The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.AspenInn.1978 M E M 0 RAN DUM 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 tthe 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 ge. Applicant has acquired the easement necessary to improve on-site circulation. Score upgraded from 1 to 2. 3. Item lOa. 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 lIb. 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 ~ . .-...., , REFERRAL TO: Aspen Fire :District , FROM: Aspen/Pitki~ Planning Office RE: Analysis of; Impact on 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 n~w station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing stat/on. The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of development. Please review the application and indicate the category of impact below. /' /7 I? Project: ~A (}AA 9 /VVVl . ~ Referral S:-:S:i!:t:: I '1 r d/7 B The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the Fire Department. I I '$- / / Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate di stri ct without the necess ity of es tab 1 ish i ng a new station 0)' requiring addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing station. Moderate jmpact - only moderate capacity exists to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the appropriate district wi thout the necess ity of estab 1 i shi ng a nel'l stati on or requiring addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing station. Substantial impact - this development will over- Durden the capacity of the fire department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the apPI'opriate di st.ri ct \1Hhout the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of majol' equi plllent (such as hydl'ants, \vet standpipes, etc..) to an existing station. ~~~J~ ~~ -. - - '-'" P!~l-'[r:l{/\,l ~.- ~~C EI~,. <> TO: A,:; n (j t,v Fnl~;j t:(' FnLWi: {\Slj',..:ll/P;tk"l:l .llldn'in,:_; Or-f'i C(; hL: J\tk1j~-, I~, Dr Il;:P,:!CL (Hi :/l.Oti-n D', uirit<.J , Par:dli(j [)C~;'lj:-I~ and Rood... D!\TF: February 5, 1978 ____._____._ _.._. ..~.~...__~._ ___..~'__.___" _.__~_. _.._ ._~__..._..__, _'_ _._.,.....__._._.__,~_.__ _M ..,'_._.__.,__.____... __.,., ____....~.+____.___'__' The !\sj":\-,i-l/f;it:"ln 1)-il:;;\lnincj Off-ice; 'j~, I"'c\i'ic:''-.:li'ij a Ci 2lnd rC<lu-i'?,c-;:; i;,!: c:r;;,l"/':"j':; -' ';-;)(,' !ifCii-'Jr.'_'-;d-tls -i ",t on thr:: stonH draln;-; :J:_':rLii-!:~ (ir,(;'iC::1 ~ ~~.l!C! :; b\' cor:'~;C:e~"i 0;:' tij,? (:"(i'ir'dl;;::: ,__r:-; iitic:) too (I Ub'i:J-:"!y disp~..J'.);_' ur [.hi.:: ;~!; face n.ifiof';; cons id~<'-:i"11_; t,II' .irf-,:;i').; Vii..' "iqn of oi i---Slff::'.,- t J , . 3Drj COilslderlng '--J oi- ID0jGY' sLl~eet 'li~ :it, prc,~;:j~ J 1 , c(::');-~_li 'lj ()f ~:: cc!p:;_ci ty (!i nSJ LTCJS :, Th(: J_tl.'('(,_hec ~~;l:!':';\.:i:;tiQti forl;'i -:den'::~ c:: the l!)(:otion~ size and type (if (j;::\'cl :,J~, ;'-i:::c;~-,~_ fT'vic',-/ the: a.pp'j'icD_tion and lncj'jc(r~e th(,~ c2tc~ory o',~ -j i:;;,'(\CT, be'l U::. Proj "ct: _--As.PJ~"-ImL .cluJLLsubmttte.d_..by_ Des i gn_.Wor.ks.ho~L~._.planners.l--_-._-- Re''1cn'al SUJni"j s~:,,! ~'r, . ~, . ___J'e_brui!rYJ4, 1 97IL_. TI10 prDp0::~ of: ptoj C \':i'll h:..\':-; the fol~()\'1:ng 'l,:,j'l1\~ cr "1 cL on the cC<'3ci tj'" S TD:WI ltiF",,[ CJ Sl!bstiln'~.i,;;~'l eiL'i:~-;S c(-~ c'it)-' (;i:j:~~, -;ties to adc:q\)::.t.~'ly (';~r;)~:E of tile of L:~"IC propcs,:'d c:c:;,,!cl c.p.,:;._ -i l:~IO:lt hc.Yond tiHY: C nonna 'l-! Y .; ;j::;'~:; 1--i cd by r .- " SLWT/;C::"'I run~'fl-i sy:'";'[, i::.\ 1'C_' ;": S 'j 0 il:~ t\!c' ci..::\:i-:> 1 C)'?r.. I< ,'~ ';J-'-"',:"r'I' ~ O'l'y rl1:',dr.".;-"f-r ('-I "l;:: (',' r,v'i"t,(' .r.F"1\' . , _,';.._.. r I, d'. ~~.., ,~L--._ ~Cr''-' ~ ,=-,\,,:> .~, 1t,., } (:l-j-j:t-if:'s tu dd(:ql'~~.:-,(!':.Y disp:J:';c> :::.'(' tti2 surf(~~~e rlJr;~.)ff of lll(: pr'OjJcs cli::'vc-;l \\:ithou. systc:ri f'~:-;:c.'nsi(Jns heyond tho::.:e nonnal-Iy 'il':~;'(.ol-l I,y tile cic\'(.-~"I CJ ~',ub:;~.,?:'it"id'l irnl':ict .- this d(~\'cl"lf;;t!Cnt \'/11'1 ;)VC~f- t;ll\~'(k~1-" (~'~'!'l)dcTl,Y of the d1'itinoqc fuel'lit'je::, to adf'qui'\tc::ly d'j SlJo'::-,c of the SUi'relet' l'lmoff (of the pl'OpO:, cd dc\'c; 1 OIl:;':t::rL \-:-i tfH'i:t sys tem cxh:':1:';'i (;11:" b~yond tho.,;> rl(1nu -II y i nsti, 1'\ cel by the clcvc-t ()P~~l'. CO;11il1Cnts: ~ I . , "" '-.".... :) Ii. i" i: 100~[,)r.i lO: ~~ -, (; ~., '. " I ::.:;r.; i:i' f~f)n;; ; r', :,jPi r.i:-i ii !, 1 ,in:, j "ij rie:, c, I'C. \'-" P,tliJjS is of 11.-,;-,ldCl; (n] ,".r, T'; ::,~t~X; -':jt C(lpnclty OJ,,!r: : February 5, 1978 Th:: t,:", )/l,:!t~;ili Planr:in~J [i'-fico -i~; r'CViCl'i"inq () C:cvclop::<:nt Pr'OYi':,~l'J, 0nrJ rcc;:x~~ c'-; i~n iJn,;,'! is of the In'o~)J':;;:.:I'S ':;TF),~i_ct on i0l"12 c(~~;'(:cii.y (Jr- the :;I--.~\,'(' iT t:::Ui fele i -j ty bi' C;:1:"1.:; i cJc~ri (~X '.t:ss CC-: iJ ci ty ()f the Sj:~tr2!':I" lOCi::;"lC);, "l:iiC neCJ{\:::,~. trL:!d: 01' ccnnecti)~~; SC\'/Ot hnc.. TI12 i01'_'I-,dci ;-j (;pplici;-(.io~l TOt):l -\t!cn't"if-jes t)",(\ lociltic:"i., siz.~; arlQ t:/pe o~. ~.:?\,~"jc;-: ":~:;L. P1cu?E.' rt\ji(~'t,,: tl!e dpplic~:ti()n and incl'ic(~t(~ tll;~ cilt:::qury () imp('\cL; ,': !O',';. Pruj eet :n^8~R.~rLJml.Uub ~~ubJ11i ttEW_J)LJ;lJ!~JgrLWor.~shoJl^-.:-_J2JAn!ler.?J_____. Refer,..,,! SU!;iii ssi on D':',": Jebrl!a..!:.LJi..J517_8." ___..._.^".___,,_., ^'_'_"_ The pr'D:"~J;;2d projec.t \.,":1; lv:v~> UL~ follo\';;i>; t:/!x; of impact on the- cap3city u[ the :-'("> '~"-jt: tn?[1'i,>?:,~ t \y~: '(('!'i. /=/ C tr'l':'!~' Ot cn!.~' c:evc: '! ():~"""2nt, -li(1'!~~)'!e 'i:T,"~:ct - subs':.-c:.ntial (;xcc;:;s C(};~;2,city e;d~ts 'ci',c-nse\;\~c-'~~,'~~' tl:\';'?tr':-'r<': \/1 ;:'!'.-~' (:I")Q irL th(~ neal'est , .. .,,-, I"" ~ " ':.:ti!lSl 5.C;'.fr.\,' l'inc tu J('CC:> a.te th"ls I.J tr 'j r';- un!)' ~;ltc c3:J;;:ity exists at ~'('::11' ,,~(':t ! ':;'~nt OY' l1. in the' ri'"~E,;\'~-':~"[ tl"u:':k, l~t c()('n'~:'~"'L.ln~) SC~',!i'~ ;':]"1(' to i.:',:(:(J':',::1orl,~!~(: Lil'i~; rlc:vcl U~):_i:;."it. j5g' ~; l' ~ ~, th';:~ c:c,'/el ~-:p ::('I;r 11 0'/('1''' hUi l.;')' 1.'.](" St-.:\,'C'f '::rei~tc;;;1::nt P'Ii1iii" or ~~hc n{:(:.;\~(~:: 'lTunk C:' CVii'jCCt.;'11;J ~l';':2t' '[-;1':2. CC,i;:'V"i1tS: ,[:!L~~I !:::l__,,~L /2._.:...._'-J'. "i_~.___1~!.r i_"_::{;;_7A,1::>!!'IC-t:O!::Z:-_A!!'~'1,L A tt-e. ff?.L>_€ ':L'-o'L__L:i_'?.9J::: ""3~_/..!"ro ,,]I:LEC.,. /'1L!:r,.,S:Td!.rr c_6.L!:-f=-r-B_'="..J~__.l=:: U::rL /t .<- or--t-c>C... 's.E"~_~_f::~ m ,..f:-..J.e_~-.J___iJ~___ _-,-'2..Jj-:t__t;J_~_..,L9:.,~_? .Ul~e..___" Lq__...r:J._.Q"_~_~___Lt:-:.!:!:?__ ,_,_L..H...e..._ f':::, e A-~ S'_I~_LEL,_ ,~LI:.E......, ._7: I-I E__t:LLb.~__, __S_,t~$_e_L" _&,L~~"--'-\__r:.--,?.!;: t1~;,.____I_"?-+_,.. f~ c_ ~ rl A '-"', "- '- ('f'(),rs!-%.!'~S _,k( rtf:.jLu_..8,""U<-Vi.!"f25c'ff,,_J:-:,{if'flf?o__JI J'A5.J.Jf',L_L!i.R._"-'-"- It- 7 He. Sicl11i\tUli: L~_ ~..__A.st?_!t~,J::;,!L. IU'(' "EJZ,r.,_".!.'z(t-J <; '7 r? T 12 L) ,? H ^ _ S' .j;~ t':) i ...... t S l .J;- SlfCI~!. A t<-~ /3''''I--C, 'TAI<::G'_ "y r/'/c ~(nc,C., ,0 /"h/CC"'"-t4.re Tf-{rs p~()'~'-C"1 AI--l:> /"0 c:o~e. v''> t-Irrl ('u~,'/'>~e. s 0 /...- v .1" I D 0_':> 'f IC A J- S r-t I S J I Q'_ /3 T ;- l-t c: i':} e- A I- S./Z C i::., '- / r--e "'-I+IC,+ pl-O ......5 11'-',0 rHe Plf!!-~. S~IlEF:T ....,"-c. jvD(..c~r-:, I-IA'-"t'3:. " S vFPIC-t/?_,- cAI"AcnY TO 1-{/~r..'I>L-I~ F"-c)~ Frzo,--, 1'/-frs I)~o",-~C,. rt-A....' C A I"tl L, r~1 I S S:UrFICCiFr-., --'.~,- --- ,-. ...... >>uu 11,1,1 fI'F,n[ ro: k.j'I"r [Jo ']', U: [),-,Pii.1"1.J:C'ii r~ FHOr'1: A~-~!)C!J/I)"itkin )lldnninq Oif'lcl: RE; !\nilly::-i:; of Inlpact on tilr: !~spcrl :)()-i'ic(~ Uc'p2_rtin:_:rlt rY\TI-: : February 5, 1978 The fj\~:,pr:n/p.;t!:in P-i()nnin~l Off'ice: is r(I\'.i~:',,'";nC! c~ dc:\'c'lori:!iont PI"clp0s(:1, Cind U;;':'" ..:r~ 'ir"~-ilyr:)is cf"~J,c: PI ll,~ ')!I:P0C::t on the: ce_pi..:city of the /-\::'I:::'i i"iet; i>i;:-;(':.i:,i'~r~t: ];~/ r::-_:w; c!::.:(-;;,'.r -1_.11::: ahili of current policE: S.:>:::i -it,Y ~>,,!~"/';CC1::: tu pt(;\'jdr; P~~[];, C',IVl accu to tt'ClsC:l(d~-le re:,pcJnse '>Lnltd,' ':ri L.,llC}'lit thE.' ncCL-;ss-; (;f ;:~ddit-Ional foci!i l.-i~>,:. p2fst:nnel or eQlJi l The att2chsd c.;ljJI IC., "IU, forT:: identif'ics tiJ" lrccit-ion ~ size and type . of d0ve;1c.';"_:'!:i('nt. P:lc;;,St~ rev"jc-;',) the clppliccit':on and ind'ic.:.t,e 1:~:;"_1 CdtE-gOl',']' of inlpact belovl. r roj c c t: .-As~Il_J.!lIl_C lU!L(sJJb.m.i.t.te.d....by,j).esijJ.ll.WOr.ks11D~~_ .j1lannersl--~~-- , I<Cfe:IT01 Sub:n'i s ~;i on f)"tc:: ___Fej)r_u.a.ry__14_,_191.a.______.____'_~____,____ The prc:.icscd pro ('~:t \'1"111 I:avc tho fo"I"!u,)';n,; type of 'ir::pl~ct 01'1 the: capc;cit.y of' tli>: l-'~SPCii F'o1 cc [!c;j,~~,r'l~,ri,~~tlt: c/ ct~ - suhstalltial excess C2pRCi exists cens \':!<:; ,:; (d)'i-li of ClHTE;'lt ;:':01ice sLcuritj' sC:("'j-i~c~ to !~1\"o\jicl2 pn_:t.cct'ion c:lcu,'d"li1~} to rCcisonabL: r"CS~'D~ise strr:cJc:rd:-: \)i"th~)ut t,h2: n2c~_':<~-it.}' Gf aC:Ji~, tiOi)(l'j fi:.ci :i"L'ies~ rjf::~sC!i;v;'1 or. ecr,lip:: :It_ r/ !J.~"~]_~,~]::"'li'p i ct - onl~' ]i;,'\;jPr-ete c;q>~~ciLy cds I:::. COli'" sid?)"in~-] [i',(' (\hil'ity of C\.liTe-lit. pol'ic:~ ::CCLi'''j"CY r';CT\'ices 1!1 '1'!'(1\-"icle n;--ct~)c:ti(jn 2~-('.';\-(i\n\1 to fC~;so!~(lb'le - - ~ , '-, I',~'~"'lll'--.(.. <;':"1'.-1 . \0"-1'["1 ,:i!- ~lll;~~ t"'C,-.;.:';,:;-;t.y (\-( I i '_"'j'" "",, ~ ,.L ("i U,) , _, ,,'., "I,~, ,,' __,,_,,'.., v, v' d:"~::"- t-loilD.l fdc"j'!'lL-ics, p;::I~s;.,n].li~o-1 or c:::qL;'ir1i]k:nt. Sll!)~:,L~rrtil'l ';;:1:1:~:Ct - thi~; cleve! !1T ~./ill C),it:\'- bUi-dcn i:~; i'l-ity of ClWl'f'nt p0"l-ic~-: st'cul'-it.y :~0r'riccs to prov'ill(~. ['r(itl':~t'1[)n C;CC(l:'c\-;nq TO tc(~son(;h'!,?, l,"~spon~.~; st"':t:cl(~.i~(L; v,:-il~L)llt the 11CCi_'::;s"i (d'ddditional faci'l i t-j ('$, r'[~r.suJirle 1 O( e:iu1 !Jil:cnt.. ) , ~~ G,M. ~\\,(>, COlnlic,n ts: _!1.r2-'lfci f:::-L1V-....J."'t---P-sjL'Q..~- _~!';.,0.o_\}.,,~~'--:I<_~ 'LLjj~f- _.__ ,~JQ._SJL>_Q1fLL0....Li.L_kL~,.{._l.~{f_~L bi- ,B0=~FI/~,wde--.f)t.p~-('f' ~___J_ AEJ'_,,~_"'jl._'V{J_ _k{Q{l~__.JJ.b_.I.li. Ie. U l 'jPJ L_" ,;Jftj(J..SJJ..._(;)I''-f' l~ )0.~~Q 11'l::- '1k. _Jt&D_k~_ r1 -f __ .f", CI-t)iy.j(Q..~_d _ ('1. t/ I{ _ E(~&,Jjl~ ~je!!_li<.L~LfL';T_-_h~ ,__ \lJv~()_\)e.. ~~~,\LC~l!l.v_C~ ____ SiqlldllJ'c)1q-~~_ [1,,1,' ;;;((101 CJ " ./ ."" " r~ [1: L j ~ ;:t\! TU: L -; LJ' (; n. _ 'I,' I,\.;:;~_\ti ;<;:~~Ci ';' Ff~rj:'i . f\~;peiJri'; i.:~; n '~)l iin~;-; ':ce RE: r~niJ-I,Y2~';S of l!i:!'JJct C,ii Ut(., (~;<1::~l~'lriq \,'.J.tGI '.' .t"'in and c(3p(~city DXI[: February 5, 1978 '-I,",r, r';"r',r'll/Ll'yf,l'i~ !)',....r.'''l.qrj (),':,;,~'iC":: ~(:' 1"0":(--"':[','" '\ (1"'-"011,""'-';;""1'" 1)~r':';\C-1'1 _ . <,:.-,.. r _h.,. ("I" l.~ ,Ill c. 1--, ',--II.\.ll',J u ."\c_.I.I-"_'~.I.l.,, j,'v,--,C arid ~J-jl"CS i'r; cJ!,3')}'S;:; of thc' :j(cnc.si';-ll::, ;Fd);ict (Iii the: O\'('j'a-li C,;IC1i.:ci-;,j' of (i\'i}"ilGd)"it:; \..'i_-\C.t.~-. and -ii;iract on \tll:tcr i}:'(tSsL.~re i;ild thr:-: nC(l';'CS~ ';JC,t(;(' nlCi'in or cO;F<:c-(:'it;~: "J-in:?, The t.tach;'~d a~lrj1'iC(:tion fon:l ident';"Fics ~~he loci:tion, s-]ze l~~nc( type of dc\-'c"; lit. illr~(;sc l"Gv"ievt the 2pp-j 'icc)t'jon f~nd indicc_te th'2 ca-c.C:jD('/ of inipuct helD";' PI'oj eet: _ Aspen Inn Cl ub lsJJ.bI!li tted by Des i gn WorksJtD.P--,,---p-lannEr.sl_~~___ Refen~ 1 Subn,; ss'i on Da te: ___lebruary_l!l->__lJUlL___ __________._,_________ TI19 piOpOS ed prcj ,.ct \'ri 11 ha vo the fo 11 C\ri n] type of i IT'P&Ct on the caj:1acity of the sc~'.'(;ge tr'etii:~:(:lnt sYStf~'1;:: r/ i~eCil i,rri,L)l(~ -il::nr;ct - substcintiiJl O;(CCSS v/etcr capacity f.j->~TsTs- i:\i-1J-\.~r(fr-ot Qdvl~i'sly afi cct \\Ir;t:T p~~c~ss:jrt; -in the vicinity of tilE ncal"est, \','atcr main 0(' cOllncct-ir:g 'l'h.l.t.C:( 11 no. C/ r,~OdE-'l~ai:e,_jn!('c:t - only l-inri"t.c;c1 \<tcY' cap2city e)~isl:s -(incf.\~!.2.Tel~--~:~~r.s-sure ',\li11 be 21-"fe: in tf"ie nc:cl~~~;t v:a.tcr liiJin or' connc:ct'in~ v!atcr 'iinc', Subst,~-nti21 -ilqi:H:t - this dove: \':il1 Q., ~_.~~-""'rl"'~ tr:.=------:;-;,;.~--(~--~~-::~: + .~I '''~..&11 i Sf l~l;l:F:IV 1 C',;,..IC1 l~i(' Lhe rH:Jrcst p13in Ui' COnJh~ctinq 1,"'l. (' 1 :n,.... (0:,,,,;2nt',: -~&~~--:Lf;:~-----~/7;1~!er{--- ~_,:,_~...--V.s Si'Il": ,_ Dute' ~.rl_~;>tI TO: Planning Dept. FROM: Marky - Water Dept. DATE: February 10, 1978 SUBJECT: Aspen Inn Club Submission The statements made in (Section 1 aa 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. (jincerelY, cr;J::~f::=~,e JM: jmr ~ GROWTH t1ANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATIOi. LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: ApQAA [)\A LA ~>C-F '::,~, (I''vV 2. Locati on: 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 and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (Ll) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. o ~ 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: , :~ 'jJk' > ,/, .r I "tY1'" (L~ ~, "C"1" ',,/\ ;J' Date: a) WATER Rating l (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) SEI~ER Rating I (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 2- (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 - 9 ( 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 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 mileage and/or maintenance. Comment: 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. o - 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 secu'rity services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Cooment: 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: o - 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 y (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 DESIGtl Rating 3 (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 - 7 (--- c) ENERGY Rating 8 (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 provlslon of usable public open ,space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating L (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 Providedfor~uests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating L b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating I - 5 - !i) c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rating t e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rating I, f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: 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 :3 - 6 - 1 ( ",-) ) b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award poi nts 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 b Cmax. 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 poiilt 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating ~ q (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 41 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: - 7 - ( \ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: 2. Location: ...:/.:>-?e AI //0./;"( C)(i":4NS'161""/ 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 pl anes: 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 .. -~, "'....., r'" 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (Ll) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. o ~ 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: ASf?CA/ INN' ,t;;~Yi;'14SI()"" 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: ) / - .. /''-/~~~'-''''''. ~ ..<>': ... ~I t:,'vt..l 7C;.rJ,,(' r ' -' ~,.~....,.:~ ~ 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 ;;J (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 Rati ng -3> (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-i Ii _- ~,... /J(;.~.e-~... ....~(;f~/t"'i'" 7/1,1//":" e) ROADS Rating 2 (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: h/'<:':".;/ C;..-,(icsrEo 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Servi ces . o - 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 c::c, (maximum 6 Points) - Six (6) points shall be given if within w~l~ distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abutsJ!,ublk.transit-ro.ute., Four (4) points shalT be glVen-ff-wffliin-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. COl11l1ent: ~/>p':~; k.d /;:;:..... I '7 ..,. J<'~>",~ VI d.$f~,;',,' .:"~' - 3 - " \.. ~ b) POLICE PROTECTION Rati ng -z.... (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security servi ces to provi de protecti on accordi ng to reasonab le response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel Jr equipment. Corrrnent: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating -:z.. (maximum 2 points) Conunent: 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: o - 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, hei9ht, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rati n9 -Z (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. Corrrnen t : ~t.GI, j -, r,"', - '''','' ~~ /J-~- ~oc:. . sf<- J "I ! d) AMENITIES Rating '2- (maximum 3 points) considering the provlslon of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Corrrnent: 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 MANAGH1ENT PLAN - Services Provided for CJuests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating ~ b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating / - 5 - , ( c) Accessory Comment: recreational :L/ /' faci 1 Hi es. Rating i d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: , t;,'i- /' Rating -1- e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: '~ ~ Rating I f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: 6'1(..........- ~/ 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 soace below maximum allowable F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is 9reater than: 15% - 3 points ~ 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point ./(): '/ 1)/ i nterna 1 Comment: '7', ..' f.:.e, li/,Ii t,',; " J '0 , " .' ~ Rating 2 - 6 - \.. r'M.. Rating ~ (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: Rating ,~ (max. 3---pts.) 14. Net Point Rating f?2 I "\ ~~t ,- !', .!\ t. __ ,i' \ N~ '" \' .' 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 rating f') Net ',) 1/ Bonus Points -- TOTAL Points '" .s - 7 - '.., . GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS Project Name: ~'Pd kN' - 1. 2. 3. 4. Location: Parcel Size: 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, locacion 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 - _d:... . 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (Ll) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. o ~ Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in service 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level 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: v~tlfA'1Ld - /"tt'?1t7j/ (l/~~'/. b) SEI~ER Rating L (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 othenfacility upgrading. /J ~ Comment: ~110.Ltf IZ(.{( JLo~L/'/ ~ ;/ " c) STORM DRAINAGE Rating 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 devel~ Comment:, , ~r tmt(l2h:J - 2 - ......" ( -~o " ..., , , '- 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 Rating ,-3 (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. ,~~' ;td'N >7/kn r L,l'tHl{,bL L2: ~Lh/ /' 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Services. o 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. Cotmlent: ,/l2I~M.C; Jl' VR?fflQ d?~h:#LI' / . / / - 3 - --- , , " , b) POLICE PROTECTION Rating I (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security servi ces to provi de protecti on accordi ng to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Cooment: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating ~ (maximum 2 points) commen,t:Ct /1// t!tf/)JmU?r~ ~~>~- #d- --, / , '.l. Zt'n~ 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: o - 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 buildin9 (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: ~~/ 4,P-a -4//ML~ b) SITE DESIC:N Rating L (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: #d't.I?'-?7'dnr ~iJltH/CLc/ - ~nz:;;edQ-/ 4t.l[ dt1l1'?77(./ t/ ,/ v/ - 4 - , , ( " c) ENERGY :::2.. 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: Ji Vr't"t:d-t/ th:t% , , /t-L~/?;tI~e // d) AMENITIES Rating~ (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pe estrian and bicycle ways. Comment: v~, e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating ::< (maximum 3 pOints) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: /}/j ?i//.,y v~c ~HU ft-t! I/' 12. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEt1ENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. / Comment:.. 7JttcfJ ?2{'{'L'/~ 11 c:#tf '-7~ 'fh'A~ ( / Rating L b) Dining facilit~ on site. Comment: i ilL if Rating / - 5 - - ( , ,~--,~ :;, - .. c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating / d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: l/ltt!?ri,d/A1;' Rating / e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a wal king, Jjis. , ,,_ Comment: ~kl ~~" .;;:tfw Rating / f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: 1IJr;tL- Rating L 13. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy qoals - 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: comment:~~~~ 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 05% - 1 point /$% kdac77tF;;/ // .F#~ ('.' Rating --5 - 6 - I '- , 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:/lO$...-L rli;jJll~/u ;lzc--ti1!? 7('1 Rating I.-, (max. or'6pts) 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 ~0:7nant - 1 point Comment: YJ[-tJ Il(( /htC Mrt!L--- Rating L (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating $0 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 Name of Person submitting the above rating Date: 7)2,"'7/ /~ Filj Net rating .sO Bonus Poi nts C:, TOTAL Points ~~ ~~ ;f1M/ - 7 - , ' , , 1. Project Name: 2. Location: f).., OrAl . f' f/Y' ;! ;1 / GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 3. Parcel Si ze: 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: Submitta 1 Date: - 1 - , , .~ l'l , 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (Ll) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. o ~ 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: )<;// f.L./ iI 4/.1 A' r I . J ,-/, / _~'1 I 'l'? f-- Date: a)'WATER Ra ti ng I (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. Conment: b) SEI~ER Rating I (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 - 1 ( , , , i 'j , d) FIRE PROTECTION Rati ng I (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. Conunent: c) 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. o - 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 seOJTity servi ces to provi de protection accordi ng to reasonab le response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. COITITlent: 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: o - 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 DESIGt: Ra t i ng ;;L-. (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 - 1 (" " " ;":"'lo , c) ENERGY Rating b:, (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. Corrrnent: S j(', . ;1 t' U <; <; If ., <'-V ...-;-: -r /1'- (P ,4 df /('41:/ e) VISUAL IMPACT Rati ng ;:L.... (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: Rating / b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating J , - 5 - V1 . , (' -\, , c) Accessory recreational facilities. Comment: Rating 1 d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment: Rati ng I e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: Rati ng / f) Overall tourist ~ppeal. Comment: Rating L 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 ~ - 6 - 1 I ) b) ~. '" Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall awa rd poi nts 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 - Comment: f!?a ~ "../ ~. '--- ~~/~ ~ .~L ~1~. / 2 points --;:, if" ~' Rating C (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: Rating ..:5 (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: - 7 - ~ '11 '\ \ 0~ \ f,,-.., . " , GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION LODGE DEVELOPMENTS 1. Project Name: 1)?PfA) T _-1)10 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: Speci a 1 Revi ew: 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 - /'C.",", 9. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Public Facilities and Services - Projects within the Lodge One (Ll) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned poi nts accordi ng to the fo llowi ng formul a. o ~ 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: (js pr'u -r _I JJ I.J 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) SEI~ER 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 '7-- (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 Rating '2._ (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: (JI) 10. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social Facilities and Servi ces. o - 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. Corrment: - 3 - ( \, ~ / b) POLICE PROTECTION Ratin~ L ... (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police security servi ces to provi de protecti on accordi ng to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Corranent: c) PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES Rating, , (maximum 2 points) Comment: (6\) 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: o - 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 3 (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:1 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 2 (maximum 3 points) considering the provls1on of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Comment: e) VISUAL IMPACT Rating 2- (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: I /." I ) 12. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEt1ENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one point per service) a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: Rating -L b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: Rating I - 5 - ("'" "'-?'-, \ , c) Accessory recreational facilities. " Comment: Rating --1- 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: Ra ti ng f) Overall tourist appeal. Comment: Rating , ( 13. P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy qoals - 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 ~ - 6 - b) Bonus employee housing - the Commission shall award poi nts 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 0 (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 coordi na ti on with 1 imous i ne servi ce - 1 poi I;t 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: Rating ~ (max. 3 pts.) "' i' 14. Net Point Rating $~ 15. Bonus Points Jnot to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided project merits"T~cognition ue to its outstanding quality. 1.. - '~U,.!" pr~.;'<':J.J I - "";;.rr;; the Bonus Points o 16. Total Points Net rating Bonus Points TOTAL Points ~ Date: Cu;A 14MI-,(Z 18 Name of Person submitting the above rating - 7 - " ( - [(lr,,', . . <11 .II / /' \. l;l"'/ ,;~.,) ,:.... v" t <. ,/ _':~i'.~ 4~, ,/: .,-j'. l. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ~LAN APPLICATION f:' . LODGE _ qf.xtLOPM~~~__ 7a;./'ln/f71 Oma- ~::::/; /? As~ Inn .E.~JOH /1' #.;ws l-t9hl-rvP I / /. ' / . " ~lO ' Project Name: Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. tU,l'rent: Zoni ng: Zoning under which application is filed: Maximum buildout under current zoning:, Proposed zoning: 5. Total buildout proposed: / /. - .?eb 1f/{0~ /1 6.. Special procedures required: View planes: ,/ Stream Margin Review: Special Review: / " Historic District Review: . ; / Subdivision / I (condominiumization) :/ / PUD: J. Program Narrativ~ 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 inmediate vicinity. h. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. L]st, of drawings and maps submitted for review: Submittal Date: - 1 - cD 11;1& J!;utJ /s tdr rYiftlcv&! I 4J~ t/v '.... " P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Avai labil ity of Publ ic Facil ities ana5ervices - Projects within the Uodge One (Lf) and Lodge Two (L2) shall be assigned points according to the following formula. o - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - IndicaFes a major deficiency in service '. 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) service level , ~ .3 - Indicates no foreseeable deficiencies , I:, Project Name: ~~ Date: 7 / ~. /1/ /}L. MI1 SLOV1/~,{" Li52HYn.,;p : / ~ , a) WATER Ra ti ng ..i I' (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 systemlextensions beyond those normally installed by the dev~loper, andiwithout treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Co~ent: h~1J;t dd-u -/f:;;f I.f~ if <;;:Clbg~';/ ~e"!,. f)sfnfcx.,fWlf gcfde#</ /h~erUc91V t/n.ft~ cF' vnk>J ~ ~f:h ~,.I>voku ,J aildw"co! /i10 /I1IJib aMV, b) SEI'/ER Rating .:i. (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. (J . / . n.t..f -f / [ /I j) . I- _ L ...L."J Comment: .)0>/1 rfZJ~ '-42f/' ~1Q)feJ '!-t1;:/ 771et?/ U ):VJ:JS/cH4 f /.;), 1~tJ<<3t; bueuru ~./ CY Mf/eueeL tIJ/1/eh 6etfh; ~,OO:r~-II<t !/f/ll& ~fuJ (p.f/lfi #U!fUMV /~per-"9. ) 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: bnt1m~ /2 t <t,~ff!.d /It;t; -/J;en- (~7J1 @ oc1la e.on/ml si'1v dr~8' :e/.' Out' fo HOUQ.n:it if ,~.f S dR.s/re.:;;Uv ~ - 2 - , i/_ ~i,i-'i , . jv.' ',)J , , ~ ;I d) FIRE PROTECTION ~Ir~vff~! Rating _'""='_ I (maximum 3 pOints) considering the ability of the Fire Department I of the appropriate, Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to t~e established response standards of the appropriate district without the necessity of establishin~ a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. Comment: fi~.e. fh6>n-hd/ dcYf&J -I'I/&i If!' scAfdutl ----r ._-- . /{Jdif~~ WfftllJ raV If ;p I'Mdgrde/ In.;o~ . er ROADS Rating! IPZ- ~ .-f !, (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 mileag: anfior m~intenance. . . . . Com~ent: 0'/~J1u~<:rkl1(, etre.ub-Jz.;;u R11 3/(;/, ~ ~r /UUI~;" . Raw 7f, ~ 9- fU7/ Cfef 6704(1ird Pr GWI0r !Jt/;i~ .filed tm lp'r.e.&u4f edf ,eo W. I ~ P&Z GROWTH MANAG8~ENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social and Services. 6tf.S:JtVeu Icfpfr (i)//owd '60 ~0 /' I Facil iti es o - 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 .f~ ~(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. /I I jl' , !J . !j..n~ A ..J. ',L (l !/u_ _ , Comment: ,ft;/,'I-'lU/W ~4;;;.uv WOJi'j cJ/SloUCV OJ'" /In c#UI tA/b//O -/;r;;Jpvfit. I - 3 .. " " ~ I (maximum 2 points) - considering the ability of current police serurity servi ces to provi de protecti on accordi ng to reasonab le response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. COnIDlent: . 1);, is ~~vmed ikb ihe/~ied, C;)u k hfYt'lC/kU wi/;&M b/z.u &'i;S~ /evd ~ fJM(P ( ,f?i/Cz; ~t Il'-hs-ed !o eMnmM.) Rating d . "-,,,/ b) POLICE PROTECTION c') PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES -I Rating - (maximum 2 points) . Comment: ~!ed ~ ~ JauJId M4 ~ <Z-X/f/uj leveL cI SeW/(w rf1I \J P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 8 !/k J / fIItU /lpk c;;/!twed 53~ o - 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 /J Rating N (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existin ighboring developments. Comment: b) SITE DESIGN Rating i~~ aximum 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: ,~S'uL_C-I;{/(l/afuH" /Putf?J1/eu.au1J ~r h/ 'i!dtie.vu! vnlii t# ?'U fat /8vtd d'fj6JOLu f ;f, SI:V /r (:/f~. -' t/~ ()f ~~~-~J-~- - 4 - ~ffIJ.~ ~ r.'", , ,/ Rating 3 c) ENERGY I (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. . COtmlent: 1Jt)~b~t<e/ C?odu h!..4tJ/I',U<<.tur{J . ~ l4)"/~ ' d) AMENITIES Rating 0 (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open . space 'and pedestrian and bjcycle ways., 11;0, 4~~h Conment: ;C}-wlU1i ,f,/::i auA ,1J'2@J!nau 6l(Jr!l:ifJ'. &/ / vejet( cdJi;ee.uf- S'!,~. /uer~ ./?tJ..f:uM /k ~ ';fix.at ~ oJ. e-;crY ~U'Zt/ ?&~ auL/ , ~f:r. . , , e) VISUAL IM:'I: S; (2 Rating (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of. buildings to maximize public vie~$ of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: h~ ~ fUt~ vtUvr Nl-4;""~~/ r @ P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Services Provided for quests (one poi nt per - service) , t?;bff J!~p( a) 6th'iY//tJtMJ /()C~ Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas. Comment: ~~ U Rating i b) Dining facilities on site. Comment: ~t'd ;/.' U , . Rating __.~_ - 5 - ..... r'O, c) Accessory re~fational facilities. Comment: i3)(~f if ~;1I.PVf. Rating 1 . d) Conference and banquet facilities. Comment:EcJ~f i/ C!OWJ-/d 0(/1- . Rating 1 e) Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Exu (&Mt Comment: '- Rating f , f) Overa 11 Comment: tourist appeal. /=:X~f iJei)rYU4 poI Rating I c9 P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy qoals - co~sidering the degree of conformity as follows: ~' ~, " . a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal ~ }?~ 9'/V~ F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: iifli' 'O)/Iowd 15% - 3 poi nts 10% - 2 points ~(5IC~ 05% - 1 point I ,0 Comment: tlw ~t.eU 10 (..u~/dt flit bwJ/wf if e.!;f;t:/u frJ;!fI"!! C:iV+jnof Ix cH crm~ M,/4r;{//- r iZm"""iur /, .:PI' iZ./ /9fe. ~ tb fMreat,J..1jc.- o/ll/v 1tS;~ ~ '-" . ~ d~ ol/jllL, . ' I 7~nJ/ ""'9 p16 3 - 6 - '. ) ...... , "I 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 I 25% or mor~ of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: ,!klC1fziM Wd~A lid ~1'd vvzi/ /zw.fe/ JOio c/Ul f/'r~.ttI. / . 1- . Rating ~ (max. or'tPts) ( , o \;" \ C' \ li,. c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: , , 1. One (l)/limousine 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 p~rking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point / ,.. . Comment: A;r/~c(Y;lte-u ad:irMt' 3//tMd;/ t3r(h-c~ tV tJcJfrf;d; ht 1ft () fduUut cv . Rating ~, (max. 3 pts.) 14. Net Point Rating 36bJ~' / i " (SJ CJ..1/o>I'/dJf,fk; J/) Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the / project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. 15. Bonus Points o 16. Total Points Net rating .;vprr o :is" Bonus Points TOTAL Points Name of Person submitting the above rating ~~ Jf/e.,/tr Da te: llif '22. fi! -11 . / - 7 - " ,- 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. .-... r '- r ) PI [ ;~ :< J ;! r: i ) f : (, j ; , :i ".,"' -- CJ llcrl.'I,i ii'h'I'd! I-or' ('j ep) to V '1, I r j -j c L , d n d ~:; al f . ~.'/ c~:.:"i t s . ." ~-l!i", ;.,U\-; Ii;! ('X(J':,~:. C;_:pilC ty (lx'i t.-' (;,f, ,; 0,1 r'dr-f"il1q ;'jf'('iJ<:.; Vi th t~C'.~' '-"f- dr:i~J\Li[ 0;- fJd\f(\:1 surfdcC' ~ cCHlvcn'jpr,Cl o r1()d(,"r,-~ [t'""; ('-: - p;ll II r::r)rlpv(lj-(:. C"f)';"C ','1-\1 ("/'"1 C'~"" f'()',^ '~~'_. " j '. U._. .' "_,' ~J '..! ',J _" .-"c.,.' th<:: dC'-:"ii ,! Oi '-d-f-<~trr;"; f1iTkir<r ar'C'a,s \,"1 rc<)pc:cl to v'i.sur,l -j;Tli),;r.L, ;-,;:'i,_'\ ,d, eJt" j1',:'.'cu ~~ur-rGC(:5 corl'/cn-iui(:(: a ','I d 'c,? ", r-1'y, P v -j JL, (: ; ,__,~ . (. ,_ I'. I ~'. .)( Subs'L_':i!,ti,~}l'j t .- this development I,)i'll OVC::f- bLJ'i::'-d(~ij fOl~ the de:;iqn of off-street pdY'k-in~l (~tC(J_S '1'(~S;)('(;t tu vi;-;i!ill impact" a~r~ftvnt of ncIV(Cc! slwf;jc'j ('r':j\""w:,c_"','-'(_I ,':;:-'d c;',.f(l+~f r-"I'~-t'-<: . I' - . ,,' '-" '-, '~'..'"'-~''' ,_ L _" ". ... ,) '-, , '- ~,j' l..h I ._'. C'''''t,,, 'Ji:til~~ tt4 ~ ~,t!7 ~~__7t ~ ~C!~_~~_-4 ~7 r:>,r--' ~ ~,~;-/Jo7"'~ ____~~_~k.- fl't-/~_ _ C~/~4~-, ^ t~ ~~;.J...-~~-~:' CZM~;:::./'~ !-~ gf, 7L-~~ ~ ~~ ked- ~ va 1\5JJJrliblgjl'1!Ji'ct - substantiil excess ccpccii,c' exists to pro\-"; ci~~ for lhe needs of tJI(7 PI'(l!-Jl.lS dev['l cp:-i:<:.:nt. without substclnt-1i.:l1y al-cE'l"lri9 cxis ':ng tr',:;-ffic patt.erns or overloZic1ii~~~_l tht.:; e.\ist.it!l:~ S"tl :_~f~t SVS~:Ul Or tf ' ' 'f . rl' . ., , , ,JC i>'?"SSllY 0 - prov']ujr.~l lnc t':a':, rC:~li iir! I ane!/ O'i~ 1;:2'j nten(;nce, 'Ix !J.~;.05~T_~.te.__'_i]!:}-J2~:t - n10deriite Cr}p8,city exists. for the ne::~ci.:- oi the pY'o:;c\~;C'd c!(~v21cprn2nt \rithcut SUL)stJnt'jc;lly c'liQri cxistir;n "lTaffic; !)L',tLern~; or ave-rlooding tl'p cYl"t;r-,El c:.+'~f':'-"i' (""\fe'i"F,...,1 'JP -l'-!"e n'~"p,--~:,!,\{ cf' ,,, "-" ':;.' - '-I __,.. _ -',I ,'} [,,,!,, l, ,I, ,t, '- ',' .~..' I L-J J pt'cvi d-j ;';~: 'j ncr'l~J.:~cd ruzid rni 12(ij~:' n.no/ or' \::2 'r n tcr\;nCL~. CJ St!bsti':ct'j 1 in!DGct ... tfl'i S d2\.:cl c'pment wi 1'1 over'- b-u~;;-(-,;(::',~'- -c~"~-';:;-(-:~I' -- ('"l" tl--.p ("""1 (:-)-'1"'-'" .l-I....).'~.r:l.(' r-,::"lJ.-L.el'11C . .r' ,'I. c. ~ . I~ .J'. ,_ l. ''J l. c. I I ',___U ll. ..' ~ or th(~ UV21"loi:coinC1 of the e>~."jstin9 street system, or the necC'ss i ty of plr,ov-j d-; !19 i nCl"\~:lscd roed mi 1 209(' allo'/Ol^ r~"~ ol' 'd-.-:-)I1"r'('e ,1,\ I. "'-"L" Iv ~ =tt::!j1!ik;kj~z-l;'~ , -~tl~~__M"-_l~~L___j2 _n______~.w.-Jl~ t k ~__~o~_~L~__~~~-~-~~_uJ:!, ~ ~n~~,,-~~/~_~~-7 ::T(j'--- ....n_ ... '"to' .. 2--)oJ2L Si qru'l.llre ? - co t- 0\ - '0 +- +- >- 0) C III 0 L +- <<l L 0) <<l +- 0 0) +- :0 C L E C .J::: .0 .0 a. <<l 0 0) :0 a. ' - L u.. Vl <C (L <C +- C ~ +- L <<l a. 0) Cl ~i .- L c+- cVl <<l - <<l (L C 0 0)'0 >-- <<l +- <<l L C (!) 0 :0 O.J::: 0 U+-UO :0 N cO ...0 0- U) c: N ,:,(, Ol' -r 0 c..Ln .-1"\ Vl N 0..-<(0\ ,. '- +- 0) 0) L +- Vl +- 0) . 0) o L c+- - Vl 0) :0 C III 0) 0) > +-<C <<l o o III III <C -0) a. C 0 0.- "'0 .J:::L<<l III a. L ,:,(,VlO L O.J::: 0 3:+U..:::;t :0_ '" cO ..t"\ (7)(/) C ro 0) I U'I....l 0...1..1\ (l)- U1N 0"",,0;(0\ o C'O <<l <<l E L >-0 I- o +-U- III 0 .c. to ...0 rnw c: N 0) 0)' '0 a.'" roO VlN U1 1.0 <:0\ o 0-'0 C-<<l - 0- L ::E 0 - C.J::: 0 C+UN -:0 '" o -.... CU1Ctf) 0) 0)' 0..- Q...lt"l (/)0 VlN <1""'--<0\ , ; c o II "--' existing traffic patterns or,overloading the existing street system - or requiring Increased road mi leage and/or maintenance. As expressed earlier and as shown on the Transportation/Circulation Context drawing, Section I, the Inn's convenient location is wel I suited for the auto-free tourist. Using data developed by the UMTA Transportation Study, Appendix A, it is estimated that the 36 rental units wi I I generate approximately 13 to 18 cars in the win- ter and summer respectiveiy. The UMTA study identified three tour- ist trip types as fol lows: I. Arrival and Departure - The Inn's I imousine 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 wi I I be conference business as opposed to the pass through visitor. As the Inn attracts more summer conferees, the percentage of summer fly-ins and I imousine pick-ups wi I I in~ crease and reduce summer car use. Because of the Inn's conveni- ent location, it is expected tourists arriving by car wi I I 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 wi I I not need cars. As the Inn bui Ids its summer conference business, it wi I I be able to organize confer- ,- ence I imousine and bus tours of the outlying summer attractions. """"-' ~ """"'." ....~.,.....~, - \\,Sr::i:'^-",- (,w-(/ :-; ~~v~ ~ \}\o\A~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I/.~W- ~..,~ ~ ll\v,,- \Q~ ~ ~o(.4:\-~-'"? 1..) [>.."L ~ ~"',\'-O~\ \"-0_ :>^J'~) Su.0<-..'" <0_ \vJ...... ~ ~ "'-A-L ~ ?t' L<,H"- ~ c..".......,,'J ~ ....u..--- I ~ '"" \ """"')~ vL...~ ~ ~"'~ ~l~ lAn.<.1.#t:~ .,) l\)Q~S ~ ~,\~.~ o~ L\'lU "'....., ~ 4.. l,'~ ~""'Oy ~A.k "'-~) ~ ~ (l ~tlo'~ 1 G-\M.r S~",^\SC,I" '" :;:t., V\.~ ~~ \l"", ~ d-'-I... ~ ~i4.. \J _,.\r k.w L,^~Q..~t'p'^,~ l~ ~ ~(l i ~t.~;.. t~~ \e.i.,,,,,,<, ot ~~~~~ ~@~~'^"S ~O'- ~ ,,~,~ ,"'- ~,\"O~ -l, '>:, \l~,\-, (61 ~\\ ho ...)\)~~:~ ~\~ r-:---* ~",'\-l......ld'l(.t"i&<-fsv..CO, ~o^-~l. \~ -,,\ <..o~.,\~& w,6l:~ \'1t..A^- 01- 6l~ f~ 'SSvA--<-\.. \,,<-,,0(U- Co. "'>))'''\. ~_~. ,,~,~ L.....\.'1""..u....\-o~~..:J ~fsv.. (..'0. "\.)~ t<>,,- <.o...~. ~ 1',1 <..\,Iq,-~\~.J..Q.<.J,fL':'<"'1RA". 6\..- !V.-voll.t.. (.0. o\'-{:- c;'1L ~ l-~c~-/~~ c)"'~'> "r \.v...tls 0~JU.\4~'o~\ o~ e.. L.u v-,~ I ~ \.......'.....\Ilrc\.\.Q.... ')...) \..~ '-:.~YL',....,,~..hD.~ ~rl "0 !I..<.. "J"... c.o\,l...J..,o ~ ') A .....iLfu:G,. 0 J-'7JY - ....!>,c,\ ,~",\\J., ~ W''''i CO"'~ 't) 'T",-~ FA~ ,) Cl~ .. s.....-, -,,"'- \~""\ ~..., _",>010 "(,....,,~ Q~Sf"'-/)' _ '5 'I << P. ~yl '^"I S P A.<.L~ c.o~\...,i ~\ Q."L~ll..Ao,-\ 0.',)00 ~ ~J"-<>~,J '>,01.90\) 'V I"--\vJ'l\l\ J, '~....-....~-_...-.-,.."..-'..~~-~ (^-O~ Kooi'- (^--V(~ ) ~ \"2.')( \ S ~ - ?,-9- Y\",,:L \'2.. y: \.... '7" ~'&.S"' X \, 1'35'1 ~&,.:s- >< \1 ~'3 2.~S").. ".. ?;(:a )( \ '><.;3 100,&0 - - ~2,<'(10 '\~1.- S'\,~~ '\S <,,"f2-- o~ \.l....A $' \ c, lo,-~ 1..1.. I. ~oo ~><1. ~ \--1 \ " Q S.,,{' \~ 8 ,,>t.-'f ~Q \pOO 1- ~ S"l, 'l- \'1 ;:)0 +- ~-:...1.', ....lJ \1... ~ 1-)-t \.i..........( \ 0 $0 '-\.1...\'\1..- Qo<-S IAQ~ Q:>'-~ -{"tOO" \--JU M~3, ~ - -1 s- Y J\ It. . . w,fA- lh~~ A-%-L. ~ <'..'-(kr,? ~ ~~\. ~ ~ ~~ /} '\J <,tA \.'{ooo , '1,0\00.0 1 1o\l\o"J<:> -io,^"""l,, ')\\."0 - e.."'^'f 1-1..:S'Q.a _ 0 foQ/Vo- 1-1'-\000 \'li )L"'~ \..\. i- ,,>1" bo \. 0",:>0 ~.J ~,4& ~'{(,.I8'oov!,J'/<1~ ~"o,\ ~r-<>" ~ /) '-\.'10 I. '^- e \AI\, f ~-"r--c<'; '\,)010 '>1,' f-o.\;, \'^-c..L ~ltl 't s 0 <) c, VVl';>7~ ..., '}.?- I. '$'00 \)~,~ \'" o~ <;~ ~ I1vL f~ lV/lo""vsi) ..,noo I ~"""---^' --"-"~'..,>-", --- _f.x-\~~ .., <r c..li'o~~ t '" ~",--\.Q\l (?(""'-s o e ,,~'-Q.... 0 ~ ~~')\.\l c: Lqfl., ~ ~ t4"",.AS \.~ 'ho...... "b~w.... ~ 1\ V\.L-..J lo~~~ 'l..) I\~ ~J\"",- \.') "'-..........l lA."(r" <itA.... 'OA-'1''''.-Q. ,.fi...\.";~ wAS *'" <'4l u..vll>,-~e.... ~1 e....., ""'<.~ ~ ~ I I ~~I>M- h-<-<- ~ )o~ r"'~ \-0",- f-^-<lv,!L-i ~\""-~\ ~""'-'-\ {. <) ~ ik-CO..... ~~ ~"....;l" OJ-..- ~ \00 0 ,'3-<;,. \ \- Q.. k.-~ \J\~\~\.u, ~~ ~ \r-;- ~"'I1\ c.. - L ~ 9 - \) A~ "'^-V-L t~ ~ -'3 \. <; L-",-"l lA.~ v~ '-l'^1;'wl ~ '\.I.p t~OO ~ ,-\ ~) ~ '\ - ~'-O~ \'lOr n.:.. ~,,-,,- ~ \\~& \... ~,& tl j. , o w","",-\ ~ ~ S \. ?f- 0 ~ \&"'-"-\\ ~ --....J....l S ff>.u. l ~ 'i\" I' ~ . -z..J w~"'~ ,<, \I.y.- of- o~ <;I)~~ ~",/">\;/,,~'~t~ "l) \....I"v\-," \" r,"'tll,-t..<:. or e,....,u..,~ ~ "\...~lcKd"" '-l) ~ I\^L- Q."",--l~.e.L v....~,\-s '5) w ~~ A-6.. j; Q.~ "......)o(...wA- ~~;... b) o...~ /l,1\..,-,l,\e..,..LA-'l.l c.o"''-o...... S ~ c"y- .&o"""'I~ ..~ l;) tt-'> 1'"'""'^ ~4, '-t <> '\.'\ '\ 00(" \'v.. \ "'- ~t. "\<0 tOO~ ~ 0 \ O~O 2."\5'00 '1 "1.1 \') \) "'-l ,~ ..Q. f ^"" Q'-'> "i ,..L ""''''X t-o"- <<0 ,-l s A-~~ L\.<:> \000 ~"I~oO '.ce. W\.l>o;.,( M\.o:,.& 10. 'Ie 0<;'- ,,).<Z. \~.... ~ ~IL \) """\ ' ,^.R... ~ --0 r- ~ \{ <:> I Q. 0 'MK"" ~ ~ ~,t-v<.. \) "'co ,~-:... bOI5jo~ ~\ <>2,.) l L-t:r "'--~ t....+ .,,,, 0 ~l f'Ul~ 0;.... '\'rQ~ CJ~ ~ ') ~- L-~t. ~~ ",\,- ..~ - ~ X '7..-~.oo ~OiOOC {\ """"'-'-'-'-" S \1~- o l...'f" (0 "-- 1..:'-:)0 0 ~ )"\..., )<> U ..______......'.....-.-.."r. .. -___..~.....r *,..,.,--..__----. <___" ._.'~"" lL1 . V~L:1~ 't ~L~ R~ wff-e I ~.. - , , ,_ ,'J,!5iJ./, /4:&6- -r ! 33 x /10 ~ ,-,(/Z1J ! t{)& x ((;0 "'" b.3 v~ Ur-X Jlr"" 0~ 17j UJO X '-fo = l/fMG UU /-liJD = /~ t)~ ; :5% ~f A.b( ~f -!-vIi j- . ! f;x;J- (/OIl- /' / ,Sj )!ut&.L I , .t. -, 'j )JI'7 t?V cO, 7 j ,/ v ?IK/u i . " ! ' r;p.' /ftIJ" ee-. f,!l8V~{Y,' /ii, ~nJU . 1.- 1 \IIW r~i&'-Z./ It zfr- .. o - "} 1 Ai!J J/ ,~,s I~Yl - ,.., l ~ 1- ! """ f ( 1'3''' ' C "1 f / tt/lf I I' 1 , Ij / \o...\. I s- , J ...J It.. t h.Wj ~tI//''''*Hj, / t /{-..! "l- ~ J;I./ I / . / tC~ 1 '::"',1> / I.~ . ..'- '(" / , At 1/ .A) . - .., ,. r 11 I .... . f I , I '" / I/J.,l. ... . c.... J ~ I ~ , / I " ';:U". .. ~,.f . - ...) ,. \ r 1 I " , ,., " . C.... .. ~ ~..,.. ,ti .. ~~- ~ 1 II ... -- - -- - - --- J ~ /1;}bIG VSM; , ~/V~IU; ;m(?wnvur & k,vu;~ M;t;dul:, ~M~ 4Mi:S;~&-- 6~~ r hb~ed / 70/al --I.J-oo , -?-o 60 / 1990 J 6000 I /4 C06 I (/;,td!.eA~~rL ,h?~,-,i<<; ~ 50 ~ ,JI / ' ) , 0 (- ) ;7JYfh1.U" ~,r "}o% 0/ /~ye~r Mk~~~) (71M0"!~iJ) iJ.v..<.; ~~ . 71.eu~{"'<l 33 ;'{ 61 Jlt;~ {'{ ,~ 7~ ~df2~~;trO/ . 1u1v.v LJ J:lk - t~1 -kul e~ J-- ,;? Ctl JdG J!~~ 81 t/]/~lCJl.u:C ~ 110. hti& (~/.N0/~ ~ fZA/ ?) cA~dtu ~ /t{jll sfrt?d- ?tAl k ~;~~ !''/LJ/lu olcf~ ~J--&r~--te(!S L ;yf-Iz,~ e,s~tb'~, TIu '!f((Cauf Mj~ -J., Co 6'/( ,iWfL. , /J~ 9 ;;;r;.~, 4u~'Z~c<- U,kI~ ror- htVt}f- _ If ~ ~ ?:L~A k('~ Ire; ,~fdJ Utct(fU'(:t ~z, ~-<d/--.r:z~"'~ ~ CIC~~ . i, iPlL/0~ '10 -Id: Ir:~,~ G-(n,1UA/h'ti5 ft."" 1vt--67?f Q4fJ .,p1 f2v, tJ--f CzrJ f ~M.d' I""- '-' :) [J/\!'i'l;.':; )1; ',i:,:: I (/ J:Ir;"l,ir1jl.l.r., I'll C I ~.!J! ',~i;tll iii'j (XU",'., L;~~iICj!'j (>i'_j..~.,: ~(j(' !;i (!f'.lf!il rJ; (,f;--' ;"1'(';, I','rljljll ;"'1'-" 1";1:, 1"('" , I"~ j','" (, ,. ,., -'! II(! Vi',I" I -jl:;i)' f_:.~ 1J,,:.'i_I,,' ();' I/d'lf.d ~luri(:(:~ , (:)I(.."I.II;I.! I' i;:llr! :.;: ;r.t.j \:;"1 i:'-.. " r/ r~~lr!('t ',-. "i:'.i:'C_:: - (!~.-ly I,,'j~:(~r;!!-(' (>.l[,!i_fCit.i' C',,:'i.~;'l~r, fot 1~t:!; (.J!" 'J':;I 'j;' (;';i<~,y: f1r:r-! jL" iltC'r)_:, ~"i;~; T(-:-.);;:C~ t:,:; V'IS }.,'j :;;Ii."j(.;.~ Ii 1)1" II,..,." ~jU(;;_)(:(:~ (.I:,)'j'/fil",{;.. (~.,.~ ~>r; ~ r ty I_'Y j t',. i,""", ;;'ii'li,.,;,.j, . this lkv,'f -i'~ ',I ill 0\'(:(- .)( ],:," " ' Lfl (.: '- ;j_ i,' ,:; ~-: '; (' ~', ~" )- (; r!.- )1 or ();",;" -s t. \'C-~ t vir~!J(;"!"j ct-, t:";'f"IVflt ", 'lrl f ',fr,y'., ,-".';' -r' (" . [c, I J "~ l,', ~ '_'; '-- ': I _ _.' . par:'.l ;":' i::('r.';;s \"1 til i;l:-~:!:",~J t'J of pi! \":-.d ~; U!-'f,:lL::;, C();'i\'~,',;J'l {'i:C~: ~ 7ifi~~I!!:z~~tf;~_ ,---.-'7d!-",,-- f~--" ---------., .~-----~(/-----------------~ ~~~-J~?>td~~rA.----th:Y!Ji/2~,~ ~~ (~ f}Y..h-fL.~~.-C~7-~~)1~0~,-A~~f~~'-rAl(J~~ ~?:J2,hi~~p~~=::;;:'~~.:^:t~ R'1e14-~~~,~:.r:,~:.: ~d tc rr;-'o" o JY' ->;::: 1':::'C(IS Co; l,I'.c.; j>i'(',' ,<: h"j'~,i',,:;,l"t, suh:;';~~~!'i'::"~i:il~/ (!"! ~;~:d '~-:::r--i~; 0;'- 0'1(:-(: o:\::;-! ,-~ ,'i;". , , 'i i .c: (;\-j~.. - (jr' t(" \'(: 1 Ci' ',.-:: if', <: C,;':"; s t..; l!~j s .;~ 7 .'-. '- ("\!;:"' 1 c:" '(:;~; :':::sr:"i-t/ Gf i rvFid!i<' ~':-:C', C(,~:-~. for t!;,~\ 1'(' l': i:~i(" pi'C;;~'::r;: (;(:\<~1 ':::it \'"itJiC:tit. sut~~~~>;'~-.'ic"l"!y ::: 'I ! i 1::- :'::X1 S L:i iJi 'lx;:n:fi c t l(~"W; or overl oli{ji 11;1 th:' c\:isti ~ S'~T[<:t ~\':; U~' "l-;':C n~~ci's~,';'l:~,1 cf !l;'t,','i~:";: ~~ 'ii':cr ;:"~;~'l~d r'~"'I~ 1',1; ii..:,("~:~' ~~_n(;/Ci~'" ;::2";n!,-:]i~;;f!C:l"? r/ " ~' d b ~. 1 i :~ , ;',' "" ~-l. C, t i !'j" ", I~, ,,,"l ,:i nt h'i 'j 'l O\'f'["- ',', c:: "(' "r \' u~C' t:."."j '~"il);l trr: !':~tt('\'n:: l':i' ,','i j' (I]',' : <,""j ;;(1 5-,-l:t:< (~\', D'o' iUh_i/l,( ;,~' ,_' (" ~~ ~~ "i ~ ,': (if j'\ :,J\'; l:"; ii,-: -i :. ':, ,c. , ~,,' ,", 1';,<<\ I ;"i i L';'(:;~' i:'lili.::::i.:i. !} ,-I- , 1. 'I ~ l C"!,,,'Lt n)u:l~~<-~!i~~ /kC",~~U/(/V'~/L", 7d~~n ~f~~L .. -~ nr7VC"'<"'~' '-;?;4&'jO-1-<'<-L>'h <{.lv'71'1."l0.fi 0..:.11, ul d /~{<AA."'1. /1;f. j{ 0, I'U. (J/Ll-1'H''>Ml {;.<.,j!.f!j ,,^'v<J,u.....>--f t (-Q. ..}vL~'V-~<Q 3o'/l~ t cJL-, ~{'...,.h/l-~ (;..lc'.L.~:J... (Ar......z.j!SU,""',L~ t'.l~t.., "'>of!;""'< r,...-t lYU.{.~, ,;.-,:r::;~-.A. " "J{~ . ,,<-' -f.~(' .. t'evJL en'a,Xi (vci:~ (l~> ~'t- ' IU~J</..:!(1.lell~e) t~'" t I . "'(j(,_......,e ,. ;LL..>t-C "'/1-' ( . " . /I';?J'~ ';2.)'/7/ :; j ,', ; 1:'(' ~, I I . REFLI?i(!\L TO: Aspen Fire ,District Aspen/Pitki~ Planning Office 171m'!: RE: Analysis o~ Impact ,on the Aspen Fire Department DM E: The Aspen/Pitkin Planning OFfice is reviewing a development proposal, and requites an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of the fire departE:'"nt facility by considering the ab'ility of tile Fire Department to provide fire protection according to the established respG'lse standarGs of the appropri ate dis tri ct vlit/wut the? necess i ty of establishi09 a n~w stalion or requiring addition of major e?quipment to an existing station. I , The atti:ched ,application form identifies the location, size ilnd type of dcyelopc:ont. Please revie\'1 the application and indicate the category M kp~ct b~. I?~... 9 A .II'V"\ ' /' ~ Project: ~~/ /\/V ~~ Referral ;Ubmission Date: 111 F....c.4 7 !3 The p'1'Gposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity of the Fire DerJa.rtment. I I Negliqible impilct - substantial excess capacity exists to provide fire protection according to the establ ished l'esponse sti\ndards of the appropriate district \iithout the necessity of establishing a ne\'1 station or requiring addition of major equipment (such <;s hydrants, \'let standp-ipes, etc.) to an existing station. ~ iiCJ..del'ille__i..rc~')act: -' only moderate capacity exists to providc fire protection <;ccording to the established response standards of the appropriate district l'Iitholl, tlw necessity of establishinG a no\'I station or reCj~Jir'in9 2dditio~1 of rnajor cqLrip:';lent (such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing sfJ.tio!i. / / Slil'stantii11 -impact - this C:evf'lopmcnt I-lill over- l,w'di'll'-(i:','--ci;r;ilcT(y of the fil'l' lIL'p:;I't,n:cnt to i'I'ovidc' f'ire prull'ction accul'cJ'jr:~l to tile estz!b"j isl1'.'d r(~sponsc stllnc10r,!:; o-{- the: tll.'pl'Opl~-jdic (-:-istr'ict \','-itLDut the ncC'Pss"i(v of 0stJ[)""i..;hinq (1 1](\\' st.~(ti()n ['1' r'cquil~ill~; " L . .'.' - , .. j' .. ,'" ," I ,. ,.,. ((' I,i. 1 - 1,\' -1""1' '.,. \" " L dllJll.11:'1 L), J1).,,llll l'qtIl,\:I~:llL .qd.LI,~ ...l:it_lIl.:,~ ,t_' stJn~lp'i~l,-:;" etc.) to i:ll existillq Silltioll. ~-, ]'- .4 -4 ?,;p- ~./ ~ i/ (I" .'" f.--, -j f-,...< <", (.~:; (."i'I" ' 'J":." _ ...r';~;:-/.,,->(/'-(:"'::::'~_""d<; ';::,v">"n A;/ //,.1..../ / 1.-;' '/. rl'. _'" '" r), (" "':;/ , . L:' PI :.. ~.~-:t:-:~t..,~ ~.." (....." ,..\.... "'t...-'-J ",-, J .\-'p"it 7', :.t._."._:, .oo;.~ ~f" ."",, t...;1 ,_ ......\ ./\-.;-" /1 .-" .-(r'~l"_ (~ c""" ...__,,--'t.__ "~.{,.... <~ ___ ",-/" '---...:" """:',.> " ,_ 'I.. "J ~<, ," 't JC '. "'/-7 .j i'~-~.{'i ,.,.-' ~, . ,~_,....C"",~''''''r,''' ,,/ l/Lt':: '. r' - - r , ' "lllll !I\'(' /) --"r'"'o",_,; ,./- ,I .- r,. '" / i- , ,....l.....l-;:;...__.~-, ....' () A /#~ /J oJ""': />~ ~..''', ' ~~>/ ":-./".,,,;-...~ ~_'>,-"" 6.' J: ''''i' .....'1>,.." ,.'.~-;.' ""_ .~_"'<_ t. _ ~.",,:'n_.. -".:.)/.. /~// ,,' f ../{"I--t .f";-.lJo.-C....,c(/, ~: :,; ,'" , . ._;~;, " ~,/7 , I ~_ (:'" / 'r ," ~- ) ~., <! l \- " '/'(- ... r"~ '..,4)-f ' c . : . ,; -' ~.. , .~ ):1 ' <r~-C/":._\;...>;..j? (.r:..'~l' ;./;c /". if ../,',' 1""'''; . r ,_....._ (.;~} ....~ '~>Ct ".,,... "'~ .... . .... ,/, ."'~ ({, ,> ~ " !' ". -, ."~/ ,-'1" c ""'" -- !.::-l!.f:Jl!,i rr!~): i; h,:i',i;~~"'?'~ , ! i f'.' ~-!/Pit;":n'; [ , , ", ~):: I ,.; , n "i ',I i L 'in; I (I ~ 'I :-: : ~ I ( ! (,I' , , i,r.o-" I:',: r\n;Jj~j is (Jr r .;-..:;.c~~ un I February 5, j978 >:ir"::~ Ttf;,:(L: "lit :"(:r,~-;I_~'i ty LJ/,,:r [ Th:; t,=,;';~;'/I)~t~:il: ;;~l!:lnq C~ficc "IS rr::vi(;\-rll;Cj () Gc:vc;lf)~w<.:nt pr'oy<> "1"1 ) ;.irJ~ r',~',__;~_n:- ;.;,-; f- (I ~<~~" \":; -; 50 (;-7 t:f~ !Jl'(Jl:)~,;~"1 IS'; ;l~~)~~_ ct (n th.: Cl~ :,: -j i_y (d the' :;('\,;;:::;; :,.'~, t~::;_.:-I c! 'j ';:.y ~;j' c~_; I~;i c?ri :-,,] (,;. '_-J'S~~ CD;): ~=i ty UH_: syr ttY'i, -!OC('"i(:,: 1',- \:h0 neiJl~~,:: trud: (;:' CC:-;il('\:til~:, :;(~\'!C:'( (in'~. TJ l~: i;;' "\.i, i.1 -, " !",....l -; r; .1 : ,~-" '. C','j' ._._.' _".J" . ~,-,~. i)~(:~sc r~'!i(~ Llcrjt-jf-i,~::; t lc:r;t;.ti~:~'i~ ~;"iL.~~' il ~ I (~ t_~:!j':: c t; L~<J(j)., Cl-' ':~', I co; ',' tile (lppl ic.::-i:" C)~'i. dricJ ind'lc~t(: ":_: : ~_\ (.\. l;::);""J :!C'i. Fr.,)J '-~;" 'i:. As pen_, Inn C] u.P...ls..ubrni ttE?,d__by... QesignJi9rksbPPn:"..RJCinners) [~c.:'~"c \""(;'":.1 SUI ~.sic; D" "" Februarv 14 1978 'u_.._.... __c'.1_,~' I>'::: pl~\<-~I;;(J! ;n'o l.r "Li12 :-,.' ,,'.: t!' (~~.:, L':";; :\;,', , " tiL: fall u.ri i~':_; r::':~c: C)'j" ct (.'~; th-:. Ci;P"--;_(,'; ty \.Y~ l,Cl .. /',... I _-1 ;',(1 i '1:'--" '~"-l - :,~;:-_'::.-'."-~',n;-';t\.l C\CC:;S CC': ?:.;t'." C''<'i:"~:~ b~. ",:iJC ~>_:\\\< ':: \t-.:"e.t: .~:rlJL :-,1 [I:'~ i:'n~ (\.'L t~!(-: i'1 ~(!i t.'S-L i~""I' (if' cn' '':,~',C't-,l':~: ~c'.':r"-' j'ilL: tu i:~('t:::i::> :'\('.:.te L!-t"is ell',::,! ,:r:t, /-j h:" ~. - '1:" < r-i - 'Y"j:Y ;-' ';,t,: C';), ~~-i t,\' CX"l:,'C:, ~'"c t ~-C",: , ,I ,',:. ': 1". n~' i.11:;~'i.! t\~:: l'::,,\'f'S'l ;n~} .sc'!~"~ ':"ir:(\ Lr,l "" c.' :.\i"i~} trl: c~' C(':":~," dr.!vC'; l:.;):"~ TL . IX' ;' i~, ;:: I .1"" "~\:;> (:;:'..:~l::~;,,':;;-l' ;:111 (;:'(';' 1.:u; '....): ~,',: ,. - !::"I.'-', Ot -;~;ie l':'.~:l'L,: ;: -i--!T:~:: Sl':~'l' ~'i'C:':L_C,~':'i1;: :;'j~;:d -.~':' \, i ii ~: ( l.:-i:" I ~~ i...' ;': i! I ' .[";]'; ,...1 . [' ';1"- .r.-r}\v'1 :,( ,_~ ("/~" (.'!c; /'- < S 1'\ '--c ...._/JbTA ~-.:-:.~-r~ .A r:t:-_/\_S_ _ /~ r.:-;-_ fJ?cs_i:.~-~"r.'-._'-:f..,..llo.,~/'''c;;--:;;.____jJ~.I__L':...__IH.C.-.~i!.f'~~ {TIC.',:,C]p i!-.II:-.~~,___.J~S__L!..:I_..I=-::_fJ:.Jf.., /~ ~"eV"'(.' , S._I~'~V:I~l":':'"__ .!-J.I--._~J !.r ,-,'":l.A},_. jJt:_" ,;?~ ~".." f_J~I-t::.. n.T_.LJ., _r{(}l'~. 1f-.t"0 'fl:.-lJ~ (-:;,r?A;.-" S~t,Cr.T, ,.LL'=:~C.. ___T_Ur~,_"t1j/:;~. J1.,c('.C-1 I-./!--:l':: _ _/\(\I~'(-~~.:':'"_~ _~[_'?.. r~J, 1'1 A "'-, /--{ (' {.'O/3-" c ""s i:..... I r I't' . _ A.. _Is ,) (Ft-,'- /-~ IC-- ~~.~~" 1'-. /'1 c: (' (-:-~ I r f.) A ~. S I":"' S r_U.(' r.: '--j- If' 7 I-I >: i ,~ : 1.; ; : l' ;.j, cj~, J I, -~'-'I r '--f-~";" I~ S I'> t-! ;..--c.... l: (r-~ t~ / V> ('; ,'> d-' 7/':L'IIIAI"-- '::.",.){:Jt'--4SI''l,;- ~ I r /"..s ;.\ (,' l - /~ /-. I 1- ~ ", /1 ('-1 I /3Y if/.' br,5)#. il_' / 1'-''--' C:) t IhA r r_ iN ( <, , );: (i ,:. L L- r/ /~ l-t.-.. iLl (I Ii e. > t...., ( r t1 ;' ,j :.. ~; / I:> "- c ') ,"-, l - v 11.J .-:. -r/~/t f-~ /"-1 (5/1.;..... p, T I /-f C- ./'") I. I~I r~ S ;--,.-,: t " ...._- ,.- r- 1--: _-"/7- ,( Ii- .- / [" L-.S r,A-/iL" T ;-I! / 1/: .\ j ,." '" ,) I .., ( ( r .i- 'r~; j~., 0 l .-., J'__" If 1\ L (';:': \ .' ,:: ,. I.: I t' ( 1\ / 'II' " 'I 1(' (f lll-bl , ( ,{'.,- ;". I,' 1'/'-1 '( U I" /) <,' ..1,,-, /- ( /. ) I 1\' i ( 1\ {I;: ( I r ( ! ~ ~' , 'I i ( ( I ; , I "'" ,.... ]W Jl.1.I un'!,,! '10: 1\'.:"" 1 !l['ll-j ( 1),"i;\1~L!::('1J :" r f~n~,j: r\:,; ':iljl'itl:il:' r'liHIII'il:i) OffiCI, F~E: r',n;l)':~'~:' of I!i!p;:!r~t on i.h(~ f;~;p:_)fl l'()licp Uc;partii1~'nt IF,TI: February 5, 1978 --"-----.-----. - -----.----.-.--.. -~.. ..-.------.--..- ---. .--.--.--..-.--" .------"----".--- The f)(-~(::\/Fjt!jn P-k{'n~ri~J Off-icJ: 'i~, 1"('\/-'1, .~'I)") (,l d(~\J(:!(lr':!,C:nt pt('p~Y;r.~l, c'11d ~(~';!j: (., <,,;','! is cf"~,.J",(: p: --,:;;'j (.~'j '::., or; th(.~ c;' 'i~~'/ of the 1",::1..':1 :-\_'1-;"" :'J _, l.y c~_.,:i'J-i(iC~_);::! ';_.;::~ i.j,b'i'I "i(v or CUI~(:_;d 1 .. . . ", ,- l' t I 1 pO,-le(' ~,' "Il"'- :".__,i~"'" .,r L.U P(L'.'](;r~, r,,:;~(}:('r: 1(;:\ i1CcrY(i,i :0 !-'c'(;~-c IC::':' C r(;:,p~':-::',c: .~,Il'~' , ~.:I~iU'~ .ljH..' i ~-lCt_'::'S -; '~,',' (;-;' t:d:!i ti (.,lllid file!"! i !.-i ':-, rF:~-~~r':-;'!C'r or' C(:~l-;i"'; ., Th~ (l~., :;;J:lj'iC ::iu;-\ "rCrt: 'i(:_~l~-""i-i--i:-:(; t: Jc:'c:-:t-jc'n~ ~;-izo ,0-: (>';~"i~:> i-It Vi! ,':>_ r-c',/"ic,/ 'l_, ~~ppl';cl,t-;()i; (; 'iri(;c.~,:,:=- 1- c/';'" H::i~2 C. -t: :<~ j (hi. '" ~, (-, :c ~CJ' Project: _~i\s.p~JLIT]nnuI;>H(Sllbmi tJe.d_ by,_Desi gn Hockshop-_ planners L !_:r,'"( ";"r(:, 1 ~I:' ~;".; 0;1 te:: _ JgbruarY.JA., 19.78--_._____ Th~-' r;:~r,"", o~. t!i; r'il' n.. ~ I. " {,'~, t ",.;; 11 !;avc "~-.!:c fo~i-l tYl~:~ o-~ ct (1:-1 -;.h:.: Cdp.:'cii..' " C.i;~'lC"i'":-:-;::nt: F! l-;'.i~"-iC ";:-;""~;C~" ." sL::')::;t.(:'i'I"~i{)l C'<(:i~';:~ Cr:_p(lC.;'~-:/ cxist~: c; :;~--, ';'_, l.i',:.: i.; "; -; i :_." of UT;"C-_J ~:C',""/-l;'"(:; t;.,\ l-" ~~~.}"i(;2 pi ::-iC!il c::_.:r 1\: ;-::::i:iS(-) r..~~,.J ;-d: \Fi'~::-;;;~:-~ .~:ll::": l'i2c.' t -: n i !~\"l f i:.c'i I .;'~ i r.:~, ~ p~:~-':~ C: ;:i':: -i cr- t:q~: ::OCj -; i c(;- s ~-_ c:_i:'i l,'/ ;'~l"l <; t.~~ j';i SCi'l;::'; ':: 'I :-;f ;.,:"j_. i!.' 'i L_ ;:) J','~'<-"\','~~(l il '~:...:ct - {)))'1.\' Cd.(l cr: ';",Ci LY c::i:-, 1:~ C(in" S U ',r"!!':;:' L!" i-ity of Ci.LTCi","[, !"'i...il-il~:~ ::~Tl:\;i~,.,:! ~,,'i-.,'ic; ~\ t~! i' '1,'\':Je p: -ct.:' i,-;c.n 2,,'(";' l,iil!J to l'C,:SC,!~(:l i'~: I:: -:;'''/:1 ~'.t.':, ;'; L\ \,,"iU I' "th,--' ~ (';_ -.",; t.v of r:. ,-1- tic;L:1 fdl:;:i';'ic.':~ Ii )'~',~,:;;'!~"'l or L\~l:;:-;::it':;lt. I , /" " (' ~ I ,'I - t.Yi~: U' "'011 r r, : i I (' i;' ;-','1,' i, , , ~ t_,; r'r,,~\"-iL:, I' i,-~l.(',' ':1 .";'1 \.jl::1 '" it ::',\: I:" 1, "1 ;,;)j: S~,".i:~:,T(:'_: \,ii:;;,'~IL -;:1(: ;I:,:'~,' 'Il,\ l.l;- ;~.~Lil~:,-i\"rl,il ,) / ),; J/ l \ I {. ^, ,.. , ',lll.Qj 'IvYI"') "-::,' il 'j ~,i \ 'S . ]' "i":l\'ilICl l'!' l'.'i:!:'::l:'i:'l, (' , ,('::,:('iH ~i : '1'1:' " , /' ,,' /' ,-.//, I ) '. / I i ,/... i L C) ~ Pi ITi'i 0"'; T(J: (":'" -Il.) I Ii, r:~:;l~>i ~.,I':'[(;I" ~ \ I,' -'-"1 '.t,.., f i:f.;,"" , I ( 'I (." / :!:i 1_, . . ~ ~;'l' . - . ,c \~, ) - II, , I.,. t I r., I J Ii:; t , , . ,I I , , " ' , . i 'i .:~_. i ' r~L : ('11"1 ,,:, , ,. , ., .).'-1,-, D!\i:: : February Df l!;:jJ.C~ e,;1 "!.f!I_' [;;:1",:"11"1'] \:.jt'~l 5_'J~7 8 _ _______ ___ __. "" '.__".,. ,!:r,,!) iJnd (; 1);';(. ity Ti:c r,(~:.'(:n/f>'I'-'~'''lr:. n', -'I ,',i"lrl "",":':c'" .~ _ _,: ,,' , . - -., ., . ,("" - :, ',' '-' I 'I '. 1~, 1.2 \ ; e',; i n'j (j cHid 1,'-~('~r;rLS ;'1'; C'r;;!'i\:~'i': (i"l' "[-hp nrCj/""'(;',"I'( i"'l' of "1"-'" ~ -,I." , 1"'_" '. "~i :: __ ,,' " r-"_ "'_'[',1 > ,'ot,'-l .(.{ 11{}j)jC '.-'_It.' [~I~u li,I!,.:..Cl.. orl \I:~,:,cr ;,(,( S-SLTC' HjGl n or co:-: ~'(!C;..; ),!: 'I-i"il~. , d ':.; '.'e' 1 0 (;;~;,::-" ;-li; i J t ()i i()~: r} 'J :"i. (;11 'U!'~ 0'/( ;",.-;.'1 C;,' "c.-i i:iJC,' Ul(~ n:~\i,.-L-,-,-~ ':.'r,l".;,,;-r , Th~:- ~.-t0C!:,;rJ 2:;;;1-jG''[~-iDn f':: iJ I dr",'-'j '1,1 i1'1: r' C.-\ 1"~"'.i:1 (',' 1",1',",," - -- .' " , , -, --' ..) '_ i '-: ~ " of "I'c ". ," , ,', , I';j!r~ '- l, ;)....:, L't'" . '!:i:t~ ~'~i.~'.;,.' ~~:I(~ 1 c('~< j,~nl, , S -j ~:~ t;[-'P: : ~,l':. t :jll ,::;nd -I r!Tl CO_Le UF~ ~-":i'C( of (-c.: '~',C~!:.i(.'/ Pr-.:.j r~;::~": ..AS.PJmJn.n.j] .LIlt Cs,ub_llli..tt.ed_D.Y'__DesjrlIl.Jiorks hop~_pJa nnersJ ....,,: Herel--ra-J Si/ ('r "1" , F b ' ,,<,if k'Lc:,..._e t'J1lLtY_J<'r,J.9Z6___ 1 h(: '-,-! IT ....,'-' G S f' ,~: ,I,; ".:. ,'~: ',',~ " '1"1 ',', ::;,' '," - f- n fc 1 ' , , -- -- -.' L:k 'J !C':"in" tYi Ci c:-i-;'-.'/ of the '--,r":\!;>:: t.r'C~i-, =--- ~~y:, of ilrp&ct l.-'Ii the c! {~-;-~'I'-~,~,'_~')-' ',:",:) ,L,;""~~ '~~--;,i,J;,:!,~"O:I'--~~I'~,- (', -:--~; s t (: n t i i) ') (;:<... c':':' S \';' fi t (, j" '. ~ (.:(', '--:,':; 1,;/ i~':'; ;.;'t:t \"'(~t:,~(' ill ~1:11,p, \!~,:C'I'I'I.,'t'J'f ~r, ',', "",'.' 1-- - . . - I..! l:....(:~-est \.i~:CCt r;)(lin ct"' '1'/ c.: t (~(' I -i l~ ':; . c~;_o~,ci t.'/ ~~s C :_i r l;..' COt;~ lCCt.-; i .~', (j 1-::::'", " ('..riel 1.-. "l':.::;' ti' ~'~.t - (liil.v l-:!:~'i-L(;ci I' C:SSLWP. !"i 1'1 b2 i.~f u;~ C011ii( crlr:~ \'/(;tel' ':,,',>)' C0~)(:C; -;:," (:x';s i:::-. "in -~J;c lL(-TC<,t \"(i.tCj' ;;iil'j n 11;-;;'. y SI d, C' - I"' ,)- ~ _~ 'I _~__"" "- ,,' I._ I '-"" I," '"~ .,', (' + ~. t-;, "I C (,.- \' --: 't~ ':.:.. ~- " , ,-' -~;':" I~:: (:; -:: -i. '" "~~,,,r:s'-~r "'Iill~.~ i:"us"[y fC'(L_;c~) C(r:i::>~~nt:, : ',',"..L"',.,',CI,,",.--::::., 1",1 l" Ilr . 0, I'" ~,. ~ ,. ~i:(: '~:,i ..:;:,-1: :i~til; (It' CCi1;-j'"'r'tinl1 /' "''''-- " c___k:Y~?::?_: (.-~~.,~//2~1=~ --' ","'" 'ii" \ :.'~,;,~~v-S" ) ------------.-.----..,-.--- "-------- --- ------..-.-. ,- ._--.__._~".._._-- - - S' . i' , ---A) ....'.'l'''''~r- (J'-) ()""/ <"" ",,' // ,-i i if" '1.:Y' ~ ir.."~ , " .!1~-- ---. --., -'._-~--- --- >....~,:-:.2;-~SZ"f~.t::?~ _ /"';, " '.', ~,,4'"J . t(l~},ei;:'_" >A" t"l. '"), ~t' {~~! If51l' /~~:;s . ~'",., , (;; I, .).~ CITY <;OE~~.SPEN "'''::~:'''''''''f','7:'-' ,-.,,',,'..-:'1.__,.: /,"1. 130 so~.lh galenas.tree t ',--,. ,!,.>.- -. ,...-:::',- -'-""'.-...._;.~ aspen ,~.colof.~d.o/<81611 '~.~-',:,'-;..:~~~t~~~~ ,~,) March 14, 1978 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 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 wight not be built due to unforeseen complications but hopefully this will not occur. i:cerei:f(~ 'm Markalunas, Director ater Department JM : jmr I1ENORANDUM DATE: February 4, 1980 TO: Joe Wells Clayton Heyrin':j FROl'!: Ron Stock RE: Aspen Inn Pursuant to a meeting held on i10nday, January 28, 1980, with Ashley Anderson, Hans Cantrul!, Nassar Sadeghi, Joe Wells and myself, Ashley i'repared the attached letter _ In its final form, this letter represents the concensus agreement of that meeting_ I am forward iny a copy of the agreement to you for your files_ Heceipt of this ltleliiO shall be sufficient authorized for Clayton to issue the l.luildin\j perit on the first phase (33 units) of the Aspen Inn as submitted and ai'proved. RWS:mc /"""- "'"" Garfield & Hecht ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~ ""'" VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW v, HECHT ASHLEY ANDERSON January 31, 1980 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (3113) 9:15-3001 CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK K. ROULHAC GARN 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: 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. issued on the deliniated in operational. Also before a Certificate of Occupancy is 36 units, the 24 employee units which were the GMP application must be designated and 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 ,4 c ~ Bonald 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. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, GARFIELD & HECHT ~~- Ashley Anderson AA/se APPROVED: "" it -\ ~~'! i ' ,'. :( ,,',-,.~< \. LI 7''''- RONALD STOCK, city Attorney - - --. ....,....# GROWTH r~ANAC;Er1Etn 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 calculatlons. IhlS bUl Idlng lS nonconformlng on ltS 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. r'62J[) I ~.~" . .\ " . Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street I asp en., co lor a d J.,,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 i'n 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 !:Ie 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. oe Wells Assistant Planner cc: Ashley Anderson Ron Stock ...,e".... """ """ ....,,,..J" ASPEN INN SCOR I NG SU~-1MARY BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT I. Publ ic Faci I ities & Services Storm Dra i nage Second Maximum Highest Minimum No Points Po i nts Points Points I I I I I 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I , I FACTORS CONTROLLED WITHIN THE PROJECT I I. Quality of Design Energy Architectural Design Visual impact Site Design Amenities I I I. Services Provided for Guests Spaciousness of Meeting Areas Dining Faci lities on Site Accessary Recreational Faci I ities Conference & Banquet Faci I ities Ski Convenience Overall Tourist Appeal IV. Publ ic Pol icy Goals Reduction Tourist Rental FAR Employee Housing Auto Disincentives SCORING SUMMARY Maximum Point AI location Meriting Outstanding Design II of. 15 Categori es FACTORS UNALTERABLE WITHIN THE PROJECT I. Publ ic Faci lities & Services Water Sewer Fire Protection Roads I I. Social Faci I ities & Services Public Transportation Pol ice Protection Proximity to Commercial IV I IV I I I I SCORING SUMMARY Maximum Point AI location Meriting Outstanding Design 3 of 7 Categories 1/ - Maximum points based on construction of Aspen Mountain water storage tank, for which construction contract has been awarded. . ..."..... , ........' , ASPEN INN SCORING SUf~ARY FACTORS CONTROLLED WITHIN THE PROJECT Maximum Points Second Highest Points Minimum Points No Points I. Publ ic Faci I ities & Services Storm Drainage . 1 I. Qua I i ty of Des i gn Energy Architectural Design V i sua 1 1 mpact Site Design AmenitiEls . . . . . II I. Services Provided for Guests Spaciousness of Meeting Areas Dining Faci lities on Site Accessary Recreational Faci I ities Conference & Banquet Faci I ities Ski Convenience Overal I Tourist Appeal . . . . . . IV. Publ Ie Pol icy Goals Reduction Tourist Rental FAR Employee Housing Auto Disincentives . , . SCORING SUMMARY Maximum Point AI location Meriting Outstanding Design 1'1 of 15 Categor i es FACTORS UNALTERABLE WITHIN THE PROJECT I. Publ ic Faci lities & Services Water Sewer Fire Protection Roads I I. Social Faci I ities & Services Publ ic Transportation Police Protection Proximity to Commercial .lI . .lI . . . . SCOR I r,G SUMMARY Maximum Point AI location Meriting Outstanding Design 4 of 7 Categories 1/ - Maximum points based on construction of Aspen Mountain water storage tank for which construction contract has been awarded. " "..~- ,t' ,. I''!' ',~' '/,Jl! / "'" ,.' ~, ..... " I I'. '. v ~ I'.' ;. . -/ ..."./- , ; ,';,._ ~', r . - .. " . '('I i, 1,- ':, >...,,' I ,:'-('J~ ' t-.' , , ," I~.,. ,1" { '. ( A~ ... .' . ','"'GRmml f1Ml^G[I~ENT PL^N ^f>f>L Iel., ..ON I: ' lODGE~,vtLOi'i~~11 S , ~y . /J iJ' /6)f/Nllic:1 c/,11c& r '41 ' A I / t:; . c~ ~ Project Name: 'SpOt/ /I'N7 ,,-,X~/OH " ';;J./1S' I / " /'). / (A5;/1t'rvP I / I I '1 'I , 1- 2. 3. locat'ion: Parcel Size: 4. CUfrent Zoning: Zoning under which application is filed: . ~ ' , Maximum bui ldout under current zoning:, t , Proposed zoning: 5., Total buildout proposed: Iii.. Special procedures required: View planes: / /. - feu 1f/(c-d/uru /1 ,/ Stream Margin,Review: .I . / . , J" " . ~.- J Special Review: . I }._" ..,.1",<' oj":!. ItIl..v. J "', /~~: -! : 1i! v I HistoriC District Review: PUD: / / (condomi niumization):/ / i Subdiv,i sion ;..,. , J. Program Narrative and associated graphics to describe the proposed project's impacts and other data. (to be submitted with this application) J',' , a. Existing water system, excess water capacity, location of the nearest water main and 'estimated water demand of the building. i '{i,t.'.. . -~ ~~':';~ <~' . .W"; ..' . ,i . '0 j"~'o~J.I b. CaRayit'(b,rJh~seWage system, locat~on .of the nearest trunk line I' (lfJ!,tt"u .and/-es1;lmatl%.j1..~~er demand of the bUl1dlng. ,I (\il f"Ai, I ,""""""" . OJ... f ;.... '" .' ,,- I Ji!,.'J' 'I' - c. -:<:rype an~ des~gi,l:1)f surface drainage. .... ':".~:'. ,oj.) ;,;,'--',+ .,,-'" It'., ,J.P,,',I,',,;:,"", d. Development summary including lot size, internal square footage, open [nl\,'o' space, number of loge units and number of employee housing units. /, / e. ' Estimated daily numbel' 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 inlnedi ate vi ci nity. fl. Construction schedule and schedule for phasing of construction if applicable. 8. LUst of dra\1ings and mans submitted for review: Suhlili l t i\ 1 Oa te : cV -"'1 P&Z GJ<OWTH MArl~;1EIH J:V~Lymoll FOp;r~ - ~vajlab!l'itL2L!J.!lblic Facil.1-t.'Le_s. anr.r-Services - Projects within the liod~e UnelLl) and Lodrje Two (L2) shall bu'assigrled points according to the following formula. , 6 r 4/;u{) , I~ t JI1 ._./ IV MJ c9i ;,.(J(J/e.q I 4J~ o - Indicates a total infeasibility of providing services 1 - Indicates a major deficiency in servic~1 I , , 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) ;service level i .3 - Indicates no foreseeabl.e deficiencies . \ I, , Project Name: '~~ Date: ~ I ~. II! /} :L. Inn SlOv;,'//)Mj LOMTnp i I .I a) WATER / Rating .i '. (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the water supply system to prov;de'for the needs of the proposed development and, if a public system, its ability to suppk~,water to the development without systemlextensions beyond those normally installed by the dev~loper, andiwithout treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Comment: k~ ftt. ~u /ii;f ~ ~ Ii <;(lbS~;)/ f, e-fr. f]s{n'bv-!Wti g, devw /hodt. vr91V t/hftl ~y {/nkSJ e Cfu; ~ ~~tb ~S'fmcku ol rdltkuc:;;! ~/!10 /H fJ[v~ , b) SEWER Rating :f- (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 othe~ facility upgrading. , (J . I I'. _ n ,j.. .I.-f- I/",t/J . 1. I ..L ~I Comment: J&nti?JruM ~/. ~1Q)I'e1 7-'4;;:;.I7J1eI?Y 10 }:()i:?st"'at1T/~1 1~tM3~ bueu.ru old k;;bteeL W/t1Ch 6f,i.rfs:, cr:.~et4-11y 'rnf& 0Jr0l c/iIi 7J-U'JU(UV ,~~iiJ. ~ c) STORM DRAINAGE , Rating Z I ,'. ,lL j 1"- Jr, \ ',;-,/ . '.~. .' (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. ,'f ,r. /," I. {I' . <<h<<9Iv f-' / I J- ("1. +-: J ~< .r- ~. ~ -"'1.-7 (.'J..-e-v. Comment: -C{12~IHleC rJH1'.z./:7i/ O>:C;/~ ,Ji&'v J't;~oC/ III" __' ;rxP.1{!t. ,,'h,~/k. ;)/k-'!();)1Z{q epl;-!W/ sib C/J.~~".c; pvi j .' II ('~ I A/ I' I '--I. ~ I I 1/' , ~t{{!,[IJUJt..1 of run,,;r-- -;0 n.ChQvcv/ l.f .:r:fS .:A.{!..>/ft::c;}/'J/(/"';;fJt,V I' . "1'// "Jtt-t'/:{C(}(.I 701'1" . - 2 - " I (maximur~ 3 points) considerin'J the ability of the Fire Department I of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to th,e established response standilrds of the appropriate ' district without the necessity of estalJlishin3 a nevI station or requiring addi1!ion of nliljor equipment to an existing station. Comment: -fj'r-b 1J76>rth~1! dcYfe!J -ikf IaoL 11/' S(/$~ ,/tIdlf~~ W1ftllcf r~~v If t-;q f'Mcfp-de/ #x;P-aeb, , . -I Rating _~ ,#.....) . d) FIRE PROT[CT~3rl " I- f, , I ~,:. /;i v' c) ROADS Rating j /It'''', I ,H' .A' ,,{(L' /'j~, ,,' . ..".F -;,//} , (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 roa~ mi1eag: anl'or m~intenance. . . ' . . Comment: t::.'(~;:;Ju&rkJ1(, (3ff'~bfz;u tP11 :il(;/, ~ /vr?t4</ e#n;/~ Raw *' Mw g I1d t;-6f OJo<!(/ird '. I / Pr (?(.U1tPr. !Jv//da; .J/!ed tm l~r~ ~ ,/:tJw. ~ P&Z GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Availability of Social and Services. Facilities : .6 tfS jlVeU ; '10 Jff (j)//qWd '60 ~0 o - Project requires the provision of new services at increased ~ < ,~~u~~c., ~xpense . w' ,)/- Prbj~ct~IDay be handled by existing level of service in the , - ~ ~/ area"'~~~:_~;:'.'7', - ~'!;~:.:~;.K: 2 - Project:,jn and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area a) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Rating -I ,. " (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. ;)' 1// ! ; . II , lj.,n~A J. ',L fl /'h _ I 1 Conment: ?fll,'HU/W /VtA:Jh;;;J:.W /.-UYi'j CI/SToJUCV "1' 11m c#uf tvbkc, f;f~v>;t, / , v ,t' 1.," -" "", .) /\ i _~ ;'/< , ,.{ vi , - 3 - @ ..~.." . b) POLICE PROTE~.o<1.0N .i ", , .... Rating I (maximulII2 points) - considerin') the ability of curr:ent police security services to provide protection accordin'] to rr'asonable response standards without the neces~ity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. . --r.J- . , I i./ J.. t1 : _'-I- I I 1/ / Comment: +V IS ~~()h1aJ /J6V 711e.;j?-UJ/.f:..CI/ c.:x, W fJr;;t1a/~ be I/;, I /' c/. 'n" I '..;.- .' /' _ tv! ~ 01 l/ 1// &'I.IS~ .'eAI~t t'r 2vMCt: ( ,LtJi/CV ~t. ~rl/s-ed !o CMnmtd.) c) PROXItHTY TO COt111ERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES .f Rating - (maximum 2 poi nts) .' rD 1_ 1_ 1/. / .1/" -..1/ ~ Comment: /~/~ ~ {;XY 1laM.-a1etif. Mr~ 7~ ~)(I.r; /eve/; d JeWfetJ. P&Z GROHTH ~1ANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION FORM - Quality of Design - Projects in the, Lodge district shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 8bkJw~u /4fr o;/!tweJ 53'% o - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2., Indicates an acceptable (but standard) ..~. 3 - 'Ifl!r~e~tes an excellent design - ' F design ,'t' ': ~:,.. ~t:\~~~-;?J' a) ARCHITECTURAL'OESIGN /J ,:.., 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 OESIGN j Rating - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscapinl aGd ODen space areas, the extent of under- groundi 1;9 of ut i 1 i tit's, alld the al'l'an(]Cment of improveElcnts for effi,ciency of circulation (incllldin~J access for service vehicles) and increased safety ,1nd pl'ivacy. Comment: _5}e,s-uL _~?IIZ~uI(.l/~1 /!i~/)/tJ1/(J.U41f.r c:auut?! I '. I. I I 'f / ~ . .Jc" (Je/Ue(/e4 t/tl.;t! erJ t.'ltlc5t' IL~k..1 atl..90Ut :-"" SU../ c..r -----.{--- '-./ -~C1 {/ / f':.c~. c) ENERGY ~. Rating .3 ......., , ,'" (maxinium 3 points) consirJcrir'l<) the use' of insulation, solar encr<)y devices and cfficient fireplaccs to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar encrgy sources, Corrment: :i.}ofbJai;:i:?t/~ c..?odv k'.ftJ/;~{r . . I . . d) Ar1ENITIES Rating () (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open . space 'and pedestrian and biCYCle wa~s. ". #;0. k~.("w Conment: qWM/tt ,rt; cUui ,f;J2ctPmau tfl('Cl!dJ'. e:I!/. / '(?jU( cdi5;~f- ~/~. ffier~ 6oi:u~ /i &. 'tfiJud 6w;6 t/fCYf& /OY~nzv /&~auL/ / ' 'j/tf/J. . e) VISUAL IMPACT . Rating {3 , . . .. > ;'-,-_;: . i (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location ofbuildi~gs to maximize public vie~ of surrounding scenic areas. Comment: ~...,. ~f",,-.- .' ~.".:..'ir -:;;~~'.- . 'c . ' '.,~",i< ~..".' ." ,... W:~'~.~~d~:', -i2l P&Z GROWTH MANAGEt-1ENT PLAN - - Services Provided for CJuests (one poi nt per \..~ service) ~l>r.r;r/~ a) Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and 6 fir ~~ ::::::~ce areas. foe?, q~J () Rati ng 1- b) Dining facilities on site. Comillent: .;;c~d Iv Ra t i 119 __f.:::._ - 5 - c) Accessory r!,,"'cational facilities. ~,/ , Comment: rJJx~f if CJ;Jff';W .6>V/-: , ~' " Rating 1 . d) Conference and.banquet facilities. Commerit:EcJ~f il~/d (Jur . ;-~- . 'Y; Rating 1 ' " e) ProXimity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis. Comment: ~ l(ew .- -- Rating f 'f) Overa 11 Comment: tourist appeal. I- -/ ,. . ~ ;:-;x.cdi'euf l/"e4>rr{M Pol " .' . Rating f ,@ P&Z GR01fTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Conformance to local public policy goals _ cO!lsidering the degree of conformity as follows: I . a) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal if p,':! iII/eAt F.A.R. (maximum 3 pOints) if reduction is greater than: /ifti ;v/I(ltOe.d 15% - 3 poi nts 10:,; - 2 points 05;:' - 1 poi nt 71.. I, / /'J ..1/- . f' I"f L COlllment: /f7..C/v-t.ql.a/ 70 CUMCV1 I;~ ~/ee If ~//'1IDt.U _';/;0ointJ C~~7F)cj De ddeYn;i;~(i Ivrt:!-I{t;C/'f~ t2(l;''''tj~,';;'g .t:'~1P !,~" 1/"' : --7 tJ, 1/.z- /i L rc-r.z.. Nri:Z#::-.t...(c-- 0:' ,....:<Jb i1S.~ y:.Je.u '--' -~~ J':~ O//SIte., v, ' , . , -Ir"/ IV . fJ .' 1\' I. ~J' ",- .<'j) Rating __~_ " \ '. \ \ ,," - 6 - ",- ."\ \. . b) Bonus employ(>ousing - the Commj$sion shill', ).-lilrd points as follows: '/ 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points " ( 50% or more' of lodge emp 1 oyees housed on site - 4 poi nts 25% or more[of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Comment: ,i~/ca,jW}1.Jfd& It; ()t~fd fA/Zi/ kt/.fC/ Jo.~ o! 'idd fvr4.etJ. / , . I I , . i,1 I'j i G . . 1, ' fie Rating 't (max. or--tfLpts) v " c) Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows: . I 1. One (l)/limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based pn theoreti ca 1 capacity of: lodge - 1 poi nt ,2. ' Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee p~rking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Comment: A;r/rc;y;lr.;u cddrMf zp/I!;!;U/ Or/lena, tbf {)cI~ ht 1ft ()f~~ ' ~' 1., :'~': 14. .:.~~"~:.-' ~1. '~~~ii-t 1, pi ""'l!RU:~S';' ~~)?\~ Net Point Rating"";;"'';:::' '. - ~, Rating ~ (max. 3 pts.) 15. . " .3Sbtr ' , . /, .' j , '~ - :(Jx iJ-/IO>i~b60;il) . :-;-;_.~.. Bonus Points (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) 'provided the" ,'---"" project merits recogniti on due to its outs tandi ng quality. ' " Bonus Points c 16. Total Points Net rating 35j>,J- o Bonus Points TOTAL Points ~~ Name of Person submitting J.-' . Date: _,;.-cfr-'Z2tJi-JJ' C:;YD/; /{t((<f ---r'- the above ratin~ - 7 - ;.'2- U;2Wt/ c;';;tln~~j;- '- ..---..----.'.--.--------. -/- I -p:jW , ;:"JlT / I II-- ' / J. ..-.- ;f7/, //17L !'7 I I I\~!/Oij , '5 : / t~ {- J.,! '7[ ; /011 /,UZ;}/@/ '0', "'/. ' ! . Ad,d//t1/1/Y/ ,2j: /llfllwC4 If j~:31 IJ &Juf/0Cf~, IW0!/Z1. (1"'-172 !)P2 I I ", . . /tl./ / Vi C;,P1,' ',UOJ,:/ ...ev.~/ /(Jt.,! U,/ IL~(/f,~ ",~I v~' , /, (' 1 ,vd1f / ' / I ,-t! ! / / 7 I + I ' V-:. If / If juj:;)/ or ,(Pit' : / I ntt /::Jl ~! ~,/ ,(;;1)' !f!~ /~:J 4 ' 2i-, /. /, f / . i ) . I' i I . iJ(1,-"V()O, -i- /A! 's -.? .-T- /-/ J f/fYI ' :: (U. 1 '~/;/ (,v! , 4)C!JU 1'1.,<<---: be j 0.30 ~1 ::: #,1 r~'pwMItL, . , , 74'7/1- I- ' ,I jJMt~j /"", 1/ ' IV '1'; ;:V"" t~ &./:.) " 7 eG /"CflIJ 4 Z 2; <;60 /1#VI H/?lIaL~ Jpc2~L./ ' , ~rJ S$~0~)! .--! h., "",,} "Ii /' 47 ' I (j/?:e1v v~' ,/' Ii')' cw,v !" '/ / I .. , ' , I 1 1'111 t: /I,! rnH8 if)/f/Vr I tU~ c!/P'<^'/ ( '..' ...i---z tit' / '/'~ /'!? /f ~'" " n,~ ,,' ;.4J../ 1. ~ i!UD;' I.), v Uv '> _ I I / ') (;I, . J 0L_~ I: . ,::.-1 I i' f L l.. i {!J./- {))/Jv;l4J0 UY>i;~ DI'iZ! IZ/{t::;.' :(G/JI ,u/d.. / .9nV~lW ;;1;Jr:;x ~~ ~tJX 3F 1,1 ! ;J Ii tim' 1''-,') ') r IY, ~,' ",c-rv' :.I; J -'~ i'"J _,' 10 , -),' ,_...... ,.,"..t..,J!/L,,))) J'-^'. ~. J /S~-:~. c-wn~ 'f,:.f)u ~W4 oj- J f"Do i!-J /o--;--~ /5 2P'.lh,f-, / / iJ' /' I '1~~ T l / Of 1 ~ >1 fI- ;!yt~~ /wfdUlM ://1/0 (14bc J [ rlv/llVrU';J.Jt etu/M ,7 reo JjJJ;b(~ . />'1.0 /DjaA.j bo 0 () 0 /) 'i')~/lU;7WMc; .S;ZAa-' !d:;~soo p ~.-)~rltU'(Jd fo qtoo f; ~ i, <II./" I . I ~I {u, ,.) , . I ' ' /" " :))fOOf1iT~' )f!~ M r~(/lfe1 ~ ~ ' "201 ')//0 ,1 ~ ~~ Tit. 3~ roo 5f ~ /u/j p:~5 _{VlW'., 0 bv!lfpu J--- , I ,~ .rlU 2f (jv.v;rs , /. ",' . (. /30 J~ {J1/l1 ~ r~ 2,'~ / /UlV21 ::> j IkwJ I "A (, ' ; , L, yj.J,~I~ /Arlj. ,!',fJ I~t,. (/ 1//J-1.:://{W'}\AL/{. Vv ~: ..,t./............._- _ Jf \../:0'1 V"--! rf~"'ry . . . ~.. ---'-, ~ SU U kcf&.0;V1J1MAA I ,,\ ,', 1 (-;v{rn\tJ cf vML/ i~,~~t-l " / I \, ULuf.!f..Ji ZdlAA;'dj in iL .AId,~ , I'~'"! " ;i ',lhI/A,ltJ h 1,..-rY7/> 1 ,/ iUJ'fl'i'V"") u', /,9/1 tt,L./L'1/ J ;11'\ /:l]" (''-II, /') J.\ /I91f,1I1 W J rt~ Jt~./ -('di>C;' U./ ,'AZ / j 11/'(, I'J/ .f .(t;/ "/ ~'V'----0' Y.t1 L --b frvN~ ; /,- ! /"IJ' ! 1,/ r- i ,Co .J,')I{a;J, ,.. .....'" ,. ....... :) ASPEN INN EXPANSION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION February I, 1978 Submitted: App I icant: Planners: "" Architect: ............ Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 925-2020 Aspen Inn, Inc. ,(~fxt) 701 South Mi I I Street Aspen, Colorado 925-3462 Design Workshop, Inc. 415 South Spring Street Aspen, Colorado 925-8354 Sadeqhi Associates 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 925-2001 d '1 hi r-' : :r ~ ~ -' " , "~, r=-cJ f :L i I ,AbPEN MANDl<. \ I ; ! NA6Ne, ! I~: = Il -~--::::,J ~LU-C It"l '<2< L c , ~ , - ) t7E-"-1--l ~T TH<c AzTEC Te.L-EMAI'."'- i~~~- I r, IOU I I (Jj 10 O~ It--~arQer I vA" ~ - n..., ! POLOMlTE- VILLAJ I ~~,I~L, ~:T-\J\ ' ',< l ~~7~ I ~ "::1 ,'!lI" \ , 011 If! ~lJ!liJ f1!l ~~~. ~~ ~ V cJl.tfis ~ ;~af k- ~ ~~ MOUI--lTA.II--l CWEE-N Site Context l_ )] ~ S --- ~,-,..y P^~.K ;v.N'>IT r ?i;.T\CN j F F~, l__"c'_ .{ "2 III ..J ..( -U - ?l>~l'lT I>-.V'E_ W~l \ ?CNI\NE-t-JT.A..L \\-...IN ALPE..Ne.L-16K FA.?6t-1.\N~ HA~ ( I , I , I U L r ....-+-\ P-\'E, :O~I(:)CMINI,-'H'? o o 8 r "- 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 instal led by the developer and without treatment plant or other faci I ity upgrading. As shown on the Uti I ities/Drainage drawing, Section I, the project is already being serviced by existing 8 and 6 inch city lines located in Monarch Street and Mi I I Street respectively. Based on a preliminary conversation with Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Department, he stated the overal I tourist area water system was cur- rently at capacity, but the construction of a new water storage tank at the top of Mi I I Street would provide surplus capacity to the area. The storage tank is funded and scheduled for construction in 1978. Mr. Markalunas stated al I new development in the tourist area would be required to contribute to the initial construction cost of con- necting the water storage faci I ity with the Mil I Street line system. The appl icant agrees to share this cost to be determined during later approval process. The appl icant also agrees to pay the city's pre- determined fee to tap into the 8" I ine in Monarch Street originally constructed by the Mountain Queen. Based on the above contribution agreements for upgrading the overal' ,- area system, Mr. Markalunas indicated no specific problems with the '- Inn expansion. ,. ,"-, o 9 ""'...... bb. Sewer The evaluation is the capacity of the city's sewer system to serve the development without system extensions beyond those normally instal led by the developer and without treatment plant or other faci I ity upgrading. As shown on the Uti lities/Drainage drawing, Section I, the pro- ject is already being serviced by existing 8" city lines located in Monarch Street and Mi I I Street. Preliminary conversations with Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Department, indicate pro- ject expansion can be serviced with existing faci lities. cc. Storm Drainaqe The evaluation is the capacity of drainage faci I ities to ade- quately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally instal led by the developer. The drainage control objective of the project is to collect and reta ins i te runoff on site. As shown on the Ut i lit i es/Dra i nage drawing, Section I, the project wi I I have a series of drywel Is sufficiently sized to retain site and roof water runoff. Consis- tent with standard engineering practices, the drywel Is wi I I have overflow outlets extending to surrounding streets. Off site sur- face water runoff, primari Iy from the upper Mi I I Street area, wi I I - '- c ~ 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 EI I is, City Engineering Department. dd. Fire Protection The evaluation is the abi lity 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 Uti Ilties/Drainage drawing, Section I, the project wi I I 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 Mi I I Street, Monarch Street, and Lawn Street directly north of the Inn off Monarch Street. Lawn Street wi I I 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 wi I I be cleared and maintained by the applicant. A prel iminary conversation with Wi I lard Clapper, Aspen Fire Department, indicates the project can be serviced according to establ ished response stan- dards with existing faci lities. ee. Roads The evaluation is the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering '"-' c - - II existing traffic patterns or,overloading the existing street system or requiring Increased road mi leage and/or maintenance. As expressed earlier and as shown on the Transportation/Circulation Context drawing, Section I, the Inn's convenient location is wel I suited for the auto-free tourist. Using data developed by the UMTA Transportation Study, Appendix A, it is estimated that the 36 rental units wi I I generate approximately 13 to 18 cars in the win- ter and summer respectively. The UMTA study identified three tour- ist trip types as fol lows: I. Arrival and Departure - The Inn's I imousine service wi II handle a majority of the fly-in arrival and departure trips estimated by the UMTA analysis. As conciuded in the UMTA study, summer auto use is greater than winter. The summer marketing thrust of the Inn wi I I 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 wi I I in~ crease and reduce summer car use. Because of the Inn's conveni- ent location, it is expected tourists arriving by car wi I I be able to park and store their cars during their visits without inconvenience. 2. Ski ing and Summer Recreation - Because of the Inn's convenient walking distance to Aspen Mountain's lifts and the Rubey Park ski buses, skiers wi I I not need cars. As the Inn bui Ids its summer conference business, it wi I I be able to organize confer- ence limousine and bus tours of the outlying summer attractions. c o 12 3. Shopping and Entertainment - Because of the Inn's convenient location to downtown shopping and entertainment plus the pro- vision of on-site faci I ities, the tourist wi I I have I ittle need for a car for these activities. The Inn is only a one to two minute walk from the mal I system. The estimated 15 ~ additional cars resulting from Inn expansion are I ikely to generate little daily car usage. Of the I imited trips gener- ated, they wil I primari Iy be once a week arrival and departure trips. In conformance with Ordinance 48, Section 5 (ccl, no employee parking wi I I be provided on site to encourage employee use of publ ic transit. Current traffic count information along Durant Avenue is not avai lable to quantitatively estimate detai I traffic impact. ...... ,~ '- l,p"WATE.Ir;:"LlNe..-------... HYORJoNT--;f; Legend ~_1: OFF-01Te:. WATE.R 8" 6E.WEJ<. WNEO- --- ! ~'OFF. 6\T~ w,..,TEJl 1 ~ ::::~: "~M '" HYO"""'T '4.''' W"'TE..~ LINE.. 0---- , Utilities/ Drainage t-IFT l-A &5CO' t""""U?l\ .....,.., \ . ...... 1.""" ...... f 1 " RCAf'-INo ~ "-Ivel<. MILL '!>T. MAIN ";11:/ HIL'lHWAY S2. \ f- e><.1'?TIN'> !>D MALL".;. WA6NEJ<. f'Al<.K ^<nNr( I ~>~",-~J- 0'11<.10. <>T..TION Ir;;ro'l~~~ PR:.OPO~D c-1TY- ~'L--- <<-~;:r:.y.;;.;~ ........................ .... MPE-Io.l IflN ""Tee LIFT = A':-TIVITY I"OW0- "''-061<. I<.API~ 01<;.1 N:.6~ RI..le>Y ~K I T1'.AN~PO"-T""TIDN O"""-rel<. Transportation/Circulation Context , :) 13 - SECTION II AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES aa. Publ ic Transportation The evaluation for maximum points requires the project be located within 520 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 I I, the Inn is conveniently located to encourage auto free tourism. The Inn is located within 500 feet of Lift I-A, and a ski-in trai I easement provides skier access from Aspen Mountain to the Inn. The 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. Pol ice Protection The evaluation is the abi lity of the Aspen Pol ice Department to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional faci I ities, personnel or equipment. The existing Inn is presently serviced by the Aspen Pol ice Department. The expansion program is not expected to require services beyond current operations. c :) 14 ,- cc. Commercial Support The evaluation is proximity to commercial support faci lities. As shown on the Transportation/Circulation Concept drawing, Section I I, the Inn is within the block adjoining the commercial and entertainment faci lities of downtown Aspen. The Inn is located only 350 feet from the Mi I 1 Street Mal I, approximately a one to two minute walk. The Inn wi II also provide I imited guest sundry shopping in the hotel lounge area. --. "",,,-, MAIN ~/ HltlHWAY 62. \ +- exlqrlNo!:t <Cj. f'rof"C'>";:;>~t? MALL'? ~(') i{ .. j ~l~ ~ ~ cl!:E. "'TATION , ~ ~ POL-II/E. '?TATION i 1 ROAf'-INe, FOf<.K 1<.IYe,,- MIL-L- ,;T WA6NE.!'-. FNt.K A?FEN ?T. ~ '" ", "-OW DuRANT AYE'~ -=500/ ': ~~---7" I '?1..../ ..' .,' . .... ..... .. . I LIFT N, 1 p~DPO~e.D ?ITY H.:>~I-.I 11-.11-.1 "'ITE'- t-IFT i-A A&TIVIT'( r"OW0- E?L06K ~A.D'\YD 01<1 fo.U.-~ RU~'( I'N<.K I TI'.AN?PO"-TATION veN,eJ<, Transportation/Circulation Context c ~ 15 r~'. '- SECTION III QUALITY OF DESIGN aa. Architectural Design The evaluation is the compatibi I ity of the proposed bui Iding (in terms of height, size, location and bui Iding materials) with exist- ing neighboring developments. As described earl ier, the Inn expansion is designed to integrate with the existing bui Iding and to have the overal I project compati- ble with the neighborhood. The Inn is located in the heart of the lodge neighborhood. This area is zoned L-2, and al J 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 visibi I ity from Durant Avenue and Wagner Park. 1,~~~,'~ J ~--- ~~ ~ I:=~l-J ~~ lklbJ "'- Neighborhood Section r' '" ""'" ,." 16 The Street Sketches below are taken from Mi I I Street and Monarch Street and illustrate th~ architectural character of the bui Iding. Generally, the Inn is a horizontal bui Iding of simi lar character as surrounding structures. Building material is earth tone wood, rock and glass typical of the neighborhood. Overai I bui Iding mass is sim- iiar to, if not smal IeI' than, surrounding structures. Bui Iding mass is reduced by the bui Iding's wing configuration, which disperses units into smal I narrow lodging wings. Also, the use of balconies, over- hangs and wal I recesses visually reduces bui Idlng mass by el iminating massive wal I areas and by increasing bui Iding facade diversity. View From Monarch Street -- View Off Entry From Mill Street /''' '-~ :) 17 The expansion design of the Inn successfully integrates the new bui Id- ings with the existing Inn to create a functional high qual ity hotel. A description of the overal I 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 detai I are presented in Appendix B to supplement the conceptual drawings. The Building Concept drawing, Section I I I, illustrates the functional elements that determined the configuration of the bui Iding. The design is basically three lodging wings radiating from a central ground floor containing publ ic activities. The advantages of the wing configuration are the fol lowing: I. Creates a single central bui Iding focus of public spaces - Arya Restaurant, lounge and nightclub; health and recreational faci I i- ties; lobby and vestibule areas - which are directly tied to the outside terrace and lawn area to maximize impact and uti iization of public areas; 2. Minimizes internal circulation walking distances as the lodging wings radiate from a centrally' located publ ic use area; 3. Reduces the bui Iding mass by designing small narrow wings as op- posed to a I arger cube form; 4. Provides a large check-in vestibule from which the guests can be shown directly to their rooms without leaving the complex. .......... o :> 18 As shown on the Ground Floor Plan, Section I I I, this floor is designed as the publ ic activity area for the Inn. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the ground floor is devoted to publ ic use, according to the fol lowing breakdown: Arya Restaurant and lounge 4,500 sq.ft. Nightclub 2,000 sq.ft. Health faci I ity 1,500 sq.ft. Lobby and vestibule 6,000 sq.ft. Total 14,000 sq.ft. The extensive publ ic areas are designed to establish a sense of spaci- ousness for the Inn, conveniently accommodate large check-in groups, provide large and smal I 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 Desiqn The evaluation is the qual ity and character of the proposed land- scaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of uti I i- ties, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. ........ o .:> 19 --.-- Thirty-three percent (33%) of the site is open space, compared to 25% mi n i mum requ ired by zon i ng. Th i s increase in open space is possible because the bui Iding FAR is lower than al lowed 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 bui Iding. As shown in the Site Design Concept drawing, Section I I I, the courtyard is south-facing, maximizing sun exposure, and its U-sha~e 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 I inks interior and exterior publ ic spaces to maximize their use. The terrace area is uti lized 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 I. ,'- As shown on the Landscape Concept Plan, Section I I I, the main land- scaped areas are the courtyard and the bui Iding entry area. The court- yard wi I I have edge screen planting for area privacy with an open lawn area accommodating general activity. The entry drop-off zone wi I I be designed with a smal I plaza as a focus for entering the bui Iding. The entry also has seven parking spaces for limousine and guest use. The - o :> 20 -- sidewalk along Mi I I Street wJ I I be heavi Iy planted and specially lighted to act as a visual terminus to the Mi I I Street Mal I. In the future, it is hoped the total length of the Mi I I Street side- walk can be upgraded and planted to serve as a major pedestrian I ink from the tourist area to the MI I I Street Mal I 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 trai I along Dean Street wi I I include benches and bike racks for publ ic use. Bui Iding foundation planting wi II be planted in the sma I ier setback areas. All uti I ities wi I I be underground. The site's circulation pattern is simple, since guests arrive at the entry and check in whi Ie their cars are parked in the underground garage. Service access is from the Lawn Street loop connecting Monarch Street and Dean Street. cc. Enerqy 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 bui Iding has been designed to promote energy conservation. Pre- I iminary engineering study by Walton-Abeyta and Associates, Mechanical Engineers, in Appendix C, calculates the Inn's conservation measures ....... c :> 21 - wi I I result in a 25% to 30% reduction in bui Iding energy consumption above that required by the City's Thermal Standard, Ordinance 45. General design elements that encourage energy conservation are the bui Iding's compact configuration, its partial subgrade construction, and its multiple level plan with double-loaded corridors which effici- ently reduce exterior wal I and roof areas, the areas of greatest heat loss. The majority of units have only one exterior wal I and al I other surfaces are interior, having no heat loss. The bui Iding has excel lent proposed insulation standards. As shown in the Walton-Abeyta report, insulation standards alone result in an estimated 23% reduction in bui Iding 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 bui Iding wi I I 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 shal I 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 sha f I be supp lied independent I y from room air by means of two- inch ducts with thermostatically control led dampers. Solar collection wi I I be used to supplement the bui Iding's primary energy systems to maximum feasibi lity. Specifically, solar col lec- tion wi I I be used principally for pre-heating domestic water.. How- ever, solar devices can only be supplemental to the bui Iding's basic c :> 22 "-..- systems because of the location of the overal I 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. Amen i ties The evaluation is the provision of usable publ ic open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. As shown on the Sui Iding Concept and Site Design Concept drawings, the project has extensive interior and exterior common space. - Specific open space amenities avai lable to the publ ic are the fol lowing: I. The Arya Restaurant and its summer "garden terrace" dining. 2. The ski-in trai I 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. Publ ic benches and bike racks wi I I be provided in the large bui Iding setbacks along the path. In addition to the above, the conference and banquet faci lity is a major amenity open to the community. This faci lity wi I I be able to accommodate larger meetin9 groups, which cannot be presently accommo- dated in Aspen. The faci I ity wi I I be avai lable to the city and comm- unity nonprofit groups on an "at cost" basis. ,- --- o :> 23 >,,'."". '- ee. Visual Impact The evaluation is the scale and location of bui Idings to maximize publ ic views of surrounding scenic areas. As described in the Architectural Design Section, the project wi I I 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 wi I 1 have minimal visibi I ity of the project. The project is not included in any zoning view planes and wil I not block Aspen Mountain views from major pedestrian routes. - - ,~ u::=u \- - j~1 ihD~r j -- -- Pedestrian VieW Section ~''1 "' ." tn::^N 'bT LJNDel(,Ali:DUND P^~t<.\N6 N..LE-<:7'b eXI"bTIN6 I':DOM~ . . VOI{!<.IDDR. NEW ROOM'b Ul eXI'bTINe; TERJ:.k:e ~^ . : I . . "-"1 I : r" 4J J- . I I . . . . L..J INTE-ttJOIC../E)<:n:J:.lol<.. AUe~ N?l"EN INN PROPEJCT'f Building Concept MIL-L 'OT eNT~,( Df(Cf'" 0"" I..O~ /Ve~\e>.)Le Af(:<(A 1'..e'5r1'-l)~1J\ -t NIOHT vLDe HeA\::r~ + Rea.eRlO'--l l""UIi-ITII:~~ New~ Ne-w~~ Me':"~ICAlJ.- EMPLOYt,E.- """"" w- ~ NEVV KiXll""\ - .. ~ Ground Floor Second Floor NC-W ~NP\..O'(I:L .",..,.. ND~ ~TlDI'-I L..ll'-le-:> ~~ ~l~TU~L- ~TIOf'.l OUWINC:l U~D~GMUIJ.O PA./tKINb E-M1"'l..CYee DORM ""-"A % N~W I'tDOM0 C:MPLO'feE- ~OOM~ 1 I I I i I L__.J Sub-Grade Third Floor "'" ---'---, I L_ I \ I I I '.': ..:. ." I'!.r1I""LD'l'ee .....,JoLT~e ., ,,, :::.~~ ..... ", Section A-A r.u:.i:' U Section B-B Section C-C Section D-D Legend c=:J P"""-KINo, 1""""",',','1 uOMMCN 6F'AUE. I I &1?:4)LATIDf..( NOTE-' ReFEi1:.E1\JC.t 6UJUND F\..OO~ Di<AWIIJG f'O~ <?EGTIO,,-! LIWeo Architectural Sections I I I ~--i~ I , MO.N"6 ""N .~ . i-J / ~ 7 / ..'--./../ / ~------ ~~/ +---- - / P~OP06E.D CATj {PEDE~TRIN~-.-I "biKE.. T~L PJO:.EDOMIN.ANT WIND-- AR.YA ~e'!:$fUR.AUNT --re:~(.,c.. MV- OPD-J L.."'.WN Mv.. .... e..Dele. <sc.."'-.eeN PLI\NTIN6 ~ 0\CJ IN T~L r.A-:.EJ1ENT "'FTe-'I:::NCON 0,_>N Site Design Concept - ,----- ...... . n~-+ \ I UNDU6ROUND I PAA-KlNO : .&-60'e.'b':J *JM^'N rnRY '~ I I'. I. .:, .": I ., ~ .'.',: IlL ~) UN~O~CUND PN<:KJl% ,I.,G(,~~ ~ . .____~.<, J. ~(':..l...00l':':D 6).J(V6~ rx..lt'\I""bT~ --- I I .--~~ *~~ I I ~. '.' r--: .." ... .,..-u.:.u ) ( cd () (1I) . i ..,~:;t=". '"""" .a.U-"l ":-/#f~.: ~...'---' f '*, I t f l f [ _!J. MO'I'm..t.. rorrw !"l.A>JT<> POOl.- ~ L.>>J~~~ OPeN l..}..WN ~""-L .,~~:~:::i;:' Legend il! wm . ~IAL l"'J>.~ ~Tt"\t:.NT L,J.N~~!>,I>.U('!l /""O'..A-.lt>>-.TION f>l...I..NTloJ6 'bPfL.~L DE.~I&).J ~"'Tl1l.J-JT ~11e."tl fi!;>l1(f..~u:..'6 .,,,,- I''''~'':'~ ~ L7 ..~ Landscape Concept /"'" 1...,.,.' :) 24 c SECTION IV SERVICES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS aa. Meetinq Areas The evaluation is the spaciousness and qual ity of common meeting areas. The Inn provides meeting and congregational areas in both the hotel lobby and the conference faci I ity. Also, guests wi I I 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 publ ic uses to create a central building focus. As <> noted earl ier, 14,000 square feet of the ground level is devoted to publ ic 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 faci I ity has yet to be establ ished. The appl icant wishes to work with the City Nanning Department to jointly develop a conference program that wi I I accommodate a wide range of community needs. A prime intent of the faci lity is to provide accommodations for the larger group which cannot presently be accommodated in town. bb. DininG Faci lity ~ The evaluation is dining faci lities on site. The Arya Restaurant provides a complete three meal menu plus summer terrace dining. o :> 25 ..,..".... "'...- cc. Recreational Faci I ities The evaluation is recreational faci I ities on site. On-site recreational faci lities include the existing pool and new health faci lities, including sauna, steam room, whirlpool, massage rooms, and the courtyard lawn area to accommodate general activity. dd. Conference and Banquet Faci I ities The evaluation is conference and banquet faci lities on site. As described earl ier, the final program for the conference faci lity wi I I be jointly developed with the City. The facility wi I I have a ful I range of conference and meeting rooms and banquet faci I ities. To encourage the conference faci I ity as an amenity to the total community, the faci I ity wil I be avai 'able to the City and community non-profit groups on an "at cost" basis. ee. Ski Proximity The evaluation is proximity to ski trai Is 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 al lows easy walking access to skiing. A ski-in trai I easement is provided. This easement connects with the currently used trai I at the Mountain Queen complex which links with the Lift I-A trai I easement. --- - ""...... 26 ,,",- ff. Overal I Tourist Appeal The evaluation is the general qual ity of the project. As noted earlier, the Inn's objective is to establ ish itself as a high quality, ful I service hotel. To meet this objective, a ful I range of faci I ities, services, and design excellence is provided. Many of th'ese elements have been previously discussed in detai I and are only summarized below as an overview. I. Prime location providing convenient access to skiing, downtown shopping and entertainment. 2. Spacious tourist rooms and publ ic areas. 3. On-site dining, lounge, and nightclub faci I ities. 4. On-site recreational faci lities. 5. Complete conference and banquet facil ities. 6. Complete tourist limousine service. RO'-J"-IN6 FOr<.K "-\VE-l<. ~~ J( ~ . ~ MILL ~T MAIN ':iT/ HI",HWAY BZ. \ +- D-I<:JTIN'" ~ F'1:DfV?iOl? MALL'? WA6NE-I'.. F'A!<.K MrrNr( I ~~ ~'-..,--~_L P~DPO~D ?\TY IRA\L-<<-~-"',':.y..r;~. ................ .., .... Mf'e.t.J ''''''''ITE. ~CD' t-IFT l-A '. 0klf'.G.(....~ ~1R.e. "TA-TION ~F'OLIVIO. '?T",ION ici 1 ", DURANT AVE'~ 1; ." L1F'T = AvTIVITY FOVl>0- e';>L.OVK ~J...PI~ RU~'( F'Ai<.K / T<.A>.\<;PDRTATIDN veNTe!<- Transportation/Circulation Context 29 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- al i design meriting recognition. This submission describes how the plans and program for the Aspen Inn fulfi I I 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 overal I design. The bonus category is subjective and al location is at the discretion of the Planning Department, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City counci I. It is respectfully requested that the fol lowing merits which are unique to the Aspen Inn project be considered for bonus point evaluation. Tourist Faci lities The Aspen Inn objective is to expand and upgrade an existing faci lity to have the capacity to provide the most complete year-round tourist faci lities and services in Aspen. On-site faci I ities include the Arya Restaurant and lounge; a nightclub; health and recreation fac- i I ities; spacious lobby and vestibule area, ten-ace and pool area; and a complete conference and banquet faci I ity which is not only a. major amenity for the Inn, but also for the community. Bui Iding publ ic space is 32,500 sq.ft. compared to 22,500 sq.ft. zoning minimum, a 45% increase. Major publ ic faci lities 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 faci I ities, publ ic transportation, skiing, and summer conference faci I ities. 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. Bui Idinq Desi<:Jn The bui Iding architecture is intentionally subtle and low key to blend with the existing bui Idings and to be compatible with the varying architecture of surrounding bui Idings. The project wi II have minimal visual impact as it has limited visi- bi I ity from major pedestrian routes and wi II not block mountain views. Bui Iding mass has been reduced and is compatible with the neighborhood by building at a lower FAR, by designing smal I narrow lodge wings, and by creating bui Iding diversity with balconies and recesses. Building material is also simi lar to the neighborhood. The Inn has reduced bui Iding size below zoning from the 90,000 sq.ft. FAR proposed. The major portion of bui Iding reduction has been a 23% reduction in rental space with an increase in common or public space. The Inn's conservation measures wi I I result in a reduction in energy use. Prel iminary engineering estimates are a 25% to 30% reduction in energy consumption below the City's Thermal Standards. - """,, 32 ....., "'" Employee Housln~ Under current zoning the Inn could build the 40,000 sq,ft. of rental space without providing any employee housing. However, the expansion program prov i des I odg i ng for 80% of its lodge emp I oyee~, an i ncr'ease above the maximum point al location in Ordinance 48. 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. ~-. 33 '"'''' APPENDIX A ASPEN INN EXPANSION CAR GENERATION ANALYSIS Wi nter 1/ Summer 2/ Hiqh Use Period HiCJh Use Period GMP rental rooms 36 36 Average room occupancy 3/ ' x 95% x 80% Occupied rooms 34 29 Average people per room 4/ x 2 x 2 People lodged 68 58 Average people arriving by car 5/ x 60% x 95% People arriving by car 40 55 "',....~. Average people per car r/ ;- 3 3 . Est i mated ca rs 13 18 Footnotes and Assumptions 1/ Winter high-use period is two weeks Christmas and Feb. and March. 2/ Summer high-use period is average weekend. 3/ Room occupancies from U~nA Technical Memorandum 113, Aprl I, 1977. 4/ People per room 5/ People arriving Apri I, 1977 6/ Ibid. estimate based on actual Aspen Inn pi I low count. by car estimate from UMTA Technical Memorandum 113, r"'.. ....-'~ 28 /;~ ,-.,~ 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 bui Iding 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 Actua I 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 I ,500 sq. ft . @ 1.0 emp. per 200 sq. ft. = 8 24 units 9,500 sq. ft. 35 Employee housing wit I lodge 80% of the inn's 44 total lodge employees I isted in Appendix D. Should some employees decide not to live on site, the space wi I I be avai lable to other employees approved by the cl ient. cc. Auto Disincentives The evaluation is the project's conformance with the city's auto dis- incentives pol icies for limousine service, reduced parking and employee parking prohibition. '" ~,...~ -, , J' 27 SECTION V CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBL I C POL I CY 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 al I lodging space between .5: I to .75:1 FAR devoted to employee housing with the remainder avai lable 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 al lowed under zoning. bb. Provision of Employee Housinq The evaluation for maximum points is 75% 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 wi I I lodge approximately 35 people. ~ 0.:. ~ o ~2 -------~/,----- <'0/ d' ~ '.". ~~"<o ' <~ ?- ,j'~ "V::c' C~~ _ ~O ,'I" , , . ~ ' I', lL ~~ ~ I~ \II Aspen Inn Master Plan ~ ~ ~ -=:::::::::- , , , ;--.-- / , ' " ~{-t:/! / h--I ,,-1/ , j / 'c..~/) ;s: "", r~~ \"- ~ ~ '" (\ t' ~ 00 . IlJ I k u_ 1 GG, i '~-".,l ,WIT' , I ! ! ',I l I I' liH1~;' : ,~IT01 '- - ~ .' I: " ., " ,.~-1 .__' ."' . '1 , .". rn I! , _, h- '! L-..-.., ~, " :~ ~ --.J 0' Aspen 4. Inn Plan Master ~ --- , '---- -~ , L 3 IH m~ffi. l '*] Slr"r-- " I' ~" :/1!', 'Tll, '" 1-1 . i j _.1 ~ , 4. ~FJll' I I · ~ j [r' ~! -I , I I ~1 tJ W1,;: u tll fpl. .3 4. .... Aspen Inn Master Plan f i\ t > ~ - ,,~ I.:r'"' r-~'"l. t...--" J ~ : .. ~~ ,i- J:, f- --- ----- " - -.---' ,.. Aspen Inn' Master Plan 1ft i ~ ! : j.l ~ i,J Aspen Inn ~ \ :;s .C> < =- '~I- ~~,H ;-<c' '" ] tl 1--":\ ~ ~ q "',j-. : c:r " ~ 'l ~ ~ '~ ~: iJl .:~ ~ -~-~ Master Plan -r:~ ~ c o 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 <lIIliI c - 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 a~.25-30% more ef- ficient than the standards as out1 ined in Ordtnaflce 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 llUII factor = .05 Resistance = 20.0 b. Roof nUll factor = .04 Resistance = 25.0 c. Glass IIUIl factor = .70 Resistance = 1. 43 d. Perimeter IIUn factor = .10 Resistance = 10.0 2. Resistances and IIUIl factors as proposed: a. Wa 11 s HUll factor = .04 Resistance = 25.0 b. Roof nUll factor = .03 Resistance = 33.0 c. Glass IIUII factor = .55 Resistance = 1. 82 d. Perimeter "UII factor = . 1 0 Resistance = 1 0.0 / I , r"' \...,. -2-1. o 3. Application of the mlnlmum and proposed .U. factors to a typical rental space of approximately 575 square feet re- sults' in the following comparison: a. ,Minimum as outlined in Ordinance Number 45: '->."-.-." Walls 88 sq. ft. X 85 t.d. X .05 .U. Glass 128 sq. ft.' X 85 t.d. X .7 ,)'U. Roof 575 sq. ,ft.. X 85 t. d, X. 04. ;"U. Infiltration.8 factor X .24 sp. ht. X .054 density X 85 t.d. X 4,600 cu. ft. Total heat loss = 374 Btu/hrthr. ," 7,616: Btu/hdhr. ="1,966 Btulhdhr. = 4,054 Btu/hr. =13,999 Btu/hr. b. Proposed: Wa 11 s 83 sq. ft. X 85 t. d. X .04 IIUII = 299 Btu/hr. Glass 128 sq. ft. X 85 t. d. X .55 IIUII = 5,984 Btu/hr. Roof 575 sq. ft. X 85 t. d. X .03 IIUII = 1 ,466 Btu/hr. Infiltration . 6 fa c to r X .24 sp. ht. X .054 density X 85 t. d. X 4,600 cu. ft. = 3,047 Btu/hr. Tota 1 heat loss =10,796 Btu/hr. c. This comparison results in a net savings of 3,203,B~u per hour per room which would equal an approximate 23%\J' eduction in energy usage over the ordi nance requi rements .~o_. 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%. ....- .I"'" ......' , - 3- --, -..; 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 con sum p t ion by a p pro x i mat e 1 y L4,~_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- thermO type which is a tested and proven energy sav- ing device. This type of thermostat has a built-in night set back feature to allow the room temperature to be automatically lowered during sleeping hours. It is estimated that this type of control will reduce the total energy usage by 8~10%. 2) The boilers should be cycled by an inverse acting out- door reset which controls the leaving water temper- 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. / .. /''',.''..... ,",c-/ -4- "" ,.I 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. ~ ,r- ....... "'"" .....; ,-"",,.-} APPENDIX D EMPLOYEE LIST ASPEN INN EXPANSION Position Personnel "'"-' General Manager Assistant Manager Bookkeeper Front Desk Switchboard Operators Reservation Manager Reservation Staff Maintenance Staff Bellmen Limousine Drivers Head Housekeeper Maid Staff Laundry Staff Security I I 2 4 3 I 2 3 5 3 I 13 3 2 Total 44 " - --., --- - ... -- --.. o ZiJ~ /Jj Ie;&. .~ ;;~,u "<'~ ' 7JY; IP o ~ t-y 1 3h 6/?;/cr ~~ eft cid 7/ !//JIN I; ~ ~.~" !"'" I1i:?urls' k h,;c fl:.' ?t ;/fa L~~~l - ~. it /J, - " / I / Mil ,~ .ej frn'iS tt'1" hi':'" / ..-(;' 'l I nw tvlLb;~ I {-8~t-[~) , ---, 1. ~ J ~ //!:t>W~"" IVai? I~ I/I hc-/~ ~ OJ?,'~ ...d'0J ~CA 1t/~/-u., '/ /I-'t/c h; ( ~Ufr( tH- 21? ,'"" ....,) Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office " r'" ....... , '. ~ :, '", . 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 )} "./ 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 Bui 1 di ng Secti ons all drawn at the sace of 1/8" = l' 0". Providing these drawings at your earliest convenience will expedite our further review of your application for bui1din~ permit. JW:cs . ~.._. ."/ Sincerely, " -'~:{4f~ ( .~oe Wells \~_// Assistant Planner cc: Ron Stock Ashley Anderson Clayton Meyring/Joe Thomas ~""". . . Aspen!Pitkin Planning''''Office , 130 south galena street I asp en., to lor ado ~81611 ..... , ~.r _...... -~ .. 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. cc: Ashley Anderson Ron Stock