HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm. Lodge at Aspen 1983 Lodge GMP�.. Lodge at
1983 GMP
Aspen,
Lodge
Lyle Reeder
Competition
'�' M--4X4
CITY 0" A SPEI�i
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 20, 1983
TO: Planning Director____,
FROM: Paul Taddune��
RE: Lodge at Aspen GMP Lodge Appeal
2 1933
PLAA!NtNAr i.f
I have reviewed the documentation dated December 6, 1983, sub-
mitted by Lyle Reeder in connection with the P&Z's rejection of
the 1984 GMP application for the Lodge at Aspen, and I have the
following comments:
1. Although the Planning Office acts in an advisory capacity,
neither the Planning Director nor any other employee of the Plan-
ning Office has any "discretion" in connection with the scoring
and evaluation of lodge GMP applications. Therefore, appellant's
corliplaint that the Planning Office abused its discretion is inap-
propriate. Any appeal pursuant to Section 24-11.6 of the Munici-
pal Code should more properly relate directly to the actions of
the P&Z.
2. I assume that appellant was provided a copy of the November
16 and November 22 Planning Office memoranda and that the appel-
lant was present at P&Z's November 22, 1983, meeting. Therefore,
I suggest that the record of P&Z's proceedings be reviewed to
ascertain whether the appellant (or his counsel) objected to the
memoranda being considered by the P&Z. Generally, in appellate
review situations, an appellant is deemed to have waived an
irregularity upon failure to make the objection during the course
of the proceedings under review.
3. I have not verified the facts contained in the "statement of
case��portion of the appellant's memorandum in support of appeal.
I assume that, for the most part, the underlying facts are a mat-
ter of record. Nonetheless, I suggest that the Planning Office
review the facts contained in the "statement of case" and comment
as appropriate. `
4. A GMP appeal has three levels of analysis:
Memorandum to Planning Director
December 20, 1983
Page Two
(i) Has the appellant met the scoring threshold? In the
context of the Reeder appeal, the question to be decided by the
Council is whether the P&Z abused its discretion in not allocating
sufficient points. If the City Council finds upon its review of
the proceedings that there is sufficient rationale for not award-
ing a threshold score, the Council should determine that there was
no abuse of discretion by the P&Z, and there should be no further
appellate inquiry by the City Council with respect to the abuse of
discretion issue.
(ii) If the appellant has made the threshold but has not been
awarded a sufficient number of points to win the competition, the
inquiry should then be whether or not the P&Z abused its discre-
tion in either (a) being unfair in not awarding sufficient points
to the losing applicant, or (b) unfairly awarding too many points
to the winning applicant.
(iii) Aside from the abuse of discretion ground discussed
above, was there some irregularity in procedure that was so egre-
gious that it violated the appellant's fundamental right to due
process. Instances of such irregularities may include refusing to
allow the appellant an opportunity to speak at the hearing, deny-
ing him the right to legal representation, denying the application
solely on upon the applicant's race or religion, etc.
If it can reasonably be concluded that the appellant did
not make the threshold under the first level of analysis, then the
appellant lacks standing to attack the scores given to the compet-
ing project. However, it would be helpful in reviewing the merit
of appellant's contentions for the Planning Office to analyze what
effect, if any, conceding each contention in favor of appellant
would have on both the appellant's application and the Aspen Moun-
tain Lodge application. For example, I am curious as to what real
effect the proposed grease trap and energy conservation measures
would have one way or another on the Aspen Mountain Lodge applica-
tion.
5. Although the City Council has the authority to adjust scor-
ing, it does not appear that the appellant has alleged any legal
basis for the City Council to award an "additional 15 points to
the total score" as suggested in Paragraph 1 of the requested
relief. In this regard, the appellant has the burden of demon-
strating that his project was arbitrarily denied 15 points which
the project otherwise would have received if scored properly.
6. I am not aware of any Code provision under which the City
Council can grant the appellant an "exemption" to the Growth
Management Plan as requested in Paragraph 2 of the requested
relief. I suggest that the appellant be given an opportunity to
explain the basis upon which he feels an exemption may be justi-
fied.
PJT/mc
cc: City Council
Wright Hugus
Art Daily
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: December 15, 1983
RE: Reeder GMP Appeal
-------------------------------------------
Per your request, the City Engineering Department would
offer the following comments regarding the memorandum
in support of appeal submitted by Lyle Reeder. Mr. Reeder
is requesting a hearing before City Council to appeal the
decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission not to
recommend that the Lodge at Aspen be granted a development
allocation under the City's Growth Management Plan (GMP)
for 15 additional units.
We would comment on several items contained in the appeal
memorandum as follows:
1. Regarding the evaluation of the Aspen Mountain Lodge
item 1, the existence of the Durant Street encroachment
has been a matter of consideration from the start. The
request by the applicant for the encroachment is not of
particular concern relative to GMP allocation criteria
and is a separate aspect of the project requiring specific:
approval of the City Council. As it happens, we are currently
of the opinion that the Durant encroachment is not appropriate
and have made this recommendation to the P & Z.
2. Item 2, regarding the "grease trap," is another potential
encroachment request that is a design detail again not
appropriate to GMP. The applicants various requests for
encroachments do not impact our comments on the project
relative to GMP criteria and their disclosure of the potential
"grease trap" encroachment is more an example of the applicants
general effort to disclose all items that may affect the City
in as timely a manner as possible.
3. Finally, Mr. Reeder's assertion that 36% of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge employee housing on Ute Avenue is proposed to
be located in an avalanche hazard area is simply not true.
Parcel B was identified as an avalanche zone some time ago
and was excluded from consideration for development back
when Little Annies had the property. The Aspen Mountain Lodge
applicants have not proposed housing structures on Parcel B
and they are aware of the development constraints on that
site caused by the avalanche potential.
Let me know if I may provide any further elaboration or answers
i� DEC 0 r, 1983
V-L
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: ASPEN / F=I1'fi15Q(`
PLANNIN(� r)'-EIC>=
WHEREAS, Lyle Reeder has filed an application under the 1983 V
Lodge GMP Competition Section 24-11.6 of the Aspen Municipal Code
for construction of a 46-unit lodge to be called THE LODGE AT
ASPEN to be located at 711 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, as a result of scoring by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission, Lyle Reeder did not receive any growth
management plan allocation for 1984;
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned applicant, pursuant
to Section 24-11.6(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code, hereby appeals
to the City Council of the City of Aspen the action taken by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983, which action
denied applicant any development allocation under the Lodge
Development Application procedures. The appeal is made on the
following grounds:
1. The Planning Office abused its discretion in scoring
the competing applications and in evaluating the two
applications.
2. The Planning Office, in its Memorandums to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, dated November 16 and 22, 1983,
conveyed information which was biased against the
applicant's project and favored the competing
application.
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission relying upon
information in the Memorandums abused its discretion in
scoring the two applications, and the actions of the
Board was therefore a violation of due process.
The basis for applicant's appeal as to violation of due
process and abuse of discretion is more fully set forth in the
memorandum attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
Lyle Reeder
Applicant
Dated: December 6, 1983
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-11.6(E)
OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
Statement of Case
Applicant, Lyle Reeder, has submitted an application for two
Lodge GMP development allocations for 1984 under the provisions
of Section 24-11.6 "Lodge Development :application Procedures."
Applicant's project called for 46 new ledge rooms. Applicant
agreed to surrender his 1982 allocation of 31 lodge rooms upon
receipt of the new 46 lodge room allocation; thus having the net
allocation effect of requesting an additional 15 lodge room
quota. The applicant's project represents the first attempt to
try to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen under GMP
procedures. There was only one other applicant for the 1984 GMP
quota; namely, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings
Assoc. of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan Novak's Aspen Mountain
Lodge. The application consists primarily of properties involved
in the Hans Cantrup bankruptcy. The Aspen Mountain Lodge
application was a request for 211 new lodge rooms and
reconstruction of 269 lodge rooms. The total 480-room project
was to consist of 44% new lodge rooms and 56% reconstructed lodge
rooms. According to Planning Office calculations, there were 85
units available for 1984.
Planning and Zoning Commission action on the Lodge GMP was
set for November 22, 1983. The Planning Office submitted to the
members explanatory memos dated November 16 and 23, 1983 (copies
attached as Exhibit 3). The November 16, 1983 Memorandum was
conveyed as an attachment to the November 22, 1983 memorandum.
The Planning Office rated the competing projects in the
Memorandum of November 22, 1983. The results of the 1984
Planning Office Lodge GMP points assignment were as follows (copy
attached as Exhibit 3):
Lodge at Aspen 48
Aspen Mountain Lodge 59
Both applicants made presentations at the November 22, 1983
meeting, and the members of the Commission scored the project,
pursuant to score sheets provided. The results of the voting
gave "The Lodge at Aspen" a total average score of 49.5, and "The
Aspen Mountain Lodge" a total average score of 60.71, thus
granting the entire 1984 allocation to The Aspen Mountain Lodge.
Under the category of "Amenities Provided for Guests",
Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983, page 6, paragraph (3) states:
"The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed
services for guests-a's compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto..."
(underlining added).
me
The Commission abused its discretion by failing to apply the
above guideline to its scoring of the two projects.
y 1. By generally following the Planning Office's
N�p rN recommendation and giving a low score of 10.54 points (average)
out of a maximum possible of 21 points to The Lodge at Aspen
project. A small lodge cannot be expected to provide amenities
such as energy consuming swimming pools and outdoor skating
rinks.
1 2. By giving The Aspen Mountain Lodge a high score, 19.86
points (average) out of maximum of 21 points, the Commission
failed to consider the "any additions thereto..." portion of the
�►� �" project but instead considered the total project which is 56%
reconstruction. Apparently, The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposes to
demolish three swimming pools and to reconstruct two new swimming
pools; thus, if logically allocated to reconstruction portion,
0 the new 211 lodge rooms will have no swimming pool amenity.
The Planning Office in its Memorandums of November 16 and
22, 1983 failed to convey material information of a negative
nature to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the
competing application.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge:
1. The Memorandum in its evaluation of Aspen Mountain
Lodge's "Parking and Circulation" failed to indicate a proposed
encroachment, namely, "underground vehicular access into the
eastern parking structure will loop into the Durant
right-of-way." (from subsequent Memorandum of November 29, 1983,
page 4).
2. The Memorandums failed to indicate that The Aspen
Mountain Lodge proposed a "grease trap" to be located in the City
street. This was mentioned in the subsequent Planning and Zoning
meeting of November 29, 1983, and represents a violation of due
process.
3. The Memorandums' comments regarding The Aspen Mountain
Lodge under "Energy Conservation" failed to indicate the negative
impact of heat loss from the two proposed swimming pools to be
located out of doors, a violation of due process.
The Planning Office errored in accepting the competing
application for the following reasons:
1. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983 under Section 1
indicates that "all other provisions of this zoning code
notwithstanding, there shall be constructed within the City of
Aspen in each year no more than the following:" and under
subsection (b) "within the L-1, L-2, CC and CL zone districts,
thirty-five (35 lodge or hotel units." It appears that the
intent of (b) is for applications to be submitted only for .land
-2-
r
with the existing zoning of L-1, L-2, CC or CL as of the GMP
filing deadline. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 74
includes a proposed parcel rezoning of_ L-1 to CL of 27,107 square
feet. The application made an assumpi:ion that the rezoning would
�3 be approved whereby the allowable floor areas for the parcel
would be increased from 27,107 to 54,214 square feet. The
Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently on November 29, 1983
denied the rezoning request, thus changing the character of the
project.
The Planning Office Memorandums failed to mention that
thirty-six percent of the Aspen Mountain Lodge employee housing
is proposed to be located within a potential avalanche area.
Parcel "B" which is Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision lies between Ute
Avenue and a line whose evaluation is slightly above the 8040
elevation line. The Hoag Subdivision plat (Plat Book 4, page
218) has the following notation "No building permit will be
issued on Lots 1 and 3 until it has been demonstrated that there
is adequate avalanche protection to be engineered and certified
by individual or individuals with professional avalanche control
experience."
Off -site employee housing for The Aspen Mountain Lodge
consists of Parcel "A-2" and "B". The total size of the two
parcels is indicated to be 190,617 square feet. The Aspen
Mountain Lodge proposed employee housing for Parcel "B" consists
of 68,954± square feet of land (taken from subdivision plat filed
in Pitkin County Clerk's in Plat Book 4 at page 218). Parcel "B"
/ is also known as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision in the City of Aspen.
r Parcel "B" represents 36% of the employee housing land. The
application indicates that 90 employees would be housed on the
two parcels. If the housing is allocated uniformly then Parcel
"B" would house 32 employees.' In the scoring of Amenities
provided for guest the rating guidelines states that the
amenities shall be rated "in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto". The Aspen Mountain
Lodge's site of more than 11 acres is 33 times as large as The
Lodge at Aspen's site of 15,386 square feet which is slightly
larger than 5 city lots.
The Planning Office memorandum to the Planning and Zoning
Commission dated November 22, 1983, Exhibit 3, on page 1 in
reference to The Lodge at Aspen's application indicates "In our
opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior
proposed in several aspects..." This applicant believes that his
1984 project application should not be compared to his earlier
1982 project for the same site. It appears that some mythical
standard exists for establishing the point scoring.
Six exhibits are attached, namely:
Exhibit 1 - Letter of Lyle Reeder to Planning Office,
dated 10/5/83.
-3-
Exhibit 2 -
Exhibit 3 -
Exhibit 4 -
Exhibit 5 -
Reply from Planning Office to Lyle Reeder,
dated 11/9/83.
Memorandum from Planning Office Director,
dated 11/22/83, 2nd 11/16/83.
GMP Commission Tally Sheets
Supplemental information for The Lodge at
Aspen submitted to P&Z Commission on
11/22/83.
Exhibit 6 - Letter from Mr. Wright Hugus Jr., attorney
for applicant, setting forth additional
incidents of violation of due process and
abuse of discretion.
Relief Requested
This applicant hereby requests that the Council grant him
relief in one of the following manners:
1. That
the
City
Council,
pursuant to Section 24-11.6(c),
award an additional
15
points
to the total score granted to
this applicant,
to
compensate for
the abuse of discretion of the
Planning Office
and
the
Planning
and Zoning Commission members.
n1�
2. That
the
City
Council grant
this applicant an exemption
from the Growth
Management
Plan.
Conclusion
In closing, this applicant would like to point out the
consequences in the event the present scoring is allowed to
stand. If appropriate relief is not granted, The Aspen Mountain
Lodge will receive the entire growth management allotment and
possibly the allotment for the next 3, years of quota, while Mr.
Reeder's "The Lodge at Aspen" will not receive the net 15 lodge
rooms needed to construct a viable lodge project. While the
Planning and Zoning Commission's motives may have been the best,
we believe that due process and fundamental fairness require that
they be discounted. The record clearly reveals that,
irregardless of motive or intent, the process was abused.
Dated: December 6, 1983
Respectfully submitted,
Lyle Reeder
Applicant
-4-
t
r �
Planning Office
City of :,spun
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81.611
F,XA ibl-�
r ttn; Mr. Sunny V,lli:,, ll i roc tol
P. U. Box 46L)9
t►s.')Cri, Co. 816ii
925-!i360
October j, 1983
Re, 1984 Lodge (1-1, i--2) G. Ai. P. Competition %pplicaL-iuns
Dear Mr. Vann.
In review;,,;:,i the c:owpctiting applic:,,nt_s' presentation Ln
preparation for the P & Z hearing scheduled for November. 22,
1963 I would appreciate your assist,-ince with the following
questions which 1 alit having diffi :ulty it-1 illtel""rtlj"�tli:Cj
I note that o►i of the ..SPEN iiOUNT .I1. LODGE-
.1 on "Beci.uzsc- we Pi.anri(`d UIli t
iite,r;i_ regulati:.ns, vZzr?ations to the hei.(_hc. i.dwit c..:tc11� 1.ShN�i
for they Zone Dis C �::i,: t ..1 ce 1�eI_rr i t. t:c.;a and ,n be appy cveu L`y t.h:,
City... " •irnd lat-.er. "... Gunera1J_y speaking, aroundt th--
perimeter, i:lc_:ileum heights fr(:m tlat.ur.at grade will. v..i, l cal
30 to 50 : eet in order to j:eciuce the visua.] impact upon_
ri ans, within the interior of the Lodge footprint, se tt✓.:c:k
from the st..ceut L-aci e, h•::`ichts in some loc r-ions of 40 Lo
;.5 feet are propo. ud;.'. . "
1 fine in tl t' .ESL �. Lcninq Code, aU t)-v c- 1490, ;,t-ction 24-8.
Gt2ne'ral RequireIl:erts uiul ier p rc gral)ii (t)) I'Thc: pl..irined un i t
development must cons ti tute an area o.: at least twen z1 -SC: v::;.
thousand (27,000.) square feet unless the land is in an are,: -
designated mandatory planner-i unit development on the Lo:,.ir:�,
district map or is otherwise required by the Zoning Coa- L:) i;u
developed according tc, the provisioris of this article."
Also, Section 24-6,3 Variations from Zoning Code requiren;c::ts.
"To facilitate thc� objectives of planned unit development
there may be peraii tted variations from the l;rovisians o.e ttli::
Chapter 24 as hereinater specified:
(a) Variations may be permitted in the following
code requirements: Omen space, minlmunl distance between Lui.1.6--
ings, ma;cimum height (including view planes), minimum front
yard, minimum roar yard', minimum side yard, minimum lot viiata,
minimum lot area, trash access area, external and interr..il
floor area ratios, and number of off-street parking spaces.
(b) Variation shall not be permitted in allowable uses nor
from the reduirewents of specially planned area and histur_c
designation, or from use square foot limitations and sign
reoulations of this coda.
/ `Planning Offic
Under the ARE.
Aspen Code it
mum height is
Internal Floor
Nonunit space
above the FAR
- City of aspen Page 1 October 5, 1983
AND BULK REQUIREMENTS on page 1451 of the
is indicated that for L-1, L-2 Zones the Maxi-
28 feet, External Floor area ratio is 1:1, and
Area ratio is "Lodge -Rental space .5:1 — .75:1*
.25:1 with *33 1/3 percent of all renta.l space
of .5:1 must be devoted to employee housing.11
Question 1; Can the Aspen Mountain Lodge application compete
under the Planned Unit Development regulations while The Lodge
At Aspen cannot because The Lodge At Aspen's site . of 157386
square feet is less than the 27,000 square feet minimum? 'There
is no PUD designation for The Lodge At Aspen's site.
Question 2; If the answer to the above question is yes, hcw
will the Planning Office reconcil to an equitable basis the
heights proposed of upto 55 feet for the kspefi Mountain Lodge
while The Lodge At Aspen's height is limited to 28 feet by the
Zoning Code?
In the Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 63 and 64:
"... No employee housing has been provided on -site to the
hotel because it is felt off -site housing is both more desire -
able and manageable from the employees' viewpoint and from the
hotel's operations view..."
Question 3; Apparently the above is possible under an approved
PUD Plan. Will the Planning Office allow the PUD applicant
to compete with no on -site employee housing and require The
Lodge At Aspen to devote 33 1/3 percent of all rental space
above the FyR of .5:1 to employee housing?
On the subject of rezoning as proposed by the other applicant
on page 14 which reads; "R-15(PUD) (L) and L-2 L-2 zoning is
requested for the lots owned by the City (11,000 square feet
of land area) which are involved in the land trades proposal
and which are presently zoned Public..." and on Page 74, I
note that 11,000 square feet is included in the calculations
of the Total Floor Area.
Question 4; Doesn't the LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO G.M.P.
competition allow only existing LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO
properties to compete?
Question 5 ; Is the City of Aspen a co -applicant to the
Mountain Lodge application, since they apparently own the
11,000 square feet which is included in the application's
total floor Area?
c(oply
Manning Office - City of aspen Page 3. October 5, 1983
:t appears to me that one applicant in the competition
iay have available and is using the Planned Unit Develop-
ient procedures which allow a freedom in variations from
normal zoning codes that is not available to the other
applicant.
Your comments, answers and thoughts on the above questions
and my comments would be greatly appreciated.
ldr sed
Sincerely yours,
Lyle D. Reeder
0
L J
f►
Aspen/it`u fining Office
130 s:; bale,n"�;-street
aspen c�16rad6' �81611
.�1.....4l .�i.. Y;vmt•�4L 1
November 9, 1983 /
Mr. Lyle D. Reeder
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Lyle,
Sunny asked that I respond to your letter dated October 5, 1983,
regarding the 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition. Given my fami-
liarity with the Lodge at Aspen due to my review of the prior appli-
cation on the site, I will be the person responsible for analyzing
the current submission. Following are my comments on the five questions
you pose in the letter.
1. Section 24-8.5(h) of the Municipal Code provides that "An
application may be made for PUD approval for development of
lands within any zone district within the City of Aspen "
However, as you noted, Section 24-8.5(b) states that "The
planned unit development must constitute an area of at
least twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet unless the
land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit develop-
ment on the zoning district map or is otherwise required by
the zoning code to be developed according to the provisions
of this Article." Therefore, it is true that the Aspen
Mountain Lodge applicant may request to be reviewed as a
PUD, while the Lodge at Aspen applicant may not. However,
you should note that the applicant has only requested
consideration as a PUD and must now demonstrate compliance
with same. You should be aware that in order to show such
compliance, the required reviews for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge will be much more lengthy than those imposed upon
your project, giving you a possible advantage in completing
your project in a timely manner.
2. The Planning Office will review each application with
respect to the specific criteria and requirements of Sec-
tion 24-11.6 of the Code, Lodge Development Application
Procedures. We will not compare the proposed height of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge building to those of the Lodge at
Aspen. Instead, we will evaluate how well each site accom-
modates the specific development proposed for it. Further-
more, with respect to the height variance, Section 24-
8.5(i) of the Code states that "The burden shall rest upon
,yle D. Reeder
November 9, 1983
Page Two
an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application
and plan, its conformity to the design requirementsof
this
article, the lack of adverse effects of the proposed
develop-
ment and the compliance with the intents and purposes of
planned unit development."
3, Article VIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Planned
Unit Development, does not refer to the review of on -site
versus off -site employee housing for lodges. However,
Section 24-11.6(b)(4) does specifically provide for housing
the employees of a lodge on or off -site. The appropriate
FAR for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be determined by PUD
procedures.
4. The land to which you refer, zoned R-15(PUD)(L), is not
part of the lodge development application. This land is
proposed for residential development and will be the subject
of a separate application for a residential allocation.
The data concerning this land has been provided for informa-
tion only and does not relate to the lodge application.
5. The lots owned by the City are also included in the area
for which a residential development application may be
submitted. However, for your information, the following
statement has been excerpted from the City Council minutes
of September 26, 1983, as an interpretation regarding City
owned property with respect to G14P/PUD applications.
"Regarding GMP/PUD applications, which would include City -
owned property as part of that application, the City Council
declines to be a joint applicant in this process, nor does
it wish to discuss with the applicant any disposition of
the City -owned land prior to application, in order to
maintain impartiality in all subsequent reviews. However,
with the goal of encouraging all opportunities for discussion
of the community good in a public forum, the Council will
deem the non -ownership of City land not to be sufficient
grounds for disqualifying the application from further
public review through the appropriate process. The Council
reserves all rights not to sell, transfer, or otherwise
dispose of such City -owned land which is the subject of the
application.
The Planning Department and the P&Z are instructed to score
such GMP/PUD applications in two ways -- with and without
the City -owned land. Should the City subsequently not
agree to sell or transfer such%City-owned land the score
will be what it would be without the City -owned land."
/ w
;j
Lyle D. Reeder
November 9, 1983
Page Three
Lyle, I hope my responses are of assistance to you in preparing your
presentation for the meeting on.November 22. Please let me know if I
can be of further assistance to you in this regard.
Sincerely,
"P� -
Alan Richman
Assistant Planning Director
AR: jlw
cc: Sunny Vann
Paul Taddune
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1984 Lodge GMP Competition Appeal
DATE: December 27, 1983
Mr. Lyle Reeder, an applicant in the 1984 lodge GMP competition, has
filed an appeal pursuant to Section 24-11.6(e) of the Municipal Code.
The appellant is seeking a development allocation for the 46 unit
Lodge at Aspen to be constructed at 711 Ute Avenue. As a result of
the Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring, Mr. Reeder's appli-
cation failed to meet the minimum points threshold and, therefore,
has been disqualified from further consideration for a development
allocation.
The appellant alleges in his appeal that the Planning Office and the
Planning and Zoning Commission abused their discretion in evaluating
the competing applications and, as a result, the actions of the
Commission constituted a violation of due process. The City Attorney
the Engineering Department and the Planning Office have reviewed Mr.
Reeder's appeal, a copy of which is attached for your information.
Our comments with respect to the appellant's allegations are sum-
marized in this memorandum.
Section 24-11.6(e) of the Municipal Code states in part that "Having
received the Commission's report (i.e., the results of the scoring),
the City Council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants;
provided, however, that the City Council review shall be limited
to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse
of discretion by the Commission in its scoring." (Emphasis added.)
Historically, this provision of the Code has been invoked when, for
example, a Commission member has abused his or her discretion by
ignoring relevant information pertaining to a particular application
and has scored the project indiscriminantly. Similarly, the denial
of due process provision has typically been invoked when some irre-
gularity in the Commission's review procedure violated an appli-
cant's fundamental rights, e.g., refusing the applicant the right to
speak at the hearing, denying him the right to legal representation,
etc. The discretion exercised by individual P&Z members with respect
to the applicable scoring criteria has not been construed to be an
appealable issue when the members' scores were based on information
submitted by the applicant and the Planning Office, or upon reason-
able differences of opinion as to the degree to which the applicant
has met the review criteria.
The City Attorney has suggested a three tiered approach to Council's
consideration of Mr. Reeder's appeal and the appropriateness of re-
manding his application to P&Z for restoring. This approach may be
summarized as follows:
1. First, a decision should be made as to whether there was
some irregularity in the Commission's review procedure that
violated the appellant's fundamental right to due process.
2. Second, the Council should consider whether the P&Z abused
its discretion in not allocating sufficient points to allow
the appellant to meet the minimum points threshold. If the
MEMO: The Lodge At Aspen - Appeal
December 27, 1983
Page Two
Council can reasonably conclude upon its review of the
proceedings that the P&Z had sufficient rationale for not
awarding a threshold score, then the appellant lacks stand-
ing to attack the scores given to the competing project.
3. Finally, should Council find that P&Z abused its discretion
in not allocating sufficient points to allow the appellant
to meet the minimum points threshold, then the issue should
be whether P&Z was either a) unfair in not awarding suf-
ficient points to the appellant, or b) unfair in awarding
too many points to the winning applicant.
Should the Council determine that the appellant has been.denied due
process as a result of some irregularity in the review process and/or
the P&Z has abused its discretion in scoring the appellant's appli-
cation, the Council may amend the application's score. However, given
the Planning and Zoning Commission's familiarity with both the appli-
cation and the applicable GMP criteria, the Planning Office and the
City Attorney would recommend that Council remand the appellant's
application back to P&Z for rescoring in the event denial of due
process and/or the abuse of discretion is evident.
With respect to the first issue, a review of the record of proceedings
of the November 22, 1983 P&Z meeting (the meeting at which the 1984
lodge GMP applications were scored) indicates no procedural irregu-
larity which would substantiate the appellant's denial of due process
allegation. Furthermore, the appellant makes no specific reference
in his appeal to any procedural irregularity of the Commission in
support of his allegation. It would appear that the appellant's
application of this appeal criteria is inappropriate in that no
violation of the appellant's fundamental right to due process in the
review proceedings has been demonstrated. In fact, the appellant
was given ample opportunity to present his application at the hearing
and was allowed to submit, for the record, supplemental information
clarifying his application and objecting to the competing project.
Although the appellant was represented by counsel, no objections were
raised by the appellant's attorney at the hearing with respect to
either the contents of the Planning Office's November 16 and 22
memorandums, or with respect to the procedure in which the competing
applications were reviewed and scored by the P&Z.
While the City Council has the authority to adjust the appellant's
scores or to remand his application to the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion for reconsideration, it does not appear that the appellant has
alleged any legal basis for the C-ity Council to award an "additional
15 points to the applicant's total Score" as suggested in the appel-
lant's request for relief. As the City Attorney points out, the
appellant has the burden of demonstrating that his project was ar-
bitrarily denied 15 points which the project otherwise would have
received if scored properly. While the appellant does question the
appropriateness of his score with respect to the amenities provision
of the GMP criteria, the remainder of his appeal centers on defi-
ciencies in the competing application, on the P&Z's scoring of that
application, and on objections to the GMP process and criteria in
general. In our opinion, only the amenities question is germane to
the issue of.whether the P&Z abused its discretion in not allocating
sufficient points to allow the appellant to meet the minimum points
threshold.
The appellant alleges that P&Z abused its discretion by failing to
correctly apply the GMP review criteria with respect to amenities to
the competing projects. Essentially, the appellant contends that the
amenities to be provided in conjunction with his project were un-
favorably compared to those provided by the much larger competing
i
f
MEMO: The Lodge at Aspen - Appeal '
December 27, 1983
Page Three
project. Since a small project cannot be expected to provide as many
amenities as a much larger project, the appellant believes the P&Z
abused its discretion in following the Planning office's recommenda-
tion and giving his application a low score in this category.
The amenities provision of the lodge GMP criteria states in part
that "The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addi-
tion thereto." (Emphasis added.) This language is intended to
specifically limit the Planning Office and the Commission's con- j
sideration to the specific amenity package provided by a specific it
project and not to a comparison of amenity packages among competing
projects. In its evaluation of the GMP submissions, the Planning ,
Office and the P&Z scored each project with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to
the size of the project in question. The appellant's project re-
ceived a relatively low score in this category based on the P&Z's
finding that the proposed amenities were substandard given the size
of the project. While the actual P&Z scores reflect a difference of
opinion among the scoring members as to the quality and spaciousness
of the appellant's amenity package, all of the individual P&Z members'
scores are substantially below the total points available in this
category. A review of the P&Z's scoring of the appellant's applica-
tion pursuant to the amenity criteria, therefore, would appear to
indicate no abuse of discretion on behalf of the Commission with
respect to this issue.
The appellant has provided no additional arguments in his appeal that
would indicate the Commission's scoring of his project with respect
to the remaining GMP criteria is inappropriate. As a result, there
appears to be no basis for the appellant's request for the award of
additional points to his score. Should Council concur that the
appellant has failed to demonstrate that his project was arbitrarily
denied sufficient points to make the minimum points threshold (i.e.,
no abuse of discretion occurred on the part of the P&Z), then, as the
City Attorney states in his memorandum, the appellant lacks standing
to attack the scores given the competing project. The allegations
contained in his appeal with respect to the Commission's scoring
of the competing project are therefore moot and there need be no
further Council consideration of the abuse of discretion issue. The
Planning Office, however, is prepared to address the appellant's
specific allegations with respect to the competing project's scores
should Council find that the P&Z abused its discretion in not awarding
sufficient points to allow the appellant to meet the minimum points
threshold.
As an alternative to adjusting his score, Mr. Reeder requests in his
appeal that Council grant his application an exemption from the
City's Growth Management regulations. Neither the City Attorney or
the Planning Office are aware of any Code provision under which the
City Council could grant the appellant such an exemption. Inasmuch
as the appellant provided no justification for such a request in his
appeal, we suggest that Mr. Reeder be given an opportunity at your
December 27 meeting to explain the basis under which he feels an
exemption may be justified.
In summary, a review of the P&Z's November 22 proceedings indicates
no procedural irregularities which would substantiate the appellant's
denial of due process allegations. Similarly, there appears to be no
legal basis for the appellant's request that an additional 15 points
be added to his score. In fact, we believe the appellant has failed
to demonstrate any abuse of discretion on behalf of the Commission
with respect to the scoring of his application. As a result, We
recommend that the appellant's 1984 lodge GMP competition scores
remain unchanged.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition
November 22, 1983
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your review are the project profiles and the Planning
Office's recommended points allocation for the two projects submitted
October 1, 1983 for the L-1/L-2 lodge GMP competition. The applica-
tions are for the 46 unit Lodge at Aspen to be constructed at 771 Ute
Avenue and for the 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge located south of
Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets. The Lodge at Aspen
has a prior GMP allocation for 31 units and the Aspen Mountain Lodge
is proposing to reconstruct approximately 269 units. The two projects
are therefore requesting GMP allocations of 15 units and 211 units,
respectively.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lodge at Aspen is a proposal to build an entirely new lodge at
the corner of Ute Avenue and Original Street. The Lodge would contain
46 tourist rooms and 6 employee units, each of which is approximately
216 sq. ft. in size. Since the applicant won an allocation to build
31 tourist units and 4 employee housing units on this site in 1982,
and would relinquish those units upon the approval of this revised
submission, the net effect on the lodge quota is a request for 15
additional units.
Features of the project meriting attention include underground parking,
proximity to Little Nell, use of solar collectors, and the proposal
to upgrade neighborhood storm drainage and fire protection. The appli-
cant also proposes on -site amenities for guests (dining and health
facilities) and on -site housing for 80% the Lodge's employees. The
proposal, however, does place a substantial number of lodge rooms on
a 1/3 acre site. The rooms themselves are small and the site includes
substantial paving in addition to a building footprint covering approxi-
mately 36% of the site.
In our opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior
proposal in several respects. The rooms are smaller than before (216
sq. ft. versus 320 sq. ft.), the architecture is not nearly as in-
teresting, and the common areas are considerably less spacious and
elegant. However, the footprint of the new building is substantially
less than the prior proposal and much more attention has been given
to landscaping and pedestrian circulation.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge involves the reconstruction of approximately
269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the
Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicant is requesting a
GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel
project to 480 tourist units. The applicant also proposes to construct
on -site an approximately 22,500 sq. ft. conference facility, a 4,500 sq.
ft. health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various
recreational amenities including swimming pools, an ice skating rink,
and pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Additional features of the project meriting attention include underground
parking, proximity to Little Nell and Lift 1A, the proposal to upgrade
1
MEMO: 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition
November 22, 1983
Page Two
neighborhood water service and fire protection, and the various
aspects of the proposed lodge improvement district which the applicant
intends to implement. The lodge proposes to house approximately 60%
of its employees off -site in three separate employee housing projects.
The applicant's objective is to provide Aspen with a high quality,
full service hotel with a full array of year-round tourist facilities
and services and extensive on -site amenities and public spaces. The
ability to provide these support facilities is directly related to
the size of the hotel project. While the Planning Office supports
the reconstruction and upgrading of existing facilities as well as
the provision of much needed tourist conference facilities and
amenities, a project of this size will invariably impact the City in
a variety of ways and trade-offs between competing Community objectives
will obviously be required.
PROCESS
The Planning Office will summarize the projects at your meeting on
November 22, 1983, will review procedures with you, and provide a
suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the applications.
The applicants will have an opportunity to present their proposals
and a public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to
comment. At the close of the hearing, each Commission member will be
asked to score the applicant's proposals.
The total number of points awarded by the Commission, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to
each project. Any project not receiving a minimum of 60% of the
total points available under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, or a minimum
of 30% of the points available under each of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4
shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the
application shall be considered denied.
The total minimum points which an applicant must score in Categories
1, 2, 3 and 4 is 51 points. The minimum points requirement in each
Category are 3 points in Category 1, 11.7 points in Category 2, 6.3
points in Category 3, and 4.5 points in Category 4. A maximum of 5
bonus points may also be awarded in the event a Commission member
determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the
substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall
design meriting recognition. Bonus points, however, cannot be used
to bring an application above the minimum points threshold.
SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS
Both projects will require additional review and approvals pursuant
to the Municipal Code. The Lodge at Aspen is requesting condominiumi-
zation and exemption from Growth Management for its employee housing
units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge will require PUD/Subdivision review,
two rezonings, exemption from Growth Management for the project's
employee housing, a change in use exemption, an amendment to the 1978
Aspen Inn GMP Submission, two street vacations and view plane review.
The additional reviews for the Lodge at Aspen will be accomplished
subsequent to the applicant's successful receipt of a development
allotment. The applicant for the Aspen Mountain Lodge, however, has
requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission hear their additional
review requirements concurrent with their lodge GMP application.
Given the complexity of the project, the applicant would like to know
as early in the review process as possible whether there are any
substantive problems with their proposal. In view of the extensiveness
of these additional review requirements, their consideration has been
scheduled for a special P&Z meeting on November 29,.1983. The Planning
r
MI -MO: 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition
November 22, 1983
Page Three
Office will produce a separate memorandum addressing the various
additional review requirements which will be available for your
consideration sufficiently in advance of your November 29th meeting.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS
The Planning Office has assigned points to the applications as recom-
mendations for your consideration. The staff met to assess the
ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored the proposals.
The following table summarizes the Planning Office's recommended
points assignment. A more complete explanation of the points assignment
for each criteria is provided in the attached score sheets.
Availability
of Public Quality
Facilities/ of
Services Desian
LODGE AT ASPEN 7 21
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
LODGE 7 24
Amenities Conformance
for Local Public Total
Guests Policy Goals Points
9
11
48
21
7
59
As the above table indicates, the Planning Office scored the Lodge at
Aspen three points short of the minimum 51 point threshold. Should
you concur with our scoring, this application would be effectively
denied at this point in the process. The Aspen Mountain Lodge exceeds
the minimum point threshold by eight points. It also meets the 30%
minimum point requirement in each of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4.
REQUEST FOR MULTI -YEAR ALLOCATION
The Aspen Mountain Lodge's request for a 211 unit allotment necessitates
a multi -year allocation. Such an allocation is provided for pursuant
to Section 24-11.3(b) of the Municipal Code. The Planning Office's
evaluation of this request is contained in Alan Richman's attached memo
dated November 16, 1983.
3 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Analysis of Award of Allocation
DATE: November 16, 1983
Should you concur with the Planning Office's recommended ranking of
the two L-1/L-2 lodge development applications, you will also need to
address the request by the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge for
an allocation beyond the 35 units available this year. Specifically,
the applicants request that the project be awarded the 50 lodge units
that remain as unallocated/expired from prior years, as well as 126
units (3z years of quota) from future years. While the ultimate de-
cision on this *utter rests with City Council, the Planning Commission
has traditionally made a recommendation as to its feelings on the award
of an allocation.
Following below is an analysis of the pros and cons of awarding the
full 211 unit quota request to the Aspen Mountain Lodge.
PRO
1. Full allocation would permit
the substantial upgrade in the
quality of our lodging inven-
tory in return for the expan-
sion of that inventory (Note:
the reconstruction of approxi-
mately 269 lodge rooms repre-
sents about 25% of,the entire
inventory of lodge rooms in
Aspen) .
2. The development of this faci-
lity would constitute the
first addition to the lodge
inventory in Aspen since the
54 unit expansion to the
Woodstone in 1976.
3. The proposed addition of units
on this site is consistent
with the intent of the 1973
Aspen Land Use Plan to cen-
tralize our tourist accommoda-
tions at the base of Aspen
Mountain.
4. Full allocation provides the
developer with the capability
of building a full service
hotel complex, including sub-
stantial tourist amenities such
as conference rooms, ballroom,
and recreation facilities.
5. The development of a facility
of this magnitude in this high
profile location may change the
popular_ image of the quality of
Aspen's lodging in one shot.
CON
1. Granting the full allocation
will result in an unusually
high rate of growth in the
Aspen Metro Area over the
short term, particularly if
combined with construction of
the Centennial, Hotel Jerome
and Highlands Inn projects.
2. The allocation of future years
of quota will virtually pre-
clude any other L-1/L-2 appli-
cant from obtaining a substan-
tial allocation to expand an
existing/build a new downtown
lodge (Note: the code requires
that we make 12 units per
year available if the quota
has been used. Note also that
the construction of the Hotel
Jerome project will require
us to further use future years
of quota, amounting to about 65
units. Finally, note that the
10 unit per year L-3 quota
will continue to be available
regardless of this project).
3. The construction of such a
large project may be a sign to
the skiing industry that the
next growth cycle in Aspen is
underway and it is time to plan
for ski area expansion. There
may also be a cyclical impact
on the commercial sector, where
vacancies and underemployment
at existing businesses may be
replaced by full. occupancy and
maximum employment, with com-
mensurate impacts on the
Community.
r
.F,MO: Analysis of Award of Allocation
November 16, 1983
Page Two
6. By awarding a full allocation, 4.
we permit the master planning
of the entire area, the accom-
plishment of the total upgrade
of that area, and the minimiza-
tion of the length of construc-
tion impacts upon Aspen.
7. There is no substantial benefit
to be gained from making the pro-
ject compete again for an allo-
cation in a future year pro-
vided that you support the de-
velopment of a project of this
scale.
There may be a short term
inability of certain portions
of the infrastructure to
accommodate the growth associated
with this project, particularly
if combined with a community -wide
economic resurgence such that
units with low occupancy and
commercial space which is vacant
are once again full. Facilities
which we feel will be especially
hard hit include the sewage treat-
ment plant, transit center and
the road network (both into
Aspen and inside Aspen).
8. Since it will take two years 5. The increased competition in
to construct this facility, the lodging industry may re -
there is an automatic phasing sult in the attrition of some
mechanism built into the project. of the smaller, somewhat mar-
ginal operations.
6. The addition of 211 new units
will further concentrate lodging
in Aspen while the bulk of
our skiing capacity is outside
of Aspen or in Snowmass.
As can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and
opposed to the allocation of the full 211 units requested. The up-
grade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the
creation of a major conference facility are consistent with the
growth policies which the Planning Commission has been developing.
The accomplishment.of a master plan for lodging in this area is con-
sistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, as well as the wishes of
City Council, when it last reviewed the proposed amendments to the
Aspen Inn construction project. However, building this facility in a
single increment is not consistent with the growth rate policy and
will virtually preclude any other major downtown lodge expansions in
Aspen for several years. By its very magnitude and importance, the
project is likely to have spin-off impacts on other portions of our
economy and may set off a new growth cycle in Aspen.
Given the very real need in Aspen for lodging facilities which provide
both quality and value, the Planning Office has no problem in recom-
mending that the 50 units which remain as unallocated from prior
years be given to the Aspen Mounta.Ln Lodge project. However, we find
it somewhat more difficult to address the question of future years
allocation. We are concerned about the short term growth rate and
its impact upon Community facilities. We also must question what
social and psychological impacts upon permanent residents of the
Community will result from compressing several years of planned
growth into the construction of a single project.
The decision on this issue must therefore be predicated on whether or
not you believe that Aspen needs a major new loding facility which
will not only.upgrade existing units but also be large enough to
justify the creation of substantial conference capabilities. If you
feel that this need exists, then it is probably reasonable to make
the required trade-off in terms of the growth rate. However, if you
feel that obtaining the tourist amenities being proposed is not worth
the trade-offs in terms of the growth rate and the scale of the
project, you should not support the request for 3� years of future
quota. However, you should recognize that you probably cannot obtain
substantial tourist support facilities which essentially are not
generators of revenue without allowing a substantial number of lodge
rooms to offset the cost of such facilities. We believe that we have
provided you with the necessary information upon which to make this
fundamental choice.
PROJECT PROFILE
1984 L-1/L-2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: Lyle D. Reeder
2. Project Name: The Lodge at Aspen
3. Location: 771 Ute Avenue - Corner of Ute and Original at Aspen Hountain
Road
4. Parcel Size: 15,386 sq. ft.
5. Current Zoning: L-1
6. Maximum Allowable Build -out: 15,386 (1:1)
7. Existing Structures: A single family house (one story, 3 bedroom,
1 bath) occupied by the applicant.
8. Development Program:
buildout is 1.5,380 sq.ft.
46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. Proposed
or virtually 1:1. Internal FAR breakdown is as follows:
tourist
units
= 9936 sq.
ft. or
0.65:1
employee
units
= 1296 sq.
ft. or
0.08
non -unit
space
- 4148 sq.
ft. or
0.27:1
9. Additional Review Requirements: Condominiumization, GrIP exception
for employee units
10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be granted an allocation, he would
relinquish the 31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net
additional. units requested by this project is 15 Lodge rooms.
(0
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition
PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen 11/22/83
Date:
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (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
expense. public
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area
or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the
area. quality of service in a given
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood
deficiency but applicant only commits to sharing the cost of the improvement.
Therefore, applicant is only paying to improve the quality of service to his
own project.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed lodge.
No upgrade is proposed nor requested.
C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes
to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development
requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment
by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and
to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: I
POINTS: 2
Comments: Applicant proposes drywells of sufficient size to retain site and roof
water runoff. Applicant commits to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen
Mountain Road adjacent to his property at his own expense. Engineering
rates proposed as excellent.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro-
vide fire protection according to its established response standards with-
out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of
major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit-
ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants
and water storage tanks.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 2
Comments: Project can be served by the fire protection district. Applicant proposes
to locate a new hydrant at his own expense near the Northwest corner of
the project. Fire chief would prefer hydrant on Northeast corner.
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially
altering the he
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over-
loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased
usage attributable to the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER:
POINTS:
1
1
Comments: Engineering department finds roads in the area to have adequate capacity,
although
constrained
by
winter skier parking and "dead
end" nature of this
-corner.
Project will
not
substantially impact existing
roads. Applicant
proposes to blacktop Aspen Mountain Road at his own expense, an improvement
which is largely cosmetic, not service oriented.
CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 7
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of
its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
3
POINTS:
Comments Building is generally compatible with surrounding developments, although
the design is very standard. The peak of the roof is about 35 or 36 feet
above grade, whereas the code limits the height to 28 feet plus 5 additional
feet for the angled roof, for a maximum allowable height of 33 feet.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or
the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the
extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian
amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development
and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
COMMENTS: Site design includes benches and bicycle racks near Ute Avenue; sidewalk
along Ute Avenue underground utilities, adequate peripheral landscaping, a
building footprint of only 36% and heated sidewalks and driveways for snow
control. 'Elie engineer feels that 2 curb cuts on Ute Avenue are excessive
r
as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on Aspen Mountain
Road; this situation is magnified by the existing driveway for the Aspen Alns
along the Property on Ute Avenue The density of this nroiect is approximately
130 units per acre.
C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de-
vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con-
servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 3
Comments: Insulation is proposed at 20% above code. Solar collectorson the roof
will be utilized in the domestic hot water system.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the
internal circulation and parking system for•the project, or any addition
thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and
loading areas, and the design features.to screen parking from public views.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 6
Comments: Parking is provided underground on the basis of one space per lodge and
employee bedroom. Parking is also shown for three limousines. The turning
radius for cars entering the parking area may not be adequate. Detailed
information on trash access was not provided. The three curb units for
cars are excessive, as noted above.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings
or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 6
Comments: The building is set back from Ute Avenue by approximately 85 feet and from
Aspen Mountain Road by approximately 30 feet. The height of the building
as shown is approximately 2-3 feet above that allowed by code and must be
reduced, but the overall design does not affect public views due to the
already existant Aspen Alps Building.
) �J -
CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 21
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and
spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0
-- Indicates
a total ladk of
guest amenities.
1
-- Indicates
services which
are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or
spaciousness
2
-- Indicates
services which
are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3
-- Indicates
services which
are judged to be exceptional in terns of
quality and spaciousness.
The
following shall
be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of -or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting
areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of
the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS:
r
Coiiunents: The onl common meeting areas in the lodge are the lounge/lobby which are
640 and 480 sq. ft. respectively or about '7%- of the entire internal floor
area. The total internal floor area in the lodge devoted to "non -unit" space
is 27% just above minimum 25% requirement.
b.- Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities,
including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
7
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS:
4
The restaurant, will provide food service for guests only in the lounge
Comments:
(winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an•Apres Ski Bar, also in
the lounge.
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re-
creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 2
Comments: A hot .tub, male and female saunas, and an exercise room are provided below
grade in the garden level parking area. No outdoor recreational
amenities are provided on site. Health facilities amount to about 850
sq. ft. and do not count against FAR.
CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 9
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project
who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional. lodge employees generated by the pro-
ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING: 11
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 11
Comments: Applicant proposes to house 12 employees on site, while lodge is projected
to require 15 employees. The off -site housing proposal contains no
specifics and therefore cannot be evaluated. Applicant's total housing
roposal = 80% (note: the employee unit in the parking garage may not meet
minimum building code habitation requirements.)
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points).
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only
incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but
has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding
ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4,
prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record.
RATING: 0
)
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 0
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in
Category 1:
7
(Minimum
of
3 points required)
Points in
Category 2:
21
_ (Minimum
of
11.7 points required)
Points in
Category 3:
9
(Minimum
6.3 Points required)
Points in
Category 4:
11
(Minimi-Ln
of
4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points
1,2,3
in Categories
and 4:
48
(Minimum
of
51 Points required)
Bonus Points
(Maximum
of
5 Points allowed)
TOTAL POINTS:
48
Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office
• `I
PROJECT PROFILE
1984 L-1/L-2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: American Century Corp., Commerce Savings Assoc., Alan Novak
2. Project Name: Aspen Mountain Lodge
3. Location: South of Durant Ave. between Galena and Monarch Streets at the
base of Aspen Mountain.
4. Parcel Size:510,025 sq. ft.. or approximately 1L7 acres
5. Current' Zoning: CL, L-1, L-2, R-15 PUD (L), Public and Conservation
6. Maximum Allowable Build -out: Subject to Proposed rezonine and PUD review
7.
and approval.
Existing Structures: Continental Inn, Aspen Inn, Blue Spruce Lodge,
The Hillside Lode and several small apartments and miscellaneous dwelling
units.
8. Development Program: A 480 unit condominiumized hotel with extensive
conference facilities on the northern portion of the site; an approximately
33 unit residential condominium complex on the southern portion of the site; and
a 12 unit residential condominium complex'at 700 South Galena Street. An
additional residential unit is also proposed for the existing Summit Place Duplex.
9. Additional Review Requirements: P-bD/Subdivision review, three rezonings,
1
exemption* from growth management for the project's employee housing, a change in
use exemption, an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission, three street
vacations, view plane review and 8040 greenline review. Note: Some of these
additional review requirements are associated with the residential portion of
this PUD.
10. Miscellaneous:
W 7
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition
PROJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Date: 11/22/83
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area
or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 2
Comments: The applicant proposes to install a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street
which will upgrade the distribution networkin the immediate area by providing
increased fire flows for both the proposed project and for the surrounding neighbor-
hood. The applicant also proposes to install a valve interconnect in Monarch
Street which will increase the overall reliability of water service to the area.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed hotel project.
No upgrade to the system is proposed or required. The applicants relocation of
the Mill Street sewer main, however, may result in the elimination or replacement
of some existing lines which currently present maintenance problems.
C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes
to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development
requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment
by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and
to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: The existing storm sewer system has sufficient capacity to carry 5-year
developed runoff. The applicant proposes to detain on -site the difference between
the 100-year developed storm runoff and the 5-year historical runoff in order to
reduce peak flows.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro-
vide fire protection according to its established response standards with-
out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of
major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit-
ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants
and water storage tanks.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 2
Comments: The applicant's installation of a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street
will provide increased fire protection to both the proposed hotel and the
surrounding area. The applicant is also proposing to install approximately four
new fire hydrants to further enhance fire protection to the project 'and to
adjacent uses. The proposed hotel will employ state-of-the-art fire protection
methods and devices.
.e.. ROADS - Considering the capacity.of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially
altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over-
loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased
usage attributable to the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: The capacity of the existing road network is adequate to handle the
net traffic volume change resulting from this project. The proposed reduction
in curb -cuts and on street parking may result in better traffic flow and reduced
accident- potential in the vacinity of the project.
CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 7
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of
its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 . -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing heighborhood developments.
RATING:
1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS:
3
Comments While the architectural design is innovative in that it makes use of
extensive excavation to reduce the preceived bulk of the buildings and to maintain
public views of Aspen Mountain, there are elements of the project which are, in
our opinion, clearly incompatible with surrounding developments and with the overall
scale of the lodge district and central core area. Traditional architectural
treatment and the use of compatible building materials help to blend the buildings
into their surroudings. However, both the main hotel and conference entrance areas
substantially exceed the height limitaion of the zone district resulting in major
building masses which are out -of -scale with the surrounding lodge district.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or
the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the
extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian
amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development
and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS:. 9
COMMENTS: Existing mature vegetation". is retained and supplemented with extensive
landscaping; all utilities will be placed underground; the applicant proposes to
implement varibits elements of the Aspen Lodge District Plan (e.g., sidewalks)
lighting, signage, street furniture, etc.); -on-site links to pedestrian and bike
e- 1 -j
trails are provided; open space areas are internalized and oriented for maximum
solar exposure and the privacy of hotel guests. Total PUD open space exceeds
minimum requirements.
C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de-
vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con-
servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 3
Comments: Insulation exceed minimum requirements; buildings oriented to maximize
passive solar Qain: maior hotel support functions are located sub -grade to
reduce exterior walls and roof thereby further reducing energy consumption;
HVAC system is computer controlled.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the
internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition
thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and
loading areas, and the design features.to screen parking from public views.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 6
Comments: Approximately 380 underground spaces are provided for the proposed 480
unit hotel. Limo service and proximity to Ruby Park, the commercial core,
employee housing and Aspen Mountain offset parking demand. Valet service will
be provided. Internal circulation is excellent with main hotel and conference
entrances set back from Durant Avenue. The parking garage exits via the conference
entrance area further minimizing impact on Durant. Truck loading areas appear
adequate. Guest loading areas are heaviiy laralscaped.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings
or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
Comments: The substantial building masses associated with the main hotel and conference
entrances and their attendant support areas significantly restrict public views of
Aspen Mountain. The approximately 50 foot height of the Durant Avenue and conference
entrance facades will, to varying degrees, alter scenic background views from
Durant Avenue, Ruby Park and WaCner Park.
CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 24
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and
spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting
areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of
the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS:
9
Comments: Applicant proposes to provide an extensive conference center (22,500 sq. ft.)
including an 8,000 sq. ft. ballroom and 10 meeting rooms. The conference center has
its own separate entrance and support facilities and is sized to accomodate up to
600 persons. Lobby areas for both the hotel and center are expansive and contain
accessory restaurants, lounges and slopes.
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities,
including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 6
Comments: On -site food and beverage fadlities are extensive (minimum of 15,000 sq.ft.),
include three dining formats: coffee shop, grill and specialty restaurant, and total
approximately 525 seats. A minimum of four lounges are provided throughout the
hotel and conference center. The hotel's main kitchen is sized for full banquet
service.
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re-
creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 6
Comments: On -site recreational facilities include: two swimming pools, an outdoor skating
rink, a 4,500 sq. ft. health club, a 1,900 sq.ft. game room, extensive sun decks,
ski access from Little Nell and Lift 1-A, and a picnic amplitheater area at the
base of. Aspen Mountain. The applicant also proposes to complete the Dean Street
trail through the hotel site to provide summer access to Aspen Mountain and adjacent
areas.
CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 21
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project
who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100%'of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro-
ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING: 7
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 7
Comments: Applicant proposes to house 180 employees off -site or approximately 63
percent of the hotel project'sprojected employee generation. The hotel's projected
employee generation is 287 employees. Forty-seven employees are to be housed at
the Alpin-a. Haus, 43 at the Copper Horse and 90 in a new project to be constructed
off Ute Avenue on the Benedict parcel.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points).
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only
incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but
has also exceeded the provisions of these categories.and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding
ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4,
prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission a
member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record.
�- 0
Comment
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories
1,2,3 and 4:
Bonus Points
TOTAL POINTS:
Name•_ of Planning and Zoning Member:
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS:
7 (1-Mnimum of 3 points required)
24 (Minimum of 11.7 points required)
21 (Minimum 6.3 points required)
'7 (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
59 (Minimum of 51 points required)
(Maximtum of 5 points allowed)
59
Planning Office
OM
_ � I
J-Z
r
r` .fl N �
Q CC C0 N
00
� �n .o �n
W
Q
.
r-1 N
M �p
O
,� M N O
u')
Ur--I
Cl) CV O
O
N
Q
� �
Q
z
O
z
a
�'
z
W
p
3
H E-+
U) Q
W
Ho
z
a
r-I r-1 CN
D M M Cl) \D N
N O�
Cl)-Y'KrI
a
Cn
Cn
�
v
Z
F
a
ri r N N rl
r`
EA
ri
_
a
sow
1211JI
N
OO
�
� H
N
�. 1-4
Q
a
N
Ex-+ U
0 FA
ai z
a
- r-•I N N r--I
r\
ri
U
N
O
W
N N
a
1
a ca
�z
i
az
�
U
00 z
O
�4
r-1
N
a
H
W
C�.
�
W
O
Q
U
W
O
H
N
U
EH 0
U)
N O
H
� �
W
'
�
a
''
z r°
•N
A
a
W
A •r4
wQv+H � o
o
a
o
Q z
O
>
E-,
4-3
w
�W
i4
N N Ul •�
r-i
j¢
Wvivi�u
v�i
��u0i�0
Q
��vf
U)H
i •r+ N
H P tT f. �
0O
� Ui
E'
6
E-4
�4 ?1 r0 �
+� •r1 r0 H
0
04 U U
C4 •O
ri
N
H
N -1 O
U S
cn cn Q w
>,
P:
t) +� +1
wN
o
rI
U)�•rl•ri>+
• r♦ ri J a�
vv�Nb
O �a,>ax�
U N 41 N
'-]
D4
4 3 O� M
N U +J •-1 O
?4 i4 • 1 b •r1
H
E
41 t0 • r♦ N
W U a.
U
•s U) c!� Ga
H r� U) W L�
H
�
H
a
�z�7
r
H
Cif
•
'L3 v
a
Cl c0 A U 't7 v
c0 A U
W 0
pa,
A U
h
N
a.
N
M
a a
r+
717
W
C7
Fi
ON
r�
ul
O
v�
w
ON
rn
W
U
rI
r♦
N
'
O
z
a
Q
H
Q
�
c"I4 z
2
Ori
\
r♦
rn
o
c`�
3
W
H
�
-H
ri
00
O
00
Ul
ri z
r—i
Q
h
a
o
z
r-A
CA
'^
N
`^
a
a
c`l
C)
z
v'
Ln
a
O
V�
U
a
0
4
IU—I
H
E-4
a
a
z
z
a
a
a
b N
U
by rd 4
E�
H
CQ
In O a
cYl
CE-H
ai
O-H
0
a
0 � 01
u
E
E-4
x(oI~
04
a-) r I
U)
O
.1 4
a
v -i In
cn
w
w
>1 •,A • -I
E♦
z
rO rti W
H
w
wa 0
C7
O
z
c14
0
H
0
O
U
M A
GQ
N
w
�r
Ui
z
zO
0 H
H E-+
m U
H 0
pa
m
m
z E-4
�z
aH
wO
a
EH
zz
W O E+
E H W
W m W
c� cn x
� H m
�0a
x Q
HC7H
�z
0 ►�
az
U H
0
N N
I
aA
�z
I
a 0
z
v' H
00 z
CYNz
r-i�
a
a
W
n
�
W
.J
^
�
N
E1
U
W
h
0
a
a
N
- - I
t\
1
N
- r1
-0
ri N
CV
r--1 --+ N -1
t`
Iq
r•1 N N —1
CA
iI1
N
_
J_,IC,
rl
�
(V
m
W
U
H
7
a
W
�4
Q
E4
a
H
7 :> rl N
E-+
�4 �4 0 +J
H
v Ql f4 O
H
W
U
1-r S-1 N
0
p,
J 3 0 !4 ro
ro U a-% •-A O
U
,;.cnmc�a
FA
a
W
w
b -ci u 2i ni
r-1
tf1
�
r�
N
N
CO
N
W cn �o �o
n
N
M �o c`1 .D O
co
N
� M M
ul
N
N
z
H
N
w
ra
0
H
O
m
•ri
bi
� ro
N
"i
W
N
41 U
7
Q
(0 �4
rI
a
,-1
i4 U 4j
H
04
4-)
Q ro F-
a
U N
U ►-+
0
�
0
v
�4x
U 41
N !1 to
EE-.
acnwa>
H
r-�
Q
a
w A
u 'U ai
N
Ei
0
Ei
cA
a
m
m
E•H
m
W
U
a
0
Q
W
Q
H
0
a
a
W
r--i
E•+
H
z
M
0',
v
U
v
s4
v
4-1
0
U
N
u1
N
v
•'•1
.�
.I..l
A
.,a
..
A
�
a
H
a
a
rl ro
0
+J G4
E +
ro
H r�
a
v
ro
m
N
ro 0
� •.-a
tT ro
•r-I r--I
s~ v
cll ro
•rl N
1. Gd
Q �i
ro
A U
W
Ol
M
. 1
a
z
Q
itl
\
u 1
N
z
Q
z
w
z
3
W
z
n
n
1.0
O
w
Q
h
n
Q
n
M
p
M
E-4
\
�
z
a
a
a
Q
a
Q,
O
.1i
-P
Ul
U
a
O
+�
C�
N
4J
>4
O
U
U
U
v
H
N
a
vi
°°
o
a•
v
a
b
O 1-4
U
CP b +-
EE-4
U)O�
CAA
•r{
L
.7
�j •ri
�D
a
U)
.n 0
x (d a
�:) 'r
w
4-) •,1
U)
U)
O
n) •-1 4-)
>, ri
A.
W
U
O X
C7
6
W
z
04 fli W
A
a o
a
c�
O
\4J
z
w
�-+ 9
O
H
z
0u
�1 o
0
roA
a
17
O
Cl) N
bl
N
Ol W
(d
W
i
a
�r
a ui
U)
U)
H
E•+
z
z
0
0,
a
a
a
a
0
O
Ei
E-H
X
a
7.
r '--wn
7-7
777
1
T7"'Wv 1:77
....77,77, 777-1777 7- 7
I
FPO"
10 CDITO
1 rl -'F � r;j
ri ED
V ZI
r
TNTR(>I)I'C'I'1-ON - (;i:Ni RAi,
November 22, 1.983
7'11e proposed 52 t,00m Lodge, '.Clio Lodge At Aspen, consists of 116 Lodge
Rnr,ms ,end (i hmployee rooms. 7'he project proposes to cater to
Ski ncl bcidgat-minded sk.i.ers. Applicant believes that the pr.npnsed
dem)l.1 t i nn o ' the C,on t i nen to 1. Tnn and Aspen Inn which are to be
replaced with a F.i.r.st-Class World Hotel, will create a deficiency i.n
accommodations in the low and medium price range. The Lodge At Aspen
with smaller rooms can offer more reasonable price accommodations than
a lintel offering large rooms, energy consuming swimming pools and
elaborate hcal.tli facilities which some guests may never use.
0BJECTIONS TO ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE:
]. Ordinance
No. 35 (Series
of 1983) is
the legal document of the
City of Aspen
which gnverns
the 1984 Lodge
G.M.P. Competition.
On Page 2, Section 1, the following i.s stated:
11A1.1 other provisions of this zoning code ],()tw_it]lstandi.ng, there
shal..l. br. cnt�striicted within the City of Aspen in each year no more
than tluQ i.'ol.lc,wing:"
W i th ill the Lr-1, Tr 2 , CC and CT, Zone D i str i.ct , thirty five
(3 5) Lodge nr hotel
This ilpPl_.icanL believes that the inle,)t of. (b) is that any app].i.cati.on for
a duot�t is restricted to land which has a zoning of Lr-1, L- 2 , CC or CL as
Of the f i.1 i.lig deadline which was October 3, 1083 . The Aspen Mountain
Lodg;c cil>p1.iMIt-i.o" :includes 11.,000 sq. feet of City owned property Which
i.s zonc:(l, "Pt�bl_ic." It also :includes 78,1Gl_ squtire feet of R-15 (T)UD)L
I
with proposed rezon i.ng which would allow a h i.gher density than presently
allowed.
Tbi.s 'lPP1..i.0t1IlL brl. ieves trait- tll(! Aspen Mountain Lodge cannot legrall.y include
these piv ccl s ill its appl. i cation .
2. Apparently the City of Aspen 'is not a co -applicant to the Aspen
Moan to i.n T.Aadge's application. The City is the owner of 11,000 square
feet of 11I'11bl..ic!" zoned lancls i.ncl.uded in the Aspen Plountai.n Lodge
Project.
This applicant: believes that the "llth hour" attempt by the City Council
Oil September 26, 1983 (8 days prior -to filing deadline) and October 12,
1983 (9 days alter (;.M.P. 'filing deadline) which would allow City owned
property to be included in a proposed G.M.P. application does not and will
not l.egi.ti.mati.ze an improper. G.M.P. application.
Even if. the "llth hour" attempt succeeded, a question of possible
discrimination occurs. This applicaht requested permission from the
Planning Office to include 7 , 280 square feet of the U . S . Forest Service
Lot 11.1 in the Lodge At Aspen's application. This land is contiguous to
The Lodge At Aspen site and is involved in an exchange with this
applicant. A Statement of Intent to exchange Lot 41 from the Forest
Service was presented to the Planning Office. The City Attorney's
office notified this applicant to the effect that the Forest Service
parcel could not be included. This applicant was never notified that
the City was considering a change in Ordinance 35 which would allow
Government lands to be included in a G.M.P. application.
3. This 9ppl.i.cant believes that a principle of "Compet it i.on" is that
the rules are the same for all competitors.
The Aspen M()illl La ill T,00,re applications proposes to demolish the
following:
Aspen Inn
Continental Inn
Blue Spruce
TOTAL
67 moms
178 rooms
32 rooms
277 rooms
�(j a!1 ..:� l! i�.'.�---_�--.. t' � i y,�...-%� y y � �_ .. t �' I t •�� 1 '.�....r_. S �l� Y � �' � . �i
IJ �.. � •` �l F. a;•. , t( �� i :x' �,.. 1 � ..aL. 't�:.i:.:. ' �ti... �: 'j ��1i ����: 1
Tho plan proposes to reconstruct 269 rooms to replace the demolished
units*.
It appears that the proposed 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge Hotel will
consist of SG/ reconstructed units and 44% new quota units which would
come from G.M.P. allocation. This applicant objects to the Planning
Office's scoring procedure of the Aspen Mountain Lodge which was for
the total hotel. It is felt that The Lodge At Aspen should only be
scored against 44/ or 211 rooms of The Aspen Mountain Lodge application.
Two swimming pools will be demolished, one at Aspen Inn and one at
Continental Inn. Two new swimming pools will be built. If these
amenities are applied to the reconstructed units, then there is no
swimming pool to be applied to the 211 new lodge rooms.
Existing Conference, Health Spa facilities and two restaurants will
be demolished. Thus, the proposed new facilities used] in the Planning
Office scoring are not indicated to be net increases in facilities.
-3-
\ .,.....�u�.
�[crG[rr COMMENTS
The Aspen Mountain Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The
Forth of `yell Building by approximately 161i feet.
According to Aspen's Zoning Code Area and Bulk Requirements Lrl and
L-2 Height limitation is 28 feet with possible variation of up to 33
feet. The Lodge At Aspen is restricted to this height limitation.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 58 states:
".....Generally speaking, around the Lodge perimeter, maximum heights From
natural- grade will vary from 30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the visual
impact upon pedestrians. Within the interior of the Lodge footprint, set
back from the street facade, heights in some locations of 40 to 50 feet
are proposed,....."
If The Lodge At Aspen had the same freedom to go to the 55' height the
project could have a height appearance as shown below: `
Ji' S � 4 G �- 2 � a v- _. cY v ,.. Ate✓ .
rt •
INTRODUCTION TIIE LODGE AT ASPEN
The applicant of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Lodge project is submitting
this as a supplement to the original Lodge GPIP application.
This supplement was prepared for the purpose of clarifying the
original application by addressing the deficiencies indicated in
the Planning Office Memorandum, dated November 22, 1983
SUMMARY OF PLANNING CFFICc SCORING
In summary, the Planning Office memorandum indicates a scoring
less than
the maximum point for THE
LODGE AT
ASPEN in the
following
categories:
Short of Maximum
Sectinn
CateZnrV
Rc�tin�
Mul_ti.p_Lcr
Pnints
la ,
Water
l
1
1
lb.
Sewer
1
1
1
1c.
Roads
1
1
1
2a.
nrchl-tectural Design
2
3
6
2b.
Site Design
2
3
6
2c1.
Parking and Circulation
1
3
3
2e.
Visual Impact
1
3
3
3a .
Common Areas
2
3
6
3b.
Dining
1
2
2
3c.
Recreational
2
2
4
111).
Employee Housing
1
1
it
APPLICANT'S CC111j"i EN S
After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to
make the following comments and guarantees relative to each of-1
the above categories:
M
The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding
the Plann.ing Office is Evaluation and Scoring of THE LODGE AT ASPEN's
presentation. These comments are in those areas which did not receive
the maximum point rating by the Planning Office.
WATER COMMENTS
Since Mr.. Markalunas has indicated a neighborhood deficiency
The Lodge at Aspen's proposal to share the cost of the looped
of
water main would bring about the correctionhthe neighborhood
water system inadequacies,
The water consumed by The Lodge
will be metered and paid for resulting in increased revenue to
the Ci.ty's Water Department. Applicant believes that a 2 rating
would be appropriate.
b. SE; CiR COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees and the periodic
sewer assessments as calculated by the Aspen Metro Sanitation
District. Also, the cost to make the connection will be paid
by the applicant which includes street cut permit, excavation,
sewer line to sewer main, backfill and repair of pavement.
Since the sewer facilities are adequate according to the Planning
Department's evaluation, the applicant believes that a 2 rating is
appropriate.
c. ROADS COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to install curb and gutters on Ute Avenue
and the Aspen Mountain road which abuts the lodge site which meets
the specifications of the City of Aspen. At the option of the City of
'Aspen the applicant will guarantee to pay for the cost of curb and
gutter should the City prefer to install the same.
The Aspen Mountain Road abutting the lodge site will be resurfaced
with blacktop at applicant's expense after curb, gutters and storm
drains have been installed, if approved, and recommended by the ity's
Engineering Department. The Aspen Mountain road is access to the
Ajax Condominiums and a house. The road continues up and over Aspen
Mountain past the Sun Deck and down into Castle Creek. In view of
the Planning, Officers comments, appli.cant believes that a scoring
of 2 would be appropriate.
-6-
, • :,. +,: Fes.. ; �..`...� �,.......
2. a. ARCUT.'TUTURAL DESIGN COMMENTS
1,11cr proposed building will be built within the legal constraints of
the 33 foot hci.ght limitation while the Aspen Mountain Lodge is
proposint; hei-.01ts up to 55 feet. Since PUD procedures and exemptions
arc not available to Tile Lodge At Aspen, restrictions are imposed
whic]t limit architectural design potential. Compatibility with
ex:i.st.i.rng neighborhood developments is to be considered for
evaluating; Architectural Design. The size of rooms are not a factor
for evaluation under Ordinance No. 35. Applicant believes that The
Lodge At Aspen fits into the neighborhood and should be considered for
a ]nigher rating than 1.
b. SITE DESIGN COMMENTS:
The site design was prepared observing setback requirements of the
.CityTs Area and Bulk requirements. The Applicant is willing to reduce
curb cuts from the proposed three to two as recommended by the City
Engineering Department. It appears that concentration of tourist rooms
at the base of the mountain will have desired results such as reducing
automobile usage by Lodge guesU and encourage gueststo take the short
walk to the commercial core.
Trash Removal - Trash container will be located in an area near
the Southeast corner of the property near the Ajax ApartmentTs trash
container.
Snow Control - The Lodge will incorporate the following systems:
a. Engineered snow stops will be installed to retain the snow
on the roof.
b. Heat tape system to be installed on to edge of roof to control
ice buildup.
C. ]teat systems will be installed in the sidewalks and driveways
for snow elimination. On -sate dry wells will handle any
-run-offs.
d. Snow plow kept on the site will be usedd for clearing Aspen]
Mountain Road and Ute Avenue.
e. Contract snow removal will be uspd for emergencies involving
excess,.ve accumulations from street build-ups.
Il . t'nl; K l W, ANI) C I I-ZCI I I.AT I M COMMENTS
I';l l'I•. i It;.; is 111'I)v i cict(I I1n Hw has i ti n f mie sp;we. per .l I,cl; (c mid
I'I1lp.I1,"I,(! Iwdl,f)(ml is ;I VO(IIIil'0111 ltL cil' Ilw i-.1. and i,-2 Arc;l
;lll�l Itllll. hc�Ilnir(rnu�lll 'I'lle aspen Mnt11lL;1ill I,(1(I;,;(! 111ldc!l• P111)
lll,�lr,it;et. ',till Pill'kint; till;lVUS I'nt' 11,41) I'n mis. 'I'll(! l,ndgu AL' Aspen
II;I;; ;I r;Il in nC nn(t lrm.king ~Prat'(! 1)cl' It(tclrnnm wlli.le Llw nr;Iwil
�I��Illlt :l in I,�I(I; ;ct Ivis ,.71) sImc'e. }tcr bud rnnm.
I Ilc' t lll`Il ill:, .r;l(1 iw; hw cars C11Lcring L-ll(' 1Hlrking area wilti 1;1 !c1
till I 1(.(.(wd inpr LII Hie C.i L-y nl' 11spmj's P;IT,I<:irlg St.111(l;lt,(1 ;Is �IiI,1�11
Ixr.III(,
PA1R'1:1k'G s1Af-,!DAF,D
i.11 IPI N :, U I': ll ^ U � `;/ h
J
`
�.�i �i..t Ci_li..�:(.•- I�: (1'� l; �i iU(7
(•. VISIIA1, I'MPAC'I' COMM NTS
'I'l w III! i gh t n'i, H Inl i l(l i lt� I; i l 1. Ilc re(lnc C!d s1. i gh L l.y Ln stay
w i l'll i n Llle i1r( ;l ; l lcl Illl.l.l< Reclll i l'clncn L n f l'lu� rnMl i ng Cncic.; . Tit(,
lli�,lu ;t: ilnilll: ()I' Tllc l,n(Ige At Aspen's htli.1.(lJM,1 tdi.l.l_ be 22 fecl-
1ctiv Hill the ii i ,ill Lctti L ltn i tl L I In Llw nslturt hinun Lit i n
iowdI ,,cr ill' Aspf tt I,tl i.l.(I ins,; S:i l-S INICk (.)i*l' ol.' li e 11vcmtw in nr(ler to
(t1111;1llC'! V i sim"I. ap1wilvalice 1 1'nlll L11(' s t-rec l: .
4�/ � � ;t� il,i. T4�;e`? �iSY.!j�:�� It��i.'.�1��t ��,1'��.�` <r.,•�`•:� ,:�.����, � �F�, .�._1,t,`
3. AMENITLES PROVIDED POR GUESTS
The rating g;u idcl:inCs states "The ConunIssion shall consider each
applicatiAir with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its
pr()lrn:;ccl -,ory is os for chests ati enmpared to the size of the proposed
lndc,inc, l�rn_je(,.t...." (Wider.lining added)
The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 1180 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms
as The Lodge At Aspen which has tlG tourist rooms. It appears to this
appl:i.cant that a smaller lodge will be limited in its ability to provide
amen it i.es .
a) COMMON MEETING AREAS COMMENTS:
Applicant believes that the common area of 1,120 square feet
consisting of lounge and lobby areas is sufficient and adequate
for a elf room lodge. With the restrictive nature of Aspen's
Area and Bulk requirements, conference facilities in a small -
lodge are unrealistic.
b) DTNTN(; FACILITIES
In I.-1. zone a restaurant for public use is prohibited by Zoning
Code, except by Conditional Use. With this Lodge being located
within walking distance the west will patronize public dining
facilities in the commercial core. •
Applicant believes that the proposed dining facilities are
a(l(!clu a to for a small lodge.
c) RECREATIONAI, rACILTTIES COMMENTS:
Two crrmmer. ci_al Athletic Cl.ubs are within walking distance;
namel.y, Aspen Athletic Club located at 720 E. Iiyman Avenue and
The Aspen Club located down the street at 1300 the Avenue. It
i.s anticipated that these clubs will be used by the guest with
hi.mo service available for transportation. The indoor hot
till) is proposed at the Garden Level and will conserve more
energy than an outdoor tub.
tl, a) PROVISfON Or EMPLOYEE HOUSTNG COMMENTS:
The i.,odgc At Aspen proposed to house 100% of its employees. 1 The
application states, "Three employees will be housed off -site.
The Lodge will either lease Long-term or purchase three
concicrminiums ill the Aspen area for linus:i.ng the three employees."
This can provide a hotter ].i.fe stvl.c for. the employees, particularly
yf L'hcy have fami l.i es . _ -
'fllc� c�nrlr.l.clyr.c tnt i l ill laic GavoICn Levr.l slurwn cnt pa„c �!3 w i l..l be
mr.et ini:i ].d i.n�; code requirements fclr habitation. A doer
t•o I'l to car is i de cl t' the bu i..l.d:i nt; w.il1 be provided. M i n i nnnn wi.11clow
rc(Irrirement's tvil_1 be dc.signed into the unit.
Tlw .ilrlll i(.;lllt hul icvus that 'I'lle Tx)cl�,c At Aspen c_1uctmriu,� :[or the
.15 for Employee llous.irl„
BONUS POINTS CONS.11)T;RATTON
that The I,od�;e at Aspen's proposal represents
I.m nppl i c';r,l r bcl.i.eves
since GMp acloption to construct an entirely new
the first ttttc�mpr rile
f 1ncl�c� in 11spc�lt. The stllml:i.ssion addresses the upgrading of a key cor."ler
locati.r,n w.i tat proximity tcl the base of Aspen Mountain (d05') .�ncl the
proposed base ar. ea for filler l,:i.ttle Ann i.e Ski Area.
2: The des icon of tilel_ocic;e represents ,fin attempt to develop an intimate
scale lodge, in 1<eep:i.ng, with the Aspen tradition, as opposed to a
magrastrttrttrre approach.
3. The pro j ee t- ecru be bu Il_ t w i tliou t ally de f .i.c i.elle i.e., i.n wit ter , sewer,
-linage, fire pr.otect:inn, sidewalks, curbs, paved driveways
Sturm sewr_r dr.
told :;tr.ects rtcljoin.i.ng the site.,
�L. 'I'hc .lucrir L' i nn i.s wi.tll i n walking distance to the commercial core and
publ.:i c trrntspnr. tati.un Vie nearness of the police Department enhances
I;ueSt- scrctlr i ty.
5. The CIO,, 11 of tile proposed lodge will 'lot interfere wi.th the
peclestr iiln trc�Efic 5 i.t;llt lines of Aspen Mount,
] n view c, C the initial
sulxn:i.ssion dated October 1, 1983 and the
slrpplemrl't-'tr'y d;tra sulxn i ttcd ihi.s November 22, 1983, the appl.:icalrt
bcli.cves that rile projer_t is Ruali.ficd i'ur evaluation under the bonus
point cri-teria.
Respectful.]_y submitted,
Reedr_r
1.0 --
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
December 6, 1983
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920.2233
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Competition Award; Challenge of
Lyle Reeder, Applicant for The Ledge at Aspen.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I represent Lyle Reeder, an Applicant in the 1984 Lodge GMP
Competition in connection with the hearing before the Planning &
Zoning Commission held on November 22, 1983, to select a winning(
score between the two Applicants -- The Lodge at Aspen, and the ,".�V,
Aspen Mountain Lodge. That Commission awarded all the units to
the Aspen Mountain Lodge and none to the Lodge at Aspen.
This letter is written to set forth certain legal objections
and irregularities that have been discovered by my client and
myself in connection with the procedures of the Planning & Zoning
Commission and the City of Aspen regarding the 1984 Lodge GMP
Competition, in particular, and the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen in general as it pertains to this Competition.
Specifically incorporated herein are the provisions of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen which are pertinent to
these applicants and to the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition.
I shall set forth these challenges, objections and
irregularities in numerical order for your convenience and
reference and suggest that they are clear violations of my
client's rights to due process and/or represent abuses of
discretion:
l.' In scoring each of the two applicants, the Planning
y s Director gave a decidedly unfair advantage to the
Mountain Lodge project because of the procedure which
allows that project to qualify as a PUD project and
LLnG still have to compete as a project in the GMP
Competition. Certain advantages were obtained by the
Mountain Lodge by it being allowed to be of greater
height and having more amenities, thus enabling it to
receive a greater point score.
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920-2233
Aspen City Council
December 6, 1983
Page Two
2. The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for having
amenities for guests, at least a part of which score
was due to having a larger number of amenities than the
Lodge at Aspen and so receiving a higher score. This
treatment would discriminate against a smaller project
in general, since points are scored against each other
�on a one-to-one basis, and in particular since the
�
_\1bC 14 Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and
exterior space.
3. The Mountain Lodge is proposing to gain credit for the
�U demolition and reconstruction of 269 existing units,
and consequently is seeking only 211 units from the
Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their
V1��� project, Planning Commission considered the entire 480
. r 'J units in granting points for the various categories
when thev should have only considered the actual number
of the units that were being requested. This would
have resulted in only scoring 211 units as a percentage
rL u of the overall project (43.956).
Grp
4. The proposed Mountain Lodge project is obviously the
. most complicated and most expensive to be proposed for
As en. It is also the largest in terms of number of
units, size of buildings, etc. For this reason, it is
hard to see how it can be equated with any other
project, especially one of the size of the Lodge at
Aspen. However, it is being scored against it and is
being considered as a part of the Lodge GMP Competition
L�. in spite of its unique size and complexity. In fact,
it should be a separately considered project.
15. The procedures of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, in
general, and the Lodge GMP Competition, in particular,
provide for certain qualifications before an applicant
can submit an application. Obviously, these
requirements are necessary in order to determine if an
applicant actually has the necessary interest in the
property to be seriously considered. The interest of
the Applicants for the Mountain Lodge appears to be no
more than an Assignment of the Right to submit the
application by the actual landowner, Bans Cantrup, who,
in turn, is unable to legally handle his own legal
affairs, including his real estate holdings, without
r
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920.2233
Aspen City Council
December 6, 1983
Page Three
the express approval and participation of the United
States Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, it would appear
that the applicants for The Mountain Lodge have no
standing to file the application being considered by
this Commission.
,v
�6. The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50
as unused previous years' units; and 126 more from
-4 t future years' units up to 1987. This unprecedented
request for the use of so many future years' units
4 would be a violation of the intent, if.not the rule, of
having an annual Lodge GMP Competition, No one can
predict the future, and it would be impossible to
N determine the needs of the City five years from now,
but since the years would be used up by The Mountain
Lodge project, others would be denied the right and
,M privilege of even being able to compete in a
competition designed, and legally constituted, for the
determination of weighing interests.
7. Under the Law of the City of Aspen in effect at the
time of the deadline for filing 1984 Lodge GMP
Applications, an applicant who proposed to utilize
City -owned land in their project, must be joined in the
application by the City of Aspen; also, such an
application must be judged in two ways by the Planning
Office: one as if the City -owned land were included
and one as if it were not included. At a City Council
meeting on September 26, 1983, a proposal was
introduced to allow applicants (specifically The
Mountain Lodge project) to file an application
including City -owned land, without the joining of the
City. This proposal was not formally passed at that
r+ session and was, in fact, tabled until the next session
of the City Council, held on October 12, 1983, when it
C�i i1 was passed. The Mountain Lodge filed its application
for Lodge GMP Competition by the October 3, 1983
deadline but before the effective date of the new law
ti allowing it to file without the consent and joining of
AN the City of Aspen. Therefore, the application should
not have been allowed since it did not conform to the
law of the City in those two respects.
♦ 11
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
Aspen City Council
December 6, 1983
Page Four
Thank you for your consideration.
Wright Hugus, Jr.
WfiJR: klm
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920-2233
6V6r= M9r=M19M'!9
TNT 6ofBIBLO9
A!!k,P ag P9 9 P4
MM601 IE T 0119F4
aNe
Am 9!9 9 F4 or or mi ON
MMON, ER6SM MR
61919190 RsRklma
IERRAMOTNITOISN
40194
MATITIN 1"IRT1919OM!,mgm
SIR IHI 6
AT ASAEN
A G.M.P. APPLICATION REQUESTING
1984 ALLOTMENT OF
46 LODGE ROOMS
6EMPLOYEE UNITS
A PROPOSED LODGE PROJECT
LOCATED AT CORNER OF
UTE & ORIGINAL STREETS
ASPEN, CO LORADO
410 FEET FROM LITTLE NELL SKI LIFT
APPLICANT:
LYLE D. REEDER
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Co. 81612
925- 536 0
TABLE O F CONTENTS Page
Pictures of Lodge Model .............................. ......... 3
1982 Quota :"allocated to THE LODGE AT SPEN 4
Application - General .......................................... 4
City Council's Resolution - 1982 Lodge G. M. P. 5
;applicant's & Consultants' addresses 9
VicinityMap .................................................. 10
AreaMap ...................................................... it
Development - area Calculations 12
Lodge Room Layouts and Furnishings 13
G. M. P. Application Data...................................04 14
Outline of Presentation ............... .... 15
SECTION 1 - AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES ...... 15
(aa) Water .................................. 1--)
(bb) Sewer - Sanititation 16
Utilities - Plat ....................... 18
(cc) Sewer - Storm 19
" of (Proposed) Plat .......... 20
ON Fire Protection ........................ 20
(ee) Roads .................................. 21
Traffic Count - Estimate 22
Auto Generation analysis ............... 22
(ff) Effects on Adjacent Land Uses .......... 24
Lodge Site - Current Use ............... 24
(gg) Construction Schedule - Proposed ........25
SECTION 2 - QUALITY OF DESIGN ................................. 25
Preliminary Architectual Drawings ...... 25
1. Site Context Map ................... 26
2. Photo Of Model ..................... 27
3. Building Elevations - West & North . 28
4. a
" - East & South . 29
5. Cross Section - Vertical "i" ....... 30
6. Floor Plan - Level "A" (Site Plan) . 31
7. Floor Plan - Level "B" ............. 32
8. Floor Plan - Level "C" ............. 33
9. Floor Plan - Garden Level .......... 34
10. Floor Plan - Parking Level ......... 35
NO Architectural Design ................... 36
ON Site Design ............................ 37
Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters ............. 38
Landscaping Proposed ................... 40
Landscaping Plan ....................... 41
OpenSpace ............................. 42
(cc) Energy Conservation .................... 43
(dd) Parking & Circulation .................. 45
Pathways, foot, Bike trails & Parks .... 46
Zoning Districts ....................... 46
Zoning & View Plane overlay ............. 47
(ee) Visual Impact .......................... 48
SECTION 3 - AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS ....................1 49
(aa) Common Meeting Areas ................... 49
(bb) Dining Facilities ...................... 59
Ski Proximity .......................... 51
(cc) Recreational Facilities ................ $7
SECTION 4 - CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS .......... 52
(aa) Provision of Employee Housing ...........53
SECTION 5 - BONUS POINTS ...................................... 54
APPENDIXES;
Appendix "A" Lawsuit ..................................... 56
Appendix "B" Certificate of Incorporation - "The Lodge" .. 69
Appendix "C' Articles of Incorporation - "The Lodge" ..... 70
Appendix "D" External Floor Area
Calculations ............ 71
Appendix "E" Internal Floor Area & Room Calculations ..... 72
4ppendix "F" Room Layouts and Furnishings ................ 73
AppendixVG" Property Survey ............................. 77
Calculations ............ 71
Appendix "E" Internal Floor Area & Room Calculations ..... 72
4ppendix "F" Room Layouts and Furnishings ................ 73
AppendixVG" Property Survey ............................. 77
PICTURES OF LODGE MODEL
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS &PPLICATIONIS MODEL
1984 G. M. P. Presentation Model (This represents a
modification of the 1982 G. M. P. Building).
w
19820UOTA ALLOCATED
TO THE LODGE AT ASPEN
GMP QUOTA GRANTED IN 1982
THE LODGE AT ASPEN was granted a GMP allocation of 31 lodge
rooms and 4 employee units by the Aspen City Council with
the adoption of Resolution No. 2 (Series of 1982) on Febr-
uary 8, 1982. A copy of that Resolution appears herewithin
starting on page 5 .
LAWSUIT FORESTALLING CONSTRUCTION
The applicant, Lyle Reeder, was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed February 19, 1982 by the only other applicant
in the 1982 Lodge GMP allocation competition. A copy of
that lawsuit appears herewithin starting on Page 56 :kppendix
The lawsuit asked for among other things "G. That the Court
issue a preliminary injuction ordering that the defendant
Lyle Reeder cease and desist from utilizing the 1982 Growth
Management Plan allotment for Lodge units until such time
as the Court can determine whether or not such allotment
was lawfully made."
As of the date of filing this application with the Planning
Office this lawsuit has not been resolved to the knowledge
of the applicant.
APPLICATION -General
This application is a request for a G.M.P. quota of
46 Lodge Rooms and 6 Employee units. The Aspen City Council
by Resolution in 1982 granted a quota of 31 Lodge rooms and
4 Employee Units to the THE LODGE AT ASPEN Project. A copy
of that Resolution is included herewithin starting on page 5 .
The applicant hereby agrees to surrender the 1982 Allocat-
ion of 31 Lodge Rooms and 4 Employee units upon receiving the
allocation requested in this application.
The technical name of the project is THE LODGE AT ASPEN, INC.
which is a corporation owned by the applicant. Incorporation
papers are shown as Exhibit "B" and "C" on pages 64 and 70
of this report.
`/ V V ` w •ram ■
CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION - 1982 LODGE G.M.P.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
RESOLUTION i10.
(Series of 1982
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.6(a) of the Municipal Code,
September lst of each year is established as a deadline for submission of
applications for lodge development allocations in the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, two applications for lodge
projects were submitted to the Planniny Office for evaluation involving a
total of 127 lodge units and 4 employee units, the latter of which are
exempt from the available quota, and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on October 6,
1981 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, to evaluate and score
these lodge applications in conformance with the criteria established in
Section 24-11.6(b) of the'Aspen Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did rank and score the two projects
submitted in the following order:
Project Units Requested Score
1. Aspen Inn 96 lodge rooms 51.8 points
2. The Lodge at Aspen 31 lodge rooms and 49.2 points
4 employee units
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did forward their ranking and scoring
of the lodge applications to City Council and recommend that the City
Council award development allotments to both projects since, pursuant to
Section 24-11.6(c) of the Cod,.., only 35 points are needed to be eligible
for a Growth Management lodge al!.Dtment, and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the of the applications by the
Planning Commission, both applicants did file with the Planning Office
appeals of the points awarded to their respective projects, and
WIIFREAS, on Nobember'19, 1981, the City Council did hold a special
meeting to con . i drr the is,
ues of t.hc av<i i l r+l)l e quota for lodge allocations
in 1982, the +I+pe,il , icy the (ippl icatit.s of the scoring of the lodge
--5 --
I n C M O O9�— P-6- F-A 1 F-a = F--.Wo C IN
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
•der r IC. I. MWCM t. tn.
competition by the Planning Commission and the award of quota to the Success-
ful applicants, and
WHEREAS, City Council did determine at its November 19 meeting that a
total of 78 units is available for allocation in 1982, based on previously
awarded allocations which have expired and based on previously unallocated
lodge units, and
WHEREAS, City Council did table from the November 19 meeting to its
regular meeting on November 23 the issues of the appeals of the scoring and
the award of quota for the 1982 lodge competition, and did then table these
issues from the November 23 meeting to a date uncertain, and
WHEREAS, according to Section 24-11.6(e) of the Code, the City
Council shall allocate the lodge development allotments among the eligible
applicants in the order of.priority established by their rank prior to
December 1st of each year, and
WHEREAS, both applicants did indicate to the Planning Office that
they did agree to allow the December 1st deadline to pass without the
award of quota, pending the resolution of certain issues which had arisen
regarding the 1978 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP development as they relate to the
1982 competition, and
WHEREAS, on December 28, 1981, at a regular meeting, City Council
did consider the amendments to the 1978 Aspen Inn C14P application and did
not approve the deviations which have occurred from the original applica-
tion, and
WHEREAS, as the Aspen Inn is a phased application, a fundamental com-
ponent of the 1982 Aspen Inn application is the 1978 application, which
is the basic building block upon which all subsequent requests must be
evaluated, and
WHEREAS, as a result of the substantial deviations now existent
from the 1978 application and their currently unapproved status, the
Planning Office did determine that the 1982 A,�pen Inn application fails to
comply with the rec;i1iiT111r'nts of Ch;ipter 24, Zoning, of the Municipal Cocic,
and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
1 ryY •C •. N,•1 '(f1 �. A 1 l 1.
WHEREAS, as required by Section 24-11.3(c)(3), the Planning Office
must reject any application which fails to comply with the requirements of
Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land use or
building regulation of the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, in a letter from the Planning Director to the representative
of the Aspen Inn application dated January 20, 1982, the Planning Office
did reject the 1982 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP application, and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 1982, at a regular meeting, City Council di.d
concur with the determination by the Planning Director that the 1982 Aspen
Inn Lodge GMP application should be rejected and did therefore unanimously
direct the Planning Office to prepare a resolution awarding a development
allocation of 31 lodge units to The Lodge at Aspen, and authorizing the
applicant to proceed further with additional approvals required from the
City prior to obtaining a building permit, and
WHEREAS, the applicant for The Lodge at Aspen has agreed to withdraw
his appeal at such time as he should be awarded an allocation while the
appeal by the Aspen Inn has become moot since it has been found to be an
ineligible application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
1. A lodge development allotment of 31 units is hereby awarded to
The Lodge at Aspen.
2. The Lodge at Aspen is hereby authorized to proceed further with
additional approvals noeded from the City before a building permit is
secured.
Herman L.del
Mayor
THE LT ASAEN
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
rent v t. r un; •nn n. e. n ;. ��.-------- — ------___�.___' _ _.'��_ .�_
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day of
1982.
Kathryn S. P
cCity CIer
. IN (. t.•Tk
"i
t
mm
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PRESENTATION
APPLICANT'S &CONSULTANTS' ADDRESSES
APPLICANT / OWNER; Lyle D. Reeder
P. O. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-5360
ARCHITECT OF 1982
PRESENTATION; James Von Breuer & Associates
P. 0. Box 77
Old Snowmass, Colorado 81654
(303) 923-2569
SOLAR CONSULTANT
OF 1982 DESIGN; Howard Rivers, AIA
1159 Delware Street
Denver, Colorado 80204
LANDSCAPE DESIGN; Henry J. Pedersen
P. 0. Box 144
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-7517
INTERIOR DESIGNER;
Ms. Jan G. Gunn
417 West Hallam
Aspen, Co. 81611
(303) 925-6170
901H 6 T py
W
z U Atwna
iw .uoya
z<0
z
O wt��'
c
0-.1a<�
� j z a c
VICINITY MAP
Location Of Site
Sid " tNE RO/
ER A'tNO �P,�Rr,NENr�_�
I
t P►�0. /
49
shadowMountain
-_10 --
TNT 6 T FN
Z I I z LLii !
E. HOPI-GINS AY
LU •
W
YU
Uj
I WAGNER E.
83
J
q� ( PARK �I
� N f RUBEY PAR
W
(J(Ujf�N
t
i
AT.
AREA MAP
Scale 1" =400'
E �vENUE
�11r T [ 1 I r
�� �11 ' ' � ��,
G��«,
rn Iaar.i r AVPNI IF
/cu-LETS�
LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED:
Fire Department.—� 1 ��
Police Department) � \
Ski, LiftlAspen Mountain,Number4�
Proposed Lodge Site
Proposed LITTLE AN N IE Ski Area(Base)
DEVELOPMENT -AREA CALCULATIONS
Application procedures asks for information and comments
on the following:
Total development area including lot coverage,
internal square footage, and areas devoted to
open space or landscaping.
Applicant's Comments:
Building Square Footage
The following development calculations are based on the
regulations for AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS contained in
Aspen's Zoning Code, Chapter No. 24:
LODGE SITE SQUARE FOOTAGE, TOTAL .. 15,386. sq. ft.
Maximum External Floor Area Ratio
Calculated 1:1 ............... 151386.
Maximum Internal Floor Area Ratio
Calculated .75:1 with 33 1/3
percent of all rentable space
above the Floor Area Ratio of
.5:1 must be devoted to employee
Housing ...................... 111540.
Less; Required Employee Hous-
ing of 33 1/3 % of 25%
Site Area ............... 1,282.
Maximum Tourist Rentable Space .... 10,258. sq ft.
PROPOSED EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Attached as Appendix " W is the calculations of the
External floor area. The total external square feet is
15,164. square feet above grade with 216. square feet of
living space below grade for a total of 15,380. Square feet
or 8. square feet below the maximum allowed.
PROPOSED INTERNAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Appendix "E" shows the total internal floor area calculations
of the proposed 52 rooms to be 11,232. square feet which
is 308. square feet below the maximum allowed.
--12--
FOOTPRINT OF LODGE BUILDING
The total square feet of the building footprint consists
of the following;
A. Lobby
Section of building
735.
sq.
ft.
B. Rooms
Structure
4,934.
sq.
ft.
Total
sq. ft.
51669.
sq.
ft.
PERCENTAGE OF SITE OCCUPIED BY PROPOSED BUILDING
The percent of the site which will be covered by the
building is determined by dividing the footprint square
feet by the total square feet in the site;
Footprint sq. ft. 5,669. sq. ft. 36.
site sq. ft. 15,386. sq. ft.
LODGE ROOM LAYOUTS ,iND FURNISHINGS
Proposed room designs are shown on appendix T " included
on page 73 . Several designs are shown which will permit
a variety of room layouts.
A feature of the room designs is the utilization of wall
bed. units. Two commercially made units are shown on page 75,
and page 76 . The wall units provide daytime conversion
of the sleeping area into a sitting area.
OPEN SPACE
Areas devoted to Open Space are shown on the Open Space
Plat which is included on Page 42 of this application.
LA ND S C,i P I NG
Landscaping area are shown on the Landscaping Plat shown
on Page 41 of this report.
--13 --
901H 6 T pq
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION
DATA
Total of
Lots 15B, 16 & 17
Ute :addition
PROJECT NAME:
The Lodge at Aspen
LOCATION:
The corner of Ute Avenue,
Original Street and Aspen
Mountain Road in Aspen,
Colorado.
STREET ADDRESS OF PROJECT:
771 Ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PARCEL SIZE:
15,38F, square feet
CURRENT ZONING:
Lodge "one"
ZONING UNDER WHICH APPLICATION
IS FILED:
Lodge "one"
MAXIMUM BUILDOUT UNDER CURRENT
ZONING:
15,386.s.f. (l:l F.A.R.)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Same
TOTAL BUILDOUT PROPOSED:
15.3PO.sauare feet
SPECIAL PROCEDURES REQUIRED: None
VIEW PLANES: Property is unaffected by
either the Glory Hole Park
view planes or the Rubey Park
view plane. See Property
Survey NOTES on page 77 and
View Plane overlay on page 47.
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: No
SPECIAL REVIEW: No
HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW: No
PUD:
No
SUBDIVISION (CONDOMINIUMIZATION): Yes
--14--
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
This GMP Presentation is organized by showing photocopy
excerpts from the GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, CHAPTER
24-11.6 of Aspen's Zoning Code as amended by Ordinance
No. 35 (Series of 1983). Following each excerpt the applicant
states his information comments and opinions relative to that
particular facet of the GMP Section.
SECTION 1
AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICE
Ordinance No.35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(1) Availability of public facilities and services
(maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider
each application with respect to the impact of the
proposed building or the addition thereto upon pub-
lic facilities and services and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services
at increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level
of service in the area or any service improve-
ment by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality
of service in a given area.
a a.. Water
tipplication procedures asks for information and comments
on the following:
(aa) Type of water system to be used, including
information on main size and pressure, the
excess capacity available in the public water
supply system to serve the proposed building
or the addition thereto; the location Of the
nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to
provide fire protection including fire
hydrants and water storage tanks.
--15 --
WATER (Continued)
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the abil-
ity of the water system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant
upgrading required to serve the development.
Applicant's Comments:
Based on a preliminary conversation with Mr. Jim Markalunas,
Aspen Water DepArtment, he stated tSe possibility that the lodge
project would be adequately serviced with water by the addition
of a 6" water main loop from the corner of Spring and Durant Streets,
which would run South on Spring to Ute Avenue, turning East on Ute
Avenue, going in front of the subject lodge site, connecting with
the existing 6" water main at the corner of Original and Ute. He
indicated that this would improve and correct a neighborhood defi-
ciency in the area while servicing the proposed lodge. He indicated
that the applicant would be required to pay for the water main which
would run in front of the lodge site. He indicated that a fire
hydrant could be installed near the subject property and that the
water main loop would service any sprinkler system required by Code.
The applicant agrees to share the cost, to be determined during
later approval process, of the water main and the fire hydrant, if
required. The applicant also agrees to pay the City's predetermined
fee to tap into the water main.
b b. Sewer —sanitation
Application procedures calls for the following information
to be supplied:
(bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used,
the existing excess capacity available in the
sewage treatment system; the location of the
nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the
estimated sewer demand of the building or the
addition thereto.
--16--
THE LeeCE AT FN
SEWER (Continued)
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the abil-
ity of the sewer system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant
upgrading required to serve the development.
Applicant's Comments:
A sewer man -hole is located approximately 34 feet Northeast
of the Northeast corner of the bodge site. Another sewer man -hole
is located approximately 25 feet from the Northeasterly corner of
the Lodge site. These man -holes are shown on the property survey,
page 77.
A phone conversation with Mr. Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro
Sanitation Department indicated that the present sewer line
on Ute and Original would adequately handle the addition of a
52 room lodge. Also, the present sewage treatment facilities
appear to be adequate to service the lodge. No additional
equipment or cost to the City appears to be required if the
lodge is built.
The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees and
the periodic sewer assessments as calculated by the Asper_
Metro Sanitation District. Also, the cost to make the
connection will be paid by the applicant which includes street
cut permit, excavation, sewer line to sewer main, backfill
and repair of pavement.
--17 --
UTILITIES— PLAT
UTILITIES
1. Sewer, Sanitary
2. Water
3. Gas, Natural
4. Electric5 Holy Cross
5. Telephone
6. Cable TV
ALL UTILITIES ARE TO BE UNDERGROUND FROM THE POINT OF HOOFC- UP,
SEws R SEW ER3SAN (TA?,Y
/M RN /foi-t
G---& 6 4'9 tiAn.RAL GAf LraF—
w w -- WM 6 It W.4-rER L i IV E
M" HOLE
�— /ELECTRIC, I+billGrog E1c-ct;rW—
TEL-EPHoNE
\CAPLE TV
0l4
\ SCALD
\ •
IS zo is
i
UT E AV1>i'rlcN
LoT 17 LOT Ito LOT I S B � •
1
c c. Sewer — storm
Application procedures asks for information and comments
on the following:
(cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle
surface, underground and runoff water from the
building or the addition thereto.
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering
the degree to which the applicant proposes to
retain surface runoff on the development site.
If the development requires use of the city's
drainage system, considering the commitment by
the applicant to install the necessary drain-
age control facilities and to maintain the
system over the long term.
Applicant's Comments:
The drainage control objective of the project is to collect
and retain site runoff on the site. The project will have several
drywells sufficiently sized to retain site and roof water runoff.
Consistent with standard engineering practices the drywells will
have over -flow outlets extending to adjoining streets.
A 12" or 18" storm sewer main with man -hole is located on
the Northeast corner of Ute Avenue and Original Streets. The
Applicant agrees, at his expense, to extend the storm sewer up
the Aspen Mountain Road to the Southeast corner of the lodge site
in order to catch the runoff from the Aspen Mountain Road. Appli-
cant agrees to install the storm sewer extension and two drop -box
inlets according to City specifications. The Applicant's proposed
plan for storm -sewer extension is shown below.
Should the Engineering Department of the City of aspen prefer
that the sewer be connect to the line lying on the West side of
Original Street the Applicant agrees to run the Storm Sewer line
to their prefered connection point.
--19--
SEWER -STORM (Proposed) PLAT
Proposed Storm Sewer
Extension
(Size to be Determined)
•
SAN IT*JkY A a i ko L{ , S ewtYr
U*J1il�
pole
UTE AD;>.irioN
Lor 17 Lot lip
'AISt
�--�— G — 44 Gas Llhg —
w — W -- Wa+e. (nu LIhQ
4r5 a•,�t zy lam, Se wev ��.►, �.le. Cover
� �/rS�QN /rIo4N+iIN
1
\
GCa.
J.oT IS B
(P�oQ.szd-�— ,Z'h'fi�i'Cs.'D�eP-$o7C�
d d. Fire Protection
R a Z ci, Eas�...A.�
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering
the ability of the fire department to provide
fire protection according to its established
response standards without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addi-
tion of major equipment to an existing sta-
tion, the adequacy of available water pressure
and capacity for providing fire fighting
flows; and the commitment of the applicant to
provide fire protection facilities which may
be necessary to serve the project, including,
but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
THE LT N
FIRE PROTECTION (Continued)
Applicant's Comments:
The applicant believes that the Aspen Fire Department has
the ability to provide fire protection according to established
response standards without the necessity of establishing a new
station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing
station. The lodge site is approximately nine blocks from the
Aspen Fire Station. For reference, see Area Map on page 11 An
existing fire hydrant is located approximately 160 feet East of
the lodge site on Ute Avenue. It is anticipated that at least
one new hydrant at applicant's cost would be added near the North-
western corner of the project. Appropriate fire safety equipment
will be installed to meet Building Codes.
A fire alarm system consisting of the latest and best
Technology will be installed during construction. The system
will allow complete fire surv-�•liance from the office and From
the Front Desk.
e e. Roads
Rating Guidelines indicate:
(ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capa-
city of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed develop-
ment without substantially altering the exist-
ing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards
or overloading the existing street system; an8
the applicant's commitment to finance the
necessary road system improvements to serve
the increased usage attributable to the
development.
Applicant's Comments:
Applicant believes that the existing streets have the capacity
to provide for the needs of the proposed development without altering
existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system
or requring increased road mileage and/or maintenance. The
proposed lodge site's convenient location is well suited for the
auto -free tourist. The CAR GENERATION ANALYSIS shown indicates
that the 46 rental units will generate approximately 18 to 23 Cars
in the winter and summer respectively.
--21--
TRAFFIC COUNT —Estimate
Application procedures asks for information and comments
on the following:
Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent
streets resulting from the proposed building
or the addition thereto; total number of vehi-
cles expected to use or be stationed in the
proposed buildings; hours of principal daily
usage; on and off street parking to be sup-
plied; location of alternate transit means
(bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disin-
centive techniques incorporated into the pro-
posed building or the addition thereto.
Applicant's Comments:
AUTO GENERATION ANALYSIS
Winter Summer
high Use Period l� High Use Period
2�
GMP rental rooms 46 46
Average room occupancy3/ X 95 % X 80 %
Occupied rooms 43.7 36.8
Average
people per room4/
X 2
X 2
People
lodged
87.4
73.6
Average
people arriving by car5/
X 60 %
X 95 %
People
arriving by car
52.4
69.9
Average
people per car6/
-- 3
— 3
Estimated
cars
17.55
23.3
Footnotes and Assumptions
l/
Winter high -use period is
two weeks Christmas
and
2/
February and March.
3/
Summer high -use period is
average weekend.
Room occupancies from UMTA
Technical Mermorandum
4
No. 3, April, 1977.
People per room estimate
based on actual Aspen
Inn
5/
pillow count.
People arriving by car estimate
from UMTA Technical
6/
Memorandum No. 3, April,
1977.
Ibid.
The UMTA study identified three tourist trip types as follows:
1. Arrival and Departure - The Inn's limousine service will
handle a majority of the fly -in arrival and departure trips
estimated by the UMTA analysis. As concluded in the UMTA
study, summer auto use is greater than winter. Because of
the Lodge's convenient location, it is expected tourists
901H 6ee��
arriving by car will be able to park and store their cars
during their visits without inconvenience.
2. Skiing and Summer Recreation - Because of the Lodge's
convenient walking distance to Aspen Mountain's lifts,
Little Annie Ski Area (Proposed) and the Rubey Park ski
buses, skiers will not need cars.
3. Shopping and Entertainment - Because of the Lodge's con-
venient location to downtown shopping and entertainment plus
the provision of on -site facilities, the tourist will have
little need for a car for these activities. The Lodge is
only a five minute walk from the mall system.
The estimated 23 additional cars resulting from the Lodge are
likely to generate little daily car usage. Of the limited trips
generated, they will primarily be once a week arrival and departure
trips.
Employee parking will be restricted and limited on the site to
encourage employee use of public transit, if this meets with
the preference of the City of Aspen. Current traffic count
information along Ute Avenue and Original Street is not avail-
able to quantitatively estimate detail traffic impact.
The Aspen Mountain Road abutting the lodge site will be
resurfaced with blacktop at applicant's expense after curb,
gutters and storm drains have been installed, if approved,
and recommended by the City's Engineering Department.
THE LeeCE AT FY
EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES
Application procedures asks for information and comments
on the following:
(ff) Effects of the proposed development on adja-
cent land uses in the vicinity of the project.
Applicant's Comments:
No adverse effects are anticipated by the proposed develop-
ment on the adjacent land uses in the vicinity of the project.
The Glory Hole Park which is located diagonally from the site
is expected the be used by the guest particularly in the summer
and fall. The Park contains eight park benches at the present
time. Additional benches can easily he added without adverse
effects to the Park in order to accomodiate the increase usage.
Due to the sites' close proximity to the Aspen Mountain
ski lifts and :aspen's commercial core vehicle traffic is expected
to be very limited after : guests' arrival. Guest are expected
to walk.
No adverse effects are anticipated on adjacent properties in
the vicinity. The Lodge site is surrounded by the Glory Hole Park,
Billing's Apartments, Ajax Apartments, Aspen Alps Condominiums and
Ms. Hyde's House. The Hyde House is densely landscaped with trees.
The primary Lodge guest will stay for a time period of one week.
Thus, check -in and check-outs will be kept to a minimum. The use of
automobiles after arrival will be minimized due to the Lodge being
located near the central part of town.
LODGE SITE— Current Use
The site has a one story, 3 bedroom, 1 bath house. The
house is presently occupied by the applicant, Lyle D. Reeder.
Except for occasional guests, Mr. Reeder is the only occupant.
No employees working in the Aspen area will be affected by the
removal of the improvements on the lodge site.
IWZZ
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE — Proposed
Application procedures asks for information and comments
on the following:
(gg) The proposed consttUction schedule including,
if applicable, a schedule for phasing con-
struction.
Applicant's Comments:
Construction can start as early as May 1, 1984 with complet-
ion by February 1, 1985. Time period to complete the construct-
ion is expected to be nine months.
SECTION 2
QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN
Preliminary Architectural Drawings
:Application procedure calls for the following information
to be supplied:
(2) A site utilization map including:
Preliminary architectural drawings in suffi-
cient detail to show building size, height,
materials, insulation, fireplaces or solar
energy devices (demonstrating energy conserva-
tion or solar energy utilization features),
type of commercial spaces or units, and loca-
tion of all buildings (existing and proposed)
on the development site.
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
The following photographs/:architectural drawings are
included; Page
SITE CONTEXT MAP ............... 26
PHOTO OF MODEL ......................... 27
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - WEST & NORTH ..... 28
to " - EAST & SOUTH ..... 29
BUILDING - VERTICAL CROSS SECTION "A" .. 30
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL "A" ................. 31
- LEVEL "B" ................. 32
- LEVEL C ................. 33
" - GARDEN LEVEL 34
" - GARAGE LEVEL 35
THE 6 qp N
SITE CONTEXT MAP
,A�F,E�"-
Hole-
mKif
ASPEN
SITE CONTEXT
0 25 50 100 150 200
THO LeeG�9 AT AS'MITEN
PHOTOGRAPH OF MODEL
--
BUILDING ELEVATIONS- WEST &NORTH
WEST ELEVATION
--1
NORTH ELEVATION
0 4 8 16 24 32
90 IH r= 6eeCr AT ASArN
THE LT pq
BUILDING ELEVATIONS- EAST & SOUTH
EAST ELEVATION
SOLAR COLLECTORS
SOUTH ELEVATION
-
91 IH 9 `eecr AT ASArN
- -29 - -
THE LT N
BUILDING -VERTICAL CROSS SECTION
SECTION A
T'I M 6ee1EM AT AgMMR4
LEVEL
PARKING AND WNESS CENTER
0 4 8 16 24 32
THE 6 T pq
msmvEWAlxS cum
FLOO R P LAN - LEVE L -A'"
(SITE PLAN)
UTE AVENUE
5'-0" SETBACK
phi
o0
d Mimi
LEVEL A PLAN
0 4 8 16 24 32
TI r= 6eec9 AT A9199N
--31--
THE LT pq
LEVEL B PLAN
FLOOR PLAN - LEVE L "B"
TI 9 L.eeGg AT ASA9N
— �e
THE LDeCE AT ASAEN
FLOO R P LAN - LEVE L "C"
LEVEL C PLAN
0 4 8 16 24 32
91 IH r= L.eeCM AT ASArN
"GARDEN" LEVEL
PARKING SPACES -SUMMARY NUMBER
GARDEN (PARKING & FITNESS) LEVEL-23
GARAGE LEVEL 2B
SURFACE - LEVEL 'A' 1
TOTAL 52
GARDEN (PARKING & FITNESS) LEVEL
IF IH r= LleeCITT AT ASAITT N
N - IK
"PARKING** LEVEL
3, , -k , s , to , I 'Ir
.e •. %%. •1 w . s 11. %11
111011
\tea ,�� w
will
'L1
RAMP
GARAGE/PARKING LEVEL
901HITT 6eeRO AT AMMON
e
TN6 T N
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(2) Quality of or improvements to design (maximum 15
Points). The commission shall consider each appli-
cation with respect to the quality of its exterior
and site design and any improvements proposed
thereto, and shall rate each development by assign-
ing points according to the following formula:
Q -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
Architectural Des:gn
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) con-
sidering the compatibility of the proposed
-building or any addition thereto (in terms of
size, height, location and building materials)
with existing neighborhood developments.
applicant's Comments;
The massing of the building is low on the Ute Avenue
elevation and elevates to a three level mass in scale
with the sturctures that exist to the south and west of the
site. The plan is organized with the Administration and
Lounge on the Ute Avenue side. The private area (lodge
rooms) are at the rear of the site.
The materials used on the outside of the building is
cedar siding with an appropriate brown stain while the
fireplace chimney stack will be covered with Lichenstone
which is the same as the Hyde House located across the
street from the site.
b b. Site Design
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the
quality and character of the proposed or the
improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding
of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian
amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance
the design of the development and to provide
for the safety and privacy of the users of the
development.
Applicant's Comments;
The Site Plan is shown or, Page 31 . The area of the
site is 15,386. square feet. The building footprint is
5,669. square feet, covering 36 % of the Site.
The building is composed on three basic elements;
1. ydministration - iirrival & Departure.
2. Community - Lounge & Dining.
3. Private - Lodge Rooms.
The building is modulated in plan to enhance the
feeling of openness on the site. The proposed Lodge is
located 410 feet from the Ski Lift No. 4 at the base of
Aspen Mountain near Little Nell.
If one arrives at the site by vehicle the arrival area
visually terminates Original Street. The main pedestrian
access to and from the Commercial Core will be through the
existing path system through the Ute Avenue Pathway.
There is an entrance on the North Corner of the building to
accommodate this traffic pattern.
-- 37- -
THE L.T Py
SIDEWALKS, CURBS&GUTTERS
A proposed sidewalks, curbs and gutters plan is
shown on page 39 of this application.
The applicant agrees to install curb and gutters
on Ute Avenue and the .aspen Mountain Road which abuts
the Lodge Site which shall meet the specifications of
the City of Aspen. At the option of the City of aspen
the Applicant will guarantee to pay the cost of curbs
and gutters should the City prefer to install the same.
The applicant Agrees to participate in and pay for
the Lodge's share of costs for street improvements
to Ute Avenue should the Little Annie Ski area someday
be built.
THE LeecE AT N
SIDEWALKS, CURBS & GUTTERS LAYOUT
SIDEWALKS CURBS
AND GUTTERS
� 4-- F..t Ptr►.
BICYCLE
PARKING
LEVEL A PLAN
PARKING
ARRIVAL (I
UTE AVENUE
CURBS, GUTTERS,
PAVED DRIVES
AND STREETS
9@ IH r= 6eeCr- AMP ASAM-N
.5 -W SETBACK
SITE DESIGN (Continued)
1. Utilities _. '11 utilities are to be underground.
2. Landscape - The proposed landscaping plan is shown
on page 41 o` this report.
3. Trash Removal - Trash container will he located in an
area near the Southeast corner of the property near the
Ajax Co;iuominiums trash container.
4. Snow Control - The Lodge will incorporate the following
systems:
a). Engineered snow stops will be installed to retain
the snow on the roof.
h). Heat tape system to he installed on to edge of roof
to control ice buildup.
c). Heat systems will he installed in the sidewalks
and driveways for snow elimination. On -site
dry wells will handle any run-offs.
d). Snow plow kept on the site will be used for
clearing Aspen .Mountain Road and Ute Avenue.
e). Contract snow removal will be used for emergencies
involving excessive accumulations from street
build-ups.
Landscaping. proposed
:application procedures calls for the following information
to be supplied:
Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at
preserving natural terrain and open space, and
undergrounding of utilities.
Applicant's Comments:
The Landscaping Plan is shown on Page 41 and Open
Space Plan is shown on Page 42
All Utilities are to be Underground.
THE 6 qp FN
SIDEWALKS CURBS
AND GUTTERS
BICYCLE
PARKING
LANDSCAPING PLAN
Design by; Henry J. Pedersen
V v
ARKING
ARRIVAL
BUILDING
LEVEL A PLAN
P*F, K
Bc/VcKts UTE AVENUE
0 4 S 16 24 32 (9�
--41--
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
The footprint of the building occupies 36.;b of the
site (See page 13 for calculations). The Open Space area
is shown below and exceeds 25 % of area of the Site.
SIDEWALKS CURBS
AND GUTTERS ,
BICYCLE
PARKING
_ d
PARKING
\ ARRIVAL {
LOUNGE AND DMUNG
L) - u
w
a
O
I SERVICE LGBBY
J- KITCHEN
T.
T
n
J i ) 1( J i l ) )
OPEN SPACE
UTE AVENUE
OPEN SPACE
CURBS, GUTTERS,
PAVED DRIVES
AND STREETS
LEVEL A PLAN
TI-Ir VeeCr AT ASAr=N
r
IAA__
7%�A..
`O
9
I
1
OPEN SPACE
0 4 8 16 24 32
THE LT ASAM.N
cc. Energy Conservation
ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows -
(cc) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) con-
sidering the use of insulation,, solar energy
devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy
and use of solar energy sources in the lodge
or any addition thereto.
Applicant's Comments:
The Aspen Ordinance is used as the minimum standard.
Insulation proposed to increase the efficiency approximately
20% above the Aspen Ordinance.
The solar collectors are located on the high roof also below
the skylight.
The hot water realized will be utilized. in the domestic
hot water system.
There is only one fireplace and it is located in the lounge
area and exceeds minimum requirement of the Aspen Ordinance.
Vestibules are incorporated at the points of main egress and
entry to minimize heat loss at these points.
PUBLIC TRj.NSPORT;iTION
The Lodge Site is located apprexitaately 410 feet
from the Little Nell Ski Lift, No. 4. It is also
within two blocks abutting the Durant :yvenue Transit
route. The Rubey Park transit stop is within a five
minute walk.
The future of the proposed Little t,,nnie Ski
area development is uncertain at this time. The relation-
ship of the Lodge Site to the Little tinnie project is shown
below;
Lodge Site -7
The LITTLE ANNIE Bus Service will travel on Original and
Ute Streets turning at the corner of the Lodge. The Lodge will
abut the Little Annie Ski Area Transportation Route. The proposed
Little Annie Terminal is within walking distance, a three to four
minute walk.
MHM
THE LT r-. F4
dd. Parking & Circulation
Application procedures asks for intormation and comments
on the following:
Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and
transit stops and improvements proposed to
ensure privacy from such areas.
Gcdinance No. 3D (Series oL 1983) indicate_ rating yuiael"ie
as follows:
(dd) Parking and cirulation (maximum 3 points) con-,
sidering the quality and efficiency of the
internal circulation and parking system for
the project, or any addition thereto, includ-
ing the proposed automobile and service vehi-
cle access and loading areas, and the design
features to screen parking from public views.
Applicant's Comments;
PARKING _-,ND C IRCUL. IT ION
Guest auto parking is provided on the basis of one
vehicle per guest room and is located on the Garden and
Garage Levels of the Building. The _j.rchitec:tural plans
01 these levels are shown on pages 34 and 35 .
The Check -in parking, Lima parking and service
vehicle parking are shown on the Site Plan shown on
page 31__. General Circulation of traffic is also shown
on the Site Plan.
automobile Elevator - In the development of detail
plans the installation of an automobile elevator will be
given consideration as an alternative option to the
ramp. The automobile elevator would lower and lift the
automobiles to/from the two parking levels located below
gr,ide. Building Codes will be consulted to determine
if the ramps may be replaced with an automobile elevator.
LIMOUSINE SERVICE
The Lodge will operate a limousine service For its
guests. Normal limousine service is based on 1 limousine
per 25 guests. Based on a theoretical capacity of 1.6
people per room this results in a need for 2.94 limousines.
A theoretical capacity of two people per room would indicate
a need for 3.68 limousines. Due to the proximity to the
commercial core the guests will have a tendency to walk
thus reducing the demand for limousine service. Three
limousines are planned and should adequately accommodate
the guests. --45
Pathways, foot, bicycle trails & parks
Application procedures asks for information and comments
on the following;
Any major street or road links and school
sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian
trails, greenbelts.
Applicant's Comments:
The Lodge site is located diagonally across the street from
the Glory Hole Park which has a pond and park benches. The Park
will provide a relaxed atmosphere which the Lodge guest may use.
The Ute-Benedict Bike Path originates approximately 260 feet
East of the Lodge site. The trail leads to the proposed Little Annie
Ski Area and points to the East.
..A Foot Path is shown on the Sidewalk, Curbs & Gutters
Layout shown on Page 39 This Path leads to the Ute-Benedict
Bicycle Path and thru the Walkway leading to the Little Nell
Ski Lift.
Zoning Districts
Application procedures asks for information and comments
on the following:
General description of surrounding existing
land uses and identification of zoning or
historical dibtrict boundary lines, if any.
Applicant's Comments:
A Zoning and View Plane Map is shown on the next Page.
GLORY HOLE PARK
ZONING AND
VIEW PLANE OVERLAY
The subject Lodge property is located diagonally from the GLORY HOLE
PARK. The Lodge ''roperty Survey is includecl on page 7.7. The NOTES on
the Property Survey indicate "nROPERTY IS UNAFFECTED 5W EITHER THE
GLORY HOLE PARK VIEW PLANES OR THE RUBY PARK VIEW PLANE."
LEGEND
L I LODGE ONE
P PARK VPO/A
ElR
- 6 RESIDENTIAL
ADOPTED:
MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1975
ORDINANCE II, SERIES 1975
-- 47--
LODGE SITE
Zoned — Lodge One
VIEW PLANE OVERLAYS
GLORY HOLE PARK
(See Ordinance 17 Series of 1973)
AMENDED:.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION- MAR.25, 1976
Visual Impact
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering
the scale and location of the proposed build-
ings or any addition thereto, to maximize
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Applicant's Comments:
The scale of building was developed to minimize the
impact of a structure on this site.
The vertical surfaces are wood and glass and the
roof is treated metal.
The frontage on Ute Avenue
is one story thus maximizing the views of Aspen Mountain and
surrounding scenic view interior and exterior.
The building is placed to the rear of the site in order
to enhance the view Of pedestrain traffic on Ute Avenue.
THE L�eCE AT ASA�N
SECTION 3
AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS
ordinance No. 35 (Series ul 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points).
The commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality and spaciousness of its pro-
posed services for guests as compared to the size
of'the proposed lodging project or any addition
thereto. The commission shall rate each develop-
ment by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 --
Indicates
a total
lack of guest amenities.
1 --
Indicates
services
which are judged to be
deficient
in terms
of quality or spaciousness.
2 ---
Indicates
services
which are judged to be
adequate
in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 --
Indicates
services
which are judged to be
exceptional
in terms
of quality and spacious-.
ness.
The
following
shall be
rated accordingly:
a a. Common Meeting Areas
(aa) Availability of or improvements to the exist-
ing on -site common meeting areas, such as
lobbies and conference areas,,in relation to
the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto (maximum 3 points).
Applicant's Comments:
The lounge/lobby area will provide a meeting place for
the guest. The lounge area will be multi -purpose for such
activities as dining, apre-ski activities and lodgQ parties.
The size of the lounge is ap 1p_".roxi1matel-,7 15
Ak
feet by 32 feet.
The size of the Lodge Site does not permit the
development of any Conference facilities.
'llN6 T FY
b b. Dining Facilities
ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(bb) Availability of or improvements to the exist-
ing on -site dining facilities, including any
restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in
relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto (maximum 3
points).
Applicant's Comments;
The restaurant will provide food service for lodge
guests. No public use of the restaurant is anticipated
which would require a Conditional Use Approval from the
City of ..spen. The service area will be in the lounge
in the winter and in the summer and also on the terrace
in the summer. An Apre' ski bar will be operated in
the Lounge area for guests.
Tourist Appeal
Applicant's Comments:
The Lodge's objective is to establish itself as an elegant,
small, intimate lodge catering to an affluent market.
Factors which contribute to the overall tourist appeal
are:
1. Prime location providing convenient access to skiing,
downtown shopping and entertainment.
2. Luxuriously furnished tourist rooms.
3. On -site dining.
4. Luxurious lounge with stain -glass ceiling and
fireplace.
5. On -site recreation facilities.
6. Limousine service.
7. Glory Hole Park is located across the street.
Skiing Proximity
Applicant's Comments:
The Lodge site is located approximately 405 feet from Aspen
Mountain's Little Nell Lift, No. 4. "Ski -In" to the Lodge site
is possible from Aspen Mountain when snow is on the Aspen Mountain
Road.
The proposed Little Annie Ski Terminal is approximately 740
feet East of the Lodge. The proposed terminal is within walking
distance, a three to four minute walk by the bike path.
Commercial Support;
Applicant ' Comments:
The proposed Lodge site is approximately four blocks from the
Mill Street Mall, approximately a five minute walk. Two public
restaurants are located within the same block as the Lodge site; i.e.,
within 400 feet. The Lodge will provide limited guest sundry
shopping within the Lodge.
Police Protection;
Applicant's Comments:
The applicant believes that the Aspen Police Department
has the ability to provide protection according to reasonable
response standards without the necessity of additional facilities,
personnel or equipment. The Aspen Police Department is located
approximately eight blocks from the Lodge site.
-- 51--
cc. Recreational Facilities
Ordinance No.35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(cc) Availability of or improvements to the exist-
ing on -site accessory recreational facilities,
such as health clubs, pools and other active
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto (maxi-
mum 3 points).
Applicant's Comments;
Recreational facilities will include a whirlpool
and saunas. An Exercise room will supply weight lifting
and general exercise equipment.
Two Commercial Health Clubs, the Aspen athletic Club
and The Aspen Club are located within walking distance of
the Lodge Site. Both offer a variety of health activities
and it is expected that both clubs will be utilized by
the lodge guests. The Glory Hole Park is located diagon-
ally opposite from the lodge site. The Park will be of
recreational benefit to the Lodge guests, particularly
during the non -ski season.
SECTION 4
CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL POLICY GOALS
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum
30 points). The commission shall consider each
application and its degree of conformity with local
planning policies, as follows:
THE 6 T N
a a. Provision of Employee Housing
(aa) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15
points). The commission shall award points as
follows:
0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees
generated by the project who are housed
on or off -site - 1 point for each 10%
housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees
generated by the project who are housed
on or off -site - 1 point for each 5%
housed.
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for
submission of applications, provide the plan-
ning office with a detailed list of all
employees required to serve the lodge or any.
addition thereto as documentation for the
claim as to the percentage of employees housed
on- or off -site.
APPLICANT'S COMMENTS; till employees will be furnished housing
either on -site or off -site. Applicant will work with the Housing
office of Pitkin County in order to provide the housing within
their regulations.
FULL TINE EMPLOYEES
Fulltime employees during the Ski Season are estimated
to be a total of 15 employees. The list of the employee
jobs are as follows
Title
Manager
"ss't Manager
Day Clerk
Night Clerk
Domestics
Cook
Janitor & Maintanence Man
Bellman & Lomo Driver
Total
ON -SITE HOUSING
Number
1
1
3
2
4
1
1
2
15
Based on the size of the planned lodge, employee
housing of 1,282 square feet is required on the site.
Using 100 square feet of floor space per employee 12
employees can be housed. Since the lodge rooms are
standardized at 216 square feet per room, six rooms
will house the 12 employees.
OFF -SITE HOUSING
Three employees will be housed off -site. The
V\' p lodge will either lease long-term or purchase three
S V_LkE�-
condomini1_ims in the ,aspen Area for housing the three
C_a-,,.`� �,"'t �.l.oy - 53 --
THE LT pq
SECTION 5
BONUS POINTS
Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) indicates rating guideline
as follows:
(5) Bonus points (maximum 6 points). The commission
members may, when any one determines that a project
has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and
(4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these
subsections and achieved an outstanding overall
design meriting 'recognition, award additional bonus
points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total
points awarded under section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2),
( 3 ) and ( 4) , prior to the application of the cor-
responding multiplier. Any commission member
awarding bonus points shall provide a written jus-
tification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS CONSIDERATION
Applicant's Comments:
1. The Lodge at Aspen's proposal represents the first attempt
since the GMP adoption to construct an entirely new lodge in
Aspen. The submission addresses the upgrading of a key
corner location with proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain
(4051) and the proposed base area for the Little Annie Ski
Area.
The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develop an
intimate scale lodge, in keeping with the Aspen tradition,
as opposed to a megastructure approach.
The project can be built without any deficiencies in water,
sewer, storm sewer drainage, fire protection, sidewalks,
curbs, paved driveways and streets ajoining the site.
The location is within walking distance to the commercial
core and public transportation. The nearness of the Police
Department enhances guest security.
TNT `9P ASA�N
The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the
pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain.
The applicant is willing to guarantee in writing prior to
issuance of a building permit to do the following:
a). Complete the construction within one year from issuance
of building permits notwithstanding acts of God.
b). Provide licensed engineering supervision during
construction.
c). Adhere to the issued building permit and plans and to
correct any construction defects within 10 days of
notification of the defect.
The outstanding overall design recognition bonus points are
based on Section 24-11. 6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) , (4), The
sub -section headings are as follows:
(1) Availability of public facilities and services.
(2) Availability of social facilities and services.
(3) Quality of design.
(4) Services provided for guests.
(5) Conformance to local public policy goals.
It is respectfully requested that the Lodge project be con-
sidered for bonus point evaluation on the merits in this application.
APPENDIXES FOLLOW THIS PAGE
-55--
AP PENDIX "A"
LAWSUIT -COPY
(included as "'background information")
11
IN THE. DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF PITKIN, 0_- CGLORADO
Civil Action
CONPLAINT
HAMS B. CANTRUP and JUNE M. CANTRUP,
Plaintiffs,
V.
THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation, the ASPEN CITY COUNCIL,
HERMAN EDEL,KCHARLES COLLINS,✓SUSAN P4ICHAEL,kGEORGE PARRY, and
,/RICHARD KNECHT, individually and as members of the City Council of
the City of Aspen,�SUNNY VANN, individually and as Director of
Planning of the City of Aspen, an&�LYLE REEDER,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, complain of
the defendants as follows:
First Claim for Relief
1. Plaintiffs are the owners of certa-in real property
(Real Property) located in the City of Aspen, Co_1nty of Pitkin,
State of Colorado, and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, upon i.,,h4C: is located a
lodge known as the Aspen Inn.
2. Plaintiffs are, and at all times :^ate vial hereto,
have been residents of the City of Aspen, Count- of Pitkin, State
of Colorado.
3. Defendant, City of Aspen, is a municipal" corporation
' organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State
of Colorado.
4. Defendant, Aspen City Council (City Council), is
composed of the duly elected, qualified. and acting members of the
City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado and Defendants Herman
Edel, Charles Collins, Susan Michael, George Parry, and Richard
Knecht are the present members of the City Cou_n.cil.
5. Defendant Sunny Vann is and was t^e duly appointed,
qualified, and acting Director of Planning of the City of aspen,
Colorado during the time relevant to this Co -plaint.
THE LT ASALN
6. Defendant Lyle Reeder is, and at all tines material
hereto, has been a resident of the Cite c,f ;_soen, County of Pi_tkin,
State of Colorado.
7. On or before September 1, 198i, in accordance with
and pursuant to Section 24-11.6 of the ::a_ci^al Code of. the City
of Aspen, the plaintiffs submitted an application for a Growth
t-,anagement Plan allotment for 96 lodge units on the Real Property
to be known as the "Aspen Inn Expansion."
8. On or before September 1, 19Si, the defendant Lyle
Reeder, submitted an application for a Growth 1111anagement Plan
allotment for 31 lodge units and 4 employee housing units to be
located on property owned by him in the City of Aspen.
9. In accordance with and pursuant to Section. 24-11.6
of the Municipal Code of the.City of Asper., the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 1981 for the
purpose of comparing the two projects, awarding points pursuant to
the requisite criteria, and ranking the projects according to the
points awarded.
10. As a result of' said public hearing the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission awarded the greater nu fiber of points
to the Aspen Inn Expansion, and upon the recorLme-dation of the
planning office adopted a motion reco=,endinc: to the Cite Council
that the quota available to be allocated should be 54 lodge units.
Upon motion duly adopted, the Aspen Plannirc and Zoning Commission
forwarded the results of the public hearing to the City Council.
11. By letter dated January 20, 1982, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by
reference, the defendant. Sunny Vann notified the plaintiffs of the
rejection of the plaintiffs' application for a 1982 Growth
Management Plan allotment for the Aspen Inn_ Expansion; which letter
was delivered to the plaintiffs on Janaury 22, 1982.
12. Said rejection is based upon the contention that the
1982 Growth Management Plan application for the Aspen Inn Expansion
is predicated upon an amendment to a 1978 Growth Management Plan
application and since the amendment has not _vet been approved, the
1982 application must be rejected.
13. The 1982 Growth rlanagement Plan application for the
Aspen Inn Expansion is not predicated upon any previous application
or amendment thereto.
14. The rejection of the 1982 Growth Management Plan
application for the Aspen Inn Expansion is without authority, has
IPH6 T FY
no basis in law or in fact, and by reason thereof the defendant
Sunny Vann has exceeded his jurisdiction anC, abused his discretion.
15. Plaintiffs have no plain, speed-,,, or adequate remedy
except to.apply to this Court for relief.
Second Clair.! for Relit
16. Plaintiffs reallege each and allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15 in their First Claim for
Relief.
17. By reason of his actions the defendant Sunny Vann
has unlawfully precluded the plaintiffs from rights to which they
are entitled.
Third Claim for Relief
18. Plaintiffs reallege each and ever: allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15 and 17 in their First and
Second Claims for Relief.
19. Section 24-11.6(b) of the (Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen provides in part that: "The Planning Office shall
evaluate all development allotment applications during the early
weeks of September, reject those that are ineligible under Section
24-11.3(c) and present its recommendations at the Planning and
Zoning Commission no later than October 1st o= each year or at the
Commission's first regular meeting subsequent to tra; date...."
20. The Planning Office did evaluate plantiffs'
development, allotment application for the A,p`r_~.^. F_tipansion
during the early weeks of September, 1981.
21. The Planning Office did present its recommendations
at the Planning and Zoning Commission at its fiist regular meeting
subsequent to October 1, 1981, but did not reject plaifitiifs'
development allotment application.
22. By failing to reject plaintiffs development
allotment application on or before the first regular ^eeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981, the
defendant Sunny Vann is precluded by Section 24-11.6(b) of' the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen from thereafter rejecting said
application.
Fourth Claim for Relief
23. Plaintiffs reallege each and ever- allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17 and 19 through 22 in their
First, Second and Third Claims for Relief.
24. If valid grounds did exist for -rejection of
plaintiffs' development allotment application, such grounds existed
at the time the Planning Office evaluate' t::e application in
September of 1981, the Plann4.r_g Office 'rne:;, such r.rcu nds existed,
and that it had a right to reject the applicati�:: erefer.
25. By failing to reject the plain;.-~=s' development
allotment application on or before the first regular meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981, the
defendants waived any rights they had to so reject t::e application.
Fifth Claim for Relief
26. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24 and 25
in their First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims =or Relief.
27. Between September 1, 1981 and January 20, 1982 the
defendants, by their words and actions, led plaintiffs to believe
that their development allotment application was valid.
28. Between September 1, 1981 and January 20, 1982 the
plaintiffs justifiably relied on defendants' words and actions in
spending substantial amounts of time and money in processing their
development allotment application.
29. As a consequence of their words a: -id actions and by
failing to reject plaintiffs' development allot -en application on
or before the first regular meeting of the Plann_inc and Zoning
Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981 the de=en::ants were
estopped from rejecting the application.
Sixth Claim for P,elie`
30. Plaintiffs reallege each and eve_-v allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 2?- 24, 25 and
27 through 29 in their First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth
Claims for Relief.
31. If valid.grounds did exist for rejection of
plaintiffs' development allotment application, the defendant Sunny
Vann had a duty and obligation to reject said application on or
before the first regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission subsequent to October 1, 1981 and by failing to reject
the application on or before said date, the defendants subsequent
rejection of said application is barred b% the doctrine of lashes.
Seventh Claim for Relief
32. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allectaion
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27
through 29 and 31 in their First Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and
Sixth Claims for Relief.
33. Defendant Sunny Vann's I -ter c= a, ary 20, 1982 is
purportedly based upon Section 24-11.3 of the `.._..i^ipal Cede of the
City of Aspen.
34. Section.2.4-11.3 of. they ::unicipal Code of the City of
Aspen authorizes the planning office to reject 4r. application for
a development allotment which fails to satisfy certain conditions
or meet certain requirements of the Code or other land use or
building regulations of the City of Aspen.
35. Said Section violates the Constitutions of the
United States and of the State of Colorado in that it denies to the
plaintiffs due process and equal protection of the laws,
constitutes an unlawful delegation of power to the planning office,
and fails to set forth adequate standards.
36. The application of said Section to plaintiffs
interferes with and impairs the rights and privileges of the
plaintiffs to due process of law and equal protection of the laws
as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and of the
State of Colorado.
Eighth Claim for Relief
37. Plaintiffs reallege each and e,' e=--
allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 th rough 22, 24, 25, 27
through 29, 31 and 33 through 36 in their First. Socond, Third,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief.
38. At a regular meeting held or. Jams_ _y 25, 1982 the
defendant City Council and the members thereof a:•: reed a
development allotment of 31 lodge units to the ce=endant Lvle
Reeder.
39. Section 24-11.6(e) of the Ifunicipal Code of: the City
of Aspen provides in part that: "Subsequent to the conclusion of
all protest hearings provided for in this section ... the City
Council shall by resolution and prior to December 1st of each year,
allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the
order of priority established by their rank...."
40. The plaintiffs, having ranked first in priority with
respect to the 1982 Growth Management Plan quota are entitled to
receive the entire development allocation of 54 lodge units.
41. By reason of their actions in awarding the aforesaid
development allotment to Lyle Reeder, the defendant City Council
•
TNT 6 T N
r
and the members thereof have violated section 24-11.6(e) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
42. By reason of their actions i- a,;arding the aforesaid
development allotment to defendant Lyle Pee-er, the defendant City
Council and members thereof acted arbitraril-." capriciously, abused
their discretion, and exceeded their jurisdiction.
43. Plaintiffs have no plain, sceedy, or adequate remedy
except to apply to this Court for relief.
Ninth Claim for Relief
44. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27
through 29, 31, 33 through 36, and 38 through 43 in their First,
Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims for
Relief.
45. By reason of their actions in awarding the aforesaid
development allocation to defendant Lyle Reeder the defendants have
unlawfully precluded the plaintiffs from rights to which they are
entitled.
Tenth Claim for.Relie-
46. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27
through 29, 31, 33 through -36, 38 through 43 and 45 in their First,
Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth
Claims for Relief.
47. If the defendant Lyle Reeder is permitted to utilize
the development allotment which was awarded to h-im. prior to a
determination by this Court 'as to whether or not such allotment was
lawfully made, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury.
48. The plaintiffs have no adequate rem-ledy at law.
Eleventh Claim for Relie_
49. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27
through 29, 31, 33 through 36, 38 through 43, 45, and 48 through 49
in their First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth and.Tenth Claims for Relief.
50. The individual members of
the Director of Planning, and others have
meetings and discussions for the purpose
the Aspen City Council,
had numerous private
of determining and
-- 61--
THE LT FY
formulating a method and policy
developing the Real Property and
plaintiffs in the City of Aspen.
to prevent the plaintiffs from
other real property owned by
51. The individual members of the Citv Council, Director
of Planning, and others have adopted and implemented a policv to
prevent the plaintiffs from developing the Peal Property and other
real property owned by the plaintiffs in the City of Aspen.
52. The actions taken by the Directo-- of Planning and
the City Council are part of a series of actions intended to
prevent the plaintiffs from developing the Peal Property and other
real property owned by the plaintiffs in the City of Aspen.
53. In taking the actions described in paragraphs 51
through 53, and as incorporated by reference in paragraph 50, as
well as other related actions, the defendants acted under color of
the laws of the State of Colorado and under color of the ordinances
of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
54. Said actions are intended to, and have the effect of
invidiously discriminating against plaintiffs in violation of their
constitutional rights, including without limitation, their rights
to freedom from unlawful taking of property-, to due process and to
the equal protection of the laws, as secured by 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.
55.. By reason of such discrimination the nlzintiffs have
suffered irreparable injury for which they have ro acequate remedy
at law.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for the -following:
A. That the Court issue an order pursuant to C.R.C.P.
106(a)(2) directing that the defendants reinstate the plaintiffs'
1982 Growth Management Plan application for the Aspen Inn Expansion
and award entire allotment of 54 lodge units to the plaintiffs.
B. That the Court issue an order pursuant to C.R.C.P.
106(a)(4) directing the City Council and the Citv of Aspen to
certify to the Court, no later than 30 days after the date of the
order, the entire record and transcript of proceedings had before
the Council relative to the 1982 Growth Management Plan allotment
for lodge units including all exhibits and other documents
presented to the City Council.
C. That the defendants Sunny Vann, City Council, and
City of Aspen be ordered to show cause, not later than 30 days
after the date of the order, why the actions taker by Sunny Vann
and the City Council in rejecting the plaintiffs 1982 Growth
41NT N
Management Plan application and in awarding the 1982 Growth
(Management Plan allotment for lodge units to Lyle ?eeder should not
be vacated, set aside, and reversed.
D. That the Court find that the Diciint .ffs reasonably
and justifiablyrelied to their detriment on t: e ::c-,rds, actions and
conduct of the defendants and that by virtuce of such justifiable
detrimental reliance and in order to prevent a fun amenta].
injustice, the defendants were estopped from rejecting the
plaintiffs 1982 .Growth PManagement Plan application and from
awarding the 1982 Growth Mangement Plan_ allotment f.or lodge units
to Lyle Reeder.
E. That the Court find that the actions of the
defendant Sunny Vann in rejecting the plaintiffs 1982 Growth
Management Plan application is barred by the doctrine of laches.
F. That the Court find -that the defendants waived any
rights that they might have had to reject the plaintiffs 1982
Growth Management Plan application.
G. That the Court issue a preliminary injunction
ordering that the defendant Lyle Reeder cease and desist from
utilizing the 1982 Growth Management Plan a__otrent for 'lodge units
until such time as the court can determine -,:hether or not such
allotment was lawfully made.
H. That the Court find that by reason of the actions of
the defendants in rejecting the plaintiffs 1922 G-ro-ath ?Management
Plan application and in ai•rarding the 1982 Growth '. nagement Plan
allotment to defendant Lyle Reeder, the plaintiffs have been denied
due process of law and equal protection of the la S as guaranteed
by the Colorado Constitution and by the Constitution of" the United
States.
I. That the Court declare that Section 24-11.3 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is not applicable }:; plaintiffs
or that it is void, unconstitutional, ineffective, and without
force of law, and that defendants and each of' theta be restrained
and enjoined by order of the Court, pending final determination of
the issues stated herein, and on such deterr..ination, be permanently
restrained and enjoined from exercising any of the powers, rights,
or duties respecting the enforcement of said Section against
plaintiffs.
J. That the Court find that the defendants acted
wilfully, in bad faith and under color of law to deny plaintiffs
the rights, privileges and immunities secured to plaintiffs by the
due process and equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States anal that as a result of
9PIH 6ee��
A
such action plaintiffs are entitled to compensetory damages,
exemplary damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and their costs
herein.
K. That the Court award the plainti=`s t::e cost of this
e•ction and such other relief as the Court ray dee•:, tiroper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day Of February, 1.982.
GARFIELD & HECHT
,9
By
Fp cT�F*. S c h
'_er1 . 74
01 Eaman
Aspen, 816(303) 925-1936
•
TNT 6 T pq
C EXHIBIT "A" ( (
PARCEL l: Lots A, It, C and D
BLOCK 814
C11Y AND 10i"NSITL OF ASPEN
PARCEL 2: Lots 1, 2, 3, I1 and 5
BLOCK 2
CO'.::m:'S Aw)ITIO;: 'f0 Tlf(: CFTI'
I'AMEL 3: A tract of I l c)f i.u: 6, ';I. - -
t}le ua' latted ortio:l of -- _: I :rt o.
said Lot 6 and idj7t,:c;lt to the CI:.
salt tract beitti; tau:o fully
LF.GIN:'IKG at tile ;\'urt;:ea ,t rnt•.:e.r o:
whencees. curc:cr o: the Northwest � •- )-% 't'IO:.
South, i(anoe S4 West of tltc.,
8 minutes, 40 seconds t'e sC, 773.E fc:_-;
THENCE South 15 degrect best, alo:t,,
fiDDITIO`: 99.99 f I - o •CC::;:(:::'S
L'CC CO ChC OI':lt I -_� _ i... St L
.._ c'� t
North 75 do rccs West, alo' the li, . i zeta:CE:
I, . St_ ~
57.75 feet to the So�UtltaeS.t corce: - cc�
North 15 dcgrc es 49 rinutcs 50 .�; o:.,',`, �- ��i t•, i:iE::C
-line of said Lot 6 a distance of-. :[ t1to the _-e_, c
corner of said lot, being a f
:t= O Ve:IR
Avenue; THE'NU Soutlt 75 de rocs i:::st, ::?cnLyt?.- S,._.4 lit,:!
of Uva;l Avenue, 50.3 feet to the
Lots 1, 2 -i:al 1, DEA`'S ADDETI0:i • :;cl
i':1 :CEL 4: Lc)[ . 7, 8, ; I al)d 12
BLOCK :i
CO: NOR' S AiI: I'i i ON TO THE ClY A.*"!)
I•'i:CEL 5: 1.6ts 1, 2, "i, �,, 5, 6 ; id thy. strip
Lot 6 and 1.ut 12 in Block 3, CO::::;":.'_ .-.�:): _ _ : -
OF ASPEN, tuF;o0ior with o::c-ilai: %I. .. _ 1 Ev
cent to and ai. file rear of :?ld Lc:. _ ...: �.:_�_ _ ("y•
l'ai;CEL 6: A t r;;c t of ) atlii described :1:, t'
t• ` O: . C:Itt•::i e`
One ►:ortivae::t carnet of Scct.i.or 16, T_ =:? S., f •. ;: 6tit
P.N. bears North 15 57' 43" Lest
1.1 33' 22" East 129.64 feet • t::.'::ce ���= ; :t - - 70. 7 ,,
:�� a_) t.�:,�
feet; thonce South 150 00' 'Vest 129.i•. c
75c� 00' Last 71.73 f -..;�nc`
knot and d 1
:n cscx ihcct as Lots ;tile tic:
City of Aspen, Colorado
PARCEL 7: A tract of land being I.o:s 6, 7 ar.c: i0 - = Tili:
CITY OF ASPEN, COI.0I','%:)0, except tha' u. �o.s � o;,� g lying
within the following; de::cribed p; rcel: `
BEG I::XIXG at U-5.1,1-S. 2.535, Cornor
to bears N 850 12.' 50" F. , 2090. lit I ,•c ;• : i:: I :.
.79 foot; • [hence.S 75" 09' 1.1" E, i:9.
33' i�?�� 1; , 307.20 feet to t1W truo ;:Ct!:. :. t i'-
/� 60.52 foot; thellcC. ,> l L -C>=':t'+. . t,
J + 04.03
foci ; Lnonce S 7-; CO' F: , 60. "'l fool; ..:i•::ct. l,�c' 33 t tt
22 L
104.5tt fc,.t to the tt'ue point of
--65--
irH L T ASA�N
PARCEL I;_ A parce) Or land
TO T!;L GF ASPEN.
fc,
""o- bc-at Ij
%9 f VC t, t
331 22" 1 307.20 feet t, r !�T-
00. 5:, f(-k,.(
f s icy Oo 1 7 10
10 fc< t t 0 ticc Cru0 poi f
Situated 1j) tll,-- co"Inty of 0-
I
M• •
TNT 6 9F FN
EXHIBIT B (
Aspen/Pitkin .Planning Office
130 south-•galena':street
aspen,. Colorado _=81611
January 20, 1982
Mr. Spence Schiffer
Garfield and Hecht
601 E. Hyman Avenue
?aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Spence,
Pursuant to Section 24-11.3(c) of the Municipal Code, the
Planning Office hereby notifies you of the rejection of Mr. Hans
Cantrup's application for a 1982 Lodge GMP allocation. As you
know, compliance with the requirements of Chapter 24 of the Code,
"Zoning", or any other applicable land use or building regulation
of the City of Aspen is a basic prerequisite to the receipt of
any GMP allocation. The considerations with respect to Mr. Cantrup's
1992 request which have led the Planning Office to the above decision
rtlay be summarized as follows:.
1. Inasmuch as the Aspen Inn is a "phased application", a
fundamental component of Dar. Cantrup's 1932 request is
his prior 1978 GMP allocation. The 1978 proposal is the
basic building block upon which all subsequent requests
must be evaluated.
2. The Planning Office cannot realistically utilize the
original 1973 proposal to review the 1932 application
since your client has already substantially deviated
from the-1978 proposal in his construction to date, and
has indicated no desire to return to the original concept.
3. In light of the unapproved deviations from the original
1978 application, it is the Planning Office's determination
that Mr. Cantrup's 1982 lodge application fails to comply
with the requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
4. Since the Planning Office cannot predict whether or to
what extent an amendment to Mr. Cantrup's 1978 allocation
may be allowed, we have no other alternative but to re-
ject his 1982 GMP application pursuant to.Section 24- 11.3
(c) (3) .
Mr. Spence Schiffer! l
Page Two
January 20, 1982
In summary, given Council's expressed desire to revie�r the
entire hotel complex (i.e., submission of a PUn) prior to address-
ing further -Mr. Cantrup's request to amens? his 1978 allocation, it
seems only logical that requests for additional expansion of the
Aspen Inn are inappropriate at this time. I personally believe,.
however, that this action of Council represents a commitment on
their behalf to address the concept of a major hotel Oevelopment
at the base of the Mountain and, furthermore, to consider the
necessary mechanisms to bring such and idea to fruition.
Should you have any questions or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.
,an n
g Director
SV:ans
CC: Alan Richman
Paul Taddune
THE LeeCE AT ASI��N
APPENDIX"B"
THE LODGE AT ASPEN, INC. - Incorporation of The Name
The Name "The Lodge at Aspen, Inc." was incorporated
by Lyle D. Reeder in the State of Colorado on May 19,
1982. This proposed Lodge can operate with the name
under which this application is being filed.
The Certificate of Incorporation is shown below. The
Articles of Corporation are shown on Page 70
c�
0 . M
,W-A ploo�
DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
CERTIFICATE*
MARY ESTILL BUCHANAN, �er/re�e a� �i�e die
��a►.�e a� �� �2� die 14ehequu6t1e4 /2 die
44 wwm o f 44 ce4q, a e lulllled to mmAlta1nce
mdA taco and ate l ucnd to conlvim k lain.
dec"dinSly, sae wzd met neap, � rt?due a� die au�r�
vod, d in me 4y /me, Aee� i4Uce4 f i'F .i..r
TO THE L..01:11-aC- F-1 1 I=i'-;FEN,
DATED: t-1F1'T
iota ,-.tz:lz- ���--
�� SECRETARY OF STATE
Emm
AP PENDIX"C"
No. iS-om Re,. '79 ARTICLES OF IN -CORPORATION — Hradlord Publishing Co., IM46 Stout Street, Dcn—. Colorado (57)-5010 -- 4 -:,
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION C n
(SIT. INs'rRUC'•I•IONS Bt;I.OW)
1, the undersi �ned natural person of the age of eighteen years or more, acting a �anA�nc4 orator of a
corpof4ti unt#c91 .. 4orado Corporation Act, adopt the following Articles of Incorporatlut n."..
►kSY: The name of the corporation is- THE LODGE AT .?SPA, INC
SECOND: The petiod of duration is (perpetual).
THI RD: The purpose for which the corporation is organized is the transaction of all lawful business'for which
corporations may be incorporated pursuant to the Colorado Corporation Code (X1dX>f —
FOURTH: The aggregate number of shares which the corporation shall have authority to issue is
_ Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (250, 000.-)_ Sha res N Par Value,
FIFTH: Cumulative voting of shares of stock is (not) 4 authorized.
SIXTH: Shareholders shall (not) 5 have the preemptive right to acquire additional unissued or treasury
shares of the corporation.
SEVENTH: The address of the initial registered office of the corporation is 771 Llte AV
Aspen, Co. 81611,_Dlai1i I Acidness: P. O. Box 48S9,A�nen; tn_ 111612.6.
and the nano of its initial registered agent at such address is L 1e D—Reeder -----
EIGHTH: Address of the place of business:
�*lai1ingAddr.e s_�L?.�.._Bn 3Fi51� AC�n7--Co,81b1— 7
NINTH: The number of directors constituting the initial Board of Directors of the corporation is -thre "
and the names and addresses of the persons who are to serve as Directors until the first annual meeting of
shareholders or until their successors are elected and shall qualify are:
NAME.
le D. Reeder
Jan G. Gunn
t-,.lenn P. GarrettL Sr.
ADDRESS
P. O. Box 4859, Aspen, Co- 81612
417 W. Hallam, Aspen, Co- 81611
TENTH: The name and address of the incorporator is:
NAh1 F ADDRESS
Lyle D. Reeder P. O Box 485 Aspen, Co. 81612
Agnt�,,cofInc rporator) -- —
STATF OF Colorado
s s.
COUNTY OF Pi ticin
LYLE Ds�,FEnEF3personally appeared before me, and being by me first dul%
sworn, declared that the foregoing Articles of Incorporation were executed by LYI2 D. REEDER __
and that the statements therein contained are true.
In witness whereof l have hereunto sethty hand and seal this 17th day of w, V . 19 82
` r
My Commission expires: �•. _--2 -
Notary Public
Footnotes: s'%��'« �" P16-
1 If definite period desired, strike "perpetual" and insert number of years.
If desired, state a specific purpose or purposes or strike word "and".
State number of authorized shares, par value per share in dollars or statement of no par value. If more than one
class of shares, see 1973 C.R.S. 7-2-IO2.
4 Strike if cumulative voting is to be authorized.
s Strike if preemptive right to acquire additional or Treasury shares is to be granted.
6 Address must include Building number, Street (or rural route number), Town or City, County and Zip Code.
7 Complete only if different from registered office.
I There must be at least three Directors. __70
__ '
Duplicate executed copies which are typed or printed must be submitted.
TNT 6 r ASA�N
APPENDIX "D"
EXrtr- R AM L F /-o oR A R E R C,A L.0 G 1-A -1O 1V -C ; -
Z r& wVs `O 4 4
�X7x.
C �
CVO S S k^# z— /S' X. 4 q' _
BOOMS' STkUcrtu'RE:
Cg v o sr 9 -V c 4�,.� (b N4-e.�,+Q-�� S, 40' sf
t_css 2 Do.,. Rec�s�ts, on Emil
-Fo 4- F-j IL, ri r -A 51
�f \ti Q "i u y� � p v i or 4. Q K c I4 �i u� �1, � >., l" 1
c.� t e
Toy z! 4�--
� �,c S'�u :�e�+ z 60.&- C3 '-a-ge
AT, Y. 1 VW% u aFj..Q t a e7r 2. �OVr+dL � 'r e w r
R"'/ A c- H Is
a"'W' &"q
T-d { ,4
73S'S.f-
/ �'- poz S f.
is, s.0, s f
— »�s.f
--71--
TNT 6ee�� AT asA�N
APPENDIX "E"
N 1- F9 )V A L FL o o k AREA C )/ t C U t 4 7- (o A r, < S2 ►.. , ,.,,>
TyP,c�� �oow� Srz2
52 x /8''x ►�-'
r7S /o
1,2- rS +
/ k C� w (A t.va. ,
O4- S,I V,&—b- 5
/21'le/8'2. --�-/(0 si,-4+
//, 273 Z Sz, C+,
St
�Zw
-72 --
APPENDIX "F"
The lodge rooms will be developed using several of
the room designs from the following eight layouts -
Plans 'IA Il thru "H" .
LODGE ROOM LAYOUT
ROOM PLAN A
DESIGNS BY: Ms -Jan Gunn
FOLD OUT BED
in
- .
LAN D
TNT 6 T ASA�N
LODGE ROOM LAYOUT
BEDROOM PLAN E
TYPICAL BVLOYM U r
DESIGNS BY: Ms. Jan Gunn
WAN PLAN F
m
'r\ qwlvw-r
SICO =1900 BED SERIES WITH RICO =2300 MODULAR
WALL SYSTEM - FRAME: SHINY BRASS FINISH - CABINET:
MELAMINE, VALLEY PECAN FINISH
x
'u
4
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920 2233
November 22, 1983
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 1984 Lodge GMP Competition; Application of Lyle Reeder;
The Lodge at Aspen
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I represent Lyle Reeder, an Applicant in the 1984 Lodge GMP
Competition in connection with the hearing before your Commission
on November 22, 1983, to select a winning score between the two
Applicants -- my client, Lyle Reeder and The Lodge at Aspen, and
the other applicants, Alan Novak, s and American
Century Corporation and the Aspen Mountain Lodge. -
Gt.rsr1 .
This letter is written to become part of the formal
proceedings of the hearing and to set forth certain legal
objections and irregularities that have been discovered by my
client and myself in connection with the procedures of the City
of Aspen regarding the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition, in particular,
and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen in general as it
pertains to this Competition.
I have presented copies of this letter to the Counsel
representing the Mountain Lodge, the Aspen City Counsel, the
Director of the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office and each of the
members of your Commission.
Specifically incorporated herein are the provisions of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen which are pertinent to these
applicants and to the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition.
I shall set forth these objections and irregularities in
numerical order for your convenience and reference:
1. In scoring each of the two applicants, the Planning
Director gave a decidedly unfair advantage to the
Mountain Lodge project because of the procedure which
allows that project to qualify as a PUD project and
still have to compete as a project in the GMP
Competition. Certain advantages were obtained by the
Mountain Lodge by it being allowed to be of greater
height and having more amenities, thus enabling it to
receive a greater point score.
•
WRIGHT HUGUS, RJR.
Atton,ey a; Lei:
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920-2233
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
November 22, 1983
Page Two
2. The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for having
amenities for guests, at least a part of which score
was due to having a larger number of amenities than the
Lodge at Aspen and so receiving a higher score. This
treatment would discriminate against a smaller project
in general, since points are scored against each other
on a one-to-one basis, and in particular since the
Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and
exterior space.
3. The Mountain Lodge is proposing to gain credit for the
demolition and reconstruction of 269 existing units,
and consequently is seeking only 211 units from the
Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their
project, the Planning Office considered the entire 480
units in granting points for the various categories
when they should have only considered the actual number
of the units that were being requested. This would
have resulted in only scoring 211 units as a percentage
of the overall project (43.95%).
4. The proposed Mountain Lodge project is obviously the
most complicated and most expensive to be proposed for
Aspen. It is also the largest in terms of number of
units, size of buildings, etc. For this reason, it is
hard to see how it can be equated with any other
project, especially one of the size of the Lodge at
Aspen. However, it is being scored against it and is
being considered as a part of the Lodge GMP Competition
in spite of its unique size and complexity. In fact,
it should be a separately considered project.
5. The procedures of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, in
general, and the Lodge GMP Competition, in particular,
provide for certain qualifications before an applicant
can submit an application. Obviously, these
requirements are necessary in order to determine if an
applicant actually has the necessary interest in the
property to be seriously considered. The interest of
the Applicants for the Mountain Lodge appears to be no
more than an Assignment of the Right to submit the aN&
application by the actual landowner, Hans Cantrup, who,
in turn, is unable to legally handle his own legal
affairs, including his real estate holdings, without
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920-2233
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
November 22, 1983
Page Three
the express approval and participation of the United
States Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, it would appear
that the applicants for The Mountain Lodge have no
standing to file the application being considered by
this Commission.
6. The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units
from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50
as unused previous years' units; and 126 more from
future years' units up to 1987. This unprecedented
request for the use of so many future years' units
would be a violation of the intent, if not the rule, of
having an annual Lodge GMP Competition, No one can
predict the future, and it would be impossible to
determine the needs of the City five years from now,
but since the years would be used up by The Mountain
Lodge project, others would be denied the right and
privilege of even being able to compete in a
competition designed, and legally constituted, for the
determination of weighing interests.
7. Under the Law of the City of Aspen in effect at the
time of the deadline for filing 1984 Lodge GMP
Applications, an applicant who proposed to utilize
City -owned land in their project, must be joined in the
application by the City of Aspen; also, such an
application must be judged in two ways by the Planning
Office: one as if the City -owned land were included
and one as if it were not included. At a City Council
meeting on September 26, 1983, a proposal was
introduced to allow applicants (specifically The
Mountain Lodge project) to file an application
including City -owned land, without the joining of the
City. This proposal was not formally passed at that
session and was, in fact, tabled until the next session
of the City Council, held on October 12, 1983, when it
was passed. The Mountain Lodge filed its application
for Lodge GMP Competition by the October 3, 1983
deadline but before the effective date of the new law
allowing it to file without the consent and joining of
the City of Aspen. Therefore, the application should
not have been allowed since it did not conform to the
law of the City in those two respects.
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920-2233
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
November 22, 1983
Page Four
Thank you for your consideration.
W tt Hugus, Jr.
WHJR:klm
I.,
FR..
7 -IImwrl
TIMM
RR 9 or p1m
�.V`9 Q�r=er=Q'!9
OrN9! `eeIR 9
AT AS" r=N
nmr.R, 00VeQAee
1g194
PHr� 6M���� AT'ASA�N
November 22, 1983
TNTRODUCTTON - (,FNERAL
I
'['lie proposed 52 room Lodge, The Lodge At Aspen, consists of 46 Lodge
,4
Roams and 6 Employee rooms. The project proposes to cater to
Ski C:Iubs and midget -minded skiers. Applicant believes that the proposed
demolition of the Continental Tnn and Aspen Inn which are to be
replaced with a First --Class World Hotel, will create a deficiency in
accommodations in the low and medium price range. The Lodge At Aspen
with smaller rooms can offer more reasonable price accommodations then
a hotel offering large rooms, energy consuming swimming pools and
elaborate health -Facilities which some guests may never use-]
OBJUCTTONS TO ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE:
1. Ordinance No. 35 (Ser►cs of 1983) is the legal document of the
City of Aspen wh i eli governs the 1984 Lodge G.M.P. Competition.
On Page 2, Section 1, the following is stated:
"All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there
shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more
than the following:"
"....(b) Within the L-1, L-2, CC and CL Zone District, thirty five
(3 5) Lodge or hotel units;"
This applicant believes that the intent of (b) is that any application for
a cluota is restricted to land which has a zoning of L-1, L-2, CC or CL as
of the filing deadline which was October 3, 1983. The Aspen Mountain
Lodge application includes 11,000 sq. feet of City owned property which
is zoned, "Public." It also includes 78,161 square feet of R-15 (PUD) L
with proposed rezoning which would allow a higher density than presently
allowed.
This applicant believes that the Aspen Mountain Lodge cannot legally include
these parcels in its application.
•� 0J
2. Apparently the City of Aspen is not a co -applicant to the Aspen
Mountain Lodge's application. The City is the owner of 11,000 square
feet of "Public" zoned lands included in the Aspen Mountain Lodge
Project.
This applicant believes that the T'llth hour" attempt by the City Council
on September 26, 1983 (8 days prior to filing deadline) and October 12,
1983 (9 days after G.M.P. filing deadline) which would allow City owned
property to be included in a proposed G.M.P. application does not and will
not legitimatize an improper G.M.P. application.
Even if the "llth hour" attempt succeeded, a question of possible
discrimination occurs. This applicant requested permission from the
Planning Office to include 7,280 square feet of the U. S. Forest Service
Lot 41 in the Lodge At Aspen's application. This land is contiguous to
The Lodge At Aspen site and is involved in an exchange with this
applicant. A Statement of Intent to exchange Lot 41 from the Forest
Service was presented to the Planning Office. The City Attorney's
office notified this applicant to the effect that the Forest Service
parcel could not be included. This applicant was never notified that
the City was considering a change in Ordinance 35 which would allow
Government lands to be included in a G.M.P. application.
3. This applicant believes that a principle of "Competition" is that
the rules are the same for all competitors.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge application proposes to demolish the
following:
Aspen Inn
Continental Inn
67 rooms
178 rooms
Blue Spruce 32 rooms
TOTAL 277 rooms
-2-
c
The plan proposes to reconstruct 269 rooms to replace the demolished
units.
It appears that the proposed L180 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge Motel will
consist of 56/ reconstructed units and 44% new quota units which would
come from G.M.P. allocation. This applicant objects to the Planning
Offi_ce's scoring procedure of the Aspen Mountain Lodge which was for
the total hotel. It is felt that The Lodge At Aspen should only be
scored against 44% or 211 rooms of The Aspen Mountain Lodge application.
Two swimming pools will be demolished, one at Aspen Inn and one at
Continental Inn. Two new swimming pools will be built. If these
amenities are applied to the reconstructed units, then there is no
swimming pool to be applied to the 211 new lodge rooms.
Existing Conference, Health Spa facilities and two restaurants will
be demolished. Thus, the proposed new facilities used in the Planning
Office scoring are not indicated to be net increases in facilities.
-3-
A
HEIGHT COMMENTS :
The Aspen Mountain Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The
:'orth of `fell Building by approximately 16z feet.
According to Aspen's Zoning Code Area and Bulk Requirements L-1 and
L-2 height limitation is 28 feet with possible variation of up to 33
feet. The Lodge At Aspen is restricted to this height limitation.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 58 states:
". ...Generally speaking, around the Lodge perimeter, maximum heights from
natural grade will vary from 30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the visual
impact upon pedestrians. Within the interior of the Lodge footprint, set
back from the street facade, heights in some locations of 40 to 50 feet
are proposed,....."
If The Lodge At Aspen had the same freedom to go to the 55' height the
project could have a height appearance as shown below:
55 4 a+
I . 1 1 I A Vn...... t , . .r. V
---U7
Rao
INTRODUCTION THE LOD(,E AT ASPEN
The applicant of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Lodge project is submitting
this as a supplement to the original Lodge GPIP application.
This supplement was prepared for the purpose of clarifying the
original application by addressing the deficiencies indicated in
the Planning Office memorandum, dated November 22, 1983
SUMMARY OF PLANNING OFFICE SCORING
In summary, the Planning Office memorandum indicates a scoring
less than the maximum point for THE LODGE AT ASPEN in the
following categories:
Section CategorV
la.
Water
lb.
Sewer
le.
Roads
Short of Maximum
Rating Multipler Points
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
2a.
Architectural Design
2
3 6
2b.
Site Design
2
3 6
2d.
Parking and Circulation
1
3 3
2e.
Visual Impact
1
3 3
3a.
Common Areas
2
3 6
3b.
Di.ning
1
2 2
3c.
Recreational
2
2 4
4b.
Employee Housing
1
1 4
APPLICANT'S COMMENTS
After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to
make the following comments and guarantees relative to each oil
the above categories:
-5-
THE 6 9P(& F4
The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding
the Planning Office's Evaluation and Scoring of THE LODGE AT AS PEN's
presentation. These comments are in those areas which did not receive
the maximum point rating by the Planning Office.
1. a. WATER COMMENTS:
Since Mr. Markalunas has indicated a neighborhood deficiency
The Lodge at Aspen's proposal to share the cost of the looped
of
water main would bring about the correctiontthe neighborhood
water system inadequacies, The water consumed by The Lodge
will be metered and paid for resulting in increased revenue to
the City's Water Department. Applicant believes that a 2 rating
would be appropriate.
b. SEWER COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees and the periodic
sewer assessments as calculated by the Aspen Metro Sanitation
District. Also, the cost to make the connection will be paid
by the applicant which includes street cut permit, excavation,
sewer line to sewer main, backfill and repair of pavement.
Since the sewer facilities are adequate according to the Planning
Department's evaluation, the applicant believes that a 2 rating is
appropriate.
c. ROADS COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to install curb and gutters on Ute Avenue
and the Aspen Mountain road which abuts the lodge site which meets
the specifications of the City of Aspen. At the option of the City of
Aspen the applicant will guarantee to pay for the cost of curb and
nutter should the City prefer to install the same.
The Aspen Mountain Road abutting the lodge site will be resurfaced
with blacktop at applicant's expense after curb, gutters and storm
drains have been installed, if approved, and recommended by the ICity's
Engineering Department. The Aspen Mountain road is access to the
Ajax Condominiums and a house. The road continues up and over Aspen
Mountain past the Sun Deck and down into Castle Creek. In view of
the Planning Office's comments, applicant believes that a scoring
of 2 would be appropriate.
-6-
. _W 0
THE 6 qi!m F4
2. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMENTS:
The proposed building will be built within the legal constraints of
the 33 foot height limitation while the Aspen Mountain Lodge is
proposing heights up to 55 feet. Since PUD procedures and exemptions
are not available to The Lodge At Aspen, restrictions are imposed
which limit architectural design potential. Compatibility with
existing neighborhood developments is to be considered for
evaluating Architectural Design. The size of rooms are not a factor
for evaluation under Ordinance No. 35. Applicant believes that The
Lodge At Aspen fits into the neighborhood and should be considered for
a higher rating than 1.
b. - SITE DESIGN COMMENTS:
The site design was prepared observing setback requirements of the
City's Area and Bulk requirements. The Applicant is willing to reduce
curb cuts from the proposed three to two as recommended by the City
Engineering Department. It appears that concentration of tourist rooms
at the base of the mountain will have desired results such as reducing
automobile usage by Lodge guestsand encourage gueststo take the short
walk to the commercial core.
Trash Removal - Trash container will be located in an area near
the Southeast corner of the property near the Ajax Apartment's trash
container.
Snow Control - The Lodge will incorporate the following systems:
a. Engineered snow stops will be installed to retain the snow
on the roof.
b. Heat tape system to be installed on to edge of roof to control
ice buildup.
c. Heat systems will be installed in the sidewalks and driveways
for snow elimination. On -site dry wells will handle any
run-offs.
d. Snow plow kept on the site will be used for clearing Aspen
I
Mountain Road and Ute Avenue
e. Contract snow removal will be used for emergencies involving
excessive accumulations from street build-ups.
w:A 4mr4a —W&I —9 L A.
b. PARKING AND CIRCULATION COMMENTS :
Parking is provided on the basis of one space per lodge and
employee bedroom which is a requirement of the L-1 and L-2 Area
and Milk Requirement. The Aspen Mountain Lodge under PUD
proposes 380 parking spaces for 1180 rooms. The Lodge At Aspen
has a ratio of one parking space per bedroom while the Aspen
Mountain Lodge has .79 space per bedroom.
The turning radius for cars entering the parking area was laid
out according to the City of Aspen's Parking Standard as shown
below:
PARKS P!G s 7 ANIDAR D
{Y INIii'IVIYI CURVE
.�r° 1
� `PO�JS 1� r1111 ,
Cttt-cr cur,�cs may he found in TIt,SE-SAVER S1'r,t?UARDS
c. VISUAL IMPACT COMMENTS:
The height of the building will be reduced slightly to stay
within the Area and Bulk Requirement of the Zoning Codes. The
highest point of The Lodge At Aspen's building will be 22 feet
less than the hightest point on the Aspen Mountain Lodge. The
Lodge At Aspen building sits back off of Ute Avenue in order to
enhance visual appearance from the street.
TIUM,6M T!M FN
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS:
The rating; guidelines states "The Commission shall consider each
application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its
proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed
lodging; project...." (underlining added) .
The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 1180 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms
as The Ledge At Aspen which has 46 tourist rooms. It appears to this
applicant that a smaller lodge will be limited in its ability to provide
amenities.
a) COMMON MEETING AREAS COMMENTS:
Applicant believes that the common area of 1,120 square feet
consisting of lounge and lobby areas is sufficient and adequate
for a 46 room lodge. With the restrictive nature of Aspen's
Area and Bulk requirements, conference facilities in a small
lodge are unrealistic.
b) DINING FACILITIES
In L-1 zone a restaurant for public use is prohibited by Zoning
Code, except by Conditional Use. With this Lodge being located
within walking distance the guest will patronize public dining
facilities in the commercial core. .
Applicant believes that the proposed dining facilities are
adequate for a small lodge.
c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES COMMENTS:
Two commercial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance;
namely, Aspen Athletic Club located at 720 E. Hyman Avenue and
The Aspen Club located down the street at 1300 Ute Avenue. It
is anticipated that these clubs will be used by the guest with
Limo service available for transportation. The indoor hot
tub is proposed at the Garden Level and will conserve more
energy than an outdoor tub.
4. a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMMENTS:
The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 1009/o of its employees. iThe
application states, "Three employees will be housed off -site.
The Lodge will either lease long-term or purchase three
condominiums in the Aspen area for housing the three employees."
This can provide a better life style for the employees, particularly
if they have families.
.rop
The employee unit in the Garden Level shown on page 43 will be
built to meet building code requirements for habitation. A door
to the outside of the building will he provided. Minimum window
requirements will be designed into the unit.
The applicant believes that The Lodge At Aspen qualifies for the
1S points for Employee Housing.
BONUS POINTS CONSIDERATION
1. The Applicant believes that The Lodge at Aspen's proposal represents
the first attempt since the GMP adoption to construct an entirely new
lodge in Aspen. The submission addresses the upgrading of a key corner
location with proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain (40S') and the
proposed base area for the Little Annie Ski Area.
2. The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develop an intimate
scale lodge, in keeping with the Aspen tradition, as opposed to a
magastructure approach.
3. The project can be built without any deficiencies in water, sewer,
storm sewer drainage, fire protection, sidewalks, curbs, paved driveways
and streets adjoining the site.
4. The location is within walking distance to the commercial core and
public transportation. The nearness of the Police Department enhances
guest security.
S. The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the
pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain.
In view of the initial submission dated October 1, 1983 and the
supplementary data submitted this November 22, 1983, the applicant
believes that the project is qualified for evaluation under the bonus
point criteria.
Respectfully submitted,
Lyle Reeder
-10 --
November 16, 1983
Members:
Aspen City Council,
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
I am the General Manager of the Aspen Alps Condominium
Association, a licensed Real Estate Broker in the State
of Colorado, an instructor in Property Management for the
University of Colorado, Chairman of the Resort Condominium
Committee of the Colorado -Wyoming Hotel & Motel Associa-
tion, and a resident of Aspen for twenty-five years. As
such, I would like to make the following comments on the
proposed fifty-two unit "Lodge at Aspen" to be located at
Ute and Original Streets in Aspen.
As a representative of the property immediately adjacent to
the proposed project, I have carefully reviewed the current
and previous G.M.P. submissions made by the applicant. A
detailed site inspection was also made, accompanied by Alan
Richman of the Planning Office. The following comments are
therefore submitted for your review and consideration.
A. With regard to actual design:
1. Traffic, access, and limousine parking: Parking
and access is to be adjacent to the Aspen Alps'
exit, through which there is heavy traffic. Ute
Avenue is narrow at that point and is not adequately
maintained by the City. The proposed structure will
shadow the street and cause additional ice buildup.
The design of the roof will cause the snow and ice
to slide and drain to the north side and into the
street. Snow plowing would have to be done to the
mall and Hyde house side. The project as designed
would therefore create an unacceptable condition
that would aggrevate an already poor situation.
Should not a development approved pursuant to a
G.M.P. allocation improve existing conditions in
the area - not make them worse?
Y
Aspen City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 16, 1983
Page Two
2. The parking area as designed now goes two levels
underground. What is the slope of the ramp? Is
it realistically accessible for medium and large -
size vehicles? Is the proposed parking structure
really adequate (17 vehicles) for a lodge that size?
Our experience has been that 50% of the rental guests
use vehicles. Employee parking, vehicle storage and
visitors' automobiles most likely will end up having
to park on South Original or on Ute Avenue, both of
which are very narrow from snow buildup and are
already inundated with Aspen Mountain skiers' vehicles.
3. The site is not perceived to be an efficient solar
location. Areas with similar distances from Aspen
Mountain were thoroughly analyzed by solar consult-
ants and found to be highly inefficient for solar
purposes. In the case of the 700 S. Galena St.
project site, the P&Z allowed the applicant (via
rescoring) to eliminate previously made passive
solar commitments. The same will most likely be
true for this site as well.
B. With regard to the social aspects of the project as it
affects visitors and employees:
1. Office Area: The proposed size of the area seems to
be extremely small to accommodate front desk, ac-
counting, reservations, service personnel and administra-
tion. Minimal operating areas create minimal attitudes,
and maximum frustration!
2. Employees: The area devoted to employee quarters is
some 1,300 sq. ft. for twelve people. Having two
people live in a 216 sq. ft. unit is not a healthy
situation. Also, are 15 employees enough for a 46-
unit lodge on a 24-hour, 7 day per week basis? A
full service hotel usually has one employee per rental
unit. In Aspen, one employee for each two rooms can
be satisfactory. The Aspen Alps has approximately
65-70 employees for 77 condominium units, not includ-
ing the restaurant, health spa, and beauty parlour
personnel.
Aspen City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 16, 1983
Page Three
3. The lounge area is significantly smaller now than in
the original 1982 application. With 50% more rooms
and potential population, the area should be increased
accordingly, not decreased. A 480 sq. ft. lounge that
also doubles as a restaurant area for 46 tourist units
does not appear to serve anyone adequately! The "non-
public" restaurant could not operate without a substan-
tial loss. Design questions include adequate kitchen
vents and odors, kitchen refuse, storage & refrigera-
tion, liquor license permit, delivery entrance, and
kitchen noise.
C. With regard to overall market and economic viability:
1. Does this lodge, with its small (216 sq. ft.) rooms,
really serve the current Aspen market?? This proposed
project certainly cannot be considered as an upgrading
of overall lodge facilities in the area! This new
lodge seemingly serves an old 1950's market that is
no longer in existence.
Is not the intent and purpose of the lodge G.M.P. to
upgrade the inventory of lodging in this community?
If points are given primarily on the basis of "excel-
lent design" and improving the "quality of services
in the area," then are we not defeating our own
policies by considering a project that does not reflect
today's market, aggrevates existing conditions by its
design, and creates an automatic handicap for those
who are to work there?
2. The land does lend itself to development, but is the
proposed lodge "the highest and best use?"
The first and underlying point is that according to
accepted theory, a hotel operation will break even with
100 to 150 rooms. Less than that will cause an undue
burden on the owners. It would appear that the plans
and economics of the proposed Lodge at Aspen indi'Cate
a "lodge" complex only to allow acceptance under present
zoning, and that conversion to condominiums would be
the next logical step to make the property marketable.
Aspen City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 16, 1983
Page Four
It is apparent from the current Real Estate market
that high quality, high cost condominiums are amongst
the few properties that are selling.
I feel that it would be more realistic to allow the developer,
via rezoning to L-2, to construct free market luxury condo -
minimums in keeping with the surrounding area, rather than
going through the exercise of developing a lodge which would
be of questionable sales value, and eventually be converted
to a condominium complex with limited sales appeal.
•
Jt
0 T, c�L)-
Aspen Alps Condomillium Association
November 19, 1983
Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Members
City Hall
Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The following are comments concerning the aMlication by Lyle Reeder for
an additional increase of approximately 500 over the 1982 GMP allocation
for construction of a new lodge to be called "The Lodge at Aspen".
These comments relate to the Application and Presentation for Reeder's
"The Lodge at Aspen" dated October 1, 1983.
I
Pages 12 & 13 - Development - Area Calculation
j As a graduate with a degree in Hotel Administration, an officer and Director
!I of Hotel Association and a practitioner of the business for 39 year- I question
1 whether, as well as where, necessary administrative areas, such as front desk
area, reservations area, accounting area, maid's rooms and storage, maintenance
work and storage areas, including flammable and non-flammable materials,
equipment storage and guest storage for arriving guests, as well as restaurant
space, is addressed, and if so, is it addressed adequetely.
Page 15 - AA Water
The applicant comments that the Aspen Water Department will run a new line from
Durani55 outh on Spring and east to Ute Avenue to the site. This plan would
entail digging up - Spring Street (the entrance to the Aspen Alps,
side entrance to the Woodstone, and the maintenance entrance to the Aspen
Skiing Company) . The route east would entail digging up the Ute Street Mall
along with extant landscapping and trees. Who would be responsible for re-
placing the landscaped mall and trees, who would be responsible for paying
and how will the timing affect our business? Also, the Aspen Alps' sewer
lines connect in the center of the area. Per my discussion with Jim
Markalunas, he is not certain who would be responsible for replacing the mall.
Page 16, BB Sewer
If the west manhole were used, the landscaping for the Hyde House would
have to be dug up.
Box 1228 • Ashen, Colonido 81611 1' imic 925-7820
Page Two
November 19, 1983
Page 22 & 23 - Auto Generation
Where, on the site, will employee cars be parked? Are limousines considered
in the parking areas?
Page 24 - Effects on Adjacent Land Uses
The front parking and limousine parking is at the egress of all check in/check out
vehicles from the Aspen Alps, as well as egress for all maintenance and housekeeping
and quest vehicles. The buildinq will throw shadows on the narrow street and
will increase the ice build up. We are concerned about safety oroblems that could
occur.
Page 36 - Architectural Design
The mass of the building will cause ice build up and shadow in the 200 Building
Aspen Alps parking area and egress. The rooms in the Lodge will face the Ajax
Condominiums, plus the 200 and 800 buildings of the Aspen Alps. (The mass
could be demonstrated by comparing the design and mix with Lionshead at Vail.)
Page 38 - Sidewalks, Curbs S Gutters
The lodge agrees to particpate in the lodge's share of street improvements "if Little
Annie is built". !!What if Little Annie is not built?
Pane 40 - Site Design
".........snow plow will be kept on site." This vehicle will further aggrevate the
parking problem.
Page 43 - Enerny Conservation
As per the attached letter from Colorado Engineering Association pertaining to another
project to have been constructed on a similar site, it is possible that solar energy
might not be feasible on the Reeder site.
Page 45 - Limousine Service
Parking, care and maintenance of 3 limousines is more than the Lodge needs. Where
would they be parked, where would they be moved in the snow etc. Three
limousines used from 7:OOAM to 11:00PM would require two eight hour shifts for 7 days
which would require 7 plus drivers at a 40 hour work week.
Page 50 - Dinning Facilities
Question on the kitchen area, storage, venting, waste facilities, security and personnel
requirements of the proposed restaurant and bar.
Page 50 - Tourist Appeal
It is questionable if a 216 square foot room with minimum amenity area is appealing
to a tourist visiting Aspen. The tourist appeal is directly proportional to the rentability
of the room which, with a small lodge, is very critical as far as survival is con-
cerned.
Paqe 53 - Full Time Employees
The applicant estimates 15 full time employees during the season. If each employee
works a 40 hour week, the front desk could be open 120 per week with one person.
Four maids at 800 occupancy would make up 52 rooms which would be 13 rooms each
Page Three
November 19, 1983
•
seven days a week, plus all common area. No housekeeper or houseman is included
and one cook is listed for a seven day three meal a day restaurant? No assistants,
waiters or buspeople. One janitor is mentioned without relief. The limousine driver
has been mentioned earlier. The size of the employee units could cause some interesting
problems. Will there be cooking facilities for the employees?
Page 77 - Property Survey
The insert at the upper right of the page depicts Ute Avenue as a thoroughfare,
when, in actuality, a landscaped mall area extends from the proposed site to the west.
(Attached Exhibit)
I hope that these notes have been constructive and will assist you in your deliberations
concerninq the application.
Sincerely,
Gerald G. Hewey
General Manager
GGH:pmc