HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.L-3Lodge.TheAspenInn.1983
/
.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
October 13, 1983
Mr. Wilson Good
Tor Corporation
730 East Ourant Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Good,
I regret to inform you that the Planning Office does hereby reject your applica-
tion for a development allocation for the lodge known as The Aspen (aka, the
Applejack Inn). Your application is being rejected pursuant to Section 24-
11.3(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code which reads as follows:
"The Planning Office shall reject any application for develop-
ment allotment which fails to comply with the requirements of
Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land
use or building regulations of the City of Aspen."
The Planning Office is rejecting your application based on two areas of non-
compliance with the zoning regulations of the City of Aspen. First, the Aspen/
Pitkin County Building Department has determined that your proposal to build a
new free-standing structure on the site will result in a total FAR for the site
which exceeds that allowed in the L-3 district. Your site survey documents
that you have approximately 1,082 square feet of remaining FAR for expansion
purposes. Your application requests the construction of three new rooms in a
building comprising 1,072 square feet. However, since you have placed this
building on stilts, with parking below, the Building Department must also count
the covered area underneath the units. This area amounts to an additional
1,000 to 1,100 square feet, thereby exceeding the allowed FAR for the site.
The rationale for the Building Department's determination is as follows. The
City's FAR regulations require that covered parking for lodge development which
is above grade be counted in FAR calculations and provides no exclusion for
same. The FAR regulations also require that any area under a horizontal projec-
tion of a roof which is necessary for the function of the building be counted
in FAR calculations. The Building Department also finds this space to qualify
as floor area under this criterion.
The second basis for rejection emerges from Section 24-11.3(d) of the Code
which requires that conceptual approval of the Historic Preservation Committee
(HPC) be obtained by an applicant prior to submitting a development allotment
application. You have not complied with this requirement. I am aware that
Gideon Kaufman, representing your application, reached an understanding with
Alan Richman, of this office, that conceptual approval for this project could
, .
"
Mr. Wilson Good
October 13, 1983
Page Two
be obtained in October, prior to the public review of the application. How-
ever, this understanding was based on Mr. Richman's comment that the Applejack
Inn had recently received HPC approval for its exterior modification and
upgrade and that the development allotment request would be no more than a
minor change to that approval. This office does not view the construction of a
new, free-standing structure along Main Street as a minor modification to your
HPC approval and must find your proposal to be inconsistent with the under-
standing reached with Mr. Kaufman.
The rationale behind the Planning Office's determination is as follows. The
Code requires you to obtain conceptual HPC approval prior to the submission
deadline to insure that subsequent major architectural modifications are not
necessary. Were you merely making minor changes to an approved structure, we
would expect no such modifications to be required. In the case at hand, it is
entirely possible that HPC will ask for major changes. Permitting you to make
such changes would be unfair to other competitors and is not allowed.
As you can see, our rejection of your application is based on interpretation of
the Code by the Planning Office and Building Department. Of course, decisions
of the Building Department and interpretations of the zoning code can be reviewed
by the Board of Adjustment.
I must point out to you that Section 2411.6(a) of the Municipal Code encourages
applicants to engage in a pre-application conference with the Planning Office
for the purpose of clarifying the lodge development application procedures.
Among the four lodge development applications we received this year, yours was
the only one for which no pre-application was held. I believe that we might
have avoided the necessity of rejecting your application had we been given an
opportunity to discuss these matters with you prior to October 1. In the
future, I strongly recommend that you consider holding a pre-application con-
ference with the Planning Office before submitting such an important applica-
tion.
I have notified the Finance Department to begin processing a refund of your
check for $1,840. I will send this check to you as soon as it becomes avail-
able. Once again, my regrets to you for any inconvenience this required
rejection of your application may cause.
SV:klm
cc: Gideon Kaufman
Russ Pielstick
Randy Gold
Paul Taddune
Gary Essary
Jim Wil son
nn, Di rector
itkin Planning Office
.., ,....
..,.---..=---=----
RP-qRD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Lt...."
_',~,-_oo
,1 Ncetinq
.-
Board of Adjustment
November 7.1_1.',,, '.
1,:IVi1gnino called the meeting to order at 4: 05 p.m. with members' Paterson,
Head and Austin present.
,
,
\
83-23
,----
tnino said this case was tabled in order to allow the applicant to give
j",r argument in the request of an FAR variance of 1100 square feet. At the
meeting, the applicant did not have the opportunity to pursue this.
\
.
. '011 Kaufman told the Board there are two points i one is a request of the
','pretation of the Code. Kaufman said at the last meeting, the Board did not
a problem with the fact that the Code did not say that parking should
Ly in the FAR or that it is necessary to the function of the building. 'rhere
problems with setting a precedent. Kaufman said the Board could grant a
iance based on unique and special circumstances. Kaufman said in this case
II practical difficulties and hardship exist.
;
\
I
I
t
i
APplejack is the only lodge built with two separate lots for parking. The
;ng is unique. The applicant cannot build extra square footage without
. ing the parking, if the Board interprets the Code the way the building
.Htment does. Kaufman said the lodge could provide parking off-site, but
ieves it is important in a lodge to have the parking on-site. Kaufman said
applicants have spent a lot of money renovating the lodge with the expecta-
,n they could add 1,000 square feet. Kaufman said based on the Code, the
.licants felt they had the ability to compete under GMP and get the extra
dare footage. Kaufman said not being able to add these units is a severe
,'dship.
.tfman said when the Applejack was zoned 0, office, there was an FAR of .75:1.
~n the Applejack was rezoned to L-3, the FAR became 1:1, which gives the
.Llity to expand 1,000 square feet. The new owners had in mind using the extra
" to recoup money they were spending to upgrade the lodge. Lavagnino asked
parking would be lost by adding the extra units. Bill Drueding, building
,)artment, said 2 or 3 spaces would be lost. Drueding read from a planning
mo, "The old Applejack had room for about 21 cars. parking plan for the
construction shows 17 spaces. The new plan shows only 16 spaces. The require-
nt should be 17 plus 3 or 20 spaces for the addition." Kaufman said the
plejack application met the threshold of points for approval under GMP. If
:lC Applejack gets this variance, the will get GMP approval from P & Z.
lufman said most lodges in the L-3 zone have very little parking. The L-3
.!dinance said if these lodges add rooms, they will have to add parking. The
Jplejack has more parking than other lodges. Ms. Mann said the applicants are
lying that their major hardship is the need of the extra units to pay for the .
:,penses of the work being done. Kaufman said the first hardship is the language.
." the Code and the interpretation. Kaufman said he feels the Code is clear '
hat what is being proposed can be done. The Board agreed the Code does not
.' "Y what the building department says it does, but the Board was concerned about
. 'recedent. Kaufman said the Code is not clear. Another hardship is that the
tpplicant did renovations based on their interpretation of the Code.
i .'lvagnino said people have to take responsibility for their interpretations.
ii.:lUfman said the intention of the Code is for people to look at the code and t.o
I'f,ly upon it. Kaufman said the applicants felt they were doi,ng the right thing
,y saving the parking and designing this to accomplish what everyone needed.
r.av~gnino pointed out financial considerations are not a resign for granting a
var~ancc; however, if there were expenditures based on an interpretation of the
.'~"~ ..h;" mi nh" hf' a consideration for the Board.
:?
"
..,.
Special Meeting
Board of Adjustment
November 7, 1983
.........
Lavagnino said he does not think the applicant has exhausted all the ways of
accommodating the three extra units. Lavagnino suggested underground parking.
Kaufman said if they make changes, this application will be thrown out of the
GMP. If the Applejack does not get a variance from this Board, they will not
be able to compete in this year's GMP. Lavagnino said that is a hardship
which the Board of Adjustment is not creating. Kaufman 'said the Applejack was
given an extra 1,000 square feet through rezoning to L-3; the building depart-
ment's interpretation could take that square footage away.
Lavagnino said the only valid argument is the interpretation'of the Code, and
the Code seems to favor the case of the Applejack. Lavagnino said literally
reading the Code is in the favor of the applicant; however, the intent of the
Code was probably not in favor. Drueding said the Code probably did not
anticipate above ground parking with a covering and building over it. Paterson
said the key is covered parking necessary for the function of the building.
Paterson contends it is not. Paterson said the intent'of the L-3 zone was
created for properties to renovate and to gain extra square footage. Paterson
said most properties are not able to renovate unless they gain some credit for
it, financial or otherwise.
Paterson said he is inclined towards granting a variance because of the hardship
~ created by the language in the Code. Lavagnino said this should be an incentive
for the planning office to change the language in the Code.
i
, Lavagnino closed the public hearing.
Paterson said the Board should leave out covered parking as being a necessary
function of the building and go into the intent of L-3, which was to get renovat,
buildings and offer an incentive to improve the property everyway possible. Thi:
applicant has shown good intent and has a hardship created by the interpretation
of the Code by the building department. Head agreed covered parking is in no
way necessary to the function of a building. Head said with the intent of L-3
and the confusion of the Code, there is room for granting a variance.
Lavagnino said the applicant relied on his interpretation of the Code. The
Board agrees the Code is ambiguous, which created the hardship. There was
confusion between the applicant, building department and the Board. The
reliance on the Code is a hardship which was not created by the applicant.
Paterson moved to grant a variance to the Applejack for FAR of 1100 square feet
based on the hardship created by the ambiguous language in the code about
parking being necessary to the function of the building; that the applicant
relied on their interpretation, and the practical difficult created by the fact
that the intent of L-3 was to renovate existing buildings and to offer an
incentive for upgrading; seconded by Head. Roll Call vote; Austin, aye; Head,
aye; Mann, aye; Paterson, aye; Lavagnino, aye. Motion carried, variance
granted.
~
The Board reauested a letter to the planning office about this problem with the
language in the Code.
Head moved to adjourn at 4:55; seconded by Paterson. All in favor, motion
carried.
o 6-PA ,
City Clerk ~
1
.~ "
','1lilllo.,
~ GIBSON & RENO. ARCHITECTS
Mr. Jay Hammond
Pitkin County Engineering Dept.
530 E. Main
Aspen CO 81611
;[ilr;-:: :;JG,~J[\5J7~J n1
Ie. '.'" " ...~u,..".,<. I
('..'..- ..,~
r,.i'-i I
J\\'.l .. FES O:) 1984 \\ L
III : ~,
.J0 1...,_-
;;SPEN I PITKIN CO
PlANNIW", OFFICE
January 31, 1984
RE: Applejack/"Aspen" Parking Plan
Dear Jay;
Thankyou for taking time to meet with me regarding the parking plan.
Some of the ideas we discussed to tighten up the existing plan of 17 designated
spaces will be helpful in creating 3 additional designated spaces required as part of
the GMP-approved 3.unit addition.
In particular:
1. Creating a row of parallel spaces (4) alongside the decks.
(Possible net gain of 2 spaces)
2. Narrowing down the entry area and prohibiting exit traffic onto
Main Street.
3. Exploring reconfiguring the alley mechanical room to create an
additional parking space in its former footprint. (Net gain of 1)
I think each of these ideas can be made to work architecturally with the proposed
addition and without reducing "open space" as existing.
Again, Thanks for your assistance. I may need to call upon you again as the design
work p rog resses.
~g~
David F. Gibson, A.I.A.
DFG/llr
cc. Bob Morris, Randy Gold, Collette Penne
203 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/925'5968
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
1983 L-3 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE:
November 8, 1983
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your review are the project profiles and the Planning
Office's recommended points allocation for the two projects submitted
on October 1, 1983 for the L-3 Lodge GMP Competition. The applications
are for four lodge units at the Hotel Lenado (corner of Aspen and
Hopkins) and the Aspen (formerly the Applejack, on Main Street) is
requesting three new lodge units. The Aspen must be successful in
obtaining an FAR variance from the Board of Adjustments on November
7 for it to be considered and scored at your November 8 meeting.
The quota available in the L-3 zone is 10 units.
PROCESS
The Planning Office will summarize the projects at your meeting of
November 8, 1983, will review procedures with you and provide a
suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the applications.
The applicants will give a brief presentation of the proposals. A
public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment.
At the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to
score the applicants' proposals.
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded
to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the total
points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 60
points, and a minimum of 30% of the points available in each category
1, 2, 3 and 4 to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum
points are as follows: Category 1 = 3 points; Category 2 = 11.7
points; Category 3 = 6.3 points; and Category 4 = 4.5 points. Should
an application score below these thresholds, it will no longer be
considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied.
Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum
threshold.
SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS
These projects, should they receive development allotments, will re-
quire additional review procedures. These reviews are:
Hotel Lenado
GMP Exemption for the Employee Unit
Exemption from Parking for the Employee Unit
The Aspen
Special Review to Increase to 1:1 FAR
Final Approval of HPC
".
."
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Competition
November 8, 1983
Page Two
These procedures will be accomplished subsequent to the applicants'
receipt of a development allotment.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS
The Planning Office has assigned points to the applications as recom-
mendations for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings
of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the proposals. The
following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation
of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached
score sheets, including rationales for the ratings.
Availabili ty
of Public Quality of Amenities Conformance
Facilities/ Improvements for Local Public Bonus Total
Services to Design Guests Policy Goals Pts. Pts.
THE ASPEN 6 15 14 30 65
HOTEL LENADO 6 29 17 30 82
The projects exceed all minimum thresholds required. Quota available
in the L-3 zone is 10 units. Quota being requested is 7 units, 4 at
the Hotel Lenado and 3 at the Aspen.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
We would recommend that you concur with our point assignments to
approve the projects and recommend to Council the allocations re-
quested.
~, ..
- ,
W N f-' 'tJ 'tJ
... :>;J
N 0 .,
"<
<: t'l
0 tr I'> ~ CO 0.0 trl'> to CO 0.0 trl'> 'tJ 0 n
c:: c:: .., ..,
~ to H
Z t' Z
H H H 0
:>;J0"1:S: .., <:'tJt'lOO:X> .., :>;J"1OOOO~ n
CO 1-'-1'> CO H I-'-I'>::S 1-'-'1 >< o 1-'- rt CO I'> :s:
o::s 0 CO t'l III '1 CO rt 0 I'> '1 0 ~ rt "1 t'l 51
'1 1-'- 1-'- rt 00 ~:>i''1CO::r 0 0. CO '1 COCO :x> S
CO::S f-'I-'- I'> I-'-.q 1-'- "1 III S '1 '1 n '"
I'>.q I-'-::s 'tJ f-'::S'<Ort 'tJ H t'l
rt rt.q :>;J .q CO CO 0 '100000 t' :>;J :>>
1-'-"11-'- 0 H nlllo :>;J o '1 CO CO H 00 Ul
o I'> CO :x> <: S I'> 0 1-'- rt rt I'> '1 '1 .., 'tJ
'"
::s 0 III '1 H 'd::s::s.q~ H CO 1-'-< < H Z
00 I'> 1-'- CO 0 00 I'> 0. III ::s '1 :s: 00 O::S 1-'-1-'- t'l
c:: f-'f-' I'> t'l c:: 0 CO I'> 'tJ c:: rtl'>OO 00
to 1-'- III 0 to rtn'1 f-' ~ to I-'-.q CO CO
.., "1rt .., 1-'-< .., o CO S;;
0 I'> 1-'- "1 0 '1 I'> 0 <: 0 ::s
.., o CO t' 0 8 o rt CO t'l 8 0
:x> I-'-l/> 0 :>;J :x> ~ 1-'- III ~ :x>
t' f-' tr t' f-'O 1-'- t' 00
1-'- tr 0 I'> ::s .q Z t'l
rt 1-'- c:: rt ::s 8 :g
1-''' CO t'l 1-'- 00
CO III 00 0 H
III 8 ::s 8 n
00 0 t'l
n 00
0 0
::s t'l
Hl 00
CO H 'tJ
'1, 0 t'
CO Z :x>
::s Zf-'
0 Z\O
CO HCO
Z""
0
t'
;'>1
Zw
0
'tJ 0
f-' f-' t'l N:>;J
'" '" '" 0' ll' 0' 0 W W W ...., '" '" f-' f-' f-' :>;J 00
~ Z~
H8
Z::I:
80
f-' f-' t' ~niiS
'" '" '" 0' f-' wo '" W W ...., f-' '" f-' f-' f-' t'l t'OZ
t'l ><~~
ll' ll' ll' ll'
OOHt'l
::I:OO~
t'lOO
t'lHZ
'tJ 808
f-' :x> Z
'" '" '" 0' <!) 0' 0 W 0 0 ...., f-' '" f-' f-' '" 8 'tJ
'tJt'
O:X>
HZ
Z
800
"< OOC::
:x> to
f-' f-' 00 :X>:S:
'" '" '" 0' OJ 0' 0 W w 0' 0' f-' '" f-' f-' f-' :s: t'H
H t'OO
Z 000
t'l nH
:x> 0
8Z
H
:>;J 0
f-' f-' 0 Z
'" '" '" 0' w 0' 0 ww f-' 0' f-' '" f-' f-' f-' 0
ll' ll' t'l
:>;J
~
t'l
f-' f-' t'
'" '" "'0' ll' 0' 0 w w w ...., f-' '" '" f-' f-' 8
ll' ll' 0
Z
f-' '" 0
'" '" '" 0' '" 0' f-' W 0' 0' ...., f-' '" f-' f-' f-' ~
ll' ll' ll' ll' ll' ll'
H
0
f-' f-' ~
W '" 0' t'l
'" <!) OJ ~
'" '" ll'
0
t'l
""...,
U1 "" '0 'dJ-'l '0 f-'
'" III Ill"''''
'" lOl-'~txl
CD I-' ""
<: '<:'0
tJj o-Ill (') 0 J-'l Ot"
0 0 J-'l ~ CfJ}-" I
Z Z H O::>'::lW
c:: "l Z CDrt
CfJ 0 G'l CDUlG'l
0:<1t<J ~ rt 'i
'0 ,." CD S :3: :0-0
0 ::>''0 t<J I-'~
H t<J1ll1-' Z :3: I-'rt
Z ~o-O (') tJj 0::>'
J-'l }-'- }-'.,<: t<J t<J ()
CfJ Ull-'CD :<1 III :3:
rt }-'- CD 0 CfJ rtlll
}-'-rt "l }-'-::l
::l1ll:I: o III
J-'l J-'l CfJ lO rt 0 '0 ::llO
0 0 c:: }-'-c c:: CD
J-'l J-'l tJj C::OUl tJj S
~ :0- J-'l ::l::l }-'- t" CD
t" 0 }-'- ::l H ::l
J-'l rtllllO (') rt
'0 '0 :0- Ul ::l
0 0 t" P, '0 '0
H H 0 I-'
Z Z :<1 t" III
J-'l J-'l CD H ::l
CfJ CfJ () (')
0 K; CfJ
I-' I-' ::l C
I I Ul G'l 0-
U1 "" rt 0 S
.. 'i :0- }-'-
C t" Ul
() CfJ Ul
rt }-'-
}-'- 0
0 ::l
::l
'0
t<J
0"> W 1--' 1--' :<1
0"> 0 Ln Ln ~
0"> 1--' 1--' t"
w t<J
'" 0 Ln Ln t<J
Ln
'0
:0-
Ln W 1--' 1--' J-'l
ro 0 Ln Ln
c..,
:0-
0"> W 1--' 1--' CfJ
ro 0 Ln Ln :3:
H
Z
t<J
0"> w 1--' 1--' el
w 0 Ln Ln G'l
t<J
Ln :<1
:;;
t<J
0"> W 1--' 1--' t"
" 0 Ln Ln J-'l
Ln 0
Z
0
-.J W 1--' 1--' ~
" 0 Ln Ln
H
0
0"> W ~
Ln 0 t<J
1--' ~
ill G'l
t<J
PROJECT PROFILE
1984 L-3 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
fadlsutm
'X1', I,:,
.-/~r-~ (, I) '.,;
\
,
',-
1. Applicant: TOR Corporation
2. Project Name: The Aspen (formerly the Apple;ack)
3. Location: 311 W. Main
4. Parcel Size: 16,507 square feet
5. Current zoning: L-3
6.
Maximum Allowable Build-out:
16,507 square feet
7. Existing Structures: A 15,425 sq. ft. lodge consisting of 35 lodge
units and one employee unit.
8. Development Program: This application is for a three unit free-
standing addition which is elevated one level with parking underneath.
The existing employee unit will be expanded.
9. Additional Review Requirements': Final approval of HPC; Special
Review to increase to 1:1 FAR.
10. Miscellaneous: An outdoor swimming pool is replacing the indoor
pool, and a hot tub is being provided. Fencing is being added around
the parking lot and an ,entrance canopy to the main lodge.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT:
The Aspen
Date:November 8. 1983
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission 3hall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the'pl:oposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development ,and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
1
(
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: A 4" main is located in Main Street and wi 11 serve
this proiect.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
1
y
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: The Aspen Consolidated District replied that the three
new. units could be served with no problem.
An 8" sewer trunk
line is located in the adiacent allev.
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING:
1
,
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: The application indicates that a drywell is being
added to handle additional roof drainage.
It appears that this
will maintain the existing situation.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide. fire protection 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
fire protection facilities which may be neCessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING:
2
1-
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: An additional fire hydrant 'is oeirig placed at the
outheast corner of the Main and Second intersection.
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system;
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING:
1
I
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: The lodqe is si tuated on Main and Second.
The 35 lodge
units of the existing Appleiack have existed for years and these
three new units will not require any road upgrading.
SUBTOTAL: 6
- 2 -
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum lS points).
The Commission shal'f consider each application with respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design antl any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall Late each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a totally deficient design.
1
Indicates a major design flaw.
2
Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3
Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingl~:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING: Q.
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments: The desiqn solution of placinq the new units on a stilt
structure in the middle of the parkinq lot does not ,fit with
any of the Main Street build-out.
Allowinq such construction
could set an undesireable precedent.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
RATING: 1
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments: The entrance canopy and fencing of the parking lot are
privacy and safety improvements. Considerably more bulk is being
added to the site and a two-story structure is resulting from
the use of stilts. Rearrangement of the parking lot for more
efficiency is fine, but filling it up to the degree requested is
negative, in light of the incompatible character of the structure.
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING: 3
MULTIPLIER: 1
- 3 -
Comments: Solar collectors are proposed on the sOllt-h "in,,' of
the addition for provision of space heating. The concrete
mass will be insulated and radiant hot water heatinq incorporated.
These will preheat the domestic hot water when not needed
for space heating.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING: 0
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments: The old parking lot for the Appleiack had room for
about 21 cars.
The parkinq plan for the reconst-nl~t-ion "howf'd
17 spaces.
The new plan shows only 16 spaces.
'T'np l""~r"Jl' ; rp_
ment should be 17 plus 3 or 20 spa~es for t-h" ~nni<-inn
e. VISUAL IMPACT - considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
~ I
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments: considering that a sizeable structure sits across the
alley from this proposed addition, views will not be affected.
-'
SUBTOTAL:
~1
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1
Indicates services which Rre judged-to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate 'in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments: The lobby will be usable as a gathering spot rather
than occupied by the swimming pool.
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments: Wf't bars are beinq added in the lodqe units, but no
ilininq. rf'!'ltanrant or bar facilities are beinq provided. Con-
+inpntnl brenkfast will be !'lerved in the lobbv as required in
thf' condominiumization approval.
c. Availabili ty of or improvements to the ,existing on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments: An outdoor swimming pool will replace the interior
one and a hot tub will be added to the deck of the canopy.
SUBTOTAL: 14
- 5 -
4.. CONFOR.'1/1NCE TO LOC/lL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a., PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum IS points) .
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O,to 50\ of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10\ housed.
51 to 100\ of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
1 point for each 5\ housed.
RATING: 15
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: The applicant submits that no new employees will be
generated by these units.
The existing employee unit is
being enlarged by 100 sq. ft. to house an additional employee.
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
,to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full IS points available within this subsection.
b.
'.,"
REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points) .
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50\ of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10\ rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100\ of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5\ rehabilitated or reconstructed.
RATING: 15
MULTIPLIER: 1
,- 6 -
/
,/
Comments: The applicant submits that approval for these three
new units will expand their commitment to rehabilitating the
remaining 33 lodge units, providinq a heat recirculating system
in the. main lObby space and adding increased sound isolation,
as well as the outdoor pool.
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist
population to which the lodge 'is marketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facilities.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) .
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-ll.6(b) (1),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting" recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-l1.6(b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4 :
SUBTOTAL: Points ,in Categories
1, 2, '3 and 4:
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planing and Zoning Member: Planning Office
- 7 -
CIT
reet
611
~~):T', .,-]'\;::~:;:c!' :\1\
1984\1\\',. fEi 10 1",nA '. \ Ii
~'\", ..V, ~t " ,,'I
. .' i" .J
\ "" .~._. . - - ....-' '--~
-'ASl'EN / 1-': ihiN C?
Pl' -, ""1"'" (1' ,"lll:
J,",'~..\! ,......, 'J' ../
February 9,
David Gibson
Gibson & Reno Architects
203 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Oolorado 81611
Re: Revised Parking Plan for The Aspen
Dear David:
This is to confirm our discussion of February 7 as well
as your letter of January 31 regarding revisions to the
parking plan for The Aspen. Pursuant to your letter,
we are generally satisfied with the new parking
configuration providing twenty spaces for the project.
The resulting narrowing of the entrance from Main Street
is also satisfactory subject to the following:
1. All lodge traffic shall be required to exit the site via
the alley. This actually results in an improvement to the
overall circulation for the site since it will eliminate
a mid-block conflict on Main.
2. Installation of clearly visible signing to indicate
"No Exit" onto Main Street.
3. Signing to indicate the lot exit to the alley.
The reconfiguration of the site meets with our approval subject
to the above conditions. I would further ask that you supply
us with architectural elevations and sign specifications
indicating sign location and type. Let Me know if I may be
of further assistance in this matter.
'ncv~
W. Hammond
sistant City Engineer
JWH/co
cc: Gideon Kaufman
Colette Penne
~"r' '>"'
;. ~ ~
~ .-.
'" *' ~
~
'lo-'<-
I
I
I
I ~ 'OIl
! -ao
Oa-
'3a
~.. g
..... ~.~
'D~i::
000
l"~ *".
_D?"
,
. , III
t
m '.. :
III
~
D' ~*
6'
n
;I\'
~ :m~
UI
, Ol~
" 'I .
:": ~....",
t ~*;
.
l,
.
~ ..
8 . I ~ <J::m \:
-~~, \tJ
I~
I' t: * I
I~ ,
.
~
~
.
'I .
.
0 ~ -i "D .
.
III ~II1l ~
.
.. ~m ., .
0 ..
. III ~ 7' ~
III -. . I
III ct II) :s .. L_'__
0 ~
. 3:'0
.
!!!.m 'U " '
;'2_ ~
~ W:11l II'
. . :s
~
m
c ~
, 0
rt'tt
,
I" III
&r.1
'gill
w
;
. ...
" ... ~
--11\ :'
I '" 'Ill
I ' .
T 'I
f, ~
I .~ '.
: l' ~ ~
t" " .....
I "': I
: Tt I~
I , I'
,
:' ~
.
~
2nd Street
o
*
/,0
-.. .
.,'
,
.
.-
.-
..
;-.- ---
4"..
t~':,"
I ~ .
I, '.
1"." '.
,,: "
1'1",
"'"
~-~
".
~
u'
l~~i
~ ~ .
~
Q
.
,.-
. '
- '
-,... .
/:'
~
2.
r
-~\
~"'......"'.
~~
.-
A\
,\ S P 1]\ !\ ceo tvl :\1 0 D :\1
January 4, 1984
W r'~lm~~ ~
n ,~~~'D."1 '-.
!l Ii
1\. ,
I'.,; J^N - ~ ''',".',''''
Il M 'J ',)'"'1 I
01-'> Jt
"- ASP!:.i" / PITf(IN CO.
"" fllANNING OFFICE
Mr. Jim Wilson
Bu i1 ding Department
City of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Applejack Lodge/East Half of Lot D, all of Lots E, F,
G, H and I, Block 45, City and Townsite of Aspen a.k.a.
311 West ~~in Street
.L
~._..
<'.4..
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Mr. Wil son:
As reQJired in the STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION for the above-refer-
enced property TOR Corporation was to submit pl ans and upgrade the
Lodge by a val ue of $125, ODD pursuant to Paragraph 5 of that
Agreement. More than $200,000 has been spent on the required fire,
heal th and safety improvements.
Pl ease call me if you need additional verification of this
amount. Note al so that TOR Corporation has transferred all inter-
est in the Applejack to Aspen Accommodations, Inc.
Thank you very much.
Very truly yours,
RPM/ds
~ \ V ~/j
rV
'.
''-iJ nb.
'U: ~ .\\~~,.,
\ l\"\ ",.~
jr'\"' ..' :.>;.. ~
"y. ,_.\0:>
vJ .~...., "'l~J
\'\~<:.'? ~~
-4SPE\'\I~ I J....
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this'r
day of January, 1984 by Robert P. Morris, President of
Aspen Accommodations, Inc. \~
a-~
iCM,lf
'a e Struohar, Notary Pub ic
P.O. Box 1553
Aspen, CO 81612
,..-,
-/~-',~'-"'~----
Robert P. Morris
President
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
)
COUHTY OF PITKIN
My commissionexpires 9/29/85
A CO!OIZAIXl CORi'ORATIOi':
'10J,\\IIlI'RA'-I. \\I'J'-.CO!OIZ.\I)(lHI(,(I. "., !)2;,('"
,,.....,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT:
~
Hf J2P /'J
,
Date:'
// g-.[?J
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the 'proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development ,and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING: /
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: /;h a L/ tJ rU iP./.ld
I
aLJF",:} 170 r ! Jn1 /.//J I) V2.
,
AI" tf-2'J () /A"':/107'; /19
{c/o?;;, bvT
J7{(' h2G1v/a-
coo (;J
/"':/1 C:J
7/1 M~7
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING: I
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
.~"''''
"'"
-
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: )
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide fire protection 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
fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING: !!<
MULTIPLIER: 1
COmments: H 01' ~ 01
A f/ ,;1;/0/1'7=
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system;
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system.improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING: ;:)
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: /7 / t:e t/
/
jJOVco(
/
- 2 -
........
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shaYl' consider each application with respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a totally deficient design.
1
Indicates a major design flaw.
2
Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3
Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingl~:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING: /
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
RATING:
I
MULTIPLIER:
3
,
Comments:
Fe! /1
C 1'1"1 c....
f
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING: .5
MULTIPLIER: 1
- 3 -
.........
-..."I
Comments:
,,\O/Wi c7- /Va~
!1-Pw ;p~~bNI?
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING: 0
/07
/
/70
/I/' 0
,;/J/l 17C/,/ ~ (~/1
/' ~
U/?( '?j ,
P
/
MULTIPLIER: 3
//CV1 h- / ~O
, . /
Comments:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areaSa
RATING: .2
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1
Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
/"~
"'"
~-'
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
;:2
MULTIPLIER:
3
Comments:
/O'rb'!;7
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING:
::?
MULTIPLIER:
2
Comments:
c. Availability of or improvements to the ~xisting on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
RATING: ~
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments:
- 5 -
,
~
J
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
1 point for each 5% housed.
/J---
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points) .
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
RATING:
/--5 '-
MULTIPLIER: 1
"~',~..'~<-~-' --.,
c
,..."
.....'
Comments:
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to t~e segment(s) of the tourist
population to which the lodge 'is ~arketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or' complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facHi ties.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-ll.6(b) (1),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded ~he provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11. 6 (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
o
MU~TIP~IER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTA~ POINTS
Points in Category 1: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required)
Points in Category 2: /-<.,-- (Minimum of 11. 7 points required)
Points in Category 3: /J-,C (Minimum of 6.3 points required)
Points in Category 4: 30 (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTA~: Points ,in Categories it
1, 2,,'3 and 4: tMinimum of 60 points ::equired)
Bonus Points: G
TOTA~ POINTS: A G
Name of Planing and Zoning Member:
?//l/?V ~h
/ /'
~
~}
".'.....
"""
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT:
~~
Date:'
/1 - r - ~5
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the'proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development.and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
/.:>---
Comments:
MULTIPLIER: 1
odc/:fVVl cf CI)D~ ~ ~,Iv!fv
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
---
9.'
--
--
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING:
{
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide, fire protection 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
fi.re protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING: 2.
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system;
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING:
---
{J
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: 4v/r;J C,utLf.-
,fJGJ 1:.cN 0/ aJo/ ~ e-p
(t7n~ ~
;fJ C/ "-r r
f
h
~
- 2 -
---
'.:i. \
.....-
c55
r""
.....'"'
'-'
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission sharI' consider each application with respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingl~:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING:
(.
Comments:
;j. bod (Jv'eo,.dGI/C/e- - C^-
dV1 ..j. i!-r I (~ /f) 0 T a/1~ i ~ Le-
r!i- ~~0L~_
MULTIPLIER:
f;' -frG-C f;-v<-
to'rN...
3
3
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
RATING:
I
'3
Comments:
C'/vvo L
0/ j{)1L hc-
>,-h /-h
MULTIPLIER:
vew ,:ck
3
~
OV'
C:f;
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING:
~ 2.{
MULTIPLIER: 1
/'
C),'
/
"{, )
- 3 -
- - _.
--
-
Conunents:
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING:
(]J
MULTIPLIER:
3
Comments:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:-L
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
<(W/
d;
IVucL v..-<:;<;z:.. I~
t >~
'5
~
(I.J
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each develoPment by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1
Indicates services which are judged' to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
1"'"'\
1""'\
'-'
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodg1ng profect or any addition thereto.
RATING:
2-
(y
MULTIPLIER' 3
Comments:
b.
Availability of or improvements to the existing
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
addition thereto.
on-si te ~~n.g..
banquet acilities,
project or any
RATING:
2-.
L(
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments:
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lOdging
project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
1...,
"/
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments:
~'
/ c(
- 5 -
'~"".""">
.. .-'
,"'"'
-
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O,to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING:
If
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments.
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points) .
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
tr
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
c
,...."
-....I
Comments:
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to t~e segment(s} of the tourist
population to which the lodge -is ~arketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facilities.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-ll.6(b) (I),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (lO) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6 (b) (I), (2), ('3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4:
SUBTOTAL: Points .in Categories
1, 2,'3 and 4:
Bonus Points:
7 (Minimum of 3 points required)
,
/t. 'i (Minimum of 11.7 points required)
fLf (Minimum of 6.3 points required)
JO (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
"625
{Minimum of 60 points required)
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planing and Zoning Member:
~.
"'"
""'"
~
pC
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT :--nh
11_.:, De n
,
Date: /\1' Ie fill':- Ie F: /~~3
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according.to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development.and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
~.
/-,.
Commentt;A c'/[ (' e-
o
'/" / '
'--_ c-'-.- ,./-'
/
~~.
ac',.'j; /0',
MULTIPLIER: 1
/?//LC',:" ,i,,<..-/
'---<::7
(7
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING: /
Comments:
\ ')',
C
MULTIPLIER:
1
() (
(\.1 ,I, ,..--
" ~_~ -:.'\.~,"'\.~ I' ~
-
c..-"
-
....,
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: /
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide, fire protection 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
fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
c.?i
RATING: ' ~
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system;
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system,improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING: I
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
~7
- 2 -
""""
-
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall' consider each application with respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly.:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING: C.
c
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:/7>, ;f'./),~'i //"'1"///, n'j-
,--_/C?// /( {c' If)'f>f f //( '}'-2ro/;j ~'
~,;Cc<". i (,'01
,F75,
LL_ __/l_(
(' ), ( (
U
;)'-0 _____/' >/'), , _ .~~
// / , - -- -" ~ '
/ .
/j,/'/
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of 'the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
RATING:
c
c
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
~ -,
RATING: <~ /7
~
1 ,
MULTIPLIER:
- 3 -
,,,-
,,,",,
~
Comments:
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING:
[;
c
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
,~
MULTIPLIER: 3
~,
Comments:
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
I
Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
''.
--.
-.-'
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
.L
/
RATING:
~- /
~j
MULTIPLIER' 3
Comments:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING,
/
'?
L_
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments,
c. Availability of or improvements to the ~xisting on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
v7
RATING: L
1
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments:
- 5 -
".,~'''''''
'""
~
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maxi~um 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O.to 50\ of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10\ housed.
51 to 100\ of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
1 point for each 5\ housed.
/.~
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of e~ployees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points) .
The Commission shall award points as' follows:
o to 50\ of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10\ rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100\ of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5\ rehabilitated or reconstructed.
J -
RATING: I':>
MULTIPLIER: 1
,.......
"'"
-'
Comments:
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to t~e segment{s) of the tourist
population to which the lodge 'is marketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or' complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
. portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facilities.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6(b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required)
Poin ts in Category 2: q (Minimum of 11. 7 points required)
/'"
Points in Category 3: L (Minimum of 6.3 points required)
~
Points in Category 4: .,::), (/ (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points ,in Categories
1, 2,,'3 and 4: {Minimum of 60 points required)
Bonus Points:
,~ f!~
, IJ
TOTAL POINTS: /
)~.
Name of Planing and Zoning Member: l () ( / (; '//1 /'-.;
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT:
~TJ:c. 'oil j'[ d
Date:
!
I i
'1 /
---'
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
Comments:
J : j
/\ r
{'I
')' \ c
I
I
\
MULTIPLIER:
1
\ I /,."\
i.e;:-
I __
"
\ ,'- )./
. '
\
,l_.-J
\
\
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:~
MULTIPLIER: 1
Conunents:
!
,
i "~,
~\ ,
~ \
;,)
~
\1\
;\,
u
.,
"
"
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING:
Comments:
'I"~ ".
(I
\ \
MULTIPLIER: 1
'it
I', ,
I'-,~ L,,) I,
\ ,
J l:,\,
~
"L,.
\ 'j
, '
\ ,
1.. ',--."
()
i
\
-"-'
\ ,~, /
,
,
,)
;.l
SI\'U ..,:\
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide, fire protection 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
fi.re protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
/)
RATING: ~
j
Comments: ~\i
MULTIPLIER: 1
~,.___.'~'
<'
~ 1__.
.j' V".l. _.}..
\
\
\
,
~
''"
\'\ .
I' !",-
\
\
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system;
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
,
'Ii'
,
I:"
/
,-', \}
, '
I
ot
/
.::::L
, '
I
~ ~
3 ~"'~;' I.~) LJ t \ ~ -.\., :.::-'
f-O'\ 1
I
,
I
\
:S:Ut, \ t',: ",c Co
- ? -
,,-'....
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission sharI consider each application wi th respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The fOllowing shall be rated accordingly,:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 3
I
I,'
I:
....) <,J;
k'
i
-) ;
~
If' I
(,
I",
/'
I,
j,
II,
'-
,
< :i\
~-
,. .~ ' "
;S I I
!
'"... I.-
I
,
\
,
\,
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, bench~s, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments ;:=]1",
\, (,
i
I . I 'I'
? f i {,
Ii,
,_\,,_ l l I
I" ,_ . I
'Ii Ie 'I f( /,
, ( - ~'.' \
\
i I
i
L".'.
~\
I
, .
\. }: "'-. ;' j
i l! t ~', -\.,
). I, \.1___.
,.
,
-
,
,?':'...,
\'
':J,d
,
n 1\'\
::.1:
\"1 .','
''--1
i
t I. f .
! ;\"'H\:".__
]-
I
_.' ~
..'
i
c.
. I) , ',' '-, oC r
, "-" _ ~i:H
"", ,t- -" \ \, ~:' ,\ ", _ Ii , lc \
, - -" 'r.ll _," ,'\, J" ,-t ~..LY'. ; \ (
" \ i
ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
I
1
-t,
RATING:
~,
MULTIPLIER:
1
- 3 -
Comments:
"',----- ;
~,;i; ,"
(,l; 1,,--
~\.
i
"
.."
,\ .
"I
. \
I( ~,
p
'\J IC:':! . I
.
'.
/
~.o' .
~' ,
\ -"I
I.
"'"' ,:' (','
"
I :1;'
-I
I i
lu,l
d,
\\i l \1,"
I
l!' j. I:
:1
I
II:
f
</"\' :
I
,
I.
, :
:; "v".
" )
J
d.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING:
~ ~(j)
MULTIPLIER:
i(/ (/'1..1-
1c""NiDi~
"
oJ d Q,{
,
,~ L
1/ :
LI,.
<0:= ..~ i(
/;((
I
r
W
<"
"
'1
('\ ",) I
JL,") ('jJ,\- L;. 1. \ I
-,~--" i ", 1 ~
e. VISUAL IMPACf - Considering the
posed buildings or any addition
o"f surrounding scenic areas.
'CJ.J
I
. '.~ j
scale and location of the pro-
thereto, to maximize public views
RATING:
'/
.0--'--
r
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
Ii
:i I
,
i~
. ,
l J.
-j ~'.
"I,
. 'It ,
,
~ ,
'1,,-,
n
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
I
Indicates services which are judged" to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
\
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
2-
RATING:
Comments:
-,I
i I
) V' .~-~
\
i
)r
i
lA' i I i
I
,
/....:!l..
MULTIPLIER' 3
! (
(j~I.J,><___ (".:;, d......
.~ .
\
;'-~
r '1',.
,
b. Availability of or improvements to thfO existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
;!
RATING:
MULTIPLIER:
2
Comments:
L,)
~'!I
I
l"
,
, I
I,
, '
,J
i
I I. /
j, .e/
/---
ltJ-
J Jt-' J \-' '\
, I'
I v' - \ l' ...
\'\\\\\ \....:.,-
~ '(,-,((
I~'
iCG\.".i L.
\t-~P\,
v
r
\
I,
11'/'
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
RATING: ~
Comments:
(
MULTIPLIER:
2
II
~--~-,> l..,! i ~ 'l, ... ~ ,
i ' '
'.. i ,- " ,I.
e 1'- >--............... I,
). \
,.
\ ,
'l...'
\
\
,
k.,j\ 1\
V
I,
11,1
j-.--
-I), L
I C.'::; (A )1
i
y..
'.,
'.\
If
,
G\ -'
\
'II \.
.....
,
) ,I r'.
- 5 -
~
4. CONFOR-'Il,NCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING: I::::,
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments: (; . t ~'I-...
f I
, I
P I,;'~" ',~'.' ~ (ill If
-, ~." ,'"~ I" . -111'~
J.~j Id) I .,/
, j \
- \;-~ ----,
~ '. i, lC , , . I ,_.
'I
v.,U
, ,..:)
i
, ;
t'JL
,
;, b '
, \'.
1"-.. ; "; '; {, L
/'LV\.. vi d -j, itJ
;
-I
I
,
, ,
~' ...
- .
I
! I ' ' f
. '~'
It 'J
.~ \ /
I
/
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submisSion of
applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site, The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points) .
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
RATING:
Ie
-
MULTIPLIER:
1
. .
/
/
, ,
''-,.J.,:
J I
;
Ii k' '
... ,
d;((
-,
i ~' 1 (J) {
I I
I '11, I
'I I
, , (
'/' .
Comments:
~'('UJ"
Cl .
7' ~
,
. .
L
(() \
,~
!
t,."\
J
,
\.~i,'
1/
..'-.- -
I"L;",
--;T -;;(
~'), -"
!
Sq" J"
::+, ,
\
. ,.i f
l \
:
"
,+
,\{
~.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facilities.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded ~he provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6 (b) (1), (2), ('3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4:
SUBTOTAL: Points .in Categories
I, 2,'3 and 4:
Bonus Points:
0 (Minimum of 3 points required)
-if- (Minimum of 11.7 points required)
(Minimum of 6.3 points required)
jJ (Minimum of ~points required)
foB
{Minimum of 60 points required)
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planing and Zoning Member:
c
~
-'
1
-)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT:
~. ~~-Q~
Date:.
~ov
PJ, l qe_~
I
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the 'proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increaSed
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development ,and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:-L-
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
o
~
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: \
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide, fire protection 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
fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING: ~
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system;
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system,improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING:~
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
- 2 -
I,~I"'\
""'"
"""
-
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission sharI' consider each application with respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly.:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING: ;2..
MULTIPLIER: 3
(;
Comments: 1N.-'1 s+; Ill! WIJ~ UJOuW be.- Lvo (J..,c.f,p~
'\.{ -the, ~ Seri -tbrVlr'\ & ,ct r.t not ~ ~ Sti H.~ .
..uWa*1nns ~DldtU o. ~Qjfs 10 be- b?~1 \..J'i<;s)bk. ~I)tjlhr
~ \00\ frO'r-f\ '1~0J2.. ~ ~ ~ ~uctuve. 10,\ \ ~ it
~ \lU-- -\'n~N.W OM tf, ) W \ ~ ~ Dire- t<A.e. t<ML
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 3
-d
Comments: ~ W.o - '\'1\ '\-t.lQ. l'<\\~k of fuQ &1 'vE'.u 10-11-
~ -1 () 'rM.... to he. a.. ~)h..e ~^ .
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING:
3
--:S
MULTIPLIER: 1
- , -
,.....,
--
.......
-....;
Comments:
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING: 0
MULTIPLIER: 3
c_"" ;;. ~,A,1~ ~Il<<<? ~ Wi cA ~ a~:~
1-0 ~~)I ,1 ~ N1 -to Q,uJt- ~
I \
<J
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
:J...-
MULTIPLIER:
3
Comments:
~
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1
Indicates services which are judged' to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
o
-
-
The fOllowing shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
.2
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments: k'rf\O^^.nnY\Q~ be.{YJ.e..,moJ'Y\6 pD()j ~dodY';;,.
"S ~ \ ~nJ~ff rrlus. t\tW VI nt hb ~
I
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING:
~
MULTIPLIER:
2
Comments:
)x
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
'-
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments:
<1-,
- 5 -
o
o
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O.to 50\ of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site _
1 point for each 10\ housed.
51 to 100\ of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site _
1 point for each 5\ housed.
RATING:
15
MULTIPLIER:
1
COrnrnents:
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
appli,cations, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
,generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50\ of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10\ rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100\ of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5\ rehabilitated or reconstructed.
RATING:
\5
MULTIPLIER:
1
c
~
Comments:
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist
population to which the lodge -is ~arketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facili ties.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded ~he provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6 (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4:
SUBTOTAL: Points ,in Categories
1, 2,,'3 and 4:
Bonus Points:
0 (Minimum of 3 points required)
LS (Minimum of 11.7 points required)
1+ (Minimum of 6.3 points required)
30 (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
b 8 {Minimum of 60 points required)
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planing and Zoning Member: ~~~ I'~~
o
J
(11
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT:
ib ~ .
_-": ,1 I .:.~.- ~J
'.lc~ ,fit i.j~ate:
~v<;z~
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The'Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the 'proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development.and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
(
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve' the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
'1
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
,,-,
........,
>. ,j'
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING:
I
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide. fire protection 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
fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING:
2.---
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system;
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING:
I
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
- 2 -
c
""'\
",/
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shalL' consider each application with respect to the quality
of ,its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly.:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING:
...)
MULTIPLIER: 3
::= I, <<)
Comments:
-- " ..,....- It,( tl, """ '-"~I-'
j-l i L.. t~ <f1. [" L.:: ."_
. _ .'- i.l ,-."t.....".. .... 'j ....If" ,',.-."p ~
Uf,J':('((;I"'lir--;)(,(.~> ""-<=.-,/1.,1" (<2111"';/. / I of!" 1 1(.(
.... P M/L!-:./l Ii E'C7'"
-
IJIJI r
D fJ
L, Hl+f.
~ ,l /jO";/ ,~ " ,.' ^,
'/"'/~. i ...' ,,-,-...,.-' L), I
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
RATING:
I
Comments: (lD WI--f.cJ (t::i.Jr~..;", +
()iJDb-IL" ~'"D
MULTIPLIER: 3
___ .. . 4, "",- ..
~ ~<..'/c:..
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING: ,5
MULTIPLIER, 1
- 1 -
-
_.
t"'
....,
:')
Comments:
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
~o screen parking from public views.
RAtING: t)
comments:_V V . eON. f-IJ Afr ":..
e f ' 'b?1 i#-w il '-f I e~ --: /'. iF
1"'t-l>clhc... L k 17 1"')('"
MULTIPLn;R:
3
...L
/""'-
I tu;
(IV
.J.f ", ,....-
l {(;.)i.J(c-,
I
I "l --;$ J1 !... r:y
~h-r r t, D ,..l9lf
i)L~ (.;(--;-2. ') *'1
llf /.1 f I~.J' '" ...e c-s::r
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
-z-
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
I
Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
....."",
,......,
........,,'
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
'Z.-
~
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING:
7_
L{
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments:
c. Availability of or improvements to the ~xisting on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
.'C-I
RATING: '"
~
MULTIPLIER: 2
Comments:
- 5 -
""'"
,......,
.....J,.'
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
RATING:
l)
~'
1 point for each 5% housed.
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
RATING:
I)
MULTIPLIER: 1
- 6 -
-.
.... I'
,"'
""..""
Comments:
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to t~e segment(s) of the tourist
population to which the lodge 'is marketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or' complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facilities.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-ll.6(b) (1),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded ~he provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6(b) (1), (2), ('3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
Points in Category 4:
SUBTOTAL: Points ,in Categories
1, 2 ,,'3 and 4:
Bonus Points:
(Minimum of 3 points required)
(Minimum of 11. 7 points required)
(Minimum of 6.3 points required)
(Minimum of 4.5 points required)
~Minimum of 60 points required)
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planing and Zoning Member:~~-) L,J ~ I
-
~,
we (+00
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1984 L-3 Lodge GMP Applications
PROJECT: flu ~h--
,
Date:'
8 )IN g ~
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the 'proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development.and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING: /
I
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
b.
SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:
1
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
~
<",
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING:
rz.,
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide fire protection 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
fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING:
'V
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system,
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system,improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
RATING:
)~
MULTIPLIER:
1
Comments:
~> 11,-
- 2 -
,0<...'"
-
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shal'l. consider each application wi th respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingl~:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING: J
MULTIPLIER: 3
'/
Comments: ~ W/?D,. ~~ ~
~;h ~ -!n4hdt av.eL ~ ./D ~
~ ~ {iv-~ ;f~"~ o/5h1b
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
/
I
MULTIPLIER:
RATING:
3
~
Comments:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING:
:;
/
MULTIPLIER: 1
- 3 -
--
Comments:
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING:
-(').
MULTIPLIER: 3
comments:~.s ~t~ S~ vwt k
k ~ V4 f~}D (9~- &-~
-P ~ - ...v/lAA..AA
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
:!.
L
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
~M.
/)
3.
AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
I
Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
,.......,
The fOllowing shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 1-
MULTIPLIER: 3
Comments:
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto.
RATING:
/
MULTIPLIER:
2
Comments:
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
~
MULTIPLIER:
2
Comments:
$1v6 Jt- ~ )~
- 5 -
-
, '~""'"
.............
""
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING:
/.f'
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
RATING: I)
MULTIPLIER: 1
,-.
Comments:
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to t~e segment(s) of the tourist
population to which the lodge 'is marketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or' complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space which may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facilities.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (l),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded ~he provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6(b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: 1~1/ (Minimum of 3 points required)
Points in Category 2: JI) (Minimum of 11.7 points required)
Points in Category 3: )1-- (Minimum of 6.3 points required)
Points in Category 4: ~C> (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points ,in Categories t4~l
1, 2,'3 and 4: ~Minimum of 60 points required)
Bonus Points: . 0,
TOTAL POINTS: 04'/'l.--
Name of Planing and Zoning Member:
lfJ,dfo"l
,
........
-.../
ouJ
''-..../
PROJECT:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
~ ~;J'~ 'WH~::",
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of
the 'proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and
'services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to
the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1
Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2
Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a
given areaa
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a.
WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
development.and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:K
comments:JoJ VJ41~
MULTIPLIER: 1
b.
SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the
development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the
development.
RATING:~
Comments:
81(
MULTIPLIER:
1
,-..,,--
'"
'-/
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage
control facilities and to maintain the system over the lrg~rm.
RATING: .
comments:~fW~/S 7DOV
MULTIPLIER: 1
d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department
to provide, fire protection 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
fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the
project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING:
~
,-",,,JiM M<tI*"~
MULTIPLIER: 1
e.
ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road
network to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without sUbstantially altering the existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system,
and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road
system,improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to
the development.
Comments:
RATING:
i~
MULTIPLIER: 1
~M)~~ 1.~
~
----
----------
- 2 -
,-~
....',
~",./
:)
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shaY1' consider each application with respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a totally deficient design.
1
Indicates a major design flaw.
2
Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3
Indicates an excellent design.
The following 'shall be rated accordingly.:
a.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location
and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments.
RATING: t
r;;'rf:Drk~n-D#WI<if'." &.1VI~';;:e
Comments:
fo
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision
of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design
of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the
users of the development.
"-",.,~j,, JJf( *" &4,)
-n/zl,)(1!r'
RATING:
2--
~l ot~~;;;R:
3
(::;>
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar
energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques
to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources
in the lodge or any addition thereto.
RATING: :>
MULTIPLIER: 1
3
- 3 -
A3:f
,-..
'-"
:)
I{:;G
I
.- 11\1, U-- ItVd 1~ qq 7>0 7<<6
~& pq NTS l)6)l,lbf61)
~o So I tL.-L
d.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal circulation and parking system for the project,
or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features
to screen parking from public views.
RATING:
.~
/
l ,"J
c~,..llM- ~6' ~~)
'JZ) nit- V IW PWtt-t/ n~
~~ 'f~(ldrr-t#s &td
MULTIOR: 3
CA (&J-Ul-"7l6Y\; MD6)
,.....--
ws" '
~ ''I
,/
("
'---' '
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the pro-
posed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views
of surrounding scenic areas.
RATING:
Z--
'-i
Conunents: ~L(_f~ck<t1
MULTIPLIER: 3
&ttDNI) .~ NOI 6fIfET:~
(10) ./
~ TlJII1L-- ~ Z2--)
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR'GUESTS (Maximum 9 points).
The conunission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size
of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission
shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o
Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
I
Indicates services which are judged'to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2
Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
3
Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
- 4 -
;"''"'
"",""
,..,
....,
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site common
meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation
to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING:
~
Comments:
~~{~ 84S1~
MULTIPLIER: 3
(j,)
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site dining
facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition' thereto.
RATING:
(/
MULTIPLIER:
2
Comments: ~ '~t176'S
(iD
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site accessory
recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other
active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto.
~T
RATING:
Z---
Qr
Comments: \ OVl-
MULTIPLIER:
2
Tvf>
({/
-
J
$w6]1"i'11'C
- 5 -
:)
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points).
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity
with local planning pOlicies. as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
O,to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are house on or off-site -
1 point for each 10% housed.
51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the
project who are housed on or off-site -
1 point for each 5% housed.
RATING:
/('
Comments:
J~i) I 'flN,
MULTIPLIER: 1
The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of
applications. provide the planning office with a detailed list of
all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto
as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees
housed on- or off-site. The planning office shall, prior to the
deadline for submission of applications. advise the applicant as
to the number of employees the project is expected to generate,
based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If
the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project
generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the
full 15 points available within this subsection.
b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15
points) .
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non-unit
space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct -
1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed.
J<
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
,
^
'"
-"
.,~'
Comments:
For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the
upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of
non-unit space by its in-place restoration to a substantially
higher quality status relative to t~e segment(s} of the tourist
population to which the lodge 'is ~arketed, which may alter its
size.
For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the
partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or
non-unit space whicn may be accomplished in a similar or different
size to the original configuration, provided that the rebuilt
portion of the lodge is located on the same site.
For the purposes of this section, non-unit space shall include
those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge
units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including
but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining
facilities.
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when anyone determines that a project has not
only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (l),
(2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award
addition bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6 (b) (1), (2), O} and (4), prior to the
application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the
public hearing record.
RATING:
MULTIPLIER: 1
Comments:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: , ;'5 (Minimum of 3 points required)
Poin ts in Category 2: 22.S' (Minimum of 11.7 points required)
Points in Category 3: ~ (Minimum of 6.3 points required)
Points in Category 4: 3'0 (Minimum of 4.5 points required)
SUBTOTAL: Points ,in Categories 1k
1, 2,,'3 and 4: tMinimum of 60 points required}
Bonus Points:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planing and 'zoning Member: ~/i) C Ui-z;:.-
, ,
\~
~ MEETING NOTES GIBSON 8. RENO, ARCHITECTS
DATE: Oct. 3. 1983
PROJECT: "Asoen"/Aorleiilck
PRESENT: Pilt Hunter: Bill Dreudinq: Dave Gibson
TIME:
3 '30 PM
NOTES:
Car entrv area, if covered will cQIJnt as F.A.R.. No good to put an
awninq over it.
2 Cover"loadinq area'with deck - (no F.A.R. for covered pedestrian area)
3. Possiblv lower pool into ground and sink mechanical room-
4. Front canopy collapsible. OK to build this way
5. Finish 1 x 2's OK (Class 3 flame spread) as long as sprinkler remains.
Sec: 4201
6. Stair enclosures required? Not if we,
a. keep sprinkler
b. stairs to remain open-and sprinkler to remain
7. Wiring
R-1 areas
condui t
R-3 areas
flex cable
8. Individual balconies -- 42" railings
COPIES TO: Hur,ter, Hurley, Morris, Wilson
BY: David F. Gibson
203 5 G.'LENA STf=<EET
A~;P[;N. CO....ORAOO 81611
30'::-,/92559G8
-~~ MEETING NOTES
GIBSON & RENO, ARCHITECTS
PROJECT:
PRESENT:
DATE: 9/7-8:/133
\1~ II~ '
TIME- /0:00
Ji ~50 ~~rv-;PU[)/N7 - CM-vE G~N.
/ )
NOTES: .{d:;::-r/JAAJ "t:;r<06'R.F,-::;:'-;; PR/N"f'S - ITEM:=,
,01'7('--<..->--;;-:;;,--:0 1 RLJLINGS,///L/TE:fZ,PRP=r~ONS
MA--l?8 .'
4. '84-1::zJ<../ N (7- A-R.c::::~,
I, ~ U:>N6- AS ,:J't-y 0n...- DA-N A-PPRlWp
P~;Yt'? PLA-N: /79 D,G Wt7H f3~ DCt7T:
I . .
2.. ~WIMMIJJG PCoL- -~..".-e 0;::; WA-"T'Z='O 7D
//YI/A:>ILH Ib .~54cK..':::"" /0' rj: t'~/-.!3"
3. 'I(!)pEAI ~ff~" ALON(-j ,c:=;q<;7T SIf)c..
,r;p P;Lor-;, 7V ~ E&U~ O~
~rrrEfL- 77-fA7V BN9T1 Nr7 '
4. CANOPY oVER.. /rl../7b ~NQ;=_ WIll
{l/JIJIVI A"? FLa::Jp ~ /)NLGSG
();::tN 7V THE <7K-Y / (.24- 3,7d., [2J1-
ANy.~ :?/IX-WA--LK5;7 .0/0 ~-
lAy? WJL.L. UDl./IVT. Tl!IS CA7VCJP7
MAY ff4.N6- II?; 'I t)VE:/2.- 5E?T B4<:x
(::24--3.7 cI.(I)}.
4EZ:>IIA NH':H: ~ W~ 1-107 ]VB
IS ~. IT 15 Vk- -;0 U56-- ~
/
IN /-lev OF' ,QA/L/NG-- As A- eA-RI2/~
PI<..'['J\/!I'JEp 77h'TT p~ S---I ~K2E-
/~ 1-1111/, ?/- 0 WI'O&:;--
B,{R..oHT F?Jo..-TfJ<Y .~;;
I. WINOoW 7V ";=3t;P..L.o-rCT: K/7CIf-,L;;H"
M t.J7T I?:F. L OC47&D ./ IV' W-4-U- LlNE_
-2.., gt)NE- PIGf<S tj NGt-U 9m/'y'F .,.t:;.qC.JNG-
/'v1A y PI< oJF:::;e:r t.J P "7D /:2 1/ /3r7YON D
~/?;ACJ<. {,24-~ 3.7 d (J.))(pRnlj/c]B:J VC;L.//I-IG-
~7/~ 17= e: NO ~ r~p~~.)
COPIES TO: pA-~ /31f? ~y, aM. Wi' BY: Z /
p;r~
203 S GALENA STI=IGET ASPEN, COi....08AOO 81611 30:V9255968 CCL>..t/1l;J/t(5j) J
-~~ MEETING NOTES
-~-
PROJECT: ~7R:;N /PrPpt..6..7;t1C/::::-
/
PRESENT: CJi Nt /?/u--/ jJA-VG- r7 .
GIBSON 8. RENO . ARCHITECTS
DATE:
TIME:
"
! /zr/f3
/D;06
NOTES: C, 8A1.../'.flNY J2A-/L-I/'/G?'
7JIt=;Y H !/ S /' /?f? 4-2- 1/ J-J./ Go- H .
P. F?:?12H (TTl ;(/~ :
j5~;~ CO~~LEf?5~~~~/VLI
/fYo h,e- Pole..., p~ 1')/1/L--;r
Q(q
/
COPIES TO:- 1>6~: K-/bVO'0 f?A-~ J7~ !.<I BY:
f'm-~. ~
203 5 ~^LENA STREET
ASPGN. CO,--ORAOO 81611
30;:1/925 59G8
, ,
~\~.... ~\~--
.~
ASPEN.PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPA~T
~
November 3, 1983
The Aspen
Tor COr,?
730 E. Durant
Asnen, Colorado 81611
Re: Swimming Pool Plan for the Aspen Lodge
Dear Sirs:
The plans for the above-referenced pool installation
have been reviewed by this of,fice. The following
conditions 'and recommendations be considered an
addendum to the submitted plan in order to meet the
design standards of the Colorado Department of Heal thO
.Regulations.
1. Provide a hand rail to allow pool egr~ss with minimum
effOrt.
2. The make-up water line or fill spout must be air-gapped.
This spout shall be installed under the hand rail to
prevent a tripping hazard to pool users.
3, Color code the piping in the mechanical room as described
in the Colorado Swimming Pool Standards, Section 3:15.
4. Filter backwash water must discharge to a sanitary sewer
line rather than a drywell.
A five foot deCk width measured from the edge of the
pool must be provided on all sides. David Givson has
confirmed that this will be provided.
6. A minimum of two skimmer units are required for this pool.
7. The main drain outlet, as this department understands, is
to be plumbed as an integral part of the recirculation
system.
With these above conditions, please consider our review
completed and the plans approved.
130 South Galena Streat
Aspen, Colorsdo 81611
303/925-2020
. -.
- .
Page Two
November 3, 1983
Swimming Pool Plan for the Aspen Lodge,
A final inspection shall be performed by this office on
the pool prior to public use. Call 9,25-2020 updn completion
of the installation to schedule an inspection.
"l;;;I;Ji,~
Robert F. Nelson
Environmental Health Officer
RFN/CO
,.
cc: David Gibson
Gibson and Reno, Architects
203 So. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Patrick Hurley
Hunter Construction
01~6 Mediterranean
Asp'en, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pitkin ~ui1ding Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering~
DATE: October 31, 1983
RE: City Lodge (L-3) GMP Applications
---------------------------------------------------------
I have enclosed copies of the City Engineering Departments
recommended scoring for this years L-3 zone GMP applications.
The only item of note, which is common to both applications,
is the lack of parking provided to accommodate the proposed
expansions. Let me know if you need any further clarification
of these engineering related GMP scores.
JH/co
Enclosure
Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980
Project Name ].lk,J ("^^'^ ctf')
Address Zo6~. A~f~
Owner ~^ -::t:::P(~
Attorney/Agent/Representative
Address 7""Z,0 S. h Il() ~
Reviewed by ~
, -----
~CUVLI'C"i(}P
Date
Ie - 3.(- 'is ~
1. Residential Application (section 24-10. 4) fL~tli ~ Arr'
A. Public Facilities & Services
o - Ir~easible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
G * Wa ter ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at public expense. r ( i(
4cc.,r bJ:;Ce- F ('~c..h.SL. I L...,~,,:l'~ o..J o..~ 0. k;> e...
L * Sewer (3 pts.)
Capacity without system upgrade.
Elk.
L
Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequat: disposa1 of surface
()V\. -~,.(.~ c.\.Q.~-',JCl-v\- f~
runoff. \ (
~ ~a-.(l.'\.~.
I
Parking Design (3 pts.)
~~street park;ng, visual, (paving, safety, Fnd convenience.
Uti-:-s,{,r>Q.QJ, F~ki'^-~ I 0.Jl'l-<:.-\!\. lb I t.^-tl...~~<L-k. -b {~'r-"r
0+k I (Dill ~ { ~e...- ';-~ +0 ~clO-'''~' {-lA'<s
lAd J.. '< t rth^- .
Roads (3 pts.)
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
. traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
:~~ttCt(~J~.. _~~oL~+J:~r ^~~ t~~:;jJ~~(~
2...
2 - On existing route.
1 - Within 520 feet of route.
o - Not near service area.
(2 pts.)
Page 2
Growth Management Review Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
o - Requires new service at public expense
1 - Existing service adequate
2 - Project improves quality of service
Public Transportation (2 pts.)
Bike Paths Linked to Trail
Design Features for Ha icapped (2 pts.)
o - Totally d
1 - Major fl
2 - Accepta le
3 - Excel nt
evelopment Application (section 24-10.5)
II. Commercial and
A. Quality of
Site De ign (3 pts.)
Qualit and character of landscaping, extend of under-
ing of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy
rculation.
Amenities (3 pts.)
Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Trash and utility access areas (3 pts.)
III. Lodge Development Application (section 24-10.6)
A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential)
Page 3
Growth Management Review Checklist
~
B. Social Facilities and Services
o - Requires new service at public expense.
1 - Existing service adequate.
2 - Project improves quality of service.
~ Public Transportation (6 pts.)
6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift.
4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift.
~ Within 520 feet of bus route or lift.
C.
3
c-S
?
Quality of Design
Si t~ DEfsign (3 pts.J I (I
~\."-'A. -\ I trV\.~1 r~ ~en...rk<?.. ~ I e_Y-~M Q..... Ovt\.(U,c'f\'<j'
-tle.- \"'- +,,:5~ To..c\::..
Amenities (3 pts.) ( J.I (
-:6~h J Q\ov\.-HtoQ... ''''((j...~'S I e.iC.
Visual Impact (3 pts.)
Sale and loc~tion as it affects public views of scenic
~<l"Y'\Q..- ~~t -0k..... 1'r'tMJe..e\... ",,,,,,,,- -:P"-'-fk f<M.k.
areas.
Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.)
Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service
(1 pt.).
Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.).
Prohibition of employee p~king on site (1 pt.).
L,,^,'-e ~~c\.o.J.... ~v'-- Z}' (QA.n...
IV. Zoning (All applications)
Zone
NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement
Required Actual
Lot Area
Lot Area/Unit
Lot Width
Front Setback
Side Setbacks
Rear Setback
/Page 4
I Growth Management
view Checklist
Required
Actual
t-1aximum Height
Building Dist.
Bldg. Sq. Footage
Open Space
External F.A.R.
Internal F.A.R.
V. possible further review of proposed project (All applications)
Subdivision
Exemption
Exception
Stream Margin
View Plane
* Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies
pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment
to be made in the Engineering Department memo.
,~
Growth Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980
Project Name ~ A~ l Af?-r"J<U.b )
Address I
Owner:::fOR- (' CH ~ .
Attorney/Agent/R presentative
Address Z~L ~a.Q...
Reviewed by __
n",k-kr l ~ ~so-c.
I
Date
,O-A( -<6~
1.
Residential Application (section 24-10.4) / Le6..n (2., ltf'
A. Public Facilities & Services /' - \
o - Infeasible to provide
1 - Major deficiency
2 - Acceptable (standard)
3 - No forseeable deficiencies
2> * Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at public expense. I \
M~'A~~ 1!>+ 'v-..1~ f~ ,,~)',k~
L.
* Sewer (3 pts.)
Capacity without sy~tem
A~Q. ~1J.ct
upgrade.
z,
Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal o~ surface
'tJ",,- 2:o,k 6\ 1'-( We.\ \
runoff.
~ Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street parking, visual, paving, ~ffetl' and convenience.
0", - v ~~'€- r;;""I<>1'-- 'Of f"-'Lb"::9r w~ II K.t k>~ ~
-to ~clo..k +l,~ oJJ:il\-~.
-3 Roads (3 pts.)
Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenanfje. l {I (" "i' I{
~i W'/\ fCkle.... aJ e..f I In'';i'~ CIJ) ~'t' ~(i /'u ~tc.c'l,,,.:T y
Page 2
Growth Management view Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
o - Requires new servic at public expense
1 - Existing servic dequate
2 es quality of service
pts.)
On existing route.
- Within 520 feet of route.
- Not near service area.
Site Design (3
Quality and ch acter of landscaping, extend of under-
grounding of tilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy
of circulat' n.
Application (section 24-10.5)
Bike Paths Linked to Trail System
Design Features for Handicapped (2
II. Commercial and Office
A. Quality of Design
o - Totally deficient
1 - Major flaw
2 - Acceptable
3 - Excellent
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Trash and utility access areas (3 pts.)
,~ III. Lodge Development Application (section 24-10.6)
A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential)
Page 3 , "
Growth Management _ ~view Checklist
A~
B. Social Facilities and Services
o - Requires new service at public expense.
1 - Existing service adequate.
2 - Project improves quality of service.
1 Public Transportation (6 pts.)
6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift.
4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift.
2 - Within 520 feet of bu~ route or lift. r l
cJ~ +0 1\.1'2, C 0.10":;".J ~t. +0 (-. \--L
C. Quality of Design
'G
Sit~ DEfpign (3Jtsf) ! r l ,..].. ~. -io
D.H,tC,0\\" +0 eN ~~\-\L ~ t- vVL0'" ....---, Q....
G-M).UL....\J- :;,~k ptuM..
Ameni t;ies A (3 P1;;s.).. 1.( / Pl1b (,<<:...
fx.,~\:; "IM4M-,~r<u> 'v\. ~cNL I^e I
o...t.>-..c,d J..~ 1.0 ~ oJ..cl~,(..~~.
[CM'o-he./} ~(
t",
L
a,"''I\J1..""i f '<.A
t:..
Visual Impact (3 pts.)
Sale and location as i1;
~ 'lo'~ o-\,
affects public views of scenic areas.
s;--k.
?' Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.)
Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service
(1 pt.).
Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.).
Prohibition of emplpyee parking on site (1 pt.).
Nef fCM.{.,'c.u(a.,J'( (l...6..~ ~V'-. ~.
~ n
Zone
NS - Not Sufficien NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement
Required Actual
Lot
Lot
Lo
Side Setbacks
Rear Setback
- ;1- .
Growth Management r'view Checklist
Required
Actual
Maximum Height
Building Dist.
Bldg. Sq. Footage
Open Space
External F.A.R.
Internal F.A.R.
V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications)
Subdivision
Exemption
Exception
Stream Margin
View Plane
* Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies
pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment
to be made in the Engineering Department memo.
ASPEN.PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM:
Thomas S. Dunlop, Director ~J)
Environmental Health Department
DATE:
October 24, 1983
RE:
1983 GMP - The Aspen
The above-referenced submittal has been reviewed for the following
environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
The paving of an existing gravel alley will reduce fugitive
(wind blown) dust in the general vicinity of the project.
Since no wood burning devices or restaurant grills are proposed
Ordinance 12 series of 1983 will not apply.
Water System:
Service of this project by the Aspen Water Department distribution
lines is in conformance with policies of this office.
Sewage System:
Service of this project by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District
collection lines in in conformance with policies of this office.
Noise Abatement:
No adverse noise impacts are anticipated from this project.
Site Drainage:
Disposal of roof, paved area and disturbed soil area drainage
into on-site dry wells is in conformance with policies of this
office.
Such a commitment has been made by the applicant in the submittal.
Swimming Pool - Spa:
The design and installation of the proposed swimming pool and spa
shall be in compliance with the Colorado Swimming pool Regulations
130 South Galane Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-2020
Page Two
October 24, 1983
1983 GMP - The Aspen
and Standards. A copy of this regulation may be pick up from
this office by the applicant.
Plans and specifications must be reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Health Department prior to construction.
TSD/co
~-...-"
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE:
1983 City Lodge GMP Submissions L-3 Zone
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be
held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November
8, 1983, at a meeting which begins at 5:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to
consider the application submitted by Daniel Delano/Longrun, for
addition of four new lodge units and one employee unit to the
Hotel Lenado (f/k/a Edelweiss Lodge), and the application of Tor
Corp. for the addition of three units to The Aspen Lodge (f/k/a
Applejack Inn) and enlargement of an already existing employee
unit.
For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (303) 925-2020, ext. 223.
s/perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on
Thursday, October 13, 1983.
City of Aspen Account.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney 7"".'
City Engineer
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Housing Office
Building Department
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
City Lodge GMP Submissions - L-3 zone
DATED:
October 6, 1983
Attached are this year's applications competing in the City for the
1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L-3 zone.
One application is submitted by Daniel Delano/Longrun. The applicant
has already gotten approval for reconstruction of the Edelweiss
Lodge as the Hotel Lenado. This submission involves the addition of
four new lodge units and one employee unit to the Hotel. Hotel
Lenado is located on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins Streets.
The other application received was submitted by the Tor Corporation.
The applicant requests the addition of three units to The Aspen lodge
(formerly known as the Applejack Inn) and enlargement of the already
existing-employee unit to house more employees. The Aspen is
located on Main Street.
Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments
to the Planning Office by October 28, 1983, in order that we may
adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and
Zoning Commission on November 8, 1983.
Thank you.
,
GR_OWTH,MA.NAGEMENT
I .
,
'APPLICATION L3
FOR"
THE ASP-EN_
TO RCO,R P o RAT ION
730 EDURANT
ASPEN, CO.
PIELSTICK ,& ASSOCIATES
ARCHI,TECTS
202 PACIFIC AVE
ASPENI- CO 81611
_925-16_66
.,r' "..
......-
GROWTa MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION
,
LODGE 3
THE ASPEN
formerly the Applejack Inn
prepared by
pielstick & Associates, Architects
202 Pacific Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
For
Tor Corporation
730 E. Durant Street
Aspen, CO 81611
TOR CORPORATION
Lodge 3 - GMP Application for THE ASPEN
General prqject pescriptiog
THE ASPEN is located on Main Btreet and was formerly known as
the Applejack Inn. This application is for 3 additional units
and for the providing of certain ammenities for the lodge as a
whole. The three new units will provide two luxury units to
meet a public demand for these larger units and one smaller
unit. The existing lodge has recently been approved for a
remodeling of two units and for the general upgrading of the
lobby, entrance and interior area. This application will
expand on the previous commitments. We will be adding an
exterior 12 x 24 swimming pool, providing improved sound
isolation in the existing 36 units between the floors and at
the corridors, providing a heat recirculating system in the
tall main lobby space, increasing the size of the employee unit
to house more employees, and remodeling the 33 rooms not
previously committed to being remodeled. The unit remodeling
will include:
removal of all plumbing fixture and replacement with new
fixtures including water saver toilets and luxury pedestal
lavatories.
complete redecorating to include walls, ceilings, and
floors.
removal of the existing single sheet glass and the
addition of insulating glass throughout, including the
sliding glass doors.
all new lighting fixtures.
the addition of a wet bar and undercounter refrigerator in
each room except the employee unit.
all new furnishing throughout.
The new units will be part of the same operation as the
existing lodge and will require no additional employees.
The project will include improvements in the community
facilities by the ad~ltion of a fire hydrant on the South side
of Main Street at the corner of Main and Second Street, the
addition of a paved sidewalk along the Second Street side of
the site, the the paving of the alley from Second Street to the
West side of the site.
,F'
, -'
TOR CORPORATION
Lodge 3 - GMP Application for THE ASPEN
Project Specifics
I
\
This project is zoned Lodge 3. on a site..that already has a
15,425 square foot lodge on the property. The remaining
available square footage is 1082 square feet.
This application is ~or a 1072 square foot, 3 unit, free
standing lodge on the site of THE ASPEN (formerly the Applejack
Inn) at the Southwest corner of Main Street and Second Street
in the City of Aspen. All of the units are free market units.
The structure is elevated one level with parking underneath.
The water will be supplied by the City of Aspen Water
Department from the 4 inch main located in Main Street. The
building will have 1.5 EQR fixture units. The main has excess
capacity available which will more than accommodate this
increase in water usage. There is an existing fire hydrant on
the North side of Main Street at the corner of Second Street,
however, it is our intention to add a hydrant on the South side
of the Main Street.
The sewer lines will be connected to the 8 inch sewer trunk
line located in the alley immediately adjacent to the project.
The sewer line is more than adequate to carry this additional
load.
The quantity of hard surface collecting rain water will not be
changed by this project although the rain water collected on
the roof will be run into a drywell in the new project. This
will reduce the amount of surface water. There are no
indications of under~round water drainages being impacted by
this project and no surface runoff water presently runs through
the site and no new conditions will create such a situation.
There is a storm sewer at the corner of the lot at Main and
Second Streets.
The total lot area of the site is 16,507 square feet, the
existing structure as remodeled (under a building permit)
contains all of the allowable floor area except 1082 square
feet. The new structure contains 1072 square feet.
The increase in traffic ,count on the
from this project will be 6 cars per
area will be used for this project.
Main Street with immediate access to
the Skier buses.
adjacent streets resulting
day. The existing parking
This site is located on
the Aspen bus system and
This small addition to the existing facility will be for a use
already on the site and it will create no changes in land use
either on the site or on any adjacent properties.
, ,
"'..;
TOR CORPORATION
Lodge 3 - GMP Application for THE ASPEN
Project Specifics (continued)
\
.,
Fire protection will be provided by the new fire hydrant to be
located on the Southwest corner of Main and Second Streets
immediately adjacent to the site.
Roads will be unchanged by this development, except that the
alley will be paved to the edge of the property line on the
West.
Exterior materials will match the newly remodeled facility.
All utilities for this project are immediately available at the
site and shown in the attached letters. All utilities will be
underground.
Energy conservationdhall include the use of solar collectors
on the South side for provision of space heating. This combined
with an insulated concrete mass and radiant hot water heating
(which requires less Btu/Sq. Ft. to maintain the comfor.t level)
will provide approximately 75% of the required space heating
and will preheat the domestic hot water when not needed for
space heating.
Parking and circulation will be as existing but will provide
complete cover over 4 parking spaces and partial cover over 6
other spaces. Parking is screened by the fences on the North
and East sides of the site as they are to be installed under
the existing building permit.
No additional dining, restaurant, or bar facilities (except wet
bars in the rooms) are to be provided.
It is proposed that construction of this project would commence
in the spring time as soon as weather permits and would be
completed by the fall of 1984.
This project will be going before the Historic Preservation
Committee and should have approval shortly.
.
TOR CORPORATION
Lodge 3 - GMP Application for THE ASPEN
Quality Consideration
The architectural design is in keeping with the existing
remodeled lodge and expresses the quality of the units
contained inside. The sloping walls with planters empathize
with the slopeing walls of the remodeled existing lodge and
allow the solar collectors to fit naturally into to the design
of the South balcony railing. The height of the structure is
minimized by the surrounding fence. The materials are the same
as those approved for the lodge remodeling.
The project is sited to the South of the property away from
Main Street for the convenience and privacy of the users and to
avoid a visual impac~ on Main Street. The project is lifted
above the parking so that the amount of off-street parking may
be maximized. All utilities are run in the supporting columns
and then underground to the mains.
The project uses solar collectors which are placed in the
balcony railing on the South side so that their visual impact
in minimized. The solar collectors provide heated water for
the hot water radiant floor heating system and when not being
used for heating can provide preheating of the domestic hot
water.
The parking below the structure makes access to the units easy
and provides shelter from the elements for the occupants while
they are loading and unloading their vehicles. The drive
through from Main Street to the alley provides a convenient
drop-off at the base of the stairs to the units.
The visual impact in minimized by the fencing to the East and
North and by the use of the planters on the walls which provide
a continuity with the existing mature landscaping along the
street.
Amenities
The addition of the outdoor swimming pool and the 17'-6" by
9'-6" whirlpool hot tub on the deck of the canopy provide a
convenience to the visitor.
Employee Unit
This addition will require no additional employees. However,
the employee unit in the existing lodge is being enlarged so
that a greater percentage of the emplOyees may be housed on
site.
'.
TOR CORPORATION
Lodge 3 - GMP Application for THE ASPEN
Rehabilitation and. reconstruction
The existing lodge has ,recently been approved for a remodeling
of the the lobby, the employee unit and two of the lodge units.
This project will remodel the remaining 33 units and enlarge
the size of the employee unit. All the interiors, plumbing
fixture and the sound control are to be upgraded. All of this
work will be completed on the same schedule as the new
project.
Bonus points
This small addition to an existing facility is an excellent
design which has creatively maintained a maximum of parking
while minimizing the -isual impacts. It has provided a new
fire hydrant, sidewalk, and paved alley. It has provided
ammenities for the users and created two luxury units to meet
the public demand.
,
"
Aspen Road Maintenance
l30 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Q
September 28, 1983
Russell A. Pielstick
Pielstick and Associates, Architects
202 Pacific Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Russ
I have reviewed the drawings for The Aspen--proje-ct-- (formerly
The Applejack Inn) and foresee no problems being created by
the addition.
I would recommend paving the alley south of The Aspen property
as a significant benefit to the surrounding neighborhood by
reducing dust and maintenance.
Sincerely
,
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
Ol32 Atlantic Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
September 28, 1983
Russell A. PielstivK
Pielstick and Associates, Architects
202 Pacific Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Russ
I have reviewed the proposed addition to The Aspen, formerly
The Applejack Inn, with Ernie Delto, and foresee no new prob-
lems being created by that project for Rocky Mountain Natural
Gas Company.
Service can be provided to the project by an existing 'I" gas
line located in the alley.
Sin)erelY
lul/ j(~/4--
Wi11a~;a~per j/
District Manager
-"~"l
SPEN
re e t --
1611
- ",
Aspen Engineering Dept.
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
September 28, 1983
Russell A. Pielstick
Pielstick and Associates, Architects
202 Pacific Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Russ
This letter is intended to confirm our discussion with
Ernie Delto regarding The Aspen (formerly The Applejack
Inn) .
We foresee no problems being created by the project addition.
However, a new sidewalk along the west side of Second Street
from Main Street to the alley will be required. Paving the
alley bordering the southern property line, while not being
required, would be beneficial. The surface drainage s~rround-
ing the site has not created .ny problems for the city due to
a storm sewer inlet located at the southwest corner of Main
and Second Streets. On site water accumulation must be re-
tained and dealt with on site.
Engi '..::er
\
Aspen Sanitation District
565 N. Mill
Aspen, CO 81611
September 28, 1983
Russell A..Pielstick
Pielstick and Associates, Architects
202 Pacific Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Russ
€' ,
I have reviewed the drawings for the Applejack Inn addi-
tion and foresee no problems being created bv that pro-
ject for the Aspe:, Sanita.tion Dietrict or ite equipment.
Sincerely
~~
Heiko Kuhn
District Manager, Aspen Sanitation District
,
,
,
\
Aspen Water Department
l30 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
September 28, 1983
Russell A. Pielstick
Pielstick and Associates, Architects
202 Pacific Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Russ
I have reviewed by telephone your proposed addition to
The Aspen, formerly The Applejack Inn, with Ernie Delto.
This is to verify that your project will not develop any
burden on the city's water system.
The fixture unit count for your project is calculated as
'EQR's and equals ~.5 total.
The present water supply to the building-is-through-a-tap
located in Main Street.
Sincerely
Lu y omwiller
Administrative Assistant
.
"
..
Aspen Fire Department
l30 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 8l6ll
September 28, 1983
-~
'f.'. .
Russell A. Pielstick
Pielstick and Associates, Architects
202 Pacific Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Russ
I have reviewed by telephone your proposed addition to The
Aspen, formerly The Applejack Inn, with Ernie Delto.
I would suggest as a benefit to your project, the Fire Dept.
and the surrounding neighborhood, that you provide a fire-
plug at the southwest corner of the Main and Second Streets
intersection. Other than for a new fireplug, I do not have
any problems with your project.
At'y ~..
Wi~e~
Member of the Board
c
c
Aspen Inn
Growth Management
Plan Submission
c
,r
ASPEN INN EXPANSION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
September 1, 1981
Submitted:
Applicant:
Planners:
Architect:
"
Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado
925-2020
Aspen Inn, Inc.
701 South Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado
HBC Properties
450 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado
925-8610
Sadeghi Associates
511 South Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado
925-6266
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION
LODGE DEVELOPMENT
Project Name:
Location:
Total Parcel Size:
Current Zoning:
Zoning under which application is filed:
Maximum buildout under current zoning:
Proposed zoning:
Total F.A.R. Available for additional
rental buildout:
101;1 rental buildout proposed:
Tota, rental units requested:
Special procedures required:
View Planes:
Stream Mar9in Review:
Special Review:
Historic District Review:
Subdivision (condominiumization):
PUD:
ISee page 5 for.additional details
2
Aspen Inn Expansion
Mill Street and Dean Street
Ill, 207 square feet
L-2
L-2
111,207 square feet (1:1 F_A.R.)
Same
51,447 square
43,215 square
1
feet
1
feet
96 Luxury Lodge Units
None
No
No
No
No
No
No
'--
ASPEN INN EXPANSION
Application:
This document is an application for expansion of the Aspen Inn under the
t?urist lodge quota of the Growth Management Plan. The Aspen Inn is
located between Mill Street and Monarch Street, extending from Durant
Avenue to slightly south of Snark Street. For reference, a Vicinity Map
and Site Context drawings are located at the end of this section.
Project History:
The expansion program for the Inn was initiated ten years ago with the
objective to expand the Inn to a capacity that would enable it to support
a full range of tourist facilities and amenities necessary to establish the
Inn as a high quality, full service hotel. At that time, most of the frag-
mented surrounding land parcels had been acquired under single ownership and
project planning was initiated.
Rlans were first submitted in early 1973, requesting a first phase expansion
of 50 units. These plans were not acted upon because of the City's enact-
ment of Ordinance 19 in July, 1973. Consequently, the Aspen Inn plans were
withdrawn, revised and resubmitted under current city zoning, Ordinance 11,
adopted in April, 1975..
A complete set of working drawings was submitted for the Inn during 1976
as required under Ordinance 11, since the only review approval required at
that time for lodqe zoning was the issuance of a building permit.
The revised plan requested 25 unit first phase expansion, a 50% unit and
population reduction from earlier plans, However, approval of the Inn's
plans was delayed by a city policy change and the submission was not acted
upon due to the city's Administrative Delay Procedure enacted in January
1977. In 1978 the Aspen Inn application was resumed under the new Growth
Management Plan Lodge Quota System. The application was then reviewed,
scored and awarded the quotas for 1977 and 1978. The allocation for those
two years was a total of 36 units.
3
.
4
Working drawings were developed and plans finalized during 1979, and construction
began in 1980. During this time the Blue Spruce Lodge was acquired, the property
being contiguous to the Aspen Inn parcel. As the new acquisition was an old
lodge in need of substantial repair, plans were made in early 1981 to demolish
the Blue Spruce Lodge and revisions were done to accommodate some 35 of the Blue
Spruce units in the Aspen Inn. This was done without increasing the floor area
of the Aspen Inn. Construction continues at this time, with demolition of the
Blue Spruce scheduled for late summer or early fall. Should the city so desire,
the Blue Spruce could remain on a temporary basis to provide the immediate employee
housing necessary for the Inn until construction of the permanent employee units
are completed. The Blue Spruce Lodge is currently housing music students of the
M,A.A. as well as local employees.
Program Summary:
The improvement underway at the Aspen Inn will utlimately reflect all the facilities
and amenities proposed in the 1978 lodge Growth Management Plan application. Con-
struction will result in expanded on-site self-contained tourist amenities, addi-
tion of a complete conference and banquet facility, an employee housing pro9ram
and a strong emphasis on auto disincentives. In keeping with the earlier Growth
Management Plan proposal, this application seeks to continue the Aspen Inn expan-
Slon program. This application constitutes a comprehe~sive proposal for the project
site for G.M.P. review and approval procedures. Completion of this entire plan
shall be in accordance with G.M.P. allotments which historically vary every year,
and phasing may be necessary should the allocation be insufficient for this year.
As has been mentioned, the Inn is currently under construction from a previous
G.M.P. allocation. The Inn's expansion shall not be fully realized until compre-
hensive demolition of existing structures is done, extensive remodeling is finished
and all current and proposed construction is completed. Inasmuch as partial com-
pletion of a project does not realize the full potential of the master plan, nor
serves the communities need for a full service hotel, this application should be
given priority over other proposals, so that the master plan is completed in an
efficient and timely manner.
Indeed, this pro9ram helps fulfill the communities need for a high quality, full
service hotel that offers a full range of tourist facilities and amenities in
the most convenient and appropriate location possible.
"
The following is a summary of the Aspen Inn submission:
5
Zoni ng: L-2
Lot Size: 111,207 square feet
Units requested: 96 luxury lodge units via Growth Management Plan allocation
Support facilities: The building that runs East to West is the main focal point
for all public uses. The terrace level contains the Arya
Restaurant and Lounge, and health club. The ground floor
is devoted entirely to lobby with a two story high ceiling.
The third level of the building shall be devoted to confer-
ence hall and banquet facilities.
Internal F.A.R. available for additional lodge rental:
"'7,~'30 ,\0:> \~\!:ss
1982 F.A.R. reduction of 16% for G.M.P. (~sq.ft. x .~) = ~ sq. ft.
51447 - 8232 sq. ft. = 43215 sq. ft. Internal F.A.R. available for lodge rental
43215 ~ 450 sq.ft./unit = 96 units O>,z/6'6'b',",c ,-;>"O~ d..~--\'o
Building F.A.R. for Aspen Inn:
Less: Existing 6 unit RMF Condo
Existing East and West RMF Chalets
Total Aspen Inn Site:
6500 sq. ft.
2500 "
8500 sq.ft.
Area available for Aspen
Less: 25% (.25:1) non-unit (public) Internal
Inn:
F.A.R.
Less:
Area available for rental units:
Existing (previous) G.M.P. units + Blue Spruce existing
G.M.P. units (36 x 450 sq.ft.) 16200
Except for below grade units (17 x 450) 7650
8550
128i
15750
9500 sq.ft.
(9500) -0-
25583
15% Reduction - previous G.M.P. (8550 x 15%)
Blue Spruce Units (35 x 450 sq.ft.)
24 employee units - previous G.M.P.
except units below grade
III ,207 sq. ft.
(8500 sq.ft)
102,707
25,6771
77,030
. ,-, -. \ 0 10"
, c 9> " \
~} -,
.. _~:-. I -."2
,;(
(25583)
51,447 sq.ft.
1. This application includes a proposal for some 17,000+ sq.ft. of non-unit (public)
space; the remaining area is anticipated toward construction of a larger
Conference/Performing Arts facility sometime in the future when appropriate.
2. Subject to"revision pending code interpretation
6
- Unit Summary:
c~
Terrace Ground Floor
2nd fl
3rd fl Totals
Employee Lodge
Lobby Building Rest, & Hlth Lobby Open Lobby Conf
West Wing l,2E 11 15 15 12
Lobby Wing 6 6 6 6
S, E. (Condo) Wing 12E 11 10 10 12
24
41
24
31
96
Underground parkin9 is located below the West Wing storage facilities located
under the lobby building.
,
Growth Management Quota and Phasing:
The existing annual Growth Management Plan quota allows for development of 18
lodge units per year subject to the general provisions of Section 24-11.3 as
given below:
Section 24-11.3 General Provisions:
'''.~.
(a) In awarding development allotments in any given year, the city council
may authorize construction in excess of the maximum number of dwelling
units, lodge units or commercial or office square footage specified
in Section 24-11.1 by as much as twenty (20) per cent for commercial
and office square footage and thirty-three (33) per cent for lodging
units (all to be rounded up to the next whole number); provided that
any such excess development be off-set by reduction in successive
years such that every fifth year shall not be in excess of the
cumulative total permitted by Section 24-11.1.
(b) The City Council may (but need not) grant a development allotment for
an entire project to be constructed over a period of years provided
that each year during scheduled construction the annual allotment
provided for in Section 24-11.1 shall be reduced by the amount of con-
struction permitted by the approval.
Under Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978, attached, council authorized construc-
tion for 44 units as allocated quota for years of 1977 and 1978. Quotas were
given the Aspen Inn and the Mountain Chalet. The Mountain Chalet though, never
built any of the 16 units awarded, (8 lodge units and 8 employee units) and
consequently the units go back into future years allocation. At the time of the
resolution all employee units were deducted fronl future years allocations as per
item #4 of the lodging section. Amendments to the code since that time have
been made to ex~mpt employee units from the Growth Management Plan quotas.
-..
The situation in 1977/1978 can be summarized as follows:
G,M.P. allocation
per year:
Carryover from
previous year(s):
Quota ava il ab 1 e
current year:
Lodge Units allocated:
1. Aspen Inn
2. Mountain Chalet
Employee Units allocated:
1. Aspen Inn
2. Mountain ChaLet
Net unit quota surplus:
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
18
4
12
4
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
4
12
4
(20) (20)
(40) (22) (4) 14
-0- -0- 14
32
32
50
-0- to be allocated
to be a 11 ocated
18 18
18
-0-
(22) (4) 14
32
50
Since the Mountain Chalet never built any of their allocated units and
as employee housing units are no longer deducted from the Growth Management
Plan quota, the situation is now revised to reflect the new G.M.P. quota:
G.M;P. allocation
per year:
Carryover from
previous year(s):
Quota available
current year:
Lodge units allocated
1. Aspen Inn
Net Unit quota surplus
(deficit)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
18
18
18
-0- -0-
18
18
-0- 18
36
18 36
54
18
18
18 -0- -0-
-0-
18 36
54
54
72
72
90
to be a 11 oca ted
72
90
Applications are due in September and are for the next years quota. Conse-
quently the quota for 1982 (with applications due 9-1-81) is for 72 lodge
7
.
8
units. In addition, Council may authorize construction in excess of the maxi-
mum number of lodge units, so that the 1982 quota may include the 1983 allot-
ment for a total of 90 units as shown above. In addition, Council may authorize
a 33% bonus, or 6 units, for any given year's quota. This brings the total
potential allotment to 96 units.
The 1982 quota, including the 1983 allocation will not be in excess of the
cumulative total lodge units permitted by Section 24-11.1. That is, seven
years quota (1977-1983) of 18 units per year is 126 units, less the previously
allocated Aspen Inn units giving 90 units.
Project Overview:
The expansion objective is to establish the Inn as a high quality, full service
hotel. As was identified in the recent "bluebook" study (1), "\~hile Aspen
becomes more popular every year and the demand increases, the quality and
supply of available lodging decreases." This expansion application addresses
those problems and seeks to increase both the quality and supply of Aspen's
lodge facilities. This expansion will provide larger, high quality lodge
rooms, supported by a full range of year-round recreational facilities and
services, extensive on-site amenities and public areas. Indeed, such expan-
sion will help the City of Aspen regain and maintain itself as a premier resort
town.
The architectural objective of the Aspen Inn expansion is to integrate the
expansion building with the current construction to establish a functional
overall project design. This project design will provide excellent visitor
accommodations while maintaining compatability with the surrounding neighbor-
hood.
The employee housing program initiated under the 1978 Aspen Inn application
(I) The Change in Aspen's Lodge Inventory, page 21
c'
9
provides for all additional employees required under this application. The
"_ 24 employee units are being created through new construction. These 24 units
will house approximately 48 employees or a minimum 80% of the employees
necessary to operate the Jnn when expansion is completed. The employees may,
be accommodated in studio-type units.
Six cate90ries of the Growth Management Plan ijvaluates some form of transporta-
tion or auto disincentive. All of these transportation issues depend on the
location of the facility and the project's automobile management program.
As shown on the Vicinity Map, the Inn is the ideal location for the auto-free
tourist. Located within 500 feet of the I-A ski lift and abutting a public
transit route (Durant Avenue), the Inn is also conveniently located to downtown
shopping, entertainment and is adjacent to Rubey Park transit stop.
Specific auto disincentive programs to be implmented are:
1. Operation of tourist limousines providing regular year-round
service. One limousine with re9ular service per twenty-five
guests shall be provided.
2. Provision of a complete self-contained range of services and
facilities for summer and winter visitors.
3. Provision of employee housing to lodge 80% of employees on site.
4. Reduction in parking below zoning standards in conformance with
code, done in coordination with limousine services.
The format of this report addresses each Growth Management Plan element
individually as outlined in Section 24-11.6 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
The requirement of each element is listed and a description of how the
project fulfills the requirement is presented. Reference maps or drawings
are located at the end of each section as noted.
"
fA "',:~~'~~
te:.DAIi!.INtl FOf:.K ~\V~ ~- '. \\11""","' t;., "" ~
;,/11!1l1;::;',""", ".;*.
, :~t
~,.. "k "~;r
~I-p-' ..,...j
f>eOeP.1Ir:Jm 01u"UI.-A.,IOl-J . " . t. f :r>\j..iy~ F\~ <::,TATIC*--I
~ID~ J ~~\~';'S.;..
","(" . ~~.." '.
~\i'jJ;. . )-T:-"''''-%,. . " . \ '
. .... . ;::,-~:;-c Cr,' ;>- ,< POL.lc..e ~TION
j , .
MILL '1>"\ i' f; :/
'" .(~"''/''~//;III1''III!IIII'I'II'llliIIlf.l11
A.- _I L '! I' Iph,I' 'OJ,,
~'-f" ".....I..U:;~~~;'I, ' ' - //III.W
r , ,~~ .. \
MAIN qr I ftl<:.\-\\N'AY ez.~ M:..,.. ~ff! ?' ~
. ~ Q '>i:/f ~. ' ,'\.,
. Pi -'< ~ r.T ,
~y ~
,,~ t.t
~~ ,'~;"':' "J02)'
~'j/''; "l~
;O((>-t.i.i. :;';'? :<.:.....,;:1. y,' ~. <: >;/"; '(Y' '<::::::'!!!!:
.': :.:)
",' .' ,. ....,.:~ ..., ,'':'':-:'>.'
~poe>eD C->ITY
~\l-
~. u' ''''.' ""'--r:-:"'.. .' .....,., --:, .,~,)h..;,
, '". ,~~::t~r r~'~~~' -~ ::/.:(:'~I~"~"~'~.~:~~:~::,:~~~~
;,:':::: r.--~'-'--'-:::J I;,.:.:'.';':" '::':
..... ....,......1_ : .'~ .'. ," ....t.
;.~..;~~~.~l~~:~ '....;~..-, ~ ~.~.::<.~:.~:.~....~-~:;f
'~,~t;""'.''''J':'':'':.''':l .- ....... \
. -: i':~ ,>~..:~:'I ,:.:.:;:':.:\.;;' ~ 11'11"1
"'" I.';'j'::',;".' '."........::...: ,,\\"'1
~, 0\ ;:.):'::_.-,-.::.::u....,.:: \.:..:..:'.::':.' "~\~IIIIJ;$II)II'~'"
::f::/, ".::":'.:...:'.,::'.. : :::~.,,'......' \ ~,,\ li~/,,, '/"
~, .... \ ",' :--:'. ..:. '.: ; '. .:.:..',' . "~ IIIIIII//;/I!IIII;!I
/~'"'' ....:... ....: .:' of " ?0' //11/;/1
/";'~/;~;!!Iii,ill~lllilill$;~'~;;;: .....fl' R~~Y f'~~
\ 11111(/ I,., ,'<", I~~IT "!ff)<;fION
11/;., ':,(, ,'>:-'::::
1I1t1i' ',>{; ::~
\ '8;/ (:t:"'!I'\\"'''. ".s::
~ lj ~ 6 ,~'~ '
110/'",,',\,',
1/// i I 1\'\ \\
''1i-x.>.
~
PROPO~ED t ex.1"'TIN~ M"'LL":J
WAc::.Ne.R PAR..K
.........r-,
'--/~
'- ----------')
~~
~~
.~~
I;
P~D
-r~~IT RDW
I-IFi 1-'" -----
0-1-
MOUl>-lTAIN EDtlE.
Legend
~ c/DMMe.R.0IAL c::.ol':.e.
W;:;;:/:'l &OMMUbIAL LDt::6E.-
ITIIIIIITJ ~E- L- - I
I",' """'j ,o,"'v_- 1--'
:.L~ ':.. ..... L-- ~c...41l.-- Go--
_ N'::>PE."-I IN"-I- ADDITION
I I A?Pe.t--l I\JI-J - exl~T\N~
MILL 5T
Vicinity Map ~
. ~ - .,. '" 60f g
-
ASPEN
INN
r--~--
"'I,;>PE-N M^NOI't-
~
1:
J NA6~lf(' ,I
~ I r'~ n ~~
Z , ~
CJ '
L l~illTInl LdULlTII
~ HOU'be--'.
\
\
" '
, '
,
"-
II
l/e:A"-l ?T
?~I!:-\ e>C>U
\/ . .-.'1P- '\
- ~.
,
---- .
AZTE0 -
1- - -----------
I
,
Tc.LEMARK ----r'
0..-.--.---..
-,
lfJ
llJi
OCJ..-J
[I bl
, 1
.~ I
i
L'F~
IA
~
~
~
t1OUl'-Jl^\N e.ue..E-N
~
Site Context
~
. d. .. ,.. 150 ...
N
ASPEN
INN
j
,,-----------
01
.: ~\)g.y P"f(.j<.. ~?\T j
?I^T\C;N
L
,
,
'-
_t:-'
--
~ 0
~ [1
-.-I,
I:: r
-
J;;>l.)1U-l--1T ^YE-
c.C~T\NE.NT^ L
ETUTI
d
Fl
"
I~N
,.
,.
.,
l'
I,
,.
i
"
~
..(
'2
III
-.-I
..(
-u
A\..-peNe.LIC-K
FA".;>(/t-IIN~
H^~
r; -HI l>>.i'E. C-O~t:70MINIVM~
1
""C
c::
C"
-
-.
(")
~
(")
-.
-
-.
-
-.
CD
en
Qo
en
CD
...
<
-.
(")
CD
en
10
Section 1
Aspen Inn Expansion
AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
aa,) Water
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the capacity of the city's water system to serve the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer
and without treatment plant or other facility upgradin9.
As shown on the Utilities/Drainage drawing, Section 1, the project is already
being serviced by existing 8 and 6 inch city lines located in Monarch Street
and Mill Street respectively.
This application is made at a time after which the Aspen Mountain Interconnect
system has been planned and construction begun. The storage tank mentioned
in the previous application has been constructed and is in operation.
As a result of comprehensive discussions with Jim Markalunas of the City Water
Department, the applicant has already conveyed the easement at the Summit Street
extension as part of our contribution to the water system improvements in the area
for the Aspen Mountain Interconnect System.
The applicant has also agreed to reimburse the city for connectin9 the 6 inch
water line at Monarch Street onto the new 12 inch Aspen Mountain Interconnect,
even though this connection has little to do with any new proposed development
in the area, In return, the water department will allow the Aspen Inn expan-
sion to connect onto the 6 inch city water line on Monarch Street.
The water for the internal sprinkler system shall be provided via a 4 inch
line running throughout the project, connected from the main taps for the
project itself. The details of this system will be provided in the working
drawings of the project, as the G.M.P. application only serves as a conceptual
review and approval.
These agreements result in assuring that there are no forseeable deficiencies
in this area, and actually result in improving the quality of water service
to users in the entire area. Consequently, as per Jim Markalunas' letter,
. .
11
this application should be eligible for bonus points in this area. See letters
from Jim Markalunas and Gary Esary, attached.
bb.) Sewer
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the capacity of the city's sewer system to serve the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
As shown on the Utilities/Drainage drawing, Section 1, the project is already
being serviced by existing 8 inch city lines located in Monarch Street and
Mill Street. Heiko Kuhn, of the Aspen Metro Sanitation Department, states
project expansion can be serviced with existing facilities.
See letter from Heiko Kuhn, attached.
cc.) Storm Drainage
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the capacity of drainage facilities to adequately dispose of
the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions
beyond those normally installed by the developer.
The drainage control Objective of the project is to collect and retain site
runoff on site. As shown on the Utilities/Drainage drawing, Section 1, the
project will have a series of drywells sufficiently sized to retain size and
roof water runoff. Consistent with standard engineering practices, the dry-
wells will have overflow outlets extending to surrounding streets. Off site
surface water runoff shall be routed to either Mill or Monarch on the basis
of the preference of the city Engineering Department.
.
dd.) Fire Protection
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the ability of the Aspen Fire Department to provide fire
protection according to established response standards without the necessity
of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an
existing station.
"
12
As shown on the Utilities/Drainage drawing, Section 1, the project is serviced
by some five hydrants located around the periphery of the project. There is
a hydrant located on the west side of Monarch Street only some 50 feet away
from the main part of the expansion program itself. Other hydrants are within
350-400 feet of the project. Fire vehicles access and circulation is provided
from Mill and Monarch Streets, as well as from Durant and Suniata Streets,
As was mentioned earlier in the application, the water storage tank has been
constructed and is in operation. Willard Clapper of the Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department states that the project can be serviced according to established
response standards with existing facilities. See letter from Willard Clapper,
attached.
ee.) Roads
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of
the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic
patterns or overloading the existing street system or requiring increased
road mileage and/or maintenance.
As stated previously, and as shown on the Transportation/Circulation Context
drawing, Section I, the Inn's convenient location is well suited for the auto-
free tourist. The original data supplied by the U.M.T.A. in 1978 has been
updated by the "Aspen In-Room Survey, 1979/1980" (by C.R. Goeldner and Aletta
Stamp, Business Research Division, University of Colorado). Using data
developed by this study done for the Aspen Chamber of Commerce, Appendix A, it
is estimated that 96 rental units will generate approximately 27 to 49 cars
in the winter and summer respectively (SeeP,ppendix B). The U;N.T.A. study
identified three basic tourist types as follows:
1. Arrival and Departure - The Inn's limousine service will handle a
majority of the fly-in arrival and departure trips estimated by the
UMTA analysis. As concluded in the UNTA study, summer auto use is
greater than winter. The summer marketing thrust of the Inn will
be conference business as opposed to the pass through visitor. As
the Inn attracts more summer conferees, the percentage of summer
~ ..
13
fly-ins and limousine pick-ups will increase and reduce summer car
use. Some seven limousines will be operational as a result of this
expansion in addition to those already required. The estimated
average of 35i vehicles are primarily used for arrival and departure
and will result in minimum daily usage. Due to the Inn's convenient
location, guests arriving by car will have little need for their
vehicles durin9 their stay here. The underground parking facilities
will enable people arriving by car to park and store their vehicles
without inconvenience.
2. Skiing and Summer Recreation - Because of the Inn's convenient
walking distance to Aspen Mountain's lifts and the Rubey Park ski
buses, skiers will not need cars. As the Inn builds its summer
conference business, it will be able to organize conference limousine
and bus tours of the outlying summer attractions.
3. Shopping and Entertainment - Because of the Inn's convenient location
to downtown shopping and entertainment plus the provision of on-site
facilities, the tourist will have little need for a car for these
activities. The Inn is only a one to two minute walk from the mall
system.
In conformance with Ordinance 48, Section 5 (cc), no employee parking
will be provided on site to encourage employee use of public transit.
Current traffic count information along Durant Avenue is not available
to quantitatively estimate detail traffic impact.
.'
July 24, 1981
Mark A. Danielsen
H.B.C. Properties
450 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colo.'ado, 81611
Dear Ma rk:
This letter is being written to serve as a summary of our meetin9 on
July 16, ]981. The meeting was held in response to your proposals in
the Aspen Inn Growth Management Plan application to be submitted in
September.
The current G.M.P. application is similar in many ways to the 1978
Aspen Inn S.r1.p. submission. Recomnendations made in the earlier
proposal noted the need for an additional water storage tank, the
cost of which \1ould be shared by new development in the area. This
storage tank has been constructed and is in operation. The conveyance
of the requested Aspen Mountain Interconnect underground water pipeline
easements by the applicant to the city at the Summit Street extention
(by 750 S. ~1i 11 St.) is the promised contribution to the improvement
of the ,~ater systerc and the applicant as seen to in the full performance
of the 1973 Aspen Inn G.M.P. submission.
The applicar,t has agreed to reimburse the city for connecting the 6"
watei' 1 ine at t10narch Street onto the ne\~ 12" Aspen l'lountain Interconnect.
In return, the applicant may connect onto the existing 6" l'later line
on ~!onQl'ch Street. This shall supercede the 1978 requirerrent that the
applicant hcok onto the 8" line in Monarch Street originally constructed
by the :1ountain Queen. The applicant will still pay all standard tap
fees for connecting to the 6" water line.
I see no specific problems associated with the proposed 9C unit Aspen In~
G,I,1.P. ,?xpansion, Indeed, conveyance of the easements and tap to the
Aspen r.1Juntain Interconnect system jmproves the quality of ~Iater service
to users in the entire area, and should be eligible for bcnus points
for imp,'oving ourservices to the immediate neighbor'hood.
Should this summary not meet with your understanding of the meeting,
or if you ~ave any questions or need more information, plEase contact
me.
,
yst regard.
a. \ (fJ1A<'c:) ... ~ 91/~.j~lx~{.o
James J. Ma~ alunas
)
JJIVpk
P.S. Also discussed and agreed to (in principal): The Aspen Inn would inter-
connect internal distribution (Fire lines-Domestic services) between 110narch
and Mill Streets to provice Reliability of Service,
JJM
LAW OFFICES
GRUETER & EDMONDSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
430 E. MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303-9215-4544
ROBERT ~ GRUETER
ROBERT B. EDMONDSON
GARY S. ESARY
July l6, 1981
HAND-DELIVERED
Mark Danielsen
H.B.C. Investments
450 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll
Dear Mark:
This letter is a supplement to my letters of June ll, 1981,
and July 7, 1981, requesting underground water pipeline
easements from Hans B. Cantrup on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
'-
The easements were for the l2" Aspen Mountain Interconnect
portion of the City's present multi-year water improvement
project. That portion will serve, among other things, to
improve water service and fire protection capability in the
area of southern ends of Galena, Mill, Monarch and Aspen
Streets.
In 1978, Mr, Cantrup made a GMP submission for the Aspen Inn
project, which is located at 701 S. Mill Street, south of
Durant Avenue. At that time, Jim Markalunas, director of
the City water department, in his comments on the GMP
application, agreed that water service to the proposed
development was inadequate and recommended that any such
development be deferred until an additional water storage
tank on Aspen Mountain was constructed and the tank pipeline
was interconnected to the Monarch and Mill Street distribution
mains.
The Aspen Inn GMP Subdivision recognized this water system
inadequancy and the applicant, Mr. Cantrup, in Section I
aa), on Page 8, agreed to share in the cost of the improvements
to the water system outlined by Mr. Markalunas.
The Aspen Mountain Interconnect portion of the present City
water improvement project is identical to those impovements
outlined by Mr. Markalunas in 1978.
-'
Page Two
Mark Danielsen
H.B.C. Investments
July l6, 1981
As part of the present project, the City has requested
underground water pipeline easements (described in the two
above-referenced letters) from Mr, Cantrup.
In my opinion, the conveyance of the requested easements by
Mr. Cantrup to the City at no cost should be deemed to be
his promised contribution to the improvement of the water
system and be stipulated to be in full performance of his
promise in Section I aa) of his 1978 GMP Submission. I will
recommend that a stipulation to this effect be entered into
by the City with Mr, Cantrup.
Of course, I am functioning only as special counsel to the
City on the easement matter and my recommendation would have
to be ratified by Mr. Markalunas, the Planning Department
and the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, I think
such a stipulation would be straightforward, fair and
sensible and I would strongly recommend it,
Very truly yours,
P.C.
.
ayne Chapman
Paul Taddune
Alan Richman
Jim Markalunas
Spencer Schiffer
, .
Mark A. Danielsen
450 S. Galena
Suite 202
Aspen, Co 816n
Dear Mr, Danielsen,
~ <4et~lan Yamilalu- 9Jc4bid
565 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE I/- 925-2537
July 16, 1981
In regards to the proposed Aspen Inn expansion I forsee no problem in
providing sanitation service to this proposed exapnsion.
Sincerely
;u.~
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District
.
cQ"~ ~~cl/Ue-PJf~
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Mark Danielson
450 S._ Galena
Suite 202
Aspen, Colo. 81611
RE; 90 units in addition to remodeling
of Aspen Inn (Monarch St.)
Mark Danielson;
I have looked at the area map of the proposed remodeling sitejand do not see any
problem with this project.
We have a fire hydrant just across Monarch St. to the west, and there is a fire
hydrant on the south-east corner of the Monarch. and Durant St. intersection. We also
have an additional fire hydrant at the south end of Monarch St. above the Caribou
Lodge.
Wi~h the new water system the city is looping the lines,and I feel we will have
plenty of water to handle your project, and also have fire protection water available.
I hope to have the city install an additional hydrant in the area of Mill St.
above Dean St. to better assist this area.
The only problem I see with this project is the access to the rear of the
project. I would like to see what we have there prior to construction.
r-v)rY)T~ulf YoU~ ~
ti;ltla? If. rftf1)Z-~
Willard C.fel~pper ;1;1
Chief
Aspen Vol. Fire Dept.
. .
wee/hs
A"JPef--l Il-lf--l 'O>ITe
.
.
,
"'\~t:.. "~TATIDN
PDL.lv~ '?T"'-ilON
R~\N6 FO~ ~\Ve~
P~IMA!l:..ypE.De~~\...-N t-1~("ULAiION
MILL ~T
MAIN "11. / HlbHWAY 62-
.....
!::XI<::>iIN~ ... n:DPO---A~D MALL"J
WA6Ne~ PH-K
A?PEN '7T
~
"'-
~~opO'::>eD -----.I~,
T!':AN'?IT ~ oW ........._
L1Fr 1- A
.'
.
.
--+----~
: 'SCD'
1~~ ~ADI0? )\
'..'..,., \ .
..... \ ,...'
'f f"
...... .
.
.
.
.
..'
SKI IN
LIFT N.
APT~NOON ~IE~ -n~AF~\v
t
Ac:.-TIVITY rO(A)tO-
e>L-OVK ~,IoJ?I~
Ru~'( P~K /
~"JpO!l:.TA"IDN
c.-eN""~
Transportation/Circulation Context
.-- ... lioOCI &00
0J
ASPEN
INN
~
I
MON""~H t:>T -----:.-
MIL.L.. 0T
~~~---~~~-~-
l
l'
I
- -~ lr-.
DURANT ~"T. - .~ II
----- - -i . ., , 10 r-
· tt' I
DeAN ~~j .ll ~'~O ~__ ___~_-__------_
eN0E.WU ):'Ne-t~ p(~~__----"""":.-_, ~~ __ _____ ___ . .
\ I I r~""1 1 I
, I ' 'I 10
fUTURE: CONF. CENTE-'l +-~o: " I
LAWN 6T LOOP . ~ I I
11'
I I
I ' i
I '
I '
II
I
l
" ., I
II,.
l\.:
(--
,I: Legend
I I ~_" OFf" - ~1T'e w.-crelt
I
-- ---- \1 : =:~w~
'1 i
L_ j . l-\Y\?II!..'NT
ii
I .
I
_____..I
l___
I
I
)
I
I
I
I
--~
'--,
.
(pN WATeR. LINe-
~
I
HYORJ>NT ~-~.
j yj.
. 111111'''' I'" 111. -~
. ".,.."..................u..........................
~
~
eN 6E.W'EJ{. LJN~
~N W"'T~~ LINE.-
Utilities / Drainage
. .. ..
...
-~
-
ASPEN
INN
_ ____._,_.___~-.__.~___--o.
...,...
en
o
n
-.
OJ
-
~
n
-.
-
-.
-
-.
(I)
t/)
go
en
(I)
~
<
-.
n
(I)
t/)
Section II
Aspen Inn Expansion
AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES
aa.) Public Transportation
Maximum 6 Points
The evaluation for maximum points requires the project be located within 520
feet of a ski lift and be located in a block abuttin9 a public transit route.
As shown on the Transportation/Circulation Concept drawing, Section I', the
Inn is conveniently located to encourage auto free tourism. The Inn is
located within 500 feet of Lift I-A, and a ski-in trail easement provides
skier access from Aspen Mountain to the Inn. The Inn site also abuts the
Durant Avenue public transit route and is adjacent to Rubey Park Transit
Terminal. The Inn also provides regularly scheduled limousine service for
its guests. The Inn's location and limousine service therefore improves the
quality of transportation in this area by maximizing tourist requirements
for skiing and transportation with location to ski lifts and public transporta-
tion facilities as well as private limousine service.
bb.) Police Protection
Maximum 2 Points
The evaluation is the ability of the Aspen Police Department to provide protec-
tion according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of
additional facilities, personnel or equipment.
The existing Inn is presently serviced by the Aspen Police Department. Response
time is only some 2-3 minutes. This expansion shall have negligable impact
upon the ability of the current police force to provide protection according
to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities,
personnel or equipment. The project in and of itself improves the quality
on one site as opposed to creating additional sites in different areas to be
patrolled and serviced by police personnel.
.'
15
cc.) Commercial Support
Maximum 2 Points
The evaluation is proximity to commercial support facilities. As shown on
the Transportation/Circulation Concept drawing, Section I , the Inn is
within the block adjoining the commercial and entertainment facilities of
downtown Aspen. The Inn is located only 350 feet from the Mill Street Mall,
approximately a one to two minute walk. The Inn will also provide limited
guest sundry shoPpin9 in the hotel lounge area. The Inn expansion will improve
the quality of tourist services in the area by providing high quality, large
guest rooms that are both new and modern. The Inn shall also combine tourist
facilities with guest amenities in a full package that is uncommon to lodges
in the area. Such expansion shall help Aspen, the community, to regain and
maintain Aspen as a premier quality resort.
. .
,.
c
CD
en
-.
CO
::::J
Section III
Aspen Inn Expansion
QUALITY OF DESIGN
aa.) Architectural Design
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the compatability of the proposed building (in terms of
height, size, location and building materials) with existing neighboring
development.
As described earlier, the Inn expansion is designed to integrate the proposals
contained here along with current on-site construction to form a totally
cohesive hotel concept and to have the overall project compatible with the
neighborhood. The Inn is located in the heart of the lodge neighborhood.
This area is zoned L-2, and all the newer structures have conformed to the
bulk and height requirements of city zoning.
As shown in the Neighborhood Section, the Inn is approximately the same hei9ht
as surrounding structures. The Inn is lower than the ~lountain Chalet Lodge
located between the Inn and Wagner Park; consequently, the Inn has minimum
visibility from Durant Avenue and Wagner Park.
The Street Sketches are taken from Mill Street and Monarch Street and illustrate
the architectural character of the building. Generally, the Inn is a horizontal
building of similar character as surrounding structures. Building material
is earth tone wood, rock and glass typical of the neighborhood. Building mass
is reduced by the building's wing configuration, which disperses units into
lodging wings. Also, the use of balconies, overhangs and wall recesses
visually reduces building mass by eliminating massive wall areas and by
increasing building facade diversity.
The architectural desi9n of the expansion is fashioned after the same design
that won the 1977/1978 allocation, and is currently under construction. This
design continues the same architectural and aesthetic themes to successfully
integrate the new wings with those under construction to help create a
visually cohesive and functional high quality hotel, Indeed the architecture
17
was rated as an excellent design by the majority of Planning & Zoning Commission
members in the previous application, and received the most points by them in
this category.
The Building Concept drawing, Section III, illustrates the functional elements
that determined the configuration of the building. The design continues the
theme of lodging wings radiating from a central location. The advantages of
the wing configuration in a "Un shape include the following:
1, Creates a single central building focus of public spaces - Arya
Restaurant and lounge, health and recreational facilities; lobby and
vestibule areas - which are directly tied to the outside terrace and
lawn area to maximize utilization of public areas;
2. Minimizes internal circulation walking distances as the lodging wings
radiate from a centrally located public use area;
3. Reduces the building mass by designing wings as opposed to separate
but larger individual buildings;
4. Provides a large check-in vestibule from which the guests can be
shown directly to their rooms without leavin9 the complex,
4. Entrance to the lobby is achieved via direct access from Lawn Street,
The central lobby eliminates traffic congestion on both Mill and
Monarch Streets, as Lawn Street will connect both areas.
As shown on the floor plans, extensive public areas have been provided. The
existing buildings that contain the Arya Restaurant, lobby and west lodging
wings shall all be demolished. The building that currently contains the
restaurant and lobby will give way to a new modern and efficient structure.
Both the Arya restaurant and new health club facilities shall be located on
the terrace level with the restaurant having immediate access to the enlarged
pool, allowing for outside patio dining. The ground floor shall be devoted
to lobby and vestibule, giving easy, convenient access to both the public areas
and lodge rooms. The lobby shall be two stories high. The third floor shall
hold conference and banquet facilities with sky lights overhead to facilitate
,
18
a roomy, light atmosphere in a refined setting.
The public use areas are as follows:
Arya Restaurant and Nightclub
Health. Club Facility
Lobby and Vestibule
Conference & Banquet Facilities
Total public area:
4500 sq.ft.
1500 sq.ft.
6000 sq.ft,
5000 sq. ft .
17 ,000 sq.ft, (Rounded)
The extensive public areas are designed to establish a sense of spaciousness
for the Inn, conveniently accommodate large check-in groups, provide large
and small guest congregational areas and position the restaurant, nightclub
and health club accessible to both day (skiers) and nighttime users.
Underground parking is provided for an additional 49 vehicles, for a total
capacity of 104 vehicles under9round. Additional drawings including a typical
room plan are included in this section.
bb.) Site Design
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is based upon the quality and character of the proposed land-
scaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and
the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
As shown on the landscape concept plan, there are two areas that are of primary
significance. The entire site area immediately north of the Inn shall contain
open space and additional landscaped area. These parcels shall be extensively
landscaped to include berming along Durant and Monarch Streets (acting as
a buffer from traffic along Durant Street). The berm shall enclose open
lawn space in those areas, allowing for benches, pedestrian walkways and quiet
outside enjoyment of area. Berms shall be used to buffer other areas as well.
The covered entry drop-off area will be designed as a small plaza as a focus
19
for entering the building, Adjacent to the entry will be space to accommodate
the limousine service and check-in parking for guests. Although the once
proposed city pedestrian and bike trail never came to fruition, the areas
in front of the Aspen Inn shall include benches and bike racks. The second
major landscape area is the courtyard contained on three sides by the Inn
itself. The courtyard will be extensively planted along the perimeters for
area privacy and beautification. The open lawn area may also accommodate
quiet leisure activities. As the patio lends itself to outdoor dining, the
area shall be planted to achieve a feeling of tasteful decor blending in with
the use of the pool and other outdoor recreation. The sidewalks along Mill
and Monarch Streets shall be planted with shrubs. The overall concept of the
landscape design is to promote the hotel as a high quality, premier lodge
where guests can relax and enjoy outdoor leisure activities in a mountain setting.
As indicated above, the total site contains some 30,000 sq.ft. or 27% of the
total area of the site as open space. The demolition of the Blue Spruce will
result in the additional landscaped area as detailed above. These open spaces
and landscaped areas are made possible by locating all the employee units and
several lodge units on terrace levels, as well as providing for complete under-
ground parkin9 faciliites. The two main elements of the open space and landscaped
areas are the courtyard and the parcel in front of the Inn itself.
The courtyard is south-facing, maXlmlzlng sun exposure, and its U-shape acts
as a wind screen. Both elements combine to lengthen the courtyard's outdoor
use season. The focus of the courtyard is the terrace and pool area which
links interior and exterior public spaces to maximize their use. The terrace
area is utilized by the Arya Restaurant for outside dining during summer. The
courtyard is designed as an open lawn area to accommodate general activities
and provide open views for units facing it. The parcel in front of the Inn
was discussed above.
.
The site's circulation pattern is simple and convenient. Guests arrive on
Lawn Street from either Monarch or Mill Street, check in at the main entrance
to the lobby, and park underground, Service access is easily accomplished via
the area provid~d for limousines and service vehicles. All utilities will be
underground.
20
cc, ) Energy
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient
fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of the solar energy
sources.
Thes application proposes units very similar to the ones approved earlier
and are presently under construction. Similar type units guarantee the inte-
gration of all units to make a cohesive theme for the entire hotel. Conse-
quently, the energy guidelines given earlier are much the same for this appli-
cation.
The buildings have bee~ designed to promote energy conservation. Preliminary
engineerin9 study by Walton-Abeyta and Associates, Mechanical Engineers, in
Appendix p, calculates the Inn's conservation measures will result in a 25% to
30% reduction in building energy consumption above that required by the City's
Thermal Standard, Ordinance 45.
General design elements that encourage energy conservation are the building's
compact configuration, its partial subgrade construction, and itsmultiple
level plan with most of the wing having double-loaded corridors which efficiently
reduce exterior wall and roof areas, the areas of greatest heat loss. The
majority of units have only one exterior wall and all other surfaces are
interior, having no heat loss.
The building has excellent proposed insulation standards. As shown in the
Walton-Abeyta report, insulation standards alone result in an estimated 23%
reduction in building heat loss. Additional energy conservation elements
described in the report are efficient heating equipment, heat recovery and
reclamation devices, and heat control thermostats. Moreover, the building
will not be air conditioned, resulting in additional energy savings.
Heating loads can also be significantly reduced through the use of efficient
fireplaces. Fireplaces for the Inn shall be the heat circulating units,
drawing cold air in at floor level and exhausting the heated air at six feet
21
above the floor. Fireplace combustion air shall be supplied independently
from room air by means of two-inch ducts with thermostatically controlled
dampers.
The Inn's location away from the base of the mountain within the L-2 zone
al~ows the site maximum solar exposure for the area. In addition, solar
collection may be used to supplement the building's primary energy systems.
The solar collection would be used principally for preheating domestic water.
dd.) Amenities
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is based upon the provisions of usable public open space and
pedestrian and bicycle ways.
As discussed earlier, the Inn's expansion provides extensive usable public
open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways.
Specific open space amenities available to the public are as follows:
1. A large open space and landscaped area is located immediately in front
of the Inn itself. Public benches, pedestrian walkways, bicycle path
and bike racks located on these large areas. Park-like atmosphere
allows for quiet outdoor activities and general congregation area.*
2. The large (4500 sq.ft.) Arya restaurant and nightclub with its
"terrace garden" dining.
.
3. The (5000 sq.ft.) conferenceand'banquet facilities, accommodating
larger meeting groups. Facilities will be available to the City and
community non-profit groups on an "at-cost" basis.
As is shown above, an extensive area is available for public use and enjoy-
ment. Expansion of the Inn shall offer the public a new and diverse oppor-
tunity to engage in activities ranging from leisurely dining to conferences
and active night life to a quiet moment in a large outdoor park-like area.
Thus the Inn is seen not only to provide a much needed resource to Aspen the
22
resort but well serves Aspen the community.
ee.) Vi sua 1 Impact
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation considers the scale and location of building to maximize public
views for surrounding scenic areas.
The project will have a minimal, if not positive, visual impact on the neighbor-
hood. The Mountain Chalet is higher than the Inn. The demolition of the Blue
Spruce shall result in offering a better view plane from Durant Street, as
the Inn is substantially set back from Wagner Park. Conversion of the Blue
Spruce site to open space will increase view plane and enhance visibility
of Aspen Mountain. The project is not included in any zoning "view planes"
and will not otherwise block Aspen Mountain views from major pedestrian
routes.
*The landscaped area between Dean and Lawn Streets where the Blue Spruce Lodge
currently exists may be the site for a future large Conference/Performing Arts
facility, which would also be available to the public.
. '
Vi
0
c: JUNIATA ST.
-i
:J:
i:
i: 0
r- Z
r- )>
:c
(')
:J:
~~ Vi
-i
:c
m
m
-i
-0
r
)>
Z
"lJ Z c:
l> m Z
~ ~ 0
m
Z l> "
" 0 ()
0 Vi
:; 0
0 Z -i
'"
Z ... " / :c
~ " /
~ )=-, m
..
<D ::i m
'" '" II 11
~ c: c: ~ Ib-dl.. -i
() Z Z .
m :; :; '" / "-
'" '" '" 0
/ "
DEAN
STREET
-
1--
.
I
L..
DURANT
ST R E ET
~
~
o
"
o
n "
~ ~
~ !!.
;- O'
" ~
r;--
U1
ASPEN
INN
-------------- .---- - 1- --------. ..--
~
51
,~
~
!
"tJ
(1)
0.
(1)
en
r+
...
\
,
::,! . \
,I'~ A,'
-.
Q)
:::J
<
-.
(1)
~
en
(1)
(")
r+
-.
o
:::J
-;.
1 Q~
n
1m'
I---~
l
f~L "
(J)
,~
H
H
,0
..
, .
.
1
.
:1!r-
,~ -1,
I' .
:11"
II :::
II "1
II r
I'
,
"
~
"
:-:
r,
I,
I I
II
~r
I I
II
II
Ii
II
II
II
L.j.
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ~
r-
~--
7
l
z
(1)
-.
(Q
~
C"
o
...
~
o
o
0.
en
(1)
(")
r+
-.
o
:::J
1
i
,
'~
"
f
~
j
, r
'z
'Z
!:
:1
f
r
~
~
~
"1'
'.
z
z
;"~.,,
--
~r
}
~
~
.
ASPEN
INN
~
,--,
r '-__I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I ~
I
I D' .'
III I
I - .' I
<
Jtt "~(\,
I . .... I
: I "', I
'.1,;"
I :.,"J, I
Cf2i ..J
I
I '.,
~ ,',..:
en
I -;
0
JJ "
,.
^ I Cl
m
Z ,I -""<""
G) ~~ t---
"T1 'L
r
I
~l= I
"U ~
r l~'.;;.~ . --
)> 'i" .
Z ''1:
r-- "-".,;~
~
o
:-
'"
"
,. ~
nil
m '"
'" 0
-r
ASPEN INN
--
!i
1=
.~
II!IIlI .. ,
~ ;~~~1
.:~~'
.it,~:\l\-...'
. ~~~;'t:
_,' ~ f
".c\
~,:
it,"l~
\J~\,'_';,~;,
~{~::
~~'~~~.h
;.,",.:;l]l;
.: ...;;;...;. ,,~,. ,:
;~ti
~~~.
~
-
\:
t
I
,
-; "
m m
en
JJ :r ;
JJ m c
J> "
~ J>
)> Z
:r ...
() ()
m .-
c
Dl
." I
r I
~
""U
r
)>
~ '" Z
01'" ..
Zcm
m Z l:
,. c"
m.-
):oJ:lQ
C()m
~Ol'T1
~ZC ~
O!!jZ "
Z"'~ \II
0
OJ
ASPEN
INN
"Tl CIl
-
JJ -l
Cf) :II
~ m
m
-l
"Tl
r
"'U
r
:l>
Z
-w-
oo'"
"llZC
,.mz
"lEe
" m
z;t..JJ
Cle
eO
"'-0
~ :!z
"0'" -
Oz-< II
m " '"
'" ' 0
--,
.
.
to
~~ u. ~
'"
"
-
-
Z
I ,
, ,
, , ,
I
I
I
.
I
a. [lBIi:n -lj;-
~ .rI~
1Io:.cF"
CIl
.'
IF'I-'...
"Tpd
-J=...
k. ..r'I
lll_. ..
F'
3:
r-
r-
.. 60
Jb I""
-J..
"= P'
. Fo
. -1=.1
"r
..fL
11:
JI .
'"
...
..
m
Z
,..
I
I~
I.
,-
:';,
~ "J-
;...o=..v ~
/ I
I I:
I I~
I I____I~.
~~
-<
;;~
"
1;:-':
< ".,",' .
7
DEAN
'" I'.
ASPEN
JUNIATA
'''1'1
:,li
,
,
:il:
'I'
ii:
"I'
I
!-I1i". ,.::,:: -"Ii,
\ ;i
. --"-";:.:'
1 (
b~~,~.~ny__----=-__
r
o
'"
'"
-<
-
=
LAW N
ST.
STREET
INN
ST.
1;11I: U
l.."
3:
0
.. Z
..
:l>
., :II
" I 0
.
I :I:
~
9l
..
'"
,r
I I '
I '
I~".,.:.,.:.I
I ;;', I
I- ' '"'" I
',' ---.J
c"~
~
I
I
I
I
.
.
CIl
-l
:II
m
m
-l
,
.
I
I
I
(f)
m
()
o
z
o
'T\
r
"'U
r
.l>
Z
"'-
",0:>
ZC:
",Z
:q;:
"
,.
0(')
00
:tz ....
o~ II
z:a g
o
~
--
'~ 1'''-
- ..lIL,
....
.. ..
""I If'"
.. L
.. .,-
W'll
- '"
... "*
.. ..-
IF 91
~'-I,.:II
... "'"
., r
fib,
~c
J
"11.-
o
."
:!!
(')
",
--
11:"-:
-
""'=-
!
(')
,.
Z
o
."
-<
"' it----
.-/-
-,' /--'--",
"
----"
I
~
ASPEN
\
.
'I,
INN
(
-- ~
~ I
r ,
,
l
"
u..
pi I
I
..
'"
, bot
....
...
:lI
1 IL. I
r I
1=
-- I 1 -.;::~
"r.
-
-
--l
I
JJ
o
"
r
""0
r
):>
Z
"'-
",,,,
zc:
mZ
:e~
"
,.
00
00
=4z ....
o~ ~
z?" 0
,
f" ~
." I
"" Ice f'" ,
.' L--
"'.~
""1l.~r
l." --
~ 7111
'" ~I""
1][ I:;
"iI . I
'" ...
ill
"d' 91 .. I
Jb '" *
- ~
.. .91
.. '-", '"
--[ ....~ i ..
"I
Ell ( R.r
ll., Iii
- . " ( ,jI
.~. 6"
~ :I
~ l. ,
.. .- '" 0
0 ,. 0
III - Z Z r
'" 0 ,"
-< c:
- m ,
-< ..
JL.,c = :'
-
...,1_ - -I' t -- --~
"lWiii -C1
-,--,--~
~.__._- , I
--" ~
II
- -,,-1
----'----- -- --
L---+
ASPEN
INN
<
m
~
o
"
r
o
OJ
OJ
-<
-
N
I
\
,
""
,
"
'\
.\
~
I
I f
hI
/1/
fli
fl
!~ '
~,rl
.~
t
Ii
I,
lJ
A/
II
,~ t
\'"
I\i
,
. .
\
, ~.,
\
"
ASPEN
INN
<
-.
(I)
~
o
.....
r-
o
c::
~
to
(I)
-
0J
~',~ ~., -=~., - ~ ~
-- '.==-, ;Jft.. -~t;-' :,T~, ~f' ;~,~-"T.I". ~\\ ,if '\
rt':(~!!"" :J' '. :. !:~0~, ~ . 'J ' \)1
.~'11~.'1"' ,..( .... ~" I, ,I ,I I ,,1 "
- ,'::f.ffi~J,\, \, ' " i I I, I I; I '\~',~i:
F~: ,~~. 1 ,! Ii 1l I II \~ ~ ~ /:1
I'} -11.1" ';J:'I~Q r V,' ~- .., ,'1 .'\0" /Yri !i
\ l' ~,' . ," -' I ,I II \, J I~/
\~".<~ 'r~-~. ~~lbl ~ '\ I jJ
,f :1 \ ,'f
I \ I zi 5
I,' (~'
h '(
!
It!/
In
I I
I .
~ !i
) ,
_ .J Q::::--. )1
. . '~~ "
. -:--~- ~ \
l'\~ \ I / ~
~'T-"~i"~ - ~~) I,. \1 .!, I
,
.~.. --
\' l'~ I ,'~') ,,'. e - · . . (' I
F"f', ',1 I I ~J 1 C'1,'~ . ~ - - . '.. ' / ,/ . ..//'"
x ,~.. ~ I ~J .' r'A~ \ .\..1 _ft' . ' f;J111 , I' "'f':::~
/ ~ \4 \ I II'" 'fb,1 1( , s~ I. :11 i 1./'.' ,: 17./1\
-0 .-r~;?\ '., r '! <\H,~ ,\'\ :-" / II! !/~~
~ : 01 I 'IJiJ~;-,' L\\ ..l~yl:r1 - .-- . ,i' . /;/ I II~
\v\ . " ~; ~\lit!! ., ,,'. ,I" .~ · !!J.~ -?7)":~/
. J . '- I'. __.'" " n \, ,I
r/;- 1\ '. . \ \ ", ;.\ \ <-'5l: Ir )\ i ~ f ' ! ~ ::;, . '
\. \ \ ;' \\ /) f +"
I \ I I - -
. . / \ I' I
I \ .- I I
"I X
r- - '\-
,
,
I \ --
t-t-l
" i ~y - un.::,
+ I \ - P"J... ?~ 'j
ti!~c! ~ \\ \ ///y\ -. ~
J , / ~\'i'" 1;1
/ \ ' . /..j\l ~,r- _ //;, <CI fJ
/
I ,j \=iV1,r \ ''I' : ,R J! / 1(< ~~\
'\
J;;~s; ,]~1 ~~ ;.~ \ ~\.-l .~, ~:-' <
GlJ- '~\' ~~IY\I~~ ''\ , "~-'- ~
11 - 7Y-Y ~ r
\l -'~:=2_L,-LJl. rr~ ~// ' 1")"'1; .-~ ~
~~An ~ L,r; ~--r \/'/i )~ $_' . qz~,
~ '7~, ~ ~ If J'\. r l\ l \/7i I) V'..rl 1Ji:-'f - V?~~
/-,-..JU~ ,~--.... ' 'I-.. \). 1_ .? \ I -;..~P/L ~~
~
.-
yo
~..
\\\\
\\
\ \~
.1'. '
~
"''7
f~ ( ,
"I.
T~'lII..
~It'T'
r
~I
\ Q.
"
\
''/'u
"
'~
ASPEN INN
i
en
CD
...
<
c:r
CD
~
...
G>
c:
(1)
C/)
-
C/)
Section IV
Aspen Inn Expansion
: SERV ICES PROV I DED FOR GUESTS
aa.) Meeting Areas
Maximum 1 Point
The evaluation is based upon the spaciousness and quality of common meeting
areas.
The Inn expansion provides extensive meeting and congregational areas. They
include the following:
1. Hotel lobby and vestibule - 6000 sq. ft.
2. Arya Restaurant and nightclub - 4500 sq. ft.
3. Terrace and pool area - 4000 sq. ft,
4. Health club facility - 1500 sq. ft.
5. Conference and banquet facility - 5000 sq. ft.
The Inn expansion includes some 21,000 sq. ft, of common meeting areas for
guests - larger than the total area of some lodge sites! This spaciousness
is virtually unequaled in the city of Aspen. In keeping with the Inn's status
as a first class, premier hotel, the quality of these areas will be an inte-
gration of the outstanding quality of the entire complex.
bb.) Dining Facility
Maximum 1 Point
The evaluation is based upon on-site dining facilities.
The Arya restaurant provides a three meal menu of excellant quality. The
large dining area offers outside terrace dining in the summer as well as
a lounge and nightclub area inside. The restaurant is also easily accessible
to the public, and convenient for the guests.
Cc,) Recreational Facilities
Maximum 1 Point
The evaluation is based upon on-site recreational facilities.
~.,
. .
24
Extensive on-site recreational facilities are in keeping with a modern, high-
quality premier hotel. As such, they include the following.
1. Large pool and terrace area.
2. Health club facilities including sauna, jacuzzi, steam room,
whirlpool, massage rooms.
3, Large open space and landscaped areas located in front of the Inn as
well as in the courtyard for quiet leisure activities.
4. Lobby area with tables for backgammon and chess.
5. Restaurant with lounge and nightclub.
dd.) Conference and Banquet Facilities
Maximum 1 Point
This evaluation considers on-site conference and banquet facilities.
There is a 5,000 sq.ft. conference and banquet facility on the site. Located
on the top floor of the lObby wing, it is easily accessible for public use
and readily convenient for guests of the lodge. To encourage the conference
facility as an amenity available to the Aspen community, the facility will
be available to the city and community non-profit groups on an "at cost" basis.
ee. Ski Proximity
Maximum 1 Point
This evaluation isbased upon the applicants physical proximity to ski trails
and walking access to lifts.
The Aspen Inn is located between both the Little Nell's ski lift and Lift 1A.
The Inn is within 500 feet of lift 1A and near (850 feet) the Little Nell's
lift. This prime location thus allows easy walking access to both ski lifts.
The site also borders the Durant Street bus route and is adjacent to the Rubey
Park transit station.
ff.) Overall Tourist Appeal
Maximum 1 Point
The evaluation considers the general plan of the project.
, .
As noted earlier, the Inn's objective is to establish itself as a high quality,
25
full service hotel. To meet this objective, a full range of facilities,
services, and design excellence is provided. Many of these elements have
been previously discussed in detail and are only summarized below as an overview.
1. Prime location providing convenient access to skiing, downtown
shopping and entertainment.
2. Spacious tourist rooms.
3. Large restaurant complete with lounge, nightclub and terrace dining.
4. Extensive public areas including the large areas immediately in
front of the Inn, servin9 as a visual entrance to the Inn.
5. Comprehensive conference and banquet facilities.
6. Recreational facilities including Health Club.
7. Complete guest limousine service.
8. Underground parking.
9. Protected courtyard area with open space.
10. Five tennis courts located one block west of the Aspen Inn.
T
"tJ
C
C"
-
-.
n
"tJ
o
-
-.
n
'<
C')
o
Q)
-
en
Section V
Aspen Inn Expansion
CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS
aa.) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R.
Maximum 3 Points
This evaluation scores G.M.P. projects that reduces their maximum allowable
floor area ratio for tourist rental space.
Calculations for internal F.A.R. are given on page 5-6. The calculations
yield a maximum allowable lodge rental area of 50,71S sq.ft. The applicant
will reduce this internal floor area by 16%, or Sl15 sq.ft. This 16%
reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R.
results in only 41,600 sq.ft. internal F.A.R. available for lodge rental.
bb.) Provision of Employee Housing
Maximum 6 Points
The evaluation allows for maximum points given to projects that house 75% or
more lodge employees on site.
The twenty-four (24) employee units are those that were originally proposed in
the earlier (1978) application. These units were originally calculated to
fulfill the Inn's (SO%) total employee on-site housing needs upon completion
of the entire project. These 24 employee units shall house some 4S employees
in an area of about 9500I sq.ft. All the employee units are on the terrace
level. Twelve units are located on the bottom floor of the west wing, the
other twelve units are placed on the bottom floor of the south-east wing. As
an improvement over the previous application, all employee units will be newly
constructed.
Preference would be for all twenty-four units to be studios, similar in
size and shape to lodge studios. This will help reduce construction cost
and achieve a better integration of employee units with lodge units. Should
the Planning Office and City Council prefer to maintain the original mix of
2 apartment units, IS lodge-type studios and 4 dorm units then the applicant
will do so. It is believed however, that the all studio arrangement offers
.
a better plan with the potential to house more employees in the future if
necessary. Each unit has the potential to house two employees with greater
27
privacy than dorm-type units. Each unit will average 2 employees, or 48
.
employees housed on site out of the Inn's total lodge employees listed. (see
attached list, Appendix C)
cc.) Auto Disincentives
Maximum 3 Points
The evaluation is the project's conformance with the City's auto disincentive
policies in conjunction with limousine service, reduced parking, and prohibition
of employee parking.
1. Limousine Service: The Inn shall operate a total of 12 limousines
on a regular basis. The previous application indicated a need of 5
limousines, and this expansion, (as per the formula of one limousine
per 25 guest capacity) results in a 8 limousine requirement. The
reduction of one limousine comes from the previous application due to
the fact that the existing units will undergo demolition.
2. Parking Reduction: In conformance with the City Code, the Inn shall
provide parking at a reduced rate from zonin9. The Inn shall provide
an additional 48 spaces in an under9round garage below the west wing.
Under zoning, the Inn would be required to provide one space per bedroom.
The result is a reduction in parking below the minimum recommended
in the code because it is done in coordination with limousine service.
3. Employee parking prohibition: In conformance with the City Code, the
Inn will provide no on-site employee parking by covenant restrictions,
The objective is to encourage employees to use public transit.
"<~ ...
, ,
,..
~
'0
'0
(1)
::J
Q.
-.
><
Section VI
Aspen Inn Expansion
BONUS POINTS
Section 24-11.6 (b)(6) states:
(6) The commission may, when it shall determine that a project has
incorporated the criteria of section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3),
(4) and (5) and achieved an outstanding overall design recogni-
tion, award additional points not exceeding twenty (20) per cent
of the total points awarded under section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2),
(3), (4) and (5).
This submission describes how the plans and features of the Aspen Inn not
only fulfill, but exceed the specific requirements of the Growth Management
Plan. In addition to point allocation for meeting these standard requirements,
bonus points may be awarded when a project exceeds the review criteria or
achieves an outstanding overall concept in design and function. The bonus
cate90ry is subjective and allocation is at the discretion of the Plannin9
Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is respectfully requested
that the following merits which are unique to the Aspen Inn project be considered
for bonus points.
A. Public Facilities and Services:
The project's contribution to the water system benefits the community as
a whole. The easements and tap contributions certainly well exceed the
standard requirements for this development, and aid the City's water
interconnect goals to achieve a community benefit. As a result, the
project should receive (two) bonus points in this area, as has been
recommended by the water department itself, in a letter by Jim Markalunas.
B, Location and Transportation.
The Aspen Inn occupies the best location of any underdeveloped lodge
property in Aspen in terms of proximity to commercial and entertainment
facilities, public transportation, skiing, and conference facilities.
The Inn is located within a two minute walk of the 'commercial zone,
including the mall area. Entertainment facilities are also within a
29
two minute walk, as well as being included within the project itself.
The site is located directly on the Durant Street public transit route,
and is adjacent to the Rubey Park bus terminal which serves outlying
City and County areas, including Snowmass. The project is centrally
located between the two ski lifts that serve the City. Within 500
feet of Lift lA, and a short walking distance to the Little Nell lift,
the Inn could not be in a more convenient, accessable location. The
awarding of (three) bonus points for this category is most appropriate.
C. Tourist Facilities:
The Aspen Inn objective is to expand and upgrade an existing facility to
have the capacity to provide the most complete year-round tourist
facilities and services in Aspen. Extensive on-site facilities include
the Arya Restaurant, lounge, and nightclub; health and recreation facili-
ties; spacious lobby and vestibule area, terrace and pool area; under-
ground parking; and a complete conference and banquet facility which is not
only a major amenity for the Inn, but also for the community. Indeed, the
new lodge rooms themselves shall be of higher quality, larger and more
modern than is the standard for this town. The project will significantly
contribute to regaining Aspen's stature as a premier resort. (See Summary
of Aspen In-Room Survey, University of Colorado, 19S0 in Appendix). Due
to the extensive oncsite tourist facilities, awarding (three) bonus points
for these outstanding facilities is most appropriate.
D. Employee Housing:
Under current zoning alone the Inn could expand its facilities without
providing any employee housing. However, the expansion program provides
lodging for SO% of its lodge employees, an increase above the maximum
point allocation for this cate9ory. In addition, the employee units
will be provided through new construction. This will result in better
quality, insure greater privacy, and allow the potential of housing more
employees on-site if necessary. Provision of this on-site housing above
the maximum requested should give the applicant (two) bonus points.
30
E, Building Design:
The building architecture is intentionally subtle and low key to blend
with the existing buildings and to be compatible with the varying archi-
tecture of surrounding buildings.
The project will have minimal visual impact as it has limited visibility
from major pedestrian routes and will not block mountain views. The
view plane may even be improved with the demolition of the Blue Spruce
Lodge.
Building mass has been reduced and is compatible with the neighborhood by
building at a lower F.A.R., by designin9 the concept of lodge wings, and
by creating building diversity with balconies and recesses. Building
material is also similar to that of the existing neighborhood.
The major portion of building reduction has been a 16% reduction in lodge
rental space, while increasing public space. The Inn's design and con-
servation measures will result in a reduction in energy use, estimated
at 25% below the thermal standards of the City. Bonus points (one-two)
should also be given for building design.
, .
Aspen Inn Expansion
1982
Growth Management Plan Evaluation Summary
This application submission represents a master plan designed to provide the
areas most high quality, full service premier hotel in Aspen. The integrated
range of services, facilities and lodge design makes the project eligible to
achieve maximum points in the review evaluations.
Consequently the following point evaluation is anticipated for the Aspen Inn
Expansion:
1. Public facilities and services
. (Award 15 Points)
A. Water - 3 Points
Project increases level of service in entire area without creatin9 any
forseeable deficiencies.
B.
Sewer - 3 Points
Project does not require any additional system extensions by sanitation
district beyond those normally installed by developer, and does not
contain or create any forseeable deficiencies in the system.
Storm drainage: 3 Points
On-site retention and site
C.
runoff design to street the preference of
insures no forseeable deficiencies in this
D.
the engineering department
Fire protection - 3 Points
Site is surrounded by five hydrants with access on all sides. The
project requires no new fire station or equipment, and thus contains
no forseeable deficiencies.
.
area.
E.
Roads - 3 Points
Existing roads border the project on all sides, Lawn Street to be
extended to improve circulation in the area. Major public transporta-
tion route abuts property.
2. Social facilities and servcies
(Award 10 Points)
A. Public Transportation - 6 Points
The Inn is centrally located within 500 feet of lift lA, and a brief (850')
walking distance to the Little Nell Lift, and abuts the Durant Street
transit route.
32
B. Police Protection - 2 Points
As the project is only one of expansion, and not of new-use development,
only concentrates Aspen visitors in an area already patrolled for
that type of development. Only development that creates a new use
on the property and dispenses existing development puts pressure on
equipment and personnel by means of creating "new beats" for officers.
C. Proximity to Commercial Support Facilities - 2 Points
The Inn is located within a two minute walk from the commercial zone
and existing mall area - the ideal location for Aspen visitors.
3. Quality of Design
(Award 15 Points)
A. Architectural Design - 3 Points
The design of the Inn's expansion is an excellent design achieving
compatability of the expansion in terms of size, height, location
.
and building materials with existing neighboring development.
B. Site Design - 3 Points
The quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space
areas is a superb design. Utilities are all underground, and circula-
tion is improved both for guests and service vehicles.
C. Energy - 3 Points
Insulation, fireplaces and solar-oriented features create an excellent
design that conserves energy.
D. Amenities - 3 Points
Extensive open space, landscaped areas and on-site public facilities
including restaurant and lounge, with terrace dining and nightclub
as well as conference facilities create an outstanding opportunity
for use by the guests and public alike. Pedestrian and bike way is
part of landscaping.
E. Visual Impact - 3 Points
Demol ition of the Blue Spruce, design and location of the buildings
maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
.
4. Services Provided for Guests
(Award 6 Points)
A. Spaciousness and Quality of Common Meeting Areas - 1 Point
The expansion program provides a large (6000 sq:ft.) lobby, and con-
ference and banquet facilities (5000 sq.ft.), both provided fOI' in an
elegant setting as well as large outdoor landscaping areas.
33
,
B, Dining Facilities On-Site - 1 Point
The Arya restaurant offers outdoor terrace di ni ng, hi gh quality, full
servi ce meals along with a lounge and n i ghtc 1 ub.
C. Accessory Recreational Facilities - 1 Point
The full service hotel offers on-site health club facilities, large
outdoor pool, lounge, nightclub and'outdoor activities as well as
banquet facilities.
D. Conference and Banquet Facilities - 1 Point
The 5,000 sq.ft. conference and banquet facilities provide extensive
opportunities for these services, both to the guests and public alike.
E. Proximity to Ski Trails and Access to Lifts - 1 Point
The Inn is centrally located between the two ski lifts located at
the base of Aspen Mountain. Distance to both lifts are only several
hundred feet from the project.
F. Overall Touri st Appeal - 1 Point
The inclusion of extensive recreational and guest facilities and
services combined in the perfect location to lifts, public transporta-
tion and commercial areas in a high quality full service hotel ensures
terrific tourist appeal.
5. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals
(Award 12 Points)
A. Reduction of Tourist Rental Space Below Maximum Intended F.A.R. - 3 Points
The tourist rental space has been reduced below the maximum allowable
internal F.A.R. by 16%, or 8115 sq.ft.
B. Provision of Bonus Employee Housing - 6 Points
Eighty percent (80%) of the total lodge employee force will be housed
on-site.
C. Auto Disincentives - 3 Points
1. Eight limousines shall provide regular service for the 200 guest
capacity of this expansion. A fleet of twelve (12) total vehicles
shall service the Inn.
2, Underground parking for 48 vehicles is below minimum recommended
in code, done in coordination with limousine service above.
3. The Inn shall prohibit employee parking on the property by
covenant.
, .
Recap:
A. Public Facilities and Services:
B, Social Facilities and Services:
C. Quality of Design:
D. Services Provided for Guests:
E. Conformance to Public Policy Goals:
Subtotal
F. Bonus Points
The Aspen Inn Expansion should receive:
34
15 Points
lO Points
15 Points
6 Points
12 Points
58 Points
12 Points
70 Points
APPENDIX A
Aspen In-Room Survey Conducted by Business Research Division, University of
Colorado for the Aspen Chamber of Commerce
- 1979-80 SKIER PROFILE SUMMARY
Highlights Of The 1979-80 In-Room Survey
1979-80
I. ORIGIN OF SKIERS: Top Ten States
1. Cal ifornia
2, New York
3. Illinois
4. Michigan
5. Texas
6. New Jersey
7. Mi nnesota
8. Ohio
9. Flori da
10. Wisconsin
16.3%
8.9
6.9
5.1
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.4
FOREIGN:
Canada increased from 1.2 in 1978-79 to 2.5 in 1979-80.
Mexico decreased from .7 in 1978-79 to .4 in 1979-80.
Other foreign increased from 3.2 in 1978-79 to 5.4 in IS79-80.
REGIONS:
1978-79
22.4%
15.4
14.6
11.0
9.9
8.4
5.9
3.7
East North Central
Pacific
Middle Atlantic
W. South Central
South Atlantic
W. North Central
Mounta i n
E. South Central
II. SEX OF RESPONDENTS
Male
Female
60.5%
39.5
III. MARITAL STATUS & AGE
Married
Age
70.2%
14.0
35.2
28.0
11.3
25-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
< .
1978-79
13.5% (1st)
7.7 (3rd)
9.3 (2nd)
5.6 (5th)
6 .0 ( 4 th )
3.2 (9th)
not top lO
4.1 (6th)
not top 10
not top 10
1979-80
20.3%
17.5
15.4
9.0
9.4
7.2
4.0
2,4
62.8%
36.0
68.9%
12.5
34.5
26.6
13.4
IN ROOM SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 1979-80
page 2
--
IV, EDUCATION, INCOME, PROFESSION
1978-79
32.8%
14,0
29.7
12.0
16.6
16.9
22.7
College grad
Post grad
Advanced de9ree
$25,000-34,999
35,000-49,999
50,000-74,999
75,000-over
Executive
Professional, Technical
25.9
33.9
V. GROUP MAKEUP
1 in party
2 in party
4 in party
6 in party
4.6%
30.4
19.0
9.0
VI. TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Getting to Aspen
Gettin9 preferred lodge dates
Getting preferred trip dates
Getting to Denver
38.9% .
18.6
13.3
11.2
VII, METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION
Commercial air
Rental car
Private car
36.2%
25.4
21.3
VIII. ASPEN AIRPORT
Experienced problems
No problems
47.0%
53.0
22.3
18.9
10.5
7.8
15.5
Lost luggage
Too crowded
Reservations problems
Personnel problems
Other problems
IX. SATURDAY TO SATURDAY
Willing to arrive other than Saturday
Prefer to arrive Friday
Sunday
Wednesday
Monday
74.6%
21.0
20.2
16.2
15.7
1979-80
29.5%
13.9
32.4
11.6
14.8
17.0
30.6
33.1
32.5
5.8%
29.5
19.7
7.4
36.7%
13.8
11. 7
14.3
34.4%
26.6
17.4
,
39.5%
58.3
23.6
12.8
13.8
5.6
17.4
80.3%
19.8
22.7
16.8
14.8
IN ROOM SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 1979-80
Page 3
'-<>,cv
X. ACCOMMODATIONS
Stayed in lodge
Stayed in condo
Own condominium
XI. PROBLEMS WITH ACCOMMODATIONS
Lack of qual i ty
Lack of cleanliness
Lack of courtesy car
Staff not accommodating
. No pool or jacuzzi
Rooms too sma 11
XII. RESERVATIONS
*Made directly to lodge
Made through travel agent
Made through airline
Made through Aspen Central Reservations
Package plan
*probably includes calls that started at Aspen
XIII. COST OF ASPEN VACATION
Consider Aspen a good value
fair value
poor value
Why Fair or Poor?
Overpriced in all aspects
Other resorts better value
Lodges, restaurants overpriced
Poor treatment for expense
1978-79
59,6%
35.6
3.7
1979-80
48.8%
45.9
2.5
12.1%
12.1
6.5
7.3
6.9
6.5
12.1%
11.2
7.2
6.6
5.0
10.0
38.9% 34.6%
27.3 27.6
14.6 13.3
4.8 6.9
22.6 18.1
Central Reservations
21. 5%
49.4
9.0
23.5%
49.4
10.1
28.3%
6.9
5.4
23.8%
20.3
18.4
7.6
Cost of Aspen Vacation Compared to Other Winter Vacations
About the same
Less expensive
Much more expensive
No opinion
XIV. BEST LIKED FEATURES ABOUT ASPEN (first choice)
Good skiing
Variety of mountains
Town atmosphere
Snow conditions
Cha rm 'of town
31.1%
11.6
5.6
5.4
4.9
31.6%
3.2
56.1
9.1
22.4%
2.6
65.1
10.0
IN ROOM SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 1979-80
page 4
XIV. BEST LIKED FEATURES ABOUT ASPEN (CONTINUED)
Friendly atmosphere 4.0%
Settin9, scenery 2.5
Variety of activities 2.4
Ski facilities 2.4
Access from town 2.4
Quaintness 2.2
Shops, mall 2.0
"Everyth i ng" 2.0
XV. LEAST LIKED FEATURES ABOUT ASPEN (first choice)
Expense, prices
Crowds
Inaccessibil ity
Ski crowds
Employee attitude
Parking, traffic
Res taurants
Restaurants w/o reservations
Snowmass transportation
Icy streets and walks
28.2%
10.9
8.7
5.5
3.3
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.3
XVI. WILL RETURN TO ASPEN AGAIN
Yes
No
Undecided
79.9%
1.6%
16.6
APPENDIX B
"-....'
ASPEN INN EXPANSION
CAR GENERATION ANALYSIS
Estimated cars
Winter 1/
High Use Period
1981
96
x 95%
91
x 2
182
44%
80
~ 3
27
Summer 2/
High Use Period
1981
96
x 80%
77
x 2
154
95%
146
~ 3
49
G.M.P. rental rooms
Average room occupancy 3/
Occupied rooms
Average people per room 4/
People lodged
Average people arriving by car 5/
People arriving by car
Average people per car 6/
Footnotes and Assumptions
1/ Winter high-use period is two weeks Christmas and Feb. and March.
2/ Summer high-use period is average weekend.
3/ Room occupancies from UMTA Technical Memorandum #3, April, 1977.
4/ People per room estimate based on actual Aspen Inn pillow count.
5/ People arriving by car estimate from Aspen In-Room Survey, C.R. Goeldner
& Aletta Stamp, Business Research Division, University of Colorado, 1980.
6/ Ibid.
APPENDIX C
-
EMPLOYEE LIST
TOTAL EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASPEN INN (UPON COMPLETION OF ~~STER PLAN)
Position
Personnel
Genera 1 Manager
Assistant Manager
Bookkeeper
Front Desk
Switchboard Operators
Reservation Manager
Reservation Staff
Maintenance Staff
Bellmen
Limousine Drivers
Head Housekeeper
Maid Staff
Laundry Staff
Security
1
1
2
4
3
1
2
3
5
12
1
19
3
2
TOTAL
59
-..,..
, ,
APPENDIX I>
ENERGY STUDY
FOR
PROPOSED ASPEN INN ADDITION
January, 1978
Prepared for: Design Workshop Inc.
415 South Spring
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Prepared by: WALTON-ABEYTA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2404 Glen Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 303/945-8088
\,
- 1 - :.
The excellent insulation standards proposed, combined with
some of the hereinafter outlined methods of energy conser-
vation. should make the subject project highly energy ef-
ficient.
It is our opinion that by using proper engineering and design
standards, the building could be as much as 25-30% more ef-
ficient than the standards as outlined in Ordinance Number 45.
Using the requirements outlined in Aspen City Ordinance Number
45, series 1976,as a basis for determining comparative stand-
ards, the following analysis is presented:
1. Minimum allowable resistance and "U" factors as outlined in
the Ordinance:
a . Wa 11 s IIUIl factor = .05
Resistance = 20.0
b. Roof nUll factor = .04
Resistance = 25.0
c. Glass IIUIl factor = .70
Resistance = 1. 43
d. Perimeter IIUII factor = .10
Resistance = 10.0
2. Resistances and uUlI factors as proposed:
a. Wa 11 s nUll factor = ,04
Resistance = 25.0
b. Roof llUII factor = .03
Resistance = 33.0
c. Glass IIUIl factor = .55
Resistance = 1. 82
d. Perimeter IIUII factor = .10
Resistance = 10.0
~
-2-
3.
Application of the mlnlmum and proposed "U" factors to a
typical rental space of approximately 575 square feet re-
sults in the following comparison:
","...
a . Minimum as outlined in Ordinance Number 45:
Walls 88 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .05 ItUn = 374 Btu/hr.
Glass 128 sq, ft. X 85 t. d, X .7 "UII = 7,616 Btu/hr,
Roof 575 sq. ft. X 85 t. d. X ,04 nUll = 1,966 Btu/hr.
Infi 1 tration . 8 factor X .24 s p. ht. X
.054 density X 85 t . d . X
4,600 cu. ft. = 4,054 Btu/hr.
To ta 1 heat loss =13,999 Btu/hr.
b. Proposed:
Wa 11 s 83 sq. ft. X 85 t. d, X .04 nUll = 299 Btu/hr,
Glass 128 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .55 "UII = 5,984 Btu/hr.
Roof 575 sq. ft. X 85 t. d, X .03 nUll = 1 ,466 Btu/hr.
Infiltration .6 factor X .24 sp, ht. X
.054 density X 85 t. d. X
4,600 cu. ft. = 3,047 Btu/hr.
Tota 1 heat loss =10,796 Btu/hr.
c. This comparison results in a net savings of 3,203 Btu per
hour per room which would equal an approximate 23% reduction
in energy usage over the ordinance requirements.
d. The proposed insulation standards would result in a net heat
loss of 18.8 Btu per square foot of floor space as compared
to 24.3 using the requirements of the ordinance.
4. In order to fully evaluate the energy consumption of a space,
it is required that the method of delivering the heat to the
space and the generation of the heat and control systems be
anlayzed. The following relates to these items:
a. Heat generation:
1) It is proposed that the source of heat production
would be natural gas fired boilers to generate hot
water. These boilers can be equipped with heat re-
covery devices in the flues to reclaim waste heat
that is normally lost up the stack. This flue gas
heat can be captured and used to preheat domestic
water. Thus, the natural gas consumption for do-
mestic water heaters could be reduced by approximately
11-13% .
, --.
-3- -,,-
~
Hultiple sectioned boilers can be installed to
operate 1n series" thus allowing natural gas con-
sumption to be further reduced over the instal-:-
latloniof one large bofler. 'Th1s:,would,reduce gas,J~,
consumption'by approximately 4-51.'~'
b. Heat delivery: By using a superior and thicker pipe in-
sulation'systell for: heating and domesticwater,1n lieu~of),
the types,'out11n~d i~ the'~rdinahce, the~heatlosi,through
the piping' systems can be reduced by approximately 51.
2)
c. Controls:
......
1) Each room will have a thermostat and control valve
to provide individual room temperature control. It
is recommended that the thermostats be the "Chrono-
thermO type which is a tested and proven energy sav-
ing device. This type of thermostat has a built-in
night set back feature to allow the room temperature
to be automatically lowered during sleeping hours.
It is estimated that this type of control will reduce
the total energy usage by 8-10%,
The boilers should be cycled by an inverse acting out-
door reset which controls the leaving water temper-
ature,
2 )
5, Additional energy saving devices or systems:
a. Fireplaces - Heating loads can be reduced through the use
of well designed, efficient fireplaces. These will be
the type with individual combustion air intakes, glass
fronts and ductwork to discharge heated air.
Flow restricting plumbing devices - These will be added !
to all plumbing fixtures which have hot water connected. I
These devices restrict the flow of hot water and thereby i,
reduce the amount of energy required to produce hot water.
b .
P'
I. '\"
~ <lIL;-""'! ,~~ :Jp
t. .,..""'.,W~},,,.
_. ..\