Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.gm.Lodge at Aspen.17A-86
_LODGE M, ASPEN GMP AMENDMENT 2737-182-95-009 17A-86 i ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63721 -47331 - 52100 - 63722 - 47332 - 63723 - 47333 - 63724 - 47341 - 63725 - 47342 - 63726 - 47343 - 63727 - 47350 - 63728 - 47360 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 00123 -63730 -47380 00115 -63730 -47380 County 00113 -63711 - 47331 - 63712 - 47332 - 63713 - 47333 - 63714 - 47341 - 63715 - 47342 - 63716 - 47343 - 63717 - 47350 - 63718 - 47360 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 00123 -63730 -47380 00113 -63731 -09000 00113 -63732 -09000 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 - 52200 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63061 -09000 - 52200 - 63063 -09000 - 52200 - 63062 -09000 - 00000 - 63066 -09000 - 00000 - 63069 -09000 - Name: Address: Check k Additional Billing: GMP/CONCEPTUAL GMP/PRELIMINARY GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/PRELIMINARY SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL COUNTY CODE ALMANAC COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: Date: — # of Hours: I F I THE LODGE AT ASPEN 771 UTE AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO MAY 1986 CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT ASPEN. COLOR, -,DO 1 AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDED GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL FOR THE LODGE AT ASPEN Submitted by Mr. T.R. -Terry" Williams P.O. Box 4708 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-5858 I Prepared by VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants 210 South Galena Street, Suite 24 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6958 and CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. Box 3534 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-5590 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODDCT ION 1 II. PROJECT PARAMETERS AND CODE COMPLIANCE 4 A. Comparison of Basic Project Parameters 4 B. Compliance with Municipal Code 11 III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING DATA 12 A. 1982 Lodge GMP Application 13 B. Proposed 1986 Lodge GMP Amendment 20 APPENDIX Exhibit 1, Letter from Lyle D. Reeder Exhibit 2, City Council Resolution No. 2, Series of 1982 Exhibit 3, Planning Off ice Proj ect Prof ile Exhibit 4, Planning Office 1982 Scoring Recommendations Exhibit 5, 1982 P&Z Points Allocation Tally Sheet 1 II. INTRODUCT ION ' The following is an application to amend the growth manage- ment plan (GMP) approval granted to the Lodge at Aspen, a thirty- one (31) unit hotel which was to be constructed at 771 Ute Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. The application is submitted by T.K. "Terry" Williams pursuant to Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code. Mr. Williams has contracted to purchase the property and its accompanying growth management allocation from Lyle D. Reeder, the property's owner and the recipient of the original GMP approval. Inasmuch as Mr. Williams has not closed on the property, Mr. Reeder has consented to be a co -applicant in this ' request (see Appendix., Exhibit 1, Letter from Lyle Reeder) . The approved Lodge at Aspen application competed in the 1982 lodge GMP competition as did the so-called Aspen Inn Expansion, an application for ninety-six (96) lodge units submitted by Hans B. Cantrup. Both applications were scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) in October of 1981. Although the Aspen Inn application finished first in the competition, it was subsequently rejected by the Planning Office in January of 1982 for failure to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code. As a result, a development allocation of thirty-one (31) lodge units was awarded to the Lodge at Aspen in February of 1982 (see Appendix, Exhibit 2, City Council Resolution No. 2, Series of 1982) . Mr. Cantrup, however, immediately filed suit in District Court seeking to overturn or modify the results of the 1982 GMP competition. ' In March of 1983, Mr. Cantrup filed for bankruptcy and all proceedings in the District Court were stayed indefinitely. The Cantrup bankruptcy was eventually settled in April of 1985 and his 1982 lawsuit dismissed. In connection with the dismissal, the City Council confirmed Mr. Reeder' s GMP allocation and acknowledged that the thirty-three (33) month expiration period provided for in Section 24-11.7 (a) of the Code would be appli- cable to his project. In view of Mr. Cantrup's lawsuit and subsequent bankruptcy, the Council further acknowledged that the commencement date for the expiration period would be April 1, 1985. The effect of the lawsuit and bankruptcy has been to essentially prevent Mr. Reeder from proceeding with the develop- ment of the project. As a result of these delays, and his inability to obtain satisfactory project financing, Mr. Reeder agreed to sell the property and its development approval to Mr. ' Williams in March of this year. In addition to the 771 Ute Avenue property, Mr. Reeder has also agreed to convey a contigu- ous parcel of land referred to as Lot 41 for which a land patent will be issued pursuant to a land exchange agreement between Mr. Reeder and the United States government. It is the Applicant's acquisition of this additional parcel of land which has primarily prompted the submission of this application to amend the pro- ject's prior growth management approval. More specifically, the Applicant wishes to take advantage of the enlarged site's greater allowable floor area to increase the size of the project's individual lodge units and to improve, both aesthetically and functionally, the project's architectural design. It is the Applicant's belief that these revisions are essential if the project is to be successfully marketed as a luxury, condominium hotel. IAs indicated above, the scope of this amendment request is limited primarily to revisions to the project's architectural design and the resulting changes in the building's external and internal floor areas. The full extent of the Applicant's proposed amendment, however, is described in detail in Section II of this application. In order to simplify the review of the Applicant's request, Section III examines how the amended project would score with respect to the relevant provisions of both the 1982 and 1986 lodge GMP regulations. For the reviewer's further convenience, all pertinent documents associated with the project (e.g. original Planning Office scoring recommendations, actual P&Z scores, etc.) are provided in the Appendix to this applica- tion. In addition to amended growth management approval, the redesigned Lodge at Aspen will require special review approval 1 for its employee parking, an exemption from growth management for the project' s on -site employee housing units, and, possibly, a variance from the Board of Adjustment for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the hotel's tourist units. The amended project's compliance with the parking requirements of the Municipal Code is discussed in detail in Section II of this application. II. PROJECT PARAMETERS AND CODE COMPLIANCE Following is a comparison of the basic parameters of the approved project to those of the Applicant's proposed amended growth management application and a discussion of the amended project ' s compliance with the applicable zoning regulations of the Municipal Code. A. Comparison of Basic Project Parameters The existing Lodge at Aspen growth management approval can be characterized in terms of a variety of project parameters, including, for example, unit count, FAR, parking and employee housing. These and other basic parameters of the approved ' project are compared to those of the proposed amendment in Table 1 below. It should be noted, however, that the original applica- 1 4 tion contained no breakdown of the building's square footage, and that the areas provided in items 6, 7 and 9 were developed by the Applicant for comparative purposes only. TABLE 1 BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS The Lodge at Aspen Approved Amended Parameter Project Project 1. Total Site Area (square feet) 15,386 22,666 Lots 15B, 16 and 17 15,386 15,386 Lot 41 -- 7,280 2. Total Unit Count 35 28 Tourist Units 31 26 Employee Units 4 2 3. Maximum Allowable External Floor Area 15,386 22,666 @ 1:1 (square feet) 4. Maximum Allowable Rental 11,540 16,999 Area (square feet) Tourist Area @ 0.67:1 10,309 15,186 Employee Area @ 0.08:1 1,231 1,813 5. Minimum Required Non -Unit 3,846 5,667 Area @ 0.25:1 (square feet) 5 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 1 Continued BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS The Lodge at Aspen Parameter 6. Total Building Area (square feet) Area Assignable to FAR Area Exempt from FAR 7. Building Program Areas (square feet)i Tourist Units Employee Units Lobby Food/Beverage Lounge Administration/Office Support Facilities Mechanical Parking Circulation/Covered Decks and Courts 8. Minimum Required Open Space @ 25 percent (square feet) 9. Total Site Coverage (square f eet/percent ) Building Footprint 0 Approved Amended Project Project 23,068 32,783 14,758 22,666 8,310 10,117 9,356 14,776 1,140 1,817 270 244 617 806 550 621 324 147 886 786 428 1,331 6,056 8,226 3,441 4,029 3,846 5,667 6,402/0.42 8,486/0.37 TABLE 1 Continued BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS The Lodge at Aspen Parameter Circulation Open Space 10. Minimum Required Parking Spaces Tourist Units @ 1.0 Space/Unit Employee Units2 11. Total Parking Spaces Provided Tourist Spaces Employee Spaces 12. Employee Housing Total Employees Generated Total Employees Housed Notes: Approved Amended Project Project 3,390/0.22 1, 992/0 .09 5, 594/ 0.36 12,188/ 0 .5 4 31 26 4 -- 15 23 15 18 -- 5 8 8 8 9.75 1 Square footages include both assignable and exempt areas. 2 1982 Parking requirement for employee units assumed to be one (1) space per bedroom. 1986 employee parking requirement established by special review. 7 I 1 L f] fl I As Table 1 indicates, the amended project Is basic parameters deviate to varying degrees from those of the existing approval. The most significant deviations from the approved growth management application occur with respect to the project's unit count, floor area, parking and employee housing. These parameters and all other deviations from the existing approval are discussed below. 1. Total Site Area. As discussed in the introduction to this application, Mr. Reeder has entered into a land exchange agreement with the Forest Service which contractually obligates the United States government to provide him with a patent to Lot 41. He, in turn, has agreed to convey the parcel to Terry Williams. As a result, the project's total site area will increase from 15,386 square feet to 22,666 square feet, an increase of 7,280 square feet or approximately 47 percent. 2. Total Unit Count. In order to provide a more desireable tourist unit and to comply with the City's current employee housing guidelines, the approved project's total unit count has been reduced from thirty-five (35) units to twenty- eight (28) units. As Table 1 indicates, the amended project will contain twenty-six (26) tourist units and two (2) employee units. 3. Allowable Floor Area. As a result of the addition of Lot 41, the project's allowable floor area has increased. E' 1 More specifically, the amended project's maximum allowable external floor area has increased from 15,386 square feet to ' 22,666 square feet. With respect to allowable internal floor area, the maximum allowable rental area has increased from 11,540 square feet to 16,999 square feet, of which 15,186 square feet ' may be used for lodge units if 1,813 square feet is devoted to on -site employee housing. The minimum non -unit area (i.e., common area) required to achieve the maximum allowable rental area has increased from 3,846 square feet to 5,667 square feet. 5. Building Program Areas. The Applicant's desire to build a small but functional luxury, condominium hotel has dictated various revisions to the approved project's building program. As Table 1 indicates, the majority of the increased building area has been allocated to the individual tourist units. 1 Whereas the average unit size of the approved project is approxi- mately 300 square feet, the amended project's average unit size is 568 square feet, an increase of approximately 90 percent. Similar increases have also occurred in the amended project's ' employee units, food/beverage and lounge areas, and parking ' garage, all of which are designed to improve the quality and functionality of the hotel. 6. Total Site Coverage. Asa result of the project's ' program and architectural refinement, the total area of the site covered by the revised building and circulation elements has increased by 4,076 square feet, or 64 percent. Similarly, the project's open space has increased by 6,594 square feet, or ' approximately 118 percent. Site coverage for the amended project is as follows: building footprint, 37 percent; circulation, 9 percent; and open space, 54 percent. 17 7. Parking. The minimum parking requirement for the ' approved project's tourist units was, and continues to be, one (1) space per unit, or thirty-one (31) parking spaces. Assuming that the minimum requirement for employee parking at the time of Ithe original approval was one (1) space per bedroom, four (4) employees parking spaces were also required. However, pursuant to the GMP regulations in effect in 1982, the approved project received points for providing only eighteen (18) tourist spaces (fifteen (15) subgrade and three (3) short-term in entry drive) , or thirteen (13) spaces less than the minimum required, and for providing no on -site employee parking. As Table 1 indicates, the amended project proposes to provide eighteen (18) subgrade tourist spaces and five (5) on -site employee spaces. A more detailed discussion of the amended project's compliance with the current parking requirements of the Municipal Code is provide in subsection II.B. of this application. i 8. Employee Housing. Eight (8) employees, which Mr. ' Reeder assumed to be one hundred (100) percent of the total employees generated by the Lodge at Aspen, were to be housed by 10 1 I 1 the approved project. These employees were to be housed on -site in four (4) , one -bedroom units averaging approximately 285 square feet in size. Based on the Housing Authority's current guide- lines, the amended project is projected to generate between 5.2 and 10.4 employees (i.e., 0.2 to 0.4 employees per room) . As Table 1 indicates, the amended project will house 9.75 employees on - site. Eight (8) employees will be housed in a single, approximately 1,200 square foot dormitory unit and an approxi- mately 600 square foot, one -bedroom manager's unit will provide additional housing for 1.75 employees. Housing 9.75 employees equates to an employee generation factor of 0.38 employees per room, well within the Authority's guidelines and more than adequate for a hotel facility of this scale. B. Compliance with Municipal Code The Applicant believes that the amended project complies with all applicable requirements of the City's zoning regulations, with the possible exception of tourist parking. As discussed under subsection II.A.7. above, the minimum parking requirement for lodge uses in the L-1 zone district is one (1) space per bedroom, or twenty-six (26) spaces for the amended ' project. This requirement notwithstanding, it has been generally accepted that a more appropriate standard for lodge uses is 0.7 spaces per bedroom. No provision, however, exists for reducing the number of required spaces as the Code's PUD regulations are 11 I not applicable to this project. I ' As Table 1 indicates, the amended project proposes to provide eighteen (18) tourist spaces consistent with the more ' appropriate 0.7 spaces per room standard. In the absence of a ' specific regulatory provision, two procedural approaches would appear to be available to resolve the issue of required tourist parking. The City can simply relieve the Applicant of having to strictly comply with the minimum requirement in view of the extensive revisions which have occurred with respect to the lodge GRIP regulations and the extenuating circumstances surrounding the Cantrup lawsuit and bankruptcy, or the Applicant can request a variance from the Board of Adjustment based on the hardship arising from the above events. Regardless of the approach ' employed, the parking to be provided by the amended project is clearly superior to that proposed in the original GMP applica- tion. Whereas the approved project provided a total of fifteen (15) spaces for thirty-five (35) units, the amended project will provide twenty-three (23) spaces for a total of twenty-eight (28) units. III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING DATA This section of the application summarizes the approved proj ect' s 1982 GMP scores and examines how the amended project ewould score with respect to the relevant provisions of both the 12 1 original 1982 and current 1986 GMP regulations. It should be noted, however, that the lodge GMP scoring criteria have been extensively revised since the approved project was scored and, as a result, some of the 1982 scoring criteria (e.g., availability of social facilities and services) are no longer relevant. ' Similarly, the points allocation and threshold requirements have been revised and a "multiplier" system introduced. A. 1982 Lodge GMP Application ' The 1982 Lodge GMP scoring categories, the approved project's original representations and commitments, the Planning ' Office's recommended points allocation, and the P&Z's actual scores are summarized in Table 2 below. As the Table indicates, the Planning Office's recommended score for the project was 47 points, substantially above the minimum threshold of 35 points required to be eligible for a GMP allotment. The P&Z essentially concurred with the Planning Office's recommendations and awarded the project 49.2 points. Although Mr. Reeder appealed his scoring, the appeal was subsequently rendered moot by the rejection of Mr. Cantrup' s lodge GMP application. ' 13 1 TABLE 2 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATION The Lodge at Aspen Staff P&Z Category Score Score I. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 12 12.7 1. Water (maximum 3 points) 3 -- a. Agreed to share cost of six (6) inch water main loop and one fire hydrant. 2. Sewer (maximum 3 points) 2 -- a. No system improvements required or proposed. 3. Storm Drainage (maximum 3 points) 3 a. Roof and surface runoff to be collected and retained on -site via drywells. b. Aspen Mountain Road runoff to be collected via ex- tension of Original Street storm sewer. 4. Fire Protection (maximum 3 points) 3 -- a. Existing hydrant located approximately 160 feet east of site on Ute Avenue. b. One new hydrant to be installed. 14 TABLE 2 Continued 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATION The Lodge at Aspen Staff P&Z Category Score Score 5. Roads (maximum 3 points) a. No improvements proposed. II. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1. Public Transportation (maximum 6 points) a. Site is located approximately 400 feet from Little Nell lift. b. Site is within convenient walking distance of Durant Avenue bus route. 2. Police Protection (maximum 2 points) a. Site is located within standard police depart- ment service area. 3. Proximity to Commercial Support Facilities (maximum 2 points) a. Site is conveniently located with respect to the down- town commercial core. 15 1 E 5 K 2 6 TABLE 2 Continued 1982 LODGE GNP APPLICATION The Lodge at Aspen Staff P&Z Category Score Score III. QUALITY OF DESIGN 10 11.4 1. Architectural Design (maximum 3 -- 3 points) a. Building scale is consistent with adjacent Aspen Alps and Ajax Apartments. b. Building mass is low along Ute Avenue frontage increas- ing in bulk to rear of site. 2. Site Design (maximum 3 points) 1 -- a. Approximately 5,600 square feet, or 36 percent, of site is open space. b. No landscaping plan provided. C. Undergrounding of utilities not addressed. 3. Energy (maximum 3 points) 3 - - a. Insulation exceeds minimum requirement. b. Active solar utilized in domestic hot water system. C. Woodburning devices limited to single, energy efficient fireplace in lounge. 4. Amenities (maximum 3 points) 1 -- 16 TABLE 2 Continued 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATION The Lodge at Aspen Staff P&Z Category Score Score a. No trails or bicycle paths provided on -site. b. Usable public open space not addressed. 5. Visual Impact (maximum 3 points) 2 -- a. No viewplane limitations imposed. b. Building massing enhances public views of surrounding area. IV. SERVICES FOR GUESTS 5 5.3 1. Meeting Areas (maximum 1 point) 1 -- a. Approximately 820 square feet provided in lobby/lounge area. 2. Dining Facilities (maximum 1 point) 1 -- a. Limited food service provided in lounge and on terrace for guests only. 3. Recreation Facilities (maximum 1 -- 1 point) a. Whirlpool and sauna to be provided. 17 TABLE 2 Continued 1982 LODGE GRP APPLICATION The Lodge at Aspen Staff P&Z Category Score Score 4. Conference Facilities (maximum 0 -- 1 point) a. None provided. 5. Proximity to Ski Trails (maximum 1 -- 1 point) a. Site is located approximately 400 feet from Little Nell lift. 6. Overall Tourist Appeal (maximum 1 -- 1 point) a. Prime location with convenient access to skiing, commercial areas and public transporta- tion. b. Luxury accommodations. C. Limited on -site dining and recreation facilities provided. V. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY 11 10.4 GOALS 1. Reduction of Tourist Rental Space 2 -- (minimum 3 points) a. Tourist rental space is ap- proximately fourteen (14) percent below maximum allow- able floor area. 2. Employee Housing (maximum 6 points) 6 -- 18 TABLE 2 Continued 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATION The Lodge at Aspen Staff P&Z Category Score Score a. Four (4) on -site, one -bedroom units with two (2) employees per unit. b. Assumed that units would house 100 percent of employees generated. 3. Auto Disincentives (maximum 3 3 - - points) a. Two limousines were pro- vided. b. Reduction in tourist park- ing below minimum require- ment . C. No on -site employee parking provided. V I . BONUS POINTS 0 0.4 VII. TOTAL POINTS 1. Points in Categories I through V 47 48.8 (minimum 35 points) 2. Bonus Points 0 0.4 3. Total Points 47 49.2 19 B. Proposed 1986 Lodge GMP Amendment The amended project's revised commitments and antici- pated scores with respect to both the original 1982 and current 1986 GMP evaluation criteria are depicted in Tables 3 and 4, respectively . It should be noted that the anticipated scores depicted in the two Tables represent the Applicant's opinions with respect to the appropriate number of points to be awarded and are, therefore, subject to debate. The anticipated scores, however, are consistent where appropriate with the points awarded to the approved project and/or the logic behind the original allocation. TABLE 3 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1982 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Category I. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1. water (maximum 3 points) a. Agree to pay for and install eight (8) inch line extending from south end of Spring Street east to Ute Avenue. b. Agree to pay for and install one fire hydrant. 20 Anticipated Score 14 9 TABLE 3 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1982 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated Category Score 2. Sewer (maximum 3 points) 2 a. No system improvements required or proposed. ' 3. Storm Drainage (maximum 3 points) 3 a. Roof and surf ace runoff to be collected and retained on -site via drywells. b. Agree to resurface and provide curb and gutter to thatortion J ` of Aspen Mountain Road ich abuts the site. C. Storm sewer in Aspen Mountain Road no longer required in view of Aspen Skiing Company improvements. 4. Fire Protection (maximum 3 points) 3 a. Existing hydrant located approximately 160 feet east of site on Ute Avenue. b. One new hydrant to be installed. C. Installation of new water main will ' improve service in immediate site area. ' 5. Roads (maximum 3 points) 3 a. Existing six (6) foot easement from the ' centerline of the Aspen Mountain Road (i.e., the project's eastern property line) to be increased to ten (10) feet. ' 21 II TABLE 3 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1982 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated Category Score b. Agree to resurface and provide curb and gutter to that portion of Aspen Mountain Road which abuts the site. II. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES 9 1. Public Transportation (maximum 6 points) 5 a. Site is located approximately 400 feet from Little Nell lift. b. Site is within convenient walking dis- tance of Durant Avenue bus route. S2. Police Protection (maximum 2 points) 2 a. Site is located within standard police department service area. 3. Proximity to Commercial Support Facilities 2 (maximum 2 points) a. Site is conveniently located with respect to the downtown commercial core. ' III. QUALITY OF DESIGN 11 1 1. Architectural Design (maximum 3 points) 2 a. While the building's mass is greater, its scale is consistent with adjacent ' Aspen Alps and Ajax Apartments. I22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 3 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1982 SCDRING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Category Anticipated Score b. Revised building complies with height, FAR and open space requirements of L-1 zone district. 2. Site Design (maximum 3 points) 3 a. Open space exceeds minimum requirement. b. Extensive landscaping of site and Ute Avenue right-of-way. C. All utilities to be underground. d. On -site vehicular circulation reduced to a minimum. 3. Energy (maximum 3 points) 2 a. Insulation exceeds minimum requirement. b. Woodburning devices limited to single, energy efficient fireplace in lounge. 4. Amenities (maximum 3 points) 2 a. Landscaped courtyard available to public. b. Sidewalks will be provided. 5. Visual Impact (maximum 3 points) 2 a. No viewplane limitations imposed. 23 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 3 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1982 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated Category Score b. Building massing enhances public views of surrounding area. IV. SERVICES FOR GUESTS 5 1. Meeting Areas (maximum 1 point) a. Approximately 865 square feet provide in lobby/lounge area. 2. Dining Facilities (maximum 1 point) 1 a. Full food/bar service provided for hotel guests in separate dining area totalling approximately 533 square feet. 3. Recreation Facilities (maximum 1 point) 1 a. Two (2) jacuzzis and rooftop sundeck are to be provided. 4. Conference Facilities (maximum 1 point) 0 a. None provided. 5. Proximity to Ski Trails (maximum 1 point) 1 a. Site is located approximately 400 feet from Little Nell lift. 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 3 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1982 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated Category Score 6. Overall Tourist Appeal (maximum 1 point) 1 a. Prime location with convenient access to skiing, commercial areas and public transportation. b. Luxury accommodations. C. On -site dining and recreation facilities provided. V. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS 8 1. Reduction of Tourist Rental Space 0 (maximum 3 points) a. Allowable tourist rental space will be maximized. 2. Employee Housing (maximum 6 points) 6 a. One dormitory unit housing eight (8) employees and one (1) one - bedroom unit will be provided on -site. b. One hundred percent of the lodge's employees will be housed or. -site. 3. Auto Disincentives (maximum 3 points) 2 a. Two limousines will be provided. b. Reduction in tourist parking below minimum requirement. C. Five (5) employee parking spaces will be provided on -site. 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 3 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1982 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated Category Score VI. BONUS POINTS 0 VII. TOTAL POINTS 1. Points in Categories I through V 47 (minimum 35 points) 2. Bonus Points 0 C. Total Points 47 As indicated in Table 3, the Applicant believes that the amended project's overall score under the 1982 scoring criteria would equal that of the Planning Office' s original recommendation to the P&Z. As a result of the amendment, additional points are expected to be awarded in Category I, Public Facilities and Services, and in Category III, Quality of Design. Category II, Availability of Social Facilities and Services, and Category IV, Services for Guests, are anticipated to remain unchanged while Category V, Conformance to Local Policy Goals and Objectives, is anticipated to decrease. It should be pointed out, however, that several of the criteria in Category V are no longer considered to be community goals and have, there- fore, been deleted from the current lodge GMP regulations. 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1986 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated With Category Score Multiplier I. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 9 9 1. Water (maximum 3 points) 2 2 a. Agree to pay for and in- stall eight (8) inch line extending from south end of Spring Street east to Ute Avenue. b. Agree to pay for and in- stall one fire hydrant. 2. Sewer (maximum 3 points) 1 1 a. No system improvement re- quired or proposed. 3. Storm Drainage (maximum 3 2 2 points) a. Roof and surface runoff to be collected and retained on -site via drywells. b. Agree to resurface and pro- vide curb and gutter to that portion of Aspen Mountain Road which abuts the site. C. Storm sewer in Aspen Mountain Road no longer required in view of the Ski Company improvements. 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1986 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated With Category Score Multiplier 4. Fire Protection (maximum 3 2 2 points) a. Existing hydrant located approximately 160 feet east of site on Ute Avenue. b. One new hydrant to be installed. C. Installation of new water main will improve service in immediate site area. 5. Roads (maximum 2 points) 2 2 a. Existing six (6) foot easement from the center- line of the Aspen Mountain Road (i.e., the project's eastern property line) to be increased to ten (10) feet. b. Agree to resurface and pro- vide curb and gutter to that portion of Aspen Mountain Road which abuts the site. II . QUALITY OF DESIGN 12 32 1. Architectural Design (maximum 2 6 points) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1986 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Category 0 3. Anticipated Score a. While the building's mass is greater, it's scale is consistent with adjacent Aspen Alps and Ajax Apartments. b. Revised building complies with height, FAR and open space requirements of L-1 zone district. Site Design (maximum 3 points) a. Open space exceeds minimum requirement. b. Extensive landscaping of site and Ute Avenue right - of -way. C. All utilities to be underground. d. On -site vehiclar circula- tion reduced to a minimum. Energy (maximum 3 points) a. Insulation exceeds minimum requirement. b. Woodburing devices limited to single, energy efficient fireplace in lounge. 29 3 2 With Multiplier 9 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1986 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Category Anticipated Score 4. Parking and Circulation (maximum 3 3 points) a. Eighteen (18) tourist spaces provided subgrade. b. Five (5) employee spaces pro- vided on -site. C. Trash and service vehicle access screened from public view. 5. Visual Impact (maximum 3 2 points) a. No viewplane limitations imposed. b. Building massing enhances public views of surrounding area . III. GUEST AMENITIES 0 1 . Meeting Areas (maximum 3 points) 2 a. Approximately 865 square feet provided in lobby/ lounge area. 2. Dining Facilities (maximum 3 2 points) 30 With Multiplier Q7 14 R 4 TABLE 4 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1986 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Category a. Full food/bar service provided for hotel guests in separate dining area totalling approximately 533square feet. Anticipated With Score Multipl ier 3. Recreation Facilities (maximum 2 4 3 points) a. Two (2) jacuzzis and rooftop sundeck area to be provided. IV. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY 15 15 GOALS 1. Employee Housing (maximum 15 15 15 points) a. One dormitory unit housing eight (8) employees and one (1) one -bedroom unit will be provided on -site. b. One hundred percent of the lodge's employees will be housed on -site. V. BONUS POINTS 0 0 31 TABLE 4 Continued 1986 GMP AMENDMENT/1986 SCORING CRITERIA The Lodge at Aspen Anticipated with Category Score Multiplier VI. TOTAL POINTS 1. Points in Categories I through 42 70 IV (minimum 55 points) 2. Bonus Points 0 0 3. Total points 42 70 As indicated in Table 4, the Applicant believes that the amended project clearly meets the minimum points thresholds provided for under the current 1986 lodge GMP regulations. Similarly, as noted previously, the amended project also clearly exceeds the minimum points thresholds when scored under the original 1982 scoring criteria. Furthermore, a comparison of Table 2 to Tables 3 and 4 indicates that virtually all original representations and commitments continue to be matched or otherwise exceeded by the amended project. As a result, the Applicant respectfully suggests that the criteria for approval of a GMP amendment provided for in Section 24-11 .7 (b) of the Municipal Code are met by the revised project and that, there- fore, this application for amended growth management approval should be approved as submitted. 32 EXHIBITS 1 iJ I I 1 I� Exhibit 1 [I "ay 5, 1986 P'r. Man Richman Planning, and Development Di rector 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Lodge at Aspen GI-P Amendment Dear Fr. Richman: As you may be aware, Mir. T.K. "Terry" Williams has contracted to purchase my property located at 771 Ute Avenue and its accor:panying lodge growth management allocation.. Inasmuch as Terry has not closed on the property, I have consented to be a co -applicant in his request to amend the Growth management plan approval Granted to my project, The Lodge at Aspen, in February i98?. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance,. please do not hesitate to call.. Very truly yours, Lyle D. Reeder cc: Terry Hilliams Sunnv Vann 1 Exhibit 2 v ' CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION - 1982 LODGE G.M.P. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RESOLUTiOII iJO: (Series of 1982 3-- WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.6(a) of the i•tunicipal Code, ' September 1st of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for lodge development allocations in the City of Aspen, and 1 WHEREAS, in response to this provision, two applications for lodge projects were submitted to the Planning Office for evaluation involving a ' total of 127. lodge units and 4 employee units, the latter of which are exempt from the available quota, and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on October 6, 1981 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, to evaluate and score r ' these lodge applications in conformance with the criteria established in Section 24-11.6(b) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and FIIIEREAS, the Planning Commission did rank and score the two projects submitted in the following order: Pro•ect Units Requested Score 1. Aspen Inn 96 lodge rooms 51.8 points ' 2. The Lodge at Aspen 31 lodge rooms and 49.2 points 4 employee units and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did forward their ranking and scoring of the lodge applications to City Council and reconnend. that the City Council award development allotments to both projects since, pursuant to ' Section 24-11.6(c) of the Cod::", only 35 points are needed to be eligible for a Growth Management lodge allutment, and ' WHEREAS, subsequent to the -scoring of. the applications by the Planning Connnission, both applicants did file with the Planning Office / ' appeals of the points awarded to their respective projects, and WHEREAS, on Nobembcr 19, 19111, the City Council did hold a special meeting to con Jilor- the issues of tho <rvailidilc quota for long(' allocations in 1982, thr rrlrpe.,1% by the applicant, of the scoring of the lodge 1 T 6 �E-P 9- �3"- I �::';.'r' , • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 L.C.1ves competition by the Planning Commission and the award of quota to the success ful applicants, and WHEREAS, City Council did determine at its November 19 meeting that a total of 78 units is available for allocation in 1982, based on previously I i awarded allocations which have expired and based on previously unallocated lodge units, and ' WHEREAS, City Council did table from the November 19 meeting to its regular meeting on November 23 the issues of the appeals of the scoring and ithe award of quota for the 1982 lodge competition, and did then table these issues from the November 23 meeting to a• date uncertain, and ' WHEREAS, according to Section 24-11.6(e) of the Code, the City 1 Council shall allocate the lodge development allotments among the eligible ' applicants in the order of. priority established by their rank prior to December 1st of each year, and WHEREAS, both applicants did indicate to the Planning Office that they did agree to allow the December 1st deadline to pass without the ' award of quota, pending the resolution of certain issues which had arisen regarding the 1978 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP development as they relate to tFc ' 1982 competition, and WHEREAS, on December 28, 1981, at a regular meeting, City Council did consider the amendments to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP application and did not approve the deviations which have occurred from the original applica- tion, and WHEREAS, as the Aspen Inn is a phased application, a fundamental com- ponent of the 1982 Aspen Inn application is the 1978 application, which is the basic building block upon which all subsequent requests must be evaluated, and ' WHEREAS, as a result of the substantial deviations now existent from the 1978 application and their currently unappruved status, the Planning Office did determine that the 1982 A%pet, Inn application fail; to comply with the requil•L1.Irtits of Ch.ip1(.- • 24, Zoning, of the Municipal Cu'1(:, and 1 �C� 9 6E3 ED E2 0 )W? a 9 F3 E-:-' P ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1 W1IEREAS,'as required by Section 24-11.3(c)(3), the Planning Office roust reject any application which fails to comply with the requirements of ' Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land use or building regulation of the City of Aspen, and ' WHEREAS, in a letter from the Planning Director to the representative of the Aspen Inn application dated January 20, 1982, the Planning Office did reject the 1982 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP application, and January 25, 1982, City Council did WHEREAS, on at a regular meeting, concur with the determination by the Planning Director that the 1982 Aspen 1 Inn lodge GMP application should be rejected and did therefore unanimously 1 direct the Planning Office to prepar6 a resolution awarding a development ' allocation of 31 lodge units to The Lodge at Aspen, and authorizing the applicant to proceed further with additional approvals required from the City prior to obtaining a building permit, and ' WHEREAS, the applicant for The Lodge at.Aspen has agreed to withdraw his appeal at such time as he should be awarded an allocation while the appeal by the Aspen Inn has become moot since it has been found to be an ineligible application. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 1. A lodge development allotment of 31 units is hereby awarded to ' The Lodge at Aspen. 2. The Lodge at Aspen is hereby authorized to proceed further with ' additional approvals needed from the City before a building permit is secured. Mayor to a Y[HQ 6000Q �-�? -EAgFD�2P RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City ppv� of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the _ a day of 1982. ) / Kathryn x City Cleri Exhibit 3 PROJECT PROFILE .1982 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: Lyle Reeder 2. Project Name: The Lodge at Aspen 3. Location: 771 Ute Avenue (corner of Ute Avenue Original Street and Aspen Mountain Road) 4. Parcel Size: 15.386 square feet 5. Current Zoning: L-1 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 15,386 square feet (F A R of l:l may be achieved with 0.67:1 tourist rental space; 0.08:1 employee housing; and 0.25:1 ronunit space) 7. Existing Structures: A one story, three bedroom house is located on the site, presently occupied by the applicant 8. Development Program: The applicant proposes to build 31 lodge units and 4 employee units. This new lodge will also include a lounge and.an exterior court. 9. Additional Review Requirements:. Full subdivision; exception of employee units from GMP; special review to reduce on -site parking requirement. Property is not affected by view plane limitations or other special review procedures. 10. Miscellaneous: This application, if successful, would result in the construction of the first entirely new lodge in Aspen since prior to the implementation of the G1,1P. F Exhibit 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOW EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS ' PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen DATE: October 1981 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services t1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies ' Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 3 Comment: Water Department hag requested that the applicant share t in the cost of a new 6" water main loop and fire hydrant to improve service to the entire neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to do - so. b. SEWER - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 2 Comment: Aspen Metro Sanitation District can serve this development with a standard service level and is not requesting any system improvements from the applicant. e. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. ' Rating 3 Comment: The applicant proposes to extend the storm sewer main located at Ute Avenue and Original Streets. Main will be extended up Aspen Mountain Road to catch its runoff. Applicant should also provide curb and gutter improvements on all streets affected by the storm sewer extension. d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Rating 3 Comment: The applicant notes that there is one fire hydrant in the vicinity of the project and has proposed to add a second fire rant to improve the level of service to the entire area. The proposed improvement to the water service in the area will also add o the quality or fire protection. e. ROADS - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating 1 Comment: Engineering Department states that the applicant should be required to participate in street improvements proposed by I Little Annie Corporation and also improve the right-of-way on Aspen Mountain Road, which has not been promised in the su mission. 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 0 - Project requires the provision of new.ser vices at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points): Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop, Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Rating 5 Comment: Lodge is located within 400-500 feet of Little Nell lift, The lodge is certainly within reasonable walking distance of Durant Avenue bus route and directly abuts proposed Little Annie transit route. 2 b. POLICE PROTECTION - (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response. standards without the necessity of additional ' facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating 2 Comment: Project is within the standard service area of the ' Aspen Police Department. ' c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating 2 Comment: Project is proximate to the downtown commercial core, providing the full range of tourist commercial services. 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design flaw. 1 - Indicates a major design 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design ' 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility ' - of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 3 ' Comment: The scale of the proposed lodge is similar to the Aspen Alps and adjacent apartment condominiums. The design concept breaks up the bulk of the building with a gradual modular elevation ' b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) ' and increased safety and privacy. Rating 1 Comment: Property survey states that 6940 square feet (45% of ' site) will be open space but no specific proposal for landscaping is included in application. 1 - 3 e. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating__ Comment: The applicant proposes insulation in excess of code standards, solar collectors on the roof and a single efficient fireplace in the lounge. d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable ' public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. . Ratings_ Count; The applicant has not addressed the usable open space on site but notes that Glory Hole Park is directly across the street while the Ute-Benedict bike path is 260 feet east of the lodge site. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location e. of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. i Rating 2 Comment: The transitional height between the front and rear of the building enhances public views while the glassed -in lounge provides maximum scenic quality for guests. Project does not fall within any view plane limitation. 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Coaunissicn's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: ' - a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 ' Comment: The applicant proposes a lounge/lobby area of approximately 825 square feet. b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum l.point). Rating 1 Comment: The applicant proposes an in-house restaurant for lodg ' guests only, serving food in the lounge and on the terrace.. c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating l Comment: The applicant proposes a whirlpool and sauna, L d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating 0 Comment: While the applicant proposes that the lounge area may be used for conferences, this small area is viewed as too limited for any reasonable conference use. ' e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 ' { Comment: The lodge site is within easy walking distance of the Little Nell lift and ski -in access is possible off the Aspen Mountain Road. The proposed Little Annie terminal is also within walking distance. f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 ' Comment: The applicant proposes luxury rooms a unique lounge setting and a location proximate to the ski area and to the downtown commercial services. 5. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: f15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point I Rating 2 Comment: Applicant proposes to reduce the tourist rental space by 1,422 square feet out of a maximum F.A.R. of 0.667:1 (10,257 square feet) for a total reduction of 13,9% below maximum tourist F.A.R. 5 IM I 1 a b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50: or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating 6 Comment: The applicant proposes to provide four units on site, with a two person occupancy per room. The eight employees housed represent 100" of the employees of the lodge, with some laundry and maintenance services provided commercially. c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives. to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point l 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 3 Comment: The applicant proposes to operate 2 limousines,to provide 18 parking spaces (15 below ground,.3 above ground, short term) and to prohibit on -site employee parking. 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points 0 Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 47 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points 0 Total Points 47 Name of P & Z Member: Planning Office 2 0 m W N • Oto A � O O, 0 o c a ro n a -4 a -4 S O a VI A (D 7 N (f c n v m V N O N v 0 0 s + a t 7 a 7 �r rs n V O (A 7 co L'I O -S C X ' < O 3 n cm) o �o n � r l0 N N C.n O N N 01 lD N N V1 l0 N N (11 i 1p N N V1 lO N N Vl QD N N A 0 n � � • v o� o C D N m C1 o a •z o 0 m w o n m m m V WIn� O V1 N � 0 1 mfD N (D + < < fD r- 3 C1 7 -• er C7 O n to m to io i n 7 a ca. n N � �p v t � . < 7 n N• A IN iw Iw Iw Iw v "f A Q� O 00 p W N J O) V1 A W N N fJl A W N .O C. N O O �p 'IJ C N m n r 7 c q m 7 .% o v+ t' A o 3 < < �• p m 7 �n �- n Z �• < O —1 0 O N C 3 O O < m J O 7 N -' (•1 7 M fD 0 w fD ID (f A tY K O ct C O O r. b J •v tD tD )n -.. b �• ow b O7 O C7 N �.. O m fb'' O t3 -% N N :T ;a .N* 0 �, r r 7 2 mr+) G 3 (D 7 O b 7 O = •V f1 m O C 7 fr O N T -n ---' b C' 0 �. J m O_co 3 CD < m t� m M N n�l 1b' v) v) LM N d N D D LA C) C N (D fD co C to 7 3 2 --� -1 C e-r O• c J to N m m w co O O O 7 C) O D A a c D D r m m r o r r r < {/) N m T m o m o b N . v p, fD • ID N r A l0 O a t0 CDN _ W N W W fD _O A A O L b Ln N N O N 7 (D Z7 O A to O A to W m N N O N W N W (D Z ul E N N O (Il N W Q) N to O W W N W N W , O 7 D A A V N N • D o Ir N A 1p 07 A w A b , (D 700 EAST HYMAN SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO J �celQso(tiovt� Jo�cl�5 0 55 5 55 55 55 sS ss 55 a9s S ?5� o9' i j" E— C-.S. 14111 12,0.00, Rio Q8.2��0�) 30.7)o' \ 30.00' 50. DO 30. 0We1r v .L 1I11 +tot.y �oWer VC111�\`G N lP too. i..: ••�.• i.. � �C�1 {OLD} ••.•':•., i•.. .-•.n•• ..:: 0 0 a ,o 0 0 O i L7 3 4' ioo.q of Lot 2 3 d T 0 _Q T oot_�)^r unt (inn e. 3 II 0 0 v�ve ion,. { 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 `1'99 9 - p �[ � �Jo �� 1 1 w f.5. 14111 � a0.00' -40�-1.'vlc'X. Y2,�OC1'Y f CLL� 3 99,9 (tom) VJci.�,e,1' 7 czn-2� --w --- w Vj Legal Description - Real Property to be Subdivided by Exception Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 104, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Certification of Dedication and Ownership KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Hodge Capital Company, being sole owner of all that, --- real property described above has by these presents laid out, platted and subdivided the same into lots as shown on this plat and do hereby dedicate to the public all rights -of -way and easements shown hereon for the public use. State of Colorado ) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of A.D. 1987 by Witness my hand and official seal. — My commission expires: Notary PubilC B•1 �'54321 0 2 4 (o S 12 tc� to1.6Cka�o) �a5i 5 0� eorl� 5 ('�otLnria. 'Vrio'V�WYY(2,'1'1'l;S� Surveyor's Certificate I, Sydney Lincicome, do hereby certify that I am a registered land surveyor licensed under the laws of the State of Colorado, that this plat is a true, correct and complete plat of the 700 East Hyman Subdivision Exception as laid out, platted, dedicated and shown hereon, that such plat was made from an accurate survey of said property by me and under my supervision. In witness whereof I have set my hand and seal this day of Sydney Lincicome City Engineer Approval l City Engineer for the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby approve o 71 is u .i—on xception plat for recording in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. Planning and Zoning Commission Approval 1 The Planninc and Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen, Colorado, doe, hereby approve of the map of the 700 East Hyman Subdivision Exception to be recorded in the ffice f the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, pursuant to action at its meeting f A.D. 1987. Date: Planning and loniny 77rman Aspen, City Council Approval This plat of the 700 East Hyman Subdivision Exception was approved by the City of Aspen City Council on this day of A.D. 1987, as a subdivision exception. Signed this day of A.D. 1987. Attest by City er Clerk and Recorder's Certificate Mayor Thic pia' was filer; fnr record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder at o'clock M.. this �Iay of A.D. 1987, and is recor e- in Book at Page Recep ion o. 104, City an�i Townsite o' Ashen, Colorado Clerk and ecor. er By: epu y 5LLbaLWL5-L01"t. E•XGeytLo-rt. P(m-t I Lit E 1"ow't1-s�.�e- of ksye -, Co(orad-o L INES IN SPACE SYDNEY LNCICOME (L.S.I4III) Br)X 121 CARBDNDALE, COLORADO 81623 303-963-3852 ;" DATE: 28 �Carchrl987 1 SCALE: r va.ai V V1'u'1�iJL1 ` 'City of Aspen •� 2,�3% _� �s - �1 DATE RECE NED1 ��� pL� CASE N0. r DATE RECEIVED CO PLETE: STAFF: SQ_ PROJECT NAME:. •APPLICANT: Applicant Addre REPRES EN TAT IV E: Representative Type of Application: I. II. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 6-my) ) AgLi4lia uo11�— 1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00 2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 14 $1,900.00 2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 III. All "T,wo Step" Applications IV. All "One Step" Applications V. Referral Fees - �nviro�mental Health, Housing Office/ • 1. Minor Appl ications // 2. Major Application Referral Fees - Engineering Minor Applications Major Applications 11 $1,490.00 5 $ 680 .00 2 $ 50.00 5 $ 200.00 __________________________________________ CC MEETING DATE: L2 PUBLIC' HEARING: NO YES —0,Z ) DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: q''Wzn 0- REFE RALS: 7/ City Atty �// Aspen Consol. S.D. School District City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric StateIiwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) Fire Marshall-`^��`— ld o Ins ctn City Electric B g :.�Qi� pe ��-�-•� V Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: Roaring Fork Transit- Roaring Fork Energy Center ---------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Attyy City Engineer Building Dept. Other- 0D0S1n !�� �lof�Ix /Other: �nUii�nwPhtti� �Q�.1 h I 1 I FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: V C1J CA5 E D IS POS IT ION : 1f Reviewed by: Aspen P&Z City Councilo ��/�NI�fnAal�h� l, flu,- o;t 1 14Y1 C���<<1 ccr �! 6,4110 PLO 1. 27 evergreens with a minimum height of 6 feet and 39 deciduous trees with a minimum caliper of 2 1/2" as represented for location and species on the site plan submitted shall be planted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A landscaping plan for the western edge of the property which is mutually acceptable to the applicant and Aspen Alps J \ shall be submitted to the Planning Office. �2. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Official's satis- faction the calculation of open space. Open space shall be a minimum of 25% of the site. 3. Clear title to the property shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. 0.4j. Thetrash ash enclosure shall be increased to 101x101. �.7. The location of one new fire hydrant shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Water Department, Fire Department and Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a building permit. The demolition and excavation requirements stated in Tom Dunlop's June 25, 1986 memorandum shall be complied with. �'.7. A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. X F- The applicant shall agree to join the Lodge Improvement District and any other improvement district formed in the future encompassing this property. Such commitment shall be stated in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. C o n c i /1.44, !WA,44 /fP . f i P r�,r►, f� �""� �`�` "''t'n �^� �'� f 1� AL( t�+} k ifT , n, GM J N Sr Aj 4, /)} ✓�* '+11� I ? � � J b �. �4J bt � Jl�. S a -It 0i 11.f,.ry�43�11(A . LA Reviewed by: P&Z City Counc� M.i 22, I �6 P�Z aco'tc,l� �� .<�Q,, U P.� p fin► as �,r�c,� rn�rnn,-�:J��% c "^"i t k �t jLl ) CLye (1,2 -b" 6'rjuY rM o,1, d 2 1. 27 evergreens with a minimum height of b feet and 39 deciduous trees with a minimum caliper of 2 1/2" as represented for location and species on the site plan submitted shall be planted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A landscaping plan for the western edge of the property which is mutually acceptable to the applicant and Aspen Alps shall be submitted to the Planning Office. 2. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Official's satis- faction the calculation of open space. Open space shall be a minimum of 25% of the site. 3. Clear title to the property shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Proof of access to the service entrance and three parking spaces shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Planning Office and City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. In the event that such an arrangement cannot be worked out, another service access and parking plan accomp- lishing the same level of service shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment for the reduction of required parking spaces. If no such variance is granted, the applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code. 6. The trash enclosure shall be increased to 101x101. 7. The location of one new fire hydrant shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Water Department, Fire Department and Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The demolition and excavation requirements stated in Tom Dunlop's June 25, 1986 memorandum shall be complied with. 9. A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department nr; nr *n issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant shall agree to join the Lodge Improvement District and any other improvement district formed in the future encompassing this property. Such commitment shall be stated in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-009 DATE: August 6, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that you confirm the GMP allocation to the project, subject to conditions. ZONING: L-1. LOCATION: 771 Ute Avenue, Lots 15B, 16, and 17, Ute Addition and Lot 41, Section 18, Township 10, Range 84 West, City of Aspen. PROPERTY SIZE: 22,660 square feet. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the lodge GMP application approved for the Lodge at Aspen in the 1981 competition. The approved project contained 31 lodge units in a building of about 23,063 square feet on Lots 15B, 16, 17, Ute Addition. The amended application contains 26 lodge units in a structure of about 32,783 square feet using an additional adjacent parcel, known as "Lot 41" (U.S. patent) , to assemble a larger project site. Other aspects of the project that have changed include architectural design, building materials, on -site employee housing configuration, and site design. BACKGROUND TO GMP AMENDMENT RESCORING: Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code requires rescoring of substantial changes to GMP proposals to determine whether the allocation should be confirmed or rescinded. If the scoring remains above the minimum threshold and the applicant's position relative to others in the competition does not change, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to Council as the appropriateness of the changes and any further condition of approval. Council then may confirm the allocation subject to conditions of approval. The original Lodge at Aspen was scored in 1981. It was the only legal application in the 1981 competition after the Aspen Inn was eliminated due to numerous zoning violation; therefore, there is no potential change in the position of this project relative to other GMP projects. • Following the settlement of a lawsuit with respect to the Aspen Inn application, Council set the 33 month expiration of allocation time clock into motion and acknowledged that the GMP allocation would expire on January 1, 1988. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission rescored the amended application on July 22, 1986 in conformance with the procedures of Section 24-11.7 (b) of the Municipal Code. The total revised score was 52.5 points, exceeding the (60%) threshold requirement of 51 points. As the scoring remained above the minimum threshold and the applicants position relative to other competitors did not change, the Commission is recommending to Council that the proposed changes are appropriate subject to the ten (10) conditions listed in the recommended motion, and Council should confirm the GMP allocation. The Planning Commission gave a revised score of 52.5 points (61.8% of total points available) to the amended application, while the score for the original application was 49.2 points (84.8% of total points available). The current (1986) GMP scoring under which the amended application was scored has substantially changed since 1981, when the original Lodge at Aspen application was scored. Therefore, we have been careful to compare aggregate points in scoring categories that have not changed and percentage of points available when the scoring did change. Some of the important differences in the relative scores for the amended and old applications include: 1. The architectural design has been downscored by the P&Z from 2.9 points to .95 points (before multipliers) because of the size of the structure in relation to the useable portion of the site. The massing break-up of the original project was the chief concept for the Planning Office support of 3 points in the architectural design category. The massing of the amended design is less broken up. 2. Energy conservation representations and commitments are reduced from the original application. 3. The service entrance to the kitchen and three surface parking spaces are shown to be accessed by a driveway on the Alps property. No approval has been given by the Alps for this proposed useage; and therefore, no credit can be given at this time for such service access and those parking spaces. The number of parking spaces is below the current requirements of one space/bedroom (26 spaces) and special review for employee parking. In 1981 the scoring system encouraged provision of less parking than 1 per bedroom on site but 2 this scoring provision has since been eliminated. The applicant argues that .7 spaces per room is a more appropriate standard; and that the City can exempt the parking requirements because of the discrepancy in GMP scoring criteria between 1981 and 1986. Simply put, there is no method in the Code to allow for such an exemption. The applicant must meet the Code requirement or obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment or the project cannot be built as proposed. Following is a summary of the original and revised scores awarded to the Lodge at Aspen by P&Z, with percentages of available total points for the purpose of comparison: P&Z Original Score Revised Score (Percentage of (Percentage of Total Available Total Avail abl e 1. Public Facilities and 12.7 (85%) 8.3( 83% ) Services 2. Quality of Design 11 .4 (73%) 15.2 (39% ) 3. Amenities Provided 5.3 (88%) 14 (67% ) for Guests 4. Conformance to Local 10.4 (87%) 15 (100% ) Public Policy Goals 5. Social Facilities and 9.0 (90%) N/A (no longer Services a scoring category) 6. Bonus Points .4(6%) 0 TOTAL 49.2 (84 .8%) 52.5 (61. 8%) PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The amended Lodge at Aspen application meets the two criteria of Section 24-11.7(b) by exceeding the minimum threshold and maintaining the same position relative to the other applicants during the 1981 competition. Therefore, the application should be viewed as primarily acceptable, to which further conditions of approval may be appropriate. The re - scoring has substantially decreased from 84.8% of the available points in 1981 to 61.8% of the available points. P&Z and the Planning Office believe that a number of areas should be addressed in conditions of approval to mitigate inadequacies of the project. The following comments pertain to the more important areas of concern: 1. Proof of Ownership and Lodge Quota Adjustment: There a r e unresolved questions as to proof of ownership of Lot 41. Clear title to the property should be shown prior to final approval of this application. The Planning Commission recommended that the Council confirmation of GMP allocations 3 should not be approved until the ownership issue is resolved. The City Attorney is presently evaluating whether it is reasonable for Council to make as a condition of approval that ownership issues be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit and will report on his findings at your meeting. The new application is predicated upon obtaining the additional land on Lot 41. If Lot 41 cannot be obtained, then the amended project cannot be built because Floor Area Ratio requirements would not be met. In this event, an additional GMP amendment would be necessary in order to create a buildable project on the smaller parcel. In addition, the applicant must recognize that once approval is given for the amended project, the amendment supercedes and replaces the original project approved. The decrease in lodge units from 31 to 26 will be credited to the GMP L-1, L-2 quota. 2. Open Space Requirements: Zoning officer Bill Drueding requested in a memorandum of July 17, 1986 further studies and calculations of open space to ensure that 12,188 square feet (54% of the property) will be countable open space as represented in the application. Based on our current calculations of open space using code definitions, it is quite obvious that far less than 54% of the site is in open space, with a more likely ratio being about 30-35% of the site. This open space area would exceed the 25% requirement and should be considered acceptable. 3. Landscaping Plan: The applicant has not yet stated the size of trees to be planted; and in our opinion, this factor has significant bearing on the adequacy of the landscape scheme. We suggest that the pine trees be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and deciduous trees (aspen, Mountain Ash and flowering crab trees) have a minimum caliper of 2 1/2". 4. Parking and Service Entrance: Three parking spaces and a service entrance are shown to be accessed off the applicants property, on the Aspen Alps existing drive. No permission has been given for this use by the Alps. No credit should be given for those spaces or the service access, rendering both parking and service access inadequate. Permission for this arrangement should be obtained from the Alps if the Alps Homeowners Association is willing, or else a new plan be submitted. Condition 4 requires the applicant to provide proof of access or a new arrangement acceptable to the Planning Office and City Attorney. The timing by which this arrangement is to be finalized has been changed from the prior to Council confirmation to issuance of a building permit. n • The applicant should be directed to go to the Board of Adjustment for the requested reduction in the number of required spaces. We believe City Council does not have the authority to waive this requirement. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to confirm the GMP allocation for the Lodge at Aspen amended GMP project subject to the following conditions: 1. 27 evergreens with a minimum height of 6 feet and 39 deciduous trees with a minimum caliper of 2 1/2" as represented for location and species on the site plan submitted shall be planted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A landscaping plan for the western edge of the property which is mutually acceptable to the applicant and Aspen Alps shall be submitted to the Planning Office. 2. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Official's satis- faction the calculation of open space. Open space shall be a minimum of 25% of the site. 3. Clear title to the property shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Proof of access to the service entrance and three parking spaces shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Planning Office and City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. In the event that such an arrangement cannot be worked out, another service access and parking plan accomp- lishing the same level of service shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment for the reduction of required parking spaces. If no such variance is granted, the applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code. 6. The trash enclosure shall be increased to 101x10' 7. The location of one new fire hydrant shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Water Department, Fire Department and Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The demolition and excavation requirements stated in Tom Dunlop's June 25, 1986 memorandum shall be complied with. 9. A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building 61 0 permit. 10. The applicant shall agree to join District and any other improvement future encompassing this property. stated in a form acceptable to the issuance of a building permit. the Lodge Improvement district formed in the Such commitment shall be City Attorney prior to GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING/PARKING REDUCTION FOR EMPLOYEE UNITS The applicant proposes to provide 1 manager's unit and 2 dormitory rooms to be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guidelines. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for the requested GMP exemption for on -site employee housing. In addition, since parking is already inadequate for the lodge rooms, an exemption from parking requirements for the employee units is needed. Section 24-4.1 of the Municipal Code requires City Council to establish by special review employee housing parking requirements. The Planning Office recommended to P&Z to recommend that Council grant a parking reduction such that no spaces will be required for the employee units. Therefore, the applicant would need to provide 26 spaces for the project. The applicant has proposed twenty spaces below grade and potentially three spaces in the rear subject to an access agreement with Aspen Alps which would still be three (3) spaces short. The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on this proposal, expressing concern that adequate employee parking be provided in this project. The Planning Office still supports the parking exemption for the employee units, as we believe that 26 spaces should be adequate for this project. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to approve the requested GMP exemption for employee housing subject to the recommended conditions in the Housing Authority memorandum of June 12, 1986, and to exempt the employee units from the parking requirements of the Code." SB .7 81 C 0 ! Ir1/L-2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAIT SUBMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLY SHEET PROJECT- Lode _Aspen Amended Application (1986) P&Z VOTING MEMBERS David Mari Roger Welton Jasmine Al MULTIPLIER AVERAGE I. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water Service 2 2 2 -- 2 b. Sewer Service 1 _ 1. 1 1 (1) C. Storm Drainage 2_ 2 2 2 2 2 (1) d. Fire Protection 2 _ -�_ 2 2--- 1— e. Roach I -L 2— SUBTOTAL: __a- 8 . _8 9- 8 -2- _ 8.3 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN a. Architectural Design 3 - 3 2.1- 6-- - 0 (3) -- (3) b. Site Design -6 -6 5 6- - 0- - (1) c. Energy Conservation 1.5_ 2 2 2-_ 2 �- - (3) d. Parking and Circulation --Q- 0 0- -3-- - 0- - (3) e. Visual Impact 6 2 6- 6- 3- - SUBTOTAL: 10.5 14 14.6 24 5_ Lz- 15.2 3, AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS a. Meeting Areas, Lobbies, 6 -6- 6- 6- 6 (3) Conference Facilities 4 4 4 (2) b. Dining Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 - (2) - c. Recreational Facilities 4 4 4 -4 SUBTOTAL: _14 14 14 14 1- UL - 14 4. CONFORMANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY GOALS a. Employee Housing 15 15 15 15- 15 (1) SUBTOTAL: 15 15 15 5 - 5 L5- 15 - TOTAL POINTS 1-4: 5, BONUS POINTS -- TOTAL POINTS $ .S_ 51 51.6 62 - 2 55- 52.5- * Multiplier has been calculated into the tally scores in each category. ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, planning Office RE: Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-009 nATE : July 17, 1986 ZONING: T.-1. LOCATION: 771 Ute Avenue, Lots 15B, 16, and 17, Ute Addition and Lot 41, Section 18, Township 10, Range 84 West, City of Aspen. PROPERTY SIZE: 22,660 square feet. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the lodge GMP application approved for the Lodge at Aspen in the 1981 competition- The approved project contained 31 lodge units in a smaller building located on Lots 15B, 16, 17, Ute Addition. The amended application contains 26 lodge units in a larger structure using an additional adjacent parcel, known as "Lot 41" (U.S. patent) , to assemble a larger project site. Other aspects of the project that have changed include architectural design, building materials on site employee housing confiquration, and site design. I. GMP Amendment Rescoring - Attached for your review is a proposed rescoring of the Lodge at Aspen lodge GMP applica- tion. The submission is being rescored in conformance with the procedures of Section 24-11 .7 (b) of the Municipal Code. This regulation requires rescoring of substantial changes to GMP proposals to determine whether the allocation should be confirmed or rescinded. Tf the scoring remains above the minimum threshold and the applicant's position relative to others in the competition does not change, the Commission makes a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness of the changes and any further conditions of approval. The Planning Commission originally awarded the project a score of 48.8 uoints (prior to the bonus points section) which placed it above the 1981 threshold of 35 points. The Lodge at Aspen was the only legal application in the 1981 competition after the Aspen Inn was designated due to numerous zoning violations; therefore, there is no potential change in the position of this project relative to the GMP projects- The Planning Off ice has prepared a recommended rescoring of the amended project using the current (1986) GMP scoring. There have been substantial changes in the scoring system since 1981, and since these changes reflect current policy it is the new and not the old system under which the project should be scored. The recommended revised score is 54 points or 63% of the total points available for the original application. We recommended a score of 47 points, or 81% of the total points available. The recommended scoring of both the original and revised projects exceed the threshold. Some of the important differences in the relative scores for the amended project include: 1. The architectural design is flawed in our opinion by the size of the structure in relation to the useable portion of the site and to the adjacent Alps and Ajax Apartment build- ings. The massing break-up was the chief concept for the Planning Office support of 3 points in the architectural design category for the original project. In addition, the upper stories cantelever out to directly abut the Aspen Mountain Road easement, providing no setback from the road if it is widened in the future. 2. Energy conservation representations and commitments are reduced from the original application. 3. The service entrance to the kitchen and three surface parking spaces are shown to be accessed by a driveway on the Alps property. No approval has been given by the Alps for this proposed useage; and therefore, no credit can be given at this time for such service access and those parking spaces. The number of parking spaces is below the current requirements of one space/bedroom (26 spaces) and special review for employee parking. In 1981 the scoring system encouraged provision of less parking than 1 per bedroom on site but this scoring provision has since been eliminated. The applicant argues that .7 spaces per room in a more appropriate standard; and that the City can exempt the parking requirements because of the discrepancy in GMP scoring criteria between 1981 and 1986. Simply put, there is no method in the Code to allow for such an exemption and the P&Z must require 26 spaces on site. The applicant must meet the Code requirement or obtain a variance f rom the Board of Adjustment or the project cannot be built as proposed. Following is a summary of your prior and our proposed scores, with percentages of available total points for the purpose of comparison: 2 P&Z Original Recommended Score Revised Score (Percentage of (Percentage of Total Available Total Available 1. Public Facilities and 12.7 (85%) 8 (80% ) Services 2. quality of Design 11.4(73%) 17(43%) 3. Amenities Provided 5.3 (88%) 14(67%) for Guests 4. Conformance to Local 10 .4 (87%) 15 (100% ) Public Policy Goals 5. Social Facilities and 9 .0 (90%) WA (no longer Services a scoring category) 6. Bonus Points . 4 (6%) 0 TOTAL 49 .2 (84 .8%) 54 (63% ) APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE: Section 24-11 .7 (b) Gtates the requirements and criteria by which a GMP amendment application shall be reviewed. In part, the Section states: "The Planning and Zoning Commission shall rescore the original application in order to determine whether: 1) The applicant would no longer meet the minimum threshold he must achieve in each category or for all categories to receive an allocation; or 2) The applicant's position relative to the other applicant's during the competition would have changed. Should either of the above two (2) conditions be met, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the applicant's allocation should be rescinded. Should the above conditions not be met, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council as to the appro- priateness of the amendments to the oriqinal proposal and any further conditions of approval which the applicant shall meet." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The amended Lodge at Aspen application meets the two criteria of Section 24-11 .7 (b) by exceeding the minimum threshold and maintaining the same position relative to the other applicants during the 1981 competition. Therefore, the application should be viewed as primarily acceptable, to which further conditions of approval may be appropriate. The recommended re -scoring has substantially decreased from 84.8% of the available points in 1981 to 63% of the available points. We believe that 3 the following areas should be addressed in conditions of approval to address inadequacies of the amended project. 1. Bulk and Setback: The amended Lodge at Aspen design is significantly larger on a site that has increased area through addition of an adjacent, unbuildable hillside. The added 7,281 square feet of Lot 41 does not add to the contiguous setback of the structure. In our opinion, the f ollowinq architectural and site design problems result: 1) The structure's upper stories abut the Aspen Mountain Road Easement, and it is the County's plan to widen this road within the near future, according to Tom Newland, County Planner Engineer. 2) The landscape buffer on the west side of the property varies in width from 12 feet to 3 f eet (open to the sky) , and this appears to be very marginal for purpose of sustaining the proposed row of trees, some of which are to be planted on the Alps property. 3) The bulk and ground coverage of the structure is greater than surroundinq buildings and appear to be excessive for the useable building area. If the Planning Commission feels the need for further analysis of the bulk issue we recommend that the applicant be required to prepare a model or perspective study of comparative massing and heiqht. It appears that the structure should be set back further from both east and west property lines and sized down in scale in order to be compatible with the neighboring structures. We suggest that the design be resubmitted for your approval. 2. Area and Bulk Requirements: The amended design should be in compliance with all area and bulk requirements. Zoning officer Bill Drueding has requested in a memorandum of July 17, 1986 further studies and calculations of open space to ensure that 12,188 square feet (54% of the property) will be countable open space as represented in the application. Based on our current calculations of open space using code definitions, it is quite obvious that far less than 54% of the site is in open space, with a more likely ratio being about 30-35% of the site. 3. Proof of Ownership: As of the time of writing there are unresolved questions as to proof of ownership of Lot 41. Clear title to the property should be shown prior to final approval of this application. 4. Landscaping Plan: The applicant has not yet stated the size of trees to be planted; and in our opinion, this factor has 0 significant bearing on the adequacy of the landscape scheme. We suggest that the pine trees be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and deciduous trees (aspen, Mountain Ash and flowering crab trees) have a minimum caliper of 2 1/211. 5. Parking and Service Entrance: Three parking spaces and a service entrance are shown to be accessed off the applicants property, on the Alps existing drive. Nc permission has been given for this use by the Alps. No credit should be given for those spaces or the service access, rendering both parking and service access inadequate. Permission for this arrangement should be obtained from the Alps if the Alps Homeowners Association is willing, or else a new plan be submitted. The applicant should be directed to go to the Board of Adjustment for the requested reduction in the number of required spaces. The P&Z has no authority to waive this requirement. 6. Trash Enclosure: The Engineering Department requested in a memorandum of July 7, 1986 that an uncovered trash area of 101x10' be provided. After a discussion with BFI, the applicant and the City Engineering Department, it was determined that the trash truck access to the dumpster will be adequate. 7. Jacuzzi on the Roof: According to Jim Wilson, Chief Building Inspector, two accesses to the roof must be provided if a jacuzzi is placed there. The applicant should either provide necessary access or provide this guest amenity elsewhere in the project, as submitted to the approval of the Planning Office. 8. Fire Hydrant Location: As no location has been indicated in the plans for the proposed new fire hydrant, a location should be shown to the satisfaction of the Water Department, Fire Department and Fire Marshall. 9. Demolition and Excavation: The applicants should comply with the demolition and excavation requirements stated in Tom Dunl op' s memorandum of June 25 1986. 10. Drainage Plan: A detailed drainage plan should be submitted to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 11. Lodge Development District: As this property is located in the area of the proposed lodge improvement district, the applicant should agree to join this and other improvement districts formed in the future. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends the Planning 5 0 • Commission to confirm the recommended rescoring of the amended Lodge at Aspen application and to recommend Council to confirm the GMP allocation for the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The western landscaped area shall be at least 6 feet in width to allow for an adequate buffer. 2. 27 evergreens with a minimum height of 6 feet and 39 deciduous trees with a minimum caliper of 2 1/2" as represented for location and species on the site plans submitted shall be planted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Official's satis- faction the calculation of open space. 4. Clear title to the property shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to City Council's confirmation of GMP allocation for the amended project. 5. Proof of access to the service entrance and three parking spaces shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Planning Office and City Attorney prior to Council's confirmation of the GMP allocation. In the event that such an arrangement cannot be worked out, another service access and parking plan accomplishing the same level of service shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office. 6. The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment for the reduction of required parking spaces. If no such variance is granted, the applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code. 7. The trash enclosure shall be increased to 101x10' . 8. The applicant shall either provide necessary access to the rooftop Jacuzzi or provide this amenity elsewhere in the project as submitted to the approval of the Planning Office prior to Council's confirmation of GMP allocation f or the amended project. 9. The location of one new fire hydrant shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Water Department, Fire Department and Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. The demolition and excavation requirements stated in Tom Dunlop's June 25, 1986 memorandum shall be complied with. 11. A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 1.1 12. The applicant shall agree to join the Lodge Improvement District or anv other improvement district formed in the future encompassing this property. Such commitment shall be stated in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit- GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING/PARKING REDUCTION FOR EMPLOYEE UNITS The applicant proposes to provide 1 manager's unit and 2 dormitory rooms to be deed restricted to the employee housing guidelines. Further. since parking is already inadequate for the lodge rooms, an exemption from parking requirements for the employee units is needed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to recommend Council to approve the requested GMP exemption for employee housing subject to the recommended conditions in the Housing Authority memorandum of June 12, 1986. We also recommend that P&Z grant a parking reduction such that no spaces will be required for the employee units. 1� CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND Z ON ING CO MMI SS ION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT : Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment DATE: 7/1 86 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 of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 2 The scorina formula in Public Facilities and Services has b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RAT ING : 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 COMMENTS: No�system iMprovementa_are_pronoseJ. The_J&nit-at�ion pint ri ct -st—at e d_ the —pr Qpo se d_D-rQj-e__Q_t _ ca nee se ry ice-d—by -the Sanitalon District . _ The_re-Commended_ scoring has- not -ch n-ged relative to th_e- total- points available -this cat-egory. _ c- STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the deqree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment 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 : _ 'T JJe -&pX icant hsaa-co Ditte-d tQ contain ,111_ site rua= Qf fin -site though use_ of_drywell-s and to esur-fave and- provid€ e.urlb--a-nd gutter Qn open-MQmntairL--Road_abettirig-the aite._The Zngingerinq Department_ stated-thiz--proposa-. should -improves the jai na ae sy-s-t em - The recQmme�ded- sQoring_has_nQt -fhangesd rel .ati ve_ t o the to a 1 no i nt-z a v a i 1 a bl e i11 t h-is catego ram. d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishinq a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station. the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 2 __ (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: _ COMMENTS: An existing-hkdrsant is located approximately -160 feet ea st -ofthe_px-oj ect __the_ Appl_icant_-PLo-Po se s_t4 install one (1) newhys7rant_L-however _ -the location ha_s not been_s-hown. The Fire. Marshall stated the pcDject can be-se-rved_adequately -by the Fire IZepar�nent� given the -new hydrant_ The location shoul-d be acceptable to the--Fi_re�Department, F-ire- iftsshall_and Water Iepar -m-=t . _The reco wended cLcorinsg has not changed relative to poi nt s a Y-a-i l a bl e — _ t bi-s -ca t e go r y-,-_ e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns. creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: 1 POINTS: 1 1 - • _ 1 • 11 • 1 1 ! . " • - • - 11 - / • • • • • - • 1a RB ! •RWOW-1 da-MR.-FaM HIMP a 1 - 1 • 93 Wip. ' • reW @1FIRS113-11! 1 ! • - - 1 - •II11-1!•• • 1! 1� 1 -! - - • • �• 1 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT 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: -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . -- 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 the existing neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: T RAT ING : 1 PO INTS : 3 • 11 • . • 1 � , • � • 1 . : 1 • 1 - . Without Lotthe new FAR would be 1,47*1. Height of ridge,structure will be aipt)roximately thirty-two (32) feet to roof • 1p• • to 1 • 1 the • • design. ! tvw. • glass • • -1 concrete and redwood siding should make the nedesian more interesting than the old. The• 1 ! • third•• directly abutAspen Mountain '•.d easement, providing no -aetback rom �he road if it were widened. The cecommended scoring has decreased by • points • 1' previous• - - • 11 - • - • b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal 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 pr ovi de f or the saf ety and pr iva cy of the user s of the development. (Multiplier: 3) RATING: POINTS: 6 COMMENTS: The amended site plan provides 12,188 s.f. of opQn space co p2red to.�6�AQ s.f. in t e old plan, as represented by -ctive applicants.Much of • p- 1 space is in Lot Landscaping as represented would include 27 evergreens, 39 deciduous trees, s•dd-d areas and 2-.shrubZf lowering groupings. Most landscaping areas a-r-e- very narrow strL*p,,,- of land on the applicant's property. The recommended scoring has decreased by tw-Q Qgints fromtbs-acDrej&gviously--recommended. c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 1) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 2 • !- .� -•.-. . •. IRWITT0791M 5 WOHN4113MV144•1 -. •. 11 • I 11 - • - I • • • • - - • - N - • ! - • Eiol ar energy alpmarsto be incorpQrated into the •e!• !. been - in the prior• •1 1 - recommended score has decreased by •1- p• ! 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. (Multiplier: 3) RATING: 0 POINTS: 0 W-61030WE'llill W rolly:-Arilt M** plill I contains twenty (20) below ground spaces and—th-r-ee (3) above ground spaces•a 26 room lodge, below ar ea 11-n• one •ab- • ••11 and constitutes a zonina • •n Accpss across Alps property for the kitchen and three emplQyee parking spaces-bas not been approved by the Alps and therefore is lnadeq�ate and cannot be counted. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RAT ING : 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6 CO MMEN TS The added bulk of the n w building will affect vieYT of 40- on the hillside, The recomitended- scori 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 of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: • 11 4. 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. (Multiplier: 3) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 6 ielrQvided com -d to 820 s.f. in the old application.! - 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. (Multiplier: 2) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 4 proi ect The•ltm-ld-d scoring has not !.!•- to total roints available in this category. C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 4 • •- • •B - • • !- - !! .��• • ! - . •. -. • • i -• two accesses •! • the roof in • d- • allowproposed faciliti- • this has not been • • • ' • Recommended scoring has not changed relative to mints availahl in this cateaQrv. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximus 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 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the 0 project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 12% housed. (Multiplier: 1) 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) RAT ING : 15 POINTS: 15 The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifica- tion of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: 0 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: _ 0 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 8_ (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: 1- (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: 14_ (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: _15 (Minimum of 9 pts. required) SUBTOTAL: 54 (6 0% threshold = 51 pt s . ) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: -54__- (Total of 85 available) Name of Commission member: Aspen/Pitkin_.Plannina Office _ 1IR PD) ��= MEMORANDUM KI - I JLC 10 so TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Department FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Departmen DATE: July 7, 1986 RE: The Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment The Engineering Department has the following comments in reviewing the above application: STORM DRAINAGE The application proposes to retain all surface and roof runoff with on -site drywells. This meets our approval. The application also proposes to collect runoff from Aspen Mountain Road by extending the Original Street storm sewer. This would enhance the historic drainage of the area. We would like to have more details on the length and tie-in location of proposed extension. The new curb and gutter will also improve the drainage. The access roads in this area are sufficent to accommodate a project of this size. The application does not propose any improvements. The Guest Drop-off area appears to be a viable plan that will not congest traffic on Ute Avenue. TRASH Each of the 28 units in this lodge will generate about 1/2 cubic yard of trash per week or a total of 14 cubic yards. The other program areas such as the office, food and beverage area, lounge and lobby will generate about one cubic yard of trash per day. For the quantity of 21 cubic yards per week, a 4 cubic yard dumpster is needed. The 53 square foot area provided is not large enough for this. An uncovered area of 10' x 10' is needed. Also, it will be ackward for a trash truck to access the dumpster because it will have to back-up into the dumpster area. We would like to work with the Architect to make this area more accessible to the trash truck. Page Two The Lodge July 7, 1986 UTILITIES The utility meters appear to be in a location that would be easily accessible to meter readers. All overhead utility lines should be undergrounded and poles removed. LODGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The applicant should commit to joining the Lodge Improvement District. The engineer for the Lodge Improvement District, Ron Thompson, should be consulted to assure that this project conforms to the goals of the district regarding drainage, curb line, etc. PARKING This application provides 23 parking spaces, 18 for tourists and 5 for employees. The former approved project provided 15 parking spaces for 31 rooms. We feel that the parking proposal is adequate with respect to several factors: A. Two limousines will be provided. B. Close proximity to town, transportation facilities and skiing. C. Original approval of less parking spaces for more rooms. EE/co/TheLodge • ASPEN*PITKIN• ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 110, To: Steve Burstein Planning Office From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director ,%5J) Environmental Health Department Date: June 25, 1986 Re: The Lodge At Aspen GMP Amendment Parcel ID # 2737-95-009 AN 2 7 l986 U The above referenced submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns. AIR POLLUTION• Woodburning Devices: It is apparent that this project will be in compliance with City of Aspen, Ordinance # 5, series of 1986. This ordinance pertains to the installation of woodburning devices in buildings. Specifically, the applicant has agreed to comply with Section 11- 2.3 of the ordinance. The submittal indicates that only one conventional fireplace will be installed in the hotel lobby, with no woodburning devices in any of the rooms. That was confirmed to this office by Mr.Sunny Vann, planning consultant. Mr. Vann also stated that there would be no gas type fireplace appliances in the building. Restaurant Grills: Any food cooking devices shall comply with Ordinance # 12, series of 1983, Section 11-2.4. This Section regulates the type of cooking emission control that must be installed in new or remodelled food service establishments. Demolition: Demolition of any existing structures on the site may necessitate dust control measures being implemented. This may include, but not be limited to watering the site, fencing or the use of dust suppressants. The small house which will be torn down should be inspected for any asbestos containing materials prior to demolit- ion. If any such materials are found they all be removed by a 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-2020 • ASPEN*PITKIN• ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Page 2 Lodge At Aspen June 25,1986 qualified person and disposed of in an approved hazardous material landfill. Further, an asbestos removal plan shall be submitted to this office for review and approval prior to removal if any of the material is found. Underground Parking: It will be a requirement of this office that adequate air handling facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any buildup of air contaminants inside the underground parking structure. CONTAMINATED SOILS: During excavation it may be discovered that the building will be located on old abandoned mine dumps or mine tailings. Should that be the case the following will apply. The applicant will be responsible for accounting for the distribution of all mine waste or mine tailings transported off site. The intent of this requirement is to document where the material will end up and what it will be used for. The public danger of human contact with such material has been documented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sampling of any suspected mine waste will be required to determine the heavy metal content. If only native soils are encountered the applicant will not be required to perform any tests identifying heavy metals in the material. NOISE ABATEMENT: The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen ordinance 2, series 1981, titled Noise Abatement. All demolition and construction noise related activities shall be covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance. WATER SUPPLY: Service of this project by the Aspen Water Department distribut- ion system is in compliance with policies of this office. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Service of this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District collection system is in compliance with policies of this office. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-2020 • ASPEN PITKIN• ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Page 3 Lodge At Aspen June 25,1986 FOOD SERVICE• Compliance with the Rules And Regulations Governing Food Service Establishments In The State Of Colorado will be required by the applicant. This document will apply to the restaurant, bar and room service facilities designated in the submittal. S PAMOT TUB: The proposed spa shall comply with the Swimming Pool Regulations and Standards of Colorado. Copies of all regulations mentioned above can be obtained from this office. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-2020 dak �Wopr ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER P.O. Box 9950 D Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8885 JA 2 619E6 i June 25, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein; Aspen/Pi tkin Planning Office FROM: Steve Standiford RE: Comments on Energy Components of The Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment parcel ID#3727-182-95-009 The RFEC comments on The Lodge at Aspen energy features are based on review of the application proposal and a phone conversation with Charles Cunniffe. We must emphasize that our comments are based upon very limited details at this time. For example, the application contains no definition of insulation values. Outlined below are the RFEC comments by subject area. INSULATION: The level of insulation in the walls will be R=25. Charles Cunniffe indicated as well that the roof insulation levels would exceed R=40. These levels of insulation significantly exceed the minimum requirements and should be commended. Further, Mr. Cunniffe has assured us that they will look at maximizing the use of insulation in keeping energy consumption down. WINDOWS/GLAZING TREATMENTS: The application contains no information on type of windows to be used. Mr. Cunniffe indicated they would consult with Amory Lovins and others to choose the most appropriate, energy efficient glazing products. This may include the use of heat mirror and/or other highly efficient windows. WOODBURNING DEVICES: The application specifies that woodburning devices will be limited to a single energy efficient fireplace in the lounge. This action will help improve local air quality and help reduce the inefficient use of wood. SOLAR ENERGY: The 1982 Lodge GMP application specified the use of an active solar system for providing domestic hot water. Our conversation with Mr. Cunniffe indicates they have not ruled out the possibility for using such a system. The application currently does not mention the use of solar energy to heat either the hot water or space of the lodge. It appears that solar direct gain can provide a significant amount of space heating. Without the south elevation and further construction details, we are unable to determine the level of solar contribution. A Branch of the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation dak ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER P.O. Box 9950 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8885 Page 2 Mr. Cunniffe noted they will still explore the use of passive solar design features such as a trombe wall and a two-story water wall. These are excellent ideas which deserve further consideration. OTHER COMMENTS: The level of available written detail in the application is very limited. If our comments were based solely on the contents of the application, we would not be able to strongly endorse the energy features of this project. However, our phone conversation with Mr. Cunniffe reveals a strong interest in developing state-of-the-art energy pro- ducts and design. We will continue to follow this project and look forward to seeing these good ideas put down on paper. If these ideas materialize, we would strongly recommend the awarding of the maximum points available for the energy components of this project. A Branch of the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation ASPEN WATER DEPARTME MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: THE LODGE AT ASPEN GMP AME DMENT (Reeder -Williams) DATE: JUNE 12, 1io 8 We are pleased to e on page (27) table (4) that the above referenced applicant is in agreement to extend the 8" main from Spring St. east to Ute Ave, as well as pay for and install one fire hydrant. Related to this improvement is the fact that the Little Nell Hotel project has extended a 12" main from Durant Ave. south on Spring St. to Ute. Since the line has been sized to 12", the Water Department is considering increasing the proposed 8" main to 12", thereby providing for an essential interconnect to the 12" main on Ute Ave. east of the Alps Rd. The Water Department feels the agreement to install an 8" main along Ute Ave. between Spring and Original will definitely benefit the City of Aspen. Provided the 8" main (or larger) is installed, water would be available to the applicant upon payment of the tap fee. JM: ab ASPEN *PITKIAREGIONAL BUILOVIJG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: July 18, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein FROM: Bill Drueding SUBJECT: Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment, parcel I.D. # 2737- 182-95-00 1) Color calculations of open space are needed. I have questions on how they interpret open space codes. No greater than 4 ft. above existing street grade. 2) Question parking with the Alps and in rear. No stack park allowed. 3) Question as to how they measured height. It does not appear to fit the code definition of maximum height between eaves and ridges. Sec. 24-3.7(g)(1). 4) Engineering should comment on the parking spaces in the garage widths, turning radius etc. 5) Is there a park dedication fee for the residential units? The employee units could be exempted but what about the managers unit? Sec. 7-143(1), Sec. 7-143(7). WD:lo offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 3O3/525-5573 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE : JUNE 12, 1986 RE: THE LODGE AT ASPEN GMP AMENDMENT PARCEL ID #2737- 182-95-009 ISSUE: Does The Lodge at Aspen GMP amendment application to the growth management plan approved in 1982 meet the employee housing obligation. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the growth management plan approval granted in the 1982 competition the Lodge at Aspen (31 unit hotel) would be located at 771 Ute Avenue. The development rights and property have been conveyed by Lyle Reeder (the original applicant) to Mr. Williams. Mr. Reeder is conveying an additional adjacent parcel to Mr. - Williams. Based on a larger parcel, Mr. Williams is applying to use the entire property for the amended GMP project, and wishes to change the configuration of the project, unit count, FAR, open space, site coverage, parking spaces, and employee housing. The original approval was for eight employees to be housed on - site in four (4) one -bedroom units averaging approximately 285 square feet in size. The applicant represents that based on the Housing Authority's current Guidelines, the amended project is projected to generate between 5.2 and 10.4 employee, i.e, 0.2 to 0.4 employees per room. The amended project will house 9.75 employees on -site. Eight (8) employees will be housed in a single, approximately 1,200 square foot dormitory unit and an approximate 600 square foot, one -bedroom manager's unit which will provide additional housing for 1.75 employees. Housing 9.75 employees equates to an employee generation factor of 0.34 employees per room. The applicant is reducing the approved project's total unit count from thirty-five (35) units to twenty-eight (28) units. The calculation for employees generated is 28 x .348 = 9.7499. HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom- mendation is to approve the amended application. The Housing Office compliments the applicant on the well thoughtout presenta- tion and places the following conditions to be incorporated in the deed restrictions for the rental units: The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the 01 employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and occu- pancy to the rental and sale guidelines established and indexed by the City Council's designee for low income employee housing units at the time or prior to issuance of building permit. Verification of employment and income for those persons living in the low income employee units shall be completed and filed with the City Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate legal action including injunction, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be greater. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and then applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. Yo lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee one - bedroom rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six consecutive months or less than 30 days for the dormitory units. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on each unit. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chair -man of the Housing Authority Board prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. ACTION NEEDED: Approval of Staff recommendation. 2 1r1/L-2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLY SHEET ROJECT • Lo4gg a t Aspp 'AZ VOTING MEMBERS David Mari Roger PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water Service 2 - 2 1 21 1 b. Sewer Service 2 - 1- 2 C. Storm Drainage 2 - 2 - 2 d, Fire Protection - -1 -� e. Roads -I SUBTOTAL: -$- -$- 8 2, QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN WW91_= Jasmine Al 2 2 1 _ 1 2 2 2 2 2 9— 1 - 8 a. Architectural Design 3 _ 3 2.1- 6_ -�-- -6 - —0— b, Site Design 5- 1.5 2 2 3 2 C. Energy Conservation 0 0 — d, Parking and Circulation 6— 3- 6- 6_ 3 e, Visual Impact SUBTOTAL: 10.5 14 14.6 24 5 3 4 2 R. 17 MULTIPLIER AVERAGE (1) (1) — (1) (1) (1) — 3, AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS a. Meeting Areas, Lobbies, Conference Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 b. Dining Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C. Recreational Facilities SUBTOTAL: 14 14 14 14 4, CONFORMANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY GOALS a. Employee Housing b. Conversion of Existing Units SUBTOTAL: -- -15 TOTAL POINTS 1-4: 5, BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS 53 .5 - 51 62 42 * Multiplier has been calculated into the tally scores in each (3) (3) (1) (3) (3) (3) (2) (2) (1) _ (1) _ 52.5 T�s en P&Z City Council "` v Reviewed by: P V 1,,� ��/ ` C �r ry�,`••ly I�',fltM• �" �-lt � i�?•l �i-r�.� +U.:r.�l i.�� J�� �•t,� �s ,i-�5 r� k.7Yu P�1.Ir JV' `��� d W�� �•�tvY: "��� a , 1. A site specific subsurface soil investigation shall be done by a qualified geotechnical engineer after the building sites have been prepared to determine specific foundation design. The investigation results and designs shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and Building Department prior to pouring the foundation. 2. Revegetation shall include the type of plantings and procedure of revegetating as represented in the Siegel application.11 Revegetation shall be accomplished by no later than ',cf -QQ U�� 1987. A new revegetation scheme shall be submitted for the Smith site; Lot 3, to the satisfaction of the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. Any changes in the revegetation schemes shall be processed through an application to the Planning Office, and if they are determined to be significant, shall be processed as an amendment to the 8040 Greenline Review approval. 3. Water meters shall be located at or near the property line and the water line shall be sleeved where is passes under the Salvation Ditch, to the satisfaction of the Water Department. 4. All utilities shall be undergrounded. r l�) .4- . -1 �.�:. �,�� • _ ,��� . A:!:.r.L � M,'!��Fc 4 � e��'�1 a:� 1�-t�1.12��"A 4;; ,tYl:• � (�¢���t z�t. y . (>Access to the property shall be along the Salvation Ditch through dolly Gibson Park. Access easements obtained from tisfaction f Pitkin County shaprior besubmitted thenissuanceoof aeBuilding permit the City Attorney a c c� .� Z��a m u�csn� ,r �c e'� 4 �.� �. kyjti � cuva� pn'(' � c > i pev, / i �azu a'M Lim �'I f k 61, . elY`L�r,\l, 9 L-1/L-2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLY SHEET PROJECT: Lodge at Aspen Amended Application (1986) P&Z VOTING MEMBERS David Mari Roger Welton Jasmine Al MULTIPLIER AVERAGE 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water Service 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2_ b. Sewer Service 1_ 1 1 1 _ 1 2 C. Storm Drainage 2_ 2 2 2 2 2 (1) d. Fire Protection 2 _ _2 _ 2 2 2 2 (1) e. Roads 1_ 1 _1 2 1 1 (1) SUBTOTAL: 0_ 8 _8 9 8 9 _ 8.3 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN a. Architectural Design _ 3 3 2.1_ 6 _ 0 3 (3) b. Site Design 0 0_ 4.5 0 _0_ 6 (3) C. Energy Conservation 1.5_ 2 2 3 2 2 (1) d. Parking and Circulation 0_ 0 0— _3 0— 0 _ (3) e. Visual Impact 6 3 6 6 3 6 (3) SUBTOTAL: 10.5 14 14.6 24 5- L 15.2 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS a. Meeting Areas, Lobbies, _6 6 6 6 6 6 (3) Conference Facilities b. Dining Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 4 (2) C. Recreational Facilities 4 4 4 4 4 4 (2) SUBTOTAL: 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 4. CONFORMANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY GOALS a. Employee Housing 15 15_ 15 15 15 L5(1) b. Conversion of Existing Units (1) SUBTOTAL: 15 15 15 15 15 15 TOTAL POINTS 1-4: 5. BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS 53.5 _ 1 51.6 62 42 55- 52.5 j * Multiplier has been calculated into the tally scores in each category. CTZTY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS i PROJECT: GTI" 1 �► uw1 �I t �% 4n l.E U� l'Vll� (_.� F DAT E : 2,f (X,� 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 of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RATING POINTS b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considerina the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment 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: y (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: CO MMENTS : d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: , (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT 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 the existing neighborhood developments. RATING: �L (multiplier: 3) t,, a ,, �-� pPOINTS : COMMENTS : ,/ 6&)aa /`{� 7"`�-� E% Ca t0/2s . 4of 4-1 C/md� �-000—,S- C� I-) Gc�2 bo l fie. tip-rei>v &0 -fog ,�'rr ' �� gn' *e- b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal 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 f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 0 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: �?- (Multiplier : 1) POINTS: 19— COMMENTS : d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features tc screen parking from public views. RATING: a (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: n--)17"L g'6$-'t. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize • • public views of surrounding scenic areas. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) . ezi The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: 2-- POINTS: 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. (Multiplier: 2) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the • proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) COMMENTS: RAT ING : Z POINTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B) 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 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 12% housed. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS RAT ING : POINTS: The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted POINTS 1 3 5 0 • RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2 : Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4a: Points in Category 4b: SUBTOTAL: Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Commissioner member: RAT ING : POINTS: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) (Minimum of 9 pts. required) (No minimum threshold) (60% threshold = 54 pts.) 12 (Total of 96 Available) 0. imMwrrmOW kwamNow NOW • CITTY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: ('4/;, f� '47 t (` !'�_ DATE: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RAT ING (Multiplier- 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. A RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment 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. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: • • COMMENTS: d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS: C e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: CO MMENTS : 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT 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 the existing • neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: CID, �/�0'tG%�! � PC-� v'�-�I2-cal RATING: ©(-�- POINTS: 2 b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal 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 saf ety and privacy of the users of the development. RAT ING : �r (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 'L'� COMMENTS : �.�• �7� (��t `j O 44,e� f � fit) A-vu Ae,�- A Wocic-L) r Wt"(W Q �R �0�«Gfliyi 1..yaGAl-bo t i c &;gpc l� 4-10 /6 �c= L c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RAT ING : Z POINTS: 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RAT ING :`' POINTS: �- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize • C� public views of surrounding scenic areas. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: 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 of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: ' b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. �; (Multiplier: 2) COMMENTS: c -- RAT ING : POINTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B) 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: COMMENTS: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 12% housed. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted POINTS 1 3 5 Cl COMMENTS: (Mul 5. BONDS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: --�-" -- - (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4a: POINTS: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Nl%�(Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) 2 (Minimum of 9 pts. required) Points in Category 4b: — (No minimum threshold) SUBTOTAL: (60% threshold = 54 pts.) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Commissioner member: (Total of 96 Available) 0 i CZTTY OF A S PEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS tm& PROJECT • AADAT E : 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 of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) CO MMENTS : RATING: POINTS: i1e b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RAT ING : , (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment 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. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: v 0 . COMMENTS: d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS:y COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS:y COMMENTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT 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 the existing neighborhood developments. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal 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 f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the development. RAT ING : 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: ` COMMENTS: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: CO MMENTS : 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RAT ING : / POINTS: 5 e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize i public views of surrounding scenic areas. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: y s 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 of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the exi st i n'g 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: 2- POINTS: 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. (Multiplier: 2) COMMENTS: RATING: 2 POINTS: C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the • up proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) CO MMENTS : RATING: 4f POINTS: id CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B) 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 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point f or each 12% housed. RATING: _-1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS TNCommission shall assign points to those applicants who gua ntee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or middl -income units by purchasing fully constructed units which a e not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24 1.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sc edule: 1%-33% of all ow-, moderate- and middle -in me units proposed by applicant re to be purchased and deed-rest-ricted 34%-66% of all low-, Xoderate- and middle -income unihs� proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67%-100% of all low-, modera - and middle -income units pro, d by applicant are to be pure sed and deed -restricted POINTS 1 3 5 RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11.6(b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4a: (Minimum of 9 pts. required) Points in Category 4b: (No minimum threshold) SUBTOTAL: (60% threshold = 51 pts.) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: (Total of 96 Available) Name of Commissioner member: PROJ ECT : CITTY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS DAT E : f 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RAT ING : Z- POINTS: 2 b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: / (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: —_i__-- COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: �^ (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2� • 2. COMMENTS: d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: ?, (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: Li COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RAT ING : (Multip ier: 1) �' POINTS: COMMENTS: ��VicI:J-72011 QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT 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 the existing neighborhood developments. COMMENTS: RAT ING : (Multiplier: 3) POI S: d � � / �v M b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal 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 f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the development. RAT ING (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: C� COMMENTS: C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. CO MMENTS I„/L'() / / . RAT ING : (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize • u public views of surrounding scenic areas. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS: 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 of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS: 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. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the 4. proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RAT ING : POINTS: (Multiplier: 2) CO MMENTS : CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B) 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 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 12% housed. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS ' The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: POINTS 1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and 1 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and 3 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and 5 middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted E (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) RATING: POINTS: The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11.6(b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4a: RATING: POINTS: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Z (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) (Minimum of 9 pts. required) Points in Category 4b: (No minimum threshold) SUBTOTAL: 60% threshold = 54 pts.) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Commissioner member: �/ -S 1 (Total of 96 Available) r CITTY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: - (_-, Q G j 0 A ! 32 0\ DAT E : 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 of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS : RATING: POINTS b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2 COMMENTS: d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to► fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2 COMMENTS: G e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: I COMMENTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT 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 the existing • 0 neighborhood developments. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal 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 f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the development. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: Y' COMMENTS: C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS: 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. (Multiplier: 3) RATING: POINTS: COMMENTS: ��� L s-)T) 6> :::27 L-� CL c7? L I -W S / 01 - f�� ��C ►•� 1 S �VJ ► 9LS=-I-) S3Ly Crl) e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize 0 0 public views of surrounding scenic areas. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: 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 of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS: 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. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the 0 0 4. proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B) 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: COMMENTS: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point f or each 12% housed. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted 67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed -restricted POINTS 1 3 5 11 0 COMMENTS: (Multiplier: 1) 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) RAT ING : POINTS: The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4a: �� (Minimum of 9 pts. required) Points in Category 4b: SUBTOTAL: Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Commissioner member: (No minimum threshold) (60% threshold = 54 pts.) A I (Total of 96 Available) i • 0 CZ OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: G C /� �;�1� t �c�GGf i7 fI GLc�C ,�( TJ�� �.� DATE: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: -_- (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS : b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 21 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2_--� COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment 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: 'z- (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: E CO MMENTS d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS:� COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: f COMMENTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT 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 the existing neighborhood developments. RATING: f (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal 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 f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the development. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: (c COMMENTS: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS : - 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. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RAT ING : Y POINTS: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize 3. public views of surrounding scenic areas. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: Z� POINTS: 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 of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: �— (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: C� COMMENTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the • 0 4. proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) COMMENTS: RAT ING : POINTS: CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in Category A, normally 5 points in Category B) 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: COMMENTS: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point f or each 12% housed. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or middles income units by purchasing fully constructed units which ale not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with Section 2-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following hedule: 1%-33% of a low-, moderate- and middle-'ncome units proposed by appl ica are to be purchased and deed- estricted 34%-66% of all to , moderate- and middle -income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed-restri ted 67%-100% of all low-, m derate- and middle -income units roposed by applicant are to b6 purchased and deed -restricted POINTS 1 3 5 RAT ING : (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RAT ING : L .- (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4a : Points in Category 4b: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) _ (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) (Minimum of 9 pts. required) �W (No minimum threshold) SUBTOTAL: (60% threshold = 54 pts.) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: } (Total of 96 Available) Name of Commissioner member: I w W j m Z <yY0 W y Z> � 0 0 D Z F_U y 0 U y y 1- -to = 4 J f- I.- V fA 0 K Z Ll W W � J W p U >-O W U Z r U.Q ¢ W W W w p = C.1 1' Y ~ Z W Z 4 W G Q 0 F V = W 0� 0 < < U W p r r p w D x W 2 � Z m 0 0T ZQ >- 0 W ;3Uy U 2 J r Q w W Y W O Z r Q S Q Z 'r n r W 0 y Q J _ i Z o 2 Q L) oz Z� W r > w c�uw¢ Z W 0 0 O LL Z o p Z o U, -w u 4.4 ~ W O W Z w W �oLL�a' 00. w o w Z =) p u S 6 Z `S 33 3 i; 31 30 UTE �w A ✓E• D.I.P WdTt=1L. LI nJG 1A- l: AT 9 VICINITY" _ MAP Tf-ALFJ> F=ZXIM Y'NE 195'% OFFICIAL CtTI' of ASPBJ MAP A!2 UTE. 4JE �.]38` »`''y4°W I2a1G•.oc ) ' L1 UTF 4vD1T1oIJ F�J�.IDARY UTE ADDITION ANALYSIS ?o pE-(er�1,�� LOT caLc-uLgTlowiS PROPERTY SURVEY THE LODGE rAT ASPEN or - LOTS 15 B,16117 UTE ADDITION 1'0 THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND LOT 41, SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. UTEAVE(�InTH ✓A�IEs) NOTES 1n1FoRMAT1oIJ GKoM TI+� 5✓bOI✓.SfOnl PL4i DG- TAG 0-re ADD17�t>.J C InIG02.J^A-(IDhI G(toM THG 195`� OFGILIAt- MAP bG -rkr- LIT( vF A-z�AJ IwIGoKM4t vnJ Gt'_oM LML-7Y P-Avg=MErJT jcz �c-r exiok 2t�c P4[aE Z(�4 PITw-l&.I Lo+�►JTl' Rom¢DS �( i% IGOeMAT1orJ KZoM TILL PLAT of TINE- CLAIM Q= W. L. MA9-PL . v-tJvvJol A4 -V"P M j Y LOv� FrC. IgTH I�°t j ��FOE-In4 1101.I F(CDN1 YFFt; JGP> DF_n.IT 2E:�i- JfL.III:Y AIJP j )rvE`( of T. t O S , e. t,4 WI of -rk E. 4�Ta ?. M . C_.c�. �JFiEii f i'1 S OF 9 FAO. ELr ✓ATI4>6S ArJ Afl-MST-"r-Y T MM. tCo �- GowJTovlz. op JG f`ck,i. r-OKI-(oJ¢. WTa-"4L-S G4JAL- Ft✓E FI 4rlT". T41S MAP WA-5 PKEPAr.r.D W(T9 A AoMM Il-mr-k T For- TrTLr_ LAVJN(eW-`7 T1r�E 11.151JR-4n1c.L c.olzp. cgsE nla PLT -283 -Sh1 4PRIi- 1/orlJ 1`tFi(o ALL kj-eeJ' KEGF_�c-I I.S [� TO P�p� Qr,1D PA[�r� 42.r`- F�c-al'�oR�.-D r,.1'._ T�4Y PITK\1.J GO✓>JTIL G+- _PJL 41.�D r lu?1o2D�v 'UTILITY LI�.JEs qR-.� APPRoXIMATe- LEGEND CERTIFICATION A��� 4LP5 �iDl>MI/J IJM<j • Fdullp gef-LAr- W I (AP ZI DA✓1D VII. Mc.P�R1DE NE�E�Y C.82TIFy TI:4T "fµl^ �' $. ��` I V • � `• •yf••� 1J t• t V O Fle -a-TY LOW1Eft M4P '-I P2 A� FfCU 4� M = E LD k3 vT e� ol= A �u ZJe tG15TE VQ •• a o ti F + SuctJ,e.`( cor.1-TIZor_ FbI�.JT MADE UnJDF_.Q. Mai 51JPF�J/!�jlc.ti f�JIlI�C-� �� 16129 OM41JNoL_e- MA� I lgeY2 `i1 ��' E�G•'c �09 COc© lh� �� PJJI L�J 11.)!a� LIn1F (�/) /CG X P RC7PE aZt 1 L 1 r l I_ _ /1 �AVIp A. Mc 59-1vE �.OLO. I-E-6- _ L�1JD SJIW t=Yo2. L.S. I(o1 Z� 4 FOU-1J IrJ IILG{.J PIPL , ASPF�I.I TPWAJ6ITF GOF�+E-R- /.ID. loo �T�IE � Ql�il�ly W4u- � l.loT GIEL77 L17C.-QTF D PQOPFoC-T� LInJ� F�oM Ttli� —KjVC>Ml0lL)M MAP or- ASPe4J AL -PS tJoe.,-A r!—K 4 PAcal: 353 ^�zo. 41�4z W 9y S3 mm LOT lq >3A S I S v F Pi641za ti.i� h 42"t= I 1&f,1141 Flew / AT- q I (,Sz . o l AT - I ISh.a11 ' LOT41 AV-" = _ZSctSq FT. FOUrJD aF.FjAr-W/(AP L.10 L�,a r-CIOO 7 fr-*4 L WCA? N8 1\ I3 rJ S'I SEWED L1 G4 V. Ft,,- t` i-FoU1Jo RF-fi.>AI� W/PLA�IL GQY I_`J' Z�i1(c j UTE o .o LOT 17 ,'2' ae:vynrt w/ PL4 11L GAP L'o 23'7 o�sT OFloLJ c.-S -loam K.R.TIE R�TAIIJ1WALL Ao 13U 11_p I tjG M�TE� DDITION LOT 16 -ToTA I- A¢-C--A LoTS 11, 1 (-. , 15 e5 151`3fee b±5Q. F-, . Woov WgL.K� 4A.42: 101 tJ �n 2 I� WDOD I SN�D AIM 1c1'�- I ✓6eT-- ov.J o 9Es4it No =A-? o % PA✓EMF-+�' Otr of 1�0<jlyflvr� l� �149"-.>4taE �.Se' IaZ. LOT I I og IZ 21>4D em'ErneJ'T P-AT 13001� to pAgE qj . / \ tD' I)'T1Li�J E452.1.1tu.}i PSoolc Zofo PAS 2(�. e� i `Iac �n (6Z33) O , • S9'5'8' 4Z" I FOUI.JD �jY,+ Iq5•}- p�R.A�� cAP "AsPE+J ToeJ J 517E eo1� wlet� n�o 1 ` 0 0 0 5' log zc 3G SGAL-E I" = I C PREPARED BY Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 S. GALENA ST. P.O. BOX 2506 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 (303) 925-3816 DATE JOB NO. �_g_$(o 1loDggi 1 1 1 l 1 1 •� 1 1 1'O 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 It PROJECT lx I� I ' .... I 1 ASPEN CLUB I 1 MM 1 A PROPOSED c HOUSING Ems, 'x�-,ASPEN MOUNTAIN P.U.D. I I • ° Q I� Q b acD°v °oQo ' j. y o0 Q d a 0 Ooo 1 � p o I• N e u .O' Oap U °o a5 0° •O®a Q® at00 c. .°e o a: qP6�®® IL1J•-��.�D �C7 PD�D O�� � � o ���0 • o a �0 �® i� LL7❑ 6a �0 ��a e eD•, ° o•o SD °p p �i O uqo ••o C ?,' %`'�.. O °b. '° °m• OOp c• m Elm C,. o O 3r' a: fo e�� .. D O,°. •o.o'FriD � Oa �O D.•.DO oDd 0 0 �J. t �.t '0 l o � � � °'.0p, �� 8 0 1] 4 � 0 I� Q�IJ 4 1 • 0 6 FICE D Da OG3 as a° n � ° MUSIC ° �a c o b TENT o. u 1�J nn 0 ASPEN ° T !,. MEADOWS F FrK�' Ilfi•f,�t�',•; PROJECT VICINITY MAP AJAX APARTMENTS Iy��.•y �* Y. � � � r L D4tfT DIgI.011 r --- ORIGIM-E $THEE' 4 SITE PLAN ---11- 11 1� i� II i 1 BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN 0 5 10 20 • BUILDING S ECTiON VEHICLE RAMP MAIN LEVEL PLAN 0 5 IO 20 /�UNAING fECTION u • MEi SECOND LEVEL PLAN 0 5 10 20 RHINO • is T111] its THIRD LEVEL PLAN 0 5 10 20 17 LJ 26 C 5� 20 2, i 25 24 23 JEJ 22 BUROiHG S ECT J OH • • BUILDING S ECTiON • ROOF/ DECK LEVEL PLAN 0 5 10 20 I" m IN - masts a saki[ = 4m a • NORTH ELEVATION 0 S t0 20 0 • NORTH ELEVATION/BUILDING SECTION 0 5 10 20 i • EAST ELEVATION 0 5 ,0 20 I � I 0 WEST ELEVATION 5 Ic 0 UT-f A/C. LANDSCAPING PLAN XIOM%.=Wmm=- 0 5 D 20 0 LANDSCAPE DESIGN BY: the �^nc �� ck-ifrr PROPERTY SURVEY THE LODGE a -AT ASPEN LOTS 158,16,I7 UTE ADDITION TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND LOT 41, SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. r, +•ti UTE AVE(.)• •—�r..>rw--mar— - - UTE ADDITION ANALYSIS NOTES •.aae ay. Na aaaa. a.. •J a.�w. uay T��esd ... .su ...,......e rR Nh r+.r. •u r.r,�r. nr •a- r..a.J u.av e-.eaa •.Is ,.u..rar .w,M ..i, aµ .Iw•r..r.• LEGEND CERTIFICATION - • ram.. uw raw t, o.w• v ... aa.., ...- . •... _..: L'J � IO O w+ur wiaa ,a. w•.� .a... w J.na, u a la�Y �••�a Q ••..aa .wr.a ..•f . \uin •�• — „mot r+.ra •r � �y ; ':", ' �'u S •.....r. ..w %..l `.'/��� _� to r..wan .. w Si a i+ •+.Jr. _.... u. ..... �... a.. r .. ... •trtJ •a.altn• fra•M. i. • I y H ....a ` LOT 41 •••• . . rru.I+ •,a,a r�IJYna al�r •..... ,..... • .. - .. �� ram. LITE S ADDITION 9 LOT 16 V \\ X. LOT IRA at ravuu .. Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. �w s uu+• sr e •ea net •srt+, cmeu•o tnu uen tssaw e•rt 0 +e a.•.+ .• MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Enqineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Zoning Enforcement Official Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office RE: The Lodqe at Aspen GMP Amendment Parcel ID#2737-182-95-009 DATE: May 29, 1986 Attached for your review is the Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment applicaiton submitted by Vann Associates on behalf of T.K. Williams. Briefly, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the growth management plan approval granted in the 1982 competition to the Lodge at Aspen (31 unit hotel), which project would be located at 771 Ute Avenue. The development rights and property have been conveyed by Lyle Reeder (the original applicant) to Mr. Williams. In addition, Mr. Reeder is conveying an additional adjacent parcel to Mr. Williams. Based on the larger parcel, Mr. Williams is applying to use the entire property to be conveyed for the amended GMP project, and wishes to change the configuration of the project, unit count, FAR, open space, site coverage, parking spaces, and employee housing. Please review this application and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than July lst in order for the Planning Office to prepare for a public hearing in early July. Thank you. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Enqi veer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Fire Marshall Zoning Enforcement Official Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office RE: The Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment Parcel ID#2737-182-95-009 DATE: May 29, 1986 Attached for your review is the Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment a pplicaiton submitted by Vann Associates on behalf of T.K. Williams. Briefly, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the growth management plan approval granted in the 1982 competition to the Lodge at Aspen (31 unit hotel), which project would be located at 771 Ute Avenue. The development rights and property have been conveyed by Lyle Reeder (the original applicant) to Mr. Williams. In addition, Mr. Reeder is conveying an additional adjacent parcel to Mr. Williams. Erased on the larger parcel, Mr. Williams is applying to use the entire property to be conveyed for the amended GMP project, and wishes to change the configuration of the project, unit count, FAR, open space, site coverage, parking spaces, and employee housing. Please review this application and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than July lst in order for the Planning Office to prepare for a public hearing in early July. Thank you. —moor✓s 00#0006sAh. PRaSac•Y 4AA. An Ssov�� i3 y -TN0 As#4.*,1• c APers $'Aat T4T♦ C 1J IS t'^r c.F", 14 s a '0YA'4A , 0 • D. SHACKEEFORD SHIPP, JURIS DOCTOR ATTORNEY AT LAW 617 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 91612 P.O. BOX 8629 (303) 925-1987 July 17, 1986 D 0 Planning and Zoning Department few 130 S. Galena St. I Aspen, Colo. 81611 Re: Lodge at Aspen Project -Lot 41 Gentlemen: We represent Lyle Reeder, individually, and as president of Wolftone Corporation, co -applicant in the above project. The Forest Service has previously made a determination that the U.S. Government owns Lot 41 and, as such, entered into the Amended Land Exchange Agreement dated January 29, 1986. This contract to exchange has been in full force and effect since that date and contractually obligates the U.S. Government to deliver a patent of Lot 41 to Wolftone. After the Forest Service decision about ownership was made the Aspen Alps appealed that decision. The appeal is now being considered by the Bureau of Land Appeal but appears to be without merit. However, to facilitate the issuance of the U.S. Patent, we are negotiating with the Alps to withdraw their appeal so that the Bureau of Land Appeals would dismiss the case. Wolftone Corp. stands ready to pay the sum of $39,800 to the Forest Service upon delivery of patent. Should you have any questions regarding our interests please call me at the above number. With kindest regards, I am, Sincerely, D. Shackelford Shipp DSS:SK all United States • Forest Department of Service Agriculture Lyle Reeder, President Wolftone Corporation P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr. Reeder: Rocky • 11177 W. 8th Avenue Mountain Box 25127 Region Lakewood, CO 80225 Reply to: 5430 Date: In accordance with the Amended Land Exchange Agreement between Wolftone Corporation and the Forest Service, executed on January 29, 1986, the following actions have been completed as of this date: 1. Wolftone Corporation has conveyed, by warranty deed, title tc 124.0 acres to the United States of America. The deed has been recorded in Pitkin County. 2. The United States has conveyed title, by U. S. Patent, to Lot 20 and Lot 53, two of three non-Feaeral parcels, to Wolftone Corporation. The patent was recorded in Pitkin County on April 10, 1986. 3. On April 28, 1986, the United States made a cash equalization payment to Wolftone Corporation in the amount of $3,600.00. The Amended Land Exchange Agreement contractually obligates the United States to deliver patent to Lot 41 to Wolftone Corporation. This will be issued when the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) determines that Lot 41 is owned dy the United States or the appellant has withdrawn the Land Appeal pending before IBLA. In the event the appellant withdraws the appeal, we anticipate that the IBLA would promptly dismiss the appeal. Upon dismissal, the Forest Service will immediately request the Bureau of Land Management to issue patent to Lot 41. We anticipate that the patent would be ready for delivery in two to four weeks after the Bureau of Land Management receives our request. Upon delivery of patent to Lot 41, Wolftone Corporation will be required to pay the sum of $39,800.00 for cash equalization purposes. Delivery of patent in exchange for payment of $39,800.00 will complete all obligations of parties to the Amended Land Exchange Agreement of January 29, 1986. The original Land Exchange Statement of Intent, submitted by Wolftone Corporation and accepted by the Forest Service, authorizes Wolftone Corporation to conduct land surveys of Federal Lots 20, 53 and 41. ILI a FS-e200.28(7.82) Lyle Recaer e In anticipation that the Appellant will witnaraw the appeal from IBLA, you indicate that Wolftune Corporation is conducting development activity with the owner of land aajoini% Lot 41. The development process involves applications to ana approvals from the City of Aspen. The Forest Service, based on its contractural ubliyation, does not object to the submission of development proposals to the City of Aspen which involve Lot 41. However, those proposals do not obligate the United States in any way beyond the contractual obligations contained in the Amended Lana Exchange Agreement. Neither surface disturbance nor occupancy of Lot 41 is authorized beyond that necessary to accomplish survey work. Sincerely, H. PETER WINGLE Director, Recreation and Lands cc: White River NF t F"200.2s(7•az) 0 AMENDMENT TO LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS DATED 13 FEBRUARY 1985, BETWEEN WOLF ONE CORPORATION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMER�If�CA This Amended Land Exchange Agreement, made this day of , 1986, between Wolitone Corporation of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred c as the Corporation, and the United States of America, acting by and through the USDA, Forest Service, is for the purpose of combining and clarifying several previously executed agreements, as hereinafter described. COMES NOW, the Corporation and USDA Forest Service and states: 1. The Corporation originally proposed a land exchange described in the Statement of Intent dated July 26, 1982, offering 137.b5 acres ci non -Federal land in exchange for 11.4 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land. 2. After two amendments to the Statement of Intent, the Washington 01'iice, Director of Lands, USDA Forest Service issued a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice, dated May 2, 1983, to make the land exchange whereby the Corporation would convey 137.b5 acres to the United States of America in exchange for 1.44 acres of NFS lands contingent upon the following actions: a. Appraisals must be completed on both Federal land and non -Federal lands. They must demonstrate that land values are equal or can be equalized pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716). (See paragraphs 3 and 4 below.) b. The NFS lands must be examined for the presence of cultural resources, and the requirements of E.O. 11593 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 must be met. C. The Corporation must make satisfactory settlement with certain other users of NFS lands and will take the NFS lands subject to claims by certain other persons listed in Schedule 1 to this amendment. d. BLM must concur with the conveyance of Federal minerals. 3. After a third amendment to the Statement of Intent, which eliminated 3.3 acres of non -Federal land known as the Forest City Lode, Mineral Survey No. 6624, from the exchange, the appraised value of $174,400 for 134.35 acres of non -Federal land offered by the Corporation was approved on August 6, 1984. 4. The appraised value of $195,200 for the 1.44 acres of NFS lands was approved by the Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service on September 14, 1984. 5. The Corporation, due to circumstances beyond its control, was unable to maintain an ownership interest in that part of the 134.35 acres of non -Federal land consisting of 10.33 acres of land known as the K Wyoming Mineral Survey and which was offered in the land exchange. The appraised value of the 10.33 acres is $15,000 approved on August 6, 1964. The 10.33 acres was removed from the proposed exchange by the Fourth Amendment, dated January 23, 1965, to the Statement of intent. b. The Administrative Review of the proposed land exchange dated January 30, 1985, determined that all contingencies in the May 2, 1963, Decision Notice had been satisfied and that the appraised values of the lands remaining in the exchange, 1.44 acres of NFS land appraised at $195,200 and 124.02 acres, more or less, of non -Federal land appraised at $159,000, can be equalized by the payment of $3b,200 by the Corporation to the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 7. The USDA Forest Service considered the alternatives of increasing the amount of non -Federal land offered in exchange or decreasing the amount of NFS 'Land to be conveyed in exchange, and determined that increasing the amount of non -Federal land is infeasible and that decreasing the amount of NFS land will require an additional transaction to dispose of any NFS land eliminated from the exchange. 8. Based upon the Administrative Review (paragraph 6, above) and the foregoing determination (paragraph 7, above), the Regional Forester approved the proposed 'Land exchange by letter dated February 6, 1965. This letter approved an exchange of 1.44 acres of Federal land valued at $195,200 for 124.02 acres of non -Federal land together with a cast; equalization payment of $36,200 to be paid to the United States of America. 9. Since one parcel of NFS land, known as MS#6012 and being .08 acres in size with an appraised value of $5,400.00, was required to be surveyed by BLM before issuance of patent, the proposed transaction was segmented. Two Land Exchange Agreements, dated February 13, 1985, were executed by the Regional Forester and the Corporation. Said Land Exchange Agreements are described as follows: a. The intent of the first Land Exchange Agreement, hereinafter referred to as Agreement A, was to allow immediate processing of title for the majority of lands involved in the exchange proposal. This Agreement provides that the Corporation will convey 116.817 acres with a total value of $152,928.00 together with $36,872.00 in cash equalization payments in exchange for conveyance, by the United States of America, of 1.36 acres of NFS lands with a total value of $189,800.00. b. The intent of the second Land Exchange Agreement, hereinafter referred to as Agreement B, was to provide for processing of title for the remaining lands in the exchange proposal after approval of the BLM survey of MS#6012. This Agreement provides 0 9 that the Corporation will convey 7.19 acres with a total value of $6,072.00 in exchange for conveyance, by the United States of America, of .08 acres of NFS lands with a total value o2 $5,400.00 together with $672.00 in cash equalization payments. Land Exchange Agreements A and B, dated February 13, 1985, as herein above described, are incorporated herein by reference. The numerical values and acreages described in Land Exchange Agreements A and B are illustrated in the following table: 10. It was determined that Land Exchange Agreement A should recognize the potential claim of title of Aspen Alps Condominium Association to Lot 41. Accordingly, the Corporation and the Regional Forester executed Amendment No. 1 to Land Exchange Agreement A on May 22, 19d5. Acres Value Cash Egualization Total Value 1st Phase 1.3b $189,800 -0- $189,800 2nd Phase .06 5,400 $672 6,072 Totals 1.44 195,200 $672 $195,872 ►•m -•- -in -�•. Acres value Cash Equalization Total Value 1st Phase 116.817 $152,928 $36,872 $189,800 2nd Phase 7.19 6,072 -0- 6,072 Totals 124.02 $159,000 $36,872 $195,872 11. The Regional Forester was informed of a potential claim to title of a portion of Lot 20 by C.M. Clark on June 18, 1985. Accordingly, the Regional Forester directed the Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest to (a) inspect all NFS lands to be conveyed to the Corporation, (b) to document all apparent unauthorized uses of and improvements (including the Clark claim to portions of Lot 20) on the three parcels of NFS land to be conveyed, and (c) to determine which of these uses and improvements have been mitigated by agreements between the Corporation and the unauthorized occupants. 12. The Forest Supervisor has provided documentation of unauthorized uses and improvements. These uses and improvements are listed in Schedule 1 which is attached hereto and is a part hereof. The Forest Supervisor also obtained copies of agreements between the Corporation and unauthorized users. These agreements are listed in Schedule 2 which is attached hereto and is a part hereof. 13. The Corporation and the Regional Forester executed, on July 1, 1985, Amendment No. 2 to Land Exchange Agreement A and Amendment No. 1 to Land Exchange Agreement. B. 0 9 14. The Aspen Alps Condominiumr Association on October 14, 1965, appealed the September 11, 1965, decision of the Colorado State Director, BLM that. Lot 41 is owned by the United States of America to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. 15. The plat for the survey of MS#6012 was approved by BLM on November 26, 19b5, thereby establishing the legal description of MS#6012 as Lot 3. WHEREAS, 'JSDA Forest Service and the Corporation desire to proceed with conveyance of all lands involved in Land Exchange Agreements A and B, subject to the derision of the Interior Board of Land Appears as to ownership of Lot 41, said parties do hereby severally agree as follows: WITNESSETH: To clarify the description of the properties involved, while retaining tree other provisions of Land Exchange Agreements A and B, the Corporation and USDA -Forest Service hereby agree that Schedules 1 through 5, attached hereto and a part hereof, shall supercede and replace the land descriptions in Land Exchange Agreements A and B and all previous amendments thereto. Pursuant to the General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 465) as amended by the Act of- February 26, 1925 (43 Stat. 1090) and the Act of October 21, 197b 190 Stat 2743); First, the Corporation does hereby agree to convey to the United States of America the real property described in Schedule 3 consisting of two pages attached hereto and made a part hereof. In exchange, therefore, the United States of' America agrees to convey to the Corporation, by patent issued by the Department of Interior, the real property described in Schedule 4 consisting of one page attached hereto and made a part hereof and in addition thereto, to pay to the Corporation the sum of Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($3,600). Second,•subject to the decision of the interior Board of Land Appeals on the Qctober 14, 19d5, Appeal of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, the Corporation does hereby agree to pay the sum of Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($39,800). Ln exchange therefore, the United States of America agrees to convey to the Corporation, by patent Issued by -the Department of Interior, the real property described in Schedule 5 consisting of one page attached hereto and made a part hereof. Third, the Corporation and the United States of America agree that if the Interior Board of Land Appeals determines that Lot 41 is not owned by the United States, that part of this agreement described in the preceding paragraph is void and will not be performed by the parties. The numerical values and acreages described above are illustrated in the following table and represent the structure of the land exchange as a result of this Amendment to the land exchange agreements: • 0 Federal Land Cash Total Acres Value Equalization Value 1st Phase 1.27 $155,400 $3,600 $159,000 2nd Phase .17 39,800 ------ 39,800 Totals 1.44 $195,200 $3,600 $198,800 .. -.- _�. Cash Total Acres Value EQualization Value 1st Phase 124.02 $159,000------- $159,000 2nd Phase ------ -------- $39,800 39,800 Totals 124.02 $159,000 $39,800 $19b,800 Note: Total value oi- Federal land is $195,200. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides that either party to a land exchange may provide up to 25p of the value of the Federal land in the form of cash payment in order to equalize values. The net cash equalization payment provided by the Corporation is $36,200, which amounts to 18.5� of the value of the Federal Land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Wolftone Corporation and the Regional Forester have executed this Amendment this day of January, 1986. WOLFTONE CORPORATION By USDA -FOREST SERVICE State of \ n I - 61 ) r ) SS: County of I ilft-SI)n ) On this ??J� day of 19-L-, before me, T�6 DAM R_�D � , a Notary Public in and for .aid State, personally appeared L who acknowledged t.imsel f to be the 'Pk L;In� LQ T of Q L a corporation, and that he is authorized to execute the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Public Signaturt- My Commission Expires ICE 193_9 State of L_DI O C'6jo ) SS: County of On this 2al day of SALnL1 hr V 196 , before me, D -, T�M�ON , a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared .S. Ff. ItamrS known to me or satisfactorily proven to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and official seal. _�) A, If U h Notary Public Signature My Commission Expires &L4v , 19 86 SCHEDULE 1 (Attached to and made a part of Amendment to Land Exchange Agreements dated February 13, 1985, between, Wolftone Corporation and the United States of America) The following unauthorized occupancies are located on National Forest System lands to be conveyed to Wolftone Corporation of Aspen, Colorado, in exchange for 124.02 acres of land owned by said Corporation. and other good and valuable consideration.. Tre unauthorized occupancies are described in greater detail in the title file of USDA -Forest Service prepared in connection with this land exchange. Lot 20, Section 12, T. 10 '_., R. 85 W., 6th F.M. (1) Twenty foot (apprcximate) wide unpaved traffic area -- City of Aspen and/or Pitkin County. (2) Railroad Tie Retaining Wall -- C.M. Clark and Douglas B. Clark. (3) Electric Transmission lines -- overhead -- Holy Cross Electric Association. (4) Twc Underground Gasoline Tanks with surface mounted fill caps -- C.M. Clark and Douglas B. Clark. Lot 41, Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. (1) A portion of Asper, Alps Condominiums Asphalt Parking Lot. (2) Wooded Elevated Sidewalk -- Ajax Condominiums. ( 3 ) Railroad Tie Cribbing -- Ajax Condominiums. (4) Ccncrete Sidewalk -- Ajax Condominiums. (5) Split Rail Fence consisting of three rails -- Ajax Condominiums. (6) Water Spigot with hose attachment -- Aspen Alps Condominiums. (7) Partial landscaping by adjacent landowners -- Ajax Condominiums. Lot 53, Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. (1) Twenty-five foot wide unpaved street -- City of Aspen. (2) Four -foot tall railroad tie retaining wall -- Mountain Queen Condominium Association. (3) Corner of the Mountain Queen Condominium Association Garage and tennis court. • • SCHEDULE 2 (Attached to and made a part of Amendment to Land Exchange Agreements dated February 13, 1985, between Wolftone Corporation and the United States of America) The Wolftone Corporation has executed certain easements to the following parties which are to be recorded subsequent to the issuance of the Patent to Lot 20 arising from, any of the parties names as grantee_ shall not constitute a defect in the title of the United States to the respective property or render it less than good and sufficient. Copies of these easements are contained in the title file of USDA -Forest Service prepared in connection with this land exchange. a). Road and Utilities easement to Mr. Richard Pyritz, Jr. b). Sewer Easement to Aspen Sanitation District.. c). Sewer and other easements to Mr. Robert G. Stevens for use of the Sibley Lode Mining Claim. d). Road and utilities easement to Mr. Robert G. Stevens for use of the Sibley Lode Mining Claim. e). Right -of -Way Easement of Holy Cross Electric Association. SCHEDULE (Attached to and made a part of Amendments to Land Exchange Agreements dated February 13, 1965, between Wolftone Corporation and the United States of America) Lands, interests in lands, that will be conveyed to the United States of America: Fee title to the following described lands: 1 In the Roaring Fork Mining District and Embracin€ a portion of Township 9 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. Lizzie Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. b021 Wolftone Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 6021 Ute Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 5647 Iron Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 5647 In the Woody Mining District and Embracing a portion of Township 9 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. NE Plus Ultra Lode Mining Claim, Survey Nc. 5813 Red Chief Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 5813 Silver edge Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 4644 American Girl Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 6167 Goldsmith Maid Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 6167 Alice B. Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 6167 Crown Point Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 6167 Empire Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 5800 Empire Lode No. 2 Lode Mining Claim, Survey No.5800 Malden Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 4619 Lost Diamond Lode Mining Claim, Survey No. 6023 containing 106.578 acres, more or less. PARCEL #2 The Big Chief Lode, Mineral Survey NO. 6624, all in Township 9 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., excluding any portion of the above described Mining Claim which may lie within the Virginia Pet Lode, Mineral Survey No. 4533. containing 8.39 acres, more or less. PARCEL E Favorite Lode Mining Claim U.S. Mineral Patent or Survey No. 7092 in Township 12 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. containing 9.039 acres, more or less. Subject to: 0 Outstanding Rights: 1. Rights of the United States and third parties under reservations and exceptions contained in United States Patents. 2. Any portion of the subject property lying within the Big Chief Lode, U.S.M.S. Little Chief Lode, U.S.M.S. #6624, and the Virginia Pet Lode, U.S.M.S. #4533. Pertains to Parcel 3. 3. Lack of right of access from the land to any open public road, street or highway. NOTE: This exception is necessary because it does not appear from the instruments ir the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County that any right cf access exists to an open public roadway. Pertains to Parcel ;. Reservations: Reserving to the grantor, the grantor': heirs, or assigns the right to enter upon the above described lands and to prospect for, mine and remove all minerals therefrom, subject to the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture (36 CFR 251.15) This right shall be conveyed to the United States of America after the Warranty Deed conveying the offered land has been recorded in Pitkin County, Colorado. 0 • SCHEDULE 4 (Attached to and made a part of Amendment to Land Exchange Agreements dated February 13, 1985, between Wolftone Corporation and the United States of America) Land, interests ir. lands, that will be conveyed to the Wolftone Corporation: Fee title to the following described land: Sixth Princip!21 Meridian T. 10 S., R. 84 W. Section 18: Lot 53 T. 10 S., R. 85 W. Section 12: Lot 20 containing 1.27 acres, more or less. Reservations according to proviso of the Act of August 30, 1690 (2b Stat. 391; 43 U.S.C. 945). Outstanding Right:: bone. However, both parties to this Amended Land Exchange Agreement are aware of: 1. The claim: being asserted by C.M. Clark and Douglas B. Clark to a ,_,portion of Lot 20 in Section 12, T. 10 S., R. 85 W., and agree that, for purposes of this agreement, this claim shall not constitute a defect in the title of -dthe United States to Lot 20 or render it less tnan good and sufficient. 2. The easerents described in Schedule 2 and agree that, for the purposes of this agreement, any claims arising from any of the parties named as grantees shall not constitute a defect in title of the United States of America to the respective property or render it less than good and sufficient. 3. The existence of improvements and uses on the respective properties as described in Schedule 1 and agree that, for purposes of this agreement, any claim arising therefrom shall not constitute a defect in the title of the United States to the property or render it less than good and sufficient. • • • SCHEDULE 5 (Attached to and made a part of Amendments to Land Exchange Agreements datec February 13, 1985, between Wolftone Corporation and the United States of America) Lands, interest in lands, that will be conveyed to the Wolftone Corporation: Fee title to the following described lands: Sixth principal Meridian T. 10 S., R. 84 W. Section, 16: ift-344 Reservations according to proviso of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391; 43 U.S.C. 945.) Outstanding Rights: None. However, both parties to this Exchange Agreement are aware of: 1. The claim being asserted by Aspen Alps Condominium Association to Lot 41 in Section. 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., and agree that, for purposes of this agreement, this claim shall not constitute a defect in the title of the United States to Lot 41 or render it less than good and sufficient. 2. The existence of improvec,ents and uses on Lot 41 as described in Schedule 1 and agree that, for the purposes of this agreement, any Zlaim arising therefrom shall not constitute a defect in the title of the United States to Lot 41 or render it less than good and sufficient. �J BARRY D. EDWARDS LYNN C. ALSON BY HAND DELIVERY Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Street BARRY D. EDWARDS LAWYER July 16, 1986 600 East Hopkins, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-9180 Re: The Lodge at Aspen; Planning & Zoning Commission application oendina; ownership Dear Sirs: I represent Terry Williams, who is a co -applicant with Lyle D. Reeder and Wolftone Corporation for development of the Lodge at Aspen project. You have requested information regarding rights of ownership of the property that is the subject of the current development application, particularly the parcel known as "Lot 41.11 Attached to this letter are copies of the following: 1. Letter from the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, to Lyle Reeder as President of Wolftone Corporation, from H. Peter Wingle, Director of Recreation and Lands, dated April 29, 1986. 2. Decision of Richard D. Tate, Chief Lands General Mining Law Section, dated September 11, 1985, addressed by certified mail to Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr. As you can see fro -la the September, 1985i and', c��. �-ii, 1336, decision and letter, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service both take the position that they are contractually obligated to provide a patent to Lot 41 to the co -applicant upon withdrawal or dismissal of the appeal filed by Holland and Hart as a result of the September, 1985 decision which holds that Lot 41 is property to which Wolftone Corporation is entitled to receive a patent. The co -applicants have been endeavoring to achieve an early dismissal of the appeal by the Aspen Alps, by mutually acceptable agreement. Those negotiations continue, and will hopefully be concluded before final approval has been given pursuant to this application. an J i jL BARRY D. EDWARDS Planning Office July 16, 1986 Page Two I want to remind you that this matter is quite similar to the development applications that were processed for the Aspen Mountain Lodge project by John Roberts' group, long before formal documentation of title had been acquired by the Roberts group from the Cantrup bankruptcy estate. It was the opinion of the Cit}, Attorney at the time, and remains so, that the development application should be processed with the requirement that actual title (above and beyond a contract to acquire title) to the subject property be demonstrated before final approvals for development were given. We believe that you will continue to agree with this approach. Of course, if you have some questions or comments regarding this matter, we would like the opportunity to participate in discussion with you before any decision adverse to the applicants is made. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. BDE:gms cc: D. Shackelford Shipp, Esquire, counsel for Lyle D. Reeder and Y olftV e Co Lpo'-lil ion 0 0 a 0 • United States Forest UQ) Department of Service Agriculture Lyle Reeder, President Wolftone Corporation P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr. Reeder: *6 Rocky 11177 W. 8th Avenue Mountain Box 25127 Region Lakewood, CO 80225 Reply to: 5430 Date: All)r� Z 9 i9E0 In accordance with the Amended Land Exchange Agreement between Wolftone Corporation and the Forest Service, executed on January 29, 1986, the following actions have been completed as of this date: 1. Wolftone Corporation has conveyed, by warranty deed, title to 124.0 acres to the United States of America. The oeed has been recorded in Pitkin County. 2. The United States has conveyed title, by U. S. Patent, to Lot 20 and Lot 53, two of three non -Federal parcels, to Wolftone Corporation. The patent was recorded in Pitkin County on April 10, 1986. 3. On April 28, 1986, the United States made a cash equalization payment to Wolftone Corporation in the amount of $3,600.00. The Amended Land Exchange Agreement contractually obligates the United States to deliver patent to Lot 41 to Wolftone Corporation. This will be issued when the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) determines that Lot 41 is owned by the United States or the appellant has withdrawn the Land Appeal pending before IBLA. In the event the appellant withdraws the appeal, we anticipate that the IBLA would promptly dismiss the appeal. Upon dismissal, the Forest Service will immediately request the Bureau of Land Management to issue patent to Lot 41. We anticipate that the patent would be ready for delivery in two to four weeks after the Bureau of Land Management receives our request. Upon delivery of patent to Lot 41, Wolftone Corporation will be required to pay the sum of $39,800.00 for cash equalization purposes. Delivery of patent in exchange for payment of $39,800.00 will complete all obligations of parties to the Amended Land Exchange Agreement of January 29, 1986. The original Land Exchange Statement of Intent, submitted by Wolftone Corporation and accepted by the Forest Service, authorizes Wolftone Corporation to conduct land surveys of Federal Lots 20, 53 and 41. RECEIVED MAY 7 1986 js F8-9200 ,'ro(l 62) Ji Lyle Reeder Z In anticipation that the Appellant will withdraw the appeal from IBLA, you indicate that Wolftune Corporation is conducting development activity..with the owner of land adjoining Lot 41. The development process involves applications to ana approvals from the City of Aspen. The Forest Service, based on its contractural obligation, does not object to the submission of development proposals to the City of Aspen which involve Lot 41. However, those proposals do not obligate the United States in any way beyond the contractual obligations contained in the Amended Land Exchange Agreement. Neither surface disturbance nor occupancy of Lot 41 is authorized beyond that necessary to accomplish survey work. Sincerely, c H. PETER WINGLE Director, Recreation and Lands cc: White River NF Os Fs•e200.28(7•021 KI • 1�1 E K� Ai i i a- 1-0 4 - mosol momm wagon slope 0 • �I am an 9 J .i �_��� • . iH 1f iI t lfi , ,�// `,• �� U1111ed SC.IL(',S DepaI anent Of the II1CC'.I'IOI' C-362 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO STATE OFFICE 2020 ARAPAHOE STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80205 CERTIFIED "AIL SEP 1 1 1985 Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr., of Holland and Hart Attorneys at Law D E C I S I O N Protest Dismissed By letter of January 7, 1985, Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr. of ci�'_a::d and Hart, representing ,span Alps Codominlum Assoc; acion, pretested t.._ zc-c'_eticn Jf Fcres_ Excha. ce Celcr-n, o 36299 ,`_ O., 7 The area within this lot derives from a complex interrelationship of time of appropriation of public lands by mining claim locations and tke Thaler Cash Entry, Cash Certificate 1034, of the Leadville Land Office. The claims and the T;ialer entry were contemporaneous, claims within the entry having been located prior to and after the entry was filed. General Land Office adjudication of the conflicts between the claims and the Thaler entry occurred over a period of several years. A series of letters, beginning July 1, 1899, and ending October 5, 1899, to and from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the U.S. Surveyor General, Colorado, and the Register and Receiver, Glenwood Springs Land Office, make up the final adjudication of the Thaler entry. As to Lot 32 of the Thaler patent, containing 1.73 acres, it is described in the above correspondence as ":forth of survey No. 3921, amended, 14. and Y. lode, covering all conflict with survey 3885, Hewitt millsite and the ground north of survey No. 3623 Betsey Jane lode and between said Hewitt millsite and survey :o. 4634, Home Stake lode." The Thaler entry initially conflicted with the original ;1. and Y. lode claim `1.S. No. 3921; Commissioner's letter of December 11, 1896, to the Register and Receiver, canceled the Thaler entry as to all conflict with the %I. and Y. lode. Thus, whey. the �1. and Y. survey was later amended, as required by a second Commissioner's letter, also dated December 11, 1896,,a small tria�giar a f unclaimed land resulted. The X. and Y. patent dated January 4, 1898, specifically e t.e Hewitt millsi.te, ii.S. No 3885. This, considered in context with tha July 1, 1899, tract description (later Lot 32), confines the east boundary of Lot 32 of the Thaler patent to that of lines 6 - 7 and 7-8 Of the, Hewitt millsite, i1.S. 3885, resulting in a second •,ery small parcel of u:1cl:,imed land bounded by line 5 - 6 of the ori;rnal �1. Ana lode, line 1 - 9 of :he :Aspen tow-r_site, the Hewitt r%illsita, ;J.S. Nc. 3383, and the subdivision li,,e between the ViJ'-;D'l�'-� and the SW4- , 0of section 18, T. 10 S. , R. 81: W. , 6th Principal 'Heri ian, Colorado. These two small contiguous areas comprise present Lot 41 of section 18, returned -as pun i,.: Iand on the pl::.t of deper. ent resurvey, an survey a�oroved Fehruary 14. 9 n. Pace _ 0 *inai adjudication of t;.e Ti:ai r entry during 1399, made frequent use of _grams to depict the various romnancs of the Thaler entry that were free of conflicts. and eligible for agricultural patent. While all of the correspondence acco-:?anving these diagrams appears now to have been recovere trom various nd ,,ias n, National .rcn_ves within the ast •ears the rcg.r_ms -avc :e ct tee - they dece_,_�nat_on _ ...e _ ..t_g__a._ _.._s ..e Thaler proved by the Surveyor Ceneral, Colorado, September 18, 1839. s document, a�rge scale diagram of section 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., cn Principa Meridian, �oiorado, drawn on drafting linen in common use at c'r.e time, exists as part of the public land survey records of the Bureau of Land `fanagement in its Eastern States Office. It bears the following certification: "I hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a correct Diagram tracing of Sec. 18 a.m. (amended) Tp. 10 S. R. 84 W. of the 6th P.:•f. showing all approved mineral claims to date, and the portions of legal 40 acre subdivisions made fractional by reason of such approved mineral surveys. Surveyor General's Office, Denver, Colo. Sept 18, 1899, (signed C.C. Goodale, Surveyor General.) The 1899 correspondence suggests that the lots cleared for patent to Thaler were shown in red, and indeed, from physical inspection of this diagram, there is a hi of reddish coloration depicting lots 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the Thaler patent. Visual inspection of the diagram is inconclusive as to presence of coloration within the area now identified as Lot 41�> Under binocular stereoscopic examination of these areas in the range of 1OX to 20X magnification, the reddish coloration of all the lots virtually disappears, even for the undisputed lots. Viewed.under ultra violet light, some boundary lines, not necessarily controlling as to the boundaries of the Thaler patent lots, shows clearly but does not help to differentiate the questioned configuration or coloration of lot 32 of the Thaler patent. 35mm color slides of this September 18, 1899, diagram, exposed in a manner to afford easy visual comparison among the lots of the Thaler patent and bounding mining claim and Aspen townsite patents that obviously were never colored, affords no positive identification of the configuration of lot 32 of the Thaler patent, nor does black and white infrared photography. The result of these various methods of viecring,the diagram while not conclusive, tends T strongly toward a cone usion that the Thaler patent for lot 32 did not contain the area returne as_public land lot 41 by the p at of resurvey approved reoruary 14, Review of the Thaler entry record file contains no document reinstating the entry as to the area canceled from it by the Commissioner's letter of December 11, 1896. This, together with the narrative description of lot 32 in the assistant Commissioner's Ju 1, 1899 letter to the J.S. Surveyor General, Colorado, recited above, and the``strong'Zndication of absence of Z coloration in the area now defined as of by the resurvey plat, reacs to conc usion t at of 41 is, indee , puol—ic--la-n-d-of the Undited tates and was properly returned as such by the plat of resurvey approved February 14, 1980. Se:- ice orcce_ur scan rime` C o: -federal iaP. V e:•;change land ..1 .^,OClce, 'or whiz:-. _ _-eSuired pubii_aticn -.gas completed September 1 , `, was specifically _o afford persons claiming any of the lands adversely, an opportunity to make their claims known. protestant's January 7, 1985, letter, more than two vea�4 later, there is no record of any party having come forward wit1 c ai:, to lot 41. any adverse On the basis of t.ne above information.and considerations, it is concluded that: the protest is without merit. It is hereby dismissed. Unless you appeal this decision within 30 days of its receipt, it becomes final. You have the right of appeal to the Board of Land appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4, and the enclosed Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken your Notice of Appeal must be filed in this office so the case file can be transmitted to the Board. A copy of your Notice of Appeal and of any statement of reasons, written arguments, ox briefs,must alsp be served on the Office of the Solicitor as shown on Form 1842-1. It is also requested that you send a copy of any state- ment of reasons, written arguments, or briefs to the office issuing the decision appealed. In taking an appeal, there must be strict compliance with the regulations. If an appeal is taken, the adverse parties to be served are: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region 11177 West 8th Avenue P.O. Box 25127 Lakewood, Colorado 80225 Wolftone Corporation P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Richard D. Tate Chief, Lands and General Mining Law Section Enclosures 1--appeal Information Sheet .1NT1 ?ICR . -.:;AGEMENT INFORMATION ON TAKING AFP?:L: TO THE BOARD OF LAND APPEAL: DO NOT .:PPEAL UNLESS 1. This decision is adverse to you, .i.: Q 2. You beiieve :t is incorrect IF YOU APPEAL, THE F0LL'--,YQ1G PRCCEOURES MUST BE ; OLLOWEJ 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL . . . . `,1'ithin 30 days ..`.e a Vic.ice o; Appeal in the office which issued this decision 43 CFR Secs. ;.;11 and t.;13). You may state your reasons for appealing, desire. 2. WHERE TO FILE NOTICE CF aPOEAL BUREAU OF L-\.ND SOLIC!7vR ALSO COPY TO T E REGiO\AL J'Oi2i..:OR, S . .:A&i"r.\; 0: _.. \ ic' RIOR P.O. BOX 25007 FEDERAL CENTER DE`IVER, COLORADO 80225 3. STATEMENT OF REASONS Within 30 days after filing the .\'once of Appeal. file a complete statement c reasons why you are appealing. This must be filed with the United States Deps of the Interior. Office bf the Secretarv, Board of Land Appeals, 4015 Wilson Arlington, Virginia 22203 (see 43 CFR Sec. 4.412 and 4.413). If you fully state reasons for appealing when filing the ;Notice of Appeal, no additional staterr. necessary. SOLICITOR ALSO COPY TO . . THE REGIONAL. SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTNENT OF THE INTERIOR P.O. BOX 25007 FEDERAL CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80225 ;. ACVERSE PARTIES Within 15 days after each document is filed, each adverse party named in the de and the Regional Solicitor or Field Solicitor having jurisdiction over the State in the appeal arose must be served with a copy of: (a) the ,Vuticr of rlppeul, (b) the ment of Reasons, and (c) any other documents filed (see 43 CFR Sec. 4.413). S will be made upon the Associate Solicitor, Division of Energy and Resources, ington, D.C. 20240, instead of the Field or Regional Solicitor when appeals are from decisions of the Director (WO-100). 5. PRCOF OF SERVICE Within 15 days after anv document is served on an adverse party, file proof : service with the United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Sec Board of Land Appeals, 4015.Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia. 22203. This ma sist of a certified or registered mail "Return Receipt Card" signed by the advers, (see 43 CFR Sec. 4.401(c)(2)). Unless these procedures are followed your appeal will be subiect to dismissal ('see 43 CFR .Sec. 4. 402). Be certain t communications are identified by serial ntimber of the case being (tppealed. NOTE: A document is not t7ie:i until it is actually rece:ved in ti•e proper office (see 43 CFR Sec. 4.401(a)1 sec. G. 5'.I C V.",:: i CC S. (a j -'. a. C: I ' C es ice 0 a n aa :n n e Tu- ec..:�n C: 2 e 01 ...:se ';2VS e�=n wne.-e the a of a na-Licnal ho;"dav 0: s-,he., a.-minist.-vive orde:. e Wn-.C:% -h, lf;;.;:e are open to the P,-Oli: or tne .,..,ng 11 " 0 -. an- nSDe=:o'-. C. re�:01'--;s are ..CM. a.. to 4 P. stancard time or da%,*-ignt saving time, .'; ,;.-.:cheve- is �n t-.ec- a- :he c"y n w'n; -S located. per-,, 4,ny doc'-men'. e,4 -n-�er 'he -egulations 0. t h s C.1 aer, w ne State 0;:;-- Ir :he "S 7.a;l or by persona! when not cpen the be -eemec: zC 'De day an, hou., :f*:Ce neyt ooen!c i . on. or decision -.0 ':,e -'.fled state'-4 pe-im-, --he 'ast Cal .'ails on 2 '-42%1 t'-e State 0!.,;Ce C: :he was'ne- ton Office is officially Closed, shall be deemed to be 'PrO-r--i. . -'! on -,eceived ;.-. the a-D at 0!"ic( the nex- -:ay - ht o-'-'ice is open to he puclic. To ❑ ENT Date G M. Time ��y� PM WHILE YOU WERE OUT From Of- Phone— q„ i Iv Telephoned Number { . Please call Came to see you Wants to see you Returned your call Will call again Message L /I 'ij; 191,041 .SHIM �M� Tur EiLn CNhn S �+'AaP . n +Iiem dP14A o>t Signed _. . Notes fDp nv+f„ `°h►whr� f - v TRY m V, no SL7A44P1.4�i�n SOIQr /n A �l Ph�11l Quill Corporation • Re -order No 7 92001 • (312) 634 4800 100 S Schelter Road • P 0 Box 4700 9 Lincolnshire, IL 60197-4700 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: The Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment Parcel ID#2737-182-95-009 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on July 22, 1986 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider the Lodge at Aspen GMP Amendment applicaiton submitted by Vann Associates on behalf of T.K. Williams. Briefly, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the growth management plan approval granted in the 1982 competition to the Lodge at Aspen (31 unit hotel), which project would be located at 771 Ute Avenue. The development rights and property have been conveyed by Lyle Reeder (the original appli- cant) to Mr. Williams. In addition, Mr. Reeder is conveying an additional adjacent parcel to Mr. Williams. Based on the larger parcel. Mr. Williams is applying to use the entire property to be conveyed for the amended GMP project, and wishes to change the configuration of the project, unit count (from 31 to 26 units) , FAR, open space, site coverage, parking spaces, and employee housing. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, Ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 5, 1986. City of Aspen Account. N.10 0 0 • CHARLES CUNNIFFE AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING BOX 3534, ASPEN, CO 01612 303.925-5590 TO Mr . Alan 1jig;hmond PlanningDepartmont _ City, of Aspen �� L5 `V' Lq• U U LS LRQ�IG�Q�'4 . MAY 1 91986 ;,tIL11 �•10�1 ]Vjl.aa�hmond nci IIF, T 0 D G —on F, T ASPFN GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU dIttached • ED Under separate cover via U Shop drawinus ❑ Prints ❑ flans ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑- the following Items: 0 Specifications 00111G11 UM L' NU. 0ESGNIPr1UN 1.2 _ _ __ Booklets "Amended Growth Management Approval" 12 sets Floor Plans, Site Plans, Elevations, etc. THESE ARE TRANSIAITTL•D as cltccVcd below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted =For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Ratumod for corrections o For review itnd comment ❑ ❑ Rosubmit topics for approval ❑ Submit copios for distribution • Return correclod prints ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 15 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS— — - — — COPY TO SIGNED: to Na�u orw L++.rv,u.l�,luw.wn It enclosures are not as noted, kindly r,oUry us at once. I it., ub.IILU AHI•d I lilt SI AIISI ICAL I Policy Number A Policy Amount 7 Ellentive Date SON LY AND IS NO A PART 2 Properly Pe 5 Prernium 8 SurveyArnerxJmeni - I)1 THI P(Tt ICY 3 rn..ni G lime Rule 9 Additional Chains EXHIBIT 2 i-- 85 -- — Lt u),vi-S "I�tic jns>1r�incc G)I pOIcZtlOil Scho(1L11(: A OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMIiI li UA II. OI POLICY AMOUNT OF IMSUItAIJCF POLIt:y M1.1Mit F. r7 ------ --- --- THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN --- ----- — PCT-283-86 JULY 16, 1987 $700,000.00 ON ]HIS SCHEDULE MUST 85-00-674093 2: I5 Y.M. AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET 1 Nanie of Insured: KENT W. SHODEEN 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: KENT W. SHODEE;N d. the land referred to in this policy is described as follows. PARCEL A: LOT 15B, UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, as shown on the Replat of Lot 15, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, recorded in Plat Book 10 at Page 91, and LOTS 16 AND 17, UTE ADDITION TO THE CITYIAND 'TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, LOT 4 1, acoording to the Dependent Resurvey and Survey Plat of the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dated February 14, 1980 Located in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. ALL IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. PITKIN OUN 'Y TIT ' , I C . l�l.tl�in county Title, Inc. 601 E. Hopkins (303) 925-1766 v Aspen, Colorado 81611 _L_— __ __ - - — --- --- -- --- ---- -- — - -- - --- -- . dnlm•. p•.n u•Aallwnrw Qll:rn• w .Lp ,n IatuPd dl Il itca Lnol -_--.__ P'rlr"y U. ov 2, 79) 1 its Policy is i n•aNt unlitss the eovnr shevi ALTA Owner's Policy Form B 1970 triev, IO. 17• /0 and to- 1 7•AA! Fmm N,I. 035.0 U8,•t'H101 •3 .Ind Stautduht It ve 0110 1MI. Cupyriyht 1UG9 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 February 25, 10,88 Mr. Wayne Vandemark, Fire Chief Aspen Volunteer Fire Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Silver Oueen Hotel (Lodge at Aspen) Dear TFayne: This is to confirm my discussion with you the week of February 15th concerning the above -referenced project. Our discussions considered the ohlication of the Developer to locate a fire hydrant in the vicinitv of the protect. It was agreed that the commitment was best fulfilled by the replacement of hydrant 4k720 with a hydrant conforming to current City of Aspen standards. Such work will be done under the supervision of Mr. Jim Markalunas and in accordance with current City of Aspen Cosntruction Standards. This commitment will be made part of a package submitted to the Building Department on or about March 1st. On behalf of the Owner of the project, I would like to thank you for your prompt consideration of this issue. By copy of this letter to Jim, I am making_ him aware of this commitment. Coordination of construction work will be done through the owner's architect, Mr. Jan Derrington of Charles Cunniffe Associates. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORCON M!=, INC. P.E. cc: -Mr. Jan Derrington, Charles Cunniffe Associates -Mr. Kent Shodeen, Owner -Mr. Jim Markalunas, City of Aspen SCHMUESER GOW MEYER INC. Grand Avenue, Suite 212 Tenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 CONSULTING ENGINEERS d SURVEYORS February 25, 1988 Mr. Jay Hammond, City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Silver Queen Hotel (Lodge at Aspen) Site Drainaae Plan Dear Jav: At your request, this is to confirm our conversation on February 25, 1988, with respect to the above referenced project. We agreed that the most pressing surface water drainage concern at this location is the drainage down Aspen Mountain Road and, more specifical- ly, the spring which is located south of this property. we concurred on the acceptahility of this project providing_ a storm sewer system south along Pspen Mountain Road to the spring location. The Silver Queen project would then be able to discharge into this storm drain system by gravity and/or sump pumps from the site. It is further understood that a commitment for the storm drain system was made part of a subsequent GMP application. If this site is devel- oped in accordance with this subsequent applicition, then the storm drain system must be constructed as part of the obligations of the development and use of this storm drain system by the Silver Queen project will be contingent upon further analysis of surface water retention storage on site. The drainage plan is being submitted as part of a package to the build- ing department on or about March 1, 1988. That plan will reflect the above understanding On behalf of the Owner, I would like to thank you and your office for your prompt review and consideration. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, RIC. an W. rdon, P.E. reside j DWG:lec/8019 • IV. WATER MAIN TECHNICAL CRITERIA 1. Pipe And Fittings All water mains shall be Class 52 thin cement lined and of slip joint or mechanical joint type with rubber gaskets and conform to AWWA specifications C151 for minimum 350 psi pressure. All fittings shall be class 150 cast iron pipe, .thin cement lined and of mechanical joint type. All pipe and fittings shall have a No. 4 copper wire welded across joints to insure conductivity. The use of 8 mil polyethylene wrap with taped joint shall be required in -areas of poor soil conductivity. 2. Pipe Bedding The pipe shall be bedded for the full length of the pipeline. The bedding material shall be pea gravel or squeegee hauled in for bedding and not native excavated material. The bedding shall extend from 6" below the pipe and bells to 1211 over the top of the pipe and bells and extend for the full width of the excavated trench. 3. Backfi 11 The backfill material from 12" above the top of the pipe to the top of the trench shall be Class 6 base course material in all street rights -of -way within the City of Aspen or in areas anticipated to be annexed to the City of Aspen during the useful life of the water main (50 years). 4. GATE VALVES AND VALVE BOXES Gate valves shall be installed for all valves 12" and smaller and shall be Cast Iron body, fully bronze mounted, double disk, non -rising stem and shall open by turning to the left counter -clockwise and be mechanical joint. Valves shall conform to AWWA Specifications C-500; the latest revision thereof and shall be Mueller or.Pacific States and be Class 250. Valve boxes shall be Cast Iron with screw type adjustment, 5 1/4" shaft for pipe burial of 7' minimum and the cover shall have the word WATER cast in metal. All valve boxes shall have No. 160 wide oval base. At intersections, all gate valves shall be installed within 3 feet of a- tee or bend and two 3/4" tie -rods installed to tie the valve back to the tee, except where the tee branch and branch valve are flanged. The top of the valve boxes shall be set 1/2" below existing or future asphalt surface. At the completion of pressure tests, the Contractor in the acompany of the Engineer and City of Aspen Maintenance Personnel shall operate all valves to ascertain that the valve is plumb and that the key will fit over the operating nut and the valve box is clean. 02555-1 5. COVER All 12" and smaller pipe shall have a minimum cover of 6 feet. All water mains shall have extra depth of cover at all tie-ins if necessary so that the tie-ins can be made without vertical bends. 6. KICKBLOCKS Concrete thrust blocks shall be formed and poured -in -place on all fittings and fire hydrants to resist hydraulic thrust. 7. LOCATION NEAR SEDER Water mains shall in general, be located ten feet horizontally from any sanitary sewer; at all crossings or when this minimum distance cannot be obtained, the water main shall be at least 18" above the sewer; if this cannot be obtained, the sewer shall be replaced with Johns Manville, "Blue Brute" water pipe for a distance of at least 10 feet on each side of the water main. The replacement sewer pipe shall be Class 150, Johns Manville, Ring-Tite, SDR 18, "Blue Brute" water pipe. All connections between the existing sewer pipe and the "Blue Brute" pipe shall be made with Calder Couplings. 8. STERILIZATION Flushing and sterilization of lines to be done according to the specifications of the Colorado State Board of Health (AWWA Specifications 601). Chlorine dosage shall be at least 50 ppm and shall be retained in the line at least 24 hours, at which time the chlorine residual at pipe extremities and other respective points shall be at least 25 ppm. If less, disinfection procedure shall be repeated until a 25 ppm residual is obtained. The Contractor shall ensure the chlorine residual and clear water is tested by the Pitkin County Sanitarian. Copies of the test results shall be provided to the City of Aspen. The chlorination and flushing of the finished pipeline shall be done prior to the hydrostatic testing. All valves shall be operated by the City. Disinfection by chlorination of the pipe shall be performed prior to acceptance by the City. The chlorination agent and method of application shall be approved by the City in accordance with AWWA Standar C 601. The City will not provide labor or material for disinfection to contractors installing mains. If chlorine tablets are used for disinfection, the tablets shall be attached to the inside top. of the pipe with "red" permatex just prior to the pipe installation in the trench. 02555-2 • • NUI4BER OF HYPOCHLORITE TABLETS OF 5 g STRENGTH REQUIRED.FOR A DOSE OF 50 mg/l* Pipe Length (Ft) Pipe Diameter (Inches) ` 6 8 10 & 12 16 2C 13 or less 2 2 5 8 12 18 2 3 6 11 16 20 2 3 7 12 18 *Based on 3 3/4 g available chlorine per tablet After the pipe is filled with water and chlorine, the chlorinated water shall be held in contact with the pipe twenty-four (24) hours. At the end of the twenty-four (24) hour period, the water in the pipeline shall be tested by the Pitkin County Sanitarian to ensure a residual chlorine content of not less than twenty-five (25) mg/l. Then the water in the pipeline shall be thoroughly flushed to remove the heavily chlorinated water. Care shall be taken in flushing the pipeline to prevent property damage, danger to the public and stream contamination. Samples of water will be collected for bacteriological examination and residual chlorine content testing before the pipe is put into service. Testing of residual chlorine and sampling will be done by the Pitkin County Sanitarian. 9. INSPECTION Backfill shall not be done until the line is inspected by the Design Engineer for alignment and depth. The Contractor shall notify the City of Aspen Water Department and the Engineer 48 hours prior to the start of construction. Three inspections of the trench shall be made each day prior to backfill of the trench. 10. TESTING - PRESSURE AND CONDUCTIVITY Pressure Tests The Contractor shall field pressure test all pipelines and piping to 150 psi or 150% of static pressure (to a maximum of 350 psi) in the presence of the Design Engineer and the City of Aspen Water Department. No hydrostatic test shall be made on any portion of the pipeline until all field placed concrete has cured for seven (7) days. Prior to testing, the pipeline shall be filled at a rate which will not cause any surges nor will it exceed the rate at which the air can be released through the air valves at a reasonable velocity and all the air within the pipe shall be properly purged. If no air valves are installed on the pipeline, air shall be released through fire. -hydrants and blowoffs. 02555-3 • • All air in the line shall be properly purged. Where blowoffs or hydrants are not available or are not effective in purging air from the line, the Inspector shall require a tap to purge the line. The location and size of tap shall be at the Inspector's discretion. While the test pressure is maintained, an examination shall be made of the pipeline in general and any leaks shall be repaired. Any pipe or fitting found to be cracked shall be removed and replaced. After all visible leaks have been stopped, the full test -pressure shall be maintained for two (2) continuous hours. The following are tabulated allowable leakage rates between line val ves: Pipe Size Allowabie Leakage Per 1000 Feet of Pipe Inside Diameter Gallons Per Hour 6 0.55 8 0.74 10 0.92 12 1.10 The Contractor shall furnish the water, pump and calibrated meter for testing at locations designated by the City. The Contractor shall also furnish all labor, necessary bulkheads, miscellaneous material and do all work to test the pipeline, maintain the required test pressure and blowoff the pipeline after testing, including the installation of 3/4" corporation stops for blowoffs where required for 6" pipe, 1"blowoff for 8" pipe and 1 1/2" blowoff for 12" and larger pipe. The operation of all existing and blowing off chlorinated water the approval of the manager of the Conductivity Tests valves, filling of the pipeline or other water, shall be done only with Aspen Water Department. The pipelines shall also be tested for electrical conductivity in the presence of the City of Aspen Water Department. Bonds shall be installed so that the pipelines will act as a conductor. To be sure that all bonds installed are effective, not more than a 1,000 feet of pipeline will be electrically tested at one time. The line shall be tested after the trench is backfilled and compacted, but before any street surfacing or seeding has taken place. The line shall be tested by connecting to a low voltage source to be sure that the pipe acts as a conductor. House services and fire hydrants shall be tested on a section by section basis. If the pipeline does not conduct the electrical current, the bonds or gaskets will be checked and repaired until the 02555-4 • cock or approved equivalent, with "Mueller" type threads. An 8" goose neck shall, be made in the service line to prevent the service line from being pulle from the main during backfill and compaction operations. The maximum size of direct tap which shall be allowed on each size of Ductile Iron pipe is as listed below. Al I. taps larger than the "Maximum Size Saddle Tap" for each size of main shown, shall be made by cutting in a tee wit solid sleeve and concrete kickblock. All tapping saddles•shall have the AWWA taper on its threads and the saddle shall consist of a bronze body with two bronze straps. MAXIMUM SIZE MAIM SIZE DIRECT TAP MAXIIIU14 SIZE SADDLE TAP 4" None 1" 6" 3/4" 2" 811 111 2" 1081 0" 111 " 211 12" 1" 2" All water service lines shall be K-copper from the tap on the main to the curb box and from the curb box to the house. A #4 copper thaw wire shall be cad -welded to the main (or approved brass clamp attached to the corporation cock), laid in the service trench (seperated from the service by a horizontal distance of 12") and attached to the top of the curb box. The 7#4 copper thaw wire shall continue from the curb box to the house and surface at the point where the water service enters the house. All service lines shall be bedded with pea gravel or squeegee bedding 6" below and to 6" above the service line. A Ford type ball curb valve and 7' Ford curb box w/33" rod, shall. be installed. Only Ford curb boxes w/33" rod will be accepted; no Mueller "Buffalo Boxes" will be allowed. 0 SIZE (INCHES) ELBOWS w DEAD ENDS GATE VALVES ft2) 45° (ft2) 2z j/ ° (ft21 II V4° (ft2) .4 1.8 1.0 LO 1.0 1.3 0.5 6 4.0 2.2 L3 LO 3.0 0.7 8 7.4 4.0 2.0 1.0 5.3 2. 4 10 11.4 6.2 4.1 1.5 7.8 4.5 12 1 16.0 8.6 1 4.4 2.2 IL3 7.3 14 21.7 11.8 6.0 3.0 15.4 11.0 TABLE 'OF* BEARING AREAS IN SQ. FT. TEE WYE 1/4 PLYWOOD OVER FACE DEAD END 900, 45°, 221/2° � or 111/49 ELBOW, HORiZ0NTAL or BOTTOM OF VERTICAL TRENCH WIDTH AS SPECIFIED NOTE: USE VISQUINE BETWEEN PIPE AND CONCRETE SEE TABLE FOR AREA OF CONC. TO EAARP UNDISTURBE RT E6 UALH iD NPIFJ Q D. SECTION (TYPICAL) SEE TABLE FOR BEARING AREA EA. SIDE ' •"'='`'" GATE VALVE TYPICAL -CONCRETE REACTION BLOCK DETAIL DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - THE LODGE AT ASPEN - THIS DECLAMATION OF COVENANTS is made and given as of the day of 1988, by ("Owner"), for the reasons hereinafter set forth, to the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation ("City"), with reference to the following: RECITALS WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner in fee of. the .follow- ing described real property situate in Pitkin County, Colorado, to wit ("Property"): Lots 15B, 16 and 17, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Asper. and Lot 41, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian WHEREAS, the City has given its approval, in the form of a Growth Management Quota System Allotment, for the construction on the Property of a thirty-one unit lodge to be known as "The Lodge at Aspen", which approval was granted upon the condition that, at the time of or prior to issuance of a building permit for the construction of The Lodge at Aspen, the Owner (a) restrict a portion of the improvements to be constructed for use as low-income employee housing; and (b) agree to join any lodge or other special improvement district that might subsequently be formed whose boundaries encompass the Property; WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to the Aspen- Pitkin Building Department fox• the issuance of a building permit to enable the Owner to begin construction of The Lodge at Aspen upon the Property. DECLARATION NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the Growth Management Quota System Allotment heretofore made for the benefit of the Property and the construction of The Lodge at Aspen, the issuance by the Aspen-Pitkin Building Department of a building permit for such construction, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt., sufficiency and adequacy of which hereby is acknowledged, the Owner hereby (a) represents unto the City that it is the sole owner of the Property with full power to and complete authorization from any and all third persons or entities that. in any way have an interest., recorded or otherwise, in the Property to make this dedication; and (b) declares that the Following shall be a burden upon the Property, shall. run with the tittle thereto, shall be. binding upon the Owner, its successors, grantees and assigns, and upon all persons or entities now or hereafter acquiring any right, title or interest whatsoever in or to the Property and shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforceable by the City, or, as the case may be, its designee by any appropriate legal action, including injunction, abatement or eviction of non- complying tenancies, for a per.J od equal to the life of the longest surviving member of the presently constituted Aspen City Council plus twenty-one (21) years or for a period of fifty (50) years from the, date of recording hereof in the real property records of Pitkin Country, Colorado, whichever period shall be greater: Employee Housing 1. The two employee housing units to be constructed in conjunction with the construction upon the Property of The Lodge at Aspen, consisting of one approximately 1,200 square foot dormitory unit and one approximately 600 square foot one -bedroom manager's unit shall be and hereby are restricted exclusively in terms of use and occupancy to the Low -Income Employee Housing Use, Occupancy and Rental Guidelines and Qualifications that may, from time to time, be in effect, duly adopted and regularly and uniformly applied by the City or its duly constituted employee housing designee; 2. Verification of employment and income levels for the individuals who occupy the employee housing units shall be completed and filed with the City, or its employee housing designee, prior to and as a condition of occupancy of the employee housing units, and annually thereafter; 3. Employees of the Owner or of the owner of the lodge facilities to be constructed on the Property shall be given the first right to occupy the employee housing units and, if so employed, shall be entitled to occupy the employee housing units notwithstanding that their individual income levels may exceed .low income levels, provided that, in all events, they shall not be charged more than low income rent for such occupancy; 4. In all other respects, the employee housing units shall not be occupied by other_ than Qualified Employees limited to those persons residing in acid employed in the City of Aspen or the County of Pitkin for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-month period, who meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements from time to time in effect, duly adopted and regularly and uniformly applied by -2- the City of Aspen or its duly constituted employee housing desi gnee. Lodge or Special_ Improvement District 5. In the evens: that any municipal irtipr. ovement (s) of a kind contc-�mplated in Section 7.0.16 of the Municipal Code of the City oi: Aspen becoii-tes in the judgment of the City necessary or desir;ible in an area that includes the Property, the Owner will make, no ohjer_tion to any special assessment or tax or proceeding therefor on the basis; that the Property is adequately served by existing improvement, or on the basis that the Property will not be nerved or henefi tU:, l by the improvement(s) proposed; provided only that any :such a.sss,(��-;sme.nt or tax accomplishes an equitrible al).ccation of the City's expenditures among this prope.i ties served by any such improvement( s). 6. Owner will participate in and will refrain from protesting the formation of any special improvement district proposed by the City for an area that includes the Property for the purposes of, without limitation, the installation and upgrading of drainage facil—ities, the undergroundi.rig and upg:rarl- ing of utilities, the paving of street;:, the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks, the installation of street and public property landscaping, and the installation of signage; provided only that the assessments made or taxes imposed by any such district accomplish an equitable allocation of the dis- trict's expenditures among the properties encompassed by such district. Neither this Declaration nor any dedication or covenant contained herein shall be modified, released or waived in any respect except by written instrument executed by both the Owner or, as the case may be, its grantors, successor or assigns, and the City, and duly recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner has made this dedication as of the day and year first abovo. written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ASPEN CITY ATTORNEY By Paul J. Taddune OWNER: (Notarial_ Clause on Page 4) -- 3 •- STATE 01' COUNTY OF T ",(Iq(---d 'I'lle f0rc-wing in.-I-rument: wj,,,,3 acknc)."'this clay of .1.988, by WTTPJjll.lf7- my han(3 mid officia) (S HA L ) MY c,c111illission 7. 28 Notayv I-IjjY)jj-c., -4- • u CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. Thomas S. Dunlop, Director March 1, 1988 Aspen/Pitkin County Environmental Health Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Silver Queen Lodge AKA The Lodge at Aspen 711 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Tom, On behalf of our client, responding to the list of the referenced project in dated June 25, 1986. Kent W. Shodeen, we are environmental concerns for your memo to Steve Burstein Air Pollution (woodburning devices): We will be in compliance with City of Aspen current regulations. There will be one conventional fireplace in the public lounge only. Restaurant Grills: The Breakfast Bar and Service Kitchen will be for continental breakfast, after ski snacks and limited room service, mostly prepared elsewhere and rewarmed before serving. It is not known at the date of submission for the foundation permit what type of equipment will be used, but the project will comply with the current City and State Ordinances in effect. Food Service: The above comments apply for this item as well. Demolition• Demolition of the existing house will be done in compliance with the dust control regulations recommended by your office. Likewise, any asbestos uncovered during demolition will be dealt with following your guidelines. Page Two Re: Silver Queen Lodge Contaminated Soils: Any contaminated soils encountered during excavation will be dealt with following your guidelines. Noise Abatement: Noise levels during construction will be controlled to comply with the current City Regulations. Spa/Hot Tub• It is uncertain at this time if such a facility will be installed in the project. If one is, it will comply with current State Regulations. We trust that our assurance of intent to make the project satisfy the above environmental concerns will be sufficient at this stage to allow us to proceed with the foundation permit application. Please feel free to contact us at anytime if you have questions. Very truly yours, L� Y Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal CLC/arh cc: Aspen Planning Office Aspen Building Department Rgq u r a-r - bie e t izr g- ---__- _ -----A-see n-- -C-i ty---C o un-c-i-1--...-. -- - - - A uu-s t :1-l-L 19 8 6 this application. McGrath said the previous applicant relied on the evidence from 1977, about the unique appropriateness of the neighborhood/commercial zone of the Trueman center still applies today. Taddune agreed the state statute prohibits the issuance of a retail license within 500 feet of a school. Taddune said he is at a loss how the applicant can represent this location is in excess of 500 feet from a school to obtain a license, and then take the position this application cannot be approved because it is within 500 feet. Taddune said tt-je affidavits indicate the premises is within 500 feet, and the applicant should have an opportunity to rebut this evidence. Taddune questioned whether there has been a violation of the liquor regulations by the present occupant. Seigle said the trail was not paved when this liquor license was granted. Taddune said this finding may impact -the liquor license the Council just awarded a transfer to regarding moral character; it may be the applicant had evidence they were in violation of the liquor regulations. Taddune suggested Council continue this hearing and to re -open the hearing of the previous license,' - Mayor Stirling moved to continue the hearing for the application of the Aspen Mountain Spirits to August 25, 1986, and secondly, in light of any new information to reopen the public hearing on the transfer of Great Western Spirit Company on August 25; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Councilman Collins said he would like information on possession of the premises. Councilman Collins said he feels each application should be dealt with separately. Councilman Collins said he would like a interpretation on whether Great Western has possession of the premises. Taddune told Council the Court of Appeals has opined that Grueter is entitled to possession. This is subject to certiorari to the Supreme Court. Seigle said the Courts of Appeals has said pending final resolution of this matter, the present tenants have the rights to the premises. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. L-ODGE'--G- tP- ALL-OeNTI-ON - The Lodge at Aspen Steve Burstein, planning office, told Council this is a GMP amendment of an application submitted in 1981. Changes are a decrease in units from 31 to 26 units and an increase in square feet from 23,000 to 32,783 square feet. Burstein told Council this has been accomplished by adding an adjacent lot. Burstein told Council P & Z looked at whether the amendment met the scoring threshold and whether the position of this applicant would change in relation to any other applicants. Burstein told Council this application met the threshold and was the only legal 11 R-e-gu l-ar--Mee-t-rn-ct------------- i-fie-n--City --Co-un-eZ-1- - - -- ---- Au-cru s t -1-1 ;- -1-98 6 application in 1981. Burstein told Council there is an ownership issue regarding lot 41. The new application is predicated on obtaining lot 41 for the open space and FAR calculations. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told Council in 1981 Hans Cantrup was trying to build a lodge, which was red tagged. Cantrup sued the city and that put a stay on this application. Cantrup then filed bankruptcy and this applicant could do nothing until this property was released. Council granted an extension to this application so the GMP allocation would not expire. Vann told Council Reeder has an agreement with the forest service to convey lot 41 to him. The Alps has used this property and has appealed to the forest service. Vann said the city attorney's position has been that Reeder has a legally binding agreement to acquire this parcel. There are discussions between Reeder and the Alps regarding this parcel. Vann said this allocation does not expire until 1988, so the parcel dispute being solved by time of building permit will not adversely affect the applicant. Jerry Hewey, Aspen Alps, told 'Council -they are working with the applicant to come up with an amicable solution. Burstein told Council P & Z recommended this project be reconfirmed with 10 conditions of approval. A landscaping plan is required. - Burstein said the open space may have been miscalculated but there will be no problem meeting the minimum requirement of 25 percent. The title condition has been discussed. The fourth condition discusses parking. Burstein told Council the applicant has resubmitted a parking plan, meeting the approval of staff. This plan has 26 spaces underground. The service entrance to the lodge will be underground. Burstein recommended condition 4 be eliminated. If Council grants an exemption for the employee parking, condition 5 would not be necessary. The rest of the conditions are fairly standard. Mayor Stirling asked about woodburning devices. Vann said there will be a fireplace in the lobby and none in the individual units. Mayor Stirling asked about park dedication fee for the residential units. Burstein said Council can exempt the employee units from the park dedication fees. Vann said generally applicants are not changed park dedication fees on employee units and they would request that exemption. Councilwoman Walls said she would like the applicant to change the name of the project to change confusion. Charles Cunniffee, architect, said they kept the name simply to keep the history of the approvals straight. Cunniffee said they are willing to consider changing the name. Burstein told Council there is a request for GMP exemption of the employee housing of one managers. unit and two dorm units on premises. P & Z recommended approval of this request. These 12 AU-qg1-s t-_ 11; ._1.9 8 6 will be low income, deed restricted on -site employee units. Burstein said there is a process where Council can reduce the number of parking units for employee parking. P & Z was concerned about the employee parking requirements. The staff feels 26 underground parking spaces ought to be adequate for this project. The code requirement sets employee parking by special review. Vann told Council at time of original approval of this project, the GMP approval gave points for reducing the number of parking space. The previous application had 15 spaces for 35 units and no spaces for the employee housing. Vann said the criteria used for lodge projects recently has been .7 spaces per unit; however, there is currently no provision to reduce the parking space requirement without going through PUD. Vann said if Council applies .7 times 26 units, the recuirement would be 18 spaces, with 8 spaces for employees. Vann said since the GMP regulations have changed, they cannot build. -the original parking proposal, and request Council waive th6, °employee parking requirement and the applicant will provide one parking space per unit rather than .7 parking spaces. Mayor Stirling said he is not interested in transferring parking requirements from one project to another. Vann said this parking proposal is better than that of the original. One of the reasons for the GMP amendment is that the size of the units have been increased. Councilwoman Fallin said the parking in this neighborhood is very bad. Vann said the plan attempts to channelize the traffic to the project and prohibit people from parking on the street in front of the project. Vann said the applicant feels 18 to 22 parking spaces is appropriate for a project this size, and past city approvals seem to indicate this is the case. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see some evidence from other lodge projects that this is the case. Councilman Isaac said Council has consistently granted .7 parking spaces per lodge room. Councilman Isaac moved to confirm the GMP allocation for the Lodge at Aspen amended GMP project subject to the conditions 1 through 10 in the planning office memorandum August 6, 1986, minus conditions 4 and 5; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Pulls moved to approve the requested GMP exemption for employee housing subject to the recommended conditions in the housing authority memorandum of Jun 12, 1986, and to exempt the employee units from the parking requirements of the code; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. REpUFS2` FOR-P'$NIIIS - Handicap Ramps on Mall 13 VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants March 1, 1988 HAND DELIVERY Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Silver Queen Lodge (a.k.a., Lodge at Aspen) Building Permit Submission Dear Steve: As you are aware, the Lodge at Aspen GMP allocation will expire unless plans sufficient for the issuance of a building permit are submitted on or before March 3, 1988. A building permit plan set has been prepared and is scheduled to be submitted to the Building Department on March 1. The Lodge at Aspen GMP amendment was approved subject to eight (8) basic conditions. As noted in the City Council minutes of August 11, 1986, a copy of which is attached hereto, the conditions of approval are contained in the Planning Office's memo to the City Council dated August 6, 1986, and consist of conditions number 1 through 10 minus conditions 4 and 5. The Applicant's compliance with these conditions is described below. 1. Landscaping must be installed as represented prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. A detailed landscaping plan, including the area adjoining the Aspen Alps property, will be submitted to the Planning Office prior to installation. 2. Detailed open space calculations are included in the accompanying building permit plan set. 3. A copy of the Applicant's title insurance policy evidencing ownership of Lot 41 is attached. P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612.303/925-6958 Mr. Steve Burstein March 1, 1988 Page 2 4. The lodge's trash enclosure has been increased to ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet as depicted on the accompanying building permit plan set. 5. As the attached letter from Dean Gordon, P.E. indicates, the location of the proposed fire hydrant has been determined to the satisfaction of the appropriate entities and is depicted on the accompanying drawings. 6. The demolition and excavation requirements referred to in Tom Dunlop's June 25, 1986 memorandum will be adhered to as stated in the attached letter from the project architects. %. A detailed drainage plan for the project has been prepared and is attached hereto for review by the Engineering Department. 8. A commitment to join any improvement district which may be formed encompassing the project site is contained in the draft Declaration of Covenants attached hereto. Similarly, the project's employee housing component was approved subject to the conditions contained in the Housing Authority's memorandum dated June 12, 1986. The attached draft Declaration of Covenants also addresses the Authority's conditions. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Attachments CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS P.O. BOX 3534, ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, A.I.A. Aspen/Pitkin County March 1, 1988 Building Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Silver Queen Lodge AKA The Lodge at Aspen 771 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen, This is to confirm the discussion we had at our pre - submission meeting last Friday, February 26, 1988 regarding the documentation required for an adequate and acceptable foundation permit submission. As we told you then, we were directed by the City Planning Office to calculate open space and F.A.R. for the above referenced project using the newly revised regulations contained in Ordinance 54, Series of 19e7, adopted by City Council in December 1987. We have recently learned that the open space revisions, which were proposed as written in P & Z Resolution 88,.were deleted from Ordinance 54, but we were advised to follow them anyway. We have followed their original directive and determined that this project is in compliance with those regulations as we understand them. Our submission documents provide the necessary information to substantiate this compliance. Since there appears to be some question as to the effective legal application of Ordinance 54, we respectfully request that you contact Mr. Steve Burstein of the Planning Office. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Charles L. Cunniffe'',/ AIA Principal cc: Mr. Steve Burstein MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Cortina Lodge Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions DATE: March 4, 1988 We have reviewed the "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions for the Cortina Lodge" attached to your February 24, 1988 memorandum and have the following comments: Paragraph 2, p.2: It is not correct that the Cortina consists of all two (2) person rooms. Units 6, 7, 8, 11, & 12 are specified as 2 bedroom dorm units. Unit 13 is a common lounge/kitchen. Units 14, 15, and 16 are specified as 3 bedroom units, with kitchenettes in Units 14 and 15. I am not aware that the occupancy of other units has been specified. The correct numbers should be specified in this document. The Housing Authority should conduct a site inspection of the Cortina to assure that upgrade improvements, kitchens, and baths have been accomplished as approved by the Housing Authority. I spoke with Jim Adamski today and we intend to set up a visit to the Cortina next week. Paragraph 3, p.3: It appears that the applicant has correctly deed restricted the seven units (8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16) in the Cortina to meet the Hotel JermoneIs employee housing obligation per the December 9, 1985 Council approval of the Change in Use GMP Exemption. Units 6 and 7 must also be so deed restricted for the Hotel Jerome employee housing obligation per City Council Resolution 1 of 1987, which allowed the Jerome to remove 4 on -site units and provide that lost employee housing in the Cortina. Four units were also to be restricted to meet the Woodstone (a.k.a. Aspen Club Lodge) employee housing obligations; however, since the Woodstone was not condominiumized it appears unnecessary to restrict the Cortina units. It is also correct that the entire Cortina must be deed restricted to employee housing, reserved for future employee housing needs. Paragraph 3, p.3: It appears that it is more appropriate for the applicant to have responsibility for "verification of an 1 • • employee's income and employee qualifications," and to contact the housing Authority on a timely basis for the Housing Authority to give approval. Otherwise, how can the City or housing designee know what is going on? Fire, Life & Safety Violations: The attached March 5, 1987 memorandum from Jim Wilson indicates that the applicant has complied with the condition that deficiencies in the Cortina be corrected. This was a condition of condominiumization. Condominiumization: This document does not accomplish condomiumization of the Cortina, which was also approved on December 9, 1985. Council's approval made condominiumization work "hand -in -hand" with the employee housing deed restric- tion. The applicant should expand this document to cover the aspects of condominiumization, including waiving the 6 month minimum lease restriction, separation of the limited common element areas, and filing a condominiumization plat. Other condo conditions appear to be met in this document. sb.cortina E • s; EGIONAL BUILDING 0EPAR17MENT4. ,)! M E M O R A N D U M TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: -.Jim Wilson, Building Department RE:. Cortina Lodge DATE: March 5,.1987 This is to inform you';.that a fire, life safety inspection.._' was done at -the Cortina Lodge,••.230 E. Main Street, as required for condominiumization..Deficiencies noted by inspectors -.in a memo dated November 12,.198b, have been corrected and inspected.- JJW:lo cc: City Attorney Shaw Construction offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 303✓925-5973 mail addrose �; 506 East Maln. Street* Aspen, Colorado 81611.-1