The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.330 E Main St.1983-PD-1.1 ....2 ~ t 'Â·eta:Â·; # 9.21-1 /-. 430 2 4(uv< St 2Â£42:. [c{%3-99 -/ 0%91-~,0 .7 4 ( *THE-uugâ€žL-Q U..e-4-1 -Hotel Jerome - conceptual - -9. 1983 1 1, Â£Â£-d 1 / 24/-=-- 64112/ 1 P Ei 0- f Â·330 /MAAÂ·A) '3 -/ 21 9-(370 7 T 311 001 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Rezoning and Final Plat ,* DATE: March 14, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 29- ti The public hearing on the rezoning of the Hotel Jerome from i s current spFit status as partly CC and partly O - Office to CC/PUD is scheduled for tonilyht. Also scheduled is the review of the final plat and GMP exemption for expansion of a historic structure. The Planning Office requests that you table these requests until your next meeting on March 28. We have just received two very substantial memos on the final plat, one from the Engineering Office and the other from the City Attorney's Office. The applicant is currently working to complete the submission to our satisfaction and is not adverse to having you table action for a two week period. It would be inconsistent with past Council policy for you to grant a rezoning to the applicant in advance of final plat, or to grant final plat approval without all details being in compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. There is a beneficial purpose to which this meeting can be put. Councilmember Collins called me last week to request a brief presentation of the plans for the Hotel Jerome in advance of the final consideration of the project. I will be prepared to present the applicant's drawings to you at your meeting and have informed the applicant's representatives of this meeting as well. Following below is a brief summary of some of the pertinent facts associated with this proposal: Zoning - Currently that portion of the property facing Main Street is zoned CC while that portion of the property facing Bleeker Street is zoned 0. The proposed rezoning will change the entire property to CC/PUD which will make the hotel a conditional use and which will provide the PUD flexibility needed to make the site design work (variance needed for height). P&Z has recommended your approval of the rezoning and has granted the applicant permission to expand a conditional use. Expansion Plans - The Hotel Jerome property consists of 47,712 square feet, on which is located 39 hotel rooms and 20,156 square feet of commercial space. In addition to the reconstruction of these existing uses, the applicant proposes to build 70 new lodge rooms and an additional 10,469 square feet of commercial space. The total size of the buildings on the property will be approximately 125,000 square feet. The additional lodge units and commercial space is exempt from GMP competition, due to the historic structure's GMP exemption (24-11.2(b)) but must be deducted from the quota at such time as a building permit is requested. Conditions - The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved this application at their meeting on September 7, 1982. The attached motion reflects the action taken by P&Z, including 10 conditions of approval. The applicant is currently revising his PUD agreement and PUD plat to conform to these conditions and the other comments identified by staff based on the final PUD submission documents. We hope to use the March 14 meeting to identify any issues surrounding this project which are of concern to you, thereby permitting us to respond to these problems in time for the following meeting. This approach will keep this important project on time for a sping construction date, as has been proposed within this application. A MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Rezoning DATE: February 28, 1983 The second reading of the Hotel Jerome rezoning was mistakenly put on your agenda tonight by the City Clerk's Office without consulting with me. The publication requirements of the Muni- cipal Code mandate that this item not be heard at least until your meeting on March 14 and be tabled tonight. The staff is currently reviewing the final plat for this project and is finding some information deficiencies. Therefore, you might expect to actually take final action on the rezoning and final plat approvals at the meeting on March 28. ec: Wayne Chapman Katherine Koch , MEMORANDUM To: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Rezoning of Hotel Jerome DATE: February 14, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attached for your first reading review is an ordinance which rezones the property on which the Hotel Jerome is situated. Presently, this 47,712 square foot parcel has a split zoning, with the Main Street portion being CC and the Bleeker Street portion being 0. This ordinance will unify the zoning as CC/PUD, a zone in which a hotel is a conditional uses rather than its current status as prohibited in the 0 zoneÂ© As you are well aware, the purpose of this rezoning applicertion, which you have previously sponsored, is to permit your review of plans to renovate and expand the Hotel Jerome. These plans will be available at this meeting but final plat action will not actually take place until the second reading of this ordinance. You will also be taking an action at that time on the exemption of the new hotel rooms and commercial space from the GMP under the historic buildings provision. Knowing the support this project has received throughout the review process, the Planning Office feels it is appropriate to withhold our full scale analysis of this rezoning until second reading when we will also provide you the conditions of P&Z's preliminary plat approval. Therefore, the only motion you need to make at this time is as follows: "Move to read Ordinance , Series of 1983." "Move to approve on first reading Ordinance , Series of 1983." 11 9 I 1 Â· 1 'j 1 -1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL 0. 8. a L, CO. ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1983 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE HOTEL JEROME TO CC/PUD 1 , WHEREAS, John Gilmore is the owner of record of the property on which is situated the Hotel Jerome, more specfically described as Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, O, P, Q, R; S and the East 20 feet of Lot N, block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with the vacated East 100 feet of the alley in said Block 79; and WHEREAS, that portion of Block 79 facing Main Street is zoned CC while the portion facing Bleeker Street is zoned 0; and WHEREAS, a hotel is a conditional use in the CC zone but is a nonconforming use in the 0 zone; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on September 7, 1982, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did unanimously recommend that City Council rezone the Hotel Jerome property to CC/PUD; and WHEREAS, the rezoning of the Hotel Jerome property to CC/PUD will permit the consideration by City Council of plans to reno- vate and expand this historic landmark which has played a central role in Aspen's past and is proposed to again be an important part of the City's future; and WHEREAS, the City Council does wish to accept the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission by rezoning the Hotel Jerome to CC/PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-2.2 of the Municipal Code entitled "Zoning District Map" be and hereby is amehded by rezoning to CC/PUD the . i, h RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. HOECKEL I. B. a l. CO. property on which the Hotel Jerome is situated, more specifically Â· i i described as: 1 Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, 0, P, Q, R, S and the East 20 feet of Lot N, block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen, - together with the vacated East 100 feet of the alley in said Block 79, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Section 2 That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend the Zoning District Map consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code, and as described in Section 1 above. Section 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent - provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the + ---- I-*F - I ----V- .- remaining portions thereof. -_. _ Section 4 1 -- A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of -7 1983, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall>-Aspen,-Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the sameishall be published once in a-newspaper of-general-circulation-within-the-Cityzof Aspen. - O - Â· 32 - INTRODUCED,-READ AND- OBDERED--published asrprovidedyby-law by the- City- Council of the- City of-Aspen on-the- r -- r- day-of -2 -2- - , 1983. -- - j --- - i - Herman Edel, Mayor - t ATTEST: A- =- *Z-- -- - - --- -- Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 1 â€¢ i *) j RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 80 C. F. HOECKEL 8. 8. a L. CO. FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1983. Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk â€¢9 4, The Durant Mall 710 East Durant Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 USA 303/925-2772 December 16, 1982 Mr. Wayne Chapman City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 0 flÂ£Â·20 Dear wayne: *Ow Thank you for your time Tuesday December 7th and your willingness to work with:the applicant on the Hotel Jerome renovation and expansion. Interwest This letter is to further define our conversation about the Hotel 's aggreement to provide sixty off site parking spaces for guests and employees. The Planning Department determined a ratio of twenty-five spaces for guests and thirty-five for hotel employees. I feel this ratio will change for two reasons when the Hotel is operable: employees will work shifts, staggering parking needs; and, the required fifteen off site bedrooms will probably be in a cluster or single building. in the -City, encouraging public transportation or the use of Hotel transportation. The ultimate solution will be to provide the sixty spaces in the planned City parking garage. The final approvals will require the Hotel to participate proportionately in the construction and annual maintenance of the Rio Grande parking structure. As you know, my concern is that receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Hotel not be contingent upon theÂ· rediness of the parking garage. The owners and the potential lenders need an interim parking arrangement in the event tbe Jerome is ready to open prior to the parking structure. Without an interim solution the renovation and expansion will be difficult. We discussed persuading Council to issue a Certificate of Occupancy with a specific interim solution. You offered to ask Council for fifteen spaces at the current Rio Grande lot and the remaining forty-five spaces at the golf course lot next to the Red Roof Inn. In our meeting I erred in thinking we need fifteen employee spaces. I ask you to endorse twenty unassigned spaces at the Rio Grande lot and the balance at the golf course. The Hotel will be responsible for storage and retrieval of the golf course vehicles and supervision of Hotel vehicles in the Rio Grande lot. Please review this letter for accuracy. I will submit our draft agreement for your endorsement. Sincerely, <11'4(1,1 Lf l/J aiuJ{-1 Perry Hatvey PH/jt , The Durant Moll 710 East Durant Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 USA 303/925-2772 December 16, 1982 Mr. Daniel McArthur Q City of Aspen r n 130 S. Galena flfl[Â·i Aspen, CO 81611 Wt,U Dear Dan: Interwest Thank you for your time on Tuesday, December 7th. To determine what, if any, impact the Hotel Jerome expansion will have on Bleeker Street requires the studies you agreed to provide. This letter is to confirm my understanding of our meeting. As background I am enclosing the Planning and Zoning minutes of the pre- liminary PUD approval and Alan Richman's memo summarizing the conditions to approval. Bleeker Street was discussed because there is a problem now. Since the Mill Street improvements many "fender-benders" have occured from ice build-up on the relatively steep grade on Bleeker between Monarch and Mill. Our new traffic light system encourages traffic on Bleeker to avoid the Mill and Main intersection. Citizens and some commissioners felt that this existing hazard might be aggravated by trucks entering the new Jerome's loading dock. The applicant has agreed to work with the City to investigate and mitigate any material impact the Jerome may have on Bleeker Street. The meetingÂ· with you bas refined the procedure to deal with the concerns about Bleeker Street. Implementation of the Preliminary Approval requires that your office conduct a study of traffic volume and accident frequency during the winter of 1982-83 and again during the first winter the expanded Hotel Jerome is open for business. A costly and disruptive regrading of Bleeker between Monarch and Mill shall be consi dered only as the last alternative. The City shall first implement some or all of the following measures; the elimination of parking along Bleeker; the implementation of one way traffic on Bleeker between Monarch and Mill; restriction of right turns from Mill onto Bleeker; and the reinstatement of right turns on red southbound on. Mill onto Main. These measures, combined with any others which may improve Bleeker Street traffic flow without construction work, shall be tested after the Jerome is operational If these measures, singly or in combination, return traffic and accident levels to an acceptable level based on this winter's studies then the Jerome shall Mr. Daniel McArthur December 16, 1982 Page Two have no obligation to participate in any regrading of Bleeker. In the event tha studies show conclusively that the Jerome's normal operations aggravate the current situation then physical improvements of this block of Bleeker shall be discussed to determine the proportion of cost to be paid by the Hotel. In our meeting you agreed to conduct traffic volume and accident counts on Bleeker and Mill at the intersection for the remainder of this ski season, as your existing and new equipment allow. This data base will constitute the "before" analysis and will be compared to a similar analysis conducted during the first full winter the Hotel is operational. I hope the statements herein conform to your understanding of the procedural steps needed to fulfill this condition of approval. Please contact me with your comments on this letter. Thank you again for your input and cooperation. Sincerely yours, Perry Harvey PH/jt /16' 21 HOTE~ 1 EROME 6/22 330 E. MAIN ST. September 5, 1982 The following are the existing deliveries that are made to the Hotel Jerome. It is believed that the total number would remain about the same after the expansion. 1. Westman 2-3/wk 2. United Foods 2/wk 3. Country Meats 2/wk 4. Aspen Dairy 3/wk 5. Coca Cola 1/wk 6. Colo. West Dist 3/wk 7. Fresh Squeeze 6/wk 8. Orrison Dist. 2/wk 9. Coors 2/wk 10. Best Brands 1/wk 11. C&C 1/wk 12. Franchise Liq. 1/wk 13Â· R&L Dist. 1/wk 14. Ledo 1/wk 15Â· Western Davis 1/wk 16. Benedeck-Central 3/wk 17 Â· Ski Country Sales 6/wk 18. UPS 5/wk This is a total of 44 deliveries made per week, or 7.33 per day on a six day week. The deliveries are disbursed throughout the week, with only slightly higher volume on Mondays and Wednesdays. All but three of the companies were contacted and surveyed. Of those contacted, all but two are willing or able to cooperate with scheduled delivery times. Best Brands of Denver is not able to guarantee anything in the winter due to weather and road conditions. Our present laundry service makes its evening delivery from Glenwood about 6pm. They cannot get here much earlier than that even if we are their first delivery. Most of the trucks are now arriving between 9-llam, with a few that come between 3- 5pm. I would suggest that something close to these two time periods be adopted as the required delivery times. I would also suggest that having an AM and PM time is very important. In short, I forsee no substantial problems in cooperating with the councils desire to have designated delivery times Prepared by Dan Baxter ~Â»h.1/9 HOTE~~~,E~~~~m 330 E. MAIN ST. August 17, 1982 Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hotel Jerome Dear Commissioners: I am writing to confirm our verbal discussion this morning concerning the proposed time table for construction and remodelling of the subject project. The construction period for both existing and new portions of the work will be twelve months and we are allowing approximately six months for final fixturing, furnishing, landscaping, etc. At this point our proposed beginning will be May 1 of next year with completion scheduled for before Christmas 1984. Very truly yours, 93- f Ga,-~y_ Johrp< ~ilmore ~ - U MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department : - -4 DATE: August 9, 1982 RE: Jerome Hotel Preliminary P.U.D., Rezoning, Expansion of a Conditional Use, and Exemption from G.M.P. Having reviewed the above preliminary application and being well acquainted with the site, the Engineering Department has the following comments for each aspect of the submittal: I. Preliminary Planned Unit Development The applicant has responded to most of our concerns as outlined in my memo of February 20, 1981. Note should be made of the following: a. The new application indicates the inclusion of an area for a trash compactor. In conjunction with final plat submission, the applicant should further specify the design and capacities of the compaction system. b. The current design will still require a height variance of over eleven feet. The northeast corner of the structure, according to the figures on the application, is 514 feet above grade. C. The application we received for review does not include a proposed development schedule as is required at the preliminary PUD stage. d. Due to the magnitude of the proposed expansion, it is particularly important to obtain the comments of the individual utilities including City Water and Electric. II. Rezoning a. The Engineering Department supports the ongoing negotiation for an agreement regarding provision of off-street parking in the Rio Grande parking structure. Through a recent meeting between the applicant, Wayne Chapman, Alan Richman, and myself, it would appear that construction of such a structure may occur concurrently with the Jerome construction. b. The new application clearly indicates the applicants intention to provide sidewalks around the entire Ee Page 2 August 9, 1982 Jerome Hotel Preliminary P.U.D., Rezoning, Expansion of a Condition Use, and Exemption from G.M.P. project. The application also appears to show planters encroaching the right-of-way. The planters would require encroachment approval through Council. Further, although a five foot walk is all that is required on Bleeker and Monarch Streets per Resolution 19 of 1975, we may suggest that increased pedestrian activity in the area, as well as the impacts of the project itself may warrant provision of wider walks. III. Expansion of a Condition Use The Engineering Department has no comments regarding expansion of the conditional Hotel use into the rezoned areas. IV. Exemption from G.M.P. The Engineering Department has no comments regarding exemption of the proposed units from the Growth Management Plan. JWH/co ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT <kÂ·_,1_, ~ EMBREFT/53 MEMORANDUM k nâ€ž 244 TO: MARTHA EICHELBERGER-PLANNING OFFICE ASPEN / PITKIN CO. FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS PLANNING OFFICE SUBJECT: HOTEL JEROME RENOVATION AND ADDITION DATE: JULY 23, 1982 Water will be made available to the applicant upon payment of the necessary Utility Connection Charge assessments. However, the Water Department will require a new connection and service line to the main for the new addition, as the existing line to the present building would not be adequate for the additional facilities. Sidgerely, 459 9141= I Jim-Markalunas Director Aspen Water Department MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Sanitation District City Engineering Department Mountain Bell Housing Fire Marshal/Building Dept. City Water Department 1/Rocky Mountain Natural Gas City Electric Fire Chief FROM: Martha Eichelberger, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition DATE: July 20, 1982 Planner Alan Richman has attached an application submitted by the Hotel Jerome for review of four phases of owner John F. Gilmorets ptoposal for the renovation of and addition to the Hotel Jerome, namely (a) preliminary plan for proposed PUD Subdivision; (b) rezoning of the north half of the subject property; (c) permit for expansion of an approved conditional use of subject property; and (d) GMP exception. The issue has been placed on the August 17, 1982 City Planning and Zoning agendas therefore, we would appreciate your comments by Monday, August 9. Thank you. ujg --, fh-J+ GÂ» .301 44 U o.4 9 r D 4.2-J ~,â€¢~-~41 0 J~vt~2-- h $9-2 i _ 14-,4 4,-24-71,0~ tj---vqa~t- V G A- -~ kÂ»+9 =~1 - Jul dÂ£,3/1-114 - 7-'64 UA-L 411$.4% WoÂ» J /MU Â»Â£-1Â»Â«\ -t 4 4 L_ SELD . AILLÂ£70 0/p e*-fx-*t*n 2(iÂ«- at L 90-0 U ~hwÂ¥nJ-n . /4 -34244 GÂ«gÂ·Â·t-* 4-vf,j.. .4 At-o~11Â»~ C ~4 34<2644 . MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney vSanitation District , City Engineering Department Mountain Bell Housing Fire Marshal/Building Dept. City Water Department ' Rocky Mountain Natural Gas City Electric Fire Chief FROM: Martha Eichelberger, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition DATE: July 20, 1982 . Planner Alan Richman has attached an application submitted by the Hotel Jerome for review of four phases of owner John F. Gilmore's ptoposal for the renovation of and addition to the Hotel Jerome, namely (a) preliminary plan for proposed PUD Subdivision; (b) rezoning of the north half of the subject property; (c) permit for expansion of an approved conditional use of subject property; and (d) GMP exception. The issue has been placed on the August 17, 1982 City Planning and Zoning agenda, therefore, we would appreciate your comments by Monday, August 9. Thank you. Pit 0 8 LEâ€¢-1 pO Â£ f m e â€¢- / A' 5 *A w t L , .- k IMIS (te,--.-Ar,0.- As S T. A-1.-1.- k- A : t.,4 ,-2.Akny /9 A Ah#-2 9-Al Â£ ,41.04 >41 42_ A S b b / ST k i c r /1 A ~Ace ... .. / MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Sanitation District . City Engineering Department Mountain Bell 1/ Housing Fire Marshal/Building Dept. City Water Department ' Rocky Mountain Natural Gas City Electric Fire Chief FROM: Martha Eichelberger, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition DATE: July 20, 1982 . Planner Alan Richman has attached an application submitted by the Hotel Jerome for review of four phases of owner John F. Gi 1more' s ptoposal for the renovation of and addition to the Hotel Jerome, namely (a) preliminary plan for proposed PUD Subdivision; (b) rezoning of the north half of the subject property; (c) permit for expansion of an approved conditional use of subject property; and (d) GMP exception. The issue has beenÂ· placed on the*August 17, 1982 City Planning and Zoning agenda, therefore, we would appreciate your comments by Mondays August 9. Thank you. To: aÂ»-_ Glj- 7--61,2 -L : .U>--A-et * rk--1- OLJ. 1 C 2-__,Â»r- -/4-v.U-Â»4, ,Z>t_* ttle--1 19 2_~ ~ -1 D -47 7*. .'117- Led*/A-#<tril h CL-C Â· -- '1-- u.4.-L-+ < //EÂ·e,-tn, Â»._..eit'-6./:C.~ cu r /Ut---J// . .. TIOLL A-N-D & H AUT ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVEQ, COLORADO OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET laZA 'V= CTPEET, N. W. 600 EAST MAIN STREET $1 SUITE 2900 ASPEN, COLORADO 81(311 ~ ~ 5-@{EMEMJEY]::-.0(020000 DENVER, COLOF?ADO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 TELEPHONE (303) 8000 ~ JUL 1 9 1982 1 1 T E L,EPI~NE ~2 02) 466 -7340 TELECOPIER (303) 575-82(31 TELE:codiER~ 02) 466-7354 BILLINGS, MONTANAOFFICE LAMAM ~y., .J phil NG OFFICE SUITE 1400 (11/ -4."'~7)'tr<A~TTT-99/ANT G KITE 175 NORTH 27TH STREET ASPEN / PITKIN CO. .00../ ./.-/t/S. P BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 PLANNING OFFICE 18 GRAND AVENUE TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166 July 16, 1982 LARAMIE,WYOMING 82070 TELECOP:ER (406) 252-1669 TELEPHONE (337) 742-8203 TELECOPIER (3(71 792-7618 ARTHUR C. DAILY . J (303) 925-3476 Alan Richman, A.I.C.P., Asst. Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addition D,ear Alan: On behalf of John F. Gilmore, owner of the Hotel Jerome property, and pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code, we are submitting to you herewith for consideration by the appropriate City authorities twenty-one (21) sets of detailed plans for the captioned project, together with a check in the amount of $130.00 representing the balance of the fees due in connection therewith. In light of the conceptual approvals already given this project by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council, please consider the present submittal a formal application for review of the four (4) following-described phases of Mr. Gilmore's proposal, to wit: 1. Application for approval of the Preliminary Plan of the proposed Planned Unit Development Subdivision ("POD") of the subject property, pursuant to Sections 24-8 and 20-12 of the Aspen Municipal Code; 2. Application to amend the Zoning District Map so as to effect the rezoning of the North half (Nk) of the subject property to Commercial Core (CC), pursuant to Section 24-12 of the Aspen Municipal Code. It should be noted that since the Asnen City Council has agreed to sponsor this amendment, the application is not subject to the private landowner initiation deadlines set forth in the Code; 3. Application for a permit for expansion of an already approved conditional use of the subject property, pursuant to Section 24-3.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and HOLLAND &,IIANT Alan Richman July 16, 1982 Page 2 4. Request for exemption from compliance with the allotment procedures of the Growth Management Quota System contained in Article XI of Section 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, under and by virtue of the exception established in Code Section 24-11.2(b) for "the enlargement of, or change of use in, a structure which has received individual historic designation", and the current H, Historic Overlay District Map of the City of Aspen. Further in connection with this proposal, please be advised that Mr. Gilmore is prepared and hereby agrees to perform the following conditions to conceptual approval prior to being entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject project: (a) Applicant shall provide sixty (60) off-site automobile parking soaces for hotel guests and employees, such spaces tentatively to be located in the proposed City parking structure on the Rio Grande property. If the City coordinates the construction of this structure with the development of the captioned project, the Applicant shall participate proportionately (based on the need for 60 spaces) in the cost of construction thereof. If the coordination of these projects is determined not to be feasible, Applicant shall provide the required spaces at another nearby site to be selected by him; (b) Applicant shall provide fifteen (15) off-site deed restricted employee housing units, such units to include a minimum of fifteen (15) bedrooms, in a location or locations acceptable to the City; (C) Applicant shall repair or replace as appropriate any portion(s) of new or existing sidewalks, curbs and/or gutters on streets adiacent to the subject project, which may he damaged during construction, and shall care for in perpetuity all trees planted along that part of Main Street which abuts the scbject property; and (d) Applicant shall provide an adequate vehicular pull- off area at the Hotel entrance on Main Street. Mr. Gilmore further agrees to submit to you on or before July 23, 1982 a draft of a proposed Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the captioned project, which Agreement shall encompass the foregoing covenants and such other matters as may be appropriate. -[IOLLAND & IIART Alan Richman July 16, 1982 Page 3 After you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed materials, we would appreciate your informing us as to what, if any, additional data or procedures will be necessary in order to place these matters before the appropriate City agencies. Thanks for your consideration and assistance. Very tr~7 yours, N,& 1; f Arthur C. Daily for Holland & Hart ACD/jlf enclosures CC: Gary Esary, Esq. Mr. John F. Gilmore Thomas Wells & Associates/Architects 24 V PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Hotel Jerome - Proposed PUD, Rezoning, Conditional Use NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be continued on the issue of preliminary plan for proposed PUD subdivision of the Hotel Jerome before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 7, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, and at the same meeting, notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held to consider rezoning of the north half of the subject property to CC, and permit for expansion of an approved conditional use of the subject property. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 19, 1982. City of Aspen Account. HarELLE,FOME 3 -50 -2,1 6,2016Â£ roOT FoREAI<CRDIC,4 op MAJOR AP<â‚¬26 (Aer;Lox,~ /\REA (>,2. 1-M'E) Â©thÂ»VARED Ext % EN-26, Ne\,u ADDIT-loo 6-GECTROCA~10 14 974 32*12 EMr'Â»fee HousiA)6 11 96& KITOMEk) 1 11â‚¬9TAUFAK)rs 91&27 I <1 44* GOVE Ug,4 Me/TING Fa)MS HOTEL ofFIcEs 5,02, 1 COMMEMCIAL- 4427 (61 5/25 â‚¬>EFULE $ MECH,1 ElÂ£<L. j St 456 4232 MAKTICANX:e, STOMAEâ‚¬, fbELIC-Ci FCULLIROk) f 9,299 11) 964 1,0:6% 66#KIPÂ©AS; 97&/R5 EUEVATOTâ‚¬,let-C, 12rrA u SQL)AFâ‚¬ FEET 44900 73~ 6517 -4 1 83 GREA OF PEMOUSHED E)415â‚¬STKVCCOME<~ - 441 9 14(0'Tort wer IFJORAâ‚¬â‚¬P EUCLPI A.)6 6.4-A ok) FROFEFTY ) t\Ae . ~3Lis 6Â«k/*aaÂ©J - U.~ 9 Quels- d GU co--t.ft.AL '$&1< NJI 1-A-S %te# SL,\All 04\6&. Le- Lp t_ i-~25 Lo - 89 4LÂ·4.*1 Aâ‚¬ JAA-i,A~ efAce v>.4 <6\~. 4 0.- h --1- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition DATE: August 11, 1982 Zoning: The portion of the block facing Main Street is zoned CC while the portion facing Bleeker Street is zoned 0. Lot Size: 47,712 square feet. Location: 330 West Main at Mill Street. Applicant's Request: There are four concurrent reviews before you at this time, including the following: 1. Preliminary PUD - public hearing. 2. Rezoning entire site to CC - public hearing (note: rezoning application is being sponsored by City Council). 3. Expansion of hotel as a conditional use - public hearing. 4. Exemption of lodge units from the GMP. The Planning Office was recently notified that some procedural public notice requirements concerning the rezoning and conditional use public hearings may not have been met. Therefore, it may be necessary to begin your review of this project tonight and then continue the public hearing to your next meeting so that we can meet our legal requirements. We will be able to better Conditions inform you of this issue at the time of the meeting. of Concep- tual Approval: The City Council conceptual approval of this project was granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agreeing to provide parking for 25 guests and 35 employees at an off-site location to be precisely determined by the applicant and the City. Should Council agree to coordinate the timing of the Rio Grande parking structure and Hotel Jerome construction, then the applicant should be required to partici- pate proportionately in the cost of construction of the structure based on the need for 60 spaces. Should such an arrangement not be found to be workable, the applicant should lease a site nearby. In either case, the applicant should provide valet parking arrangements for guests of the hotel; 2. The applicant agreeing to provide four deed restricted employee units within the hotel and to work with both the City and County Housing Departments to develop an equitable arrangement to provide deed restricted housing for an additional 15 employees of the hotel at a location acceptable to the City, to include a minimum of 15 bedrooms; 3. The applicant making every effort to store construction materials on site, thereby causing no inconvenience in the vicinity of the hotel. If there is a need to disrupt any right-of-way in the area, this inconvenience should be limited only to Bleeker Street. Memo: Hotel Jerome Renov on and Addition Page Two August 11, 1982 4. The applicant agreeing to install inside the loading dock an industrial-type trash compaction facility to handle all solid waste generated at the hotel. 5. The applicant agreeing to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. If construction causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Street, the applicant should be required to replace those sections. The applicant also agrees to perpetual care for all trees planted on Main Street. 6. The applicant agreeing to provide detailed information at the preliminary plat stage regarding the height, mass and bulk of the proposed additions in relation to the request for rezoning and expansion of a conditional use. The applicant is also expected to provide at that stage of the review process detailed plans regarding the exact number of rooms requested and a breakdown of square footage in terms of hotel rooms, commercial space, mechanical space and other uses. Lastly, the applicant should provide detailed arrangements specifying how parking and employee housing needs of the Hotel Jerome as outlined above are to be met. 7. The applicant providing a detailed solution to the traffic circulation problems anticipated on Main and/or Mill Streets. City Council does not approve of the P&Z suggestion that a second major Hotel entrance be placed on Mill Street, instead requesting that a sufficiently large pull-off area be maintained on Main Street (preferably more than two car spaces). Review Comments: Following is a summary of the major comments concerning each of the individual reviews identified previously. 1. Preliminary PUD The basic utilities to serve this project are already in place but from comments received it is apparent that new service lines and connections will be required to serve the expansion plans. Specifically, the Aspen Water and Electric Departments and Rocky Mountain Natural Gas have indicated that minor service changes will be necessary to meet the needs of the renovation and addition. We recommend that the applicant be required to indicate on the final plat the location of any easements needed for utility service and to obtain assurances from the appropriate agencies that these easements meet the service needs for the renovation and addition. The Engineering Department has indicated that the applicant has responded to most concerns identified at the conceptual review stage. The Engineer requests that the applicant further specify the design capacities of the proposed trash compaction system in conjunction with final PUD submission. Furthermore, before pre- liminary PUD approval is granted, the applicant should submit a proposed development schedule, as is required by the Code at this stage of the review process. Finally, the Engineer notes that while the applicant does intend to provide sidewalks around the entire project, as was required at conceptual review, it appears to show planters encroaching into the right-of-way. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment license from City Council for these planters. The applicant should also consider providing sidewalks in excess of five feet in width on Bleeker and Monarch (greater than normally required) due to expected pedestrian activity in this location. The Planning Office notes that Section 24-8.3 of the Code permits variations from the area and bulk requirements of the Code for Planned Unit Developments. We note that the building height at the northeast corner (Mill and Bleeker) is 514 feet above grade, Memo: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition Page Three August 11, 1982 well in excess of the Code requirement of 40 feet. The FAR for the site, at approximately 2.6:1 is also well in excess of the 2.0:1 maximum allowable. The applicant does meet the 25 percent open space requirement due to land reserved for the outdoor dining area and pool, although this area does not specifically conform as "green space". Finally, the Planning Office notes that the applicant's letter dated July 16 specifically agrees to meet the conditions of conceptual approval which will be formally realized by the submission of a PUD agreement, to be entered into with the City Council. 2. Rezoning Ordinance 19, Series of 1982 provides criteria for the review of applications for rezoning. Each of the appropriate criteria is addressed below. A. Compatibility - The Hotel Jerome is located at one of the focal intersections in the City of Aspen. Its historic role as a meeting place and community landmark render it the dominant use along Main Street. With its adjacency to the rest of the commercial core and its proximity to transit routes it represents an ideal location for a pedestrian, auto-disincentive type of hotel operation. The topography of the site (sloping away from Main Street toward Bleeker) allows the development of an addition to the existing building which does not overshadow the prominence of the historic structure. B. Traffic and Parking Impacts - The applicant has indicated the presence of a pull-off area for short term parking along Main Street so that loading and unloading in front of the hotel will not interfere with traffic on Main Street. A doorman will also be provided to insure that this area is properly used. A loading dock and trash compactor for service access has been provided from the Bleeker Street side of the project. The applicant will provide 60 off-site parking spaces at the Rio Grande parking structure. A conversation with Wayne Chapman, City Manager, suggests the City's intention to begin work on such a structure within the next 12 months. C. Analysis of Community Need - The Draft Short Term Accommodations Report documents the community need for upgraded quality of lodge units. This project will provide the community with a first class, full service hotel and will renovate the existing 39 rooms while also adding an additional 67 new rooms, for a total of 106 rooms. D. Aspen Area General Plan - The Hotel Jerome is located within the "Central Area" land use category on the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. Zoning this property to CC would be entirely consistent with this land use designation. 3. Conditional Use Expansion Section 24-3.3 of the Municipal Code provides criteria for the review of the hotel expansion as a conditional use in the CC zone. Each of the appropriate criteria is addressed below. A. Compliance with Zoning Code - As a PUD, it is permissable for this expansion to vary the requirements of the zoning code. As an individually historically designated structure, the hotel may be expanded without competing under the GMP. The project is consistent in all other ways with our zoning regulations. Memo: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition Page Five August 11, 1982 a. The applicant indicating on the final plat the location of any easements needed for utility service and obtaining assurances from the appropriate agencies that these easements meet the service needs for the renovation and addition. b. The applicant specifying the design capacities of the proposed trash compaction system in conjunction with final PUD submission. c. The applicant submitting a proposed development schedule. d. The applicant obtaining an encroachment license from City Council for the planters encroaching into the sidewalk. e. The applicant agreeing to provide four deed restricted employee units on-site and a minimum of 15 deed restricted employee bedrooms off-site and to provide parking for 25 guests and 35 employees at a location off-site acceptable to the applicant and the City prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel units. f. The applicant agreeing to go through an annual review on or about the yearly anniversary date of the approval of this application by P&Z for the purposes of informing the City and the public of the progress in meeting the conditions contained herein and, if necessary, to allow the further consideration of the need for conditions relative to this application. g. The applicant making every effort to store construction materials on-site, thereby causing no inconvenience in the vicinity of the hotel. If there is a need to disrupt any right-of-way in the area, this inconvenience should be limited only to Bleeker Street. h. The applicant agreeing to replace any portions of the sidewalk and curb which aredamaged as a result of construction and to perpetually care for all trees planted on Main Street. Memo: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition Page Four August 11, 1982 B. Consistency with Zoning District - The intent of the CC zone district is "To allow the use of land...to enhance the business and service character in this central core of the city." As a full service hotel, including restaurant, bar, shops, meeting rooms and entertainment areas, we believe that this project will enhance the business and service character of the core for both tourists and residents. C. Land Use Compatibility - This issue was addressed above as part of the review of rezoning criteria. 4. GMP Exemption This proposal qualifies for an exemption from the GMP under Section 24-11.2(b) of the Code. The applicant is requesting that you exempt the construction of 67 lodge rooms and 10,469 square feet of commercial space from the GMP, while allowing the recon- struction of 39 existing lodge rooms and 20,156 square feet of commerc-al space. At the present time, there are no criteria in place for review of such an exemption. However, in our proposed revisions to this section, we have suggested that an applicant be required to mitigate the impacts of the planned expansion. In fact, this is the approach we have been following in reviewing Mis application. Two key conditions regarding the conceptual Epproval of this project have been that the applicant provide four employee units on-site and 15 employee bedrooms off-site and 60 parking spaces off-site. The Planning Office has been informed that the applicant has made some progress toward obtaining off-site housing but has not yet secured the required number of bedrooms. We now recognize that with an anticipated two year time period during which the hotel is under construction and out of operation, it is unreasonable to require that all units be obtained during the planning process. We believe that it is appropriate that the applicant document that the appropriate number of bedrooms have been secured and deed restricted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Similarly, we believe that the applicant should be required to have the parking spaces operational prior to the issuance of a C.0. To insure that the applicant is making progress toward completion of these requirements and to provide an opportunity for public infor- mation concerning this very sensitive project, we recommend that you require the applicant to have an annual review on or about the yearly anniversary date of your approval of this application. At this time the applicant could inform you of the status of the project and you could respond to any concerns which might be raised by adjacent landowners or by review agencies. We believe this approach will help to smooth the construction and reopening process for the applicant and provide the City with assurances that all conditions of this complex approval are being met. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that you take the following actions: 1. Grant Preliminary PUD plan approval. 2. Recommend that City Council zone this site CC. 3. Grant conditional use approval for the hotel expansion. 4. Recommend that City Council exempt from the GMP the construction of 67 new lodge rooms and 10,469 square feet of commercial space and the reconstruction of 39 lodge rooms and 20,156 square feet of commercial space and that the total amount of new construction be deducted from the quota subject to the following conditions: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this 30th day of July, 1982, a true and correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Hotel Jerdme, Rezoning and Conditional Use was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following: See attached list. -/146.JU~.0 'f./.AttbÂ·Â·ele AA- Martha Eichelberger O . 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Hotel Jerome - Rezoning, Conditional Use ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday, August 17, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider a proposal for renovation of and addition to the Hotel Jerome, namely, preliminary plan for proposed PUD Subdivision, rezoning of north half of subject property, permit for expansion of an approved conditional use of subject property and GMP exception. For further information contact ' the 'Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen,. 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission t Published in the Aspen Times on July 29, 1982. City of Aspen account. . '11 t'T ' ru'./,//t.10*y~~Â·tr te.9.,411Â¢104 1,1..4 11'1141â€¢11 r';Â· 'r t., i,111' 4."1 1,1'*' 4 4. . OWNERSHIP AND ADJACENT OWNERSHIP REPORT Order Reference_Me. 69 FEE: $120.00 THE COMPANY hereby certifies that from a search of the company's property account (compiled from records contained in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office) that the real property described below is vested of record as of the date of this report in the name of: RECORD VESTING: JOHN F. GILMORE ADDRESS: Box J Hotel Jerome Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY: Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, 0, i, Q, R, S and Lhe East 20 feet of Lot N, Block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with the vacated East 100 feet of Llie alley in said Block 79, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTIES APPEAR TO BE ADJACENT TO THE REAL PROPERTY ABOVE DESCRIBED, AND ARE VESTED OF RECORD IN THE NAME(S) SET FORTH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EACH DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPERTY: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A RECORD VESTING: ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPERTY: RECORD VESTING: ADDRESS: THIS REPORT IS NOT A TITLE POLICY, NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, NOR AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, AND IS ISSUED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREIN TO BE ACCURATE, THE COMPANY ASSUMES NOR WILL IT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY INCOMPLETENESS OR ERROR IN THE INFORMATION CON- TAINED HEREIN, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE FEE PAID HEREUNDER, SHOULD LIABILITY FOR THE INFORMATION BE DESIRED, THEN PLEASE MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROPRIATE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY OR GUAR- ANTY, Effective Date: JULY 30, 1982 TRACY TITLE, LTD, ~ BY:. 1(,*J~ZA<49 UNDERWRITTEN BY SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 4%AG'. TITLE INSURANCE 8 REAL ESTATE CLOWNG TRACY TI:1'.E. LTD. O 601 EA5T HYMAN, #100 [3 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 El (303) 920-1123 ' ' AN â€¢1725-'- 71(11 .Â¥> I . EXHIBIT A ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS East 15 feet of Lot L, all of Lot M, Mountain States Communications, Inc and the West 10 feet of Lot N, Box E Block 79 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot I, Louise H. Saurel Block 73 152 E. 81st Street New York, New York 10028 Lot S, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Block 73 PO Box 7611 San Francisco, California 94120 Lot I, James E. Moore and Alberta L. Moore Block 74 Box 707 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lots E and F, Carl R. Bergman and Catherine M. Bergman Block 80 PO Box 1365 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot A, The Epicurean, a Colorado limited partnershi Block 87 PO Box 1912 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots K, L, M, N and 0, Reinhard N. Elder Block 78 202 North Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot S, F. duPont Cornelius and Adele H. Cornelius Block 72 2435 Virgo Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 Lot A and the West 4 of Lot B, Niklaus G. Kuhn and Gertrud E. Kuhn Block 80 PO Box 8016 Aspen, Colorado 81612 East 4 of Lot B and all of Lots C and D, Svea Properties, a partnership Block 80 c/o M. J. Elisha 315 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots G, H and I, Svea Properties, a partnership Block 80 c/o M. J. Elisha 315 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot K and the West 4 of Lot L, Carl R. Bergman and Catherine M. Bergman Block 79 PO Box 1365 Aspen, Colorado Unit , See attached list of unit owners THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, according to the Condominium Map thereof filed with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, Colorado, in Map Book 9 at Pages 72, 73 and 74, and according to the Condo- minium Declaration filed with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado in Book 390 at Page 95 and Amended Condominium Declaration recorded in Book 393 at Page 773. .. JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Unit 2J Richard H. Cassens and Carol S. Cassens 31645 South Canyon Circle Evergreen Colorado 80439 Unit 2K Frank X. Taverna 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lA Wayne S. Harris 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lB Karl G. Larson and Madeleine Larson 2425 South 162nd Street New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151 Unit lD Larry Lightner 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lE Larry Lightner 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lF Rocky Mountain Equity & Mortgage Box 11689 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 1G J. D. Muller PO Box 4361 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 1H Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit lI Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 2A , 2B and 2C Jeffrey H. Sachs 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 2D and 2E Jon David Seigle 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 2F and 2G Herbert S. Klein and Marsha L. Klein 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 4 - I EXHIBIT A CONTINUED Units 1, 2, 101, 102, 103, 201, 201 A, 202 and 203, MILL & MAIN COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS, as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Mill & Main Commercial Condominium recorded in Book 348 at Page 87 and according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 106-108. Owner: Lewis I. Schainack 3805 Sandune Lane Corona Del Mar, California 92605 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney '/Sanitation District . City Engineering Department Mountain Bell v'Housing Fire Marshal/Building Dept. v'City Water Department Vt}.ocky Mountain Natural Gas City Electric Fire Chief FROM: Martha Eichelberger, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Renovation and Addition DATE: July 20, 1982 Planner Alan Richman has attached an application submitted by the Hotel Jerome for review of four phases of owner John F. Gilmorets prdposal for the renovation of and addition to the Hotel Jerome, namely (a) preliminary plan for proposed PUD Subdivision; (b) rezoning of the north half of the subject property; (c) permit for expansion of an approved conditional use of subject property; and (d) GMP exception. The issue has been placed on the August 17, 1982 City Planning and Zoning agenda, therefore, we would appreciate your comments by Monday, August 9. Thank you. ,. HOLL_AND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET 1875 EYE STREET.N. W. 600 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 2900 SUITE [200 ASPEN, COLORADO 816 DENVER,COLORADO 80202 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 TELEPHONE (3031 575-8000 TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340 TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261 TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354 BILLINGS,MONTANAOFFICE LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE SUITE I4O0 HOLLAND & HART & KITE 175 NORTH 27TH STREET A WYOMING PARTNERSHIP BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 618 GRAND AVENUE TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166 July 16, 1982 LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070 TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669 TELEPHONE (307)742-8203 TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 925-3476 Alan Richman, A.I.C.P., Asst. Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addition Dear Alan: On behalf of John F. Gilmore, owner of the Hotel Jerome property, and pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code, we are submitting to you herewith for consideration by the appropriate City authorities twenty-one (21) sets of detailed plans for the captioned project, together with a check in the amount of $130.00 representing the balance of the fees due in connection therewith. In light of the conceptual approvals already given this project by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council, please consider the present submittal a formal application for review of the four (4) following-described phases of Mr. Gilmore's proposal, to wit: 1. Application for approval of the Preliminary Plan of the proposed Planned Unit Development Subdivision ("PUD") of the subject property, pursuant to Sections 24-8 and 20-12 of the Aspen Municipal Code; 2. Application to amend the Zoning District Map so as to effect the rezoning of the North half (Nk) of the subject property to Commercial Core (CC), pursuant to Section 24-12 of the Aspen Municipal Code. It should be noted that since the Aspen City Council has agreed to sponsor this amendment, the application is not subject to the private landowner initiation deadlines set forth in the Code; 3. Application for a permit for expansion of an already approved conditional use of the subject property, pursuant to Section 24-3.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and HOLLAND &HART Alan Richman July 16, 1982 Page 2 4. Request for exemption from compliance with the allotment procedures of the Growth Management Quota System contained in Article XI of Section 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, under and by virtue of the exception established in Code Section 24-11.2(b) for "the enlargement of, or change of use in, a structure which has received individual historic designation", and the current H, Historic Overlay District Map of the City of Aspen. Further in connection with this proposal, please be advised that Mr. Gilmore is prepared and hereby agrees to perform the following conditions to conceptual approval prior to being entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject project: (a) Applicant shall provide sixty (60) off-site automobile parking spaces for hotel guests and employees, such spaces tentatively to be located in the proposed City parking structure on the Rio Grande property. If the City coordinates the construction of this structure with the development of the captioned project, the Applicant shall participate proportionately (based on the need for 60 spaces) in the cost of construction thereof. If the coordination of these projects is determined not to be feasible, Applicant shall provide the required spaces at another nearby site to be selected by him; (b) Applicant shall provide fifteen (15) off-site deed restricted employee housing units, such units to include a minimum of fifteen (15) bedrooms, in a location or locations acceptable to the City; (C) Applicant shall repair or replace as appropriate any portion(s) of new or existing sidewalks, curbs and/or gutters on streets adjacent to the subject project, which may be damaged during construction, and shall care for in perpetuity all trees planted along that part of Main Street which abuts the subject property; and (d) Applicant shall provide an adequate vehicular pull- off area at the Hotel entrance on Main Street. Mr. Gilmore further agrees to submit to you on or before July 23, 1982 a draft of a proposed Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the captioned project, which Agreement shall encompass the foregoing covenants and such other matters as may be appropriate. HOLLAND &HART Alan Richman July 16, 1982 Page 3 After you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed materials, we would appreciate your informing us as to what, if any, additional data or procedures will be necessary in order to place these matters before the appropriate City agencies. Thanks for your consideration and assistance. Very truky yours, Arthur C. D ly for Hollan$ & Hart ACD/jlf enclosures CC: Gary Esary, Esq. Mr. John F. Gilmore Thomas Wells & Associates/Architects Investor% Incentives Incorporated r---7rmr.71...5.,3 1.- Tr M 0 ~~,1 P, 1,JR? lu'll=. Â¢+72?5--- RIN CO. / - 4. OFFtCE 1 O/2- ---- _t r al k.-3 \A.. kl k~ .tkt . , Colf LAG 'F * OLD 8*69- I 1 <4 OU 5 i.00Â®e 0, LA 570 "15 /6-, Â»U LA_ uL +ByL . $ 5.I- EdÂ» 1 Federal Square Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Area Code (616) 774-7011 : Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 October 29, 1981 Mr. Tom Wells Tom Wells and Associates 330 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Tom, This letter is in response to your submission on October 27, 1981 of preliminary drawings of the Hotel Jerome PUD, a list of adjacent property owners and an application fee of $325. We have determined that your sub- mission has met the requirement of Section 24-8.8 of the Code stating that conceptual approval by City Council shall lapse unless a preliminary plan is submitted within six months of final conceptual approval. In reviewing the materials you submitted to us and in looking back over the record of the conceptual approval, we have found several shortcomings of your application which will need to be rectified before we can start our referral process. The areas in need of further attention include: 1. We need a written description of the reviews you are requesting and the development you are proposing. You are processing three concurrent requests, including preliminary PUD plan, expansion of a conditional use and rezoning of the site from office/commercial core to CC-PUD. You have submitted drawings which are adequate for the purposes of these reviews, and the requested breakdown of space is quite adequate. However, we will need a written description of the project in suffi- cient detail that all those who will review the submission can under- stand what you are requesting. 2. I would think that your written descpription should include a history of the project, an explanation of the strategy being employed by you (that is, historic designation of the Jerome permits it to be exempt from the GMP, as per Section 24-11.2(b) of the Code; PUD designation and rezoning allows expansion of the hotel as a conditional use and permits you to vary the underlying area and bulk requirements -- i.e., height), and a proposal of what you are seeking to accomplish. Please specify the exact nature of the development, the construction schedule and similar details. Mr. Tom Wells Page Two October 29, 1981 3. We will need to have a response to the conditions of conceptual approval that 60 parking spaces and 15 employee bedrooms will be provided off-site. I will be happy to work with you in resolving these issues. 4. The $325 fee you paid reflected only the PUD preliminary submission cost. I had forgotten that we are also proâ‚¬essing~rgzoning of the site and an expansion of a conditional usejthe'7ees for which are $110:and $20Trespectively. We will need the $130 at the time of your supplementary submission, along with the names of all property owners within 300 feet of the property lines of the Jerome. I am sorry to have requested the names of adjacent owners only; this requirement was based on preliminary PUD and not the more stringent rezoning requirements. Tom, I hope I have made this application process clearer for you. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1 K.C--n Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director AR/ans THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIS [L[EFFIE[ DE FEAR]6[G] OTTFA[L 330 East Main Street ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DATE JOB NO. 10-27-81 76-07 (303) 925-7817 ATTENTION Alan Richman RE. TO City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street 0-10--, r -,r--lr-li-inr--gr- 7 n i: 41Â·Â·161 l\V/IM .. 1 ~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 < 1 1 \1 OCT 2 71981 L i H ull ASPKN / PITKIN CO. 1 GENTLEMEN: P!_0 19 NiNG OF i- FCE WE ARE SENDING YOU M Attached U Under separate cover via Torn Wells the following items: [3 Shop drawings Â® Prints D Plans E] Samples m Specifications C] Copy of letter [3 Change order [-1 COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 10-23-81 Sheets 1 thru 11 Preliminary drawings 1 Xerox copy of square footages THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: El For approval El Approved as submitted m Resubmit copies for approval Â£ For your use El Approved as noted El Submit___copies for distribution - 1 As requested El Returned for corrections El Return corrected prints m For review and comment El 0 FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPYTO NED SIGNED: Thomas O. Wells FORM 240-3 Available from Inc.. Groton. Mass. 01450 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 330 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303 925-7817 October 27, 1981 C- ER.j G:Ir{.317<82;i~3.~ lk-di-ldELLLU-~(~~~ il City of Aspen Planning Office ~ OCT 27 1981 li UJ Attention: Mr. Alan Richman ASPEN / FiTKIN CO. 130 South Galena Street PLANNING OFFICE Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hotel Jerome Dear Alan: I am enclosing one set of prints of the preliminary drawings for the subject project which constitutes our submittal for preliminary approval under the PUD proce ss. I would appreciate your reviewing the enclosed drawings and advising of any further information that may be required before printing the 21 required sets. The design repre sented in the enclosed drawings is substantially identi cal to that approved at the conceptual stage. The shell of the building is a quiet brick structure which will allow the existing building to remain the dominant architectural form and character of the development. The garden room on the lobby level is the most important interior space in the building. As referred to in our conceptual submittal, this space will be the dominant eating, drinking, and conversation area in the hotel from early morning breakfast, through lunch, afternoon tea and concerts, dinner, to quiet late evening de sserts and music. The entire structure has been analyzed and designed from a de tailed functional standpoint as well as all structural and mechanical systems. The existing structure has been thoroughly inspected and analyzed as well and we are ready to begin working drawings for the entire project pending re ceipt of preliminary approval. Attached is a copy of all adjacent property owners for your reference. T City of Aspen Planning Department October 27, 1981 Page 2 Please let us know any further information or drawings that may be required at this point. Very truly yours, \ Thomas O. Wells Enclosures CC: John Gilmore - THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 330 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303 925-7817 October 27, 1981 Property Owners Adjacent to Hotel Terome Svea Properties 320 W. Main A spen Carl R. & Catherine Bergman Box X A spen The Epicurean Box 9112 A spen First Aspen Corporation B ox 3318 A spen J. E . Abels and Elwin G. Smith B ox 4707 A spen Phillip R. and Patricia H. Hodgson 212 N. Monarch A spen Reinhard N. Elder 202 N. Monarch A spen F. Dupont and Adele H. Cornelius 2435 Virgo Drive Colorado Springs 80906 L ouise H. Saurel 152 East 81 New York 10018 Mountain States Communications, Inc. Box E A spen PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Hotel Jerome - Proposed PUD, Rezoning, Conditional Use NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be continued on the issue of preliminary plan for proposed PUD subdivision of the Hotel Jerome before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 7, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, and at the same meeting, notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held to consider rezoning of the north half of the subject property to CC, and permit for expansion of an approved conditional use of the subject property. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 19, 1982. City of Aspen Account. t_11.43-,4==-.9,4 6" 7.2~.22 2.-U' . 7Fs r Â£ tTjECkfzrp-&-itg-git I râ€¢â€¢114: ~ AUC 1 9'82 196,9 .1 1. Aspen/Pitkint,Ptinning Office 45:EFE'ec ...421:g..'21/#Mi L_------J, 66Â£ E.20 :11 130 soutl#Slen~ street UNOMP aspen, tk,lo~a~i~ 81611 ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN - t Edwin F. Gordon' and Frant J. 1Â¢undsÂ·. iII 601 E. Hyman- Avenue //* il]Pell-t!T~E? Aspen, Co,lirado 81611 /44-6.--1.-,-143.2-1 ~&RP alu "vu 2 i 399? r i 4 #,1-EN ./ PNT,NAV CO. hA*C OfFIRE 4. * ...+ 6.-.1 .....t~?. January 13,1983 The Aspen Times Page 9-C ~Hotel Jerom 6& plans may be activated ~ In September Gilmore told the financing could be obtained, con- ~ thrl=tdoJ~,Muna~r eexopmain~ ~~mmit~~oupll:nndn~~ty aconudnczi~~2 th2;WoroCE522~Z;10 commission that the conditions struction could begin in May of ~ 1983 and be completed in 18 eration by various city agencies project was given preliminary ap- tion by the applicant in regrading were acceptable to him and that, if W-- for several years, may be acti- proval by the commission. Bleeker Street, north of the prop- subsequent city approvals and months. vated by secured financing the The council had previously erty; creation of a vehicular pub 4-- - 1 1 ---/* ~ city council learned this week. given conceptual approval of the loff on Main Street; and provision - The information came in a redevelopment if conditions re- offour employee bedrooms on site memo from City Manager Wayne quested by the commission and and 15 others off site. Chapman and when a discussion varous council members could be Plans shown the commission . ofparking for the hotel was placed met. have 67 new lodge rooms and ~ on this week's council agenda. Included in the commission's 10,469 square feet of new com- ~ In his memo Chapman told the approval was preliminary PUD mercial space in a new building to council that representatives ofthe (planned unit development) plans stretch across the nine lots north [ hotel, owned by John Gilmore, and recommendaion that the of the existing hotel. i Grand Rapids, Mich, had assured north portion of the block be re- In addition, they show com- ~ him that financing for the project zoned from office to CC, commer- pleted renovation of the existing had been secured subject to meet- cial core. Main Street structure with 39 : ing certain city conditions. In addition, the commission hotel rooms and 20,156 square i Last September, after many voted in September to grant con- feet of commercial space. ~ separate hearings and meetings ditional use approval to expand That part of the new structure the existing hotel and to recom- immediately behind the existing jj --3 mend that the project be exempt hotel is to have four stories and be ~ from GMP (growth management 51 feet above grade at the corner plan) allocation because of its his- of Mill and Bleeker and is to re- ~ torie designation. place the existing annex. The re- 9 5. Among Conditions mainder of the building is to have 1 f One of the conditions imposed two stories above ground, the~ D by the commission with its ap- plans indicate. / proval was that the applicant pro- f vide off-site parking for 25 guests ' 6 and 35 employees on a site accept- ~ F able to the city. t This week Chapman told the rcouncil that the present parking rplan involves the hotel providing ~future date on the Rio Grande ~ the 60 parkingspaces in a parking garage to be constructed at some property. However, Chapman pointed out, "The banks providing the financing are concerned that, should be parking garage not be ~ constructed in a timely manner, ~ or not at all, a certificate of occu- , pancy for the Hotel Jerome would ? ~ not be issued." To help solve this dilemma, Chapman suggested that Gilmore P pay the city $600,000, estimated cost of constructing 60 parking f spaces. [ If the city should fail to build i p the new garage, the certificate of 1 occupancy could still be issued if f the city leased other spaces to the ~ hotel, 15 at the existing surface f lot on the Rio Grande and 45 at lthe golf course, Chapman added.~ ~~ On Council Agenda 1 1 Recognizing that there could bel [better solutions to the hotel park- .2 ~ing problem, Chapman put the ~ ;mptter on the council agenda for, . ~ Page 10-C The Aspen Times January 13,1983 bpecial activities irâ‚¬)I,1( DjLDICINIC~ GI10{JI' GItE~Ll' DECISIO~iS discus- grollp nleets eig}~t altertlate VVed- meets 8 pm at Chisholm's Saloon, sion group eight consecutive nesdays starting today, 7:30-9:30 ~ taught by Paul Shelson, free and Tuesdays starting today, 7:30- pm, ACIC, call 925-2041. open to all. 9:30 pm, ACIC, call 925-2041. thursday ~ tuesday wednesday JAN 20 JAN 18 JAN 19 LOCAL LADIES SKI CLINIC HISTORIC AND SCENIC COLORADO BEAR MAN Pot- sponsored by Aspen Skiing Com- j TOURS ofAspen offered Tuesday belly Perspective with bear re- pany starts today, offered Thurs- ~ in Aspen, Wednesday in Sno@- searcher Tom Beck. Slides and days on Buttermilk. Orientation mass, Thursday in Glenwood discussion from Beck's work in- meeting in Buttermilk base re- Springs, Friday class featuring side dens. 7:30 pm Hallam Lake staurant 9:30 am. Clinics taughi Les Chefs d'Aspen. Call All About Barn Studio, admission $2. Call by women instructors for al Aspen, 925-8394. Aspen Center for Environmental levels, will include video, intro tc Studies for details, 925-5756. racing, nutrition discussion. Cos 2, public notice is $20 for day, preregister by cal GREAT BOOKS discussion ling #04.1990 ovt ORR nr 989. .,1 ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC TRUSTEE SALE (No 82-137) ~ WHEREAS, Hans B Cantrup with pay- B ment personally guaranteed by June Can- ~ trup, Grantoris) by deed of trust dated July 20, 1981, recorded in Book 411 at page 556 (Reception No 234325) in the records of the County of Pitkin, Colorado, conveyed to the Public Truftee in,sJi19.uMY-0-f-~t~in'~t~~5 FOR SALE TO LOC 1 LONE PINE Ce! Studio with loft, approximat~ ble loan at 894% interest. Ai of $33,394.00. MAXIMUM BID PR This unit isbeingoffered through th, moderateand middle income empl, , with the 1982 Guidelines and futu the Consumer Price Index. FOR INFORMATIC Pitkin County Housing Offi Lower Level Community O 0100 Lone Pine Road (925- (APPLICATIONS 1 HOUSIN 1 1......., CONDITIONS OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL HOTEL JEROME - 4/27/81 Conceptual PUD Based on the conceptual approvals given to the Hotel Jerome by P&Z and City Council, the Planning Office and the applicant recognize that a basic acceptance of the project now exists. It is anticipated that the future submissions by the applicant will reflect the conceptual design parameters presented by the applicant and approved during the review process. The applicant is expected to provide detailed solutions based on the accepted parameters, while P&Z and City Council are expected to follow through on the features which they have now approved. 1. The applicant agreeing to provide parking for 25 guests and 35 employees at an off-site location to be precisely determined by the applicant and the City. Should Council agree to coordinate the timing of the Rio Grande parking structure and Hotel Jerome con- struction, then the applicant should be required to participate proportionately in the cost of construction of the structure, based on the need for 60 spaces. Should such an arrangement not be found to be workable, the applicant should lease a site nearby. In either case, the applicant should provide valet parking arrangements for guests of the hotel; 2. The applicant agreeing to provide four deed restricted employee units within the hotel and to work with both the City and County Housing Departments to develop an equitable arrangement to provide deed restricted housing for an additional 15 employees of the hotel at a location acceptable to the City, to include a minimum of 15 bedrooms; 3. The applicant making every effort to store construction materials on site, thereby causing no inconvenience in the vicinity of the hotel. If there is a need to disrupt any right-of-way in the area, this in- convenience should be limited only to Bleeker Street. 4. The applicant agreeing to install inside the loading dock an industrial- type trash compaction facility to handle all solid waste generated at the hotel. 5. The applicant agreeing to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. If construction causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Street, the applicant should be required to replace those sections. The applicant also agrees to perpetual care for all trees planted on Main Street. 6. The applicant agreeing to provide detailed information at the pre- liminary plat stage regarding the height, mass and bulk of the pro- posed additions in relation to the request for rezoning and expansion of a conditional use. The applicant is also expected to provide at that stage of the review process detailed plans regarding the exact number of rooms requested and a breakdown of square footage in terms of hotel rooms, commercial space, mechanical space and other uses. Lastly, the applicant should provide detailed arrangements specifying how parking and employee housing needs of the Hotel Jerome as outlined above are to be met. 7. The applicant providing a detailed solution to the traffic circulation problems anticipated on Main and/or Mill Streets. City Council does not approve of the P&Z suggestion that a second major Hotel entrance be placed on Mill Street, instead requesting that a sufficiently large pull-off area be maintained on Main Street (preferably more than two car spaces). OWNERSHIP AND ADJACENT OWNERSHIP REPORT j Order Reference_Hz._69_ 3 FEE: _6120-1 00 THE COMPANY hereby certifies that from a search of the company's property account (compiled from records contained in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office) that the f-RE-b-Fo-Fert-ydescribed below is vested of record as of the date of this report in the name of: RECORD VESTING: JOHN F. GILMORE ADDRESS: Box J Hotel Jerome Aspen, Colorado 81611 DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY: THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTIES APPEAR TO BE ADJACENT TO THE REAL PROPERTY ABOVE DESCRIBED, AND ARE VESTED OF RECORD IN THE NAME(S) SET FORTH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EACH DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPERTY: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A RECORD VESTING: ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPERTY: i RECORD VESTING: 1 ADDRESS: THIS REPORT IS NOT A TITLE POLICY, NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, NOR AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, AND IS ISSUED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREIN TO BE ACCURATE, THE COMPANY ASSUMES NOR WILL IT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY INCOMPLETENESS OR ERROR IN THE INFORMATION CON- TAINED HEREIN, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE FEE PAID HEREUNDER, SHOULD LIABILITY FOR THE INFORMATION BE DESIRED, THEN PLEASE MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROPRIATE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY OR GUAR- ANTY, Effective Date: JULY 30, 1.982 TRACY TITLE, LTD, BY: tfii,~~Â£igbbkt f UNDERWRITTEN BY SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 411AGy ,. h,(42ka.. TrTLE IMURANCE 8 REAL ENATE CLOSING TRACY Tr TD. O 601 EAST HYMAN, #100 0 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 O (300) 920-1123 --777&13Â»-.7 9471.Â£ EXHIBIT A ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS East 15 feet of Lot L, all of Lot M, Mountain States Communications, Inc and the West 10 feet of Lot N, Box E Block 79 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot 1, Louise H. Saurel Block 73 152 E. 8]st Street New York, New York 10028 Lot S, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Block 73 PO Box 7611 San Francisco, California 94120 Lot I, James E. Moore and Alberta L. Moore Block 74 Box 707 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lots E and F, Carl R. Bergman and Catherine M. Bergman Block 80 PO Box 1365 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot A, The Epicurean, a Colorado limited partnershii Block 87 PO Box 1912 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots K, L, M, N and 0, Reinhard N. Elder Block 78 202 North Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot S, F. duPont Cornelius and Adele H. Cornelius Block 72 2435 Virgo Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 Lot A and the West 5 of Lot B, Niklaus G. Kuhn and Gertrud E. Kuhn Block 80 PO Box 8016 Aspen, Colorado 81612 East 4 of Lot B and all of Lots C and D, Svea Properties, a partnership Block 80 c/o M. J. Elisha 315 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots G, H and I, Svea Properties, a partnership Block 80 c/o M. J. Elisha 315 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot K and the West 15 of Lot L, Carl R. Bergman and Catherine M. Bergman Block 79 PO Box 1365 Aspen, Colorado Unit , See attached list of unit Owners THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, according to the Condominium Map thereof filed with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, Colorado, in Map Book 9 at Pages 72, 73 and 74, and according to the Condo- minium Declaration filed with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado in Book 390 at Page 95 and Amended Condominium Declaration recorded iii Book 393 at Page 773. . JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Unit 2J Richard H. Cassens and Carol S. Cassens 31645 South Canyon Circle Evergreen Colorado 80439 Unit 2K Frank X. Taverna 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lA Wayne S. Harris 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lB Karl G. Larson and Madeleine Larson 2425 South 162nd Street New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151 Unit lD Larry Lightner 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lE Larry Lightner 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit lF Rocky Mountain Equity & Mortgage Box 11689 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 1G J. D. Muller PO Box 4361 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 1H Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit lI Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 2A , 2B and 2C Jeffrey H. Sachs 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 2D and 2E Jon David Seigle 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 2F and 2G Herbert S. Klein and Marsha L. Klein 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 . . EXHIBIT A CONTINUEI) Units 1, 2, 101, 102, 103, 201, 201 A, 202 and 203, MILL & MAIN COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS, as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Mill & Main Commercial Condominium recorded in Book 348 at Page 87 and according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 106-108. Owner: Lewis I. Schainack 3805 Sandune Lane Corona Del Mar, California 92605 AMERICAN LAND TITLE AS.NOCUTION OWNER'S POLICY STANDARD FORA! 9 - 1962 0 6 0 5 0 4 01 0 97 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A STOCK COMPANY a cornoration of Missouri, herein called the Company, for a valliable consideration, hereby insures the party named in Schedule A, hereinafter e.ilied the trihilred, the heirs, dcvisces, persorial representatives of such Insured, or, if a corporation, its SUCCOSSOIb by dissolution, nierger or consolidation, against loss or daniage not exceeding th: amount stated ill Sch:dule ,4, together with costs, attorneys' fees .irid expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay as provided in the Conditions and Stipulations hereof, which the Insured shall sustain by reason of: 1. Any defect m Or lien or encumbrance on the title to the estate or interobt covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, existing at the date hereof, not shown or referred to in Schedule B or excluded from coveraze in Schedule B or in the Conditions and Stipulations; or 2. Unmarketability of such title; or 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land; all subject, however, to the provisions of Schedules A and B :md to the Conditions and Stipulations hereto annexed; all as of the date of this policy. 1,1 Witness Whereof, CHKAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and scaled as of the date of policy shown in Schedule A, the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized signatory. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 4-Â«FL Issued by: WESTERN SLOPE TITLE INS. President. AGENCY,INC. 0 , P. 0. Boi 925 ATTEST: Glenwood Spiings, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-6546 / 1\ V/ \' .~ 11 I ' Secretary. & 14 . f ' IMPORTANT I'bis policy necessarily rel,itch solely to the tide its of the date of the policy. In order thut a purchaser of the real estate described hercill m.ly be insured against defects, liens or encumbrances, this policy bhould be reissued in the imine of 61.Â·11 purch.,~cr. 1 9 .r.A J . / D il SCHEDULE A Number Date of Policy Amount of Policy 06 05 04 01097 November 21, 1968 $ 400,000.00 at 2:52 0'clock P.M. i. Name of Insured: JOHN F. GILMORE 2. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this schedule covered by this policy is: Fee simple. 3. Title to the estate or interest covered by this pohcy at the date hereof is ve:ted in the Insured. 4. The land herein described is encumbered by the following mortgage or trust deed, anci assignments: Deed of Trust dated November 13, 1968, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado, to secure to Svea F. Elisha the payment of one promissory note in the principal sum of $250,000.00, said deed of trust being recorded November 21, 1968, as Doc. No. 133079 in Book 237 at Page 488. and the mortgages or trust deeds, if any, shown in Schedule B hereof. 1. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, O, P, Q, R, S, and the East 20 feet of Lot N, Block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with the vacated East 100 feet of the alley in said Block 79, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. This policy valid only if Schedulu 11 h ottached. I i , I~ 1â€¢1 ' 7 2 U 'I . r- JUBC-&-- J Policy Number 06 05 04 01097 Owners This policy does not insure against loss or damage hy reason of the following exceptions: (A) Rights or claims of parties iii possession not shown by the public records. , (B) Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line (li.~1)Lltes, and any matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premi.~es, (C) Easements or claims of easements not bhown by the public records, (D) Any lion, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, (E) Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as exb,ting lions by the public records. (F) Rights of Dower, homestead or other marital rights of tile spouse, if any, of any individual insured. (G) The mortgage or trust deed, if any, shown as Item 4 of Schedule A. 1. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent and acts authorizing the issue thereof, including the following, to-wit: "...no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws; ". j F .TBignet> 0 70 f) .juthorized Signatory , Schedule B of this Policy consists of 1 pages. ' .1 - I. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Do(Ini:lon of Terms the Comp.my of any such rejection by re.ison of claimed un- j tie following terms when used in this pi,licy mean: i,:.irketabilily of the title, then all liability of the Company in i.:) "land": the land described, specifically or by reference, in regard to the subject niatter of such action, proceeding or matter .hedule A and improvements aftixed thereto which by law con- shall ce:tie and terminate; provided, however, that failure to a.te re:11 properly: notify shall in no case prejudice the claim of any Insured unleg I b) "public records": those records which impart constructive the Conip.iny shal; be actually prejudiced by such failure and arle ot matters relating to said land; then only to the extent of such prejudice. le) "knowledge": actual knowledge, not constructive ktiowl- (c) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to dÂ·:iÂ· or notice which niay be imputed to the Insured by reason of inMitlite and prosecute any action or proceeding or do any other nv public record,; and act which in i:% opinion may be necessary or desirable to estab- 5 d ) -date": the effective date. li.41 the title as illsured: and the Company muy take ady appro- pri.zte action under the terms of this policy whether or not it Exclusion* from the Coverage of this Policy i his policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason shall be liable thercunder and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. Â£ che following: i .0 Any Jaw, ordinance or governmental regulation (inell.ding (d) In all C.,sci where this policy permits or requires the a not Mmited to building and zoning ordinances), restrictink; or Company to proLecute or provide for tile defense of any action 2,:Lilating or prohibiting the occup:incy, use or enjoyment of tile or procceding, the Inrured shall secure to it the right to so :.id, or regulating the character, diniensions, or location of any prosecute or provide defense in such action or proceeding, and i ,Â·,COVenlent now Or hereafter erected on said land, or pro- .111 appe.ils therein, and permit it to use, at its option, the name I.,iting a Neparation in owner-ship oi- a reduction m the Jimen- of the Ir,ht:I-Cd tor buch purpo,e. Whenever requested by the u,n, or area of any lot or parcel of land. Company the Injured shall give the Company all reafonable aid tb) Governmental rights of police power or eminent Joniain in any such .Ictic,11 or proceeding, in effecting settlement, securing IC.hs notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public evidence, obtaining witnebses, or prosecuting or Lider.ding such auds at the date hereof. action or proceeding, lind the Company shall reimburse the In- 4:) Title to any property beyond the lines of the land er- Sured tor .ir,V eXpenbe SO inellrred. ~icÂ»ly described or referred to in Schedule A, or title to areas 4. Not,ce of Loss-Limitation of Action uthin or rights or casements iii any abutting ureets, roads, .lve- In addition to the notices required under p.iragraph 3(h), a :tics, lanes, Wilys Or waterways (except to the e,tent the right st.,[cnient in writing of any loss or dam:~ge for uÂ·hich it is claimed ,; .iccess to and from said land is covered by the insuring provi- the Company is liable under this policy Ghall be furnished to the 101,1 of this policy), or the right to minhun thercm vault.â€ž tlin- Cbmr.,ily within sikly days after such loss or J.image shall have ne',h, rallips or inly Other structure Or inli,roveliletit. l]Illesh thts been Jeterillined .111,1 11(1 riglit of acti<)11 jhall accrue to the In- ,t,licy specifically provides that such titles, rightb or e.themer;Is Aired under this policy Until thirty days after such statement ae insured. xhal! 1Â·..tw been furnished, and no recovery shal[ be had by the i J) Defects, lions, encumbrances, adverse claims :ig.timi the 1 Inored Illider thi. policy unless action :,11.311 13Â¢ Cottlitienced nile ils insured or other ni,itters (1) created, sulle,-cd, .t>,~imied ,,hcicoll wilhill 11\'c ye.trs Litter expir,KEL<,nol \,tid thirty-Jily period. or agreed to by the Insured; or (2) known to the inblirel! either I-,titure to furnish such statement of loss or damage, or to R the date of this policy or at the date such Insured acquired an commence such action within the time hereinbefore specified, :,state or interest insured by this policy and not shown by the sh,.11 be .i conclw,ive bar against niainteriance by the insured of ,Â·,:11â‚¬ie records, unless disclosure thereof in writing by the Insured any..ction under this policy. A..,11 have been maile to the Company prior to the date of this 1, hcy; or (3) resulting iii no loss to the Insured; or (4) attach- 5. Of"ion 10 Poy, Soltio or Compromise Claims g or created subsequent to the date hereof. rhe Ci,inp.iny shan have the Option to pay or settle or roni- :c) I.oss or d.image which would not have been 5Â£15[ained if promih: for or M the name of the Insured any claim insured. . Insured were a purchaser for value without knowledge. against or to pay the full amount of this policy and such pay- ment or tender of payment, together with :iH costs, itttorneys' Defense and Pro,ocution of Adions - Notice of Claim to be Given feeb .inil expetives which the Company is obligated hereunder to by the insured pay, ,!mil terminate :111 liability of the Company hereunder. 1.i) TIle Compittly, at its own coht lind witholit ull,|lic del.ly, h.,11 provide for the defens: Of tile 1 11>ured in all litigation con- 6. Pay,nont of Loss , ing of actions or proceedings Coninienced against tile Insured, (.: 1 -1 he ihibility of tile Company under this policy shall iIi defenses interposed against a sale of the estate in baid 1.1'ld 110 c.,se c.\Ce:d, in all, tile actual loss of the Insured and costs .11:11 litigation in any of such events ix folinded upon an alle:led :inil ,itti,i-iteys' fech which the Company may be obligated hereÂ· c'oct, lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy, and und.'V to pay a.i> pilrhile Mich litigation to final Jetermination in the coill-t of (11) the Coinpany will pay, in addition to any loss insured .IN: re>art. / .1,Â·.,inht by thib policy, .111 COhts impobed upon the Insured in 1 11) In case any such action or procceiling shall lie her,im, or hugation arned on by the Company tor tile Insured, and .111 iÂ·:elise interposed, or in case knowledge shall come to the In- ciht. .ind .dtorners' fee>. in litigation carried on by the Insured Iiâ€¢'Cl i of any claim of title or niterest which is .idverse to the wi:h the >rilten :ilithorization of the Company :Kle as insured, or which might cause loss or damage for uhich (e) NO c!.tim for d.unages shall arise or be nmintainable n Company shall or may be liable by virtue of this policyÂ·~ under this policy ( 1) h the Company, after having received . i in the event the title i>, rejected .1, unmarket.ible by one who notice 01 .In aler,cd defect, lien or encumbrance not excepted h,3 le.,sed or has coiltracted to purchase, le.the or kend money or C.\Cluded herein reinoves such defect, lien or encumbrancl r:Ii the lani! described in Schedule A hereof, the Illhured shall within a rea>,021,ible litne ititer receipt Of such notice; or (2) r.0:110, the Company thereof ni wriling. If such notice sh,,11 not !01- 11.ibilitY volint.irily .1>,bittlied bv the Insured in settling any 1 c given to the Company within len days of the receipt ot claim or Juit without written consent of the Company; or (3) process or pleadings or if the Insured shall not in writing, in the event the title is rejected as unmarketable because of a i romptly notify the Conipany of any defect, lien or enclunbrance defect, Men or encumbrance not excepted or excluded in this L.,l.red against which shall come to the knowledge of the In- policy. until there has been a final determination by a court of >.ired, or if the Insured shall not, in writing, promptly notify competent jurisdiction slistaining SUC h rejection. rrn'\InITIANâ‚¬ ANn STIPI 11 ATIONK (Cont,mmrl on ReverÂ·.0 Side) CONDITIONS AN[) 51 If'ULA1 IONS CONTINUED 6 'Ali payments under this policy, ex' el ynients niade (b) lf the Janel des ri or referred to in Schedule A is i costs, attorneys' fees and expenses. shan re UV ce the amount Chisible into separate ai..1 noncontiguous parcels, or if contiguous the insurance pro tanto and no pÂ·ayment shall be made with- and such parcels are not used as one single site, and a loss is producing thiâ€¢ policy for endor<ement of such payment establkhed affecting one or more of uid rarcels but not all, the iÂ·se. tbe policy lie 10,4 or destroyed, in '.whic!1 case procd of 10.- ihall be coniptited :ind settled on .1 pro rat.1 basiq :14 if the 11 10%4 or destruction shall be furnished to the satislaction Lice :111 ,(,tint Of thiN pohey u'.is dklded pro r:lt.1 3% to the vallie on the Ate of this policy of each Keparate independent I):ircel to the Company, le) When liability has been definitely fired in accordance the whole, exchisive of :iny improvements made subsequent to the i the conditionG of this policy the 10>,s or damage 111;111 llc date of this policy, unle~ a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each such parcel by the Company and the ,,thle within thirty days thereafter. Ingnred at the time of the issuance of thiq policy anc! shown by an ewreu M.itement hercin or by an endorsement attached hereto. Liabilily Noncumulotive ' k expressly understood that the amount of this policy is 9. Subrogation upon Paymen, or Settlemen, c iced by any amount the Company may pay under any m,licy Whenever the Conipany sha!! have settled a claim linder this tring the validity or priority of any mortgage or decd ot policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company un- r Jiown or relerred to in Schedule B hereof or any niort- :,11'ected hy any act of the Insured. and it shall he subrogated to or cited of trubt hereafter e,ecuted by the Insured which :ind be entitled to all rights and remedies which the In9ured would i charge er lien on the land described or referred to iii Ii.i\'e Ii,1,1 a{':titist :iny person or propcrly in respect to such claim clule A, and the aniount so paid shall be deenied a payment h:id thi4 milicy not been iqsued. If the payment does not cover the Pie Insured under this policy. loss of the Insured, the Conipan>' shall be subrogated to such right~ and remedies in the proportion which said payment bears Colnsurence and Appornonrner,I to the .unount of said loss. H loss should result from .iny act of 1 ) In the event that a partial loss occurs after the Insured the Incured, such act shall not void this policy, but the Company, 0% an improvement subsequent to the date of this policv, in that event. shall be required to ray only that part of any losses only in that event, the Insured becomes a coinsurer to the in9ured againgt hereunder which shall exceed the aniount, if any, rit hereinafter set forth. lost to the Company by reason of the impairnient of the right of the cost of the improvement exceeds twenty per centurn subrogation. The Insured, if requested by the Company, shall ic aniount of this policy, such proportion only of any partial transfer to the Com!,any all rights and remedies against any person câ€¢tablished shall be borne by the Company as one hundred or property necessary in order to perfect such right of subrogation, it>' per centum of the amount of this policy bears to the sum and shall permit the Company to use the nanie of the Insured in ie amount of this policy and the amount expended for the any transaction or litigation involving such rights or remedies. ovement, The foregoing provisions shall not apply to costs attorneys' fees incurred by the Conipany in prosecuting or 10. Policy Ermre Contracf iding for the defense of actions or proceeding< in beh:df ot . Any action or actions or rights of action that the Insured may IMured pursuant to the terms of this policy or to 00+ inn- have or may bring :tg:linst the Company arising out of the status I on the Insured in such actions or proceedings, ant! shall of the title insured herein must be based on the provisions of ./only to that portion of losses which exceed in the 3 yg re!Ntte wh pday per cent of the face of the policy. No provioion or condition of this policy can be waived or changed ercept by writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto c,vided, however, that the foregoing coinsurance provisiono signed by the President a Vice President, the Secretary, an Aqsist- not apply to any loss arising out of a lien or encitnibrailice ant Secretary or other validating officer of the Company. liquidated amount which existed on the date of this policy wae not shown in Schedule B; and provided further, such 11. Noticri, Where Sent urance provisions shall not apply to any loss if, at the time All notices required to be given the Company and any state- e occurrence of such loss, the then value of the premises, as ment in writing required to be furnkhed the Company shall be Mproved, elois not erceed one hundred twenty per centum of addressed to its oflice at 11! West Washington Street, Chicago, mount of this policy. IHinois 60601, or at any branch ollice shown hereon, . 1 Z 1 *06 N I 0 04 B E- 0 1 . 1 0 24 4 - 21 1 9 1 11. d 0 ' I---'1'f?I I~~ 7 f't M -', ' 7 0 p $/ 0 74 2 3 4 22 11, 1 0 F 11 ~1 47 0 ~v % E m E )1< - 5 4: --.Ii 0 1 F , f--- 109 LS OPOJOIOJ 'SBU!.ids POOAAUalg i ONI 'ADNBOV 'SNI 311]1 3d01 S NU31SBAA ; i f r. j Antericon nd Title Association 5Z6 *09 0 'd 4 MEMORANDUM -~' TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department -4 DATE: February 20, 1981 RE: Jerome Hotel Conceptual P.U.D., Rezoning, and Historic Designation Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Conceptual P.U.D. 1. The P.U.D. process would permit the applicant to vary the trash access requirement in the proposed C.C. zone. The site plan as submitted does not designate a trash/ utility area (presumably trash loading would occur in the "service entrance"). It would be our feeling that trash generation by the proposed structure will be sub- stantial and that designation of a large trash storage and pick-up area should be required. The code requirement regarding provision of trash facilities (Section 24 - 3.7 h(4)) would require a facility parallel to the alley 10 feet deep and 105 feet long. Since this project would no abut an alley but would instead abut Bleeker Street, a conventional trash area 105 feet long is particularly unacceptable. In the eventconventional trash collection methods are to be utilized, the applicant should be required to provide an area within the structure accessed by a single curb cut on Bleeker Street of comparable Square footage. It would be our suggestion, however, that theapplicant be required to provide a specific proposal for an industrial-type trash compaction facility sufficient to handle all projected trash generation. A compaction/ container facility of this nature could serve to reduce the needed area significantly as well as ease access and odor problems. 2. A variance would also be required from C.C. zone height limitation since the proposed structure is,.at one point, approximately eleven feet over the forty foot height limit. The structure's location on steeply sloping Mill Street, however, would serve to mitigate some of it's height and nowhere is the structure higher than the existing Jerome. 3. Although square footages are not specified in the app- lication, the design may require variation of open space requirements (C.C. requires 25%). Hotel Jerome PAGE TWO Rezoning The application requests rezoning of the north half of Block 79 from O to C.C. The following comments should be noted: 1. Hotels are a conditional use in the C.C. zone. 2. The C.C. zone has no parking requirement for uses other than residential. The renovation proposes no parking facilities to accommodate eitherÂ· existing or proposed needs. The site currently provides parking for roughly fifteen vehicles, with spaces along the Bleeker Street right-of-way for ten more. The expansion would not only serve to eliminate these twenty-five spaces, but would greatly increase parking needs in the im- mediate area. The proposal, while representing a substantial expansion, actually results in a reduction of employee beds from the existing structure coupled with an increased staff. While the application does not so state, it is our understand- ing that the applicant intends to provide for off-site employee housing in some manner. This situation would serve to increase the load of commuting employees in addition to the greatly increased need for guest parking. The applicant should pro- vide scheduled limosine service as suggested in the GMP (24-10.6(b)(5)(cc)) at a rate of 1 vehicle/25 guests and a reduction, but not elimination, of parking on-site from the spaces the total development would require. Prohibition of on-site employee parking, as is also suggested in the GMP, would serve only to unload a significant problem on the sur- rounding neighborhood. - One suggestion for the parking might be a more appropriate designation of the north half of the block to L-1 in which a hotel is a permitted use adjacent to the commercial core and requiring one parking space per bedroom. There is, however, no other L-1 zoning nearby and the result may be viewed as unacceptable spot zoning. 3. The applicant should be required to provide new sidewalks along all right-of-way frontages including Main, Monarch, and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. Mill Street was recently reconstructed with new sidewalk and curb and should not require replacement. However, any damage such as cracking or undermining caused by the construction will require replacement by the applicant. Historic Designation The Engineering Department has no particular concerns regarding Historic Designation at this time, provided the applicant complies with Sections 24-9.1 through 24-9.16. I . i -... j . llO-al Wilim a A~Somalll All--TICYS ..... ~r-1,1, ri-;rf -r-lirr Fri Urr/-0 r,-r . '-I trifirir /1, 111!111 1 - rfrfE'-rt-rrr .-r-rr-rEFUFFEFEE Frrr-firrfrrur Frr-rr:-rrfr i rrur-r--Irruu ,-r--FrurrEFUVEr Turr-r I-r- frrr/r tr-rrr/rf-rrr- i Er rir r-(-7rrr --tur-r-rur-Er-urr- Er---rE-Errt-rE J r Et rrirt-T r..1 1 &6 r=== KES ~kCS WIC*1 0 1/ r--s I. r-M~M-Un~AIR=AA=AI-~nrE t.nk"- k. .1 Ll IIF,~6I ka.2,1.Â£- 5 I .1 r Â£0,0,1 I AM %9 t â‚¬fy Ar~**12, 4,/ 0. L â€¢ L. 4rNI J.'Af b~--' \ t==-0 - â€¢ 'll .... i. 71,"4 Â· . MAIN STREET ELEVATION â€ž HOTEL JEROME RENOVATION AND ADDITION . I . .. pRO-CT NO ...-.. .U- 119 6/8--- ...... - ----J .11.-2 - ._.. - -- ' 1 - # -0. 0. .- . 1 liE '* ./ - WC-4â€¢ HOTEL JEROME RENOVATION AND ADDITION BLEEKER STREET 7478 FEET WIDE 7 575Â°09'11"C 271.40 ' . All lilli F; 1 11 1 L-j .-1 \--/ 1 1 , Il l l 1 1/1 /0/4/1 illir- :l//'/l///////Ij/1/111'1'11 ; 1 /1 lilli Ph ;1111'11,1 Â£ f 0 7////, f 1 R ./. Â·53:/Els<& I '3 111'illi,:lilli ll' / / . 1 1 1 11 lil jil \ . 2 94/97*94*1/Â»NeÂ«/4 /71 3. :/ :27.kf/4/ /,3 -35'~54'0~~ 7>l:14,1'838,4//4~i'/// 7: i : , 1 l. IIi 1111,1,1,1 1:'.11, N75.0'11.W '00.67 __571 ALLEY Â· BLOCK 79 Infl 7/11 <offiti ~'M -' ~ t lu U.| 111#11111(11111|tillj#|i '}1111,1,1,11: b .. ...<ay. 1 J MU 04*,Â«f.. 14ifffÂ©I .?5Â·3r.27-'- 4 4 94 /~ t. t~~ i 4Â»Â«09Â«94Â«94 3%49 Â· ! A-1 IN U 41 p 04 1 6 Â»49Â»Â·jÂ·Â«4-Â·-- >~944 Â»304.21'71'2:-/..4 44 10 1040. 6 \\ \ 3.ilim#tefaffEESE%&38ggeatiftsÂ£:Etis.Ri)~idefe%eÂ£tkkilic:~~me:.51,fia:521 R /jij~' 1,54/4/ililli:ij:ll~tfli'illi:,:1/litittt/~/lk Jj~lljlilii' ,111!11,!tfit'!1#111115'ji.l!11,,#1,1111.11 3 Â»44:Xmn#dij/,4489. I I. 1 - -- ir T. -06 / 11//Panhhatil/11,~1 /Illi/.4.41///P// //9/\ l----Â»J i.Â»11,~~'~~~~I",~M'~~11~~~ .LU i / i AL- N7509' I I"W 17073 - .r. ...6. 6. 4 l i . 0--------0 7 1.- - MA][N STREET 100.00 FEET WIDE NOTICE Accoiding 10 Colorado law you must commence any legal action Alpine Surveys Surveyed Revisions Title Job No based upon any delecl in 1 his survey -1 n ,"A years a Mer you hist discover such delect In no even' mayar,yaction biased upon any defect in this 'unrey Drafted Client becommenced rnore Ihan ten years from the dateof thecertil,Calion showl . hefeon. Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 925 2688 'L i E -- 2- ~ 1 4422â‚¬1 - . -* H STREET 133*12 1091-1 0 0 - 0 0 *21/1 .0,0--1 -Ph 0 1 3 4 6-7 r g ' ' L 9/ 4 fl-3 293 L..A. - 1 1 + -2 -1-_..'L.DÂ·ZK_-L_~11;k -,_1_~LDÂ·*.b.â€¢A----1.51.tn-NL-Â»-f -1 LÂ«- - 1 --7 L 0 5 ,--- .J.Â¥ -.. - ~- 1 ~2~ U j . A *AL 1 1 L * - I 1 8 17 PA~RY SHOP /~ . i /520 r , 1/ i. ,- h 'litr b 4 ' 11 | 0~Co ..... LO. A...... GLEST ROOMS - I )4 L ...Al WIILL. 8 8/Illcla.. A- food & beverage _ - 2 , * ,== *: -.p==<.-.,==<c -*===i~, r V 1 1 LOADNG 1 31 i I l 4. .4 ~ 7Bet-4EALâ„¢ FACLITÂ¥ -- - - 9. r-----tr- r--9 -!26 1 -- 1 11 1 ..1 ' 1 . It JACUZZ' 1 41 11=1 I CAMERA SHOP 1, 7 - 4- f , -Ii' klchen service .levator :. - ~ ~ 3. ~ It 1' .3 , 7 1 1- [t - . 1 1-1 1 1 I C 0 2 POOL I f r-2 14 11 ' TERFIACE CAFE x T SUIVDREES I '11 I .r' I 2 7 4 1 \ 4-294 4 111 r r vil -21 */' 1 9 - ~ 10- 2 1 -4 LOBBY - ( men TBRAM ( *02 Wp~'*121-5 . I Up to - , guden room . *=r 11 -/-4 1 H U. ENTRY t= 4-1 1 c DESK *0 â€¢ UP 7 L . F LOWER LEVEL ROOMS . 11 4 I d - r - POOL AREA 10 - 1 house BEAUTY =- keeping SALON LOBBY U T. W office - - POOL AREA 9 _ GALLERY EMPLOYEES 4 ' a- 7 1 '., .' -M U On' BARBER ~ UPPER FLOORS . 1 L.'-3 - POOL AREA 10 . EING RooMS . ENVERT AN,er, - TAVERN THREE FLOORS AT 15 Â· 45 - ma STORAcm ~I,opll & REPAR GALLERY 1 _ :1 - , 4 -f I --- EXISTING BUILDING - P 17 30;-6,;-i r-6 El E L==---1 TWO FLOORS AT 14 , 28 *r- - 1.11 i 1 7'1. If 4 11 TOTAL ROOMS 106 - i ....==L--4 1[f- 1/Ii--"/ 7% 3 AREA i=='Bmi'e#149* r. women men 01:ce omce NEW 78,222 sf 11 111 lill â€ž ..V'.,O.. 11 'iÂ®1326 ~ , - EXISTING Â· 46,371 11 = T - 1- " y LOWER LEVEL 1- ..T , - TOTAL 124,593 sf scale 10 10'-00 M. M .1 1 --- 0 10' 20' . . i 1 - - 2 --- /1 3 I 11 11- 1 1 / 1 - 19 -- -- 0 . ..1. - " ===i- ---- -- - -- - 9 ! 20< f f f /4/"h 2 ' Lig*(4 -1,\L Â«,32.74~ Â· 1 I 4 n -*-V~,/1-.4k,---~-u_ A-A #-,1- 1 11- -1 : -I -1/4 1=Re below _~ 604-12 i ~J~~1 4 8 6 - 1 1 1/217 9 9 1 f o ?BEE're 1/&1/r, . 't. .1 6 '..... M.. GIEST ACÂ»AS 7 11 0 9 1 JE- r--1(, 1 ..... LOâ€¢ A-4- rrlioyle roorrl nÂ«)-A, -I I ......... A-c-7=CTS 1 31 mect-cal 1 - 11 I ./ MEETNG ROOM Â£ L o 9 2 3 4 i i f 4 2 1 i - - --- I - -91 6 9 $4 8 4< 4 1 21'~ 1~ ~ - i, AAEET-NG ROOM , 1 1,3 POOL AREA BELOW -- 1 . i 4 I D r T 1 4 ? er-{ 1 1-4 - . ~ 1 C===1 1 i /4 1 kitchen 4 . GUEST ROOMS 64 41 . 0 11 BOOKS & GFTS 72 it 't IF . 1 r---* Â· Â·i, i 11 . 1 4 1 11 1 f .j 1 17 1 4 . /1 - FLOWERS U GOU~ET DIaNG ROOM ' 1 ir:4 - 5 n Q L.NOS , - . 5 ~~~ ~EI,CALe-fLLlA in ti , T j - citiz~d tr'ZE / i . 84 . 07937 = - ' d -#1 . 0,- h I F I . T-u 4.--LA till - .....'l =r-r ,1 i . tu'.0,/ 1 9 0 1 -1 1-- 44-Â¢ 1111 GARDEN ROOM ENTRY *1 ~t_ 402 1-41 , Â·39 . ph ---= - ------ -Ii, ,~en 1.-._4dn toloweÂ¢ lobby 4 2 -44. 1 1 . '7-t'Z'-=CA-Â»12-2 L filf f ~ i -- -1 11 1I 7 1 1, .- 6 6 1- 1 -t.1. d - 1----3-fl 2/ -i j L 2 I - 1 LUGGAGe r GAADEN ROOMÂ· 1 9 1 C PATI UVNG ROOM JEWERY I 2- 1. . dr -.t- I dn to lower level I I I p-4 1 VI 1' 1.-1 . LOBBY -Â·4==- -1 1 . !1. 1 1 ' 4 4 -dn to~wer level 1 11 4 4 --41 *,1, i.1,1. 4 - i .1 l 1 I ~ d2 --71& I.~ BOUTI~ 1 T .. . lEvi.,0.. 1 LOBBY LEVEL w*1. 10'-0' M.. 1 un - 0 10' 20' b -V 44Â»/-2~ N .1 9 r- -4 -V.----..Cr loadng zone 1 Â· M Â· R ... 9 . -- X- -- -- I HOTEL .NEROhE c- + 7- = c Â» 112) - i j,3554+ 4 1 \11 1 J 1-J : -1-1 M Lt 5 \ 1 n I. 43 I .61Â» = 2 .. : I. It :<'- . -6 , 1 lb. 6% 3 - r ~ t= === 71 B i E 4 11 371 1 0 m p h ..... .0.....L.. â„¢0-AI WIUS I A.I.,CIAâ„¢. A-CH..CTI 3 0/ 47. EA 1 6 0+ - 4 934 f + 0 17 11 94 -4 -* A *nzz* P - -~-$7~: - Â· ~- -,f ri; trbl- maid 12 13 14 15 16 4 k 4 19 + 11-A 1 24 23 22 ~ maid 1 %1~~ ~ - ~ <~-6-Z)* , 517 a 20 19 1 ~ r 1. 4 4 2 Â· - H i UL- 11 k 1 994 + BUSNESS SUITE 1 " " 11 fj - ii Â· 4-' 21 '4 1Â·, ,u ~- JI Â· - ~3-- r-1-1 u=Lq 6 r--1-/ 04,-~ h j Â·' y ~ 1 - 4 1. t-44 4 1 1 L I J lDDP .51- 764 - U , F / 30+ 2 /2 fc?> 94% , . 4.--- -r - - --- - 7- --- J 1 . UT--3- -r-*--fr--1-~r~~0 1. J 1 '2-1- 1-1 1.___-_11 ' 932- 22- 4 L====1 1 1â‚¬d , 'LU Ed -=- - il 1 ..1 31 U===.o = 15 - 7 ,-I U m 6 â€¢2_j 4 - 1- j'L .. .- ....~ COURT 1 4 1 ~ p 4 J I.- 3-*=- --, r--1. :.1 4 1 . 7 1 f-6. 1 r F pmum GLEST ROOMS PAR-ouR ' ..VI.10.. [ FIRST LEVEL k i .. I - 1.--4- LLI LWk/"..4 a.4 W- scale 1 ' 10'-0' M 0 10' 20' ...... 4 1 , MÂ· 02 ... - R.laul: r il-I ,=Gae>:â€ž19\* ...il h=z:Â¥ f - , rÂ·i n,0-Al -~11- I A-=8.- A-C,Â«r=- lo~ A-LI' 7 -* H 11 ; '~8 ' 1 a * 2 34 56 1 A NI . - 10 ?-9 Â» "~ ' g 21 ~ 0. A 4 9 521 -u . 0 - 14 13 12 maid . i 0 10 4 1 IM BUSINESS SUrTE r W 1 U~=4 ///1//i 41" 1 1 L%,2 r I i E-Ek- i H 1 k-1---~nÂ·Â·-1-1-1 Gr--h--1 E--r~-1--rk-1 7 11 i 1 *= b r ho .1 1 - -0- .1 F n 4 .1 4 - 1 ~ L== *-L-LU- - ! CcurT -7 11 I 74 ~ A- T Li - 4111 11 - 1 - L - . 1 PARLOUR PARLOUR .1.L. OF ....1 SECOND LEVEL F 1--{1- -1.1- *-Â·Lâ€¢Lt--1 t---i -t--1 1- -4 - i-- 4 t-- THIRD LEVEL SULAR scale 1' 10'-0' 0 10' 20' ..1.- 7- n.02 5 - ... -. . A - ... Ill Al./.Ill././././././. 60 ....6- I r--2020[JOCCEL I ZILJOCOE[200[t:Cor - -1 1 52230500C000003 -UU , 1 22230530002000 :OR - -1 -- 4 -1 -1 ..1 -2- 0/12Â»97-11._3 -a In--u 1 ~-31-! -- ~-0 ~~ Ed'. -- id ..1 - 1 J = 1. ~1-1_1 - 1 MI.: IrM 'Br" t- r~ - b 2 @ 8 . Ii-U - --- -- - -1--- - Lj U U LE . : .. ...1 1\ 'e. 'rd?i, / 1, ... -,1, ..â€ž0 C J I I 1 711 -1 â€¢ Yl Â·5 . i 44 =1 81 . + , -i.lif.5.â€ž.te:M~ -J~IK *3 1 1, r< r T Ir,4 12 2-=---- 1 -fl , ... .1. ..7 r- â€¢-9,. WiM > h rli~ ~~:ic, _7121 - 7'6 7 -=.,+ 1 **,06 ./ A , 1 A ... ./ 1 f- â‚¬CC. Â· 7-:~A~A ......, Ak t.. .\ 1. -"11- 0 k. 2, .Â¥* J I dj MILL STREET ELEVATION 1/4/ =---hA 1- il 1.., 1 ' 1- [.2'~- F ~ 9 . i All J Zill,A 'lliligillilillillillillillililikililligi - i 2 1-4, Ill r 'L 01 2 . ,. a.11-1 lt-2. '1/ULJYL ..21 1 : 3:i :-4 "1 - , .ilwl.#*. -I#- , 1 .*Â£Ilks /IM' 11 1 L , le, < 41. 1, , 0 1 - j , 0.... *F ./. , 1 1, 14 1 , 1 . 4 1Â»C , /6 ./ .4 ' . =-10- 1 1Â£1 4' 8.EVATIONS CUEl 1, , - = - --ft, & '' 2 V *7 46 : -B 4 '' *49 ' i . ' ~~ er: ~y~+I ~4'13[T~;~~~,~/, ac- 10 10'-00 f ')4'-~2,4 kÂ«6 /4 - #19W~VIMb,6~ - , 7 k.-riA: + r~â€¢ 'r?=2 . trd'irk.' ' 1- ~ e r-,ji""i"'- r - ./1/I#Z I.J.--: 1 r . r / pe.,C Mir* 4, 1 1 4 - 7--, 7 - 0 0 0 0 1 1-- i roof - .......... n,O=88 -=.1.I ad ~ roof 1 11 1 1 . 111 f 4--- - i - guest I guest i 1-11 guest ! third level second level - AL- _- --r_------1-~4 , 11 1 0--- - . - 1:--- - --- U ----#. -r-- - U second level I p ~_ In" ., guest 1. - 4 .1 1 [r--=-1 1-' guest 11 --=1-[ --4--- ginit 9 1 %- tr - ---1 first level i-1--4-Â·Â·rt--- -- - - --+ -'~ ~~ ~~ 1- % -1 4 --1 1 H - i --1 U guest ~'1 1 first level 4 i mechanical lobby level , ~ lobbl~~ L. 41 â€¢ 1 ' V. 1 ' ' kitchen gardor, rooln 11' 31: . - bar Â¥ 3 - .' lobby level 11 -' L 11 1Â·0' 1 1~ I I J â€¢1 r=--'---9 - ---1- -1- L- i r , -7 1 1. 1 -1 6-Â£ 1 11 1 -W .L- 11 L 1 1 - . ---- lower level mechanical i basement level . CROSS SECTION LOOKING WEST ' - Ir . 7 --1-1-A .- ...7. ,-4 r-- 2, ,, 1 01 ===rah. - U- - Ef,~ *191//11 -- 1 d== -4 r== ZE--: -1 =--7 L.=3 ..1 12.1 5-77Â£62% ~ 11 It. 97=3-112 --r-1;1=:M~ 6-=- 6-14 -E=11 li~E , 1 1 -1-UF , 1 --r- , 19 I it. 11!1!.li,282:':'Erâ€¢ f, Â»44, 4 . *r-<4*Â·11 ,&==e z~:6 :=~t - t=:= 6== 6- i r- _ I r f r--7 rE_.5 I '. '. 1 -A l f-, C + F . ,-3-4 /- 1 11 i . F~ 1 ~r.) A Pest . - 2 - 0 '1 - p ' ! I n Pal.MEat 11 1 1 4 :U 6- 1,47> 0- f 1 - i guest ~1 Eli --1 1 1 1 k i a a' k u i u u k u * *h i & d d Â£- ' 1 4 '1;1--4 -Ar/Ng'jl 3 2 jv'.0..1 Â¥ LE* 4,1.*~ I - ./.0/ ./.-1 - --//'--,'........ D 9/1/MI'l'ZOAFUM SECTION & 1 ELEVATION 1, 10'-V - .i.-. -- - ./6.-I~: P L..11 - 1 - 15'-00 13'-0' 13'-00 09-,8 .9-,6 .ens i .O-.EL , ~ .0-,Ol . I f 0, 7.7 4 +4 7 , 1 - i 0 - t- .\ 3 1 ./ 4 3 . 7 / 1 t... f MEMORANDUM ! TO: Aspen City Council :i 1 FROM: Planning Office, Joe Wells 1 RE: Hotel Jerome Proposed Expansion ~ DATE: August 18, 1980 Several weeks ago, Mayor Edel, Councilmember Behrendt and two members of the , Planning Office met with John Gilmore regarding his proposed redevelopment 4 1 plans for the Hotel Jerome. : The Jerome parcel is 47,412 square feet. The north portion of the site (approx- ; imately 28,000 square feet) is presently zoned 0-Office. The remainder along : Main Street is zoned CC-Commercial Core. Since Lodge uses are not permitted in the Office zone, a rezoning would have to be initiated by the City, so we i have scheduled Wednesday's work session with Council to see if there is an i interest on the part of Council in initiating the rezoning. j Mr. Gilmore's progosal is to remodel the existing 34 lodge rooms and to add ! 83 new lodge rooms and 4 new employee rooms to the north. The existing I facility of approximately 32,300 square feet would be expanded to a total : of approximately 115,400 square feet. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of such a proposal would be in excess of 2.4:1 if these square footage figures are accurate. The CL (Commercial Lodge) zone district is currently the most liberal zone dis- , trict in the City Code, with a maximum FAR of 2:1. The CC zone district permits a maximum FAR 1.5:1 with an additional .5:1 FAR if .3:1 of the additional square footage is employee housing. In other words, the CC district permits a maximum , "freemarket" FAR of 1.7:1 if ,3:1 additional square footage is restricted. 1 In our opinion, application of any of the Lodge zone districts would be inap- propriate in the area of the Jerome and therefore would strongly favor expansion of the CC zoning over use, of lodge zoning. Use of S.P.A. zoning I has also been identified as an alternative. Other points of discussion that were raised at the meeting were employee housing and parking. The adequacy of the four employee rooms proposed was questioned (the existing employee rooms are to be removed). There was some I discussion of providing employee housing off-site as an alternative. On the parking issue, there was some expression that Mr, Gilmore's participation in parking in the Rio Grande area would be preferable to providing parking I on-site. Individual historic designation would be required in order to permit any expansion outside the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Gilmore is amenable to- ~ designation and is pursuing the matter at the present time. 1: / -to-lied- 5/2-4~fl 4, - . 45 k co f y No. *1&19 -9 4 1 I CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: +M STAFF: d~11,1Jek,rsivD,1 1% 4Aon. R.,-c-(A,0,â€¢A 4 2. APPLICANT: JAhn F, 61*Irnove- 3. REPRESENTATIVE: 'Gn \Dells 4. PROJECT NAME: Mold defbvvy& Rmodfh,6*ns\â€¢l - CEVeÂ¢ual 5. LOCATION: CE'rner- 06 4ll 8,4 Matn 1,1 ACAo 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 4 Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin â‚¬ P.U.D. Exception 8040 Greenline Special Review Exemption View Plane Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use X HPC 61196,0 Destjv,Â£4/h) Residential Bonus Other 7. REFERRALS: X Attorney Sanitation District School District )< Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks . State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Mountain Bell ..' 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: 1 -j - 4-' p \ I . * . f-- 9. DISPOSITION: ?&1'j~ Approved v~ Denied Date r., ~U.J 1 ~ i i & 1 itc- 4-VFA LLÂ£L 9-9 K (81.4(0-5 Q u LO 4Â»AM,l 4Â».1 Council i ' Approved V Denied Date At127 ~ (18 C MAR L 41 71 10. ROUTING: . v Attorney Building Engineering 4 Other *445 c 7 - 1 - j j I : 14, I I 0 . CONDITIONS OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL HOTEL JEROME - 4/27/81 Conceptual PUD Based on the conceptual approvals given to the Hotel Jerome by P&Z and City Council, the Planning Office and the applicant recognize that a basic acceptance of the project now exists. It is anticipated that the future submissions by the applicant will reflect the conceptual design parameters presented by the applicant and approved during the review process. The 1 applicant is expected to provide detailed solutions based on the accepted parameters, while P&Z and City Council are expected to follow through on Â° , the features which they have now approved. 1. The applicant agreeing to provide parking for 25 guests and 35 employees at an off-site location to be precisely determined by f the applicant and the City. Should Council agree to coordinate the . ; timing of the Rio Grande parking structure and Hotel Jerome con- struction, then the applicant should be required to participate proportionately in the cost of construction of the structure, based on the need for 60 spaces. Should such an arrangement not be found to be workable, the applicant should lease a site nearby. In either case, the applicant should provide valet parking arrangements for guests of the hotel; 2. The applicant agreeing to provide four deed restricted employee units within the hotel and to work with both the City and County Housing Departments to develop an equitable arrangement to provide deed restricted housing for an additional 15 employees of the hotel at a location acceptable to the City, to include a minimum of 15 bedrooms; i 1 3. The applicant making every effort to store construction materials on site, thereby causing no inconvenience in the vicinity of the hotel. If there is a need to disrupt any right-of-way in the area, this in- convenience should be limited only to Bleeker Street. 4. The applicant agreeing to install inside the loading dock an industrial- i type trash compaction facility to handle all solid waste generated at the hotel. i $ 1 5. The applicant agreeing to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. If construction Â¢ causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Street, the I .1 r applicant should be required to replace those sections. The applicant i also agrees to perpetual care for all trees planted on Main Street. 6. The applicant agreeing to provide detailed information at the pre- liminary plat stage regarding the height, mass and bulk of the pro- posed additions in relation to the request for rezoning and expansion of a conditional use. The applicant is also expected to provide at that stage of the review process detailed plans regarding the exact number of rooms requested and a breakdown of square footage in terms , i of hotel rooms, commercial space, mechanical space and other uses. Lastly, the applicant should provide detailed arrangements specifying 1 how parking and employee housing needs of the Hotel Jerome as outlined 1 above are to be met. 7. The applicant providing a detailed solution to the traffic circulation problems anticipated on Main and/or Mill Streets. City Council does not approve of the P&Z suggestion that a second major Hotel entrance be placed on Mill Street, instead requesting that a sufficiently large 1 . pull-off area be maintained on Main Street (preferably more than two car spaces). 1. The applicant agreeing to provide parking for 25 guests 1 35 employees at an off-site ation to be precisely City. Should Council termined by the applicant and agree to coordinate the timing of the Rio Grande parking structure and Hotel Jerome construction, then the applicant should be required to participate proportion- ately in the cost of construction of the structure, based on the need for 60 spaces. Should such an arrange- ment not be found to be workable, the applicant should lease a site nearby and provide valet parking arrange- ments for guests of the hotels or should provide parking underground at the hotel itself. 2. The applicant agreeing to provide four deed restricted employee units within the hotel and to work with both the City and County Housing Departments to develop an equitable arrangement to provide housing for an addi- tional 15 employees of the hotel at a location acceptable to the City. 3. The applicant making every effort to store construction -.- materials on site, thereby causing no inconvenience in the vicinity of the hotel. If there is a need to disrupt any right-of-way in the areas this inconvenience should be limited only to Bleeker Street. 4. The applicant agreeing to install inside the loading dock an industrial-type trash compaction facility to handle all solid waste generated at the hotel. 5. The applicant agreeing to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. If construction causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Street, the applicant should be required to replace those sections. 6. The applicant agreeing to provide detailed information at the preliminary plat stage regarding the height, mass and bulk of the proposed additions in relation to the request for rezoning and expansion of a conditional use. The applicant is also expected to provide at that stage of the review process detailed plans regarding the exact number of rooms requested and a breakdown of square footage in terms of hotel rooms, commercial spaces mechanical space and other uses. Lastly, the applicant should provide detailed arrangements specify- ing how parking and employee housing needs of the Hotel Jerome as outlined above, are to be met. 7. The applicant providing a detailed solution to the traffic - - circulation problems anticipated on Main and/or Mill Streets." Hotel Jerome - Project Description The restoration, renovation, and addition to the Hotel Jerome has two major goals. First to restore the property to its original intended use: a world class hotel inarchitecture, facilities, and service. The Jerome was and is intended again to be the Queen of Rocky Mountain hostelries. The second goal is to expand on the exi sting rooms and support spaces ~ to bring the property to a viable level of facility to operate at today's economic and opera tional demands. The Existing Building The existing building will be totally remodeled and restored. Although there is no intention to change the exterior of the building with the exception of color, or the existing lobby, stairways and bar, the entire building will beremodeled as necessary tobecome sound, well insulated, and efficient. The second and third floors will be totally reconstructed to elimina te the substandard interior rooms and enlarge all exterior rooms to present day standards. All hardware and appointments will be reused to retain the original character. The basement will be totally remodeled as well. All new mechanical systems, additional office and administration areas and hotel oriented shops will occupy the space. In addition, an arcade connecting to the addition will provide lobby access from the corner of Mill and Bleeker. The arcade will be connected to the lobby above by a new open stairway. The Addition Since the remodeled existing building will have only 34 rooms, an addition to the north is planned to bring the hotel to minimum operational size. Also, since theexisting kitchen wing is tobedemolished, all dining, kitchen, storage, and receiving areas will be loca ted in the new structure . At the lobby level the main feature isa central garden room which connects the now seldom used space behind the lobby of the existing building to the new building by means of a skylighted enclosed garden area. The space thus created not only links old and new, but also provides a "palm court" similar to the Plaza Hotel in New York, which will be the social center of the hotel. From breakfast and brunch to luncheon and afternoon tea, dinner, then late night desserts, the space will be a scene of chamber music. conversation, and socializing. -2- The architecture of the addition will be a present day complement to the existing building both exterior and interior. Lower in profile and smaller in scale than the existing building, the addition is a subdued structure intended to complement rather than dominate or even equal the importance of the existing historic building. Although the window / openings of the existing building are various shapes, arched openings and bay windows will be used throughout the brick elements of the addi tion. Ownership Mr. John IF. Gilmore hasbeen principal owner of the IIotel Jerome since 1968. Since that time Mr. Gilmore's sole objective has been to restore and retain the building in its historic role as Aspen's prime hotel. When the present plans of renovation and addition are comple ted there will be no change in these objectives. The hotel will remain privately owned and operated in perpetuity. No condominiumization or sale is planned. Â»1- i C A..A M, aru. 4.3 0.86 ' .... 90 -9/ AL Â· ir-4 -11 4 4 4/444* i U-1 - 01% <-_ o %- eâ„¢.~1 AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED UNIT ~A -4-L-4-1 - 0-,-45 c â‚¬U C..A #L IÂ« h.a--A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - <6Â£-- c~lco L., (-0-- 1 eAl P A K-i 5/hu, OV. U A A . A V\Â« 3 - <>l4-10Â£. hl- a 4 /4- A<. AXA Â«A..8,1 HOTEL JEROME RENOVATION AND ADDITION 91 A-,4-k-Q. 4 6 rt ..4 ,vee,~40 ~ V.J. t.- - FAA 0 \JÂ·-LPX . 44*#Uj 6Lk u. c o 1.Al . Lt-,LA 4 46 Â· Orl ulkl.Allic -Â°r'-Crâ€¢-f - 1.44 1 J Z. 1.1-,4 , c t $ s This Restated and Amended Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 1986, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and a home-rule City (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and the Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner owns that real property and the building situated thereon, commonly known as the "Hotel Jerome", more particularly described as follows: Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, 0, P, Q, R, S, and the East 20 feet of Lot N, Block 79, together with the East 170.78 feet of the vacated alley in said Block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Owner's predecessor in title, JOHN F. GILMORE, submitted to the City for approval, execution and recording a Final Planned Unit Development (P.U.D. ) Plat pertaining to the development of that project known as the "Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addi- tion" (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Project"); and WHEREAS, Owner's predecessor in title entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with the City for said Initial Project, entitled "Planned Unit Development Agreement - Hotel_ Jerome - -1- Renovation and Addition", dated April 20, 1983, recorded in Book 444 at Page 750, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office; and WHEREAS, pursuant to an application dated November 29, 1985, which application and all representations set forth therein are hereby incorporated by reference, Owner submitted to the City an application to revise the Initial Project into two phases as follows: - Phase I: Renovation of the exisitng building, commonly known as the Hotel Jerome, pursuant to Building Permit Application and Building Permit No. , which renovation was completed and a certificate of occupancy issued therefor on or about December 26, 1985; - Phase II: An addition to the currently existing and reno- vated Hotel Jerome, as defined and described on the plat to be pre- sented and approved by the City in accordance with the procedures for amending and/or revising a PUD plan set forth in Section 24-8.26 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Collectively, Phase I and Phase II shall be known as "The Project"; and WHEREAS, City and Owner desire to amend the Agr?ement pertain- ing to the initial Project dated April 20, 1983, to reflect Phase I and a redesigned Phase II, as well as various matters set forth below, into one comprehensive Agreement which will supercede the Agreement dated April 20, 1983 (hereinafter this new Agreement will be referred to as "Amended and Restated Planned Unit Developinent Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve this Amended Agreement upon representation of Owner that a new plat and landscape plan will -2- be filed within ninety (90) days of City approval, meeting approval of the City Engineer, which plat and landscape plan will accurately reflect presently existing Phase I and proposed Phase II, and which shall supercede and replace the Plat recorded April 20, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval of applicant's request to phase the project as hereinabove described, and the parties desire to reaffirm the initial Agreement as necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c) and Section 24-8.1 et seq., of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters hereinafter set forth and agreed to will be faithfully performed by Owner; and WHEREAS, Owner is willing to enter into such agreement(s) with and to provide such assurance(s) to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. Amended Agreement and Phasing. City and Owner agree that this Agreement shall supercede and amend that Planned Unit Develop- ment Agreement Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addition, dated April 20, 1983, recorded in Book 444 at Page 750, Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and that a new Plat and Landscape Plan shall be submitted and recorded to supercede and replace the Plat and Landscape Plan dated May 10, 1983, and recorded in Book 14 at Page 88, office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, which plat shall comply with all applicable requirements and the City of Aspen PUD regulations. -_ -3- 2. Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter. City acknowledges that Owner has constructed a new sidewalk along Main Street frontage and has or will repair the existing sidewalks on Mill Street and shall maintain said sidewalks along Main Street and Mill Street in accordance with the sidewalk and improvements site plan, dated , annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II, or within a reasonable time thereafter as agreed to by the City Engineer, Owner shall construct new sidewalks along the Project's road frontages on Monarch and Bleeker Streets (six-foot minimum widths) together with curb and gutter, all as reasonably determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with the Landscape plan, the applicable provisions of Chapters 19 and 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as amended, and accepted engineering standards and practices. Owner shall repair or replace any existing (or newly installed) sidewalks, curb or gutter which may be damaged during construction. The current estimated cost of such improvements is contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this refer- ence. Such cost estimate shall be updated by the City Engineer when Owner applies for a Building Permit for Phase II, and Exhibit "A" shall be amended accordingly at that time. 3. Other Physical Improvements. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II, Owner shall provide and install such water lines and fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drainage improvements and storm sewers, and such other physi- cal improvements, as may be reasonably required pursuant to Section 20-16(a) of the Municipal Code, in connection with Phase II and -4- according to normal City specifications, the schedule and cost of which include, without limitation, those contained in Exhibit "A". Such cost estimate shall be updated by the City Engineer when Owner applies for a Building Permit for Phase II and Exhibit "A" shall be amended accordingly at that time. The current estimated cost of such improvements does not include sewer and water taps and related fees, which will be calcu- lated and paid prior to issuance of a Building Permit for Phase II according to the then-standard practices and charges of the sewer district and water department. Specific improvements include: (a) A new Â£" water line will be installed from the 12" water main in Monarch Street east on Bleeker Street to the point where the Hotel service begins, a distance of 240 feet. The City of Aspen wants this water line to be looped into the Mill Street main. The Owner agrees to pay for the excavation, pipe, connections and patching necessary to complete this loop. The City agrees that the actual cost of completing the loop 46*Â« shall be credited to the water tap fees for Phase II. (b) The City and Owner agree that Bleeker Street between Monarch and Mill Streets has a steep grade and this problem situation will be exacerbated by the shading of Bleeker result- ing from the construction of Phase II and use of Bleeker for the garage entrance and delivery site for the Hotel. The City and Owner agree to regrade this block of Bleeker Street prior to construction of Phase II or at such time as shall be mutually agreeable to the Owner and City Engineer in order to -5- create an average finished grade of some 2.5 percent. The cost ON of surveys, street plans, regrading, repaving and replacement of improvements to neighbors on the north side of Bleeker shall be divided equally between the City and Owner. The Owner shall front the cost and the City shall execute a promissory note to the Owner calling for repayment of the City's share over a two-year period with interest at ten (10) percent. The promis- sory note shall be Exhibit "B" to this Agreement and shall be CA-h \- r, 1 . LS>. ..3ky-~ recorded when fully executed. The current cost estimate is $35,000.00. The costs will be updated and refined by the Owner and City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit for Phase II. Should the cost exceed $35,000.00, the Owner and City shall, as partners in the regrade, agree upon the most reasonable course of action. 0 4. Landscape Improvements. In accordance with Section 24-8.16 of the Municipal Code, all required Landscaping shall substantially conform to a "Landscape Plan" annexed to the Plat and incorporated herein by reference which shows the extent and location of all plant materials and other landscape features, flower and shrub bed defini- tion, proposed plant material at mature sizes in appropriate rela- tion to scale, species and size of existing plant material, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, etc.), location of water outlets, and a plant material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes and quantities. Landscaping will be com- pleted in a logical phasing sequence commensurate with the phasing of the improvements contemplated in the Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year after the date of the Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II. -6- If the Owner has not been issued a building permit for Phase II by the City of Aspen by May 1, 1987, a detailed Landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Planning Department and the City Engineering Department in the exercise of their reasonable discretion, to be completed by July 1, 1987. The Owner agrees to expend at least $50,000.00 for the purpose of landscaping the site according to an interim plan to be in effect until construction of Phase II. It is tne mutual understanding of the parties that a Certifi- cate of Occupancy may be issued for Phase II even if the landscaping improvements have not yet been completed, provided the portion of the guaranty in Paragraph 6 below which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping remains available pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 6. 5. Construction Schedule and Program. The construction sche- dule outlines the time periods for construction and the methods for satisfying the terms of the Agreement. Owner represents to City that an accurate construction schedule cannot be submitted at this time. It is anticipated that construction will begin in the summer of 1986, for completion for the summer of 1987. Prior to the issu- ance of a Building Permit for Phase II and as a condition precedent thereto, Owner agrees to provide the City Engineer with a detailed construction schedule, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official, which shall particularly address how construction phasing and other techniques will best accommodate under circumstances (a) barricading and provision of pedestrian protection, (b) excavation access and large truck traffic and -7- staging areas, (c) delivery and storage of major materials, (d) construction equipment access and storage, and (e) contractor vehi- cle parking. Such construction schedule shall be verified by the signatures of the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official and recorded as a supplementary exhibit hereto. Any amendments to the construction schedule shall be reviewed by the Planning Department, verified by signatures of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official, and (if the City requires) recorded as supplementary exhibits hereto. 0 0 62.4 0 -:4<t 0 - 5 ' 4, 2--~'-v, . MA L- 1 42 0 6 -1.~ 6. Financial Assurances. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the improvements described in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above, and to guarantee one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of such improvements as reasonably agreed to by the City Engineer (as such amount may be updated from time to time as herein provided), Owner shall guarantee, by sight draft or letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsi- ble lender (to be irrevocable until such improvements are completed), that funds in the amount of such estimated cost are held by it for the account of Owner for the construction and installation of the above-described improvements. Said guaranty shall be deliv- ered to the City prior to the issuance to Owner of a building permit for the Project, shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager, and shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner and notice of such default in conformance with the procedures outlined in Paragraph 13 of this Agreement, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and pay for any of such improvements or pay any outstanding -8- bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty funds applicable to additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Owner of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer. Provided, that the withheld ten percent (10%) which relates to the improvements described in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above shall be released by City upon completion and approval by the City Engineer of all such Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 improvements and regardless of the stage of completion of landscape improvements described in Paragraph 4 above. The Owner also agrees to deliver to the City, upon demand therefor by the City Engineer, a maintenance bond or other suitable guarantee as necessary and as may be reasonably required for the repair or replacement of any existing municipal improvements damaged during construction of new improvements. Owner will contract with recognized and bondable contractors for all improvements in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. The contractors shall warrant all such improvements to accepted standards of good workmanship for a period of one (1) year from completion and, at Owner's request, the City will agree in writing to accept the improvements. -9- 7. Employee Housing. As a further inducement to the City to approve the Project in two phases as set forth in this Amended Agreement, Owner has agreed to and does hereby confirm and acknow- ledge its obligation to provide housing for employees of the pro- ject, as requi-red by the Code and regulations of the City of Aspen, or its designee, in connection with the Project. With regard to Phase I, Owner hereby agrees that Rooms No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the hotel annex on the top floor as designated on the amended and restated plat shall be and hereby are restricted exclusively to use as employee housing sufficient to house four (4) employees of the Hotel and restricted to a maximum occupancy of one (1) employee per bedroom. Such rooms shall be used solely by hotel employees, and verification of an employee's employment qualificaions may be accom- plished by the City of Aspen, or it's designee, at any time the City may wish. The dedication and covenants contained herein shall be deemed a burden upon and to run with the title to the project and shall be binding upon the Owner and Owner's successors and upon all other persons or entities having any right, title or interest in or to the project (or bedrooms) or any part thereof, and shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforceable by the City of Aspen or its designee by appropriate legal action, including injunction, abatement or eviction of non-complying tenancies, all for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitxin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Neither this dedication nor any of the covenants contained herein shall be modified, released or waived in any respect except by written instrument executed by both Owner or its successors or assigns and the City of Aspen, Colorado, and duly recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. - 10 - The approval by the City Council on the 9th day of December, 1985, restricting seven (7) bedrooms, units 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 , 15, 16, the Cortina Lodge, Aspen, Colorado, shall fully satisfy the requirements for Phase II of the project. These units shall be provided for use by fifteen (15) employees, deed restricted to City Â¢'.\Â»tl occupancy guidelines in effect at the time such units are provided. Such units shall be restricted to such guidelines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase II of the project and as a condition precedent thereto. The Owner shall have the right to substitute all of the required off-site employee housing for an aggregate of fifteen (15) employees provided (i) the location, size and configuration of such substitute housing is acceptable to the City of Aspen or its desig- nee, as reflected by resolution of the City Council, (ii) the mini- mum number of acceptable employee housing units required to house fifteen (15) employees remains available at all times, and (iii) the same deed restrictions are imposed upon the substitute units prior to occupancy of such units. Contemporaneously with such substitution of units, the City shall release the deed restrictions upon those off-site units which have been replaced. Further, should the Owner secure more units than are necessary to house fifteen (15) employees off-site, Owner's on-site employee bedroom requirement for Phase I (i.e., the Annex rooms 1, 2, 3, and 4) shall be reduced and deed restrictions released exactly by the amount of housing provided in excess of that required to house the fifteen (15) employees off-site, as may be acceptable to the City (or its designee, which may be the Aspen-Pitkin Housing Authority), including approval by j9 resolution of the City Council. -- JF Â«LA -Lo iu<- tual o w , Ii{- . 9 v- -*lul -.61 le 06 7 - 11 - Further, should the Owner at the time of the certificate of occupancy for Phase II of the project, not have provided the units necessary to house fifteen (15) employees, Owner shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for Phase II and as a con- dition precedent thereto, covenant and restrict a sufficient number of bedrooms within Phase II of the project necessary to cover any shortfall in the off-site housing requirments, which temporary restricted bedrooms must meet the same City employee housing guide- lines as Owner's off-site employee housing units would have been required to meet under the terms hereof, and which temporary restricted bedrooms shall thereafter be released from said covenants contemporaneously with Owner providing the required number of units for off-site employee housing in the manner above required. Owner warrants that, at the time of the issuance of the certi- ficate of occupancy for Phase II, all persons, or entities having any lien, encumbrance or interest in the Cortina Lodge, will have consented to such occupancy and that no certificate of occupancy for Phase II will be issued without the written consent of any such person or the substitution of other employee housing to satisfy the requirement unless otherwise agreed to by City Council. The deed restriction and covenant restriction and release forms shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney prior to recorda- tion. 8. Parking. As a condition of the approvals granted herein and herewith, the Owner shall provide parking in connection with the project in the manner hereinafter described. - 12 - - Phase I. In the event a building permit has not been granted for Phase II by September 1, 1986, Owner shall provide twenty-seven (27) on-site parking spaces, or so many as approved by the City Engineer, said spaces to be ready for use by November 1, 1986, and to remain in use until the beginning of construction on Phase II. Phase II. As a condition of the approvals granted herein, Owner agrees to provide fifty-one (51) parking spaces on-site enclosed inÂ·a parking garage according to representations made during the approval process and noted on the recorded plat. These fifty-one (51) parking spaces shall include and not be in addition to the twenty-seven (27) spaces required in Phase I, if no building permit for Phase II has been issued by September 1, 1986. f U Ac LCALL 9. Planter Encroachments. Owner agrees to obtain such licenses as may be necessary with respect to planters which encroach into public sidewalks. City Council, in approving the landscape plan, shall grant the encroachment licenses prior to the issuance of a building permit for the planters. 10. Periodic Reviews. Owner agrees that every six (6) months following the date of final City approval of this Project until the construction thereof is complete, he will meet with the City Plan- ning Office for the purpose of informing the Planning Office as to his progress in developing the Project pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Agreement. If the Planning Office deems it necessary, the Planning Office will report to the City Planning and Zoning Commission on the outcome of one or more of these meetings. The Owner and the City recognize that these meetings are not oppor- tunities for the Owner to avoid complying with the requirements of - 13 - this Agreement, but are for purposes of providing progress reports and developing mutually acceptable solutions to any problems which may be encountered during the construction period. 11. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Landscaping. Owner agrees that it shall be the perpetual responsibility of the Owner or Owners of the Hotel Jerome property from time to time to maintain, care for, and replace when necessary, all trees, shrubs, plants, and other landscaping features which may be planted in connection with or which are otherwise incorporated in the Hotel Jerome Project pursuant to the Landscape Plan submitted to the City as a part of the Final Plat. 12. Use and Maintenance of Open Space. Owner shall occupy the Project Open Space (i.e., the exterior patio and pool areas shown on the Landscape Plan) for such uses as may from time to time be deemed appropriate by Owner, provided that such occupancy and uses shall at all times be in compliance with the then-applicable provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. Owner agrees that it shall be the perpe- tual responsibility of the Owner or Owners from time to time of the Hotel Jerome property to maintain in a clean and attractive condi- tion and in a good state of repair all such Open Space contained within the Project. 13. Non-Compliance and Request for Amendments or Extensions 42 Owner. In the event that the City Council determines that the Owner is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the City Council may issue and serve upon the Owner a written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring the Owner to cease and desist from such non-compliance and rectify - 14 - the same within such reasonable time as the City Council may deter- mine. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such order, the Owner may file with the City Council either a notice advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written petition request- ing a hearing to determine any one or both of the following matters: (a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist; or, (b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non- compliance which is determined to exist. Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally estab- lished by the City Council for other hearings. If the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non-compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate; provided, however, no order terminating any approval granted herein shall be granted without a finding of the City Coun- cil that substantial evidence warrants such action and affording the Owner a reasonable time to remedy such non-compliance. A final determination of non-compliance which has not been remedied or for which no variance has been granted shall, at the option of the City Council, and upon written notice to the Owner, give rise to the right of specific performance and other remedies available at law or equity. - 15 - In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for an amendment to this Agreement or the Plat or to extend any of the time periods required for performance. With respect to the Construction Schedule, the Owner has made vaious assumptions, including the following: (1) Final approval of the Plat and related documentation prior to September 1, 1986; (2) Negotiation, arrangement and completion of pre-construe- tion activity by Owner, including construction borrowing, bidding, contractor selection and contractor mobilization prior to the pro- jected starting date of no later than May 1, 1987; (3) Ratification of the estimated construction and development schedule by the selected lender and contractors; (4) Prompt availability of the required labor forces and con- struction materials at all necessary phases throughout the construe- tion period; (5) No interruption in construction operations through the winter months during the actual construction period by acts of God or other matters beyond the control of the Owner. The City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance indicated in the Construction Schedule if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for said extension are beyond the control of the Owner, despite good faith efforts on his part to accomplish the same. 14. Notice. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agree- ment shall be deemed given if personally delivered or if deposited - 16 - in the United States Mail to tne parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or at such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Owner: Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership c/o Marketing Corp of America 285 Riverside Drive Westport, Connecticut 06880 With copies to: Garfield and Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Perry Harvey Post Office Box 8720 Aspen, Colorado 81612 15. Binding Clause. The provisions hereof shall run with and constitute a burden upon the title to the subject property, and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Owner and the City and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. - 17 - 16. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 17. Severability. If any of the provisions of the Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Agreement arld the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sen- tence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other circumstances shall not be affected thereby. 18. Incorporation of Recitals. The City and Owner hereby stipulate and agree that the Recitals preceding this Agreement are part of the Agreement and are to be deemed incorporated herein as though fully set forth. 19. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to time only by written instrument executed by each of the parties hereto. 20. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and execute the Amended and restated Planned Unit Development plat for the Hotel Jerome, and to accept the same for recordation in the Recording Office of Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the recordation fee and costs to the City by Owner. - 18 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, A Municipal Corporation By: William Sterling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney OWNER: HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Connecticut Limited Partnership, by Western Properties Investments, Inc., General Partner By: T. Richard Butera President - 19 - STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledge before me this day of , 1986, by William Sterling, as Mayor, and Kathryn Koch, as City Clerk, of the City of Aspen, State of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Address STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The Foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986, by T. Richard Butera. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Address - 20 - THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS .. 32.- AGENDA May 5, 1986 5:00 I. CONTINUED MEETING a) Hotel Jerome PUD Agreement and Update on Addition b) Request for Encroachment - Esprit c) Underground Contracts 5:30 II. WORK SESSION - Ice Rink Study Committee c %â€¢US.a (fAA,ll-2~ , \,Â« &,1 ut . 00@ 3la.*Â£, Â»* C xi 1- /4 4 ll/u L>L.,~ ) 7- 41 -to -3 %41 *C/,2, P M /.U,J~ -4- 24% aÂ« 3.-4 -5 9 *lÂ·-~--- Fect- 0 - V~Â·A *.. )4 0 ,A _~31_13~-2 f '..O - 8+~- vuu~~L -Van-O 61 + 2, L_.Q_ l o %6 I <te-~ ( L - ;7 1 Ao t~~:Â£27~A.F , 1- c -- S , tâ‚¬L L ~ F n~..0 _ i.... + l 9 ,Â«u L 4 1 Qt C Juvul - A-7 64Â·uit ,#L J ve-to KQ o .L 5 4.\4 4 - 42 lik QUA Â·+-5/u.-A- 4 + 4-V A- i 8.9 O.1 6Lu. 16- 0-90~- 8.1.h EA (*4. \1 7 .4 Lit 9 12 Lj-~ U ' b OL&. a.-4-114 6 \Â» C *-i , L-v U A Laai- LiU. O - 86Â£â„¢ 3 A -4 6\,4 Le ''u.NA , 9 4-0 Â·U--~ . 4 90Â» A~1.0.2-\7~~Â·c 4 &142Â» 6 -1 , S /// C .1 i*&21-18-1. A GL J -30-3 1 L.-00 Â£ A.U- Uj- ON 0- 11, h l. +IH- AP, p49_1 ka-. 4-= 4, - 'til- Af TL--4 Qi 1~_~ \ 4 - UU. 6 -A...4 , 0 1/U- h14 ~ 4 f -4 j -1 /k- f 1 ,\All /JA Â£Â£ VA 1/ 8 L.eu.o_ '3 9 fik 'i J-4.4 -AL vs 4 1/Ail L -Â»AD V~Â«-3 1 *ca_Sons Â¥66- Re-Res:~jo 1-_ar r~- Sat)36srecl fous s on TO coL.ancl 1 #-7 L_j i 1 ./ 1 - Ptl recor'..rnaer\As o- r~raget\ c-noll-rf o'~ ec| â‚¬ y 07 { 0 4 i i C>r CA-fon Th-e- CLpft; ecxnt-S. 3=:c=:ECEz:br64 al Tâ‚¬f nun-3 8 9'E- 1--0 râ‚¬Aeâ‚¬,l~n f ke norl-ln. u.ae-&71- aÂ«â‚¬Â«020 r n tr Â¢5>â‚¬ 1_11â‚¬- \0 LA- l \A T 4 Cl 5~ 7-5>Wre-julnÂ«1 172 -* ~ , ncrects e_ 6 Con,~pocr- , \04 0,-1-~ U-) ~Th v-1 elt'L\G . CITY OF ASPEN 4~ MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Planning and Development Director -To 1 9Â»1 7 ALL.q. 5 41 4 A--0 -1- A kiltil_- .6 (1-2.- i. - jj R.2-ASA- *- 4 -SL-uc --'C A-Vi -- 9*19- 67 Ln 04 --\, 3,~ '- FL C.(1 100 4,- N,vita \LIn ~ 2% L.C LfA- 0--*J Vk/--' Vle LL-1- Luu\.-trzy â‚¬\,46 -"l 90 43 00 --21 0 - 6 l-z- 3 134 061 4161-- . Q.te-"41_ U \% ~~20Â£_- rÂ·~~ *,_242 4 7 ~- a- -1 \ pÂ·u~ . s.- ...w .,c t.el U f 4 4-Ul-.\ 44 1-1 s lÂ»t i f I I.I ~~__ 4 vÂ«n_. 44 O v~L t 30 0 upt d= o * A 4 A . IL-0-â‚¬- u'44- 44 Yl ,~_, - I- 9.1 Ph 4 k LO,0 1-, At - fus.X).12 b O ~-Â»â‚¬- 44* +-41 -'4 -~ k- L C AL D AN - c & A UL-44 W.(C C 1 1 Ari ZLI %-1 A ~4 4 - 34 ,%1-- 4--Â£ 4-Lk A e-~~,a-Di-l *477C a 7 ril,- 40 2-57 c Awuu-Â«1 0--, 1 #-3 c- 7LY ~41 -*1\ ....1+ 4g ELL.1 <Lie U-Ul -< 4.4 1 Le , 4 4-0 in 1 44-lÂ« 0606 U+4 U, 11 k 4- - 1 15-fcc Ce-3 6 14 \ 5 l.4 . # S AL#pl ele\ 4640 44-,-,2 9k G -25 U'% 6 I -2,3 4 74-Ow - Qq_*~ lq-U--*- 1-4 , ~I_ cgck ct-Â£ L 47 /~e~~ vw J Tr- ~441 4-o c..0 26.2t -1& -~ Le __A--1, o- u\-0-* -1- icl-t.- '%-U- 4% LOA -la J LS S Vâ‚¬,1 - 4-1-3 9.-U.{Lor-1 5-41- LS ?f-'9- - i.-wk -40-~ i,Â·uo U--1\ ---- Adl/- 26(.4Vul- W\6- 4,4% N.=- b )1-,-C ,-411 Â».lt< p i w O-All 0 - hâ„¢i_ ~31- c_ Ar& K7 //9- 10 4 -4-30 -C~o 1 .5 - QUIL *Lb 4.e o K Ar 9 4 =L\ 4 of 4- 'we-0.124 A #/1-2. Â·~--0 * . 1-bscy-4 31 'U-.1.,.t-w<...~_ ~ d\+1~n-, Fit, 7-: A Le A~-_ A gLJT A-u,0 1__- Â«- Dv.- (66*4 94 0- 01 Â«-5-Lu_. 3 U Â» Ullt.1 -L 4-e 'UY O - 7 64_.Â«* e - â‚¬42 931.1,1 - 5- Ah-4 44 --<La Â£Ult--I~ al, 1.s~%.1Â»54_ A-b - U> 43 4,& ac g LAG- w .vA LE Â£2Â·7.4 -= ---- s. -L *...L.Ji ;01%30.3- ~-<C'A Al dll v-= Mbl- 1.4-1.-a jul (4_ 49 L t A-Lu.-'Jh *lkâ€¢ts- 4 441. 43 4-9 Ck= Vt . 4 -5 Lh t. 9.4- 6\X 4 4 â‚¬ 0 WMA+ 0 * UL--0 0,4...Â«. O 4 , - 9 -1.~ 4. 4 4 6 1-1 9 â‚¬1 *00447 84 4 0 - F F A 41 -d ki_2- 0447. V.I.- -4(-/1-- ij er.-0 - 4\-4,~ 4-1 -Q-,41.- j 4- u-1.-47 4-â‚¬ 4 0 c + #*-1 l_1 61*k tÂ»** Â£-t<, 4.1 A-, kil NA ix/Ch LAL- i Ck fdpATZ- CA+Au- Luc) tull- La 6\0 4.-rhcezi 4-u L al--3- LA. Ut- w ~ ~~_\ 3- L.4/ 14 FL ( 3 -~ fo,~- Ce Q \% O- LA 47 4 e C UÂ·L bal_ 4644 bos- 49 6-6 + c 444 6\Â« 4 , NA- 4 14 A- Â«-â‚¬h-E . to-I-\LA App i..54 90Â·, .\4 kÂ«\Au,-..~4 I- ~Â©L> A*- 9.or-6\-e OkÂ©uxe.FLul A- 'J A #L A~u ....5 -- Â«43 1 L % 1 - /~ 1/Â»Ov'11. 40 A-L %2Â»i Le- 1 /a vc-~ 1 -S++ b H~ 9 0 01 0 -- Â«ix,Â» f (*) 4 LA<~ -Iâ€¢ 40\ 0/ 11\ 45 ~ t/*le Â»% 5 2 9(, 6,4- A.% - DJ , AA koli - *0 U 6- it % , AA L-4 73 1 94- AL'.-L 6 5 U.rÂ· 1 *,1 42. (19 Â» 2-3.29 4 b Â·4.--Ic 4-~ - 1.0 .> '*,30.4 1 16 A* L vl Yo Y Â· ILs.-4,9 -1 ru. c , c ~Il_. c.. i#- ' 3 04 C 3 h. 6.Le L.,7~ +S .04 _'3 Q 9,12 57: 1 p.m:X ----0 -B13 LOO,04.-1 -'..rk q.41,4 Ej#.e (L~.. 9 -44â€¢t y,LÂ·/l~-, Â£,1-6&-4 \ 4 ALL ,#.. A .4 Ll 'Ao .0 r '31-14*'. L.,s 41941- .4 43 Co-swtta 4 -\l i-J; 2/ 0 6-- ..9 t,~AR dL-t...05' Uh nÂ»Â·11 11Â» 00-21 x 04-2 pul,vre le- l-6-4 --J 0-L-Q 02 . 5 ..f C EL) 4/-40'* i.. < 3L 0- *1.<4 L.t 0- VJ C.140 4 C LO --(9 4 L 0 4 9 Â£ C L .5 L-10<v#L.-+1 v QÂ« 10â€ž47 - . 4.\4 C.,0 *3- ll-44 00=64,4 ti'.L- 8-vt, + 3 2/bwk,1 1 06?$ 4.r B~ 0 06461 r# o elÂ· { Aou - 4-7 1 . '' - UJAM . u~ L.. 4 i c 2-12 0 CL,-,WulÂ· So 6\'.2 0-4Â£-L#.1-~ AcL-~.LI.-,Cl L o<\CSLO F s 930 J 5,3Q U 9 .J k 1 + vk An - 1 -LV I o ' 1 1 . E-1 6 1 #246 U 1 tu A l to FAN. 7F3 0 <P A.&-20Â£601,Â·c> TW..0 4$9 -- 6-0/4 + LpÂ·b 17(-1,1'r/pv--1 61Â»1- 9-a- 00 f--- 6--- 9#.4 i f f-ne,v 44 s.l,J o~ cli AV.11 / L *L FA UuÂ£Â£ Â£6 ?,414 *u &<142% op Kvvi -C.sh5447 *L-~c ugc + 247 lief i -$ 41 /4 L,a,UQuuvr~l i v,Â».4 jA,-44 t ; 4 ..5/ -. I Â®Lit 40,44 7)1\ 0 )90- 9"9\Â·'1 r,"Â»B- s~-:1~~viv-\<-A Y--~-vr --33 -8. 03 -33Â«3 ~8 9 4Â·"4 4 4 4Â» 4 0-4 44 ir (4 11,~v Alv --4 rn Â¥ 32 - 3 8 7 L-43 3 6-N -nrM,11 - 5-0 -Of 8 0 -Â·.2~r'901 --~ S 'Y **PR*W,- wed -br--* F Â°* Â» f--30-3 V Â°3 ) 1 r, 9.26 k % i, L ryÂ»~ ) 11 '7 \ V. h..r~-0-v *3 CAAIâ€¢.11 1 0 -2, L,1. 7 ~-7 117-35 59117r 0-Â» a--31 -w \J )Â»32 -33~ 0-Â¥ "~", --4 5700-33 1-Â·1) N-Â¥-'A O-* -9.3 \) Â¥ ,-P b V ((/Li Je -- Coo K Af 6 -f- 0-301Â· 4.-%-0 n. D k-, ( p -4- 9 -4 11 L/GA, 5 4 3 U.'16 3 L U.a fba. 5 LAÂ«y-- 9/9 4 ~i C Â«Â©l i.Â£0, [s v(,AU,vl) - 2 41 9- (401 cio - LÂ·t<- CA UJ Gui Le A 52*~A ~~A- 94(An OS -304-11 (boA-L 1 40 4 -Al, 1,L - r--u uss -- f# d oj 0 -L S w . 1 4 n 0 c-0 -- ---~ A u .6444 4.-r C' 36 4 cl.l.-j 09- 6 -C \~ f\\.--~.60 + i- Â« v v A 9 Â»1 -41 1 .1 s s 1411 44 -1-ALÂ¢ 4Â« o F ~~~1.. ~WÂ£~ re. U- -,_.,6 - I A A 1 .â€¢-4 -- â€¢,6 '64 ll 474 30 Yvt tull 04 -0 4 L 4*EvT/1\(AlÂ«a- JL Â©Lt AA . 1 a kr .- G <0 -4 0 11 2(LL /4.U ;2102-4 -f- 747/9 - -/~~V ramu 31 A 4 0-00(0~ , r-Â¥.rli - _ v B#01- 17 3Â°GLL >. 3 /Fl Â»QU ki -*33*r Â£Â°-~~_ . (/ - C -Â« 09 - 9.7206â‚¬9 4*,1 MD '777/PFPe _ - 1 Cj 3Â«04 oIl lf- *Trly 2*Yft 330-Â» *90 - 76 -1;2:; C,9/ 4/7/7/ -- 48/90 - -49 -NO r 37 727 2494/721 99 7/3- -19 2- 792 1 1 16-0 0/t - - -7 0/0.67 /t-- ~ 2/. 45 u-- ,~ 12/ 9 42_==41 1~ -7.g 11Â«10,2~kÂ« 02/ 6 Â£ C.lkke jatÂ»-I at ,* e (j Akt yeÂ«no JILIL k Lf-4 Of* i CD _ zÂ«. t,01-24 465 Asto *gjpÂ« 76 742 A~f h~~ Â°/k-~ â‚¬gb ~12 e<~ 44-%48#MA.z@f uÂ«2&/6*==-- ,#Aduu â‚¬ 7 0.,/46/ .97~ 24 -.6,// . - Â· *dthj kâ‚¬24Â»13Â£,l 6-0, ~~--~~Â«1~*-~ ulk)~~r/~- / ..1*c; ~il-.0,/te~,r- 222P-Â£=>i5--aztp~-----j U -*--- 7277Â° ~76*27L ,Â¢Â£;i~ ttj;;Mwdâ‚¬a,gÂ¥ Â»_ c,Â£~C- _ te-- 4 AÂ»- a.164 7//474Â® 416Â»31,3/ 1 LGAO-1 U/to Â£,Â£ 4, 1-,0*ryl~u,itt' n. 2*45*,9:~TINA 1 Â«-fL@Â»1- 44 INA,Â»ujjL WALVLLL * pÂ«ck -___ Â·Uttiaft,AL /07 - 6 S â‚¬4162"16 f- - 0 'v'<- A F.3/ off&L Â©j-j re,& 14-v~fzat) 092,4 colijo,6 ewÂ¢Mkf adÂ¥tÂ«30,Â«L *u-ZÂ·244*4*4M--3 9 Nir1,-4-(jug, /Ti-7il--:an-â€ž-4- c ~A n I.n .1*m.Â· 1--40 - 0fWV vviv/,l0Â·M.&13---~--ttltyÂ»~ 0$t> ~ 410 n <* 43*04-2,4*aÂ«/*;~~ --7 Al.,..7 U 1 - t d tilv 0. .-2 -- C /If/X- 95â‚¬> - 1 4 WÂ«j-Â»2 - f7*Â« 4 11 17 ~ 10 9744 9 U 1 - F I 17 Mrrr-r) f>,3-femolt - + Aul Cul 1 A t 'r,79 4-9 -~ // /9 0491 J / 6 445 +/1 -ppylo -0 9â€¢Al QÂ¢le*7(~ A~n 4*7*~7 - ~ JA i.,1 --.. U 7,1 A i j 71 * 7 ' dr- 2 t.rh t 79 <-/ 1 l 1,~1 / 1**(.Ut) a : /~ j ;11 * + 1,5(.~ 0 4,4 23*/ .ft// 42,4,â€¢57 /9 El/,3 't - 6.b V CA ./1. 4 / 2 ? f p / IÂ· C f A * 31/1*'75?9-,39Â«j 473- 7 9 j'*0.29- --- 2- p --- Â»*',~10%**Â¢ -bre-- 39709,~/ -4*7 9 -77- - '545- - 79391 1-9 4 42*31 44 t-->1 fl '~ {-9 27<21/ '27 /1 7710 ./04 hk,/Rk< :f#/~49~/ /074 /-7 ~64--t It 99 i 09 ~317 -l' 1~ 4 1/ L <81 i -1-19-07 2<Â»r*Â°~t~ 0 1 2 474,Â¢ i'*f__r /Â¢37f 2,Â»c *579-4 - av Â»10 â€ž40 ------ --- --- - et@7%49 .25--- A-fe- - - _.*+AtÂ©6-n 74 /1 41.0- 73 __~DÂ£00Â»z 33 gao Â»09Â«< rÂ«.4 2 -- 11 4/0&6 r 170_--Â· ----344Â«_fÂ»Â«Li 4 Fe- , 2-.~,4~~Â£;;*~2- ' - ~~ 4,_49_- _- *3 __ _ _ 1Â© ~ 04:tÂ»~ Lit-~,--0---ge U i 4'riÂ« fÂ«â‚¬'f/14*43 - --,9 &~f__ __ i#te _u~ _ Â«___ gjz~ _/7--/9 / >3/0- - _filkÂ»-i- 44 t 1 Er 20-2, -Jaft - t-- ----- ----- - 0 --- 7/534.--- -- , 1 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD DATE: February 25, 1981 Zoning: Ihe-,0=ULAglign.afjhmi~*te i s gone;LD-Dffict,while-the portion along-Main-jingat-u zoned CC - Gommercial Core. Lot Size: 47,71Â£ square feet Location: 330 West Main at Mill Street Applicant's This application is for a gonceptua,1.-ELJO.,,Re*im# fr,r khLI-lote] Request: ~rqpt.for. the purposes of.qi#modeling tht#xisting building and constructing,.ddi tional uni ts *dhe-northiowdrd-81 eeker 4292 m . Street. The applicant is propoiing.Ltotal orf 1.14.Woms on *""'' I the site, to consist of the exi,sting-39 rooms:-to be renovitsd and*remodeled into 34 rooms in the.ares #Lkyl,1.dio,9.Ubp Â¥ addftion of 76 new rooms in th? new; buildings, and:-the.,addi- trAn)tintil ojaoioomg':--The tommission should recognize that there are two olher asagets.,Df:.thLapplicaot's .review process: 1) hiftoric,#eaignation and-redesign-ballor&.ILAC., a review process which is 82Â§321.w de'aLay and which would provide the applicant with an exemption to tte GMP,.js indicaterTFI-Secljotilic.111Â£U;of-the-Coded- and 2) align j ng of"thâ‚¬710?thâ„¢bortion of the site from 0 --Office to CL.=-EUP, . r to occuL#~Lthe preliminary plit stagq of the process, . 0. : providing the applicant' with a gracess.JJUM reau,~,king variances from underlying.districtarea and.kulk.require- ments and parking needs and al soa,prol~Ui#9 J-zone:Anihi_ch fiatels"are a condflional use'-Th,i Â¢@zoning was initiated b,LÂ¢oOMEi T**duffliblctoberC' 1980. A bedging.Â£0Â£-the.exp an- iliof a conditional use should also be held at the prelimi- . nary plat stage ot the pr6cess. Background: Since purchasing the Hotel Jerome in 1968 and re-opening it ~64 tfFÂ«k Jb, City officials in an effort to restore and expand the during that same year, Mr. John Gilmore has been working with facility. The applicant's expressed objective throughout k,49,4 4 I â€¢ fA.Ji this undertaking has been to provide a Â£*U,0&Â§r,Â¥~@.-first LIA *A" class-.hotel .in Asp@51. However, *,0421 1 imita~gAS of.uthe yxisting.,bui14ag,bade *evented wtheâ„¢approii*,66.previous A io~h "~~Ji7< ~'*tli9 developmq~k.requesti.for._thl,Lsi,tf. Recently, though, City officials, including membel@i~,at City Council encouraged ttle * aRR] i g*Et to return with t'j Â§.lgaliga~tiori~~h,x.CeenNkgrking closely witb }ii'Efodevel op aL#cceptable.concent. Following are tome of the issues brought out during these discussions. . First of all, the Applicant.bas_indicated that for a hotel to be economically viable nowadays and to receive financial support for its expansion, it ruusLcontain at.leutJDO-rooms. An expansion of this size has UP,LkQQUâ€žAggRUDhl@/49 9:exiaw S revigÂ¥.*oards. Secondly, the age ofuthe,existing*building andjts-large =dimensions, as compared-to-curIer'Lzoni qa.Wrovi- sions, make it difficult to restore.the.building while also 49691~difig isufficienrnumber of hotelrooins. Until recently, when the Planning Office brolight forth the concept Â·of Â£ezoolag the site and designating.it as,a Plit and historic structures no means of-permittiog:48-@Ap*4109=41 tfib hcite~~~rw&#,gal - Able,- Finally, since the applicant is proposing a ruil service hotel containing substantial amounts of mechanical space, the proposal involves QUJFAU&11 ia.Agess,-of cok.limits. Due to the space limits on the property, alternatives to on-site proyi- fi9%,@Lemployethousing,-ani,g.arkinq have been supgested but- no Memo: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD Page Two February 25, 1981 firm decisions have been made. Here again, ,#efignatign.,s , PUD provides the mechanism to request variations from underlying zoning requirements. Each of these variations is described in greater detail below. Review Area and Bul k Requi rements - The 4,iating.buildÂ·ing contains Concerns: 44.000 square feet on the 71Lsquare foot=lot at an FAR pt..slightly leulthaollil,~LfheÂ· pipposed-new buildings,.~would contain 64,507 .square feeu for-alotal of.108.5[12.Lquare feet at an .FAR.of.slight],uia.exces;_pf, 42.5,1.1. The per- a 06&- \\U- 6\Â« mitted FAR 100, the-,CC zone is--1.5 :11, with a -bonui, of :.,5 11 allowed for .2:1 commercial space and .3:1 deed restricted 4$.46 400 4-16 residential space. Tbe:gâ€žzone *liairequi,ces-khat.25 percent &&,J-- 960 of the site, (11,92Â§ square feet) ba.neserved.forspens#ace / d~,u, b.- 61 while the proposed<jlang_indicatithaL,12.295-:quare feet 4 r.hiAN- . l (7296 square feet in the outdoor dia14 area and 6,699 square ..51~, e./1.-- 00--â€¢,4*~ feet at the pool ) wi:U.be pmvided. Finally, the Engineering au .160..9 v %,6 "7 4& Department notes that the ~U,PW.404itigU.fuul# ads.the *40 M OP' foot maximum height limit,Ftion ofihe-CQâ€žzone. by 11-feet. 5 f hoc to 51/ v -41%5 - wo The proposed addition is, however, sornq~~-14&20,Jaight \Lill Ja *.,â€ž Qu_ Vilk; then the orainal- buildings which rises nearly,49. feet above 5-1.$** Main Street, because of the extreme slope of the site toward ?004$â€¢4 Bleeker Street. The design.,360.5 ciggalUittempts ue:&realf . an addi ti on wi th Oidliht. and.masim.kess--t.han that of. tile uNâ€¢k Â« 66-491 * orjgloal building soas,torpcusiLisyal and historict:*tpn- u,.~pk ge 'hâ€¢0.X.4.Slk tion 'tg that'unicide 'rcrottuter 0 Parking Requirements - At the present times tht.site proilsles parking for.approximately 15 vehicles, with spaces along the ile:ULS.14&@4gighAGCW2jUQC,.10 9dditional~vehic]es. C,J,~#.,~a< ..,. 4... While there is pa requ.j.remgO,t that parkin~pe provided in thLCC zone. the hotel y-JJ-Q s{*gjc,aâ€ž,lâ€ž,demg~s on the """4". PA. .t.Â·40,,~ 44"" area Ghich Ylmulli-Be 43dres,ect~~the Engineering-~Department 1gp' comments that the expansion would not only alimibatq.these , 6.-* It,L~% f\,t 25 spacts, but also ins:rease parking needs,fptthe hotel iâ‚¬elf' Not only are additional.hoteLbeduproposed, but AA,0-1 . also, emplpyeÂ£*peeds-Lgithe-.hotel can. be.,gxpeqked. to 0=... 6 -1.b-~ t~ v ~9 proposing to house most employees off-site which will increase. As is discussed below, the applicant is currently wÂ· 1 AN"A, 4\,ww V. 4. increase the number of emaloyeas==hlba.commute- UuthUmt,@ 1. i ./CAL. SU 1 1 Several Ungagialshave.been-offered to mitigate the parking problem. First, the applicant has suggested a willingness ttpactigipate.~zith.~hiRUX, in thejost-of thq=&222;ed <v.~Le.1 pa~1<ilig Â§tructure 41 thÂ¢ Rio GG~e propertn The unggr- 45 A 9-0 -*-AÂ» tainties regarding this proposal, particularly as regards the kimiug of its construction and the 'bility.gLUP city $0 finance..thexproject.render this suggestion as an unlikely solution for the immediate future. The applicant is also proposing to prpvide limousine service .f6110hd-frwht'EM-ban be expected, to..reduce.-buL@04.:elimi# ate..1;headged for pasking-fagautipA:1 104 cri,lari,# available in the Code, aSsociated with the GMEJodge.competition, suggests that onutehicle be provided-for every_twqntx-.fiÂ¥*.guests, though the applicant is on17?68gesting the availability of threg,Jiglousines. Therefore, the Blanning Oticeâ€žINcom- mends.,that the.Applicant be required.to develop,malternative plantfor,employee_and guestvparting...ing,luding.,posii,kili,lies such as un=de-rpc28aL26,2â€¢u~.=afjg unatimi Trash and Service Access - The Engineering Department comments that the Fitg.plan, as submitted, 4oes not designate_Â§ trash/ â‚¬'. uti lityâ€ž,area.,-though,~gresumablyl,Umulgl..Â®CULat- the "spru.ge entrance" gr! BDekerltreet. The Codersquirement in Sectionâ„¢24-3.7 would require a facility-parallel to the alley of-,10.-feeLdeeil,..MU105-feet long. Since this priiâ‚¬Et abuts 0leeker Street and not an alley, this sized trash facility is unacceptable. The Engineering Department suggests that -41â€¢evâ€¢Â·4haÂ» providing an area accessed by a single cut on . Iâ€¢ 446 .4.â€¢-49 Memo: Hotel .Jerome Conc ual PUD Page Three February 25, 1981 Bleeker Street, that the 4pplliaU,ins talJ.an ..indusal.01- type trash-compaction facility to handle,ill soliQ wqlite generated. Such a facility would provide a rationale for varying the trash access requirement through the PUD process while also easing access and odor problems. Mitigating the access problem for deliveries to the site may not be as easily determined. With the sguice-entrance being located on Bleeker Streets it can be expected that A r significantltraffj(:20nges:tioreinatbe"Derigratedâ„¢mrt}Nt yA streett Since the hotel does not have alley access fbom Monarch Street and since the Engineering Department will f not permit curb cuts on Mill Street due to the potential traffic impact on that busy road, it appears that no other alternative exists. The Planning Office recommends that a delivery hour 1jmitation (for example, between 9:00 A.M. and 11':30 A.M.) should..be -placed *rk:thei,hotel.,sa. as-ta insure that during most timqiÂ£-th:JAy-&19-~AteU-Spge.4- 1191 wil]â€ž3996.1,=â€ža-tthesite; Employee Housing - The applicant proposes to provide four emp loyet,Woms (presumably 4-8 employee pillows) for key employees of the hotel. Discussiops with Council also led ~~~; ;ErM~~atth~her@Dp +~R~4124=u=Yl:29.12~~Sr=:1>or the construction of a project to house addit-iqnal-empli*21 0 4,#le, 1. QUaute, - AThe Plariliing Office would consider such an arrangement acceptable, provi ded.that 4#ditioliaJ-de tails ane made available at the preliminary plat stage to include: 121//*/25/4--9-/6/214â‚¬?â€¢ - The number of employees anticipated at the hotel. 4 .i:-442 4â€¢ 6.-0 Id . - .... I - The proposed location of-the employee housing (loca- ti oni---within walking distance or on a buj~pute are preferred). ~It, - The actual 1.evel of particie1ati99.groposed by the appli- cant for an employee housing project. . Sidewalks - The Engineering Department recommends that the OPPUcantÂ®.btrequired,44â€žpromide: new sidewalks al.ong,~Main, Monarch and Bleeker. as well as curb-and gutter as negdedÂ· In addition, if construction causes any damage to.*the-Bew sidpwalk and curb along MiU.,Street, the applicant should be requi red to rRRJ act..ttlg@LlectionsÂ° Density and Mass - The graposal, by the applicant for approval of 110 hotel rooms and 4 employee rooms on the site represents a qqg@j dqcabl~redugti q~from AR#*iQui.reguelts. Neverthe- less, the substantial ingrease in..rooms vill-have a majgr impact upon=thi&4enUAJ=Aspea.1,2,atigi . The appl i cant states thaT100 Roms is the minimal cutoff point for the economi c 1iabjilityUL,Chote77*ndllso noteÂ©that diringlmre ~de#iled design phases, several rojoro,&railLarob*klyÂ«be eliminated.lo make.-roomitor.mechEicklifeatures. The applicant has attempted to minimize the impact of the new rooms by weducing the'.bulk of.the main additional- building and ipreading it,ipt into.*wo. smallan.,ILLioni=dounttht,pool. The applicant is also prepared to demonstrate at your meeting those Archj - tectural,#spect*.AL,the.Uilding-whichJUigate*the. impact Â· Qt:the addition. The Planning Office recommends that at this conceptual stage of the process, the LS,2.-confine its debate f. mau.ing.,twight.and,kulk :0*without-directly concerning itself with questions of number of rooms, which A, 'â‚¬-49Â© can be specffically addrds*ed at â‚¬he-prel iminaryA 018'rfENe of the process-wllen a hearing on e,xpansion of a*conditionÂ© u gewill.kilielL Planning The Planning Office recommends thit P.Alapprovt the appli - Office can&13 request,for-~conceptual*APUD_re v,i244014,-the purposes of Recommendation: remodeling and expanding the Hotel Jerome, subject to the "*fÂ·Â·,4:~*I/9.+I"*MI"mR/l f911 owing conditions: Ak-' 4.-*W' Tini Memo: Hotel Jerome Conc-rtual PUD Page Four February 25, 1981 tÂ»o LA,Ab e kit ZA k ve,- w./. 6.8- 4 444 1. That the applicant develop alternative plans, to be ?LA/LE---1 presented prior to conceptual review by Council, to Ng,A provide parking for some of the guests and employees of the hotel; WO fac W E-Â«4 -IJA+20 0 6-4â€¢â€¢44 0 9 2. That the applicant install an industrial-type trash 6-1 <l compaction facility to handle all solid waste genÂ£rated at the hotel jAUÂ«"47 4, A lot t....4 0-J e - 84.0.- 04. 3. That the applicant agree to a delivery hour limitation for all services provided to the hotel, the exact nature of which is to be determined through consultation with the Planning Office; 4. That the applicant provide further detail prior to conceptual review by Council regarding the arrange- ments for housing employees off-site, to include the number of employees to be housed, the possible location of the units, and the amount of money to be contributed by the applicant to the project; and 5. That the applicant be required to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. In additions if construction causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Streets the applicant be required to replace those sections. c - 4% e 1,1'.4,7 .* Qi -0-' 3,2 4-; Fip 4/ FJ 04/,5 0,0, F *A 04 11 *vAQ + 64< St.,~,61*. #,l /~LLE, vt,~ w'lli toLl 6\0 4: Ot b LAQ,9 54 't- k-*p Q th - M. 6\-4/ to l.*k L O '1 4 w.r- w~<A OFF LuLA C L J.46 1// 6wv_ 49 v gi Le 4. 2 frl)3 6-CALâ€¢.2) Al wt . For_ 4,6Â» 9 Â· 41 .\6 L &Â£ 4Â°n Cowto-- 7 Â¢-ikin W. \ hu\,0 W&4 'i\.O r. 90$; E re,L,w AX& o v.~ IMU1~O bi ~ 900 A \2 Lok>L /900 Â»3 i o /702> COM =36 (20 VÂ»& 6 464 ove k' 4&&9-9 r ele-1 60 A 1% PL- - 440 6â‚¬_ 64- e x.4--4 4 LO vy 197 ~ ~*- oe....r *L f A.0 - Hotel Terome - Project Description The restoration, renovation, and addition to the Hotel Jerome has two major goals. First to restore the property to its original intended use: a world class hotel in architecture, facilities, and service. The Jerome was and is intended again to be the Queen of Rocky Mountain hostelries. The second goal is to expand on the existing rooms and support spaces to bring the property to a viable level of facility to opera te at today's economic and opera tional demands. The Existin2 Building The existing building will be totally remodeled and restored. Although there is no intention to change the exterior of the building with the exception of color, or the existing lobby, stairways and bar, the entire building will be remodeled as necessary to become sound, well insulated,. and efficient. The second and third floors will be totally reconstructed to eliminate the substandard interior rooms and enlarge all exterior rooms to present day standards. All hardware and appointments will be reused to retain the original charac ter. The basement will be totally remodeled as well. All new mechanical systems, additional office and administration areas and hotel oriented shops will occupy the space. In addition, an arcade connecting to the addition will provide lobby access from the corner of Mill and Bleeker. The arcade will be connected to the lobby above by a new open stairway. The Addi tion Since the remodeled existing building will have only 34 rooms, an addition to the north is planned to bring the hotel to minimum operational size. Also, since theexisting kitchen wing is tobedemolished, all dining, kitchen, storage, and receiving areas will be located in the new structure. At the lobby level the main feature is a central garden room which connects the now seldom used space behind the lobby of the existing building to the new building by means of a skylighted enclosed garden area. The space thus created not only links old and new, but aIso provides a "palm court" similar to the Plaza Hotel in New York, which will be the social center of the hotel. From breakfast and brunch to luncheon and afternoon tea, dinner, then late night desserts, the space will be a scene t of chamber music, conversation, and socializing. L .34*r 1,9 , - * .. *'.:.. 1 I .â€ž. , "~â€ž... I I '% ;. -I ./--- 1.- - -- ------- ----- -1 ---- |~ 4 , t I rI , 1 , 1 . -2- The architecture of the addi tion will be a present day complement to the existing building both exterior and interior. Lower in profile and smaller in scale than Llic existing building, the addition is a subdued structure intended to complement rather than dominate or even equal the importance of the existing historic building. Although the window , openings of the existing building are various shapes, arched openings and bay windows will be used throughout the brick elements of the addi tion. Ownership Mr. John F. Gilmore has been principal owner of the Hotel Jerome since 1968. Since that time Mr. Gilmorers sole objective has been to restore and retain the building irt its historic role as Aspen's prime hotel. When the present plans of renovation and addition are comple ted there will be no change in these objectives. The hotel will remain privately owned and opera ted in perpe tuity. No condominiumization or sale is planned. . *1 1.-' . '. V ... -r-1 , . 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department -~b~-- DATE: February 20, 1981 RE: Jerome Hotel Conceptual P.U.D., Rezoning, and Historic Designation Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following co'mments: Conceptual P.U.D. 1. The P.U.D. process would permit the applicant to vary the trash access requirement in the proposed C.C. zone. The site plan as submitted does not designate a trash/ utility area (presumably trash loading would occur in the "service entrance' ) . It would be our feeling that trash generation by the proposed structure will be sub- stantial and that designation of a large trash storage and pick-up area should be required. The code requirement regarding provision of trash facilities (Section 24 - 3.7 h(4)) would require a facility parallel to the alley 10 feet deep and 105 feet long. Since this project would no abut an alley but would instead abut Bleeker Street, a conventional trash area 105 feet long is particularly unacceptable. In the eventconventional trash collection methods are to be utilized, the applicant should be required to provide an area within the structure accessed by a single curb cut on Bleeker Street of comparable Square footage. It would be our suggestion, however, that theapplicant be required to provide a specific proposal for an industrial-type trash compaction facility sufficient to handle all projected trash generation. A compaction/ container facility of this nature could serve to reduce the needed area significantly as well as ease access and odor problems. 2. A variance would also be required from C.C. zone height limitation since the proposed structure is, at one point, approximately eleven feet over the forty foot height limit. The structure's location on steeply sloping Mill Street, however, would serve to mitigate some of it's height and nowhere is the structure higher than the existing Jerome. 3. Although square footages are not specified in the app- lication, the design may require variation of open space requirements (C.C. requires 25%). r ..4 + , I. , , . 1 1 - 1 t i 1 . ,- v<>* Hotel Jerome PAGE TWO Rezoning The application requests rezoning of the north half of Block 79 from 0 to C.C. The following comments should be noted: 1. Hotels are a conditional use in the C.C. zone. 2. The C.C. zone has no parking requirement for uses other than residential. The renovation proposes no parking facilities to accommodate eitherÂ· existing or proposed needs. The site currently provides parking for roughly fifteen vehicles, with spaces along the Bleeker Street right-of-way for ten more. The expansion would not only serve to eliminate these twenty-five spaces, but would greatly increase parking needs in the im- mediate area. The proposal, while representing a substantial expansion, actually results in a reduction of employee beds from the existing structure coupled with an increased staff. While the application does not so state, it is our understand- ing that the applicant intends to provide for off-site employee housing in some manner. This situation would serve to increase the load of commuting employees in addition to the greatly increased need for guest parking. The applicant should pro- vide scheduled limosine service as suggested in the GMP (24-10.6(b)(5)(cc)) at a rate of 1 vehicle/25 guests and a reduction, but not elimination, of parking on-site from the spaces the total development would require. Prohibition of on-site employee parking, as is also suggested in the GMP, would serve only to unload a significant problem on the sur- rounding neighborhood. . One suggestion for the parking might be a more appropriate designation of the north half of the block to L-1 in which a hotel is a permitted use adjacent to the commercial core and requiring one parking space per bedroom. There is, however, no other L-1 zoning nearby and the result may be viewed as unacceptable spot zoning. 3. The applicant should be required to provide new sidewalks along all right-of-way frontages including Main, Monarch, and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. Mill Street was recently reconstructed with new sidewalk and curb and should not require replacement. However, any damage such as cracking or undermining caused by the construction will require replacement by the applicant. Historic Designation The Engineering Department has no particular concerns regarding Historic Designation at this time, provided the applicant complies with Sections 24-9.1 through 24-9.16. . r .... 7../--/.-/-' t 9,l ' 1 , T i MEMORANDUM To: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD L 37 /7 DATE: April 8, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM:(23,4~s.Â£514".yl> Zoning: The north portion of the site is zoned 0 - Office while the portion along Main Street is zoned CC - Commercial Core. Lot Size: 47,712 square feet Location: 330 West Main at Mill Street Applicant's This application is for a conceptual PUD review for the Request: Hotel Jerome for the purposes of remodeling the existing building and constructing additional units to the north toward Bleeker Street. The applicant is proposing a total of 114 rooms on the site, to consist of the existing 39 rooms to be renovated and remodeled into 34 rooms in the present building, the addition of 76 new rooms in the new buildings, and the addition of 4 employee rooms. The existing building contains 44,000 square feet at an FAR of slightly less than 1:1. The proposed new buildings would contain a total of 73,597 square feet, for an overall FAR on the site of nearly 2.5:1, well in excess of the maximum permitted FAR in the CC zone of 2.0:1, which already includes a bonus of 0.5:1 above the basic FAR of 1.5:1. Two aspects of the applicant~s request of which the Council should be aware include: 1. The application for historic designation and redesign before HPC, a review process which is already underway and which would provide the applicant with an exemption from the GMP as an historical structure, as indicated in Section 24-11.2(b) of the Code; and 2. The application to rezone the north portion of the site from 0 - Office to CC - PUD, to occur at the preliminary plat stage of the process, providing the applicant with a process for requesting variances from the underlying area and bulk requirements and also putting the hotel in a zone in which it is a conditional use. The rezoning was initiated by Council during October, 1980. A hearing for the expansion of a conditional use will also be held at the preliminary plat stage of the process. Planning The major areas of concern in the review of this application Office Review: include area and bulk requirements, parking needs, employee ' housing, traffic circulation, engineering comments and density. Each of these areas has been addressed in detail during the review process and by P&Zin its conceptual approval of this project. Some of the major conclusions of this review include: 1. that the applicant should provide parking for only 25 guests and 35 employees of the hotel due to his inten- tion to provide three limousines for guests and the central location along bus and pedestrian routes for employees. Locations for parking which the applicant should pursue would include the proposed Rio Grande parking structures a nearby site which would be leased and which would provide valet service, or underground parking at the hotel itself. f Memo: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD Page Two April 8, 1981 2. that the applicant should provide 4 employee housing units at the hotel and should work with housing officials to develop a program to house 15 additional employees off-site. The 15 employees represent the increment of new employees which are expected to be required following the expansion. 3. that a solution to traffic circulation along Main and Mill Streets in front of the hotel needs to be developed by the applicant. The applicant has proposed an auto- mobile pull-off area on Main Street while P&Z has suggested that Mill Street be used as a second drop off point for guests. 4. that the Engineering Department recommends that the applicant install an industrial-type trash compaction facility in the proposed loading dock service area to reduce the dimensions of the trash area and that new sidewalks be provided by the applicant along Main, Mill and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. 5. that the applicant will meet the requirement in the CC zone that 25 percent of the site be reserved as open space, with 7,296 square feet available in the outdoor dining area and 5,699 square feet at the pool. The building does exceed the 40 foot maximum height limita- tion of the CC zone by 11 feet, although the new building is somewhat lower than the original building, which rises nearly 49 feet above Main Street, due to the extreme slope of the site toward Bleeker Street. Despite an FAR proposed at nearly 2.5:1, the design consciously attempts to create an addition with a heightand mass less than that of the original building so as to focus visual and historical attention to that unique structure. 6. that at the conceptual planning phase, the following is the breakdown of square footage proposed at the expanded Hotel Jerome: Area within Renovated Area within Type of Use Existing Building New Addition Guest Rooms 14,574 32,872 Employee Housing -- 1,568 Kitchen, Restaurant Club Bar & Meeting Room 9,227 11,446 Hotel Offices 3,081 -- Commercial 4,427 5,525 Service: Mechanical, Electrical, Maintenance 3,435 4,232 & Storage Public Circulation: Lobby, Corridors, Stairs, Elevators, 9,256 17,594 etc. Total Square Feet 44,000 73,597 Area to be Demolished (Pool Structures) -- -6,983 66,614 (Total Net Increased Building Area on Property) Memo: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD Page Three April 8, 1981 P&Z The Planning Office and P&Z recommend that you approve Recommendation: the applicant's request for conceptual PUD review. Should you concur with this recommendations a motion has been drafted for you which reflects the conditions approved by P & Z at their regular meeting of April 7, 1981. Council " I move to approve the request for Conceptual PUD for the Action: purposes of remodeling and expansion of the Hotel Jerome, ' subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agreeing to provide parking for 25 guests and 35 employees at an off-site location to be precisely determined by the applicant and the City. Should Council i agree to coordinate the timing of the Rio Grande parking structure and Hotel Jerome construction, then the applicant should be required to participate proportion- ately in the cost of construction of the structure, based on the need for 60 spaces. Should such an arrange- ment not be found to be workable, the applicant should lease a site nearby and provide valet parking arrange- ments for guests of the hotel, or should provide parking underground at the hotel itself. 2. The applicant agreeing to provide four deed restricted employee units within the hotel and to work with both the City and County Housing Departments to develop an equitable arrangement to provide housing for an addi- tional 15 employees of the hotel at a location acceptable to the City. 3. The applicant making every effort to store construction materials on sites thereby causing no inconvenience in the vicinity of the hotel . If there is a need to disrupt any right-of-way in the area, this inconvenience should be limited only to Bleeker Street. 4. The applicant agreeing to install inside the loading dock an industrial-type trash compaction facility to handle all solid waste generated at the hotel. 5. The applicant agreeing to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. If construction causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Street, the applicant should be required to replace those sections. 6. The applicant agreeing to provide detailed information at the preliminary plat stage regarding the heights mass and bulk of the proposed additions in relation to the request for rezoning and expansion of a conditional use. The applicant is also expected to provide at that stage of the review process detailed plans regarding the exact number of rooms requested and a breakdown of square footage in terms of hotel rooms, commercial 1 space, mechanical space and other uses. Lastly, the applicant should provide detailed arrangements specify- 1 ing how parking and employee housing needs of the Hotel Jerome as outlined above, are to be met. 7. The applicant providing a detailed solution to the traffic circulation problems anticipated on Main and/or Mill Streets." ASPEN IN ROOM SURVEY 1979-80 j 4 by C. R. Goeldner 'i and Alleta Stamp . di TABLE 17 1: METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION TO ASPEN iili tir -- 'li 1973-74 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Percent Percent Percent Percent 441 b Private Car 24.3% 33.0% 21.3% 17.4% im Rental Car 28.6 14.3 25.4 :lit 26.6 Â£ Charter Bus 11.9 10.2 9.0 11.2 4 3 Scheduled Bus 5.6 3.8 3.1 3.4 dll Express Bus From Stapleton 1.7 .2 1.7 1.8 Commercial Air 25.8 35.4 36.2 34.4 1, Private Plane 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.7 14 4 Other - .6 1.2 -- 2.0 No Response - .5 1 TOTAL 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% :4 Business Research Divison Graduate School of Business Admini*ration University of Colorado p Boulder. Colorado ik - I--- 1 If 24~0,Â·A~~*'*tâ€¢-4My--ml--- MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department -6EY- DATE: February 20, 1981 RE: Jerome Hotel Conceptual P.U.D., Rezoning, and Historic Designation Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Conceptual P.U.D. 1. The P.U.D. process would permit the applicant to vary the trash access requirement in the proposed C.C. zone. The site plan as submitted does not designate a trash/ utility area (presumably trash loading would occur in the "service entrance") . It would be our feeling that trash generation by the proposed structure will be sub- stantial and that designation of a large trash storage and pick-up area should be required. The code requirement regarding provision of trash facilities (Section 24 - 3.7 h(4)) would require a facility parallel to the alley 10 feet deep and 105 feet long. Since this project would no abut an alley but would instead abut Bleeker Street, a conventional trash area 105 feet long is particularly unacceptable. In the eventconventional trash collection methods are to be utilized, the applicant should be required to provide an area within the structure accessed by a single curb cut on Bleeker Street of comparable Square footage. It would be our suggestion, however, that theapplicant be required to provide a specific proposal for an industrial-type trash compaction facility sufficient to handle all projected trash generation. A compaction/ container facility of this nature could serve to reduce the needed area significantly as well as ease access and odor problems. 2. A variance would also be required from C.C. zone height limitation since the proposed structure is,,at one point, approximately eleven feet over the forty foot height limit. The structure's location on steeply sloping Mill Street, however, would serve to mitigate some of it's height and nowhere is the structure higher than the existing Jerome. 3. Although square footages are not specified in the app- lication, the design may require variation of open space requirements (C.C. requires 25%). , I Hotel Jerome - PAGE TWO Rezoning The application requests rezoning of the north half of Block 79 from O to C.C. The following comments should be noted: 1. Hotels are a conditional use in the C.C. zone. 2. The C.C. zone has no parking requirement for uses other than residentj al. The renovation proposes no parking facilities to accommodate eitherÂ· existing or proposed needs. The site currently provides parking for roughly fifteen vehicles, with spaces along the Bleeker Street right-of-way for ten more. The expansion would not only serve to eliminate these twenty-five spaces, but would greatly increase parking needs in the im- mediate area. The proposal, while representing a substantial expansion, actually results in a reduction of employee beds from the existing structure coupled with an increased staff. While the application does not so state, it is our understand- ing that the applicant intends to provide for off-site employee housing in some manner. This situation would serve to increase the load of commuting employees in addition to the greatly increased need for guest parking. The applicant should pro- vide scheduled limosine service as suggested in the GMP (24-10.6(b)(5)(cc)) at a rate of 1 vehicle/25 guests and a reduction, but not elimination, of parking on-site from the spaces the total development would require. Prohibition of on-site employee parking, as is also suggested in the GMP, would serve only to unload a significant problem on the sur- rounding neighborhood. One suggestion for the parking might be a more appropriate designation of the north half of the block to L-1 in which a hotel is a permitted use adjacent to the commercial core and requiring one parking space per bedroom. There is, however, no other L-1 zoning nearby and the result may be viewed as unacceptable spot zoning. 3. The applicant should be required to provide new sidewalks along all right-of-way frontages including Main, Monarch, and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. Mill Street was recently reconstructed with new sidewalk and curb and should not require replacement. However, any damage such as cracking or undermining caused by the construction will require replacement by the applicant. Historic Designation The Engineering Department has no particular concerns regarding Historic Designation at this time, provided the applicant complies with Sections 24-9.1 through 24-9.16. THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 330 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303 925-7817 January 16, 19 81 53 f Trion'.3 0-71[i-Fl 4. hill 1 p L.J ' .. ASPEN / PIT-KIN CO. \ PLANNING OFFICE Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hotel Jerome Dear Commissioners: Enclosed herewith are ten copies of the conceptual design drawings as required under 24-8.7 of the City Zoning Code. Please consider this our conceptual PUD application. We would appreciate being scheduled for the required planning and zoning hearing either February 3 or February 17, 1981. Should you require additional information, please let us know. Vfry truly yours, Thomas D. Wells Enclosures . /4,1 HOTEL ~~EROME L:ECM P. 0. BOX J 81611 February 19, 1981 Mr. Sunny Vann, Aspen Planning Office, Aspen H.P.C. Greetings, I would like to submit for your consideration at this time a request for historic designation of the Hotel Jerome. I am aware that this request should be made by the owner of the building, Mr. John F. Gilmore; however he is out of the country at this writing. Although there was a conflict of dates on Mr. Gilmore's calendar, he is intending to be present at the February 24 H.P.C. meeting. At that time he will add his signature and confirm this request. Please accept this letter as a statement of intent on behalf of Mr. Gilmore to request the historic designation of the Jerome. I have attached an outline of the historical and architectural features of the building as justification for the requested designation, as prescribed by the city code. I hope that the information that I am giving you is sufficient for your preliminary approval. Please be aware that many of the facts about the history have been reported differently by different sources. Also, that in the 91 year history of the hotel, and its parallel to the City of Aspen, there is enough information to fill a book. Sincerely, Daniel C. Baxter G.M. Hotel Jerome I I. 41 HOTE L~~EROME COLORADI P. 0. BOX J 81611 Built in 1889 by Jerome B. Wheeler, the Hotel Jerome has stood ever since as one of the most dominant landmarks in Aspen, Colorado. Jerome Wheeler, the president of Macy's in New York, moved to Colorado and invested heavily in the Aspen silver mines, real estate and the Midland Railroad. Knowing the need and demand for a truly first class hotel, he took over the construction project from a Mr. Bixby and Mr. Phillips who had begun the project, but had run out of money. The construction costs were somewhere between $80,000 and $125,000. It was built with 90 rooms, 15 baths, hot and cold running water, electricity and one of the first elevators in the west. At the time it was called an "architectural extravagance" and touted as one of the finest hotels in the state. In 1893 President Cleveland demonetized silver, and shortly thereafter, Aspen's quiet years began. Wheeler kept the building for almost 20 years, at which time he lost its title to Pitkin County for back taxes. It was closed and reopened several times, and finally leased to Mansor S. Elisha, who had worked in the hotel as a bartender. Elisha bought the building in 1911 for back taxes, and proceeded to make many improvements. Although the population of Aspen dropped to about 800 people over the next 20 years, the hotel never closed as there were enough tourists, traveling salesmen and local interest to keep the doors open. Even then it was the place to meet and be enter- tained. About 1925 Mansor Elisha died, and his son, Laurence Elisha, took over the building. In 1945 as the war ended, members of the 10th Mountain Division returned to the valley, and Aspen began its rebirth. At this time Walter P. Paepcke came to Aspen. Paepcke was the man with the initial visions and opinions that shaped Aspen. To carry out his vision of a cultural, intellectual and recreational center of the country he formed the Aspen Company, and leased the Jerome for 25 years for its base of operations. The Aspen Company evolved into Paepcke's legacy to Aspen. Directly or indirectly, it was the basis of what Aspen has to offer us today. The Jerome saw the beginning of the Aspen Institute, the Aspen Music Festival and School, the International Design Conference and the Aspen Skiing Corporation. ../2 r /4 1 HOTE]~ELA COLOOAD' P. 0. BOX J 81611 The lessees completely revamped the Hotel Jerome. Adding bathrooms, furniture from the Palmer House in Chicago, and a swimming pool, they brought the hotel into the 20th century. Paepcke's close friend, Herbert Bayer, picked out the colors, and is responsible for the existing white building with blue "eyebrows". (It is red pressed brick under the paint.) 1950 to 1980 saw a lot of change and growth in Aspen. It became host to world class talent of every field. The Jerome continued in its earlier capacity as a major meeting place, source of entertainment and host or sponsor to many community events..It has been headquarters for all the major ski races, the Design Conference, Ballet West and last but not least, some of the most outrageous celebrations ever held in Aspen. In the mid sixties some litigation took place between the Elisha family and the Aspen Company which lead to its closing for a couple of years. Out of this confusion came the second sale of the building, to John F. Gilmore in 1968. A native of Michigan, Gilmore visits Aspen often. He operated the building himself, and moved his family here for the first two years he owned it. The Jerome has not changed much since the Paepcke renovation of 1949. Although not a classic Victorian example of architecture, its general theme is decidedly Victorian. The tall arched windows, the detailing of the woodwork, columns and floors are typical of Aspen buildings of that era. Although most all of the furniture has been replaced since its construction, the lobby and several of the rooms contain furnishings that date back to the same time. The front desk, (it was moved in 1949) the lobby tile floor, the oak banisters, stairs, and a Western Electric paging device are perhaps the only original pieces left. The hotel reinforces the 19th century character of the town of Aspen, and is one of only a couple of examples that can be seen in its original setting. ASPEN METRO EMPLOYEE SURVEY RENTERS (ODD #'D PATCHES) REPORT 1 - RESPONSE AND PERCENT BY QUESTION MAR 28 81 PAGE 3 7 WHERE DO YOU LIVE CLOSEST TO? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 TOTAL 2 7 8 25 1 3 9 8-12 - 6 19 --11 3 114 44 7 7 28 6 2.2 2.4 2.7 3.6 .3 2.7 3.1 2.7 4.1 2.3 5.5 Â·2 A CC 0 1 9 O.0 1.0- 39.4 15.2 2.4 $.1 -*.*6. CUM-TOT 0 7 15 42 41 49 58 66 73 B4 103 114 117 231 275 282 266 289 0.0 2.4 - 5.1 13.8 14.1 16.9 20.0 22.8 26.9 29.0 35.6 39.4 40.4 79.9 95.1 97.5 122.2 122.261 RESPONSE; 99.97% 7. WHERE DO YOU LIVE (CLOSEST TC)? le Glenwood 2. Carbondale 3. El Jebel 4 E4 0 Emma B LENGÂ·TH 33 TIME YOU PLAN TO LIVE IN THE ROARING FORK VALLEY7 8. LENGTH OF TIME YOU PLAN TO LIVE U. Basalt 5 6. Upper Frying Pan Valley IN TilE ROARING FORK VALLEY: 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL b 7. Lazy Glen 5 8. Old S nowmass 1. Through the winter 21 13 13 42 199 238 9 9. Aspen Village 2. Through the summer q 10. Woody Creek 7.2 4.5 4.5 14.5 69.0 102.00% 3. About 1 year 9 11. Snowmass Villaae CUM-7 37 21 34 47 89 288 288 7.2 11.8 16.3 30.9 100.3 100.00% 4. 1-3 years '1 12. County West of Aspen RESPONSE: 98.63% 5. Indefinitely 42- 13. County East of Aspen : 14. Red Mountain area 115. North Aspen rt j 16. South Aspen 17. East Aspen \218. West Aspen 17 19. Silverking 9 IN WHAT TYPE OF RESIDENCE DO YOU RESIDE? Â£6 20. Smuggler 0 21. Other (specify): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 POTAL 35 107 45 32 29 17 8 7 284 12.3 37.6 15.8 12.6 10.2 5.9 2.8 2.4 100.009 CUM-TOT 35 142 187 223 252 269 277 234 284 9. IN WHAT TYPE OF RESIDENCE DO YOU RESIDE? 12.3 52.2 65.9 78.5 88.7 94.7 97.5 100.0 100.20% 1. Condominium 5. Mobile home RESPONSE: 97.25% 2. Apartment 6. Cabin 3. Single family house 7. Room in a boardinghouse 4. Duplex, triplex, or fourplex 8. Other 1 Lkâ€ž_ C wt clajw L- L 2,9- A AA-5 t...Wrli L r .4 4 ~ C 9 k le 9 Ill f 10'le 6 0 /- 5 6 U A 3Â«_ 4 ~_hf 4-0 'JÂ·~Â» 16 4 \31 <13 C A-4 9 5 0 fo Soto CA YoÂ© \ -- 3 65 10 (0 . 6 0 no uwAL,c- 9 1 ~-I , , -1 qe G 4 0 44- 3\, A 1.1 4 -L-5) 47% 21 0 94.-j.t-1 6 -sl o le_,x bo -4- Ma rc 1 18. IF YOU PROVIDE EMPLOYEE HOUSING, HOW MANY TOTAL BEDROOMS DO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES? 1. # of Bedrooms 19. DO YOU HAVE A NEED FOR (MORE) EMPLOYEE HOUSING FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES? 1. No (Please skip to question #25) 2. Yes (Please continue with question #20) Dear Employer: 3. Undecided (Please continue with question #20) WE NEED YOUR HELP! Your business has been randomly selected for 20. IF YES, WHAT TYPE OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WOULD YOU BECOME the update of the employee/employer survey of 1975 and 1979. Your INVOLVED WITH BASED UPON YOUR INTEREST AND FINANCIAL CAPABILITY? participation is extremely critical to the success of the study, which will be the basis for planning all future employee housing 1. Singular ownership of housing units by employers development. 2. Employers' cooperative owning a stock of employee housing units 3. Local government-controlled employee housing project Surveys should be completed by both yourself and a selected 4. Non-ownership, long-term lease of employee units number of your employees. The DEADLINE is March 16th. Please return the surveys to the: 5. Winter season lease of employee units 6. Summer season lease of employee units --Aspen Chamber of Commerce 7. None of the above --Pitkin County Courthouse 8. Undecided 9. Other (specify): Or phone the Chamber for pick-up at 925-1940. With questions phone Gail Mahoney at 925-6612. 21. WHAT TYPE OF FINANCIAL COMMITMENT WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN MAKING TOWARDS A LOCAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR EMPLOYEES? Your support is greatly appreciated! 1. Not interested in making a financial commitment City of Aspen and Pitkin County 2. 5-10% down with monthly subsidy Aspen Chamber of Commerce 3. 10-20% down with no monthly subsidy Aspen Skiing Corporation 4. Lease with monthly subsidy 5. Other (specify): SURVEY OF ASPEN METRO AREA EMPLOYERS 22. FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN: 1. A PMH unit with a lower than market cost and overall price 1. TYPE OF BUSINESS inflation controls 2. A free market unit at higher cost with no restrictions on resale 1. Recreation 7. Construction and related services 3. A modified price control with investment potential 2. Bar/restaurant 8. Professional services 4. Not interested in any employee housing 3. Retail store 9. Manufacturing-Industrial 5. Undecided 4. Government or public 10. Service-Commercial sector (education, 11. Financial/real estate/insurance 23. WHAT SIZE AND NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD BEST SUIT YOUR EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED? hospital, etc.) 12. Utilities -- 5. Personal Services 13. Other (specify): 6. Accommodations/Property # 1. Dorm style with common cooking facilities Management # 2. Studio # 3. One bedroom 2. WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE MAJORITY OF YOUR BUSINESS AS TOURIST # 4. Two bedroom COMMERCIAL OR PERMANENT RESIDENT COMMERCIAL? # 5. Three bedroom 1. Tourist-Related Commercial 24. IN YOUR BUSINESS, WHAT EMPLOYEE GROUP IS HAVING THE GREATEST PROBLEM 2. Permanent Resident-Related Commercial WITH HOUSING? 3. Combination of Tourist and Residents 4. Other 1. Part-time, year-round 3. Full-time, seasonal 3. WHEN IS YOUR PEAK BUSINESS PERIOD? 2. Part-time, seasonal 4. Full-times year-round 1. Winter 5. Winter & Summer equally busy 25. ARE YOU EXPERIENCING EMPLOYEE PROBLEMS (i.e. quality, shortage)? 2. Sprina 6. Constant level of business year-round COMMENT ON THE PROBLEM AND YOUR PERCEPTION OF ITS CAUSE: 3. Summer 7. Other 4. Fall 4. HOW LONG HAS YOUR BUSINESS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN PITKIN COUNTY? 1. Less than one year 6. 11-15 years 2. 1-2 years 7. 16-20 years 4. 5-7 years 9. Over 25 years 3. 3-4 years 8. 21-25 years 5. 8-10 years f k 0 C f 1 25. -2- -3- 5. IF YOUR BUSINESS PROVIDES TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS, INDICATE NUMBER OF BEDS: 12. Seasonal (Full-time or part-time during winter only) 1. Not applicable 6. 121-150 1980 1981 1980 1981 2. 1-30 7. 151-180 3. 31-60 8. 181-210 1 1 0 (self-employed) 7 7 60-79 4. 61-90 9. 211-240 2 2 1-4 employees 8 8 80-99 5. 91-120 10. Over 240 (# ) 3 3 5-9 9 9 100-125 4 4 10-19 10 10 126-150 6. IF YOU HAVE A RETAIL OPERATION, HOW MANY SQ.FT. DO YOU HAVE7 5 5 20-39 11 11 Over 150 6 6 40-59 1. Not applicable 7. 2001-2500 2. 0-250 8. 2501-3000 13. Seasonal (Full-time or part-time during summer of 1980 only) 3. 251-500 9. 3001-4000 4. 501-1000 10. 4001-5000 1. 0 (self-employed) 7. 60-79 5. 1001-1500 11. Over 5000 (# ) 2. 1-4 employees 8. 80-99 6. 1501-2000 3. 5-9 9. 100-125 4. 10-19 10. 126-150 7. IF YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT OR BAR OPERATION, HOW MANY SEATS DO YOU HAVE? 5. 20-39 11. Over 150 (Please circle for the bar area and for the restaurant area) 6. 40-59 Bar Restaurant Bar Restaurant 14. THIS WINTER, DUE TO SNOW CONDITIONS, HAVE YOU: 1 1 Not applicable 5 5 121-160 2 2 1-40 6 6 161-200 1. Reduced work hours of employees 3 3 41-80 7 7 201-250 2. Let some of your employees go 4 4 81-120 8 8 Over 250 (# ) 3. Kept normal staff 15. IF YOU HAVE LET SOME OF YOUR EMPLOYEES GO, INDICATE THE EMPLOYEE GROUPS 8. IF YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT OPERATION, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET DO YOU HAVE? AND THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN EACH GROUP OF THE EMPLOYEES ~Q. LONGER WITH YOU: 1. Not applicable 6. 2001-2500 2. 0-500 7. 2501-3000 # 1. Sales # 6. Skilled labor 3. 501-1000 8. 3001-4000 - 4. 1001-1500 9. 4001-5000 # 2. Service # 7. Unskilled labor 5. 1501-2000 10. Over 5000 (# ) # 3. Professional # 8. Other 9. IF YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL GROUP, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET DO YOU HAVE? # 4. Management 1. Not applicable 5. 1501-2000 9. 4001-5000 # 5. Clerical 2. 0-500 6. 2001-2500 10. Over 5000 (# ) 16. PLEASE MARK (X) THE AVERAGE SALARY RANGE (GROSS WAGES, INCLUDING TIPS AND 3. 501-1000 7. 2501-3000 COMMISSIONS, ON AN HOURLY BASIS) FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES IN THE FOLLOWING JOB 4. 1001-1500 8. 3001-4000 CLASSIFICATIONS: THIS YEAR YOUR LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT MAY BE BELOW NORMAL. IN THE FOLLOWING N.A. %0-$3.00 $3-$5.00 $5-$7.50 $7.50-$10 $10-$15 $15.00+ OUESTIONS 10-13, PLEASE CIRCLE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU EMPLOY IN Sales THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES FOR BOTH LAST YEAR (1980) AND THIS YEAR (1981). Service 10. Year-round/Full-time (30+ hours weekly) - Professional 1980 1981 1980 1981 - Management - 1 1 0 (self-employed) 7 7 60-79 - 2 2 1-4 employees 8 8 80-99 Clerical 3 3 5-9 9 9 100-125 Skilled labor 4 4 10-19 10 10 126-150 - 5 5 20-39 11 11 Over 150 Unskilled labor 6 6 40-59 Other 11. Year-round/Part-time (30 hours or less weekly) 17. INDICATE THE BENEFITS WHICH YOU OFFER YOUR EMPLOYEES (include as many as applicable): 1980 1981 1980 1981 1. Ski Pass 8. Transportation 1 1 0 (self-employed) 7 7 60-79 2. Housing/Rent paid by Employee 9. Meals 2 2 1-4 employees 8 8 80-99 3. Housing/Subsidized Totally 10. Sick Pay 3 3 5-9 9 9 100-125 4 4 10-19 126-150 4. Housing/Subsidized Partially 11. Bonus 10 10 5. Paid Vacation 12. Commission 5 5 20-39 11 11 Over 150 6. Paid Holidays 13. Other (specify): 6 6 40-59 7. Insurance -7- 7 /9 50. IF YOU DO ORK FULL TIME, WOULD YOU WORK MORE HOURS A WEEK, TAKE LESS TIME OFF, AND HAVE FEWER VACATIONS IN ORDER TO PURCHASE A UNIT? 1. Yes 3. Don't know 2. No 4. Not applicable (working full time) Â« March, 1981 51. and 52. WHAT FACTORS WILL MOST INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION IN THE EVENT YOU LEAVE THE ROARING FORK VALLEY? (Rank two responses, numbering the most important 1, next important 2-2- 1. Lack of adequate housing 2. Lack of adequate employment 3. Lack of affordable skiing without ski nass 4. Desire for change in living environment 5. Return to school 6. Location of family and/or friends 7. Lack of professional opportunity 8. Unable to afford to raise family â€¢ 9. Lack of ability to advance financially 10. -Other (specify): Dear Employee: 53. DO YOU (DOWNHILL) SKI DURING THE WINTER? 1. Yes 2. No WE NEED YOUR HELP! In order to plan employee 54. DO YOU CURRENTLY HAVE A SKI PASS? IF SO, WHAT KIND? housing to meet your needs, we are asking for your participation in a survey to tell us who you are. 1. No 2. Yes, Aspen Ski Corp. (Host pass) The results of this survey will be crucial for the 3. Yes, Highlands pass future direction of employee housing in the Aspen 55. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY DAYS LAST SEASON DID YOU (DOWNHILL) SKI? Metro area. 1. 0-10 4. 30-40 7. 60-70 2. 10-20 5. 40-50 8. More than 70 We are distributing a small number of 3. 20-30 6. 50-60 surveys, and your completed questionnaire is 56.1 and 56.2 WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK DURING very important to us. It only takes a few THE WINTER? DURING THE SUMMER? minutes of your time. WINTER SUMMER WINTER SUMMER 1 1 Automobile 4 4 Walking Please return your completed questionnaire 2 2 Carpool 5 5 Bicycle 3 3 Bus 6 6 0ther to: --Your employer 57. HOW MANY VEHICLES ARE OWNED BY YOUR HOUSEHOLD? --Chamber of Commerce 1. None 4. Three 7. Six --Pitkin County Courthouse 2. One 5. Four 8. Seven or more 3. Two 6. Five (Mail to: 506 East Main Street, Aspen) 58. HOW DEPENDENT ARE YOU ON YOUR PRIMARY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION? DEADLINE: March 16th 1. Totally dependent 2. Partially dependent , THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. WE VALUE YOUR PARTICIPATION AND REMARKS FOR . Call Gail Mahoney at the County Housing FUTURE PLANNING OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING. Office with any questions at 925-6612. All questionnaires remain totally confidential. Please include any comments below: Your participation is greatly appreciated! City of Aspen and Pitkin County - Aspen Chamber of Commerce Aspen Skiing Corporation -6 ASPEN METRO EMPLOYEE SURVEY 38. IN YOUR PRESENT HOUSING, WHAT ARE YOU CURRENTLY DISSATISFIED WITH? (Rank in order of dissatisfaction) GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS 1. SEX -1. Cost 5. Prefer to own, if not currently owner _2. Location 6. Other (please specify): 3. Size 1. Female 2. Male -4. Overall quality 2* MARITAL STATUS 39. HOW MANY TIME HAVE YOU MOVED IN THE PAST YEAR? # time(s) le Single 40. WOULD YOU PREFER A UNIT IN A DEVELOPMENT WITH: 3. Divorced 20 Married 4. Co-habitation 1. Other employee units 2. A mix of employee and free market or tourist units 3. Undecided 3. IF MARRIED, IS YOUR SPOUSE EMPLOYED? 1. Yes 41. WOULD YOU CONSIDER COLLABORATING WITH ANOTHER BUYER IN ORDER TO QUALIFY 2. No FOR PURCHASE OF A UNIT? 1. Yes 3. Undecided 2. No 4. AGE 1. 19 or less 5. 35-44 42. WHAT SIZE UNIT WOULD YOU NEED? 2. 20-24 6. 45-54 5. One bedroom with loft 1. Dorm 3. 25-29 7. 55-64 4. 30-34 2. Studio 6. Two bedrooms 8. Over 64 3. Studio with loft 7. Two bedrooms with loft 4. One bedroom 8. Three bedrooms RESIDENCE INFORMATION 43. HOW MANY PEOPLE, INCLUDING YOURSELF, WOULD YOU HAVE LIVING IN YOUR UNIT? 5. DO YOU: 1. Alone 5. Five 2. Two 6. Six 1. Own a free market unit 7. More than six 3. Three 2. Own an employee unit 4. Four 3. Rent 4. House-sit/no rent 44. WOULD YOU LIVE IN HOUSING PROVIDED BY YOUR EMPLOYER AND UNDER HIS CONTROL? 5. House-sit/rent 6. Employer-provided/no rent 1. Yes 3. Undecided 7. Employer-provided/rent 2. No 8. PMH (Employee) rental 9. Other 45. WOULD YOU PURCHASE A PRICE AND OCCUPANCY RESTRICTED UNIT SIMILAR TO CREEKSIDE ( IN SNOWMASS), MIDLAND PARK, LONE PINE, OR HIGHLANDS VILLAS? 6. YEARS LIVED IN ROARING FORK VALLEY: 1. Yes 3. Undecided 2. No 1. 0-2 months 8. 5-7 years 2. 2-6 months 9. 7-10 years 3. 6 mo.-1 year 46. WOULD YOU LIVE IN DORMITORY STYLE UNITS WITH COMMON COOKING AND LIVING 10. 10-12 years FACILITIES WITH PRIVATE BEDROOM IN ASPEN IF IT WERE PROPERLY MAINTAINED? 4. 1-2 years 11. 12-15 years 5. 2-3 years 12. 15-20 years 1. Yes 3. Undecided 6. 3-4 years 13. Over 20 years 2. No 7. 4-5 years 47. and 48. IF YOU HAD A CHOICE OF LOCATIONS, WHERE WOULD YOU PREFER TO LIVE? ' (Rank two responses, numbering the most important 1, next important 2) ~ 7. WHERE DO YOU LIVE (CLOSEST TO)? - 1. Glenwood 12. County West of Aspen 1. Glenwood 8. Woody Creek 2. Carbondale 9. Snowmass Village 2. Carbondale 13. County East of Aspen 3. El Jebel 10. County West of Aspen 3, El Jebel 14. Red Mountain area 4. Basalt 11. County East of Aspen 4. Emma 15. North Aspen 5. Lazy Glen 12. Red Mt. or Smuggler area 5. Basalt 16. South Aspen 6. -Old Snowmass 13. City of Aspen 6. Upper Frying Pan Valley 17. East Aspen 7. Aspen Village 7. Lazy Glen 18. West Aspen 8. Old Snowmass 19. Silverking 49. WO[JLD YOU PREFER TO OWN OR RENT A FREE MARKET UNIT DOWN VALLEY OVER 9. Aspen Village 200 Smuggler OWNING OR RENTING A MULTI-FAMILY EMPLOYEE UNIT IN ASPEN? 10. Woody Creek 21. Other (specify): 11. Snowmass Village 1. Yes 2. No 3. Undecided -5- -2- 32. HOW MANY ADULTS IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD ARE EMPLOYED? 8. LENGTH OF TIME YOU PLAN TO LIVE IN THE ROARING FORK VALLEY: 1. One 6. Six 4. 1-3 years 2. Two 7. Seven 1. Through the winter 3. Three 8. Eight 2. Through the summer 5. Indefinitely 4. Four 9. Nine 3. About 1 year 5. Five 10. Ten 9. IN WHAT TYPE OF RESIDENCE DO YOU RESIDE? 33, IF YOU DO NOT LIVE IN THE ASPEN METRO AREA, WHY NOT? 1. Condominium 5. Mobile home 1. Lack of available housing at any price 2. Apartment 6. Cabin 2. Lack of affordable housing 3. Single family house 7. Room in a boardinghouse 3. Not as desirable as the area in which currently residing 4. Duplex, triplex, or fourplex 8. Other 4. Not applicable 10. HOW MANY BEDROOMS ARE THERE IN YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE? 34. and 35. WHAT DO YOU FEEL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN YOUR HOUSING DECISION? (Rank .two. responses, numbering the most important 1, 1. Studio (none) 5. 4 bedrooms next important 2) D 2. 1 bedroom 6. 5 bedrooms or more 3. 2 bedrooms 1. Attractive surroundings 4. 3 bedrooms 2. Shortness of commute 3. Size or type of unit (single-family, clustered, other) 4. Proximity to facilities (parks, stores, ski areas, other) 11. HOW MANY ADULTS LIVE WITH YOU? 5. Proximity of public transit 6. lost 6. Five 1. None 7. Other (specify): 2. One 7. Six 3. Two 8. Seven 4. Three 90 Eight 5. Four 10. Nine or more THIS PORTION OF THE SURVEY IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE CRITICAL INFORMATION FOR THE FUTURE PLANNING OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN ASPEN. THE INFORMATION 12. HOW MANY CHILDREN LIVE WITH YOU? BELOW IS AN EXAMPLE OF RENTAL AND SALE PRICES FOR ASPEN EMPLOYEE UNITS AND IS PROVIDED AS A BASIS TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS- 1. None 5. Four 2. One 6. Five YOUR RESPONSES SHOULD BE REALISTIC IN TERMS OF YOUR PRESENT AND FUTURE 3. Two 7. Six or more FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES. 4. Three THE FOLLOWING ARE EXAMPLES OF RECENT PMH UNIT COSTS: 13.1 and 13.2 WHAT IS THE TOTAL MONTHLY COST FOR YOUR DWELLING UNIT? Rental Unit Examples HUNTER LONGHOUSE 1 bedroom - $350 ~ (Please circli-7Er just yoursel f and for your total household). 2 bedroom - $545 1 lai CASTLE RIDGE Studio - $325 14 1 4 i /4 1 bedroom - $490 494 Ofy/ /4 4 ~ 30/ 2 bedroom - $590 im M I 4 e l /40 0 / 29 â‚¬7 3 bedroom - $650 1 1 N.A. 8 8 $401-$500 Sale Unit Examples HIGHLANDS VILLAS 2 bedroom - $75,000 2 2 Less than $100 9 9 $501-$600 (10% downs 11.5% financing) 3 3 $100-$150 10 10 $6014700 4 4 $151-$200 11 11 $701-$800 5 5 $201-$250 12 12 $801-$900 36. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION 6 6 $251-$300 13 13 $901-$1,000 AND YOUR INTEREST IN EMPLOYEE HOUSING: 7 7 $301-$400 14 14 Over $1,000 1. Very satisfied, and .ggl interested in employee housing (skip to question #50) P 2. Very satisfied, and yet I am interested in employee housing (continue with #37) INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION 3. Dissatisfied, and I am interested in employee housing (continue with #37) 4. Dissatisfied, but I am undecided about employee housing (continue with #37) 14. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE ASPEN METRO AREA? 37. CONSIDERING THE COST FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS AND YOUR FINANCIAL , 1. Less than 6 months CAPABILITY, WOULD YOU PREFER TO: 20 Less than 1 year 3. 1-2 years 1. Own 4. 2-5 years 2. Rent 5. 5-10 years 3. Undecided 6. 10 years or more -4- -3- 23. WHI-,..F THE FOLLOWING GROUPS RECEIVES THE MAJORITY 0 DS AND WHAT IS YOUR PRI..,...SOURCE OF ANNUAL INCOME? SERVICES OFFERED AT YOUR PLACE OF PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT? 15. Your EmployER's Classification 16. EmployEE Classification 1. Tourists 3. Both tourists and permanent residents 2. Permanent residents 4. Other 1. Recreation 1. Sales 2. Bar/restaurant 2. Service 3. Retail Store 3. Profess ional 24. IS YOUR PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT FOR: 4. Government or public 4. Management sector/utilities 5. Clerical 1. One season 5. Personal services 6. Skilled labor (craft or trade) 2. During both winter and summer peak seasons 6. Accommodations 7. Unskilled labor 3. Year-round (11 months or greater) 7. Construction 8. Other (specify): 8. Professional 9. Service commercial 25. IS YOUR PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT: 10. Manufacturing/Industrial 11. Financial/Real Estate/Insurance 1. Part-time (less than 30 hrs./week) 12. Other (specify): , 2, Full-time (greater than 30 hrs./week) WHAT IS YOUR SECONDARY SOURCE OF ANNUAL INCOME? 26. HOW MANY MONTHS DURING 1980 WERE YOU EMPLOYED IN THE ASPEN METRO AREA? 17. Your EmployER's Classification 18. EmployEE Classification ' 1. One 7. Seven 2. Two 8. Eight 1. Recreation 1. Sales 3. Three 9. Nine 2. Bar/restaurant 2. Service 4. Four 10. Ten 3. Retail store 3. Professional 5. Fi ve 11. Eleven 4. Government or public 4. Management 6. Six 12. Twelve sector/utilities 5. Clerical 5. Personal services 6. Skilled labor (craft or trade) 6. Accommodations 7. Unskilled labor 27. DURING 1980, ON THE AVERAGE, HOW MANY HOURS DID YOU WORK PER WEEK? 7. Construction 8. Other (speci fy): 8. Professional 9. Not applicable 1. 0-5 8. 36-40 9. Service commercial 2. 6-10 9. 41-45 10. Manufacturing/Industrial 3. 11-15 10. 46-50 11. Financial/Real Estate/Insurance 4. 16-20 11. 51-55 12. Other (specify): 5. 21-25 12. 56-60 13. Not applicable 6. 26-30 13. Over 60 7. 31-35 19. HOW MANY JOBS DO YOU HAVE THIS WINTER? 28. WHAT WERE YOUR INDIVIDUALLY REPORTED 1980 YEARLY EARNINGS? (If you 1. None have not filed your return, please refer to your W-2 forms) 2. One 3. Two 1. 0-$2,999 7. $16,000-$19,999 4. Three or more 2. $3,000-$4,999 8. $20,000-$24,999 3. $5,000-$6,999 9. $25,000-$29,999 4. $7,000-$9,999 10. $30,000-$34,999 20. HOW MANY JOBS DID YOU HAVE LAST SUMMER? 5. $10,000-$12,999 11. $35,000-$39.999 6. $13,000-$15,999 12. $40,000 and over 1. None 2. One 3. Two 29. IS PART OF YOUR COMPENSATION DERIVED THROUGH TIPS? 4. Three or more 1. Yes, % 2. No 21. DO YOU PRESENTLY HAVE ANY EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE OF THE ASPEN METRO AREA? ; 1. Yes, primary employment 30. IS PART OF YOUR INCOME/COMPENSATION DERIVED FROM A SOURCE OTHER 2. Yes, secondary employment i THAN EMPLOYMENT? 3. No employment out of Aspen Metro Area 1. Yes, % 2. No 22. IF YES, WHERE IS YOUR EMPLOYMENT OUT OF ASPEN METRO AREA? 1. Snowmass Village 31. IN WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BRACKETS DOES YOUR TOTAL ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD 2. Down valley INCOME FALL? (Include estimates for all housemates and/or spouses) 3. Not applicable 1. 0-$2,999 7. $16,000-$19,999 13. $50,000-$59,999 2. $3,000-$4,999 8. $20,000-$24,999 14. $60,000-$69,999 3. $5,000-$6,999 9. $25,000-$29,999 15. $70,000-$79,999 4. $7,000-$9,999 10. $30,000-$34,999 16. $80,000-$100,000 5. $10,000-$12,999 11. $35,000-$39,999 17. Unable to estimate 6. $13,000-$15,999 12. $40,000-$49,999 for household MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD DATE: February 25, 1981 Zoning: The north portion of the site is zoned 0 - Office while the portion along Main Street is zoned CC - Commercial Core. Lot Size: 47,712 square feet Location: 330 West Main at Mill Street Applicant's 'This application is for a conceptual PUD Review for the Hotel Request: Jerome for the purposes of remodeling the existing building and constructing additional units to the north toward Bleeker Street. The applicant is proposing a total of 114 rooms on the site, to consist of the existing 39 rooms to be renovated and remodeled into 34 rooms in the present building, the addition of 76 new rooms in the new buildings, and the addi- tion of 4 employee rooms. The Commission should recognize that there are two other aspects of the applicant's review process: 1) historic designation and redesign before H.P.C., a review process which is al ready underway and which would provide the applicant with an exemption to the GMP, as indicated in Section 24-11.2(b) of the Code; and 2) rezoning of the north portion of the site from 0 - Office to CC - PUD, to occur at the preliminary plat stage of the process, providing the applicant with a process for requesting variances from underlying district area and bulk require- ments and parking needs and also providing a zone in which hotels are a conditional use. The rezoning was initiated by Council during October, 1980. A hearing for the expan- sion of a conditional use should also be held at the prelimi- nary plat stage of the process. Background: Since purchasing the Hotel Jerome in 1968 and re-opening it during that same year, Mr. John Gilmore has been working with City officials in an effort to restore and expand the facility. The applicant's expressed objective throughout this undertaking has been to provide a full service, first class hotel in Aspen. However, several limitations of the existing building have prevented the approval of previous development requests for this site. Recently, though, City officials, including members of City Council, encouraged the applicant to return with his application and have been working closely with him to develop an acceptable concept. Following are some of the issues brought out during these discussions. First of all, the applicant has indicated that for a hotel to be economically viable nowadays and to receive financial support for its expansion, it must contain at least 100 rooms. An expansion of this size has not been acceptable to previous review boards. Secondly, the age of the existing building and its large dimensions, as compared to current zoning provi- sions, make it difficult to restore the building while also providing a sufficient number of hotel rooms. Until recently, when the Planning Office brought forth the concept of rezoning the site and designating it as a PUD and historic structure, no means of permitting an expansion of the hotel were avail- able. Finally, since the applicant is proposing a full service hotel containing substantial amounts of mechanical space, the proposal involves an FAR well in excess of code limits. Due to the space limits on the property, alternatives to on-site provi- sion of employee housing and parking have been suggested but no Memo: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD Page Two February 25, 1981 firm decisions have been made. Here again, designation as a PUD provides the mechanism to request variations from underlying zoning requirements. Each of these variations is described in greater detail below. Review Area and Bulk Requirements - The existing building contains Concerns: 44,000 square feet on the 47,712 square foot lot at an FAR of slightly less than 1:1. The proposed new buildings would contain 64,507 square feet, for a total of 108,507 square feet at an FAR of slightly in excess of 2.25:1. The per- mitted FAR in the CC zone is 1.5:1, with a bonus of .5:1 allowed for .2:1 commercial space and .3:1 deed restricted residential space. The CC zone also requires that 25 percent of the site (11,928 square feet) be reserved for open space while the proposed plans indicate that 12,995 square feet (7296 square feet in the outdoor dining area and 5,699 square feet at the pool) will be provided. Finally, the Engineering Department notes that the building addition exceeds the 40 foot maximum height limitation of the CC zone by 11 feet. The proposed addition is, however, somewhat less in height then the original building, which rises nearly 49 feet above Main Street, because of the extreme slope of the site toward Bleeker Street. The design consciously attempts to create an addition with a height and mass less than that of the original building so as to focus visual and historical atten- tion to that unique structure. Parking Requirements - At the present time, the site provides parking for approximately 15 vehicles, with spaces along the Bleeker Street right-of-way for 10 additional vehicles. While there is no requirement that parking be provided in the CC zone, the hotel will place special demands on the area which should be addressed. The Engineering Department comments that the expansion would not only eliminate these 25 soaces, but also increase parking needs for the hotel itself. Not only are additional hotel beds proposed, but also, employee needs for the hotel can be expected to increase. As is discussed below, the applicant is currently proposing to house most employees off-site which will increase the number of employees who commute to the hotel. Several proposals have been offered to mitigate the parking problem. First, the applicant has suggested a willingness to participate, with the City, in the cost of the proposed parking structure at the Rio Grande property. The uncer- tainties regarding this proposal, particularly as regards the timing of its construction and the ability of the City to finance the project render this suggestion as an unlikely solution for the immediate future. The applicant is also proposing to provide limousine service for guests which can be expected to reduces but not eliminate, the need for parking facilities. One criteria available in the Code, associated with the GMP lodge competition, suggests that one vehicle be provided for every twenty-five guests, though the applicant is only suggesting the availability of three limousines. Therefore, the Planning Office recom- mends that the applicant be required to develop alternative plans for employee and guest parking, including possibilities such as underground or off-site configurations. Trash and Service Access - The Engineering Department comments that the site plan, as submitted, does not designate a trash/ utility area, though presumably it would occur at the "service entrance" on Bleeker Street. The Code requi rement in Section 24-3.7 would require a facility parallel to the alley of 10 feet deep by 105 feet long. Since this project abuts Bleeker Street and not an alley, this sized trash facility is unacceptable. The Engineering Department suggests that rather than providing an area accessed by a single cut on Memo: Hotel Jerom ptual PUD Page Three February 25, 1981 Bleeker Street, that the applicant install an industrial- type trash compaction facility to handle all solid waste generated. Such a facility would provide a rationale for varying the trash access requirement through the PUD process while also easing access and odor problems. Mitigating the access problem for deliveries to the site may not be as easily determined. With the service entrance being located on Bleeker Street, it can be expected that significant traffic congestion may be generated on that street. Since the hotel does not have alley access from Monarch Street and since the Engineering Department will not permit curb cuts on Mill Street due to the potential traffic impact on that busy road, it appears that no other alternative exists. The Planning Office recommends that a delivery hour limitation (for example, between 9:00 A.M. ,and 11.00 A.M.) should be placed on the hotel so as to insure that during most times of the day, no excess conges- tion will occur at the site. Employee Housing - The applicant proposes to provide four employee rooms (presumably 4-8 employee pillows) for key employees of the hotel. Discussions with Council also led to the proposal that the applicant would provide approxi- mately $500,000 to the City for the purchase of land and/or the construction of a project to house additional employees off-site. The Planning Office would consider such an arrangement acceptable, provided that additional details are made available at the preliminary plat stage to include: - The number of employees anticipated at the hotel. - The proposed location of the employee housing (loca- tions within walking distance or on a bus route are preferred). - The actual level of participation proposed by the appli- cant for an employee housing project. Sidewalks - The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant be required to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. In addition, if construction causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Street, the applicant should be required to replace those sections. Density and Mass - The proposal by the applicant for approval of 110 hotel rooms and 4 employee rooms on the site represents a considerable reduction from previous requests. Neverthe- less, the substantial increase in rooms will have a major impact upon this central Aspen location. The applicant states that 100 rooms is the minimal cutoff point for the economic viability of a hotel, and also notes that during more detailed design phases, several rooms will probably be eliminated to make room for mechanical features. The applicant has attempted to minimize the impact of the new rooms by reducing the bulk of the main additional building and spreading it out into two smaller additions around the pool. The applicant is also prepared to demonstrate at your meeting those archi- tectural aspects of the building which mitigate the impact of the addition. The Planning Office recommends that at this conceptual stage of the process, the P&Z confine its debate to questions of massing, height and bulk, without directly concerning itself with questions of number of rooms, which can be specifically addressed at the preliminary plat stage of the process when a hearing on expansion of a conditional use will be held. Planning The Planning Office recommends that P&Z approve the appli- Office cant's request for conceptual PUD review for the purposes of Recommendation: remodeling and expanding the Hotel Jerome, subject to the following conditions: Memo: Hotel Jerome Conceptual PUD Page Four February 25, 1981 1. That the applicant develop alternative plans, to be presented prior to conceptual review by Council, to provide parking for some of the guests and employees of the hotel; 2. That the applicant install an industrial-type trash compaction facility to handle all solid waste generated at the hotel; 3. That the applicant agree to a delivery hour limitation for all services provided to the hotel, the exact nature of which is to be determined through consultation with the Planning Office; 4. That the applicant provide further detail prior to conceptual review by Council regarding the arrange- ments for housing employees off-sites to include the number of employees to be housed, the possible location of the units, and the amount of money to be contributed by the applicant to the project; and 5. That the applicant be required to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker, as well as curb and gutter as needed. In addition, if construction causes any damage to the new sidewalk and curb along Mill Street, the applicant be required to replace those sections. Aspen/Pitkin.,pli!1~ing Office 130 sout~.galena.&-treet aspenâ‚¬pQ~~~~U~2~1611 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office PUD RE: Hotel Jerome ConceptualhApplication - Historic ~esignation and Redesign DATE: February 10, 1981 Ezz,nu~ The attached materials represent the conceptual application for the proposed redesign and expansion of the Hotel Jerome, which will eventually require individual historic designation. This application is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on March 3, 1981; therefore, please return your comments to me no later than February 19, 1981. Thank you. r A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office, Joe Wells RE: Hotel Jerome Proposed Expansion DATE: August 18, 1980 Several weeks ago, Mayor Edel, Councilmember Behrendt and two members of the Planning Office met with John Gilmore regarding his proposed redevelopment plans for the Hotel Jerome. The Jerome parcel is 47,412 square feet. The north portion of the site (approx- imately 28,000 square feet) is presently zoned 0-Office. The remainder along Main Street is zoned CC-Commercial Core. Since Lodge uses are not permitted in the Office zone, a rezoning would have to be initiated by the City, so we have scheduled Wednesday's work session with Council to see if there is an interest on the part of Council in initiating the rezoning. Mr. Gilmore's proposal is to remodel the existing 34 lodge rooms and to add 83 new lodge rooms and 4 new employee rooms to the north. The existing facility of approximately 32,300 square feet would be expanded to a total of approximately 115,400 square feet. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of such a proposal would be in excess of 2.4:1 if these square footage figures are accurate. The CL (Commercial Lodge) zone district is currently the most liberal zone dis- trict in the City Code, with a maximum FAR of 2:1. The CC zone district permits a maximum FAR 1.5:1 with an additional .5:1 FAR if .3:1 of the additional square footage is employee housing. In other words, the CC district permits a maximum "freemarket" FAR of 1.7:1 if .3:1 additional square footage is restricted. In our opinion, application of any of the Lodge zone districts would be inap- propriate in the area of the Jerome and therefore would strongly favor expansion of the CC zoning over use of lodge zoning. Use of S.P.A. zoning has also been identified as an alternative. Other points of discussion that were raised at the meeting were employee housing and parking. The adequacy of the four employee rooms proposed was questioned (the existing employee rooms are to be removed). There was some discussion of providing employee housing off-site as an alternative. On the parking issue, there was some expression that Mr. Gilmore's participation in parking in the Rio Grande area would be preferable to providing parking on-site. Individual historic designation would be required in order to permit any expansion outside the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Gilmore is amenable to designation and is pursuing the matter at the present time. - --1*.-1- - - 1 h 4 f 1 1. 1 '1 ... PROJECT: I +lili I /2. -a ' I. ... e . wak Ac,21-psÂ»* 4 A.41*MA'T)",181 1 1 v '0- I VI 7 ' 01all 1 1 1~ 4 HOTEL JE1934/IE. l 1. 7 * d #19 it/" t_1~1,-C f d 41~1 t. , . .1 , 1 1 P - , ti' , - 1 I , I . 1 6 4 1 . LOS ANGELES Lly, 1 , 3 'Ai,lig ~5< 4 1,10:,AS WELLS a ASSOCIATES, ARCHrâ„¢CTS ASPEN I =r=4 2 P 11 ...1 - L li X 49.4 20't Re,58:+46â€¢ 1 1 4 1 2 - 1. 111 L I I 1 ... 11- , i 1'1 t__/u 41*GE ac:PILER .- i 1 41 M ., 1 479 - Nlf -rl . 4.' J v E - - :14:64Sr- -re - - UUHPICY MAM . OAM. , I ~ - . V 1. 1 1 1 1 - 3 - - Id - d WY# DOW A ILIC~:p. 42-- 0 c--1 407 + W Â·aa< le6:'k/le i 54,6 46 4. 11 3 Â·Â· > + t -it 6.~ , :Le, 6/ I ' 0 0444 204 159,4p 44 1 -I.I.. re-,c ~ 2 HIGH-[ 41-ug' .gr~PFAO,E â€¢/' -- 16Â·â‚¬)<77.4 / 1 \R 11 27 D T & b 2 Â·L 'b / f# t -% --]1 31 -41 Er-1 1 1 , 1 I 1 -~-- 1 t ' GÂ¥Fte~ i Le#TER=,Flf# 918 1, 0,#6 4 ill , = ti_.| Al 4 : i P 1 1 1 04-6, c 11,0" Ted I 6-4-4 0.Â»40 44/ 4 -F41 111 1 NÂ· - f L OFFE,Ge REVISIONS: Â· Â·. ~ 11 1.. Â· TITLE OF SHEET: , '.41 0,41â‚¬,Art. =,Hol-rlotÂ» %41 / 0;430 4149,14 1. 0,04*GÂ·4< b. 0/44 l, VARMA 4.-, Illa $4 4 el YC-7 1 '14-1, :46- L _ 1 - 1- fc - Â· Â·re 14'5 i'* / . 2 9.2 2 ' i le( lBs / It 1 + epe,A *zaÂ·m -1 / '1 07%74-44* - 3 b. 2 ' Â· i g'. + 22, ***Â»@rl,46 1 . 1 r ~,9*" 4 ' 1- 1 11 4 1 1 1 1 â‚¬ 4, 1 . 11 4 . : 1 -frit 1 41* ~Merâ€¢ '*ft/'illill,le:gl"",'*li:li& 1 , 1 4â€¢peel- *Gl@.011; Al'le4// 1 , f 1 454 i .-** . NUM.E. / i y 6 ' PROJECT NO. DRAWING #.. 1 .: 0.4 ~ 6001 eF.1,14 #*M #Ac. wkt.6- .01 -403 .f b 1,42 ~E. :431 1 SHEET â€¢:' OF Â· IMEETS ',' C ;14~ E. DATE 0 0 1 +~ ,. 1 . 4 , / 0 r I.' i . T--1 ... . .Â¢ 111Â·. u a. ..e- , 2, -Â«m 4 - , 1. ... â€¢ I i. I:ly.-#blâ€¢ I - .=: 1 .66-- ..Aa ==a~aL: ?2Â· . .. UE=,&. ,-/ I . ,- ..18/': Â·Â· r Fir"ryÂ·7-, r- * . . i i . -.. ----- r , . 11 PROJECT: ii ./a#ta i 1. 164 4 AUST'qks"+' 9 *11.R<bly='rVE. -Me 4,4< f k HOTEL JG RON>1 6 Ae 1 :*H 1 Â£ :, p l aB A C â€¢ 5 7 r 1 -r -11 d. 9 Wcarb Â·31 9 1 4 t 5, FL L 9 V 1 47 Puve - 4 ZIP F 14.1-'rd Herl .16*Fete - 21 * 1.- --_i _L_ -CO' 1 TWOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES AMCHITECTS 4 _ , ASPEN LOS ANGELES / T 1 42/LI- /1 / Â· Â· 1 1 -j I j ' 7 1 . i L--4 1 1, *U 31 / J r .41 IT+-7 1 4.61â€¢7 0.31/ I 08!44/16EL ATJAD . er \ Â£-1 , Ef 4 1< 1-- k*4% . 1. I ,- ~ : -. f 1 -L 1.- T 4 ANINEâ€¢ 114'TRE Â·Â· i ~ L Â£1---1 11 - deep U Â»B . 1 1 0-\ i 1. 44 1 0,\40 4 - 7 ' -2 2 ) ~ 8 4 , 'A. JUL I i 2 3 -74 t ' 1 41 1 ---- 1 A 0 , D- -7 1 319% 4Â¢. 13 / 1 -1- / 11 4 *ti .. C _ I_-2 2-1[1)h-21- -th ./.i I 4 - U 1 4' 1 1- . I 1 h ' --- 0 . 0- .- u U ' 4 - 1 1 1 ~ I Vfl Â«4 0- -,-- ---1 -- ./ h/1 1 6-4- 1 a \I- . 7 4â€¢ It 1 El #.-\ .lilli , -L -1.FÂ» -A ly 1 1\ , 74â€ž44 REVISIONS: 1 84 94 22-~ TITLE OF SHEET: 4 01-0GrM tb- #<1412*5 (621901-ret*b Â¥ t:43 0 24.**, K.WCH 4 6, 1 41% le . 4 U pIFÂ« FL<20< , 4 463' :1 g Â·46 e>AK i Er'TRY ~f* ny '92+44 1~,5 4.t>f> Â·Â· 4 1, 1 , Â£. I. 1 *244 1 1 < f ft -r ummip-4< r -b* =Dr* 1 : r :< . ~ i:Â·14 r f p T F g a o 42-- UU---vv ---1 1- --Ll-.-m - 1 1 i I 1 PROJECT NO. DRAWING NUMmER 0' ~ ~ 1 \4 V 1 1 SHEET OF SHEETS J. f,IA DATE D .... I+J, .i . \ 9 , -. r..Y , - I. .-/ I. 1,%44.,7 -=% Â¥7'- -~ 02Â¢ '4 21. 4 -,Â«. le, ; 17 .* fr'I'"Mâ€¢je'-t.-3 Â·*'t .,L ...7 ,- 9t 2,.1-'ll.'...m .R.'Â·. :Â·'" '3 M: -W, '..=-8,Â·i.y- 4 6 >.. .. -P.. N......2 FAMB. I Â·nâ€že,% 4 t ''~' Â·4 y'tÂ· I $ )*).-2Â·NÂ·,9 ./ 6 :7 -TNt-r7--- --. - PROJECT: A,9vr[ Ic,H,6 9 Al.rl'21,40>pIe Wore L LIBROK/12 A,efFH, 4<,l.ofUCD *C x 47.4 AHHMA -Ula * \ 4 AINGY ~\471.4 ///) 1 THOMAS WILLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITICTS ASPEN LOS ANGELES 4 - M) IN 1 0/Â» 41 1 1- 1--1 1-1 t. ' 2 1 ./3 O 0 7 t. == *-I-*-- U 4-' g r I f 1 4 -1 r 3 9 19-~hz r m.:n e *<VAc i .le: %%04 - 40@&- ,= tA -1 \3 - ~1 rt=/ -L~ I 4 4 1* trI k K A I r-1\ 1 : Al.1 11 11 11 1 -Â©--{ot~p -:1~ 9 -41 *--1 Efy L] 11 1 - r [*1\ ..1 . 24â‚¬9 0 tl0--frIZIC,-I-Ell 19$ 7Â·3 lt- Â¥ t.1 %1 - E--1 j - -n 4 122 5 3 - I :41 JO 1 1 ' -1--t 1-1 Â».1 - ~ ' 'I 4.-r O 51 1 2.4 Â·,1 E--' 1-- i gl f [Â«1 0 ' 4 14 T 1 53 C = ili Arl - 3 '0 1 1.1 1- 1 1 I 4 1 1-2- 1 r--1 4.-- 1 4 1 ' t--1 1 I --- --r i I ~ i _ad~/ 1 -~ 11 1! Ill 11 . lap\\ 1 '\ 1 I . \4-11 i -4.I Â·Â·r 1 1 2, A '10 -UP N.10 Ti, 1 11 1 734' 1 /9--1.KF' ==11 i. 44 h, 4 -24 1 REVISIO _Fi RA T-- - TITLE OF SHEET: F' |hri 6 c,origi-Borle .- ag'Drip Fl-<021â‚¬ L -L- #1~422.4 14 1914 L J 1 9 1-1 - Fl Vel= 11 1 It 1 1 4.- l . I. F L[1- .Â·* - - 4== 11 - 1 11 , 11 1 - - 1 1 1 1 }-_t~i___-1 1 --] 1 j c.4149RN PROJECT NO. DRAWING NUMBER 1 SHEET OF SHEETS DATE 4 , F.1,KWFU&,2 .1. C U V.'9 /4,;*44Â· VIE 3# fj.:199 rl 1.-09 DOCIATES / ARCHITECTS LOG A-ELE' .EVEL '-'llm 1 '106 5 5,1 'tm ' - 0 -72,0,6 8.r=9 DRAWING NUI-ER 76Â·7 0.-~ el â€¢ 2~~~-.1.. 1 0, 3 ..... . .. th 42 c;.â€¢.1' .. f J - I 2:. . . t 2 + 0<':..,#4441*11â€¢909hf' Â·,ff Ye- f ~J. _ =, .. , 1 - I = , 0 . ~. ti.~91,- ~Â·~ i.i?jt~ Â·r I+ ,1;3Â· ' t, :j': '1 ;i j 4.6,12-Â·VL;. 1~. f. i '.. 4- Â·tâ€¢j, -005~~$,0 . 4 4 = - I . 7 a .. . . ... ,/b: .1 0. A. I . jek <{@ ,r. . . 0 4 I ' . ... . ... 1. A , 0 /0 0,8 0 ... b . . 9 11" J *... P F ... >. 0 . . n ... ... -. i c- -, - . /03 1,1 7'li 2 , 43 Â¥91 â€¢hANWL PROJECT 133 HOTE ...1= .Ar'.,1 5 UEROME 0- 4'*, 4 -4 I :44: K. ... 1 V. 4-1 i -414*- , / i / :PrsÂ·*1:k. 1 I e Â· St). '.3/:' t. 7\l 49- 1 4 - 1 1 il....... ... SCALE 1,48' trl'-01 ...C.Eak,~6a@,~t.~U/#AM#%40*1*lifil \ . I. UL , ,/~ / 1 , / -i...1&4-,L. -4.*24.-2;=2. 1 I. 1 ..414* 4 1 r ~ CON/:MEQC'Al- / I $4727 // THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES / ARCHITECTS Â£ f 1 t , EMPLO 956Â£, /Li~'. ASPEN LOS ANGELES 0 - LaÂ«PINS , 4 4 â‚¬,M.â€ž. . / 6, . V. 1 234 I . 7// - 'Â·4 -1 -1-93 JACLiz:zi ~ SALINA 27*C M ack-1. ~ COMIhle31221,Â·AC~' - '1/023 1-4 - i F *i , 1 -/t. aol- *t i ---- - - -I -- -94 02>Ppea S-102 1 .3= 1- 1- i , 3 1-1 Vic> C 4 410:4 710 â€¢ _tiiÂ·if.I- 621 : '~07 21E.J== --- 2.t 2.1-rc,Hi&* Mact, eNTRy - %@ 1 L.2 .9. 1 F ip., h ... FONâ€ž,, C~~ .... ..1. 11 -,% . 1 . u... - 1 i s~c,2Aee 1 MECH exiâ‚¬r- ING ,= h i MAINTENANCE SALLE*Y ( f'Â»1 - 1--- f \4\Â»/j Le -TO 1 1 - \11111114 1-00Â©Â¥ 9000 N N GHT CLUE, LiNt Â¢ MES-71 WIS WvM ~ - 1Â£11,111-2 / = Mal'H tÂ».. 11 - . -- WOMEN . STOQAGEE; 1 p, 1 #U+Ull,k UP ue~~TA . .. 434 114 POOL AREA =s 9 ROOM4 -- 8%72X 41*47 Cl-LIB opice CÂ»FICE col==i ca REVISIONS. EMPLOYEES 9 4 6â‚¬125>EN TITLE OF SHEET: TOTAL - 13 BASEMENT LEVEL I .m"- \\\\\ il. i 4Â· PROJECT NO. DRAWING NUMBER 76 7 "I ' 1 '21 ' ed> SHEET / OF ... 3 SHEETS 1 . i . L 74* PnoJECT HOTEL 4>- P*y k JEROME , / 1 / .it $ f / C / 4 , C f L Lf 1 , 1- SCALE 1/16. : 1.-0. 7# - --37 23 -..... -, -- -. f h- / 1~'~~R<~mA'~~gaRK#~/bug"W,~4*115*Evia#'SM)/taig/Amu~Â£11""m-*fi i ./. ge..7.23.2- f L / ER / 1.1 rt Â·Â· 1 . -4 i , I / '4, % J i THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES / ARCHITECTS I / Rt i '. ASPEN LOS ANGELES. 9,4 5 G 7 0 8 ~ 14; 0452 1 -g. , M r-E ./. .- IZe 4 548 V ' 'I /4, 0 1Â£3275 - , F 0 010 01 - 9 f -t E I . h Â· SERVICE 4 MactÂ«CAL Â¢ 57111/4 3 3 rue. 7 m ,- Ek -t 1 1.RgaiL . - ~ '.<. ~Kiwi,-7 ~'- - .1: ' : '11 " 9â‚¬l-:*,3,40,k. 't 4.4 '''ralim: .*A // / F -mun--1 F 4 11 111 Ill 4 1 2: U-_14.14 1 , J mi>ne~e,m,i~.'11~' 11'~~ I . r.'' "'I'. 1 ---1SIC/LIG+i,5 + 4 1 1 1 1 5# . 44 Â· t e A 6102. f,Meâ€žÂ©. 1 1 4- A. 1-1 Â· - ly. - 4? '. V SALINA 0 8 . l6 ;;;4.j.. :424, , <39 >, - , 6%*peHT /- t /><r . I - UPPER FLOORS iz Â· 57*,1 >*X -1-- --- - 4 1 - 1 + r,- . l' POOL AREA 11,310 2 ' ON--~~i IJF' UP #IrRE PKI ... I Â· ./0 23 1 +T w O FLOORS AT 15 30 i</ IS 14 .... P ONE FLOOR AT 14 1 -Â·Â·r----- REVIGIO'IS. 1-9 7 , 1[ 1 TITLE OF SHEET UPPER-FLOORS - *.~ggt-...j..1. -I'll + *.- I -I -Ii=Ir'r EXISTING BUILDINGâ€¢ TWO FLOORS AT 17 34 1% TOTAL ROOMS 88 421 I ./ 12.* 1 *Et 1 / .00 A' j 9 i 4 Â· .. -OJECT NO. OMAWING NUM~EN I '.74 *4. 76Â·7 .Pe 1 0 0 - DA~ I .... 3 Â°* 3 8.-t. .. -7 #ZI,ao - 111 1 ..? ~ : PROJECTÂ· 7'-- *TtpTNU--:0622,710. 7---I~~-7..."-- 1 & I. / 12226'P epu,22=, INI 1.1,00 0.41-rw 1 -1 - ts : 61*'4*UR-'<3*:222'6;â‚¬694:#t~44%k,624%L+140*Li4049%*fldf.w"1.~'#2'~:224 75239*942%'4Â·. j 25, fXrf4lfÂ» 2Ue, Â· m:'TÂ»/1 d'F- 131.â€¢c,c 052Â»Jtpckl y rs.- . . . 3/lilill N 08 r=Lt. d'F 2*>09. THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES / ARCHITECTS J Â· 1 , ASPEN LOS ANGELES L 7108. 1 t) . 11 IA318>9 ' T ulf - i F' STIZECT ;190'20, Â·L _ -, --- i b , fEr'IT ~02220â‚¬h) 4 1 1 4 2,2Â»1 0 f,0.â‚¬v -10%,6 At-ON */7Â»-4 -*> coeÂ£24, C *\ gof e\*56Â£* i P 61% C : , 44 1<~11 kix oftz ee T -- 2 1.0.0.8 V A T Id> r# - t REVISIONS: TITLE OF SHEET Ft,84*I-k:)hi - PROJECT No. DRAWING .~A.E. -76 , 22-1 - - li 7,129 Â· * Ql,M'CEÂ»3. SHEET ...27Â§ DATE ... -- A , "4 f sir Â· + 1 1