The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.Reeder Appeal.1983 ....... l' '35 74 - /c.eci �'�G/, 3 7' , C�c� y,�, ybYill ' al 4-+ 6-1 ,.. ''i TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: 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, 7 C---?(1-7 -m-- -' Lyle Reeder Applicant Dated: December 6 , 1983 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-11 . 6 (E) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE Statement of Case Applicant, Lyle Reeder, has submitted an application for two Lodge GMP development allocations for 1984 under the provisions of Section 24-11 . 6 "Lodge Development Application Procedures. " Applicant' s project called for 46 new lodge rooms. Applicant agreed to surrender his 1982 allocation of 31 lodge rooms upon receipt of the new 46 lodge room allocation; thus having the net allocation effect of requesting an additional 15 lodge room quota. The applicant ' s project represents the first attempt to try to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen under GMP procedures. There was only one other applicant for the 1984 GMP quota; namely, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Assoc. of Angleton, Texas , and Mr. Alan Novak' s Aspen Mountain Lodge . The application consists primarily of properties involved in the Hans Cantrup bankruptcy. The Aspen Mountain Lodge application was a request for 211 new lodge rooms and reconstruction of 269 lodge rooms. The total 480-room project was to consist of 44% new lodge rooms and 56% reconstructed lodge rooms. According to Planning Office calculations, there were 85 units available for 1984. Planning and Zoning Commission action on the Lodge GMP was set for November 22 , 1983. The Planning Office submitted to the members explanatory memos dated November 16 and 23 , 1983 (copies attached as Exhibit 3) . The November 16 , 1983 Memorandum was conveyed as an attachment to the November 22 , 1983 memorandum. The Planning Office rated the competing projects in the Memorandum of November 22 , 1983 . The results of the 1984 Planning Office Lodge GMP points assignment were as follows (copy attached as Exhibit 3) : Lodge at Aspen 48 Aspen Mountain Lodge 59 Both applicants made presentations at the November 22 , 1983 meeting, and the members of the Commission scored the project pursuant to score sheets provided. The results of the voting gave "The Lodge at Aspen" a total average score of 49. 5 , and "The Aspen Mountain Lodge" a total average score of 60. 71 , thus granting the entire 1984 allocation to The Aspen Mountain Lodge. Under the category of "Amenities Provided for Guests" , Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1983 , page 6 , paragraph (3) states: "The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. . . " (underlining added) . -1- The Commission abused its discretion by failing to apply the above guideline to its scoring of the two projects. 1 . By generally following the Planning Office ' s recommendation and giving a low score of 10 . 54 points (average) out of a maximum possible of 21 points to The Lodge at Aspen project. A small lodge cannot be expected to provide amenities such as energy consuming swimming pools and outdoor skating rinks. 2. By giving The Aspen Mountain Lodge a high score , 19. 86 points (average) out of maximum of 21 points , the Commission failed to consider the "any additions thereto. . . " portion of the project but instead considered the total project which is 56% reconstruction. Apparently, The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposes to demolish three swimming pools and to reconstruct two new swimming pools; thus, if logically allocated to reconstruction portion, 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 includes a proposed parcel rezoning of L-1 to CL of 27 , 107 square feet. The application made an assumption that the rezoning would be approved whereby the allowable floor areas for the parcel would be increased from 27 , 107 to 54 , 214 square feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission subsequently on November 29 , 1983 denied the rezoning request, thus changing the character of the project. The Planning Office Memorandums failed to mention that thirty-six percent of the Aspen Mountain Lodge employee housing is proposed to be located within a potential avalanche area. Parcel "B" which is Lot 1 , Hoag Subdivision lies between Ute Avenue and a line whose evaluation is slightly above the 8040 elevation line. The Hoag Subdivision plat (Plat Book 4, page 218) has the following notation "No building permit will be issued on Lots 1 and 3 until it has been demonstrated that there is adequate avalanche protection to be engineered and certified by individual or individuals with professional avalanche control experience. " Off-site employee housing for The Aspen Mountain Lodge consists of Parcel "A-2" and "B" . The total size of the two parcels is indicated to be 190 ,617 square feet. The Aspen Mountain Lodge proposed employee housing for Parcel "B" consists of 68 ,954± 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 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. 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, Lyle Reeder Applicant Dated: December 6 , 1983 -4- � 11 t/ l` w sJc �+ i6� t , 1 V P� P . U. Uox 489 elspen , Co. el6i2 925-3360 October n , 19533 Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S . Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 ttn ; Mr. Sunny Vaiui Director Re 1984 Lodge ( 1-] , L-2 ) G . 11. P. Competition .- ppnicatiuns Dear Mr . Vann In reviewing the competiting applicants ' presentation in preparation for the P & Z hearing scheduled for November. 22 , 1963 I would appreciate your assistance with the following questions which I am having ficulty in inte_rupting , I note that on page of the .SPEN MOUNT:AI1: LODGE applic<: t:- ion "Because we are re:eeuing under the ii.anned Unit: .:eAe_.C':- pent Iecu- trcns , di:riations in the hc �_( i limit tab/ sheu. for the Zone District are petn-i ttea and be dpptoVeu by the City. . . and later . . .Generally speaking , around the Zoc.ge perimeter , !Maximum heights from natural grade will v.::_ r : am 30 to 50 feet in order to reduce the Visual impact u bo. peciesC- rians , within the interior of the Lodge footprint , setback from the street facade , h-nights in some lec.. cions or 40 _. :,5 feet are 1-'pro nosed. . . . � I find in the _spec Zoning Code at r .r,:o 1490 , Jcctior: 24-8. ': General Requirements unuer paragraph ( b) "The pi.Annec ...._t development must constitute an area of at least twene -sc.-u - thousand ( 27 , 000 . ) square feet unless the land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit development on the Zoning trict map or is otherwise required by the Zoning Coo_ ',.o developed according to the provisions of this article . " Also, Section 24-6. 3 Variations from Zoning Code requirerc:,:ts . "To facilitate the objectives of planned unit development there may be permitted variations from the provisions of t1!i:: 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. S Planning Offict City of Aspen Page 2. 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 cif 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 Aspen 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-1S (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 Ashen Mountain Lodge application, since they apparently own the 11, 000 square feet which is included in the application ' s total floor Area? S CoyP Planning Office - City of Aspen Page 3 . October 5 , 1983 It appears to me that one applicant in the competition / may have available and is using the Planned Unit Develop- ment procedures which allow a freedom in variations from ` normal zoning codes that is not available to the other applicant. Your comments , answers and thoughts on the above questions and my comments would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours , --A9rd7 -2-e-12-9 Lyle D . Reeder ldr sed • Coy w £ sJ' it 1,2.11 • +, Aspen/Pit ,. N't'% � �. ing Office 130 s treet ,r ,,; 81611 aspen , ; ::; November 9 , 1983 / Mr. Lyle D. Reeder P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Lyle, Sunny asked that I respond to your letter dated October 5, 1983 , regarding the 1984 L-1/L=2 Lodge GMP Competition. Given my fami- liarity with the Lodge at Aspen due to my review of the prior appli- cation on the site, I will be the person responsible for analyzing the current submission. Following are my comments on the five questions you pose in the letter. 1. Section 24-8.5 (h) of the Municipal Code provides that "An application may be made for PUD approval for development of lands within any zone district within the City of Aspen . . . " However, as you noted, Section 24-8. 5 (b) states that "The planned unit development must constitute an area of at least twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet unless the land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit develop- ment on the zoning district map or is otherwise required by the zoning code to be developed according to the provisions of this Article. " Therefore, it is true that the Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant may request to be reviewed as a PUD, while the Lodge at Aspen applicant may not. However, you should note that the applicant has only requested consideration as a PUD and must now demonstrate compliance with same. You should be aware that in order to show such compliance, the required reviews for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be much more lengthy than those imposed upon your project, giving you a possible advantage in completing your project in a timely manner. 2. The Planning Office will review each application with respect to the specific criteria and requirements of Sec- tion 24-11. 6 of the Code, Lodge Development Application Procedures. We will not compare the proposed height of the Aspen Mountain Lodge building to those of the Lodge at Aspen. Instead, we will evaluate how well each site accom- modates the specific development proposed for it. Further- more, with respect to the height variance, Section 24- 8. 5 (i) of the Code states that "The burden shall rest upon ,yle D. Reeder November 9, 1983 Page Two an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the design 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. " • i.yle 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 • • T EA Ml h%t "3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition DATE: November 22, 1983 INTRODUCTION Attached for your review are the project profiles and the Planning Office' s recommended points allocation for the two projects submitted October 1, 1983 for the L-1/L-2 lodge GMP competition. The applica- tions are for the 46 unit Lodge at Aspen to be constructed at 771 Ute Avenue and for the 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge located south of Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets. The Lodge at Aspen has a prior GMP allocation for 31 units and the Aspen Mountain Lodge is proposing to reconstruct approximately 269 units. The two projects are therefore requesting GMP allocations of 15 units and 211 units , respectively. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Lodge at Aspen is a proposal to build an entirely new lodge at the corner of Ute Avenue and Original Street. The Lodge would contain 46 tourist rooms and 6 employee units, each of which is approximately 216 sq. ft. in size. Since the applicant won an allocation to build 31 tourist units and 4 employee housing units on this site in 1982 , and would relinquish those units upon the approval of this revised submission, the net effect on the lodge quota is a request for 15 additional units. Features of the project meriting attention include underground parking, proximity to Little Nell , use of solar collectors, and the proposal to upgrade neighborhood storm drainage and fire protection. The appli- cant also proposes on-site amenities for guests (dining and health facilities) and on-site housing for 80% the Lodge ' s employees. The proposal , however, does place a substantial number of lodge rooms on a 1/3 acre site . The rooms themselves are small and the site includes substantial paving in addition to a building footprint covering approxi- mately 36% of the site. In our opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior proposal in several respects. The rooms are smaller than before (216 sq . ft. versus 320 sq. ft. ) , the architecture is not nearly as in- teresting, and the common areas are considerably less spacious and elegant. However, the footprint of the new building is substantially less than the prior proposal and much more attention has been given to landscaping and pedestrian circulation. The Aspen Mountain Lodge involves the reconstruction of approximately 269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicant is requesting a GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel project to 480 tourist units . The applicant also proposes to construct on-site an approximately 22 , 500 sq. ft. conference facility, a 4 , 500 sq. ft, health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various recreational amenities including swimming pools , an ice skating rink , and pedestrian and bicycle trails. Additional features of the project meriting attention include underground parking, proximity to Little Nell and Lift 1A, the proposal to upgrade 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 2 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 (31 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- dude any other L-1/L-2 appli- lity would constitute the cant from obtaining a substan- first addition to the lodge tial allocation to expand an inventory in Aspen since the existing/build a new downtown 54 unit expansion to the lodge (Note : the code requires Woodstone in 1976 . that we make 12 units per year available if the quota 3 . The proposed addition of units has been used. Note also that on this site is consistent the construction of the Hotel with the intent of the 1973 Jerome project will require Aspen Land Use Plan to cen- us to further use future years tralize our tourist accommoda- of quota, amounting to about 65 tions at the base of Aspen units. Finally, note that the Mountain. 10 unit per year L-3 quota will continue to be available 4. Full allocation provides the regardless of this project) . developer with the capability of building a full service 3 . The construction of such a hotel complex, including sub- large project may be a sign to stantial tourist amenities such the skiing industry that the as conference rooms, ballroom, next growth cycle in Aspen is and recreation facilities. underway and it is time to plan for ski area expansion. There 5. The development of a facility may also be a cyclical impact of this magnitude in this high on the commercial sector, where profile location may change the vacancies and underemployment popular image of the quality of at existing businesses may be Aspen ' s lodging in one shot. replaced by full occupancy and maximum employment, with com- mensurate impacts on the Community. — 4 - .r.MO: Analysis of Award of Allocation November 16, 1983 Page Two 6. By awarding a full allocation, 4. There may be a short term we permit the master planning inability of certain portions of the entire area , the accom- of the infrastructure to plishment of the total upgrade accommodate the growth associated of that area, and the minimiza- with this project, particularly tion of the length of construc- if combined with a community-wide tion impacts upon Aspen. economic resurgence such that units with low occupancy and 7. There is no substantial benefit commercial space which is vacant to be gained from making the pro- are once again full . Facilities ject compete again for an allo- which we feel will be especially cation in a future year pro- hard hit include the sewage treat- vided that you support the de- ment plant, transit center and velopment of a project of this the road network (both into scale . Aspen and inside Aspen) . 8 . Since it will take two years 5. The increased competition in to construct this facility, the lodging industry may re- there is an automatic phasing sult in the attrition of some mechanism built into the project. of the smaller, somewhat mar- ginal operations. 6 . The addition of 211 new units will further concentrate lodging in Aspen while the bulk of our skiing capacity is outside of Aspen or in Snowmass . As can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and opposed to the allocation of the full 211 units requested. The up- grade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the creation of a major conference facility are consistent with the growth policies which the Planning Commission has been developing. The accomplishment of a master plan for lodging in this area is con- sistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, as well as the wishes of City Council, when it last reviewed the proposed amendments to the Aspen Inn construction project. However, building this facility in a single increment is not consistent with the growth rate policy and will virtually preclude any other major downtown lodge expansions in Aspen for several years . By its very magnitude and importance, the project is likely to have spin-off impacts on other portions of our economy and may set off a new growth cycle in Aspen. Given the very real need in Aspen for lodging facilities which provide both quality and value, the Planning Office has no problem in recom- mending that the 50 units which remain as unallocated from prior years be given to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. However, we find it somewhat more difficult to address the question of future years allocation. We are concerned about the short term growth rate and its impact upon Community facilities . We also must question what social and psychological impacts upon permanent residents of the Community will result from compressing several years of planned growth into the construction of a single project. The decision on this issue must therefore be predicated on whether or not you believe that Aspen needs a major new loding facility which will not only upgrade existing units but also be large enough to justify the creation of substantial conference capabilities . If you feel that this need exists, then it is probably reasonable to make the required trade-off in terms of the growth rate. However, if you feel that obtaining the tourist amenities being proposed is not worth the trade-offs in terms of the growth rate and the scale of the project, you should not support the request for 3; years of future quota. However, you should recognize that you probably cannot obtain substantial tourist support facilities which essentially are not generators of revenue without allowing a substantial number of lodge rooms to offset the cost of such facilities . We believe that we have provided you with the necessary information upon which to make this fundamental choice. S - 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, GNP exception for employee units 10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be granted an allocation, he would relinquish the 31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net additional units requested by this project is 15 lodge rooms. • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen 11/22/83 Date: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the area. quality of service in a given The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood deficiency but applicant only commits to sharing the cost of the improvement. Therefore, applicant is only paying to improve the quality of service to his own project. b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed lodge. No upgrade is proposed nor requested. 7 _ c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: Applicant proposes drywells of sufficient size to retain site and roof water runoff. Applicant commits to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen Mountain Road adjacent to his property at his own expense. Engineering rates proposed as excellent. d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro- vide fire protection according to its established response standards with- out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit- ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: Project can be served by the fire protection district. Applicant proposes to locate a new hydrant at his own expense near the Northwest corner of the project. Fire chief would prefer hydrant on Northeast corner. e, ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over- loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Engineering department finds roads in the area to have adequate capacity, although constrained by winter skier parking and "dead end" nature of this corner. Project will not substantially impact existing roads. Applicant proposes to blacktop Aspen Mountain Road at his own expense, an improvement which is largely cosmetic, not service oriented. � 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 as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on Aspen Mountain Road: this situation is mazni_fied 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 Comments: The building is set back from Ute Avenue by approximately 85 feet and from Aspen Mountain Road by approximately 30 feet. The height of the building as shown is approximately 2-3 feet above that allowed by code and must be reduced, but the overall design does not affect public views due to the already existant Aspen Alps Building. 1 ._ • 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 480sq. 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 POINTS: 11 Comments: Applicant proposes to house 12 employees on site, while lodge is projected to require 15 employees. The off-site housing proposal contains no specifics and therefore cannot be evaluated. Applicant's total housing 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. r �3 - • • RATING: 0 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 0 Comments: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 Points in Category 2: points required) 21 (Minimum of 11. 7 Points in Category 3: Points required) 9 (Minimum 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 1_1 (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 • 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 11;;7 acres 5. Current Zoning: CL, L-1, L-2, R-15 PUD (L) , Public and Conservation 6 . Maximum Allowable Build-out: Subject to proposed rezoning and PUD review and approval . 7 . Existing Structures: Continental Inn, Aspen Inn, Blue Spruce Lodge, The Hillside Lodge and several small apartments and miscellaneous dwelling units. 8. Development Program: A 480 unit condominiumized hotel with extensive conference facilities on the northern portion of the site; an approximately 33 unit residential condominium complex on the southern portion of the site; and a 12 unit residential condominium complex at 700 South Galena Street. An additional residential unit is also proposed for the existing Summit Place Duplex. 9. Additional Review Requirements : PUD/Subdivision review, three rezonings, exemption from growth management for the project's employee housing, a change in use exemption, an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission, three street vacations, view plane review and 8040 greenline review. Note: Some of these additional review requirements are associated with the residential portion of this PUD. 10. Miscellaneous: - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition PROJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge ' Date: 11/22/83 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: The applicant proposes to install a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street which will upgrade the distribution 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. — )s • c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: The existing storm sewer system has sufficient capacity to carry 5-year developed runoff. The applicant proposes to detain on-site the difference between the 100-year developed storm runoff and the 5-year historical runoff in order to reduce peak flows. d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro- vide fire protection according to its established response standards with- out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit- ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: The applicant's installation of a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street will provide increased fire protection to both the proposed hotel and the surrounding area. The applicant is also proposing to install approximately four new fire hydrants to further enhance fire protection to the project and to adjacent uses. The proposed hotel will employ state-of-the-art fire protection methods and devices. e, ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over- loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: The capacity of the existing road network is adequate to handle the net traffic volume change resulting from this project. The proposed reduction in curb-cuts and on street parking may result in better traffic flow and reduced accident potential in the vacinity of the project. '( CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing heighborhood developments. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 Comments While the architectural design is innovative in that it makes use of extensive excavation to reduce the preceived bulk of the buildings and to maintain public views of Aspen Mountain, there are elements of the project which are, in our opinion, clearly incompatible with surrounding developments and with the overall scale of the lodge district and central core area. Traditional architectural treatment and the use of compatible building materials help to blend the buildings into their surroudings. However, both the main hotel and conference entrance areas substantially exceed the height limitaion of the zone district resulting in major building masses which are out-of-scale with the surrounding lodge district. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc. ) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 9 COMMENTS: Existing mature vegetation'. is retained and supplemented with extensive landscaping; all utilities will be placed underground; the applicant proposes to implement 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; maior hotel support functions are located sub-grade to reduce exterior walls and roof thereby further reducing energy consumption; HVAC system is computer controlled. d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 6 Comments: Approximately 380 underground spaces are provided for the proposed 480 unit hotel. Limo service and proximity to Ruby Park, the commercial core, employee housing and Aspen Mountain offset parking demand. Valet service will be provided. Internal circulation is excellent with main hotel and conference entrances set back from Durant Avenue. The parking garage exits via the conference entrance area further minimizing impact on Durant. Truck loading areas appear adequate. Guest loading areas are heavily landscaped. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 Comments: The substantial building masses associated with the main hotel and conference entrances and their attendant support areas significantly restrict public views of Aspen Mountain. The approximately 50 foot height of the Durant Avenue and conference entrance facades will, to varying degrees, alter scenic background views from 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 facilities 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. fo — 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 Alpin-a: Haus, 43 at the Copper Horse and 90 in a new project to be constructed off Ute Avenue on the Benedict parcel. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points) . The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, •rior to the application of the corres•ondin• multi•lier. Any Commission member awarding bonus d 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 rid W N r 'ti N 0 < M n tr w m Q. n Crw 0 man CI 0 C H M w H H r H H L) H x70 "73 H CroMN11 H x7 III NN $ n • CD Y• a m H H. a G Y• N K O P. rt m a n C n m M N FS m rt n a N O E rt "i r II Y• P. rt V7 C X N m ?' 0 W m F1 m m a' WS O CD m r Y w Y• 0 I-" J N n N n ww Y• `J • r7 "G art rrot ty NN H ti 0 rt rt W 0 H n w n x01 O 11 m m H N '9 o wm9 C 5 a0Y• rt rtants H 1-3 • n N Fi H Di G G W G H m Y• C C H Cl) a P. m d V) w (L N tt X V) n Y• Y• M CA C r r a M C o m a h7 C rt a o n U) 0o Y• N o td rt n tS r x m Y•tQ m m ra H "] rt H '- C 0 5 O m > z O aY• PI 0 ti a C 0 Z 5 O m Z 0 5 O Oct rt m M H y Y• N 0 %U O Y• r ✓ H C CY G) r r W W Z ,M rt Y• C rt G H C Y• m M t- m N co V) m H 0 to O M n N o 0 . , M ph V' b m H r N O m z zw n z co m H z or z � • or tn HHH V T V ZZ zE pox N M b.< co• � W W N• C� b� WW F �. ~~ NHH M t Cll o to to U MH3 _� ICI HOZ ti Z C- N Na F CN V C. W N W W V H Na Na H H H H o ro -+ Hr H z 4 N U) C 43 Na F W H C. W W WT IV HINa NH F H r3. S Z O H M fl co H H H O FFF H ZZ 1-1 I� o VN' F F O C• ON W W 11--. r H IY . H N O O N W In C� F J r � F D C H lr In V V V VI V ff M to tr N x1 O NJ W F 0 F N F J H H ' ' H <.C�y, C • w N • to to C` In H N 0o W O O H Co O F F V co In Ni C■ V J F Q` V n i M . to a ro b , • RI w an 1/41) N lQ N a CO (D a C ro O tY N O 0 £ O t4 Z Z H 0 Z I 0 0 L) N T" Ma L IN o ro H trl a H Z Z H G) VI m H tD z a rr P. tD 0 to rr to r• rr ^7 r• 0 Cn o o C � P. G C ?' >I H N- W N m ✓ r 0 r• H H r• ro ro > CO CI' gp ° n K Z o o r a ro Z z z 0 x 0) n H m O ) o lC rr 1-' H 1 I N n to a rt 0 •• 1 > C r o U) rr. r• O z ti W CO H H o H �, H In to 7C Cr. ln ti N N H Z H M o to \ w, M � LA DY ro Z > J 0 v H F.H. H 4 U) a a H Z H In co 0 Co H H > H z M Z 0 � H \ H 0] > H 0 z to H z H y to N 0 N N N C to >0 In H ln ON * H Z H 0 N • H • H C) Is L > N 0 a a H C 1O 'O H 0 In OF v a N W N r' 0 'b C-4 0 4 < M 9 e a (DQiO CY a 0 Na. ntra c 0 y °y W H Z H H L) H Z) 0 '* CD H C ro th cn 11 H 07 h] ct (fl n N r• a N H r a (D r• 0 11 K O r• rt N a H• n N U) N 1'4 N rt N a CD O £ rt > fD H. H H. rt CD G X 9 N P 0 a. N i-t N N 0 3 N 0 H r• a r•w r. '*] N 0 H fi H W > awr• Q ro rO (D0 ro rt rt•W () HAncnn0i t O 1CDDN r En ra o O W 1 H � a0r• rt rtann H Z • n N II H '0 7 to G H N r• < < H H cn a r• N C U) a a N 0 n 3 U) O 0 r• r• b) o C w N a [TJ C f) N a ro C rt a N n (n Z W r• N C W rt n rS H X) CO r•W N N H y rt H r• < 0 H O N a o a P. m 0 n w C C 0 a Z z H f) N r 0 H O O. N t'l H C7 ' P. N O 0 y G r• N 3 1, H O • N O ' G Y G • W Z US rt r- C rt H C C) r• N PS F'• Cn H CI N co H 0 H n N U) 0 M n N O a O PS rn Cn It N H r 0 m Z z � G z CO CD N H iP Z or I z� Cr Crl 1 h7 N N H as ON vO O' O'{ t�'O O+ LO H N N N N H n N) zH H O H • x N x l< g N \n 1 00 H H OT O•' ‘O • W O` W F-' N N • N.) V+ In to 'vi N H )0 t1) In [+7 [*) H3 0 HOLT) y z H N N) H b H 0' ON 'O V W O` W �O as 0) H N N H NJ O ro H r zZ Hz 4 N H Ucn b C ▪ .F.- 4:-. as H ornwrnw v rNt-• H N H trX M 0 U) H H H O US °zz Na yN-) T as 1/40 NO Q` P W ON ON v H N r H N 0 Z N.) 0 b Na CO i` N H `. H ON T •.O ON W 10 ON CO H • • H N H to C+ to In x) N 0 N �l n O T 1JI k..0 In W W • W �1 H N H FN) . CI ln 'S N C ✓ PS LO V W O 0 M tP a b V V N • m W cco tC CO tq CO CO fD a C o •s • 0 H Co r Z Z H 0 7 H Cl) 0 G) N t" � bro N o � a Z rHM M PO'< b co N H M X 7 N rt r• m 0 to rttn P. at 0 I-- c 7 N x c 0 tS It 0 O O Cl) N G C ^ I.... w H co b tr O P. 7 7 H 7 H 10 En F+• a N H •• 0 m on to H z N H N U) Cl) 0 n fD 0 ..0 rt H H 7 I I N C to • - rt 0 .• H > C rl Q Cl) CI' r• 0 7 ro 0+ rn Z N rn w w V V K r Z tN V LP N V V N z > CA C+ \ ro W 0 lJ V > V • C4 • O- Z CO 01 0 ON V V X > H z M ON Ch Z tri N 0 N V > •-..) H 0 . z a 0+ 0 ✓ N Z f/ N • to \ to VI VI > H t7 • r rn z 0 • 0 •to to V '> V N XI O to O H C` 01 V l- N V 1-, lJ l0 H C N Exhibi+ s " TrTH min "1 7- (,'.7)-.7t! r-77 77711' r r7,74 vfr flq, , KL'Ist fi ' % A A .t• 141, 11: tXti qt."; P" $ 4* •;..,1641 .4,74 (1'44' N- en6efirna"15 EJØMr' r ? T ?TSI'I gl 4 November 22 , 1983 INTRODOC'ION - GENERAL The proposed 52 room Lodge , The Lodge At Aspen , consists of 46 Lodge Rooms and 6 Employee rooms . The project proposes to cater to Ski Clubs and budget-minded skiers . Applicant believes that the proposed demul. iCion of the Continenta1 inn and Aspen Inn which are to be replaced with a First-Class World Hotel, will create a deficiency in accommodations in the low and medium price range . The Lodge At Aspen with smaller rooms can offer more reasonable price accommodations than a hotel offering large rooms , energy consuming swimming pools and elaborate health facilities which some guests may never use. OBJECTIONS TO ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE : 1. Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1983) is the legal document of the City of Aspen which governs the 1984 Lodge G .M .P. Competition. On Page 2 , Section 1, the following is stated : "All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more than the follow inq:" ". . . . (b) WI tit iii the L-1, ir2 , CC and CL Zone District , thirty five (35) Lodge or hotel units ; " This applicant bel :i_eves that the intent of (b) is that any application for a quota is restricted to land which has a zoning of Ir.1, ir2 , 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. • 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 "11th hour" attempt by the City Council on September 26 , 1983 (8 days prior to filing deadline) and October 12, 1983 (9 days after G .M.P. filing deadline) which would allow City owned property to be included in a proposed G .M.P. application does not and will not legitimatize an improper G .M .P. application. Even if the "11th hour" attempt succeeded, a question of possible discrimination occurs . This applicant requested permission from the Planning Office to include 7 ,280 square feet of the U. S . Forest Service Lot 41 in the Lodge At Aspen 's application. This land is contiguous to The Lodge At Aspen site and is involved in an exchange with this applicant. A Statement of Intent to exchange Lot 41 from the Forest Service was presented to the Planning Office . The City Attorney's office notified this applicant to the effect that the Forest Service parcel could not he included. This applicant was never notified that the City was considering a change in Ordinance 35 which would allow Government lands to be included in a G .M .P. application. 3 . This applicant believes that a principle of "Competition" is that the rules are the same for all competitors . The Aspen Mountain Lodge application proposes to demolish the following : Aspen Inn 67 rooms Continental Inn 178 rooms Blue Spruce 32 rooms TOTAL 277 rooms --2- 1 1 ' 1 . . Ars, Y • y ■ 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- a rrQQr,L ,n : • mrnimpki INTRODUCTION THE LODGE AT ASPEN The applicant of THE LODGE AT ASPEN Lodge project is submitting this as a supplement to the original Lodge GMP application. This supplement was prepared for the purpose of clarifying the original application by addressing the deficiencies indicated in the Planning Office Memorandum, dated November 22, 1983 SUMMARY OF PLANNING OFFICE SCORING In summary, the Planning Office memorandum indicates a scoring less than the maximum point for THE LODGE AT ASPEN in the following categories : Short of Maximum Section Category Rating Multipler Points la. Water 1 1 1 lb. Sewer 1 1 1 lc. Roads 1 1 1 2a. Architectural Design 2 3 6 2b. Site Design 2 3 6 2d. Parking and Circulation 1 3 3 2e. Visual Impact 1 3 3 3a. Common Areas 2 3 6 3b. Dining 1 2 2 3c. Recreational 2 2 It 4b. Employee Housing 1 1 4 APPLICANT' S COMMENTS After reviewing the Planning Office memo the applicant wishes to make the following comments and guarantees relative to each of! the above categories : -5- H. I!!!, 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 correctionwthe 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 i 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 1City'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- 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 ] i.mit 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. 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 . h . I'\NI: 1 '•:H; AND CIR(:I HAT I (#N CI#iPICNTS : I'nni iii'' is provided nn the has is nl• one spline per 1nft4e and nmpI 'eine hedrenm which is II requirement or the frl and I,- 2 Area ;Hid nu I I. Penn i cement . The Aspen Mount in Lodge ender. I'MII) I,i•„1 ••!,• .■ -;;iii Harking spnnu • he' 1181) roams . The Lodge At Aspen lint; n r;iI in ur III(! purl. irig -41r11r'e per beth'nnnt WJlti.1e the Aspen NI n I 1 in Lodge tuts 2.79 spa c per bedr'nnnt. The lT Ill lug rudins fur ears entering the pork ing ire(i oats _In id nn t HI iird ing In the C.i ty ur Aspen 's Pork-lug Stand:1rd ;is shnwn l: . i '1 PARKING STANDARD f �; iVF. \I'1fy AND TURNING AREAS t7, F'. ;.t 1.1... r.; 1, r:v1-7. .) „ , _ ) �� , (mi r cm ."c; rip I: : f r•. V ISIIAI, IMPACT CORN E:N'I'S : The height H. the hit ' Id lug will he reduced slightly to st:ny "If III ill the Area and nuII. Rem] influent of the %nuing Codes . The ItigliesI. paint n The I,ndg ■ At Aspen 's bnilding will he 22 feet less dent the iiigh1:es1 paint nit the Aspen Nirniui In in Lodge . 'the Loden At Aspen hu i I.d ing s I Is hnel.. HT of lite Avenue in order to 011111111c.: vi511411 uppen.'unee from the street . I Y. I f: ' .i 111 3 . AMENITIES PIROVIDEI) FOR GUESTS : The rating guidelines states "The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project . . . . " (underlining added) . The Aspen Mountain Lodge with 480 rooms has 10.4 times as many rooms as The Lodge At Aspen which has 46 tourist rooms. It appears to this applicant that a smaller lodge will be limited in its ability to provide amenities . a) COMMON MEETING AREAS COMMENTS : Applicant believes that the common area of 1,120 square feet consisting of lounge and lobby areas is sufficient and adequate for a 46 room lodge. With the restrictive nature of Aspen 's Area and Bulk requirements , conference facilities in a small lodge are unrealistic. b) DINING FACILITIES In Irl. 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. c) RECREATIONAL. FACILITIES COMMENTS : Two commercial Athletic Clubs are within walking distance ; namely, Aspen Athletic Club located at 720 E. Hyman Avenue and The Aspen Club located down the street at 1300 Ute Avenue. It is anticipated that these clubs will be used by the guest with Limo service available for transportation . The indoor hot tub is proposed at the Garden Level and will conserve more energy than an outdoor tub. 4. a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMMENTS : The Lodge At Aspen proposed to house 100% of its employees . The application states , "Three employees will be housed off-site. The Lodge will either lease long-term or purchase three condominiums in the Aspen area for housing the three employees . " This can provide a better life style for the employees , particularly if they have families . -9- V The employee unit in the Garden Level shown on page 43 will be built to meet building code requirements for habitation. A door to the outside of the building will be provided . Minimum window requirements will be designed into the unit . The tippl icant believes that The Midge At Aspen qualifies for the 15 points for Employee Dousing. BONUS P(1TNTS CONSIDERATTON 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 Wilt 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. Tn view of the initial submission dated October 1, 1983 and the supplementary data submitted this November 22, 1983 , the applicant believes that the project is qualified for evaluation under the bonus A point criteria. Respectfully submitted, Lyle Reeder 1 -1.0-- i • , ,r xti , d, 1- 6 WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920-2233 December 6, 1983 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Competition Award; Challenge of Lyle Reeder, Applicant for The Lodge at Aspen. Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent Lyle Reeder, an Applicant in the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition in connection with the hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission held on November 22 , 1983 , to select a winning score between the two Applicants -- The Lodge at Aspen, and the Aspen Mountain Lodge. That Commission awarded all the units to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and none to the Lodge at Aspen. This letter is written to set forth certain legal objections and irregularities that have been discovered by my client and myself in connection with the procedures of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City of Aspen regarding the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen in general as it pertains to this Competition. Specifically incorporated herein are the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen which are pertinent to these applicants and to the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition. I shall set forth these challenges , objections and irregularities in numerical order for your convenience and reference and suggest that they are clear violations of my client' s rights to due process and/or represent abuses of discretion: 1 . In scoring each of the two applicants, the Planning Director gave a decidedly unfair advantage to the Mountain Lodge project because of the procedure which allows that project to qualify as a PUD project and still have to compete as a project in the GMP Competition. Certain advantages were obtained by the Mountain Lodge by it being allowed to be of greater height and having more amenities , thus enabling it to receive a greater point score. WRIGHT HUGUS. JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920-2233 Aspen City Council December 6 , 1983 Page Two 2 . The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for having amenities for guests , at least a part of which score was due to having a larger number of amenities than the Lodge at Aspen and so receiving a higher score. This treatment would discriminate against a smaller project in general , since points are scored against each other on a one-to-one basis, and in particular since the Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and exterior space. 3 . The Mountain Lodge is proposing to gain credit for the demolition and reconstruction of 269 existing units, and consequently is seeking only 211 units from the Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their project, Planning Commission considered the entire 480 units in granting points for the various categories when they should have only considered the actual number of the units that were being requested. This would have resulted in only scoring 211 units as a percentage of the overall project (43 . 95%) . 4. The proposed Mountain Lodge project is obviously the most complicated and most expensive to be proposed for Aspen. It is also the largest in terms of number of units, size of buildings , etc. For this reason, it is hard to see how it can be equated with any other project, especially one of the size of the Lodge at Aspen. However, it is being scored against it and is being considered as a part of the Lodge GMP Competition in spite of its unique size and complexity. In fact, it should be a separately considered project. 5 . The procedures of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, in general, and the Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, provide for certain qualifications before an applicant can submit an application. Obviously, these requirements are necessary in order to determine if an applicant actually has the necessary interest in the property to be seriously considered. The interest of the Applicants for the Mountain Lodge appears to be no more than an Assignment of the Right to submit the application by the actual landowner, Hans Cantrup, who, in turn, is unable to legally handle his own legal affairs, including his real estate holdings , without . WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Lam SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920-2233 Aspen City Council December 6 , 1983 Page Three the express approval and participation of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Therefore , it would appear that the applicants for The Mountain Lodge have no standing to file the application being considered by this Commission. 6 . The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50 as unused previous years ' units; and 126 more from future years ' units up to 1987. This unprecedented request for the use of so many future years ' units would be a violation of the intent, if not the rule, of having an annual Lodge GMP Competition, No one can predict the future , and it would be impossible to determine the needs of the City five years from now, but since the years would be used up by The Mountain Lodge project, others would be denied the right and privilege of even being able to compete in a competition designed, and legally constituted, for the determination of weighing interests . 7 . Under the Law of the City of Aspen in effect at the time of the deadline for filing 1984 Lodge GMP Applications , an applicant who proposed to utilize City-owned land in their project, must be joined in the application by the City of Aspen; also, such an application must be judged in two ways by the Planning Office: one as if the City-owned land were included and one as if it were not included. At a City Council meeting on September 26 , 1983 , a proposal was introduced to allow applicants (specifically The Mountain Lodge project) to file an application including City-owned land, without the joining of the City. This proposal was not formally passed at that session and was , in fact, tabled until the next session of the City Council, held on October 12, 1983, when it was passed. The Mountain Lodge filed its application for Lodge GMP Competition by the October 3 , 1983 deadline but before the effective date of the new law allowing it to file without the consent and joining of the City of Aspen. Therefore , the application should not have been allowed since it did not conform to the law of the City in those two respects . WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920-2233 Aspen City Council December 6, 1983 Page Four Thank you for your consideration.. / s. Y Wrig Hugus, Jr. ' WHJR:klm