HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Hotel Jerome.45B-86`f5I3 - 96
Hotel Jerome PUD amendment
Phase II Parcel #2737-181 31 5 B
Ul
'A
ELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE :
PROJECT NAME:
/ �� 2 e-F •_�
! kPPLICANT:
Applicant Address/ one: i` ` -)
REPRES EN TAT IV E: gnu. 0I
Representative Address' Phone:(
Type of Application:
I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Pl a t
3. Final Plat
II. Subdivision/PUD
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Final Plat
III. All "Two Step" Applications,,x"
IV. All "One Step" Applications
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
1. Minor Applications
2. Major Applications
Referral Fees -
Engineering
Minor A lications
CAz> E NO
STAFF:
4- 3.-)/DOS
2 �(
20 $2,730.00
12 1,640.00
6 820 .00
14
$1, 900 .00
9
1,220 .00
6
820 .00
11
$1, 490 .00
5
$ 680 .00
2 $ 50.00
5 $ 125.00
Pp 80.00
Major Applications
200.00
----------------
P&Z CC MEETING DATE: : PUBLIC.HEAR I G- YES COO
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
REFERRALS: Z
City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District
City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Iiwy Dept (Gr. Jtn)
City Electric �� Fire Marshall "_ Bldg: ing/Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center
--------------
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: %Zd /LD7tiJ�f�C/ IN IT IAL
City Atty City Engineer Building Dept.
Other: Other :
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
.aXSE DISPOSITION:
Reviewed by: Aspen P&Z City =Council
C. . 7 .. 7 J,
cit- Council_
C
r
0 EN E
December 8, 1988
Alan Richman
City hall, Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan,
Thank you of your letter of November 29th. I appreciate
your consideration of my request, and we will proceed according
to your instructions.
I have asked Andy Hecht to submit the necessary
applications, so that we can proceed.
Sincerely,
�44 .�
T. Richard Butera
cc: Andy Hecht
DEC 1 51988
3 3 0 E A S T M A I N STREET • A S P E N. C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1• 3 0 3/ 9 2 0- 1 0 0 0
HOTEL JEROME PUD AMENDMENT PHASE II ADDITION
AND GENERAL INFORMATION FILE INDEX
A. Consent Agenda: Tea Room Conversion
B. Hotel Jerome Violations
C. Employee Housing Conversion
D. Public Notices
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Consent Agenda Item: Hotel Jerome Tea Room
DATE: November 29, 1988
Attached is a letter I sent to Dick Butera of the Hotel Jerome
and the original letter which Mr. Butera sent to me. In the
letter, it is requested that the Tea Room be permitted to be
converted into an antique store.
My response to this request is that it should be approved. The
applicant represents that the storefront in question has
contained various retail uses during the Hotel's 99 year history.
He also notes that the antique store has considerably less impact
than the Tea Room and also has an accessory relationship to the
Hotel, where similar antiques are displayed.
The only reason to question this change is the representation
made by the applicant which we found when reviewing the PUD
Agreement and original PUD application. The applicant stated in
an April, 1986 letter that the 13,000 square feet of retail space
proposed in the "Gilmore Plan" was being eliminated. The
applicant has clarified for me that the 13,000 square feet of
retail space referred to in the application was located in the
new addition and that the application erroneously neglected to
recognize the historic use of the storefront for retail use. In
fact, the application also neglected to recognize the historic
use of the bar. Obviously, both the bar and Tea Room had been in
operation for several months at the time of this letter and
should not have been considered to be eliminated by this
statement.
Unless Council objects to my determination, I will inform Mr.
Butera that he can proceed with this change. As you will note
from my letter, I have already informed him of the need to
process an amendment application for the proposed new offices
within the hotel, to include a list of permitted retail uses for
the storefront. Having such a list, which we also have for the
Little Nell and Ritz -Carlton projects, should eliminate any
potential confusion in this regard in the future.
jeromeconsent
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena ,street
aspen, colorado`'-81611
November 29, 1988
Mr. T. Richard Butera
Hotel Jerome
330 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Dick,
I have reviewed your letter dated November 25, written in
response to our meeting of that same day. In the letter, you
request the ability to convert the Tea Room into an antique
store. You suggest that this is an appropriate use of this
storefront because its historic use has always been retail, its
impacts are significantly less than that of a restaurant and the
antique sales have a natural relationship to the hotel, which is
filled with similar antiques.
After considerable thought, I have determined that your arguments
are reasonable. The most persuasive argument for me is that the
corner storefront has always been some type of retail shop. The
only problem for me is the representation made in the Hotel
Jerome PUD approval that all retail uses were being eliminated.
In our meeting, you stated that in April, 1986, when the
representation about retail uses was made, the tea room was
already in operation. I can verify that this is true and can
also understand your position that the applicant made an error by
not being clear that all proposed retail space was being
eliminated, not the historic retail uses in the old hotel.
Given the lack of clarity in the PUD representations, I am going
to place this item on the City Council consent agenda for
December 12. The memo to Council will state that I am prepared
to sign off on the change in shops unless Council objects.
The second request made in the letter, to convert the Grand
Parlour Suite on the first floor to offices, will require
submission of a land use application. As I explained to Andy
Hecht on the phone yesterday, this change in use requires
submission of a land use application for GMQS exemption and
conditional use amendment by P&Z. Simultaneously, you should
process a minor amendment to the PUD, within which you identify
the list of permitted retail uses in the old hotel. This list
might be as extensive as that permitted in the CC zone district
or might be more limited. It is up to you to propose the list,
to which we will react in our review memo.
If you do not submit this application, we will have to look at
future changes to the use of the retail shop in the same manner
as we have done for the current proposal. This will require that
any retail use have some accessory relationship to the hotel
itself, a relationship which does exist with the proposed antique
store, but which may not for a future proposal. I hope you will
agree that we can avoid a lot of unnecessary arguments through
this minor clarification and that you will proceed with this
application. Please be aware that the processing fee for all of
the requested changes is $680 and that four copies of the entire
application should be submitted.
Please let me know if
information on this matter.
cc: Andy Hecht
Fred Gannett
buteraltr
can provide you with additional
Sincerely,
Ln an
Planning Director
M O T t
�E
,SWEN
November 25, 1988
Alan Richmond
City Hall
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan,
The purpose of this letter is to clarify our request
regarding the Tea Room and the Grand Parlour Suite on the first
floor of the Hotel Jerome.
In -regard to the Tea Room, we have made a decision to
convert it into a shop selling Victorian antiques. Zoey
Compton, the decorator for the hotel, plans to operate it, and
sell the kinds of things that are displayed throughout the
hotel.
We know the restaurant on that corner has failed a couple
of times, so it is not feasible to continue that kind of an
operation. In fact, the impact of employees and traffic, as a
result of a victorian antique shop, will be significantly less
than what goes on there as a restaurant. We estimate that
there will never be more than two employees on duty in the
shop, and in most cases, it will be only one. We feel that it
is compatible with the historical tradition of the Jerome and
that corner. As you know, that corner has been a retail shop
of one kind or another for 99 years.
In regard to the Grand Parlour Suite, which is next to the
Tea Room and the Lobby of the hotel, we request a change in use
of that space. As you know, that space is along Mill Street,
and was historically, retail space. There have been various
retail shops in and out of there for the past 30 years, that I
know.
We thought that we could convert that into a hotel suite,
and eliminate the commercial use on Mill Street. As far as
eliminating the commercial use on Mill Street, I think
aesthetically it has been a good thing not having those doors
and traffic along that side of the hotel.
However, the Suite really does not work as a hotel room
because it's on the first floor. The guest's have found it to
3 3 0 E A S T M A I N STREET • A S P E N. C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1- 3 0 3/ 9 2 0- 1 0 0 0
be noisy, and it just doesn't seem to be something that is
attractive to a potential user. It was probably a bad concept
from the beginning, on our part.
We now would like to convert it to offices. It is
approximately 1000 square feet and contains a bathroom. It
lends itself perfectly to that use, having frontage only in the
lobby as it does now. We have no intention of having access to
Mill Street.
Another planning mistake in the hotel was that we came up
very short on office space for the operation of the hotel. We
are continually fighting this problem and always will be.
Converting this space to office space will help in that area
because we will have some hotel management operations going on
in there. In addition, we will probably have a real estate
broker in the space to help justify the economics.
In regard to impact, I don't see much difference in what
is going on there now, as opposed to a real estate office.
Generally, when the suite is rented it contains two people who
do generate a good bit of traffic because of their partying
activities in a suite like that. I anticipate that the number
of people in that space would be three or four, some of whom
are already employed in the hotel.
I would appreciate your attention to this matter at your
earliest convenience. I realize that we have changed concepts
here a couple of times, and I apologize. However, it is
Christmas and the Tea Room space can generate some much needed
revenue for the hotel, if we are permitted to open as an
antique shop as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
-� 4-
T. Richard Butera
cc: Andy Hecht
3 3 0 E A S T M A I N STREET • A S P E N. C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1• 3 0 3/ 9 2 0- 1 0 0 0
R'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director,.
RE: Hotel Jerome Violations
DATE: October 13, 1987
You have asked that I detail for you the possible violations of
the PUD agreement that are ongoing at the Hotel Jerome. Follow-
ing is a listing of the key issues we need to bring to the
attention of the owner:
1. I have received several complaints from citizens and
P&Z members as to the method by which deliveries are
made on Bleeker Street. I am told that large trucks
are unable to pull into the delivery area, but instead
are sometimes parked perpendicular to the sidewalk,
blocking traffic and pedestrians. I have not personal-
ly observed this problem. I would like to know if the
delivery area was built according to plans presented to
the Council. If not, we need to correct this problem.
If yes, then we need to find out why the area is not
being operated as represented.
2. I have been informed that the van which picks up and
delivers guests is frequently parked on Main Street,
not in the garage as was represented. Once again, I
have not personally observed the problem, but I am told
that with the van parked in this location, the turning
movement from Mill onto Main Street is made more
difficult.
I would hope that you would contact the owner and request
information on these two problems, rather than starting from the
point of view that there are violations in existence. Please
copy me in on any correspondence you have, and feel free to call
on me for assistance.
V
nw Ow CO) NAzfblllul
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Cortina Lodge Employee Housing Conversion
DATE: April 11, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
This memorandum is a follow-up on my March 4 memorandum after
the Housing Authority and Planning Office inspected the Cortina.
It should also serve as a basis for discussion at the April 12
meeting set up with you, Jim Adamski, Bill Guess, Doug Carlson
and myself.
On April 6 Jim Adamski, Doug Carlson and I inspected the Cortina
Lodge with respect to the representations made by the applicant
as part of the Cortina Change in Use GMP exemption and the Hotel
Jerome PUD Agreement. We were primarily concerned with the
number of beds needed for the Hotel Jerome employee housing
obligation and compliance with the "List of Improvements,
Schedule All approved by City Council on December 9, 1985. The
Cortina is not in compliance with Council's approval in the
following areas:
1. Bed Count: Units 14 and 15 were shown to have three ( 3 )
beds each and now contain only two (2) beds. Units 11 and 16
were shown to have two (2) beds each and now contain only
one (1) bed.
2. Kitchens and Kitchenettes: Units 14 and 15 were shown to
have kitchenettes installed; and this has not been
accomplished.
Unit 13 was shown to be converted into a "kitchen/lounge"
for use of tenants in Units 11, 12, and 16. The unit is
presently used as a residential unit for two employees.
We observed that many units had hot plates and other
cooking appliances with large cords across the floor. The
Building Department or Fire Marshal should do another safety
inspection. The Cortina management should consider having
rules on tenancy that prohibit cooking appliances in rooms
after the kitchen and kitchenettes have been installed.
3. Basement Storage: "List of Improvements, Schedule All item
6 states: "Upgrade storage area beneath lodge to include
storage bins, coin -op laundry, and ski repair table." These
1
improvements have not been accomplished. The basement must
be cleaned up, storage bins installed, and operable coin -op
laundry installed.
4. Exterior Improvements: Schedule A item 8 states "Patch
asphalt in parking area as necessary." All the cracks and
holes in the asphalt surface in the parking area and in
front of the Cortina must be patched so to bring this "open
area" in compliance.
Schedule A item 2 states "Repaint exterior as needed,
including all balconies and ceilings over sidewalks." Item 3
states "touch up stucco on outside walls as necessary. All
fascia, sofits, railings, and ceilings of the balconies
should be repainted and restained. The siding should be
repaired and restained where needed.
A time schedule for bringing the physical conditions of the
Cortina into compliance should be worked out at our April 12
meeting. Conceptually we discussed a two week period for some
improvements and a longer period for others. Please note that
Paragraph 8 of the Amended and Restated Hotel Jerome PUD
Agreement addresses the Cortina as a component of the Hotel
Jerome expansion project. The non -compliances cited above should
be viewed with respect to the provisions in Paragraph 15 of the
PUD Agreement, possibly leading to a City Council hearing and
closing down the Hotel Jerome. We should also discuss whether the
City should sign the Cortina Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions prior to completion of the upgrades.
Attached is Ann Bowman's February 27, 1986 memorandum on Cortina
deed restrictions. Please review in particular her comments about
verification of employment and income in the third paragraph. We
recommend that this or similar language be included in the
Declaration so to establish a procedure for verification. The
responsibilities of both the Hotel Jerome Partnership Ltd. and
the Housing Authority should be clarified.
A condition for approval of the special review for the Cortina's
parking plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November
19, 1985 was: "Sever (7) additional off-street parking spaces
shall be provided within the present Sixty (60) parking space
commitment for the Hotel Jerome available for use of the Hotel
Jerome employees living in the Cortina." A plan for compliance
with this provision should also be presented at this time.
Other comments in my March 4, 1988 memorandum should be
considered in review of the Declaration statement.
cc: Alan Richman
Jim Adamski
sb.cortina2
CITY OF 'ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 25, 1987
TO: City Manager
Planning Director
Building Inspector
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Hotel Jerome - Employee Housing
Dk D W E� !I F. �,,
SEP 2 8 198i
Attached for your information is a letter from Andy Hecht
regarding the above.
PJT/mc
Attachment
10
GARFI1E1LD & ][-�E� HT.9 P.C.
RONALD GARFIELD*
TELEPHONE
ANDREW V. HECHT**
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(303) 925-1936
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.***
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
TELECOPIER
ROBERT E. KENDIG
(303) 925-3008
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
CABLE ADDRESS
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
"GARHEC"
*also admitted to
New York Bar
—also admitted to
District of Columbia Bar
September 23, 1987
***also admitted to
Nebraska and Texas Bar
Paul Taddune
600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 301
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Hotel Jerome - Employee Housing
Dear Paul:
As the Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership ("Partnership") has
acknowledged, it is required to provide you with an employee
housing deed restriction for a portion of the Cortina Lodge.
However, the Partnership has been delayed in receiving a release
or subordination from the previous owner ("Louis Wille") who
holds a promissory note and deed of trust on the Property. We
have now resolved that the Partnership will not seek a
subordination of that deed of trust, but instead will pay off the
loan secured by that deed of trust and then record the
appropriate deed restrictions op the Cortina Lodge in a first
priority. The Partnership requests that you forbear in taking
any action against the Hotel Jerome until the Partnership
receives a payoff number from Louis Wille on the promissory note.
Louis Wille is out of town until October 6 at which time we will
proceed immediately and obtain the proper release and record the
Deed restriction*
As is permitted under the PUD Agreement, the Partnership
will probably then seek to substitute for the Cortina Lodge,
alternative employee housing with City approval.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this
matter.
AVH/dd
cc: Rene Vincent
Sincerely,
Andrew V. Hecht
ASPEN46PITKIN I _ __GIONAL GUILDIN- DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
FROM: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official
RE: Hotel Jerome
DATE: August 10, 1987
Wake up Paul! You have apparently been misinformed about
the flotel Jerome Certificate of Occupancy. Contrary to your
accusation, the fact is the Building Department is still awaiting
deed restriction approval from you and the Housing Office, as
reported in my July 15, 1987 memo.
JJW:lo
cc: City Manager
Planning Director
offices:
S 17 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 816*11
303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
C1TY;1;.0FA.11SPEN
130 -south g'alen�a 9t-reet
aspen, colorad'o,"81611
303-925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 5, 1987
TO: Building Department
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Jerome Hotel
It has been brought to the attention of this office that a
certificate of occupancy was issued on the Jerome even though the
employee housing deed restrictions had not been recorded. I
request that an explanation with respect to this very serious
oversight be provided to my office immediately.
PJT/mc
cc: City Manager
Planning Office
c�✓
TADDUNE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL J. TADDUNE
FREDERICK W. GANNETT
ERIN F. HAZEN
OF COUNSEL_
August 5, 1987
Andrew V. Hecht, Esq.
Garfield & Hecht
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Jerome Hotel
Dear Andy:
ASPEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING OFFICES:
600 EAST HOPKINS
P.O. Box 9978
ASPEN, CO 81612
(303) 925-9190
CITY HALL OFFICES:
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN. CO 81611
(303) 925-2020
In follow up to our conversation last week, I am awaiting your
solution to the failure on the part of the Jerome project to
record the employee housing covenants as set forth in the PUD
agreement.
I consider this failure to be more than an inadvertent oversight,
and I will recommend to the City Council that the project
approval be reconsidered or appropriate legal action commenced
unless the matter is resolved immediately.
Very truly yours,
Paul J. Taddune
City Attorney
PJT/mc
cc: City Manager
Steve Burstein
Alan Richman
CITY, OVA,,.SPEN
130 south galena s`t�reet
aspen, colorado '81611
303-05'=Y2b20
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 5, 1987
TO: Building Department
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Jerome Hotel
It has been brought to the attention of this office that a
certificate of occupancy was issued on the Jerome even though the
employee housing deed restrictions had not been recorded. I
request that an explanation with respect to this very serious
oversight be provided to my office immediately.
PJT/mc
cc: City Manager
Planning Office
ASPEN4PITKIN R&IONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director
FROM: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official
RE: Height of the Jerome Addition
DATE: January 22, 1987
On January 14, 1987, I met with Dave Rheams, Project
Superintendent for Shaw Construction, the general contractor for
the Hotel Jerome addition. Our meeting was in response to your
request to verify that the height of construction in place
conforms to the approved PUD plan. Although our method was less
than scientific, the building height does not exceed either PUD
approvals or building permit approvals.
At the approximate locations indicated with an "X" on the
attached site plan, we dropped a steel tape from the top of the
parapet to the 101 ft. reference elevation, previously
established with a transit and marked on the wall. The south
wall measured 31'-10-3/4" from the mark, the north wall 31'-10-
3/8". The parapet cap was not yet in place, but is expected to
add approximately 2" to the height. The elevations at these
locations coincide with those on the approved plans, 132'-10-
3/4".
The reference elevation of existing grade at the corner of
Monarch St. and Bleeker St. is 92'-0"; at the building, 93"-0".
Using the above measurements and elevations, the height of the
building at the northwest corner calculates to be 39'-10-3/4".
Shaw Construction will revise the detail for the 2" parapet cap
to keep within the 40' height limit.
cc: Shaw Construction
JJW:lo
offices :
517 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611 3O3/525-5573
mail address:
50S East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
;�ouJo !Ty Mn�
III � {� :{ti �.;J: •:::;{:� .�:{: •:ti
.:%:... .:....}.....:
•/�._fi:C•: �}:tiff:;:{tititi�%�'•�•��tir�
.III 'ff � tilt{ �� 'lf ff h' ti••. 't
I :•::•h':::;::: '•;•};'}.'}:tit:.t'}:{•:{
1
0
d
C� -TSB oo. Lli 4c,
I
I
BLOCK--
79
O
CO�.)C2 -Tr
N1��4L
R---i H/a��
4i.rGJ
I
T Rom•
IC
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Wilson
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Hotel Jerome Building Plans
DATE: August 25, 1986
Having reviewed the Plan set for the Hotel Jerome Addition which
you referred to me, I have the following comments:
1. The status of the project is that it was approved by Council
subject to all of the conditions in the PUD agreement. You
should refer to this document for all matters of interpretation
not specifically addressed in this memo.
2. The applicant has given you a copy of the site plan in this
drawing set. The site plan designates the heights at
various points on the building and should be followed
explicitly. The site plan also lists variances granted for
FAR (2.3:1 on the entire site) open space (18.3% required in
garden area plus at rear on Bleeker toward Mill; other open
area is along Mill between the buildings but is more than 4'
above grade) and trash area accepted as shown on the plan.
3. I count 68 rooms (1st floor = 16; 2nd = 17; 3rd = 26; and
4th = 9) and only 67 are allowed. Either I counted wrong or
a reduction must take place.
4. Please make sure to coordinate the construction timing with
the installation of water and sewer and the regrade next
spring of Bleeker with the Project Engineer, Elyse Elliott.
5. The applicant has yet to obtain necessary encroachment
licenses from Engineering. We do not feel that a building
permit should be granted until these licenses are in place,
although excavation can proceed.
6. Most of the conditions of approval are already part of the
plan as shown on these drawings. I would like to keep
coordinating with you as to the ongoing construction of this
project to make sure it turns out as planned. Please refer
to two conditions on page 11 of the agreement (7a and 7c) to
insure that these are resolved before the construction is
initiated.
Please note that my review of this project constitutes no more
that a check of the plans to confirm that what was represented
in the process is what is proposed for construction. This review
should not substitute for a complete zoning check by the Zoning
Office. I will be happy to coordinate that review with either
Bill or Peggy as appropriate.
cc: Peggy Seeger
Bill Drueding
Elyse Elliott
SHAW
Construction
August 12, 1986
.lay W. Hammond Jim Willson
City Engineer Chief Building Official
City of Aspen City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street 130 South Ga!ena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81G11 Aspen, Colorado 8161 i
Re: Hotel Jerome Addition Parking Garage
Oi11- Job No. 1130
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the construction schedule and a redlined site plan dealing
with all pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns around the Hotel Jerome
construction site.
As you will note, schedule reflects parking structure only. Schedule for main
building will follow as permit process develops in the near future.
Items addressed on site are as follows:
A. Barricading and pedestrian protection-
B. Maintenance of adequate public vehicular access and circulation in
construction areas.
C. Excavation access and large truck traffic circulation and staging areas.
D. Construction equipment access and storage.
E. Load zones and dumpster areas for Hotel Jerome, Carl's Pharmacy and
Aspen Times.
F. Offsite parking on Bleeker.
During construction, it will be necessary to unload materials at construction
access. Should unloading take place during periods of heavy traffic, Shaw
Construction will provide a flagman to control access and insure public protection.
As construction phases begin or end, it may be necessary to temporarily close a
lane of traffic at Mill, Bleeker or Monarch Street. I will attempt to give the City
as much notice as possible on these times and keep the closure to a minimum
amount of time.
Some of these tasks would be:
A. Removal and replacement of sidewalks and curbs.
Horizon Park Plaza
743 Horizon Court, Suite 109
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
303/242 9236
SHAW
Construction
Letter to Jay W.
Jim Willson
August 12, 1986
Page Two
Hammond and
B. Sewer line service.
C. Water line service.
D. Fire hydrant installation.
E. Water main installation.
F. Temporary crane set for steel installation or mechanical unit installation.
G. Etc.
If you have any other questions at this time, please feel free to contact me
at my site office.
Aspen Office
Grand Junction Office
Denver Office
Sincerely yours,
Shaw Construction Company
C
David C. Reams
o�lw, '7' P — 71r.''0 61-�
J Hammond
City Engineer
City of Aspen
925-2963
242-9236
825-4740
-+ p— EY- ,T` - k Az—% Tg2p-k- Q-�
AT i'dk�C N.o zri-� W,eST C-c*-► LS-F— 01= R.vc� o� o� Yb-i-tS PN�•5�.� A.
,O, r,,A 0 -Tv A
�v 6c-1 c,
S i�1g�
Jim
Chief uilding Official
City of Aspen
cc: Steve Meyer, Shaw Construction
John Hurley, Marketing Corporation of America
Warren Burke, Shaw Construction
Horizon Park Plaza
743 Horizon Court, Suite 109
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
303/242 9236
SHAW
Construction
August 13, 198G
Parking Structure Construction Schedule
This schedule reflects garage construction only, it will not include any time
delays due to weather or material delivery problems.
Permit and Contract
Demolition
Excavation
Site Utilities (Bldg. only)
Footings and Pads
Elevator Jack Holes
Concrete Stem Walls
Steel Erection
First Floor Concrete
Horizon Park Plaza
743 Horizon Court, Suite 109
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
303/242 9236
August 18
August 18
to August 22
August 22
to September 5
August 27
to September 12
September
1 to September 12
August 25
to September 15
September
8 to October 17
October 20
to November 7
November
7 to November 21
1Vest port 13(111 k \ 'I i St C OI11pc'111Y
MEMBER f OIC
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 7 5 t W E S T P O R T. C O N N E C T I C U T 0 6 8 8 1
T E L 42 0 31 2 2 7- 1 2 0 1
ELEANOR E BANYARD
T
August 14, 1986
City Manager
City of Aspen Colorado
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that we are in the process of issuing our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor, in the amount of
$68,736.00, for our customer Marketing Corporation of America.
( (NICA) .
If of course, you should have any question, please call me at
(203) 227-1201 Ext. 222.
Sincerely,
leannor�E. Bany �d�
ice rest ent Secretary
EEB:nmr
C. John Muskus, Secretary
Marketing Corporation of America
FEDERAL EXPRESS
CIT
130
aspei
ME NDRANDU M
DATE: July 25, 1986
TO: City Manager
Planning Director
City Engineer
Building Department
Housing Office
Water Department
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Amended Hotel Jerome PUD Agreement
PEN
reet
1611
Annexed for your review prior to the City Crounc i l' s final con-
sideration and approval on July 28, 1986, is a copy of the Amended
Hotel Jerome PUD Agreement. I request that you provide me with
your comments as quickly as possible and perform the following
reviews:
1. I request that the Planning Office and Engineering Department
verify the legal description which appears in the first "whereas"
cl ause . I note some inconsistency with regard to one of the calls
along Main Street.
2. I request that the Planning Office verify that the applica-
tion upon which the agreement was based is dated November 29,
1985.
3. The Building Department should provide the building permit
application and building permit number which appears in the second
"whereas" clause on Page 2; and verify that the renovation was
completed and a certificate of occupancy issued for Phase I on or
about December 26, 1985.
4. With regard to Paragraph 2, I request that the Engineering
Department verify and approve Exhibit "A" which should be final-
ized and appended to the agreement and incorporated by reference.
5. With regard to Paragraph 3, I request that the Water Depart-
ment and City Engineer verify the improvements specified.
Memorandum Re : Hotel Jerome
July 2 5, 1 986
P a g e Two
6. With regard to Paragraph 4, "Landscape Improvements", I
request that the City Engineer verify the purpose of landscaping
and the estimated cost of landscaping.
7. Please note the language of Section 20-16 (1) that the agree-
ment must be recorded along with the final amended plat.
8. I request that the Housing Office approve as to form the
languaqe in Paragraph 8 with regard to employee housing, as well
as the Cortina Lodge deed restrictions, which will be finalized
separately after thev are submitted by Garfield & Hecht.
As always, please feel free to call or stop by the office if you
have any questions concerning this matter.
PJT/mc
Attachment
6D
AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
HOTEL JERO ME - RENOVATION AND ADDITION
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered
into
this
day of
, 1986, by
and
between
THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home rule city (here-
inafter referred to as "City") , and HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNER-
SHIP and MARKETING CORPORATION OF AM ERICA (hereinafter collec-
tively referred to as "Owner") ,
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Owner owns that real property and the building situ-
ated thereon, commonly known as the "Hotel Jerome" , more particu-
larly described as follows:
Lo is 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 Zhwnsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
WHEREAS, Owner's predecessor in title, John F. Gilmore sub-
mitted to the City for approval, execution and recording a final
Planned Unit Development (PUD) 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 -
Renovation and Addition" , dated April 20, 1 983 , recorded in Poo k
444, 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
incorporated by reference herein, Owner submitted to the City an
application to revise the Initial Project into two phases as fol-
1 ows :
- Phase I: Renovation of the existing building, commonly
known as the Hotel Jerome, pursuant to Building Permit Application
and Building Permit No. which renovation was com-
pleted and a certificate of occupancy issued therefor on or about
December 26, 1 985;
- Phase II: An addition to the currently existing and reno-
vated Hotel Jerome, as defined and described on the amended plat,
specifically described as Amended and Restated PUD Plat (herein-
after "Amended Plat") , a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A" .
Collectively, Phase I and Phase II may be referred to herein
as "the Project"; and
WHEREAS, City and Owner desire to amend the agreement per-
taining 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 amend and
supersede the agreement dated April 20, 1983 (hereinafter this
agreement will be referred to as "Amended Agreement"); and
2
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execu-
tion and recordation, the amended plat for the Project, and City
is willing to approve, execute and accept for recordation the
amended PUD plat on the agreement of Owner to the matters herein-
after described, subject to all of the requirements, terms and
conditions of Article VIII of the Municipal Code as presently
constituted and such other laws, rules and regulations as are or
may be applicable; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of Owner and Ci t v that the am end ed
plat shall amend, supercede and replace the plat recorded April
20, 1983 ; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requiremebs in
connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the
amended plat and such matters are necessary to protect, promote
and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, under 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
Owner' s successors and assigns; and
WHEREAS, Owner is willing to enter into such agreement(s)
with and to provide such assurances to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual
covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution, and
acceptance of the amended plat for recordation by the City, it is
agreed as follows:
3
1. Amended_Agreement_ and _Phasing. City and Owner agree
that this amended agreement shall amend and supercede that Planned
Unit Agreement Intel Jerome - Renovation and Addition, dated April
20, 1983, recorded in Book 444, at Page 750, office of the Pitkin
County Cl er k and Recorder, and that the am end ed plat shall super -
cede and replace the plat dated May 10, 1983, and recorded in Book
14 at Page 88, office of the Pitkin County. Clerk and Recorder.
2. Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutter. City acknowledges that
Owner has constructed a new sidewalk along the Main Street fron-
tag e and has or will repair the existing sidewalks on Mill Street,
and shall maintain the sidewalks along Main Street and Mill Street
in accordance with the sidewalk and improvements site plan, dated
as of this Agreement, and annexed hereto and incorporated herein
as Page 3 of Exhibit "A" to this agreement and the amended plat.
Prior to and as a condition of the issuance of a certi-
ficate of occupancy for Phase II, or within a reasonable time
thereafter as agreed to in writing by the City Engineer, Owner
shall construct new sidewalks along the Proj ect' s road frontages
on Monarch and Bleeker Streets (6-foot minimum widths) together
with curb and gutter, in accordance with the landscape plan
annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Page 3 of Exhibit "A" to
this agreement and the amended plat, as reasonably determined by
the City Engineer. Owner shall repair or replace any existing (or
newly installed) sidewalks, curb or gutter which may be damaged
during construction. She current estimated cost of such sidewalk,
4
curb and gutter and improvements is contained in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Additional -Improvements. Prior to and as a condition of
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase II, Owner
shall provide and install such waterlines and fire hydrants, sani-
tary sewer lines, storm drainage improvements and storm sewers,
and such other improvements, as are depic+-ed on the plat and as
may be reasonably required pursuant to Section 20-16(a) of the
Municipal Code, the schedule and estimated cost which is set forth
in Exhibit "B" hereto. The current estimated cost of such
improvements does not include sewer and water taps and related
fees, which will be calculated and paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit for Phase II, according to the then -standard prac-
tices and charges of the sewer district and water department.
Owner and City agree as follows with regard to the
installation of such additional improvements:
(a) Owner, at Owner's expense, shall install anew
8- inch waterline from the 12- inch water main in Monarch Street
east on Bl eeker Street to the point where the hotel service
begins, a distance of 240 feet. The waterline shall be looped
into the Mill Street main, and Owner agrees to pay for the excava-
tion, pipe, connections and patching necessary to complete this
loop.
( b) City and Owner agree that Bl eeker Street between
Monarch
and Mill
Streets has
a steep
grade
and
that this problem
situated
will be
exacerbated
by the
shading
of
Bleeker Street,
5
resulting from the construction of Phase II and use of Bleeker
Street for the garage entrance and delivery site for the Project.
The City and Owner agree to regrade this block of Bleeker Street
prior to construction of Phase II (or at such other time as the
parties may mutually agree in writing) in order to mitigate traf-
fic problems associated with the steepness of the grede and shad-
ing caused by the Project, in accordance with.s regrading plan to
be reasonably approved by the City Engineer. Such regrading shall
be accomplished in accordance with applicable requirements of the
Aspen Municipal Code and established City procedures and state law
regarding the construction and installation of public improve-
ments. City shall pay one-half the cost of necessary surveys,
street plans, regrading, repaving and replacement of improvements
to neighbors on the north side of Bleeker, pr ov id ed the following
conditions are met:
(1 ) The total cost shall be determined and calcu-
lated prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase II.
(2 ) If the total cost is in excess of $35, 000. 00,
the additional expenditure on the part of the City shall be
approved by the City Cbuncil . The City' s contribution to the cost
of improv Ements will be made on or before May 15, 1987.
4. L andsca_ping_Improvements. In accordance with Section
24-8.16 of the Municipal Code, all required landscaping for the
project shall substantially conform to the landscape plan, annexed
hereto as Page 3 of Exhibit "A" and the anended plat, which plan
shows the extent and location of all plant materials and other
0
landscape features, flower and shrub bed definition, proposed plat
material at mature sizes in appropriate relation 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-
pl eted 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.
The current estimated cost of the landscaping imprme-
ments for Phase II in the public rights-o f-wav, as determined by
the City Engineer, is Twenty-two Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-six
Dollars ($22,736.00) .
If Owner has not been issued a building permit for Phase
II on or before May 1, 1987, Owner shall submit a detailed interim
1 and scaping pl an for approv al by the City Cb unc it , upon the recom-
mendation of the Planning Director and City Engineer, to be com-
pl eted by July 1, 1987. Owner agrees to spend at least Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for the purpose of landscaping the
site according to the interim plan to be in effect until the com-
mencement of construction of Phase II.
It is the mutual understanding of the parties that a
certificate of occupancy may in fact issue for the project even
though the landscape improvements have not yet been completed, so
long as the portion of the financial guarantee provided for in
7
Section 6 hereof which covers the estimated cost of such unfin-
ished 1 ar-d scaping remains available to City pursuant to the terms
of said Paragraph 6.
5. Construction_ Schedule and -Program. Owner and City mutu-
ally acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be sub-
mitted or agreed to at this time. It is anticipated that con-
struction will begin in the summer of 1986, for completion for the
summer of 1987. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
Phase II and as a condition precedent to the issuance thereof,
Owner agrees to prov id e City Engineering Department with a
detailed construction schedule, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Chief Building Official in the exercise of their rea-
sonable discretion, which construction schedule shall particularly
address how construction phasing will best accommodate under the
following circumstances:
( a) Barr icad ing and provision of pedestrian protection,
( b) Maintenance of adequate public vehicular access and
circulation in the development area,
( c) Excavation access and large truck traffic
circulation and staging areas,
(d) Construction equipment access and storage.
Owner agrees that all construction material shall be
stored on site and that all workers will be instructed to park in
the Rio Grande parking lot to lessen the impact on the neighbor-
hood.
`Ihe construction schedule shall be verified by the sig-
natures 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 Director,
verified by the signatures of the City Engineer and Chief Building
Official, and, at the option of City, recorded as supplementary
exhib -ts hereto.
6. F inancial Assurances. In order to secure the perfor-
mance of the construction and installation of the landscaping
improvements and site improvements described in Paragraphs 2, 3
and 4 above, and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of non -
landscaping improvements and 125% of the landscaping improvements,
which estimated costs approved by the City Engineer are
(non- landscaping improvements) and
( land sc aping
improvements) . Owner shall guarantee by cash escrow with the
City, or a bank or savings and loan association; or an irrevocable
site draft or letter of co; mitment from a financially responsible
lendor 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 guarantee shall be
delivered to the City prior to the issuance to Owner of a building
permit for Phase II, and shall be in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney and City Manager, and shall give the City the uncondi-
tional right, upon clear and unequivocable default by the Owner,
to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or
fully complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any
excess guarantee amount to be applied first to additional adminis-
trative or legal costs associated with any such default and the
repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed
before the unused remainder (if any) of such guarantee is released
to Owner. As portions of the improvements are completed, the City
Engi,-ieer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he
shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that
portion of the improvements, except that ten (1 0) percent of the
estimated cost shall be withheld until the proposed improvements
are completed and approved by the City Engineer. Owner shall
guarantee by a maintenance bond or other suitable means, the
repair of any existing improvements damaged during the construc-
tion of new improvements as reasonably determined by the City
Erg ineer . Owner shall in no way be relieved of any obligations to
make the improvements, nor is the City obligated to assure the
responsibility for any improvements, by reason of the acceptance
or approval of any guarantees.
Furthermore, Owner hereby agrees to and does hereby war-
ranty all such improvements to accepted standards of good wor knan-
ship for a period of one (1 ) year from and after acceptance there-
of in writing by City. In addition to this warranty, Owner shall
obtain from its contractors customary warranties of good worknan-
ship with the City as beneficiary, with respect to all improve-
ments required by Sections "2 ", "3 " and "4 " hereinabove.
10
7. Miscellaneous Issues. Owner agrees to the following
items as a condition of this agreement and the approvals contained
herein:
a) Owner shall remove overhead wires in the middle of
the garden prior to cons___ __ ` __ n = F Phase II for safety reasons.
b) Owner, at Owner's sole cost and expense, shall
repair the underground electric line servicirm the street lights
on Mill Street which was severed during construction of Phase I.
Such repairs shall meet applicable City specifications.
c) A transformer and emergency generator are located
on the western edge of the garden. Owner is exploring moving
these to a new location on the site. Should this prove to be
impractical, Owner shall work with neighbors to lessen sound
transmissions from the generator.
d)' Owner shall provide guest transportation and air-
port pickup and delivery. Any vehicle owned, possessed or oper-
ated for such purposes by Owner, shall be stored in the under-
ground garage.
e) Owner has received conditional use approval from
the Planning and Zoning Commission for the expansion of the hotel
in the CC zone district, special review approval to vary the trash
and utility access area, and special review approval to utilize
the garden area for forty-four (44) outdoor dining seats associ-
ated with the restaurants in the Project. Such outdoor dining
seats shall not diminish allowable indoor seating.
11
8. E ij�ployee_H ousing. As a further inducement to the City
to approve the Project in two phases as set forth in this mended
agreement, Owner has agreed to and does hereby confirm and acknow-
ledge its obligation to provide housing for employees of the pro-
ject, as required by the Municipal 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 Fmoms No . "1 ",
112" , 113" and "4" in the hotel annex, as such rooms are designated
on the amended plat, shall be and hereby are restricted exclu-
sively to use as employee housing under and in accordance with
such City of Aspen employee housing use, occupancy, rental and
sales price guidelines as may be in effect and applicable from
time to time, sufficient to house four (4) employees of the Pro-
ject 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 qualifications shall be
accomplished by the City, or its designee, prior to and as a con-
dition of occupancy of any of the above identified rooms. Said
rooms shall not be utilized by any person whose use and occupancy
thereof is not verified as set forth above. 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 Owners, successors and assigns and upon all other per-
sons or entities having any right, title or interest in or to the
Project (or bedrooms) or any part thereof, and shall in ur e to the
benefit of and be specifically enforceable by the City of Aspen or
12
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 of this amended
agreenent in the Pitkin (aunty 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 successor or
assigns in the City of Aspen, Colorado, and duly recorded in the
Pitkin Gounty Clerk and Recorder's office. Further, Owner repre-
sents and warrants that any and all persons, firms or entities
having any lien, encumbrance or interest in the Project have con-
sented to the employee housing dedication and restrictions herein,
and that this amended agreement shall not be recorded in the
office of the Pitkin County Cl er k and Recorder, nor shall the
approvals granted herein take effect, without the written consent
(or ) of any such per son .
With regard to the requirement for employee housing in
connection with Phase II, and as a condition to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy with respect to Phase II, the City
acknowledges that such employee housing requirements may be satis-
fied by deed restricting seven (7) bedrooms, specifically Units
No. 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Cortina Lodge, Aspen,
Colorado. Such units shall be available for fifteen (15)
employees of the Project, and the rent therefor shall be deed
restricted to the low income rental guidelines in effect at the
time of deed restriction, and may be adjusted annually according
13
to the annually adopted City guidelines. Rents shall include all
commonly metered or assessed utilities, management cost and taxes.
Employees employed directly by Owner shall be given first priority
to occupy the units. No rooms shall be rented for a period of
less than thirty (3 0) days without the permission of the City
Council or its housing designee. If vacancies occur, Owner shall
be permitted to rent to other Employees and music .stuu`nts in
accordance with the low income price and income guidelines adopted
by the City. The City Council or its housing designee shall have
the right to review rents and confirm employee status prior to and
as a condition of employee's occupancy for compliance with adopted
City guidelines. The employee housing to be provided with respect
to Phase II shall comply with the housing si ze , type, income and
occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and the provisions of
Section 24-11. 10 of the Municipal Code. The employee housing com-
mitment, with regard to Phase II, shall be performed in the fol-
lowing manner:
Contemporaneously with the execution of this agreement,
Owner has signed, acknowledged and delivered into escrow with the
Aspen City Cl er k a "Dedication of Real Property to Employee Hous-
ing Restriction and Guideines" covering the Cortina Lodge, which
dedication is to be held by the City Clerk subject to the follow-
ing instructions: At the same time that the City issues and
delivers to Owner a valid and effective certificate of occupancy
with regard to Phase II of the Project, the City Clerk shall and
is hereby authorized, empowered and instructed to record in the
14
office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, the dedication
covering the aforesaid seven (7) bedrooms in the Cortina Lodge .
Owner agrees to confirm to City the status of title to the
Cortina Lodge property as follows:
At the time that Owner applies for a certificate of
occupancy for Phase II of the Project, Owner shall deliver to the
City Attorney a current Owner' s and Encumbrances Report issued by
a local title insurance company covering the property, together
with either a release or a subordination of any monetary liens
disclosed by such reports as those liens may affect the subject
ded ications. Additionally, Owner covenants that from and after
the date hereof any entities lending funds secured by such
employee housing property shall be given actual notice of the
dedication requirements contained in this agreement.
Owner shall have the right to substitute the required off -
site employee housing for an aggregate of fifteen (15) employees,
provided (i) the location, size and configuration of such substi-
tute housing is acceptable to the City of Aspen, as reflected by
resolution of the City Council, ( ii) the minimum number of accep-
table employee housing units required to house fifteen (15 )
employees remains available at all times, and (iii) deed restric-
tions, of sane legal effect as those described above with respect
to the Obrtina Lodge, are imposed upon the substitute units prior
to release of the Cortina Lodge units and occupancy of the substi
tuted units. Contemporaneously with the filing of deed restric-
tions in accordance with the above conditions, the City shall
15
release the deed restrictions upon the off -site units which have
been replaced. Further, should 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
pooms No . 1, 2, 3 and 4 ) shall be red uced and deed restr ictions
released by the exact mount of housing as may be acceptable to
as reflected by resolution of the City Council.
Further, should Owner at the time of application for
certificate of occupancy for Phase II of the Project, not have
provided sufficient units to house fifteen (15) emplovees as here-
inabov e described, Owner shall, prior to the issuance of the cer-
tificate of occupancy for Phase II, and as a condition 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 requirements, which deed restrictions
shall be the sane in legal effect as Owner's off -site housing
requirements would have been required to meet under the terms
hereof, such restricted bedrooms shall thereafter be released from
said covenants when Owner does provide the required number of
off -site employee bedrooms in the manner above required.
Further, Owner warrants that, at the time of the issu-
ance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase II, all per sons , or
entities having any lien, encumbrance or interest in any of the
employee housing, deed restricted, properties will have consented
( or subordinated) to such deed restrictions; and that no occupancy
of Phase II will be permitted without the written consent (or
16
subordination) of any such person, unless otherwise agreed to in
writing by City.
The deed restriction and covenants restriction and
release form shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney
prior to recordation.
9. P arking. As a condition to the approvals granted herein
and herewith, Owner shall provide parking in connection with the
Project in the manner hereinafter described:
- Phase I. In the event a building permit has not been
granted for Phase II by October 1, 1986, Owner shall provide no
less than twenty-seven (27) orr-site parking spaces, said spaces to
be ready for use by Pbvember 1 , 1986, and to remain in use until
the beginning of construction of Phase II.
- Phase II. As a condition of the approvals granted
herein, Owner agrees to provide fifty-one (51) parking spaces
on -site, enclosed in a parking garage according to representations
made during the approval process and noted on the amended plat.
These fifty-one (51 ) parking spaces shall include, and shall not
be in addition to, the twenty-seven (27) spaces to be prov id ed by
Owner in connection with Phase I.
10. E ncroachments. Owner shall obtain such licenses as may
be necessary with respect to encroachments in City rights -of -way.
Application for such encroachments shall be pursued by Owner inde-
pendently of the approvals contained herein.
11. Periodic Reviews. Owner agrees that every six months
following the date of this agreement until construction is com-
17
plete, Owner will meet with the City Planning Director for the
purpose of informing the Planning Director as to Owner's progress
in developing the project pursuant to the terms and provisions of
this agreement and the approvals encompassed hereby. The Planning
Director shall report to the City Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council on the outcome of these meetings. Owner and
City recognize that these meetings are not opportunities for Owner
to avoid complying with the requirements of this amended agree-
ment, but are for the purpose of prov id ing progress reports and
developing mutually acceptable solutions to any problems which may
be encountered during the construction.
12. I ncorporation_of Representations and Written Submittals.
Owner hereby ratifies and confirms each and every representation
made and set forth by Owner in its application dated November 29,
1 985, and 'all written submittals and representations made in con-
nection therewith to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council, which application and representation shall be deemed to
be a part of this agreement and to be incorporated herein by this
reference.
13. Perm -anent Careand Maintenance of Landscaping. Owner
agrees that it shall be the perpetual responsibility of the Owner
or Owners from time to time of the Project to design, maintain,
care for, and replace when necessary, trees, shrubs, plants, and
other landscaping features which may be planted or otherwise
incorporated in the Project pursuant to the landscape plan annexed
hereto.
IU
14. Use and Maintenance _of Open_Space. Owner shall occupy
those portions of the amended plat designated as "open space" con-
sistent with such uses and occupancy as permitted by applicable
provisions in the Aspen Municipal Code pertaining to open space,
existing and as in effect as of the date of the execution of this
agr eement .
Further, Owner agrees to maintain in a clean and attrac-
tive condition and good state of repair all such open space con-
tained within the Project.
15. Non-C om2 iance_ and R eguest_ for_Amendments or Extensions
by Owner. In the event that the City Council determines that the
Owner is not acting in substantial co7npl iance with the terms of
this agreement , the City Council may issue and serve upon Owner a
written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring
the Owner to cease and desist from such non-compliance and rectify
the same within such reasonable time a5 the City Council may
determine. 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
requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the following
matters:
ex i st ; or
( a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did
( b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment
to this agreement should be granted with respect to any such nor -
compliance which is determined to exist.
19
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 established by the City Council for other_ hearings. If
the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence
that a non- compl fiance_ exists which has not been remedies, it may
issued such orders as may be appropriate; provided, however, no
order terminating any approval granted herein shall be issued
without a finding of the City Council that substantial evidence
warrants such action in affording the Owner a reasonable time to
remedy such non-compliance. A final determination of non-compli-
ance which has not been remedied or for which no variance has been
granted may, at the option of the City Co unc it , and upon written
notice to the Owner, terminate any of the approv al s contained
herein which are reasoanbly related to the requirements with which
Owner has failed to comply. Alternatively, the City Council may
grant such variances, extensions of time or amendments to this
agreement as it may deed appropriate under the circumstances. In
addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its successors or assigns
may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for a vari-
ance, an amendment to this amended agreement or an extension of
one or more of the time periods required for performance under the
construction schedules or otherwise. The City Council may grant
such variances, amendments to this agreement, or extensions of
time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The par-
20
ties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall
not unreasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance
indicated in the construction schedules if Owner demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s)
which necessitate said extension(s) are beyond the control of the
Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a
timely manner. With respect to the construction schedule, the
Owner has made various assumptions, including the following:
(1 ) Negotiation, arrangement and completion of the pre-
existing activity by Owner, including construction borrowing, bid-
ding, contractor selection and contractor mobilization prior to
the projected starting date of no later than May 1, 1987;
(2 ) Ratification of the estimated construction and
development schedule by the selected lender and contractor;
(3 ) Prompt availability of the required labor forces
and construction materials at all necessary phases throughout the
construction;
(4) 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 Owner.
16. Notice. Notice is to be given to the parties to this
agreement shall be deemed given if personally delivered or
deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by registered
or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or at such
other addresses as may be substituted by written notice by the
parties or their successors or assigns:
21
City of Aspen:
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Copies to:
Levitt, Rockwood & Sanders
Attorneys at Law
33 Riverside Avenue
Westport, Connecticut 06880
Owner :
Hotel Jerome Limited Partner-
ship
c/o Marketing Corp. of America
285 Riverside Avenue
Westport, Connecticut 06880
17. B inding_C lause. The provisions hereof shall run with
and constitute a burden upon the title to the subject property, it
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.
18. 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.
1 9. Severbility. If any of the provisions of this 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 any such provision,
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under any
other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
20. Incorporation of Recitals_ and Written Submittals. The
City and Owner stipulate and agree that the "recitals" pr ec ed ing
this agreement, and all of the written submittals (as amended and
presently effective) made by Owner to City throughout the course
22
of the approval process, shall be deemed to be a part of this
agreement and to be incorporated herein by this reference.
21. 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.
22. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this amended
agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and
execute the amended plat, and to accept the sane for recordation
in the office of the Pitkin Qbunty Clerk and Recorder, upon pay-
ment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by Owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands and
seals the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
Ka thr yn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
C IT Y OF ASPEN, COLORA DO
A Municipal Corporation
William L. Stirling, Mayor
23
OW NERS :
HOTFL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
A Connecticut Limited Partnership
By---------------------------------
MARKETING CORPORATION OF AM ERICA
By---------------------------------
Ger ald A. Smith
STATE OF COLORADO
J ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _
day of ___ ____ ____ __ __ , 1986, by William L. Stirling as
Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the City of Aspen,
Color ado.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
---------------------------------
Notary Publ is
Address------------------ ---
S TATE OF C ONN ECT IC U]'
J ss.
County of )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
as of Hotel Jerome Limited Partneship.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
---------------------
Notar y Pub 1 is
------------------------ --
Address
24
I
STATE OF CONNECTICUP )
SS.
County of )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __--
day of ........................ 1986, by
as of Marketing Corporation of ?merica.
3C
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
No tar y Pub is —
-------------------------------
Address
25
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Hotel Jerome PUD Agreement
DATE: July 9, 1986
SUMMARY: If the Council can resolve the issues discussed below
and the City Attorney can complete his review of the agreement
and resolve any additional outstanding issues, the Planning
Office recommends Council's approval of the agreement.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At your meeting on June 23, you approved
the amendments to the prior PUD, subject to your review of
the PUD agreement.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the PUD agreement is to obtain a
written commitment from the applicant that all improvements
required of the development will be appropriately installed and
all other conditions and commitments will be met within a specified
time frame. An agreement was entered into by the City and the
prior owner of the Hotel Jerome in April, 1983 concerning the
original Hotel Jerome PUD. The intent of the agreement before
you today is to supersede all provisions of the prior agreement
and to reflect all conditions and commitments from the Phase I
(The Renovation) and Phase II (The Addition) PUD amendments.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
The agreement
in your packet
is the third
draft submitted to the City. The
City Attorney
reviewed the
first draft and is
looking at the
third draft;
the Planning
Director and Project
Engineer have
reviewed the second draft and
feel that most of our
substantive concerns have been
addressed in
this latest version.
There are two sections of the PUD Agreement which we would like
to bring to Council's attention for possible revisions. Both of
the areas of dispute are in Section 3 of the agreement, Other
Physical Improvements. On page 5, the agreement deals with the
water line extension and does not provide for payment of the full
cost of the loop by the applicant. Staff comments in this regard
are:
o The loop is of benef it to the project and not to the
City as a whole. The system is already looped in this
vicinity for other projects but would not be for the
Jerome without installation of the full improvement
requested.
o The City is not reneging on any provision of the prior
agreement. The City did not commit in the prior PUD
Agreement to paying for the loop.
o The City Water Department Supervisor feels very strongly
that the loop should be installed by the applicant. In
the event that no agreement is reached on this matter,
Jim Markalunas asks that a hold harmless clause be
added to the agreement as to water service by the
City.
Staff recommends that Council require the applicant to pay for
the entire cost of looping the water system.
The second area in question is on page six (6) , where the agreement
addresses the regrading which is to occur on Bleeker Street. In
Condition 3 of P&Z Resolution 86-8, which was accepted by Council
on 6/23, the applicant is required to front the entire cost of
the regrading, with the City repaying the applicant for half the
cost. The applicant has met this condition, but has stated that
the City's repayment period is two years, and interest is to be
charged at ten percent. While the two year time period seems
reasonable for this minor capital expense, the provision for
interest is new, and unexpected. We do not support its inclusion
in the agreement.
Two other minor issues which the applicant is presently addressing
are:
1. On page 7 some language has been left out and so the
reference to landscaping costs is confusing; and
2. Exhibit A (cost schedule) and Exhibit B (plat and
landscape plan) are not properly identified in the
agreement and need to be attached. We expect both
exhibits to be available at your meeting.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On July 8, we informed P&Z of Council ' s
action with respect to the height on Bleeker Street. The Commission
determined that the height condition applied only to the PUD
Amendment (on which it is a recommending body and can be overturned
by Council) and not to the Conditional Use Permit (on which P&Z
has final authority) . Therefore, the P&Z recommendation of
approval is valid, and Council can complete its action on the PUD
at this time.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Upon resolution of the above issues, the
appropriate motion is:
"Move to approve the Hotel Jerome Amended PUD Agreement and
to authorize the way or to sign said document following its
review by the Attorney as to its form".
AR.79
7,61 - b
3�2-k D ZAC-k
AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
HOTEL JEROME RENOVATION AND ADDITION
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").
W I T N E S S E T H:
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 Owners 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
- 1 -
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 -
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 Agreement 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 Development
Agreement"); and
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve this Amended Agreement
upon representation of Owner that a new plat and landscape plan will
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 shall be submitted
and recorded to supercede and replace the Plat 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
- 3 -
requirements and the City of Aspen PUD regulations. The new plat
shall consist of a plat, a utility plan, a landscape plan, and plan
of the service and delivery access.
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 as of this Agreement,
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,
- 4 -
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
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 8" 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
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
- 5 -
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
create an average finished grade of some 2.5 percent. The cost
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 City shall
have the choice of paying their share of the costs or of
executing 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, in which case the Owner shall front the cost.
The promissory note shall be an Exhibit to this Agreement and
shall be recorded when fully executed. The current cost esti-
mate is $35,000.00. The costs will be updated and refined by
the Owner and City Engineer prior to application for a building
permit for Phase II. As partners in the re -grading project,
the City and Owner shall mutually agree to the plan, the cost,
and choice of contractors.
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
- 6 -
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.
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. The current estimated cost of such landscaping improve-
ments is agreed by the City Engineer to be $22,736.00. 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.
It is the 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
- 7 -
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
staging areas, and (c) construction equipment access and storage.
Owner agrees that all construction materials shall be stored on the
site and that all workers will be instructed to park in the Rio
Grande parking lot to lessen the impact on the neighborhood. 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.
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 com-
- 8 -
pleted), 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 delivered
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 15 of this Agreement, to
withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and pay
for any of such improvements or pay any outstanding 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 com-
pleted, 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 Para-
graphs 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.
- 9 -
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.
7. Miscellaneous Issues. Owner agrees to the following items
as a condition of this Agreement:
a) Owner will remove overhead wires in the middle of the
garden prior to construction of Phase II for safety reasons.
b) Owner will repair underground electric line servicing
a street light on Mill Street which was severed during con-
struction of Phase I.
c) A transformer and emergency generator are located on
the western edge of the garden. Owner is exploring moving
these to a new location on the site. Should this prove to be
impractical, Owner will work with neighbors to lessen sound
transmissions from the generator.
d) Owner owns a Suburban station wagon which is to be
used for guest transportation and airport pick-up and delivery,
and will be stored in the underground garage.
- 10 -
e) Owner has received from the Planning and Zoning
Commission a conditional use approval for the expansion of the
Hotel in the CC Zone District, special review approval to vary
the trash and utility access area, and special review approval
for a restaurant with forty-four (44) seats in the garden area.
8. 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 required 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 Pitkin
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.
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, and shall be deed
restricted to City employee housing rental, qualifications and
occupancy guidelines in effect at the time such units are so
provided, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for Phase II, 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 substitu-
tion 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)
- 12 -
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
resolution of the City Council. In the event use of the annex rooms
changes, the Owner shall inform the Planning Director of the new
intended use for his/her approval. The approval shall be in the
form of a minor P.U.D. Amendment signed off on by the Planning
Director.
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
- 13 -
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.
9. 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.
- 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 in 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.
10. Encroachments. Owner agrees to obtain such licenses as
may be necessary with respect to encroachments in the City rights of
way. Owner will pursue approval from City Council for all encroach-
ments in a separate action.
- 14 -
11. 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
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.
12. Ratification of Representations. Owner hereby ratifies
and confirms each and every representation made and set forth by
Owner in its application dated November 27, 1985, hereunder and
presentations made in connection therewith to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council.
13. 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.
- 15 -
14. Use and Maintenance of Open Space. Owner shall occupy the
Project Open Space (i.e., the Jerome garden) 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 perpetual responsibility of the Owner or
Owners from time to time of the Hotel Jerome property to maintain in
a clean and attractive condition and in a good state of repair all
such Open Space contained within the Project.
15. Non -Compliance and Request for Amendments or Extensions by
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
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
- 16 -
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.
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 -construc-
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;
- 17 -
(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 construc-
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.
16. Notice. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agree-
ment shall be deemed given if personally delivered or if deposited
in the United States Mail to the 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
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 and the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sen-
tence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other circumstances
shall not be affected thereby.
20. 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 -
21. 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.
22. 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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands
and seals the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
William Sterling, Mayor
- 20 -
OWNER:
HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
Connecticut Limited Partnership,
by Western Properties Investments,
Inc., General Partner
By:
T. Richard Butera
President
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
- 21 -
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The Foregoing was acknowledged before me this
1986, by T. Richard Butera.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address
day of
- 22 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU : Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment Phase II: The Addition
DATE: June 23, 1986
SUMMARY: The purpose of this meeting is for Council to review
the amendments proposed by the applicant to the addition to the
Hotel Jerome. Key issues for Council deliberation are:
1. Height along Bleeker Street;
2.. Bleeker Street re -grading program;
3. Landscape plan; and
4. Service area.
Council must provide staff with decisions on these matters so
that we can insert new language into a draft PUD agreement. The
new agreement . intended to replace the prior agreement in its
entirety, will be presented to City Council at your next regular
meeting.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests an amendment to the
Hotel Jerome PUD with respect to the proposed addition. The
attached letter from Perry Harvey describes some of the reasons
for the proposed amendment, and evaluates many of the important
project parameters which will need to be addressed in this land
use review. The addition of lodge units to this individually
designated historic structure is exempt from competition from the
quota system (although to be deducted from the lodge quota at the
time of building permit issuance) as per Section 24-11.2(b) of
the Code.
Specifically, the applicable provisions of the Code for Council
consideration are:
1 . Section 24-8 .26 - Amendment of PUD Plan.
The following actions have been granted final approval by P&Z:
1
2. Section 24-3.3 (c) - Amendment of approved conditional use
(Hotel in CC zone district) .
3. Section 24-3.7(d) (8) - Restaurant in required open space.
4. Section 24-3.5 (b) - Reduction of trash and utility service
area dimensions.
BACKGROUND: On April 11, 1983, the Aspen City Council approved
the Hotel Jerome PUD, Renovation and Addition. When ownership of
the Hotel passed from John Gilmore to the Hotel Jerome Ltd.
Partnership, the Planning Office and City Attorney determined
that a phased development program was permitted under current
regulations, but not recognized in the adopted PUD Agreement.
Therefore, the issuance of a building permit for the work on the
existing building was expressly conditioned on the applicant
submitting a PUD amendment addressing the impacts of phasing.
That application, which we will refer to as "Hotel Jerome PUD
Application, Phase I: The Renovation" was approved by City
Council on May 5, 1986, subject to the conditions listed in the
attached memorandum.
PLANNING OFFICE ANALYSIS; When this proposed amendment was first
presented by the applicant at a work session on February 3,
1986, it appeared that the changes to be made to the project were
quite positive and desirable. Having now received the applica-
tion and with an opportunity to review the proposal in more
detail, we see some significant problems, in addition, to some
very clear benefits to be achieved. The following table sum-
marizes the changes proposed by the applicant, and the advantages
and disadvantages each change portends for the community when
compared to the approved plan..
2
TABLE 1 - PUD AMENDMENT SUMMARY - HOTEL J EROME ADDITION
Proposed Change Advantages Disadvantages
1. Reduce room May lessen overall Bigger rooms may
count project impact. accommodate larger
guest count.
2. Eliminate com-
mercial space
3.
4.
5.
New architec-
tural style
Provide park-
ina on -site
Revise land-
scaping plan
Revise service
area
W i l l l e s s e n
overall project
impact.
Greater historical
integrity.
Insures avail-
ability of parking
at same time as
project construc-
tion; eliminates
travel to and from
off -site location.
Provides alternate
access to the
a d d i t i o n a n d
highly attractive
dining environ-
ment.
Improved turning
movements; reduced
congestion on main
Street.
3
None
Incompatible with
s u r r o u n d i n g
heights; loss of
building stepback.
Increased heights
will increase
shading effect on
Bl ee ker Street;
loss of contribu-
tor to publ is
parking structure
Much of the open
area does not meet
definition of open
space.
Potential auto -
truck conflicts;
increased traffic
on Bleeker Street.
Following is a more detailed examination of each of the proposed
changes, their benefits and costs, and their consistency with
applicable criteria from the municipal Code.
1. Reduce Room Count - Following is a comparison of the room
count as originally approved in 1983 and as to be amended
herein:
Approved Plan
Existing Bldg - 28 guest rooms
New Bldg - 4 employee units
74 guest rooms
Proposed Amendment
Existing Bldg - 27 guest
rooms, 4 em pl oy e e
units in annex
New Bldg - 67 guest rooms
The above comparison demonstrates that whereas previously
102 guest rooms and 4 employee units were to be provided on
site, the current proposal is for 94 guest rooms and 4
employee units to be located herein, a net reduction of 8
units. The smaller room count would typically translate
into lessened on -site and off -site impacts, provided that
the new, more spacious rooms do not resL;lt in an increased
pillow count for the total hotel.
2. Eliminate Commercial Space - The approved addition included
a variety of commercial uses associated with a "full
service" hotel, including a flower shop, books and gift
store, boutiques, camera shop, barber/beauty salon, etc.
Given the proximity of this site to shops in the commercial
core, it is quite obvious that all of these uses are already
within walking distance of guests. Further, it could have
been expected that these uses would have drawn additional
patrons (and impacts) to the hotel, and not simply act in an
accessory manner for guests only.
The removal of the commercial space from the project is a
principal factor contributing to the reduction of the
project's FAR by approximately 23,000 square feet (from
about 2.7:1 approved to 2.23:1 proposed) but still requiring
a variation of the CC FAR. The allowable FAR in the CC zone
district is 1.5:1, increasable to 2.0:1 by the provision of
on -site employee housing in the ratio of 2 feet of commer-
cial space for every 3 feet of housing provided on -site.
Since the project provides only 1,350 s.f. of employee
housing on -site, an additional 900 s.f. of commercial area
is allowable for a total project Floor Area of 73,816
(1.55:1) . Any increase beyond this size represents a
variation of allowable FAR.
Please note that the parking garage, involving 18,400 s.f.
of area, is entirely exempt from FAR calculations, as per
Section 24-3.7(e) (3) of the Code. Nevertheless, since the
parking structure is not fully below grade, it does contri-
bute to the perceived mass of the building. On balance
though, we agree that the overall site impacts will be
lessened by the reduction of commercial space on -site.
3. New Architectural Style - The applicant indicates that due
to comments by the National Park Service, a revised archi-
tectural theme for the addition has been developed. Quite
frankly, we are most enthusiastic about some of the detailed
aspects of the revised architecture and would like to
compliment those responsible for proposing what is a very
special treatment of a very important building. These
comments simply echo those of the Historic Preservation.
Commission, which gave final approval to the design at a
public hearing held on May 27, 1986.
While we are most supportive of the architectural details
involved in the window treatments and the more authentic,
rather than modernistic character of the addition, there are
significant problems which we believe can be instigated
imposed by the elevations associated with the proposal.
Following is a comparison of the heights at the corners and
mid -block of the surrounding streets.
Street Approved Plan Proposed Amendment
Mill Street 47 ft. to 52 ft. 47 ft. to 52 ft.
(from connection of historic building to
corner of Hleeker)
Bleeker Street 52 ft. to 48 ft. 54 ft. to 50 ft. to
to 24 ft. 40 ft.
(from Mill Street corner to mid -block
near pool to Monarch corner)
Main Street 24 ft.
44 ft. to 33 ft.
(from attachment to historic building to
Aspen Times building)
We find the new elevations to be incompatible with sur-
rounding land uses in the area, which is a criterion of the
conditional use amendment (Section 24-3.3(b) (3)) . It should
be recalled that during the 1983 review of this project, the
5
rear half of the site was rezoned from 0 - Office, to CC -
Commercial Core. This rezoning was permitted, in part,
because the height of the addition around the pool was only
to be 24 feet, and, therefore, was less than that allowed
for the properties along Monarch and Bleeker Streets. The
present proposal is substantially in excess of the 28 foot
height limit of the office district, and will dwarf the
surrounding uses. Furthermore, the prior design provided
for a stepped -back architectural form, which helped in
reducing the perceived mass of the building, and which also
provided benefits in terms of shading on Bleeker Street (for
additional related comments, see discussion of parking and
site design, below) . A final concern is that from a
Building Code standpoint, a 50 foot height limit is the max-
imum allowed for wood frame construction. This limitation
would also indicate that height reductions be implemented.
In response to these concerns, the applicant has produced a
new set of elevations which step the building back by one
story at the Bleeker-Monarch corner. However, this height
reduction has been compensated for by a height increase of
one story along the Main Street facade. The Planning
Commission, at its hearing on June 3, preferred the new
design approach by a 4-0 vote. However, the Historic
Preservation Commission, in a 6-1 vote, denied the new
Bleeker Street elevation as being an inappropriate architec-
tural addition. Their feeling is that the reduced scale of
the addition tends to make it more like an annex than a true
partner to the original building, and does not properly
finish the block.
In our opinion, neither solution presented is entirely
adequate. The original design overwhelmed the surrounding
neighborhood and should not be supported. The alternate is
much preferable from a land use compatibility standpoint,
but has not satisfied HPC, and is more impactive to the Main
Street elevation which is quite crucial. Our preference
would be to see this extra story removed in its entirety
(at the cost of five rooms) but if this is not possible, to
accept the revised solution with its step back design.
4. Provide Parking On -Site - The approved PUD plan required
that the applicant provide 60 parking spaces (35 employee,
25 guest) in conjunction with the project. The number was
derived from a staff analysis, utilizing survey data
regarding method of guest arrival to Aspen, and taking into
consideration existing parking on the site, the applicant's
commitment to provide three limos and other auto disincen-
tives, and the projected employment increase associated with
the expansion. The spaces were to be provided through a
cash contribution to the Rio Grande parking structure, with
interim plans also identified if the structure were not
6
built by the time of Hotel occupancy.
The applicant now proposes to place 51 spaces subarade on
the site, with access from Bleeker Street. The principal
benefit of this alternative is that it insures the avail-
ability of parking for the project at the same time the
addition is occupied. Provision of the parking on -site also
eliminates the need for travel to and from the off -site
location, which could have been as far away as the Golf
Course under the approved PUD Agreement.
One reason that so many of the required spaces were to be
reserved for employees was the uncertainty as to the
location of the housing to be provided by the project. At
the time, it appeared that the applicant would purchase
Hunter Creek units, or those in some other existing complex.
The fact that we now know that the housing will be provided
at the Cortina, which is within one block of the Hotel,
obviates the need for much of the employee parking and opens
up additional spaces for guests. Provided that the limo
service operates with three vehicles, we believe the 51
spaces to be adequate for project needs.
The principal problem caused by providing the parking on -
site is that it has raised the elevation of the addition.
Whereas previously the building around the existing pool was
to be sunken 1/2 story into the ground, for a three story
height of only 24 feet, the parking now protrudes 6-8 feet
above grade as one moves from Mill Street to Monarch Street,
for a building height of 40 feet in the northwesterly corner
of the site.
In addition to the visual/land use compatibility issue with
respect to height, a second concern is the likely shading
effect on Bleeker Street. We have recently requested a
shading study showing the effect of the approved building,
the requested amendment and an intermediate alternative of
about 32 (rather than 24 or 40) feet around the pool. Given
the intention of the applicant to use Bleeker Street for
delivery trucks and as a parking garage entrance, and
recognizing the hazard with the existing grade on the
street, we f eel that it is crucial to know whether the
street will be in shade for all or part of the winter.
One last concern with respect to parking is that by provid-
ing the spaces on -site, we have lost a potential contributor
to a public parking structure. Unless the P&7, and Council
simply find the amendment entirely unsupportable and send
the applicant back to the drawing board (an action which we
would not support) , we see no way around this issue.
5. Revise Landscaping Plan - There are several important
7
changes to the proposed landscape plan for the property.
The original approval showed landscaping in the following
portions of the site:
a. Jerome Garden - This area was to be a very formal
flower garden and patio, surrounded by turf, shrubs and
trees.
b. Pool Area - A new pool and jacuzzi were to be placed in
approximately the current pool location.
C. Periphery - Extensive tree and shrubbery plantings were
to be placed along the exterior of the project on Mill,
Bleeker and Monarch Streets. An impressive planted
setback buffered the Monarch/Bleeker corner.
The new landscaping plan has the following elements:
a. Jerome Garden - A dining area along the wall of the
original hotel with seating for 44 persons is proposed.
A path leading from Main Street to the entrance to the
addition is also shown, as is extensive planting of
sod, trees, shrubs and flowers. A spa and future pool
location is shown at the very rear of the garden.
b. Ballroom Patio - A brick patio with trees and shrubs is
proposed between the historic and new buildings on Mill
Street.
C. Periphery - Extensive tree and shrubbery plantings are
still to be placed along the exterior of the project.
The setback at the Monarch/Bleeker corner is reduced to
standard proportions.
Overall, the Planning Office finds the new landscape concept
to be quite satisfactory. The current plan is a vast
improvement of that which was originally brought to our
office last month. That plan had a very "urban" character,
with excessive paving and the pool far too forward in the
garden. The present scheme is much more in keeping with the
historic character of the garden and the dining, which has
been approved by P&Z as a restaurant in required open space,
will be a very usable area.
It is important that the Council recognize that virtually
none of the open space on the site meets the definition of
open space according to the Code. According to calculations
provided by the applicant, and as verified by our office,
only about 2-1/2 percent of the site meets our open space
definition. Interestingly enough, none of the open space in
the approved site plan meets the Code definition. The
problems with the current plan from a Code standpoint are:
IF
1. The garden area does not meet
the minimum
frontage
requirement of 100
feet
or half
the length of the lot
frontage (it is 60
feet
wide but
needs to be
at least
80 feet wide) .
2. The ballroom patio
does
not meet
the frontage
require-
ment and it is also
more
than four
feet above
grade.
3. The rear garden area does not f ront on the street at
all.
The only area which appears to meet the open space require-
ments is a 1400 square foot area in the rear corner of the
buildinq at Mill and Bleeker Streets.
The situation with respect to open space calculations is
similar to that which we have recently experienced with the
Little Nell project. In that instance, it was our recom-
mendation that Council vary the method of calculating open
space, based on the intent of having open space as a visual
relief from the building mass. From this perspective, the
7,320 square feet of space in the garden which does not meet
the minimum frontage requirement, but is the historic open
space on the site, should be counted toward the open space
requirement. Counting the two areas, an open space calcula-
tion of 18.3 percent is obtained. If we also add the
ballroom patic, an open space calculation of 21.7 percent is
obtained. Lastly, adding the rear garden, which has no
street frontage, allows for a 25.4 percent open space
calculation. Our position is that 18.3 percent of the site
be considered as open space (garden and northeastern
corner) , and a variation from the 25 percent requirement be
granted in light of the two other available areas which are
not being built upon.
6. Revise Service Area - The original scheme for the loading
dock off Bleeker Street required trucks to back into the
area, causing potential significant conflicts with other
vehicles on the street. The new plan shows a loading dock
in approximately the same location as previously, but in a
new configuration which allows direct access for trucks
without the backing in movement. This is a vast improvement
over the prior plan. However, this same area provides
access to the parking garage, causing the potential for
auto/truck conflicts. The Engineer reviewing the project
requested additional traffic and delivery data to assess the
severity of this potential conflict and is also concerned
about conflicts between garbage trucks and auto movement.
By moving the guest drop off from Main Street (where the
Highway Department refused to permit it) to Sleeker Street,
9
we trade congestion problems. However, it is vastly
preferable to have this congestion removed from Main Street,
if an acceptable solution to the grade/icing problem on
Bleeker Street is found. According to Elyse Elliott, the
cost of regrading and paving Bleeker Street is about
$35,000. Since this project is not in the City's capital
budget, but should be accomplished at the same time as the
Hotel Addition, we suggest the following options:
a. Have applicant pay the full cost of the regrade;
b. Have the applicant "front" the cost of the regrade and
have the City pay back a percentage of this cost, with
the percentage and method of payment to be finalized in
the PUD Agreement with Council; or
C. Have the applicant "front" the cost of the regrade and
have the City pay back the entire cost to the appli-
cant.
Since this problem on Bleeker Street affects both the City
and the applicant, and since the applicant's new service
area will clearly exacerbate an already hazardous situation,
we feel that having the City and the applicant share the
cost, with the City paying the applicant back for "fronting"
the initial expenditure, is the most equitable solution.
During the P&Z review, this compromise was accepted by the
applicant, who agreed to front the entire cost to the City
and to pay 1/ 2 the cost of the project, expected to be about
$17,500. This arrangement was accepted on the condition
that the applicant has the opportunity to review the regrade
plans and provide input to their design as a "partner" in
the program.
The applicant received approval from P&Z to vary the size of
the required trash and utility service area. Using the
standards of Secti on 24-3 .7 ( h) ( 4) , an area of about 100
linear feet on an alley is needed. The entryway to the
delivery/garage is about 65 feet in length, abutting a
street and not an alley. The internal dimension of the
loading area and turnaround is nearly 115 feet in length.
The Engineer comments that the trash area appears to be
adequate at 10 ft. x. 17 ft. The applicant is working with
Elyse Elliott to address the concerns she raised in her
original memo (see attached letter from Perry Harvey) .
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES: A variety of other issues have been raised
by the referral agencies. These issues include retention of
storm drainage, provision of utilities, construction schedule,
and building and zoning plan check verification. I attach the
referral memos for your review, and include the appropriate
comments as conditions of our recommended action.
10
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Our review has identified both
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendment f or the
Jerome Addition. The project's principal advantages provide
ample reason for supporting the project. These advantages
include:
1. Reduced room count and elimination of commercial space will
lessen the project's impacts on the neighborhood;
2. The revised architecture provides for greater historical
integrity with the historic hotel, and the landscape plan
for the garden is in keeping with its historic character as
well.
3. The provision of on -site parking insures the availability of
an adequate number of spaces at the time of hotel occupancy.
The new service delivery area exhibits better turning
movements for Bleeker Street and drop off in this area will
lessen congestion on Main Street.
The principal issue which Council must resolve before final
approval can be granted is that of the height along, Bleeker
Street. A review of the approved facade and two alternatives
should be conducted and a decision made considering the compati-
bility with neighboring uses, and the need to created an addition
which will best accent the original hotel. In our opinion, this
can best be accomplished by limiting the height along Bleeker
Street from mid -block to Monarch to about 32 feet, and not
replacing the units lost through this height reduction. if
Council concurs, then it must direct HPC to accept this as the
approved plan for the Addition. If Council follows the HPC lead,
then it simply needs to override the recommendation given it by
P&Z.
Attached for your review in finalizing your action are:
1. P&Z's resolution recommending approval with conditions;
2. A letter from HPC explaining their feelings and actions
regarding the project.
AR.4
11
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOM14ENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE HOTEL J EROME
EXPANSION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Resolution No. 86-
WHEREAS, on April 11, 1983 the Aspen City Council approved
the Hotel Jerome Planned Unit Development (PUD) , Renovation and
Addition; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the 1983 PUD approval the Hotel
Jerome ownership passed from John Gilmore to Hotel Jerome Ltd. Part-
nership (hereinafter referred to as applicant); and
WHEREAS, the 1985 "Hotel Jerome PUD Application Phase I: The
Renovation" was conditioned on the applicant submitting a PUD
amendment for the Hotel Jerome addition (hereinafter Phase II); and
WHEREAS, in response to this condition the applicant submitted
a PUD amendment for Phase II which was considered by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") at a
duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered representations made by
the applicant as contained within Perry Harvey's (applicants'
representative) April 29, 1986 letter to the Planning Office and
representations depicted on drawings dated May 1, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Commission listened to testimony provided by
the applicant, Planning Office and citizens in attendance at the
June 3, 1986 public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby recommend that the City Council of Aspen, Colorado
Resolution No. 86- $1
Page 2
l for the Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment
grant the applicant approva
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit an amended PUD plat for the
entire parcel meeting the requirements of Section 24-
8.12 of the Municipal Code and a new PUD Agreement for
the renovation and addition, superceding the previously
approved Agreement. The plat and Agreement shall
include all material representations made by the
applicant during the Phase I and Phase II amendments,
and reflect all conditions imposed by the City Council
during that process.
2. The applicant shall re -design Phase II (addition) to
reduce the height of the building particularly in the
north west side of the structure so the proposed
addition is more compatible with adjacent land uses on
Monarch and Bleeker streets. Plans for the re -design
shall be submitted to the Planning office for review
prior to consideration by City Council. The applicants
re -design will take into consideration the results of
the shading study on Bleeker Street.
3. The applicant shall commit to paying the entire cost
for regrading Bleeker Street, consistent with plans for
this project by the City Engineering Department provided
that the plans shall also receive the review and
acceptance of the applicant. The rearading shall occur
in conjunction with construction of the hotel Addition.
The PUD Agreement shall contain provisions requiring
the City of Aspen to repay the applicant f or half the
costs associated with regrading Bleeker Street.
4. The applicant shall provide the water system interconnec-
tions and fire safety requirements, identified by Jim
Markalunas in his memo dated 5/13/86, and as elaborated
upon by Elyse Elliott in her memo dated 5/28/86.
5. The applicant shall respond to the information requests
made by the Engineering Department in their memo dated
5/28/86 as regards storm drainage, construction schedule
and service area. The information regarding service
area/trash utility/area and the remaining information
must be reviewed by staff prior to review of the PUD
Amendment by City Council.
6. Delivery trucks shall be routed to access the site from
Bleeker and Monarch Streets and not Bleeker and Mill
2
Resolution No. 864
Page 3
Street.
7. The applicant shall verify that all, building and zoning
code issues raised in Bill Drueding's memo dated
5/27/86 and Jim Wilson's memo dated 5/29/86 can be
adequately addressed. The only variations granted
herein are as follows:
a. Height as shows on the plans submitted and as to
be modified herein by Condition No. 2.
bFAR not to exceed 2.23:1.
-c. Trash/utility access area as shown on the plans
submitted.
-d. Open space variation as to method of calculation
and acceptable as 18.3 percent.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
grant conditional use approval for the expansion of the hotel in
the CC zone` district, special review approval to vary the trash
and utility access area requirements as shown on the site plan
and special _review approval for a restaurant with 44 seats in the
garden area as shown on the landscape plan.
APPROVED -by the Commission at its regular meeting on June
17, 1986. -
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
_ J
By
C. W lton A Berson,
ATTEST: Chairperson
City Clerk
GH.611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Historic Preservation Committee
RE: Hotel Jerome Addition: Amended Plan
DATE: June 18, 1986
On June 10, 1986 the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed and
denied an amended plan for the Hotel Jerome Addition. The plan
that HPC gave final approval to on May 27, 1986 illustrated an
addition of quite simple massing. The portion of the building
abutting Pill Street had a similar height to the original Hotel
Jerome; and the wing portion extending along Bleeker Street was a
three story block. The project architects furthermore successfully
incorporated into this design a lot of the Committee's concerns
regarding visually breaking up the massing, fenistration, detailing
and use of sandstone.
From the perspective of compatability in massing, scale, materials,
and details, the HPC felt that the design we approved was very
acceptable and we still endorse it. G'hile the Committee considered
the problem of height off Meeker Street which prompted this
amendment, we are not satif ied w ith the resultant design "tradeoff ".
The amended design contains
portion of the building and
the building along the Main
Main Street) . We believe
fragmented. The massina is
Jerome in our view and the
in a vote of 6 in favor and
SB .61F
a number of step -backs in the wing
raises four stories in the center of
Street elevation (set back 154' from
this design is too complicated and
not compatible with the old Hotel
Committee rejected the amended design
1 opposed.
PERRY A. HARVEY
601 East Bleeker Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-4545
April 29, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman
Director of Planning
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 24-8.26 of the City of
Aspen Zoning Code, the Hotel Jerome submits this request for certain
specific amendments to the Planned Urban Development for the
Renovation and Addition.
The following changes in conditions since the recordation of
the Agreement create the need for this request:
1. HISTORIC: As part of the Listing of the Jerome on the National
Register of Historic Places, the National Park Service approved
the concept of an addition but rejected the design of the
addition with the large bay windows as approved by the City of
Aspen. Thus, a redesign of the addition is necessary.
2. ANNEX: As approved, the plans called for removing the Annex and
joining the addition to the north side of the historic Hotel.
With phasing, the Annex was retained for kitchen and employee
housing. A redesign is required to accommodate the continued
existence of the Annex.
3. PARKING: In 1983, when the PUD was approved, development of a
parking structure on the Rio Grande property was planned to
coincide with the Jerome redevelopment. As the parking
structure is still a future consideration and the Hotel must
have convenient parking, the redesign will provide on -site
parking for employees and guests.
4. USES: The approved plan has 13,000 square feet of retail shops,
4 restaurants with some 450 seats, and 5,000 square feet of
meeting space. The current owners wish to eliminate the retail
space, keep only the existing two restaurants and reduce the
meeting space, to be accomplished through a redesign.
Mr. Alan Richman
April 29, 1986
Page 2
What follows is a description of the proposed addition and a
discussion of the impact of these changes to the site and the
community. In conjunction with the description, please refer to the
chart I have prepared comparing the specifics of the approved and
proposed designs.
The new design more closely reflects the desires of the
National Park Service in echoing many elements of the Historic
building using brick with horizontal banding and arched windows with
the distinctive "eyebrows" of brick. The footprint of the building
has been changed to accommodate retention of the Annex. An area of
open space has been created to provide a break between buildings,
light for the Silver Queen Dining Room and ventilation for the Annex
housing. The remainder of the building is much the same as
approved, located in the parking area and to the west in the pool
area.
The approved design called for a tiered setback on Mill Street
and at the corner of Mill and Bleeker. These setbacks were to
reduce the winter shading on Bleeker and to give visual relief to
the facade of the addition on Mill Street. The proposed design
shows a greater setback on Bleeker (twelve feet). The Mill Street
elevation is no longer setback, due to the need to provide spacious
hotel rooms while maintaining the maximum possible open space.
Access from the historic to the addition was along the eastern
side of the historic into the new. The new access, down the west
side of the historic building, requires a secondary lobby on the
west. This will be glass to detract minimally from the facade. The
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) has changed dramatically from the approved
plan. Retention of the Annex has made the historic portion larger
but the overall FAR has been lowered by 17%. The total project has
been reduced by almost 23,000 square feet.
While this is a significant reduction, of greater importance is
the reduced impact on the site and the environs due to the changes
in proposed uses. Elimination of the retail space will decrease
employees and pedestrian traffic, as will the 45% reduction in res-
taurant seats. These calming effects on the busy intersection of
Main and Mill allow for a more gradual impact to the entire City of
Aspen.
Guest impact on the site and immediate neighborhood has also
been substantially improved. The approved plan had 28 rooms in the
historic building and 77 in the new, with the sole guest drop-off
and pick-up on Main Street. The proposed plan has 27 rooms in the
historic and 67 in the addition, for a reduction of 11 rooms over-
all. A secondary guest delivery and pick-up has been designed off
Bleeker Street in the enclosed parking area. Taxis and special
events vehicles can use this second means of entry to alleviate the
congestion on Main Street.
Mr. Alan Richman
April 29, 1986
Page 3
HOTEL JEROME
Item
Approved
Proposed Net
Difference
Floor Area Ratio
2.7 to 1
2.23 to 1
-
.47
Square Footage
128,822
106,769
-
22,053
Historic
42,749
43,569
+
820
New
86,073
63,200
-
22,873
Parking - On -Site
- 0 -
50
+
50
Parking - Square Footage
- 0 -
18,400
+
18,400
Number of Rooms
105
94
-
11
Historic
28
27
-
1
New
77
67
-
10
Open Space
11,928
13,200
+
1,272
Height
51.5
53.5
+
2
Retail
13,000
- 0 -
-
13,000
Restaurant
4 - 450 seats
2 - 250 seats
-
200
Meeting
5,000
4,000
-
1,000
Mr. Alan Richman
April 29, 1986
Page 4
The room design is a critical element in the addition. They
must be comparable to the rooms in the historic in spaciousness and
sumptuousness. If not, guests unable to reserve historic rooms may
choose alternate lodging, creating a problem comparable to the Brown
Palace's in Denver. The success of the Hotel Jerome with a reduced
number of rooms requires that all the rooms be equal in feel to
those currently existing. Please keep this in mind during your
review of this proposed design.
Originally parking was set at 60 spaces, 35 for employees and
25 for guests. The analysis made several key assumptions: (1) The
Hotel would provide three limousines and market itself as a central
facility with no need for a car; (2) the Rio Grande parking lot
would be replaced with a parking structure; (3) there would be no
parking on the Jerome site; and, (4) the off -site employee housing
location was unknown and thus assumed to be a commute.
The proposed plan comes in light of today's realities. The
limousines and the marketing plan are unchanged. The Rio Grande
parking still exists and there will be fifty spaces on -site.
Finally, the Cortina Lodge has been approved for off -site employee
housing, with eight parking places exactly one block from the Hotel
entrance. Instead of the sole parking facility being the Rio Grande
structure, the Hotel and the one -block vicinity will boast 50 spaces
on -site, 8 employee spaces one block away, and the continued exis-
tence of parking at the Rio Grande. Thus, if we need 35 employee
spaces and 8 are at the Cortina, we need 27 spaces on -site, leaving
23 for guests. For 94 rooms, the ratio of one space for 4.1 guest
rooms is marginally better than the approved ratio of one for each
4.2 rooms.
The new design provides for better delivery to the Hotel. As
approved, trucks had to pull across Bleeker and back in, stopping
traffic and creating potential problems during the winter. This
improved plan allows trucks to back directly into the parking garage
or directly into two off-street parallel spaces.
The open space has been increased from 25% to 27.6%. The
proposed open space is in three areas: The Jerome garden; the space
between the historic and new building, on Mill Street; and along
Bleeker Street.
The proposed building is two feet higher at the corner of Mill
and Bleeker. This change is due to the Aspen code, which requires a
parapet of at least 30 inches. The zoning officer has chosen to
interpret the code so that the building height will be measured to
the top of the parapet. The actual building roof is 50.5 feet with
36 inches of parapet.
Mr. Alan Richman
April 29, 1986
Page 5
The construction schedule for Phase II has a best case and fall
back plan. Ideally, construction will begin this summer immediately
after approval is granted. Completion will be in time for winter
use of the rooms. The winter room use is the critical element. If
construction is delayed so that no rentals will be possible for the
winter of 1986-1987, then construction will be postponed to the
spring of 1987 for opening in December of 1987.
Employee generation was estimated to be at 80, with 30 part-
time and 50 full-time. As the new format will not increase restau-
rant space, these employee projections are still valid. The
Amendment will not alter the approved housing plan for 4 employees
on -site and 15 off -site.
In addition to the Amendment, a variance is requested from the
Planning and Zoning Commission for the trash service area. Area and
Bulk requirements call for a trash service area abutting the Alley.
Section 24.3.7(H)(4) allows variation of this provision by the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission. Under Article 24.3.5(b), we deserve a
variance because we provide for enclosing trash compactors within
the garage and easily moved containers for use by trash personnel.
I look forward to further discussions regarding this improved
redesign of the Hotel Jerome.
Sincerely,
� Ila�z
y
Perry A. Harvey
PAH/nkb
Attachment - 1
On May 5, 1986 City Council unanimously passed a PUD Amendment
for the renovation of the existing Hotel Jerome, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Removal of excess building materials and rubbish on the
Hotel Jerome site shall be accomplished no later than May
16, 1986 to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official
and Project Planner.
2. Head-on parking off Bleeker Street shall be eliminated by no
later than May 16, 1986. Interim parking for no less than
27 vehicles should be provided in the rear of the existing
hotel by no later than September 1, 1986, if no building
permit has been issued by that date for the Jerome Addition.
3. A picket fence shall be installed across the Main Street
yard to screen views of the disturbed area no later than May
23, 1986.
4. In conjunction with the PUD Agreement for the Jerome
Addition, all items discussed in the prior proceedings shall
be addressed. If no building permit has been issued by
September 1, 1986, then an interim landscaping, sidewalks
and parking plan shall be drafted by September 1, 1986 and
implemented by May 1, 1987.
5. If no building permit has been issued for the Jerome
Addition and no PUD amendment agreement is being processed
by September 1, 1986, then an amended PUD Agreement shall be
submitted by that date to address all items which have been
agreed to with the City Council.
SB.19
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Departmen e4
Date: May 28, 1986
Re: Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment - Phase II
After reviewing the above application, the Engineering Department
has the following comments:
Utilities
The plat shows a new 8" water line along Bleeker Street between
Monarch and Mill streets and states "new 8" water main (looped)
by the City of Aspen." It is incorrect in stating that this will
be installed by the City, the applicant should be responsible for
installing the new water line. In the original PUD, the applicant
agreed to reimburse the City for all related expenses.
An 8" water line is not necessary, a 6" line would be sufficient,
as stated in the May 13, 1986 memo from Jim Markalunas. This new
line should also have valves at the connection points on Mill and
Monarch and on both sides of the service to the project.
The water line should be placed at a sufficient depth so it won't
have to be re -located if the grade of Bleeker Street is altered
(refer to Streets section).
The temporary overhead wires in the middle of the project should
be removed prior to construction for safety reasons.
During the Phase I construction, an underground electric line
servicing a street light on Mill Street was severed, causing the
street light to lose power. This should be repaired prior to new
construction.
The transformer located on Lot N next to the western property
line must not have landscaping next to it for readability and
cooling reasons. There must by at least 29" clearance on the
north and south sides and 3' clearance on the east side with at
least a 2' wide access path.
Streets
This project has an adverse impact on Bleeker Street. With a
proposed height of 53.51, the building will cast shadows on
Bleeker Street that could lead to an ice build-up. Although the
12' setback on Bleeker reduces the possibility of this occuring
across the entire width of the street, we would like to see a
study on the probability of this happening.
To exacerbate this condition, Bleeker Street has a very steep
grade from Mill Street going west for about 1501. The steep
section coincides with the parking lot and service egress for the
project.
Bleeker could be reconstructed, giving it a gradual grade from
Mill Street to Monarch Street. This would entail reducing the
grade by as much as 5' and would cost approximately $35,000. The
Streets Department has no money budgeted for this project. If
this is to be included in the Phase II construction project, it
would be preferable to do the street reconstruction simultaneously
with the Hotel construction. If the street reconstruction occurs
after the Hotel construction, it might entail relocating the
water line and replacing the sidewalk on Bleeker Street and
regrading the service area.
Storm Drainage
The proposal calls for retaining 50% of the "snow melt runoff"
and diverting the remaining 50% to the storm drainage system in
adjacent streets. This department will allow this situation only
if there was historically 50% site retainage. The applicant must
either provide 100% site retainage or provide calculations that
prove what the historic drainage was and match or exceed that
amount.
We also need to see a more detailed plan for dry well locations.
Construction Schedule
As was mentioned in the original PUD, the applicant must provide
us with a complete construction schedule and phasing plan so that
we can accommodate barricading, pedestrian traffic, truck traffic,
excavation access, material storage, etc.
Service Area
The service area for this project is in the same location as the
access/egress for the parking garage and the guest drop-off
area. We see this as presenting a potential conflict between
large delivery trucks and automobiles. We need more information
to fully assess this design such as:
- traffic data on the amount of trips per day for guests, limos,
and service vehicles accessing the project.
- feedback from one or more of the trucking companies, Nobel for
example, on the workability of this design.
Our concern is that this area might become so congested that it
would force some trucks and automobiles to park along Bleeker
Street.
The delivery trucks should be routed so that they access the
The delivery trucks should be routed so that they access the
service area from Bleeker and Monarch streets instead of Bleeker
and Mill streets. This would allow them to take a gradual right
turn into the service area instead of a sharp left turn.
Trash
The applicant is seeking a variance form Section 24.3.7(h). Tony
Vagneur of BFI has indicated that the 10' x 17' area proposed for
trash facilities could accommodate a small compactor and two
dumpsters. However, this will require daily trash pick-up, which
adds to the congestion of the service area.
The trash
will
be compacted
and moved to
the two containers.
When the
trash
truck makes it
daily pick-up, the two containers
will have
to be
wheeled out
of the trash
room, into the garage
exist, down the
ramp to the
trash truck.
This will essentially
shut off
the garage
exit while
the trash
collection process is
occuring.
This
would take 15
to 20 minutes
to complete.
Parking
In the original PUD agreement, the 105 room project was to
provide 60 parking spaces at the Rio Grande facility. The
amendment proposes 51 on -site parking spaces for a 94 room
project. The number of rooms has been decreased by 11 and the
number of parking spaces has been decreased by nine.
The proposed plan for the service area on Sleeker Street will
eliminate nine parking spaces. There are presently about 13
parking spaces on the Hotel Jerome property available for guest
and employee parking that will also be eliminated.
PERRY A. HARVEY
Post Office Box 8720
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-2182
June 11, 1986
Ms. Elyse Elliott
Aspen Engineering Department
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Elyse:
This letter shall cover the issues of our June 9th meeting on
the hotel Jerome.
1. Concerning the water line, you will discuss with Jim Markalunas
the preferred location of the fire hydrant and the sizing of the
water line from Monarch down Bleeker. Perhaps input is needed
from the fire department for the location of the hydrant. We
agree the City should install the water line with the Hotel
Jerome paying for the linear feet from the Monarch water line to
the point where the service line to the Hotel attaches. This
was 240 linear feet in the original PUD Agreement.
2. We will provide you with a cost estimate for the landscaping to
be installed on the site.
3. Delivery information to the Hotel comes from the General Mana-
ger. During the season, there are normally three companies
making deliveries and there are two to three deliveries a day,
Monday through Friday. The largest truck used is forty-five
feet long and, unless weather interferes, all deliveries are
completed by 11:00 a.m. During the off-seasons, deliveries
average one every other day. The construction of the addition
should not increase the delivery schedule as there is no
increase to the food and beverage service except for occasional
banquets in the ball room. I am trying to contact Nobel to give
its a written review of the delivery system.
Ms. Elyse Elliott
June 11, 1986
Page Two
4. Trash has been reviewed by BFI, including the compaction equip-
ment and the system for pickup. They feel the system is
workable without undue interference with the other traffic into
or out of the parking garage. Trash pickup will be five days
weekly in the season and two to three days a week in the off-
season. The pickup time is estimated to be 8:00 a.m. in season
and 7:00 a.m. in the off-season.
While there may be certain short conflicts between guest cars,
taxis, limos and service vehicles, nevertheless the delivery
system is a vast improvement over the originally approved system
and, with the regrading of Bleeker, will serve the needs of the
City and the Hotel.
5. I will contact Elam to do the necessary work to produce a firm
bid for the regrading and repaving of Bleeker Street.
6. To avoid traffic congestion on Main Street, we would like the
loading and unloading zone extended for the length of the
property. While this will remove some parking spaces, the
parking provided on the Jerome site will on balance reduce the
congestion of the neighborhood. Extending the loading zone will
relieve potential congestion during peak periods at the Hotel.
7. Regarding limousine service, the Hotel Jerome currently owns one
Chevrolet Suburban. It is impossible to establish the number of
limousines needed at any one time. In off-season, one will
suffice; certain weeks in March may require four. As a
first-class hotel, the Jerome will provide courtesy service at
whatever level required to accommodate guests.
Please contact me for any additional information you may
require.
Sincerely,
Perry A. Harvey
PAH/nkb
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
UA�
�Acll r V\ L'-v-
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: HOTEL JEROME PUD
DATE: MAY 13, 1986
We have reviewed the applikantsrequest for a PUD amendment and
only wish to make the follmment in respect to water
availability for this properave had previous discussions
concerning the logistics of providing water to the property from
Bleeker St. Presently, there is not a water main in Bleeker
between Monarch and Mill. It has been our recommendation (and
will continue to be) that the Hotel Jerome provide water service
for the addition via a 6" main to be constructed from Monarch St.
easterly along Bleeker St. to a point perpendicular to where the
service line from the new building will enter. At the inter-
section of the Jerome service line and the 6" Bleeker St. main,
the Water Department suggest that a new fire hydrant be in-
stalled.
In order to provide reliability to the Jerome Hotel addition, the
Water Department recommends that the Jerome "interests" inter-
connect the 6" main from Monarch St. to the 6" main on Mill St.
This interconnect would provide for reliability of service and
increased fire flows for the Hotel Jerome.
Should the Hotel Jerome agree to providing this interconnect, the
City of Aspen can provide the necessary water for the facility
(see previous correspondence).
JM:ab
ht1.jer
ME MORANDU M
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Zoning Enforcement Official
Steve Burstein/Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment - Phase II
DATE: May 5, 1986
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Perry
Harvey on behalf of his client Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership,
requesting an amendment to their previously granted PUD. Please
refer to the attached materials for details.
Please return your comments to the Planning Office no later than
May 15 in order to give this office adequate time to prepare for
its presentation before the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
T3 Y ►-NE
, r11'/S 1 K/c/
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning
Alan Richman, Planning
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning
RE: Hotel Jerome
DATE: May 27, 1986
(1) Once again pools and spas appear to be in the required open
space. If the code does not get changed, Planning and 'Zoning
should recommend to the Board of Adjustments that a variance be
approved. I am aware of Alan Richman's feelings and letter in
regard to pools in open space and I agree.
(2) As mentioned in Perry Harvey's letter of April 29, 1986, the
roof will be measured to the top of the required parapet. Jim
Wilson, as well as myself, feel this is the intent of the height
code.
(3) Once again, verification of open space, F.A.R. calculations,
etc., will be made by this Department during building permit
application review.
(4) Applicant should be careful that proposed trees at the
corner of Mill and Bleeker Streets, and Bleeker and Monarch
Streets, should not further obstruct the corner site view for
traffic.
cc: Jim Wilson, Building Official
Peggy Seegers, Zoning Official
ar/BD
�� MAY 2 9 lib 1t`i�
a
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director
FROM:
Jim Wilson,
Chief Building
Official
RE:
Hotel Jerome
PUD Amendment
DATE: May 29, 1986
Preliminary fire and building code concerns are based on the
assumption that the proposed addition will be built with wood -
frame construction, as discussions with the architect have
indicated. The following should be addressed prior to building
permit application:
1) The maximum allowable building height, using wood
frame construction, is 50 ft., by building code. The
building code measures height to the roof deck. The
section on Sheet 2 of the plans shows a 51'-6" building
height.
2) The building must be fully fire sprinklered and
Class I standpipes must be provided.
3) A 3-hour fire separation is required between the
parking garage and the rest of the building. This
separation is required at the drop-off lobby and
receiving area.
4) A shrinkage analysis of any wood stud walls and
bearing partitions supporting more than two floors and
a roof must be submitted. The shrinkage or movement of
the wood framing shall not have adverse effects upon
the structure, fire resistance, nor any plumbing,
electrical, nor mechanical systems.
All other code concerns will be addressed during the plan review
process when more detail is available.
JW/ar
June 23, 1986
City Council of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Members of City Council,
As property owners in the immediate area of the Jerome Hotel, (212"-Notth
Monarch Street), we urge the Council and the owners of the Jerome to
consider the following:
1. proceed with the revised building plans (approved by planning and
zoning) which would allow for a 20' setback and the elimination of
a fourth story on the corner of Monarch and Bleeker Streets.
2. landscaping of the addition which would offer trees of significant
height to line the perimeter of the property, specifically along
Bleeker Street, thus "softening" the effect of the additional height
(significant height would be over 25')
3. impact of the grading of Bleeker Street upon the property of the
Elder family; consideration for the Elder parking facility on Bleeker
4. appropriate planning for the elimination of unsightly vents, blowers
and other rooftop protuberances
5. monitoring of no loitering or construction worker parking along
Bleeker and Monarch Streets. Insistence on using the parking
facility located on the Rio Grande property.
Thank you for your consideration of these five points. We look for-
ward to a successful Jerome which will enhance our neighborhood, not
destroy its residential charm.
Sincerel ,
�l
Philip R. Hodgson
Patricia H. Hodgson
/ .9
w� a",(, 6cz.- ej
at 2 3,z c� (a, M4
G)e- t..
i�k
Ooa��
7d, � a/X_ -
Reqular Meeting Planning and Zonincr Commission June-19, 1986
Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with
members Al Blomquist, Jasmine Type, David White, Mari Peyton and
Roger Hunt present.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
1. David White reported on a joint work session with Council
and the HPC on the historic preservation element. White said
they would like a demolition and excavation review on all
buildings. Council discussed a historic overlay over the entire
town. Council would like P & Z and HPC look at FAR and area and
bulk, and perhaps have local architects help on this. Review of
color and illumination was discussed. Council discussed
expanding HPC's authority, which would require more staff and
clarity.
2. Alan Richman asked P & Z to attend a joint work session with
Council on June 30 to discuss Code simplification. Richman told
the Board the consultant selected for this work will be in town,
and this meeting will give the consultant some directions. Jay
Hammond, city engineer, told the Boards after this work session,
the consultant team on the joint maintenance facility will report
on the work they have done. Hammond gave the members a report
from Fleet Maintenance Consultants on the issue of locating a
maintenance facility in town. There are 5 suggested sites in the
report. These meetings will be at the community center.
3. Alan Richman told P & Z their case load is starting to back
up. The Popcorn Wagon is looking for special help to be reviewed
rather than wait to August. Richman requested P & Z schedule a
special meeting for Tuesday, June 24, to review this commercial
and restaurant in open space. P & Z agreed to have a special
meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Hunt moved to nominate Welton Anderson as Chairman and Jasmine
Tygre as Vice-chairman; seconded by Ms. Peyton. All in favor,
motion carried.
MINUTES
Hunt moved to approve the minute of March 18 and April 8, 1986;
seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried.
601 ASPEN GMP SCORING - PUBLIC HEARING
Alan Richman said staff has found the best way to handle complex
projects is to set specific agendas for specific approvals.
Richman said this meeting is to score the 601 Aspen project under
1
Regular Meeting Plann-inq_and Zoninq Commission June 17. 1986
the growth management scoring system. Richman told the Boards
they will review the zoning, subdivision and multi -year
allotments on July 8. Richman pointed out the planning office
review of this project has been dedicated only to GMP scoring and
it has scored above the threshold. The staff has not recommended
in favor or against this project.
Steve Burstein, planning office, told P & Z this application is
for 92 free market residential units that will be short term, as
well as 20 units at the Mine Dumps that will be reconstructed for
a total of 112 units. There will be 152 underground parking
spaces, 20 surface parking space, a new alignment for Dean
street, vacation of Juan street, $4,300,000 employee housing
obligation, and hotel amenities. Burstein reminded the Board the
other 1985 residential project was Sunny Park, which was
allocated 4 units. Burstein said this project met the threshold
on staff's scoring. There are some outstanding commitments in
the applicant in the areas of utilities improvement, -energy
conservation; there are some flaws with the project. Burstein
said he is concerned about the amount of paving on site as well
as the ability to accommodate the Aspen Skiing Company's
commitment for 30 parking spaces and a transit system.
Burstein told the Commission he does not feel the proposed width
of Dean street is adequate to serve the area. The engineering
department feels 40 feet would be more appropriate than 25 feet.
Burstein said there may be some problems with neighborhood
compatibility, the open space and single family neighborhood.
Burstein said in site design, he is concerned about placement of
the building right up to the edge of the single family area, and
the open space may not be in an appropriate location.
Doug Allen, representing the applicant, introduced the applicant,
Hans Cantrup, Bob Ownes and Sam Hyatt, Skidmore, Owings and
Merrill, architect, and Mark Danielsen, general planner. Sam
Hyatt, presented a model of the project to give a general
overview of the concept. The proposal is for 112 free market
units in a residential lodge type configuration located adjacent
to Shadow mountain. This project will be within the 28 foot
height limitation. Hyatt said he tried to work within the scale
of the other buildings in the area. Hyatt said by combining the
buildings at the bottom of the hill, it provides a greater
visibility at the top of the site.
Hyatt said the major building block is at the center of the
property with additional housing at the lower end. This provides
breathing room from the existing building along Durant street.
Hyatt showed the landscaped area in the vacated Juan street.
Hyatt showed the service and garage entrances, swimming pool,
tennis courts and dining facilities. The character of the
2
Regular Meeting Planning and Zonin4 Commission June 17. 1986
project will use stone, wood and copper. Hyatt said he tried to
accomplish a resort environment using the unique site location
next to the hill. There is an extension of a Nordic trail
through the property and pedestrian access for hiking through
vacated Juan street. There will be sidewalk access along Aspen
street to service the traffic flow during ski season. Hyatt said
by putting the parking below grade and making Dean street at 25
feet, they tried to keep this project to a more residential
scale.
Allen went over the staff's GMP scoring. Allen pointed out the
criteria for points in fire protection. The fire department has
commented protection can be provided. The staff has commented
the hydrants location should be changed, and there should be a 50
foot radius at the cul-de-sac for turnaround, and Dean street
should be widened to 40 feet. Allen said a 40 foot street with
parking on both sides is only 25 feet wide. The applicant is
proposing Dean street be 25 feet wide with no parking on either
side. Allen told the Board that Dean street will be privately
maintained but used publicly. The applicant wants a high quality
entrance to the hotel, and it will be snow melted. Allen
suggested the project be allowed the full 2 points in fire
protection.
The criteria for parking design does include the amount of paved
surface. The staff has interpreted that to include the paved
surface in front of the garage. Allen said they plan 20 short
term surface parking spaces and 152 below ground. Allen said the
152 spaces underground does away with the consideration of
whether the surface is paved or not. Allen said they feel this
is an excellent parking design, it is hidden from view and has a
beautiful access to the garage. Allen said they should be
entitled to 2 points for parking design.
Allen told the Commission that Dean street no longer exists
between Garmisch and Aspen street due to a law suit that gave the
easterly portion of Dean street to Lift One condominiums. Allen
said the applicant is proposing to create a connector street,
which possibility does not exist at the present time. Allen
suggested this is an improvement to the road system, and the
applicant should be entitled to 2 points.
In neighborhood compatibility, staff commented that the mass of
the building was not compatible with the neighborhood. Allen
said the neighborhood contains Southpoint, Lift One and
Timberridge condominiums. These buildings mass and FAR are
greater than what the applicant is proposing. Allen said
regarding the comments on shading, Shadow mountain is higher than
any of the applicant's proposed buildings. This building cannot
create a solar problem for other buildings as the sun goes behind
q
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -June 17. 1986
Shadow mountain. This project should be entitled to 2 points
rather than 1.
Allen brought up site design and told the Commission this area is
platted for development. Most of this property is zoned L-2, and
the transition has to take place somewhere. The intent of the
L-2 zone district was to be a transition zone, and this site
design is compatible making the transition of a lodge to the
Shadow mountain site. Allen said the project should be awarded a
total of 5 more points than given by the planning office.
White asked if this is a studio apartment hotel with kitchens.
Allen said they are applying for a growth management allotment
for residential units, which allows kitchens. Allen said they
feel there is a market for units with kitchens, and lodge units
are not allowed kitchens. Allen told the Board there will be a
dining room for guests. White asked what kind of commercial
space is planned. Allen said the only commercial space will be
accessory to the hotel operation.
Hunt asked about the service access to the facility. Hyatt
showed the access from Garmisch through to Aspen street with the
pull off to the hotel entrance. Hyatt showed the service access
at the west end pod and how trucks will pull into Dean street and
back into the building. Hyatt said the compactor, transformer
and utilities are all within and underneath the buildings; the
service corridor connects through to the dining area. Hyatt said
the building is deep enough to accommodate trucks within the
building. Hyatt said the building can accommodate 4 docks.
Hyatt said they will try to hide the service access as much as
possible.
Blomquist asked to see the trail plan and asked if there are
plans to get easements for trails to the west. Hyatt showed the
Commission the trail cutting through the site. They have various
proposed alignments, depending on what happens to easements to
the west. Hunt said he is concerned as there does not seem to be
provisions for improving Aspen street and the sidewalk. Hyatt
said they are planning a sidewalk to connect to Dean street. Ms.
Peyton said she does not see any viable area that could be
perceived as a large green space. Ms. Tygre said the planning
office memorandum points out there is vegetation and building
shown on the area north of the Mine Dumps not owned by the
applicant, and asked where that is. Hyatt showed the hillside
they have shown on the drawings; however, it is not calculated as
part of the plan. Allen said this is a 20 foot strip.
White asked when the project would be complete. Allen said 1988.
Allen told the Commission they do not have a commitment from the
Broadmoor to be the operator of the facility yet; it has been
4
Reqular Meetino Plannin4 and Zoning Commission June 1-7, 1986
discussed with the Broadmoor. Allen told the Boards it is too
early to get a commitment from any operator.
Anderson opened the public hearing, and listed the items that the
P & Z will be scoring.
Jasmine dePagter asked what guarantees there will be that the
landscaping will be done and taken care of. Allen answered that
is part of a subdivision agreement, which is a legally binding
document between the city and the developer. Jack dePagter said
he does not object to the area being cleaned up and a nice hotel
being built in this location. dePagter said improvements to the
lodging industry should be allowed. Dave Zaagman asked how many
years allotment this applicant is asking for. Anderson said the
multi -year issue will be addressed at a subsequent meeting.
Dave Ellis said adjacent property owners received notice of this
as a public hearing for the rezoning issue. Allen said the
rezoning issue will be continued to July 8. John Simmons said he
is concerned with the way this project fits into the
neighborhood, it is chopping across the mountain. Simmons
pointed out that fire protection to the middle of the project
would be very difficult. Mary Barbee told the Commission there
are misrepresentations on the model. The land to the west is not
the applicants and is made to appear as part of the project. Ms.
Barbee showed the Commission the Barbee property. Ms. Barbee
said the project is not as compatible with the west side as with
the east side. Ms. Barbee said this project is configured
compacts the development in one location.
Dave Ellis, representing the Timberridge condominiums, said
regarding storm drainage, the applicant claims to be putting curb
and gutter on both sides of Aspen street between Dean and Durant.
Ellis pointed out there is existing curb and gutter there and
that should be taken into account. Ellis said he does not feel
the parking is sufficient. The applicant is eliminating parking
on Juan, which is signed no parking, but is consistently used for
parking. There may be parking eliminated on Dean and Garmisch.
Ellis said he does not feel a semi truck can be backed up in 25
feet. This is a deficiency in terms of service. Ellis told the
P & Z there should be no points awarded for Dean street, if Juan
street is to be vacated. Ellis said this project will
substantially alter the existing traffic patterns in the area.
Ellis said the applicant should demonstrate how the traffic will
be handled.
Ellis said applications are supposed to conform to zoning; this
project does not conform to set backs in the L-2 zone. Ellis
pointed out multiplying 112 units times 800 square feet and
adding halls and stairways, it totals 112,000 square feet. Ellis
5
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 1986
said this does not account for lounge, recreation facilities,
dining facilities, administration, and enclosed trash area.
Ellis said this project will exceed the 1:1 FAR in the L-2 zone.
Ellis said this project has not requested PUD designation and
must conform to the zone district. Ellis said any subgrade or
basement areas that are habitable also have to be included in FAR
calculations. Ellis said there are no hotels in town that have
dining facilities 100 percent restricted to guest uses, and a
condition of approval should be no liquor service and no public
usage of such facility. Ellis said in terms of density, there
are two doors shown on the floor plan to an 800 square foot
studio with two baths. This could become a one bedroom unit, or
a studio and a lodge room. This would require more parking, or a
total of only 90 units.
Allen said the applicant has shown a logical extension of the
trail on his property, which complies with the Code. This trail
was commented on favorably by the Nordic council, and the
applicant feels they should get the whole 3 points. Allen said
they have not dealt with the question of illegal parking. Allen
said the applicant will work with the planning office to get the
project to be compatible with the code and will address many of
these concerns. White said these studios have 6 pillows, and in
P & Z's discussions a room is defined by having 2 pillows. Allen
said the Code addresses the room configuration, not the number of
beds. Burstein said this configuration appears to meet the
definition of studio. White said in discussions of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge, a lock off room had to be counted as a separate
room. White said these rooms could hold 3 couples with 3 cars.
Allen said the units comply to Code, and the Code states a studio
contains 1.25 people.
Fred Smith, adjacent property owner, said although they support
the project, they are concerned about the evolution of the
project. When the applicant presented the project in March,
there were 100 units at about 400 square feet. The applicant has
added two buildings, decreased the setback on Aspen street from
20 to 5 feet. Smith said this project appears to be able to
support 600 to 700 people. Alan Bush, Silver Shadow
condominiums, supported comments made by Ellis and Smith. Bush
said the density is inappropriately high.
Anderson continued the public hearing to July 8, 1986.
Ms. Tygre asked what the size of a typical short term units is.
Ellis said a typical unit is 300 to 400 quare feet. Ms. Peyton
commented employee housing at Midland Park 2 bedrooms are 850
square feet. Ms. Peyton asked if the living area could be locked
off. Burstein said that would be a violation of the building
code. White said the fire access is of concern to him, and it
1.1
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 1986
appears it would be difficult to get to the center portion of the
complex. Hyatt said in the next phases of design, they will
design an access with the fire department.
Blomquist said if this is zoned lodge, these units should come
out of the lodge quota. The general rule in the past has been if
a project is in a lodge zone, the units come out of the lodge
quota. If a project is in a RMF zone, it comes out of the
residential quota. Blomquist said if previous lodge units with
kitchens came out of the lodge quota, they should have been
deducted from the residential quota. Blomquist said he would
like a report back on previous deductions from the quota. Allen
said the code allows RMF in the L-2 zone, and they would not be
able to do kitchens if they were applying for lodge units. Also
there are no lodge units available.
Ms. Peyton said when employee housing is taken care of by cash in
lieu, there may be a chance that the units will not come into
existence simultaneously with this project. Georgia Taylor said
the housing office would rather have the cash to use in areas of
employee housing that is most needed. Hans Cantrup suggested
cash in lieu could be ear marked for M.A.A. housing.
Commission members scored the project. Burstein calculated the
members scores Burstein said the threshold is 31.8 points and
the application scored 29.7 and did not meet the threshold.
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - Use Tables to Allow Dwelling Units in
the Commercial Core zone district
Anderson stepped out of the room. Vice Chair Tygre opened the
public hearing.
Burstein told the Commission the land use plan, which the staff
is working on, has some pertinent information and it may be
better to table this. Burstein said the Commission needs to look
at how this code amendment may effect the commercial inventory.
It could be argued that because there is limited commercial
space, this could take away from commercial space. Burstein said
on the other hand, it has been suggested there may be an excess
of commercial space. Burstein said the GMP quota would be
effected both in the commercial quota and residential quota.
Burstein said the staff feels residential uses in historic
commercial structures should be a conditional use and may serve
as an incentive to restoration. Burstein recommended residential
uses not be permitted in non -historic structures. Burstein
agreed with the applicant that residential uses in a commercial
core does add vitality. The parking requirements are a special
review by P & Z, and the staff is looking at a cash in lieu
7
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 1986
alternative towards a parking structure. Tom Baker, planning
office, told the P & Z staff will have a report in July on the
break down of the land uses in the downtown area.
White said the Commission has changed the concept of having no
residential in the downtown area. White said the third floor of
any building is not a viable commercial space, and the second
floor has questionable commercial value. White agreed that the
vitality aspect is very positive. Blomquist said he would agree
with residential uses as long as these are long term rather than
short term. Andy Hecht said dwelling units are permitted in the
commercial core as accessory uses. Hecht said commercial tenants
on second stories do not last very long. Hunt said the
Commission should address the parking problem because residents
are more likely to have cars.
Blomquist moved the P & Z sponsor a resolution for an amendment
to the zoning code use tables to allow dwelling units accessory
to the principle use, long term, deed restricted to employee
housing guidelines in the commercial core zone as a permitted use
in historically designated structures and as a conditional use in
other buildings; all such dwelling units to be above ground
level; seconded by White.
Burstein pointed out that allowing employee housing units is not
a change to the Code, which is considered an accessory use.
Blomquist withdrew his motion.
Ms. Peyton said free market units could
parking issue is addressed. Ms. Tygre
impossible to provide parking on -site
Richman said staff is working on a cash
the transportation study has to be done
plan has to identify where the money
specific program is.
Ms. Tygre closed the public hearing.
be allowed as long as the
pointed out it is almost
in the commercial core.
in lieu for parking, but
first. Richman said the
will go and what the
Hunt moved to direct the planning office to go forward with the
proposed code amendment allowing permanent residential uses in
the commercial core in a historically designated building with
the 6 month minimum lease requirements, that this be a
conditional use and that the parking requirement will have to be
satisfied under special review and may include many options and
does not waive the need for parking; seconded by Ms. Peyton.
Blomquist said he would prefer to see this be a permitted use
rather than conditional use.
0
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning_ Commission June 17, 1986
Roll call vote; Blomquist, no; Peyton, yes; White, yes; Hunt,
yes; Tygre, yes. Motion carried.
HOTEL JEROME EXPANSION PUD AMENDMENT
Alan Richman, planning director, said the resolution should
reflect the ownership as Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership rather
than Dick Butera. The second condition regarding shading should
be changed to state "The applicant's redesign will take into
consideration the results of the shading study on Bleeker
street". Richman noted condition #3, the engineering department
is uncomfortable with the figure for Bleeker street to be
$17,500. The engineering department would like the language to
read that the city will repay half the total cost.
Richman said the resolution needs a further resolved paragraph to
grant conditional use, special review for trash and utility
access area, and special review of commercial restaurant in open
space.
Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, told the Commission the
engineering department talked to Elam about regrading Bleeker
street and the $35,000 is a ball park figure. Harvey said Elam
won't do the survey work required to give an accurate bid unless
they are guaranteed the job. Any job over $10,000 the city is
required to put to bid, so an exact figure cannot be reached.
Harvey said the condition states the applicant will commit to
paying these costs consistent with plan of the engineering
department. Harvey said the applicant would like some input and
the right to review the plans. Richman said he feels this is
appropriate. Harvey said the plan does have to meet engineering
standards because it will be a city street. Richman suggested
adding language "said plans also received approval of the
applicant".
Harvey told the Boards that the original PUD agreement requires
the applicant to compensate the city for an 8 inch water main
from Monarch street east along Bleeker 240 feet. Harvey said the
applicant is not asking for this section of the original PUD
agreement to be amended. The staff is now requesting the
applicant to loop to Mill street. Harvey said since they are
not asking this section to be amended, it should stay the way it
is. Harvey said he feels this is unfair. Richman said this is
needed by the project and will benefit the project, looping is a
reliability of double availability of service and is standard in
the city.
Harvey said in the original approval, the city was going to do
the loop. Harvey said he is not comfortable that it is open
season on every element in the PUD agreement. Richman told the
Regular_ Meeting-Planninq and Zoninq Commission June 17, 1986
Board since the original approval of this, the city has adopted a
new water management plan. Richman said looping is not out of
the ordinary for a project of this size. Burstein told the
Boards the water department has indicated they will try to find
the money to loop this system, but felt it is reasonable to ask
the applicant because of the reliability. Hunt said as the
city's regulations change, people have to comply with these
regulations. City Attorney Taddune said looping is the
engineering state of the art, and it has an impact on insurance
values, adjacent property health and safety concerns. Taddune
suggested the P & Z could defer this decision to the Council
because it is the city's water system. Taddune said his office
has been insistent on having project loop their systems. Harvey
said he wants to maintain the same agreement that exists in the
PUD agreement. Hunt asked if the Board is satisfied with the
truck access. Anderson said they are.
Blomquist moved to approve Resolution 86-8 changing the second
whereas to read Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership; changing
condition number 3 to say mutually approved by the city
engineering department and the applicant and changing $175,00 to
50 percent shared construction costs, and adding an also be it
resolved at the end that a grant of condition use was given;
approval was given for special review for trash and service area
and for commercial uses in open space; seconded by Ms. Peyton.
All in favor, motion carried.
WELLS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Steve Burstein, planning office, told the Boards this is an
application for two additions, one onto the house at 1100 Black
Birch, and one onto the garage area. Burstein showed Castle
creek river and the structures. The engineering department has
reviewed this and is satisfied construction will not take place
in the 100 year flood zone. Burstein noted that two trees will
be removed for the garage. This is a cottonwood forest and the
loss of these two trees will not be a significant derogation of
open space, and the parks department agreed this is reasonable.
Hunt asked if there is a potential trail on this property.
Burstein told the Board he checked the master plan, and there is
none.
Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review subject to
conditions 1 through 3 in the planning office memorandum of 13
June 1986; seconded by Ms. Peyton. All in favor, motion carried.
Blomquist moved to adjourn at 7:40 p.m.; seconded by White. All
in favor, motion carried.
10
Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 17. 1986
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
11
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: HOTEL JEROME PUD AMENDMENT PHASE II: THE ADDITION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held on
June 23, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M. before the City
Council of Aspen, Colorado, at the Community Center on Lone Pine
Road in Aspen, to consider a request by the Hotel Jerome Limited
Partnership to amend the previously granted Hotel Jerome PUD.
The property is located at the northwest corner of Main and Mill
Streets in Aspen, Colorado.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020,
ext. 223.
s/Will iam L. Stirling
Mayor, City Council of Aspen,
Colorado
Published in the Aspen Times on June 23, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment Phase II: The Addition
DATE: June 3, 1.986
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests an amendment to the
Hotel Jerome PUD with respect to the proposed addition. The
attached letter from Perry Harvey describes some of the reasons
for the proposed amendment, and evaluates many of the important
project parameters which will need to be addressed in this land
use review. The addition of lodge units to this individually
designated historic structure is exempt from competition from the
quota system (although to be deducted from the lodge quota at the
time of building permit issuance) as per Section 2.4-11.2(b) of
the Code.
Specifically, the applicable provisions of the Code for P&Z
consideration are:
1. Section 24-8.26 - Amendment of PUD Plan
2.. Section 24-3.3 (c) - Amendment of approved conditional use
(Hotel in CC zone district).
3. Section 24-3.7(d) (8) - P.estaurant in required open space.
4. Section 2.4-3.5 (b) - Reduction of trash and utility service
area dimensions.
BACKGROUND: On April 11, 1983, the Aspen City Council approved
the Hotel Jerome PUD, Renovation and Addition. When ownership of
the Hotel passed from John Gilmore to T. Richard Butera, the
Planning Office and City Attorney determined that a phased
development program was permitted under current regulations, but
not recognized in the adopted PUD Agreement. Therefore, the
issuance of a building permit for the work on the existing
building was expressly conditioned on the applicant submitting a
PUD amendment addressing the impacts of phasing. That applica-
tion, which we will refer to as "Hotel Jerome PUD Application,
Phase I: The Renovation" was approved by City Council on May 5,
1986, subject to the conditions listed in the attached memorand-
um.
1
PLANNING OFFICE ANALYSIS; When this proposed amendment was first
presented by the applicant at a work session on February 3,
1986, it appeared that the changes to be made to the project were
quite positive and desirable. Having now received the applica-
tion and with an opportunity to review the proposal in more
detail, we see some significant problems, in addition to some
very clear benefits to be achieved. The following table sum-
marizes the changes proposed by the applicant, and the advantage
and disadvantages each change portends for the community when
compared to the approved plan.
TABLE 1 - PUD
AMENDMENT SUMMARY - HOTEL
JEROME ADDITION
Proposed Change
Advantages
Disadvantages
1.
Reduce room
May lessen overall
Bigger rooms may
count
project impact.
accommodate larger
guest count.
2.
Eliminate com-
W i 1 1 l e s s e n
None
mercial space
overall proj ect
impact.
3.
New architec-
Greater historical
Incompatible with
tural style
integrity.
s u r r o u n d i n g
heights; loss of
building stepback.
4.
Provide park-
Insures avail-
Increased heights
ing on -site
abil ity of parking
w i l l increase
at same time as
shading effect on
project construc-
Ill ee ker Street;
tion; eliminates
less of contribu-
travel to and from
f o r t o n u b t i c
off -site location.
parking structure
5.
Revise land-
None
Garden is exces-
scaping plan
sively "urbaniz-
ed"; buffer at
corner of Bleeker
and Monarch has
been reduced; much
of the open area
does not meet
definition of open
space.
6.
Revise service
Improved turnina
area
movements; reduced
Potential auto -
congestion on Main
truck conflicts;
Street.
increased traffic
on Bleeker Street.
2
Following is a more detailed e:-,amination of each of the proposed
changes, their benefits and costs, and their consistency with
applicable criteria from the Municipal Code.
1. Reduce Room Count - Following is a comparison of the room
count as originally approved in 1983 and as to be amended
herei n:
Approved Plan
Existing Bldg - 28 guest rooms
New Bldg - 4 employee units
74 quest rooms
Proposed Amendment
Existing Bldg - 27 quest
rooms, 4 employee
units in annex
New Bldg - 67 guest rooms
The above comparison demonstrates that whereas previously
102 guest rooms and 4 employee units were to be provided on
site, the current proposal is for 94 guest rooms and 4
employee units to be located herein, a net reduction of 8
units. The smaller room count would typically translate
into lessened on -site and off -site impacts. However, since
the new rooms will be more spacious than the prior approval,
it is likely that the total pillow count for the hotel has
actually increased, depending on how the hotel is managed.
We would like to see a comparison of expected pillow counts
from the approved to the amended project to verify the
actual impacts to be experienced.
2. Eliminate Commercial Space - The approved addition included
a variety of commercial uses associated with a "f ull
service" hotel, including a flower shop. books and gift
store, boutiques, camera shop, barber/beauty salon, etc.
Given the proximity of this site to shops in the commercial
core, it is quite obvious that all of these uses are already
within walkinq distance of guests Further, it could have
been expected that these uses would have drawn additional
patrons (and impacts) to the hotel, and not simply act in an
accessory manner for guests only.
The removal of the commercial space from the project is a
principal factor contributing to the reduction of the
proj ect' s FAR by approximately 23,000 square feet (from
about 2.7:1 approved to 2.23:1 proposed) but still requiring
a variation of the CC FAR. The allowable FAR in the CC zone
district is 1.5:1, increasable to 2.0:1 by the provision of
on -site employee housing in the ratio of 2 feet of commer-
cial space for every 3 feet of housing provided on -site.
3
Since the project Provides only 1,350 s.f. of employee
housing on -site, an additional 900 s.f. of commercial area
is allowable for a total project Floor Area of 73,818
(1.55:1) . Any increase beyond this size represents a
variation of allowable FAR.
Please note that the parking
garage,
involving 18,400 s.f.
of area,
is entirely exempt
from FAR
calculations, as per
Section
24-3.7(e) (3) of the
Code. Nevertheless,
since the
parking
structure is not fully below
grade, it does contri-
bute to
the perceived mass
of the
building. On balance
though,
we agree that the
overall
site impacts will be
lessened
by the reduction of
commercial space on -site.
3. New Architectural Style - The applicant indicates that due
to comments by the National Park Service, a revised archi-
tectural theme for the addition has been developed. Quite
frankly, we are most enthusiastic about some of the detailed
aspects of the revised architecture and would like to
compliment those responsible for proposing what is a very
special treatment of a very important building. These
comments simply echo those of the Historic Preservation
Commission, which gave final approval to the design at a
public hearing held on May 27, 1986.
While we are most supportive of the architectural details
involved in the window treatments and the more authentic,
rather than modernistic character of the addition, there are
significant problems imposed by the elevations associated
with the proposal. Following is a comparison of the heights
at the corners and mid -block of the surrouneing streets.
Street
Mill Street
Approved Plan
47 ft. to 52 ft.
Proposed Amendment
47 ft. to 52 ft.
(from connection of historic building to
corner of Bleeker)
Bleeker Street 52 ft. to 48 ft. 54 ft. to 50 ft. to
to 24 ft. 40 ft.
(from Mill Street corner to mid -block
near pool to Monarch corner)
Main Street 24 ft.
44 ft. to 33 ft.
(from attachment to historic building to
Aspen Times building)
We find the new elevations to be incompatible with sur-
!�
rounding land uses in the area, crhich is a criterion of the
conditional use amendment (Section 24-3.3(b) (3)) . It should
be recalled that during the 1983 review of this project, the
rear half of the site was rezoned from 0 - Office, to CC -
Commercial Core. This rezoning was permitted, in part,
because the heiq_ht of the addition around the pool was only
to be 24 feet, and, therefore, was less than that allowed
for the properties along Monarch and Bleeker Streets. The
present proposal is substantially in excess of the 28 foot
height limit of the office district, and will dwarf the
surrounding uses. Furthermore, the prior design provided
for a stepped -back architectural form, which helped in
reducing the perceived mass of the building, and which also
provided benefits in terms of shading on Bleeker Street (for
additional related comments, see discussion of parking and
site design, below) . A final concern is that from a
Building Code standpoint a 50 foot height limit is the max-
imum allowed for wood frame construction. This limitation
would also indicate that height reductions be implemented.
4. Provide Parking On -Site - The approved PUD plan required
that the applicant provide 60 parking spaces (35 employee,
25 guest) in conj►znction with the project. The number was
derived from a staff analysis, utilizing survey data
reryarding method of guest arrival to Aspen, and taking into
consideration existing parking on the site, the applicant's
commitment to provide three limos and other auto disincen-
tives, and the projected employment increase associated with
the expansion. The spaces were to be provided through a
cash contribution to the Rio Grande parking structure, with
interim plans also identified if the structure were not
built by the time of Hotel occupancy.
The applicant now proposes to place 51 spaces subgrade on
the site, with access from Bleeker Street. The principal
benefit of this alternative is that it insures the avail-
ability of parking for the project at the same time the
addition is occupied. Provision of the parking on -site also
eliminates the need for travel to and from the off -site
location, which could have been as far away as the Golf
Course under the approved PUD Agreement.
One reason that so many of the required spaces were to be
reserved for employees was the uncertainty as to the
location of the housing to be provided by the project. At
the time, it appeared that the applicant would purchase
Hunter Creek units, or those in some other existing complex.
The fact that we now know that the housing will be provided
at the Cortina, which is within one block of the Hotel,
obviates the need for much of the employee parking and opens
up additional spaces for guests. Provided that the limo
service operates with three vehicles, we believe the 51
61
spaces to be adequate for project needs.
The principal problem caused by providing the parking on -
site is that it has raised the elevation of the addition.
Whereas previously the building around the existing pool was
to be sunken 1/ 2 story into the ground, for a three story
height of only 24 feet, the parking now protrudes 6-8 feet
above grade as one moves from Mill Street to Monarch Street,
for a building height of 40 feet in the northwesterly corner
of the site.
In addition to the visual/land use compatibility issue with
respect to height, a second concern is the likely shading
effect on Bleeker Street. We have recently requested a
shading study showing the effect of the approved building,
the requested amendment and an intermediate alternative of
about 32 (rather than 24 or 40) feet around the pool. Given
the intention of the applicant to use Bleeker Street for
delivery trucks and as a parking garage entrance, and
recognizing the hazard with the existing grade on the
street, we f eel that it is crucial to know whether the
street will be in shade for all or part of the winter.
One last concern with respect to parking is that by provid-
ing the spaces on -site, we have lost a potential contributor
to a public parking structure. Unless the P&Z and Council
simply find the amendment entirely unsupportable and send
the applicant back to the drawing board (an action which we
would not support) , we see no way around this issue.
5. Revise Landscaping Plan - There are several important
changes to the proposed landscape plan for the property.
The original approval showed landscaping in the folla,, ing
portions of the site:
a. Jerome Garden - This area was to be a very formal
flower _garden and patio, surrounded by turf, shrubs and
trees.
b. Pool Area - A new pool and jacuzzi were to be placed in
approximately the current pool location.
C. Periphery - Extensive tree and shrubbery plantings were
to be placed along the exterior of the project on Mill,
Bleeker and Monarch Streets. An impressive planted
setback buffered the Monarch/Bleeker corner.
The new landscaping plan has the following elements:
a. Jerome Garden - The aarden area is now shown as
principally brick paving, with trees and shrubs spaced
within the interior and exterior of the area. The two
0
principal uses of the garden appear to be bar/outdoor
dining and a swimming pool space. The garden has been
extended to the rear, adjacent to the new lobby with a
grass lawn. The old pool area is covered by building.
b. Ballroom Patio - A brick patio with trees and shrubs is
proposed between the historic and new buildings on Mill
Street.
C. Periphery - Extensive tree and shrubbery plantings are
still to be placed along. the exterior of the project.
The setback at the Monarch/Bleeker corner is reduced to
standard proportions.
The Plannina Office is very dissatisfied with the new
landscape plan. 4?e find the prior approach, which incor-
porated much more green space in the traditional garden to
be vastly preferable to the "urbanized" scheme proposed
today. The rear green space is not likely to receive
significant sun, and is not of benefit to the public due to
its location. The ballroom patio, while providing an
opportunity for guests to "take a breather" is also not
truly viable open space for the public since it sits above
the Mill Street grade by more than four (4) feet. The open
space shown on the proposed plan does not, for the most
part, conform to the definition of open space contained in
the Code for the following reasons:
1. The garden area does not meet the minimum frontage
requirement of 100 feet or half the length of the lot
f rontage (it is 60 feet wide but needs to be at least
80 feet wide) .
2. The ballroom patio does not meet the frontage require-
ment and it is also more than four feet above grade.
3. The rear garden area does not front on the street at
all.
The only area which appears to meet the open space require-
ments is a 1400 square foot area in the rear corner of the
buildinq at Mill and Bleeker Streets.
The situation with repect to open space calculations is
similar to that which we have recently experienced with the
Little Nell project. In that instance, it was our recom-
mendation that Council vary the method of calculating open
space, based on the intent of having open space as a visual
relief from the building mass. From this perspective, the
7 ,3 20 square feet of space in the garden which does not meet
the minimum frontage requirement, but is the historic open
space on the site, should be counted toward the open space
7
requirement. Counting the two areas, an open space calcula-
tion of 18.3 percent is obtained. If we also add the
ballroom patio, an open space calculation of 21.7 percent is
obtained. Lastly, adding the rear garden, which has no
street frontage, allows for a 2.5.4 percent open space
calculation. Our position is that 18.3 percent of the site
be considered as open space (garden and northeastern
corner) , and a variation from the 2.5 percent requirement be
granted in light of the two other available areas which are
not being built upon.
In a conversation with the applicant's representative on
5/28, we were informed that the applicant also does not feel
comfortable with the plan as shown. A new plan has been
prepared, and will be presented to P&Z at your meeting on
Tuesday. This plan was presented to the staff just as this
memo was being finalized and while it seems to be a vast
improvement over the earlier proposal has yet to receive
detailed scrutiny by us.
6. Revise Service Area - The original scheme for the loading
dock off Bleeker Street required trucks to back into the
area, causing potential significant conflicts with other
vehicles on the street. The new plan shows a loading dock
in approximately the same location as previously, but in a
new configuration which allows direct access for trucks
without the backing in movement. This is a vast improvement
over the prior plan. However, this same area provides
access to the parking garage, causing the potential for
auto/truck conflicts. The Engineer reviewing the project
requested additional traffic and delivery data to assess the
severity of this potential conflict and is also concerned
about conflicts between garbage trucks and auto movement.
By moving the guest drop off from Plain Street (where the
Highway Department refused to permit it) to Bleeker Street,
we trade congestion problems. However, it is vastly
preferable to have this congestion removed from Main Street,
if an acceptable solution to the grade/icing problem on
Bleeker Street is found. According to Elyse Elliott, the
cost of regrading and paving Bleeker Street is about
$35,000. Since this project is not in the City's capital
budget, but should be accomplished at the same time as the
Hotel Addition, we suggest the following options:
a. Have applicant pay the full cost of the regrade;
b. Have the applicant "front" the cost of the regrade and
have the City pay back a percentage of this cost, with
the percentage and method of payment to be finalized in
the PUD Agreement with Council; or
c. Have the applicant "f ront" the cost of the regrade and
have the City pay back the entire cost to the appli-
cant.
Since this problem on Pleeker Street affects both the City
and the applicant, and since the applicant's new service
area will clearly exacerbate an already hazardous situation,
we feel that having the City and the applicants share the
cost, with the City paying the applicant back for "fronting"
the initial expenuiture, is the most equitable solution.
The applicant requests that P&Z vary the size of the
required trash and utility service area. Using the stan-
dards of Section 24-3 .7 (h) (4) , an area of about 100 linear
feet on an alley is needed. The entryway to the deli-
very/garage is about 65 feet in length, abutting a street
and not an alley. The internal dimension of the loading
area and turnaround is nearly 115 feet in length. The
Engineer comments that the trash area appears to be adequate
at 10 ft. x. 17 ft. If the P&Z finds that the turning
movements within the service area will work, and conflicts
between cars and trucks are minimal, we recommend that you
vary the requirement at such time as the Engineer's concerns
have been addressed.
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES: A variety of other issues have been raised
by the referral agencies. These issues include retention of
storm drainage, provision of utilities, construction schedule,
and building and zoning plan check verification. I attach the
referral memos for your review, and include the appropriate
comments as conditions of our recommended action.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Our review has identified both
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendment for the
Jerome Addition. The project's principal advantages provide
ample reason for supporting the project. These advantages
i_ ncl ude :
1. Reduced room count and elimination of commercial space will
lessen the project's impacts on the neighborhood;
2. The revised architecture provides for greater historical
integrity with the historic hotel.
3. The provision of on -site parking insures the availability of
an adequate number of spaces at the time of hotel occupancy.
The new service delivery area exhibits better turning
movements for sleeker Street and drop off in this area will
lessen congestion on Main Street.
There are several problems which the applicant must solve before
final approved is granted. These items include:
P
1. The height of the addition along Bleeker Street is incom-
patible with the neighboring office/residential uses. While
the heiaht at Mill Street and Bleeker has not changed
significantly, that around the existing pool is dramatically
increased. We recommend the following actions with respect
to this problem:
a. A shading study should be submitted to and reviewed by
staff and P&Z, comparing the effects of the approved
plan, the new proposal, and an intermedial_e alternative
of 32 feet on the Bleeker/Monarch side of the site.
Based on the results of the study, it may be necessary
to reduce the height of the addition to well below 40
feet. In no case, however, should the height approach
40 feet due to the incompatibility with the surrounding
uses. From a compatibility standpoint, 32 feet should
be the maximum height allowed on this portion of the
site. Further height restrictions should be based on
the results of the shading study. Height reductions
should be accomplished by laiering the elevation of the
parking structure or, if necessary, removing one or
more stories from the building.
b. The applicant should commit to fronting the cost of the
Bleeker Street regrade, with the City to pay back its
share of that cost through a formula to be approved in
an amended PUD Agreement between the City and the
applicant.
2. The landscaping plan is out of character with the historic
concept of the Jerome Carden. A new plan should be reviewed
and if found acceptable approved in conjunction with the PUD
amendment and outdoor dining in required open space applica-
tions.
Without the height reduction and the new landscaping plan , we
are unable to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment, condi-
tional use amendment or use of required open space for outdoor
dining. Additional information is also needed before the
trash/utility variation should be granted. At such time as the
problems noted above are rectified, and all requested information
is provided, we would recommend approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit an amended PUD plat for the
entire parcel meeting the requirements of Section 24-8.12 of
the Municipal Code and a new PUD Agreement for the renova-
tion and addition, superceding the previously approved
Agreement. The plat and Agreement shall include all
material representations made by the applicant during the
Phase I and Phase II amendments, and reflect all conditions
10
imposed by the City Council during that process.
2. The height of the building addition along Bleeker Street
from mid -block to the corner of Monarch shall not exceed .32
feet from final grade. This height shall be further reduced
by the Planning Commission and/or City Council if the
results of the shading study to be provided by the applicant
demonstrate a significant benefit to be gained from the
height reduction.
3. The applicant shall commit to paying for regrading Bleeker
Street consistent with plans to be developed f or this
project by the City Engineering Department. The regrading
shall occur in conjunction with construction of the Hotel
Addition. A formula for City repayment of a percentage of
the cost of the regrade shall be developed by the applicant
and City Council and included in the PUD Agreement.
4. The applicant shall provide the water system interconnec-
tions and fire safety requirements identified by Jim
Markalunas in his memo dated 5/13/86, and as elaborated upon
by Elyse Elliott in her memo dated 5/2.8/86.
5. The applicant shall respond to the informational requests
made by the Engineering Department in their memo dated
5/28/86 as regards storm drainage, construction schedule and
service area. The information with respect to the service
area must be reviewed by staff before the Planning Commis-
sion finalizes its action with respect to the trash/utility
area variation, while the remaining information should be
provided in time for Council review of the PUD Amendment.
6. Delivery trucks shall be routed to access the site from
Bleeker and Monarch Streets and not Bleeker and Mill Street.
7. The applicant shall verify that all building and zoning code
issues raised in Bill Drueding's memo dated 5/27/86 and Jim
Wil son' s memo dated 5/ 29/86 can be adeauatel_y addressed.
The only variations granted herein are as follows:
AR.3
a. Height as shown on the plans submitted and as to be
modified herein by Condition No. 2.
b. FAR not to exceed 2.23:1.
C. Trash/utility access area as shown on the plans
submitted.
d. open space variation as to method of calculation and
acceptable as 18.3 percent.
11
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
PERRY HARVEY Aspen, Colorado 81611 DATE: MAY 13
1986
(303) 925-1766
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
ACC. No. 86-047
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent
in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a
current list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of
the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto
and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin
County Assessors Tax Roll.
NAME AND ADDRESS
JEROME HOTIir COMPANY
c/o JOH AF GILMORE
P.OS FFICE BOX J
AS N, COLORADO 81612
CARL R. BERGMAN & CATHERINE M. BERGMAN
P.O. BOX 1365
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
P.O. BOX E
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
NORTON SHARPE
11450 AYRSHIRE ROAD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049
KARL G. LARSON
M. MADELINE LARSON
2425 S. 162nd STREET
NEW BERLIN, WISCONSIN 53151
LARRY LIGHTNER
c/o GARY A. WRIGHT, ESQ.
SUITE 106
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUITY & MORTGAGE COMPANY
JAMES R. MC DADE
ELAINE B. MC DADE
P.O. BOX 11689
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOT K, W11 LOT M, BLK. 79
LOTS E, F, BLK. 80
LOT M, W 10' LOT N, E� LOT L,
BLK 79.
UNIT 1A, JEROME PROF. BLDG
UNIT 1B, JEROME PROF. BLDG.
UNITS 1C, 1D, 1E,
JEROME PROF. BLDG.
UNIT 1F, JEROME PROF. BLDG.
NAME AND ADDRESS BR_-_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION
J. D. MULLER
P.O. BOX 4361
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 109
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
HERBERT S. KLEIN
MARSHA L. KLEIN
JOSEPH B. KRABACHER
JON DAVID SIEGLE
ELIZABETH STEWART
c/o KLEIN SIEGLE & KRABACHER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 201
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RICHARD H. CASSENS
CAROL S. CASSENS
31645 SOUTH CANYON CIRCLE
EVERGREEN, COLORADO 80439
REINHARD N. ELDER
202 NORTH MONARCH
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PHILIP R. HODGSON
PATRICIA H. HODGSON
212 NORTH MONARCH ST.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ASPEN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 8207
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
JOAN ENID LIGHT
801 BASELINE ROAD
BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
FERENC BERKO
MIRTE BERKO
P.O. BOX 360
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
WILLIAM G. BRUMDER, TRUSTEE
2054 FIRST WISCONSIN TRUST CO.
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53201
r
UNIT 1G, JEROME PROF. BLDG.
UNIT 1H, 1I, JEROME PROF. BLDG.
UNITS 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G,
2H, 2I, JEROME PROF. BLDG.
UNIT 2J, JEROME PROF. BLDG.
UNIT 2K, to It to
LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, BLK. 78
S 62' LOTS A, B, C, BLK. 78
LOTS D, E, F, G, H, I, BLK 78
LOTS G, H, I, BLK 72
LOTS C, D, E, F, BLK. 72
LOTS N, 0, P, Q, BLK 72
NAME AND ADDRESS - BRLcF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
WILLIAM G. PARZYBOK, JR. LOTS R, S, BLK 72
3609 EL CAMINITO
LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537
CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC.
PROPERTY TAX SECTION
P.O. BOX 7611
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94120
0. LOUIS WILLE
FRANCIS LYNETTE WILLE
200 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
r
ETHEL MC CABE
FRED PEARCE
P.O. BOX 531
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
LOUISE H. SAUREL
152 EAST 81st. STREET
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10028
J.E. ABELS ',
P.O. BOX 4707
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
EWALD H. CROSBY
ROSA GITTMAN
325 SOUTH FOREST STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80222
MARY ESHBAUGH HAYS, TRUSTEE
P.O. BOX 497
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
DRACO, INC.
210 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TERESE LOUISE DAVID ESTATE
c/o KITTY PIERRETTE SHERWIN PER. REP.
7017 ARANDALE ROAD
BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20817
CITY OF ASPEN
CITY HALL
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COUNTY OF PITKIN
PITKIN COUNTY COURT HOUSE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LOTS R, S, BLK 73
LOTS P, Q, BLK 73
LOTS N, 0, BLK. 73
LOTS H, I, BLK. 73
UNITS 1 & 2, MONARCH NORTH CONDOS
LOTS E, F, G, BLK. 73
LOTS C, D, BLK 73
METES AND BOUNDS, 7-10-84
LOTS L, M, BLK 73
NAME.AND ADDRESS BR,.;, LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LEWIS I. SCHAINUCK
3805 SANDUNE LANE
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625
FIRST ASPEN CORPORATION
P. 0. BOX 3318
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
JAMES E. MOORE
ALBERTA L. MOORE
P.O. BOX 707
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
KATHARINE THALBERG
P.O. BOX 2766
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
THE FORGE PARTNERSHIP
P.O. BOX 3159
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
NIKLAUS G. KUHN
GERTRUD E. KUUN
P.O. BOX 8016 '
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
SVEA PROPERTIES
P.O. BOX 1949
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
WILLIAM L. BEAUMONT
FLORENCE R. BEAUMONT
P.O. BOX 4695
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
LA COCINA, INC.
P.O. BOX. 4010
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
DUANE R. JOHNSON
MARGARET W. JOHNSON
1116 E. CINNABAR AVENUE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85020
ASPEN BANCORP, INC.
119 SOUTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
HODGE CAPITAL COMPANY
1505 BRIDGEWAY BOULEVARD
SAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965
r
ALL CONDO UNITS, r
MILL MAIN CONDOS
Ell LOT L, LOTS M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,
BLK. 86
LOTS F, G, H, I, BLK. 74
LOTS D,E, BLK. 74
LOTS R, S, BLK. 74
LOT A, W11 LOT B, BLK. 80
E31 LOT B, LOTS C, D AND
LOTS G, H, I BLK. 80
LOT K, BLK. 80
LOTS M, N, BLK. 80
LOT 0, BLK. 80
LOTS, P,Q,R,S, BLK 80
LOTS A, B, C, BLK. 87
AND LOT D
NAME A:ID ADbRESS
BR___ LEGAL DESCRIPTION
JESSE J. MADDALONE
ESTHEI: M. MADDALONE
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GRAND JUNCTION
TRUSTEES
2265 TANGLEWOOD ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81503
MARJORIE P. JENKINSON
P.O. BOX 483
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
M & W ASSOCIATES
434 EAST COOPER STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
METHODIST CHURCH
200 N ASPEN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
WILLIAM L. SEGUIN
P.O. BOX 2067
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
TRUEMAN ASPEN COMPANY
4355 DAVIDSON ROAD
AMLIN, OHIO 43002
e"
LOTS, E, F, G, H, I, BA. 87
LOTS L, 11, N, BLK. 87
LOT K, BLK 87
LOTS A, B, BLK. 73
THE SEGUIN BUILDING CONDOS
all units
LOT 1, TRUMAN NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMUNITY PROJECT
STREET n,!•
ASPEN CITY r3 _ r9
LIMIT
4 03
r
4p,Ir�,NI
1 • S 6 I 1
TUX 0I37I11OTr SMUGGLER
I AIS t i r STREET
ab
� S
' • S Z
inr*I � /6 1 w•1: s'a'L
E. F 9..�.._ e•L.
a:
3 ft pt 9
l b.
Al Fq 4 11 ', 111 TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHO,
�• Jj,, 17Sz COMMERCIAL PROJECT
6 N
14
14
0'SG
1 rx. 1" I
r "LL41,
r . 1 •3 (�,�, ,,�1. STgEET �)• ., h
65 13) T:1yB C•• hfe�r ? r
" 16
6.
r� BLEEKER �F.
-
YA� ., � ,�.%,••r• r�'!' `'ti•.. STREET as�1 �•
• low rou j' rw—
\ �. LADry Is ON ,.
� � mow' • C •+•
.fit �• �� L
utr �
,
k
r+ar• ,; ro;
ip
0
2 SOS, �
.s
:f
? r� ? " '• '
+rl •1' ltfiM'��i. ' .__... - �'j. c• +•�
444jN
�y � _��16 GKIIQta•l�hCh
STq ,+ f .
19
i �e o AJm�'•SIOA
10 Q Sr v
ct
HOPKr 4-." •-°.Q • 9115 JAI a 4eC
:C ! 4vENlt a+tvr ol. " Qom. �1 3/ .L�r.
lit
IC10 / .a yy` r I-
®T "�e� I
ria. AVRar_ kIr
P.
I hereby certify that on this ' 1 day of
198(,-, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of ! ublic Hearing
was det)osited in the United States mail, first-class posi-ace n_ r.Pnai d.
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on tile attached list of
adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by
the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice.
Nancy Crell;,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: HOTEL JEROME PUD AMENDMENT
Parcel ID #2737-073-21-001
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
June 3, 1986, to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Plannin and
Zoning Commission, in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena
Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a request by the Hotel
Jerome Limited Partnership to amend the previously granted Hotel
Jerome FUD. The property is located at the northwest corner of
Main and Mill Streets in Aspen, Colorado.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 223.
s1C Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 8, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
N.31
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: HOTEL JEROME PUD AMENDMENT PHASE II: THE ADDITION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held on
June 23, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M. before the City
Council of Aspen, Colorado, at the Community Center on Lone Pine
Road in Aspen, to consider a request by the Hotel Jerome Limited
Partnership to amend the previously granted Hotel Jerome PUD.
The property is located at the northwest corner of Main and Mill
Streets in Aspen, Colorado.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020,
ext . 223.
s /Wil1 iam L. Stirling
Mayor, City Council of Aspen,
Colorado
Published in the Aspen Times on June 23, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: HOTEL JEROME PUD AMENDMENT
Parcel ID #2737-073-21-001
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
June 3, 1986, to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Plannin and
Zoning Commission, in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena
Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a request by the Hotel
Jerome Limited Partnership to amend the previously granted Hotel
Jerome PUD. The property is located at the northwest corner of
Main and Mill Streets in Aspen, Colorado.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 223.
s1C Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 8, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
N.31
130 S. � E , ..; A
•AMPM COLORADO 81611
TO
SkNO[A
ADDRESSEE UNKNOW14
"V'7
Mr. & Mrs. William Beaumont
Box 4695
Aspen, CO 81612
O
JUN 9
U1986 • —�— _
w-
�_ zi unr
CITY/COUNTY PL.^ vNIN3 OFT- ..�F,
130 S. (GALENA
A9PEN, COLORADO •1611
City of Aspen
City Hall
Aspen, CO 81.611
o
JUN 9
1986
8iat\
USA
vr
GITY/COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE
I JO 3. ,SALENA
Alai, COLORADO 81611
County of Pitkin
Pitkin County Court House
Aspen, CO 81611
JUN 9 0
` FM
8986\
ASMK COLOAADQ 4,V-1
mAYDi
1986
ONE
D
WILLIAM & FLORENCE
BEAUMONT 7w �i
P.O. BOX 4695
ASPEN, CO 81612
ME MORANDU M
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Zoning Enforcement Official
FROM: Steve Burstein/Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment - Phase II
DATE: May 5, 1986
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Perry
Harvey on behalf of his client Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership,
requesting an amendment to their previously granted PUD. Please
refer to the attached materials for details.
Please return your comments to the Planning Office no later than
May 15 in order to give this office adequate time to prepare for
its presentation before the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
fk A iA'01 C&tV---
T. Richard Butera
April 28, 1986
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to notify the Aspen Planning
Office that Perry Harvey is the authorized representative
to make the application for the amended P.U.D. on
behalf of the owners of the Jerome Hotel.
TRB/mt
General Partner
Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership
/-/-029-
Date
1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-8900
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-1766
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent
in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that the owner in fee
simple of the following described property is hereby vested in:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO
Legal Description of subject property:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO
Subject to the following:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED HERETO
Certified this 16th day of April , 1986
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
BY:
AUTH D SIGNATURE
EXHIBIT "A"
TITLE VESTING
FEE:
MARKETING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Connecticut Corporation as to Parcel A
THE HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Connecticut Limited Partnership as
to Parcel B
LEASEHOLD:
THE HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Connecticut Limited Partnership, as
to the Leasehold Estate created by that certain Lease by Marketing Corporation
of America, a Connecticut Corporation (Landlord) and Jerome Place Limited
Partnership, a Connecticut Limited Partnership (Tenant) as evidenced by
Memorandum of Lease Agreement, recorded June 7, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 499,
said lease providing for a term of 15 years, commencing on June 6, 1985 and
ending on June 6, 2000, as to Parcel C.
NOTE: The name of Jerome Place Limited Partnership, a Connecticut limited
partnership was changed pursuant to Amended Change of Name Application for
Registration of a Foreign Limited Partnership to the Colorado Secretary of
State to The Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership.
EXHIBIT "B"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL A:
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 East 170 feet of the Alley in said Block 79.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that real property consisting of the structural
improvements and appurtenances, including basements, foundations and
fixtures located upon said land.
PARCEL B:
All that real property consisting of the structural improvements and
appurtenances including basements, foundations and fixtures, but not
including the land or subsurface located upon the following described
property:
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 East 170 feet of the Alley in said Block 79.
PARCEL C:
A LEASEHOLD ESTATE created by that certain Net Ground Lease by and between
Marketing Corporation of America, a Connecticut Corporation, as Landlord,
and Jerome Place Limited Partnership, as Tenant, dated June 6, 1985, a
memorandum of which was recorded June 7, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 499, in
and to the following described real property:
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 East 170 feet of the Alley in said Block 79, but not
including Lots A through I.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that real property consisting of the improvements,
including basements and foundations located upon said land.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
EXHIBIT "C"
TITLE EXCEPTIONS
1. Taxes due and payable.
2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed(s) from the City of Aspen
providing as follows: that 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 and subject to all the conditions, limitations and
restrictions contained in Section 2386 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States, in Deed(s) of record.
3. Right of way or easements appertaining to the vacated alley portion of Block
79, City and Townsite of Aspen for the continued use of existing sewer, gas,
water or similar pipelines and appurtenances, anf for any and all ditches or
canals and appurtenances, and for any and all electric, telephone and similar
lines as reserved in Ordinance No. 1 (series of 1951) not of record, copy of
the signed Ordinance contained in the files of Pitkin County Title, Inc.
4. Terms, conditions and restrictions as contained in Notice of Historic District
Designation recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 515 and in instrument
recorded April 30, 1982 in Book 425 at Page 904.
5. Terms, conditions, restrictions and provisions as contained in the Planned
Unit Development Agreement Hotel Jerome -Renovation and Addition instrument
recorded May 10, 1983 in Book 444 at Page 750, and the Map of the Hotel Jerome,
Renovation and Addition Final Planned Unit Development Plat recorded in Plat
Book 14 at Page 88, and Ordinance No. 5 (series of 1983) rezoning the Hotel
Jerome to CC?PUD recorded May 17, 1983 in Book 445 at Page 81.
6. The effect, if any, of the terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and other
matters as contained in Lease by and between Marketing Corporation of America,
a Connecticut Corporation (Landlord), and Jerome Place Limited Partnership, a
Connecticut Limited Partnership (Tenant), said lease evidenced by Memorandum
of Lease Agreement, recorded June 7, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 499, said lease
providing for a term of 15 years, commencing on June 6, 1985 and ending on June
6, 2000.
7. Deed of Trust from :
to the Public Trustee
for the use of
to secure
dated
recorded
reception No.
8. Deed of Trust from :
to the Public Trustee
for the use of
to secure
dated
recorded
reception No.
The Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership and Marketing Corporation
of America
of the County of Pitkin
The Bank of New York
$6,000,000.00
September 16, 1985
September 17, 1985 in Book 495 at Page 228
271473
Marketing Corporation of America
of the County of Pitkin
Jerome Hotel Company, a Michigan
$500,000.00
June 6, 1985
June 7, 1985 in Book 487 at Page
268768
limited partnership
553
----CONTINUED----
EXHIBIT "C"
CONTINUED
9. Deed of Trust from : Marketing Corporation of America, a Connecticut Corporation
and Jerome Place Limited Partnership, a Connecticut limited
partnership
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of Jerome Hotel Company
to secure $1,100,000.00
dated June 6, 1985
recorded June 7, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 545
reception No. 268767
Above Deed of Trust assigned to The Bank of Aspen, by instrument recorded
April 4, 1986 in Book 508 at Page 410.
NOTE: Items 8 and 9 above Subordinated to the lien of the Deed of Trust in
Item 7 by instrument recorded September 17, 1985 in Book 495 at Page 277.
NOTE: This certificate does not include any security instruments securing the
personal property contained within the subject property.
7lled far *word at Ilab e•eleck P.M. Beweubat 11. ilia
Seeeotlas Breer 131,076 ►ow r. Coble, Baaseder ' r 1NiiA04:,
DINT CIAIIA oM
fou-teeneth r. y . November
rw+.r ......r....N sixty-eight ........ w. raTw a ever RTT uT aerrw.f
.N r" �n M ►errr, +..re q .r r..-... w r..... �IM►[t �eLM�rd
tees F. tlleha
—` veal Mal\ .. `ir• � W 1».'1M'i.�r.�1.. y.MM1+r "'W1r►. Wr,� M `f.r'���..y �'(
TZ R.'•i:s�'r'
' 1~"�ry .Y.r � «r-.LII-.�.w. eM N. �1■.y Y T.... N.
wall`•: -... .. .. , r,....'tn.. „
..r.�iW I t yt!'VT^lraalrr
�"�Ne. Tw~.7Ni.I.4 ��M.Ni 'rrr" r...rn� -!: �.��r.M►.. y d,��.� ��IrIr1 ..•
. r : V ' •'�y.��` J W� r '.'I" 4t. wr` lrir r�iy`w� �•�_ lr ryJ
r .r. ... Halal.. r ,.. .i.:. veal ..:i:`•.. i�..:x'.irr'r.'i4 �M.■�w ..r � ,.....�.. ��
Lora A. B, C. D. t. T. G. N. 1, O, P. 0, N. a, and the Beet 70 feet ^i
of Lot W. Block 79. CiT7 AND 70NNa ITs or ASp". together with the
vacated last 170 feet of the alley in Said Block 79, County of ,
►ltkin, state of Colorado.
...� �.'� _ .... _ r"«......�..r.....N .. ,.. �..r ...,...., .....ram . ,.. .....
bar ....r ...�..._....
....- .. _ .» _...�.." .. _... veal.+... r.....�"..i'�.' :.: �:...^. ..._....- ._. .
BlObert Bernard
II..r y
•.. .� ...... r...r.... r. ^.... r. y November a
.. wrt•tir+erd .,... J .....
••• -'• (NfallCe alrael►.ld ..... r r . . ,. .. . ..
......_.. �.._.. _-.. � veers a.raacd... ...• IgrCe lob CO ae.e
w-- .. w......... • r .... rr ►~i r� Yw ■e....■.1 r/1�"rr ... • r...rr....
...- _ .�.. ,.. r Boren MtMrd . rr ■..., .N ...
r LOar1a►M Grrllee
r .. rw ' ..#■1 rr...r
bowa,e Y L
Bow" N`
Tons Dv► Ira, er
baleen
iVfA r. 9LISMt
One"gr ritkin r
jOM Y. CILBDAS
4iftblean ate'
�� t(�l To ea tom
Ili tY.0 1.,*-r r , Irrl
lever ameand er adar ftr
sly bed aft awe ad e
ft Is de �+ Yala ��Me
Loa lettered A, C.
Beet 20 feet of lot
cel.cy. C..leredo, a
tb*'W l Ord ..#Otis:
►ull4ind aitueted tl
11 eM an
eNNeNOft ad Md.
ft rirek dOL WON, w der
eaawarwblerrll.rl
wlugs &Mwone a,.,
ar Miea. her L,.
esr SOsell lbw y r e—mm
atheal 0"e-ft 14 1. bet
ardusle, wrft a menswa a b
r ate► below e- Md = ban.
r..r ernemde.....r.
Taxes for I.ae b.to■;
and paid by the *ran.
Od 1ho 4be bamr.e e-meas r e
h 16 b" ad sere ape
to eW ewe Dee( dr no am
Ba kililrtil eitmmat, r e
Md Md vaV rpoo we
r
�1\MOMOYI
NO F. Ill .n.
=f ICY y
A.
■w • ' T
• a+e MW. K w+Ir�
CITY', OF
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 4, 1986
TO: Steve Burstein
Perry Harvey
Andy Hecht
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Hotel Jerome PUD Agreement
Attached for your review and comment is a draft of the First
Amended PUD Agreement for the Hotel Jerome.
PJT/mc
Attachment
t
a5)�.`.�.
•
r��iw
FIRST -AMENDED -PLANNED UNIT -DEVELOPMENT -AGREEMENT
HOTEL JEROME-=-RENOVATION AND
ADDITION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ....... day of
, 1986, by and between the CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home rule city (here-
inafter referred to as "City"), and HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNER-
SHIP (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Owner owns that real property and the building situ-
ated thereon, commonly known as the "Hotel Jerome", more particu-
larly 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 -_ OaQ�_ 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 - Renova-
tion and Addition" (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Pro-
ject"); 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 -
Renovation and Addition", dated April 20, 1983, recorded in Book
444, 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 fol-
lows:
- Phase I: Renovation of the existing building, commonly
known as the Hotel Jerome, pursuant to Building Permit Application
CosuoJ �-,,Iy IS, li f )
and Building Permit No.780g ------- which renovation was completed
and a certificate of occupancy issued therefor on or about
, 1986.
- Phase II: An addition to the currently existing and reno-
vated Hotel Jerome, as defined and described on the plat for the
initial project or, at the option of the applicant, an amendment
thereto to be presented 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; and
WHEREAS, City and Owner desire to amend the agreement
pertaining to the initial project dated April 20, 1983, to reflect
a phasing into Phases I and II as well as various matters set
forth below (hereinafter this agreement will be referred to as
"First Amended Agreement") .
WHEREAS, vending an application for amendment, City and Owner
desire to amend the agreement pertaining to the initial project,
2
dated April 20, 1983, to reflect a phasing into Phase I and II as
hereinabove described as well as various matters set forth below
into one comprehensive agreement (hereinafter this agreement will
be referred to as "First Amended Agreement") ; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve this First Amended „kjr t;����"~
Agreement upon the representation of Owner that a plat will be r
� Thy
f 5=h+neNl/.
filed on or before June 1, 1986, meeting the approval of the City
Engineer, which plat will accurately reflect presently existing
Phase I;
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, to the extent not specific-
ally superceded by this First Amended Agreement 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_seg., 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 to the extent that matters are specifically addressed herein,
this agreement shall supercede and amend that Planned Unit Devel-
3
opment 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. Further, to the extent not
specifically superceded and addressed in this agreement, the par-
ties desire to reaffirm all matters set forth in said agreement.
15
\' Owner agrees that on or before June ✓t, 1986, Owner shall submit to
City an amended PUD plat reflecting the existing renovation of the
Hotel Jerome which plat shall comply with all applicable require-
ments, the City of Aspen subdivision and PUD regulations.
In addition, it is contemplated that applicant will sub-
mit another application pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) to amend
Phase II on or before August 1, 1986, which application and the
approvals therefor shall be subject to all the requirements, terms
and conditions of the City of Aspen subdivision and PUD regula-
tions in effect and such other laws, rules or regulations as are
or may become applicable.
In the event that an application to amend the plat to
reflect an amendment to Phase II as currently provided for in the
initial project for Phase II is not made on or before August 1,
1986, the plat for the initial project, as amended, to reflect
Phase I as hereinbelow provided, shall constitute the development
I. approvals pertaining to the property.
2. SIDEWALKS, _CURB AND GUTTER. With regard to the provi-
sions for sidewalks, curb and gutter, as set forth in Paragraph
"1", of the initial agreement, City acknowledges that owner has
constructed a new sidewalk along Main Street frontage and has (or
4
will by June 1, 1986) 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 here-
in as Exhibit "A". Provisions for sidewalks along Monarch and
Bleeker Streets (6-foot minimum width) , together with curb and
gutter, all as reasonably determined by the City Engineer, shall
be installed in accordance with the landscape plan submitted in
connection with the original agreement.
3. LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS. The landscaping for Phase I
shall substantially conform to the landscape plan appearing on
Exhibit "A" annexed hereto. Landscaping shall occur no later than
3t�f°re�t, 1986. The current estimated cost for such landscaping
improvements
with regard to Phase I as
agreed by the City Engineer
c,lAl-`
is calculated
to be
A detailed land-
scaping plan
shall be submitted on or
before August 15, 1986,
reflecting landscaping improvements, the fair market value of
which shall not be less than $50,000.00 as determined by the City
Engineer, which plan shall be fully implemented on or before July
1, 1987.
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING. With reference to Paragraph "6 of the
Initial Project" and as a further inducement to the City to
approve phasing into two phases as set forth in this First 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 required by the Code and regulations of the City of
5
Aspen, or its designee, in connection with the prj/e�ct. With
J regard to Phase I Owner hereby agrees that Rooms No.
in the hotel annex, as such rooms are described on the plat
annexed hereto, shall be and hereby are restricted exclusively to
use as dormitory employee housing under and in accordance with
such City of Aspen employee housing use, occupancy, rental and
sales price guidelines as may be in effect and applicable from
time to time, sufficient to house _4-__-__— employees of the
project 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 qualifications shall
be accomplished by the City of Aspen, or its designee, prior to
and as a condition of occupancy of any of the above identified
rooms. Said rooms shall not be utilized by any person whose use
and occupancy thereof is not verified as set forth above. 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 assigns 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, includ-
ing injunction, abatement or eviction of non -complying tenancies,
all for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording
hereof in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Neither
this dedication nor any of the covenants contained herein shall be
aq
modified, released or waived in any respect except by written
instrument executed by both Owner or its sucessors or assigns and
the City of Aspen, Colorado, and duly recorded in the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Further, Owner represents and
warrants that any and all persons, firms or entities having any
lien, encumbrance or interest in the Cortina Lodge have consented
to the employee housing dedication and restrictions herein, and
that this agreement shall not be recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder nor shall the approvals granted
herein take effect without the written consent of any such per-
son.
With regard to the requirement for employee housing in
connection with Phase II, City acknowledges that such employees
may be housed off -site and that, upon the filing in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder of proper deed restrictions
therefor meeting the approval as to form by the City Attorney,
units at the Cortina Lodge, Aspen, Colorado, may be used as a
credit for such housing requirements. In this regard, prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase II of the
project and as a condition precedent thereto, Owner agrees to and
shall provide for use by hotel employees a minimum of fifteen (15)
`lI ii 1 rn fo 4Pew"I
off -site employee bedrooms, deed restricted to City employee hous-
ing rental and sale price, qualification and occupancy guidelines
in effect at the time such bedrooms are so provided, which bed-
rooms shall be in income categories, sizes, configurations
( including facilities and amenities) and locations as may be
7
acceptable to the City (or its designee, which may be the Aspen/
Pitkin Housing Authority), by constructing new deed restricted
units or by purchasing existing free market units and converting
them to deed restricted "employee housing status". Further, the
\ Owner shall have the right to substitute other off -site employee
�1 bedrooms for some or all of the fifteen (15) off -site bedrooms
initially provided, so long as (i) the location, size and config-
uration of such substitute bedrooms is acceptable to the City of
Aspen or its designee, as reflected by resolution of the City
Council, (ii) the minimum number of acceptable employee bedrooms
required by the initial agreement and this agreement remains
available at all times, and (iii) the same deed restrictions are
imposed upon the substitute units prior to occupancy of the sub-
stitute units. Upon the completion of said substitution as above
required, the City shall release the deed restrictions upon those
off -site bedrooms which have been replaced with substitute bed-
rooms. Further, should the Owner secure more than fifteen (15)
off -site employee bedrooms, Owner's on -site employee bedroom
requirement shall be reduced exactly by the number of off -site
units in excess of fifteen (15), in accordance with the procedures
hereinabove set forth, including approval by resolution of the
City Council.
Further, should the Owner, at the time of the certifi-
cate of occupancy for Phase II of the project, not have provided
all of the required fifteen (15) off -site employee housing bed-
rooms, Owner shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of
1.1
occupancy for Phase II and as a condition precedent thereto, cove-
nant and restrict that number of bedrooms within Phase II of the
project necessary to cover any shortfall in the off -site housing
requirements, which temporary restricted bedrooms must meet the
same City employee housing guidelines as Owner's off -site would
have been required to meet under the terms hereof, and which tem-
porary restricted bedrooms shall thereafter be released from said
covenants when Owner does provide the required number of off -site
employee bedrooms in the manner above required.
The deed restriction and covenant restriction and
release forms shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney
prior to recordation.
5. PARKING. With regard to the parking provisions of Para-
graph "7" and specifically with regard to Phase I, Owner hereby
agrees that thirty-one (31 ) on -site parking spaces, designated on
Ehxibit "A" shall be and hereby are designated as parking spaces.
With regard to Phase II, it is anticipated that Owner may apply
for an on -site parking program to accommodate the parking needs of
the project. Thus, as a condition of any approval granted with
respect to Phase II, Owner may provide such on -site parking spaces
in accordance with a plan specifically approved by City or, if
such parking plan is not approved in accordance with the required
procedures, as set forth in Paragraph 7 of the initial project
with regard to the financing, design, construction, operation and
maintenance of a four hundred (400) vehicle parking structure. In
the event that an on -site parking plan is approved, the parties
E
shall enter into an amended agreement with regard to Phase II,
which agreement shall reflect that Paragraph 7 of the initial
agreement is no longer operative with regard to the obligations of
either Owner or City.
6. RATIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIONS. Owner hereby ratifies
and confirms each and every representation made and set forth by
Owner in its application dated November 27, 1985, hereunder and
presentations made in connection therewith Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council. Except to the extent specifically
superceded, the terms, conditions and obligations set forth in the
original agreement dated April 20, 1983, shall continue in full
force and effect and shall govern the implementation of this
agreement.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By---------------------------------
William L. Stirling, Mayor
10
OWNER:
HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Connecticut Limited Partnership
By Western Properties Invest-
ments, Inc., General Partner
By.................................
T. Richard Butera, President
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
------- day of ---------------------------- 01 1986, by William L.
Stirling as Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the City of
Aspen, Colorado.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
--------------------------------
Notary Public
Add
---------------------------------
ress
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
--------- day of --------------- --, 1986 by T. Richard
Butera.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
1E
--------------------------------
Notary Public
-------------------------------
Address
CITY OF. ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 21, 1986
TO: City Manager
City Engineer
Planning Director
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Hotel Jerome - First Amended PUD Agreement
Ca
FEB 2 4 1y6b
Annexed for your review and comment is a proposed First Amendment
to the Planned Unit Development Agreement Hotel Jerome - Renova-
tion and Addition dated April 20,1983. Also attached for the
Manager only is a copy of the existing PUD agreement.
The attached is a complete revision to the draft presented by Andy
Hecht. We have decided that the best practice to avoid confusion
in the future is to incorporate all revisions into one comprehen-
sive agreement (i.e. First Amended Planned Unit Development Agree-
ment Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addition). Please note the
following features incorporated into the attached draft:
* The agreement reflects a transfer of the project property
from John F. Gilmore to Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership, a Con-
necticut Limited Partnership (apparently Western Properties
Investments, Inc., of which Dick Butera is the President, is the
general partner. I will verify this with Andy Hecht.)
* The agreement retains, to the extent applicable, the find-
ings set forth in the whereas clauses of the original agreement.
* The agreement reflects that the project has been broken
down into Phase I (the currently existing renovated Hotel Jerome)
and Phase II (the application for which is to be submitted at some
later date) . Paragraph 2 provides that an application for the
amendment to reflect Phase II be submitted no later than a date to
be determined (i.e. blank not filled in) and that the PUD plat
will be deemed vacated if Phase II is not approved by said date.
IN THIS REGARD, I REQUEST INPUT FROM THE PLANNING OFFICE AS TO
WHETHER ANY APPROVALS PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TO THE PROJECT ARE IN
JEOPARDY BY VIRTUE OF ALLOTMENT EXPIRATION DATES, ETC.
Memorandum Re: Hotel Jerome PUD
February 20, 1986
Page Two
* To the extent applicable, the language pertaining to the
parking structure has been retained. In this regard, I would
appreciate the City Manager's detailed analysis with regard to the
parking structure provisions, and whether, in his opinion, they
should be refined or modified.
* We have attempted to address the current site improvements
plan, landscaping considerations, etc. I REQUEST THAT THE ENGI-
NEERING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING OFFICE SCRUTINIZE THESE PROVISIONS
WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.
* A new provision has been inserted holding the applicant to
all representations made throughout the course of the application
process (see Paragraph 17).
We would appreciate input from the entire staff as quickly as
convenient before the document is presented to Andy Hecht.
PJT/mc
Attachments
1E
cc: Building Department
FIRST -AMENDED -PLANNED -UNIT -DEVELOPMENT -AGREEMENT
HOTEL JEROME _ RENOVATION AND ADDITION
' v THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ------- day of
---------- 1986, by and between the CITY OF
----------------
ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home rule city (here-
inafter as"City"),
inafter referred t and HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNER-
SHIP (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"),
\ W I T N E S S E T Fi:
1 WHEREAS, Owner owns that real property and the building situ-
,.
ated thereon, commonly known as the "Hotel Jerome", more particu-
V�1�°,2 �3�larly described as follows:
k +'C Lots A, B, C. D, F, F, G, H, I, 0, P, Q, R, S
and the East 20 feet of�Lot Nf Block 79, C,�SCIiPti,ni%nRM�r,Pi�t�/N+r
together with the East 170.78 feet of the �� rlAaw*t,�ie,,t
TrticfT�It��r�. �-30-$1
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 - Renova-
tion and Addition" (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Pro-
ject"); 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 -
Renovation and Addition", dated April 20, 1983, recorded in Book
444, 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 fol-
lows:
- Phase I: Renovation of the existing 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
1986.
�---!----) I----------------
Phase II- An addition to the currently existing and reno-
vated Hotel Jerome, to be presented to the City for approval 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; and
WHEREAS, pending an application for amendment, City and Owner
desire to amend the agreement pertaining to the initial project, ls�
dated April 20, 1983, to�Sreflect a phasing into teas �I and II as
hereinabove described r� cfa pr, rrsi��r vl Ydd2s�,t� - \/' i
( hereinafter this agreement will be referred to as "First
Amended Agreement") ; and
WHEREAS, by this First Amended Agreement, the City and Owner
desire to Cm.� rid--afld-'supp n`e
reaffirm the following findings:
1. The subject property is located within an area of the
City zoned CC -Commercial Core.
2. In considering the proposed development site and pro-
posed improvements, the City has found that the area of the pro-
posed PUD is (or was prior to Phase I) substantially covered by a
deteriorated building of historic significance; that the develop-
ment area has (or prior to the implementation of Phase I had) a
faulty layout in relation to adequacy, accessibility and useful-
ness; the development area coat irk d potentially unsafe condi-
tions; the development areay,Y" a site and improvements subject to
further deterioration unless the Planned Unit Development is car-
ried out; and that prior to Phase I the development area contained
conditions that potentially endangered life and property by fire
or other causes.
3. At the time of the initial project, the condition of the
PUD area substantially impaired the sound growth and future poten-
tial economic health of the City of Aspen and was a potential
menace to the public health, safety and welfare unless the planned
development was carried out.
4. In considering the proposed development site and pro-
posed improvements, the City found prior to the initial project
and hereby does find the following: That the area of the proposed
PUD prior to Phase I had a predominence of buildings and improve-
ments that were delapidated, deteriorated and deteriorating, aging
and obsolescent; that the area had conditions that potentially
endangered the life or property by fire and other causes and was,
on the whole, potentially detrimental to public health, safety and
welfare of the City of Aspen unless the planned development was
carried out.
5. Phase of the project el iminate approx imately,�ark-
ing spaces from the parking lot behind the Hotel Jerome
--p a r k i-ng—spaces aloe-ker--and—Merin—St-r-eets�and the development
—IT jt>
of approximately 75,000 square feet of new space the renova-
tion in Phase I of commercial space will generate the need for
additional parking and other municipal improvements in the loca-
tion and vicinity of the development and elsewhere in the downtown
area, especially after Phase II is implemented.
6. The downtown Aspen area is presently in need of parking
and other physical improvements and the proposed development of
Phase II will add significantly and impermissibly to these needs
if the development of Phase II does not support such municipal
improvements.
7. The development of Phase II ( including the development
LAO CD
of a contemplated ehicle municipal parking structure and
related necessary public improvements) was and remains necessary
to prevent the urban blight, potential slum conditions and
associated public health, welfare and safety problems described
above; and
WHEREAS, the Owner stipulates and agrees to the foregoing
findings and acknowledges that the proposed development, related
municipal improvements and potential blight and slum conditions
are inextricably interrelated; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve this First Amended G
Agreement upon the representation of t Owner that an application
'�o amend the plat currently recorded will be presented on or
before __!__, 1986, to conform the plat to
-4+ QA6t1V1_ I-pPV,�+N\
accurately reflect presently existing Phase I^and to identify and
reflect amendments necessitated by Phase II, which amendmentSshal'l
be subject to all the requirements, terms and conditions of the
City of Aspen subdivision and PUD regulations now in effect, and
' such other laws, rules and regulations as are or may become
applicable with respect to Phase II; 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, to the extent applicable,
desires to reaffirm those matters set forth in the initial agree-
ment as are 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_seg., 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. The parties agree that
this agreement shall supercede and amend that Planned Unit Devel-
opment Agreement Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addition, dated
Y
�?�� .� office of the
. April 20, 1983, recorded in Book 444 at Page 750,
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Owner agrees that on or before
1 , 1986, Owner shall submit to City an
--
.?
all
application for an amended PUD to reflect the existing renovation
of the Hotel Jerome as Phase I, ar�asldi�rY se
I4 pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, which application and the approvals therefor shall
be subject to all the requirements, terms and conditions of the
City of Aspen subdivision and PUD regulations in effect and such
her laws, rules and regulations as are or may become applicable.
n the event that application is not made within the time provided
,v and approved or before _ , the plat for the initial pro-
'-'l j ect�'' Isthdrwn t5
�-th . 1 nt _
._those with regard to Phase I as here inbelow—proavid-ed-:
�u. cAF-�
Sidewalkst curb_and_gutter. Owner has constructed a new
sidewalk along the Main Street frontage and has (or will by
J 1 v
1 986) , 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 n,E4hibit "A".
Landscaping_imorovements. In accordance with Section
24-8.16 of the Municipal Code, required landscaping for Phase I
1
'CJ V shall substantially conform to the landscape plan appearing on
Exhibit "A" annexed hereto. Landscaping shall occur no later than
5une Mc The current estimated cost for such
-----------------------------
landscaping improvements with regard to Phase I is agreed by the
City Engineer to be --------------------------
vU
A
ti, t,�` a �-li'� 1
•t ��S �� fiY'1 i �.c�.{n�
V J
6
s��l lee -�ul IJ �t dA oZ
if
ojl aptt�L<,
5
� lam, ✓��l�s � ��,� �.-��,s � �
qZ O'-t-
N/� Vp--,w� �nL/4ln�.
regardless of the stage of completion of landscape improvements
described in Paragraph /above.
Owner also agrees to deliver to the City, upon demand
therefor by the City Engineer, a maintenance bond or other suit-
able guarantee for the repair or replacement of any existing muni-
cipal improvements damaged during construction of new improve-
ments.
Furthermore, Owner hereby agrees to and does hereby war-
ranty all such improvements to accepted standards of good workman-
ship for a period of one (1) year after the acceptance thereof in
writing by the City. In addition to this warranty, the Owner
shall obtain from his contractors customary warranties of good
workmanship with the City as beneficiary, with respect to all
-- ----11__ improvements required by Paragraphs
It is the express understa) nding of the parties that the
1
procedures set forth in Paragraph of this agreement regarding
non-compliance shall not be required with respect to the enforce-
ment and implementation of the financial assurances set forth
%,, herein and required by Section 20-16 (c) of the Municipal Code.
r
_
T n th event Phase II is of be onstructed, the �ne�
ee th t it wi ex nd 1 st�50,b .00 o t �/�'
ur se 15 f
o n
45 mployee_housina. As an inducement to the City to
approve phasing into two phases as set forth in this First Amended
Agreement, Owner has agreed to and does hereby acknowledge its
obligation to provide housing for employees of the project, as
V/1- required by the Code and regulations of the City of Aspen, or its
lam✓ � ..�ti�`
designee, in connection with the project. With regard to Phase I
t' is
r
toI(- Owner hereby agrees that bedrooms numbered ------------------- in
the hotel annex, as such bedrooms are described on the plat
I�cpn
- A _.._,
use as low income employee housing under and in accordance with
such City of Aspen low income employee housing use, occupancy
rental and sales price guidelines as may be in effect and applic-
or cr
VP y �,
able from time to time. Said bedrooms shall be and hereby are
restricted to a maximum occupancy of ---1-employee per bed-
room, with first priority to be given at all times to em loyees of
the Hotel Jerome in operation from time to time on the lands
encompassed by the above -referenced PUD. Verification of an
employee's income and employment qualifications shall be accom-
plished by the City of Aspen, or its designee, prior to and as a
condition of each employee's occupancy of one of the above identi-
fied bedrooms. The dedication and covenants contained herein
shall be deemed a burden upon and to run with the title to above -
identified bedrooms shall be binding upon the Owner and its suc-
cessors and assigns and upon all other persons or entities having
any right, title or interest in or to the building (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 e�ic-
tion of non -complying tenancies, all for a period of )
years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin 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 the
Owner or its successors or assigns and the City of Aspen, Colo-
rado, and duly recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Off ice.
With regard to the requirement for employee housing in
connection with Phase II, City ack/nowle ges that such employees
�C i'7'� !'I " `-` •C)��! LL �'IL." �i t��ti ��� ..L� c6a h�,YLL(� `"I,�
may be housed off -site and that, uponnproper deed restrictions
therefor meeting the approval as to form by the City Attorney,
units at the Cortina Lodge, Aspen, Colorado, may be used as a
credit for such housin�requirements.
NOTE -� usef the employeeits solely byJhotel emploees - Each
of the bedrooms are at /1,est180 square eet in size and shall be
used lely by hotel emyees, and s all deliver o the City an
I
appropriate writ,t5�a coven �t cover ng such bedrooms in a form
approved bJ y th�l City �t rn e table for record'
Parkinq. With regard to Phase I, Owner hereby agrees
\��`ti `� V that they on -site parking spaces, designated on th a rr ed __
n
shall be and hereb are designated as parking spaces.
l7 1 s 9rLL fmFft c , 61'` L' -, *f=f� -tom- 7ALjIN
With regard to Phase II,�Owner acknowledges that as a
condition of approvals previously granted in connection with the
initial project is the requirement that the Owner provide sixty
(60) off -site parking spaces. Thus, as a condition of any
approval granted with respect to Phase II, Owner acknowledges that
the City may require that sixty (607V sit narking spaces 1be r ye
r � � � t
in nnection with Phase II in the manner hereinafter
c rcd
described. If required as a condition of approval to Phase II,
Owner agrees to participate with the City in the financing,
design, construction, operation and maintenance (including neces-
sary capital expenditures) of a four hundred -vehicle parking
4oF 0n5i structure on the Rio Grande Property, to the extent of sixty (60 )
spaces for hotel guests and employees. At such time as the City
undertakes the construction of this structure, Owner agrees to
participate proportionately (based on the need for sixty (60)-
spaces) in the financing, design, construction, operation and
maintenance ( including necessary capital expenditures) of the
parking garage aspect thereof, such financial participation to be
in the form described below:
A. Owner's proportionate share of the cost of con-
structing the parking structure shall be determined by multiplying
a fraction, the numerator of which is sixty (60) and the denomina-
tor of which is the total number of parking spaces to be con-
structed, times the portion of the total construction cost
(including financing costs which may include capitalized interest
on bonds, reserve funds and bond issuance costs, design, pre -con-
struction and construction costs) , which is directly related to
the parking garage aspect of such structure. Owner shall, and as
a condition to the approval of Phase II, agreee--Co finance and pay
or such share of the construction cost and to evidence and secure
such obligation in the following manner:
1. No later than sixty ( 60 ) days following the
issuance of a building permit for the construction of Phase II,
Owner shall deliver to the City in the form of cash or certified
funds the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as a
downpayment on such share. If no building permit for a parking
garage has been issued prior to the date of this downpayment, the
City shall promptly escrow such funds in an interest bearing
account with all interest earned thereon to accrue to the credit
of Owner and be applied to "the balance of Owner's share" in cal-
culating the original principal amount of the below -described
,.promissory note until the d'tae of issuance of a building permit
for the parking structure, on which date this escrow shall be
terminated and all funds remaining therein shall be delivered to
the City.
Futher, in consideration of Owner's agreement
to participate (and Owner's actual participation) in the cost of
the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance
(including necessary capital expenditures) of a municipal parking
structure, City agrees that if a certificate of occupancy is
issued for Phase II before a certificate of occupancy is issued
for the parking structure, the City shall provide interim parking
in the following manner:
(a) City shall, in the interim, if any,
between the occupancy of Phase II and the occupancy of the parking
garage provide for Owner's use and operation fifteen (15) desig-
nated parking spaces at the existing Rio Grande lot and forty-five
(45) unassigned spaces at the existing golf course lot. The right
-- to any such spaces shall expire upon the issuance of a cert i f icat
of occupancy for the above -referenced parking garage. The right
to any spaces in the Rio Grande lot after the issuance of a build-
ing permit for the parking garage shall be subject to availabil-
ity, which may be limited by the construction of the parking
9
garage, and City shall make up at the golf course lot any such
spaces which are lost from the Rio Grande lot. During such
interim period, Owner shall be responsible for maintaining ade-
quate liability insurance covering all such spaces and for the
operation of all such spaces and for the storage and retrieval of
J�rg'�clf course lotwehicles and/or passengers and hotel guests
i
and for the supervision of hotel vehicles in the Rio Grande lot by
whatever administrative means (e.g. shuttle buses, etc.) Owner
deems appropriate. City shall, however, be responsible for keep-
ing the necessary portions of both lots clear of snow. Owner
shall and hereby does indemnify City from and against any and all
claims or liabilities for personal injury or property damage
arising out of Owner's use of such parking spaces except those
claims caused by City's negligence or intentional acts.
1 (b) The rental market value of the sixty (60)
�rspaces is stipulated to be Two Thouand Eight Hundred Twelve Dol-
lars and 50/100 ($2,812.50) per month (such value based on present
monthly cost for parking space rental within the City of Aspen at
Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) for downtown spaces and Thirty -Seven
Dollars and 50/100 ($37.50) for non -downtown spaces).
( c) During any period prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the parking structure that the Owner is
using the City -provided parking spaces, the City shall draw from
the escrow account the amount of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twelve
Dollars and 50/100 ($2, 81 2. 50 ) per month in compensation for the
allowed use of the sixty (60) spaces.
(d) From and after the date of issuance of a
building permit for the parking structure ( and if such permit is
issued within two years of the issuance of a certificate of occu-
pancy for Phase II) the delivery to the City of the escrowed
downpayment funds and promissory note shall be deemed compensation
in full for any further use by owner of the sixty (60) interim
parking spaces, and all amounts previously withdrawn from the
escrow shall be credited back to Owner in determining the "balance
;C�
of Owner' s share" for purposes of calculating the principal amount
of the promissory note described in Paragraph __ below.
2. The "balance of Owner's share" shall be repre-
sented by Owner's promissory note to the City as holder which note
shall be dated, executed and deposited into escrow with the City
as of the date of execution of this agreement by all parties here-
i to. The note shall be delivered out of escrow to the City and
i
become a debt (i .e . "its effective date" shall be) on the date of
the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the
parking garage or sixty (60) days following the date of issuance
of a building permit for Phase II, whichever date occurs later.
The note shall be in a form identical to that attached hereto as
1
~� Exhibit "C" and bearing simple interest (which interest rate may
be variable) at the same interest rate(s) as the City's (or other
issuing authority's) bond issue rate(s) under Paragraph
hereof and reciting an eighteen percent (18%) default interest
rate and payable in consecutive monthly installments of principal
and interest in such amounts as are necessary to cover principal
of, redemption premiums, if any, and interest on the City's (or
other issuing authority's) bond(s) ( including refunding bond(s) ,
if any) , and other obligations of the issuer pursuant to the bond
ordinance, resolution or indenture and over the same period of
time as the City's (or other issuing authority's) bond(s) (includ-
ing refunding bond(s) under Paragraph hereof, commencing on
the first day of the calendar month following the month in which
the Note is delivered with all remaining principal and accrued
interest being due and payable with the final monthly payment. To
the extent permitted by the bond issuing authority and subject to
such limitations and requirements as may be imposed by such auth-
ority at the time of the issuance of the bond(s) , said Note shall
be prepayable in any amount at any time and from time to time
without penalty or notice and shall be assignable by City to any
bond issuing authority.
.�!lAh .�?.yr4M ••.
3. As security for said note, Owner hereby cove-
nants and agrees that from and after the date of delivery to the
City of said Note, and continuing for so long as any portion of
said Note remains unpaid, Owner shall collect as part of the daily
room rental for all rental rooms at the hotel project (i.e. Phase
I and Phase II) not deed restricted to employee housing a "trans-
portation charge" in the minimum amount of Five Dollars ($5.00)
per day on every room rental, and shall maintain a separate and
accurate accounting of the revenues generated thereby. Owner
shall and hereby assigns and pledges to City such transportation
charge revenues as collateral for Owner's performance of its pro-
missory note obligations and agrees to remit to the City each
month the portion of such transportation charge revenues necessary
to retire that month's Note installment obligation. So long as
any portion of said Note remains unpaid, Owner shall maintain a
"transportation revenues reserve account" in a responsible banking
institution containing sufficient funds to pay one (1) monthly
Note installment olDligation in advance, but shall otherwise be
free to utilize such other transportation 'charge revenues for its
own purposes unless and until such time as City finds it necessary
to exercise its collateral pledge rights in the event of Owner's
default in the performance of its promissory note obligations. In
the event Owner shall ever be late in paying a monthly Note
installment obligation to the City, City shall have the right to
demand that Owner increase the amount held in such reserve account
to cover three (3) monthly Note installment obligations in
advance. Owner agrees to comply with such demand and thereafter
to maintain the reserve account at the three (3) month level.
City shall have the right to examine all records necessary to
audit the transportation charge accounting and the related reserve
account at any reasonable time or times. The foregoing pledge
shall be assignable by City to any bond issuing authority.
4. Owner further agrees that the subject promis-
sory note shall contain a provision to the effect that in the
/3
event that controlling interest in the project ( i .e . Phase I and
Phase II) is transferred from Owner to a third person or persons
(by sale, foreclosure, operation of law, or otherwise), while said
Note remains unpaid, the City shall have the right (but not the
obligation) to declare the entire remaining balance of said Note
—_`�mmediately#due and payable as of the effective date of such
transfer.
5. Should the City fail to obtain a building per-
mit for the construction of a parking structure within two (2)
years of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase II,
Owner shall have the right and option to implement an alternative
plan for the provision of the required sixty (60) parking spaces
or to demand that the City negotiate, in good faith, a long-term
lease (no less than fifteen (15) years) for the sixty (60) parking
spaces on the Rio Grande and golf course parking lots. In this
event, any balance in the funds escrowed pursuant tot5_k [ _ ii nk(`�
(being principal plus accrued interest minus monthly rental pay-
ments made) shall be credited to Owner in any new lease arrange-
ment or refunded to it if an alternative parking plan is adopted
and, in either case, the escrowed promissory note shall be rede-
livered to and cancelled by Owner.
B. In addition, Owner shall be responsible for its propor-
tionate share of the annual cost, expense and necessary capital
expenditures of operating, maintaining and repairing the parking
=garage aspect of the parking garage sttucture following its comple-
tion. Owner hereby further assigns and pledges unto City the
"transportation charge" revenues allocated from time to time by
Owner pursuant to ParagraphSA_ _ above as collateral for
Owner's performance of its obligation to pay. A proportionate
share of such annual operational, maintenance and repair costs,
expenses and necessary capital expenditures. The foregoing pledge
shall be assignable by the City to any garage operating
authority.
C. In consideration of the above -described financial
participation and subsequent operational cost -sharing, Owner shall
be entitled to the perpetual use and enjoyment of a defined block
of sixty (60) parking spaces in the structure, free of parking
fees. Should the City deem it appropriate to condominiumize the
parking spaces in the parking structure, City shall deed to Owner
its sixty (60 ) spaces together with its proportionate undivided
interest in appurtenant general common elements.
6. Tax -increment _financing_and/or_industrial _ development_
bond_ financing. Owner shall and hereby consents to City' s (or
other governmental or quasi -governmental entity or non-profit cor-
poration) issuance, if possible, of a tax increment bond(s), or
other type of bond, in at least the amount of the balance of
Owner's share of the parking structure construction cost (includ-
ing design, pre -construction and construction costs and financing
costs such as capitalized interest costs, if any, reserve funds
and bond issuance costs) , the proceeds of which bond(s) may be
applied by the City to the construction of the subject parking
structure and for any other lawful improvement project. Such
bond(s) shall bear simple interest at a rate(s) to be determined
by the issuer shall be retirable over a period of not more than
twenty-five (25) years (or other lawful term), and shall be
secured by a pledge by the City (or other issuing authority) of
the increase in real property taxes and/or sales tax assessed to
the capital Hotel Jerome property which will occur as a normal
consequence of the renovation (Phase I) and expansion (i.e. Phase
II) contemplated by this Agreement (or by other lawful security
available to the City or other issuing authority) . However, the
bonding itself will cause no additional taxes or other charges to
be imposed upon Owner other than the above -referenced "balance of
Owner's share", and the consent of Owner provided for herein shall
not be interpretted as a consent to any form of special assessment
district that would result in an increase in the real property
taxes being levied upon the hotel property.
iS
City will, of course, be reimbursed on a continuing basis for its
bond retirement obligations relating to the project's share of the
parking structure by the monthly installment payments being made
by Owner under the above -described promissory note.
Owner further agrees that if Owner has, in fact, decided
to proceed with the development of Phase II, Owner sham se its
best efforts to cooperate with the City (or other governmental or
quasi -governmental entity) in the issuance and sale of any indus-
trial development bonds in connection with the financing of the
parking structure, so long as Owner's participation, if necessary,
and any such industrial development bonding effort complies with
all applicable laws and restrictions.
7. Planter encroachments. Owner agrees to obtain such
approvals and/or licenses as may be necessary with respect to
planters which encroach into public sidewalks, prior to the issu-
ance of a building permit for such planters.
8. Periodic prolect_reviews. Owner agrees that every six
(6) months following the date of final City approval of Phase II
until the construction thereof is complete, Owner will meet with
the City Planning Office for the purpose of informing the Planning
Office as to Owner's progress in developing Phase II pursuant to
the terms and provisions of approval and the appropriate amendment
to this agreement. If the Planning Office deems it necessary, the
Planning Office will report to the City Planning and Zoning Com-
mission on the outcome of one or more of these meetings. The
Owner and City recognize that these meetings are not opportunities
for the Owner to avoid complying with the requirements of this
agreement but are for the purpose of providing progress reports
and developing mutually acceptable solutions to any problems that
may be encountered during the construction period.
9. Permanent_care_and_maintenance_of-landscaping. Owner
agrees that it shall be the perpetual responsibility of Owner or
Owners from time to time of the above -referenced Hotel Jerome pro-
/6
perty to maintain, care for, and replace when necessary all trees,
shrubs, plants, and other landscaping features which may be
planted in connection with or otherwise incorporated pursuant to
the landscape plan appearing on Exhibit ------- hereto, or other-
wise submitted as part of an approved final plat.
10. 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, pro-
vided that such occupancy and uses shall at all times be in com-
pliance with the then applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen. Owner agrees that it shall be the perpetual
responsibility of the Owner or Owners from time to time of the
above -referenced Hotel Jerome property to maintain in a clean and
attractive condition and in a good state of repair all such open
space contained within the project.
11. Compliance and request_for amendments-or_extensions_by__
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 the same within such reasonable as the City Council
may determine. 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 requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the
17
following matters:
( a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did
exist, or
(b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment
to this First Amended Agreement should be granted
^with respet 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 matter set forth
in the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing
shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures nor-
mally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the
City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a
on exists which has not been remedied, it rryy issue
/ such orders as may be appropriated; provided, however, no order
terminating any approval granted herein shall be granted without a
finding of the City Council that substantial evidence warrants
such action in 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, terminate any of the approvals contained
herein.
12. Notice. Notice to be given to the parties to this
agreement shall he deemed given is personally delivered or if
deposited in the United States Mail to the 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
Copy to:
Garfield & Hecht
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Owner:
Hotel Jerome Limited
Partnership
c/o Dick Butera
Aspen Real Estate Associates
520 East Durant, suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
13. 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.
14. Severability. If any of the provisions of this agree-
ment 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
this First Amended Agreement and the validity of any such provi-
sion, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under
any other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
15. Incorporation_ of recitals. The City and Owner hereby
stipulate and agree that the recitals preceding this First Amended
Agreement are part of this agreement and are to be deemed incor-
porated herein as though fully set forth.
16. Entire_agreement;_amendment. This First Amended Agree-
ment and all exhibits attached hereto and/or documents, reports
and applications incorporated by reference, contains the entire
understanding and agreement between the parties herein with
respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be
altered and amended from time to time only by written instrument
executed by -each of the parties hereto.
17. Re resentations.
i
I ATTEST:
i
I
- Kathryn S. Koch,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Look up in AML PUD Agreement.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By----------
William L. Stirling , Mayor
Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
1'E � � N�� 11 �<i ' . ,• ; N��iL C. �' � 1 {z' � � � �? �.� Cl,-1 �.rL,•
/y
OWNER:
HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Connecticut Limited Partnership
By Western Properties Invest-
ments, Inc., General Partner
By----------- ------- ------------
T. Richard Butera, President
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of _ _ _ _ _ _ -----, 1986, by William L.
Stirling as Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the City of
Aspen, Colorado.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
-------- day of -----------------
--------, 1986 by T. Richard
Butera.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: ------------------------------
------------------
Notary Public
--------------------------------
Address
NOTE - we should see the limited partnership documents so that we
can verify that Butera has authority to sign.
5C, 1E
Owner anticipates the construction of Phase II will commence no
later than ---------- and be completed no later than
------------------�i,
F�inancial_Assurances. In order
to
secure the perfor-
mance of the construction and installation
of
the improvements
described in Paragrapher
hundred
and-3 above, and
to
guarantee one
percent (100%) of the current estimated cost
of such improvements
agreed by the City Engineer to be -----------
Owner shall guaran-
�ttee, by site draft oKletter of commitment
or
credit from a finan-
cially responsible lender (either or both
to
be irrevocable until
the construction is completed), that funds in the amount of such
estimated costs are held by it for the account of Owner for the
construction and installation of the above -described improvements.
Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to the issu-
ance 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, to withdraw funds upon demand, to partially or fully com-
plete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any outstand-
ing bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess
guarantee funds applicable to additional administrative or legal
--costs associated w4 any such default and the repair of any
detezioration in improvements already constructed. As portions of
the required improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall
inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, tie shall
authorize the release from the guarantee delivered by Owner of the
agreed estimated cost for the portion of the improvements except
that ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld
until all proposed improvements !rage completed and approved by the
i City Engineer- Provided, that the withheld ten percent ( 10 % )
which relates to the improvements described in Paragraphs 1 and 2
above shall be released by City upon completion and approval by
the City Engineer of all such Paragraph 1 and 2 improvements and
N
J�
Owner anticipates the construction of Phase II will commence no
later than and be completed no later than
------------------
AFinancial Assurances. In order
to
secure the perfor-
mance of the construction and installation
of
the improvements
1
described in Paragraph and above, and
to
guarantee one hundred
100� of the current estimated cost
percent ( )
of such im rovgments
b
»fir
0 I d : ,,J (
agreed by the City Engineer to be ----------
Owner shall guaran-
��tee, by site draft 0� letter of commitment
or
credit from a finan-
cially responsible lender (either or both
to
be irrevocable until
the construction is completed), that funds in the amount of such
estimated costs are held by it for the account of Owner for the
construction and installation of the above -described improvements.
Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to the issu-
ance 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, to withdraw funds upon demand, to partially or fully com-
plete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any outstand-
ing bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess
guarantee funds applicable to additional administrative or legal
costs associated wit 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, tie shall
authorize the release from the guarantee delivered by Owner of the
agreed estimated cost for the portion of the improvements except
that ten _percent ( 1 0 % ) of the .estimated cost shall be withheld
until all proposed improvements trap completed and approved by the
City Engineer S Provided ;, that the withheld ten percent ( 1 0 % )
which relates to the improvements described in Paragraphs 1 and 2
above shall be released by City upon completion and approval by
the City Engineer of all such Paragraph 1 and 2 improvements and
J�
regardless of the stage of completion of landscape improvements
described in Paragraph kabove.
Owner also agrees to deliver to the City, upon demand
therefor by the City Engineer, a maintenance bond or other suit-
able guarantee for the repair or replacement of any existing muni-
cipal improvements damaged during construction of new improve-
ments.
Furthermore, Owner hereby agrees to and does hereby war-
ranty all such improvements to accepted standards of good workman-
ship for a period of one (1) year after the acceptance thereof in
writing by the City. In addition to this warranty, the Owner
shall obtain from his contractors customary warranties of good
workmanship with the City as beneficiary, with respect to all
improvements required by Paragraphs Z ►'r'Ih,
It is the express understanding of the parties that the
II
procedures set forth in Paragraph of this agreement regarding
non-compliance shall not be required with respect to the enforce-
ment and implementation of the financial assurances set forth
herein and required by Section 20-16 (c) of the Municipal Code.
Jill
T ( T - n th� event Phase II is Rot be canstruc_ ted , the n r
0 0 J
theur se f
ee th t it wi ex nd 1 st �$50, bQq�./�'
Employee_housing. As an inducement to the City to
approve phasing into two phases as set forth in this First Amended
Agreement, Owner has agreed to and does hereby acknowledge its
obligation to provide housing for employees of the project, as
required by the Code and regulations of the City of Aspen, or its
- 4designee, in connection with the project. With regard to Phase I
�'�'{, Lt Owner hereby agrees that bedrooms numbered -------------------► in
htI
�A<<1r^"` rjer'v)
n� the hotel annex, as such bedrooms are described on the plat
tYOrv` q�`IcO
annexed hereto, shall be and hereby are restricted exclusively to
// ,\ ,t
use as low income employee housing under and in accordance with ?,V }
such City of Aspen low income employee housing use , ,-occupancy,,'
rental and sales price guidelines as may be in effect and applic-r - _et
4Ai
n � V
able from time to time. Said bedrooms shall be and hereby are
restricted to a maximum occupancy of _--1employee per bed-
room, with first priority to be given at all times to em loyees of
the Hotel Jerome in operation from time to time on the lands
encompassed by the above -referenced PUD. Verification of an
employee's income and employment qualifications shall be accom-
plished by the City of Aspen, or its designee, prior to and as a
condition of each employee's occupancy of one of the above identi-
fied bedrooms. The dedication and covenants contained herein
shall be deemed a burden upon and to run with the title to above -
identified bedrooms shall be binding upon the Owner and its suc-
cessors and assigns and upon all other persons or entities having
any right, title or interest in or to the build inq (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 o ic-
tion of non -complying tenancies, all for a period of - )
years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin 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 the
Owner or its successors or assigns and the City of Aspen, Colo-
rado, and duly recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
With regard to the requirement for employee housing in
connection with Phase II, City acknowleyges that such employees I !
may be housed off -site and that, upon proper deed restrictions
r•
therefor meeting the approval as to form by the City Attorney,
units at the Cortina Lodge, Aspen, Colorado, may be used as a
�NOTedit for such housinlrequirements.
E -�usef the employee units solely by hotel emplo ees - Each
of the bedrooms are at least 180 square Feet in sizeI�and shall be
used llely by hotel em oyees, and s all deliver o the City an
�Yv
r
„ (� 7
1
I
�
c
�t
appropriate writ,te _oven
cover ng such bedrooms in a form
approve by th City t
me e table for record'jp
4Parking. With
regard to Phase I, Owner hereby agrees
\` `v
31 -----
l� l '6
`
that the Aon-site parking
spaces, designated on th a ed _
designated as spaces.
shall be and hereb are parking A'� T
`I
c7 s R At"'i'+s , c�i �T a *f�'
TAP- ALv oL tT_- r'- „u
With regard to
Phase IIPwner acknowledges that as a
condition of approvals previously granted in connection with the
initial project is the requirement that the Owner provide sixty
(60) off -site parking spaces. Thus, as a condition of any
approval granted with respect to P�iase II, Owner acknowledges that iA
1�r 6*J r `rM,MI
the City may require that sixty (60) -sit parking space's be f�
i /� A � 5
in connection with Phase II in the manner hereinafter
C rtd
described. If required as a condition of approval to Phase II, pir �hdtr
Owner agrees to participate with the City in the financing,
design, construction, operation and maintenance (including neces-
s
ary capital expenditures) of a four hundred -vehicle parking
40. P��'• structure on the Rio Grande Property, to the extent of sixty (60 )
spaces for hotel guests and employees. At such time as the City
undertakes the construction of this structure, Owner agrees to
participate proportionately (based on the need for sixty (60)-
spaces) in the financing, design, construction, operation and
maintenance ( including necessary capital expenditures) of the
parking garage aspect thereof, such financial participation to be
in the form described below:
A. Owner's proportionate share of the cost of con-
structing the parking structure shall be determined by multiplying
a fraction, the numerator of which is sixty (60) and the denomina-
tor of which is the total number of parking spaces to be con-
structed, times the portion of the total construction cost
(including financing costs which may include capitalized interest
on bonds, reserve funds and bond issuance costs, design, pre -con-
struction and construction costs) , which is directly related to
the parking garage aspect of such structure. Owner shall, and as
a condition to the approval of Phase II, agree -to finance and pay
�T
for such share of the construction cost and to evidence and secure
such obligation in the following manner:
1. No later than sixty ( 60 ) days following the
issuance of a building permit for the construction of Phase II,
Owner shall deliver to the City in the form of cash or certified
funds the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as a
downpayment on such share. If no building permit for a parking
garage has been issued prior to the date of this downpayment, the
City shall promptly escrow such funds in an interest bearing
account with all interest earned thereon to accrue to the credit
of Owner and be applied to "the balance of Owner's share" in cal-
culating the original principal amount of the below -described
-promissory note until the d'tae of issuance of a building permit
for the parking structure, on which date this escrow shall be
terminated and all funds remaining therein shall be delivered to
the City.
Futher, in consideration of Owner's agreement
to participate (and Owner's actual participation) in the cost of
the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance
(including necessary capital expenditures) of a municipal parking
structure, City agrees that if a certificate of occupancy is
issued for Phase II before a certificate of occupancy is issued
for the parking structure, the City shall provide interim parking
in the following manner:
(a) City shall, in the interim, if any,
between the occupancy of Phase II and the occupancy of the parking
garage provide for Owner's use and operation fifteen (15) desig-
nated parking spaces at the existing Rio Grande lot and forty-five
(45) unassigned spaces at the existing golf course lot. The right
'-- to any such spaces shall expire upon the issuance of a certificat
of occupancy for the above -referenced parking garage. The right
to any spaces in the Rio Grande lot after the issuance of a build-
ing permit for the parking garage shall be subject to availabil-
ity, which may be limited by the construction of the parking
garage, and City shall make up at the golf course lot any such
spaces which are lost from the Rio Grande lot. During such
interim period, Owner shall he responsible for maintaining ade-
quate liability insurance covering all such spaces and for the
operation of all such spaces and for the storage and retrieval of
th�(� U�. d hotel
golf``f6/ course lot vehicles and/or passengers an guests
r
and for the supervision of hotel vehicles in the Rio Grande lot by
whatever administrative means (e.g. shuttle buses, etc.) Owner
deems appropriate. City shall, however, be responsible for keep-
ing the necessary portions of both lots clear of snow. Owner
shall and hereby does indemnify City from and against any and all
claims or liabilities for personal injury or property damage
arising out of Owner's use of such parking spaces except those
claims caused by City's negligence or intentional acts.
(b) The rental market value of the sixty (60 )
(,.spaces is stipulated to be Two Thouand Eight Hundred Twelve Dol-
lars and 50/100 ($2,812.50) per month (such value based on present
monthly cost for parking space rental within the City of Aspen at
Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) for downtown spaces and Thirty -Seven
Dollars and 50/100 ($37.50) for non -downtown spaces).
(c) During any period prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the parking structure that the Owner is
using the City -provided parking spaces, the City shall draw from
the escrow account the amount of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twelve
Dollars and 50/100 ($2, 81 2. 50) per month in compensation for the
allowed use of the sixty (60) spaces.
(d) From and after the date of issuance of a
building permit for the parking structure (and if such permit is
issued within two years of the issuance of a certificate of occu-
pancy for Phase II) the delivery to the City of the escrowed
downpayment funds and promissory note shall be deemed compensation
in full for any further use by owner of the sixty (60) interim
parking spaces, and all amounts previously withdrawn from the
escrow shall be credited back to Owner in determining the "balance
.� v
of Owner's share" for purposes of calculating the principal amount
of the promissory note described in Paragraphs L.
below,
2. The "balance of Owner's share" shall be repre-
sented by Owner's promissory note to the City as holder which note
executed and deposited into escrow with the City
' as of the date of execution of this agreement by all parties here-
to. The note shall be delivered out of escrow to the City and
become a debt (i .e . "its effective date" shall be) on the date of
the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the
parking garage or sixty (60) days following the date of issuance
of a building permit for Phase II, whichever date occurs later.
1
The note shall be in a form identical to that attached hereto as
Exhibit "C" and bearing simple interest (which interest rate may
be variable) at the same interest rate(s) as the city's (or other
issuing authority's) bond issue rate(s) under Paragraph
hereof and reciting an eighteen percent (18%) default interest
rate and payable in consecutive monthly installments of principal
and interest in such amounts as are necessary to cover principal
of, redemption premiums, if any, and interest on the City' s (or
other issuing authority's) bond(s) ( including refunding bond(s),
if any) , and other obligations of the issuer pursuant to the bond
ordinance, resolution or indenture and over the same period of
time as the City' s (or other issuing authority's) bond(s) (includ-
ing refunding bond(s) under Paragraph 6hereof, commencing on
the first day of the calendar month following the month in which
the Note is delivered with all remaining principal and accrued
interest being due and payable with the final monthly payment. To
the extent permitted by the bond issuing authority and subject to
such limitations and requirements as may be imposed by such auth-
ority at the time of the issuance of the bond(s), said Note shall
be prepayable in any amount at any time and from time to time
without penalty or notice and shall be assignable by City to any
bond issuing authority.
vM
3. As security for said note, Owner hereby cove-
nants and agrees that from and after the date of delivery to the
City of said Note, and continuing for so long as any portion of
said Note remains unpaid, Owner shall collect as part of the daily
room rental for all rental rooms at the hotel project (i.e. Phase
I and Phase II) not deed restricted to employee housing a "trans-
portation charge" in the minimum amount of Five Dollars ($5.00)
per day on every room rental, and shall maintain a separate and
accurate accounting of the revenues generated thereby. Owner
shall and hereby assigns and pledges to City such transportation
charge revenues as collateral for Owner's performance of its pro-
missory note obligations and agrees to remit to the City each
month the portion of such transportation charge revenues necessary
to retire that month's Note installment obligation. So long as
any portion of said Note remains unpaid, Owner shall maintain a
"transportation revenues reserve account" in a responsible banking
institution containing sufficient funds to pay one (1) monthly
Note installment obligation in advance, but shall otherwise be
free to utilize such other transportation 'charge revenues for its
own purposes unless and until such time as City finds it necessary
to exercise its collateral pledge rights in the event of Owner's
default in the performance of its promissory note obligations. In
the event Owner shall ever be late in paying a monthly Note
installment obligation to the City, City shall have the right to
demand that Owner increase the amount held in such reserve account
to cover three (3) monthly Note installment obligations in
advance. Owner agrees to comply with such demand and thereafter
to maintain the reserve account at the three (3) month level.
City shall have the right to examine all records necessary to
audit the transportation charge accounting and the related reserve
account at any reasonable time or times. The foregoing pledge
shall be assignable by City to any bond issuing authority.
4. Owner further agrees that the subject promis-
sory note shall contain a provision to the effect that in the
Al
event that controlling interest in the project ( i .e . Phase I and
Phase II) is transferred from Owner to a third person or persons
(by sale, foreclosure, operation of law, or otherwise), while said
Note remains unpaid, the City shall have the right (but not the
obligation) to declare the entire remaining balance of said Note
mmediately#due and payable as of the effective date of such
transfer.
5. Should the City fail to obtain a building per-
mit for the construction of a parking structure within two (2 )
years of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Phase II,
Owner shall have the right and option to implement an alternative
plan for the provision of the required sixty (60) parking spaces
or to demand that the City negotiate, in good faith, a long-term
lease (no less than fifteen (15) years) for the sixty (60) parking
spaces on the Rio Grande and golf course parking llots. In this
event, any balance in the funds escrowed pursuant topD.L�,__5L �
(being principal plus accrued interest minus monthly rental pay-
ments made) shall be credited to Owner in any new lease arrange-
ment or refunded to it if an alternative parking plan is adopted
and, in either case, the escrowed promissory note shall be rede-
livered to and cancelled by Owner.
B. In addition, Owner shall be responsible for its propor-
tionate share of the annual cost, expense and necessary capital
expenditures of operating, maintaining and repairing the parking
garage aspect of the parking garage s4cture following its comple-
tion. Owner hereby further assigns and pledges unto City the
"transportation charge" revenues allocated from time to time by
Owner pursuant to ParagraphSA_ _I(q,)3 _ above as collateral for
Owner's performance of its obligation to pay. A proportionate
share of such annual operational, maintenance and repair costs,
expenses and necessary capital expenditures. The foregoing pledge
shall be assignable by the City to any garage operating
authority.
C. In consideration of the above -described financial
participation and subsequent operational cost -sharing, Owner shall
be entitled to the perpetual use and enjoyment of a defined block
of sixty (60) parking spaces in the structure, free of parking
fees. Should the City deem it appropriate to condominiumize the
parking spaces in the parking structure, City shall deed to Owner
its sixty ( 60 ) spaces together with its proportionate undivided
interest in appurtenant general common elements.
6. Tax increment financing_and/or-industrial -development-
---------------------- ------------
bond -financing. Owner shall and hereby consents to City' s ( or
other governmental or quasi -governmental entity or non-profit cor-
poration) issuance, if possible, of a tax increment bond(s), or
other type of bond, in at least the amount of the balance of
Owner's share of the parking structure construction cost ( includ-
ing design, pre -construction and construction costs and financing
costs such as capitalized interest costs, if any, reserve funds
and bond issuance costs) , the proceeds of which bond(s) may be
applied by the City to the construction of the subject parking
structure and for any other lawful improvement project. Such
bond(s) shall bear simple interest at a rate(s) to be determined
by the issuer shall be retirable over a period of not more than
twenty-five (25) years (or other lawful term), and shall be
secured by a pledge by the City (or other issuing authority) of
the increase in real property taxes and/or sales tax assessed to
the capital Hotel Jerome property which will occur as a normal
consequence of the renovation (Phase I) and expansion (i.e. Phase
II) contemplated by this Agreement (or by other lawful security
available to the City or other issuing authority) . However, the
bonding itself will cause no additional taxes or other charges to
be imposed upon Owner other than the above -referenced "balance of
Owner's share", and the consent of Owner provided for herein shall
not be interpretted as a consent to any form of special assessment
district that would result in an increase in the real property
taxes being levied upon the hotel property.
4
City will, of course, be reimbursed on a continuing basis for its
bond retirement obligations relating to the project's share of the
parking structure by the monthly installment payments being made
by Owner under the above -described promissory note.
Owner further agrees that if Owner has, in fact, decided
to proceed with the development of Phase II, Owner sham se its
best efforts to cooperate with the City (or other governmental or
quasi -governmental entity) in the issuance and sale of any indus-
trial development bonds in connection with the financing of the
parking structure, so long as Owner's participation, if necessary,
and any such industrial development bonding effort complies with
all applicable laws and restrictions.
7. Planter encroachments. Owner agrees to obtain such
approvals and/or licenses as may be necessary with respect to
planters which encroach into public sidewalks, prior to the issu-
ance of a building permit for such planters.
8. Periodic pro�ect_reviews. Owner agrees that every six
(6) months following the date of final City approval of Phase II
until the construction thereof is complete, Owner will meet with
the City Planning Office for the purpose of informing the Planning
Office as to Owner's progress in developing Phase II pursuant to
the terms and provisions of approval and the appropriate amendment
to this agreement. If the Planning Office deems it necessary, the
Planning Office will report to the City Planning and Zoning Com-
mission on the outcome of one or more of these meetings. The
Owner and City recognize that these meetings are not opportunities
for the Owner to avoid complying with the requirements of this
agreement but are for the purpose of providing progress reports
and developing mutually acceptable solutions to any problems that
may be encountered during the construction period.
9. Permanent care and maintenance of -landscaping. Owner
agrees that it shall be the perpetual responsibility of Owner or
Owners from time to time of the above -referenced Hotel Jerome pro-
perty to maintain, care for, and replace when necessary all trees,
shrubs, plants, and other landscaping features which may be
planted in connection with or otherwise incorporated pursuant to
the landscape plan appearing on Exhibit ------- hereto, or other-
wise submitted as part of an approved final plat.
10. 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, pro-
vided that such occupancy and uses shall at all times be in com-
pliance with the then applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen. Owner agrees that it shall be the perpetual
responsibility of the Owner or Owners from time to time of the
above -referenced Hotel Jerome property to maintain in a clean and
attractive condition and in a good state of repair all such open
space contained within the project.
11. Compliance -and -request -for -amendments or extensions_by__
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 the same within such reasonable as the City Council
may determine. 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 requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the
�j
following matters:
( a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did
exist, or
(b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment
to this First Amended Agreement should be granted
with respet 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 matter set forth
in the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing
shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures nor-
mally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the
City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a
-�"�on-compliance exists which has not been remedied, it l y issue
such orders as may be appropriated; provided, however, no order
terminating any approval granted herein shall be granted without a
finding of the City Council that substantial evidence warrants
such action in 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, terminate any of the approvals contained
herein.
12. Notice. Notice to be given to the parties to this
agreement shall he deemed given is personally delivered or if
deposited in the United States Mail to the 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: Owner:
City Manager Hotel Jerome Limited
130 South Galena Street Partnership
Aspen, Colorado 81611 c/o Dick Butera
Aspen Real Estate Associates
Copy to: 520 East Durant, suite 204
Garfield & Hecht Aspen, Colorado 81611
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
13. A P-plicable_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.
14. Severability. If_ any of the provisions of this agree-
ment 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
this First Amended Agreement and the validity of any such provi-
sion, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under
any other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
15. Incorporation_of_recitals. The City and Owner hereby
stipulate and agree that the recitals preceding this First Amended
Agreement are part of this agreement and are to be deemed incor-
porated herein as though fully set forth.
16. Entire_agreement; _amendment. This First Amended Agree-
ment and all exhibits attached hereto and/or documents, reports
and applications incorporated by reference, contains the entire
understanding and agreement between the parties herein with
respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be
altered and amended from time to time only by written instrument
executed by -each of the parties hereto.
17. Representations. Look up in AML PUD Agreement.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
i By - -
--- - --- ----------------
William L. Stirling, Mayor
1
ATTEST:
--------------------------------
1
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
OWNER:
HOTEL JEROME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Connecticut Limited Partnership
By Western Properties Invest-
ments, Inc., General Partner
By--------- - - ----- ---- -- -----
T. Richard Butera, President
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
- day of _ _ _ __ ___--_--, 1986, by William L.
Stirli_ng as Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the City of
Aspen, Colorado.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
------------------- ---------
-----------------------------------
Notary Public
----- ----------------------------
Address
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
_-------, 1986 by T. Richard
Butera.---------------
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: ------------------------------
---------------------
Notary Public
Address
NOTE - we should see the limited partnership documents so that we
can verify that Butera has authority to sign.
5C, 1E
Qe-Ar, \
AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
HOTEL JEROME RENOVATION AND ADDITION
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").
W I T N E S S E T H:
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 170.00 feet of the
vacated alley in said Block 79,
City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Owners 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
Addition "(hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Project"); and
WHEREAS, Owners 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 Cleric 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 for the
Initial Project or, at the option of the applicant, an amendment
thereto to be presented 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; and
WHEREAS, City and Owner desire to amend the Agreement pertain-
ing to the Initial Project dated April 20, 1983, to reflect a
phasing into Phases I and II as well as various matters set forth
below (hereinafter this Agreement will be referred to as "First
Amended Agreement").
, HEREAS, pendi pplication fo mendment City and Owner
desir to amend he Agreeme t pert Wing to the Init 1 Project,
dated A ril 0, 1983, to re a phasing into Phase and II as
- 2 -
hereinabove described as well as various matters set forth below
i to one comprehensive Agreement (hereinafte this greement will be
re erred to as "Fir Amend d Agreement"), and
WHEREAS, th City is wi ling to a prove this Fi st Amended
Agr ement upo the representa ion /tig
on
that a pla will be filed
on o befor September 1, 198 , menthe approval o the City
Engine! which plat will accurately reflect presently existing
Phase I;
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in
connection with its approval of applicants request to phase the
project as hereinabove described, and, to the extent not specifi-
cally superceded by this First Amended Agreement 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,
to the extent that matters are specifically addressed herein, this
Agreement shall supercede and amend that Planned Unit Development
Agreement Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addition, dated April 20,
1983, recorded in Book 444 at Page 750, Office of the Pitkin County
- 3 -
Clerk and Recorder. Further, to the extent not specifically super -
ceded and addressed in this Agreement, the parties desire to
reaffirm all matters set forth in said Agreement. Owner agrees that
on or before September 1, 1986, Owner shall submit to City an
amended PUD plat reflecting the existing renovation of the Hotel
Jerome which plat shall comply with all applicable requirements, the
City of Aspen subdivision and PUD regulations.
In addition, it is comtemplated that applicant will submit
another application pursuant to Section 24-8.26(b) to amend Phase II
on or before August 1, 1986, which application and the approvals
therefor shall be subject to all the requirements, terms and concai-
tions of the City of Aspen subdivision and PUD regulations in effect
and such other laws, rules or regulations as are or may become
applicable.
In the event that an application to amend the plat to reflect
an amendment to Phase II as currently provided for in the Initial
Project for Phase II is not made on or before August 1, 1986, the
plat for the Initial Project, as amended, to reflect Phase I as
hereinbelow provided, shall constitute the development approvals
pertaining to the property.
2. Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter. With regard to the provisions
for sidewalks, curb and gutter, as set forth in Paragraph "l", of
the initial Agreement, City acknowledges that Owner has constructed
a new sidewalk along Main Street frontage and has (or will by August
1, 1986) 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 City
Engineering, 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
reference. Such cost estimate shall be updated by the City Engineer
when Owner actually 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 the Project, 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 the Project and
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
actually applies for a Building Permit for the Project and Exhibit
"A" shall be amended accordingly at that time.
- 5 -
The current estimated cost of such improvements does not
include sewer and water taps, plant investment fees and related
fees, which will be calculated and paid prior to issuance of a
Building Permit according to the then -standard practices and charges
of the sewer district and water department.
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 cominon
and botanical names, sizes and quantities. Landscaping will be
completed in a logical phasing sequence commensurate with the
phasing of the improvements contemplated in the Construction Sche-
dule, but in no event later than one year after the date of the
Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II.
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.
It is the mutual understanding of the parties that a Certifi-
cate of Occupancy may be issued for the Project even if the land-
scaping improvements have not yet been completed, provided the
- 6 -
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 1987-1988 summer. Prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit for Phase II and as a condition prece-
dent thereto, Owner agrees to provide the City Engineering
Department with a detailed construction schedule, to the satisfac-
tion 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 provi-
sion of pedestrian protection, (b) excavation access and large truck
traffic and staging areas, (c) delivery and storage of major
materials, (d) construction equipment access and storage, and (e)
contractor vehicle parking. Such construction schedule shall be
verified by the signatures of the City Engineer and the Chief Build-
ing 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.
6. Financial Assurances. In order to secure the performance
of the construction and installation of the improvements described
- 7 -
in Paragraph 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 (either or both to be irrevocable until such construction
is completed), that funds in the amount of such estimated cost are
held by it for the account of Owner for the construction and instal-
lation of the above -described improvements. Said guaranty shall be
delivered 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 uncondi-
tional right, upon default by the Owner, to withdraw funds upon
demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of such
improvements or pay any outstanding 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 accep-
tance, 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 Para-
graphs 1 and 2 above shall be released by City upon completion and
- 8 -
approval by the City Engineer of all such Paragraph 1 and 2
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 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 such improvements. 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.
It is the express understanding of the parties that the proce-
dure set forth in Paragraph 13 of this Agreement regarding non-
compliance shall not be required with respect to the enforcement and
implementation of the financial assurances set forth herein and
required by Section 20-16(c) of the yunicipal Code.
In the event Phase II is not to be constructed, the Owner
agrees that it will expend at least $50,000.00 for the purpose of
Landscaping the site.
7. Employee Housing. With reference to Paragraph 6 of the
Initial Project, and as a further inducement to the City to approve
phasing into two phases as set forth in this First Amended Agree-
ment, Owner has agreed to and does hereby confirm and acknowledge
its obligation to provide housing for employees of the project, as
required by the Code and regulations of the City of Aspen, or its
designee, in connection with the Project. With regard to Phase I,
- 9 -
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 under and in accordance with such City of Aspen employee
housing use, occupants, rental and sales price guidelines as may be
in effect and applicable from time to time, sufficient to house four
(4) employees of the project and restricted to a maximum occupance
of one (1) employee per bedroom. Such rooms shall be used solely by
hotel employees, and verification of an employees employment
qualificaions may be accomplished by the City of Aspen, or its
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 Owners 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 specifi-
cally enforceable by the City of Aspen or its designee by appro-
priate 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 Pitkin 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
day
of , 1986, restricting units at
the Cortina Lodge, Aspen, Colorado, shall fully satisfy the require-
ments for Phase II of the project. These units shall be provided
for use by fifteen (15) hotel employees, deed restricted to City
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
minimum number of acceptable employee housing units required by the
initial agreement 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 the substitute units.
Upon the completion of 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 in the opinion of the City to house fifteen (15) employees
off -site, Owners on -site employee bedroom requirement shall be
reduced and deed restrictions released exactly by the number of
off -site bedrooms provided in excess of those 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 resolution of the City Council.
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
when Owner does provide the required number of units for off -site
employee housing in the manner above provided.
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.
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, either on -site or off -site, in the manner or manners
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 thirty-one
(31) on -site parking spaces in the manner acceptable to the Engin-
eering Office, 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 and
herewith, Owner agrees to provide fifty-one (51) parking spaces to
be on -site and enclosed in the Phase II Addition according to the
recorded plat. These fifty-one (51) parking spaces shall include
the thirty-one (31) spaces required in Phase I, if no Building
Permit for Phase II has been issued by September 1, 1986.
In the event Owner does not provide the fifty-one (51) parking
spaces for the Project on -site, then Owner agrees to participate
with the City in the financing, design, construction, operation and
maintenance (including necessary capital expenditures) of a 400-
vehicle parking structure on the Rio Grande property, but only to
the extent that the number of parking spaces on -site are less than
the spaces required hereunder.
At such time as the City undertakes the construction of this
structure, Owner shall and hereby agrees to participate proportion-
ately (based on the need for fifty-one (51) spaces) in the finan-
cing, design, construction, operation and maintenance (including
necessary capital expenditures) of the parking garage aspect
thereof, such financial participation to be in the form described in
the original PUD Agreement.
- 13 -
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 plants.
10. Periodic Project 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 Planning 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 meet-
ings are not opportunities for the Owner to avoid complying with the
requirements of 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 from time to time of the Hotel Jerome property 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.
- 14 -
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
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
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.
- 15 -
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, terminate any of the
approvals contained herein.
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 -construc-
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;
- 16 -
(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 construc-
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
Agreement shall be deemed given if personally delivered or if
deposited in the United States Mail to the 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
- 17 -
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.
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 and 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.
- 18 -
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 Final
Planned Unit Development Plat for the Hotel Jerome - Renovation and
Addition, 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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands
and seals the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
A Municipal Corporation
William Sterling, Mayor
- 19 -
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
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
- 20 -
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
- 21 -
EXHIBIT "A"
The following is a breakdown of estimated costs for construction
of improvements on the City rights -of -way around the Hotel
Jerome. The figures are 1986 dollars.
1. Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter
New walks
Bleeker Street 6' x 300' @ 3.75/s.f. = $ 6,750
Monarch Street 6' x 120' @ 3.75/s.f. = 2,700
Damaged sidewalk
Say 20' x 8' @ 3.75 = 600
New curbs
Bleeker Street 30 l.f. @ 11.00/1.f. = 330
Damaged curb
Say 40 l.f. @ 11.00/1.f. = 440
Total sidewalk, curb and gutter = $10,820
0
COST ESTIMATE
WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO SERVE
JEROME HOTEL EXPANSION
1.
Tie-in at Monarch and Bleeker Streets,
12"x8" tapping sleeve, valve & box
$ 2,000.00
2.
350 L.F. Cl. 52 8" DIP @ $28.00 L.F
9,800.00
3.
40 L.F CL 52 6" DIP @ $24 L.F.
960.00
4.
2 - 8"x6" MJ x Flg tees with
kickblock @ $325
650.00
5.
2 - 6" MJ x Flg gate valves & box @ $425
850.00
6.
20 L.F 3/4" high strength tie -rods @ $6.00 L.F.
120.00
7.
1 - 6" fire hydrant, with kickblock
1,200.00
8.
1 - 8" MJ x 6" PE reducer
200.00
9.
Tie-in at Mill and Bleeker Streets
6"x6" tapping sleeve, valve & box
1,800.00
10.
700 tons Class 6 base course @ $10.00 Ton
7,000.00
Sub -Total
$24,580.00
11.
Contingency fees 20%
4,916.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE COST
$29,496.00
J
O
CA
design workshop, inc.
710 e. durant
aspen, colorado 81611
THE HOTEL JEROME
303/925-8354
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND
BUDGET ESTIMATE
July 3, 1986
Design Workshop, Inc.
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
COST/UNIT
TOTAL
This cost estimate is
for
the R.O.W. areas only
Landscaping
import & spread
topsoil cy
109
$ 18.00
$ 1,962.00
fine grading
sf
3,930
0.12
472.00
sod
sf
4,713
0.30
1,414.00
mulch
cy
12
30.00
360.00
Sub -total .......................
$ 4,208.00
Plant Materials
ash
ground covers
shrubs
Irrigation
planting beds
general
ea 13 $ 750.00 $ 9,750.00
ea 600 6.00 3,600.00
ea 48 30.00 1,440.00
Sub -total $14,790.00
sf 1,083 $ 2.0'0
sf 3,930 ,0.40
Sub -total ........................
GRAND TOTAL ......................
$ 2,166.00
1,572.00
$ 3,738.00
$22,736.00
community developrnent land planning landscape architecture
i. 1
1�
NOW
r
crcN)eli 'f- t..-444 rv, J80
(Page 1 of S)
PROMI$SOPY NCYTF
f l9e_
(Principal Amuunt) (Effective Date)
rOh VALUF. RECEIVED. 3t7Ntr GILNCIRE (herelnAfter 'Makes')
promises to pay to the order of the CITY OF ASPEN, COWRADO, a
aunicipal corpo•stion and home -cult city (hereinafter 'Payee'), at
130 South Galena, Aspen. Colorado d1611, the principal sum deter-
alned in accordance with the provisions of Petagroob 1 Ltlow,
together with .010ple interest thereon from. ttte effective date
hereof until fully paid at the rate(s) deterained in accordenre
with the provisions of Paregcaph I twlow, such ptincipal and inter-
eat to bc• pay,b)e in tht mannrr dteeribed in Paragrsph 3 belov.
1. lAit Nott evidences ltaker'e obligation to retmtuf*e .Payer
` for Asker's p'toportioita_te shore of thr torsi. construction 'cost of
the vehicular parking atruetute'&-Lirrg'bu11t by Payee on the Rio
Grande property in the Clty of Aspen, Pltiic.'.Ccunty, Culotado. the
principal amount hereof shoal be dCtersintd by multiplying a
traction, the numerator of which 1s 60 and the denovinnror of which
is the totcl nuabtr of pot►ing spaccc Lerny construCttd, tiers the
portion of the total eonstructior cost (in,luding dcs:gn, prf--
cun6trurtion end construction coctr, and firancing curt' inrlurl,no
capitalicc•d interest on 1-nndc, rear,ty: fund:., and L:c,e 1rRc,rnce
costal which !r dtrrctly rtlated to.thr• parking g,-%t;asp,rt u!
such atrurturc, en0 then cuLtractInc it r;.- of •'12.,c^C.0C rr
- ....&Ar
I:.•4" tv. c 781
Previously deposited by Maker In escrow with Payee plus all
interest earned on such escrowed &mount from the dote of to
depoelt with Payee to the effective date of this Note. The said
prinelpal amount hereof shall he a leulatt-d by Payee In accordance
with the forequing definition, and shall be entered by Peyc•r in the
blank provided for such purpose at the top of this Note, at the
time and on thr date this Note Is dvllvered out of eacro,. to Payee
(le. or. the 'effective date' of this Note).
3. ►ayes• (or an alternate Iasulnq authority) has Issued a
ta- Incirr"i.t bond(al or soave other type- of boad(rl Is sit $test•the
principal amount of Chit Note for purposes of funding Maker's pro-
portlenate *here of the total parking structure eunstructton cost
as abo,.e defined. Tl,r principal amount herecf rrhell bcsr sispie
interest (vtiich Interest way be voslable) fro*. the *ffi•ctly* det*
=1+ereof until .fy1Ty paid- tE the=sere lnterent rates)-&4L li yee'•
't (or otbet issuing authurity's) bond lsit,ire-rate(,*)'-under the above --
sent toned- bondt a) . r
�'- ). RrIncipaI ar.d i"ntereat slAall bt due and payable in con-
e mecutive soncl.ly lnstalJmrnta in such ar vntt as are nccccacry to -
cover principal- of, reder.ptior, pr*piucs, if any, enJ Intrrest on
the Payees (or other issuing authori-ty'c) bund's) (in-ludinq
t refva.:..q bond(e). If an)), and other obli-ye:ione of the 1scu,.r
purturnt to the band ordinenee, resulution ur indenture, and t-ver
the aroe period of time- as Payee's (or ottor issi,ing authi.eity't)
to-
-2-
'
i
f .
e..•444 h. 0 782
bond(s) (Including refunding bond(a)) obllgotIon wnder the
( abcve-HntIoned bond fa). Such monthly Installments shall comenc♦
on the first day of the calendar uonth following the effective date
of this Note, with all remaining principal and unpaid accrued
interest being due and payable with the final monthly payment.
4. To the extent permitted by the bond issuing authority and
subject to such limitations and requirements at may be imposed by
such authority at the time of the Issuance of the- related bonds(s),
Maker shall have the right to asks, advance, additional or prepay'
I
Ments in any amount at any time and ftoa time to time without
notice or penalty. Svch payments shalt be applied first to eccfued
Intelsat and t)en to the outstanding principal balance.
S. At the option of Payee, the entire outatendir.g principal
•and interest balance of.thie Noce shall become IrtRediately due and
►ayabl*, without notice or dessrtd, upon the tt Ansfec by Maker to •
gird person or pertorss (by aale,-forec,Iaiui ;- bperi-tion of. lave; or
othttvlarl of a controlling interest In the Hotel Jerome prapt rty•
Situated In the City of Aspen, Pitt'/'n -County. Colorado.
S. In the *vent Maker dttsulta In the.perfora&nce of any of
• :.eis obligations hereunder, accrued Interrat and :pr.incl"pal at,ell,
from and after the date of such default, beat intcrett at the rate
of elghtecn percent (let) per annuc until such default it curt-d by
i
Maker. In the event that any unpaid balance duc under thlr Note
should br co] lccttd t,} an at tot r.cy, wl-ethvr by ci.ur t a, t ior4 o•
othcrwlac, Poker hereby ogrccr, to pay rentonat.lr atruincy-' frer.
ar•1 al 11 nt t' t Co" tt rf acy suc!. cc] ]cc t iun ert,c
-7-
ti
V
t(V.,444 ►+,-. o 783
7. T1fa Mote small be governed as to validity, interpreto-
tloo, constrOct Ion, of fact, and In all ether respects by the laws
and rlecislons of the state of Colorado. Maker understands and
"roes t"t the courts of the state of Coloredo shall have subject
natter jurisdiction to entertain any action brought to enforce or
oollect upon this Mote, anA by esecution hereof, Maker voluntarily
subalts to personal jurisdiction of the courts of the state of
Colorado, aotwithatanding the place of ereCUtion hereof. Maker's
residence or principal place of business, or the nature or scope of
any activities or event, Which may have eecuTred In ethef states.
ov o;d, evrr, such jurisdiction shall not be exclusive and, at
its option. Payee or its assignee stay roaaence such action in any
etber state exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
S. this Mote shell be assignable by Payee to any bond
1atelm outbor i ty. _
s. !'►e^here MOorser6, our etles-and.'qu_eraLrtois' o'i this
srote_jointly and severally, valve presentucnt for pa "ent, notice of
":-parsent, protest and notfct.of•protest.
10. This Mote Is' secured by thnt ccrtels+ collstersl assign-
ornt..m+d pledge of 'trontportetion charge revcn.;rs' being eolI -ctci
by Maker from the operation of the Hotel Jetoar ae set forth in
Paragraph 7(e) of that eertnin Plonncd Unit Uevvlup,%•nt Agreca•nt -
Eotel Jerose - Renov.ition and AAdition dctcd ', , 1111 and
recorded in sc�okml st pegc of the Pitkin Counry. Coloredo
i
t.
-1-
i
4
2�
0
eu.4u ,, p 781
real Ptoptrty record., all pertinent provisions of which
t.O.D.
Alretssan, ire ►ereby
lacorporattd ►erein end made a part
Aer*of by
this ref*ter.c*. taie
boot and papf refer* all be
filled in
,
by ►ayt* at the tine
this Note is i*liv d out etc[
to fayet.
r
tset:uted this
day o
F. Gileort
L �
f
§478-
751-
�rt
r�
9XHIRIT 'A'
•444 o 779
The following is a breakdown of estimated
costs for construc-
tion
of improvements on the City rights -of -ray
around the Hotel
Jerome. The figures are 1183 dollars and are generally
based on
1112
bids for City work.
1,
sidewalks, Curt, and Gutter
1
Now walks
a ,
Main street s' a 180• ! 7.,r/a.f.
{ 5,040
Sleeker street 6' s 300' ! ).SO/a.f.
6.300
Monarch street 6' a 120' 0 3.50/s.f.
2.520
Dam%ged sldewal►.
2Ga /' ! 3.SO/s.f.
S60
Mew curbs
Main street 200 i.r. 0 10.2s/l.f.
•, 21050
Uleeker Street 30 l.f. 0 10.25/l.f.
306
Da wa q ed c-u r b
40 l.f. ! 10.25/1.f.
410
Total sidewalk, curb and gutter
$17,184
2.
Other Physical improvements
tat e r s y s t em
Compenaat-ion to 11• in to Monarch St.
12' 1: 2.TS0
furnlih and "lrisCall• l' �V -4 Vs
-
t
1,200
Furnish and install 1' cl 52 D.I.
pipe-210 l.f. ! 21/l.f.-
• 61720
�' a {'- tK' 1 am;. -
725
V cl S2 D,I. pipe 20'_ ! 31J1.f.
410
s• Gv "6- WS • 1 -ea.
425
6' fire hydrant t /a.
1,200
S' plug and kickblock 1 /a.
• 1:5
Contingency fees 1 20,
Total water lines
$15,870
Reset. property pins
21000
Total other physical improvements
{17,17G
11.
Landscaping
The " timsted cost of landscaping in the right-of-way
is
{10,000.
CITY or ASprN
SMGIMt[FIM, DEPARTMENT
(CLAy Q cal---- `!/- �
Daniel A. MCArthu
City Engineer
lUx NLD pe I T piVtLOo7tZxT AQ)<t Dcia�T L _ , ; ►1 \ M ! I
ril�:k C I I k!16DF:(A
'
PCFrT L J [ RORE - WaCI V x TT OK XXV ADO rT I OW
Hv I' 2 c) �'!J
x
V
roI► A mLiricKT, sad@ and entered into tots �� do of
Apr 1 1. IN), by and be t ti en the C I TT Of Ai r IX , COLOAADO , a sou n i c i -
pa1 sorporatlon ar*d Iroae-rate city (►ereinafter referred to as
"city*). and JOem r . G uAo ki (h a re i n a f t eT re f e rr ed to sr ' Ow rw r ') ,
�- "•
IN I T■ a I t t T 81
WMXL i, C oar %ar SUbMitteA to tse City •tor ampro,al, osecr
~T
tioa and WVCOV4104 a tiaal Plar""d unit Development (P.O.D.i flat
(►ereiaaftet referred to sr the 'Plot') rertaininq to the &esjlop-
rNn
t Of a project known as toe • bat e l J e roe►e - lt.na• a t 1 or; arse
&M i t t m' (►e re i s,a f t e•r referred to os the 'Project') an a ►a r ce l
of coal pcworty swra particnlarly eeecr1bed as tolio•oer
y��"•
iLta A, 6, C, D, 8, ►, G, ■, 1, O, P,
0. t, a WA the taat ?0 coat of -Lot sr.
ti
Meet 79. "Kb or r i th t ►e Lost 170.72
•
teet of "0 vacated alley ie aaid chock 19.
-
City aad Vowftait.e of AApon, Ckwety of P1tkin,
-�.
Mate of Coloradoi and
'
IMMRSAi , the P.V.D. app 1 i oat i or+ srar f 1 1 ed in oor, j w*ct i or+ vi try
SO aW l 1 oat 1 a for re bon i" Of a portion of the abo+"ea cr i bed
i
real pev"rty mad applications for Gro.rtth w,apawnt Qua Kstem
(*am ) e s empt i ona l ar,d
0
-4� 7-
r•�
.A .
0
t
Z
"4" ►r� 0 751
AftR _kS, the subject property is located within an area of
t►e City sowed CC -Commercial Coro (by virtue of the abo+e-refer-
esc+d " Doning)t and
WKIKLAL, the City has fully considered said Flat, the pro-
posed development and improveaent of the land therein, and the
burdens to be Lnposed upon other adjoini" or neighbors" proper-
ties and the downtown area in general by reason of the proposed
development and improvement of land included in the Flail and
wv&pW , the City, in consideritvq the proposed development
site and proposed Laproveesents, has. found and hereby daes find the
followings the ace& of the proposed F.V.D. is substantially
covered by a deteriorated and d+terioratiN building of historic
significance; the development area has a faulty lot layout in
celetion to adequecy, accessibility snd osefulnosat the develop-
asent arse contains potentially unsafe oonditionat the dsvalopm*nt
area ►u s site and imrprowseeents subject to further. Astefiaratio-n
aaleas tha planned drvalops►ent- Ls carried outt -and- the sevelopment
area contains conditions that potentiallr 40ndenorr life and pro-
perty by tire. end other causest and
wmlxa, t.be City also hu four%4 and bareby does find that
t►e present Condition of the F.U.D. area substantially impairs the
sosa%d troerth and future potential *conosic health of the munici-
pality and is a potential menace to the public health, safety and
welfare unless the planned development is carried out i and
2
ti
F �
114 I
ft�- 4" " 0 753
w l fare and safety pr-ob l eae as abov s—d ee cr i b-od , sod, tt, a r e f ors ,
tba City finds t-hat it to in tbi public 1 o t e ro at to asp rov a the
►topo+ad ds+elopaent and its sraoclated Municipal tapcovessental
am
MINZAs, the Owner stipu1atea and agrems to the forago1aq
f i ad i a9 e of Ube City and ack now 1 edq es that th+ p ropat ed 6sv e 1 op-
Nast, the related Municipal imiproveasnts and the potential plight
smd slow pond i t i ocA are t me: t r i cab l y i n t e r re 1 art ed i Mad
o1wssAs , the City is w i l l i a to approve, to ar at a w+d accept
for reoordettaw said Plat upon the agraaaent of OwInow to tee Mat-
ters 4reinafter 6escrlbed, and subject to all t,e roquireaeets,
terms sad ooe-dttlooe of the City of kap*e /ubdivisloo and P.O.D.
%W91 a t i oes Nov In effect tad s u ah other lea vs , ru 1 es and req o 1 e-
t ioea as o r% or may become app 1 t c ab 1 e i aad
�)ZLAi . tla Ci'ti >;aa tmpoNld . coed It i an s r+d . ye" t rem ewt s in
Ow asec3 i ce w i tb Its s aggro+ ai . s� ecrt 3�8e iid scatpt ti os [ of rsoor'd`
attoa of tb►s Plat, and saeb mutters are Nereasary to "rrotact, pro-
Nota Sera soba+►co tbo pub 11c bea1th. safety Sad walfarmi tad
11MUM s , amber the se t>or t-t y of Sect -tor 10-11(c) and section
21-2.1 �t !-*S. of Lho 1lapen Runieipal "Co", [De -City is "titled
to assar&nce that t2,s matters beralnalter sgrr+d to will he talte-
fally tetf oca-ed by Owner i tee
Rs[Ai, Ovnar is vill1rvq to enter into ouch serseaeot(s)
With, quid to pr,"Id.a such assurancs(s) to, tha'City.
0
.
Y
4
A �f
k"44q n-i 0 751
MOI1i, TSKAIrCRt, in consideration of the preaioos, the mutual
co v e n e n is "rein oon t a i ne d, and the approval, e■ ec ut i on grid o ccep-
tance of the Plot for recordation by the City, it is greed so
followoI
1. fi6"alks, Curb and Gutter. P-rior W the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, Owner shall construct
a" midewal b along the entire Project frontages on Rain, Qonarch
srid glesker ftreeta (►-foot minimum width on Rain •trait, 6-foot
minimum wilt! on Ibnarch and Slotker Streets), together with owb
and quttgt, all as reasonably deteralaed by the City trgiaeer, in
acoordsace with the Landscape Plan submitted bsrewlth, the appli-
cable pro+istonas of Chapters if and 20 of tbo Aspen Ruaicipal
Code, as am■or d ed , srid we cv pt ed sn g in ee r 1 ng standards and pr ac-.
ticw. Pvrsuant to dome obligations. Oyer shall repair or e
rWwoe any, az1st1j►g toe mewlY inatalle4) side+ralks, gmrls or qvt-
tar th K sib be damwq ed d a r i og ooeat ra ct i oe ' 7 sa t i -
ma t ed act" a l e awd oo s t of such cis i mpeo► esw t o is sow t a i mad are U b i-
►it 'A', mttacbad ►ereto and inoorporated ►er*ia *y this r*fdrr-
tbpoe.t &A t cost se t i ma t o sh a l l be spd s t.ed by . tb! . C i t y linq i nee r
"so Ow"r actually Applies for a W 1-ld i nsq Permit -_! oc_ tar P ro j ec t
amid Rshiblt 'A' aba11 be a+erid.mA acoorAt 1 K- Chat =t1sr. ,.
2. Other Thyaical Iapro+swents. Prior to the iaaw.oe of a 7 -
Cert i f i carts of Acc upa n cy for the Project, Arnie r sb a l l prop id a bard i
iostall ou-ih water lines and fire bydrants, sanitary se.wr lines,
store drain"e iapr"~nts srd store movers, arsd ss& other phy-
S
1
,`1
�
1
i.
V..
"'"4 ' V 755
&Seal I mp rov esen t a , as any be rea eon a b l y required pu r a +i a n t to bec-
t i on 30 -1 { (a) of the 11 u n i c i pa 1 Code, In connection w i tb tb a pr o-
Ject and scoording to normal City sp►cificatione, tie schedule and
coat of which include, without limitation, those contained in
t=hibit •A•. fuct+ cost estimate shall be updated try the City
tngiar►er when Owner actually applies for a building Permit for the
Project and 1xhibit •A• Shall be amended accordingly at that time.
We evrrent estisated cost of such inprovsmento does sot
iaclade sewer and water tape, plant investment tees assd related
tees, %%IC+ w111 M calcul&ted and paid prior to isav&woe of a
bsildieg Perult according to the then -standard proctioee and
charTas of the newer district and water department.
3. j.and s c ap i ng I mp rov am�e n t s . I n accord an os with Section
3/— -14 of the Municipal Code, all re-quired lsr4scapinq shall sub-
atantiolly ssanfora to the •Landscape Plane annexed to the plat aM
I000WV mr st ed ►ece la " e y rsf a ren oe .-• wb i-eb a h owe , tao -sit ei t and 1ooa-
ties Of all plant Raterlals and cther llp+dsoapa- tiatsrse, flower
ead atirob bod definition, propossd plant salertal at water* sisM
Is ap" opciste relation to scale, species and 4i ti of sainting
plaa2 material, proposed, treatsent- of 'all- Around �u�tacei (a.i•
pwia�. turf; -gravel, .atc.i._lo6atI4Vr of trat+i+: eat *to, and a,
plant material scnedu2e with+ .00woti aM" botanical - nMes, &lass ae+d
qua.ntIt1*6. Landacaping will he oospleted in a logical phasing
asyu es ce o0s men su r a t e with the phasing of t h • i up ro. amen t s ooa t e ►-
plated Ln the Construction schedule, but in no event later than
6,:•444 ry. o 756
one (1) year cfter the date of the Certificate of Occupancy for
the Project. The current eatimated cost of such lsndacaping
improvements to agreed by the City tngineer to be 110,000.W.
Such oost estimate shall be updated by the City tngirieer vben
Owner actually applies for a building Permit for the Project and
Inhibit 'A' shall be &mended accordingly at that ties. It 1s the
mutual understanding of the parties that a Certificate of Occu-
pancy may Issue for the Project arson though the lanQacaping
improvements have not yet been oompleted, so long as the portion
of the tuaranty provided for in Paragraph S hereof which oovere
the estimated cost of wet, unfinished landecaping r4matns avail-
abla pursuant to the terms of said Paragraph S.
/. Construction. Schedule. Owner tvpresents to City that en
accurate construction schedule cannot be submitted at this time.
Owner anticipates that construction of the Project will coe,menc•e
so lat-et than ALagust_af 1915 apd be opepleted no later thm QecV-V--
ber of INC. Psior to the -issuance of t_WuIL4irig-t ter'LDa
Project and .aa_ .a condition precodent• -Sterns. a(f+nar+Rgre'�m.-u pro-
vlds, the .City- tnginf.ring Department Witt a die ta11 00"trYc♦4"
@C.hadule, to tho satisfaction of_tlse--City tnginesr avail-Chlaf
iuildinq Official, which ►1,al1 particularly address-bov-mnatruc-
tior, phasing and other techniqu w will best accoarodats order the
circumstancas (a) -'barricading ar►d provision of pedestrian protec-
tion, (b) excavation access and large truck traffic and staging
areas, (c) 6e11very and storage of major materials-, (d) oonatruc-
I
n__
ti ,
V*'- 444 h_ o 7 5 7
Lion equipment acres* and storage, and (e) oontractor vehicle
parking. ouch construction schedule shall be verified by the
signatures of the City [ngineer and the Chief building Official
and recorded as a supplementary exhibit hereto. Amendments to the
construction schedule, if any. shall be processed in the Project
Review process established in Paregraph 10 hereof, verified by
signatures of the City tngineer and Chief building Official, and
recorded au supplementary eshibits hereto.
S. tnancial Assurances. In order to secure the perfor•
Banc* of the eonetruction and installation' of the imprmwents
described In Paragraph 1, 2 and I above, and tc quarante* one bun -
'I
dred percent (1001) of the, current estiasted cost of such I prove-
•ants reyd aq by the City tngine*r to be 1I5,051.00 (as weT amount
may be updated from time to time so herein provided). Owner shall
{
• M•r-.:
guarantee, by sight dcaft.or-lett*r-of oommitsent or cr'odit from a
tinanclall_r Cgspo'nsible .hndlr (sitDeE of •�ntL Lp.Oi ittevocable
-- r
until such eon*tructim is Completed), that funds in the amount of
-�
such eetisated cost are held by it for the account of Owner for
�i
the oon s t r oct i on and installation of the above- d e a cr i bed laser av t '
" nts. Said guaranty shall be delivered to the Cl-ty littor tb-•tht
issuance to Own*r of a building perait for the Project, shall be
In a fors acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager,
and shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default by
th* Owner, to *withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fvlly
complete and/or pay for any of such isprovesents or pay any out-
I
b
flr•444 w, 0 758
standing bills for work done thereon b-f any party, with any sacess
guaranty funds applicable to additional adwinistreti r or legal
costs aaaociated with any aucti defsult and the repair of any
deterioration In improvements already constructed. As portions of
the rwvvired improvements are completed, the City tngineer shall
Inspect thea, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall
authorise the release from the guaranty delivered by Owner of the
&greed astiaated cost for that portion of the improvements except
that ten perce at (101) of the estimated cost shall be withheld
until all proposed 1 sip rev em e n t s are cos pl e t ed and approved by the
City a►gineer. Provided, that the withh_:d tan percent (10%)
which relates to the improveaents described in Paragraphs 1 and !
•� above shall be released by City upon completion and approval toy
the City tngineer of --all such Parograpt; 1 and 2 Improvements au�Q
r►9ardle4a or the-stege_'1of •oo4.l*tion_•of_ landscapee tmyrg►emfnts
•escribod In Paragraph 3 above.
The Owner also ogreea to deliver to the C3E ,, aeon demand
therefor by the City "inter, a ■aintenance bond or other suit-
I-
S,..' able guarantee for the repair or-replacveeht of any existing Muni-
cipal' isptovesents damaged during construction of ,no, improve -
wants.
Furthermore, Owner hereby agrees to and dw a hereby warranty
1 all such improvements to accepted standards of good works a,,ship
` for a period of one (1) year fros and after acceptance the.vof in
writing by the City. In additior to this warranty, the Owner
f
s-
r
j-j
"'444 "'u 0 759
•hall obtain from his contractors customary warranties of good
aor ksan sa i p w i tb the City as beneficiary, with re s pact to a l l
improves►ents required by larayraphs 1, 2 and J.
It is the express anderstardinq of the parties that Um pro -
coders set forth in Paragraph 13 of this Agraes.ent repardinq won-
ooe>p l i a.n ce Shall not be required with r es pe ct to the en f o rcma en t
and iaclesentation of the financial assurances set forth herein
sad required by :*ction 20-141c) of t►e Municipal Code.
6. tmploree feusinq. As an leduceaant to the City to
app roe a the t . 0 . D . , Amer ► as ag r e-ed to and has hereby ac k nov-
ION# big obligation to provide nineteen (19) 'slaploy-ae housing'
bedrooms as d e s cr i bed herein and defined by the Code • %d req u l &-
boas of the City of Aap'en or its dasigno*, in oortnaction with the
btel ft-0J ct: friof to. A" Iasuanoe of a Certif-Lcats-=bt-.Qomr-
MUCY J� t�>F-=t•fatts •iiid •/ • curdition -N sEc¢ent tlrece>:o;-.Arser
agreae to and &ball Provide for see by total anployees a minim�6s
Of fiftten (13) off -site seplores badrvt-ss, damd restricted to
City og ren t aY aim sale pr i oq., gpv,,&_1 1 f i c a t lope .and .
oxnpan cy g u f d e l i ne s in o f f act at the t i &a aw c h bed r coma are so
Pros i6ad , wh i ct b od rooms &hall be In i t oo.e c a t ep o r 1 oo , a i s ee ,
000fig•rations (ixcludinq facilities and amenities) and loca-
t i om (s) as say be acre p t ab l e to the City (or i ti d es i g n♦e , wb i ch
Imy be the Aapen/Titkin Dousing Authority), by oorlstructinq new
deer rostricted units or by purchasing existing fro* market units
and oonverting them t.o deed restricteC 'employer bowing' status.
10
VA
1
VA
1
'� � a ,��_^G-_•�w xri.�Y.�y�" ,�.;:-�it'� ;a�. �r-4t pa/Ji'1 ; 4 1.+�+(}�fM� �.
k" 444 mu
760
ez
/roelivd, tAat "s Owner shall have the right to tatsry to substi-
tute oU * r off -site employee be,d rooe a for soae or all of tse f i f -
te*n (IS) oft -site bedrooes Initially prvvid*d r above required,
ab long sa (1) the locstion, sire and oonfiyuration of auaf+ enb-
st1tste ►wdrooms 1s ecceptable to the City or its designs, (ii)
the ■isism nusaDac of acoeptsble 61e400yee bedrooas required by
this Paragraph • rsaaln- available at all times, and (III) the
aurae 4004 reetrltttsws are Imposed apor, t►* substltnt• smelts prior
t.o 0cc6psncy of the substitute units. Upon tAoi oommpletior, of svc*
sob. t i t a t i on as above r eq u i red , the City s b a l l re l e aH the deed
restrictions upon those off -site bedrooas which save bs+n reylaoed
wit,h aubatltuts bedrooaa.
In sddltl(m to tb* fifteen (13) off -site employee ►edroo,as.
Oraas aDa 11 ►nos ! 6r,. pr Iei to- the •1 as wan of of -a- Gr t i f. i;Qap Cs et
}' ►a .
I Oocspaae7 for tke Pm J ect and as a pond 1 t i oe preo"am t ►ereto,
to -or -(t) cov en i et restricted oe s i t.a sap 1 oTey - lid rbow6 • v 1 thin tb*
Project Itself,:aacb of which b*drooss aLall be at 1fiat lee
09"rtt feet In s t'iti and shall be used " I.el i by so t-e l IV+aya ,
amd -11 a 11 die 1 i 1 et to the City wi appropriate written oor is an t
eowerinq such bedrooas in a fors approved by the City Attor-iey and
meceyt able for rvoo rd i" . should the owner secure more than f i f -
t *— (1 5) off -sit* emp l o y ee beC rooms , Owner's on - s i t c employe* ,
►" coos re qu i r a on t shall be red u c*d aY oct 1 Y by the axambe r o f o f ! -
site units in excess of fifteen. (15).
S
F
f
Q
t -444 o 761
Q,ould the Owner, at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy
for the Project, not have provided all of the required 1S off -alto
employee housing bedroo," , be •hall, prior to the Issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy and as a oondition precedent thereto,
covenant -restrict that number of bedrooms within the Project
mecessary to cover any shortfall in the off -site housing require-
nenta, which temporary restricted bedrooes must meet the sue City
eemployee housing guidelines as Owner's oft -site housing would have
been required to meet under the terms hereof, and which temporary
restricted bedrooms shall thereafter be released from said cove-
ae,n!e when Owner Roes provide the required nusaber of eff-site
employee boecveraa in the Banner above required.
The deed restriction and oovenant restrict Yon and release
forma shall be spprovad as to fors by the City Attorney prior to
recordation-
T. Off -site, Parking. A condition of the approv ♦ie granted
►lTein_and.sert�fth�1S the requLrement that thi Owner- provide 60
eff-ilt• paTting apacvs in oonnecciok. iClt'-`the *ct. Thus, as
• Condition of the approvals_grsnted'hec*in and-hOiewith. Owner
agrka to provide 60 oft -Situ parkinq spaces in camnection with
the ►roject in the mannecrbore inafcer des'crLb*d. Owner-agreei. to
participate with "-w City -in the flnanciny,.design, construction,
operation and maintenance (Including necas&sry capltal ezpend!-
Lures) of a 100-veh1cle parking structure on the Rio Grande pro -
party, to the sztent of 60 Spaces for Note] quests and employee&.
1a
s
1" 4" ►+'1 o N2
At such time as the City undertakes the oonstruction of this
structure, Owner shall and hereby agreer to participate propor-
tionatel, (Dared on the need for 60 spacrea) in the fiwancirng,
"algn, oowutruction, operation and "lntenance (Including neces-
sary capital aapenditures) of the parking garage aspect thereof,
such flnanclal participation to be in toe form described below.
(A) Owner's proportionate share of the cost of oonstru_•tinq
the parking structure shall be deteralned by multiplying a fray
tion, the numerator of which Is 60 and the denominator of whits li
the total nu"r of parking spaces t0 be ovnstructed, tia" the
portion or the total construction cost M ncludlnp financiv% cots
(Includin-j capitalised interest on bonds, reserve funds and bond.
issuance costs), assign, pre -construction and constructiot: coats))
rhicf) to directly related to the parking garage aspect of sucb
structure. Amer shall and hereby grass to finance and pay for
•ucfh Sharo of the construction cost and to evidence and secvre
sect oblijatlon in .the, toilowl nq iafiner�
(a) No 1 a t e r -than sixty (LO) da yY t cl 1 oe1 nq ' tine 1 sa ir-
ance of a buildlnq ?fruit for construction of the Motel pro-
_ jact Nbich is the subJect of this Agresmasnt, Owner @hail
Aeliver to the City in the form of Caah or certified -tunas
the su� of One burdrod Ytiouaand Dollars (i100,000.00) as"&
do,+n pay1went or, such share. If no building parait for a
parking garage has been Issued prior to the date of this
down pa ym e n t , the City shall promptly ea c rcrw su & tunes in an
Interest bearinq account with all Interest earned thereon to
accrue to the credit of oener acid be applied to *the balance
of Ov no r'a share, in ca lcul et ing the 1l III I111d 11I1il 1 I I I I I I I I I I)
13
V
.......... ....... ......
r
Ir"4" o 763
original Principal anoint of the be l o►-de s cr i bed P. 19-46 or y
loce until the data of lssuanoe of s building ►emit for the
parking structure. on which data this sa crow mh a l l be tars,_
Rated ars, all funds rssaining thereln shall be Ie11yered to
the City.
Further in consideration of Owner's ag rersen t ber e-
to to participate (and Amer's actual participatioa) In the
sort of the financing, design, construction, ope:atlon and
sainteaanoe (including necessary capital anpenditsres) of a
oor.lcipal psrki" atrticturs, City agrees that ti a Certtft-
cats of Oozypancy Is Is -sued fOr tie motel ►MJ&Ct before a
Certificate of Occ-upancy Is,Isaued for the parking structurs,
the City shill provide interim parking In the following man-
s►e r �
11) The City shall In the Interim, !.[ MI.
tr►t wen the o ccn pa:' 01 - gas fats 1: - mind. tlis eocvpanc� of
th,s pe rk I aq g of aq a pr or 1 da fo r Ow r a We, _iihf up* r at S De
f1ftV*n (1S) designated parting spaces at t:be ulstierg
Rio Orande lot snd forty -fire (45) mnassigned spaces
at tAe ss i s t i ng Go 1 f Course lot. The right tc aey s o c-h
spades shall ezpire upon the issuance of a Certificate
Of' OCc upancy for the abo • r-referenced parking garage.
fte right to any spaces In the Rio Grande lot after tb*
lssuanee of a buildiaq peralt for t" parking gar"*
shall be subject to Nsllebility, which may be limited
rr
r
�.
1 !
R .
7
Ott nI4 0761
by construction of the parking gareye, &A City shall
u k a ap at the Golf Co u r" lot any s u ct spa oe a which a
lost fros the Rio Grande lot. During such interis
period, Amer shall be responsible for saintaining ads
quata liability insurance mvering all such spaoes &^d
for the operation of all such spaces and for tha store
&M retrieval of the Golf Course lot vehicles and/or
"esengera and hotel guests and for the supervision of
Hotel vehicles in the Rio Grande lot by NC*tever adain
!strative means (e.g. shuttle buses, etc.) Amer d~Ls
appropriate. City small. hnwvsr. be responsible for
teepial.tbe a.cassary portlow• of sots lots clear of
snow. Ow"e r ar► a l l and bye r e b y dw a Ind a nn i f y City Eros
and agaiest Any and all claims or liabilities foc per-
sonal injury or property dam a arising out of Owner's
as• of such parking spaces except tboae claim caused
City's negligence Sc intentional acts.
(/ i) The - ra nt a1 ssr k-et e a l use -Or 65ie °. i i = t
spaces is stipulated to be 12,112.50 par nonth (such
value based on present arontbly cost for racking spew
rental within the City of Aspen at $75.00 for diownto+n
s, xces am d 13 7 . " for non do-rn torn ap aces) .
(111) During any period prior to tlf* isauance of a
building Per -wit for the parking structure that the Owr,4
is uaing the City -provided parking "cvs, the City
1�
1
-j,
t"Y tot "-'' 0 7 6 S
"all draw t roe the e•e cr c v account the ano un t of
12,112.S0 par month In 004ensstion for the allowd ase
Of the sixty (10) epsces.
(iv) Pros and alter the date of issuance of a
building Permit for the parking structure (and it such
Persit is issued within 2 years of the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the Motel as providvJ In
Paragraph 7(A)(e) hereof), the 6e11wery to thv City of
th* escrowed dvwnpayeaent funds and Promissory Mote M&II
be Isea+ed ssapensat Ion In full for any further use by
Owner of the 60 lnteris parking spaces, and all arsounts
previously withdrawn from the escrow Mall be credited
back to Amer in deternining the 'balance of Owner's
More' for purposes of calculating the principal amount
of the.lrosissory ssote d ecribed in paragraph 7(AI(W
be
(►) the 'balance of Owner's share' shall be rspre&ented
by Owner's Prom&_s;ory-iote to the City as bolder which Moto
&ball be dated, executed and deposited into escrow with the
City as of the date of execution of this Sgreesent-by al-1
partles hereto. The Mote shall be doIITsTe0 out of est•row to
the City and becoas a debt (i.e. its 'effective date' shall
be) cn the date of the issuance of a bullding permit for the
eenstruction of the parkin] garage or 60 days followinq the
Nte of issuance of a Muildlnq Per -sit for the Motel Project,
whichaver date occura later. no Mote shall be in a form
identical to that attached hereto w xxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxrx.,
tl
16
1
I P'
17., 444 R' ( 0 166
tahlDit 'B' and Dearing slayl♦ interest (which Interest rate
way be variable) at the sam" interest rate(s) ar t►s City,@
(or other issuing authority's) bond Issue rates) under
►aregrapto • hereof and reciting an tot default interest rate,
and payable in ooneecutive monthly installments of principal
and Interest in such amounts as are necessary to oo+er
i Principal of, redeeptlon premiums, if any, and Interest on
the Clty's (or other issuing authority's) bond(@) (including
refund1mg bond(s),If any), and othsr obligations of the
Issuer pursuant to the bond ordinance, resolution, or
indenture and over the same period of time as the City's (or
a
other Issuing authority's) bonds) (includinq refunding
bo++d(ell under Paragraph • hereof, cosencing on the first
day of tLe calendar month follovinp the month (n w0hid) t.be
Mote is delivered with all remaining principal and accrued
interest being due and payable with the final monthly
paysent. To the extent permitted by tts bond issuing
authority and subject to such limitations and reaulreaants ai
say be imposed by such authorlty at the tin* of the Issuanft -
01 the boe d-" 1",aat'C _Mote shalt bei prepalrabl�
may time.and from tin* to time without penalty oc; got Ice dit�
Mall be ssa_lgnable by City to any bond feaMIL" -aiutbority.
(cl_ Ax security for &aid bte, Owner hereby covenants
and /grams that .frog and after the date of delivery to the
City of sa1'd Mots, and continuing for so long as any portion
of said Note reaaint unpaid, Owner ahs.I collect as part of
the daily room rental rate for all rental ro.,as at the Motel
soot deed -restricted to employee housing a 'tranaportatlor
1J
0
v
r- 44 4 rK, p 7
Marge' in the minisum amount of $5.00 per day on nary roos
rental, and shall maintain a separate are accurst• accounting
Of the revenues Ienerstsd thereby. Owner ahal l and "raby
assigns and pledgee to City such transportation charge
revenues as collateral for Owner's performance of his 1.-omis-
sory Mote obligations and egre•es to remit to the City each
month the portion of such transportation charge revenues
necessary to retiry that month'• Mote installment obligation.
So lonq as any portion of said Mote remains unpaid, Owner
shall maintain a 'transportation revenues reserve account' in
a responsible beaktag institution containing aufficte,nt funds
to pay one (11 sowihly Mote installment abilpstion in
advanct, but shall otherwise be fret to utilise such other
transportation Marge revenuee for his own purposes unless
and until such time as City finds it necessary to e:arciee
its colleteral pledge sights to tht event of Owner's Default
In this per,fbM&nce VIE ails ►roaiea-ory Mote obligations,. gyp;
tbs ••meet Amer •ball ever be lste Ltd p+yt++g a iconcbr Moto
=.lnstallaent obligation to the City, the CI-ty sbtll Lave as
right to deaand that Owner increasme-tbo asnunt held in such
reserve acoount to cover three (1) M nthly Mote installment
obligations in advanct. Owner agreta to cDep-ly with "c!
des" and thereafter to uintairn the reserve account at the
three (3) month level. City shall have the right to a:amine
all records rwetseary to audit the tranaportatign.charge
to
1
W
',"* 4" ►L-, p 768
accounting and the related reserve account at any reasonable
time or times. TTe foregoing pledge shall be assignable by
City to any bond issuing authority.
(d) Owner further agrees that the subject Promissory
Mot* shall contain a provision to the effect that in the
event that controlling interest in the Motel Project to
tranaferred from John P. Gilmore to a third person or persons
(by sale, foreclosure, operation, of law, or otherwl►e), while
said Mote remains unpaid, the City ahall have the right (b,,,
not tGe "119ation) to declare the entire renalwirq balance
of said Note immediately awe and payable as of the tlfective
date of such transfer.
( a ) Should the City fall to obtain a Luilding per -nit
far the wnstruction of a parking structure within twc years
of the issuance of a certiticata of occupancy for t%o Rotol
►roj-ect, Omer shalT have-tboi tight ar opt -l-q •tct t7gIie:ent
an alternative plan fortheprovision of the mquired 60
parking space*, or to dhand that the -City negotiate, to food
faith, a lonq tore lease (no less than iS years) for the 60
"parking spots on the Rio Grande and Golf Course Parking Lots.
In this event, any balance in the funds ee:-o.ed pursuant to
Paragraph 7(A)(s) (111) (being principal plus accrued inter -
eat min" monthly rental payaents sfade) shall be credited to
Owner in any we leaae arrangement or refunded to his if an
alternative parking plan is adopted, and in either case the
11
(�
1
mm
)e
w IV
•444 0 769
aacr"&,i ►r"ioor) ry *,t• ahsll Ar reae)Ivaroe tr+ ar+d aav�-
ae) 1" try 0"ar.
(t) In addition, Ow"r vlaI1 s+ realor+slDla fot Als /ropr-
tlonste Ihsre of tf» or"Lit) costs, arjoa.raos, tnd nscessery •*pits)
axpenlltorea of oy.rr (wf, aalntaIAInq or%d re, /sirI"q the prtIM
garage #" ct of tho park lnq fsrsge structure (ollovlrq fts wo-
/lKlor. OW'"*r here1y further Iaslfns and PledQas anto city the
•trare/ortstlon ehsrt•' revenues vollectaA fro+ tloas " ti•e ►y
Omer /ursuant to Irregrsp`, 7(A)ir 1 ate• as aollatoral for
Orne r' a jprr f ar s an tv at his at) i q st far to psy a /t opor t l an st s Acre
of •net, annoal *Perot low .! *al"tone,+.re Ind e*ps1 r S&Ots, wee"God
*Ad "tawdry Iayltsl arepo d1tarve. 7ha ilro,"inf /ledp •hall bw
Mslfnatls by "a city to any farad• arrstinq authority.
ic! In 00mOlderatlor+ of the I►ars-drscrltMd ltnanslsl
f!/rtton mr+d rv"vgv*nt op.rst j"sl aost sharl", Over ahsl l w
srrt i t l ad to t bo per /e t o o l its* n+d ar )o rs rnt r! a Ot f i nod 17 oet slat
iaaty (*#I yrti-nj" a/ac#x iw ths,'anromyte, fts! at Kt-R1_irj_ **s.
mjref1/ tM City Idea it Swoyrfats to v&ft owi+tlt ij*' Cht-par11M
Ij.Mia In 1** psrtlnq strecturs, City shall &"4 to Ovitar- Ilia If
Op" ttgsthapt With Ate /roprtlenst• V 1.i1ad Ir►tarovt in
app►r t"a+rt vo l mo r a l aa..on sl o alrf i s
1. Ill 1Acr"11',t ►lntlf1M "1or taLOsl!rlal D#,Yrlr►g!frt
!^S 1 r+t , Ow ra r 0 a l l Ind M r ab-y mv-n a •" a to t h a C I t y' a i Ct
v
r..444 , - 0 770
other governmental or quasi -governmental 9-nt1ty or non-profit
corporation) isauance, if possible. of a 'tax increment bond(s)',
or other type of bond, in at least the amount of the balance of
Owner's share of the parking structure construction oost
(including Resign, pre -construction and construction costs and
financing costs such as capitalized interest costs, if any,
reserve funds, and bond issuance oosts), the proceeds of which
bo.nd(s) may be applied by the City to the construction of the
subject perking.structure and for any other lawful improvmsent
project. tact bond(s) shall boar sieple interest at' s ratets► to
be deterslned by the fesuer, shall be retirat)e over a perlod of
not mare than 25 years (or other lawful term), and shall be
secured by a pledge by the City (or other issuing authority) of
the increase in real property taxed and/or sales tax assessed to
t-the Note) Jerome. property which will occur u a normal oonaequ*ft"
of the renovatim iM e=pansion tAeriot_+conte+piat�:l?gc_tbls
Agreayent (or by other lawful security available to t:fe-City or
other Issuing, authority). 6owwer, the- bonding itaeit will cause
= -no or•-ot h e r charges tb be i mQoerd upon Own. r
other than the above,-referencad 'balancc of Owner's share', anQ
the.00nsent of Owner provided for herein shall not be interpreted
as a oonaent to any form of special assessment district that would
result ir. an increase in the real property taxes being levied upon
{ the hotel property. City will, of course, be reimbursed o-n a
oontinuing basis for its bond retirsment obligations relating to
the botel share of the parking structure by the monthly
i installment payments belnc, &a.d• by Owner under the at.ove-descriwd
i
( /roalasory Vote.
21
r
a
w
W
1P
f','444 0 771
The Owner further agrees that if Owner has in fact decided to
proceed with the development of the Project approved hereunder,
Owner shall use his best efforts to cooperate with the City (or
other governmental or Quasi -governmental entity) in the lasuance
and sale of any Industrial Development bonds in connection with
the financing of the parking structure, so long as Owner's parts-
!
cipatlo•n, if necessary, in any such industrial 6*velopeent bonding
effort complies with all applicable laws and restrictions.
f. Planter [ncroscA.ents. Owner agrees to obtain suet.
approvals and/or licenses as may be necessary with respect to
planters whist, encroach into public sidewalks, prior to the isau-
once of a butlding permit for suc+: planters.
10. Periodic Project Reviews. Owner agrees that every six
(6) synths following the date of final City approval of this Pra-
. ., jest unt1I the construction the. roof to'"ooaplete-,-he w+1I Iia,* with
_ the City Planning Office for the purpose of lntorming the ►lannlrq
Office as to his progrelas in Oevelopinq.th? Projoct.pursusnt to
the terns and prvvielorus of this Ay_eesent. If the Punning
Off2ee'.6eems 1t necessary, the Planniny Office will repot[ t.o'the
City P l a n n i n9 and toning Commission on the o u t nose of one or wo r a
Of Lhasa meetings. The Owner and the City re.ognixi Chat these
nHtings are not opportunities for the Owner to avoid c-oaplying
with the requiraaents of this Agreeaent but are for purpo"a of
providing progress reports and developing ■ut4ally acceptable
t
27
t'
4
l
t
ti
r
W
IV,.__�.
f -444 it - 0 772
solutions to any prohlems that may be encountered during the con -
it ruction period.
11. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Landscaping. Owner
egreee that it shall b�e the perpetual responsibility of the owner ;
or owners frog time to time of the Botel Jerome property to main-
tain, care for, and replace when necessary, all trees, shrub&,
plants, and other landscaping features which may be planted In
I
connection with or which are otherwise Incorporated In the Rotel
Jerome Project pursuant to the Landscape Plan submitted to th.e
City a& a part of the Final Flat.
12. Use are. Maintenance of Open Rpace. Owner shall occuFy
the Project Open Space It.*. the exterior patio and pool areas
shown on the Landscape Plan) for such uses ma nay from time to
tine be deemed appropriate by Owner, provided that Such occupsrscy
-and tows Shall at all times--be"1n'complIance--wi'th-the then -appli-
cable provisions of the Aspen Municipal Carla. Owner "re" that
it "all be the perpetual r e s port s i b i l i t y- of 0 i- owrwt eir I wsw S Y
from t he to time of t'he hotel J*rose property to faLatala is a
i C1QMM-&d attractive condition and in a good-st•rCe bf repair -all
y MCl Open 4ace contsined within the Project.
13. hon-Compliance and Request for A&onds.ents or tsten&fons II
by Omer. In the event that the City Council deterainea that the
Owner Is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of
1
this A.gremment, the City Council nay issue and serve upon the
Owner a written order specifying the allege^ non-compliance and 1
—f
I DS 16
C
r
M M
. • .
•mad e. 0773
requiring the Owner to cvaae and desist from such non-compliance
and rectify the same within such reasonable time as the City Coun-
c11 may determine. within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such
F
order, the Owner may file with the City Council either a notice
i
advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written
petition. requestinq a hearing to determine any one Or both of the
,
following satt*rsi
(a) MAether the alleged non-compliance *Riots or did
*Rlst, or
(b) whether a variance, extension of time or s*endment
to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such
lion -compliance which is determined to exist.
94pon the receipt of such petition, tAt City Council *hall
prompt ly__schedule a 'fieer1r4. to consider the matter-s: set forth in
tie Case and desist order and In the petitioin; Thehearing shall
�
be convened and conducted pursuant to, the.proeeduris normally
establlstied by the Ttty --Council for-othor hearings. If the city
Council determines by a preponderance of the *vidence that a -non-
compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may Josue such
orders as say be appropriates provided, however, no order termi-
nating any approval granted herein shall be granted without a
fin�lnq of the Lity Council that substantial evidence warrants
I
auch action and affording the Owner a reasonable time to remedy
sue►. non-compliance. A final determination of non-cospliance
whicf. has not beer remedied or for whicf no variance has been
24
ti
t
f .. 444 ,, , p ?,
granted sha11, at the option of the City Council, and upon written
notice to the Owner, terminate any of the approvals contained
herein.
In addition to the forejoing, the Owner or its successors or
assigns may, on Its own initistive, petitior. the City Council for
an aaendwent to this Agreement or the Plat or to extend any of the
time periods required for performance. With respect to the Con-
atructlem stttosule, Ole owner has Wade •ab out saauapttons. ln-
cloding the following:
(1) Final approval of the Plat and related. documentation
Prior to May 1, 19031
(2) Negotiation, arrangeeent and cospletion of pre-conatruc-
tton activity- by Darner, lneludlng construction boerowlsrp:. bk4dtvq.
cad tfictor selection and contrit-tgr mobil-iiaion-_p Doi to the pre-
3eeted starting date of no later than August 31-.. 191114
(T) Ratification of the estimated sonstruc-tion and dew+lop-
mont schidule by the selects•( lender and contractors.
(4) Prompt availability of the required labor forces and
ooY+atruction sater:als at all necesaary p6hases throughout the
oo-matruction period.
(S) No interruption in construction operations through the
winter months during the actual construction.porioQ by acts of God
or other matters beyond the control of the Owner.
The City Council shall not unreasonahly refuse to extend the
time periods for performance indicated in the Construction Sche-
zs
1
1
L
t,..•aaa h., C775
dult if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the w id*nce that
the reasons for said extension art beyond the control of the
Owner. despite good faith efforts on his part to accomplish the
14. )lot ict. MotiCes to be given to the parties to th.is
A.greesent shall b* deemed given if personally delivered or if
d*poaited '.n the United Statta Mail to the pqirtits by regiat*red
or ~titled sail st the ealrtssts lndiea;ed bolor, pr et syct
otn}r addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the
parties or their succv►sore or assigns:
City of Aspen: City Manacler
130 South, Galena Street
Aswn. Colczado S1ftt
Ovnar: _ John F. Gilmore.
sot*l Jtroaa
: 310'-tut-:1te11 -ILr;rett
Aepe•n; Coitira�b •S-1 f 1 i
f with a copy tog rlolland i tart i
600 Laat half, Itsoot
,
= Asptn, Colaredo 11611
finding Claus*. The provision hereof shall run with
• tad constitute a bur -der. upon the title to the sutject prcperty,
strnd shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the
O%sneir and the City and their respective heirs, personal repre-
sentatives, succtasors and assigns.
lf. Applicablt Lev. This Agreea*nt shal! be subject to and
construed in acco:danc* with the laws of the State of Colorado and
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
1f
-
e:. 444 ►, p 776
17. severabillty. If any of the provisions of this AAr►e-
Sent or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section
or the syplfcstion thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, s
such Invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of t r
the Agreement and the validity of any such provision, paragraph, t
sentence, clause, phrase. word or section under any other circus -
stances shall not be affected thereby.
i
18. Incorporation of Recitals. TAe Ctty and Owner hereby
atipilate and agree that the Recitals preceding this Agroeoont are
part of the Agreement and are to be Aeeeed Incorporated herein as
thoupgh fully set forth.
19. tntire Agreee"ntl Aiondment. This Agreement contains
the antlre undsrstandlnq and agreement betwen the partlet bere414
with respict to the tra sactIons'-cont-"Istid- Mr"' rder 'si+d "y be
altered or amended-frod-time to tine only by written lnstrLm "t
•aecuted 4 each of"the-partial hiratc. -
20. Acceptance of Plat. Opon irecutlor'of this Agre*nent by
all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve snd eseeute the
Pinal /lanrsed Vnit Development Plat for the botel Jerome-Aenovo-
tion and AAdltlon, and to accept the same for recordation in tl+e
sa cording Office of ►ittin County, Colorado, upor payment of the
recordation fee and oosts to the City by Amer.
rx wITwEss wmrRto►, the parties here hereunto set their hands
and a.esls the day and year first abrwe written.
THE CITY Of A3PrP,, COl.0kADO,
27
sorOle,,
i:
L0
�.�
ME MORANDU M
TO: Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Cgmjni ssion
THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manag
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning 0 ice 1T\
RE: Hotel Jerome Work Session
DATE: January 28, 1986
11_rS
111 JM 3 0 1986
Attached for your review is a memo from representatives of the Hotel
Jerome outlining some issues for discussion at your work session
scheduled for February 3, 1986.
The Hotel Jerome is in the process of making changes to their approved
PUD agreement in two stages. The first stage of revisions is to
address the renovation and addition activities as separate phases of
the total Project. The areas under consideration are: parking,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, landscaping improvements, retention of
the annex, changes in internal uses, employee housing and notice to
the new owners. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed amendments on January 7, 1986, and it is
expected that the first stage of amendments will be presented to
Council in February (or as soon as an amended PUD agreement is
submitted) for final PUD amendment approval.
The second stage of amendments involves a new design for the addition.
The purpose of this work session is to discuss conceptually new plans
and any issues related to the redesign. The applicant would like some
broad direction from Council and P&Z as to what you consider
acceptable uses in the addition and what particular impacts will need
to be addressed in the PUD Amendment. The nature of this discussion
should be general and non -binding, since we will have to review a
formal application at some later date.
Some of the main subjects that we expect to be discussed include:
o Elimination of all retail shops from the Project;
o Adding no more restaurant capacity than presently exists;
o Including more rooms in the addition than approved in the
original FUD Agreement;
0 Including on -site parking for guest and employees use;
o Generation of employees; and
o Architectural design of the new addition.
Your throughts in advance and direction at the meeting will be greatly
appreciated by the applicant.
SB:jlr
SB . 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council and The Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: The Hotel Jerome
DATE: January 21, 1986
RE: Work Session - February 3, 1986
Format:
For reasons described in this Memorandum, the Hotel Jerome is
undertaking a two -stage amendment to the PUD Agreement for the
renovation and addition to the Hotel Jerome. The first stage merely
clarifies the renovation and addition as separate phases of the
Project. The second stage and the purpose of this work session
involves a redesign of the addition. In this Memorandum, we will
review the process and the original design as approved. The changed
circumstances leading to the required redesign will be enumerated.
Finally, we are soliciting your ideas in reference to the new design
to leave us with a clear understanding of how best to blend the
Hotel needs with those of the community.
History of the Process:
The Hotel PUD was processed in 1981 and 1982 under an exemption
from GMP because of the historical significance. Thus, what is
built will be deducted from quotas but does not have to go through
the GMP process. The PUD allows for a total project of 128,822
square feet of habitable space. The original design for the project
contained restaurants, hotel rooms, and retail stores as follows:
- 105 guest rooms and suites
- 4 employee rooms on -site and housing for fifteen employees
off -site
- Food and Beverage facilities as follows:
. 80-seat gourmet dining for dinner only
. 175-seat garden room serving breakfast, lunch and dinner
. 130-seat living room serving lunches, dinners and late night
meals
• 65-seat terrace cafe serving three meals daily with outdoor
summer service
• 235-seat nightclub
• 75-seat Jerome Bar
• Retail shops totaling 13,000 square feet of net leasable
• Parking off -site for 35 employee cars and 25 guest cars, to be
provided in the City"s 400-space parking structure on the Rio
Grande property
Changes in Circumstance:
The original concept was to remove the Hotel Annex and do the
renovation and addition together. The new owners decided to phase
the project and to retain the Annex for kitchen and employee
housing. Thus, the old and new cannot be physically joined as
originally intended.
Secondly, recent market analysis has shown that the amount of
space devoted to restaurants and retail is not warranted at the
Jerome. Originally planned were 450 restaurant seats plus 315 bar
and nightclub seats, plus some fifteen shops. The current plan adds
no more restaurant capacity than presently exists, some 225 seats
including the private dining room and tea room, and eliminates all
the retail shops.
Thirdly, while the CC zone has no parking requirement, it has
always been recognized that good business requires the Jerome
provide parking. The tentative schedule is to begin the addition in
1986. If parking can be provided on -site, it will benefit the Hotel
and the town. Thus, the new design will attempt to incorporate
parking.
Finally, a redesign is necessitated by the Park Service. In
evaluating the Jerome for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places, the Service agreed to list the Hotel with an
addition but not with the addition as originally designed. The
objection involved the five -story arches filled with bay windows, so
the facades must be redesigned.
- 2 -
While all these circumstances have necessitated the redesign of
the addition, the benefits to the site, the neighborhood and the
Aspen community from this exercise will be positive. Consider the
impact of the Jerome with 450 restaurant seats, some 15 retail
stores and no on -site parking. Reducing restaurant capacity will
decrease employees and site visits. Deletion of the retail space
will save some 25 to 30 employees, and will further reduce car trips
to the property for shopping. Finally, on -site parking will reduce
the need for employees to retrieve cars from off -site and eliminate
cars standing in the Main Street loading zone during delivery and
pick-up.
Issues:
As currently envisioned, the addition will have parking,
commercial space of some 6,000 square feet and the balance in hotel
rooms. To operate profitably without the shops or added food and
beverage facilities, more hotel rooms became an economic necessity.
Further, adding rooms benefits the community by housing skiers in
Aspen in the core area. A full service hotel in town reduces auto
trips and provides the type of resort experience designed to
stimulate return visits.
At issue also is the access and egress for the property by
guest and employee cars as well as delivery and service vehicles.
Also, we seek your input on the footprint, location of open space
and general layout of the addition.
We also hope to work with the housing office to establish the
ratios of employees and parking to the project impact in light of
the proposed redesign, and seek your input on these ratios.
PH/nkb
Perry Harvey
- 3 -
November 25, 1985
HOTEL JEROME
Floor Area Calculations
Existing Hotel: 110 x 100 x 4 44,000 sq. feet
Annex: 1,500 x 3 4,500
Bathrooms: 405 x 2 810
Gross Square Footage: 49,310
Excluded Areas:
Center light shaft 1,332
Lower level mechanical & storage 2,000
Lobby level storage 600
Upper floors storage 690
Annex: Lower level storage 437
Lobby level 181
Loading dock 96
Bath: Basement 405
Total: (5,741)
Floor area in old: 43,569
Land area 47,712
FAR 2.7:1
Allowed square footage 128,822
Existing 43,569
Potential addition 85,253
V
ILd
i
SLEEKER STREET
.qI.,—
I I
z {III I i j OPOS AWIf ION
I
I
.0 LEY BLOCK 79 w ��
I I 1 {
I I I
I { u
1 I i k
i
i
..DI[ • ...:..a .t a.a. J
j w.ur• rar.n
niwn W, I
0.1, 1+ hl m
HOTEL
JEROME
RENOVATION
AND ADDITION
FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAT
F3 !-
I
i E1
O
` RE3F3BR
r'y>'®w�0<'e.YM NN oIW ow�M
OWNER'S
DEDICATION CERTIFICATE
.rrEefr.T .. fq.tD il�.Q.eM/V
PN(IPERTY DESCRIPTION
.a.t
SURVEYOK'S CERTIFICATE
w �'.aa�o ."a[vwiD eu�anti �». •�
�i±n''w rinQ1pMOi
�;^�+,•^� �" �'�.'w
CERTIFICAT�F: Ot' l�'41.E
ft Ay.w
lid IN +w mts n n� c�vw
O..Yt06. IR.. gll'Xn. >TwRO .. M .i�u.m q
I'I.ANNINC AND ZONING
��gg/.`e w+a+awn.•..'.`Qw`�<"
(OWMISSION APPROVAI."r"oa:ea
4 Win. n w m`in( °nanuia
{ I
P.r .L1..i1.oa er.,�p �ar^ir.�jy.% ,V
1►Mr_
.y.. , •e .
NlyO'I i IV 1107A
CITY k:NGINEkatti APPROVAI.
=jj&Kw� {m
O.DS.,
�_RNQ�IIF�� :1. � H!�]..r•
� .M)
r{.[/�•/I,�[p1
4.l l.r.
OaaMf..t:1U ��rY1p�i .�,.av ,�,,l �l>
Y)r`�DQ
N4
AiAEAT;NA'I'l:: PARKS' APPROVAL
R......n...t ..
1A
�I G
*11r"
MAIN STREET
RW.I
IpF..N .'I •.'.tlq
CITY (W ASPI,:N
APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE
C1fAlf I wemrocRb Aatrw+cc
NR.QI ww .nln c F .. c.N ..a... n M
,,.> � r.....o,..r w...s.w..t .w .. �N •m
ur. q. N io w q .wA1/ qn.
.i//,�r .uD AmrM�.. maY4f� i.
rDef w.u�
rik}. oa..N n-t�abfavdt<ea
ym��
A*" bLNVVP
..r ow<....no
=awn" ��I SHEET I OF 3
600 � t4 ' -% 89
JEROME
ow Z+/
6*V 1+ R-S 90
�. -- --- — , nom .Fwo.E
_ ! ...�• 1 . ore n..w
OIL
. r. -�-- � • • • • i �- - � \` _r ram. .....�. _
. ,._..._ .....1. �]] • , OEM
Gp
......ter...-� _ r 1 ,rr-=-rr.__ - _r • • SON.. wimp,
17y,.— ...
.a.• —
•W(I yM..i...'
l
ryaa wrwMc. — -- aOm, wra
MF"'t
aft
I
II-r�
�oo.00a:oo:a:u _
1LD-z+/