Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1301 E Hwy 82.63A-88Crestahaus Lodge GMR5Amendment & Special Review 63A-88 2737-181-00-047 9.-L f 564Aad, 9 fll. ' R b.. 1 -41 1 .. 1 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 11/30/88 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 62/ 9 / 87 2737-181-00-047 63A-88 STAFF MEMBER: 0 CH PROJECT NAME: Crestahaus Lodge GM¢5Amendment & Special Review for External Floor Area Ratio Project Address: 1301 East Hiqhwav 82 Aspen, CO Legal Address: Part of Riverside Addition. Sec. 18 TloS R84W APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin Applicant Address: 203 South Galena Street. Aspen, CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Andv Hecht, Garfield & Hecht Representative Address/Phone: 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1,620.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: (2 STEP: \/< P&Z Meeting Date t<L 9 / PUBLIC HEARING: *ES -* NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: V City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District 6 /dity Engineer CParks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas V Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. DATE REFERRED: 1 -1/ 1 / a/l P 8/ INITIALS: 64 pi FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 4 Il 9/ 4 / INITIAL: ~/6-- City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: ' 4 1- (jau FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: U~ LF/1 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Crestahaus GMP Amendment and Special Review DATE: February 7, 1989 REQUEST: Approval to amend the Crestahaus 1985 Growth Management approval and increase the external FAR. APPLICANT/OWNER: Harley Baldwin represented by Andy Hecht. LOCATION: East of Aspen along Highway 82. ZONING: LP/Lodge Preservation. HISTORY: The Crestahaus has quite an involved history beginning with a single family house, evolving into a "dude ranch" type accommodation and then becoming a swiss chalet style accommodation when it was purchased by Guido Meyer in 1960. The lodge was again upgraded and remodeled recently after receiving City approvals in the 1985 LP Growth Management competition. At that time, the owner received approval for 14 additional lodge rooms and a total architectural revision to the design and site plan. As part of the 1985 approval, specific representations were made by the owner which resulted in conditions being placed on the approval. These conditions are outlined in Resolution 1 (Series of 1986) (see attached Exhibit 1). The existing Crestahaus Lodge is configured as follows: Existing square footage of lodge: 17,017 # of guest rooms: 35 # of employee rooms: 1 # of parking spaces: 33 Setbacks: front: 6' from Highway 82 side: 50' from the Riverside Subdivision (Lots 1-4) side: 50' (north) rear: 10' In the 1985 approval the Crestahaus was required to do landscaping, and prohibit buses in the parking areas. These .. concerns as well as noise concerns were all expressed by the adjacent neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The current applicant is requesting to add an additional 6 ,674 square feet to the Crestahaus facility. No additional lodge rooms are proposed, however, the configuration and size of the existing rooms are proposed to be modified (the additional lodge room space is proposed to be 2,036 square feet). The major portion of the additional square feet is to be used in common space (4,618 square feet) for the guests of the lodge in the form of spa type facilities. In addition, the application proposes to significantly re-orient the parking spaces on the site, redevelop the landscaping plan and add an additional pool. Maps indicating the existing site layout and the proposed modifications are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. A map overlaying the existing and proposed plans will be brought to the meeting. The most significant portion of the proposed modification to the structure is the south wing. It appears from the 1985 review that one of the nicest features of that development was its distance (excess of 100') from the houses in the Riverside Subdivision (Lots 1-4). The new proposal extends the structure into that 100 foot setback by approximately 40' leaving approximately 60' between the building and the houses in the Riverside Subdivision lots. The building then becomes only 10' from the side yard property line (the minimum requirement being 5 feet). Additionally, an outdoor pool is added on this side of the development, which may present conflicts between the residential neighborhood and the lodge use. A new 5' 6" wall is proposed to shield the Riverside development from the lodge for the length of the Crestahaus southern boundary and for a portion of the western property line as well. Another major feature of the proposal is to redevelop the parking and circulation pattern on the site. Currently the parking is arranged to allow incoming guests to turn right into the site, circle around an auto court to check in, then drive to a parking space located either within the U shaped configuration of the buildings or in one of two parking areas along the south side of the project adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision. The proposal is to remove the existing 3 bedroom detached unit on the southern border of the property in order to expand the parking in that location. These spaces would be brought from the rear of the parcel in order to allow for the expansion of the southwestern wing of the building. A total of 15 spaces are now placed along the southern border of the parcel. The proposal would reduce this to 13 but relocate them closer to the highway and closer to the concerned residents Of the Riverside 2 .. Subdivision. The new site plan shows significant berming and landscaping around the proposed new pool areas, with little to no additional landscaping along the new (5' 6") wall along the southern border of the property. Another new wall is proposed along HWY 82. The application does not address the height of this wall and mentions a berm on the street side of the wall but does not mention the length or height of the berm. Landscaping appears to be added on the interior portion of the wall with a few trees placed near the entrance of the lodge on the outside of the new wall. The wall appears to run for the length of the parcel along the highway frontage. The following table indicates the new proposal, the existing conditions and the minimum code requirements: CODE REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED 1. LOT SIZE No Req. 56,192 s.f. 56,192 s.f. 2. SETBACKS- MINIMUM Front 10' 6' 6' Side 5' (south) 7' 10' (north) 10' 50' Rear 10' 10' 3. HEIGHT- MAXIMUM 25' 22' 22' 4. OPEN SPACE- MINIMUM 35% 53% The actual # was not submitted, however, the applicant agrees that meeting the 3 5% is a minimum. 5. EXTERNAL FAR- MAXIMUM 56,192 s.f. 17,017 s.f. 23,691 s.f. (a 1,056 s.f. existing building is to be removed) = 22,635 s.f. 6. PARKING SPACES 1/Bdrm. 33 33 3 .. STAFF COMMENTS: This application requires an amendment to the 1985 Growth Management approval and an increase in the FAR which is controlled by a special review in the LP zone district. GMP AMENDMENT Section 8-107(E) of the code requires that the Growth Management approval be rescored by the Planning Commission. If the new score is equal to or greater than the original score, the Planning Commission may recommend approval or approval with conditions to the City Council. The Planning Commission scored the 1985 approval giving it an overall score of 74 points. The Planning Office recommended at that time a score of 64 points. The proposed amendment only affects the following sections of the scoring therefore the Planning Office has attached a copy of the 1985 scoring with the Planning Commission scores and a copy of the recommended amendment scoring with modifications in the affected areas. Recommended GM Items 1985 PC Score Amended Score Site Design: 4.5 4.5 Architectural Design: 7.0 6.0 Parking & Traffic Circulation: 5.0 4.5 Visual Impacts: 6.5 6.0 Availability of or improvements to onsite common meeting areas: 6.5 6.0 Availability of or improvements to onsite dining facilities: 4.0 4.5 Availability of or improvements to recreational facilities: 5.6 6.0 The overall recommended score is 72.6 which is 1.6 points less than the 1985 score. Therefore based on the Planning Office score the amendment request should be denied. SPECIAL REVIEW The external FAR of a lodge in the LP zone district is set by Special Review not to exceed a 1:1 ratio, pursuant to Section 7 Div. 4 of the Code. Specific criteria for the special review are found in Sections 7-404 and 7-407 of the Code. These are as 4 .. follows: 1. CRITERIA: The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks Of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. 2. CRITERIA: The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. 3. CRITERIA: The Planning Director may recommend, and the Commission may impose, such conditions that are necessary to ensure a proposed development subject to Special Review complies with the purposes of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, this division, and this chapter, including conditions to ensure the integrity of the City's Zone Districts are maintained, and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. This includes but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, lighting, signage, off-street parking, and other design features. RESPONSE: In 1983 when the Crestahaus was rezoned to L-3 the Planning Office and Planning Commission expressed concerns that the ultimate buildout potential on a 56,000+ square foot parcel was too large for the intent of the L-3 zone district. It was felt, however, that the community wished to allow these projects to be included in the L-3 zoning since it has historically been a part of the small lodge inventory. The proposal is approximately .40:1 for the external FAR which is far less than the potential 1:1 FAR. Due to the large lot size the Planning Commission may wish to consider a smaller FAR limitation (perhaps .5:1) for the Crestahaus due to the enormous buildout potential and the resulting conflicts with the intent of the LP zone district as well as the conflicts with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The request meets all the guidelines in the Code with regard to the dimensional requirements in the LP zone district. The staff is mostly concerned, however, with the impacts on the adjacent neighborhood regarding visual concerns, noise, exhaust, lighting and landscaping. In the 1985 Growth Management review, it was evident that the staff supported the upgrading of the then existing lodge because it could fit in with the neighborhood without significantly 5 .. disturbing the surrounding residential development. The addition at that time was approximately 8,500 square feet (doubling the square footage at that time). The staff is presently concerned because the largest changes which are now proposed affect the area of the site closest to the Riverside neighborhood. The setbacks on this southern side have been significantly reduced and a5'6" wall has been added to separate the uses with very minimal landscaping offered to break up this hard surface approach to screening. A potentially loud outdoor pool area has been placed in the area adjacent to the neighborhood and a second level of the building is another 40 feet closer to the existing Riverside houses. In addition, the parking has been pulled back closer to the highway making it more visible and bringing it closer to the first 3 lots in the Riverside Subdivision (who initially were very concerned about that use). The proposal intensifies the parking problem by putting 13 spaces together along the southern border, rather than breaking them up into two separate lots, one of which was behind an existing structure blocked from the highway view. The new parking and circulation proposal also brings an additional 6 spaces along the highway frontage and re- orients the 10 spaces in front of the building in a single row design (part of which will be shielded by the proposed center island of trees). The 1985 approval allowed 33 parking spaces to be established. The 1985 application states that this is 1 space per free market bedroom. The applicant now represents that there are 35 free market bedrooms and one employee room. This discrepancy should be resolved and the correct amount of parking provided on the site. An additional concern of the Planning Office is that the application totally ignores that there will be an increase in employees generated. The Planning Office feels that an addition of 2,036 square feet to the size of the bedrooms and 4,618 square feet added to the common (spa) area of the lodge will generate employees. It is the opinion of the Planning Office that these new employees should be housed on site or that units elsewhere in the Aspen metro area be deed restricted to the Affordable Housing Guidelines. The Housing Authority suggests that an audit of employees be done in order to determine if in fact employees are generated by the addition. If SO, the applicant would be responsible for providing housing for those employees pursuant to the Land Use Code Regulations. The last concern is that the lodge is being upgraded to such an extent that it will no longer be affordable or be considered a moderate priced facility. These concerns were expressed by members of the public and the staff in the 1985 review. The staff, however, feels at a loss because imposing price restrictions is not addressed by the Land Use Code and no specific commitments were made by the applicant in the 1985 review to keep the lodge as a moderately priced facility. 6 .. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. Engineering: In a memorandum dated January 16, 1989 Elyse Elliott of the City Engineering Department made the following comments: Easement - The City is planning to construct a bike lane along Highway 82, adjacent to the Crestahaus Lodge, we would like a 20' construction easement from the Crestahaus Lodge for this purpose. Retaining Wall - Was this built by the Crestahaus? If they claim this wall, they should obtain an Encroachment License because it is on Highway 82 right-of-way. Neighborhood complaints - In 1988, neighbors Of the Crestahaus complained that some of the utility lines used by the Crestahaus were left above ground. All utility lines must be undergrounded and repaired to the satisfaction of the neighbors. Landscaping - The dead trees should be replaced. Plat - A plat should be submitted that meets the requirements of the Engineering Department. Utilities - This project can be serviced by the utilities in place. Circulation - The plan for circulation and parking meets with our approval. Construction Schedule - This should be coordinated with the Engineering Department especially involving any work in the right-of-way that might conflict with the construction of the bike lane. 2. Housing: In a memorandum dated February 2, 1989 the Housing Authority recommends that the applicant produce an audit of employees to determine if there is an increase generated by the proposed square footage. 3. Neighbors: a. A letter dated January 29, 1989 from Tom and Carol Kurt is attached (Exhibit 4) stating they feel the Crestahaus parcel is already overbuilt. b. A letter from Helen Klanderud dated January 28, 1989 expresses several concerns. She feels the application is unclear and that past conditions of approval have 7 .. not been adequately addressed (see Exhibit 5). SUMMARY In summary if the Planning Commission finds the Growth Management score to be equal to the 1985 score the proposal can be recommended for approval to the City Council. The Land Use Code states that the applicant must receive the same or greater score in order to have the amendments approved. If the proposal is approved the Planning Office feels specific conditions should be imposed. Generally, the additions are shielded from the Highway and do not significantly appear to add to the bulk of the project. The areas of concern are the support areas such as landscaping, employee housing, parking and setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission scores the amendment higher or the same as the 1985 score (74) the following conditions shall be conditions of approval. If the Planning Commission scores the amendment request lower than the 1985 approval the amendment request shall be recommended for denial. 1. Additional landscaping (in addition to the applicants responsibility to comply with the 1985 landscaping obligations) shall be added to the proposal in the area of the new parking along Highway 82 and along the inside and outside of the wall along the southern property line. This plan shall be submitted prior to the review by the City Council. The plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Office, Parks Department and Engineering. 2. All existing trees which have died shall be replaced. A bond for the new landscaping plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and an amount acceptable to the City Engineer shall be submitted by the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit for the new additions. 3. That the pool area/outdoor recreational area on the south border of the property be restricted to hours of operation. These hours shall be 8am to 9pm. 4. The applicant shall develop an audit system with the Housing Authority in order to determine if any new employees are generated by the addition. If so, these employees shall be housed pursuant to the Land Use Code requirements. If the alternative chosen is an on-site alternative this proposal shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. That an encroachment permit be received by the 8 .. applicant from the Highway Department for the wall along Highway 82. 6. That the appropriate number of parking spaces shall be placed on the site relative to the number of bedrooms on site. This shall be resolved by the applicant and the Planning Office prior to review by the City Council. 7. An easement for the bike path shall be granted to the City by the applicant. 8. The total buildout potential for the Crestahaus shall be limited to .5:1 by Special Review pursuant to the LP zone district regulations. 9. All conditions of Resolution 1 (Series of 1986) shall remain in effect and apply to this application. ch.chapp2 9 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office FROM: Janet Raczak, Housing RE: Crestahaus - Amendment to GMP DATE: February 2, 1989 We have reviewed the Crestahaus Amendment to GMP and Special Review. While the Crestahaus does not intend to increase its room count, it is increasing its common space and amenities by over 4000 s.f. Since this is a significant amount of usable space, it is the Housing staff's recommendation that the applicant produce an audit of employees to determine if there is an increase generated by the proposed square footage. If so, at that time, the applicant would be required to provide housing for this number of employees pursuant to the Land Use Code employee requirements. Since this is a staff recommendation, it will be taken to the Housing Authority Board meeting scheduled for February 22, 1989 for confirmation of this recommendation. If the Housing Authority does not agree with the staff recommendation, you will be so advised. .. February 2,1989 Cindy Houben Senior Planner Aspen Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Aspen Co. 81611 Dear Cindy: I have been able to resolve more concretelu some of the numbers which you requested yesterday. I am providing them for you here. I am also addressing the drainage issue which you raised and providing you with graphics showing the proposed improvements. I greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter and regret any unnecessary confusion that was caused. Please notify our office of any appropriate steps which you feel should be taken to reconcile these figures with the public notice procedure. Sincihe~-3 1 i, Wayne Plplsen R82 W P /1 c encl. 0 0 FEB. 1 THOMAS L.K.uRT, M.D., -M.P H. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 3645 STRATFORD AVENUE DALLAS, TEXAS 75205 (214) 528-3585 DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE 1-24-#4 AN D AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL TOX ICO LOGY 4CA ¥1--0»7 46 22„-4,1 hy».U-1- 4: p.,44 le,'.,¥ 4,0.,- A.gi~ 44(p.s furm-YJ#*4 V}+ Mt b.014* U; /315 Wi,Le U£. 4 ,4¥, 44 Au*W -&5/ 0*IA#Nkt,(0 W¥444 K; b*4le .. 3200- 4, 4·2 10*0•£* 62'p'40.0 "; *.,t /7~,4.- NAVi lut *04 -#f;,0 M.*4640,£- . ®t lu*e, U,v k*n«+ * 13-75- B.1.40, 4.26 40, ~p,v.p, 10 ~AW I &~Atk b~ #*10/ t« kl/v~¥2, OAA,b e#.1.,b W-· ••4 &v-A· 044, »t..t..4 -h,At, 4, *0#01/~ 40#2466 4 45£· *,-, 7;.4 .4 U,L I#4* 2.99.54 14 +4 4,4.. 1>#1.. 1>»o - A- 1,1.+ r..4 .u . thE #f~*1104r» *1•,l /-•*6:.~ *"•*&0 40,0 9.-bu, 00¢a '404{*lot D.-,9 .. HELEN KALIN KLANDERUD 1201 Uncoln Mall, Apt. 801 FEB 2U Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 (402) 475-8919 January 28, 1989 Ms. Cindy Houben City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Crestahaus GMP Amendment and Special Review Dear Cindy: My residence is on Lot 2 Riverside Subdivision adjacent to the Crestahaus. In 1985 I stated my concerns about the Crestahaus application for special review and approval of fourteen additional units in the L-3, now LP, Zone. The stated purpose of the LP Zone is to "preserve existing lodges in their existing locations and to permit the limited expansion o f these lodges wherever appropriate. " The special review criteria for establishing LP Zone FAR is the "compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses and zoning." In my estimation the 1985 Crestahaus proposal was more than a limited expansion and proposed serious incompatibilites with the adjacent R-15 zoning. The current proposal requests additional expansion of the lodge and creates additional impacts on the adjacent residential Riverside Subdivision. The 1985 application was extremely specific as to what renovations and changes would occur on the property. It was easy to assess what impacts would occur on adjacent properties. The current application is very general and incorrect on a number of points. 1. The application states the number of guest rooms will remain unchanged, but does not specify the number of rooms. The residential unit to be torn down constitutes one lodge unit, although it has three bedrooms. Does the applicant consider this one or three units? 2. The application states the existing structural coverage will be increased from 8420 square feet to 10716 square feet or a total of 2296 square feet. It further states the external FAR will be increased from .15 to .19. In 1985 the existing square footage at the time of application was 11950 square feet. An additional 5067 square feet was approved which brought the total developed square footage to 17017. The existing unit lot coverage prior to the 1985 approval was 8449 square feet. The approval resulted in a net lot coverage increase of 1867 square feet or a total of 10316 square feet. The FAR was increased to .30. The current application is not consistent with what actually exists. It appears as though the proposal ignores the 1985 GMP approval. It is not clear whether the the proposed square foot increase describes developed square footage or lot coverage. .. 3. In 1985 the impervious lot coverage, including existing units, parking lot and swimming pool totalled 24963 square feet. The impervious lot coverage after approval was 26260 square feet. The current application provides no information as to additional impervious lot coverage even though there is an additional swimming pool and rearrangement of parking spaces. 4. The 1985 approved lodge expansion placed the new building 175 feet from the adjacent residential lots, including Riverside Subdivision Lot 2, which is my property. The current application moves the building significantly closer to the adjacent residential property, "still over 60 feet at nearest point from adjacent residences on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. . ." according to the application. There is a significant difference between 175 and 60 feet and a significant impact. 5. The proposed swimming pool is on the southwest portion of the property adjacent to the residential neighborhood. This creates additional impacts on the residential neighborhood due to increased activity with resulting noise and probably increased lighting in that area. 6. The removal of the residential unit is a benefit because it is currently within the setback. However transferring parking spaces to that location will create additional impacts. In 1985 the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission were consistent in their concern about the impact of parking spaces adjacent to the residential neighborhood. The applicant was required to construct a fence and to implement a landscaping plan to mitigate the impacts. The current application does not correctly indicate the revised landscape plan on its site plan. Its suggested landscape plan is less than what is currently in place and what was approved but never implemented. Should the parking plan be approved as proposed, the spaces would need to meet the setback requirements and should provide substantial landscaping to buffer the parking areas from adjacent residential property. 7. The 1985 application proposed to maintain trees currently on the property. Trees were moved to meet the landscaping plan and some of them have died and need to be replaced. A review of the November 5, 1986 Planning Office memo, the November 5, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commision GMP scoring sheet and the November 26, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission special meeting minutes give a clear history of the concerns of the Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission and adjacent residential property owners as to development of the Crestahaus property. The current application for amendment does not address these concerns and substantially increases the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. .. The 1985 application was received favorably because it was perceived as meeting the goals of the LP Lodge District. In 1985 the Crestahaus was sorely in need of renovation. Approval was given but with significant requirements to mitigate impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The current application appears to go beyond the intent of the LP Lodge District and further impacts the adjacent residential neighborhood without demonstrating any specified implementation of community goals or policy. The 1985 application on page 5, section 5, paragraph 2 states, It is especially noteworty that while the applicant is expending significant sums which will result in great improvements to the lodge, the lodge rooms will be serving the same or similar clientele that it has typically served resulting in improved service to this segment of the market. Planning Commissioner Harvey at the Planning Commission meeting on November 6, 1985 stated on page 3, paragraph 2, [A]nother concern was reagarding L-3 renovations creating upscale lodging, at higher rates, thereby squeezing out part of the market. Ths applicant wants to maintain a moderate or middle rate lodging facility which is also an asset. The current application suggests the creation of "upscale" lodging rather than maintainenance of moderate or middle -rate lodging. I clearly object to this current application. Approval would constitute further significant impacts on adjacent residential property, and the application is inconsistent with the goals of the LP Zone District. The application is too general to clearly reveal what impacts would result to adjacent property, and it constitutes an incremental approach to development which results in an expansion not intended by the 1985 approval. Enclosed please find a copy of a portion of the 1985 approved landscape plan. I have circled the trees planted by the Crestahaus as required, and have indicated the dead tree. Very truly>yours, 1 , 1.- - / Helen Kalin Klanderud .. MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office 7 From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Departmeni Date: January 16, 1989 Re: Crestahaus Lodge - GMQS Amendment 1. Easement - The City is planning to construct a bike lane along Highway 82, adjacent to the Crestahaus Lodge, we would like a 20' construction easement from the Crestahaus Lodge for this purpose. 2. Retaining Wall - Was this built be the Crestahaus? If they claim this wall, they should obtain' an Encroachment License because it is on Highway 82 right-of-way. 3. Neighborhood complaints - In 1988, neighbors of the Crestahaus complained that some of the utility lines used by the Crestahaus were left above ground. All utility lines must be undergrounded and repaired to the satisfaction of the neighbors. 4. Landscaping - The dead trees should be replaced. 5. Plat - A plat should be submitted that meets the requirements of the Engineering Department. 6. Utilities - This project can be serviced by the utilities in place. 7. Circulation - The plan for circulation and parking meets with our approval. 8. Construction Schedule - This should be coordinated with the Engineering Department especially involving any work in the right-of-way that might conflict with the construction of the bike lane. .. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 December 12, 1988 Andy Hecht Garfield & Hecht 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Amendment & Special Review for External Floor Area Ratio Dear Andy, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS complete. We have scheduled your application for review at a public hearing before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. on Tuesday, February 7, 1989. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. This application requires public notice by the applicant. I am enclosing a copy of the "Public Hearing Notice Requirements" for your information. If you have any other questions, please call Cindy Houben, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, 6Gk->1*-q-1.~_ Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant Enclosure ds .. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Parks Department FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Crestahaus Lodge-GMQS Amendment & Special Review for External Floor Area Ratio, Parcel ID# 2737-181-00-047 DATE: December 9, 1988 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Harley Baldwin requesting approval of an GMQS Amendment to the Crestahaus Lodge and Special Review approval for External Floor Area Ratio. The Crestahaus Lodge is located at 1301 Highway 82. Please review this material and return your comments no later than January 25, 1989 so that I may have time to prepare a memo for the P&Z. Thank you. .. CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMP COMPETITION - LP ZONE DISTRICT Proj ect: Crestahaus GMP Date: 1985 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to the impact of the proposed development or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development can be handled by the existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. The following public facilities and services shall be rated accordingly. a. WATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the water system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: An 8" water line is located along Highway 82 adiacent to the property and can serve this development. There is adequate treatment plant capacity available for the increase in demand caused by the proiect. b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) : Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install and sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility .. upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: A 10" trunk sewer line is located along Highway 82 adjacent to the property and can serve this development. The existing treatment plant can accommodate the additional proiect demand. C. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) : Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires the use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: __ X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to install three dry wells that would retain most of the "hilltop" surface run-off. Engineering the drainage on the site primarily responds to the increase in impervious surface and additional building coverage. It does not appear to improve the historic run- off patterns. It will be important that the paved bicycle path profile does not change from that of the current highway shoulder so not to change drainage off the road. d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) : Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection facilities and services according to its established response standards, without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire-fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide those fire 2 .. protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: There are two fire hydrants within 150 feet of the property. Water pressure and capacity are adequate to serve the site. according to the Water Department evaluation. The main fire station is .75 miles from the proiect and response time is stated to be under 3 minutes. e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) : Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system, or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.16 COMMENTS: The Crestahaus is directly adjacent to Highway 82. There would be an increase in highway traffic from this proiect. The Mountain Valley bus line passes the property; and there is a nearby bus stop. The proposed bike trail along the Highway for which the applicant would contribute $4,000 should improve bicycle and pedestrian access into town. However, an off-qrade trail easement would appear to be far more useful than this minimal contribution. The applicant has not proposed any change improving the sight distance from the Highway of the entrance drive. With the increase in traffic entering and eqqressing from Crestahaus, 3 .. intersection hazards will get worse. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw. 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- An excellent design. The following design features shall be rated accordingly. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in terms Of its scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighborhood development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (3) = 7 COMMENTS: The proposed renovation and new construction program will increase the total developed floor area from 11,950 sq. ft. to approximately 17,017 sq. ft. on a 56. 197 sq. ft. parcel. The new pitched roofs would have a median height of 22 feet. There would be no change in height or bulk of the modular house on the east side of the property. The "small scale" massinq elements. arcade walkway. wooden lattice-work and replacement of outbuildinqs should make the project more attractive. This prolect would remain at a scale mainly compatible with the abuttinq Riverside Subdivision neighborhood, and for its prominence on the hilltop. However, some neighbor's views will be affected. 4 .. b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and character of the proposed development and its improvements to existing landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development, and for snow storage areas. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (3) = 4.5 COMMENTS: The "J" shape of the proposed building complex tends to keep the massinq to the north and west of the property, minimizing visual impact from the Highway. The "auto-court" parking areas, planting of trees and shrubs and use of berms improves upon the present landscape/parking scheme. A path and seating areas will be constructed around the back of the development. The unscreened and unlandscaped east parking areas are too close to the eastern property line and neighboring residences. This design aspect will cause negative impacts on the neighborhood such as visual detraction, headlights, noise, fumes and snow pile drainaqe problems. which is a significant flaw in the proposal. C. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal traffic circulation and parking system for the proposed development or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public view. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (3) = 5.0 5 .. COMMENTS: The site plan allows for 33 parking spaces arranged around the inner court yard and along the eastern property line (approximately 5 feet set back). The number of spaces corresponds to the 33 lodge units and does not provide specifically for employee parking (2 units and 6 employees). Residential parking requirements are set through P&Z review, pursuant to Section 24-4.5 The unscreened eastern parking areas are very close to the adiacent residences. Circulation appears to work well. No change is proposed that would improve the sight distance of the intersection with the Hiqhwav. The increase in inqress and egress traffic caused bv the proposal will make existing conditions more hazardous. d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3) : Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6.5 COMMENTS: An attempt has been made to minimize visual impacts by locating buildings in the back (north and west) of the parcel and keeping a relatively low roof line in 2 story construction. The visual impact from Highway 82 would not be significantly greater than at present. Views from Riverside Subdivision Lots 2 and 3 to the west and south would be somewhat blocked by the new structure even though this winq will be 175 feet away from the houses. If landscape and building lighting is keep very low keyed there 6 .. should not be a significant night visual impact from the proiect. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points). Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the degree to which it includes resource conservation techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources. 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in a standard level Of resource conservation. 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards Of the Municipal Code, or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation. a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development uses passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) 2 COMMENTS: The passive solar orientation, solar heated iacuzzi and use of insulation and double and triple pane glazing represent energy conservation improvements over the existing facility. However, this program does not exceed current standard practices. b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier 7 .. of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures and/or wastewater reuse systems in its design. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) COMMENTS: Not part of 1985 review C. AIR (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 2): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measure are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (2) COMMENTS: Not part of 1985 review 4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points) Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of points according to the following standard. 0 -- A total lack of guest amenities and services. 1 -- Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following amenities shall be considered in this review and rated accordingly. a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE COMMON MEETING AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. 8 .. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (3) 6.5 COMMENTS: The existing 576 sq. ft. common room will re remodeled, and a second smaller common room will be made available to guests of the lodge. b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE DINING FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (2) 4 COMMENTS: The existing kitchen will be remodeled. C. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (2) 5.6 COMMENTS: The Crestahaus will provide the following new facilities: a iacuzzi, sauna. exercise room. ski storage room, and landscape lighting for use of garden path and Pool. The improvements represent a significant package of recreation-related amenities for a lodge of this size and price-range. 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City and with the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be assigned as follows: Zero (0%) to sixty (60%) percent of the additional 9 .. employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; One (1) point for each six ( 6%) percent housed; Sixty-one (61%) percent to one hundred (100%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; one (1) point for each eight ( 8%) percent housed. If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. RATING: 13.8 COMMENTS: The Housing Authority has determined that based on computation of the lowest service level (.22 employees per new unit) the 14 new units would generate 3.08 employees. The applicant has committed to providing for 100% of the employees generated and has provided an employee housing program meeting the Housing Authority's approval. 6. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points): Development applications for projects located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only shall be assigned points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. Points shall be assigned as follows. Zero (0%) to fifty (50%) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten ( 10%) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. Fifty (50%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each five (5%) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 13.6 10 .. COMMENTS: 100% of the deed-restricted employee housing will be provided in the existing Crestahaus Lodge. Six (6) units Will be totally reconstructed, representing 3 1% of the existing lodge facility. The applicant has stated that approximately $50,000 will be spent on rehabilitation of the remaining existing units and the non-unit space (two common rooms. exercise room. and ski storage) of the existing lodge. The number of existing units as determined bv the Zoning Inspector is 19. The applicant should provide more information at your meeting to ascertain what portion of the existing facility will be rehabilitated beyond the 31% reconstruction, which is the basis Of our recommended scoring in this cateqorv. In order to qualify for these points, the applicant must submit a timetable for the improvements which provides that the rebuilt portions are suitable for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units are on-line. This timetable should be available prior to or at your meeting. 7. Bonus Points (maximum 5 points). When it is determined that a proposed development has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Sees. 8-106(G)(1) through (6) but has also exceeded the provision of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, additional bonus points not exceeding five ( 5%) percent of the total points awarded under these sections may be made. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: 11 .. THRESHOLD OF MAXIMUM SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: POINTS: 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.66 4.0 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 23.0 14.4 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION 2.0 3.2 4. AMENITIES FOR GUESTS 16.1 8.4 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 13.8 9.0 6. REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS 13.6 9.0 7. BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 74.16 63.0 Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office comments, Planning Commission Scoring. crestahaus.scoring lR .. CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMP COMPETITION - LP ZONE DISTRICT Project: Crestahaus 1989 GMP Amendment Date: 2/7/89 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to the impact of the proposed development or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development can be handled by the existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. The following public facilities and services shall be rated accordingly. a. WATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the water system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: Scoring not affected by 1989 amendment. b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) : Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install and sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. .. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: Scoring not affected bv 1989 amendment. C. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) : Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires the use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5 COMMENTS: Scoring not affected by 1989 amendment. d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) : Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection facilities and services according to its established response standards, without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire-fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide those fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: Scoring not affected by 1989 amendment. e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system, or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed 2 .. development. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.16 COMMENTS: Scoring not affected by 1989 amendment. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw. 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- An excellent design. The following design features shall be rated accordingly. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighborhood development. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: The proposal increases the prol ect square footaqe from 17.017 square feet to 23,105, an increase of 6,088 square feet. The maior additions are placed to the rear of the structure out of the Highway 82 view line as seen from the front of the lodqe. The design is proposed to be of a consistent type with the existing architectural features. The Riverside Subdivision is impacted by the additional development area to the south and the reconfiguration of the parking along the southern border of the property. A large 3 .. wall is proposed, however. which will help screen these impacts. b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and character of the proposed development and its improvements to existing landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent Of underground utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development, and for snow storage areas. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 4.5 COMMENTS: The site design begins to push the impacts of the prolect towards the edges of the parcel. The 60' setback on the south side is reduced to 10' and the parking areas are pushed into larger lots. more visible from the highway and closer to the adiacent Riverside residents. The landscaping plan alonq these borders is minimal and the existing landscaping has been neglected ( and in some areas never fully developed) and is dying. C. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3) : Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal traffic circulation and parking system for the proposed development or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public view. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 4.5 COMMENTS: The parking and circulation plan appears to be functional for the lodge use. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and feels that it is adequate for 4 .. the development proposal. The visual screening of the perimeter parking along Highway 82 is minimal, however. and additional landscaping should be required. The screening solution for parking along the southern border is a 5'6" wall with minimal landscaping to breakup this hard feature. The development appears to be lacking several parking spaces for the existing room count. d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: The proposal is to increase the building size bv almost 1/3. The areas of the addition are well shielded from the Highway corridor. thereby not blocking any public view. However, the proposal will add additional massing from the perspective of the surrounding Riverside neighborhood. The two story south winq addition will be highly visible (10" from the property line) from the Riverside Lots 1-4. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points). Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the degree to which it includes resource conservation techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources. 5 .. 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in a standard level of resource conservation. 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation. a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development uses passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) 2 COMMENTS: Scoring not affected by 1989 amendment. b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures and/or wastewater reuse systems in its design. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (1) COMMENTS: Not part of 1985 scoring. C. AIR (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 2): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measure are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. RATING: X MULTIPLIER (2) 6 .. COMMENTS: Not part of 1985 scoring. 4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points) Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of points according to the following standard. 0 -- A total lack of guest amenities and services. 1 -- Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following amenities shall be considered in this review and rated accordingly. a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE COMMON MEETING AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) 6 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to add additional square feet for lounge space. This creates a large lobby/lounge space which is more than adequate in terms of spaciousness for the lodqe guests. The views will be towards town and Aspen Mountain. b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE DINING FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars 7 .. and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2.25 X MULTIPLIER (2) 4.5 COMMENTS: The kitchen was remodeled in 1985 allowing for a continental breakfast to be served as well as wine and cheese arrangements. In addition, the kitchen can accommodate special banquets and parties. This is more than adequate for the size lodge beinq served. C. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size Of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 X MULTIPLIER (2) 6 COMMENTS: The proposal includes existing iacuzzi. sauna, exercise room, ski storage room and a pool. The proposal is to add an additional pool, convert the existing pool into a lap pool. and add therapy massage rooms. These services are exceptional for a small lodge facility. 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City and with the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be assigned as follows: Zero (0%) to sixty (60%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; One (1) point for each six ( 6%) percent housed; 8 .. Sixty-one (61%) percent to one hundred (100%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; one (1) point for each eight (8%) percent housed. If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. RATING: 13.8 COMMENTS: Technically the applicant has met the Employee Housing requirements through the 1985 submission. The Planning Office feels, however. that additional employees may be generated by the proposed additions due to an upgrade in the quality of service and should be monitored in order to determine if impacts need to be mitigated by providing additional employee housing. 6. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points): Development applications for projects located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only shall be assigned points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. Points shall be assigned as follows. Zero (0%) to fifty (50%) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten ( 10%) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. Fifty (50%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each five (5%) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 13.6 COMMENTS: The existing house will be removed and given credit as one lodge room. 9 .. 7. Bonus Points (maximum 5 points). When it is determined that a proposed development has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Sees. 8-106(G)(1) through (6) but has also exceeded the provision of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, additional bonus points not exceeding five ( 5%) percent of the total points awarded under these sections may be made. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: COMMENTS: 10 .. THRESHOLD OF MAXIMUM SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: POINTS: 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.66 4.0 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 21.0 14.4 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION 2.0 3.2 4. AMENITIES FOR GUESTS 16.5 8.4 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 13.8 9.0 6. REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS 13.6 9.0 7. BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 72.56 63.0 Name of P&Z Commission Member: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 11 9/// - - 4, //. 0-i#f,-79.. 9 1.2-1- -7r 4 ~,6.4 , . \2/ '11 # P 0.4.4 4%': 2,4Ot. ... // /4,900:2 . - 2 ./.... 10 . 0 ¢ 1 ./ --- --M-- 4 Chi -- r 2 e 9. , 2 96 849 2 ¢ 1 /4602 r. ff ; 1 + .) 1 · r 1.4 - . 1 j 0 Ail. 0 2 1 1 - 4 .. & 0 f . ly. . , 46 - •· J)1 0 I 2 € ~<46Lbm=Pir, I B Exhibit - 01-7 fk=> 6•ee·p pe vel·-¢f:'el>11' A•gLE»·9 ¤ FWY. ADDN'L AREAS --x--I-~--7 ~ -- -,...14~- -- 30.-ralit> ~ I¢Ut UNEN C.Le>•ZE-O i ....Il -I / -,21 -h..22-~=~~-,e ...7.>902 0144\,1 ;24 9/* 9 -q-7,u, Cru Ay 41.-=f-* [i 1 / - \ = 7••• **« ·«i» r-*mr--111--21 ,¢1·K. t*4~ 23¢332_Z~-1-16 u=- f- 2. / L --9 - rerS' .-O - .l ... ' r j' ~. . g- - 7.80 \ .-, ·:/~ r - r' --f f i . I / .f . +1.. .. J 1 >f 64 \ M , 3 .F "fl - W -, 1 . , '- . C~*=11-942,14 - .1 \ 1 19'•L & AL> f . ™-U 1 4 ~331*= I 17 1 ~ »/27 L-0/ -' 1 \ Il.....:.711 .1 ~Al.4 \ \ / d ~- .... - .,A~ *·. ~f 140<,V *+ 0- 6- -0=,*:et 2:14:\ -- 1 11 I.1 i, 'f '1, 124*44.t,r li 1 : .,/. r. A.>''c€~i.. , :1 1 I .... :-2 2..0 jk " 4.-, ...:- t, m~~pv y.4<libiMA.~=. - - ...1 -4 i ~ 2. 11 , .2% 7..4 42>01 1 ' w - , -6. t . 1 . 6. ,\ i, 1.- b Kex - 4, ., 4 . : , - „ 0. * 9 4 . 4-- O 1 1 I 1 H 11 -r : 11 .%,10. .:4_46 . AL 1 23// int 421*Zx .2-=FA« ~' Al« . » 4 n A %24 J /1 i ' 44 ' 1 ~<649* i ¥04»«-c« i .I~t , % A 4. J -~26mt 12 4, /33 3 79'N- - -4<: 2 \ ..... --- - 14- r. ' 4) ' * 2#-* '' O - 7,A i . .. , 4-cIr 4 \ , 1 '.» '2 3.7.- 1 1 , 1. .,1 . </ : 1.2 1 1/fl CUSJ L - \ 11 .. 1 f / B: -- (741 , -- ' 0%3 e ./' -I 1 I , b, 1 - . Ny. .... »4 1. 1 luu.cli:/1125,1592~ ,/ N . 4 1 I - 0 --- -\- r=24 / . 0 1 --w - .137 j t .il :. . L - 7 . A , L#. 1 V . . .... I -- ..$ 4-v- 0--4 e ... t . I - 0*@11-1 - I- ~ e, .. . lilf: /-1-:l L r. 1 ' Exhibit 1/Irl- YZE- 2-I 'r'v W..6 ; 1 - /7 - f·'4 C# - t, f / . . r- -t 1 €•'. r ..j I .1 9. 1 \. 01 .. I ell. - \\ 1. . 1 1 - /},1 . 'm~ . 0.,AL. f.././ ., 54 PARKING . LUA. *I.-- · - . . i.,r ¥2 13.1 ~ Bus Parking Prohibited . .. 4 4 .. U .1 4.:- ..Si .107 1 1 - I, 1 5 1,4 ...€=a-=27- 1 .i:3433.5; IE. ff=1 PARKING - . D \ 1 -:·0.i·t ..5.4- . , , .... 1. ,- . ·'.. .,- .r .- - I , . I \ ... - ; gl-li lt_U 0 L" / 2, - 1 d ./ 9+UNC:.Hxt)-M 0/2// 457 1 tia -44/F t74 EE:--9* a=~ €26 1//9 2 F F 1 1.6-E/,3 CzzzL) l . . - 14 -LLau/ 6=1 fe","5'Z= -7R-eas -to LE PIAM-EA 6 y 0 res-I-A )1 Aus - d26 6-+J v~=„! - 43. 1 1,·-4, G'-~W ./ I E-1.- - 6.-L 00 3 1, ould d urrE»·Ny be- - i K) p jAd E- 19-1 16/63 1 ,- J -1~ReC 1. 1 3 - 1 1 , » ""--"Ii, 7AA Als?)AA) Tc u ·buo,111*21, al Lf/5,44405 •Lic . i'.c'UN/7./'.64,9, 74 92 'br,·4,;%40.hA 6 /1 6 die (1 . 7, 1 . . --/ 1 1-- ' 1 EX~G AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA~ Existing structural footprint. 8420. sf. Proposed addn'l footpi-int (less removed structure): 2684. sf. Proposed total footprint 11,104. sf. Existing lodge area (per 1985 app.). 17017. sf. Proposed addn'l area. 5710. sf. Total. existing areas plus proposed addnl areas, less structure to be removed: 39 far 21,671. sf. Area of proposed construction in rooms (replacement). 2036. sf. Area of proposed construction in cire/amenitu. 3674. sf. Area under unenclosed roofs. 964. sf. Additional impervious coverage. 3684. sf. Additional impervious coverage relative to existing drains. 2712. sf NOTES; A. It should be observed that: 1.There are no roof qulters direct to drains on this propertu therefore the proposed increase in in-~permeable area has little or no effect upon the existing drain flow. 2. Concentration of drain flow on open property such as this is generallu to be avoided unless storm sewers are provided by the citii. 3. Virtually all surface drainage of this property is historically impounded by the irrigation ditch traversing the lower property line. D. Areas with unenclosed roof structures include. 1. S YY- i m ming pool cover 484. sf- 2. Porte-cochere 240. sf. 3. Covered enti-q 240. sf. I f these structures were included within far the proposed addl area would equal. 5710. sf. 964. sf. 6674. sf. Total area would then be. 17017. sf. 6674. sf. 23,691. sf. Less structure to be removed 1,056. sf. 22,635. sf. Resulting far = .40 - .. 1 L - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR CRESTAHAUS GMP AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL REVIEW .. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. LETTER OF APPLICATION II. STREET ADDRESS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY III. DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP IV. VICINITY MAP V. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE VI. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY VII. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR CRESTAHAUS GMP AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL REVIEW A. AMENDMENT TO LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1. Property Description a. Water System b. Sewage C. Drainage d. Development Area e. Traffic f. Effects of Proposed Development on Adjacent Land Uses g. Construction Schedule 2. Site Utilization B. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design a. Architectural Design b. Site Design C. Energy Conservation .. d. Parking and Circulation e. Visual Impact 3. Amenities Provided for Guests 4. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals a. Provisions of Employee Housing b. Conversion of Existing Units C. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units C. CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM D. SPECIAL REVIEW OF EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO. VIII. SITE PLAN .. November 29, 1988 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Members 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Development Application for Crestahaus GMP Amendment and Special Review Dear Commission Members: Enclosed are df copies of the above-captioned Development Application. The Applicant's name and address is: Harley Baldwin 203 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2209 The Applicant's representative authorized to act on his behalf is: Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-1936 Please schedule the Development Application on the Planning & Zoning Commission's agenda on the earliest possible date. 11 A 11 C 9494- Hdrley Bal#win CHM:kg enc. 1 STREET ADDRESS Crestahaus Lodge 1301 Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado 81611 LEGAL DESCRIPTION "A" parcel of Land being part of the Riverside Addition to Aspen, Colorado. Said parcel is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point being a plastic cap on a No. 5 rebar stamped L. S. 2376 whence corner B of the Riverside Placer U.S,M.S. No. 3905 A.M. being a brass cap dated 1954 bears North 85'08' West 554.05 feet; thence North 15*41' West 92.08 feet; thence North 14'06'59" West 122.-02 feet; thence North 13'13'32" East 40.54 feet; thence North 78'22'05" East 33.31 feet; thence North 37'34'04" East 56.45 feet; thence North 68'24'15" East 27.55 feet; thence South 50'37' East 77.76 feet; thence .Sduth 34'21' East 150.08 feet; thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 760.0: feet (the chord of which bears South 24'03' East 93.00 feet); thence South 77®45'50" West 235.32 tc the p=int cf beginning, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO , - - - .. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies that HARLEY BALDWIN is the owner in fee simple of the following described real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado: A parcel of Land being part of the Riverside Addition to Aspen. Colorado. Said parcel is more fully described as follows. Beginning at a point being a plastic cap on a No. 5 rebar stamped L. S. 2376 whence corner 8 of the Riverside Placer U.S.M.S. No. 3905 A.M. being a brass cap dated 1954 bears North 85°08' West 554.05 feet; thence North 15®41' West 92.08 feet: thence North 14°06'59" West 122.02 feet; thence North 13°13'32" East 40.54 feet; thence North 78'22'05" East 33.31 feet: thence North 37°34'04" East 56.45 feet; thence North 68°24'15" East 27.55 feet; thence South 50°37' East 77.76 feet: thence South 34°21' East 150.08 feet: thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having a raaius of 760.00 feet (the chord of w h_-ic h bears South 24°03' East 93.00 feet); tnence South 77*45'50" West 235.32 to tne point of beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN. STATE CF COLORADO Subject to the following described matters: 1. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the United States Patents recorded October 21. 1955 in Book 180 at Page 455 and recorded in June 17. 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246 as follows: Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom. should tne same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted; and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States. 2. Terms. conditions, restrictions. reservations ana obligations as set forth in occupancy and Rental Deed Restrictions and Agreement recorded December 16, 1987 in Book 553 at Page 206. 3. Deed of Trust from : Crestahaus Lodge. Inc. A Colorado Corporation Leonard W. Koval and Barbara W. Koval To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : Central Bank of Aspen To secure : $1,000.000.00 Dated : December 15, 1987 Recorded : December 22. 1987 in Book 553 at Page 765 Reception No. : 296037 .. NOTE: Assignment of Rents and Leases given in connection with the above Deed of Trust by instrument recorded in Book 553 at Page 781. 4. Deeo of Trust from : Harlev Baldwin I -- '. ED the Public Trustee of the County OT Fltkin for the use of : Leonard h. Koval and Barbara W. Kova, to secure : $300,000.00 datea : November 15. 1988 recorded : November 17. 1988 in Book 578 at Page 905 recestion No. : 306099 All matters certified in this certificate are the matters found of record in the Clerk and Recorders Office of Pitkin County, Colorado. any matters not of record are not a part of this certificate and the company makes no representations as to matters not of Public recora. Certified this 29th day of November. 1988 PITKIp COUNgfj~TLE. ING. - bY -. \ ~~IjA~>~~~ autnori~ur c isiona zur'e 1.\ 1 1\ , 1 2~42-~~~ 0 '' , to 4 1,/ / 2 A#6 -\ 7 ¢1 15 /-4 . d. 4 Ff . 21-1.1 R 15 4 1 2 / 1 \lili 1 1 1 1 + 10 \41 i ID (P U D) ~ 2 4 0/7.H Z r-....- 4/A. . 7 '2 1 *5 '0 3 1 SITE IIA »h. 4 2 , T i . A 'C\W 4- 1 2 1 1 --j™Yl 44 - 4. k p I /4, . 1 1 1 11 1 0/ e 0 1 ./. 12 , 2 6059- O 4 . 4 1 1 7 4 TB e 2/ \.... 4 1 4, . S 15 9 0 14 0 0 1 Z4 5S 2 B 10 ' #dS©f- I0 R 15 0 IT e (P U D) 3 4/ r h 4 S / V 13 8 : Atp m 0 or ) 14 A 0 1.A - .44 14 Locator/Zoning ~ CRESTAHAUS !"Xlo do i 23 . .. , '9 -- L . 7.. 1 .. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE The proposed development complies with the substantive development review standards in that the score in each applicable category will be equal to or greater than that awarded to the approval development. All proposed changes to the original development order enhance the existing development and its impact on surrounding uses. The proposed development not only preserves the previous commitments of the approval development, but upgrades and expands the lodge use in conformance with City policies. LITY OF ASPEN ~ PRE-APPLICATION CONFE]1~E SUMMARY P we ..41**Rf, $ 0.4../5727 PROJECT: (' 6 (4 Jl'L- ~ ~t'li Ji., 4/) 111 ,4.1 )-b,ju/,1 \-c~E=~i APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: (f . 2 (1 L 1- ~ ~ i c,1 1 - 4 1 REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 40 0.,- ICI E K ' OWNER' S NAME: 4 Al.~fltj £,i { 61 47 10 SUMMARY , 1. Type of Application: , ip_i 1.11 Hle k4 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: r\ It , 1-It l\E}(D.e_.1 Ye C/)(14 1,(/26' czy ~c·ri/,2,0,1 4112-:crIjl).·xe /77('-Cj'.'-9._-c~~ 1.-7 4.. Of >42- Z J {.I li''~t~~ Al -~ A- ~-tlt Njun . J<c. .:,4/~.~.> W riti (<t (__f 1, 0 0, ./ 1 /1 £ f (' fn ,] r.tr- . , f: C CA *-171 uf,11 -k-Ar . j· 74<-~lft·,-» d-).>~L k e 7--i , *flu /i ut fr-/h-'' £ 31-. A .-,2 241'l ,_ D-) 44' <14 42 1 .J O--4-2,1-, . 0 4 0 3. Areas ' is bwhich Applicant -has been requested to respond, - types of reports requested: - Policy Area/ - Referral Agent Comments - 644 2 ~ . - tl--77/ 7 U/~r.0-) L' - ¥ wt-i- D ' C ./ ,- 14 L 7.-R - J L . 4. Review is: (P&Z only) (cc Only) (IP£Z_thento£()2, 5. Public Hearing: (fiERID (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT- PROPERTY OWNERS? CESE)(NO) Disclosure of Ownership:(YESE) (NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:~/ 190 4/20 fbn_= il-20- 27 hau/,3 8. Anticipated date of submifilgal _29+P - -0)e---- 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS ~Ju-., WCA-ou, 1- /007 (C)4~£»nUS)- frm.pre_app .. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR CRESTAHAUS GMP AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL REVIEW INTRODUCTION This Application is for i) an Amendment to the development order approving the Lodge Growth Management Allotment in the L-3 (LP) Zone district for the property commonly known as the Crestahaus and more particularly described in Section II herein and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property") under Section 8-107 of the Aspen Municipal Code ("Code") ; and ii) special review to approve increased external floor area ratio, and for the removal and future reconstruction of three units on the Property under Section 7-404 of the Code. The purpose of the Amendment Of the 1986 Growth Management Plan approval is to allow the upgrading of lodge units and the construction of additional accessory use facilities for guests of the lodge units and the substitution of new units for - existing units. (Some of the existing units to be replaced will be converted to accessory uses). The number of lodge units will remain the same. The parking and circulation will be redesigned as delineated on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The special review is for the increased external floor area to be constructed in conformity with the Site Plan delineated in Section VIII herein. In compliance with Section 7-404 A.1. and A.2. of the Code, the mass, height, density, and landscaping will not change. The new configuration of the buildings will be substantially the same and the reduction of open space will be minimal, all compatible with the character of the surrounding land uses. The changes proposed are consistent with the purpose of the LP Zone district, which is to preserve existing lodges in their existing locations and permit limited expansion of these lodges when such expansions are compatible with neighboring properties and provide an incentive for upgrading of the existing lodge. Further, the proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on surrounding uses, because no additional density will be created, traffic will be the same, parking will remain at the same level and no viewplanes will be obstructed. A. AMENDMENT TO LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. 1. Property Description. The Property is situated in the LP Zone and contains 56,192+ square feet (1.29 acres). .. a. Water System. The project can still be serviced by existing capacity. b. Sewage. There will be no additional requirements. C. Drainage. Runoff from new construction will be maintained on site in dry wells. Existing site drainage toward the irrigation ditch will not be disturbed. d. Development Area. Residential rooms and public areas will be improved by construction of additional amenity space and conversion of existing substandard rooms to amenity use. The number of guest rooms shall remain unchanged. The existing structural coverage will be increased from 8,420 square feet to 10,716 square feet, or a total of 2,296 square feet. The existing external FAR will be increased from .15 to .19. The existing parking of 33 spaces will remain the same. e. Traffic. The number of vehicles and traffic anticipated on the Property Will not be increased from the existing approved development. f. Effects of Proposed Development on Adiacent Land Uses. Since there is no increased density and the external floor area Will not significantly increased, the proposed development remains fully compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood. To the extent there is additional construction there will be relocation of parking to less visible_areas.- g. Construction Schedule. Construction is anticipated to commence as soon after - approval is obtained as is practically possible. There will be no - phasing. 2. Site Utilization. The information contained in this section supplements the Site Plan submitted with this Application in Section VIII herein. a. The additions and modifications to the development order shall comply with all energy conservation considerations of the original approval and will in fact increase the energy efficiency of the improvements. . .. b. Landscaping will not be reduced and will in fact be augmented very significantly as shown on the plan. C. Parking shall not be reduced. d. Streets, nearby paths and foot paths remain unchanged. e. The zoning district and surrounding uses remain unchanged. B. REVIEW CRITERIA. 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. The availability of water, sewer, storm drainage, fire protection and roads remains unchanged. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design. a. Architectural Design. Architectural treatment is compatible with and improves on the existing design. All additions will not exceed nor vary the existing roof line. The plan is intended to integrate all disparate buildings into a single theme without increasing the bulk. b. Site Design. The site design remains unchanged except that the existing landscaping will be augmented. (See Site Plan, Section VIII herein). C. Enerqv Conservation. All new work will be in conformity with current codes. d. Parking and Circulation. A berm and low stucco wall will shield the project visually from Highway 82. (See Site Plan, Section VIII herein). There will be no change in the relationship with the highway in -terms of entry, signing and mirrors that currently exists. - e. Visual Impact. Visual impact will be minimized. Buildings are only 40' closer to adjacent property and are still over 60 feet at nearest point from adjacent residences on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Riverside Subdivision. .. 3. Amenities Provided for Guests. In upgrading the amenities, a larger pool and jacuzzi tubs will replace the existing pool and jacuzzi tub. The common areas have been increased. 4. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals. a. Provisions of Employee Housing. Employee housing will remain the same. b. Conversion of Existing Units. See Site Plan, Section VIII herein. C. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units. See Site Plan, Section VIII herein. C. CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM. The applicant will continue to operate the improvements as a lodge. D. SPECIAL REVIEW OF EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO. The Code allows an external floor area ratio of up to 1:1 with special review in an LP Zone. The Applicant has the right to build additional external and internal floor area on the Property. This Application calls for construction of an additional 2 ,296 square feet. Accordingly, the proposed addition conforms to the permitted internal and external floor area ratios, as the external floor area ratio will be increased to . 19 and the internal floor area ratio will be increased to approximately .40. ,7 7 6 9-I 1 . 0 1 1 CRESTAHAUS LODGE APPLICATION FOR 1 GMP L-3 ALLOTMENT October 1, 1985 SUBMITTED TO: City of Aspen Planning Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303/925-2020 APPLICANT: Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. \44 1301 Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado 81 611 ~ ATTORNEYS: Gideon Kaufman and David G. Eisenstein Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 305 P.O. Box 10001 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303/925-8166 ARCHITECT: Gibson & Reno Architects 418 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303/925-5968 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 . . 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. A. LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1. Project description 1 aa. Water system. 2 bb. Sewage. 2 CC. Drainage 2 dd. Development area. 2 ee. Traffic. 2 ff. Effects on adjacent land uses. 3 gg. Construction schedule. 3 2. Site Utilization Maps. 4 B. REVIEW CRITERIA Availability of public facilities and services. 1. aa. Water. 5 bb. Sewer. 5 CC. Storm drainage. 5 dd. Fire protection. 5 ee. Roads. 6 2. Quality of or improvements to design. aa. Architectural design. (1) History of the Lodge 6 (2) Architectural Possibilities 7 bb. Site design. 7 I ec. Energy conservation. 8 dd. Parking and circulation. 9 ee. Visual impact. 9 1 1 . 0 1 1 3. Amenities Provided for Guests. 10 1 4. Conformance to local public policy goals. aa. Provision of employee housing. 11 bb. Conversion of existing units. 11 CC. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. 11 5. Bonus points. 12 C. CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM 12 D. PHOTOS History I, Victorian House 1. 14 2. History II, Early Lodge 15 3. History III, "Dude Ranch" 16 · 3 4. History IV, "Old World" 17 , 5. History V, "Swiss Chalet" 18 6. Outbuildings 19 7. Bike Path 20 8. Leaving Town 21 9. Surrounding Buildings 22 E. DRAWINGS= 1. Zoning/Locator Map 23 2. Existing Conditions 24 3. Perspective 25 4. Site Plan 26 5. 1st Level Plan 27 6. 2nd Level Plan 28 7. Elevations; SE, NE 29 8. Elevations; West, South 30 10. Utilities Plan 32 9. Landscaping Plan 31 11. Drainage Plan 33 12. Visual Vulnerability 34 1 1 . . A. LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. 1. Project description. This Application for GMP allotment under § 24-11.6 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "City Code") seeks an allotment for fourteen (14) lodge units to be built in conjunction with the improvement and rehabilitation of twenty-one (21) existing lodge units located at the Crestahaus Lodge, 1301 Highway 82, Aspen, Colorado. This property is legally described as follows: See Legal Description, page 24. This project is located within the L-3 zone on real property containing 56,192 1 square feet (1.29 Ac.). There presently exists on the property a lodge containing twenty-one (21) units of which nineteen (19) are lodge rooms and two (2) are employee units. The lodge also currently contains a common room area and an outside heated swimming pool. The total developed square footage at this time is 11,950. The fourteen (14) lodge units for which the Applicant is seeking a GMP allotment under this Application will constitute an expansion of the existing lodge and will represent an additional 5,067+ square feet of development. Pursuant to § 24-3.4 of the City Code which allows an external floor area ratio of up to 1-1 with special review approval in the L-3 zone, the Applicant, under this GMP Application, has the right to build additional density on the property. This Application calls for construction of an additional 5,067 square feet therefore the Applicant complies with density requirements; the FAR, with the proposed addition would be only .30. This project meets the other area and bulk requirements set forth in § 24-3.4 of the City Code. The Applicant, sensitive to the City policy for preservation and upgrading of existing lodges, is planning significant renovation and upgrading to the twenty-one (21) existing units in the lodge along with the construction of the high quality fourteen (14) new units. Fifteen (15) of the existing units will be improved; six (6) of the existing units will be demolished and totally rebuilt. Thus the lodge use in this location will be preserved, upgraded and expanded in COI1formance with City policies which will be of benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the community in general as well as fitting in perfectly with the intent and nature of the L-3 zone. Concurrent with this Application, applicant is applying for special review to establish external floor area ratio, and for change of use approval to change the use of three units on the project from residential to short-term lodging. 1 . . aa. Water System. Discussions with the City Water Department indicate that the proposed development can be supplied by the existing facilities. There is sufficient excess capacity available from the City water supply to supply the proposed development. An eight inch water main exists in Highway 82 adjacent to the property. A 2 inch service line currently serves the existing units on the subject property. Water pressure in these lines is approximately 70 P.S.I. The anticipated water demand is expected to fall well within the normal lodge standards. The project is located very close to the main fire station (.75 miles) so facilities already exist to provide fire protection to the project. Fire hydrants are located 50 feet from the north corner of the property (City Hydrant No. 052) and 150 feet from the southeast corner of the property. bb. Sewage. Discussions with the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District indicate the District has sufficient excess capacity available to serve the proposed development. A ten inch trunk line exists in Highway 82 adjacent to the property which is already connected to the property. Estimated system usage will be within the norm for lodge use. The existing treatment plant can easily accommodate the anticipated demand according to the Aspen Sanitation District manager. (See Utilities, page 32.) CC. Drainage. Historic site drainage from the site will be improved. All parking surface runoff and roof runoff from new construction will be maintained on site in dry wells. Existing general site drainage toward the irrigation ditch along the northwest will not be disturbed. (See Drainage, page 33.) dd. Development Area. Present existing lot coverage for the twenty-one (21) existing units equals 8,449 square feet. The present parking lot coverage is 16,094 square feet, and the pool is 420 square feet. The total present impervious coverages is, therefore, 24,963 square feet or 44% of the 1 This leaves present open space at 56%. The proposed addition of fourteen (14) new units will result in a net lot coverage increase of 1,867 square feet. The parking plan for thirty-three (33) autos will have a more efficient configuration than presently exists, and will decrease parking lot coverage by 570 square feet. The impervious coverage total with the proposed new addition is, therefore, 26,270 square feet or 47% of the total lot area. This leaves open space in the amount of 53%. ee. Traffic. Based on the City of Aspen's calculation values of vehicles per lodge room, the added number of -2- 1 . . vehicles anticipated for this project is seven (7) during periods of full occupancy. The property is serviced by Highway 82, a state highway which can adequately handle all anticipated traffic. It is expected that seventeen (17) motor vehicles will use or be stationed in the lodge, as expanded by the proposed development. The hours of principal daily usage cannot be accurately determined but it can be expected that hours will be consistent with typical lodge use in the City of Aspen. There will be thirty-three (33) on-site parking places supplied. All of these are off-street parking. Existing bicycle routes and paths are very close to the project. Bicycle storage racks will be provided on the property. The Mountain Valley bus route goes past the property on Highway 82. This proposed development discourages automobiles usage in various ways. The site is within easy walking or bicycling distance of essential commercial and retail services and activities. A bike path exists along the paved shoulder of Highway 82. There is also a bike path that runs along Ute Avenue that cuts back to Highway 82 through the Aspen Club area which can be used to access the property in a less arduous manner. The applicant desires to assist the City in building a 320 foot link to the existing bike path along the entire Highway 82 frontage of the property. Applicant estimates this 320 foot link will cost $6,000.00, and is willing to contribute $4,000.00 to this cost. Applicant will pay this sum at the time the City formally authorizes commencement of the project to add this link to the bike path. (See photo, page 20.) ff. Effects of Proposed Development on Adjacent Land Uses. The proposed development is fully compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood and will positively enhance and complement the local character of the neighborhood. The eleven unit "Alpine Lodge" is across the street. The surrounding land (including the Alpine Lodge) is zoned R-15. In the Riverside Subdivision, lots range from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. Along Mayflower Drive, Aene Park and the Ferguson cabins to the north, lots are 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. The presently built-out FAR on the adjacent R-15 lots is .20 to .40, therefore our proposal of .30 fits well within the range of existing built density of the neighborhood. Thus the lodge use at the property has been an existing beneficial use in the neighborhood, for some time and the proposed development will only enhance this use. gg. Construction Schedule. NO phased construction is planned. Construction is projected to commence Spring of 1986, and be completed by Fall, 1986. -3- 0 0 indicated on maps. ee. The zoning district is identified on the zoning map (page 23). Surrounding uses are residential and lodge. Historical district boundary lines, if any, are indicated on the zoning map. B. REVIEW CRITERIA. Services. 1. Availability of Public Facilities and aa. Water. The existing water system of the City of Aspen has sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of the proposed development and will be able to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. An eight inch water main is located in Highway 82 adjacent to the property. bb. Sewer. This site is served by and already connected to the ten inch trunk line existing in Highway 82 adjacent to the property. The Metropolitan Sanitation District Sewer System has sufficient capacity to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and will be able to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. No treatment plant or other facility upgrading will be necessitated by this development. CC. Storm Drainage. Historic site drainage from the property will be improved. All paved area and newly constructed roof drainage will be retained on site in dry wells. The development will not require any use of the City's drainage system as the project provides for on site retention of 100% of runoff from new roofs and from impervious areas. The existing general site open space drainage toward the irrigation ditch along the northwest of the property will not be disturbed. dd. Fire Protection. The new lodge units will be constructed with fire protection in excess of the Building Code requirements. In conformance with the Code, smoke detectors will be furnished throughout for added protection. In addition fire extinguishers will be supplied. There are two hydrants presently serving the Property; these are located fifty feet from the north corner of the property and 150 feet from the southeast corner of the property. The project is very close (less than .75 miles) to the main Aspen Fire Station and the response time is under three (3) minutes, an exceptional response time for a small mountain community. The Fire Department is able to provide fire protection according to -5- 1 . 0 its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to the existing station. Available water pressure and capacity are more than adequate to provide for fire fighting flows. No water storage tank is necessary to serve the project. ee. Roads. The major linkage of the road network can easily provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system. The property is served by Highway 82, a state highway. The minimal increased usage attributable to the proposed development will not necessitate any road system improvements. Because the project is very near to the City's commercial and retail facilities and a bus line stops right at the project, all automobile use from the project will be minimized and bicycling, walking or the use of public transportation will be maximized. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design. aa. Architectural Design. 1 (1) History of the Lodge The beginning point of the lodge is a fine old, two-story brick Victorian house which once oriented toward the highway. (See photo, page 14.) The house and property were purchased by the Millers in 1950, who added a three-room addition to the west, and opened the "Millerest Lodge". The brick was painted over at that time. (See photo, page 15.) Around 1954, the lodge began to take on a "dude ranch" look with the addition of horses, several small outbuildings and a four-room log addition. (See photo, page 16.) In 1956, the Miller's added two concrete block wings to the north with eight (8) guest rooms and a swimming pool, in the "old world" half-timber and stucco vocabulary, and subsequently held a contest among their guests to rename the lodge. (See photo, page 17.) The lodge then became the "Highlander" . Highlander/log cabin dude ranch assemblage of structures was This brick Victorian/half-timbered Scottish acquired around 1960 by Guido Meyer who immediately renamed it the "Crestahaus" and proceeded to modify the imagery as -6- 1 . . that of a "Swiss chalet" by adding curving gingerbread fascias to all buildings. (See photo, page 18.) After this turbulent six-year building spree and the resulting plethora of architectural identities, the lodge has remained virtually unchanged, even though much has changed around it, for the last 25 years. (2) Architectural Possibilities In spite of the montage of images: Victorian/old world half-timber/log cabin dude ranch/Swiss chalet, the existing lodge buildings have several postive qualities upon which to build: (1) interesting massing and rooflines, (2) small scale elements, (3) prominent dormer and gable-end features, and (4) a covered arcade connecting the buildings. Therefore, applicant intends to emulate and emphasize these positive features in its proposed addition of fourteen (14) rooms. Specifically, the new structure is designed as a group of smaller structures, each with the 6/12 and 8/12 roof pitches. The grouping of structures continues the existing pedestrian arcade and creates an "entry court" space for drop-off, pick-up, and pedestrian circulation. At the same time, the negative detracting features Will be removed: (1) the substandard cabin out-buildings (two units) and the log-cabin (4 units) will be demolished and rebuilt as part of the new addition, and (2) the fake Swiss fascias and dude ranch log vestiges will be removed, and an airy lattice gridwork wi-11 be applied to all gable ends to unify the old and new buildings, and to lend a festive and modern look to the new "Crestahaus Lodge". (See Perspective and Elevations, pages 25, 29, 30.) bb. Site Design. Serving the existing twenty-one (21) rooms is a vast gravelled parking lot of 16,094 square feet which inefficiently parks 19 cars. (See Existing, page 24.) We propose a carefully designed and landscaped parking area of only 15,525 square feet which parks several more cars. In this manner, the new addition and cars can be accomodated and the landscaped open space maintained at approximately the present level. Cars will be screened from view by small bermed planting islands in the centers, and by bracketing the ends of parking. Nine (9) existing pines and spruces 16 to 32 feet high along the highway frontage will be maintained in the present locations. A row of 6 mountain ash, 15" to 2" caliper, will be planted around the Auto -7- 1 . . Court circle, and low shrubs will be added. (See Landscaping Plan, page 31.) Small paths will be constructed out into the open space areas to the west of the site to invite guests to wander and explore during good weather, and small seating areas with benches will be provided. Flowering plants and shrubs, and ground cover will complete the Auto Court area, while existing junipers, crab apple, and lilac will be retained. At the southeast corner of the property adjacent to the highway, the 8 foot willow shrubs will be maintained in their present locations. All disturbed areas will be hydroseeded and revegetated with a Canadian bluegrass/perennial ryegrass /brome/crested wheat mixture. CC. Energy Conservation. Glazing have several single glazed windows, and these will all be Portions of the existing lodge to be retained outfitted with storm panels or replaced with double glazed units. All new exterior window units in new construction will be weathershield triple-glazed units or equal. Insulation To the existing lodge, 1" "thermax" R-8 solid insulation will be added along the arcade walkway exterior wall. In new construction, all walls will exceed R-20, and roofs will exceed R-32. Solar Heating The new jacuzzi tub to be added near the pool will augment its water heating needs with two solar collectors and a pre-heat tank (located in the sauna equipment room). Passive Solar The fourteen (14) new, and six (6) rebuilt units will orient south and west toward views, with major glazing and overhangs, and will thus acquire considerable passive solar heating benefit. The six units which are being demolished and rebuilt presently have no wall or roof insulation, and do not orient to the sun; thus the rebuilding represents a considerable energy upgrade. 1 -8- 1 . . «73 1 3 /1 dd. /Parking and Circulation. l The/addition of fourteen (14) units is expected to~411.-y~ven (7) cars to peak-season usage and demand. Nevertneless, the Parking Plan (see Site Plan, page 26) provides one space per bedroom, or a total of thirty-three (33) spaces for each of thirty-three (33) free-market rentable rooms in the lodge as required by Code. The Parking Plan creates a total of 15,525 square feet of impervious area, as contrasted with the inefficient existing plan with 16,094 square feet of impervious area which parks only half as many cars. (See Existing, page 24.) Court pick-up/delivery/drop-off area centrally located at Traffic flow within the site is to an Auto the focal point of the pedestrian courtyard. Cars are arrayed in small groupings of cars, visually bracketed on three sides by planted areas, shrubs, and gentle berming to soften the visual impact of the cars, both from within the site and from neighboring vantage points. Trash pick-up area is centrally located, but trash trucks do not need to pass by lodge rooms or parked cars to make the pick-ups. Access to Highway 82 is single-point access as exists presently at this time. The present gravelled "turn-out" areas which presently exist to both sides of the highway entrance shall be maintained in their present condition. ee. Visual Impact. New construction will minimize visual impact in the following ways: (1) Buildings are located 120 feet back from Highway 82, at their nearest point. (2) Buildings are over 100 feet at nearest point from adjacent residences on Lots 1,2,3, and 4 of Riverside Subdivision. (3) The two-story construction matches the height of adjacent residence on Lot .1, and is lower than those across Highway 82 on Lots 5 and 6 on Aene Park Drive. (See photo Surrounding Buildings, page 22.) (4) Median height of new pitched roofs is 22 feet, or 6 feet lower than allowable under zoning requirements. 1 (5) Buildings are arrayed in a "J" shape to create a courtyard; this "negative" space becomes the visual focus from the highway, rather than the building itself. (See Perspective, page 25.) -9- 1 . . (6) Small scale massing elements are joined together to create the new building, similar to those of the existing lodge, thus extending the "village" character of the existing lodge. 1 (7) New roof shapes of gable, dormer, and valley echo the existing attractive roof lines of the existing lodge, and at the same steep pitches: 6/12 and 8/12. (8) A collonaded arcade visually and phyically joins the buildings, creating an inviting pedestrian feeling. Again, the focus is that of a negative space rather than the mass of the building. (9) View corridors of surrounding residences are respected and maintained. (See Visual Vulnerability Map, page 34.) 1 (10) The building is not visible from the perspective of Highway 82, leaving town as shown in the photo, page 21. (11) Gable ends of the new and existing buildings shall receive a light lattice-work which gives a small scale texture, and a light and airy feeling to these dominant forms. (See Elevations, pages 29, 30.) 3. Amenities Provided for Guests. aa. The existing 576 square foot common room will be improved and will be more greatly utilized. Continental breakfasts will continue to be served in the common room. Wine and cheese service in the evening will be added. New lighting in the main common room will encourage intimate seating groups, and front lighting will serve meeting and conference use. In addition, by remodeling, a second common room/meeting room will be made available for use by guests or by special reservation for meetings. bb. The existing on-site dining facilities are being substantially improved. The kitchen facility is being remodeled and upgraded so that in-house parties and banquets can be provided and breakfast service may be expanded. cc. To compliment the existing pool, lighting will be added in and around the pool area to allow nighttime pool usage. In addition, an eight foot jacuzzi will be added to serve the property. A sauna is also being added to serve the property. Additional amenities include a 13 x 32 foot exercise and Nautilus room, which will provide guests additional recreational opportunities. A new ski - 10 - 1 . . storage room will be added to serve the guests. Landscaped lighting will encourage evening use of the new garden paths. A t 4. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals. aa. Provision of Employee Housing. DO The project is expected to generate one (1) new employee. This has been determined based on the level of service reflected by this type of lodge operation. Adding a small number of rooms to an existing lodge facility does not typically generate the need for additional employees. This will make a total of four (4) employees serving the lodge. The applicant agrees to provide employee housing which complies with the guidelines of the City Council's housing designee which will provide for 100% of the additional employees generated by the project. The new employee will be housed in a deed restricted "dorm" room having a shared bath, containing 360 square feet of private sleeping area. In addition, the employee using this dorm room will have access to and use of the kitchen and the employee dining area, as well as the other lodge facilities. Although the private sleeping area portion of the employee living space is less than 400 square feet, the employee will have access to and use of living areas of not less than 1 AM 7--"2 -4-,UJU Jyual feet. This proposal will be discussed with the Housing Authority. If the Housing Authority is dissatisfied with this proposal, applicant will supply employee housing of a size satisfactory to the Housing Authority for the one new employee (100%) generated by the new units, as per the provisions of §24-11.6(b) (4) of the Code. Parking for the employees will be discussed at special review as provided in the section of the City Code addressing L-3 residential uses and employee parking. bb. Conversion of Existing Units. An existing fully constructed, unrestricted lodge unit will be dedicated for employee use. CC. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units. Fifteen (15) existing units will be upgraded with thermal, safety and cosmetic improvements. Six (6) existing substandard units will be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. Applicant is expected to expend at least $350,000.00 to accomplish this rehabilitation and reconstruction. The conceptual program for the construction of the project, as set forth below, identifies the proposed - 11 - 1 . 0 1 improvements to be made to the lodge unit and non-unit space, and the timetable for the restoration or rebuilding. Because the applicant will be improving on or rehabilitating all twenty-one (21) existing units in the project, it is entitled to maximum points under this section. The rebuilt ' portions of the lodge shall be suitable for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units for which the allotment is being requested. 5. Bonus Points. The project has incorporated and met the substantive criteria of § 24-11.6 (b) (1) , (2), (3) and (4), and has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieves an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. The project is tastefully designed to blend in with and enhance the character of the neighborhood and incorporates the best facets and technology of energy conservation. There will be no negative impacts on traffic, roads, public safety, fire protection, police protection, drainage, water or sewer service. Applicant will be making improvements which will enhance various services and visual qualities of the neighborhood. The existing services and facilities are adequately situated and set up to serve the project efficiently at no public fiscal increase. Great care has been taken in the design of the project to conserve energy and utilize solar energy. The project energy efficiency rating significantly exceeds all applicable City requirements. This project significantly upgrades and expands amenities available to the tourists utilizing the lodge and the lodge overall is greatly enhanced and upgraded in accordance with the lodge preservation policy of the City of Aspen. The parking plan for the project is hidden from view offering great safety and convenience as well as preserving existing spruces, pines and aspen trees on the property. Applicant is providing housing for one hundred percent (100%) of the employees generated by the project. 1 It is especially noteworthy that while the applicant is expending significant sums which will result in great improvements to the lodge, the lodge rooms will be serving the same or similar clientele that it has typically served resulting in improved service to this segment of the market. In sum this project has been very carefully thought out to balance the needs of the developer to create a viable project with the policies expressed by the City of Aspen and the community in general. We feel this project achieves this balance and is the kind of project that should be encouraged by the City. C. CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM The following is, in conceptual outline form, 1 - 12 - 1 . . applicant's proposed plan for accomplishing the construction at the Crestahaus Lodge. 1 1. Remove and rebuild substandard "outbuildings". 2. Replace "dude ranch" and swiss chalet architectural decoration. units. 3. Rebuild arcade walkway connecting all 4. Make available second common area/meeting room. 5. Add exercise facility, jacuzzi, and sauna. 6. Add thermal, safety, and cosmetic improvements to existing rooms. 7. Create landscaped "auto court" entry space. 8. Continue to operate the lodge as a "family-style" guest facility with a middle to lower-middle pricing structure. 9. Continue the Crestahaus as a single-owner facility (there are no plans to condominiumize the Crestahaus). The total cost of these proposed improvements will be not less than $350,000.00. GMP/CRESTA 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 13 - ..r:.$4'3"id--f- 4 $ •. ··3 ' :74293»'1 4: '.. i & . · · A b h 69'VIA<4#442> '¥*W·~494'f ~·4/t ~ ~A - I it /-7 ¥ a ¢:*At\~9.';ta#&·- ....48*34/qi ,]4'940'1---E~. . 1. . f-~~ 1....,n 4-7-·: 1?11 lul,4-to©F~11'tiI. >I: r... fal,45*.Lqi- -t- - U''fl zibl---·~ ~'-- F I *34-, 4-#p + 4.-- z &*s~ ·.- -.c. R ~ ~ ~..iffi4~3243 ... . 4.t-,1 6 14>•-1€712_9 f~°-9 A · 1 *7-393*fi<#Ii-M*Ikz#ikriJ. .'.4..y*~i. I I . Sca (4 .... t iRN.//MAN*i-:07:,b . ,-··4~41&SirAFfii,4 . 1 ...4438 . .i·'*,1.4. 8%441*444*Ty.~1444 311.7.,ref, 245**420.9.4.49 2 v.ri. .M . r,7 -77.. Afl ; FAI-'.- -4 , 1.: 2/K - 1 - f--110-92-*i:<333.2.1::r-+-I:'',:'.c'.:2.:i.trif:#61~63612fl'.Ziffi5g~5(22 For Sale at $15,000 This line mountain borne, owned by a Chicago Automobile Executive, is for sale only becouse lie finds that he does not have time to spend more than one week out of eacli year in Aspen. This home is located on a tract of land fronting State Highway 82 approximately 600 feet by about 550 feet deep. It is located in Riverside addition to the city of Aspen. Colorado, which city has un- doubledly received more national publicity in the past 6 months than Dny other resort in the United States. More than one million dollars has been snent during the past year by Mi· Walter P. Pacycke. Chicago Industrialist. in providirg ae- commodations for skiers in the winter and vacationers in the summer and fall. The world's longest, highest and fastest chair lift begins nt the edge of Aspen and terminates at the top of Ajax Hill more than 3,400 vertical feet above the city. This development as a resort center together· with the definite possibility of a lai·ge payroll due to the installation of a 1,000 ton flotation mill to handle ores from this once famous silver mining camp,- combine to make the investment in this properly well worth the amount asked. History I The present owner's intentions were to live on the property with his family and build several rental cottages. There is definitely enough CRESTAHAUS land available for such a wairri if 11·,p nor,·11:,vru· An riesirr·.5. 14 .. 11 «*CLER€5749 -, 4 51*0--GE« r ASPEN, COLORADOI provides Private Lake fishing. Trips to mountain lakes c with all latest equipment ~i~ Boats - Motors - Tackle & Lunches Included ir--11 .,W ? LES' ... - 3 -- - 1- 4 ----- .0 --- - r -349 . ,./ ....... .7,217 / . 7 - - A-&91,3-7.7 ,-' *r...1.- € E 1 i - 7 1 - 00 -1 Z - f - 1 fw 9. 7*; 8 1€79 A K·% ft..14:61... .2.Pir*F-€7-·.-14·4· FL,-J. 2~.it·~ ,... · ·· ·.~*. ~· ~0:·4.''I j.j~.,Bili~Mili~:~ -1,i...f~f .~2':2'fR Vij~ History 11 I /t< 3 . ... ...... ru :-/-..-291 i.:·.EY lEif.yti-·. f.3.*:-:·i £374 7- ~ f ii,3'<'CJ.,TO E-,iC t- 7-4/xEit##i.ELE=.=TE~· 4*:.·,1.9.3..·?j te>-·= CRESTAHAUS 15 .< . 1 €.3 : .z ...Qi '...... ---=-L I J .- I - -- - % - - 1... *4:1...1.. ..... »»1=44*4 -/--:''I . 3.-/4 -/ -1#3.:~ad·;425'ri 4,746#32': 441- -*.... .241*2:46$~"~~%7 N- - - ------ - -*-.I . 1 2.i,1,;flit~4,1'41 5 1~ ij~' 1 li K. 1.1. ,1 1.' F/·'i'-· 1 1 Ill| 11 - - +MLE&,milf."*1 -- 44 " LE· te,Jit,411} i '* '411:r.littlttlitt\~ 1 , '4/f #·441 4.. , *- --'47, Ad . 4.. . . :. D: . .1 -44 1- r:~ A: ... tri- 4... . r I . 'B 1 1 »1 · 11 11. +P D. . I 1 11 - 't.11 4 ~' - r i+ - 4 4.3 k 1227,101 t ,..42, ¥ e.- , 1 - . 2 1»*El 1 1 lif . r 1 1 1 1 L . I n " .... . 2& • I ~ / ~ ~r"1' L.L¥.1*:*'14~ .. ' . 9*.». ·%41:.. 1 -1 -1 -- 1 1 a.' - 7% t :1 - -- - --f--11'_1-- --2--1 - fl : i i 1 - 7... 1 1 £ t 4 ' 11 - 1 -f 1 -It 1 1 -- -- - -1 1 - - L- -- 1 1. 1 4 -l 1 . - #A . 17*~141 - *- I - I - 1 1 1 - 4 / - -'. 1- . 1. ~ _ 1 - - EI - 1 + - /1 44 . 1 1, i - 1 F t ~3 . 1 11 , 1 =11 .1{Ati .1 11110)2 1 '171/ 1 '11 1 -4 'l -- 11 ;-4 -11 -11- 11 1- 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 C- . 1 1,4- t:*rl #.4 T --1 1 1, .1 1-- 1 1 - 7 111 4 ./.1 1 ' 1. 1 9L .. L-1.-=1-3 ,- ASPEN, Colo.-Enterprising h,dcc proprietor Ihid Miller held a contest .~~1 .--„ ..~,'~ 1 .1 . 21-_r.-La name his Aspen hostelry. TH NII -w=Mh„- among all his former guests to re- Foinierly known as The Millerest, THE LODGE DESIGNED WITH GUESTS IN MIND Miller's lodge will be ·known hence- • Spocious carpeted rooms with filed tub forth as The Highlander. A former and shower • After-ski fun in our beautiful western Millerest guest, 1301) Cli)>,>,ncr of Kan- lounge sas City, Mo., submitted the winning Variety Hi-Fi when you want it name. Luxury at low cost. Special group and Miller's reason for renaming his ~ weekly rates lodge, "Who comes to Aspen to rest?" • Mrs. Miller's famous breakfasts • King-size parking area THE HIGHLANDER, ~~ By reservation only. RATES 1 Brochure on request. 1.001 (per room) L==29 ~ No. Per day HELEN AND BUD MILLER Persons per person P.O. Box 398, phone WA 5-7081 1 $7.00 or $8.00 Aspen, Colorado ** 12 $3.50, $4.50 or $5.50 1 *** $4.00 or $4.50 3 $3.25, ~4 4 ** *** I. 1 .- $3.00, $3.75 or $4.00 , h \ *** , t.- f Weekly . 3- - 1 -- I #• i../, f 1.1 - $45.00, $ 50.00 or $55.00 . 1.-- - -- l t - 2 $45.00, $ 60.00 or $75.00 2 - ,.. *** ** *** $65.00, $ 80.00 or $90.00 1 J * ** *** .47 -- I - I - - $80.00, $100.00 or $110.00 L --- *** - ~ 33 per day-each add. person in aroom. -- = THE HIGHLANDER ASPEN, COLORADO P. O. BOX 398 •WALNUT 5-7081 ~ * Verv nice 1·oonis with sharing bath with cne otlier room ; knotty pine in- i teriers ; featuring great comfort. - ~ to wall carpeting, private filed com- r*Ef 94 ** De Luxe quair-y rooms, with wall -- -bil - --i --- : - R*'.BS ~ . -1- ----- bination baths, and every known con- 7--11 ~ r-('1ii eiic e. 2:75 2 - *:h :% Larger, extraordinary luxury E- 7 -'-tr... - .ZE.€-0- I -L - roorns, Stirpassing in beauty and un- · - ~ exce,ied in western decor. - Several Highlander rooms are KING - - -- 11 SIZE and equipped to acconimodate *.1 -- 1 ~ ill, to Fix. Mrs. Miller's famous 'all you can eat' --9 ... a - Anierican breakfasts are 81. 7-5 1 History IV CRESTAHAUS 17 .. b ;trilill '91 0 11 1 4. 1 4 .11?1111 1 . . 1 ... - Z. )1-„J.,1....'...1 '.- 1, V ir··.:,/... -r-~.,9.1 puff;32443€44· ~;it:·ilbo~.9494-·94:02jt.?Alitil:?ree,9*fU M . ~ ·~·~ j. ~t··6·604{J·EF€FY.&6*·.··~·)3.::fir .r::iff-.0: :·31:1.;~-p.*i:.4.~.%9€9*~ *7447%:. , l ..r ' IS . %~4*q~ ~ 0 - I , -111. 11111 il 111 i -· l 2 . ". i rnMM rn'T-7,7 1 1 Ir /1 .- 1 !1 31 11 11 7-,4 1 11 I11;11i, -4 4 4# Wpl ---1,6 - 1 -- 0 .; 4 - 7245.462..23~41=u- - 92 - 1 6- I 1 CRESTAHOUSE MOTEL A bir of Switzerland in Colorado. Heated Swimming Pool. Two reading rooms. Two fireplaces. 17 units with privete bath. Hi-Fi in every room. Run In con- nection with lhe Swiss Inn. Operated by Guido and Trudi Meyer, Owners. Aspen, Colorado. Box 630 History V CAESTAHAUS 18 1 0 0 1 -tar m I 1 111..111 . 146,11. . 1 1~ 11.-4*1. £-fly#*,·i IM i '--. g . 1.1 . Z- P .1,7 : .1 Bil '111 U 11.1 *1111 : 11 -11 - 9.1 - 1 _ i,9 -=@S Idl~-L - 1 _f =.~, .il 6=-- #449·- -4„i. ~ ·, ·,i~· --J·,JI~- 111111-1 Ii·~ ~4,4~ . -~' ~11~~,i, ,--=·.b ==- '4,44·g~r--···_~-.--I ';~= 11 : ~' 1~ i - - F..1 1 1.L." . .1. MI. . -1 . .11'le ...; 1. .1 -1 1 1:1==411 ' I 111 , 41!9 49&1.-6-6€, a"*A~: 11 1 : - .1'g. I E--Fl T . . 9. ' --lilli--- ..liv. =t. 1.~11 - 211 =E-&64441 "Inlip 1 .1.111 -lila - -7 \ 6 11. I.: --1.1-- -r E-K? 441 1-5 1 -f- 1 ji- 1.11 - 'i,fg - 1 .-: .1.. ..- *=-=MIll-=35-90"/'/2- . 1 51 i i -4-=.miT Ul . . 1 . Il =4: p 1 3... ?411 31< I - 41 * Iii ~ ... r ... 1 ~/·. 44#*91=g¥'~ *E · - r.:47# .U.1 .-1- . . 111.1 111 -- I'l'/ 'I- '/0, ./,7 lib 1-1 1 - Ito be rernoved ) Outbuildings CAESTAHAUS 19 1 . . - 99*. 7.14 * 4-1 T-1.- -i-'47'. *2.4-*~ 4 . ILI 11 9 12 W ®_74**#MT' 411, '11.111#1+17.*.1.11.-- 1 :t-4 - -' '" D' ' '~;r' i ''jJPil - 06 2 -- ak ' 4 7 44. * . 3 .- i € . 1~MI' i *p. .. . 11 111 T 1 11 1,11 T - i *:tr:11!01+1 1... 1 fd ''t. -_-~ * €----u. . ,~_ ~tik' AMI E ·:r Yi#1111144.L. ..11!,11,J "kip- i ..3'll i.,·,-r~=:w-, ~~~fi - -+I -J ~ ·~.- 1 4 9·6*i'.4134~t . till.1.W - I. ,-1-,7 I - 11 I.-4- ~~, *|11 -1 ... 1 -:11/ F-4 '- 9341 1 .lili 11 1 11 2,4, i - ..1 •,r. i. -el„E :F - .-1 =1 11 - 1 *rE Ne- IH u,- - lu 1 :r 1 t 'di · I 11 - +1 1.1 il . I - -a 1. 1 1, . 1 . = 2 12 --4 - 1- I . 4114 1, 41 1 · r -0 2 rl . /.1 - 111 1.- /1 + 4- - --E-=, Ar 2- =. Ul:'Il i + 11 r#·bvu -,9 ~ =. A J V Proposed Bike Path 1 CAESTAHAUS 20 lf>e 112 1 . 1 k 311.~?~ -9 - 2 767. I i .Ta.,11'ili- 00,3,·,14 "4· . ' 1 1- -10 1 1-***114-; 1 ... 1 ! 1111 1 1/- f.1 14T/I 5- 42= 1- .„41 #buifYi~~~,i. - • .IST I ==-. -- ,<47.1 44<3#8:111*m - ~ jibj~eff- j 4- · 1 .-IJ~33.~m~r ~"~22,t,4 i liE,1 f Zi:11.- . ,El€-5%'MI"wia-=firE™:4.- ...3 1,2'11: 7,; 1. --_ 3 119!"NE.=?,!F~1 - .1-2 I~*~.'4~. - i.*F :'u-;11 1%.rwe · ...,~..,rrls'91 %153 .1.¢3~ · · f - ··lli/~I*Wi- -- Cl~~|'~ .~| 1·=,6,+2~,|'f#6| 4|~r.1;J.,(li·M)11.1. · .. ...12,414=~1 : 10'4-~~~¢.=:x . 1~·~~,Fi.. ! ~1 , , 111-0 - .E . '19 . = 1 1111 1 , . i· ' . -.1.1 4444:. ; i.~ ..1 6 1 *-1~ wK. 116*765 L 6-7!!, Ave~~1: 4644r--,-~~2·~~i:&~12$ .~ . ~.* 1 - -1. 1 F i:11: /44+42.. %6' - Mr 1.1.lili.1.11'Af8*R 8/02.-2.P='. €/i% --494=4 CE ...awl'=--1.£41*Liiw. In] 1 1.Z 1~42:lavili-/*t:~9~~-ATE 0)J m /,Er . 1%06 //19*1.7....B /VI ' i., ~p@~Ir'i - Wuy 142 4./.Ajh 11· Ma ; 42*4#///AP'+4"ES ..1.1:al;. ... ldI~-2'~EM~ i?*'4 ¥·4: i fF'Nk ~. 1.'.4 j A €,9,~ C ~41*<a ti·:,i , 0 · ·>y , - ·*.w™Ar,-04 v 0 I f®i#~ 1* ..1/1 39* £ 0) ef 8,9 12 __*022! ' ...··# 1 . f. ·'/ L€ 11] 9*Els-1.- litur.41'·...... ...m' *rAW L,ii·- .„11.11 . -65*e-·1. te ·47;44 i ·, L= Ill ¥ 2..... i) f..06 f = 31 DI 4/24· U';;~erFi.0~·' · Am o *2*t **F £ k. j.?7. *.12*171.. 311* .*Mih. 11 - 111.*g .fat.3. ; -d~ 4111·.4 4... flw/· · 41 ;~*#.'£. - I '- r.*-' 4* 1*14 !,1 *NA**I·· h -lin- 0, 1 I 1 till 1=92..~ 1 -m".-6 ' 4,2 - 4 ·€2#' · ··)1 ··:4·:, '~~ 4UA·*1-~ -·L ~ 275 , ==zawl#"r b- b 4%146/ f li 1 11 3.927*g@*/ IM %3#LF#EV- g- il ff 23*2 + ·94*-· a' 4 f =MA=.. j . 1 ./i# '1.' 1.. = n.92* fir '1 . 1 14 .1 1-- ·'T I n , ' .r.- 1 NBIVT=« 9- 3 y'll/,2-- 0 0/J 3 ZZ 1 Ill iB \4 \ \. 1 15 3 1/ I~ 7 3 CLAVE - 1- \.4-r- m L--/ 4 7 R 15 1 Ff ~\41 1 ., 1 '' 3 3 , 1, I9 1 UN R 15 4 (P U D) 4 *4 ·· z c /4 / 1/2 5 1% 2 3/ C.1 r , t.' I 3 4/ 5 .. 0 / ..r I 3 SITE 4- 4 1 r \\ 2 1* -4% I 1 2 * 1 0 ; 1 1, %22 / i I. v.4 % 469*b-9 . £* 11 0 o 12 2 40 4 + 40 1 0 4 #> m 7 , 1 13 20 e 0 + i ./. 4 -9 I8 bs . 14 I 1 0 24 1 51 18 09 23 10 400:6 \ 22 2 In O R 15 1 17 16 0 21 9 (P U D) *0 I8 19 3 h 64 7 . 6 138 / i , '141 10 \ 14 A - I 04$ 7 14 4 1 Locator/Zoning ~ CRESTAHAUS ~40 200 23 33/,7 A parcel of land being part of the Riverside Addition to Aspen, Coloradojaid parcel is more fully described as follows: beginnin~ point being a plastic cap on a No. 5 rebar stamped L.S~ whence corner*8 of the Riverside placer U.S.M.S. Ndlll905 A M. beina a brass cap dated 1954 bears N 85°08'W, 554.05 fiet; thence N 15°41'W, 92.08 feet; thence N 14°06'59"W. 122.02 feet: thence N 13°13'32"E, 40.54 feet; thence N 78°22'05"n, 33.31 feet; thence N 37°34'04"E, 56.45 feet; thence N 68°24'15"E, 27.55 feet; thence S 50°37•E, 77.76 feet: thence S 34'21'E, 150.08 feet; thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 260.00 feet (the chord of which bears S 24°03'E, 93.00 feet); thence S 77°45'50"W, 235.32 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 1.733 acres more or less. LOCATED AS SHOWN. ALL EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE 1, HAROLD W JOHNSON, A REGISTERED SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, Do HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THE 29'TH DAY OF JULY 1985 OF THE PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN HEREON AND IMPROVEMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE AS SHOWN. SAID SURVEY IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH 0..1.1 ARTICLE SI SEC. 38-51-100.3 COLORADO REVISED STATUES. 1 , 0/ .' -1,· 2/. HAAOLD W. JOHNSON LS. 9018 f P.... ...hm ,. !11 901, 14 4: 4. .2 -4.-6. 4 I »c .u,4, -e N.4.3.ibe,WI €43.. 92// /49 I/ lili yi y \ ~0, 4 3 2 0 ... 0 ' ·/. ASPEN ID /1.. 2:Lp % :.90 :O I ©66 ./,- . ' r . 93- / // / C - 12> 4... ~ t' ' 10% , e# * ' ' ' I 'C. A. 1 / g 1 4 + F < 7 •s•E• 1 - 81 \ / ./ '6 0 - ~19, I N. * \ . ..3 1 1 'r ~ r. 4 E-w» L '. · \ .4,6 4: 7 1' ·' :. ..9 -th*y 0 4 \/ . , 43- . - 7 P /9\ u/ . /1 ' ... . 4% 2/ /3 \ --2 - 4,4 1 - ,% ·\\ Ovk \\ . $... 152," ./ \ ,\\ .305 . 1 . / 2- (To be Removed) : .v/ 4 09 I e \ 1 ./ /G,\ \\10. \ \\0 /7 -I 4 . 11,0 .. . · i: 1 0 / 1 i -- r: e/. , 1 ./G, 94 . - / /.EL-\ ..... 6 ... ~ 1 ~<<27--LIc '.. 2--L1I~-~1.- . oust ~~c'G ~> i \ t. , 2% 1 i\ a ~ - 1 5 15" 41'......f \ I . 0 P.. /.1 - /-/F \ :5 .' ' V' 109 --- - 5 7-045'50" W EXISTING CONDITIONS: ' Lot Ar~: 56,192 SF (1.29 Ac.) Internal Floor Area: 11,950 SF (.21 FAR) Eul Cal Impervious Coverage: 24,963 SF (44%) i 3 2,7. Open Space: 31,229 3$ (56%1 1 NOTE. I .Ell' I CA' L. -1/ EXISTING 0 24 CRESTAHAUS PY-t 2¤' CHCRD . 1 11 1 1 . 1 1 A Ed 'hrl ' 1, 4 ' *4 <'2 il ~ ' 2 2 4 r, · 4, r b il 1 4 11 22*, 4 4 ' 1 111 1 -1 1 11 111 J ;- .1 .ITI'. 7 , I.. - S---'- 4-+ fl i I, 1- t,-4. :')~' ;I' I r J, ~'~il , i 'l -~~iti-4 9,, 4'J,1.4 attch. 111 i -- 1 1 1 11 1,54,1 1 ' 1 11 11 . 9- . 1 1- 3 it··, f .,p , i/-1-1---4 r«r .-'- .'-5 ;I.' ' ~, , 1 , i, i liz 41 - .1.161 11 -4 1 - -r,„.lf. * atw€* 4111162/Qbt[JIWY#Al#~~ 1"41 'Al©0~#44#lafFUW 1.-11 ' 11 ,ili,C 46 ~~-'1~ , ,-A U ry,_-a*t 16.10~61 U .Tiu" 41 19, 111 -7- - --4. ». f/ili In 64*14 - k 4 „41 *ir" 44 4 . 1- 1. . - , 1 -1 1,11 /1 F -' 19 1 -= 90 *1.Wi_g r-Jrtii'~r lepter~V:%,•P 11'r, , - 2 1 1 EE-bL - 4 C , 1 t -11 1- I. ---- -_ 24/,9,5*16"#//47-- - - - L- . 1 F 4. , - rl --- 4 1 4- 1 1 + ' Perspective CRESTAHAUS ~ ~EVELOPEMENT AREA: ~ Lot Area: 56,192 SF (129 Ac.) ~ *Mt W Area: 17,017 SF (;30 FAR) Imper,ious Ccverage: 26,270 SF (47%) Open Space: 29,922 SF (53%) Roorns: 35 (Incl. 2 Employee) Parking Space:. 33 I ., 6\ /, 9 \ .34. 11 \\\1/ I,,1. , Pool j 24:f 41 .. ./.4 '. 'i# 524,2, \ 49 / \ \1 \11 \ -\ 21 1 \ / KNO\»1411 f 4 istin ~ »5 12 orn -TA rf., > 1, B ild \ \\ Court 4U t¢iI~~Ii)- 1 ~ \ 1 1 1 \ 7 \ m:t:0·%·i~lid;i:'i~ It:'.;'..;:ilit· 1 ~1 1 /1 \(3 ./ \ 71 1% , New , as 20 Ao m \ X Struc ure 5 ~~ ,~~, /,~,1~ li·/~1·it'l~'3., ;l,·'~~·f8'~'~11111 - . ~// /~i~~/f/~~0 L ~ \ \ \ 1.. \ 1 09 j 1 4 1 / 1 f. C 1 \4442 _--1 -Existing - 36 \ 1 --- SITE PLAN ~ CRESTAHAUS 7»C»M~ 26 lili: i I!, 3 ' 0 I COA-AON AM i 1 4 I 4 .IT 2 . DIN 4. X .02 1<IT IM 21 EXEACISE LAUN. -kit«-rl-11 COMM AM. I 4. '... -- \Ok/2 19. S~<l ~~,~AGEA ~ Gj , 3 97/0 /b 0 0 1 . I . . . . I. I. , .. .3 L. A \ M PROPOSED EXISTING Ill g 8 BUILDING BUILDING ./ 0 0,4 4> C), 0 0$8 0 0 2 1 -1 ~ 0. 'u z r Ul 94 + On ) 0 :„ \h le . 0 <54 . 1 020 1 ' + FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~9 1B 20 21 .e~,m!=Iml ZZ snv,-Ivisailo 8z 00 Ill 090 O ,u 0 W 00/0 0 4 9 10 1U 03. 40 0 0\\P . 10 0 EB - 1 lcd 1 - 12 1 69 A -iM.- I J 1101 U) m NA_ 0 0 1 2 -J J r TI r - 01 1 0 r---4 3 m» i . 0 12 .96- n _3* 1 6 Il - ggE 11 m 1 CRESTAHAUS LODGE ./AWN /08 NO: AEViS m I CATE: 1301 EAST HVVY 82 C.ECKED: ASPEN, COLORADO SCALE -IGIBSON & RENO · ARCHITECTS . ...1, 0........ r le- .e ./s' COOP€. AVENUE •DELIC*'ON€~ -- ' .. 9/ 21 /21~ ,*iEL 08/) ~TtkY'- 4.54*-,1 =~ 5% ®7€«lEi M N--3 'A]191*>1 111.1=Tt - 74~====1 S.E. _3---- 16,111+4 -~--,-1 El '1(7 1-nitx- __El-s:~111 109- low rn,+, 1 1 am imr- ._ Fril~ifeX N.E. ELEVATICH\IS 6 5 fo 20 Jo· 8 0 20 98&62 :1'107 EAST 0 LUgam U] 6 W . 4 VA m Im M m® um-m Imm EBR~ 1 & 4 , 8 i \A/EST =21' ELEVATIONS 1 40 0 5 10 20 1 . KEY BOT~AL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE Ql-Y 4 Jur~I.'Tamaisafolia 'Tammy' Juniper 6' Dia. (exilting) 9 Satix Arctic Arctic Willow 8! High (existing) (D Populu: Tremuloides Aspen 1 & to 4" 24 new Picea Pungens Colorado Spruce 2 to 6" 8 Fraxinus Pennsylvania Green Ash 2+" 6 1 1 1\ Quincefolia Lackman Po tentilla 5 gal. 15 Lila 4 ft. dia. (existing) Spireae Snowmound Snowmound Spirea 5 Gal. 10 fo>\ 10 Pines & Firs 2 to 6- (existing) \\\ Note: Disturbed areas not shown otherwise to be hydroseeded \~ NLP?\ ~ with Canadian Bluegrass/Brome/crested wheat/perrennial ~ rye mixture. / «-/7/ r.«0 10 - 1 \\ i. J ««44-41« +LUL \1 \ f ' 44 41 .\ 44. 4 9, 41 91\' 1 1 .$ 6 .\% i 149:---d a../ AUTO COURT ~ 1 \ \':r \\ ; f.\ - 1 \ , PARKING \ .. A I »« f 4-~ *-·a ~ A~t \~~ I . BEAM Oty- \ \ 1 .j 1 ..11 \ f \-3 O \ i 44 b r, 1 \\-0 1\ PARKING it« 221/ 1 9 Ul / L- -2 - --- - Iii LANDSCAPE ~ CAESTAHAUS (01t-~~*450 1 31 1 . . 04 00 -~>- Fire Hydrant 1 96. 000* , , no. 052 \>400 2 \.. 1 el ..... i \ ..1 M.H. 1« 1 /0 X t V. Gas Mtd - 8" \Alater Line / \6·.>.:0 _~fil-bio" Sewer Line 1 4, ~,Na „ Gas Line ...... 10: ElecX / Mtr.~,c« Povber & . h 0,- Tel,bphone ~_ f Utili~y Pole I 1\/ .V \ t t \ \ / 1 1 -- -1 : : 1 \ / 1 -0-- 2 \ \4 - \\8 1 -- Fire 1 ~972\ Hydrant• UTILITIES til p L:rli#-1 t- 1 CRESTAHAUS 7»143 1 32 .. 00 . -//7.44\\1 >41. 1 4 ag'' 4 /1 7~0€1. t\Li/L /~ ~ 98' 1- Ac / / 7 -~, ,©o· 4¥t 1// 7 9 \0' l 0+ \ LODGE FLA. \\ /05.,3. 1 dy /00 Ck, pr- rf. 1 //,/, /1-€0 j . 4 / . A 4- i / LA- \40 5/2 6 9 E.. ~ -Oxt\2 /2 2-3 11 ic, ) 3 \« .£06/RE Fur·e- 1///0 \ IC £ /0.0 \.4 8.4 />< ~ kA BEL. /09./1 , \\\ f 0 4/ 1 n- ---- -Ii- 6,0 0,3 1 - DRAIWAGE CRESTAHAUS 33 .- 5 R lili i ~r=~ c <1(Of ->~ c <-- / )3\ \'00·,i i View, Leaving Town \ r--·-\ f 'll , lit j f B Perspective Drawing - 1 1 1 91\ 1 ( 0 j / 9 1 3 \CO> taken from here View of Surrounding Buildings (NW) View of Surrounding Jf \A C l \24-\19%:*4 Buildings (SW) r'A , -«42*, 1-L 1 i 02)j 1 1 . 1 //v \U . COLORADO 2 \ \ 5 0 £-71.--2*41<«ti f,f«/ 4 # 1 / -14*X Y 1/ 84, /vII A 1-' ..·' il /4 'd. ~ pi $ Flf-13 *~~\ / \ \\ 0 \ h\K- 1 ff-~ ee \ .\ \ 1\ \ 3 1 7 1-NIN 2 6 1960 f f*t< - -2. 3-1 - ~ 2 0/ P., \ 0 -7 0 \\\ 1 »80,&1 , 1 7 11 4317 -- f< 1\. , . '764,\, 1 x L 4>1~ , · ,#4 -* L 1 -- 1 . ,/ A /*A \ 1 . \ 1 - / 1 1 I 3 I \ 4 6 n "' V / , Ft: 1 2% Mot) 1= 7-4-4 da-< A ) -1 - · ---14[1 lilli 'Ir , 43 \C.... 1 C,4 14. 0% ' V 799611\1/ f 1 -5-4 , ir F----, 1 1 co 9 \ \-7 0 0 . 1 1 / / j -1 4 1 4 . 1 ; 1 9---1 W)/4.~~grTE < be«-T \ 1 31 \ 111 - -\ 1 \'4 ' .1 v \«4 ¢ 11 , U fv * 1 7x -. -7 , 1 // M - i g -- . \ 12 F., ~ -L~19:-nic-f-/1 ) d-~ 0-- i< i 1 * / / 49 . 1799&4 i" 1 9<-1 L »427' -,»v 3 ~; 1 b' / / IDA ' ¢ C A - ' 7- - I .5--2 2 j i \ \\\1% .// / J )/,- 1 A / /1 i « ·- 9 'Y-ru / / /1 ( /2> 36·?03*%4~-1~\ 1,\ 4.\k 1 + 11=7/87 h- L -·u -- -9 1 >'lu :l J, , 7 ._A j *h , 7 4 11+4«»%4 n 1}11 1 L#f. f J . 21·25:·' b .802l.57 l 1 Vt·f-,~ig~ 84 4_~7ggk3 r ¢J~>.-- FM**1:*v/ // 1 / 43 Visual Vulnerability 34 CAESTAHAUS 79=10 .... REFERRAL COMMENTS: 9&r- 14'/9 27 1. Engineering: In a memorandum dated --- Elyse Elliott of the City Engineering Dept . made the following comments: * jau c~-104¥~~0- 99=5 071€/7.,1.23 /- g. 2. Housing: 3. Parks: SUMMARY In summary the Planning Office feels that the proposal can be acceptable if the following conditions are imposed: 1. Additional Landscaping 2. employee housing 3. hours of operation of the south pool outddor area are established; no later than 9pm, no eariler than 7pm 4. additional parking???? 5. rental $ committements on rent increases over a period of time. 6 + 2 re e u- (l,fl M.k-.4....Wl---~ 1 rn 4·h A-p r.- -7 . 61/}likin<~u£.~53 Ad u Azed#tin , kECOMMENDATION: At)proval of the GM ammendment and the Special review for additional FAR with the following conditions of approval: A-4 i Lic lo»_j J . -921f '03_~~ Stet-fl 3 er.*-04# NOTES ON THE CREASTA HOUSE HELEN KLANDURUDE IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING, VEGETATION AND BUSES AS WELL AS THE INCREASED PROPOSED SPACES COMING CLOSER TO HER HOUSE. CHECK OLD LANDSCAPING PLAN AND COMPLIANCE CHECK PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS IN THE APPLIACTION FOR PARKING, SETBACKS NEXT TO RIVERSIDE ,LANDSCAPING. AFTER REVIEWING THE 1985 FILE IT APPEARS THAT THE MAIN NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUEA WERE PARKING , NOISE , LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE ALL OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. CHECK W/ BILL DRUEDING TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE CONDITIONS HAVE ALL BEEN MET ,ESPECIALLY LOOK AT LANDSCAPING(DYING) AND PARKING RECONFIGURATION AS WELL AS THATTHE BUILDING IS GETTING CLOSER TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PARCEL WITH THE PROPOSED COMMON SPACE/ SPA FACILITIES. THIS MAY CREATE CONFLICTS WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. COMPARE SITE PLANS ON LIGHT TABLE FOR WHERE THA ADDITIONS AND CHANGES ARE OCCURING. COLOR THIS UP FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1 -f . . ..9 « fltej buft leurn i NUfff~1,£1~ file-> 0%14/4 nt-~J~ (37/0.-~4ga ji 'Al W r- , R A 2 1 '0- 1, t€,2 /17-4. «-0 4 ht. *es> m g;(i 1-1/k-) 1,* 1.364 J 41 0 11 ~ 0 / &51€, 441/4 .7L~3~ b ULLO 1 4 + 3 £)1 ..4,·,1 1/,WO tiff 0 7 0 ~) 63 0~-9- & 3+#filo ,+ ti) r :4.1-- 7 i, F»,1 [4 193-0, f (; 7 3 0 i- 1 1 £044- k+·g-»=. C 1> p o Le-- / 6€2 (B-D>,77 20£'25~-M' 4 1 0 c t : 3, 0 f T.O) · tr U N? 1.,1 4-4 1.-f ·r ~,u-et, C OLK-©~~ '447 - , Ir i 31, ,4 1 1, J J / 9 -/ . 0-94 U..i,#ik fool y.NO - 1 .2 21' / 4. ta-/ . \' E-3--fb G ~ - j i.t A .g ' *7 Lt.H u' 09' , O z ' - h , Ail j'V , 'r 1 olt 30/d 2 4. P,1 . 4; v / 49.&1; 3~i 1 2-- -~ 104 f J! i ¢) 1-)<4. 4-3 t.-11/, 24/1 ' a l_- P 3 P i 1:,114 6 7-8 f C p c 1/9 : Li 0 6 -4 \/1%1)\2 1 1% lot - - IO 1 0.4 -*FIF + 90/ 34\49 0/ W 10.\ (3/ 291 l\~ *05 -6 7%-- / 7-9 \ ps 0 19 00 4 Al 2~/ / 1.. ~-u--~~ - \ 7 V 9. Of j ' -P «© r 04 4/\11 RA.- (7611 - 4111* - 144 p. 7-40) 71-9/9 UV/,1 0-0 l, 3 / 31 r-70 -4 € 6/99 07) 4 +01 14< Of .r N. r do©* / 9-· 2 0 1 - 1 + 01 - 4 1 se rt?<°1 ·-1 9 6+ 9 9 9 . .. 6 'f .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CRESTAHAUS LODGE GMQS AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application from Andrew Hecht on behalf of his client, Harley Baldwin, requesting approval of an amendment to the approved development order for the Crestahaus Lodge in order to upgrade the lodge units and construct additional accessory use facilities for a total expansion of 2,296 square feet. The applicant proposes to replace the existing pool and jacuzzi and increase the common areas. The number of guest rooms will remain the same. The Crestahaus Lodge i_s located at 1301 SH Highway 82 more specifically described as part of the Riverside Addition, Sec. 18 Township 10 South, Range 84 West. The property contains approximately 1.29 acres and is zoned Lodge Preservation. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920- 5090. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on January 19, 1989. City of Aspen Account. , 3. .. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY - 1 PROJECT: O 3 2 .9 11/0 (__~2:ht-~9--4<"../ 04) 1 f--' ..1:-1 1 -U- 7 '£1<Y-j U·int APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 1/tul i.~/- 11. (1/4 tu-/ R REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 1 96 - 2 9 3 6 in P p OWNER'S NAME: 4 1,12- 4 1 0 i.,1 - -17¥1 V O.(.i 1 71.-3 SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: (44·'f// ,] 80/4/ I //.1/ A-'4 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: , 1 , ~ :.1- 1%:-1 03.49 fF p .*1/L '1-3 927 /:'·(-f-0 -0,3.1-/...1,.al: 144-lic \ -;471 C,-I )(1'4..6i_.a__c_.j 0. . .2 06 09,40 ) -1-,ju. 01·14-'-· El Lt.-,fl.Lic-n ct-rt;-t Li-·2...r·~~u j..: 1.-·, i I . .1,1 p 44- c·-7 (( rt..ct --> (</ct C t, r ,- 4 ~1 (,{ p A -) 1 Ui.r13 , , M;J (1\-\'7: v? ri-', ·j hi: th/1 1 L E--1 Lrti tt t 1--) 41-4 /-L,-_ :1_ 7/ i 0.-- J ./ U 3. Areas " is -~which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments _ c ' i 5 /2 41 I. f ru- , 011 4.- C j -ru:t - I U 0 ~~~4,<11,/76~< -14- (C) f '77110, i .4 - 11 E C '.% -3 0 I. 0 0.. i.n Fl L.3-4 - 9 13 ~) 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) LIPEE_thento CC) , 5. Public Hearing: (1(*t, (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? <ES-3(NO) Disclosure of Ownership:--Cj¥*b (NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: /-/17/¥-cO -r-u/..=/'27(-0 2,9. i ! CLU i ..43 8. Anticipated date of submission_: __494·F __0--- --»)-0-1 ----- - -- 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:,/ 34'-.(1/ ,·:~frk nu> f'- /37/( 3 A mau (9 -34- I ' 0/ frm.pre_app .. .... 0. 0. DEVELOPEMENT AREA: Lot Area: 56,192 SF (1.29 Ac.) Internal Floor Area: 17,017 SF (,30 FAR) Impervious Coverage: 26,270 SF (47%) / Open Space: 29,922 SF (53%) Rooms: 35 (Inct. 2 Employee) ' Parking Spaces: 33 0 ./0 . 1 1 ir... - - - 1 0 02 Ul ·· m),w 4 1 - f - OU4Io m loouul g ..1 4 I.- ., , 3 - \1 11 \4'\41 1 \ -rt 4t \ . / emvit// /0, I 41,, r.,>/ ..2---, 9434 . 39' 29 \ , 312 4 i ..el ./ 2 9 N\th. h. 4 \ \\4\ ./-~40 3% , 1 \\ «:. \ f '14 \Cd 3-1- 0 - - 1 1 \\ - ,&* Aut Court 48 16*1/ 1 \\\ I . \ 1 1¢4 , 11114l.uplf' i.11'~111'P R. ' / 9% 0 1\ \ lu~O -- 9 t,L// ..mo l 0,4 \ 1 4- . f 3* 4 1\ 11 0$0 4 C= /- ribu * # Ash ~20 Ro m c Ota Struc ure * 11 -2. C. 81 J = 0. 1 - lili -1 2 111i' 4.11 ---- 1111 1111111 4.-7 4< . C.1, hIt!'11 h 1 -2 ir'j Ill Z \ $ 1 0 1/1 11 M U] 1 1 10: L x 2 1 i I , d I '1 \ 1 t,i * 24 I \ f # J . \ Existing 0 ~ 3 mc s \/3 0 y : 1 I *. 4 ~_ 32i 1' 4 1 Ill ..96 11 1 k SITE PLAN 0 CRESTAHAUS 00 10 20 30 40 50' SHEET NO: ~ ~ 9 11 , D- 1 .. 8969-926/EOE :3NOHa3131 3nNBAV 83dooo 1SV3 66 1HDIMAcloo 0 ll9l8 VOO-ICJEJ 'N 3dSV :NOISIAati .. . Ir j 1 1 KEY BOTANICAE NAME COM¥061 NAME SIZE QTY -- Juniperus Tamaisafolia 'Tammy' Juniper 6' Dia. (existing) 1 . (CRIj? Salix Arctic Arctic Willow 8'High (existing) Populus 1-remuloides Aspen 1 + to 4" 24 new Picea Pungens Colorado Spruce 2 to 6" 8 ~ Fraxinus Pennsylvania Green Ash 21" 6 - , r . 0 r- - -1 Quincefolia Lackman Potentilla 5 gal. 15 m , a - '>« N ~~ Spireae Snowmound Snowmound Spirea 5 Gal. 10 , 0 - 0 ¥ \ . 1~ 11 J -Lilac 4 ft. dia. (existing) 0 4 4 0 A , Pines & Firs 2 to 6" --- 0 0 OZ W .. . Note: [Disturbed areas not shown otherwise to be hydroseeded _ 04 HU,4 UJ 0 U 4 I 0 9 ~ wjth Canadian Bluegrass/Bro me/crested wheat/perrennial·· ~ , ·1 -)DOUG g< rye mixture. .r-Br. - r \ 41 A . I. 1-J ->tr 7/ --7- /00 - / j:.j - j P 0/.+4 / 0484*-- \ CO j1 1 4. »C]OL \\ - 1 4 €3-4/ * I .tok \ 4 '4 \ 6 \ \ 4 \ ..l $% 0<4 61 11 41 1 9 9 i \ r.\ . 9 - 1 ..ty-, 1 t i i ' 4- / 1 741 AUTO COURT 'c Xt -- - - 9.3. ~ 4 \ r \ + t- 4 ,) \ 4 r . p. 1 .-; \ ILINO ..6 , A-2. 1. 7 \ 1,4 £ 3 /my -\132' 48212 ..0 0 1 r.4 0,4 PARKING ,//,0453.1[.,~5 .\/ 4 · A466; ' t.~·' 1 . , f 4--1 6 ~1 ---, f 8%9 \, , 1 • ' BEAM '~ ~ \ i - . :7 ' 1 - \ J : 9 . Ill 2 \ 0 4 t 0 3 Zk \ (Orm 1 -On JON 1 \ 4 2 j '4 PARKING < < \Ch~ . r 0. 1 4 I - 1, PARKING ~ 1 - 1 I \ 1 .- F· .- M W .. - - , - - --a, AN'EL Il «Un//-/ Q LANDSCAPE ~ 0 'in DO -0 CRESTAHAUS 1 00 1 20 3 40 50 SHEET NO: ... -6 A -00/ 1 1 , - 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 8969-926/COE :3NOHd3731 anN3AV EladOOO 1SV~ BL IHOIOAd00 0 :NOISIA38 0 0 00 .. 0] .- Wa 2 z 1 9 0> IQ , U] a o 5 t91O L= .-- 1 PO LU 6 8 9 V lo r- 1 0 ~- 3 n ~<.-J ~ LS + 10 S ON- <31 b - 0Z 1 ,- 1 I ' Z b '- LU 4. > U.1 J OU<IO 0 4 1- 4 T ; r--1 F--2 /1 I ~_-2 10000 21 7 i id 1 2 ;9 -ON r-i R 11 22 f) 4 - EMPLOYEE DORM il 1 0 1 c<]1 //1 M.D . - 41 .0 1 1. 1 1 b 1-6 2 1 1 23 1 \ l 0 W .AL I 24 M er#.--6.- PAOPOSED EXISTING LLI~O BUILDING BUILDING ..00 1 25 1 1 0,4 tr 04 W.O 0 O,0 26 0 -1:0 1 Ill 2 13 4.\NO, torm -CIa J M m . 27 lt> <P¢ 1 1 y 28 I 4 0 A / 3 7//40 , 1 0 1, SECOND FLOOR PLAN f~ 0 29 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 SHEET NO: -Im ..... 8969-GEE/EOE 3n NEIAV 633/000 19¥3 8It' 00980100 'NadSV 03>123 REVISIONS BY Pe.00 587 'CE,/el-,01+1 ENT AkeAS ~~ Flup"562 Aper.il, AMEAS 37-=- -- .-I -~vt ff / 7986 >\ ~ UNENa.:602 6-' 97%J=ruge- -- -1. C O 1 \\ 1 7986 '\YJur-- d E,c, •r · - -BY ' 4/ X . b i. S & M,»-Il 14 11 4 \ li ~T--« Uli |T--1 4{=,1 '0.f z gli- 1201 g:?Jit T /44 ?4 1 \\ C O )\ \\~ \ ~ A•KS,•-- 11 It=1 1 11 . 1, 7970 Y .' ~ d 99 0 0 1 p 44 .- 01 4 \ -1\ 7 918 .4 3 rl o 4 : 0 h - I 9 rt 4 W-e £ 9 r 09 4 9799~ \ / 1 t / -1 \\'A - d il , - 4 Offt\\17 9 9 t - '.1 .1 - 111 1 it 1 .1 .ye. V C'.. 9/4 b. 1ri.. * -5,- »+U * -- 6 A b e sed , .di j / 1 1 i G - A- 9 1 i 1 91 42 i ,Nt /f 1 J 1.1 1 / ~ 1 / fl 00 F -n,J. f ,.4 1 D / I B 1 0 € £ 0 V 1 4 06- m 1 1.{ 9 1- tre ; r € st = v 8 I el € « 4 0 1 Date ·404, 10, 1966 Scale 4 4 i •b , •ar-•1 Drawn U.r. .4. N.... 0/1*140*.44412~-V .,4.-2 , r-Der-i-,·.1.'.,1 F>grM, 934 -1-6•1 0/ *4--149 * Me.14 5 4 ko ,> 1 ~~ Job 6 41 11-- 64 •" i 5 p,-2 - Sheet 4 1 12,< 2•Jf, E-A M E *-4 94 i v.c * N a .- 74'lt'-0• O Sheets 24 X 36 PRINTED ON NO. 1000H CLEAR . _- 4 -1. W a U 4 6 2 .L 4 1 0 0 6 6 V u r. v I . ic P I ./ I _,ilt/U , I. . P . lk=ir- .NA efh·m 7 =-9 I - . '11 . I ... -·.- '. 2 6 4 -r IE- h==11 „al .. . 1-0--- 92*:.49. ..., r. - , A ' M. ' .. 1 1. --=Def - . . I =E=== 11 1 <ZZLS:2: . m .mr. I - , . . . -. . / ~25-/' 4 . ..2,1 + , . ' t __55_- ---#-- 1£TLEE- Il - - . 0 ~f<Ck'F f & , - . - ~r 2,&, dI.,.,141*Timti~:2,161:~Pa.9 . -'...--2,44 ----I. y . 4 a ' . ./4.1/ - = 2 .2- ,- - i./.-I-='.I - 1 1 . .. 22 . ¥ . S , I -r - alill . -' ~ H000, 'ONNOall,11- DE M Il ....... ;10049 10 t ·..il. 971996£ ..6¥--6,-114 ..1 .,t.$ 1 4 . r¢ A '.»1 Yel ™43 W . 7-10/ r V k' a + 9.-,CNG lee49 6,0.,yg fy,W * -------- Mt, a,vt/,4 r·24- rte w-1.341 15.- n.. f '.J,A•1" 1/1 /.I'Q C 2 1-1 Umela 90 6\ '57 3 ''0,4 ewa 7 P~*3 w ¢,0 = 1 J. 1 2 3-{ 0, 01 4 3 OIl h . Pe , f 1 - 1 -0 l .M ",H J. 1~ i P 104 4-44 1/ 41/64 ...4.4 f 0 > c .. d t. 10.,1/ p 3 tr 1 4 '11 2, J 11.1 4 :* 1# :1 4 0 0 6 1 / i . i*. 1 /0 7..4?2 026 11. €. 7., di r ./ I I. ¥ t.' '4 7 N, .7. Ill .·% 111 . 2. -1 v 1 1- A . 5 / I 0 lo 5 ..4 A tvv, ' B ' 4. 2.24 - 4. I .91!f V M. 9; 7 2. -*1 / ·getagg f«1 76 1 1 0. /,4 A \\ 14\ E 1 4 ~ 41 12 -%° p 1 4 \\ / 46 6 4 ~ 1 1 - \ \\ 1 4 \91 t V / L / L- -- -9 6, 6 6 Z H ,/3 1 1-M I -4 O £1 O XL P op, e P l 0 0 4 0 1 '\ 'N- 4 .-\,hz®K~ t*L--4 0.4.90 22--- ---21.Z=~_ --3- ~-- / 2 9 Al- - 29 ''4.Vk; \ -1--- --1 .-1/r --1-*----7.- /kk* \ 1\ h - 7 - 4\964 \Al/ E- ·1$-8 11 -- >Ma --» 9964. jx YV,rb#ART --~ 0 452/ - hh -Ip,4 1. 1 It== P 994 1- 11 - 7-Ii-L * NX 1 Ag SNOISIA3W . . 0 . . 0 . 0 0091-41,6 lt.Ot) '19" 4 9 -1- v 1 . m ;. r I iii- 1 . . - I ' 1 .*. #*., 1 -· 1. -mmt AA: / * 1:g 'E\A >2 - -I'lu.. r \/f, ; 1 . . 4.'.7 . L. 1\9?/4, \ / -I. - f 4 ' 3-//2/r~56 ;' r-. ~ - £ \\\ . i:WRY,00'*El , _ .,1 32¥: Si V ..1, .i i -242 .ER 1,1111! 11111111 -- I . f. I - - ' 0- '. 766~2*'- - 1 "imiN I A.W , 11 -~f - 71 ..t/. ,- S \ \ I \\ .- . - ---i 0 41,7/&14®*it:Flai*!i FIL) e j m./394 • £> - 4 0 , „... .F- - -*- *EMi-#emht-*-4 9 9///At//9////b-29.41Ng**Sib.7/~~· 44-#AM# - .1 . I . f t 4. 1 .6 ' I. \ *€ . .. - 0 .. I .., . €1 m . . a - 0 0 /4 . 4 ' I , i I.. t I. 1 . ·· 4 , b , 0 h 0 - .lf,/ 1, - - / d.