade will vary from 30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the visual impact upon pedest- rians, within the interior of the Lodge footprint, setback from the street facade, heights in some locations of 40 to 55 feet are proposed..." I find in the aspen Zoning Code at page 1490, Section 24-8.5 General Requirements under paragraph (b) "The planned unit development must constitute an area of at least twenty-seven thousand (27,000.) square feet unless the land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit development on the Zoning district map or is otherwise required by the Zoning Code to be developed according to the provisions of this article." Also, Section 24-8.3 Variations from Zoning Code requirements. "To facilitate the objectives of planned unit development there may be permitted variations from the provisions of this Chapter 24 as hereinafter specified: (a) Variations may be permitted in the following zoning code requirements: Open space, minimum distance between build- ings, maximum height (including view planes), minimum front yard, minimum rear yard', minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, external and internal floor area ratios, and number of off-street parking spaces. (b) Variation shall not be permitted in allowable uses nor from the requirements of specially planned area and historic designation, or from use square foot limitations and sign regulations of this code. Planning Office - City of Aspen Pag :. October 5, 1983 Under the AREA AND HULK REQUIREMENTS on page 1451 of the Aspen Code it is indicated that for L-1, L-2 Zones the Maxi- mum height is 28 feet, External Floor area ratio is 1:1, and Internal Floor Area ratio is "Lodge -Rental space .5:1 — .75:1* Nonunit space .25:1 with *33 1/3 percent of all rental space above the FAR of .5:1 must be devoted to employee housing." Question 1; Can the Aspen Mountain Lodge application compete under the Planned Unit Development regulations while The Lodge At Aspen cannot because The Lodge At Aspen's site.crf 15,386 square feet is less than the 27,000 square feet minimum? There is no PUD designation for The Lodge At Aspen's site. Question 2; If the answer to the above question is yes, how will the Planning Office reconcil to an equitable basis the heights proposed of upto 55 feet for the kspeff Mountain Lodge while The Lodge At Aspen's height is limited to 28 feet by the Zoning Code? In the Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 63 and 64: "... No employee housing has been provided on -site to the hotel because it is felt off -site housing is both more desire - able and manageable from the employees' viewpoint and from the hotel's operations view..." Question 3; Apparently the above is possible under an approved PUD Plan. Will the Planning Office allow the PUD applicant to compete with no on -site employee housing and require The Lodge At Aspen to devote 33 1/3 percent of all rental space above the FAR of .5:1 to employee housing? On the subject of rezoning as proposed by the other applicant on page 14 which reads; "R-15(PUD) (L) and L-2 L-2 zoning is requested for the lots owned by the City (11,000 square feet of land area) which are involved in the land trades proposal and which are presently zoned Public..." and on Page 74, I note that 11,000 square feet is included in the calculations of the Total Floor Area. Question 4; Doesn't the LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO G.M.P. competition allow only existing LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO properties to compete? Question 5; Is the City of Aspen a co -applicant to the Aspen Mountain Lodge application, since they apparently own the 11,000 square feet which is included in the application's total floor Area? C:��Y Planning 0 0ce - City of Aspen 0e 3. October 5, 1983 It appears to me that one applicant in the competition may have available and is using the Planned Unit Develop- ment procedures which allow a freedom in variations from normal zoning codes that is not available to the other applicant. Your comments, answers and thoughts on the above questions and my comments would be greatly appreciated. ldr sed Sincerely yours, Lyle D. Reeder • P. O. Box 4859 Aspen, Co. 81612 September 7, 1983 925-5360 Mr. Allan Richman Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Re; Parking Requirements for L-1, L-2 Zones. Dear Mr. Richman; In the Aspen Zoning Code for :iREy & BULK REQUIREMENTS there is shown as parking requirements; "1/Bedroom". I intrept this to mean that one off-street parking space is required per Lodge room. I find no provision for this requirement to be modified by special review or other procedures. I assume that no provision exists. Please correct me if the above or the following is not correct: "Applications for the 1984 Lodge G. M. P. Competition are required to provide one off-street auto parking space for each room requested in their application". Yours truly, Lyle D. Reeder ldr se yl ASPEN / �'iTK>aN Co. PLr,NNING OFFICE CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 .y MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 1983 TO: Alan Richman FROM: Gary Esaryet RE: Wolftone GMP Submission 19844 CO. ICE Alan, you've asked me for an opinion on the status of ownership in Wolftone Corporation to the subject parcels in the Forest Service land exchange in connection with the contemplated Wolftone GMP submission. I've reviewed the documents submitted, including the Statement of Intent dated July 26, 1982, the Hull finding letter of May 2, 1983, the Woodrow letter of June 29, 1983, the Reeder submission of June 30, 1983, the Bschor letter of July 5, 1983, and the vari- ous attachments to these documents. While it is true that Mr. Reeder has done all that he can do to effect the land exchange to this point and all indications are that the exchange will go through as proposed, Mr. Reeder somewhat overstates the case in his letter of June 30 when he says that the Statement of Intent is equivalent to a private sector Real Estate Exchange agreement. Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Intent clearly indicates that the federal process contains an exchange agreement (not yet executed) and states that until such a public sector exchange agreement is executed, either party may withdraw from the exchange process. Therefore, it is my opinion that at this point in time, Wolftone does not have a legally enforceable right to possession of the land, even if it performs all of its obligations pursuant to the presently -executed documents. It appears to me that Wolftone does not even have the status of an option -holder. He has the status of an offeror with an apparently willing offeree. Next, we look to the possible joinder of the Forest Service in the applications. The Bschor letter indicates that the Forest Service Memorandum to Alan Richman August 5, 1983 Page Two does "not object" to the filing of any applications. This action is distinguishable from a joinder, as clearly explained by the disclaimer in the next sentence of the Bschor letter, which echoes that disclaimer in Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Intent. The Hull finding letter of May 3, 1983, also contains conditions that, if unfulfilled, may stop the exchange. Wolftone's ownership status does not necessarily disquality it from making a GMP application. That decision is ultimately admin- istrative. Given the nature of GMP submissions, it probably would be practically burdensome to require every applicant to have fee simple title. Many real estate deals are put together under options or conditionsl sales contracts. On the other hand, to allow mere offerors to go through the process might be unfair to other competitors or an impermissible waste of Planning Office or P&Z time. In addition, this might be precedent -setting. The rejection of the Cantrup 1983 residential GMP submission is illustrative, but not controlling. Although the Cantrup situation had different issues (a previously expired GMP allotment and the identity of the applicant), our acceptance of the GMP application by a mere offeror might weaken our future ability to reject an application. To sum up: (1) Wolftone's ownership position is weak, despite the fact that it has done all that he could do under the long and cum- bersome federal process; (2) there is nothing strictly legally wrong with permitting him to apply despite the weak ownership status; (3) the decision is essentially administrative, recogniz- ing that the review will be wasted if either party backs out (which they can do without penalty in this case), that competing applicants might complain, and that accepting this GMP submission might be precedent -setting. If we accept the application for review, we will have to condition the acceptance of proof of ownership at some point in the pro- cess. In any eventual land -use review, there are at least three issues suggested by these documents that should be looked at closely. The first is the status of the 25-foot unpaved street encroachment on Summit Street (the City should have a dedication for Summit Street). The second is the federal condition that Wolftone make satisfactory settlement with certain other users of National Forest Land. Who are these other users, what are their objections 0 • Memorandum to Alan Richman August 5, 1983 Page Three and what is the settlement? The third is the location of the Shadow Mountain and Ute Avenue parcel and their relation to the City trails plan, etc. GSE/mc ®5United States �5) Department of < Agriculture s Forest Service F Mr. Allan Richmond City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 L Dear Mr. Richmond: White River P.O. Box 948 National Forest Glenwood Springs, CO ReUly Io 5430 Date. June 29 , 1983 Mr. Lyle Reeder (Wolftone Corporation) asked us to write you on the progress of his land exchange with the United States Forest Service and the remaining steps for completion. The Decision Notice approving the exchange was signed on May 2, 1983 by Mr. Richard D. Hull, Director of Lands, for the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (copy enclosed). The appeal period is over and we are proceding with the exchange. The next steps to complete this exchange are: 1. A land appraisal is completed to determine if Wolftone's offered property is equal in value to the selected National Forest as required by our regulations. In the event they are not equal, either party may equalize the values by cash payment. This cash payment may not exceed twenty—five percent of the value of the National Forest. 2. Wolftone gives a warranty deed to the United States of America for the offered private land. We record this in the courthouse and a title insurance policy is issued showing the United States does in fact own the offered private land. 3. The Bureau of Land Management is authorized to give the proponent the patent (deed) to the selected National Forest. This step may take three to six months. In the private sector, steps two and three usually take place at the same time, but our regulations require us to actually take ownership of the offered private land before we can proceed to give ownership of the selected National Forest to Mr. Reeder. Sincerely, E . I Su pe rvi so r FS-6200-11(8-80) FIINVI1,G Or, IX) SIC.NIFIC r+ -T 11�2ACI' &ND DECISIOU cA)TIC E Envirorunertal Assessment Report Wolftone Corp. ZxchaNe #C-362.99 White River National Forest Forest Service, USDA An envirorunental as3essrent report that disccusses the proposed exrcharK e of 1.44 acres of �-ihite River 'National Forest law for i37.65 acres of .ianu owned by Wolftone on the White lover rational Forest is availdole for public review in the Forest Supervisor's Office in Glerrwow Springs, Colorado. It is riy decision to proceed with Alternative D of the envirornnental assessment which is to make the land exchange set forth in the Staterent of Intent dated July 26, 1982, with anie=i ents. The cumulative environmental benefits of this alternative altar to significantly exceed the benefits asfrcx:iated with the other alternatives. 'llie exchange will not result ill a decrease in public values or the ability to meet National Forest Systtmi management objectives, and the exchange is in try public interest. Other alternatives considered in detail were the no action Alternative (A), purchase the nonfederal larxi Alternative (B) , grid a larger exchange Alternative (C). The envirorm)ental a.-,sesswent report indicates that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environrivent. Therefore, an envirorwental iapact statea-nent will not be prepared. This detenaination was made in consideration or the following factors. 'The rreposea action is, by nature, a cormn and long established method for consolicating :National Forest ownership. The effects of this particular 1ar-0 exchange are local in context and can be predicted with reasonable certainty. Irretrievar)le losses of National Forest land are minor in couparison to the benefits to the derived from the prevention of irretrievable losses of wildlife and fish habitat aril from savings in administrative costs. No unique resources or land characteristics including, prime farm.lancis, flood plains, toetlands, or threatened and endangered species will be affected. The proposed action has been sanctioned by local goverrmmntal agencies and opposition by a few in.liviouals were eliminated by droppirx. some Federal tracts. Coirpletion of the exc'rar:de is contingent on the followingg actions: 1. Appraisals must bE completed on the tracts. They must demonstrate that land values are equal or can Le Equalized pursuant to the federal wrxi Policy and Managemient Act of 1976 (43 U:iC 1716) . _ 2. The National Forest lands must be examined for the presence of cultural resources and the requirements of E.G. 11593 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 must I:k-- net. 2 3. ligolf-tone crust ; bake satisfactory settl4:e;�K::nt with certain u.:,rs of Nz4tioral Forest lava. 4. B M mist concur with the conveyance of Federal mint--rals . This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 Cr.? 211.19. A Notice of Appeal rmzst be filed within 4-5 uays fre,, the date of this decision. Questions regardinq this ciecision :should be scat to thin Chief, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 2417, v'32shington, LC 20013. MAY ;883 Lute piroctor of bads 0 • Third Amendment to the Land Exchange offer of Wolftone Corporation, dated July 26, 1982. We herewith amend our land exchange offer in the following respects: Exhibit B, the selected land description, should be corrected by deleting: Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado T.10S., R.84W. Section 7: Lot 36. The description of the selected land as corrected reads as follows: Exhibit B - Property that the Forest Service will consider exchanging: Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado T.10S., R.84W. Section 18: Lot 41, unpatented Mineral Survey No. 6012. T.10S., R.85W. Section 12: Lot 20 The area described aggregate 1.46 acres more or less. / Z z z___ date 01 WOLFTONE CORPORATION Lyl D. Reeder Pr es ideiit 0 0 United States Forest White River Aspen Ranger District Department of Service National 806 West Hallam Agriculture Forest Aspen, CO 81611 Reply to: 5430 Date: July 5, 1983 r Mr. Allan Richman City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 L Dear Allan: The National Forest land involved with the Wolftone land exchange is adminis- tered by the Aspen Ranger District of the White River National Forest. I do not object to submittal of development plans or applications for permits and quotas by Lyle Reeder on the National Forest parcels contained in his proposed land exchange. It must be understood, however, there is no obligation by the U.S. Forest Service to the City or Lyle Reeder concerning those plans or applications. The Wolftone Corporation land exchange has been and continues to be one of our highest priority exchanges. Our intent is to complete the exchange as promptly as possible so long as the remaining exchange procedures are favor- able per the Forest Supervisor's letter to you dated 6/29/83. Sincerely, DENNIS E. BSCHOR District Ranger cc: Forest Supervisor, White River N.F. Lyle Reeder S FS•6200-11b (7/61) — . -,e Eagle D,I: Carbondale from the White River National Forest U.S.D.A. Forest Service-5,zn Old Federal Building__ P.O. Box 948 Glenwood Springs, CO Release Date: July S, 1983 (303) 945-2521 81602 Contact: Dennis E. Bschor, Aspen Ranger District, 303-925-344S RANGER D;STRICTS ASPEN Two National Forest Land Exchanges Near Aspen Progressing Well Disir-c. Ranter 806 A hl.:am St. Aspen, CO 81611 (303)925-3445 Aspen District Ranger, Dennis Bschor, is pleased to announce that two BLANCO District Ranger 733Main St land exchanges of importance to the Aspen area appear to be nearing P.O. Box 358 Meeker, CO E1641 completion. (303) 878-4039 DILLON D!s.nct Range- 10: v; Ma'r. The first involves Lyle Reeder's Wolftone Corp. which owns or controls Fr„rr, CO c^3t688-5404 EAGLE approximately 137.6S acres as follows: D'stnct Ranger 5tn&Wall St 1. The Van Horn Park Tract located about 3 miles northeast of the Town P.O. Box 720 Eagle, CO 61631 of Aspen (118.28 acres) (303) 328-63'8 HOLY CROSS 2. The Favorite Lode Tract located about 13 miles south of the Town of 401 Ma!n P.O. Box 0 Minturn, CO 81645 Aspen next to the road to Pearl Pass (9.04 acres) (303) 827-5715 RIFLE 3. The Wyoming Lode Tract located about 7 miles south of the Town of District Ranger 1400Access Rd Aspen on the Mt. Hayden side of Castle Creek (10.33 acres) P.O. Box 289 Rifle. CO 81650 Rifle625-816 11olftone proposes to trade the above parcels it owns for the following SOPict parcels of National Forest land totalling approximately 1.44 acres: District Ranger P g PP Y 620 Main P.O. Box248 1. Lot 20 located between Shadow Mtn. and the Aspen Ice Garden, 233 W. Carbondale, CO 81623 (303) 963-2266 Hyman Avenue, South and adjacent to the Town of Aspen (1.19 acres) MT. SOPRIS TREE NURSERY - 2. Lot 41 located directly behind the Aspen Alps office, in the Town 0448 Valley Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 (303) 963-2360 of Aspen. (0.17 acres) 3. USMS 6012 Tract located on Summit Street, halfway between Monarch f4DREST SERVV U�s Street and Mill Street immediately south of the Town of Aspen. (.08 �`riumolk'KA acres) • As documented in a Decision Notice signed on May 2, 1983, the Wolftone Corp. land exchange is in the public interest. Completion of the exchange is contingent on the following actions: a. Appraisals by qualified land appraisers must be completed on the tracts. The appraisals must demonstrate that land values are equal or can be equalized pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1716). b. Wolftone must make satisfactory settlement with certain other users of National Forest land. C. The BLM must concur with the conveyance of Federal minerals. The 45 day appeal period for the Wolftone exchange has expired. The second exchange involves the Nature Conservancy which owns or controls the following private land parcels in Pitkin County (293.48 Acres) : 1. Castle Creek Tract - Four parcels on Castle Creek owned by Ted Ryan located south of Aspen, CO immediately north of the Historic Ashcroft Townsite. (171.48 acres) 2. Hunter Creek Tract - approximately 2 miles east of Aspen's City limit boundary consisting of a steep hillside north of Hunter Creek, adjacent to property owned by Fritz Benedict. (122.0 acres) Nature Conservancy proposes to trade the above parcels for a 480 acre tract of National Forest land contiguous to the City of Woodland Park, CO, Teller County. As documented in a Decision Notice signed on June 17, 1983, the Chief of the Forest Service has decided to proceed with the Nature Conservancy exchange. Completion of this exchange is contingent upon: a. Approval of the Hunter Creek tract appraisal. b. Execution of documents to protect the rights of others. C. Thirty day oversite review by the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. d. Forty-five day appeal period. Maps, legal descriptions, and environmental assessment documents for the Wolftone and Nature Conservancy Land exchanges may be reviewed Monday through Friday at the Aspen Ranger District Office, 806 West Hallam, Aspen, CO between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the White River N.F. Supervisor's Office at 900 Grand, Glenwood Springs, CO. cc: Board of County Commissioners - Pitkin County Lyle Reeder Nature Conservancy Ted Ryan City of Aspen - Wayne Chapman — Aspen Times KSNO - KSPN Snowmass Sun 0 P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, Co. 81612 June 30, 1983 Mr. Allan Richman City of Aspen - Planning Dept. 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Re Proposed GMP Allocation Application involving U.S. Forest Exchange Parcel No. 41. Dear Mr. Richman; Please find attached: 1. STATEMENT OF INTENT- 5430 Exchanges. This Statement of Intent is the initial document which started the Forest Service Exchange. In the private sector the Statement of Intent would be comp- arable to a Real Estate Exchange agreement. 2. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND DECISION NOTICE This document was also sent to you by the Forest Service with their letter of June 29, 1983; however, their copy did not contain the legal description and map. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT The enclosed information along with the U.S. Forest Service letters dated June 29, 1983 and June 30, 1983 should aid in making a determination as to the probabil- ity of the exchange being completed. I request that you permit me to make a new application for the October 1, 1983 GMP Allocation combining the original THE LODGE AT ASPEN site and the U.S. Forest Service Parcel. The application would be for an entirely new design. Very truly yours, Lyle D. Reeder encl. LDR/jg C C (FSM 5432.8) . U, S.' Department of Agriculture Forest Service 5430 Exchanges Van Horn Park Lyle Reeder STATEMENT OF INTENT Act of 3/20/22, as amended (16 U.S.C. 485; 5U.S.C. 511) (I), We, Wolf tone Corporation of 1). 0. Box 4859, Aspen, CO 81612 herein after called the proponent, and the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, acting through their authorized representatives intend to exchange real property of equal value described in attached Exhibits A and B under the terms and conditions described in the exhibits. It is understood that the basis for value of the exchange properties shall be appraisals which have been approved by the Forest Service. This statement of intent authorizes each party to enter on lands of the other for appraisal and survey purposes necessary to pursue this exchange. It is understood that upon approval of the exchange values, terms and conditions by the appropriate Forest Service official, the parties may enter into an exchange agreement that shall be binding on both parties. It is understood that prior to the exchange agreement, or issuance of a patent or deed by the United States if no exchange agreement is executed, no action taken shall create or establish any contractual or other obligations against the proponent or the United States. Either thb proponent or the Forest Service may withdraw from the exchange at any time prior to the agreement or conveyance from the United States. Pursuant to Section 206(b) of the Federaf Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716), a payment may be required by either party to equalize exchange values. The proponent may reserve such rights as are acceptable to the Forest Service. Any reservations shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, where applicable and such other conditions as may be agreed upon. The reservations and exceptions of the proponent are listed in Exhibit C attached. If this offer is approved and title accepted by the United States, the proponent agrees to accept in exchange, that National Forest land described in Exhibit B attached, subject to the reservations and exceptions shown in Exhibit D attached. R2-S400-5 _ Rev. 10/81) It will be the propone.nts•responsibility to furnish a good and sufficient title to the property free from objectionable encumbrances. The proponent will convey C title by warranty deed when notified to do so. A policy of title insurance satisfactory to the Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture will be prepared at the expense of the proponent. The United States does not furnish title insurance for the property it conveys. The proponent will pay for the advertisement of this proposal. The advertisement will be published weekly for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper enjoying general circulation in the area of influence concerning this proposed exchange. No member of Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this proposal or to any benefit that may arise therefrom unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit (18 U.S.C. 431, 433). The undersigned is 21 years old or over and is the owner of the above described offered land or has a firm contract to acquire it. Wolftone Corporation (Date) (Name) Lyl e D. Reader President C- - (Name) 0 -2- 0 0 Property that Wolftone Corporation will consider exchanging: Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado T.9.S., R.84W. 1. Big Chief Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 8.39 Acres 2. Forest City Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 3.3 Acres 3. Van Horn Park Subdivision - Lots A, B, and C More specifically described as: a. Lizzie Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6021 b. Wolftone Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6021 C. Ute Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5847 d. Iron Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5847 e. NE Plus Ultra Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5813 f. Red Chief Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5813 g. Silver Edge Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4644 h. American Girl Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167 i. Goldsmith Maid Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167 j. Alice B. Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167 k. Crown Point Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167 1. Empire Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5800 M. Empire Lode #2 Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5800 n. Malden Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4619 o: Lost Diamond Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6023 The subdivision as described contains 106.59 acres. T.11S., R.85W. f Wyoming Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4190 - 10.33 acres T.12S., R.85W. Favorite Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. Offered Land Total - 137.65 acres more or 7072 - 9.04 acres less. • EXHIBIT B Property that the Forest Service will consider exchanging: Sixth Principal Meridian — Colorado T.10S., R84W. Section 7: Lot 34 Section 18: Lots 41, 42, unpatented lode mining claim, Mineral Survey No. 6012 T.10S., R.85W. Section 12: Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, Unpatented Lode mining claims Mineral Surveys 4961, 5792, 7329 The area described aggregate 11.4 acres more or less. r 9 • EXHIBIT C Land reservations of the Wolftone Corporation and exceptions to the Title: 1, Reserving unto the grantor, his heirs and assigns the following: None 2. Title will be granted subject to the following: a. Right of a proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of subject property, to enter subject property should the same in its dip be found to pene— trate, intersect, or extend into subject property for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge; and reservation of rights of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 10, 1892 in Book 39 at Page 61. (Wyoming Lode No. 4190) b. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter— sect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby granted and as reserved in United State Patent recorded July 22, 1892 in Book 39 at Page 90, Right —of —Way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Government as reserved in United States Patent recorded July 22, 1892 in Book 39 at Page 90. (Lizzie and-Wolftone Lodes No. 6021) c. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter— sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 5, 1895 in Book 136 at Page 25, Right —of —Way for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 5, 1895 in Book 136 at Page 25. (Ute and Iron Lodes No. 5847) d. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter— sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes or extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 5, 1895 in Bood 136 at Page 29, Right —of —Way for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States as reserved in the United States Patent recorded August 5, 1895 in Book 136 at Page 29. (NE Plus Ultra and Red Chief Lodes'No. 5813) • e. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter- sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded March 2, 1896 in Book 136 at Page 73, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Government as re- served in United States Patent recorded March 2, 1896 in Book 136 at Page 73. (Silver Edge Lode No. 4644) f. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter- sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded July 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 253, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded July 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 253. (American Girl, Goldsmith Maid, Alice B. Lodes No. 6167). g. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or apex of which lies outside the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter- sect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 6, 1969 in Book 242 at Page 580, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Government as re- served in United States Patent recorded August 6, 1969 in Book 242 at Page 580. (Lost Diamond Lode No. 6023) 0 • EXHIBIT I) Land reservations of the United States, exceptions to title and uses to be recognized: 1. Excepting and reserving to the United States and its assigns the following: A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391). 2. We recognize the existence of the following: None r First Amendment to the Land Exchange offer of Wolftone Corporation, dated July 26, 1982. We herewith amend our land exchange offer in the following respects: Exhibit B, the selected National Forest land description, should be corrected by taking out Lot 34 in Section 7, T10S., R.84W. and adding Lot 36 in the same section. The description of the selected National Forest land as corrected reads as follows: Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado T.lOS., R.84W. Section 7: Lot 36 Section 18: Lots 41, 42, unpatented lode claim, Mineral Survey No. 6012 T10S., R.85W. Section 12: Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, unpatented lode mining claims Minerals Surveys Nos. 4961, 5792, 7329 The areas described aggregate 14.21 acres more or less. Wolftone Corporation Da e (� Lyle Reeder President FIi1:EZ OF HU SIC-NI.MIC�+t:l' IiiPAIl' P_�:;1SICtd �:�7i'IC1' Fnviron:rertal Assesst:ie t Report Wolftone Corp. xchange „C-36 .99 Mi to River National Forest Forest Service, USDA An environirrantal assj--!ss�•,ent, report ti' i-- c?is.--usc-,,--s the proposA--1 e_xchcurge of 1.44 acres of white River National 'sorest laW for 137.65 Gores of Land owned by Wlolftone on the White Rivc�r D!ational. Forest is availaole for ;public revie-.+ in the Forest Supervisor's Office in Glenr.ow .SpriMs, Colorado. It is rry decision to proceed with Alternative D of the environ enr-al assea.�ent which is to rake the larxl excnrrr?e set forth in the Sr:acerient of Intent rated July 26, 1982, with Tr.e cu:nulati.ve envirorm, -ntul. heref-it of this alternative appear to Lic:nii'icantly exceed the :x--netits as„)c;io,te-j with the otter alternativ-2.s. will not res=:lt in a r:ecrease in pxi::lic values or tt:e abilitY to i:F=�_t NationLi i,'orest Syst r,r managen-ent obj`ctiv,-�s, aril the excharfje is in the public interest. Oz her alternatives considered in detail were the no action llternative (A), purchase the nonfederal l.ar)d tilcern�tiv�! (B) , zirr1 a larger excharye Alternative (C). ne envirorsuental re orc J.riulGatC J that tt;ere will !-,-- no s.i�nificant effect on the quality n1 tha human envirorocent. Therefore, an environrvenU-11 iaspact state;rant will not it2 prepaxed. This cieteri:dn-; tion was rrkide in cons icle rat ion of the follu,,:irg factors. The p•raros�F-:U action iS, by nature, a c.."saran and long estublisned m, --thod for (= olid-atiN National Forest ownership. The effects of thi6 particular land exchange are local in context and can to predicted with reasonable certainty. Irretrievaule losses of Nation.l Forest larxl are minor in caTparison to the benefits to the derived from the prevention of irretrievable losses of wildlife and fish habitat and tram savings in administrative costs. No unique resources or land characteristics irrcli-YADg, pri.rrrn farii1- -rYjs, floor] plains, or threatenel and endangered species will be- affected. Tire proposed action has been sw-ctiened by local governrental agencies and opposition by a fear in:iviauals were eliminated L;y dro-tying sane Federal tracts. Co,Tpletion of the exchar:ge is contingent on the rollowirg actions: 1. Appraisals rr.ust be 6oiiplet": on the tracts. They r:.ust usiiorastrate that land values are equal or can b�- equalizad pursuant to the I•'ec:eral Lana Policy and ManageTent Act of 1976 (43 U:;C 1716) . 2. The national Forest lands mwst oA exwiiinrxa for the presence of cultural ri:sources and the requirements of E.G. 11593 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 r::ust 2 3. '?o: ftcl.�- crust Make satisfactot7 sctt1=i;K:n�- t,itt; c r ur..;rs ar _ irr u .. of 14itienal Forest lart . +:nQ 4. DI<II m—st co:cur witl) tre conveyance of rEt:eral Tninarals. This decision is sub]ect to administrative review (:-A_f�a1) purs it to ;i5 C;;'R 211.19. A I:otice of Appeal rrust Le: filt-c: -,r5 says zrcy,r t`,s dateof this decision. Questiors regardirvj this cu�.cisiun should t.� :-nt to r-h Chief, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. ?-�ox 2417, ;•;ac;!Ar•.jton, r;C 20013. �'t;lli2t'(l l3. Ei;li� Diroctor of Dands !gate MAY LJ M1 DESCRIPTION OF OFFERED PRIVATE LANDS Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado T.9S., R.8414. 1. Big Chief. Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 8.39 Acres 1. Forest City Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 3.3 Acres 3. Van Horn Park Subdivision - Lots A, B, an More specifically described as: a. Lizzie Lode 'fining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6021 b, wolftone Lode dining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6021 C. Ute Lode `Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5847 d. Iron Lode Mining Claim, :Mineral Survey No. 5847 e. NE Plus Ultra Lode ;lining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5813 f. Red Chief Lode Mining Cla tn, Mineral Survey No. 5813 g. Silver Edge Lode dining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4644 h. American Girl Lode ;lining Claim, Mineral Survey 6167 i. Goldsmith Maid Lode lining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167 j. Alice B. Lode Mining Claim, t-lineral Survey No. 6167 k. Crown Point Lode :Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167 1. Empire Lode Mining Clai.-a, Mineral Survey No. 5800 M. Empire Lode #2 Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5800 n. Malden Lode dining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4619 o. Lost Diamond Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6023 The subdivision as described contains 106.59 acres. T.11S., R.85W Wyoming Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4190 - 10.33 acres T.12S., R.85W. Favorite Lode :Mining Claim, clineral Survey No. 7072 - 9.04 acres Offered Land Total - 137.65 acres more or less. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED NATIONAL FOREST LANDS Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado / T.10S., R.84W. Section 18: Lots 41, unpatented Mineral Survey No. 6012. T.10.S., R.8514. Section 12: Lot 20 The area described aggregates 1.44 acres more or less. :Vtil [lJ1Vt\I I 1' �-ryj,•�t,ltIIL11 yfLbi•.,/1,.: I1�(_ v J1.Ot\llUA:RINCIPALJERIllf!~�a!N , %V I *.S ty;o • _� �a 19 i a�:� zi I z] I z'/Qt y �2--�= S Mile•I __-°oQ�r I y^ x�l�� I -- CO z 1 zc z I I. li;� I I '� % 1 Kilometers 9C Lv/, ]a =� -� z• I� T:enad0 zb: I zs I �•'- i reek t �7 _ 30 rl oh . Point avIn Swd \ SUBJECT �3,;«5(32 hefdq ..3531 � PROPERTYWOODY Ia::`. I I, Inp11 -h I IJo92 j�nob 3.`'<'1•'e^ the 1 1` • 1'\ eo \ n 1 1' I ./.:._:.. �[ ;r:•}� . f . Sntiwmase /� j+� '� A '\ p S ..%%t 1 ° e' 'Thimble 9 • _ _' 1 I - — -- — - '' 16 r r Village I '� y y - - {- i/� I j Rock •, r ' / I .,+. tl (:,c ll.ti�lLr(igr.� - / jI +•". -``hF -10� _ �. SNosays j;-'Na[JC (ter _ / tt r_- x \ `` ��+ 6 ie / .l r I/ 'Ra b Tower a Wp / ,1::. f N ./' R I ',�� ,,_J��j• 1. 1, � 3_ �\ :Subject PropertyA,�:=_:/t��' L7pen ^/ la•, l� '+" IV•.�'•'••: 1 / I •.I 11c r ,41 t (I�r�tl1�:'. ;f�1/��( •1 ', iukeo`� i`�ei %.a; �� {II 'h - _..t�) � ib j \X� 0�litit11000 ,C1 ' ;r\t: :t• 1 `> t3+subject Property .0 .. BM8023 - 11 ( I� a d (fir / I /J I �� 1 I / ! Mtn t iz�' J , ' .. SPEN O e ( �IJ ';:�. t . _ (-i 1 . I O; f 11385 � - • y I o M rN 1{ra?rSti 1 i i ;": •.;.,. I a �. I v. • h. I o az 1 Lake a •G a+' s. 31 22 \ I 2a C1 I 1 I)✓. \p� I F I \\ I �J .I. 7,ii J, y I,' V J4 Q O lJ^ a ,IL1,L—?rl_' I h s { - is ]o\ I 2,, ^ , /27 I zc •ppeeAg �Q:S 'i) \W"u I z� J 28 ,} .::_;`z)• o z K/ .;Mtndyl , \ ��} 4 P t (j rWA RREN I I 3d I n/ _r,4 : '131551 JI'- _ SILVER BARC0- I I (� !p �_p I -G ''.'1 f" I F-- .!..:I195/-1----� 1--'.Loge Pk/'�� U ? �I• u °1Y�. JFFI LTCGit I 1, r ICs I� 1 •�C I `/ iSILVER LL I I Annie -Il //' d 3 I o 32 }8472 { .: '•'• ) 3G •.I/ •. �- .. ��'}_•:{: I 5 C.� ]t I �2_ CG �3 3a /35 Bd Si Jb L•/� \Il j I o / I \ \i I 35...: A. .'. 1 31 J O• � Tu arts Lake 1!.•,.,.,I� - _�� __T. _�• ---- -:� lLq �,-- '�ighfand-- — ---y —r-- 1-------.f' •\--^•- ,c:i :... •:\•. I InBInPk .I I I ::�\/ I � 1 -.JJ Fo,.. / i .DERNESS 5 5)LVER�U ct(fd , \}'• + I 3 r, �9 j IS I -/• IIh34'•i� �\ �' ! �CaL (, 1 ' 3l z T`'•.(•j WELL 1CG 1 ! /EASTI'flWROONIPG ilf — -,c `�1 yet • I ! I ' I - \\\:` I I I ! ' GULCH C 1z1 9 0 z \\ tI �1t 1 12 1 1 \ Illow 11 Yil F \ I I / S /Passl Lu�i'r I •, I _ ' _1 . �� _�,!!- - - - - "s 1 , \\' \ I 1 1 ON / ;SUBJECT PROPERTY I 1� ---4- — - — '— i — 1 t Shlme ,2 { ,� �rwn 16 Fl _ tr - t. i3� / I \ I--(----ft :12140 I -_ IS 1{ti; % 13La6r .� I— -- 1.. - .I ' I ).• 1 � 1 1 a\ t• �-�"i`�,` I�'..i19 197 Gt4zk I V� I �_ 1 l CPI 1 I Gii _ Crag"` !—� [. �I- �1^ t I-Ii4�,. ��es {1 ---�- -r II C lty •l 2° 1 1 `z1 T/ ' I zs a za Ua P re\ `� 1.3 �i": f 1 C/eeF' 1T. I I 22 a, z3 :?, , z+ 22 to I ht douo I >. `I, •, o _! \ 1 -- —`` I — —I f?>-FAaroon 1 Pyramid I 1 e jr - % 1 Sa - I /- Z .\I - \oI 6 Bt;l(s- �, :: L ,/ 1 / �7'•'�• ze' zs J! zs 11 I \ q F ! / 1 1 �., 33-4� zN p --ar- zn Br 1rf -zi ---t ayden 2k - J:.... -°.ter_-. 13551 r--(�iDeuanr SC' '.('Mtn (•i-r�/� `� r— _.t- O ...) .. Y.'•:•:}:,':. - J • - 12139 T- - - - - -- f- tt P a t 31 z;^; PunEef,33 3 r' 3S , ILak 3 \ 1 Ashcroft". I ems/ / { \� .. 3a //.. �•'. 3a I t3497 1 ,�/ IJ \•i' I j� p�---tiG' �' Gold/., 1 \ f \ ` i { Electric / 31 1l 3z 33 Hill 5 ] �`'•�I�(---I---...1 _n I:: Pass'-y—M, 2 6 3e1l-1eAshcroft At MIn 3 :•'' 1 z 6Vest MPa;isrso:p•:fno::.•:•:•::'{ .•: • •:"•:•.( ath-edra- P139_43 t ! lz +ca�pr.7Q�aatyw1Il _ 3 5\..(Pk-. e� I N .::�I� t �CalhPtlral , 1 , Luke ` RI 1 I f ell, s to :•:•/ . -y1 Malemuta �� f/. a I II g`+ Precdrious- - I _ r ' ' I . M¢rtl uma t4 ` ) I a I f 1 J Tay, or Pa s r '4P.eak•:•:•::s _ 1 .. 'X Peak'. �� I �.__ ti I 1 M; I•, �-1. /t/ - _ Cxore - 1--''BdSIn\ I ] o 7 i� 1sx 133ti10 I 13•��,'Eest` S-- - -/, 't:I --ct�` �r \ l I �._A �I .Conundrum .:•::. I b�� . \P �e - � '-::;Maroon! l 2� [ 1. L / I o I/aHntSpprs '\ Castle .d-� {:i:;:.:14265 Pk•\ . 1 a „G s : _ 1 / �Q I .- � ` 13, 1 —1-- —�-- --� J� I I ,Copper LoPPer"s� h. .. r J LpoPeri� I l X \ I J u -•�--'cam`-:n,�asp.=%- - \ `% r - `".. I M?^ex4�,,,"J SUBJECT PROPERTY —I --- G`< —I— ; I-- �ti ) r F V9 �1nbe land z3 z4_-� �. Ta for :1 3 11. T.12 11, -t I I'':1:>:.:. I Basin I I It �I 19' 1 zd ::Pky 21 /21 \��t z+ - Avery -- `.�� - --�-- --� - - - - - / - - _�a\4. - ; 13435/ I 19 I I �. ! I I I I �i 72oS1.\QTwin V, ' It I` ( White Rock �, I \QLukrs Pearl �h I Star -Se/ I I - ,-r'Y [ �/ ..White ze za \ ..Z,• 26 k PEyre., \ 1 25 Mtn ' +,,'Pearl j, 13521 \ .i j. t i/ Eyr . \ t 1 2 -- 1 7 26 l " 04.Q I + I eo I wRlre P._Pass I 29 ]+%M ^•I -a,C I O 1340 { I /T 1 705 ( \ . t.. .� ..x I Eyre ( I - / 1i 3c e 1 I, I �t T' y Y \ -- - -� -Y'--- -=t-'�`i---TI_ 32 . I 1 O S�I tjrbsl I e%.Carhonate I asin Hill � Crystal ! `\ � � � �/ \I��; t//t3,1 3,� I 3aLambertson 3e I��SYr. \- R.85W. JuJJ.1�'-`�_/uPk n7 (. R.84W.;Peak ��o�•—�, •,�` • r__ -6. -- - I .v [•..-..-4r t11�1/i.rn � '.1 � ' 1p � s:. _ J�� 'tF 1 f'� q �•2—'Xif'Y. �f1�1 `;. at �r , . :1 rENVIROKIMENTA ti"' _ V ! PROPOSED ACTION: Wol ftone Land Exchange N :; N LOCATION OFACTION: Aspen Pi tki n RANGER DISTRICT ;'. COUNTY (IES) R E S P 0 SIDLE AGENCY USDA - FOREST SERVICE "RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: R. Max Peterson Chief , Forest Service r TITL,E t' y NAME y Washinn ton Office' 1 . UNIT Dennis E. Bschor District Ranger FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: t ' - NAME.TITLE Aspen Ranger District UNiT r 806 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ADDRESS `r Y (303) 925 3445 { k .TELEPHONE - ,s. _ t r, �^'' �. Y. z r+! .art 1r;✓ . ABSTRACT • ( ONE PARAGRAPH) Jj Wolftone Corporation has submitted a Land Exchange offer to the White River,N.F The exchange involves the Forest Service receiving 137.5 acres of._private land for 1,46 acres of National Forest land. These lands are located on the Aspen Rang er'District pan Pi tki n County, Colorado. -This exchange wou.l d result i n adecrease of property line maintenance by the U.S. Government by approximately 4 miles ,There would be a decrease in property corners requiring maintenance by 55 corners ,.The U.S. Gov.ernme-0t, would acquire 3 acres of wetlands and important riparian habitat..*: -'Small isolated difficult to manage parcels near the Town of Aspen would be eliminatL. ed fromForest-.,, Service ownership. ! a7tt I, PREFACE It is a ent is not consequences of implementation An Environmental As thes environment laconsegion document. document disclosing proposed action. it o£ the proposed action and alternatives to an'd local governments to important action of federal, state, the proposed is an imp regarding use in arriving at their individual decisions action and alternatives to it. ctiities environmental consequences on lauds aidtionsvresl ultingfrome nistred The the by other federal, state, and local j proposed action have been disclosed in this EA. istared by The Forest Service decision will rporatito on and lands be documented the Forest Service and Wolftone Corporation jurisdictions to issue or in a Decision Notice. Decisions by can be made by not em issue approval related to this proposal based on the disclosure of impacts available in lconsulteddocument. the Listed in Appendix E are agencies and p preparation of this document. II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION he rpor- A land exchange proposal has been c or less of tland ooo forl�.4bacres ation to exchange 137.0re 5 acres Appendix A for a copy of. endix C for maps showing more or less of NationaLrye°offer.LanSee App' PP the 4,olftone Land F.xchano e lands and interest in lands are tional the location of the lands. Th located on the Aspen Ranger Districonsistt of tof lands ecentlyatrans- Forest. The National Forest lands ferred from the Bureau of Land M-lnagement to the Natu�nal Forest �n and around the town of Aspen. iance ith the The land offered by Wolftone Corporation a r Adju tment Plan Wand are White River National Forest approved shown for acquisition. contains no lands covered by Executive Order 11928, This proposal ement. It does contain lands covered by Executive Flood Plain Manag which order 11990, Protection of Wetlands�.1SWeisaans offered n parcel he Favorite 0 8 M.S. 7072• e proposal be Lode Mining Claim, Forest land should the excliang P P would become National consumated. rights on the offered private lands will be con - Only the surface rig ro onent had offered to donate oil, sidered in the exchange as the p to the United States of America on on gas, and all other mineral right ee APP endix D, Wolf tone Corp his offered private lands. ( letter dated November 19, 1982.) Species Act (P.L. 93-205) This proposal complies with the Endangered Sp no rare or endangered species habitat is since involved in the exchange. 1 III. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION A. Alternative A - No Action on Land Exchange Offer 1. The loss of opportunity to decrease property line requiring maintenance by the government. 2. The loss of opportunity to decrease property corners requiring maintenance by the government. private land 3. Future private land developers on the would have an adverse effectundeveloped character of the surrounding public lands. rivate land. 4. There would be no change in the county's p tax base, twenty-five percent fund payments or pay- ment in lieu of taxes. 5. There would be a loss of opportunity to consolidate National. Forest System land. B. Alternative B - Purchase the Offered Land and Not Dispose of National Forest Owned Lands This is not a viable alternative since L&14CF funds are not available. C. Alternative C - Pursue Land Exchange as Originally Advertised In The Aspen Times The proponent chose to voluntarily eliminate parcels as in - indicated in Appendix D consisting of approximately 4.77 acres. This was done due to the controversial nature ofd the It parcels and the fact that the small p' very to identify requiring intensive surveying before an exchange could be consummated. This alternative, therefore, is no longer a valid alternative requiring further analysis. D. Alternative D - Land Exchange as Proposed IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. Offered Private Lands See Appendix A for the legal land description of she offered private land tracts. See Appendix C for a map g the offered private lands. f 1. Van Horn Park Tract (includes Big Chief and Forest City • Lode Mining Claims) . This tract is located about three miles northeast of the j town of Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado. It contains 106.59 acres in patented mining claims, is within the 2 White River National Forest, and occurs at 10,000 feet in elevation. The slope is mostly 10 to 20 percent in a southwesterly direction towards the Hunter Creek drainage. The vegetation is mostly high buncligrass meadows with aspen, Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine around the edges. \ These claims are accessed by a rough four-wheel drive road, FDR 130, from Hunter Creek and Aspen. The United States of America has no formal access to that section of FDR 130 across this subdivision. This road is open to motorized traffic only during hunting season. This area is important to big game migration routes, contains some upper elevation elk calving areas, and is summer range for deer and elk. it is also important for summer hiking and winter ski touring opportunities. No wetlands or floodplains are present. No known threat- ened or endangered species are present. 2. Favorite Lode Tract The Favorite Lode Patented Mining Claim (USMS No. 7072) is located about thirteen miles south of the town of Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado. The mining claim contains 9.04 acres, is within the White River National Forest, and occurs at 11,400 feet in elevation. The slope is mostly 20 to 30 percent in a northerly direction in the- Castle Creek drainage. There is a shallow man-made lake approx- imately two acres in size in the south center ,of the claim with approximately one acre of wetland surrounding the lake. A small one room A -frame home sits -on the northern shore of the lake. The vegetation is mostly high altitude meadows with patches of aspen ptimbere timber, Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir p e and scattered Douglas fir polesize and sawsize timber. This claim is accessed by a year-round paved county road from Aspen to Ashcroft, a distance of ten miles. From Ashcroft the rough, four-wheel drive Pearl Pass Road climbs the approximately five miles to the subject claim. This road is only open during the summer months. There are no known threatened and endangered species on the subject claim. 3 B 3. Wyoming Lode Tract The Wyoming Lode Patented :fining Claim (USMS No. 4190) is located in the Castle Creek drainage about seven miles south of the town of Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado. The mining claim contains 10.33 acres, is within the Iraite River National Forest, and occurs at 11,000 feet in ele- vation. The slope is mostly 45 to 60 percent in a north- easterly direction. No wetlands or floodplains are present. The vegetation is scattered aspen and Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir sawlog size timber with scattered steep bunchgrass open- ings resulting from snow avalanches. This claim is accessed by an old jeep road up Sawyer Creek approximately one mile and then by foot the remaining one- half mile. Both the road and the trail are nearly in- distinquishable due to natural rehabilitation and lack of use. This claim now lies within the newly established boundary of the Maroon Bells-S[lUwm3SS Wilderness. There are no threatened or endangered species on the subject claim. Selected National Forest See Appendix A for the legal land description of the selected National Forest lands. See Appendix C for maps showing the selected National Forest lands. 1. Lot 20 Tract Lot 20 is located between Shadow Mountain and Aspen Ice Carden, 233 West Hyman Avenue, south and adjacent to the town of Aspen, Colorado. This lot contains 1.19 acres, is within the White River National Forest, and occurs at 7,900 feet in elevation. The parcel generally slopes to the northeast. Topography varies from relatively flat and non -timbered to steep slopes with spruce fir timber. The lot is accessed by Second Street. There is a hiking trail established by use across the northeast part of the lot. No wetlands or floodplains are present. There are no known threatened and endangered species present. 4 ( 1Ar)n FA30 I I 2. Lot 41 Tract Lot 41 is located in the southeast corner of Aspen. It lies directly beind the office of the Aspen Alps, at 700 Ute Avenue. This parcel also connects to Lyle Reeder's existing lands at 771 Ute Avenue. It contains 0.17 acres isolated from other lands within the White River National Forest. It is surrounded by private lands and no public right-of-way exists. The following encroachments exist: - Small portion of Aspen Alps parking lot. - Wooden elevated sidewalk. - Railroad tie cribbing. - Partial. landscaping by adjacent landowners. No wetlands or floodplains are present. There are no known threatened or endangered species. 3. USMS 6012 Tract This parcel is located on Summit Street, halfway between Monarch Street and Mill Street immediately south of the town of Aspen. It contains .08 acres, is within the White River National Forest, and occurs at 7,900 feet in elevation. T"he parcel slopes to the north. The following encroachments exist: - Twenty-five foot wide unpaved street. - Four foot tall railroad tie retaining wall. - Corner of the Mountain Queen tennis court. No wetlands or floodplains are present. There are no known threatened or endangered species. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. There would be a decrease in property lines requiring marking and maintenance by the government by approximately four miles. There would be a decrease in property corners requiring main- tenance by the government by 55 corners. Estimated costs to the United States would be $28,000. B. There would be a net loss of 136.19 from Pitkin County's tax base. The county will receive an additional $66.39 per vear in Lieu of Taxes funds and an additional $24.24 per year in 25 percent fund payments. 5 I C. There would be effective consolidation of National Forest System lands. Three isolated tracts of National Forest System land would be conveyed from federal ownership. D. The United States would also acquire seventeen claims in the Van born Park area that is surrounded by National Forest System land on three sides. This area is suitable for subdivision and lies about a mile from the boundary of the Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness area. Its acquisition will preclude development with the resulting detrimental effect upon the adjacent Wilder- ness. This area is also within the town of Aspen's watershed and would be managed appropriately. E. The United States of America would acquire approximately three acres of wetlands and valuable riparian wildlife habitat on the Favorite mining claim. F. The United States would not need to acquire a right-of-way through the Van Horn Park Subdivision. VI.• LIST OF PREPARERS Denis E, Bschor - District Ranger, Aspen Ranger District, White River National Forest, Aspen, Colorado, Robert E. Lawton - Forester, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. VII. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED (APPENDIX E) A. Board of County Commissioners - Pitkin County B. Bureau of Land ;Management - Robert Dinsmore C. U.S. Geological Survey - J. William Hasler D. Mineral Management Service, DFC - L.H. Godwin E. U.S. Senator - Honorable William L. Armstrong F. U.S. House of Representative - Honorable G. Hank Brown G. U.S. Senator - Honorable Gary Hart H. City of Aspen - City Council Members I. Hans R. Gramiger J. Kingsbury Pitcher K. Clair L. Sandersen L.. Ardmore Homeowner's Association M. Daryl N. Snadon I 0 • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submissions L-1/L-2 Zones NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983, at a meeting which begins at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider the applications submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan Novak for a 480 unit hotel in the vicinity of the Continental Inn, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce Lodge, and also to consider the application of Lyle D. Reeder for a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units, located at the corner of Ute and Original Streets. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (303) 925-2020, ext. 222. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on Thursday, October 13, 1983. City of Aspen Account.