HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm. Lodge at Aspen 1983 Lodge GMP MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: The Lodge at Aspen - 1984 Lodge GMP Competition Appeal
DATE: December 27, 1983
Mr. Lyle Reeder, an applicant in the 1984 lodge GMP competition, has
filed an appeal pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(e) of the Municipal Code.
The appellant is seeking a development allocation for the 46 unit
Lodge at Aspen to be constructed at 711 Ube 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 indiscriminantiy. Similarly, the denial
of due process provision has typically been invoked when some irre-
gularity in the Commission's review procedure violated an appli-
cant's fundamental rights, e.g., refusing the applicant the right to
speak at the hearing, denying him the right to legal representation,
etc. The discretion exercised by individual P &Z members with respect
to the applicable scoring criteria has not been construed to be an
appealable issue when the members' scores were based on information
submitted by the applicant and the Planning Office, or upon reason-
able differences of opinion as to the degree to which the applicant
has met the review criteria.
The City Attorney has suggested a three tiered approach to Council's
consideration of Mr. Reeder's appeal and the appropriateness of re-
manding his application to P &Z for rescoring. This approach may be
summarized as follows:
1. First, a decision should be made as to whether there was
some irregularity in the Commission's review procedure that
violated the appellant's fundamental right to due process.
•
2. Second, the Council should consider whether the P &Z abused
its discretion in not allocating sufficient points to allow
the appellant to meet the minimum points threshold. If the
•
■
4, r
MEMO: The Lodge At Aspen - Appeal
December 27, 1983
Page Two
1
I
Council can reasonably conclude upon its review of the ,
proceedings that the P &Z had sufficient rationale for not y
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 I
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- 3
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 i
process and /or the abuse of discretion is evident. I
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 I
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 3
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 i
violation of the appellant's fundamental right to due process in the
review proceedings has been demonstrated. In fact, the appellant j
was given ample opportunity to present his application at the hearing n
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 i
scores or to remand his application to the Planning and Zoning Commis- I
sion for reconsideration, it does not appear that the appellant has
alleged any legal basis for the City Council to award an "additional
15 points to the applicant's total score" as suggested in the appel- i
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 j
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 j
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
MEMO: The Lodge at Aspen - Appeal
December 27, 1983
Page Three
project. Since a small project cannot be expected to provide as many ! l
amenities as a much larger project, the appellant believes the P &Z i'
abused its discretion in following the Planning Office's recommenda- 1$
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 f
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addi- 4
tion thereto." (Emphasis added.) This language is intended to 1
specifically limit the Planning Office and the Commission's con-
sideration to the specific amenity package provided by a specific ;
project and not to a comparison of amenity packages among competing
projects. In its evaluation of the GMP submissions, the Planning
Office and the P &Z scored each project with respect to the quality i ?
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to
the size of the project in question. The appellant's project re- sl
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. i4
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 1
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 1
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
appears the appellant's
be no
denial of due process allegations. Similarly,
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 n behalf Ao a result,
f the omission
with respect to the scoring of his application.
recommend that the appellant's 1984 lodge GMP competition scores .
remain unchanged.
}o
CITY OF Y ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, Colorado 81611
303-925 - 202 0
- 615 7 : 1 -(77 9 7 77 7
• „ i, .- -,..c..._.:::,,,,, . , , ,
MEMORANDUM ii'' III t
1 1 ' ; DEC 2 01983 .. �J
,PEN / Pi i hn0.
DATE: December 20, 1983 , PLANNINGCMGS
TO: Planning Director
FROM: Paul Taddune /1
RE: Lodge at Aspen GMP Lodge Appeal
I have reviewed the documentation dated December 6, 1983, sub-
the 1984 GMP app
following comments:
1. Although the Planning Office acts oine advisory
of apacitY Plan
neither the Planning Director nor any other the
ning Office has any "discretion" in connection with the scoring
's
and evaluation of lodge GMP applications. Therefore, appellant
complaint that the Plannig Ofice abusednits- discretioheis snap -
propriate. Any appeal pursuant
pal al Code e 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
tt
ascertain whether the appellant (or his counsel) objected
memoranda being considered bant the
isP&Z. Generaily,winvap appellate an
review situations, an app el
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 undarlyingPfactsnarefaimat
ter of record. Nonetheless, g9 t
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 hag 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 allocaion criteria riafc
and is a separate aspect of the prof requiring r we are c
approval of the City Council. As it happens,
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 isa design
nadetai
appropriate to GMP. The applicants eft
encroachments do not impact our comments on the project
to GMP criteria and their disclosure of the potential
tte
"grease trap" encroachment is more an example of
ffthe the City
general effort to disclose all items that may
in as timely a manner as possible.
en
3. Finally, Mr. Reeder's assertion that 36% of the A to
Mountain Lodge employee housing on Ute Avenue is p p
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 developm Lodge
when Little Annies had the property. The Asp
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.
Tani me know if i may provide any further elaboration or answers
I 1
v4 DEC 0 6 1933
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: ASPEN / F'illit�
PLANNING n`
WHEREAS, Lyle Reeder has filed an application under the 1983
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 '
t .
Applicant, Lyle Reeder, has submitted an application for two '
Lodge GMP development allocations for 1984 under the provisions
of Section 24 -11.6 "Lodge Development Application Procedures."
Applicant's project called for 46 new lodge rooms. Applicant
agreed to surrender his 1982 allocation of 31 lodge rooms upon
receipt of the new 46 lodge room allocation; thus having the net
allocation effect of requesting an additional 15 lodge room
quota. The applicant's project represents the first attempt to
try to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen under GMP
procedures. There was only one other applicant for the 1984 GMP
quota; namely, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings
Assoc. of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan Novak's Aspen Mountain
Lodge. The application consists primarily of properties involved
in the Hans Cantrup bankruptcy. The Aspen Mountain Lodge
application was a request for 211 new lodge rooms and
reconstruction of 269 lodge rooms. The total 480 -room project
was to consist of 44% new lodge rooms and 56% reconstructed lodge
rooms. According to Planning Office calculations, there were 85
units available for 1984.
■^
J r $ Planning and Zoning Commission action on the Lodge GMP was
h set for November 22, 1983. The Planning Office submitted to the
!!V 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 1
pursuant to score sheets provided. The results of the voting k c k
gave "The Lodge at Aspen" a total average score of 49.5, and "The 1 .,/
•
Aspen Mountain Lodge" a total average score of 60.71, thus r�11
g the entire 1984 allocation to The Aspen Mountain Lodge.
Under the category of "Amenities Provided for Guests ",
Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983, page 6, paragraph (3) states:
"The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed
services for guests as compared - the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto..."
(underlining added). .
-1-
L.
J
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
r ecomme n dation and giving a low score of 10.54 points (average)
,,�� D0 out of a maximum possible of 21 points to The Lodge at Aspen
1'�/ project. A small lodge cannot be expected to provide amenities
h PP such as energy consuming swimming pools and outdoor skating
1' rinks.
2. By giving The Aspen Mountain Lodge a high score, 19.86
points (average) out of maximum of ito 21 s points, th Commissi
, de failed to consider the "any addin thereto. portion of the
1 project but instead considered the total project which is 56%
reconstruction. Apparently, The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposes to
V/ demolish three swimming pools and to reconstruct two new swimming
pools; thus, if logically allocated to reconstruction portion,
the new 211 lodge rooms will have no swimming pool amenity.
The Planning Office in its Memorandums of November 16 and
22, 1983 failed to convey material information of a negative
nature to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the
competing application.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge:
1. The Memorandum in its evaluation of Aspen Mountain
Lodge's "Parking and Circulation" failed to indicate a proposed
encroachment, namely, "underground vehicular access into the
eastern parking structure will loop into the Durant
right -of- way." (from subsequent Memorandum of November 29, 1983,
"► page 4).
()\
2. The Memorandums failed to indicate that The Aspen
Mountain Lodge proposed a "grease trap" to be located in the City
street. This was mentioned in the subsequent Planning and Zoning
meeting of November 29, 1983, and represents a violation of due
process.
3. The Memorandums' comments regarding The Aspen Mountain
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-
.
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
t'u
includes a proposed parcel rezoning of L -1 to CL of 27,107 square
feet. The application made an assumption that the rezoning would
11 be approved whereby the allowable floor areas for the parcel • V would be increased from 27,107 to 54,214 square feet. The
Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently on November 29, 1983
n j denied the rezoning request, thus changing the character of the
f VV 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 - Reply from Planning Office to Lyle Reeder,
dated 11/9/83.
Exhibit 3 - Memorandum from Planning Office Director,
dated 11/22/83, 2nd 11/16/83.
Exhibit 4 - GMP Commission Tally Sheets
Exhibit 5 - Supplemental information for The Lodge at
Aspen submitted to P &Z Commission on
11/22/83.
Exhibit 6 - Letter from Mr. Wright Hugus Jr., attorney
for applicant, setting forth additional
incidents of violation of due process and
abuse of discretion.
Relief Requested
This applicant hereby requests that the Council grant him
relief in one of the following manners:
1. That the City Council, pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(c),
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.
.1 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 31 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/o •
Lyle Reeder
Applicant
Dated: December 6, 1983
-4-
LA
I 41 el
• .
p`lf
P. O. Box 46'i9
hspen, Co. 816i2
925 -1360
October i, 1993
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Attn; Mr. Sunny Vann, Director
Re, 1984 Lodge (1 -1, L -2) G. 1'i. P. Competition .applications
Dear 14r. Vann,
In reviewing the couq,etiting applicants' presentation in
preparation for the P & Z hearing scheduled or November 22,
1963 I would arpreciale your assistance with the following
ciuestion5 which I am having difficulty in interrupting,
I note that on page of the ..SPEN L.iOUNT. Il' LODGE applicat-
ion "Beci ;use we r'e e;:Ceding under the Planned Un c De+e .C"—
1: recJulat
IL e Ii i3RS, Vnr i at1Ons in the heie,hf: limit rstablished
for the Zone District ore pe ;:rP i t. teu and can be approved by the
City..." and later. "...Generally peaking, around the Loc.gc
perimeter, maximum
heights fic:m natural grade will vc__ r:;
30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the visual - impact urion peueS
rians, within the interior of the Lodge footprint, set :ck
some ions of 40 to
from the street facade, hc_ghts in o for �-
55 reel are l.i OpOS eI:.. .
l .
T find in the .1S'12,1 ZG "Iln( Code at L i:li r : e 1490, Section
General Requirements unuer par::.grap: (b) "The planned unit
development must constitute an area of at least taent - sc.-:.:.
thousand (27,00C.) square feet unless the land is in an area
designated mandatory planned unit development on the ZO: :.1
district map or is otherwise required by the Zoning Cog_ L3
developed according: to the provisions of this article."
Also, Section 24 -6.,3 Variations from Zoning Code requireu
"To facilitate the objectives of planned unit development
there may be permitted variations from the provisions o thi
Chapter 24 as hereinafter specified:•
(a) Variations may be permitted in the following zoni.ncj
code requirements: Open space, minimum distance between buiid-
ings, maximum heighc (including view planes), minimum front
yard, minimum rear yard', minimum side yard, minimum lot width,
minimum lot area, trash access area, external and ir.ter.r:ul
floor area ratios, and number of off- street parking spaces.
(b) Variation shall not be permitted in allowable uses nor
•from the requirements of specially planned area and historic
designation, or from use square foot limitations and sign
regulations of this code.
•
•
- 'Planning Offic City of Aspen Page October 5 1983
Under the AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS on page 1451 of the
Aspen Code it is indicated that for L -1, L -2 Zones the Maxi-
,
• mum height is 28 feet, External Floor area ratio is 1 :1, and
•
Internal Floor Area ratio is "Lodge- Rental space .5:1 — .75:1*
Nonunit space .25:1 with *33 1/3 percent of all rental_ space
above the FAR of .5:1 must be devoted to employee housing."
Question 1; Can the Aspen Mountain Lodge application compete
under the Planned Unit Development regulations while The Lodge
At Aspen cannot because The Lodge At Aspen's site.of 15,386
square feet is less than the 27,000 square feet minimum? There
is no PUD designation for The Lodge At Aspen's site.
Question 2; If the answer to the above question is yes, how
will the Planning Office reconcil to an equitable basis the
heights proposed of upto 55 feet for the ksperi Mountain Lodge
while The Lodge At Aspen's height is limited to 28 feet by the
Zoning Code?
In the Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 63 and 64:
"... No employee housing has been provided on -site to the
hotel because it is felt off -site housing is both more desire -
able and manageable from the employees' viewpoint and from the
hotel's operations view..."
Question 3; Apparently the above is possible under an approved
PUD Plan. Will the Planning Office allow the PUD applicant
to compete with no on -site employee housing and.require The
Lodge At Aspen to devote 33 1/3 percent of all rental space
• above the FAR of .5:1 to employee housing?
On the subject of rezoning as proposed by the other applicant
on page 14 which reads; "R- 15(PUD) (L) and L -2 L -2 zoning is
requested for the lots owned by the City (11,000 square feet
of land area) which are involved in the land trades proposal
and which are presently zoned Public..." and on Page 74, I
note that 11,000 square feet is included in the calculations
of the Total Floor Area.
Question 4; Doesn't the LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO G.M.P.
competition allow only existing LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO
properties to compete?
•
Question 5; Is the City of Aspen a co- applicant to the nspe::
Mountain Lodge application, since they apparently own the
11,000 square feet which is included in the application's
total floor Area?
•
• . C o PY
•
'/ Planning Office - City of Aspen Page 3. October 5 1983
4 ,
It appears to me that one applicant in the competition
may have available and is using the Planned Unit Develop-
ment procedures which allow a freedom in variations from
normal zoning codes that is not available to the other
applicant.
Your comments, answers and thoughts on the above questions
and my comments would be greatly appreciated.
•
Sincerely yours,
- 71?- -C ()
Lyle D. Reeder
ldr sed
•
•
•
E .L %t " a
i `' ft;
Aspen /Pitk Pinning Office
130 sputh galena- street
aspen',•- .col®rade 81611
November 9, 1983
Mr. Lyle D. Reeder
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Lyle,
Sunny asked that I respond to your letter dated October 5, 1983,
regarding the 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition. Given my fami-
liarity with the Lodge at Aspen due to my review of the prior appli-
pation 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
i November 9, 1983
/ Page Two
an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application
and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of this
article, the lack of adverse effects of the proposed develop-
ment and the compliance with the intents and purposes of
planned unit development."
3. Article VIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Planned
Unit Development, does not refer to on -site
versus off -site employee housing for
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 bect he os ubject
ln
of a separate app ia al
for informa
The data concerning this land has been pd
liforiin.
tion only and does not relate to the lodge app
5. The lots owned by the City are also included in the area
for which a residential development application may be
submitted. However, for your information, the following
statement has been excerpted from the City Council minutes
of September 26, 1983, as an interpretation regarding City
owned property with respect to GMP /PUD applications.
"Regarding GMP /PUD applications, which would include City- tycil
owned property as part of that application, the City
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 subsequen H
with the goal of encouraging all opp e
of the community good in a public forum, the Council will
deem the non - ownership of City land cnot obsufficient
ot
grounds for disqualifying the application from . ut i
Council
public review through the appropriate process
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 - in without score
such GMP /PUD applications in two ways -
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."
/ j
iyle 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. Novembe please let me know if I
can be of further assistance to you
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Assistant Planning Director
AR:jlw
cc: Sunny Vann
Paul Taddune
•
•
•
•
EAhlhi' "
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: November 22, 1983
INTRODUCTION
.Attached for your review are the project profiles and the Planning
Office's recommended points allocation for the two projects submitted
October 1, 1983 for the L -1 /L -2 lodge GMP competition. The applica-
tions are for the 46 unit Lodge at Aspen to be constructed at 771 Ute
Avenue and for the 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge located south of
Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets. The Lodge at Aspen
has a prior GMP allocation for 31 units and the Aspen Mountain Lodge
is proposing to reconstruct approximately 269 units. The two projects
are therefore requesting GMP allocations of 15 units and 211 units,
respectively.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lodge at Aspen is a proposal to build an entirely new lodge at
the corner of Ute Avenue and Original Street. The Lodge would contain
46 tourist rooms and 6 employee units, each of which is approximately
216 sq. ft. in size. Since the applicant won an allocation to build
31 tourist units and 4 employee housing units on this site in 1982,
and would relinquish those units upon the approval of this revised
submission, the net effect on the lodge quota is a request for 15
additional units.
Features of the project meriting attention include underground parking,
proximity to Little Nell, use of solar collectors, and the proposal
to upgrade neighborhood storm drainage and fire protection. The appli-
cant also proposes on -site amenities for guests (dining and health
facilities) and on -site housing for 80% the Lodge's employees. The
proposal, however, does place a substantial number of lodge rooms on
a 1/3 acre site. The rooms themselves are small and the site includes
substantial paving in addition to a building footprint covering approxi-
mately 36% of the site.
In our opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior
proposal in several respects. The rooms are smaller than before (216
sq. ft. versus 320 sq. ft.), the architecture is not nearly as in-
teresting, and the common areas are considerably less spacious and
elegant. However, the footprint of the new building is substantially
less than the prior proposal and much more attention has been given
to landscaping and pedestrian circulation.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge involves the reconstruction of approximately
269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the
Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicant is requesting a
GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel
project to 480 tourist units. The applicant also proposes to construct
on -site an approximately 22,500 sq. ft. conference facility, a 4,500 sq.
ft. health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various
recreational amenities including swimming pools, an ice skating rink,
and pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Additional features of the project meriting attention include underground
parking, proximity to Little Nell and Lift 1A, the proposal to upgrade
— '
'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
n
r
MEMO: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition
November 22, 1983
Page Three
Office will produce a separate memorandum addressing the various
additional review requirements which will be available for your
consideration sufficiently in advance of your November 29th meeting.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS
The Planning Office has assigned points to the applications as recom-
mendations for your consideration. The staff met to assess the
• ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored the proposals.
The following table summarizes the Planning Office's recommended
points assignment. A more complete explanation of the points assignment
for each criteria is provided in the attached score sheets.
Availability
of Public Quality Amenities Conformance
Facilities/ of for Local Public Total
Services Design Guests Policy Goals Points
LODGE AT ASPEN 7 21 9 11 48
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
LODGE 7 24 21 7 59
As the above table indicates, the Planning Office scored the Lodge at
Aspen three points short of the minimum 51 point threshold. Should
you concur with our scoring, this application would be effectively
denied at this point in the process. The Aspen Mountain Lodge exceeds
the minimum point threshold by eight points. It also meets the 30%
minimum point requirement in each of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4.
REQUEST FOR MULTI -YEAR ALLOCATION
The Aspen Mountain Lodge's request for a 211 unit allotment necessitates
a multi -year allocation. Such an allocation is provided for pursuant
to Section 24- 11.3(b) of the Municipal Code. The Planning Office's
evaluation of this request is contained in Alan Richman's attached memo
dated November 16, 1983.
,- 3-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Analysis of Award of Allocation
•
DATE: November 16, 1983
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 (3; years of quota) from future years. While the ultimate de-
cision on this matter rests with City Council, the Planning Commission
has traditionally made a recommendation as to its feelings on the award
of an allocation.
Following below is an analysis of the pros and cons of awarding the
full 211 unit quota request to the Aspen Mountain Lodge.
PRO CON
1. Full allocation would permit 1. Granting the full allocation
the substantial upgrade in the will result in an unusually
quality of our lodging inven- high rate of growth in the
tory in return for the expan- Aspen Metro Area over the
sion of that inventory (Note: short term, particularly if
the reconstruction of approxi- combined with construction of
mately 269 lodge rooms repre- the Centennial, Hotel Jerome
sents about 25% of the entire and Highlands Inn projects.
inventory of lodge rooms in
Aspen). 2. The allocation of future years
of quota will virtually pre -
2. The development of this faci- clude any other L -1 /L -2 appli-
lity would constitute the cant from obtaining a substan-
first addition to the lodge tial allocation to expand an
inventory in Aspen since the existing /build a new downtown
54 unit expansion to the lodge (Note: the code requires
Woodstone in 1976. that we make 12 units per
year available if the quota
3. The proposed addition of units has been used. Note also that
on this site is consistent the construction of the Hotel
with the intent of the 1973 Jerome project will require
Aspen Land Use Plan to cen- us to further use future years
tralize our tourist accommoda- of quota, amounting to about 65
tions at the base of Aspen units. Finally, note that the
Mountain. 10 unit per year L -3 quota
will continue to be available
4. Full allocation provides the regardless of this project).
developer with the capability
of building a full service 3. The construction of such a
hotel complex, including sub- large project may be a sign to
stanti tourist amenities such the skiing industry that the
as conference rooms, ballroom, next growth cycle in Aspen is
and recreation facilities. underway and it is time to plan
for ski area expansion. There
5. The development of a facility may also be a cyclical impact
of this magnitude in this high on the commercial sector, where
profile location may change the vacancies and underemployment
popular image of the quality of at existing businesses may be
• Aspen's lodging in one shot. replaced by full occupancy and
maximum employment, with com-
mensurate impacts on the
Community.
.EMO: Analysis of Award of Allocation
November 16, 1983
Page Two
6. By awarding a full allocation, 4. There may be a short term
we permit the master planning inability of certain portions
of the entire area, the accom- of the infrastructure to
plishment of the total upgrade accommodate the growth associated
of that area, and the minimiza- with this project, particularly
tion of the length of construc- if combined with a community -wide
tion impacts upon Aspen. economic resurgence such that
units with low occupancy and
7. There is no substantial benefit commercial space which is vacant
to be gained from making the pro- are once again full. Facilities
ject compete again for an allo- which we feel will be especially
cation in a future year pro- hard hit include the sewage treat -
vided that you support the de- ment plant, transit center and
velopment of a project of this the road network (both into
scale. Aspen and inside Aspen).
8. Since it will take two years 5. The increased competition in
to construct this facility, the lodging industry may re-
there is an automatic phasing sult in the attrition of some
mechanism built into the project. of the smaller, somewhat mar -
ginal operations.
6. The addition of 211 new units
will further concentrate lodging
in Aspen while the bulk of
our skiing capacity is outside
of Aspen or in Snowmass.
As can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and
opposed to the allocation of the full 211 units requested. The up-
grade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the
creation of a major conference facility are consistent with the
growth policies which the Planning Commission has been developing.
The accomplishment of a master plan for lodging in this area is con-
sistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, as well as the wishes of
City Council, when it last reviewed the proposed amendments to the
Aspen Inn construction project. However, building this facility in a
single increment is not consistent with the growth rate policy and
will virtually preclude any other major downtown lodge expansions in
Aspen for several years. By its very magnitude and importance, the
project is likely to have spin -off impacts on other portions of our
economy and may set off a new growth cycle in Aspen.
Given the very real need in Aspen for lodging facilities which provide
both quality and value, the Planning Office has no problem in recom-
mending that the 50 units which remain as unallocated from prior
years be given to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. However, we find
it somewhat more difficult to address the question of future years
allocation. We are concerned about the short term growth rate and
its impact upon Community facilities. We also must question what
social and psychological impacts upon permanent residents of the
Community will result from compressing several years of planned
growth into the construction of a single project.
The decision on this issue must therefore be predicated on whether or
not you believe that Aspen needs a major new loding facility which
wiil 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 31 years of future
quota. However, you should recognize that you probably cannot obtain
substantial tourist support facilities which essentially are not
generators of revenue without allowing a substantial number of lodge
rooms to offset the cost of such facilities. We believe that we have
provided you with the necessary information upon which to make this
fundamental choice.
PROJECT PROFILE
1984 L -1 /L -2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: Lyle D. Reeder
2. Project Name: The Lodge at Aspen
3. Location: 771 Ute Avenue - Corner of Ute and Original at Aspen Mountain
Road
•
4. Parcel Size: 15,386 sq. ft.
5. Current Zoning: L -1
6. Maximum Allowable Build -out: 15,386 (1:1)
7. Existing Structures: A single family house '(one story, 3 bedroom,
1 bath) occupied by the applicant.
8. Development Program: 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. Proposed
buildout is 15,380 sq.ft. or virtually 1:1. Internal FAR breakdown is as follows:
tourist units = 9936 sq. ft. or 0.65:1
employee units = 1296 sq. ft. or 0.08
non -unit space - 4148 sq. ft. or 0.27:1
9. Additional Review Requirements: Condominiumization, GMP exception
for employee units
10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be granted an allocation, he would
relinquish the 31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net
additional units requested by this project is 15 lodge rooms.
s «e TM f
•
w.✓
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition
•
PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen Date: 11/22/83
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area
or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
• MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood
deficiency but applicant only commits to sharingthe cost of the improvement.
Therefore, applicant is only paying to improve the quality of service to his
own project.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed lodge.
No upgrade is proposed nor requested.
_ 7-
•
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes
to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development
requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment
by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and
to maintain the system over the long -term.
RATING: 2
•
MULTIPLIER: 1
• POINTS: 2
•
Comments: Applicant proposes drywells of sufficient size to retain site and roof
water runoff. Applicant commits to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen
Mountain Road adjacent to his property at his own expense. Engineering
rates proposed as excellent.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro-
vide fire protection according to its established response standards with-
out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of
major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit-
ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants
and water storage tanks.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
2
POINTS:
Comments: Project can be served by the fire protection district. Applicant proposes
fo locate a new hydrant at his own expense near the Northwest corner of
the project. Fire chief would prefer hydrant on Northeast corner.
•
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially
altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over-
loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased
usage attributable to the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Engineering department finds roads in the area to have adequate capacity,
although constrained by winter skier parking and "dead end" nature of this
corner. Project will not substantially impact existing roads. Applicant
proposes to blacktop Aspen Mountain Road at his own expense, an improvement
which is largely cosmetic, not service oriented.
b —
CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 7
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of
its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 • -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing heighborhood developments.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
3
POINTS:
Comments Building is generally compatible with surrounding developments, although
the design is very standard. The peak of the roof is about 35 or 36 feet
above grade, whereas the code limits the height to 28 feet plus 5 additional
' feet for the angled roof, for a maximum allowable height of 33 feet.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or
the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the
extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian
amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development
and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
COMMENTS: Site design includes benches and bicycle racks near Ute Avenue; sidewalk
along Ute Avenue underground utilities, adequate peripheral landscaping, a
building footprint of only 36% and heated sidewalks and driveways for snow
control. The engineer feels that 2 curb cuts on Ute Avenue are excessive
� G
i,
as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on Aspen Mountain
Road; this situation is magnified by the existing driveway for the Aspen Alps
along the property on Ute Avenue. The density of this project is approximately
130 units per acre.
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de-
vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con -
servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 1
• POINTS: 3
Comments: Insulation is proposed at 20% above code. Solar collectorson the roof
will be utilized in the domestic hot water system.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the
internal circulation and parking system for.the project, or any addition
thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and
loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 6
Comments: Parking is provided underground on the basis of one space per lodge and
employee bedroom. Parking is also shown for three limousines. The turning
radius for cars entering the parking area may not be adequate. Detailed
information on trash access was not provided. The three curb units for
cars are excessive, as noted above.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings
or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 6
Comments: The building is set back from Ute Avenue by approximately 85 feet and from
Aspen Mountain Road by approximately 30 feet. The height of the building
as shown is approximately 2 -3 feet above that allowed by code and must be
reduced, but the overall design does not affect public views clue to the
already existant Aspen Alps Building.
•
•
CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL:
21
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and
spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting
areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of
the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
3
POINTS:
Comments: The only common meeting areas in the lodge are the lounge /lobby which are
640 and 480 s q, ft. respectively or about 7% of the entire internal floor
area. The total internal floor area in the lodge devoted to "non- unit" space
is 27% lust above minimum 25% requirement.
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities,
including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 4
Comments:
The restaurant•willprovide food service for guests only in the lounge
(winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an.Apres Ski Bar, also in
the lounge.
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re-
creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 2
Comments: A hot .tub, male and female saunas, and an exercise room are provided below
grade in the garden level parking area. No outdoor recreational
amenities are provided on site. Health facilities amount to about 850
sq. ft. and do not count against FAR.
• CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 9
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project
who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro -
ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING: 11
MULTIPLIER: 1
11
POINTS:
Comments: Applicant proposes to house 12 employees on site, while lodge is projected
to require 15 employees. The off -site housing proposal contains no
specifics and therefore cannot be evaluated. Applicant's total housing
proposal = 80% (note: the employee unit in the parking garage may not meet
minimum building code habitationrequirements.)
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points).
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only
incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but
has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding
ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4,
prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record.
of I
JINGLE BELLS, JINGLE BELLS, JINGLE ALL THE WAY,
OH WHAT FUN IT IS TO WORK IN CITY HALL THESE DAYS, HEY,
WITH BUDGET CUTS, A MAYOR NAMED PILL AND CHARLOTTE IN THE DARK,
COUNCIL GRINS AND MOTIONS FOR ANOTHER USELESS PARK, HEY,
DO YOUR JOB, DO IT WELL AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO FRET
PAY YOUR WAY AND DON'T BUY LUNCH AND LET US NOT FORGET, HEY
EQUAL RIGHTS, INSURANCE HIKES AND MONDAYS ON THE MALL,
I'M SO GLAD, WE ALL AGREE THERE'S JOY IN CITY HALL...
•
•
. h A
{
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
(Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories
48
1,2,3, and 4:
(Minimum of 51 points required)
Bonus Points (Maximum of 5
points allowed)
TOTAL POINTS: 48
Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office
• .00^
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 11c7 acres
5. Current Zoning: CL, L - L - R - PUD (L), Public and Conservation
6. Maximum Allowable Build - out: Subject to proposed rezoning and PUD review
and approval.. •
7. Existing Structures: Continental Inn, Aspen Inn, Blue Spruce Lodge,
The Hillside Lo de and several small apartments and miscellaneous dwelling
units.
8. Development Program: A 480 unit condominiumized hotel with extensive
conference facilities on the northern portion of the site; an approximately
33 unit residential condominium complex on the southern portion of the site; and
a 12 unit residential condominium complex at 700 South Galena Street. An
additional residential unit is also proposed for the existing Summit Place Duplex.
9. Additional Review Requirements: PUD /Subdivision review, three rezonings
exemption from growth management for the project's employee housing, a change in
use exemption, an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission, three street
vacations, view plane review and 8040 greenline review. Note: Some of these
additional review requirements are associated with the residential portion of
this PUD.
10. Miscellaneous:
�y_
•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition
•
PROJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge •Date: 11/22/83
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- . Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area
or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. • WATER - considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop-
.
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
• POINTS: 2
Comments: The applicant proposes to install a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street
which will upgrade the distribution network in the immediate area by providing
increased fire flows for both the proposed project and for the surrounding neighbor-
hood. The applicant also proposes to install a valve interconnect in Monarch
Street which will increase the overall reliability of water service to the area.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed hotel project.
No upgrade to the system is proposed or required. The applicants relocation of
the Mill Street sewer main, however, may result in the elimination or replacement
of some existing lines which currently present maintenance problems.
•
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes
to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development
requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment
by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and
to maintain the system over the long -term.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: The existing storm sewer system has sufficient capacity to carry 5 -year
developed runoff. The applicant proposes to detain on -site the difference between
the 100 - year developed storm runoff and the 5 -year historical runoff in order to
reduce peak flows.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro-
vide fire protection according to its established response standards with-
out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of
major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit-
ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants
and water storage tanks.
RATING: 2
• MULTIPLIER: 1
• POINTS: 2
Comments: The applicant's installation of a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street
will provide increased fire protection to both the proposed hotel and the
surrounding area. The applicant is also proposing to install approximately four
new fire hydrants to further enhance fire protection to the project'and to
adjacent uses. The proposed hotel will employ state -of- the -art fire protection
methods and devices.
e, ROADS - Considering the capacity.of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially
altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over-
loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased
usage attributable to the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: The capacity of the existing road network is adequate to handle the
net traffic volume change resulting from this project. The proposed reduction
in curb -cuts and on street parking may result in better traffic flow and reduced
accident potential in the vacinity of the project.
I(D
CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL:
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of
its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
O -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 - Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing heighborhood developments.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
Comments While the architectural design is innovative in that it makes use of
extensive excavation to reduce the preceived bulk of the buildings and to maintain
public views of Aspen Mountain, there are elements of the project which are, in
our opinion, clearly incompatible with surrounding developments and with the overall
scale of the lodge district and central core area. Traditional architectural
treatment and the use of compatible building materials help to blend the buildings
into their surroudings. However, both the main hotel and conference entrance areas
substantially exceed the heightlimitaion of the zone district resulting in major
building masses which are out -of -scale with the surrounding lodge district.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or
the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the
extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian
amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development
and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS:. 9
COMMENTS: Existing mature vegetation is retained and supplemented with extensive
landscaping; all utilities will be placed underground; the applicant proposes to
implement various elements of the Aspen Lodge District Plan (e.g., sidewalks,
lighting, signage, street furniture, etc.); on-site links to pedestrian and bike
trails are provided; open space areas are internalized and oriented for maximum .
solar exposure and the privacy of hotel guests. Total PUD open space exceeds
minimum requirements. •
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de-
vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con-
• servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any .
addition thereto.
• RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 3
Comments: Insulation exceed minimum requirements; buildings oriented to maximize
passive solar Rain; major hotel support functions are located sub -grade to
reduce exterior walls and roof thereby further reducing energy consumption;
AVAC 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 heavily landscaped.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings
or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
Comments: The substantial building masses associated with the main hotel and conference
entrances and their attendant support areas significantly restrict public views of
Aspen Mountain. The approximately 50 foot height of the Durant Avenue and conferenc
entrance facades will, to varying degrees, alter scenic background views from
•
Durant Avenue, Ruby Park and Wagner Park.
• CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 24
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and
spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting
areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of
the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 3
• MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 9
Comments: Applicant proposes to provide an extensive conference center (22,500 sq. ft.)
including an 8,000 sq. ft. ballroom and 10 meeting rooms. The conference center has
its own separate entrance and support facilities and is sized to accomodate up to
600 persons. Lobby areas for both the hotel and center are expansive and contain
accessory restaurants, lounges and slopes.
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities,
including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 3
• MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 6
Comments: On -site food and beverage fadlities are extensive (minimum of 15,000 sq.ft.),
include three dining formats: coffee shop, grill and specialty restaurant, and total
approximately 525 seats. A minimum of four lounges are provided throughout the
hotel and conference center. The hotel's main kitchen is sized for full banquet
service.
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re-
creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 2
•
POINTS: 6
•
Comments: On -site recreational facilities include: two swimming pools, an outdoor skating
rink, a 4,500 sq. ft. health club, a 1,900 sq.ft. game room, extensive sun decks,
ski access from Little Nell and Lift 1 -A, and a picnic amplitheater area at the
base of Aspen Mountain. The applicant also proposes to complete the Dean Street
trail through the 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's projected employee generation. The hotel's projected
employee generation is 287 employees. Forty -seven employees are to be housed at
the Alpina 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).
•
Tkie Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only
incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but
has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding
ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4,
prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record.
•
1 0
•
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS:
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required)
- Points in Category 2: 24 (Minimum of 11.7 points required)
Points in Category 3: 21 (Minimum 6.3 points required)
Points in Category 4: •7 (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories
1,2,3 and 4: - 59 (Minimum of 51 points required)
Bonus Points (Maximum of 5 points allowed)
TOTAL POINTS:
59
Name- of Planning and Zoning Member:
Planning Office
1
ad
•
'd I
Ex N 1 b 1 11 .
ro
C"1 . N N N O
4
A tr N fD O+ O ff N 0 fD . •• • C 3 ''3 1
• DI MI H
Z H H 0 1
rydt7 y r K 7:1 Ill n I, hrl
ID 0 7 A N M N K (D rt 0 O N O C E D N > z O
n r. N. P N N N I I-... Pi N rt n H b 10 KJ N O r r• r M "G 0 r* 0 0 O d m N I--4 (1)
rt�Pw
H� n N r 9
O W CD Y OC W O P. rt CD a• < G H
p • N (D H 'CJ W 1: z H C 0 W �• C En N F'• CD. C7 N N a N 11 n7
C r Y N o 0 it n 1 1 0 I .-. r x w 1+• LO CD CD VI i
O H O N Z
y M r+
VI Z
y 0 P. 0 0 O rt 0 C *1 H O 0
r H N 0 .C1 C I--• O F ,. th L' t9 tr
.. CD P. 0 CD O M IA C
P. CD P
CD ~• H
CD N Cn 0 I - 3
0
N N O in ti
0 M •
hi r
H H z H
0 z w
0 z '°•
0
0 r
• ›, H.
er
1
ro N N
I t1 0
N 1
r �' la. v r NINIi r 2 71
r , I I z Z
H L3H
I
I I
�� • x
N el cr lui\iti, Nt Ir th C 0 Z 7 t
\--4
I I MW to S
I� I H t
I �
I C=1
ro yz z r*
hi H
ti r \I- H
r (T V W N W W J I \ IN Ir Q hi N I
I�I�
I I 0
I I I I H z C
I (A
Dy
vi
t to
N r N \I-. r Z H •a rn
Hf r h\A+
rn M 0
y H
£ H O
\ td z z
r F r
J N N W L� III+ O I f' I z
I I II I I
d
N r, k,..,1-. J C
ty -o htft I 7:
I
I i" b H b
•
l
\
p N W r O r N .L--• r r N r N
r w
to rnv+r r ON r r w 0 I:1;
•
�, PO b . I
a+ waive
N W N CO
(D .t I
- td tla O 0 0
Z Z 1-1 O F' •
4' 0 Z N r
N I
o IV � tr' t r N
H X r o n t o ` z
H - /•• P. `G M M 0 •'b
rt N ID O . cn rrt cn
• r• rt '1 O b'
C to N• G C IV
• r-
> y H EN. r NN
. r r. O P• I. P'
I- o
b , i1 N W n K
t; a ro in
. z z ZI M C
.
1-3 w m
0 _ K rt
l ' la N 0
I n a 1 - 1 0
t
a r
0 tn
rt
0
. 7
•
PO
t o w r W
tn w
K
• r .
tri is N M
. 0 N km t• M • in In
PO
•
: Y :
Z
M
Z
tl
to I z r r
te o r Si H
0
z
0
t to r z I-'
N 0 N N \ N C
• lf > l.P ~
d
•
a% F r Z 0
in N • ~ w • > M XI
. A A H 1-1 M to •o ~
0 •
N �
0
M
•
•
•
N) r �
W N 0
. 4
< M
(D WOb'a
0 Wilnfra C 0 H .
OtY a q r z
• z H 1-1 G)
1-1 <'dM V)S� N ',d MN V)E n
LJ OM 3
0 H. a H N K N rt n a K O r{ £ rt M
0 7 0 (o M X K M 5' 0 Si 0 8 n F O t > W 9
K F'• H rt N G a P-11:1 P. M 0 ro H M >
�'' ~' H .Q d rt o O N N r C O ti 0 rt W 0 W N (D 0 z'
• o N 0> < a 0 N• )O't rt a K K H .r
ro0GW G H mr•<< o
`J O N K H C
e r P • N C7 W rt n K G H xJ W F'.W 0 N ,.
0
1-3 111 rt ti 0 H w 0 0 O Z z 1 -3
J 0 y 0
r
r N•N r r r0 N M (
N O
.. fi Cr C . rt 7 .' C 6) r.
P. N M F ,. in H
N m N 0 • H M •
rn ( n 0 - V)
• • 0 M
o CI
N 6) r r
11 z zoo
' H'['
n z
N 0 r
1
• Do 1-
z�
or
1
b N N
IM O 0
N
L 1111 N Z W
F N .. O� O� ‘.0 O� z £ • 0 H
I H
I
I
°I
I
I > x
M r
r M K H N N I'�I N (n H .> WWI. III I I� I I M V) II� \ "•tfi
MH3
I
b y Z Z
K1
H
Ill H b N Cn HI N N
H � + �O V W O� W �D T I O H r tt
III z>I
I
I O I O I
I
I I Ia z
c.l En
cn > C
cn
rW
l> A A T Oo O 6l W O W V \PIN\ r 1-� N Z rQ H cn
M > N
y H
H O
\,..„ E °
M N F -'INI�+H N H r rnT � V H01 I O I z
II
I
0
N N .+ <
•
\! N W \‘D O. lN HC7 I I I I I \co I
\a. \a• I
N I
O� W�Ir IN Ir�I N P � InI I ILO\ II
\L.)
\ --4
b
N V M
•
r • r
V
•
. .
M
. .. •
. ,
•
•
•
in ..+ hl ro V M
WI N an .o
N D N Co ts
w • tr a n 0 9 0 r
Z 0 F O 0 r
. C M z Nr
. . w O 0 0 Di VI 1
o r" m ro r
H H n
Z X 7 O n W m o b
y N• r•K M M p N
rt F'• M 0 V) z N•
. I- ft M o 0
I-
0 WM • a 7
rt N• En 1-3 ta W C O N 01 H. y N
a to 0 F'• H ° r r•
r r• o
lc) to > • � 0 a K
- o 0 •t' 0' Ili 00 0 y
t: H H N • H N
N N N
o 0 rt
-' H N 0
• lP :°. Fit 0
s
r
• o cn
rt
. N.
0
•
ro
Z M
k
r
Z M
.
:L:
• J D J
•
. •
r N
Z 3
O� 0 O% J \ > J H
Z
M
. E
M
• N O N J M J y
✓ Z
•
v
N • N \ In C
vs In > H
0
vi
LA In o .
z o
• • O • J " J 0
M
rn In <
0 r c•. 01
J l-- N J
H w r 0
M
•
•
. , . . ., ..._...
. , I
. . E )(kiln+ S
• .
•er * i ,
crirrl L 177 ri t * ...7,‘ t s71 rf7 i70, 79 ,y
is . hri
r1 . q ,,i',.'i k ---Y ------.' Ti..!, .c.-7,-- ; fir
7 7; 7 . 7; 777 r..77 7777 r .7 [77\ r: 71 t,•,,i/di, , !,t,,.„ I 1
. . . .
;
t77.1771 .V. F - 1
t i
1 ”. 7 %.'...Y* 1 ..-.•-rir 77 . 9 7Sr• P.c ..•:, 7.7.7: r7:71 MI n 177k, ;:$;./iy. ,
i,: ,
i ------ .7.
5 ::::, '... - -. .. -....,.,,,--;..-.:: ., :,, •,;-,..... -.:-, :,- ::..,.. -,.•,:ci.:. .:.....tw-!;,-...,1:ii-....i.,;:?.::::,:s.,:,,Lr;s:.:, :3--i-g, r'-- L ' , Iii., '''
ii Tv
'4" 4
. ::.7...a.; r\ 6 ' t
,,,,,, . ,.--... . ............. 7 `.1rril 1•4••■•■•.1.` 1-.:
ti: E
.4 0.
it
' .. •
, 4;4" )- '!...: / A .), ..,-:-- • .
t ' . .:7' : — 1 . !c..:.r :(2;.11,,P...•4... , ,
myll .±.1-,: ...1. ne" --: ;.'
j riWIS: -.) .t'71 ttrprr. ,76 - ,-,71777 17 ,1
1 •. 3. ' 5 777-7 , 777rri
...,,
•tt: tri:
. :; v :- . .t'sfh
• • .• — " • • :, ;„ ...• „,, ,,,i t ., i r •,,t ci 4, 1 1
;;;;1+,1-:■-.;14.:'4' I ,. r;M:i.:4:4'4-11 ! ..;?0. 7 .;.re■f.' 7 . :-, ‘ ...;%1; ,
.. , ,
...
. .
. - . , r ..- ..
1
..4.
ii,
t . It.
. .
--.,, ,.. ,.
y.; 7- S 0 iiio ass
;Pc, .r .N. ,;'
...:...N
es c ::1 el
.... _.. .. , - ,
ri et or,71 4
. .
•
November 22, 1983
INTRODUCTION - GENERAT.
The proposed 52 room Lodge, The Lodge At Aspen, consists of !IG Lodge
Rooms and 6 Employee rooms. The project proposes to cater to
Ski Clubs and budget-minded skiers. Applicant believes that the proposed
demolition of the Continental Inn and Aspen Inn which are to be
replaced with a First -Class World Hotel, will create a deficiency in
accommodations in the low and medium price range. The Lodge At Aspen
with smaller roues can offer more reasonable price accommodations than
a hotel offering large rooms, energy consuming swimming pools and
elaborate health facilities which some guests may never use.
OBJECTIONS TO ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE:
1. Ordinance No 35 (Sewer of 1983) is the legal document of the
City of Aspen which governs the 1984 Lodge G.M.P. Competition.
On Page 2, Section 1, the following is stated:
"All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there
shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more
than the following:"
rr Within the L-1, Tr2, CC and CL Zone District, thirty five
(35) Lodge or hotel units ;"
This applicant believes that the intent of (b) is that any application for
a quota is restricted to land which has a zoning of L-1, Lr2, 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 78,151 square feet of R -15 (POD)L
with proposed rezoning which would allow a higher density than presently
allowed.
This applicant believes that the Aspen Mountain Lodge cannot legally include
these parcels in its application.
_I_
2. Apparently the City of Aspen is not a co- applicant to the Aspen
Mountain Lodge's application. The City is the owner of 11,000 square
feet of "Public" zoned lands included in the Aspen Mountain Lodge
Project.
This applicant believes that the "llth hour" attempt by the City Council
on September 2G, 1983 (8 clays 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 n principle of "Competition" is that
the rules are the same for all competitors.
The Aspen Mnuuitai_n Lodge application proposes to demolish the
following:
Aspen Inn 67 rooms
Continental Inn
178 rooms
32 rooms
Blue Spruce TOTAL 277 rooms
ft J1 t; ?t r7, ` .'., , �`� '' . 1 � .
ttll ( ,
•
The plan proposes to reconstruct 2G9 rooms to replace the demolished
units'.
It appears that the proposed 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge hotel will
consist of 56% reconstructed units and 44/ new quota units which would
come from G.M.P. allocation. This applicant objects to the Planning
Office's scoring procedure of the Aspen Mountain Lodge which was for
the total hotel. It is felt that The Lodge At Aspen should only be
scored against 44% or 211 rooms of The Aspen Mountain Lodge application.
. Two swimming pools will be demolished, one at Aspen Inn and one at
Continental Inn. Two new swimming pools will be built. If these
• amenities are applied to the reconstructed units, then there is no
swimming pool to be applied to the 211 new lodge rooms.
Existing Conference, Health Spa facilities and two restaurants will
be demolished. Thus, the proposed new facilities use41 in the Planning
Office scoring are not indicated to be net increases in facilities.
•
•
_3_
. an:: 1 3. >frfr:
9 t : r 1,J:,, t
,11M 2 .. '� I � ; � tr,CS• r� '..i N I
iI '.i 1 A r,:. ..: .1� , w.. i i � � �y
''.;:i....
. r..xn. L , .'.SS lic v tenji •�s: !
HEIGHT COMMENTS:
1
The Aspen Mountain Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The
?forth of `tell Building by approximately 161/2 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
i
feet. The Lodge At Aspen is restricted to this height limitation.
1
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
l f- - as shown below: l
_- \G 35 et+ 2 1,6 e_ &v A..A.. .
.
4 •
P lir ..-- _.
G
�� �� , sow.
\ \ k
y —� — 1
. \ 1
1 .. n
Ait
F.,
',,,, .,,, Jfil.f.71- _ --: LC: tilli
N r
INTRODUCTION TILE LODGE AT ASPEN
The applicant of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Lodge project is submitting
this as a supplement to the original Lodge GRP application.
This supplement was prepared for the purpose of clarifying the
original application by addressing the deficiencies indicated in
the Planning Office Memorandum, dated November 22, 1983
•
SUMMARY OF PLANNING OFFICE SCORING
In summary, the Planning Office memorandum indicates a scoring
less than the maximum point for THE LODGE AT ASPEN in the
following categories:
• Short of Maximum
Section CateZorV Rating Multipler Points
la.
Water 1 1 1
lb.
Sewer 1 1 1
lc.
Roads 1 1 1
2a.
Architectural Design 2 3 6
2b. Site Design 2 r 3 6
2d. Parking and Circulation 1
3 3
2 Visual Impact 1 3 3
•
3a.
Common Areas 2 3 6
3b, Dining 1 2 2
3c.
Recreational 2 2 4
4b, Employee Housing 1 1 4
• APPLICANT'S COMMENTS
After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to
make the following comments and guarantees relative to each ofl
the above categories:
.-5-
•
The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding
the Planning Office's Evaluation and Scoring of THE LODGE AT ASPEN's
presentation. These comments are in those areas which did not receive
the maximum paint rating by the Planning Office.
1. a. WATER COMMENTS:
Since Mr.. Markalunas has indicated a neighborhood deficiency
The Lodge at Aspen's proposal to share the cost of the looped
of
water main would bring about the correction neighborhood
water system inadequacies,. The water consumed by The Lodge
will be metered and paid for resulting in increased revenue to
the City's Water Department. Applicant believes that a 2 rating
would be appropriate.
• b. SEWER COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees and the periodic
sewer assessments as calculated by the Aspen Metro Sanitation
District. Also, the cost to make the connection will be paid
by the applicant which includes street cut permit, excavation,
sewer line to sewer main, backfill and repair of pavement.
Since the sewer facilities are adequate according to the Planning
Department's evaluation, the applicant believes that a 2 rating is
appropriate.
c. ROADS COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to install curb and gutters on Ute Avenue
and the Aspen Mountain road which abuts the lodge site which meets
the specifications of the City of Aspen. At the option of the City of
Aspen the applicant will guarantee to pay for the cost of curb and
gutter should the City prefer to install the same.
The Aspen Mountain Road abutting the lodge site will be resurfaced
with blacktop at applicant's expense after curb, gutters and storm
drains have been installed, if approved, and recommended by the City's
Engineering Department. The Aspen Mountain road is access to the
Ajax Condominiums and a house. The road continues up and over Aspen
Mountain past the Sun Deck and clown into Castle Creek. In view of
the Planning Office's comments, applicant believes that a scoring
of 2 would be appropriate.
-6-
•
A
2. a. ARCIITTECTURAT, 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 ].ienit 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 guests and encourage guests to take the short
• walk to the commercial core.
Trash Removal - Trash container will be located in an area near
the Southeast corner of the property near the Ajax Apartment's trash
container.
Snow Control - The Lodge will incorporate the following systems:
a. Engineered snow stops will be installed to retain the snow
on the roof.
b. ]teat tape system to be installed on to edge of roof to control
ice buildup.
c. Beat systems will be installed in the sidewalks and driveways
for snow elimination. On -site dry wells will handle any
•
•run -offs.
d. Snow plow kept on the site will be used for clearing Aspen
Mountain Road and Ute Avenue.
e. Contract snow removal will be used for emergencies involving
• excessive accumulations from street build -ups.
1
1
h. PARK INC. ANI1 CIRCULATION COMMENTS
I'ln L
ing is provided on the has is of one space per Judge and
(nq'.I•buce he(Irnum which is a requirement of the 11-1 ;n(I T.. -2 Area
anal
bull, Requirement . The Aspen Nlonnta ill Lodge under 1'111)
pl•nl(•res ' 440 parking spaces tor 1 1411 rooms. The Lodge AL Aspen
has a cat io of one parking space per bedt'n(mt while the Aspen
N)'1111 In lodge has .7'1 space per bedroom.
The tln•ning .radius for cars entering the parkin;, area was .laic)
out , ing to the City of Aspen Park TM.; SLanc ■ IS Shown
h( ntV
t; i 1' '.'.
PARKING STANDARD
C. FM/ r.= %Yr\Y AND TURNING APEAS
0::L.l CI.I;.e o y 11': fol:il'l Ili fII:i I�- .! \'• '; `i !t)AI:O3
v1S1 INIPACT CONINIENTS :
• The height () the Liu iIding wi11. be reduced slightly Ln stay
within the Area and 1411.1: Requirement of the % Codes. The
hit ;hesl' paint ()I' 'I'Ite Lodge AL Aspen's buiJ.d.ing wi.l..l. he 22 feet
.less than the 11ightesL pninL nn the Aspen Mountain Lodge . The
Lodge At Aspen building sits back off of llte Avenue in order to
enllnc(: viStull. appearance from the street.
( ..i' r + T��h' I17 L�
l
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 kniests ns compared to the size of the proposed
]ndg project...." (underlining added).
The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 1 180 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms
as The Lodge At Aspen which has 46 tourist rooms. It appears to this
applicant that a smaller lodge will be limited in its ability to provide
amenities.
a) COMMON MEETING AREAS COMMENTS:
Applicant believes that the common area of 1,120 square feet
consisting of lounge and lobby areas is sufficient and adequate
for a 46 room lodge. With the restrictive nature of Aspen's
Area and Bulk requirements, conference facilities in a small
lodge are unrealistic.
b) PINING FACILITIES
In Ir1. zone a restaurant for public use is prohibited by Zoning
Code, except by Conditional Ilse. With this Lodge being located
• within walking distance the guest will patronize public dining
facilities in the commercial core.
Applicant believes that the proposed dining facilities are
adequate for a small lodge.
e) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES COMMENTS:
Two commercial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance;
namely, Aspen Athletic Club .located at 720 E. Nyman Avenue and
The Aspen Club located down the street at 1300 Ute Avenue. It
is anticipated that these clubs will be used by the guest with
Limo service available for transportation. The indoor hot
tub is proposed at the Garden Level and will conserve more
energy than an outdoor tub.
It. a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE 1[OUSTNG COMMENTS.:
The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 100% of its employees. The
application states, "Three employees will be housed off -site.
The Lodge will either lease long -term or purchase three
'
condominiums in the Aspen area for housing the three employees.
This can provide a better life style for the employees, particularly
if they have families. _c�-
4. . fl.-711
} } }55� f r 1 E . l t
•
r4 ` „
The employee twit in the Garden hcvel shown on page 43 will be
built to meet building code requirements for habitation. A door
1'o the outside of the building will be provided. Minimum window
requirements will be designed into the unit.
The applicant believes that The Lodge At Aspen qualifies for the
15 points for Employee Dousing.
' BONUS 1'OTNTS Gtl_NSTDC� '•R TT
1. The Applicant believes that The hodge at Aspen's proposal represents
the first attempt since the GMP adoption to construct an entirely new
lodge in Aspen. The submission addresses the upgrading of a key corner
location with proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain (405') and the
proposed base area for the Little Annie Ski Area.
2: The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develop an intimate
scale lodge, in keeping with the Aspen tradition, as opposed to a
i
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,
ti. The location is within walking distance to the commercial core and
• public transportatt.nn. The nearness of the Police Department enhances
guest security.
5. The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the
pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain.
Tn 'view of the initial submission dated October 1, 1983 and the
supplementary data submitted this November 22, 1983, the applicant
I
believes that the project is qualified for evaluation under the bonus
!
point criter
1
Respectfully submitted,
Lyle. Reeder
•
•
-10-
I, . ESz thl+ .l9 Y
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 920 -2233
December 6, 1983
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Competition Award; Challenge of
Lyle Reeder, Applicant for The Lodge at Aspen.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I represent Lyle Reeder, an Applicant in the 1984 Lodge GMP i ii
Competition in connection with the hearing before the Planning & j); ky
Zoning Commission held on November 22, 1983, to select a winning t l
score between the two Applicants -- The Lodge at Aspen, and the :7.1v, gi
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 198-4 Lodge GMP
Competition, in particular, and the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen in general as it pertains to this Competition.
Specifically incorporated herein are the provisions of
the'Municipal Code of the City of Aspen which are pertinent to
these applicants and to the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition.
I shall set forth these challenges, objections and
irregularities in numerical order for your convenience and
reference and suggest that they are clear violations of my
client's rights to due process and /or represent abuses of
discretion:
1. In scoring each of the two applicants, the Planning
Director gave a decidedly unfair advantage to the
V� S
4 Mountain Lodge project because of the procedure which
C +� allows that project to qualify as a PUD project and
j still have to compete as a project in the GMP
(1)-fir 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. 1
,n .e
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
• 450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 9202233
Aspen City Council
December 6, 1983
Page Two
2. The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for having
amenities for guests, at least a part of which score
. was due to having a larger number of amenities than the
Y5 ` �� Lodge at Aspen and so receiving a higher score. This
treatment would discriminate against a smaller project
,u� ,L in general, since points are scored against each other
S 1 ) on a one -to -one basis, and in particular since the
� Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and
( C
exterior space.
It i 3. The Mountain Lodge is proposing to gain credit for the
A(/ demolition and reconstruction of 269 existing units,
and consequently is seeking only 211 units from the
Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their
\� project, Planning Commission considered the entire 480
4e .Y " 4 j units in granting points for the various categories
( when they should have only considered the actual number
! 1 of the units that were being requested. This would
( \ have resulted in only scoring 211 units as a percentage
r� r ��p of the overall project (43.95 %).
uc.
4. The proposed Mountain Lodge project is obviously the
n most complicated and most expensive to be proposed for
, h As en. It is also the largest in terms of number of
)1 (v lr�, units, size of buildings, etc. For this reason, it is
VII hard to see how it can be equated with any other
� project, especially one of the size of the Lodge at
V\1\ s'1 Aspen. However, it is being scored against it and is
I c
, being considered as a part of the Lodge GMP Competition
it ' y in spite of its unique size and complexity. In fact,
�%
it should be a separately considered project.
5. The procedures of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, in
general, and the Lodge GMP Competition, in particular,
provide for certain qualifications before an applicant
can submit an application. Obviously, these
requirements are necessary in order to determine if an
applicant actually has the necessary interest in the
property to be seriously considered. The interest of
the Applicants for the Mountain Lodge appears to be no
• more than an Assignment of the Right to submit the
application by the actual landowner, Hans Cantrup, who,
in turn, is unable to legally handle his own legal
affairs, including his real estate holdings, without
1 , . '
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. • •
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
• 450 5. GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 9202233
Aspen City Council
December 6, 1983 .
Page Three
•
the express approval and participation of the United
ti States Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, it would appear
G that the applicants for The Mountain Lge no
° standing to file the application being od cons idered by
fi this Commission.
A tf f
� y 6,., The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units
W 3- from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50
r� as unused previous years' units; and 126 more from
\ `t4 future years units up to 1987. This unprecedented
\ �1 request for the use of so many future years' units
J
� � would be a violation of the intent, if not the rule, of
M S 1 A having an annual Lodge GMP Competition, No one can
(! predict the future, and it would be impossible to
N Y
� determine the needs of the City five years from now,
but since the years would be used up by The Mountain
• (,p Lodge projec others would be denied the right and
2 ; privilege of even being able to compete in a
�41t J " competition designed, and legally constituted, for the
t`t pY 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
l including City -owned land, without the joining of the
City. This proposal was not formally passed at that
Y � session and was, in fact, tabled until the next session
. of the City Council, held on October 12, 1983, when it
`� i 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
y � allowing it to file without the consent and joining of
the City of Aspen. Therefore, the application should
not have been allowed since it did not conform to the
law of the City in those two respects.
1 ..
•
WRIGHT HUGUS, JR.
Attorney at Law
SUITE 202
450 S GALENA STREET
•
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA
(303) 9202233
Aspen City Council
December 6, 1983
Page Four
•
Thank you for your consideration.
•
Wright Hugus, Jr.
WHJR:klm
•
•
•
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: 77 Ute Avenue - Corner of Ute and Original at Aspen Mountain
Road
4. Parcel Size: 15,386 sq. ft.
5. Current Zoning: L -
6. Maximum Allowable Build -out: 15,386 (1:1)
7. Existing Structures: A single family house -(one story, 3 bedroom,
1 bath) occupied by the applicant.
8. Development Program: 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. Proposed
buildout is 15,380 sq.ft. or virtually 1:1. Internal FAR breakdown is as follows:
tourist units = 9936 sq. ft. or 0.65:1
employee units = 1296 sq. ft. or 0.08
non -unit space - 4148 sq. ft. or 0.27:1
9. Additional Review Requirements: Condomin iumization, GMP exception
for employee units
10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be granted an allocation, he would
relinquish the 31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net
additional units requested by this project is 15 lodge rooms.
•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition
PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen Date: 11/22/83
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area
or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood
deficiency but applicant only commits to sharing the cost of the improvement.
Therefore, applicant is only paying to improve the quality of service to his
own project.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed lodge.
No upgrade is proposed nor requested.
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes
to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development
requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment
by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and
to maintain the system over the long -term.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 2
Comments: Applicant proposes drywells of sufficient size to retain site and roof
water runoff. Applicant commits to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen
Mountain Road adjacent to his property at his own expense. Engineering
rates proposed as excellent.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro-
vide fire protection according to its established response standards with-
out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of
major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit-
ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants
and water storage tanks.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
2
POINTS:
Comments: Project can be served by the fire protection district. Applicant proposes
to locate a new hydrant at his own expense near the Northwest corner of
the project. Fire chief would prefer hydrant on Northeast corner.
e, ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially
altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over-
loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased
usage attributable to the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Engineering department finds roads in the area to have adequate capacity,
although constrained by winter skier parking and "dead end" nature of this
corner. Project will not substantially impact existing roads. Applicant
proposes to blacktop Aspen Mountain Road at his own expense, an improvement
which is largely cosmetic, not service oriented.
CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 7
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of
its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing heighborhood developments.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
3
POINTS:
Comments Building is generally compatible with surrounding developments, although
the design is very standard. The peak of the roof is about 35 or 36 feet
above grade, whereas the code limits the height to 28 feet plus 5 additional
feet for the angled roof, for a maximum allowable height of 33 feet.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or
the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the
extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian
amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development
and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
COMMENTS: Site design includes benches and bicycle racks near Ute Avenue; sidewalk
along Ute Avenue underground utilities, adequate peripheral landscaping, a
building footprint of only 36% and heated sidewalks and driveways for snow
control. The engineer feels that 2 curb cuts on Ute Avenue are excessive
as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on Aspen Mountain
Road: this situation is magnified by the existing driveway for the Aspen Alps
along the property on Ute Avenue. The density of this project is approximately
130 units per acre.
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de-
vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con-
servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 3
Comments: Insulation is proposed at 20% above code. Solar collectors on 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
The building is set back from Ute Avenue by approximately 85 feet and from
Comfients:
Aspen Mountain Road by approximately 30 feet. The height of the building
as shown is approximately 2 -3 feet above that allowed by code and must be
reduced, but the overall design does not affect public views due to the
already existant Aspen Alps Building.
•
CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 21
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and
spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting
areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of
the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
Comments: The only common meeting areas in the lodge are the lounge /lobby which are
640 and 48 0 sq. ft. respectively or about 7% of the entire internal floor
area. The total internal floor area in the lodge devoted to "non- unit" space
is 27% just above minimum 25% requirement.
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities,
including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 4
Comments: The restaurant willprovide food service for guests only in the lounge
(winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an Apres Ski Bar, also in
the lounge.
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re-
creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 2
A hot tub, male and female saunas, and an exercise room are provided below
Comments:
grade in the garden level parking area. No outdoor recreational
amenities are provided on site. Health facilities amount to about 850
sq. ft. and do not count against FAR.
CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 9
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project
who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro-
ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING: 11
MULTIPLIER: 1
11
POINTS:
Comments: Applicant proposes to house 12 employees on site, while lodge is projected
to require 15 employees. The off -site housing proposal contains no
specifics and therefore cannot be evaluated. Applicant's total housing
proposal = 80% (note: the employee unit in the parking garage may not meet
minimum building code habitationrequirements.)
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points).
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only
incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but
has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding
ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4,
prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
0
POINTS:
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 (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 48
1,2,3 and 4: (Minimum of 51 points required)
Bonus Points (Maximum of 5 points allowed)
TOTAL POINTS: 48
Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office
I _L.t i .■ I
. ti
DEC 0 61983
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: AE Pli i j F; j� C
PIANNIN FIC
WHEREAS, Lyle Reeder has filed an application under the 19E3
Lodge GMP Competition Section 24 -11.6 of the Aspen Municipal Code
for construction of a 46 -unit lodge to be called THE LODGE AT
ASPEN to be located at 711 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, as a result of scoring by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission, Lyle Reeder did not receive any growth
management plan allocation for 1984;
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned applicant, pursuant
to Section 24- 11.6(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code, hereby appeals
to the City Council of the City of Aspen the action taken by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983, which action
denied applicant any development allocation under the Lodge
Development Application procedures. The appeal is made on the
following grounds:
1. The Planning Office abused its discretion in scoring
the competing applications and in evaluating the two
applications.
2. The Planning Office, in its Memorandums to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, dated November 16 and 22, 1983,
conveyed information which was biased against the
applicant's project and favored the competing
application.
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission relying upon
information in the Memorandums abused its discretion in
scoring the two applications, and the actions of the
Board was therefore a violation of due process.
The basis for applicant's appeal as to violation of due
process and abuse of discretion is more fully set forth in the
memorandum attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
Lyle Reeder
Applicant
Dated: December 6, 1983
•
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 24- 11.6(E)
OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
Statement of Case
Applicant, Lyle Reeder, has submitted an application for two
Lodge GMP development allocations for 1984 under the provisions
of Section 24 -11.6 "Lodge Development Application Procedures."
Applicant's project called for 46 new lodge rooms. Applicant
agreed to surrender his 1982 allocation of 31 lodge rooms upon
receipt of the new 46 lodge room allocation; thus having the net
allocation effect of requesting an additional 15 lodge room
quota. The applicant's project represents the first attempt to
try to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen under GMP
procedures. There was only one other applicant for the 1984 GMP
quota; namely, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings
Assoc. of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan Novak's Aspen Mountain
Lodge. The application consists primarily of properties involved
in the Hans Cantrup bankruptcy. The Aspen Mountain Lodge
application was a request for 211 new lodge rooms and
reconstruction of 269 lodge rooms. The total 480 -room project
was to consist of 44% new lodge rooms and 56% reconstructed lodge
rooms. According to Planning Office calculations, there were 85
units available for 1984.
Planning and Zoning Commission action on the Lodge GMP was
set for November 22, 1983. The Planning Office submitted to the
members explanatory memos dated November 16 and 23, 1983 (copies
attached as Exhibit 3). The November 16, 1983 Memorandum was
conveyed as an attachment to the November 22, 1983 memorandum.
The Planning Office rated the competing projects in the
Memorandum of November 22, 1983. The results of the 1984
Planning Office Lodge GMP points assignment were as follows (copy
attached as Exhibit 3):
Lodge at Aspen 48
Aspen Mountain Lodge 59
Both applicants made presentations at the November 22, 1983
meeting, and the members of the Commission scored the project
pursuant to score sheets provided. The results of the voting
gave "The Lodge at Aspen" a total average score of 49.5, and "The
Aspen Mountain Lodge" a total average score of 60.71, thus
granting the entire 1984 allocation to The Aspen Mountain Lodge.
Under the category of "Amenities Provided for Guests ",
Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983, page 6, paragraph (3) states:
"The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed
services for guests as compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto..."
(underlining added).
-1-
•
The Commission abused its discretion by failing to apply the
above guideline to its scoring of the two projects.
1. By generally following the Planning Office's
recommendation and giving a low score of 10.54 points (average)
out of a maximum possible of 21 points to The Lodge at Aspen
project. A small lodge cannot be expected to provide amenities `'°
such as energy consuming swimming pools and outdoor skating •-oka,cej
rinks. - h , v'4
0
yb N iof
2. By giving The Aspen Mountain Lodge a high score, 19.86 , "b k,
points (average) out of maximum of 21 points, the Commission
failed to consider the "any additions thereto..." portion of the
project but instead considered the total project which is 56%
reconstruction. Apparently, The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposes to
demolish three swimming pools and to reconstruct two new swimming 1
pools; thus, if logically allocated to reconstruction portion, GL4L__ f
the new 211 lodge rooms will have no swimming pool amenity.
The Planning Office in its Memorandums of November 16 and
o i.."1'
22, 1983 failed to convey material information of a negative z so
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 5`l
street. This was mentioned in the subsequent Planning and Zoning £..4
meeting of November 29, 1983, and represents a violation of due
process.
3. The Memorandums' comments regarding The Aspen Mountain q,
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-
•
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 r
feet. The application made an assumption that the rezoning would
be approved whereby the allowable floor areas for the parcel 3e
would be increased from 27,107 to 54,214 square feet. The ao
Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently on November 29, 1983 LA I 't
denied the rezoning request, thus changing the character of the 4
project. e6 S
L h,l
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 Co
elevation line. The Hoag Subdivision plat (Plat Book 4, page J 'h
218) has the following notation "No building permit will be i.,{
issued on Lots 1 and 3 until it has been demonstrated that there , 4.
is adequate avalanche protection to be engineered and certified
by individual or individuals with professional avalanche control' , 0'
experience."
Off -site employee housing for The Aspen Mountain Lodge
consists of Parcel "A -2" and "B ". The total size of the two
parcels is indicated to be 190,617 square feet. The Aspen
Mountain Lodge proposed employee housing for Parcel "B" consists
of 68,954± square feet of land (taken from subdivision plat filed
in Pitkin County Clerk's in Plat Book 4 at page 218). Parcel "B"
is also known as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision in the City of Aspen.
Parcel "B" represents 36% of the employee housing land. The
application indicates that 90 employees would be housed on the
two parcels. If the housing is allocated uniformly then Parcel
"B" would house 32 employees. In the scoring of Amenities
provided for quest the rating guidelines states that the
amenities shall be rated "in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto ". The Aspen Mountain
Lodge's site of more than 11 acres is 33 times as large as The
Lodge at Aspen's site of 15,386 square feet which is slightly
larger than 5 city lots.
The Planning Office memorandum to the Planning and Zoning
Commission dated November 22, 1983, Exhibit 3, on page 1 in
reference to The Lodge at Aspen's application indicates "In our
opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior
proposed in several aspects..." This applicant believes that his
1984 project application should not be compared to his earlier
1982 project for the same site. It appears that some mythical
standard exists for establishing the point scoring. 5 - L q
Six exhibits are attached, namely:
Exhibit 1 - Letter of Lyle Reeder to Planning Office,
dated 10/5/83.
-3-
Exhibit 2 Reply from Planning Office to Lyle Reeder,
dated 11/9/83.
Exhibit 3 - Memorandum from Planning Office Director,
dated 11/22/83, 2nd 11/16/83.
Exhibit 4 - GMP Commission Tally Sheets
Exhibit 5 - Supplemental information for The Lodge at
Aspen submitted to P &Z Commission on
11/22/83.
Exhibit 6 - Letter from Mr. Wright Hugus Jr., attorney
for applicant, setting forth additional
incidents of violation of due process and
abuse of discretion.
Relief Requested
This applicant hereby requests that the Council grant him
relief in one of the following manners:
1. That the City Council, pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(c), INA
award an additional 15 points to the total score granted to
this applicant, to compensate for the abuse of discretion of the �'"��"
Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission members.
2. That the City Council grant this applicant an exemption
from the Growth Management Plan.
Conclusion
In closing, this applicant would like to point out the
consequences in the event the present scoring is allowed to
stand. If appropriate relief is not granted, The Aspen Mountain
Lodge will receive the entire growth management allotment and
possibly the allotment for the next 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/op •
Lyle Reeder
Applicant
Dated: December 6, 1983
-4-
.....
7 kffir 7 1 in 6 77-4; RI r= Pti' Thet In
7 - r M dish ki19,St 'M IN
P t -7" - - -- 79 a I
r7 ! , ..„,,k IP TN a
iniVing MggE9Mrai M
gr 6!!!!JEM
mnrir NI E el la a PI AB 51
64 el MR g Me/Verge
e SRA In rif9 RI
1 M El 4
November 22, 1983
INTRODUCTION - GENERAL
The proposed 52 room Lodge, The Lodge At Aspen, consists of 46 Lodge
Rooms and 6 Employee rooms. The project proposes to eater to
Ski Clubs and budget- minded skiers. Applicant believes that the proposed
demo] i tion of the Continental Inn and Aspen Tnn which are to be
replaced with a first- Class World hotel, will create a deficiency in
accommodations in the low and medium price range. The Lodge At Aspen
with smaller rooms can offer more reasonable price accommodations th,.n
a hotel offering large rooms, energy consuming swimming pools and
elaborate health facilities which some guests may never use.
OBJECTIONS TO ASPEN MOiINTAIN LODGE:
1. Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) is the legal document of the
City of Aspen which governs the 1984 Lodge G.M.P. Competition.
On Page 2, Section 1, the following is stated:
"All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there
sliui1 be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more
than the following:"
° ....(b) Within the L-1, Lr2, CC and CL Zone District, thirty five
(35) Lodge or hotel units;"
This applicant believes that the intent of (b) is that any application for
a quota is restricted to land which has a zoning of Lrl, L-2, CC or CL as
of the filing deadline which was October 3, 1983. The Aspen Mountain
Lodge application includes 11,000 sq. feet of City owned property which
is zoned, "Public." It also includes 78,161 square feet of R -15 (PUD)L
with proposed rezoning which would allow a higher density than presently
allowed.
This applicant believes that the Aspen Mountain Lodge cannot legally include
these parcels in its application.
A w. "
677771 A 12
2. Apparently the City of Aspen is not a co- applicant to the Aspen
Mountain Lodge's application. The City is the owner of 11,000 square
feet of "Public" zoned lands included in the Aspen Mountain Lodge
Project.
This applicant believes that the "llth hour" attempt by the City Council
on September 26, 1983 (8 days prior to filing deadline) and October 12,
1983 (9 days after G.M.P. filing deadline) which would allow City owned
property to he included in a proposed G.M.P. application does not and will
not legitimatize an improper C.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 67 rooms
Continental Inn 178 rooms
Blue Spruce 32 rooms
TOTAL 277 rooms
P -
1 t 6141 :1!!!!
The plan proposes to reconstruct 269 rooms to replace the demolished
units.
It appears that the proposed 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge Hotel will
consist of 56% reconstructed units and 44% new quota units which would
come from G.M.P. allocation. This applicant objects to the Planning
Office's scoring procedure of the Aspen Mountain Lodge which was for
the total hotel. It is felt that The Lodge At Aspen should only be
scored against 44% or 211 rooms of The Aspen Mountain Lodge application.
Two swimming pools will be demolished, one at Aspen Inn and one at
Continental Inn, Two new swimming pools will be built. If these
amenities are applied to the reconstructed units, then there is no
swimming pool to be applied to the 211 new lodge rooms.
Existing Conference, Health Spa facilities and two restaurants will
be demolished. Thus, the proposed new facilities used in the Planning
Office scoring are not indicated to be net increases in facilities.
-3-
d 1
HEIGHT COMMENTS:
The Aspen Mountain Lodge height of 55 feet exceeds the height of The
'forth of Nell Building by approximately 164 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
ft
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:
__ x 55 P e e - l - a be•-. 6-v o. a......
•
t
per_
c , -Lt ,;
a
,a � t
lir ___ d
r� -c=1 1 r -)._ D
it f� Wit _¢_ .
INTRODUCTION THE LODGE AT ASPEN
The applicant of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Lodge project is submitting
this as a supplement to the original Lodge GMP application.
This supplement was prepared for the purpose of clarifying the
original application by addressing the deficiencies indicated in
the Planning Office Memorandum, dated November 22, 1983
SUMMARY OF PLANNING OFFICE SCORING
In summary, the Planning Office memorandum indicates a scoring
less than the maximum point for THE LODGE AT ASPEN in the
following categories:
Short of Maximum
Section Category Rating Multipler Points
la. Water 1 1 1
ib. Sewer 1 1 1
lc. Roads 1 1 1
2a. Architectural Design 2 3 6
2b. Site Design 2 3 6
2d. Parking and Circulation 1 3 3
2e. Visual Impact 1 3 3
3a. Common Areas 2 3 6
3b. Dining 1 2 2
30. Recreational 2 2 4
4b. Employee Housing 1 1 4
APPLICANT COMMENTS
After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to
make the following comments and guarantees relative to each oil
the above categories:
-5-
The Applicant is submitting the following comments and opinions regarding
the Planning Office's Evaluation and Scoring of THE LODGE AT ASPEN'S
presentation. These comments are in those areas which did not receive
the maximum point rating by the Planning Office.
1. a. WATER COMMENTS:
Since Mr. Markalunas has indicated a neighborhood deficiency
The Lodge at Aspen's proposal to share the cost of the looped
of
water main would bring about the correction the neighborhood
water system inadequacies, The water consumed by The Lodge
will be metered and paid for resulting in increased revenue to
the City's Water Department. Applicant believes that a 2 rating
would be appropriate.
b. SEWER COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to pay sewer tap fees and the periodic
sewer assessments as calculated by the Aspen Metro Sanitation
District. Also, the cost to make the connection will be paid
by the applicant which includes street cut permit, excavation,
sewer line to sewer main, backfill and repair of pavement.
Since the sewer facilities are adequate according to the Planning
Department's evaluation, the applicant believes that a 2 rating is
appropriate.
c. ROADS COMMENTS:
The applicant guarantees to install curb and gutters on Ute Avenue
and the Aspen Mountain road which abuts the lodge site which meets
the specifications of the City of Aspen. At the option of the City of
Aspen the applicant will guarantee to pay for the cost of curb and
gutter should the City prefer to install the same.
The Aspen Mountain Road abutting the lodge site will be resurfaced
with blacktop at applicant's expense after curb, gutters and storm
drains have been installed, if approved, and recommended by the City's
Engineering Department. The Aspen Mountain road is access to the
Ajax Condominiums and a house. The road continues up and over Aspen
Mountain past the Sun Deck and down into Castle Creek. In view of
the Planning Office's comments, applicant believes that a scoring
of 2 would be appropriate.
-6-
a,
tun inegiNen nor ekgingl
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
Mountain Road and Ute Avenue.
e. Contract snow removal will be used for emergencies involving
excessive accumulations from street build -ups.
r M
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 D-1 and L-2 Area
and Bulk Requirement. The Aspen Mountain Lodge under PUD
proposes 380 parking spaces for 480 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:
U i I Y U b i t e lw i i i
P ARKING STANDARD
DRIVEWAY AND TURNING AREAS
MINIMUM CURVE
J 0 °
. 8 /
Oihcr curves may be found in TIME- ;AVER STANDARDS
c. VISUAL IMPACT COMMENTS:
The height of the building will be reduced slightly to stay
within the Area and Bulk Requirement of the Zoning Codes. The
highest point of The Lodge At Aspen's building will be 22 feet
less than the hightest point on the Aspen Mountain Lodge. The
Lodge At Aspen building sits back off of Ute Avenue in order to
enhance visual appearance from the street.
-8-
...
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS:
The rating guidelines states "The Commission shall consider each
application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its
proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed
lodging project...." (underlining added).
The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 480 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms
as The Lodge At Aspen which has 4G 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 h-1 zone a restaurant for public use is prohibited by Zoning
Code, except by Conditional Use. With this Lodge being located
within walking distance the guest will patronize public dining
facilities in the commercial core.
Applicant believes that the proposed dining facilities are
adequate for a small lodge.
e) RECREATIONAh FACILITIES COMMENTS:
Two commercial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance;
namely, Aspen Athletic Club located at 720 E. Hyman Avenue and
The Aspen Club located down the street at 1300 Ute Avenue. It
is anticipated that these clubs will be used by the guest with
Limo service available for transportation. The indoor hot
tub is proposed at the Garden Level and will conserve more
energy than an outdoor tub.
4. a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMMENTS:
The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 100% of its employees. The
application states, "Three employees will be housed off -site.
The Lodge will either lease long -term or purchase three
condominiums in the Aspen area for housing the three employees."
This can provide a better life style for the employees, particularly
if they have families.
n
The employee unit in the Garden Level shown on page 43 will be
built to meet building code requirements for habitation. A door
to the outside of the building will be provided. Minimum window
requirements will he designed into the unit.
The applicant believes that The Lodge At Aspen qualifies for the
1.5 points for Employee Housing.
BONDS 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 (405') and the
proposed base area for the Little Annie Ski Area.
2. The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develop an intimate
scale lodge, in keeping with the Aspen tradition, as opposed to a
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.
5. The design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the
pedestrian traffic sight lines of Aspen Mountain.
In view of the initial submission dated October 1, 1983 and the
supplementary data submitted this November 22, 1983, the applicant
believes that the project its qualified for evaluation under the bonus
point criteria.
Respectfully submitted,
Lyle Reeder
-10 --
1 - ,r Ir i rr
November 16, 1983 -' al.
NOV 18 1983 II
-
Members: NSPEiv rITKIN CO.
Aspen City Council, PLANNING OFFICE
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 and beauty not includ
ing the restaurant, health spa, y P trinul
personnel.
Aspen City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 16, 1983
Page Three
3. The lounge area is significantly smaller now than in
the original 1982 application. With 50% more rooms
and potential population, the area should be increased
accordingly, not decreased. A 480 sq. ft. lounge that
also doubles as a restaurant area for 46 tourist units
does not appear to serve anyone adequately! The "non-
public" restaurant could not operate without a substan-
tial loss. Design questions include adequate kitchen
vents and odors, kitchen refuse, storage & refrigera-
tion, liquor license permit, delivery entrance, and
kitchen noise.
C. With regard to overall market and economic viability:
1. Does this lodge, with its small (216 sq. ft.) rooms,
really serve the current Aspen market ?? This proposed
project certainly cannot be considered as an upgrading
of overall lodge facilities in the area! This new
lodge seemingly serves an old 1950's market that is
no longer in existence.
Is not the intent and purpose of the lodge G.M.P. to
upgrade the inventory of lodging in this community?
If points are given primarily on the basis of "excel-
lent design" and improving the "quality of services
in the area," then are we not defeating our own
policies by considering a project that does not reflect
today's market, aggrevates existing conditions by its
design, and creates an automatic handicap for those
who are to work there?
2. The land does lend itself to development, but is the
proposed lodge "the highest and best use ?"
The first and underlying point is that according to
accepted theory, a hotel operation will break even with
100 to 150 rooms. Less than that will cause an undue
burden on the owners. It would appear that the plans
and economics of the proposed Lodge at Aspen indicate
a "lodge" complex only to allow acceptance under present
zoning, and that conversion to condominiums would be
the next logical step to make the property marketable.
Aspen City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 16, 1983
Page Four
It is apparent from the current Real Estate market
that high quality, high cost condominiums are amongst
the few properties that are selling.
I feel that it would be more realistic to allow the developer,
via rezoning to L -2, to construct free market luxury condo -
minimums in keeping with the surrounding area, rather than
going through the exercise of developing a lodge which would
be of questionable sales value, and eventually be converted
to a condominium complex with limited sales appeal.
Very my you ;
a7 ewey
.GH: "c
W N • Q, j
N 0
U
O r a (D R• 0 CY a 0 (D p. 0 O a C 0 0
• W H
Z r
H H r 0
H
• zri- ro(D y Cp) (D Pi En H. '1 H3 w rHSOEta* ro
(D H a (D H H. a 0 l'< OG(D (D 0) mn %(D r
n P. H it (n Co 7s-' W O N 0 � (0 O n 1-i 0 b
(D G H r I'd H C'] G]
a w r G 1- c1 q K ( ( 0 Ht O N U) CI 7d t f
it r1 t4 0 H Cl w O x) O Ht (D (D H U)
O a (D D=i C a 0 H. of (D C H C hi h3 H H
G O co ti H 'L1 G G W G H
V) a H. N 0 0) a Cu m G M X [A O G H. H• t'i
0 H H a Pi C 0 N a 'd C ct i q 0 0 (n ro
1-3 (t • to 0 W rt. < H 0 H 0 (D Z to
hi a t7 < 0 Z
(D PI 1-3 0
y H O P' r 0' r- PI PP' 0)
Cu • G W z
t' it d. 0 rt G H C
H- (D P1 H• u) H
w •• H 0 H n
Cn 0 PI PI
0 0 0
0 P1
G C hi M H
CD G z 0 PI
z�
G
O zCO
z 'P
m 0 r
(
> 1
z�
1 0 PI
(
K1 N N
N 00
F F F ON • O` es N• • V H N N H H Pi H O
EC Z
HL)H
> x
N P1 �OZ
N F H r
co N W co • O' Cr, W W• V L u,
En H
• U)0
PI PI PI
H H P1
Ili yzz
H H
Z
N N F CN V Cr V H N N H H ro
Oro
H r
zz
H3 Z
U m
En
N C c
�O N F W H CN W W W V H N N H H H r ed
z
H
Pi 0N
y H
H 0
M 0 z
V N N W F d\ W N W O V r V N H H r- 3
zz
N F N
• F F• O d O+ a W W ---I
H .n N • H
lri
n
H N 0
O N co . • F V ~ V V H 0
F [x]
• In In tm l N .n s P1
Ln H N C
O N W F . F N W F H N H H P1 •
to Cr In H N CO W O H CO 0
F F V 03 In N T V F T V
C)
Pi
•
u1 •P 1 d •d 1 Ti• H
• a+ P• m .o
N 1.0 N CO
0 a
C t
o tr m n o E o r
Z Z H O H
C 0 Z m t \ "
0
tci MCI 0 I N
0
a H 0
z k 7 o Z to m 0 3
H H. H - t9 t O 'd
Po v' r P r 0 t n rt cn
H•rt h7 N
co
O 0 C • W N G C �
H H W C O W W 7 H m
r 0 Y- H H P.
H rt w w n H o
'd K1 > m p K
o o r a ro
H H •• 0 to
H H N H N
co rn 0 • k CD
H H G
I 1 N 0
to a rt 0
. 11 >
G r
o cn
rt
r•
0
01 ul Pt
Lo w H z t�]
o • H
01 01 k
01 lii r
N O N U V ' P1 •
u1 In f
i t
✓ - H H H
0 H > H
4
r r H z H cn
m o w H H 2
> H
2
Z
• 0 Ha r
> H
0
. z
In 01 H z H y,
N 0 N N N C
to > 01 H
a+ - H 2 H 0
N • H \ H 0
01 0'1 • trf
Lo 10 H tt
O •
n 01 V �y
0
t1
( A •
PROJECT PROFILE
1984 L -1 /L -2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: Lyle D. Reeder
2. Project Name: The Lodge at Aspen
3. Location: 771 Ute Avenue - Corner of Ute and Original at Aspen Mountain
Road
4. Parcel Size: 15,386 sq. ft.
5. Current Zoning: L - .
6. Maximum Allowable Build -out: 15,386 (1:1)
7. Existing Structures: A single family house (one story, 3 bedroom,
1 bath) occupied by the applicant.
8. Development Program: 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. Proposed
buildout is 15,380 sq.ft. or virtually 1:1. Internal FAR breakdown is as follows:
tourist units = 9936 sq. ft. or 0.65:1
employee units = 1296 sq. ft. or 0.08
non -unit space - 4148 sq. ft. or 0.27:1
9. Additional Review Requirements: Condominiumization, GMP exception
for employee units
10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be granted an allocation, he would
relinquish the 31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net
additional units requested by this project is 15 lodge rooms.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition
PROJECT:
The Lodge at Aspen Date: 11/22/83
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area
or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project
only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given
area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood
Comments:
deficiency but applicant only commits to sharingthe cost of the improvement.
Therefore, applicant is only paying to improve the quality of service to his
own project.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop-
ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed lodge.
Comments:
No upgrade is proposed nor requested.
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes
to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development
requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment
by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and
to maintain the system over the long -term.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
2
POINTS:
Comments: Applicant proposes drywells of sufficient size to retain site and roof
water runoff. Applicant commits to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen
Mountain Road adjacent to his property at his own expense. Engineering
rates proposed as excellent.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro-
vide fire protection according to its established response standards with-
out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of
major equipment to an existing statior, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit-
ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants
and water storage tanks.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 1
2
POINTS:
Comments: Project can be served by the fire protection district. Applicant proposes
to locate a new hydrant at his own expense near the Northwest corner of
the project. Fire chief would prefer hydrant on Northeast corner.
e, ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially
altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over-
loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased
usage attributable to the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 1
Comments: Engineering department finds roads in the area to have adequate capacity,
although constrained by winter skier parking and "dead end" nature of this
corner. Project will not substantially impact existing roads. Applicant
proposes to blacktop Aspen Mountain Road at his own expense, an improvement
which is largely cosmetic, not service oriented.
CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 7
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of
its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing heighborhood developments.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
3
POINTS:
Comments Building is generally compatible with surrounding developments, although
the design is very standard. The peak of the roof is about 35 or 36 feet
above grade, whereas the code limits the height to 28 feet plus 5 additional
feet for the angled roof, for a maximum allowable height of 33 feet.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or
the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the
extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian
amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development
and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
COMMENTS: Site design includes benches and bicycle racks near Ute Avenue; sidewalk
along Ute Avenue underground utilities, adequate peripheral landscaping, a
building footprint of only 36% and heated sidewalks and driveways for snow
control. The engineer feels that 2 curb cuts on Ute Avenue are excessive
as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on Aspen Mountain
Road; this situation is magnified by the existing driveway for the Aspen Alps
along the property on Ute Avenue. The density of this proiect is approximately
130 units per acre.
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de-
vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con-
servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 1
POINTS: 3
Comments: Insulation is proposed at 20% above. code. Solar collectorson the roof
will be utilized in the domestic hot water system.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the
internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition
thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and
loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 6
Comments: Parking is provided underground on the basis of one space per lodge and
employee bedroom. Parking is also shown for three limousines. The turning
radius for cars entering the parking area may not be adequate. Detailed
information on trash access was not provided. The three curb units for
cars are excessive, as noted above.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings
or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 6
The building is set back from Ute Avenue by approximately 85 feet and from
Comments:
Aspen Mountain Road by approximately 30 feet. The height of the building
as shown is approximately 2 -3 feet above that allowed by code and must be
reduced, but the overall design does not affect public views due to the
already existant Aspen Alps Building.
•
CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 21
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and
spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting
areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of
the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
POINTS: 3
Comments: The only common meeting areas in the lodge are the lounge /lobby which are
640 and 48 0 sq. ft. respectively or about 7% of the entire internal floor
area. The total internal floor area in the lodge devoted to "non- unit" space
is 27% just above minimum 25% requirement.
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities,
including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 4
Comments: The restaurant willprovide food service for guests only in the lounge
(winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an Apre' Ski Bar, also in
the lounge.
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re-
creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 2
POINTS: 2
Comments: A hot tub, male and female saunas, and an exercise room are provided below
grade in the garden level parking area. No outdoor recreational
amenities are provided on site. Health facilities amount to about 850
sq. ft. and do not count against FAR.
CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: g
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project
who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro-
ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING: 11
MULTIPLIER: 1
11
POINTS:
Comments: Applicant proposes to house 12 employees on site, while lodge is projected
to require 15 employees. The off -site housing proposal contains no
specifics and therefore cannot be evaluated. Applicant's total housing
proposal = 80% (note: the employee unit in the parking garage may not meet
minimum building code habitationrequirements.)
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points).
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only
incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but
has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding
ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4,
prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record.
RATING: 0
MULTIPLIER: 1
0
POINTS:
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 (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories
1,2,3 and 4: 48 (Minimum of 51 points required)
Bonus Points (Maximum of 5 points allowed)
TOTAL POINTS: - 48
Name• of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney \. 4., -a
/City Engineer
v Water Department
'/Aspen Metro Sanitation District Cam"
/Housing Office
'Building Department
Parks Department *
City Manager *
Transportation Department *
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submission - L -1 /L -2 Zone
DATE: October 6, 1983
Attached are this year's applications competing in the City for
the 1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L -1 and L -2 zones.
One application is submitted by American Century Corporation,
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas and Mr. Alan
Novak. The applicant proposes to demolish the Continental,
Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce and replace them with a 480 unit hotel.
The other application received was submitted by Lyle D. Reeder.
The applicant requests a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee
units. The project is the Lodge at Aspen which is located at
the corner of Ute and Original Streets.
Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments
to the Planning Office by November 4, 1983, in order that we may
adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and
Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983.
Thank you.
* These referral departments are receiving the application submitted
by American Century Corporation only.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Housing Office
Building Department
Parks Department *
City Manager*
Transportation Department *
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submission - L -1 /L -2 Zone
DATE: October 6, 1983
Attached are this year's applications competing in the City for
the 1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L -1 and L -2 zones.
One application is submitted by American Century Corporation,
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas and Mr. Alan
Novak. The applicant proposes to demolish the Continental,
Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce and replace them with a 480 unit hotel.
The other application received was submitted by Lyle D. Reeder.
The applicant requests a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee
units. The project is the Lodge at Aspen which is located at
the corner of Ute and Original Streets.
Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments
to the Planning Office by November 4, 1983, in order that we may
adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and
Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983.
Thank you.
* These referral departments are receiving the application submitted
by American Century Corporation only.
riiE bov F _ p r /"Set. CAS-- iiC SEK'-fh ny rivet ( It g i/Le c,-
A sing', 10.i. -rn /' A o GAA" r3e S e"er, /...y the r . , t tic
( tirr '.,grt3 0 /')o'. -. rl RP_ 1- zcr-eA Ov G. ,r,'4 rnerft_ emac r•-es l•■
0 V*S /
To: Planning _
Re: The Lodge at 771 Ute Ave.
From: Jinx Caparrella (Fire Dept.)
IC
Date: Nov. 15, 1983
There are two existing fire hydrants in the near location
of the building site. With a new 6" proposed water main,
it would be nice to have a. new hydrant installed at the
intersection of S. Spring and Ute Ave. on the northeast
Conner.
Access to the back (south) side of the building seems to
be of minimal, altough no worse than the usual we encounter.
•
To: Planning _
Re: The Lodge at 771 Ute Ave.
From: Jinx Capa.rrella (Fire Dept.)
Date: Nov. 15, 1983 •
There are two existing fire hydrants in the near location
of the building site. With a new 6" proposed water main,
it would be nice to have a new hydrant installed at the
intersection of S. Spring and Ute Ave. on the northeast
Conner.
Access to the back (south) side of the building seems to
be of minimal, altough no worse than the usual we encounter.
ASPENOPITKIN REGIONAL BUILDINtS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning' /� AD
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning "'
DATE: November 11, 1983
RE: The Lodge at Aspen - GMP
In reviewing the above application I have the following comments:
1) L -1 height limit is 28 feet. Scaling this project, it appears
to exceed that limit by 2 feet.
2) There is a lodge room located on the garden (parking and fitness)
level; we need detail to determine if this room will meet U.B.C.
requirements for natural light and ventilation and egress. (Page 34)
3) Ord. #23(series of 1982) Employee Housing Guidelines states
that studio units should be between 300 and 600 square feet.
These units are 216 square feet and, therefore, below the minimum.
4) The application does not appear to indicate handicap access. This
is a current issue and should be looked into considering this would
be new construction.
5) Location of trash facilities is not clear and needs to be addressed.
6) If we consider this site to be a corner lot bordered on two sides
by intersecting streets, the Ute Avenue setback would be 6 2/3.
Section 24- 3.7(3)
cc: Jim Wilson, Building Official
Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
BD /ar
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: November 10, 1983
RE: City of Aspen Lodge GMP Scoring
Attached are copies of suggested scoring for engineering
related Growth Management Plan concerns for the 1984
Lodge quota. The two projects scored were Lyle Reeder's
The Lodge at Aspen and the proposed redevelopment of
the Cantrup properties, Aspen Mountain.
Both application are generally excellent, providing
amenities for public use and accommodating neighborhood
needs for storm drainage and street improvements. The
major differences in the applications are more a matter
of degree than quality.
Let me know if I may clarify any of the recommended scores
or participate in further scoring discussion.
JH /co
Enclosure
Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980
Project Name t-1(„ , L ry2 O 4 pC ^^
Address ()4e j. nt ( 7 71 ()4 A.JQ.. \\
Owner {_,A J , Q A s , `
Attorney /gent /Representative (`,(p -t79kh
Address �dk yS59 i
Reviewed by 4— Date ((h - Z (`-S:S
I. Residential Application (section 24 -10.4) /L
A. Public Facilities & Services
O - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
Z * Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade C rad I e at public expense. e ( I I /
r°'
��G AeQ, , OLgAQn 1 I 1.'e.)�e. (Ye h.L4%� '(O }K-0 -eQld [ci <�
�1 V I, �Ql l i
,�-I�ICQ�tcm Ja e��I� �'�a�II It
('CA0f/� 0.nQ�l.
* Sewer (3 pts.) U
Capacity without system upgrade.
Storm Drainage Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff.
2)e a d0... �0f -5 d� � ati,
p ck y -.-•-w4 r 0. f G � r ck %i re k Cell •
3 Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street parki visual, paving, safety, and convenience.
ipo,) �d. .^-0. icese. So nee Sa S ° r w o. cQ.p
-r�,,e Y TPc��� ; cad -c- Ec o ts.6. Coe._ , Kita Sszy.,v; 02
Roads (3 pts.)
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance. Co-.,
Z i) ( e 4 a Pro oo i C 4L , e Aa 04- •
Page 2
Growth Management R, Lew Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
O - Requires new service at public expense
1 - Existing service adequate
2 - Project improves quality of service
Public Transportation (2 pts.)
2 - On existing route.
1 - Within 520 feet of route.
0 - Not near service area.
Bike Paths Linked to Trail Sy- em (2 pts.)
Design Features for Han..capped (2 pts.)
II. Commercial and Office '- velopment Application (section 24 -10.5)
A. Quality of Desig
0 - Totally d: icient
1 - Major fl•
2 - Accepta.le
3 - Excel -nt
Site De-ign (3 pts.)
Qualit, and character of landscaping, extend of under -
grou .ing of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy
of rculation.
Amenities (3 pts.)
Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Trash and utility access areas (3 pts.)
III.Lodge Development Application (section 24 -10.6)
A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential)
. P age 3 Lori e @ Ay
Growth Management Re -.Iew Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
0 - Requires new service at public expense.
1 - Existing service adequate.
2 - Project improves quality of service.
I Public Transportation (6 pts.)
6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift.
—,4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift.
2 - Within 520 feet of bus route or lift.
Me' r b 42. +-(j( L ;4C
C. Quality of Design
Z. Site Desig (3 pts.) / f I Q
hoed- oace.�.a �? Runic& a4 P Toro -cLo I ev-�b C0rs s ea vu� eke
c , N
I
7 Amenities (3 pts. / / / /
s ; a /as . L & S,fQ n7 ?
of . ili..b,
Z, Visual Im act (3 pts.)
Sale and, /lo lo as it affects public views ws of scenic areas.
tvv 1 �r r7 0 fbr't Gm I SQ +1 -t� `t6 `aG- J`F-V or 6-6 m h
hi >,14
i8
3 Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.)
Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service
(1 pt.).
Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.).
tr
Proh bit'on of employee parking on site (1 pt.).
e e Aa-icn1gJ Lsime et-c__
IV. Zoning (All applications)
Zone
NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement
Required Actual
Lot Area
Lot Area /Unit
Lot Width
Front Setback
Side Setbacks
Rear Setback
Growth Management Review Checklist
•
City of Aspen Engineering Department
•
Revised January 31, 1980
Project Name AreAA MC v' i:4
Address r I
Owner Na r o.- k
Attorney /Agent /Representative c Q 04f, ',_\4 T , ,,„,„
Address (on% li tiy
Reviewed by Date JO - - Rt
I. Residential Application (section 24 -10.4) / Loam
A. Public Facilities & Services
O - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
3 *Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at public expense. r / /
*rat SyS(�... _ Lei o..ppGcav,C w r t e e.n.0. inn,. w1oc
(A
*rat
ln �e� l oi. '1 C.
* Sewer (3 pts.)
Capacity without system upgrade.
.3 Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff.
�pp Ccf o Ae ,w Z erk a4 // 61 ' ,1 Q cS unk_ 4 ta / -4 y k4 - to :n , v
e, Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience.
310 / � / +--�- SPA , yto U,,; �c f( L
DrosK F y Ot bey .,k a„� e,vr�ce c rv IM: 1 J c
II Roads (3 pts.) I � �- ri a j wi, ( Trg aF � - maxi .
.S ) I
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance. /
J o��rrv�2� •' r 650. 11 rn1ot e.ts n0rrr¢JW.. 4L revue 'MUel`o4
QA P CC re,�cc crew.,,,Ic_,! _ ;�. _ „da/ t flit_
Page 3 4 { \4 -Jui v,
+ Growth Management R4 iew Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
0 - Requires new service at public expense.
1 - Existing service adequate.
2 - Project improves quality of service.
( Public Transportation (6 pts.)
6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift.
4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift.
2 - Within 520 feet of bus route or lift.
-7ucy Pon /�. ;R /5„ Y S 'U �: �l /■i
C. Quality of Design
t Site Design (3 pts.) III / I
&md cfac.� �� ( v+; +i u . � � ensy ro , e kc�e,(l .l- C `rcvia.�F;o,��
Co-IA . sk L.-3Jrt_ wtt (( M I P e.a. o-v
Amenities (3 pts.) I /
`Th.■(S 10V*tkeb S;do
. Visual Impact (3 pts.)
//
Sale p. a le an location $s l it affects public views of scenic areas.
l`J,,„„ Sao 0., AA:(1 1 S`r•. j �or��. b reO..kS 4o-4.00,r11 4o-4.00,r11 vQ Jf e1J Tv -�
w� a.. -&L4 � 0 ,(0 - 0-7 IAA (( col A(.0-1 l I
C Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.)
Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service
(1 pt.).
Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.).
Prophib o employee parking on site (1 pt.).
IV. Zoning (All applications)
Zone
NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement
Required Actual
Lot Area
Lot Area /Unit
•
Lot Width
Front Setback
Side Setbacks
Rear Setback
Aspen /Pitk . Office
sa
ti` Uzi
130 s u pga` i lenstreet
aspen, ol :b 81611
November 9, 1983
Mr. Lyle D. Reeder
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Lyle,
Sunny asked that I respond to your letter dated October 5, 1983,
regarding the 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition. Given my fami-
liarity with the Lodge at Aspen due to my review of the prior appli-
cation on the site, I will be the person responsible for analyzing
the current submission. Following are my comments on the five questions
you pose in the letter.
1. Section 24- 8.5(h) of the Municipal Code provides that "An
application may be made for PUD approval for development of
lands within any zone district within the City of Aspen .
However, as you noted, Section 24- 8.5(b) states that "The
planned unit development must constitute an area of at
least twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet unless the
land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit develop-
ment on the zoning district map or is otherwise required by
the zoning code to be developed according to the provisions
of this Article." Therefore, it is true that the Aspen
Mountain Lodge applicant may request to be reviewed as a
PUD, while the Lodge at Aspen applicant may not. However,
you should note that the applicant has only requested
consideration as a PUD and must now demonstrate compliance
with same. You should be aware that in order to show such
compliance, the required reviews for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge will be much more lengthy than those imposed upon
your project, giving you a possible advantage in completing
your project in a timely manner.
2. The Planning Office will review each application with
respect to the specific criteria and requirements of Sec -
tion 24 -11.6 of the Code, Lodge Development Application
Procedures. We will not compare the proposed height of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge building to those of the Lodge at
Aspen. Instead, we will evaluate how well each site accom-
modates the specific development proposed for it. Further-
more, with respect to the height variance, Section 24-
8.5(i) of the Code states that "The burden shall rest upon
Lyle D. Reeder
November 9, 1983
Page Two
an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application
and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of this
article, the lack of adverse effects of the proposed develop-
ment and the compliance with the intents and purposes of
planned unit development."
3. Article VIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Planned
Unit Development, does not refer to the review of on -site
versus off -site employee housing for lodges. However,
Section 24- 11.6(b)(4) does specifically provide for housing
the employees of a lodge on or off -site. The appropriate
FAR for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be determined by PUD
procedures.
4. The land to which you refer, zoned R- 15(PUD)(L), is not
part of the lodge development application. This land is
proposed for residential development and will be the subject
of a separate application for a residential allocation.
The data concerning this land has been provided for informa-
tion only and does not relate to the lodge application.
5. The lots owned by the City are also included in the area
for which a residential development application may be
submitted. However, for your information, the following
statement has been excerpted from the City Council minutes
of September 26, 1983, as an interpretation regarding City
owned property with respect to GMP /PUD applications.
"Regarding GMP /PUD applications, which would include City -
owned property as part of that application, the City Council
declines to be a joint applicant in this process, nor does
it wish to discuss with the applicant any disposition of
the City -owned land prior to application, in order to
maintain impartiality in all subsequent reviews. However,
with the goal of encouraging all opportunities for discussion
of the community good in a public forum, the Council will
deem the non - ownership of City land not to be sufficient
grounds for disqualifying the application from further
public review through the appropriate process. The Council
reserves all rights not to sell, transfer, or otherwise
dispose of such City -owned land which is the subject of the
application.
The Planning Department and the P &Z are instructed to score
such GMP /PUD applications in two ways -- with and without
the City -owned land. Should the City subsequently not
agree to sell or transfer such City -owned land the score
will be what it would be without the City -owned land."
Lyle D. Reeder
November 9, 1983
Page Three
Lyle, I hope my responses are of assistance to you in preparing your
presentation for the meeting on November 22. Please let me know if I
can be of further assistance to you in this regard.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Assistant Planning Director
AR:jlw
cc: Sunny Vann
Paul Taddune
CITY' ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, coiorado 81611
303-925 =2020
WATER DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: SUNNY VAN, PLANNING
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1983
RE: THE LODGE AT ASPEN - LYLE REEDER
As stated under aa. Water - Applicant's Comments, page 16, we would support
the applicant's request for water service should the recommendations made by
us come about. However, this should not be construed that the Water Depart-
ment would or could share in any costs, as all City funded water improve-
ment expenditures must be approved by the City Council. This would also in-
clude any projects which we might participate in. If the applicant is willing
to provide the referenced improvements at his own expense without any concrete
assurances that the City would participate, we would certainly endorse the
application as an improvement to the local distribution system.
JM:if
\
O CT 18 *3
M E M O R P N D U M
TO: Asren/Pifkin County Housing Aufhorify
FROM: Gail Schwarf" Assis4anf Direcfor
DATE Ocfober 28. 1983
RE; The Lodge at Aspen. Developed by Lyle D. Reeder
GMP Submission. Zone L -1'L
The Lodge of Aspen is a proposal for a new hotel on a Parcel
zoned Lodge 1 of fhe base of fhe Aspen Ales Road on Life Avenue.
The ProJecf in 1982 received a GNP allofinenf for 31 hotel rooms
and four employee units. Due 4o a lausuif by the Aspen Inn
(fhe other GMP applicant? fhe Hotel Lenado is reauesfing fhaf
fhey surrender fhe 1982 allocation and reauesf 46 ho4el rooms
and 6 employee units in the 1983 GMP submission.
The employment Projection for fhe project is for 15 employees.
According fo our esfimafes of 13 employees per 100 beds: this
exceeds fhe minimum sfandard for employee generation. They
have represented fhaf 12 of the employees will be housed on
site in six rooms of 216 sa.ff. each. Three employees will
be housed off -life in either unifs oun ed by fhe project or under
long -ferm lease.
Therefore fhe project should be approved for P & Z review condi-
tioned upon a technical clarification by fhe applicant. This
clarification should provide a demonsfrafion of either ovnershir
or long -term lease of fhe off -site units being proposed by fhe
developer. Should a pre - existing unit be deed res4ricfed, if
should be noted fhaf fhe Project is creating a benefit for fhe
communify by no4 producing any additional units fo support fhe
Project. The number of bedrooms and the renf for 4hese units
should be idenfified and consistent with the income dis4ribufion
of fhe employees proposed for fhe project.
Additional conditions shall include 1) fhe definition of rents
and fhe deed res.fricfion according fo income level and employment
be Placed upon fhe off -site units; 2) a deed restriction must
also be developed for (hose 6 unifs 4o he used on -site. (Jiff)
rent and income definition.
ASPENOPITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office
FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 7.
Environmental Health Department
DATE: October 22, 1983
RE: 1983 GMP - Lyle Reeder's The Lodge at Aspen
The above - referenced submittal has been reviewed by this office
for the following environmental concerns.
SITE DRAINAGE:
All drainage from paved areas, roof drains and disturbed soil
areas shall be retained on site. This may be accomplished by
the use of dry wells, non - discharging holding ponds or discharge
across vegetated areas.
Discharge of this type of effluent into the City storm sewer
system and ultimately into the Roaring Fork River shall be
minimized.
AIR POLLUTION:
It is apparent that this project will be in compliance with
Section 11 -2.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Solid Fuel
Burning Devices." The submittal states on Page 43 that the
complex will only have one fireplace in the lounge area.
Any food cooking devices shall comply with Section 11 -2.4 of
the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Restaurant Grills."
Demolition of any existing structures on the site may necessitate
dust control measures (fugitive dust) being implemented. The
use of sprinklers or hoses to apply water at the work site
during demolition is an approved control method.
NOISE ABATEMENT:
No adverse noise impacts are anticipated as the result of this
projects approval. Short term construction noise will be
regulated by the Aspen Noise Abatement Ordinance (Industrial
Zone levels).
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado B1611 303/925 -2020
Page Two
October 22, 1983
1983 GMP - Lyle Reeder's The Lodge at Aspen
WATER SUPPLY:
Service of this project by the Aspen Water Department distribution
system is in compliance with policies of this office.
SEWER SYSTEM:
Service of this project by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District
collection system is in compliance with policies of this office.
FOOD SERVICE:
It is uncertain at this time as to the regulatory capacity of
this office concerning the proposed dining facilities. However,
as the plan is finalized a clear decision will be made.
In the meantime, it will be recommended that the food preparation
and lounge area be constructed in conformance with the Rules
and Regulations Governing Food Service Establishments in the
State of Colorado.
A copy of the referenced regulation can be picked up by the
applicant at this office.
SWIMMING POOL AND SPA:
This project shall comply with the Swimming Pool Regulations
and Standards of Colorado.
TSD /co
--+ Win
P. O. Box 4859
Aspen, Co. 81612
925 -5360
October 5, 1983
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Attn; Mr. Sunny Vann, Director
Re; 1984 Lodge (1 -1, L -2) G. M. P. Competition applications
Dear Mr. Vann;
In reviewing the competiting applicants' presentation in
preparation for the P & Z hearing scheduled for November 22,
1983 I would appreciate your assistance with the following
questions which I am having difficulty in interrupting;
I note that on page 58 of the ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE applicat-
ion "Because we are preceeding under the Planned Unit Develop-
ment regulations, variations in the height limit established
for the Zone District are permitted and can be approved by the
City..." and later "...Generally speaking, around the Lodge
perimeter, maximum heights from natural grade will vary from
30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the visual impact upon pedest-
rians, within the interior of the Lodge footprint, setback
from the street facade, heights in some locations of 40 to
55 feet are proposed..." a
I find in the Aspen Zoning Code at page 1490; Section 24 -8.5
General Requirements under paragraph (b) "The planned unit
development must constitute an area of at least twenty -seven
thousand (27,000.) square feet unless the land is in an area
designated mandatory planned unit development on the Zoning
district map or is otherwise required by the Zoning Code to be
developed according to the provisions of this article."
Also, Section 24 -8.3 Variations from Zoning Code requirements.
"To facilitate the objectives of planned unit development
there may be permitted variations from the provisions of this
Chapter 24 as hereinafter specified:
(a) Variations may be permitted in the following zoning
code requirements: Open space, minimum distance between build-
ings, maximum height (including view planes), minimum front
yard, minimum rear yard ", minimum side yard, minimum lot width,
minimum lot area, trash access area, external and internal
floor area ratios, and number of off - street parking spaces.
(b) Variation shall not be permitted in allowable uses nor
from the requirements of specially planned area and historic
designation, or from use square foot limitations and sign
regulations of this code.
Planning Office - City of Aspen Page 2. October 5, 1983
/ Under the AREA AND HULK REQUIREMENTS on page 1451 of the
Aspen Code it is indicated that for L -1, L -2 Zones the Maxi-
// mum height is 28 feet, External Floor area ratio is 1:1, and
Internal Floor Area ratio is "Lodge - Rental space .5:1 — .75:1*
Nonunit space .25:1 with *33 1/3 percent of all rental space
above the FAR of .5:1 must be devoted to employee housing."
Question 1; Can the Aspen Mountain Lodge application compete
under the Planned Unit Development regulations while The Lodge
At Aspen cannot because The Lodge At Aspen's site of 15,386
square feet is less than the 27,000 square feet minimum? There
is no PUD designation for The Lodge At Aspen's site.
Question 2; If the answer to the above question is yes, how
will the Planning Office reconcil to an equitable basis the
heights proposed of upto 55 feet for the &spell Mountain Lodge
while The Lodge At Aspen's height is limited to 28 feet by the
Zoning Code?
In the Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 63 and 64:
. No employee housing has been provided on -site to the
hotel because it is felt off -site housing is both more desire -
able and manageable from the employees' viewpoint and from the
hotel's operations view..."
Question 3; Apparently the above is possible under an approved
PUD Plan. Will the Planning Office allow the PUD applicant
to compete with no on -site employee housing and require The
Lodge At Aspen to devote 33 1/3 percent of all rental space
above the FAR of .5:1 to employee housing ?`
On the subject of rezoning as proposed by the other applicant
on page 14 which reads; "R- 15(PUD) (L) and L -2 L -2 zoning is
requested for the lots owned by the City (11,000 square feet
of land area) which are involved in the land trades proposal
and which are presently zoned Public..." and on Page 74, I
note that 11,000 square feet is included in the calculations
of the Total Floor Area.
Question 4; Doesn't the LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO G.M.P.
competition allow only existing LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO
properties to compete?
Question 5; Is the City of Aspen a co- applicant to the Aspen
Mountain Lodge application, since they apparently own the
11,000 square feet which is included in the application's
total floor Area?
C II 7 lir
Planning (rice - City of Aspen 3e 3. October 5 1983
It appears to me that one applicant in the competition
/ may have available and is using the Plajned Unit Develop-
ment procedures which allow a freedom in variations from
normal zoning codes that is not available to the other
applicant.
rt
Your comments, answers and thoughts on the above questions
and my comments would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
- - 4 - 0\ P 0 — - e - L - 12
Lyle D. Reeder
ldr sed
t
1
COP
t .......
P. O. Box 4859
Aspen, Co. 81612
September 7, 1983
925 -5360
Mr. Allan Richman
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re; Parking Requirements for L -1, L -2 Zones.
Dear Mr. Richman;
In the Aspen Zoning Code for AREA & BULK REQUIREMENTS
there is shown as parking requirements; "1 /Bedroom ".
I intrept this to mean that one off - street parking
space is required per Lodge room. I find no provision
for this requirement to be modified by special review
or other procedures. I assume that no provision exists.
Please correct me if the above or the following is not
correct: "Applications for the 1984 Lodge G. M. P.
Competition are required to provide one off- street auto
parking space for each room requested in their application ".
Yours truly,
Lyle D. Reeder
ldr se
;fie r
1 �
L '
rSr 01T6< CU.
p IING OFFICE
1
CIT Pis r'r : SPF,N
130 A reet
asp. . —• 611
!; a+
MEMORANDUM `..
DATE: August 5, 1983��
TO: Alan Richman
FROM: Gary EsaryO
RE: Wolftone GMP Submission
Alan, you've asked me for an opinion on the status of ownership in
Wolftone Corporation to the subject parcels in the Forest Service
land exchange in connection with the contemplated Wolftone GMP
submission.
I've reviewed the documents submitted, including the Statement of
Intent dated July 26, 1982, the Hull finding letter of May 2,
1983, the Woodrow letter of June 29, 1983, the Reeder submission
of June 30, 1983, the Bschor letter of July 5, 1983, and the vari-
ous attachments to these documents.
While it is true that Mr. Reeder has done all that he can do to
effect the land exchange to this point and all indications are
that the exchange will go through as proposed, Mr. Reeder somewhat
overstates the case in his letter of June 30 when he says that the
Statement of Intent is equivalent to a private sector Real Estate
Exchange agreement. Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Intent
clearly indicates that the federal process contains an exchange
agreement (not yet executed) and states that until such a public
sector exchange agreement is executed, either party may withdraw
from the exchange process.
Therefore, it is my opinion that at this point in time, Wolftone
does not have a legally enforceable right to possession of the
land, even if it performs all of its obligations pursuant to the
presently- executed documents.
It appears to me that Wolftone does not even have the status of an
option - holder. He has the status of an offeror with an apparently
willing offeree.
Next, we look to the possible joinder of the Forest Service in the
applications. The Bschor letter indicates that the Forest Service
Memorandum to Alan Richman
August 5, 1983
Page Two
does "not object" to the filing of any applications. This action
is distinguishable from a joinder, as clearly explained by the
disclaimer in the next sentence of the Bschor letter, which echoes
that disclaimer in Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Intent. The
Hull finding letter of May 3, 1983, also contains conditions that,
if unfulfilled, may stop the exchange.
Wolftone's ownership status does not necessarily disquality it
from making a GMP application. That decision is ultimately admin-
istrative. Given the nature of GMP submissions, it probably would
be practically burdensome to require every applicant to have fee
simple title. Many real estate deals are put together under
options or conditionsl sales contracts. On the other hand, to
allow mere offerors to go through the process might be unfair to
other competitors or an impermissible waste of Planning Office or
P &2 time.
In addition, this might be precedent- setting. The rejection of
the Cantrup 1983 residential GMP submission is illustrative, but
not controlling. Although the Cantrup situation had different
issues (a previously expired GMP allotment and the identity of the
applicant), our acceptance of the GMP application by a mere
offeror might weaken our future ability to reject an application.
To sum up: (1) Wolftone's ownership position is weak, despite the
fact that it has done all that he could do under the long and cum-
bersome federal process; (2) there is nothing strictly legally
wrong with permitting him to apply despite the weak ownership
status; (3) the decision is essentially administrative, recogniz-
ing that the review will be wasted if either party backs out
(which they can do without penalty in this case), that competing
applicants might complain, and that accepting this GMP submission
might be precedent- setting.
If we accept the application for review, we will have to condition
the acceptance of proof of ownership at some point in the pro-
cess.
In any eventual land -use review, there are at least three issues
suggested by these documents that should be looked at closely.
The first is the status of the 25 -foot unpaved street encroachment
on Summit Street (the City should have a dedication for Summit
Street). The second is the federal condition that Wolftone make
satisfactory settlement with certain other users of National
Forest Land. Who are these other users, what are their objections
Memorandum to Alan Richman
August 5, 1983
Page Three
and what is the settlement? The third is the location of the
Shadow Mountain and Ute Avenue parcel and their relation to the
City trails plan, etc.
GSE /mc
f United States Forest White River P.O. Box 948
Department of Service National Forest Glenwood Springs, CO
Agriculture
81607
Reply to- 5430
D a t e June 29, 1983
r
Mr. Allan Richmond
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
L
Dear Mr. Richmond:
Mr. Lyle Reeder (Wolftone Corporation) asked us to write you on the progress
of his land exchange with the United States Forest Service and the remaining
steps for completion.
The Decision Notice approving the exchange was signed on May 2, 1983 by
Mr. Richard D. Hull, Director of Lands, for the Chief of the U.S. Forest
Service (copy enclosed). The appeal period is over and we are proceding
with the exchange.
The next steps to complete this exchange are:
1. A land appraisal is completed to determine if Wolftone's offered property
is equal in value to the selected National Forest as required by our regulations.
In the event they are not equal, either party may equalize the values by cash
payment. This cash payment may not exceed twenty -five percent of the value of
the National Forest.
2. Wolftone gives a warranty deed to the United States of America for the
offered private land. We record this in the courthouse and a title insurance
policy is issued showing the United States does in fact own the offered private
land.
3. The Bureau of Land Management is authorized to give the proponent the
patent (deed) to the selected National Forest. This step may take three to
six months.
In the private sector, steps two and three usually take place at the same time,
but our regulations require us to actually take ownership of the offered private
land before we can proceed to give ownership of the selected National Forest to
Mr. Reeder.
Sincerely,
27e
RICHARD E. W 00
%► Forest Supervisor
CCJ:MY1_11 10_0111
r e
•
FINDI!:C OF NO SICi I: IC & r IMPACT
AND
DECISION e;JI'ICE
Environmental Assessment Report
Wolftone Corp. Exchange 4C -36299
White River National Forest
Forest Service, USDA
An environmental assess_ent report that discusses the proposed exchange
of 1.44 acres of kthite River National Forest land for 137.65 acres or lanai
owned by Nolftone on the 'rite River National Forest is available for public
review in the Forest Supervisor's office in Gleraoou Springs, Colorado.
It is my decision to proceed with Alternative D of the environmental
assessment which is to make the land exchange set forth in the Statement of
Intent dated July 26, 1982, with anercients. The cumulative environmental
benefits of this alternative appear to significantly exceed the benefits
associated with the otter alternatives. The excnanye will not result in a
decrease in public values or the ability to meet National Forest System
management objectives, and the exchange is in the public interest. Other
alternatives considered in detail were the no action Alternative (A),
purchase the nonfederal land Alternative (I3), and a larger exchange
Alternative (C).
The environmental assessment report indicates that there will be no
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 'Therefore,
an envirorme.ntal inpact statement will not be prepared. This determination
sas mode in consideration of the followire factors. The ptcposea action is,
by nature, a camon and long established method for consoliaating National
Forest ownership. The effects of this particular land exchange are local
in context and can be predicted with reasonable certainty. Irretrievable
losses of National Forest land are minor in couparison to the benefits to
the derived from the prevention of irretrievable losses of wildlife and fish
habitat and from savings in administrative costs. No unique resources or
land characteristics including, prime farmlands, flood plains, wetlands, or
threatened and endangered species will be affected. The proposed action
has been sanctioned by local governmental agencies and opposition by a few
individuals were eliminated by dropping scene Federal tracts.
Completion of the exchange is contingent on the following actions:
1. Appraisals must be completed on the tracts. They must demonstrate
that land values are equal or can to equalized pursuant to the Federal Lam
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1716) .
2. The National Forest lands rust be examined for the presence of
cultural resources and the requirements of E.O. 11593 and the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 must be net.
•
Third Amendment to the Land Exchange offer of Wolftone Corporation, dated
July 26, 1982.
We herewith amend our land exchange offer in the following respects:
Exhibit B, the selected land description, should be corrected by
deleting:
Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado
T.105., R.84W.
Section 7: Lot 36.
The description of the selected land as corrected reads as follows:
Exhibit B - Property that the Forest Service will consider exchanging:
Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado
T.10S., R.84W.
Section 18: Lot 41, unpatented
Mineral Survey No. 6012.
T.10S., R.85W.
Section 12: Lot 20
The area described aggregate 1.46 acres more or less.
WOLFTONE CORPORATION
�iLa 41 ..11.
date Ly YD. Reeder
President
m .
s $', United States Forest White River Aspen Ranger District
Department of Service National 806 West Hallam
Agriculture Forest Aspen, CO 81611
6epi to. 5430
Date: July 5, 1983
r
Mr. Allan Richman
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
L
Dear Allan:
The National Forest land involved with the Wolftone land exchange is adminis-
tered by the Aspen Ranger District of the White River National Forest.
I do not object to submittal of development plans or applications for permits
and quotas by Lyle Reeder on the National Forest parcels contained in his
proposed land exchange. It must be understood, however, there is no
obligation by the U.S. Forest Service to the City or Lyle Reeder concerning
those plans or applications.
The Wolftone Corporation land exchange has been and continues to be one of
our highest priority exchanges. Our intent is to complete the exchange as
promptly as possible so long as the remaining exchange procedures are favor-
able per the Forest Supervisor's letter to you dated 6/29/83.
Sincerely,
6 102-714-/ c9a
DENNIS E. BSCHOR
District Ranger
cc: Forest Supervisor, White River N.F.
Lyle Reeder
FS- 6200 -11b 7 /81)
f l i M t .
CarWn,aie
from the White River National Forest
U.S.D.A. Forest Service w -.
Old Federal Building
P.O. Box 948
Glenwood Springs, CO Release Date: July 5, 1983
81602
(303) 945 -2521 Contact: Dennis E. Bschor, Aspen Ranger District, 303 -925 -3445
RANGER DISTRICTS
ASPEN Two National Forest Land Exchanges Near Aspen Progressing Well
896V n._.
Aspen, CO E1611
;303192: -34 <5 Aspen District Ranger, Dennis Bschor, is pleased to announce that two
BLANCO
District Range:
733Ma:nSt land exchanges of importance to the Aspen area appear to be nearing
P.O. Bet 356
Meeker. CO 81641 completion.
(303) 87E -4335
DILLON
Rance
1111 l ' S1 ' The first involves Lyle Reeder's Wolftone Corp. which owns or controls
c
EH' 6E1-3
UGH approximately 137.65 acres as follows:
Gets R2ri c
&ware 1. The Van Horn Park Tract located about 3 miles northeast of the Town
P.G. Box 720
Eagle CD E153: of Aspen (118.28 acres)
i3C3; 338-631E
HOLYCROSO 2. The Favorite Lode Tract located about 13 miles south of the Town of
461 Mast
P.O. Box 0
Mireum, Co 81545 Aspen next to the road to Pearl Pass (9.04 acres)
(303) 827 -5715
RIFLE 3. The Wyoming Lode Tract located about 7 miles south of the Town of
District Ranger
1400 Access Rd Aspen on the Mt. Hayden side of Castle Creek (10.33 acres)
P.O. Box 289
Ritte. CO 81650 Wolftone s to trade os
ro ee the above parcels it owns for the following
13031625 -2371 p P P g
SOPP,IS parcels of National Forest land totalling approximately 1.44 acres:
District Ranger
620 Main
P.O. Box 243 1. Lot 20 located between Shadow Mtn. and the Aspen Ice Garden, 233 W.
Carbondale. CO 81523
(303) 963 -2266 • • Hyman Avenue, South and adjacent to the Town of Aspen (1.19 acres)
MT. SOPRIS
TREENURSERY - 2. Lot 41 located directly behind the Aspen Alps office, in the Town
0448 Valley Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
(303) 963 -2360 - of Aspen. (0.17 acres)
3. USMS 6012 Tract located on Summit Street, halfway between Monarch
•
w gST ev
U4S Street and Mill Street immediately south of the Town of Aspen. (.08
't!Mrxr n xcr acres)
As documented in a Decision Notice signed on May 2, 1983, the Wolftone
Corp. land exchange is in the public interest. Completion of the
exchange is contingent on the following actions:
a. Appraisals by qualified land appraisers must be completed on the
tracts. The appraisals must demonstrate that land values are equal
or can be equalized pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1716).
b. Wolftone must make satisfactory settlement with certain other users
of National Forest land.
c. The BLM must concur with the conveyance of Federal minerals.
The 45 day appeal period for the Wolftone exchange has expired.
The second exchange involves the Nature Conservancy which owns or
controls the following private land parcels in Pitkin County (293.48
Acres):
1. Castle Creek Tract - Four parcels on Castle Creek owned by Ted Ryan
located south of Aspen, CO immediately north of the Historic
Ashcroft Townsite. (171.48 acres)
2. Hunter Creek Tract - approximately 2 miles east of Aspen's City
limit boundary consisting of a steep hillside north of Hunter
Creek, adjacent to property owned by Fritz Benedict. (122.0 acres)
Nature Conservancy proposes to trade the above parcels for a 480 acre
tract of National Forest land contiguous to the City of Woodland Park,
CO, Teller County.
As documented in a Decision Notice signed on June 17, 1983, the Chief of
the Forest Service has decided to proceed with the Nature Conservancy
exchange. Completion of this exchange is contingent upon:
a. Approval of the Hunter Creek tract appraisal.
b. Execution of documents to protect the rights of others.
c. Thirty day oversite review by the House Committee on Agriculture
and the Senate committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
d. Forty -five day appeal period.
Maps, legal descriptions, and environmental assessment documents for the
Wolftone and Nature Conservancy Land exchanges may be reviewed Monday
through Friday at the Aspen Ranger District Office, 806 West Hallam,
Aspen, CO between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the White
River N.F. Supervisor's Office at 900 Grand, Glenwood Springs, CO.
# ##
cc: Board of County Commissioners - Pitkin County
Lyle Reeder
Nature Conservancy
Ted Ryan
City of Aspen - Wayne Chapman
— Aspen Times
- KSNO
- KSPN
Snowmass Sun
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Co. 81612
June 30, 1983
Mr. Allan Richman
City of Aspen - Planning Dept.
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re Proposed GMP Allocation Application involving
U.S. Forest Exchange Parcel No. 41.
Dear Mr. Richman;
Please find attached:
1. STATEMENT OF INTENT- 5430 Exchanges.
This Statement of Intent is the initial document
which started the Forest Service Exchange. In the
private sector the Statement of Intent would be comp-
arable to a Real Estate Exchange agreement.
2. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND DECISION NOTICE
This document was also sent to you by the Forest
Service with their letter of June 29, 1983; however,
their copy did not contain the legal description and
map.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The enclosed information along with the U.S. Forest
Service letters dated June 29, 1983 and June 30, 1983
should aid in making a determination as to the probabil-
ity of the exchange being completed.
I request that you permit me to make a new application
for the October 1, 1983 GMP Allocation combining the
original THE LODGE AT ASPEN site and the U.S. Forest
Service Parcel. The apo1 cat :on would be for an entirely
new design.
Very truly yours,
Lyle D. Reeder
encl.
:.DR /jg
(FSM 5432.8)
'U. S. Department of Agriculture .
Forest Service
5430 Exchanges
Van Horn Park
Lyle Reeder
STATEMENT OF INTENT
Act of 3/20/22, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 485; 5U.S.C. 511)
•
(I), We, Wolftone Corporation
of P. 0. Box 4859, Aspen, CO 81612
herein after called the proponent, and the Forest Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, acting through their authorized representatives intend to exchange
real property of equal value described in attached Exhibits A and B under the
terms and conditions described in the exhibits. It is understood that the
basis for value of the exchange properties shall be appraisals which have been
approved by the Forest Service. This statement of intent authorizes each party
C - to enter on lands of the other for appraisal and survey purposes necessary to
pursue this exchange.
It is understood that upon approval of the exchange values, terms and conditions
by the appropriate Forest Service official, the parties may enter into an
exchange agreement that shall be binding on both parties. It is understood that
prior to the exchange agreement, or issuance of a patent or deed by the United
States if no exchange agreement is executed, no action taken shall create or
•
establish any contractual or other obligations against the proponent or the
United States. Either thb proponent or the Forest Service may withdraw from
the exchange at any time prior to the agreement or conveyance from the United
States.
Pursuant to Section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716), a payment may be required by either party to equalize
exchange values.
The proponent may reserve such rights as are acceptable to the Forest Service.
Any reservations shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the Secretary
of Agriculture, where applicable and such other conditions as may be agreed
upon. The reservations and exceptions of the proponent are listed in Exhibit C
attached.
If this offer is approved and title accepted by the United States, the proponent
agrees to accept in exchange, that National Forest land described in Exhibit B
attached, subject to the reservations and,exceptions shown in Exhibit D attached.
R2- j400 -S
Rev. 10/81)
It will be the proponents
responsibility to furnish a good and sufficient title
to the property free from objectionable encumbrances. The proponent will convey
title by warranty deed when notified to do so. A policy of title insurance
satisfactory to the Office of the General Counsel of the Department of
Agriculture will be prepared at the expense of the proponent.
The United States does not furnish title insurance for the property it conveys.
The proponent will pay for the advertisement of this proposal. The advertisement
will be published weekly for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper enjoying
general circulation in the area of influence concerning this proposed exchange.
No member of Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any
share or part of this proposal or to any benefit that may arise therefrom unless
it is made with a corporation for its general benefit (18 U.S.C. 431, 433).
The undersigned is 21 years old or over and is the owner of the above described
offered land or has a firm contract to acquire it.
Wolftone Corporation
(Date) (Name)
Lyle D. Reeder
President
C (Name)
-2-
EXHIBIT A
Property that Wolftone Corporation will consider exchanging:
Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado
T.9.S., R.84W.
1. Big Chief Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 8.39 Acres
2. Forest City Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 3.3 Acres
3. Van Horn Park Subdivision - Lots A, B, and C
More specifically described as:
a. Lizzie Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6021
b. Wolftone Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6021
c. Ute Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5847
d. Iron Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5847
e. NE Plus Ultra Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5813
f. Red Chief Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5813
g. Silver Edge Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4644
h. American Girl Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167
i. Goldsmith Maid Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167
j. Alice B. Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167
k. Crown Point Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6167
1. Empire Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5800
m. Empire Lode #2 Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5800
n. Malden Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4619
o: Lost Diamond Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6023
The subdivision as described contains 106.59 acres.
T.11S., R.85W.
Wyoming Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4190 - 10.33 acres
T.12S., R.85W.
Favorite Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 7072 - 9.04 acres
•
Offered Land Total - 137.65 acres more or less.
EXHIBIT B
Property that the Forest Service will consider exchanging:
Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado
T.10S., R84W.
Section 7: Lot 34
Section 18: Lots 41, 42, unpatented lode mining claim, Mineral
Survey No. 6012
T.10S., R.85W.
Section 12: Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, Unpatented Lode
mining claims Mineral Surveys 4961, 5792, 7329
The area described aggregate 11.4 acres more or less.
1
EXHIBIT C
Land reservations of the Wolftone Corporation and exceptions to the Title:
1. Reserving unto the grantor, his heirs and assigns the following:
None
2. Title will be granted subject to the following:
a. Right of a proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the top or
apex of which lies outside of the boundary of subject property, to
enter subject property should the same in its dip be found to pene-
trate, intersect, or extend into subject property for the purpose of
extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge;
and reservation of rights of way for ditches or canals constructed
by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States
Patent recorded May 10, 1892 in Book 39 at Page 61. (Wyoming Lode
No. 4190)
b. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the
top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted
premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter-
sect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and
removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby granted
and as reserved in United State Patent recorded July 22, 1892 in
Book 39 at Page 90, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals constructed
by the authority of the United States Government as reserved in
United States Patent recorded July 22, 1892 in Book 39 at Page 90.
(Lizzie and Lodes No. 6021)
c. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, Lode or lodge, the
top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted
premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter-
sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes of extracting
and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby
granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 5,
1895 in Book 136 at Page 25, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals
constructed by authority of the United States as reserved in United
States Patent recorded August 5, 1895 in Book 136 at Page 25. (Ute
and Iron Lodes No. 5847) -
d. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the
top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted
premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter-
sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes or extracting
and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby
granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 5,
1895 in Rood 136 at Page 29, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals
constructed by authority of the United States as reserved in the
United States Patent recorded August 5, 1895 in Book 136 at Page 29.
(NE Plus Ultra and Red Chief Lodes'No. 5813)
w.y
e. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the
top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted
premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter-
sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes of extracting
and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby
granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded March 2,
1896 in Book 136 at Page 73, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals
constructed by the authority of the United States Government as re-
served in United States Patent recorded March 2, 1896 in Book 136
at Page 73. (Silver Edge Lode No. 4644)
f. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the
top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted
premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter-
sect or extend into said premises, for the purposes of extracting
and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby
granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded July 20,
1949 in Book 175 at Page 253, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals
constructed by authority of the United States as reserved in United
States Patent recorded July 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 253.
(American Girl, Goldsmith Maid, Alice B. Lodes No. 6167).
g. The right of the proprietor of any other vein, lode or lodge, the
top or apex of which lies outside the boundary of said granted
premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate or inter-
sect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting
and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or lodge hereby
granted and as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 6,
1969 in Book 242 at Page 580, Right -of -Way for ditches and canals
constructed by the authority of the United States Government as re-
served in United States Patent recorded August 6, 1969 in Book 242
at Page 580. (Lost Diamond Lode No. 6023)
EXHIBIT 0
Land reservations of the United States, exceptions to title and uses to be
recognized:
1. Excepting and reserving to the United States and its assigns the
following:
A right -of -way thereon for ditches and canals constructed
by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30,
1890 (26 Stat. 391).
2. We recognize the existence of the following:
None
First Amendment to the Land Exchange offer of Wolftone Corporation, dated
July 26, 1982.
We herewith amend our land exchange offer in the following respects:
Exhibit B, the selected National Forest land description, should
be corrected by taking out Lot 34 in Section 7, T10S., R.84W. and
adding Lot 36 in the same section.
The description of the selected National Forest land as corrected
reads as follows:
Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado
T.10S., R.84W.
Section 7: Lot 36
Section 18: Lots 41, 42, unpatented lode claim,
Mineral Survey No. 6012
TLOS., R.85W.
Section 12: Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
unpatented lode mining claims
Minerals Surveys Nos. 4961, 5792,
7329
The areas described aggregate 14.21 acres more or less.
Wolftone Corporation
(S 7
Da e Lyl D. Reeder
President
•
FIi)I!:G CF i'i) SIC_ IFI'ciit ' IiiP.P,I:r
DLCISICI ctJIIC
Environirental Ass-ess:'ent Report
Wolftone Corp.Excharre „c: -36299
White River National Forest
Forest Service, USDA
An environmental assesafient.report that disci ses the proposed exchange
of 1.44 acres of White River National Forest larrl for 137.65 acres of 'rand
owned by Wolftone on the White River National Forest is available for public
review in the Forest Supervisor's Office In Gl.-Ii Springs, Colorado.
It is pry decision to proceed with Alternative D of the enviroiTental
assessment which is to make the land exchange set forcn in the Stater.Fent of
Intent dated July 26, 1982, with ni rcndents. The cirnulati.ve environmental_
benefits of this alternative appear to E1c :n1:icantly exceed the benefits
a's;rxiete:i with the other alternatives. `aid excnange will not result in a
decrease in public values or tfle ability to meet Naticrm1 Forest System
rara:gerrent objectives, and the exchange is in the public interest. Other
alternatives considered in detail were the no action Alternative (A),
purchase the nonfederal lard Alternative (B) , add a larger exchange
Alternative (C).
The enviroruent31 assessment report indicates that there will b no
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 'Therefore,
an environmental i9p ct statem -ant will not be prepared. Tnis determination
was made in consideration, of the fo11U'.iirg factors. The proposed action is,
by nature, a ccnrrYon and long estahlimned method for consolidating National.
Forest ownership. The effects of this particular land exchange are local
in context and can Le predicted with reasonable certainty. Irretrievaule
losses of National Forest lapel are minor in comparison to the benefits to
the derived from the prevention of irretrievable losses of wildlife and fish
habitat aryl from savings in administrative costs. No unique resources or
lard characteristics including, prime farmlands, flood plains, wetlands, or
threatened aril endangered species will be affected. Tre proposed action
has been sanctioned by local governmental agencies and optosition by a few
individuals were eliminated by dropping some Federal tracts.
Coipletion of the exchange is continent on the following actions:
1. Appraisals crust to Completed on the tracts. They rust demorististe
that larxl values are equal or can be equalized pursuant to the Federal Lana
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 DSC 1716) .
2. The National Forest lands rust be examinci for the preserr.e of
cultural resources and the requirements of B.G. 11593 and the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Rust i Ciet.
•
•
,..
2
3. t?olftone mast !rake satisfactory _:ttiecn_ with to
, lt.i ca.t other users
of National Forest land.
4. BLi4 rust co:xcur with the conveyance of Fecierel n
This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36
CZR 211.19. A Notice A
e of real must fie fil_u within 45 days from the date
of this decision. Questions rrigarding this 0 should Le s-osit to the
Chief, Forest Service, USDA, ,
st Sery "1, P.O. p,0. tox �� i7, :;,,sbi; *,tcn, DC 20013.
Richard U. huU
MAY ;993
Date
Diroctor of Lands
•
•
DESCRIPTION OF OFFERED PRIVATE LANDS
Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado
T.9S., R.84W.
1. Big Chief Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 8.39 Acres
1, Forest City Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 6624 - 3.3 Acres
3. Van Horn Park Subdivision - Lots A, B, and C
More specifically described as:
a. Lizzie Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 6021
b. Wolftone Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 6021
c. Ute Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5847
d. Iron Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 5847
e. NE Plus Ultra Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 5813
f. Red Chief Lode Mining Clain, Mineral Survey
No. 5813
g, Silver Edge Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No 4644
h. American Girl Lode Mining Clain, Mineral Survey
No. 5167
i. Goldsmith Maid Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 6167
j. Alice B. Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 6167
k. Crown Point Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 6167
1. Empire Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 5800
m. Empire Lode ll2 Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 5800
n. Malden Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey
No. 4619 •
o. Lost Diamond Lode Mining Claim, Mineral
Survey No. 6023
The subdivision as described contains 106.59 acres.
T.11S., R.85W
Wyoming Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 4190 - 10.33 acres
T.12S., R.85W.
• Favorite Lode Mining Claim, Mineral Survey No. 7072 - 9.04 acres
Offered Land Total - 137.65 acres more or less.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED NATIONAL FOREST LANDS
Sixth Principal Meridian - Colorado
T. 10S. , R.8417.
Section 18: Lots 41, unpatented
Mineral Survey No. 6012
T.10.S., R.8511.
Section 12: Lot 20
The area described aggregates 1.4'4 acres more or less.
1 I a. i '1 )I U .
I U )U I • _ L . : Il � l I V / I a 1 I �
1 ' 1 �/
1ACIPAL MERIDIAN , � �' / d ( 1/71( ,) ,,,'-'6 h I • J a ca' t - ) - 9',
1 . ' 101
o � p 1 1 -,2,t,.,291 e_ •
I . ''-----1‘ „... I 1 .\\ s"°.r' 1 ` g.TI P �•� _ ■ SL.)-- 1 e, 2„.,- � +.. t 1 1 r , 1 c - /
o �_� Y
2 ` J 4 5 Miles 1' 1 ' .� 1 � 1 � -- I -
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometer S Co/ I Lenado 20 I� ° � � -
- - T - 1 z � xa Geek z a 1 J p 4�4
�` { � ` __ [ - f C o z y i C \ : � - I r.Jl\\\ 1 • - - � \ ` ,-I I \ '
2 osh Penn( s 1 1
Cavin
l I ' t Fa�i�\ SUB JECT P ROPE �/ . 1� •
a / A . 4, � _ RTY {� � , ' woon bald.. � I
�� 1 s , t V "'flair' K 1 Ill94 A Knob 36 4
jle 1 I ! /J 1 e� \ II In I 1 l �i I / > r'If
431 1 I /I t - A X 410 / T
• / v � 5 -7 :
G' 1 _ Village 1 _
` >`'G /.wis /, / , aFHanc(� 1' / I � A � 1 r, IC )
1 „..-\•::::::•.. fI U{N R I t
1
1 xV z /) o SU „..,0,•k...,,,,„,„3„, / w« .oT 4 s 0 'x I , ” P a -;, 1 >3-. F 1�; bJect P n \ )%11-1;11?-1 I � i : I 1 �.
s,. t' 1 ∎ I 1936 1 1 \ \ \ • 1 i s y yz I A_spett _ ▪ /t . _ ,(
\-- .�,-v _ F , t . � ` \WFtee__ \ 'x 1 J 1 I I
If 1 \ \
1 v 4 � ' �.��, ��� 1 �a '?° Subject PxopaltY e 1 1 5 ti M I b I u i .ta I -
1 / °� 5ti. - ] �-�� l t1 1 ' a 1 C1 I �a
4 .Y / r'1nV et
1 ' I : :)1;i 1 I % I J h l , K i , _ Y ( 1 I qp h I lc ) vo • 1 --;4.--410-
- - Jh / / / l z ... i / ,I / .. < r , _ t "� L °i - iof 0 • I \-
6
I' /1 is I s o I I 2 , I r• I / I z / Pu Q • 1 Ii(1)
\ B a I j ' v 1, ' 6 o- I zl rA n 1 e ▪ A ■ ' z ! I I ao
r! 1 ld y 1 1 I r ... waaaR ' l L
- n . M t i' �I I (�. I JJ G ,:, I I1954 _ I\
'1- �� j 3155 1 � s l L-2 151L VER BAR CO I _ -
��YY ) �' ' r II r Y `$ lr F12,ULT CG 1 1 1
I "I O / I / I` ♦1 l.ofie Pk j r 9 S a c d� ' _
S re O LL 1,5 / Annie - h l t 1 i t • - "7 I I I .
a- C.J? I 5 c 31 I �z (,SILVER e € \ 3 4 i3> O as / o - iC I .T B. B4]2 1 3 3 1 31 1
I f I l'a .� i � k _ 9oC� 1, S 1 /I v /I '4t :: I
d \ I o - v__}.. 1 !n I I • � � I 0 ° I 6A i 1 �aya Is L a k e Ir . . 1/
a SILVER c 1 r ? � j_;::
s { f / 113aI� 1 I T'a ,/ 7 I an!
I .___ ` J 1 c0 I `,, e \ : I qq EASIIMAROONIPG U � • � 1 1 e\ _/ / � r � 1 / /1- / J %< r . l � � rLN .. : _
)- pu_ eG 15
DERNESS 1
\ / I t\I 1 3< y $ CC
0 _ alai -5, A y„ 1 I 1 l l - vv I • /, j l ` I \ GIA CH
�rp \ %WIII A �r ( � , v 1- I 551 .f '' 1 w I f I 1 z I - I x ° \ \ `l I st 1 lo/ I /1�
Pass I !-G 1_. .I �1 < I \\ I . �, 1' \ I 1 I
\ tirgac / , SUBJECT PROPERTY j . � \- i• ' - - 1 1 - IT I _
'fl \ I iV}an,on 11 r 1 12 - I u 1 lz24o
14°.:.! /F L uAr FjI I j... a F-1°
I I I % \ \ Is 11 Irf1 °jc, 1 3
G \ L'. 11 I _ G I I A I C \V I j 1/ s \ 1 oQe 1 '. e z
II
_ r 1 \-- /� I .: /,' I 15 l al� ; / ���/ —_ J � � _ I\ �.� r ,
% La4_f 1 / I 21 1 v ' I 11 z I r--.2- O s� r 1 Fact C . 1 1 7 . 1 i Cr 1 I T1 24
1 2 1 c � � 2 / P I - [- I T 5 r I � % 24' � za - I m 1 1� I a I t 1-4-
ak
dm4p I 0 I I � I \ 1 J 1 }} L g4
1/.1)...05/10[0610 \.°. Para m l l 1 ` 1 4 ' ') I S o 1 -74,-- �i 1_ \ 1,\ -i 1 r 1
1 56‘HGlfs TI^' "Z 4 U 1 F kl IP39 r n / Y 1 � I • l I /� zs . 1 } t \ f' -2yr I 26 I . z. _I ,_ � I` I 11 31 J J 1 —
.(� .,))y 1 1 0 I � v I 5 1 i t ayden P k / - 1 -- 1e _ N lhur / \ ` n H ' C 1
1 � `" r1', � ; — I ( .
- j " -= } . 1 a m e 1 1 2, " L - • a � - -- -. )11F WT -2(72 i 3 9.-� Ti -_ - -- I
:Jo
1 � ti g ; \ \ F�l unfei 1 I aa1 � 1 35 I Lake, / I A aheroft ' ._• \M 1 T - 4 \\ 1 _ � _
) . ^ . oa 31 P a9r z IL -� \ / \/ / 1; \ \Val
� 321
1r 1f \ tl Gold. 1
1 / 1s
/ { -- I _1_,__I__ t I 1 ! Pass _ At ) A n , AA%,-.3-.C.;•1'---
Ilevieva - - - -F- - -CI-- - I 7` �I 1 I Ashcroft _ ' "._j
,�.! -\ .p — / I I _L -- ( I .
1 /
I 4 ° ed _ A L.f I I r 1 / / C 0 3234 lA 1 . 3 .
n pro I A= i _ y 11 � ' Pk I I Cathedra(.V 13943 , • ,! y 1 C 1 \ I a rteV •, f I
Pass IC t (+119:_13515 : _ P. I. nI r JI \( 1. -'p x' 1 G1i
t '� J I / 1 ii, \ • e 1 3 1 1 M66ff �uma 9,,M lemute .j j) • I I /. 1: s I; s of \ 1 / Ir GO I I -
\ ' /� -
- -_` "'" jYrecalws - - i f ) ' / Grove, x , II )) 11 / ;T 4i Pass 1/ j 1 \ I G �
, " "iPeak , . " w V � . I ./ Basi� ' Peak' 334H -L� . "�
/ l 7-4. at' ! �' -T f - 3 1
I ' 1 1 1 41 ( 9Maroon) 1 / !! f Sp/: 3 Castle � Dy cl L 1 ‘ -L
-1 I 1 Pass \/ x z / r I I // � Is I, :''!?js \ k \ . la /�.i11 U� " / 1 1 4�� �J � al e t \
I C u r LR _ GPer L _':ci ,L 1 `. rr ri v 1 Ie\ 0 • rr fro J � �,I r :3 X \_ I \\ `( 1
JI Mn k� v 1. F `- SUBJECT PROPERTY
$ 1006;- ut �' �f� - -N2-
- / -4-4.------ E 44 -- e .. �
innerland za 7 a. L I Taytor 1 / 1 n 2 c t
I 1 I'' 1 Basn l / I II I a• 1 1 i Y 1 t
1
1 li 1 I 1 av I
� 1. 3 -p 4 3s �- t - '� � ��
Avery ! )_- _ I - / 1 J - 1 / .\ 4 r I 1s
• 1
., •
., I ap ° `,I - I i '/ ' Co4._ : c .� - _ -_
....,5 / - 1 white Rock \ , I ■ ( 5 0 4 _f Pearl , 1 / Star .� 1 . 1 A Ii V I -,-
1 I / ...White 1 .� \ _ to � 1 1-Pk i �. 1 I F I re A l v "- J
ss+r, I I *\ I� xe M ''r s 1 x:
Q 1 a ' 1 e 6 I wHne F Pasx _ , 1 1 \
1 6,0454'
M . I , ° '- ' 1 o p • - 13401 -_ 1' r - T. -- /\ 1 7: 15 ._ ___;1__>-- L ' 1 - Eyre � t 1 { a
I
i
11 I U i h 1 ( . Carbonate" I _ \ J ✓1 05110
_ \ 1 5 - .I I I \ I /j - 1\ • • \I ( ' . r Hin 1 Cry 55 15 I 3 a Lambert son 1 3 11x,
_ __ R .85W. 1 rs/ --- ti 0zi R.84W.'Polk o � xF
r i , 2 ( L , 31 � $ i ;
.� ' z s• t F �1 A .. e ' r ` t .'' ; f �, r r .a a rrr
PROPOSED ACTION: Wol ftone Land Exchange
'
I •,: -'_. i ,'_: 4, ft ..-1 r i ,t ,.I 1, s • h f♦ s
LOCATION OF ACTION
. , -.. " f ` ) ' "Pitkin
{ d,' RANGER DISTRICT COUhlTY (IES)
' 4 _ r .,w r y
RESPO.NISIBLE AGENCY USDA FOREST SERVICE
' RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: R. Max Peterson Chief Forest Service
NAME ? TITLE ,
r ,
Washington Office
UNIT ,t , ',,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis E. B schor D Ranger
NAME TITLE }
j Aspen Ranger District
806 West Hal lam, Aspen, Colorado 815i1
ADDRESS t
� `
♦ /' t
Y (303) 925 -3445 i '' ` ri
; ' TELEPHON
] r rrr
.1 _ ! 1- 1 r r.
J 7
ABSTRAC ( ONE PARAGRAPH) r yr; t "
Wolftone Corporation has submitted a Land E xchange offer to the White River N.F.
The exchange involves et Service receiving 137.5 acres ofprivate land for 1.46
acres of National Forest the la
. These lands are located on the Aspen Ranger,District
• Pitkin County, Colorado. "'This exchange would r esult in a decrease 'of property
ine maintenance by the U.S. Government by approximately 4 miles There would be ;,
a
decrease in proper
ty corners re quiring maintenance by 55 corners ;The U S. Governmei
' would acquire 3 acres of wetlands and important riparian habitat 5 isol ated
g p uld be eliminated from Forest t
difficult to mana e arcel near t he Town o f Aspen would
S ervice ownership - , ' ,
v e .. t
E f ��rT •�..
__ . ..� .
I PREFACE
An Environmental Assessment is not a decision document. It is a
the environmental consequences of implementation
of the disclosing proposed action. It
of the proposed action and alternatives to
and local governments to
important action of federal, state, ro os
is an imp regarding the proposed
use in arriving at their individual decisions reg g
action and alternatives t
consequences on lands and activities administered
The therroederal, conseq jurisdictions resulting
by other federal, state, and local
proposed action have been disclosed in this EA.
The Forest Service decision will relate to lands administered by
ati
the Forest Service and Wolftone Corporation to cusen on and will be documented
in a Decision Notice. Decisions ns y
not issue approval, related to this proposal ur can be made by them
based on the disclosure of impacts available in this document. _
Listed in Appendix E are agencies and persons consulted in the
t
a
preparation of this document.
II. PURPOSE NEED EM
L° ; ;1 has been received from the Wolf toneCorpor-
A land exchange p P' '� Ff
E f
anon to exchange 137.65 acres more or less of land for 1•l +sl offing
See Appendix C for maps
more or less of National Forest land. See Appendix A for a copy o
`
and interest in lands are
the l'o c tore Land Exchange offer. pp'
the location of the lands. The lands
located on the Aspen Ranger District of the White River National
Forest. The National Forest lands consist of lands recently trans-
ferred from the Bureau of Land M to the National Forest in
and around the town of Aspen. .
The lands offered by Wolftone Corporation are in ton n n w ith t
White River National Forest approved Land Adj
shown for acquisition.
Order 11928,
This proposal contains no lands covered by Executive Or .
Flood Plain Management. It does contain lands covered by
arcel Executive h
would covered
National
consumated.
Only the surface rights on the offered private lands will be con-
sidered in the exchange as the proponent had offered to donate oil,
on
gas, and all other mineral right to the United d StatesnofCAmericaion
his offered private lands. (See Appendix
letter dated November 19, 1982.)
This proposal complies with the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93 -205)
since no rare or endangered species habitat is involved in the
exchange.
1
Il
. 1
i
III. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION
A. Alternative A - No Action on Land Exchange Offer
1. The loss of opportunity to decrease property line "
requiring maintenance by the government.
2. The loss of opportunity to decrease property corners
requiring maintenance by the government.
3. Future private land developers on the private land
would have an adverse effect on the undeveloped
character of the surrounding public lands.
4. There would be no change in the county's private land a
tax base, twenty -five percent fund payments or pay-
ment in lieu of taxes.
5. There would be a loss of opportunity to consolidate
National Forest System land.
B, Alternative B - Purchase the Offered Land and Not Dispose of
• National Forest Owned Lands
This is not a viable alternative since L &WCF funds are not
available.
C. Alternative C - Pursue Land Exchange as Originally Advertised
In The Aspen Times
The proponent chose to voluntarily eliminate parcels as in-
indicated in Appendix D consisting of approximately 4.77 acres.
This was done due to the controversial nature of the parcels
and the fact that the small parcels were very difficult to
identify requiring intensive surveying before an exchange could
be consummated.
This alternative, therefore, is no longer a valid alternative
requiring further analysis.
D. Alternative D - Land Exchange as Proposed
IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Offered Private Lands
See Appendix A for the legal land description of the offered
private land tracts. See Appendix C for a map showing the
offered private lands.
1. Van Horn Park Tract (includes Big Chief and Forest City
Lode Mining Claims).
This tract is located about three miles northeast of the
town of Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado. It contains
106.59 acres in patented mining claims, is within the
A
2
White River National Forest, and occurs at 10,000e t in
a
elevation. The slope is mostly 10 to 20 percent
southwesterly direction towards the Hunter Creek drainage.
The vegetation is mostly high bunchgrass meadows with
aspen, Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir, and lodgepole
pine around the edges. \
These claims are accessed by a rough four -wheel drive
road, FDR 130, from Hunter Creek and Aspen. The United
States of America has no formal access to that section of
FDR 130 across this subdivision. This road is open to
motorized traffic only during hunting season.
This area is important to big game migration routes,
contains some upper elevation elk calving areas, and is
summer range for deer and elk.
It is also important for summer hiking and winter ski
touring opportunities.
No wetlands or floodplains are present. No known threat-
ened or endangered species are present.
2, Favorite Lode Tract
The Favorite Lode Patented Mining Claim (USMS No. 7072) is
located about thirteen miles south of the town of Aspen in
Pitkin County, Colorado. The mining claim contains 9.04
acres, is within the White River National Forest, and
occurs at 11,400 feet in elevation. The slope is mostly
20 to 30 percent in a northerly direction in the Castle
Creek drainage. There is a shallow man -made lake approx
imately two acres in size in the south center of the
claim with approximately one acre of wetland surrounding
the lake. A small one room A -frame home sits on the
northern shore of the lake. The vegetation is mostly
high altitude meadows with patches of aspen polesize
timber, Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir polesize timber,
and scattered Douglas fir polesize and sawsize timber.
This claim is accessed by a year -round paved county road
from Aspen to Ashcroft, a distance of ten miles. From
Ashcroft the rough, four -wheel drive Pearl Pass Road
climbs the approximately five miles to the subject claim.
This road is only open during the summer months.
There are no known threatened and endangered species on
the subject claim.
3
•gym . a
3. Wyoming Lode Tract
The Wyoming Lode Patented Mining Claim (USMS No. 4190) is
located in the Castle Creek drainage about seven miles
south of the town of Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado.
The mining claim contains 10.33 acres, is within the White
River National Forest, and occurs at 11,000 feet in ele-
vation. The slope is mostly 45 to 60 percent in a north-
easterly direction.
No wetlands or floodplains are present. The vegetation
is scattered aspen and Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
sawlog size timber with scattered steep bunchgrass open-
ings resulting from snow avalanches.
This claim is accessed by an old jeep road up Sawyer Creek
approximately one mile and then by foot the remaining one -
half mile. Both the road and the trail are nearly in-
distinguishable due to natural rehabilitation and lack of
use.
This claim now lies within the newly established boundary
of the Maroon Bells- Snowmass Wilderness.
There are no threatened or endangered species on the
subject claim.
B. Selected National Forest
See Appendix A for the legal land description of the selected
National Forest lands. See Appendix C for maps showing the
selected National Forest lands.
l.. Lot 20 Tract
Lot 20 is located between Shadow Mountain and Aspen Ice
Carden, 233 West Hyman Avenue, south and adjacent to the
town of Aspen, Colorado. This lot contains 1.19 acres,
is within the Uhi.te River National Forest, and occurs at
7,900 feet in elevation. The parcel generally slopes to •
the northeast. Topography varies from relatively flat
and non - timbered to steep slopes with spruce fir timber.
The lot is accessed by Second Street.
There is a hiking trail established by use across the
northeast part of the lot.
No wetlands or floodplains are present. There are no
known threatened and endangered species present.
4
;n / ';iso
•
2. Lot 41 Tract
Lot 41 is located in the southeast corner of Aspen. It
lies directly beind the office of the Aspen Alps, at 700
Ute Avenue. This parcel also connects to Lyle Reeder's
l existing lands at 771 Ute Avenue. It contains 0.17 acres
isolated from other lands within the White River National
Forest. It is surrounded by private lands and no public
right —of —way exists.
The following encroachments exist:
Small portion of Aspen Alps parking lot.
Wooden elevated sidewalk.
j Railroad tie cribbing.
1 Partial landscaping by adjacent landowners.
No wetlands or floodplains are present. There are no
known threatened or endangered species.
3. USMS 6012 Tract
This parcel is located on Summit Street, halfway between
Monarch Street and Hill. Street Immediately south of the
town of Aspen.
It contains .08 acres, is within the White River National
Forest, and occurs at 7,900 feet in elevation. The parcel
slopes to the north.
The following encroachments exist:
— Twenty —five foot wide unpaved street.
- Four foot tall railroad tie retaining wall.
- Corner of the Mountain Queen tennis court.
No wetlands or floodplains are present. There are no
known threatened or endangered species.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. There would be a decrease in property lines requiring marking
and maintenance by the government by approximately four miles.
There would be a decrease in property corners requiring main—
tenance by the government by 55 corners. Estimated costs to
the United States would be $28,000.
B. There would be a net loss of 136.19 from Pitkin County's tax
base. The county will receive an additional $66.39 per year
in Lieu of Taxes funds and an additional $24.24 per year in
25 percent fund payments.
1950/ ,so
•
•
C. There would be effective consolidation of National Forest
System lands. Three isolated tracts of National Forest System
land would be conveyed from federal ownership.
D. The United States would also acquire seventeen claims in the
;f Van Horn Park area that is surrounded by National Forest System
land on three sides. This area is suitable for subdivision
and lies about a mile from the boundary of the Hunter - Fryingpan
Wilderness area. Its acquisition will preclude development
with the resulting detrimental effect upon the adjacent Wilder-
ness. This area is also within the town of Aspen's watershed
and would be managed appropriately.
•
E. The United States of America would acquire approximately three
acres of wetlands and valuable riparian wildlife habitat on
the Favorite mining claim,
F. The United States would not need to acquire a right -of -way
through the Van Horn Park Subdivision.
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS
Denis E. Bschor - District Ranger, Aspen Ranger District, White
River National Forest, Aspen, Colorado.
Robert E. Lawton - Forester, White River National Forest, Glenwood
Springs, Colorado.
VII. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED (.APPENDIX E)
A. Board of County Commissioners - Pitkin County
B. Bureau of Land Management - Robert Dinsmore
C. U.S. Geological Survey - J. William Hasler
D. Mineral Management Service, DFC - L.H. Godwin
E. U.S. Senator - Honorable William L. Armstrong
F. U.S. House of Representative - honorable G. Hank Brown
G. U.S. Senator - Honorable Gary Hart
H. City of Aspen - City Council Members
I. Hans R. Gramiger
J. Kingsbury Pitcher
K. Clair L. Sandersen
L.. Ardmore Homeowner's Association
M. Daryl N. Snadon
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submissions L -1 /L -2 Zones
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be
held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November
22, 1983, at a meeting which begins at 5:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to
consider the applications submitted by American Century Corporation,
Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan
Novak for a 480 unit hotel in the vicinity of the Continental Inn,
Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce Lodge, and also to consider the application
of Lyle D. Reeder for a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee
units, located at the corner of Ute and Original Streets.
For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (303) 925 -2020, ext. 222.
s /Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on
Thursday, October 13, 1983.
City of Aspen Account.