Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.AspenInn.1978Aspen Inn 1978 GMP CJ M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, Joe Wells RE: Aspen Inn GMP Application DATE: March 13, 1978 I have reviewed the March 7 memos from Jim Curtis of Design Workshop and Andrew Hecht of Garfield and Hecht regarding employee housing and floor area ratio calculations and on the basis of these memos and a meeting held in our office in regard to -,the applicant's submission, we have amended the Planning Office grading for the Aspen Inn application on the following items of a technical nature: 1. Item 9c. Applicant has agreed to route site runoff to either Mill or Monarch on the basis of the preference of the City Engineering Department. Score upgraded from 2 to 3. 2. Item 9e. Applicant has acquired the easement necessary to improve on -site circulation. Score upgraded from 1 to 2. 3. Item 10a. The Planning Director feels that, although the bulk of the expansion is not within 520 feet of the lift, applicant de- serves full points since a portion of the site is within the ra- dius. Score upgraded from 4 to 6. 4. Item llb. Project again downgraded for circulation. Applicant has acquired circulation easement. Score upgraded from 1 to 2. 5. Item 13a. On the basis of information submitted, a full number of bonus points appears to be justified for reduction of tourist rental space below the maximum allowable FAR. Score upgraded from 0 to 3. These additional points raises the Planning Office rating for the Aspen Inn Submission from a total of 35 points to a total of 43 points. sr cc: Jim Curtis Andy Hecht 1 REFERRAL TO: Aspen Fire:District FROM: Aspen/Pitki;n Planning Office RE: Analysis ofi Impact oi; the Aspen Fire Department DATE: i The Aspen/Pitkin Planning OFfice is reviewing a development proposal, and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of the fire department facility by considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact below. Project: A Referral Submission Date: The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the Fire Department. // - Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing station. - Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing station. Substantial impact - this development will over- birrden the capacity of the fire department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing station. 0 TO: FROM RE: DATE: REFERRAL Aspen City Engineer Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office O FEB 6 1978 C Y tlMJiiIEER' O COLo� Analysis (-." Impact on Storm Drainage, Parking Design, and Roads February 5, 1978 The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal, and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of storm drainage, parking design, and roads by considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the Surface runoff; considering the desirability of the design of off-street parking areas; and considering the capacity of major street linkage. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact below. Project: AsperLIprr_E1LIL(su�mi.t�dby_ Design �lorkshop� i]anners)--------- Referral Submission Date: _ _ February 14, 1978___.-- The proposed project: will have the following type of impact on the capacity of: STORM DRAINAGE Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists o� rainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally ins -alled by the develcper. % - Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists for cr,ainaye facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Substantial impact. - this development will over- burden the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comments: (%ti REFERRAL TO: Asper J4e ' Sanitation District FROM: , Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office RE: Analysis of Impact on Sewage Treatment Capacity DATE February 5, 1978 The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal, and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of the sewage treatment facility by considering excess capacity of the system, location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application' and indicate the category of impact below. Project: _ Aspen Inn Club submitted by Desiyn Workshop - planners_ Referral Submission Date: February 14, 1978___^_` The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the seti, age treatment system. Negliaible impact - substantial excess capacity exists at the sewage treati-;ent plant and at the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line to accorNirodate this development. Moderate imoact - only moderate capacity exists at the sewarae treat.ement plant or along the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line to accommodate this devel oprlent . - Sulstantial -impact - this development will over- burden the ,rapacity of tie seiner treater►ent plant or the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line. Coiniients: at-AvIr- 5€,e_vrc,__ 6.rA�.­r- A 4 rF A_S- AXC 7-- _LH_ A Lcv-�e,t _CA /' r q �c s T _.�3 HA A G- /' Ie0/3 �/_ttt�.l�l _a rT �-u�c 4- Na aG 7 /�A s s r S_ N.e o�.,� �f 7 NF _J Signature �- A Ste_ �`j_H-_�'� - — Date 7�Lv�'HA�- S A! sra $TF_/'S A 2 J3E/f-G 'TA[c157* - i3`i TNT_ ry %oleo/sL-r- i A,4-+> To coo-rE u✓' i--i7- !3 Y /t h �= �-- s t-� r-,= r �-r /+ / /t FL0L---s //N7-0 rHl= nips' STREET P01i41� /iA✓rF/e-i J C A eA c-i7 Y To H Ai-onz. Dr --r- Poe p4-A -r CA PAe-rry /S 'LoF'F/c�F�T V REFERRAL TO: Aspen Police Department FROM: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office RE: Analysis of Impact on the Aspen Police Department DATE: February 5, 1978 The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal, and requires an analysis of'the proposal's impact on the capacity of the Aspen Police Department by considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact below. Project: Aspen Inn. C1ub__(5.ubrui.tted_by. _Des_ _gn Works hop..--- lwmers_L Referral Submission Date: February--1.4.,.1978 The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of'the Aspen Police Department: Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of addi- tional facilities, personnel or equipment. Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists con- sidering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of addi- tional facilities, personnel or equipment. Substantial impact - this development will over- burden -the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Conunents : dc2d�C_T�_It4 A4 p �,1L 0 C� L �"� I � `Pi C y , � r / Signature Date C / _ ___- REf-ERPAL TO: City o Aspen Water D-- il-J L'ment FROM: Aspen/Pitkin -Planning Office RE: Analysis of Impact on the existing water sy,:tFm and capacity DATE: February 5, 1978 The Aspen/Ni-L�kin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the overall capacity of available water and impact on water pressure and the nearest water main or connecting line. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact below. Project: Aspen Inn Club (.$ubmitted bX Desian orkshap__-_pl_anners_)_ Referral Submission Date:- February 14, 1- 7$____ The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the sewage treatment system: Negligible impact-- substantial excess water capacity exists and will not adversly affect water pressure in the vicinity of the nearest water main or connecting water line. Moderate impact - only limited eater capacity exists and water pressure will be affected in the nearest water main or connecting water line. Substantial impact - this development will seriously reduce the pressure in the nearest main or connecting water line. Comments: Si r);1.' L!I Date 71; TO: Planning Dept. FRO,',,!: Marky - Water Dept. DATE: February 10, 1978 SUBJECT: Aspen Inn Club Submission The statements made in (Section 1 as Water) are basically correct in that the existing distribution system is inadequate to allow for anymore additional development, and the approval of any additional development should not be granted unless contingent upon the City's ability to construct much needed storage facilities in this general area. Recent developments may preclude the Water Department from constructing the proposed 1 mg tank on Lower Nell. At this time, we are investigating an alternate site for the 1 mg storage tank at the head of Aspen Street at elevation 8100. It is essential that this tank be interconnected to the Monarch - Mill Street distribution mains, and a condition of approval should be a commitment by the developer to contribute towards the construction of said interconnect. Should the City not be able to construct this storage facility on Aspen Mountain, then the project should be deferred until such time the facility can be constructed. This same rule should apply to any other projects planned in this general area South of Dean Avenue between Galena and Aspen Streets. incerely, Jim Markalunas JM:jmr GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATIO„ LODGE DEVELOPIMENTS 1. Project Name: 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on -street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: -1- 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities an Services - Projects within the Lodge One L1 and Lodge Two L2 shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3,- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: Date: a) WATER Rating 2 (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating L (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: -2- d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating ; (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rati ng (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Comment: 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating_ (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: - 3 - 5 b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating (maximum 2 points) Comment: 11. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned 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 a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating !� (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN; Rating J (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: -4- c) ENERGY Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open ,space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating y_ (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for guests (one point per service a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating Rating = - 5 - c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rating f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating --I-- 13. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: Rating (.max. 01 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 poi.it 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20 of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. 16. Total Points Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: - 7 - Bonus Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1 . Project Name: %��� /N/t/Xf'f%i�1S/ 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on -street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. B. List of drawings and mans submitted for review: Submittal Date: 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities an Services - Projects within the Lodge One(LI and Lodge Two L2 shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: /,</A ,�Xf��t/s�0X Date: a) WATER Rating _ (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SE14ER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating _ (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: I'M d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: e) ROADS Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Comment: 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given it withim- walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall �e given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: Zvi+,, �.sr Obis fc� - 3 - b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel jr equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES (maximum 2 points) Comment: Rating 11. P&Z GR01,1TH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORP11 - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned 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 a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN r, Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: - 4 - c) ENERGY Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: i d) AMENITIES r7 Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P&Z GROUTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for guests (one point per service a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating Rati ng - 5 - c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating Rating e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: f) Overall tourist appeal. l Comment: Rating f Rating __4 13. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points V 10% - 2 points 05'/0 - 1 point Comment: Rating - 6 - b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: Rating 6 (.max. 0 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the deqree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rati ng (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. Bonus Points 16. Total Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: . f ¢171 _ - 7 - 0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: W 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: _ Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on -street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied, loca-J on of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: -1- 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities anT Services - Projects within the Lodge One L1 and Lodge Two L2 shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: Date: a) WATER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment `I_X4 Kell— b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or ^+ha,r fnrility unnrarH nn Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rati ng (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the devel oper� , Comment: , -jr`LF xtV' C' < 11l �AVGC-L. - 2 - • d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established.response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. c) ROADS Rati ng �L (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileaae and/or maintenance. 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rati ng (� (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment : , �1.Ct-11f/1�1( q / Z,46 /1"Ir7X7,711-zl -3- b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES (maximum 2 points) Rating 11. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FOR"1 - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned 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 a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: - 4 - c) ENERGY Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: 27- e 'f� d) AMENITIES Rating I — (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pe estrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. / Comment: 72ele _— :/A� b) Dining faciliti s on site. Comment: �mm t: Rating Rating / - 5 - c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: /� I Rating Rating e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to -lifts on a walking is. Comment: f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: //,o r Rating Rating 13. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating J J\ b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housedf on site - 2 points Comment: Rating 6-- (.max. of 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Ijet, ll��f �P� Z? "-e Rati ng (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. 16. Total Points Bonus Points l; Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: - 7 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name:'5 /� F �/ oz 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: _ Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on -street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: -1- 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities ancT Services - Projects within the Lodge One Ll and Lodge Two L2 shall e assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: ��5�� f �� •fir __ Date: a) WATER Ra ti ng (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating -- (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: IwAff 4 • d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating / (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rating I -"--- (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Comment: 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four �14) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating / (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES (maximum 2 points) Comment: Rating �.- 11. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned 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 a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating __,7— (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIG.: Rati ng (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: -4- c) ENERGY Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating 3 (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: C t s,S- e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating --2- , (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for guests (one point per service a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating Rating - 5 - I c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating Rating e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating Rating 13. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating , b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: i Rating (.max. 0 6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 poir;t 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rati ng (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. 16. Total Points Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: -7- Bonus Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points �a GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: f���Wt _ lJ/J 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: 6. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin Review: Special Review: Historic District Review: Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and estimated sewer demand of the building. c. Type and design of surface drainage. d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on -street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied, location cf public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. g. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. List of drawings and mans submitted for review: Submittal Date: -1- 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities an Services - Projects within the Lodge One (LI) and Lodge Two L2 shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 3.- Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies Project Name: � eJ Pr % A) Aj Date: a) WATER Ra ti ng (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: awm d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating ` r (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: c) ROADS Rating U (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Comment: 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within a reasonable walking distance of either. Comment: - 3 - b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: I c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating (maximum 2 points) Comment: 11. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned 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 a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: - 4 - C) ENERGY Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating N (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 01� 12. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for guests (one point per service a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating Rating - 5 - l� t� c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating I e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating Rating 1 13. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point Comment: Rating b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: Rating C, (.max. oT-6 pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant 1 point Comment: 14. Net Point Rating Rating (max. 3 Rs.) 158 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. F SF c„ Bonus Points 16. Total Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: 1. M t11L - 7 - f/k­ * I '�f�� f GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE D VKOPMEt S , 1. Project Name: 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning:. Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: fi.. Special procedures required: J'&11 6_�r/ View planes: Stream Margin Review: l3 Ord Special Review: 00 I i Historic District Review: Q I Subdivision (condominiumization): PUD: 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the r nearest water main and estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line via. - and estimated sewer demand of the building. r l ;} �* C. Type and design of surface drainage. ��,,� d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open µc` space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated by the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on -street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. q. Types of land uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. h- Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. D. Lust -of drawings and mans submitted for review: Submittal Date: P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and_Services - Projects within the Lodge One L1 and Lodge Two L2 shall be assigned points according to the following formula. 9�U 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services v 1 -Ind�ca�es a mayor deficiency in service � S•�3' o�h'�ou��' . 2 - IndicaPs an acceptable (but standard) service level .3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies q Project flame: ,3�e*� ,�1�! "Sl_Oki l�.S �l�Trvn Date: a) WATER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply water to the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, aan21i thout treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: `vat fat Sys iyJa;/ T✓GP�?i !,f �U�S�T/�� b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. r7 i r1 Comment: � i67d� t-� 1 5'Nl& 't" !d UdS,a�Gt �l l aGv c ei D a LUr''Z/w`V17� c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating Z +`3 (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Comment: ,Z'�-`LameFiy';Zq V�ZJ �U71 � �if'JGeL� �UGra , ;"� litayG�t L f "efs �lule,�66N 4 i l `/ - 2 - d) FIRE PROTECTION Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate.Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate w, district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. ,( Ja Comment: _ ��atia��/ s7��1L /off—esr/►t'`lC ROADS Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially ajtering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage an�/or maintenance. v Comment: C,O.)P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. ,gyp �1�a/V2t4 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased ,/����� public expense 1 - Project may be handled by existing level of service in the area 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating ¢�G -'(maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4). points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within areasonable walking distance of either. Comment: �!�/.� /.�"G40111v %'ter --- - 3 - b) POLICE PROTEC ION Rating I (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: /s o�SS'lJy /70 / iri�� 0-W4 c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES (maximum 2 points) Comment: kUP.�i p1 Rating riF,uca l� Gl/i 7"�ul,� � �Kl,rI7� \11 P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: �j 2 1/0M 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design �Sfjf�' ai�,vea/ 1 - Indicates a major design flaw o0 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating o � (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existin ighborrjjing,� developments. ff Comment: /G h (/�.lL� /� G111ZIILLll---F- b) SITE DESIGN Rating �-/- 7� Z--- ,.4tnaximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of under - grounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (includ,ing access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: se. G``CU�G /1��/E' U""t d 1/21 Cf - 4 - 0 • 2 c) ENERGY Rating N (maximum 3 points) considering the use, of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Comment: d) AMENITIES Rating O (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. 1,4A9 i Comment: SG/ '2&a e) VISUAL IMP7T Rating — (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of.buildings to maximize public vie:.,-, of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: /;; (12) P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for guests (one point per service a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating Rating I. -- 5 -- c) Accessory rec eational facilities. G'awt Comme n t : oz ,kee,� !� w .P&/— d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: 4ya�l t�� ao-W ,,ea/ OUP Rating Rating % e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: �C�iuf f) Overall tourist appeal. D Comment: Rating % Rating P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: t a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: ,92 p a/l�cve� 15% _ 3 points 10% 2 points o/ 05% - 1 point 5, o Comment: ! D 6V,414e " h'tJ C zwZee 7l��ii Gf/G, ° U� v Rating )f - - _ b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award points as follows: 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or more�of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points c 25% or more; of lodge employees housed on site - 2 pointS, Rating (max. o pts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1)Ilimousine with regular service per 25 guests (based pn theoretical capacity of -lodge - 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: C`w i%� �Jf �� � lC�?ze'u a"�i Rati ng (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 1 15. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. Bonus Points L� 16. Total Points Net rating 7 Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating Da to : ,`7i(� �2 /uu — -7- 0 • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION FOR THE ASPEN INN EXPANSION - As we have stated in our cover letter for Mountain Chalet, our office is required to reject applications that are inconsistant with zoning. Mr. Cantrup's application sites development well within the setbacks in several locations within the site, sites development on City right of way, and neglects to include any portion of the building known as the Aspen Inn Condominiums of which he controls 64% interest in the FAR and open space calculations. This building is nonconforming on its site and we feel that since Mr. Cantrup is obviously using it as a part of his tourist operation, a percentage equal to his ownership should be included in his calculations. Without going through a number of compli- cated calculations we are unable to determine to what extent Mr. Cantrup's proposal deserves points in those areas where reductions in density are concerned, but we have attempted to score the application in spite of this. '000 0 PARKING DESIGN IJec�lic�ible impact - substantial excess capacity exists for the design of off- ,# r•eet parking areas with respr,r,t to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety exits. Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists for the desig--n of off-street parking areas with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety exits. / - Substantial impact - this development will over- 5urden the capacity for the design of off-street parking areas with respect to visual impact., amount of paved surface, convenience and safety exits. - Comments: -74 K-/ Ne `'iaible impact.- substantial excess capacity exists to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering exis�',.ing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Moderate impact - moderate capacity exists for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Substantial impact - this development will over- burden the capacity of the existing traffic patterns, or the overloading of the existing street system, or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. . ��� ► fir' � �_ � /! � a • • • � Aspen Inn 0 • c N E L f1 N — L O U L > c +- c Ln (n 0) f0 i- O > — (0 U) Ql +- Q C N- U— "0 O R — c v > — (0 c — (0 .0 L (0 U f0 (0 }- f0 L — •- L m C1 L O E L c CD O M: O -)C N O (n T O 7 — . L (n 2 — O t O c t O O r O ¢ O U U O c? U N 3? U U— j - c 0 ••O O .v c 0 -Kl t (0 -O - V) C N c N c Kl IT (!) c 00 fs W c N Y O I N a)1 — O I a) a) I +-O 2A a— r_+.-, Ll :. a6-1 _0 — 11A — r4'1 u) N fn O (n N U— N N (o O u1 N IL — Q cr\ Q I— Q O\ Q C7\ Loilo < 0� O c N U 4- U O +- - c - E — c t 7 a . — L (n Q IL Q • existing traffic patterns or.overloading the existing street system or requiring increased road mileage and/or maintenance. As expressed earlier and as shown on the Transportation/Circulation Context drawing, Section I, the Inn's convenient location is well suited for the auto -free tourist. Using data developed by the UMTA Transportation Study, Appendix A, it is estimated that the 36 rental units will generate approximately 13 to 18 cars in the win- ter and summer respectively. The UMTA study identified three tour- ist trip types as follows: I. 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 UMTA 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 fly -ins and limousine pick-ups will in= crease and reduce summer car use. Because of the Inn's conveni- ent location, it is expected tourists arriving by car will be able to park and store their cars during their visits 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 confer- • ence limousine and bus tours of the outlying summer attractions. • • L> I't ^t_ V `^t � � A T � o -- j C •gyp „� O n ..� � „�, M S k �j y. � 1 i c o ... T �. e.iLvv"S o F P-2Rw.e cL 6cF C_o, Foy 3L I-k ,Q,w� p . V .�.. L % ,I �� 1 � � � C O w F • t.•Q....7�`"� :� Z l t � SC � 1 � w . �, ` Z 7.2./a --. Z' Go �lA.r ` l o . ivyNsS 1 o � KO o n� 30 72 2- 00 \`� SSO 4titii } Q),Cc , n -lL\�2 Ca�eS tno� e (', ? ul Cj,o tpoo 010q)0 — kOw�-\S1 1 \JL I �o Q, V� 1 n •L-Z SOoo p 14"', I So o 11 1 I Ara `l (r lC6 o N, J. �, F , ,� — o S S l O F kO ^Q- 3 4 S eA C.e l S •� `1 O F o 6\L. S b�Arco— i s . l ( ell 3 �h pis 'At o^ t-ArQ v%a.x S� `t loos — — -52 t $"o 0 o3 o � e, Cl 11 t p Co o ! t O Zf c; 4- 2S� 0 9 Q- z .`- - ---i - --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A��-f ��7- of o G?�•r� cd �1- Gar �2Z.lx-��t��c�, �"' � __'T G(ri' I.i ( (t(,', 1(II (1t of i -`.i r'r•('�. jtr1Y'{' 111t; i;Y'('il`. 1'll?,!I Y'(:'.i,•. V1.'.f' ; j Illtili;C i., cli:;rM 01 t)r1.V('ci :,Urtr;c corly(-ii it ii(.• i`t1(t ty e),its o,":lye cap;icit,r (.'xist—; for . TijlEi CjC'.'It;il cif hi ;-•,;,r"'�`i't. tti:r•'j iriC� ilY'('i�:, 1'.'I i.�i •j`f::..jlc.`Ci. to{) V:1S!1'+l li(li/:i(,I;y r,,. 1(.iill. of t+_ •I(.,:. !uri Milt cFiieY.It . this dcv('1 o I ,!nt w- i l over - for r.r. c 1', i Tail r'(!spr,(.i: to viswil imp(-!ct., a•::,,fvnt of pavr d Surface, C()'iIvcln-nce (UIC.j Safety( cx-i is . - 41 .. t,�, '�-!�l`J i' i_i - St;!?St�'1"t�'11 nyr(�c� r•�.:-,srl•i:+r eh1Si. t0ivor (IS of iliC. AL Subsi_,ri.. alit-hir? exi ,. ;nc ific Fi , . ,i rid of over io: _ i.il existir!c) G: -c-ss i •t`r of I!vuv i C! I r:CJ , ncC! u, :-i tltelli:i";Ce. l: for 't.IIC exi s Li i;a traffic pa- i;erns or overloading the exi sti n:J stre" t: or the neci,S. ,-i t- of (i"I i ncre(: ,cd r'ir et nn? i l ea j:.' anC/or i.". i Il t er..,mce... li, !? i~.:. t this ! 1 ,, ;' I ilt tit 011 01 C. l" t)1l1'(i 11 u:i C j?it:jic F'x .'i ellln St. !'('i!I OF' t.'i;` .l slit.,)' Ot j'!'t�1'lu'i!i':I iiii:!'t.;;tii'd 1-e'ult lilll(';'lji' . At. All A '-YLt...�,,,..e�� � o f .P.c-•� � G�•�•'�', ' ^ G�••N.-• /'!' .. .�,,.-�- �,,�-L^�,-C-° ���e..�,�.. _ , �..�%ai`�', Cc,��'�)�.r v// / . . . 0 • I. 'REFERRAL c TO: Aspen Fire District FROM: llspen/Pitkirl Planning Office RE: Analysis of; Tmhact DATE: on the Aspen Fire Depart:meot The Aspen/Pitkin Planning OFfice is reviewing a development proposal, and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of the fire departm-ant facility by considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a nL-yi station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. The attached.application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of it;.pct below. Project:_4V /`LvCJ Referrel Sub;htission Date: �- The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of tf e Fire Department. Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing station. - Moderate impact only moderate capacity exists to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing st:,tion. ` Substantial impact - this development a•ri l l over- htn-dcn the rapacity of the fire dopal•tnlellt to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district Without the necessity of establishing a 11(`4 Station or requirillci iadditlo!1 of 111CJ01' th1llil)nl0i1t (SuCIl aS J:yiiileJJLS, 17et standpipes, etc.) to i;n existing station. # ��ltlll 1iltl•(�� �€-t�-i�. .��� ���JJJ Il � /f, ,�" � `� i 01: It .,`r.i i+•�•>�'•-� J'.11; i rl l'I : l: i I t.; t { (rili'I: RE: Ani:{yS1S Qon Sf'!"Jft,:.' Tre,7ItIP'.;It UaF.aClty February 5, 978 Tha %,_` pr'o/i' i t!:111 Planning f t1 Ce is reVi el`: i nq a devel Upm,_,Ilt r:'1(d;l; V.fS C:" the 1wono I's f?lj)UCt (ii1 {h"? Cu'.'(-C11_V Uf t(in t,F,!;r�r: t' t'!t;,r,i• ;;Cl l :ty ')`f CJ:li1C.,?r1 !'- C'}'_.f'ss C2.i1• Ity of the sy�t.ent, 1 UCtt ,. i C' , 'i 11c Cie r'd st ItI-uI1{: (ir C()nIicc l i i,, s&,,ic,r I ; ne ;ZThe ;i)�1i�;IC ""i?^"I£y CI!j^ F tC:�.. r(:'vl(.'�r tflE iijlpliCc;1,1J�r, and llld'ICc.iL t't•_. Cc:t.£:CIo1'✓ Do lf:i�i,' Pr•�+jcc:Aspen _Inn Club__Csubmitted by Desi-gn_Worksho._.--_.planners) Re+41�crrai :,sia:i U�'`'-2 ..-February 14, 1978- £� �1'G ';`" V,, the l 01 I G:'ll ii i 0: sti�S_... IT�lc.1 G::C(.; s a :.fILI Sr!":a', 11": t? ll:.'I!i i l t t: iinC at the I",errs i tr!' . , or co: .:Ctl np sc:;'r:r I .? 1;2 to i C CC 'L-.c, V-1-i S ce :.l o:. :nt . r! },�"y-----L.' ..:f i. �a `•I IJr i ... .1 =1-'.i i,i r:�!�� _ i -'v cxi St3 at ... . f tii. 't� ...' ! i :i' Qi i1 i, ii�'• tI C'. I' .,a': sl trv. is c" ec . • i n: per ' i r;e to t:crn!:;;!;od:7,, e ,•ili s devel ;';111 U`:r(,i•.. {)U, .•'21'• Or {iL, I!:'&r`run!, i'+1' .,i)'itl�l :f' l:'I li•.! :.il'i,4i� { -I I�;:' . Cc ;,' ` ``'C A Lf ?-V Sc (--�`�"! � � %S_ .._.�'� S s i n .r- f /} hrA c-,-,-,:- /4.�- ­=. .s. _ /a r� c �'Sr-.T4-Y_...��u��cc_fin-rc__..T!rt'...i`li�� .STD..C.rT_c�.ltirN1_i1+._ /� ctv-cr .:_.- -- $ck'vlc,� ¢/_tiC� !r_.1.11A,l_1� 5'.T,t rrT.._.S T- .e< iwF-O,?,-i'-- -L.!� _fir.. rI �1 ic.�Nr:_cIc i�l�l�/!r= /T /�ASSr?S %/l.ec.�tf 71-4 ri-._. A..._f3 ' _ __... _ ll 11 f y, 74L'17 .4/n�- j r3i:(`�(S(+li- J(-/~/�S �l/i j3r`/t-� %�/{I'r /3Y //�/, rJ/S1� r L, � /� ' • r 5 T / F..\ f r_ % /i (S ► ' tR' CI .3 L � . J /� I�— �> T v S"r/0-/jC_ �r.`N�— S i ir�^i-" .+/kr:: i•�/f/c_(f f �dt-S /NTJ T-/-it- % //•'1 rr`T /.., wOr•^1=` /if\1-.1_ +r� (`/c rr,. 70 7- /-/ / 4' 4) J i C_ 7 �-T� /� f_ i (� /1 /'/i t r T `/ / S S� � � �..,. / c. t• / t i J 0: 17 11 ,011'1 : tki n- M armi rig Office RE: Amjly: is' of* Jmpact on the Aspen Police Departiwnt DPITE: February 5, 1978 0 The Npen,/Pit.!Jn Morning Office is revkwinq a dc.ve-1or,!!;cnt propnsal, and i-f:" of"he C ri c r7 P a c i ty 0 f 0 the A,11,:., :.0j, by d)ili,.Y of cur)-clit Pol i ce to Pr,(,." i (I P r 0 accur"-!ing to reasonialle r n s c! the or equIl ic,:�-Jon. f1cl-P.1 id--,nti-17i^s il..- locrition, Fize and 0, t I r e e c, i: p p i c ot " F, r I C', c 2 1: h c, c C) Project: Aspen —Inn. -LLu�--(.5mrait-teA-by.--)esign...Wor-.ksbop--7-pl..aLnners)--.--.---. : __,February ruary-1-4.,. .1-9-7.8-- The projecl, will have the 1."pe 0-1, ir:�pact Oil Ui th,.. s ul-istan' i al excec,= c? pal i 'C,11 exi S (-s of C,1;r2-!:jj-L -,.,)'iCc- S,:.CLII,i sc-i,viccs tcI p-ovide protecc.ion to CIS WithOLI'!, -i"I"I& 'J Of ili-ji- t: ()j Cy. t. P LY C,,isI-.S Con- d nj t a __-.r,ility of cu,-reni. po it S c. c u I, to ',-nvido pv'N—I'Alon to of 1. tjC;-,ja"j fAJC iliiJCS, 01- ("A J'.c) i 6 1-y o 0i -i fill Cow-l'oits : /r4 ALI, i T-J` �Vk/Ai Tc(c - /�Jjt j (L4( 676, (1 00 IWPVA� /k �f tc I Pf- F[Pi�lrkl. TO: C i LY I. C, 11 i.i1 C, S 1: i t 11 rl i;;, C. i ty PAT 17 February 5, gm Tix, Asr-,"n/Pitkin ficr rl( r) , --icc is I 'C',Ii( � a j)r-o:,,osal and the he prow'sa I F; the ov� C. c of i-vailablc., fi;,mact on !,ressure and th(2 main or com*.(�c,.il,(-. Th- Irevic-,,; ns 7C! "f e6 Of rase ti.,, E!PII jr�:qi()ij and indicate vir- Of 7i, 4 be 1 1 hop =_ Jn r ---R a n . e -S_)- Referral Submission Dai-c:----EQb-r-Ra—rY-JA,J-97-.Q- -me pi,oprosec, dill 11-avc, the follo,Aivi type of CI-1 the I CaPacit, Of tile S U!.-st�i riti a ev:ess C,.-;, c 4 t, t " v,atcr r,-a;.; sFr ,I e ., the V4Ci)l4ty of ti,C IICZ, _..► I L rIC Col,!. t Dilly 14H."'itcd e, s , s ter cat)z�c i L aild V.'l-AE" r.,!-osslure !oill be�, in til I c st0)ct- Ji,-I -il- .1 c v e 1 A - this dc scrinisly the prcsSUI,'Z? in Lihe nearest oti, connecting 40 CITY, OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorad-o 81611 March 14, 1978 TO V.7HO.7 IT MAY C014CERN As of 2/28/78 the City of Aspen has issued to White and Sons Notice of Award for the construction of a 1 mg storage reservoir to be located on Aspen Mountain in the vicinity of South Aspen Street. Further it is the intent of the City of Aspen to proceed with the construction of this tank during the summer of 1978. However, there still remains the possibility that the tank might not be built due to unforeseen complications but hopefully this will not occur. 4a1i ncerel m biarkalunas, Director ter Department JM : jmr s r • 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 4, 1980 TO: Joe Wells Clayton Meyring FROM: Ron :Mock RE: Aspen Inn Pursuant to a meeting held on Monday, January 28, 1980, with Ashley Anderson, Hans Cantrup, Nassar Sadeghi, Joe Wells and myself, Ashley prepared the attached letter. In its final form, this letter represents the consensus agreement of that meeting. I am forwarding a copy of the agreement to you for your files. Receipt of this memo shall be sufficient authorized for Clayton to issue the building perit on the first phase (33 units) of the Aspen Inn as submitted and approved. RWS:mc RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT ASHLEY ANDERSON CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK K. ROULHAC GARN Garfield & Hecht ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 January 31, 1980 Ronald Stock, Esq. City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ron: I am writing this letter to set forth my under- standing of the agreement reached on Monday, January 28, 1980 with respect to the Aspen Inn GMP allocation. My understanding of that agreement is as follows: TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3W8 1. The plans presently on file for the thirty- three (33) GMP units do meet with all requirements of the Growth Management Plan and are sufficient for issuance of a building permit. 2. The remaining three (3) units will be located in the wing immediately to the west of the Arya Restaurant. It is my understanding that plans sufficient for issuance of a building permit must be submitted for those three units on or before February 1, 1980, although a formal application for building permit is not necessary. 3. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued on the above -referenced 36 units, the building permit must be obtained for the construction of a health club within the Aspen Inn complex. This club must contain at a minimum the facilities delineated in the original Growth Management Plan application. If the health club is not constructed within one (1) year of the issuance of the building permit, the City shall have the right to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy on the 36 GMP units. 4. Also before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued on the 36 units, the 24 employee units which were deliniated in the GMP application must be designated and operational. 5. My client will obtain a permit to construct a conference center by no later than February 1, 1983. That center will be located somewhere within the Aspen Inn complex i • Ronald Stock, City Attorney January 31, 1980 Page 2 and will contain at least the facilities delineated in the Growth Management Plan application. If that building permit is not obtained, then the City shall have the right to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy on the above -referenced 36 Growth Management Plan Units. Additionally, if the conference center is not constructed within two (2) years of the issuance of the building permit, the City shall have the right to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy on the 36 GMP units. Finally, it is my understanding that my client is to supply a conference center off site until the above described center is constructed. The off site location will be used as delineated in the original Growth Management Plan application. That off site location is presently at the Paradise Theater. By his signature below, my client hereby makes the above required commitments and specifically acknowledges the conditions and requirements set forth above. If my understanding of the agreement is correct, please indicate your approval by signing in the space provided. AA/se Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, GARFIELD & HECHT Ashley Anderson APPROVED: i RONALD STOCK, City Attorney GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION FOR THE ASPEN INN EXPA14SION - As we have stated in our cover letter for Mountain Chalet, our office is required tq_reject applications that are inconsistant with zoning. Mr. Cantrup's application sites development well within the setbacks in several locations within the site, sites development on City right of way, and neglects to include any portion of the building known as the Aspen Inn Condominiums of which he controls 64% interest in the FAR_ and open space calculations. Ihis building is noncon orming on its site and we feel that since Mr. Cantrup is obviously using it as a part of his tourist operation, a percentage equal to his ownership should be included in his calculations. Without going through a number of compli- cated calculations we are unable to determine to what extent Mr. Cantrup's proposal deserves points in those areas where reductions in density are concerned, but we have attempted to score the application in spite of this. fg Z0 ( s, Pi Aspen/Pitkin December 13, 1979 Mr. Nassar Sadeghi Sadeghi Associates 601 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Sadeghi: Planning Office 130 sout'l: fyalena street aspen., olorado _81611 My letter is to confirm our conversation in regard to the Aspen Inn project. I explained to you that on several occasions I had requested information in regard to the specific restrictions that would be placed on the employee housing units as a part of Growth Management Plan approval. This information has never been provided. I have been informed that the City Attorney is now prepared to defer a resolution of this matter for the time being. In regard to other elements of Growth Management Plan approval, I would note that points were awarded for energy conservation measures that exceeded City Code standards. Specifically, "R" values of 25 for walls, 33 for roofs, 1.82 for glass, and 10 for perimeter were proposed, as were efficient heating sys- tems, heat recovery devices, solar assisted hot water pre -heating, all accor- ding to a January, 1978 report prepared by Walton-Abeyta and Associates. It is not clear that the measures proposed in that report are in fact being imple- mented. Further I would note that the architecture has been altered considerably from that proposed at the time that points were awarded. I will discuss this change with other departments to see whether this will be permitted. Finally, I would note that I am unable to determine whether this phase is con- sistent with internal Floor Area Ratio requirements in the zone district based on the information provided. I will discuss this matter further with the City Attorney. Other elements of the approval have not been reviewed with other departments as yet, and I will be working with those departments to identify any other areas of concern. Sinc rely, oe Wells Assistant Planner cc: Ashley Anderson Ron Stock • ASPEN INN SCORING SUMMARY BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FACTORS CONTROLLED WITHIN THE PROJECT I. Public Facilities & Services Storm Drainage II. Quality of Design Energy Architectural Design Visual Impact Site Design Amenities III. Services Provided for Guests Spaciousness of Meeting Areas Dining Facilities on Site Accessary Recreational Facilities Conference & Banquet Facilities Ski Convenience Overall Tourist Appeal IV. Public Policy Goals Reduction Tourist Rental FAR Employee Housing Auto Disincentives SCORING SUMMARY Maximum Point Allocation Meriting Outstanding Design FACTORS UNALTERABLE WITHIN THE PROJECT I. Public Facilities & Services Water Sewer Fire Protection Roads II. Social Facilities & Services Public Transportation Police Protection Proximity to Commercial SCORING SUMMARY Maximum Point Allocation Meriting Outstanding Design Second Maximum Highest Minimum No Points Points Points Points • • • • • 0 0 0 II of,15 Categories • I/ • • I/ • • • • 3 of 7 Categories I/ Maximum points based on construction of Aspen Mountain water storage tank. for which construction contract has been awarded. ASPEN INN SCORING SUMMARY Second Maximum Highest Minimum FACTORS CONTROLLED WITHIN THE PROJECT Points Points Points I. Public Facilities & Services Storm Drainage • II. Quality of Design Energy • Architectural Design • Visual Impact • Site Design • Amenities • III. Services Provided for Guests Spaciousness of Meeting Areas • Dining Facilities on Site • Accessary Recreational Facilities • Conference & Banquet Facilities • Ski Convenience • Overall Tourist Appeal • IV. Public Policy Goals Reduction Tourist Rental FAR • Employee Housing • Auto Disincentives • SCORING SUMMARY Maximum Point Allocation Ill of 15 Categories Meriting Outstanding Design FACTORS UNALTERABLE WITHIN THE PROJECT I. Public Facilities & Services I/ Water • Sewer �/ Fire Protection • Roads • II. Social Facilities & Services Public Transportation • Police Protection • Proximity to Commercial • SCORING SUMMARY Maximum Point Allocation 4 of 7 Categories Meriting Outstanding Design I/ Maximum points based on construction of Aspen Mountain water storage tank. for which construction contract has been awarded. No Points t •GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 11ff'I_ICAkN j LODGE KALCIPMLllI 1. Project Name: 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: . 4. Cufrent Zoning: honing under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning: Proposed zoning: 3. Total buildout proposed: €i.. Special procedures required: View planes: Stream Margin.Review: „ Special Review: Historic District Review: , 'Y! ! Subdivision (condominiumization):;/� PUD: / 7. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest waster main and -estimated water demand of the building. b. Capacpity of the sewage system, location of the nearest trunk line and" -estimated -serer demand of the building. C. gype an-d des}gn_,of surface drainage. F l d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. e. Estimated daily number of vehicles generated h}-the development and estimated increase of traffic volume on adjacent streets, number of on -street and off-street parking spaces to be supplied, location of public transportation stops and routes, other auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development, and hours of principle daily usage of the development. f. Proposed uses for the structure and potential alternative uses (by general category of use) without substantial building changes. q. Types of land uses adjacent and in the innnediate vicinity. h Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. Bst of drawings and mans submitted for review: Submittal Date: & PQ GROWTH MA'JO' IFNT EVALUATION FO_ PM - Avai lab i ty of Public Facilities ancT-service;_ - Projects W1Lhln the L'odgc� Une (l-1) and Lod_je rwo ( -) shdll be assigned points according to the following formula. 0 - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services / C a - 1 Indicates a major deficiency in service .S-Is a;';ou� , ' 0 2 - Indic4es an acceptable (but standard)'service level 3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies .Project flame: ,vll�I v1,�coil �S�lT�v� Date: a) WATER Rati ng J (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the Water supply system to provide -for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to supply.water to the development without system Iextensions beyond those normally installed by the dev-eloper, and,Wi thout treatment plant door other facility upgrading. Comment: `vo�t SGh�r�s 7y1a� T✓GP�Pi /.� �Uf�s/�� 1 e� , 7, 1 lG�v�l©� sy e IGL egva�� Uv> �a�yn,�ss' e Cam, c� cel�t� �is�UC� ot� ate'/�ro�a/ Sa9�c^!�/tC2e !GI b) SEWER Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development and if a public sewage disposal system is to be used the capacity of the system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or otherfacility upgrading. 1. 0'� t- J r; Comment: 3 t7'/- S �P! 7`✓laf Pali !d ('Ud.STo4Gt -W i 1 vova er�reG'� LUr"1/e i%/� E�61 o3iM7L W17�& 31-43 W-ISI c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating Z (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facili- ties to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed 11 development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. YG Ll. Comment: q czf e!'t7 ;'rD s -& c�Y'aGticDq �Ui .J CG "ffGE �, a kzy fog ; " ;•� Gra ke,0 cl S.r �.S/�C d't �cL - 2 - d) FIRE PROTECT • Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate_Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment:i�i i . c) ROADS Rating Y (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Comment -150YI��L4,zf gUW7�hMC �1 i, 4)4r� i 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of.Social Facilities and Services, tU/P � a/ve'� 0 - Project requires the provision of new services at increased 7P✓�� f - public expense o/ ,1..- Project -may be handled by existing level of service in the' �o << _ area"{�� 2 - Project!.in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts public transit route. Four (4). points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski lift and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of either a ski ter" ("✓ lift or public transit stop. And no (0) points shall be given if not within areasonable walking distance of either. /1 Comment: ,vl�/ - 3 - • b) POLICE PROTElk0N Rating 1- (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Comment: %S o�SS'C/l'�'/ �ho/ i1✓IPJ%� Ca7L� %I�GIaI� el . tom/ 24tl e/JCIS l c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES (maximum 2 points) Comment: kod Rating err a4 P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the. Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: S / 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design %SfJfS �iQ� 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 -.Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design ,U 3 - Iiatff&tes an excellent design a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rating ti (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping ,111,d oven space areas, the extent of under - grounding of ut i 1 it i os , and the arrangement of improvecients for efficiency of circulation (includ•ing access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: I' 4 c) ENERGY • • Rating I (maximum 3 points) con:,idr-ri►ig the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of polar enemy sources. / d) AMENITIES Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle Ways. i Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating rN (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of.buildings to maximize public vie,-,r, of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: 12 P&Z GRO14TH MANAGD ENT PLAN - Services Provided for guests (one point per service �brJ AUff a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and 1 conference areas. / PComment:mod b) Dining facilities on site. Conr►►e n t : e,—,rc� Rating Rating - c) Accessory rational facilities. • ,i Comment: Rating d) Conference aanndlbanquet facilities. Comment: Rating % e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. -- Comment: l� Rating f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: A7k ed�f Rating 33. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals - considering the degree of conformity as follows: a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal Pp-!S �,V" F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 2P a�'�acved 15/ - 3 points W", - 2 points 059' - 1 point C0111111ent: Cu/%PCir 0IN11,1 I �rae re Rai t i rig --- - -- - -6- . b) Bonus emplo* housing - the Commission shal Oward points as follows: 75% or more of lodge.employees housed on site - 6 points 50%, or more; of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points i 25% or more,of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points 14. 15. Rating (max. o �_ts) c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: 1. One (1)llimousine with regular service per 25 guests (based Qn theoretical capacity of:lodge - 1 point 2. -Reduction in parking below minimum reconvnended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: .c .: x_. ►>� Rating toe , (max. 3 pts ) Net Point Rating 35b- 1 Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating)'provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. 16. Total Points Name of Parson submitting the above r'ati n,iDa to: —r Bonus Points a Net rating Bonus Points a TOTAL Points `z� -7- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ali � r 2 woe A�4n - / LUe-c� Go, 470- r ex, ;,Ovtt i 21 _-76V- -r) Oj- 1 Y j D b, � ��(.�'il,� S !'�-f,� Cxi ✓3 � ;�?.�'�2� 7'�-C � f � r�f�' • • ASPEN INN EXPANSION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION February I, 1978 Submitted: Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 925-2020 Applicant: Aspen Inn, Inc. 701 South Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 925-3462 Planners: Design Workshop, Inc. 41 South Spring Street Aspen, Colorado 925-8354 Architect: Sadeqhi Associates 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 925-2001 Ll C] • • • 50lJftt POINT r IMA" 6r THt_ AZTE.G- "ft.L-E.MAI.iC nal F9 I F+pL uE- — *Fv-0C.E GAl�16o1> j POLC II LIFT IA i MOUNTAIN r�UF_EN Site Context UIII� IIIII NHNIHNIII _ � RU6Y PIiRK Ti<MIbIT d �iTP;7"IC'N J J �\ 7u�ArlT AVE. P■ r� �.�ri.', ...o • i� • 8 • SECTION I AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES aa. Water The evaluation is the capacity of the city's water system to serve the development 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 I, the project is already being serviced by existing 8 and 6 inch city lines located in Monarch Street and Mill Street respectively. Based on a preliminary conversation with Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Department, he stated the overall tourist area water system was cur- rently at capacity, but the construction of a new water storage tank at the top of Mill Street would provide surplus capacity to the area. The storage tank is funded and scheduled for construction in 1978. Mr. Markalunas stated all new development in the tourist area would be required to contribute to the initial construction cost of con- necting the water storage facility with the Mill Street line system. The applicant agrees to share this cost to be determined during later approval process. The applicant also agrees to pay the city's pre- determined fee to tap into the 8" line in Monarch Street originally constructed by the Mountain Queen. Based on the above contribution agreements for upgrading the overall • area system, Mr. Markalunas indicated no specific problems with the Inn expansion. • • bb. Sewer The evaluation is the capacity of the city's sewer system to serve the development 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 I, the pro- ject is already being serviced by existing 8" city lines located in Monarch Street and Mill Street. Preliminary conversations with Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Department, indicate pro- ject expansion can be serviced with existing facilities. cc. Storm Drainage is The evaluation is the capacity of drainage facilities to ade- quately 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 I, the project will have a series of drywells sufficiently sized to retain site and roof water runoff. Consis- tent with standard engineering practices, the drywells will have overflow outlets extending to surrounding streets. Off site sur- face water runoff, primarily from the upper Mill Street area, will i� • 10 • be diverted off the property to Monarch Street by a diversion berm. The proposed storm drainage plan has been designed based on pre- liminary conversations with Dave Ellis, City Engineering Department. dd. Fire Protection The evaluation is the ability of the Aspen Fire Department to pro- vide 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. As shown on the Utilities/Drainage drawing, Section I, the project will be serviced by five hydrants located around the periphery of the project. Each hydrant is within 350 to 400 feet of the project. • Fire vehicle access and circulation is provided from Mill Street, Monarch Street, and Lawn Street directly north of the Inn off Monarch Street. Lawn Street will be converted to a loop drive con- necting Monarch Street and Dean Street to provide better fire vehicle circulation to the front of the Inn. The Lawn Street loop will be cleared and maintained by the applicant. A preliminary conversation with Willard Clapper, Aspen Fire Department, indicates the project can be serviced according to established response stan- dards with existing facilities. ee. Roads 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 expressed earlier and as shown on the Transportation/Circulation Context drawing, Section I, the Inn's convenient location is well suited for the auto -free tourist. Using data developed by the UMTA Transportation Study, Appendix A, it is estimated that the 36 rental units will generate approximately 13 to 18 cars in the win- ter and summer respectively. The UMTA study identified three tour- ist trip types as follows: I. 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 UMTA 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 fly -ins and limousine pick-ups will in -- crease and reduce summer car use. Because of the Inn's conveni- ent location, it is expected tourists arriving by car will be able to park and store their cars during their visits 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 confer- • ence limousine and bus tours of the outlying summer attractions. 12 • 3. Shopping and Entertainment - Because of the Inn's convenient location to downtown shopping and entertainment plus the pro- vision 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. The estimated 15 ± additional cars resulting from Inn expansion are likely to generate little daily car usage. Of the limited trips gener- ated, they will primarily be once a week arrival and departure trips. 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. • r� L 0 • DEAN 8" OE.WER LINE LAWN 5T. S"SEwEl2 UNE. 8" WATER LINE — lo" WATER FiYDKA,NT -- — 8" 6EWEir, LINE — D" WATER LINE • Utilities/ Drainage 9 • • KDQ INCZ FDRIK ICIVDR. PICIMAICY Fr.DG-'-TKIAN GIKWLATION MILL 97 MAIN �-T/ Hl&iHWAY 8Z 1=xI�STIN4 4 PROPD92C17 MALL WA.faMM PPJCK ASPEN 6 TtCAN`2IT K.OW PKOPOhED CITY 'TRAIL Qgy yr AhPetil INN 'SITE®R\ I 5C0' LIFT 1-A .f fzADIU`>'n I Transportation/Circulation Context FIRE.lr A-WrIcN PCLIILI= STATION ALTIVITY POC.Ucn— I't,L O&K KAVIUD IRUDY r#,KK / TIG.NhPORTATION OffIT-m 9 • 13 SECTION II AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES aa. Public Transportation The evaluation for maximum points requires the project be located within 5.20 feet of a ski lift and be located in a block abutting a public transit route. As shown on the Transportation/Circulation Concept drawing, Section II, 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 is Inn is within the block abutting the Durant Avenue transit route and the Rubey Park transit stop. The Inn directly fronts the proposed city pedestrian and bicycle trail. The Inn also provides regularly scheduled limousine service for its guests. bb. Police Protection The evaluation is the ability of the Aspen Police Department to provide protection 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. The expansion program is not expected to require services beyond current operations. • • • 14 • cc. Commercial Support The evaluation is proximity to commercial support facilities. As shown on the Transportation/Circulation Concept drawing, Section II, 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 shopping in the hotel lounge area. • • 0 • • KDO-5 �Imb FOfKlC Pr,IMAIKY rF-Pt5TK1AN eIr-CULA710N MILL hT MAIN `)l-i HIC-►HWAY SZ 1=X1�3i IN4 +4 PROPO`>tD MALLS WA61WET f-^KK PROPO4ED CITY 7KAIL At?M1,1 IhIN SITE 5C0' LIFT I —A -->K I K,GL-Ooj Transportation/Circulation Context F RI= STATIC" PCLIfit-� 6TAT10" 5�UrWr AVE F-7- ZV ACTIVITY POCk)&)— BLO(>K RAIVIIA;, KUC>Y PRICK / TKAm#;,mKTATION OBI-1-m 9 • 15 Ll • SECTION III QUALITY OF DESIGN aa. Architectural Design The evaluation is the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of height, size, location and building materials) with exist- ing neighboring developments. As described earlier, the Inn expansion is designed to integrate with the existing building and to have the overall project compati- ble 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 below, the Inn is approximately the same height as surrounding structures. The Inn is lower than the Mountain Chalet Lodge located between the Inn and Wagner Park; consequently, the Inn has minimum visibility from Durant Avenue and Wagner Park. Neighborhood Section • • 16 • The Street Sketches below 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. Overall building mass is sim- ilar to, if not smaller than, surrounding structures. Building mass is reduced by the building's wing configuration, which disperses units into small narrow lodging wings. Also, the use of balconies, over- hangs and wall recesses visually reduces building mass by eliminating massive wall areas and by increasing building facade diversity. r� U 0 11 View From Monarch Street View Off Entry From Mill Street u • 17 • The expansion design of the Inn successfully integrates the new build- ings with the existing Inn to create a functional high quality hotel. A description of the overall project design is presented below to sup- plement the Quality of Design heading. As the design elements of the project are described, Conceptual Archi- tectural drawings illustrating the Inn are presented at the end of the section. Architectural drawings in greater detail are presented in Appendix B to supplement the conceptual drawings. The Building Concept drawing, Section III, illustrates the functional elements that determined the configuration of the building. The design is basically three lodging wings radiating from a central ground floor containing public activities. The advantages of the wing configuration • are the following: I. Creates a single central building focus of public spaces - Arya Restaurant, lounge and nightclub; health and recreational facili- ties; lobby and vestibule areas - which are directly tied to the outside terrace and lawn area to maximize impact and 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 small narrow wings as op- posed to a larger cube form; 4. Provides a large check -in vestibule from which the guests can be shown directly to their rooms without leaving the complex. • • • 18 • As shown on the Ground Floor Plan, Section III, this floor is designed as the public activity area for the Inn. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the ground floor is devoted to public use, according to the following breakdown: Arya Restaurant and lounge 4,500 sq.ft. Nightclub 2,000 sq.ft. Health facility 1,500 sq.ft. Lobby and vestibule 6,000 sq.ft. Total 14,000 sq.ft. The extensive public areas are designed to establish a sense of spaci- ousness for the Inn, conveniently accommodate large check -in groups, provide large and small guest congregational areas and position the • restaurant, nightclub and lounge accessible to both day (skiers) and nighttime users. As shown on the basement plan, underground parking is provided for 50 cars. Basement, 2nd, and 3rd level floor plan drawings are pre- sented at the end of the section illustrating existing and new rooms, employee units, and common areas and corridors. bb. Site Design The evaluation is the quality and character of the proposed land- scaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utili- ties, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. • • • 19 • Thirty-three percent (33%) of the site is open space, compared to 25% minimum required by zoning. This increase in open space is possible because the building FAR is lower than allowed by zoning, and 90% of project parking is provided undergorund. The main element of the open space is the U-shape courtyard created by the wings that radiate from the building. As shown in the Site Design Concept drawing, Section III, the courtyard is south -facing, maximizing 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 existing 5,000 sq. ft. 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 the summer. The courtyard is designed as an open lawn area to accommodate general activities and provide open views for units facing it. Other key elements of the site's open space are the ski -in trail ease- ment and the on -site location of the proposed city pedestrian and bike tra i 1. As shown on the Landscape Concept Plan, Section III, the main land- scaped areas are the courtyard and the building entry area. The court- yard will have edge screen planting for area privacy with an open lawn area accommodating general activity. The entry drop-off zone will be designed with a small plaza as a focus for entering the building. The entry also has seven parking spaces for limousine and guest use. The • 9 • 20 • sidewalk along Mill Street will be heavily planted and specially lighted to act as a visual terminus to the Mill Street Mall. In the future, it is hoped the total length of the Mill Street side- wa.l.k can be upgraded and planted to serve as a major pedestrian link from the tourist area to the Mill Street Mall area. The lodge wings have been set back from the street to accommodate a landscape buffer. These setbacks are wide enough to accommodate large trees and earth mounding. The two large setback areas bounding the proposed city pedestrian and bike trail along Dean Street will include benches and bike racks for public use. Building foundation planting will be planted in the smaller setback areas. All utilities will be underground. • The site's circulation pattern is simple, since guests arrive at the entry and check in while their cars are parked in the underground garage. Service access is from the Lawn Street loop connecting Monarch Street and Dean Street. cc. Energy 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. The building has been designed to promote energy conservation. Pre- liminary engineering study by Walton-Abeyta and Associates, Mechanical Engineers, in Appendix C, calculates the Inn's conservation measures U C� 0 21 • 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 its multiple level plan with double -loaded corridors which effici- ently 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 con- servation elements described in the report are efficient heating equip- ment, heat recovery and reclamation devices, and heat control thermo- stats. 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 cir- culating units, drawing cold air in at floor level and exhausting the heated air at six feet above the floor. Fireplace combustion air shall be supplied independently from room air by means of two-inch ducts with thermostatically controlled dampers. Solar collection will be used to supplement the building's primary energy systems to maximum feasibility. Specifically, solar collec- tion will be used principally for pre -heating domestic water. How- ever, solar devices can only be supplemental to the building's basic • • 22 • systems because of the location of the overall tourist zone against the base of the mountains resulting in.limited solar exposure for the area. The Inn's location away from the base of the mountain within the tourist zone gives the site the maximum solar exposure for the area. dd. Amenities The evaluation is the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. As shown on the Building Concept and Site Design Concept drawings, the project has extensive interior and exterior common space. Specific open space amenities available to the public are the following: • I. The Arya Restaurant and its summer "garden terrace" dining. 2. The ski -in trail promoting skiers to visit the Inn for apres-ski activities. 3. The proposed city pedestrian and bike path directly fronts the Inn along Dean Street. Public benches and bike racks will be provided in the large building setbacks along the path. In addition to the above, the conference and banquet facility is a major amenity open to the community. This facility will be able to accommodate larger meeting groups, which cannot be presently accommo- dated in Aspen. The facility will be available to the city and comm- unity nonprofit groups on an "at cost" basis. • 23 • ee. Visual Impact The evaluation is the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. As described in the Architectural Design Section, the project will have minimal visual impact on the neighborhood. As shown in the Pedestrian View Section below, the Mountain Chalet is higher than the Inn; and pedestrians along Durant Avenue and Wagner Park will have minimal visibility of the project. The project is not included in any zoning view planes and will not block Aspen Mountain views from major pedestrian routes. • Pedestrian View Section 0 • Pr -AN 5T -- VNDCfZC�i��NC7 PAfZKINb •• •• • PC.0 E55 j CXISTINCa KlJOMS / , GORR I botZ /// NEW ROOMS .. I EX 15TI NCB I ERF� AG7= a.IC�A • INTEf�IOF��EXT'�tC'f� AC-C.��j t`h'?EN ItNN PRDF-mTY Building Concept I r-(ILL 5T P�1TlCY I7RC,- OFF ARYf{ �SrAuf�F.fi- # Nlc�i-{T GtuP� HtN-TH 4 K�LKEPTION �PY�It_tTIGS NEW KDOr� • C • NMI" KOChVO — L'1(,IyTIN6 ROOM-) fJ'�PLtrYG[ ROOHh L �" � �G`Sf II4lJl..•L 11r � M.YA 1(C�fAURrJ�IT } NI6tiTGLU6 I Ground Floor NOT-L. ILTION LINt. KrJ MENGG /VCGNITGLTURAL --C.TION DRI.W IN(a UAIPEKGKOUND MKK I N6 EMr,_-YCt. I I I I I EfiPL07� I.rPJCTnGNT9 Sub -Grade 0 0 C7 • Section A -A Section B-B Section D-D Legend 0 PAKKINCa GOMMCN SPACE F�W G U�hTlOt�l Architectural Sections Section C-C NDTE RF.FE�t�iC,t✓ 4KL�uND �I.00� r,�awlu� FOK- �iFLT 101� L.l u�J E • PR.OP05ED /-ITT # PEDE7TRIM1 I UNDEIC6RCkWD BIKE TrJJL PARKIN& i AGGEh9 PRE.POMWL&NT wIND MAIN ENTRY ARYA RG9TURAuNT -fCRRAtti= AJCE}. Ll-L . OFEN LAWN AREA ED4E OC.RGEN PLANTING - 5K1 IN TRAIL UttMENT AFTtKWCON 6UN • Site Design Concept I1MMOOKN"6 6uN • UNDCKOROUND PARKIN6 WIE-A`-- i ♦ "y °ENCLObCD 6A ibAbr "rlbT!R — — C \ j a I • � ♦ c --{-- WILDlN6 MOJAbL[_ FYJfT[� - I�IJI,fT'6 POOL- LIWD5(I.P -P pCRr OPEN LAWN SPACL Legend APE! IAL PI.JNA T10E1ThEM tjy;:v? LMIDhLAPCD �iEfDALK9 rOVNDA.TION PLMITRJ6 hPELUL DE b4bW 7Rl1TMEJK:T • 9G,IGM[.9 blr.� RI.CKh Landscape Concept 0 0 C� • 24 r� U SECTION IV SERVICES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS aa. Meeting Areas The evaluation is the spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas. The Inn provides meeting and congregational areas in both the hotel lobby and the conference facility. Also, guests will naturally gather in the lounge, nightclub, vestibule, and terrace areas. The hotel lobby is approximately 3,000 square feet and is tied with other ground floor public uses to create a central building focus. As • noted earlier, 14,000 square feet of the ground level is devoted to public area. Sketches of interior spaces are presented at the end of the Quality of Design Section, illustrating the interior image and spaciousness of the Inn. To date, the size of the conference facility has yet to be established. The applicant wishes to work with the City Planning Department to jointly develop a conference program that will accommodate a wide range of community needs. A prime intent of the facility is to provide accommodations for the larger group which cannot presently be accommodated in town. bb. Dining Facility The evaluation is dining facilities on site. The Arya Restaurant provides a complete three meal menu plus summer terrace dining. 0 • 25 • cc. Recreational Facilities The evaluation is recreational facilities on site. On -site recreational facilities include the existing pool and new health facilities, including sauna, steam room, whirlpool, massage rooms, and the courtyard lawn area to accommodate general activity. dd. Conference and Banauet Facilities The evaluation is conference and banquet facilities on site. As described earlier, the final program for the conference facility will be jointly developed with the City. The facility will have a full range of conference and meeting rooms and banquet facilities. To encourage the conference facility as an amenity to the total • community, the facility will be available to the City and community non-profit groups on an "at cost" basis. ee. Ski Proximity The evaluation is proximity to ski trails and walking access to lifts. As shown on the Transportation/Circulation Context, Section IV, the Inn is within 500 feet of Lift I -A and one-half block from the Rubey Park transit stop. The Inn's convenient location allows easy walking access to skiing. A ski -in trail easement is provided. This easement connects with the currently used trail at the Mountain Queen complex which links • with the Lift I -A trail easement. 26 • ff. Overall Tourist Appeal The evaluation is the general quality of the project. As noted earlier, the Inn's objective is to establish itself as a high quality, 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. J. Prime location providing convenient access to skiing, downtown shopping and entertainment. 2. Spacious tourist rooms and public areas. 3. On -site dining, lounge, and nightclub facilities. 4. On -site recreational facilities. • 5. Complete conference and banquet facilities. 6. Complete tourist limousine service. • �1 L • • 0 KDA�IN(a FOKl, KIVr_IZ PKIMAKY PEDCSTKIAN GIKC.UL.ATIDN MILL hT MAIN �; HICoHWAY SZ EX14 TIN6i # PROP05CD MALLI.. WA.UNM PAKK - A'SFE.N 4T PKDPOC� —�\ Liw, PKDP04ED CITY-TKP.IL Qg y ; - ,✓:-,,:� I°f . AhPBII IRW 5C0' I cXr- STATION � PCLIli� STrT10N IF r ' t2LJFF NT WE I IL1F-T- Z�L W Transportation/Circulation Context ALTIVITY FOCA-A)-- 1'DLOf,K KAPlUt;� KUDY PAKK / TI.Aw,")mKTATIDN DeilITLR 29 • I. Limousine Service. The Inn shall operate 5 limousines on a regular basis. Based on the formula of I limousine per 25 guest capacity, the 36 units at 2 people per room result in a need for 3 limousines. The Inn has I limousine in existing service and shall add a second for existing units. 2. Parking Reduction. In conformance with Ordinance 48, the Inn shall provide parking at a reduced rate from zoning. The Inn shall provide 57 spaces with 50 spaces in the underground garage and 7 spaces in the entry zone for short-term use. Under zoning, the Inn would be required to provide 66 spaces. The zoning requirement is below the current l:l ratio parking to rental room resulting from zoning variations approved for the Inn prior to adoption of Ordinance II parking standards. • 3. Employee Parking Prohibition. In conformance with Ordinance 48, the Inn will provide no on -site employee parking by covenant restrictions. The objective is to encourage off -site resident employees to utilize transit. • 30 • BONUS POINTS The evaluation of project incorporation of the criteria of Ordinance 48, Sections 24, 10, 6, I.-V. and achievement of an outstanding over- all design meriting recognition. This submission describes how the plans and program for the Aspen Inn fulfill the specific individual requirements of the Growth Man- agement Plan. In addition to these requirements, bonus points can be awarded when a project has achieved an outstanding overall design. The bonus category is subjective and allocation is at the discretion of the Planning Department, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council. It is respectfully requested that the following merits • which are unique to the Aspen Inn project be considered for bonus point evaluation. 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. On -site facilities include the Arya Restaurant and lounge; a nightclub; health and recreation fac- ilities; spacious lobby and vestibule area, terrace .and pool area; and a complete conference and banquet facility which is not only a major amenity for the Inn, but also for the community. Building public space is 32,500 sq.ft. compared to 22,500 sq.ft. zoning minimum, a 45% increase. Major public facilities have been designed in a central • ground floor focus area to maximize their use and impact. 31 . 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 summer conference facilities. The Inn's convenient location is ideally suited to accommodate the auto -free tourist. The Inn's auto disin- centive and parking programs are all designed to promote the auto - free tourist. Building Design The building architecture is intentionally subtle and low key to blend with the existing buildings and to be compatible with the varying architecture of surrounding buildings. • The project will have minimal visual impact as it has limited visi- bility from major pedestrian routes and will not block mountain views. Building mass has been reduced and is compatible with the neighborhood by building at a lower FAR, by designing small narrow lodge wings, and by creating building diversity with balconies and recesses. Building material is also similar to the neighborhood. The Inn has reduced building size below zoning from the 90,000 sq.ft. FAR proposed. The major portion of building reduction has been a 23% reduction in rental space with an increase in common or public space. The Inn's conservation measures will result in a reduction in energy use. Preliminary engineering estimates are a 25% to 30% reduction • in energy consumption below the City's Thermal Standards. i 6 32 • Employee Housing Under current zoning the Inn could build the 40,000 sq.ft. of rental space without providing any employee housing. However, the expansion program provides lodging for 80p of its lodge employees, an increase above the maximum point allocation in Ordinance 48. Open Space Site open space has been increased by building FAR reduction and pro- vision of underground parking. The 30,000 sq.ft. of open space is 33% above the 22,500 sq.ft. required by zoning. The design of the open space encourages greater use. The main courtyard is a large open area with maximum southern sun exposure and building wind screening. The courtyard serves as a lawn extension of the terrace and pool area is where guests will congregate. In summary, the Inn's expansion program achieves or surpasses the planning standards set by Ordinance 48 and the City Zoning Code and should be considered for bonus points under Section 24-10.6 of Ordin- ance 48. LJ P t•J 33 • • 0 APPENDIX A ASPEN INN EXPANSION CAR GENERATION ANALYSIS Winter I/ High Use Period GMP rental rooms 36 Average room occupancy 3/ x 95% Occupied rooms 34 Average people per room 4/ x 2 People lodged 68 Average people arriving by car 5/ x 60% People arriving by car 40 6/ Average people per car 3 Estimated cars 13 Summer Hiqh Use Period 2/ 36 x 80c° 29 x 2 58 x 95% 55 3 Footnotes and Assumptions I/ 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 UMTA Technical Memorandum #3, April, 1977 6/ Ibid. • 0 28 i • Employee units consist of 2 large apartments of 1,000 square feet each, 18 lodge studios of 325 square feet each, and 1,500 square feet of dorm housing. A total of 9,500 square feet of employee housing is provided. The 9,500 square feet figure is greater than the 6,000 square feet noted for employee housing in the Program Summary building FAR, because 3,500 square feet is sub -grade space which is.not calculated in zoning FAR. Employee units are shown on the floor plans in the Architectural Design section. The table below illustrates the conversion of employee units to the number of employees housed. The 1,500 square feet of dorm area is converted to units at 325 square feet per unit consistent with the lodge studio standard. • Employee Actual Employees Units Unit Type Sq. Ft. Conversion Factors Housed 2 units Apartments 2,000 sq.ft. @ 2.5 emp. per unit = 5 18 units Lodge studios 6,000 sq.ft. @ 1.2 emp. per unit = 22 4 units Dorm area 1,500 sq.ft. @ 1.0 emp. per 200 sq.ft. = 8 24 units 9,500 sq.ft. 35 Employee housing will lodge 80`% of the Inn's 44 total lodge employees listed in Appendix D. Should some employees decide not to live on site, the space will be available to other employees approved by the client. cc. Auto Disincentives The evaluation is the project's conformance with the city's auto dis- incentives policies for limousine service, reduced parking and employee . parking prohibition. E 40 27 • SECTION V CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS aa. Reduction in Tourist FAR The evaluation for maximum points is greater than a 15' reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal FAR. Under L-2 zoning, the maximum allowable rental space for the 90,000 square foot site is 60,300 square feet or 67% of internal FAR. The maximum rental space under zoning is based on the tourist rental space increase provision for employee housing calculated at 33 1/3% of all lodging space between .5:1 to .75:1 FAR devoted to • employee housing with the remainder available for tourist rental. As indicated in the Program Summary, the Inn has 40,000 square feet of tourist rental space, which is 44' of the site's allowable internal FAR. This is a 23% reduction of tourist rental space from the maximum allowed under zoning. bb. Provision of Employee Housing The evaluation for maximum points is 75'p or more lodge employees housed on site. As described in the Introduction, the 24 employee units are a mix of new construction and converting existing units. The 24 units will lodge approximately 35 people. • 0 o. • o � A �+ o U toA ,ey ' t ?, C F_ to l I , -- 4 -- $l j • is u -k • Alb /'// 0 r -1 L-J 0 li H •r � � V H M H H a i H II • ��l a 4 0 0 • c a H ►:1 S 0 11 APPENDIX C • 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. Walls "U" factor = .05 Resistance = 20.0 b. Roof "U" factor = .04 Resistance = 25.0 C. Glass "U" factor = .70 Resistance = 1.43 • d. Perimeter "U" factor = .10 Resistance = 10.0 2. Resistances and "U" factors as proposed: a. Walls "U" factor = .04 Resistance = 25.0 b. Roof "U" factor = .03 Resistance = 33.0 c. Glass "U" factor = .55 Resistance = 1.82 d. Perimeter "U" factor = .10 Resistance = 10.0 • 9 -2- 0 • 3. Application of the minimum 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 "U" = 374 Btu/hr ':;,. Glass 128 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .7 "U" 7,616 Btu/hr/'hir. Roof 575 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .04."U" ='1,966 Btu/hr. !:r. Infiltration .8 factor X .24 sp. ht. X .054 density X 85 t.d. X 4,600 cu. ft. = 4,054 Btu/hr. Total heat loss =13,999 Btu/hr. b. Proposed: Walls 83 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .04 "U" = 299 Btu/hr. Glass 128 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .55 "U" = 5,984 Btu/hr. Roof 575 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .03 "U" = 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. Total 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- r • 2) Multiple sectioned boilers can be installed to operate in series, thus allowing natural gas con- sumption to be further reduced over the instal- lation of one large boiler. This would reduce gas consumption by approximately 4-5%. b. Heat delivery: By using a superior and thicker pipe in- sulation system for heating and domestic water in lieu of the types outlined in the ordinance, the heat loss through the piping systems can be reduced by approximately 5%. 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- therm" 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%. 2) The boilers should be cycled by an inverse acting out- door reset which controls the leaving water temper - is ature. 5. Additional energy saving devices or systems: a. Solar - Solar will be used to supplement the domestic water, heating water and pool heating requirements to its maximum feasibility. Detailed studies will have to be made when building requirements are further defined to determine the exact amount that can be utilized. b. 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. C. Flow restricting plumbing devices - These will be added to all plumbing fixtures which have hot water connected. �- These devices restrict the flow of hot water and thereby reduce the amount of energy required to produce hot water. • 0 -4- • Summary: There are many systems and features on the market today which permit an owner to reduce the overall fuel bills. The systems and features discussed herein are the primary units when com- pared to energy -efficient versus "conventional" methods. They all show a fuel cost savings and thus a pay back. In order for an owner to evaluate same, some criteria must be established as the base. The Aspen Ordinance is used as this criteria, and if required, can be expanded upon to present an even more energy -efficient system. This report has discussed several useful methods to reach this goal. Basically, added insulation, more efficient equipment, heat re- covery, and heat reclamation by conservation are the four most widely utilized methods to reach these goals. These are the systems and techniques reviewed here. • • 9 i • APPENDIX D EMPLOYEE LIST ASPEN INN EXPANSION Position Personnel General Manager Assistant Manager Bookkeeper 2 Front Desk 4 Switchboard Operators 3 Reservation Manager Reservation Staff 2 Maintenance Staff 3 Bellmen 5 Limousine Drivers 3 Head Housekeeper I Maid Staff 13 Laundry Staff 3 Security 2 Total 44 µ.s .. �,_� ., �� Is :., • i Aspen /Pitkira w,:,a ning Office 130 so ut I I e n a street aspen, colorado 8 16 11 1 December 17, 1979 Mr. Nassar Sadeghi Sadeghi Associates 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Sedeghi: My letter is to request a set of prints of those drawings produced by your office which were photo reduced for inclusion in the Aspen Inn Growth Management Plan Application dated February 1, 1978. These drawings include the Ground Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan, Third Floor Plan, Parking Floor Plan and Building Sections all drawn at the sace of 1/8" = 1' 0". Providing these drawings at your earliest convenience will expedite our further review of your application for building• permit. Sincerely, ,Joe Wells Assistant Planner JW: cs -� cc: Ron Stock Ashley Anderson Clayton Meyring/Joe Thomas 0• Aspen/Pitkin x"°!an,ning Office 130 south galena street aspen., ti jlorado _81611 December 13, 1979 Mr. Nassar Sadeghi Sadeghi Associates 601 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Sadeghi: My letter is to confirm our conversation in regard to the Aspen Inn project. I explained to you that on several occasions I had requested information in regard to the specific restrictions that would be placed on the employee housing units as a part of Growth Management Plan approval. This information has never been provided. I have been informed that the City Attorney is now prepared to defer a resolution of this matter for the time being. In regard to other elements of Growth Management Plan approval, I would note that points were awarded for energy conservation measures that exceeded City Code standards. Specifically, "R" values of 25 for walls, 33 for roofs, 1.82 for glass, and 10 for perimeter were proposed, as were efficient heating sys- tems, heat recovery devices, solar assisted hot water pre -heating, all accor- ding to a January, 1978 report prepared by Walton-Abeyta and Associates. It is not clear that the measures proposed in that report are in fact being imple- mented. Further I would note that the architecture has been altered considerably from that proposed at the time that points were awarded. I will discuss this change with other departments to see whether this will be permitted. Finally, I would note that I am unable to determine whether this phase is con- sistent with internal Floor Area Ratio requirements in the zone district based on the information provided. I will discuss this matter further with the City Attorney. Other elements of the approval have not been reviewed with other departments as yet, and I will be working with those departments to identify any other areas of concern. Sinc rely, / oe Wells ( Assistant Planner cc: Ashley Anderson Ron Stock