HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Little Nell.1986Little Nell conceptual SPA
�J«C / 1/ fie,) 7J-Z 7
'A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Little Nell Base Redevelopment Plan - Lodge GMP Scoring
Session
DATE: January 21, 1986
PURPOSE: The purpose tonight's meeting is to score the only project
which was submitted in the 1985 L-1/L-2/CC/CL Zone District
competition for lodge units -- The Little Nell Base Redevelopment
Plan. Although the Municipal Code provides for such applications to
be submitted to the City on October 1 of each year, and reviewed by
P&Z in November, Ordinance 42, Series of 1985, adopted on August 12,
changed these dates to December 1 and January, respectively.
Tonight's public hearing will focus only on the GMP scoring issue. On
February 4, we have advertised a public hearing to initiate discussion
of the precise SPA plan and hotel as a conditional use in the CC zone
issues. Other issues to be addressed at that, or subsequent meetings
include 8040 greenline, mountain viewplane and right-of-way
encroachments. Finally, at the conclusion of all of your
considerations, we would expect you to make a recommendation with
respect to the applicant's request for a multi year allotment of 96
lodge units.
PROCEDURE: The standard procedure used by the Planning Commission in
scoring GMP applications can be summarized as follows. The Planning
Office will initiate the meeting by summarizing the project and
providing a suggested number of points for the scoring of the
application. At this time, we will also review any procedural issues
which may arise from questions by Commission members, the applicant or
members of the public. Next, the applicant will give a brief
presentation of the proposal, including any clarifications or rebuttal
of Planning Office comments. A public hearing will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each
commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to
the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the total
points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 54
points, a minimum of 30% of the points available in each category 1,
2, and 3, and provide housing for 35% of the employees generated by
the project to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum
points are as follows: Category 1 = 3 points; Category 2 = 11.7
points; Category 3 = 6.3 points and Category 4(a) = 9 pts. Should the
application score below these thresholds it will no longer be
considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied.
Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum
threshold.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS
The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a
recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the
ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the proposal.
The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explana-
tion of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the
attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings.
•
•
Public Facilities Quality Guest
and Services of Design Amenities
7 .5
19.5 16
Public Policy
Goals Total
14
57
In our rating of this project, we have used a slightly different
standard than would otherwise be the case. When reviewing all
previous GMP applications, the project has been at the conceptual
level, and our expectations in terms of level of detail and degree of
problem solving has been set accordingly. In this case, the SPA
regulations require that the GMP submission occur at the precise plan
level. Therefore, in cases where the applicant simply commits to
addressing an issue (i.e., drainage) without adequately presenting a
design solution, we have been more conservative in our rating than
would otherwise be the case. We feel that problems must be solved at
this stage of the review, since it represents the Planning
Commission's final opportunity to consider the project.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
To help the Planning Commission in understanding our thinking on this
project, following is a category -by -category summary of some of the
principal issues identified in our proposed scoring:
1. Adequacy of Services - The applicant has provided a utility plan
which demonstrates that the project will benefit the community by
upgrading water and sewer service not just for the project, but
for the surrounding neighborhood. The drainage proposal for the
site intends to provide for detention of mud flows from Aspen
Mountain, but has not provided a design demonstrating where or
this runoff will be handled and tells us that in any case, it
will finally be diverted to the City's storm sewers. Fire
protection needs will be met by two new hydrants in the area,
necessary for the project and neighborhood, and sprinklers in the
building, since access cannot be provided to all sides of the
building. No road improvements are proposed for the area.
2. Quality of Design - The project will provide significant design
improvements to the gateway to Aspen Mountain, but also exhibits
significant site design flaws. The architects have attempted to
reduce the perceived mass of the building, but have not provided
true open space along Durant Street and have created a
significant shading problem for a major thoroughfare. The
project will upgrade the Hunter Street entrance to the mountain
and a portion of Dean Street , but leaves costs for the remainder
of Dean Street to neighbors. The skier drop off along Durant
Avenue does not meet our expectations from the Conceptual review,
and it would be preferable to have the building truly front on
the street or be moved back on the site dramatically, rather than
to accept this solution. The proposal may cause significant
traffic conflicts on Durant and stacking problems on Spring
Street. Service access has been significantly improved by one
covered access point on Spring Street. Parking has been increased
to 116 spaces but still may not be in excess of project needs. A
major circulation and access problem has been created for the
Tipple Inn and the Tippler. Maintenance functions will be
removed from the base, helping circulation and creating a
positive visual image. Views from key public places have been
preserved.
3. Guest Amenities - The project provides conference, lobby,
restaurant, bar and recreational space befitting a project of
this magnitude but not to the point of being superior for the
community when compared to other lodging developments we have
experienced. The new lift at Little Nell, to be either a
detachable quad or gondola, is of crucial significance to the
continuing superiority of Aspen as a ski resort.
2
r 1
U
L�
4. Employee Housing - The applicant meets the minimum threshold by
housing 30 employees at the Holiday House, to be converted from
lodging to deed restricted status.
In summary, the project scores slightly above the minimum threshold
and is eligible for an allocation. The applicants have taken on an
ambitious project in a highly sensitive location and have been
successful in their efforts to enhance the skier experience and
develop a quality lodging/commercial/administration complex directly
adjacent to Aspen Mountain. However, in taking on a project of this
magnitude, they have also created impacts on the neighborhood f or
which they are responsible. We expect that in the coming public
hearings regarding the precise plan and conditional use, considerable
attention will be given to issues such as open space, skier drop off,
pedestrian malls, service access, public views, shading, drainage,
parking and roads. We feel that these issues can and should be
resolved during the course of the upcoming review procedure, and must
be successfully handled before we get to your recommendation to
Council on allotment of 96 lodge units.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Planning Commission direct the Planning Office
to draft a Resolution which:
1. Forwards to Council the Commission's scores on the GMP project;
and
2. Recommends that City Council not act on the issue of allotment of
96 lodge units until such time as the Commission completes its
review of associated submissions, and forwards its complete
recommendation to Council.
The applicant should be asked to submit a letter to the Planning
Office, in a form to be established by the City Attorney, waiving the
procedural deadlines of Section 24-11.6(f) as amended by Ordinance 42,
Series of 1985, that Council must award a development allotment to the
project prior to March 1st of 1986.
AR.2
3
•
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
PROJECT: Little Nell Base Area Redevelopment Date: January 21, 1986
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2
COMMENTS: Jay Ha
• 11
• I • •
1 - -
• • 11
• / •
• f
ODIUM
1 ! •
/ •
• • • !
•
1
1
•
11 ! � 1
-
� - 11
• 1 • 1 •
f
11
_ • 1
supply
to Aspen
Alps and
storage tank,
Applicant
has
not
committed
• •
- 1 ! the
fir11
1 1 •
•Street
from
•
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of
the development and the applicant
any system extensions or treatment
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
the sewer system to serve
's commitment to finance
plant upgrading required
RAT ING : 2
POINTS: 2
1 11 � 1 ! • 1 • 1 � / � - p / - • _ 11 � -
ONTOI� ! •-� / '! •! 1 �--�
C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RAT ING : 1
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1
• it ! !
/
f - -• 1•
/! 1
•.
1• !AM!'
RONNIE
• • • • • •
t - !
IWIT-11104
Wt I 1
- a / I •
I ! 1 �
!� !_'
•Illl Ill
I _
•'
• • •-•.
/�
• • / 1 •
•
•
1014•
1
.
" 1
/ - • •
•
• •
I !
•e
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1.5
• •- l - • u� • -• - • / - �- / •IN /•
1 • • �'• e11N•1� 1 1-
M-
deserve. a ratinQ of only, Jim Wilson notes thatsince
access is- vot avai I ahlto all sidesQf the building, itbe
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1
RAW—. wl--ffiffl-
.W •490 is I •
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 1.5
POINTS: 4.5
CO The techniques employed in the design, iI • 1 1
sloped roof, -4 -..-. roof forms,of dormers, balconies aIt
•.-� .- -.
#= ..
.,
• •
. • . .. • 1
t t -
Rim
11 • • I • . 14 t - .. • . • •
- - •
1 •owl
14 - • •
• • R •
• -11 . 1 ..
• ! . •
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide f or the safety and privacy of the users of the
development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3
COMMENTS:mall in Hunter and Dean Streets is a significant
11 • •ament to the area; however, necessary to serve the uroject
and not to he f ully paid f or by ASC, as area near Tipt)ler i-a
. •• Q. • - • 1 1 • 11" • • 1 � 1 t
/- • •� Il • �- /- 0 0 •• -4 W. - •�• - -/• •� / •
C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation,
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 1)
RAT ING : 3
POINTS: 3
olollr-tol Me
16
M-1
- • ! • �_ - I ! 1 • • •
• • / 1 - ! / / • / • • / • f �� • /
•2I.-S"INOM W&�ITW uWAK.-IMP WWWWOO
I -
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
(Multiplier: 3)
RAT ING : 1
POINTS: 3
e t • . I ' 11 • • t WIN • - I e I I • I • 11
• • • -{ - • f - •• / / f • t - •�ZrQEP •
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
(Multiplier: 3)
RAT ING : 2
POINTS: 6
• 1- I • • 1- •11 I
1 - •am
Elo
1 • • • 1 : I 1 • • -
0
America's premier ski mountain and Aspen's most important
recreational resource
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
RAT ING : 2
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6
COMMENTS:The hotel provides a sinaleconference ••n of about
111 s.f. in the subgrade area. A multi purpQse room on the
lobby also to • - used formeetings, as is a thir• room,
the "Board" room, These latter two areas provide an additional
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
RAT ING : 2
(Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 4
COMMENTS:
MW WIM*YWTV Me
11110 IFTI
Wrol.
1-
• �1 - . - 1
•
1
1 • �
1
1
! -
••- • • •- _1
11 • '� -1
• 11"
-t
a 1��
! AIL -I
r0
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
RAT ING : 3
POINTS: 6
WIN R11=111
It . Mt-. • �- •un . � .-•- � .- . .
43 1 IS -Top - .-
� �. .• .,. u• t... .� �- a ��-� •
CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point f or each 12% housed.
(Multiplier: 1)
b . CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
RAT ING : 9
POINTS: 9
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
POINTS
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and 1
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and 3
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
(Multiplier: 1)
5
RAT ING : 5
POINTS: 5
• - •• - 1low #WWWW-M-Wrotoll WMIRM o' • -• 1
WERWEVY
i 11 / _ 1 --•- •- -1- -- -• 1
5. BONDS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
(Multiplier: 1)
6. TOTAL POINTS
RAT ING : N/A
POINTS:
Points
in Category
1:
7.5 (Minimum
of
3 pts. required)
Points
in Category
2: 19.5
(Minimum
of
11.7 pts. required)
Points
in Category
3: 16
(Minimum
of
6.3 pts. required)
Points
in Category
4a:
9 (Minimum
of
9 pts. required)
Points
in Category
4b:
5 (No minimum
threshold)
SUBTOTAL:
57
(60% threshold = 54 pts.)
Bonus
Points:
--
TOTAL POINTS:
57
(Total
of
96 Available)
Dame of Commissioner member: sWn/Pi tki n Planning Off ice
AR.1
CTITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
11
PROJECT: L t Li L L- ! L_ DATE: I �sLc
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development. n
RATING: L
t
(Multiplier: 1.) POINTS: ''
COMMENTS:
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: I
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: I
•
•
COMMENTS:
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning,
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: .......
3NTS : S Sl cti
o l
ESIGN ---"CtTiTside y chara-ter of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc. ) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the
development.
(Multiplier: 3)
MMENTS :
RAT ING :
POINTS:
�y•
ENERGY CONSERVATION
- Considering
the use of insulation,
�cjV
\
solar energy devices,
techniques to maximize
solar energy sources
passive solar orientation
conservation of
in the lodge or any
energy
addition
and similar
and use of
thereto.
(Multiplier: 1)
TS :
RAT ING :
POINTS:
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
RAT ING : O
POINTS:
(Multiplier: 3)
rnmmpUT�q• 4#51ArSAt %C�-� 1-,"\ "rC-%1-0
0
LC. r�)t . �r,\, c
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
•
•
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RATING: C,
1
POINTS:
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
anv addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RATING:
POINTS:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodginq project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point f or each 12% housed.
(Multiplier: 1)
CO MMENTS :
b . CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
RAT ING :
POINTS:
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
POINTS
1
3
5
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4a:
Points in Category 4b:
SUBTOTAL:
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
RATING:
POINTS:
(Minimum of 3 pts. required)
(Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
(Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
(Minimum of 9 pts. required)
(No minimum threshold)
(� (60% threshold = 54 pt s. )
ill (Total of 96 Available)
Name of Commissioner member: \
t' 0 •
CIZTY OF ASPEN
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
PROJECT 11
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
ll( Nl T�-
DATE:
1. AVAILABILITY
OF
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
tl
RATING
POINTS:
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
RATING: Z'
POINTS: Z
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: �'
•
•
COMMENTS:
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING
CO MME!R .
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: Z
'�04 NK
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RAT ING : •
(Multiplier:.1)� ?I/ POINTS: 9
- M-
COMMENTS DillPoe--
-
�C ► � L DS tiles '�� #� � �� C���l Si 6C
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
RATING :
(Multiplier: 3)
INTS-:
P4467-
COMMENTS: � `-"" "` Q��&
&EI
cr�
b. SITE DESIGN 7-Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the
development.
ING: L
(Multi�r35
CLC-S& TD�TL�
POINTS:COMMENTS:Jv0
STf ri,.'j 1
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation,
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING:
)(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENT
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
(Multiplier:( 3)
COMMENTS:
RATING: 4
POINTS
6
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
4-
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
TS : ! CC 1\/1 C)4- A k s S j WF: 6-1 � � ( � �� o O
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RATING: Z_
POINTS: 67��
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 2) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
4.
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
CO M T S : `
NS,
RAT ING :
POINTS: T_ ___
CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
COMMENTS:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 12% housed.
RAT ING: — -9
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
'11(� 11�4K1 'I) t` fV
11 1(.{gt�
b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
POINTS
1
3
5
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a wr tten
justification of that award for the public hearing recordA
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS 6
Points in Category 1: W(Minimum of 3 pts. required)
Points in Category 2: •� (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
Points in Category 4a: (Minimum of 9 pts. required)
Points in Category 4b: (No minimum threshold)
SUBTOTAL: (60% threshold = 54 pts.)
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Commissioner member:
(Total of 96 Available)
•
CITTY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
PROJECT: 62&A DATE: �
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
RATING:
POINTS:
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: v
(Multiplier: 1)
POINTS:
•
•
COMMENTS:
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RATING: -�2_ / 07
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the
development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation,
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
CO MMENTS :
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RATING:
POINTS: 11
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RATING:
POINTS:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 2) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 12% housed.
(Multiplier: 1)
CO MMENTS :
b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
RAT ING :
POINTS:
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
POINTS
3
�r
i
•
COMMENTS:
(Multiplier: 1)
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
RAT ING :
POINTS:
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4a:
Points in Category 4b :
SUBTOTAL:
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Commissioner member:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
0 (Minimum of 3 pts. required)
(Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
(Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
(Minimum of 9 pts. required)
3 f Mn mi ni miim 1-h rachnl A 1
Z/1P2(60% threshold = 54 pts.)
(Total of 96 Available)
I
CTTTY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
PROJECT : L2 - A h �- DAT E :
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
CO MMENTS :
RATING: L�
POINTS • -
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: /
• •
2.
COMMENTS:
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RAT ING : �—
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: CIS
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide for the saf ety and privacy of the users of the
development. J
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION
- Considering
the use of
insulation,
solar energy devices,
passive solar
orientation
and similar
techniques to maximize
conservation of energy
and use of
solar energy sources
in the lodge or
any addition
thereto.
-2-�--
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS
CO MMENTS :
d. PARRING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
RAT ING :
ultiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
i
POINTS:
i5
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
•
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING : ,
POINTS:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS: L
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
4.
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 2) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
eWAID DPI L r ee Z (GE j��+ � i �-7'(// O YA
CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point f or each 12% housed.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
CO MMENTS :
b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
POINTS
1
3
5
•
•
COMMENTS:
(Multiplier: 1)
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
RATING:
POINTS:
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4a:
Points in Category 4b:
SUBTOTAL:
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
(Minimum of 3 pts. required)
(Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
1� (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
(Minimum of 9 pts. required)
(No minimum threshold)
i
(60% threshold = 54 pts.)
(Total of 96 Available)
Name of Commissioner member: t'-.0 -�
CITTY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
PROJECT: I Se.'nA/�tel) m l� DATE: l 2
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RAT ING • Z
2
(multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING : 11
POINTS: 7-
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RAT ING : S
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: _L
•
•
COMMENTS:
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: Z
COMMENTS:
n n/*1 i1 C a -A a S Lamrn 1-t-r�c',�,t At
11
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
CO MMENTS :
1 nfn 0t
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments. C
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS: (�( S r +�
��-)
► � a 3 � c�-r�+ -For -� s��- ��� -
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the
dev el opment .
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS: v'
���a..�- � �� I�L�-Q ►rn t3E- �sY1,i �' �yrQ�o-O�
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation,
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS: \ (f)TN%�[ J219.13bt +V"dAiLL` x 1�&A
tkJNAJQW
toWd yN)
vyfo\ec'� s coCa*� o►rl . ",&Q- Q�-�. ro-*� on of (A t- n o r (xw fXA G
1v e.i1 VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
wA+tom
•
•
RAT ING : ?'
POINTS:
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
r
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (!Maximum 21 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RATING:
POINTS: b
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 12% housed.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
RAT ING :
POINTS:
The Commission shall assign Foint s to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
POINTS
1
3
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
RAT ING : 5
POINTS: `5
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
COMMENTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS
(Multiplier: 1)
Points in Category 1:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
,Z (Minimum of 3 pts. required)
Points in Category 2: 2F (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
Points in Category 4a: 9Q (Minimum of 9 pts. required)
Points in Category 4b: S O (No minimum threshold)
SUBTOTAL:
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Commissioner member:
'6Z, a (60% threshold = 54 pts.)
O
d(Total of 96 Available)
•
•
Crr Y OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
PROJECT . b774C E I- C DATE: Z, v /J , v " )---
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING: G
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS :
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2
COMMENTS:
C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: ��
COMMENTS:
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: �L
CO MMENTS
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the
development.
RAT ING
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation
techniques to maximize conservation of energy
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition
(Multiplier: 1)
CO MMENTS :
RAT ING :
POINTS:
insulation,
and similar
and use of
thereto.
3
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
RATING: /
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: �4
COMMENTS:
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3�
COMMENTS:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 2) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
.. 1 • 0
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
POINTS:
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point f or each 12% housed.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
CO MMENTS :
b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
POINTS
1
3
5
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS
POINTS: - 0
Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 pts. required)
Points in Category 2: 34Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
Points in Category 3:2_ (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
Points in Category 4a: (Minimum of 9 pts. required)
Points in Category 4b: .(No minimum threshold)
SUBTOTAL: (60% threshold = 54 pts.)
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS: (Total of 96 Available)
Name of Commissioner member: l/A-,',YJ 7-- A—Y1(X`Y-YSI"
CITI' Y OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCARE SHEETS
PROJECT • 2a aDATE :
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
RATING:
POINTS • _
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: _
COMMENTS:
C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
CO MMENTS
�FJiA.vH IAA C -� Ca44 41
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING :y
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
I ��r
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide f or the saf ety and privacy of the users of the
development.
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation,
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS: �-- -:�.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING :
POINTS:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto. �
RAT ING : v
(Multiplier: 3)
COMMENTS:
POINTS: _S a
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodginq project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RAT ING : 3
POINTS
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
COMMENTS:
RATING:
POINTS:
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 12$ housed.
RATING:
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
1%-33% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
POINTS
1
3
5
RAT ING :
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS:
COMMENTS:
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 910) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4a:
Points in Category 4b:
SUBTOTAL:
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Commissioner member:
RATING:
POINTS:
(Minimum of 3 pts. required)
(Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
(Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
J(Minimum of 9 pts. required)
(No minimum threshold)
(60% threshold = 54 pts.)
(Total of 96 Avail le)
•
r_1
Aspen City Council & Members
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
1040 Avonoak Terrace
Glendale, CA 91206
and
Aspen Square, Unit 126
October 3, 1985
RE: Aspen Skiing Co. proposed development of Little Nell
(A) A clean-up and rebuilding of the EXISTING Ski Corporation facilities
for ticket sales, ski school, snow cat storage and maintenance, EXISTING
retail sales, restaurant, and bar and ski repair shop with ski storage.
Aspen has been my favorite ski area for 20 years and I have been a property
owner for 15 years. I would welcome and endorse an enhancement and improv-
ment of the EXISTING buildings and structures. The city of Aspen, its' re-
sidents and visitors desperatly need this area to remain unencumbered by
further building or obstruction of the only view of the ski mountain. The
present driveway is the only area to drop off/pick up skiiers without result-
ing in a traffic jam or further congestion on Durant and Hunter Streets.
The existing buildings/businesses need the present parking space (infact
they already need additional parking space). The area needs to be made
attractive and more accomadating since it is the only gateway and access
to the lifts at Little Nell.
(B) A four-story ninety-six room hotel to be built immediately adjacent
to the side walk.
I adamantly oppose the hotel. It will eliminate the present entrance to
the lifts, add additional NOISE, 'TRAFFIC, CONGESTION, POLLUTION, DRAINAGE
problems. The existing plans lack adequate parking space, would obstruct
the view and open space and access.
Very truly your',,
'+./
Jani Wohlgemuth
Robert S. Ogilvie
1354 Plaza De Sonadores
Santa Barbara, Ca. 93108
September 19, 1985
Mr. George Laswell, Gen. Mgr.
Aspen Square
617 E. Cooper Ave.
Aspen Colorado 81611
Subj: Proposed Hotel Project
Dear George:
We conclude from your recent NEWS LETTERS plus some
correspondence from one or two Owners that there are
those who are worried by the possibility of a new hotel
at the base of LITTLE NELL. Some of the concerns being
expressed, in our opinion, are exagerated and are
similar to the objections to new developments all across
the country.
We recently advised you that we concur with the neutral
position taken by the Board, and we still maintain that
the decision was correct. This does not preclude close
observance of the project so that objections can be
submitted when need be.
Our reasoning for a neutral or supporting position is:
1. Aspen Square property values will, in our opinion,
be enhanced (not depressed) by spill -over of business
from the new hotel and commercial center. In a tourist
oriented community the active business is attracted to
better hotel and commercial centers. Aspen Square will
become a part of the newly formed active business
community and will benefit accordingly.
2. The existing facilities on the proposed site are not
attractive, and it is doubtful that they contribute any
significant benefit to Aspen Square.
3. Values of commercial or investment properties, such
as Aspen Square, are determined largely by the generated
income or profit. A view of the mountain may be nice
but it will not be a critical factor in an investment
decision. Likewise, We do not expect a rush by present
owners to sell their Aspen Square units if the hotel
project is approved.
4. We don't anticipate a significant effect upon noise
and traffic. Already existing community facilities and
activities(busses, ski lift, grocery sore, bars and
other commercial and residential establishments) have
saturated the community in this respect.
5. Something will eventually be built on the property.
A hotel -commercial complex will be better for Aspen
0
September 19, 1985
Mr. George Laswell, Gen. Mgr.
Aspen Square
Square than will more condos and/or offices.
There is one feature of the proposed hotel building
that should be questioned: can the roof be flat rather
than gabled as shown in the sketch that you sent to us
with one of your NEWS LETTERS? A flat roof would avoid
the high peaked roof, and would, thus solve a lot of
the complaints about obstruction of the view from
Aspen Square.
We appreciate your NEWS LETTERS, and we hope that your
efforts along with those of all owners and the community
at large will result in a satisfactory decision on the
proposed project next door.
We trust that you will forward a copy of this letter
to members of the Board.
Very truly yours,
Robert S. Ogilvie
•
0
CAUVIN M. CHAMBERLAIN
1e00 N. WGGDWARD AVZNUE
BIRMINGHAM. MICHIGAN 460011
September 30, 1985
To: ASPEN SQUARE OWNERS (B Building)
It would appear that the proposed construction of a luxury
hotel on the South or Mountainside of Durant by the Ski
Corporation is causing serious controversy. At least
several owners of units at Aspen Square have expressed
their concern for a negative effect on their properties.
I am writing to the owners of units in the B Building
because I believe that they will be most directly affected
by L.ny new construction. The Board of Directors of Aspen
Square, who represent us all, and the Ski Corporation,
which I feel should know that not Everyone is against
Everything, are also to receive copies.
There are always those that feel good competition, for
example, a luxury hotel across the street, will reduce
their piece of the pie. I have often heard this cry
in the real estate business. However, in my personal
experience, my firm has participated in over one billion
dollars in real estate sales, the opposite is generally
true. Good strong competition makes for a stronger healthier
market. A luxury hotel, across the street, will only
bring more highly qualified visitors to Aspen and provide
Aspen Square with a strong overflow.
Condominium owners in Snowmass have recognized the need
for a good convention facility and as a result will benefit
greatly in increased year around rentals.
Aspen Square should be workinq with the Ski Corp. Not
Against It! Through co-operation we can preserve our
mountain view as much as is possible. We will eliminate
the unsightly view of the Center, and, in my opinion,
add thousands of dollars of Resale Value to our units.
Sincerely,
rj
Calvin M. Chamberlain
CMC:cak
z low
4t�. -- .
qp
• -w+ �T
VCR
VE
t� V
0
r�
u
September 23, 1985
Mayor Bill Stirling; Members of the Aspen City Council, and Concerned
Members of the Public:
After a great deal of research and much input from Aspen Square
property owners, the Management and Board of Directors of the Aspen
Square Condominium Association have unanimously decided to formally
oppose the concept of the proposed project at Little Nell by the Aspen
Skiing Company. Some of our reasons are outlined below:
1. Increased traffic ... the limitations of the present Aspen street
layout dictate that all additional east/west traffic created by
the proposal would impact Durant Avenue. The increased traffic,
noise, pollution, and congestion generated by the proposed 100-
room hotel along with its associated commercial uses would cause
an extreme hardship on all the existing facilities in the area.
In our opinion, this adds to an already extremely serious problem
in Aspen, and multiplies the difficulties in finding a solution.
2. Proposed parking is inadequate. The Aspen Square Buildings
presently provide 106 spaces for 105 rental units and approximately
17 commercial spaces. Frequently this is insufficient. In
conjunction with Little Nell being the main access to the Ski Area,
the proposed 77 parking spaces are grossly inadequate.
3. A large structure is much less inviting than a small one. The
same proposed complex without the hotel would still allow the
public its view of the mountains and afford a much more inviting
access to its recreational activities. If a hotel is to be
seriously considered for the Little Nell site, it would be far
more acceptable if it were kept (1) lower in profile (one less
floor) to preserve as much of the nearby view of the ski area
and the distant view of Independence Pass as possible, and (2)
lower in density, particularly regarding the quantity of existing
hotel units.
4. Regarding the commercial allocation; we recommend that the amount
of commercial space approved for this project primarily relate
tolreplacing what already exists. In particular, the future
commercial uses for this site should primarily relate to what
are required by a base facility and main access to the ski area.
Approving additional commercial space for needs outside, and in
excess of the normal ski area base facility related activities
is not required in that those needs are already amply met by the
buildings in the adjacent commercial core.
more
617 East Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 303-925-1000
condominium hotel at little nell
Mayor Bill Stirling, Page 2
5. Recent GMP allocations to the Jerome Hotel, the Aspen Mountain Lodge,
and the Sardy Property should be analyzed along with their impacts
on the community prior to additional GMP variance grants. It
should be kept in mind that most certainly other projects (such
as the Aspen Meadows) are in the wings and will also need to be
looked at closely. Once all these projects are approved, it is
too late to change direction.
6. A chart prepared and presented by ASC to the P&Z incorrectly showed
that 87 condominium rental units have recently been taken off the
rental market, and thus could be granted to the Ski Company for
the planned hotel.
a. This is not a "recent" development.
b. The fact that the units are not rented does not mean that
they are not occupied, nor that they do not represent people
who drive cars, ski, shop, dine, and take part in all activities
that short-term rental guests do.
In closing, we would like to point out that a refurbishing of the
Little Nell Base Area is much needed in order for Aspen to keep pace
with its competition and to provide locals and guests alike with a
pleasing entrance to Aspen Mountain. It is our strong belief, however,
that the proposed hotel facility is not in keeping with the best planned
use of that area.
Sincerely,
t ('0 1
c
Geo e E. Laswell
for the Aspen Square Condominium Association
CALN'IN M. CHAMBERLAIN
lsoo 14. wOODWAILD AVZKVZ
sIRMI14OHAM. MICHIGAN 40011
,Oqv ato 1.4
l e9/» /Gs�, nO�in TO ev/7 ty�Agr
h'l'��
o�� �t ,G%i�e /.?P//
z hawe /,Oo�
,E' f Pik ��ti
iinr9� /7 Y��zS /ems✓
-le Ile
�%� 8� �
461,4c, r4/e h� �3r YePtis cv
7� .sue %1 osv �/uXr/� XOA11 �'YaSs t�i ��e
14;� z4ll�
eaA��11;e
a assP� V zi
��e S,e%��i�,os
Robert S. Ogilvie
1354 Plaza De Sonadores
Santa Barbara, Ca. 9310£3
Marian Steinberg
2600Road, Pines R., A-16
L. J.H., G.Ilf.rnl. 92037 (619) 457-1522
-A
Tl�
44�
:41
-4-
ILL
Az-
•
9
WU AGENCY ASPN
WU INFOMASTER 1-010206C231 08/10/85
ICS IPuMVIO MVN
ZCZC 03831 08-10 0133P CDT MVIL
TLX 450433 WU AG'--'NCY ASPN
RT
4-0216485231 08/1a/85
ICS IPv:RN;Z CSP
6019606600 TDPN JACKSON MS 50 08-10 0114P
EST
PM5 GEORGE LASWELL RPT DLY MGM, OLR
ASPEN SQ. CONDOMINIUMS
617 EAST COOPER
ASPEN CO 61611
DEAR MR LASWELL, AS OWNER OF ASPEN SQ UNITS
120 AND 122
OPPOSE THE LUXURY HOTEL AT LITTLE NELL AND REQUEST
THAT
SQUARE BOARD ATTEND THE AUGUST 20TH PLANNING
COMMISSION
SEPTEMRER 30TH TO TAKE A POSITIVE STAND AGAINST
THE NEW
VERY TRULY YOURS,
DUDLEY J HU;IiES
1100 CAPITAL TOWER
JACKSON MS 30201
1316 EST
_
NNNN
1339 EST
WU AGENCY ASPN
I STRONGLY
THE ASPEN
HEARING AND
HOTEL.
A.G. ANDRIKOPOULIk
1V )X 788
CI1FYI'NNI,:. 82001
(507) 654-4441
Mr. George E. Laswell, General Manager
Aspen Square Condominium Association
617 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Laswell:
August 22, 1985
As you are aware, I am the owner of two north -facing studio units
at the Aspen Square.
While the proposed hotel project at Little Nell does not affect the view
from my units, I am deeply concerned about the impact this project will have
on Aspen as a community.
My concerns are centered around, but not limited to, the following:
1. Increased traffic, noise and conjestion on the corners
of Durant and Spring and Durant and Hunter
2. Loss of the open feeling and view we have enjoyed of the
mountain which has made Aspen famous as a ski community
3. Creation of a "hotel strip" on Durant in place of the
present open space concept
4. Addition of more "world class hotel rooms" ... many of the
Aspen properties have upgraded, and many more (i.e. the Hotel
Jerome, the Aspen Mountain Lodge and the Woodstone) are on
the drawing board with upgrades etc. Is there really a need
for more hotel -rooms?
Please pass my concerns and views on to the Aspen City Council and anyone else
who may have any input into this planned complex.
Thank you.
Sin ly,
A. G. Andrikopoulos,
Owner Of Units 320 and 401
(150-1: IS131 - _11217
LANE N. M E LT Z E R
NEW ORLEANS
August 21, 1985
Mr. George Laswell
Manager
Aspen Square
617 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear George:
:310 SOITTI1 BA.MYART
I have a copy of a letter sent to all owners by
Mr. and Mrs. Bradley regarding the proposed hotel
across the street on the mountain.
In my professional opinion, George, this
property can only enhance the value of Aspen Square
and certainly help the ambiance of the community.
It is my feeling that it will enhance the
neighborhood, make your job of pre -leasing the Aspen
Square facilities easier, and if anything, guarantee
that the location of Aspen Square will always be
preeminent in the community.
I personally feel quite confident that the
quality of management and the quality of the
facilities proposed will ensure that it has a high
quality of clientele. Furthermore, I believe the
demand will be great enough that Aspen Square will
benefit from its overflow.
Hopefully they will have meeting rooms that
could possibly be used by the Square. It is entirely
possible that the two properties could be marketed
together for group meetings in the summer.
Under any circumstances, George, I certainly do
not agree with the letter and feel quite strongly that
the development of the proposed hotel will only lead
to an enhancement of values in Aspen Square, and make
it a more attractive development than it already is.
•
El
Mr. George Laswell
August 21, 1985
Page Two
Hope this finds you well.
With kindest regards,
LNM/gwp
Siincerely,
Lane N. Meltzer,
CRE
•
•
BURTON, HALLORAN & SCHWARTZ
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
MARVIN O. BURTON. INC.
ROBERT L. HALLORAN, INC.
ROBERT I. SCHWARTZ. INC.
August 21, 1985
Aspen Square
617 E. Cooper Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention George Laswell
Dear Mr. Laswell:
333 BAYSIDE DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
(71 a) 675-9501
I am the owner of Unit 318, and have been for some time.
Prior to your assuming the role of manager, the Aspen Corp. made
a similar proposal with respect to the development of the Little Nell
area. At that time I voiced my objection, which I am again doing.
I request you make my views known to the Board of Governors.
I appreciate your keeping us informed through yq(xr recent
correspondence of what is happening.
Very truly
. B urton
MOB /mw
At 0
•
November 8, 1985
Charles Collins
531 West Gillespie Avenue:
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Little Nell Hotel SPA Application
Dear Chick,
If the Council decides to approve a hotel at Little Nell, I
hope you will use the SPA authority to require the applicant
to use creative architectural planning to cause the property
to be developed in a way to maximize the open space: and
trails for thu public, which is the primary purpose of an
SPA zoo►e. If the building foot print was moved up hill and
the court yard eliminated, the same square footage could be
constructed but still open up the entire front of that half
block as a pedestrian plaza and/or skier drop-off facility
and the width of the pedestrian plaza between the Little
Nell hotel and the North of Nell building could be doubled.
That would maximize the preservation of the views and open
space, eliminate the massing and shading on Durant, create
space for a skier drop off and still allow them the hotel.
I am enclosi►►g two alternative foot prints for a building of
the same size but set back from Durant. Either is far more
acceptable than the current application.
In addition, the Planning Office is concerned about th` fact
that this applicant originally wanted a 200-unit hotel, the
scale of which was unacceptable to the City, and the appli-
cant may be, filing the current application► as a first phase
and planning to request expansion approvals later. At the
meeting of November 5, the Council did not impose any limit
on further development with the comment that a subsequent
council could reverse the decision. However, there are
legal procedures by which an applica►►t can covenant the
remaining land in open space in perpetuity for the benefit
of the public such that a future council would not have any
ability to reverse the decision. I urge the Council to
reco►:sider that Planning Office request and to include a
6
•
City Council
November 8, 1985
Page 2
prohibition on further hotel expansion as an additional
condition on the conceptual approval. There is broad based
opposition to the consumption of this open space by the
hotel as now designed. There are proposals for referendum
petitions to cause any decision of approval to be reversed
by a City-wide election; and my clients would undoubtedly
ask for any approval of the current design to be reviewed by
the courts. .
If the hotel was eliminated from the project or at least
redesigned in the maniier in which I have outlined on the
enclosed drawing, I think a good deal of the opposition
would disappear. I hope the City Council has the foresight
to use the flexibility of the SPA zone as it was designed to
be used to provide the greatest public benefit for an
unusual parcel. Clearly, the self-serving and short-sighted
design that is set. forth in the current application should
not be approved and does riot serve the greater public
interest.
Very truly yours,
Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
JEE ch
Enclosures
bcc Alan Richman
0
1 11.
_ -_:. �. .�� r N. i�l. �.�i�i� :� ,,,, is � �,: I
17
��,� I �t
it
1111 lot
Jl
It II` `�, 1 �' /�1 tl I it it .1.,
.,i it I i6,1
Vk kx
t `� F1 ��1,, yl� II I I I ;� t�l�'�ri�'; �I/,
"AM
r,,-) - I I F
111T
►•. 1ti�M` '[�.. '/ ,. �� /� ��i�Il / > liI 1l`ilu' , � f!iul• I lil�ll
1"; i� ,���i !;i: �,u��!II:�[ UI�IIII��' ;
I I u,
,- '�� �%�I , I�i���i aI, !,'ir;I,; �
- / /ull r l I I I�, ,.�i ,I :, .I. ``hl,�!I 'I i
1�I I � i II I''II �I! I
I III �I � , � I I�!
- k19
,, I, (, I,.III�I I,`� I I�I! � .IL.
.. vo
� jai; �III� � �' �;�, -i; � �-
I I o.-i I I 1 1 1 i i LiLLLV
•LELI LM
Tif ILLUSTRATIVE
SITE PLAN
/,7( f
• 0
Page 2, THE ASPEN DAILY NEWS, Thursday, October 31. 1985
Letters
Nell Hotel v. Growth Control
Dear Editor:
The Nell Hotel proposal is not just
another development proposal. It
could mark the end of genuine growth
control. If it is approved, growth con-
trol becomes an illusion.
Approval of the hotel requires that
the city council ignore significant com-
ponents of the growth control pro-
gram, both in terms of important on -
site considerations (e.g. height) and the
broader, more critical consideration of
rate -of -growth.
Approval of the hotel requires bor-
rowing against the growth manage-
ment quota of far future years in order
to build now. Such a scheme simply ig-
nores the very meaning of the Growth
Management Plan — the control of the
rate of growth. The GMP becomes a
meaningless accounting system.
SUPPORT FOR CONTROLS
The only honest way to approve the
Nell Hotel is to first eliminate the
growth control elements of the code.
Such action requires public hearings
and involves debating growth control
again.
But the continued support for con-
trolling growth is clear. No one who
has expressly proposed weakening the
growth control progam has come even
close to winning an election in the City
or County in the past 13 years. No
citizen initiative has mandated such a
change. Exit polls have consistently
shown strong support for existing and
even more stringent controls.
This consensus for growth control is
the result of a grassroots movement. In
the 1960s and early '70s, condos were
being built everywhere. Traffic increas-
ed. People started talking about doing
something about it. Government ig-
nored them. They began to meet and
organize.
Then two massive structures were
built at the bottom of Little Nell: the
Aspen Square and North of Nell
buildings. They nearly eliminated the
view of the mountain (the Nell Hotel
promises to complete the damage
begun by its predecessors). People at
first were shocked, then mobilized to
action. In 1973 their candidates for Ci-
ty and County offices won. And they
have won ever since.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The council can honestly approve
the Nell Hotel only after concluding
that the consensus developed by this
movement and ratified at every subse-
quent election has dissolved.
The valid concern for Aspen's
economic future may be driving some
people's support for the Nell Hotel.
But should we assume that our
economic success is dependent upon
such a project?
Is increased tourist capacity the only
path to success? If it is, then what
next? Our resort competitors will ap-
parently continue to build. So after the
Nell Hotel is complete, what will be re-
quired for success? Another hotel?
Well over 400 lodge units have
already been approved and will soon be
built. Is that what will make tourists
prefer Aspen — more buildings, traffic
and congestion? Or how about the se-
cond 104-unit phase of the Nell Hotel
project? We certainly will see that pro-
posal amidst claims the initial 96 units
are not economical. Then after all
those are built, how do we keep up?
What do we build next?
Or should we take a rigorous look at
what will actually make our economy
successful?
TURN IT DOWN
Many communities are finding as-
tounding success through efforts aimed
at reducing costs by increasing efficien-
cy. Towns smaller than Aspen are sav-
ing many millions of dollars annually
by simply becoming morel energy effi-
cient. And a dollar saved by a business
or a family is better than one earned,
because it's not taxable. Analogous op-
portunities exist in other sectors such
as food and water.
I can think of no proposal in recent
years which is more clearly inconsistent
with the community consensus than the
Nell Hotel. But hotel supporters are
virtually the only ones showing up for
the meetings. Next Monday evening,
let's all ask the city council to turn it
down.
Michael Kinsley
Aspen
545 S. Avenida De Palmas • Tucson, Arizona 85716
October 16, 1985
Mayor and Council Members
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Little Nell Base Area
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Since I am away from Aspen a majority of the time it is not possible to
follow the vacillating planning activities involving the Little Nell base
area in order to protect my property rights. Therefore, it is necessary
that I place the City of Aspen on notice of the location of the real property
I own at the base of Little Nell lying between Durant Avenue and Aspen
Townsite Line 9-1 (see attached plat and description).
I have applied for a building permit to construct a building on this property
and was sent to the Board of Adjustment for a nonconforming lot setback
variance in order to satisfy the process set forth in the Zoning
Regulations. A decision on my setback variance request was postponed
because the Board Members were confused by conjectures presented at the
public hearing by adjacent land owners. These tactics necessitated the
processing of a quite title action, 84 CV 354, to which the City of Aspen
has been served notice. Upon completion of the quite title action I will
resume the building permit process.
Very truly yours,
;Stanford H. J nson
cc: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
encls:
•
•
The Westerly one-half of vacated Hunter Street lying Southerly of
the South line of Durant Avenue in a Southerly direction to the
City Limits of the City of Aspen, lying East of and adjacent to
Lot I, in Block 97 in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, more
fully described as follows:
Beginning at
the Northeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 97, City and
Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado;
thence S. 751
09' 11" E. 8.00 feet along the South line of Durant
Avenue to the
true point of beginning;
thence S. 751
09' 11" E. 14.50 feet along said South line of
Durant Avenue;
thence S. 14'
50' 49" W. 10.00 feet;
thence S. 751
09' 11" E. 15.00 feet to the center line of vacated
South Hunter Street;
thence S. 14'
50' 49" W. 221.65 feet along said center line of
vacated South Hunter Street to line 1- 9 of Aspen Townsite;
thence N. 39"
58' 42" W. 45.88 feet along said line 1 - 9 of Aspen
Townsite to
the West line of vacated South Hunter Street;
thence N. 140
50' 49" E. 105.22 feet along said West line of vacated
South Hunter Street;
thence S. 751
09' 11" E. 8.00 feet;
thence N. 14'
50' 49" E. 100.00 feet to the point of beginning.
. �•, � .. �'` � :.;?ti,�s:;p�t':�.�� :i �''rL�s:n.�i,�5:'�Ca.'t'f;�kt '.'�+a';:.a�.!•�,tfi i��,%tiR�
0 0
DURANT AVENUE
5'75.09•IIII'EE
Moo 00
0
0
0
N
fV
U'\
If\
15'09' 11" E o
14.50 0 •# (—
o
0 575.09'11•E
15.00
i
�1J
�1—
cis
w
w
W
� 4
O
Q r
•
`yJ
Z O _
O
C
WOOD DECK �-
TO gE REMOVED PLANTER
WOOD =
' K R TIE CR16tING
WOOD DECK
.y
CONC.TRA►IS`'
MD WITH
POWER TRAMS. `1
f�� 3
Lr,
O
t~ Lf\
N .
L 1
i
1 J
F.
�
C -7
I
W
Z
•
LAW OFFICES
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81811
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
October 16, 1985
Thomas Fenton Smith, County Attorney
Pitkin County Courthouse
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Little Nell Hotel
Dear Tom,
E
gCT 18 7985
Pitkin County Attorney's Office
I do not know if the Commissioners are aware of it, but the
Little Nell Hotel application by the Aspen Skiing Company
completely ignores condition C of the Board of County
Commissioners Resolution 85-84, which proved conditionally
the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan under the AF-Ski
zone district. That condition required that the Aspen
Skiing Company continue the taxi -limo drop-off facility at
Little Nell. Of course, that condition referred to the
existing drop-off facility contained within the off-street
parking area in front of the Little Nell base. This
drop-off facility has the capacity to have ten to 15 cars at
one time temporarily stopped for off-street loading or
unloading.
The new Little Nell Hotel SPA application now pending for
conceptual review before the City proposes only to have curb
side on -street drop off on Durant in front of the hotel and
totally eliminates the existing off-street drop-off facility
and also eliminates the existing on -street parking along
Durant. A copy of a plan view of a map from that applica-
tion is enclosed. The curb -side drop off will not provide
anything close to the capacity of the existing off-street
drop-off space and, in fact, will result in significant
additional congestion, double parking and traffic blockage
along Durant and, for all practical purposes, eliminates the
ability to have ski drop off in this area. This is aside
from the fact that the mere existence of the hotel and the
proposed additional commercial spaces will be generating
significant additional traffic in the area. The likely
Thomas Fenton Smith
October 16, 1985
Page 2
result will be complete stoppage of Durant traffic during
the peak hours.
I bring this matter to your attention, since you may want to
discuss with the Commissioners their interest in making a
comment to the City in the course of the City's review of
the application for conceptual plan approval. It is now set
for a continued public hearing on October 28; and there is
not much time left, should the County desire to make its
position known.
Very truly yours,
Joseph-E.'-Edwar3s, Jr. ?
Enclosure
I.
EX3 IB IT A
CONDITIONS OF THE BOARD OF COURTTY COMMISSIONERS
Parking/Transit/Circulation
The following conditions are intended to address the mitigation
of parking/transit/circulation impacts created by the 1,300
skiers -at -one-time capacity increase of Aspen Mountain, and not
to address lodge/commercial development at Little Nell. The
incremental impacts of lodge/commercial base area development at
Little *Tell should be addressed by the City of Aspen upon receipt
of an application for base area development. Similarly, the ASC
should not be asked by the City of Aspen to mitir_,ate parking/-
transit/circulation impacts resulting from the capacity increase
because those impacts have been addressed by Pitkin County.
A. ASC will work cooperatively with the community to reasonably
accommodate transit at the base of Lift #r1A.
B: ASC shall agree to maintain the existing parking lot (of at
least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street
within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit
related uses. The agreement shall be in the form of a
recorded covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin:
County and the City of Aspen.
C. ASC shall continue the taxi - limo -automobile drop-off facility
at Little Nell.
D. ASC shall institute a taxi -limo -automobile drop-off facility
at Lift 1A within the time frame of the three year improvement
program for Aspen 1\11ountain.
E. It has been found during the Pitkin County land use review
process that ASC must provide an additional 46 off-street,
skier automobile parking spaces to mitigate the effects of
the 1,300 daily skiers -at -one-time skiing capacity increase
on Aspen Mountain. This requirement may be met by providing
on -site automobile parking, off -site automobile parking,
cash contributions to the City of Aspen as described herein
or a combination of the above. If future studies undertaken
or approved by the City of Aspen, and/or Pitkin County
indicate that the proposed skiing area expansion (1,300
skiers at one time) generates a Need for fewer than 46 off-
street skier automobile parking spaces, the ASC's automobile
parking requirement or cont:ibation to alternative programs
hereunder will be decreased accordingly. Under no circum-
stances will the automobile parking requirement of Pitkin
County be increased unless ASC proposes additional daily
Rl
:7
Jl ..� // ��/�II'i' ,1,1 ..., 61 j1'Iitlr'llll,!'iR�i'llli .;l)�p la. I,�)'ll I+I i,, I�1II)'IIIIt:
, L' ' /� _ �- •t,11 � �II�1' , 1 I I5)ill IrII,'lil hlll i.' I II
�;, - - I`ll � ,l, l , � .IIII �� � �,�!� Il II 1,.' I� I` iljl �I�h1I��I t �.I� : r X
. ; t �{, .� �.,I�n .i,. `I .ill rJ ,r�llL�ll,t j•dl ll'.:, �i �1H.�ill l,;�l.. ft
1II�,� ��, �ItIIIII��,�'��al It
I ji
�7.
ILLUSTRATIVE
SITE PLAN
LAW OFFICES
JOSERH E. EDWARDS, JR
THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
October 12, 1985
William Stirling
716 West Francis
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Little Nell Hotel
Dear Bill:
CE6LOMR n
OCT 2 31985
TELEPHONE (303) 925.7116
The five planners of the Planning Office unanimously
recommended that the ASC hotel project not be granted a
future multi -year GMP allocation.
The Planning Office read the code as allowing the council
authority to grant the hotel allocations from future years
but of course recommended that you not do so as it would
subvert the GMP. Their position was that if you were
inclined to grant this application you should just, scrap
lodge quota systems altogether.
I believe the Planning Office was mistaken when it said the
council had that authority. Section 24-11.3 (b) of the City
Code states that for a project being built over several
years, construction must take place during the years from
which that project has received a GMP quota allotment. In
other words, a project cannot be built today with GMP'
allotments from future years. I am enclosing for your
reference a copy of that code section. The critical
language is "provided that each year during the scheduled
construction the annual allotment ...shall be reduced."
That sentence says that the. construction must be taking
place during the years for which the GMP allotment is being
reduced by virtue of having been granted to that
construction project.
This language coincides exactly with the purpose and intent
of growth management which is that construction development
be phased in over time in order for the government to be
able to gradually expand the services that the future
development will require. There are other more indirect
purposes such as allowing the community an opportunity to
see the impacts and the demands from a given amount of
growth and then be able to adjust future growth up or down
in accordance with desires and abilities to respond to it.
0 0
October 12, 1985
Page 2
The purpose and intent of growth management would be
completely subverted and undermined if allotments were given
today and construction allowed to proceed today against
quotas that are not available until years in the future.
The Planning Office pointed out to the City Council in the
September 17, 1985 memorandum on page 10 and the top of page
11 that the Little Nell Base Redevelopment Project will be
requesting the remainder of the lodge quotas for the years
1989, 1990 and 1991. However they propose to construct the
hotel in 1987 and 1988. Section 24-11.3 (b) prohibits
construction in 1987 and 1988; it would be impossible to
comply with the provision that "each year during the
scheduled construction the annual allotment ...shall be
reduced by the amount of construction permitted..." because
the allotments for the years of construction have already
been consumed by other projects. That code section requires
that construction be taking place during the year the
allotment is being reduced by the construction taking place.
Therefore under the GMP,-the hotel would not be permitted to
be constructed until the years 1989-1991.
As the above referenced Planning Office memorandum pointed
out, this community has already approved the reconstruction
into brand new units of 350 existing units and has further
approved 400 new units. Therefore 750 brand new units
will soon be a part of the Aspen lodging inventory. This is
the largest increase of capacity and upgraded quality in the
history of the community. As the Planning Office memo
pointed out, we have no idea what impacts will be generated
by that quantum increase in quality and quantity of lodging
units. The Planning Office strongly advises that you hold
back at this time and allow yourselves and the community a
chance to see and experience those impacts and respond to
them appropriately before further adding to the backlog of
newly generated, but as yet unfelt, lodging units.
As you know, the owner advocates of the proposed hotel will
pack the public hearing with their employees and with resort
association boosters. All the people who voted for you when
you said you would support the existing growth management
ordinances are happy and will be trusting you to do this and
will be home the night of the public hearings. You can
expect a great imbalance in the public hearing room; it will
be packed with those who are in favor of your bending or
even breaking the rules to get what they want. Even though
the Resort Association boosters have just gotten approval
for the largest increase in housing quotas in the history of
the community, they are coming from the point of view that
more is always better and therefore more is never enough.
They will always be in support of any new application. It
•
October 12, 1985
Page 3
is your responsibility as the
community to sit in judgment,
and to do what is best for the
resort association. I urge
trust.
•
representative of the entire
to uphold the existing laws
whole community not just the
you to be faithful to that
While I have been asked to present these views on behalf of
Fred Dill, an owner of an Aspen Square unit, obviously
severely impacted by the proposal, that does not diminish
the point made. Further, I personally, as one committed to
orderly growth for 15 years, feel that putting this hotel on
that spot at this time would be a serious planning mistake
we would all come to regret.
Very truly yours,
Joseph E. Edwards
JEE/jd
0 ' W
4 24.11.2 ZONING § 24.11.3
twelve (12) months prior to the date of submission of applications
for development allotments. it shall be the purpose of the report
to summarize the amount of construction which shall be deducted
from the quota of allowable development in succeeding years.
The planning office shall also add any allotments which have
been rescinded or have expired to the quota of allowable devel-
opment in succeeding years. Any expansion of commercial or
office uses which does not increase the computation of floor area
for a building shall not be deducted from the quota of allowable
development in succeeding years. (Ord. No. 48-1977, § 1; Ord. No.
3-1978, §§ 1, 2; Ord. No. 3-1979, § 1; Ord. No. 4-1980, § 1; Ord.
No. 16-1980, § 5; Ord. No. 20-1980, § 1; Ord. No. 8.1981, § 1; Ord.
No. 69-1981, § 1; Ord. No. 53-1982, § 1; Ord. No. 1983-36, §§ 1, 2;
Ord. No. 1983-40, § 4; Ord. No. 9-1984, § § 1-3)
Sec. 24-11.3. General provisions.
(a) In awarding development allotments in any given
year, the city council may authorize construction in excess
of the maximum number of dwelling units, lodge units or
commercial or office square footage specified in section
24-11.1 by as much as twenty (20) per cent for dwelling units,
twenty-five (25) per cent for commercial and office square
footage and thirty-three (33) per cent for lodging units (all
to be rounded up to the next whole number) ; provided that
any such excess development be off -set by reduction in suc-
cessive years such that every fifth year the total construc-
tion within the previous five (5) years shall not be in excess
of the cumulative total_ permitted by section 24-11.1.
(b) The city council may (but need not) grant a develop-
ment allotment for an tire project to be constructed over
a period of year nrovic?ed that each year during the sched- '
SuIQLconstructioii t e- annual allotment rovided_-for _in_sec-
tion 2M-11.1 shall be rec?uced by the amount of construction
permitted by the approTa-1. -`
(a) The planning office shall reject any application for de.
ve'_opment allotment which fails to:
(1) Satisfy minimum utility or access requirements,
(2) Comply with any approved master plan for the de-
velopment area, or
Supp. No. 29 1-508.9
LAW OFFICES
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
October 22, 1985
William Stirling, Mayor
716 West Francis
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Little Nell Hotel SPA Anb?ication
Dear Bill,
TELEPHONE (303) 925.71'3
My letter of October 12 commented only on the GMP issue and
pointed out that, under the City ordinance, the Council
cannot lawfully allow hotel construction to occur on the
basis of growth management allotments from years in the
future. The following are my comments on some of the other
issues raised by this application.
MOUNTAIN VIEW CONSTRAINT
The two developments which crystallized the growth control
movement in Aspen were the North of Nell and the Aspen
Square. Prior to the construction of those buildings, it
was possible from anywhere in the downtown area to have the
visual and aesthetic experience of being at the base of the
ski mountain. During the winter, one could see skiers
coming down Little Nell and, during the summer, the wild
flowers on the hill side meadow within a block downtown.
Now, because of lack of a view plane ordinance in 1969 and
lack of planning foresight (there was not even a planning
office in 1969), that view of the Little Nell ski hill is
constrained primarily to certain areas of Hunter, Spring and
Durant Streets. The proposed Little Nell hotel will block
that remaining mountain view with another hotel. The ski
hill will then be hidden on the other side of three- and
four-story buildings.
STREET SETBACK/OPEN SPACE
Code Section 24-3.7(d) requires that one side of a building
site is to be open to the street and unobstructed from the
ground level to� the sky for a length of at least 100 feet
City Council
October 22, 1985
Page 2
along the street and set back at least ten feet. The
Planning Office memorandum of September 17, 1985, on page 4
noted that the purpose of that requirement is to provide
visual relief along the street from the mass of the build-
ings. The Planning Office notes that the proposed building
has an extensive facade mass on Durant and does not have any
open space along Durant Street and, as a result, will
particularly affect the views from the Aspen Square complex
and create shadow effects on Durant. Durant is the street
primarily serving the property, and there is no visual
relief from the mass of the building along that street. The
hotel is four stories tall (at least seven feet higher than
the top of North of Nell) and, when viewed from the condo-
miniums across the street, will block more of the view of
the mountain than the top of North of Nell..
The applicants are trying to get around this requirement to
provide relief from the mass of the building along the
street frontage by asserting that their property will front
on Dean Street. This is one of the reasons for the request
to expand the size of the SPA designated area in order to
include that section of the property south of Dean Street in
the "building site." However, to say that the portion of
the property along the north side of platted Dean Street is
a "side of the building site" is a joke. Although it, may
technically be an extension to the west of a small strip of
land attached to the property upon which the building is
situated (if the SPA designation is expanded), it is not a
"side of the building site" since the hotel is not fronting
on the south side of Dean Street. The building has a side
against Spring Street and a side against Durant street but
does not have a side of the building against Dean Street.
Further, Dean Street has never been opened beyond the
dumpsters serving the Tippler in the middle of the block and
has always been more of a dead end alley than a street
within the meaning of the Code. Also, Dean Street is not
proposed to be used as a street but a closed off pedestrian
way.
Furthermore, even if one were to consider the south side of
Dean Street as a "side of the building site," the proposal
still violates the setback open space requirement which is
that it is to be unobstructed from the ground level (of the
street) to the air. The applicants propose to construct
commercial spaces and administrative offices right along the
south side of the closed section of Dean Street and to raise
the ski hill level up to the roof of this section of commer-
cial spaces and offices. The Code states that the setback
City Council
October 22, 1985
Page 3
of open space is not to be used for any purposes except
fountains, pathways and landscaping; and offices and commer-
cial space do not quite qualify.
COMPLIANCE WITH SPA PURPOSES AND STANDARDS
The SPA Ordinance No. 20 Series of 1985 does not have many
specific standards for review. The statements of intent,
purpose and criteria are very subjective. For example,
subparagraph 4 provides that it is to establish a mechanism
by which parcels on which there has been historically a
variety of uses or which are considered appropriate for
multiple uses can be developed in a way which provides the
greatest public benefit. Other than that, the stated
purposes are the same set forth for P.U.D.'s found in
Section 24-8.1. The specifications for an SPA conceptual
plan are only that it be submitted "for the purpose of
establishing the objectives which the SPA designation is to
achieve." The only criteria for SPA review are found in
Section 24-7.7 (a) providing for review of the precise plan.
However, a conceptual plan to show that it comports with the
objectives an SPA designation is to achieve should at least
conceptually show conformance with the precise plan review
criteria.
The first such criteria found in 24-7.7(a) subparagraph-1 is
whether the proposal is compatible with neighboring develop-
ment. Unfortunately, it probably is compatible with those
neighboring developments which went into place over 15 years
ago. The very requirements for open space, set backs and
buffering referred to now in the SPA, P.U.D. and other zones
were all established in the last 15 years to try to prevent
a recurrence of the type of neighboring lot -line -to -lot -line
monoliths of Aspen Square, North of Nell and Woodstone.
Those neighboring uses already contribute to the blockage of
the aesthetic experience of the base of the mountain, and
the Little Nell Hotel will seal off what view remains. '•
Standards 2, 3, 5 and 6 of that Section 24-7.7(a) are normal
standards for review in all subdivision, zoning or P.U.D
approvals to make sure that there are adequate roads and
utilities, safe soils and masterplan compliance and cause no
adverse impacts on the public. The only unique standard of
the SPA zone is that found in subparagraph 4, which is an
inquiry as to whether the applicants have creatively
employed land planning techniques such as setbacks
clustering, screening, buffering and architectural design to
(1) preserve significant view planes, (2) avoid adverse
City Council
October 22, 1985
Page 4
environmental impacts and (3) provide open space, trails and
similar amenities for the users of the project and the
public at large [emphasis added].
By setting the building mass right up against Durant street
closing off the only portal of the view of the mountain
which still exists from Spring, Hunter and Durant Street;
and in not having the open space setback from Durant and
constructing the building as high as possible, the
applicants can hardly be said to have "creatively employed
land planning techniques such as set back, screening,
buffering, or architectural design." Furthermore, the
applicants have riot preserved significant view planes, they
have not avoided adverse environmental impacts nor have they
provided open space for the public at large. They propose
to fill the existing views and open space.with a four-story
hotel. Therefore, the design of the project does not comply
with the standards for SPA review and does not comply with
the objectives or the intent that the SPA zone was designed
to achieve.
UNECONOMICAL HOTEL
The Council has raised the question with the applicants as
to why they desire to build a 96-unit. hotel when it is
acknowledged that a 200-to-250-unit hotel is the minimum
viable economic entity. The applicants' response to that
inquiry was that they desired to build the hotel as a
reflection of their long term commitment -to the community.
Whatever that means, it certainly does not answer the
question of why they want to build an uneconomical hotel.
There appear to be two possible true answers. The Skiing
Company previously filed an application for a 200-unit hotel
with a wing of the hotel extending up the left side of North
of Nell which was rejected. Since they now propose to
relocate the lift to the right side, that space would be
open for a future application. Having determined that they
could not successfully get what they really wanted in the
first application, they appear to have determined to nibble
away at it by asking for about half of what they really want
in the present application. The scenario in the future
would be to come back after several years, advise the
community that it was uneconomical to operate the hotel and
that it would have to be closed if the second phase was not
approved. That would confront the community with . the
embarrassment of a closed hotel at the base of the major ski
mountain. One can easily speculate on the intense pressures
City Council
October 22, 1985
Page 5
that wuu].d be brought to bear to grant the second phase
approval under those circumstances.
The other possible true answer to Council's inquiry is that
the current owners so strongly desire their own luxury hotel
at the base of the mountain for friends and guests as a
status symbol that they are willing to subsidize its losses
out of the profits from the increase in lift ticket rates.
While that may be the inclination of the present owners of
the Skiing Company, that ownership seems to be changing
every year or so for the last several years; and we submit
that it is unlikely that future owners would be interested
in subsidizing a losing operation. It would be unwise to
approve an aamittedly unprofitable hotel since the probable
result would be either the granting of a significant expan-
sion to make it economical or the eventual closure of the
hotel.
SPA USE VARIANCE
The applicants propose to expand the SPA designation south-
ward into the underlying conservation zone. The conserva-
tion zone is one of the lowest density zones and the purpose
is to provide areas of low density development to enhance
public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the
production of crops and animals and contain and structure
urban development.
An SPA overlay by Section 24-7.4 (b) allows variances in use
from the, underlying zone with the language that "The under-
lying zone designation shall be used... as a guide, but not
an absolute liMltation, to the uses and development permit-
ted on the parcel."
Therefore:, some slight variances from those uses specified
in the underlying C zone can be allowed; but the allowed
uses, while not a specific limitation, are to be a guide for
the types of uses that are to be allowed by variance in an
SPA overlay. The applicants propose to construct in this
underlying conservation zone a four-story hotel. If the
allowed low density uses in the underlying C zone are to be
a "guide" in determining what kind of use variance can be
granted, that cannot be authority for a four-story hotel.
If that kind of extreme high density use is allowed by use
variance in the conservation zone, what is the purpose in
having an underlying zone at all? You might as well say
that anything can he put in an SPA zone without guide or
standard.
City Council
October 22, 1985
Page 6
SKIER DROPOFF
Condition C of the approval by the Board of County Commis-
sioners of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan under the
AF-Ski Zone District by Resolution 85-84 required that the
Aspen Skiing Corporation shall continue the taxi -limo
dropoff facility at Little Nell. This condition referred to
the existing dropoff facility in the off-street parking area
in front of the Little Nell base. This drop-off facility
has the capacity to have 10 to 15 cars temporarily stopped
at one time for loading or unloading purposes. The appli-
cants completely ignore this condition of the ski area
zoning approval and propose to have only curbside on -street
dropoff on Durant in front of the hotel which also elimi-
nates the existing on street parking spaces along Durant.
Obviously, the plan is in violation of the' conditions
imposed by the County on their zoning approval. Curbside
dropoffs will not provide anything close to the existing
off-street drop off space and will result in significant
additional congestion. That congestion is aside from the
fact that the hotel and additional commercial spaces will be
generating significant additional traffic in the area. The
result is obviously going to be double parking and virtual
blockage of Durant traffic at the peak dropoff times.
FURTHER GMP COMMENTS
At the October 15, hearing, the applicants asserted that,
since the Aspen Mountain Lodge received a multi -year quota,
that was a precedent applicable to the Little Nell Hotel.
However, the Aspen Mountain Lodge approval was based on
accumulated but unused past quotas and the quotas available
during the years of its proposed construction. Therefore,
the Aspen Mountain Lodge is not to be built prior to the
availability of quotas and, therefore, is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the GMP to regulate the rate of
growth. Another purpose of the GMP is to compare competing
applications for a given year's allotments and to award the
quotas to the best application. If quotas are now consumed
six years into the future, potential competing applicants
are foreclosed from having a'chance to compete. The Little
Nell Hotel application seeks approval to construct in 1987
and 1988 using quotas not available until 1989, 1990 and
1991, years into the future. Such an approval is unprece-
dented and would undermine and subvert the purposes and
intent of GMP.
City Council
October 22, 1985
Page 7
At that October 15 hearing, the applicants also stated that
no new lodges had been built in the downtown zones since
1977. However, this ignores the fact that the City is now
in the process of completely catching up with all past
unused lodge GMP allotments in those zones with the Aspen
Mountain Lodge and other approvals already granted and
beginning construction soon. The community should wait
until the impacts of that increase in new units are apparent
before cavalierly granting further approvals.
Very truly yours,
1.
0 py Original Signed by
Joseph E. Edv.,3rds, Jr.
Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
JEE ch
•
•
October 11, 1985
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(�� M aw [E
ccr i i loft I D
Il
Re: Conceptual SPA Submission, Little Nell Hotel
Dear Paul,
Section 24-11.3!b) of the City Code states that on a project
being built over several years construction must take place
during the years from which that project has received a G14P
allotment. In other words, a project cannot be built today
with GMP allotments from future yudrs. I am enclosing for
your reference a copy of that bection, and I think the
critical language: is "provided that each year during thu:
scheduled construction the annual allotment shall be
reduced."
This meaning coii,cides with the purpose and intent of growth
management, which is to hold back development dnd require
that it be phaae-d in over time in order for the government
to be able to gradually expand services that future
development will require in all orderly and fiscally
responsible mariner. There are other more indirect purposes,
such as allowing the community an opportunity to experience
the impacts and demands from a certain amount of growth and
be able to adjust future growth either up or down iii
accordaiice: with its desires acid abilities to respond to the
demands of such growth.
The entire purpose and intent of growth management would bc:
completely evaded and undermined if allotments were given
today and construction allowed to proceed today against
quotas not available until years in the future.
:he meaning of the referenced section is important because
the Aspen Skiing Company has requested conceptual SPA
approval for a hotel at the base of Little Nell. The
W
•
•
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
October 11, 1985
Page. 2
Planning Office has pointed out to the City Council in its
September 17 memorandum on page 10 and the top of page 11
thereof that the Little Nell Base Redevelopment Project will
be requesting the remainder of the quotas for the years
1939, 1990 and 1991. However they propose to construct this
hotel in 1987 and 1988. Section 24-11.3(b) prohibits
construction in those years against allotments in future,
since it indicates that the construction must be taking
place during the year the allotment is reduced by the
construction quotas. This iiia4ns that the, hotel should not
be entitled to a certificate of occupancy until after or at
the conclusion of 1991. This interpretation of the law is
completely consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Growth Management Plaa.
I am surer this issue will arise in the course of discussing
the conceptual application and would request that you review
this and be prepared to advisa City Council on your opinion
regarding the meaning of this section of the Code.
Very truly yours,
COPY 0'i it 1 Ly
Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
JEE ch
Enclosure
cc Alari Richman
•
1040 Avonoak Terrace
Glendale, CA 91206
and
Aspen Square, Unit 126
October 3, 1985
Aspen City Council & Members
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Aspen Skiing Co. proposed development of Little Nell
(A) A clean-up and rebuilding of the EXISTING Ski Corporation facilities
for ticket sales, ski school, snow cat storage and maintenance, EXISTING
retail sales, restaurant, and bar and ski repair shop with ski storage.
Aspen has been my favorite ski area for 20 years and I have been a property
owner for 15 years. I would welcome and endorse an enhancement and improv-
ment of the EXISTING buildings and structures. The city of Aspen, its' re-
sidents and visitors desperatly need this area to remain unencumbered by
further building or obstruction of the only view of the ski mountain. The
present driveway is the only area to drop off/pick up skiiers without result-
ing in a traffic jam or further congestion on Durant and Hunter Streets.
The existing buildings/businesses need the present parking space (infact
they already need additional parking space). The area needs to be made
attractive and more accomadating since it is the only gateway and access
to the lifts at Little Nell.
(B) A four-story ninety-six room hotel to be built immediately adjacent
to the side walk.
I adamantly oppose the hotel. It will eliminate the present entrance to
the lifts, add additional NOISE, TRAFFIC, CONGESTION, POLLUTION, DRAINAGE
problems. The existing plans lack adequate parking space, would obstruct
the view and open space and access.
Very truly yours ,
Jani Wohlgemuth
•
n
u
Aspen City Council & Members
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: NOISE and extensive TRAFFIC and BUS ROUTE
1040 Avonoak Terrace
Glendale, CA 91206
and
Aspen Square, #126
October 3, 1985
After having spent a week in August in Aspen I had to look at the moun-
tain every now and then to remind me that I was in Aspen, not in New
York or on the nearest freeway. The environment from a noise position
is indeed a very serious one for Aspen. I as well as other visitors
and residents, came to Aspen for the peace and quiet, otherwise we
would go elsewhere.
I strongly recommend that the Aspen City Council take action in the follow-
ing areas:
Mandatory mufflers etc. on all residential& business owned vehicles.
Might patrol after 11 Pit for noisey pedestrians
Speed control especially on Durant
Bus route to stay on Main/Original Streets then right on Durant. When the
bus stops at the corner of Spring & Durant the noise of the engine is extreme-
ly loud. The same for delivery trucks. They tend to travel on Aspen &
Monarch Streets to Durant. Less housing is on Original Street.
If only we could eleminate the motor cycle roar!
Very truly yours
Jani Wohlgemuth
PS Some additional trees planted along the curb along Durant at the corner
of Spring Street would enhance the beauty and conformity of the rest of the
block.
•
•
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
434 EAST COOPER
ASPEN, COLORADO 151611
(303) 925.2043
August 21, 1985
Ms. Jasmine Tygre
Acting Chairman
City of Aspen Planning &
Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Little Nell SPA Boundary Change
and Conceptual SPA Application
b�_the_AsPen_Skiina_ComEany____
Dear Jasmine:
Last evening I handed you a letter for insertion into
the record. The letter had been delivered to me during the
course of the meeting by my secretary. Upon reading it I found
that what was delivered was not the final, but instead a rough
draft, of the letter which I wanted inserted in the record.
Would you please substitute the enclosed letter for the one
which I handed you last evening.
Thank you very much.
Very truly yours,
Spencer F. Schiffer
SFS:dr
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Director
•
LJ
HAND DELIVERED
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
434 EAST COO►ER
AS►EN. COLORADO 81611
1303) 925.2043
August 21, 1985
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Little Nell SPA Boundary Change
and Conceptual SPA Application
by_the_Aspen_Skiing_Company
Dear Commission Members:
I represent The Kettle Corporation, owner of the
Copper Kettle and Tippler.
My client supports the Application by the Aspen
Skiing Company to extend the SPA Zone as well as the
Conceptual SPA Plan which has been submitted with the
following reservations, and on the condition that the concerns
be resolved to the satisfaction of the Kettle Corporation
prior to submission of the Precise SPA Plan:
1. Some of the plats which have been available
for inspection in the Planning Office indicate
that the Aspen Skiing Company is claiming that
part of the property within its boundary is,
in fact, property which belongs to the Kettle
Corporation. The apparent dispute thereby
created will be addressed by separate letter
to you containing legal descriptions and
verification of the ownership by the Kettle
Corporation.
2. We have reason to bel ieve that the hydrology
of the soils in the area is such that
extensive excavation and foundation work as
now proposed could have an adverse effect on
the property owned by The Kettle Corporation.
3. The area intended to be excavated and used for
underground storage of cats and other
equipment creates concerns regarding safety of
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 1985
Page Two
pedestrians and skiers, access by pedestrians
and skiers to and from the Tippler, adverse
effects frompotential use of that area by the
equipment, the height of any walls in connec-
tion with the storage area, aesthetic problems
created thereby, deliveries to and from that
storage area from Dean Street or other
locations, and surface drainage.
4. The proposed treatment and use of Dean Street
is unclear and since that is the only access
for deliveries to the Tippler and Copper
Kettle, it is of concern to The Kettle
Corporation.
5. The height of the roof of the proposed
building which is now intended to house the
Ski Company offices is of concern from an
aesthetic point of view, with respect to skier
and pedestrian access to and from the Tippler,
and potential drainage problems which might
resul t from snow mel t from the roof onto the
property of The Kettle Corporation.
We have discussed the foregoing with representatives
of the Aspen Skiing Company, and have been assured that they
will be addressed to our satisfaction; however, we want the
record to reflect those concerns and to be sure that they are
properly addressed before final approval is given by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
We understand that the Planning Office has raised
concerns regarding the Growth Management Quota System which
could conceivably preclude your full consideration of the SPA
Plan. We think thatis most unfortunate. In our view the
Lodge GMP is an anachronism. Rather than control growth, the
entire GMP system has created an undesirable disparity among
residential, commercial, and lodge facilities. While we still
do not have one first class full service hotel, we clearly
have an overabundance of commercial space and residential
units. The Lodge GMP imposes artificial constraints on our
ability to enhance the desirability of this City to tourists.
The free market and the economic feasibility of hotels should
rather determine how many hotel rooms are built.
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
August 21, 1985
Page Three
Commission
When the Aspen Skiing Company improves the quality
of skiing on Aspen Mountain with a major capital investment
and increases the capacity of the mountain by 1,300 skiers, it
seems incongruous that it could be precluded from improving
the base facility with, among other things, a small full
service hotel.
SFS:1s
cc: Alan Richman, Planning
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
The Kettle Corporation
Aspen Skiing Company
;feerua
FP.C.
Director
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
434 EAST COOPER
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
13031 925-2043
September 12, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Director
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Resolution of the Aspen P&Z Recommending
Conceptual Approval of the Little Nell
Base Redevelopment SPA, Resolution No. 85-18
Dear Alan:
As you know, I am representing the Kettle Corporation
in connection with the referenced matter.
On September 3, 1985, the P&Z adopted Resolution No.
85-18 as modified at the meeting that evening. It is my
understanding that conditon number 23 now reads:
"23. The app l i cant sha 1 1 take i nto account i n
the precise plan the historic access pattern of
skiers using the land between the Copper Kettle
and the Tipple Lodge as a means of getting to
the Little Nell base."
While we agree that means of access to the Little Nell
base should be taken into account in the precise plan, we are
concerned that the language of condition 23 could be misinter-
preted regarding the public's right to use any portion of the
property of the Kettle Corporation and specifically the parking
lot between the Copper Kettle building and the Tipple Lodge.
Use of that parking lot for any purpose, or any portion of the
property of the Kettle Corporation is strictly limited to the
owners of the Kettle Corporation, its officers, employees,
patrons and guests. Any use thereof by any other persons or
entities or by the general public is strictly prohibited. There
is not now, nor has there ever been, any "historic access pat-
tern of skiers" with respect to that property, and we therefore
interpret the language of condition number 23 to apply to the
land between the property line of the Kettle Corporation and the
Tipple Inn Lodge.
Mr. Alan Richman
City of Aspen Planning Department
September 12, 1985
Page Two
I would be happy to further discuss this with you
and/or the City Attorney at your convenience.
u
S
SFS:Is V
cc: Sirous Saghatoleslami
Barry Edwards, Esq., City Attorney
r, P.C.
I
• W
w
I I I LrI � I
C.0
IIIII I 1,4I I I ii I II I
I
•CN CCNF-I m Jim m %0I
M Ln
� 11111 IilllIN
l IIII it I I� I
z
I
C� C� �I�I� �I ��i c� I �I
H � IIII I �
� IIII I I II I II I I I
0
NICJr-IINIr-I!
a
IIIII I I III ► I II I II I ILo
I
XM
IIIII
CD 14 IIII I I II I II I I
A
a N CN Ni cal od r�l r,l rsl �I col �i
Us �I CL V�I
II II
N �, H IIIII ► I I I I I I I
en► cam► en► d d I �o► �a�i �I I0 Ln
a III I Lm I I IIIII I I II I II I I I
0%
� U
a 2
' H
v Ell
z W j
A o o��
a w o u u c
U Ei r
O U) to v U
H W N
W z Ol C D •0 �
U a eM
H o � � R
G4 rl •• H W
cn U U a j a., a Ca
U A w r1
(-) jai a �,
U rZ
EA E-1
o a U 2 u� H o a •�i w •° qa o a, •°
H cn cn A w cn o v v a)
�+ 41 30w0 U4Jv$4u2 W NUf~U '�,r H
a13 U1 +1 -14 O >4 ►.i .-I C (a .,-I H 4J ca '-1 � ' Ei 2
U 3cnw
En �WWaF. o
> �wraa
2 ~ H Z [z' W V
wzo
3�
N
w a
N 4
0 0 0
U
0
SPRING STREET
701
5 25
0 50
1�1
•
HUNTER PLAZA
5 25
,0 w
•
•
7os zs
,o so
0
•
•
DURANT AVENUE
s zs
o i■■I,o