Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.AspenInnExpansion.1981 "-, ',,,t MEMORANDUM TO: GMP Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: Lodge and Commercial Quota Status DATE: July 21, 1981 (updated on September 1, 1981) Based on my investigation of previous allocations, the following is the status of the quota available for competition on September 1, 1981. Office and Commercial 1. There have been five previous competitions with 24,000 square feet availa- ble each year, for a total of 120,000 square feet. Last year 6,000 addi- tional square feet were made available as a bonus. 2. Of the 126,000 total square feet available, 108,063 square feet have been awarded. However, 2,184 square feet which have been allocated have expired. As a result, the total amount of space which has either been unallocated or has expired is 20,121 square feet.* 3. The maximum square footage available for competition this year is 24,000 + 20,121 + 6,000 (potential bonus) or 50,121 square feet. 4. Among the projects which received allocations, only two are in danger of having their quota expire. The Smith Building (5,100 square feet) and the First National Bank Addition (4,203 square feet) both submitted applications on September 1, 1979. These allocations will expire on September 1, 1981, unless the applicant submits plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a permit. Conversations with each applicant indicate that the former probably will submit the plans but that the latter appli- cant will not make a submission and will let the allocation lapse.* Note: On September 1, 1981, the First National Bank Addition did let its allocation expire, while the Smith Building did submit plans suffi- cient for the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, of the 108,063 square feet which have been awarded in the past, 6,387 square feet have expired, resulting in a total of 24,324 square feet which have expired or are unallocated. * Lodge 1. In the five years since the lodge competition was initiated, 18 units have been available each year for a total of 90 lodge units. During the first competition Council awarded 60 units to the Aspen Inn (36 tourist and 24 employee) and 16 units to the Mountain Chalet (8 tourist and 8 employee). 2. The allocation to the Mountain Chalet has expired. The 60 units for the Aspen Inn totally used the quota for the first three years of competition as well as 6 units from the fourth year of competition. This means that 12 units were left over from the fourth year and 18 were left over from last year for a total of 30 units which are unallocated or expired from previ ous years. 3. The maximum number of lodge units available for competition this year is 18 + 30 + 6 (potential bonus) or 54 units. o :> GARFIELD & HECHT Mr. Alan Richman Assistant Director Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE I TELECOPIER ASPEN,COLORAD081611 Q(::Hplq\lr,J~;;J ~ (303)925-3008 o "Ji::.cL:..iL'L...~..~ ABLE ADDRESS August 20, 1981 \ (" . I "GARHEC" , i AUG 2419~J! 'ASPEN / PITKIN Co./ PLANNING OFFICE TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT CRAIG N. BLOCK WICK K, ROULHAC GARN RICHARD Y. NEILEY. JR, SPENCER F. SCHIFFER i"""""-:_,,,:_-,"'I"~'" ,- '. .. .~ :.:.'~ Re: Lodge GMP Quota Status Dear Alan: As you know, it is our position that the lodge quota for 1982 should be 72 units, excluding any potential bonus. Consequently I must object to the position you are taking as indicated in your memo of July 21, 1981, that the maximum number of lodge units avail- able for competition this year is 48 plus a potential bonus of 6 for a total of 54 units. The difference between our respective positions relates to the 24 employee units alloted to the Aspen Inn pursuant to Resolut- ion No. 11, Series of 1978. Our position is that employee units are now, and should always have been, exempt from the allotment procedures as well as the allotments themselves. The fact that the ordinances confirming the exemptions had not been adopted prior to the aforesaid Resolution No. 11, should not preclude your carrying out the intent and purpose evidenced by those ordinances. Those ordinances which were codified into sections 24-ll.2(g) (h) and 24-11.10 were not adopted to create new exemptions. Rather, they were adopted to remedy a technical defect in the original legislation. Even assuming, for argument sake, that this was not the case, that is that the exemptions were in fact newly created, it cannot be denied that the deductions should have been made against residential quota rather than lodge quota. This should be obvious, since employee housing units were dwelling units which are residential in nature and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered lodge units. Therefore, to deduct them from the lodge quota would be like deducting apples from oranges. Moreover, given that there are only eighteen lodge units available per year, it is not inconceivable that through the application of the 70/30 bonus and R.B.O. most of the lodge quota could actually be used up by employee housing. This latter point is substantiated by examining the language of !i24-ll.l0. "Low, moderate and middle income housing units approved under the provisions of !i24-ll. 4 (b) (3) shall be allowed in addition o :> GARFIELD & HECHT to those housing units authorized by !i24-ll.l(a) above." Section 24-ll.l(a) provides "Within all zone districts, thirty nine (39) residential dwelling units." Thus, if the intention were to deduct employee housing units from each of the respective districts, should not the exemption then also be applicable to all zone districts. The fact aht the exemption only applies to the residential clearly indicates that the deduction was intended to be only against the residential. In conclusion, I would strongly urge you to reconsider your position. I think we all recognize that a mistake was made in Resolut- ion No. 11 of 1978 and we should take this opportunity to correct it. After all, what we would be doing would be merely restoring the lodge quota to its correct status. I would like to discuss this further with you at your con- venience but would request that if you are not willing to reconsider your position that the subject be placed on the next available City Council agenda for their consideration prior to the processing of the 1982 lodge applications. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, SFS/pp cc: Hans B. Cantrup Mark Danielson Sunny Vann Paul Taddune, Esq. , ,....".... ...,,,.... GARfIELD 8< HECHT RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LA\\' VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN A VENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK K. ROULHAC GARN RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. SPENCER F. SCHIFFER October 20, 1981 TELEPHO:--JE (303) 925.1936 TELECOPI ER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC' HAND DELIVERED Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Aspen Colorado 81611 Re: 1982 Lodge GMP Quota Dear Council Members: The Planning Department has taken the position that the available lodge quota for 1982 is 48 units plus a potential bonus of 6 for a total of 54 units. In response to a memo from the Planning Department in support of that position I submitted a letter dated August 20, 1981 contesting that position, a copy of which is attached hereto. At the request of the Planning DepartQent we have not yet made our position known to you or the P & Z with the under- standing that this is the appropriate time for such consideration. Consequently, the P & Z recommendation to ,you for 54 units is made without any consideration of our position. Simply stated, we believe that the 24 employee housing units alloted to the Aspen Inn pursuant to Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978 should not have been deducted from the lodge quota. Our reasons are as follows: 1. Employee housing units are exempt from the GriP. Those exemptions are contained in Sections 24-l1.2(g) and (h) and 24-11.10. We believe that an error was made in not excluding those 24 units from the quota in 1978. The mere fact that those ordinances were adopted after Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978 should not preclude correction of the error now. Rather, those ordinances serve to verify the existence of the error. To acknowledge an error, correct it prospectively by legislation, and yet refuse to correct a specific application which itself led to the corrective legislation, flies in the face of the con- stitutional requirement for "equal protection", and is nothing less than hypocritical. 2. Even if employee housing units were not exempt from the GMP, they should not have been deducted from the lodge quota. /""'" " .....",....- GARFIELD & HECHT Employee housing units are residential dwelling units. They are not lodge units. If any deduction should have been made it should have been from the residential quota. The Code clearly recognizes this. Section 24-11.10 states: "Low, moderate and middle income housing units approved under the provisions of Section 24-l1.4(b) (3) should be allO'.,;ed in addition to those housing units auth- orized by Section 24-ll.l(a) above. (Emphasis added) Section 24-ll.l(a) is the residential allotment, stating: "Within all zone districts, thirty-nine (39) residential dwelling units." Section 24-ll.l(b) is the lodge allotment and 24-ll.l(c) is the commercial allotment. If employee housing units were intended to be deducted from lodge and con~erical quota as well as residential quota, why then is the remedial legislation directed only to the residential quota? The answer obviously indicates that they were never intended to be deducted from any quotas other than residential. Thus, we feel it was a mistake to have decucted the 24 employee housing units from the lodge quota. If any deduction should have been made, it should have been froQ the residential quota. It is now recognized that employee housing units should not be deducted from any quota, and the mistake has been corrected prospectively by legislation. We submit that it is obligatory to now correct an obvious mistake in application which you have the power and authority to do. You will not be increasing the quota. All you would be doing would be restoring it to its correct status. ,f' Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ \ GARfIELD & I1Eo.HT , j ~/' IWJ '1).//'1 , . , L I I'! /,.' Sp ncer F./schiffe0 ! / r / v iv SFS/pp cc: Wayne Chapman Paul Taddune, Esq. Sunny Vann Alan Richman Hans B. Cantrup ,", ;' ,,-,p" PEN 130 s MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 1980 TO: sunny~c FROM: Rcr Stoc~ RE: 1981 Lodge Allocations I have reviewed the history of lodge allocations to determine the number which will be available September 1, 1980. I have deter- mined that there will be 30 lodge unit allocations available. In 1978, the City awarded 76 lodge unit allocations, 60 to the Aspen Inn and 16 to the Mountain Chalet. The City thus awarded all of the allocations for the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 together with 4 of the 18 allocations available for 1981. Therefore, we anticipated the availability of 14 allocations in September. However, the Mountain Chalet failed to submit plans as required by Sec. 24-10.7 of the Municipal Code of the City. By the terms of this section their 16 allocations "automatically expire" and "shall be added to available allotments" for future award. RWS:mc ,..."" '-~a" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director RE: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations DATE: November 17, 1981 Background On October 6, 1981, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the 1982 Lodge GMP competition. The scoring which emerged from that process is as follows: Aspen Inn Expansion - 51.8 points The Lodge at Aspen - 49.2 points Since only 35 points are needed to be eligible for a development allotment, both projects were clearly judged as meriting such an award from City Council. However, P & Z only recommended that an allotment be awarded to the Aspen Inn Expansion since that project requested 96 units (which is in excess of the quota) while The Lodge at Aspen requested 31 units, the total of which (127 units), is far in excess of the available quota. In addition, appeals have been submitted by both applicants which question the scoring by P & Z which you must consider. On November 3, 1981, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the 1982 Commercial GMP competition. The scoring which emerged from that process is as follows: A Garden Office Building - 25.8 points The City Plaza Building - 24.0 points The Red Onion Addition - 19.9 points Since only 14.4 points are needed to be eligible for a development allotment, P & Z recommended that all three projects be awarded their requested amounts. However, since the total request of 27,521 square feet exceeds the annual quota of 24,000 square fee4~ou must also determine whether or not to award an excess commercial allotment this year. Summarizing, then, there are three issues before you tonight: 1. Consideration of the appeals of the scoring of the 1982 Lodge GMP competi- tion, as submitted by Hans Cantrup and Lyle Reeder. 2. Determination of the appropriate lodge quota which must be allocated by City Council by resolution prior to December 1, 1981. 3. Determination of the appropriate commercial quota which must be allocated by City Council by resolution prior to December 1, 1981. The Planning Office hopes that we may come to a general consensus tonight as to the method of resolving each of these issues, so that we can return to you at your meeting on November 23, 1981 with resolutions allocating the quotas for this year. Lodge Scoring Appeals Project Description: The two projects which applied for 1982 Lodge GMP allotments can be briefly described as follows. The Aspen Inn Expansion is a proposal to add two new wings to the existing Aspen Inn (located at 701 South Mill Street) while providing the amenities origi na lly proposed in the 1978 GMP submi ss i on (conference center, health facility and employee rooms) and to take another .If' . '. .....,,/ '."',;iF Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Two November 17, 1981 step toward the development of the major lodge complex proposed by Hans Cantrup for the Base of Aspen Mountain. The Lodge at Aspen is a proposal to build a small new lodge at 771 Ute Avenue, at the corner of Original which would be the first new lodge to be built in Aspen since prior to the implementa- tion of the GMP. Code Interpretati on: Secti on 24-11. 6 (e) sets out the method by whi ch an appea 1 of the scoring of a Lodge GMP applicant may be heard and acted upon by City Council. The Code reads as follows: "Having received the commission's report, the city council shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that no challenge shall be heard by the council on grounds other than matters which have not previously been considered by the commission. Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during whi ch the city council may amend the IlLJlilber of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolution and prior to December 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank." This section of the code has previously been interpreted to indicate that City Council has delegated to P & Z the authority to score the individual categories and criteria involved in the GMP competition, and did not intend to become involved in challenges where an applicant felt that a "3" was deserved for a certain feature, while a P & Z memeber had given a "1" or a "2". Instead, Council only wished to intervene in the process when it could be shown that P & Z (or a member of P & Z) had abused its discretion or had not acted within the bounds of due process in its overall conduct of the public hearing. Therefore, should you find that either appeal demonstrates an abuse of discretion or absence of due process related to matters which have not previously been considered by P & Z, then you may amend the number of points awarded to either applicant, since both are protesting. Cantrup Appeal: The appeal submitted by Hans Cantrup is predicated on the concept that various P & Z members were arbitrary in their award of points in categories where the criteria measuring the project's features are quite objective. The appeal states that since these measures are objective, any scoring which is inconsistent with the facts presented by the applicant should be considered an abuse of discretion. The Planning Office has two basic problems with an appeal based on this concept: 1. There is a certain amount of subjectivity inherent in any supposedly objective criteria, no matter how hard one works to remove that subjectivity from the analysis. The fact that the applicant, the Planning Office and the seven P & Z members often deviate in their supposedly objective assessment of certain criteria indicates that absolute objectivity cannot be expected in any scoring procedure. 2. Regardless of the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity as it relates to an abuse of discretion, this appeal is square ly based on matters which have previous'IY been heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. You have delegated to e & Z the responsibility for scorlng sewer, storm drainage, fire protection, roads, public transportation, energy and tourist FAR reduction. P & Z heard the Planning ,r ", ... ...,." ',' Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Three November 17, 1981 Reeder Appeal: Alternatives Available: Planning Office Recommendation: Office present an analysis of the criteria for scoring each of these categories, heard clarifications by the applicant of what was being proposed as regards each category, and each member made an individual interpreta- tion of the degree to which each project conformed to that measure. We do not recommend that you adjust the score of either applicant based on the appeal of Hans Cantrup, as the P & Z members' actions are clearly within the powers delegated by Council to the Commission, as outlined in the Code. The appeal submitted by Lyle Reeder is based on quite a different case than was made by Hans Cantrup. This appeal examines the overall scores given by P & Z members to both projects and finds an aberration in comparing the total scores given by six P & Z members to those given by the seventh member. Mr. Reeder suggests that P & Z member Al Blomquist had prejudged the lodge competition in advance of the hearing and was biased in his overall scoring of the projects. The appeal provides some mathematical evidence of the deviation between the Blomquist score and the average of the other scores, noting that Blomquist gave the Aspen Inn 65 points, including 11 bonus points, while the other members' scores averaged 49.6 points. Only one other P & Z member gave a bonus to the Aspen Inn and this was for 3 points. Al scored The Lodge at Aspen 42 points while the other P & Z members averaged 50.4 points. Mr. Reeder's appeal introduces a second concept, beyond bias and abuse of di screti on, the so-called "appearance of fairness" doctrine. The appeal suggests that even in cases where no obvious predisposition or bias can be documented, courts have held that a member of a public body should be disqualified to vote in cases where even an appearance of unfairness exists. The appeal therefore requests that Al Blomquist's scoring be discarded and the average of the other six members retained, on the basis of bias, and the deprivation of the right (or the appearance of a deprivation) to a fair and impartial hearing. The above discussion of the two lodge appeals would suggest that Council has only two alternatives available. These alternatives include: (1) the disqualification of Al Blomquist's scores, resulting in the reversal of the ranking, giving The Lodge at Aspen a total of 50.4 as compared to 49.6 for the Aspen Inn Expansion; or (2) leaving the scores as they previously were, retaining the ranking of Aspen Inn Expansion having a total of 51.8 and The Lodge at Aspen having 49.2. The Planning Office believes that there is a third alternative available to you. The day after the scoring of the applications occurred and before any appeals had even been contemplated, the City Attorney suggested that we take the high and the low scores for each application and drop these, averaging the remaining five scores. He felt that this approach would indicate if any unfairness existed in the scoring since it would eliminate all of the extreme scores given by the seven P & Z members. We did this calculation and found that this resulted in the Aspen Inn Expansion receiving a 50.3 while The Lodge at Aspen received a 49.9. We believe that the above calculation demonstrates that there was not a fundamental flaw in the original scoring which ranked the Aspen Inn Expansion ahead of The Lodge at Aspen. We there- fore recommend that despite the fact that both applicants have protested the scoring by P & Z, that you not adjust either score and maintain the original ranking of the two projects as follows: 1. Aspen Inn Expansion - 51.8 points 2. The Lodge at Aspen - 49.2 points '"' ", '"~ -" -,......,F Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Four November 17, 1981 Code Interpretation: Can trup Appeals: Planning Office Analysis: Lodge Quota Determination The determination of the lodge quota available for allotment thi s year is typi ca lly not an issue for you to decide since the code, in Sections 24-11.8, 24-11.6(e) and 24-11.7(a)) provides a methodology for reporting on past construction, carrying over unallocated or rescinded allotments and setting the yearly quota. On the basis of these code sections, we provided a memo to the applicants (attached for your review) based on prior calculations by Ron Stock (also attached) documenting that 30 units were unallocated or expired from previous years, 18 units were available, as always, for this year, and a 6 unit bonus could also be awarded, for a total of 54 units. However, Hans Cantrup questions our interpreta- tion of the quota which leads us to discuss this issue with you. The argument made by Cantrup is that City Council erred in 1978 when it awarded 36 tourist and 24 employee units to the Aspen Inn and specifically required (in your Resolution 11, Series of 1978) that both the tourist and employee units be deducted from the lodge quota for forthcoming years. Mr. Cantrup is asking that the 24 units subtracted from the lodge quota in 1978 be added to this year's quota, resulting in a total quota of 78 units. The two principal arguments made in this regard are as follows: 1. Employee housing units are now exempt from the GMP and are not deducted from available quotas. 2. Even if you were to deduct employee units from the quota, they should have been deducted from the residential ana not the lodge quota, since they are housing units. The Planning Office finds the above reasoning faulty because of the following points: 1. At the time of the 1978 competition, very different and substantially more limited legislation existed regarding the exemption of employee units from the GMP quota. This fact results, in par4from your resolution adopting the Growth Management Policy Plan, which clearly stated that exemptions should be specifically discouraged. Since that time, we have created numerous exemptions, primarily for employee housing, which have resulted in a dual growth rate, regulated and unregulated, and a rate of growth far in excess of expectations. We believe that the original premise of the GMP, that all units should be deducted from the quota, is a very sound one. We will be recommenting to you, as part of the GMP update, that we return to this approach when we develop our new quotas next year. We strongly recommend that you not go back and reverse what was a well thought out action by City Council in deducting all units from the quota. 2. If there was an error in judgement during the 1978 lodge allocation, it may have occurred when the employee units were deducted from the lodge rather than the residential GMP quota. The possible rationales for deducting the units from the residential quota rather than the lodge quota is as follows: A. Employee units are housing units, not tourist units. ,"",'-' ,",,/ Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Five November 17, 1981 Planning Office Recol1l1lendation: Project Descriptions: B. We have had an excessive growth in the residential sector, while we have only witnessed one lodge development since the initiation of the GMP. How- ever, the major problem with this option is that it would wipe out the residential quota for this year and preclude us from obtaining any new develop- ment within the GMP for another year. We do not recommend that you alter, in any way, the decision made to deduct the 24 employee units at the Aspen Inn from the GMP quota. Should you find that these units should not be deducted from the lodge quota, we urge you to deduct them from the residential quota. Either of the above approaches would be consistent with the original GMP and would help to foster the concept we are proposing, that of a unified rate of growth in Aspen. We recommend that the quota awarded for this year should be only 18 units, and should be awarded to the Aspen Inn. We very strongly recommend that you not award any excess allot- ments nor carryover any previously unallocated quota. Our reasons for this position include: 1. We are currently re-evaluating the growth rates in Aspen over the past five years and determining the future buildout potential and appropriate growth rates for next year. Given the fact that we have exceeded our planned growth rates, we are consistently recom- mending to you and the Board of County Commissioners that you limit your allotments to no more than the quota for this year alone. 2. Due to time constraints, the Planning Office was unable to revise the Lodge GMP criteria, as we were able to do for the commercial-office and residential competitions. We are well aware that several scoring categories may not be of continuing signficiance to the community, while many of the scoring criteria are poorly worded and often ambiguous. We also know that too many bonus points are available to be awarded. We have placed this pro-' posed code amendment on our work progranl for early in 1982. Our inability to amend the lodge criteria may be partly responsible for the appeals which have resulted from the di.fftcult scoring task faced by P & Z in the lodge sector. We feel certain that we can improve upon the quality of the review procedures for next year. At that time, these and other applicants would be provided with an opportunity to compete for a new allotment again next year on what we are certain wi 11 be a more objecti ve basis. Commercial Quota Determination The three projects which applied for allotments under the 19d2 commercial-office GMP competition can be briefly described as follows. The Garden Office Building (615 E. Hopkins) is a pro- posal to build a two-story office building, with retail uses on the first floor, consisting of 9,656 square feet of space plus a 985 square foot two-bedroom employee housing unit. The City Plaza Building (517 E. Hopkins) is a proposal to build a three-story office-retail building on the site presently occupied by Poor Pauls, consisting of 15,300 square feet of space, plus 2,700 square feet dedicated to four low-income studio employee units. The Red Onion Addition (414 E. Cooper) is a proposal to build a one-story addition above the portion of the Red Onion Building which is to be occupied by Stefan Kaelin consisting of 2,565.5 square feet to house a local office (Reese Henry Associates) but without any employee housing pro- posed on or off site. Memo: 1982 Lodge and Commercial Allocations Page Six November 17, 1981 The Planning Office scoring of the Red Onion project was only 14 points, which would have denied this request. P & Z scored this and the other applicants highly enough that each has qualified for consideration of a quota award. The total of 27,521.5 square feet requested is in excess of the 24,000 square foot quota for this year. There is 24,324 square feet of quota which is unallocated or expired from previous years, plus a 6,000 square foot bonus from last year which should be offset this year (see attached calculations). The Planning Office recommends that no more than 24,000 square feet of office-commercial quota be allocated this year, thereby awarding 9,656 square'feet to the Garden Office Building and 14,344 square feet to the City Plaza Building and denying the Red Onion Addition. Our reasons for this recommendation are as fo 11 ows : 1. We have been experiencing a growth rate of 45,000 square feet of commercial-office space per year in the City of Aspen due to GMP-approved projects and developments in the NC and 0 zones. These projects have fueled an employee housing demand which we have not been able to meet. 2. We have recently extended the coverage of our commercial- office GMP to include all development in the City. We will next be developing new quotas which will have the effect of bringing our commercial-office development boom under control. We do not believe that it is appro- priate to award an excess allotment at the same time that we are questioning our ability to handle the growth rate we have been experiencing. The Planning Office further recommends that you determine not to carryover the 24,324 square feet left over from previous years. This action, which would "wipe the slate clean", seems particularly appropriate in light of the excess buildout we have been experiencing (Le., 50,000 square feet so far in 1981) and our intent to formulate new quotas next year. ,..., - -- MEMORANDUM TO: 1982 Lodge GMP Fil es FROM: Alan Richman RE: December 1 Quota Award Deadline DATE: November 25, 1981 Section 24-11.6(e) of the Code requires that City Council "shall by resolution, and prior to December 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank." To meet this deadline, the Planning Office set up a work session with City Council on November 19 so as to permit a resolution to be written for their regular meeting on November 23. However, questions have recently arisen as to whether the Aspen Inn Expansion application qualifies for an award of quota, due to certain basic zoning and building code requirements. Until the Cantrup organiza- tion is able to answer the questions which have been posed by the Planning Office, we are unable to determine whether to reject their application or to move ahead with the allocation process. Furthermore, both applicants have appealed the scoring by P & Z, throwing the rating of the two projects (Aspen Inn Expansion 51.8 points; The Lodge at Aspen 49.2 points) into confusion. In any case, Council has determined that 78 units are available for award this year. The Cantrup organization has indicated their wi 11 i ngness to accept a 54/24 sp 1 it on the award, whi 1 e the Reeder group has stated that their project will not be viable without at least 31 units. They have therefore asked for an award of 7 units from next year's quota, and would drop their appeal on this basis. Both applicants have agreed to permit the December 1 deadline to pass without the formal award of quota by Council. The City Attorney has stated that this deadline can pass, as long as both applicants agree that it is acceptable to them. Nevertheless, we should attempt to make the award as soon thereafter as is possible. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: 1982 Lodge GMP Competition DATE: January 21, 1982 Section 24-11.6(~) of the Municipal Code requires that Ci resolution, and prior to December 1st of each year, alloc develop nt allot- ments among e ligib 1 e applicants in the order of priority es tab 1 i shed by thei r rank." To meet this deadline, the Planning Office held a work session with Council on November 19 to discuss the 1982 Lodge Quota and to hear appeals filed by both applicants contesting the scoring by P & Z of their applications. While Council determined the available 1982 quota, the appeals were tabled to your November 23 regular meeting. Several problems were identified by the Planning Office, subsequent to P & Z's October 6 scoring of the 1982 applications, with respect to the validity of Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Lodge request and the status of the 1978 Lodge allocation. The appeals were tabled again on November 23 per resolution of the issues surrounding the Cantrup application. Both applicants agreed to permit the December 1 deadline to pass without the formal award of quota by Council. On January 20, 1982, the Planning Office, upon the advice of the City Attorney, rejected Mr. Cantrup' s 1982 Lodge GMP app 1 i cation. As a result, Mr. Cantrup' s appeal of P & Z's scoring is moot. Similarly, Mr. Reed's appeal is no longer necessary as more than enough quota exists to insure the award of an allocation to the Lodge at Aspen. The Planning Office therefore requests that you di.rect us by motion to prepare a resolution awarding a development allocation of 31 lodge units to Mr. Lyle Reeder and to authorize Mr. Reeder to proceed further with additional approvals required from the City prior to obtaining a building permit. ...d....., '-" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Resolution Allocating 1982 Lodge GMP APPROVED AS TO FORM: .ii DATE: February 1, 1982 Background: Council Acti on: Section 24-11.6(e) of the Municipal Code requ r s that Ci Council "shall by resolution, and prior to De mber 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank." To meet this deadline, the Planning Office held a work session with Council on November 19 to discuss the 1982 Lodge Quota and to hear appeals filed by both applicants contesting the scoring by P & Z of their applications. While Council determined the available 1982 quota, the appeals were tabled to your November 23 regular meeting. Several problems were identified by the Planning Office, subsequent to P & Z's October 6 scoring of the 1982 applications, wi.th respect to the validity of Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Lodge request and the status of the 1978 Lodge allocation. The appeals were tabled again on November 23 pending resolution of the issues surrounding the Cantrup application. Both appli- cants agreed to permit the December 1 deadline to pass without the formal award of quota by Council. On January 20, 1982, the Planning Office, upon the advice of the City Attorney, rejected Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Lodge GMP application. As a result, Mr. Cantrup's appeal of P & Z's scoring is moot. Similarly, Mr. Reeder's appeal is no longer necessary as more than enough quota exists to insure the award of an allocation to The Lodge at Aspen. At your regular meeting on January 25, 1982 we asked you to review our action whereby we rejected the Aspen Inn 1982 Lodge GMP application and to direct us to prepare a resolution awarding the appropriate allocation to The Lodge at Aspen. You concurred with our determinations and unanimously requested that we prepare a resolution allocating the 1982 Lodge GMP quota. The attached resolution provides a history of the process we have followed in evaluating the Lodge GMP applications these past four months. The resolution awards a lodge development allotment of 31 units to The Lodge at Aspen and directs the applicant to proceed further with additional approvals needed by the City before a building permit is secured. The Planning Office recommends that you approve the attached resolution. Should you concur with our recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "Move to read Resolution cJ? , Series of 1982." "Move to approve Resolution 4' Series of 1982." r'.... '- "-" '- ,/ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Plannin9 and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 1982 Lodge GMP Applications DATE: October 1, 1981 Introduction: Attached for your review are project profiles for both of this year's lodge GMP submissions, the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for each application and materials summarizing the proposed development program for the Aspen Inn Expansion and The Lodge at Aspen. A copy of each application has also been provided to you for your review purposes. Quota Available: The available quota for this year is based on1he provisions of Section 24-11.8 (Building Inspector reports to Plannin~ Office on lodge construction during previous year), 24-ll.6(e) (unallo~ cated allotments may be distributed during later years), and 24-11.7(b) (rescinded allotments shall be added to available allotments). The Planning Office has calculated the quota for this year's competition. We find that during the five previous competitions, 18 units were available annually, for a total of 90 units. During the first competition, Council awarded 60 units to the Aspen Inn (36 tourist and 24 employee) and 16 units to the Mountain Chalet (8 tourist and 8 employee). The resolution awarding these allotments specified that both the employee and the tourist units should be deducted from the lodge quota. Since the initial allocation, Mountain Chalet has allowed its 16 unit award to expire. No additional applications have been received until this year. Therefore, the 60 units awarded to the Aspen Inn used the 18 unit quota for each of the first three years of competition, as well as 6 units available for the fourth year of competition. This means that 12 units were left over from the fourth year and 18 were left over from last year, for a total of 30 units which are unallocated or expired from previous years. An additional 18 units are available for this year, plus a possible bonus of 6 units (33% of those available for the year). Summarizing then, the total quota for this year is as follows: Quota unallocated or expired from previous years - 30 units Quota available for 1982 - 18 units Maximum 33% bonus ~ 6 units Total available for 1982 54 units Process: The Lodge at Aspen is requesting 31 lodge units while the Aspen Inn Expansion is requesting 96 lodge units. Since the Aspen Inn request exceeds the available quota, should the project be granted an allotment it could only be for a portion of the project, either for the units remaining after The Lodge at Aspen receives its quota, or for all 54 units available, thereby precluding the award of any allotment to The Lodge at Aspen. The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on October 6 to explain the GMP procedures and to provide you with a suggested assignment of points to each application. Next, each of the applicants will be given 15 minutes to present their proposal to you. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to score the applicants' proposals. To ensure a reasonable comparison of the relative merits of each application, the Planning Office suggests that both applications be scored at once on a category-by-category basis. r~ \.. --. Memo: 1982 Lodge GMP Applications Page Two October 1, 1981 The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. Please note that a project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points in categories A through E, amounting to 35 points.,~nd a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category A through E to meet the basic competitive requirements. Applications which score below these thresholds will no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. Remem- ber that bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum threshold, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding the allotments. Planning Office These two applications represent significantly different proposals Review: for utilizing the available lodge quota. The Lodge at Aspen proposal represents the first attempt, since prior to the imple- mentation of the GMP, to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen. This applicant has no previous performance in the GMP competition, and is presenting a proposal for an entirely self- contained facility. The application also signifies an oppor- tunity to upgrade a key corner location at the base of Aspen Mountain and in close proximity to the proposed Little Annie Ski Terminal. The Aspen Inn Expansion, on the other hand, represents a second phase development of a prior GMP-approved project which is currently under construction, and to further the concentration of quality lodge accommodations in the vicinity of Lift l-A. The project also is a part of the major lodge development proposal by Hans Cantrup. In as much as the current Aspen Inn GMP application does make numerous references to aspects of that prior GMP approval and to the ultimate development of the site, there is good reason to consider this application i.n the context of past and future proposals. The Planning Office has been closely monitori~g the progress of the on-going construction at the lodge and has been extremely concerned with the numerous deviations from approved plans which have taken place and which are acknowledged by the current application. Specifically, whereas the original GMP submission involved 36 lodge units, the applicant is in the process of building 71 lodge units, with the intention of demolishing the 35 unit Blue Spruce and transferring these units to the conti'guous Aspen Inn. City Council is currently reviewing this proposal and has recently given conceptual approval to it, pending the submission of a GMP amendment. Additionally, the applicant apparently has also deviated from the approved architecture of the building and has not yet fulfilled commitments such as the construction of 24 employee units or the amenity package (conference facility, health club and lobby) which were the original basis for the points awarded to the applicant. Nevertheless, the Code does not yet provide any basis for evaluating previous performance as regards a current application, and these factors should not enter into the scoring vou perform tonight. Similarly, any claims made by either applicant which do not specifically refer to the current requests before you or which refer to extraneous issues (quota, lodge inventory in the corrmunity or various code interpretations) should be similarly disregarded by you. Please, remember also, that your scoring policy has always been that unless an applicant specifically guarantees that proposed features will be provided, no points should be awarded (that is, if an applicant only sug- gests that a feature may be provided, it should not receive any points). ~l I Memo: 1982 Lodge GMP Aoplications Page Three October 1, 1981 The Planning Office would also like for you to know that both applicants have, as required, satisfied the submission needs for a conceptual application and have conformed to the underlying area and bulk requirements of their respective zone districts. Planning Office Ratings: The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applica- tions as a recommendation for you to consider. We have rated the applications both objectively, on their own merits in comparison to each criteria, and relatively, by comparing the positive and negative features of each proposal to the other. The following table is a summary of the Planning Office analysis and ratings for the two projects. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. . 1982 Planning Office Lodge GMP Points Assignment A B C D E F Public Fac. Social Fac. Quality Services Goals Applications & Servi ces & Services of Design for Guests Conformance Bonus Total Aspen Inn Expansion 10 8 10 6 11 0 45 The Lodge at Aspen 12 9 10 5 11 0 47 The above summary indicates that both of the 1982 Lodge GMP applications score well above the minimum competitive threshold of 35 points. Both applications do qualify for an award from the quota on the basis of these rankings. Planning Office Recommendation: Based on the analysis contained within the attached score sheets, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z concur with our recommended point assignments and effectively approve the Aspen Inn Expansion and The Lodge at Aspen applications. The Planning Office further recommends that P & Z recommend to City Council that the quota from previous years be carried over to this year and that a bonus of 6 units be added to this year's quota (to be offset next year) for a total of 54 units available to thi.s year's applicants. Finally, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend to City Council that development allotments of 31 units be awarded to The Lodge at Aspen and 23 units be awarded to the Aspen Inn Expansion under the auspices of the 1982 lodge GMP competition. ....,'__."'_,~,__~~,~__,..,._~>~,w.., MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-ll.6(E) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE Statement of Case. Applicant, Lyle Reeder, has submitted an application for a development allocation for 1982 under the provisions of Section 24-11. 6 "Lodge Development Application Pro- cedures". Applicant's project called for 31 new lodge rooms. Applicant's proposed project is called "The Lodge at Aspen" and represents the first attempt to try to construct an entirely new lodge in Aspen under GMP. There was only one other applicant for the 1982 GMP quota: Hans Cantrup's "Aspen Inn" expansion, which was a request for 96 units. According to Planning Office calculations, there are 54 units available for 1982. Planning and zoning action on the Lodge GMP was set for October 6, 1981. Alan RichITan of the Planning Office presented the members with an explanatory memo dated October 1, 1981 (copy attached). The Planning Office stated to the Planning Commission in their memo that both applicants had met the code requirements of submission and, further, both conformed to the area and bulk requirements of the respective zone districts. t10re importantly, the Planning Office rated the competing projects in the memo. The results of the 1982 Planning Office Lodge GMP points assignment were as follows: Aspen Inn expansion The Lodge at Aspen 45 47 It is also important to note that neither applicant received any bonus points. The Planning Office also made the following recommendation: " . . . Planning Office recommends that P & z concur with our recommended point assignments and effectively approve the Aspen Inn Expansion and The Lodge at Aspen applications. The Planning Office further recommends that P & z recommend to City Council that the quota from previous years be carried over to this year and that a bonus of 6 units be added to this year's quota (to be offset next year) for a total of 54 units available to this year's applicants. Finally, the Planning Office recommends that P & z recommend to City Council that development allotments of 31 units be awarded to The Lodge at Aspen and 23 units be awarded to the Aspen Inn Expansion under the auspices of the 1982 lodge GMP competition." ",.,-~-~-~-----"'-" Both applicants made presentations at the meeting, and the members of the Commission scored the project pursuant to score sheets provided. The results of the voting gave "Aspen Inn Expansion" a total average score of 51.8 and The Lodge at Aspen a total score of 49.2, thus granting the entire 1982 allocation to Mr. Cantrup's Aspen Inn Expansion. An examination of the scoring sheets of the Planning and Zoning members indicated clearly that one member consistently, in relation to both recommendations of the Planning Office and the other members of the Commission, rated The Lodge at Aspen low and the Aspen Inn Expansion high. In the view of Mr. Reeder, the scoring of the alternate member, Allan Blomquist, was so aberrant, both in relation to Planning Office scoring and the average, that appeal to Council from the result is warranted. Initially it is helpful to examine the scores granted generally. Mr. Blomquist gave the Aspen Inn Expansion a total score of 65 points. This score was eleven points higher than Welton Anderson's 54, a trememdous variance in terms of GMP scoring. It is also interesting to note that this score exceeds the Planning Office scoring by 20 points. The average score of the other six Commission members is 49.58 (excluding Blomquist). Mr. Blomquist's scoring exceeded that average by 15.42 points. Likewise, Mr. Blomquist consistently scored The Lodge at Aspen project low. He gave The Lodge at Aspen a total score of 42 points, five points lower than Olof Henderson, the next lowest scorer. He was 7.2 points lower than the average of all members;8.42 points lower than the average of the other six. Even more revealing is the scoring of Mr. Blomquist in specific areas. For example, on the Aspen Inn scoring sheet in category A, "Public Facilities and Services", Mr. Blomquist gave a score of 15, 5 points over the Planning Office and 2.3 points over the average of all members. This is significant in that this area contains little room for discretion, covering water, sewer, storm drainage and roads. When one looks at Mr. Blomquist's scoring for The Lodge at Aspen, you see a score of 9 for "Public Facilities and Services". All other members gave the Lodge either a 13 or 14. A similar pattern is shown for Section C, "Quality of Design". On the Aspen Inn sheet Mr. Blomquist gave the applicant a 12 against an average of 10.7. His scoring in this category for The Lodge at -2- ~,------~---_.'." Aspen shows an extremely low score of 7. The next lowest score given was 11, and the average of all members, even taking into account Mr. Blomquist's ranking, was 11.4. Mr. Blomquist's comment regarding category 3, "Quality of Design" is also revealing. He stated as follows: "Concept is ugly. G.I. dorm look". This hardly seems like the comment of a fair and impartial Commission member. Even more significant is the scoring of Mr. Blomquist in the "Bonus" category. The Planning Office scoring gave no bonus points to either applicant. On the Aspen Inn scoring five of the Commission members gave no bonus points at all. One, Lee Pardee, gave the Aspen Inn 3 bonus points. Mr. Blomquist gave the Aspen Inn an unbelievable 12 points (later reduced to the maximum allowed, 11, by the Planning Office) . Argument. This applicant believes that an unbiased and dispassionate review of the scoring sheets for both applicants submitted by Mr. Blomquist indicates extreme bias and prejudice in favor of the Cantrup/Aspen Inn proposal on the part of Mr. Blomquist, particularly when viewed in the context of the Planning Office scoring and the scoring of the other six Planning and Zoning members. GMP scorings, as evidenced by the scoring of the other six members, are historically close affairs. Mr. Blomquist's aberrant scoring clearly represents an abuse of discretion and thus a violation of due process. While there is little reported case law involving Growth Management allocations, applicant believes the following points are relevant to the instant case. 1. Prejudgment and Bias. This applicant has no direct knowledge of the motives behind Mr. Blomquist's scoring other than the fact that Mr. Blomquist has been reputed to favor a large commercial conference center at the base of Ajax Mountain. If in fact Mr. Blomquist does have such a bias, Mr. Reeder may have been deprived of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial hearing. In the case of Saks & Company v. Beverly Hills, 107 Cal. App. 2d 260, 237 P.2d 32 (1951), the California Court reversed a variance revocation by a city on the grounds that certain members had made campaign promises involving the revocation. The court found that such bias and predis- position deprived the applicant of a fair and impartial hearing. In the instant case, this applicant maintains that the radical scoring of Mr. Blomquist indicates bias and predisposition in favor of one applicant over another. -3- "-,:_~~~..",~~..~_..._.~._~..",-..,,-,~,,-'"~- ..'- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that even if actual bias cannot be shown, a proceeding must avoid even the appearance of bias. Horn v. Hill Town, 337 A2d 858 (1975,PA. ) 2. The "Appearance of Fairness" Doctrine. There is a growing body of law in zoning and land use matters known as the "Appearance of Fairness" doctrine, which has grown chiefly out of the Washington courts. The basis of this doctrine is that the public is entitled to place great confidence in members of zoning boards and that it is as essential that justice appear to be done as it is that it is actually done (see Generally Anderson American Law of zoning, 2nd Edition, Vol. 3, Section 21.22, page 625). In a Maryland decision, Montgomery County Board of Appeals v. Walker, 228 Md. 574, 180 A2d 865 (1965), an appeals court reversed a lower court order requiring a board member who had disqualified himself to break a tie vote. The lower court had stated his interest was so remote that he should be required to vote. The court of appeals reversed saying the board member should be above reproach and had properly disqualified himself. The "Appearance of Fairness" doctrine is similar to that set forth in the Horn case cited above. Even the appearance of bias must be avoided. It would appear to us that under the undisputed evidence (scoring sheets) that there is at least an "appearance of unfairness" which should be rectified by Council action. 3. Abuse of Discretion. This applicant submits that the scoring of Mr. Blomquist represents a clear abuse of discretion granted to the board members by the Lodge Growth Management Plan. When measured against the scores of the other members and scoring suggested by the Planning Office, Mr. Blomquist's scores are so aberrant that they represent an abuse of the process on their face. It should be noted also that the principal protection built into the ordinance is the "averaging" required by Section 24-11.6 (C). In this case there was an extreme act by one member which affected the average of all seven. We are not aware of variances of scoring of this magnitude having occurred in the past, either in the city or county. The result was an abuse of the growth management process. 4. Relief Requested. This applicant hereby requests that the Council grant him relief in one of the following manners: -4- ....--,~--'~'..-.._' - .'.~.._,,"-- 1. That Mr. Blomquist's scoring be discarded and the average of the six other members be retained, based on bias and deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial hearing. 2. That the City Council, pursuant to Section 24-ll.6(C), award an additional 23 points to the total score granted to this applicant, to compensate for the aberrant scoring of Mr. Blomquist. 3. That the City Council grant this applicant an exemption from the Growth Management Plan. Conclusion. In closing, this applicant would like to point out the consequences in the event the present scoring is allowed to stand. If appropriate relief is not granted, the Cantrup Aspen Inn expansion will receive the entire growth management allotment, while Mr. Reeder's "The Lodge at Aspen" will receive nothing. While Mr. Blomquist's motives may have been the best, we believe that due process and fundamental fairness require that they be discounted. The record clearly reveals that, irregardless of motive or intent, the process was abused. Finally, it is also clear from the record, as indicated by the scores of six of the members, plus the recommendation of the Planning Office, that both the Aspen Inn Expansion and The Lodge at Aspen are extremely worthy projects which should be built. If the scoring stands only one project (Aspen Inn) can go forward. If appropriate relief is granted by Council, then both projects can proceed as recommended by the Planning Office in their pre-scoring memo. :1" ,ubmitted, John Thomas Kelly Attorney for Lyle Reeder JTK/jeo Date: October 20, 1981 -5- ,.., ,...... .....'k,~ October 20, 1981 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 1982 GMP Lodge Scoring for the Aspen Inn Expansion Dear Council Members: Certain inconsistencies in the GMP Lodge Scoring of certain members of the Planning & Zoning Commission in those categories where objective criteria must be applied necessarily indicates a disregard of those criteria. Consequently, we are constrained to challenge those scores on behalf of Hans B. Cantrup pursuant to Section 24-ll.6(e) of the Municipal Code on the grounds that they are arbitrary and capricious and con- stitute an abuse of discretion. The challenges and specific grounds therefor are as follows: 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services; The Code states that, "The Commission shall consider each applic- ation with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning 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 The following services shall be rated accordingly: (bb) SEWER - (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 exten- sions beyond those normally installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading." In his referal letter dated July 16, 1981 Heiko Kuhn stated: "In regards to the proposed Aspen Inn Expansion I forsee no problem in providing sanitation service to this proposed expansion" (Emphasis added) (letter attached). Since that letter clearly "...indicates no foreseeable deficiencies," the maximum award of 3 points should have been given by each P & Z member. Nevertheless three members only awarded the project 2 points. Request is therefore made to in- crease those scores by 1 point each for a total increase of 3 points in this category. (cc) STORM DRAINAGE - (Maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system exten- sions beyond those normally installed by the developer. ......, ~ - - The storm drainage system was specifically designed to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Department as evidenced by a memo from Joe Wells dated March 13, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto, regarding the 1978 GMP application for the same site in which he recommended awarding the maximum of 3 points on the following condition: "Applicant has agreed to route site runoff to either Mill or Monarch on the basis of the pre- ference----orthe City Engineering Department" (Emphasis added). n Moreover, the recent referral from City Engineer, Jay Hammond, dated September 17, 1981 recommends an award of 3 points. Since the applicant specifically complied with the recommendations of the Planning Department in designing this aspect of the project so as to obtain the maximum number of points and since there are certainly". ..no foreseeable defic- iencies" in this category, it is clearly arbitrary and capricious for certain members of the P & z to refuse to award the maximum points. Nevertheless, three members did in fact only award 2 points in this category. Request is therefore made to increase those scores by 1 point each for a total increase of 3 points in this category. (dd) FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum 3 points) consid- ering the ability of the Fire Department of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the approp- riate district without the necessity of estab- lishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station. The applicant recently granted, without compensation therefor, three water easements to the City as a result of which water service and hence fire protection for the entire area has been improved. (see letter from Jim Markalunas dated July 24, 1981 attached hereto) The project is only .25 of a mile from the fire station, and it does not require any "...addition of major equipment to an existing station." In his referral letter, a copy of which is attached hereto, Willard Clapper clearly indicates "no forseeable deficiencies". He does however initially question rear access by merely stating, "I would like to see what we have there prior to construction". In a later letter October 6, October 6, 1981, a copy of which is also attached, he clarifies this question giving his unqualified approval. Although the project should therefore have received the maximum points, one P & Z member only awarded two points. It is significant to note that the same member awarded the competing project a full three points. A comparision of the two projects with respect to the objective criteria clearly reveals that his score is arbitrary and capricious. Aspen Inn Expansion The Lodge Distance from fire station by vehicle .25 .60 Requirement for addit- ional equipment to adequately service the project None necessary One additional Hydrant -2- ~"'" ,,,.,.. , .,,, Request is therefore made to increase the score in this category by one point. (ee) ROADS - (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. The project is bounded by major street linkage which can certainly provide for the needs of the proposed devel- opment without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street systems. It will not necessitate increased road mileage and/or maintenance. There was no evidence to the contrary whatsoever presented to the P & z. The Planning Department comment to the P & Z was "Engineering Department states that expansion will require sub- stantial paving, curb and gutters on Mill, Monarch, Dean and Lawn streets, which should be provided by applicant but has not been promised in the submission." six members of the P & Z apparently relied on this statement in giving the project a total of only 12 points out of a possible 21 in this category. This is arbitrary and cap- ricious in that; 1. Paving, curbs and gutters are not part of the objective criteria upon which scoring in this category is to be based. It was never before a requirement that paving, curbs, and gutters be addressed in a GMP application and the applicant was never notified by the Planning or Engineering Departments that this was even a consideration. 2. The GMP contemplates design criteria and probable impacts. It does not address the existing physical condition of public roads. How can an applicant be justifiably penalized for failure to assure that he will improve the condition of public roads when he has no idea that this is even a consideration? Isn't it possible that the City intends to pave, curb and gutter in any event? Moreover, isn't it the City's respons- ibility to maintain those roads? If, however, the impact of this particular project would require increased maintenance, that is a different story since that is a specific criteria. In that situation the applicant should be advised and asked to participate in that increased mainten- ance. Such is not the case here, where the applicant is being penalized for his failure to assure that he will make initial improvements not comtemplated in the GMP criteria and of which he is not advised. This process was not intended to be a guessing game. 3. The applicant stated at the public hearing before the P & Z that even though this issue was not addressed, he fully intended to do paving, curbs and gutters as requested and wished to amend his application to indicate that. In fact, curbs and gutters, if not already in existence, must be inptalled prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy according to present policy of the -3- r " --. - Building Department. Six members of the P & Z obviously completely disregarded that statement. 4. A comparision of the scores of the 6 members referred to above reveals that 4 of them scored both projects equally in this category and 2 even scored The Lodge higher. This clearly indicates an abuse of discretion for the follow- ing reasons: (a) Ute Avenue has always been a problem with the Planning and Engineering Departments with respect to additional development that necessitates use of that road. This has been well documented in the approvals for projects such as the Clarendon, Gant, and the Benedict proposals. (b) Any development such as the proposed lodge will certainly overload the already taxed existing street system in the area, and will at some point in time necessitate increased road mileage and/or maintenance. (c) As a condition for any recommendation the Engineering Department requires: (i) applicant participate in street improvements proposed by Little Annie Corporation; and (ii) improve the right-of-way on Aspen Mountain Road. These are conditions which, unlike those for the Aspen Inn Expansion, may never be capable of being fulfilled. If and when Little Annie Corporation will ever make the proposed improvements is a matter for pure conjecture at this point. Gerry Huey, repre- senting the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, stated at the public hearing before P & z that the Aspen Mountain Road right-of-way is incapable of being improved to any significant extent which would help to alleviate traffic problems which this project would create. The following comparison along with the above, clearly indicate that the scoring was arbitrary, and we there- fore request that the scores for the Aspen Inn be increased to the maximum in this category. Parry Lee Olaf Jasmine Roger Welton Al Total Aspen Inn 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 12 The Lodge 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 12 S=ary of Category 1- Parry Lee Olaf Jasmine Roger Welton Al Total SEWER P&Z Scoring 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 18 should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 3 STORM P&Z Scoring 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 18 should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 3 FIRE P&Z SCoring 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 1 ROADS P&Z Scoring 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 12 should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 9 -4- .....;., ... '" "-...,;J 2. Availability of Social Facilities and Services The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately) : 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. (aa) Public Transportation - (maximum 6 points) Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a 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. Despite the fact that the project is within 520 feet from Lift lA, (see letter form Alpine surveys dated October 6, 1981 attached hereto) directly abuts the public transit route on Durant Avenue, is directly across the street from the Rubey Park transportaion center, and is also within easy walking distance of the Little Nell Lift, four P & Z members did not award the maximum of 6 points to which it is clearly entitled. The failure to award points where the objective criteria mandates it is arbitrary and capricious. Request is therefore made that the scoring in this category be adjusted so as to award the maximum number of points. Summary of Category 2 Parry Lee Olaf Jasmine Roger Welton Al Total Public Transport- ation P&Z scoring 5 6 4 5 4.5 6 6 36.5 should be 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42 Requested increase 5.5 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design (cc) ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conser- vation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Even excess of that in every room, though the project proposes insulation far in needed, ~olar collectors, and efficient fireplaces six P & Z members awarded less than maximum -5- .f". -- " '-"'"" points. We think this is attributable to a misunderstanding regarding the provision of solar collectors, as evidenced by the Planning Department's comment, "Applicant does propose insulation standards and use of efficient fireplaces to max- imize energy conservation, but does not guarantee the use of solar energy devices." (Emphasis added) The heating system for the Aspen Inn Expansion is part of the system for the Aspen Inn, for which, in accordance with the 1978 GMP applic- ation, solar collectors will be provided. Since those collectors may suffice for the Expansion this application stated that add- itional collectors may be provided. There should be no question that whatever solar collectors are necessary will be provided. By comparison, nothwithstanding the fact that the only apparent difference between the projects in this category is that The Lodge only proposes one fireplace in the lounge, all but one member of the P & Z awarded The Lodge the maximum number of points as can be seen from the following chart: Parry Lee Olaf Jasmine Roger Welton Al Total Aspen Inn The Lodge 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 15 20 Request is therefore made to increase the points awarded in this category to the maximum for the Aspen Inn Expansion. Summary of Category i Parry Lee Olaf Jasmine Roger Welton Al Total ENERGY P&Z Scoring Should be Requested Increase 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 16 21 5 5. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: (aa) Reduction of tourist rental space maximum allowable internal F.A.R. 3 points) if reduction is greater below (maximum than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point The applicant admitted a technical error in its application as a consequence of which the actual reduction of tourist rental space was miscalculated. The Planning Department acknowledged this error and permitted the application to be amended. Nevertheless, six P & Z members failed to take cogniz- ance of this and failed to award the maximum points clearly mandated since the actual reduction in F.A.R. is greater than 15% below the maximum allowable. The following calculations are provided to verify this challenge: Total Site 111,207 sq. ft. Less a) b) c) Existing Buildings: 6 unit condominium Chalet West previous GMP 36 units at 450 s.f. less: below grade 17 at 450 s.L 6,000 1,500 = 16,200 =( 7,650) 8,550 15,750 d) Blue Spruce 35 at 450 s.f. = ( 31,800) -6- r..... '-'" - - Site Available for Use 79,407 x .667 52,965 s.L x . 15 7,945 s.L Maximum Internal F.A.R. Available 52,965 s.L (7,945) 45,020 s.L Thus, any building which has a total floor area of less than 45,020 sq. ft. is eligible for the maximum number of points. A. Assuming the quota available is 54 units: 54 at 450 sq. ft. = 24,300 Assuming the quota available is 72 units: 72 at 450 sq. ft. = 34,400 Assuming the quota available is 72 + 33% bonus = 96 units: s. L B. s. L C. 96 at 450 sq. ft. = 43,200 s.L Since under either A, B, or C above the maximum internal floor area of the project will be below 45,020 sq. ft. the project MUST be awarded the maximum number of points in this category. Request is therefore made that the score be adjusted accordingly. Parry Lee Olaf Jasmine Roger Welton Al Total TOURIST RENTAL F.A.R. RED, P&Z Scoring 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 15 Should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 6 In conclusion, we respectfully request that City Council revise the scoring of the Planning & Zoning Commission as to correct the inconsistencies presented by increasing the scores in accordance with the schedule attached hereto. The challenges presented herein are directed only to those categories wherein scores are supposed to be based on object- ive criteria. That is, where the facts presented must be judged and scored based upon a fixed set of standards the P & Z does not, and should not, have any latitude or discretion in scoring. The exercise of such discretion must necessarily be considered arbitrary and capricious and must be corrected by you. However, with respect to those categories where there are no fixed standards and where the criteria must necessarily be subjective, the P & Z does and should have absolute latitude and discretion. The scoring in these categories should not be subject to challenge. Respectfully submitted, & H~FHT J () F.(fz;#f~ SFS/pp attachments -7- -- ....., - - ASPEN INN EXPANSION 1982 GMP Scoring Comparision - Actual and Proposed Parry Lee Olaf Jasmine Roger Welton Al Total SEWER - P&Z Scoring 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 18 Should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 3 STORM - P&Z Scoring 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 18 Should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 3 FIRE - P&Z Scoring 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 Should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 1 ROADS - P&Z Scoring 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 12 Should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 9 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION P&Z Scoring 5 6 4 5 4.5 6 6 36.5 Should be 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42 Requested increase 5.5 TOURIST RENTAL F.A.R RED P&Z Scoring 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 15 Should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 6 ENERGY P&Z Scoring 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 16 Should be 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 Requested increase 5 ~ # PROJECT PROFILE 1982 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: HBC Investments 2. Project Name: Aspen Inn Expansion 3. Location: 701 South Mill Street (Mill Street at Dean Street) 4. Parcel Size: 111,207 square feet 5. Current Zoning: L-2 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 111,207 square feet IF.A.R. of 1:1 mny hp achieved with 0.67:1 tourist rental space; 0.08:1 emolovee housing: nnrl 0.25:1 nonunit space. 7. Existing Structures: Site includes existinQ Aspen Inn. Blue Spruce. 6 unit R-MF condo and east and west R-MF chalets. 8. Development Program: The applicant proposes to build an additional 96 lodge units and to complete the improvements proposed as part of the original application including 24 employee units, a conference facilitv and a health club facility. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Full subdivision; exception of emolovee units from GMP; special review to reduce on-site parkinq requirement. Property is not affected by view plane limitations or other special review procedures. 10. Miscellaneous: The applicant is currently constructing lorlge rooms at the Aspen Inn under the orevious GMP allotment The npplicnnt is oot building a facility which conforms with the previous approvals and will be required to process an amendment to that GMP submission for your review and approval. PLANNING AND ZONII~G COt-1NISSION EVALUATION 19~2 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: A~pen Inn Expansion DATE: October 1981 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formu~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 ,. Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER' - (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. Rating 3 Comment: Applicant has conveyed easements at Summit Street to permit completion of improvements promised in 1978. Applicant must pay tie on fees to use the 6" and 8" 1 ines installed by others, and is prQyi,di,njj an i,nterconnect to i)lJPrOye Wi\ter ~eryi,ce to tbe (j,rea in genera I . b. SEWER - (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. Rating 2 Comment: Aspen Metro Sanitation Disctrict can serve this development with a standard service level and is not requesting any system improvements from the applicant. c. STORH DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 2 Comment: Applicant proposes drYVlells to retain runoff on site, but also speaks to overflow outlets onto either Monarch or Mill. , . , ~ d. FIRE PROTECTION _ (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. Rating 2 Comment: As en Volunteer Fire De artment notes the availabilit 0 two hydrants in proximit availabil it of water pressure in the area, but questions access to the rear of the proj ect. e. ROADS _ (~aximum 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 existi.ng street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating 1 Comment; Engineering Department states. that expansion wi:ll requtl'e substantia 1 pavi ng, curb and gutter on Mill. Monqrch, Dean and Lawn Streets, which should be provided 0.1 appli,cqnt but has not been promis,ed in the submission. 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL fACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each applicati'on with respect to its impact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning poi nts accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 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 qual ity of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly; a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a 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 walkin~ 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. Rating 4 Comment: L 1ft l-A ;'s. ab~ut.70a feet from the mid_point of the lodge. The lodge is certainly vlithin reasonable walking dtstance of Rubey Park qnd the Durant,Avenue bus route but does not qbut either. 2 " b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ Vuaximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response, standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. COllJllent: Rating 2 Project is within the standard service area of the Aspen Police Department. c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating 2 , COllJllent: Project is proxim<lte to the downtown cl;lmmerci<ll core, providing the full range of tourist commerci<ll services. 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The COllJllission shall consider e<lch application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate e<lch development by assigning points according to the following formula: o - Indicates a totally deficient design 1 ~ Indicates a majo,r design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard)' design 3 - Indicates an excellent design , Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) consideripg the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Comment: The new building is not quite as Rating 1 arge <IS the 2 building under construction, but still is a m<lssive, box-like structure, whose bulk exceeds that of surrounding developments, <lnd whose building materials are unique to the area. b. SITE DESIGN _ (maximum 3 points) considering the qual ity and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent ofundergroundi ng of uttl i ties, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Comment: Proposed landscaping is Rating located within courtyard and in 2 location of Blue Spruce, Land?caping previously proposed has not yet been provided; while applicant is currently considering using Blue Spruce for employee housing, thereby not demolishing it. Engineering Department is uncertain as to access for service and 3 trash vehicles. c. ENERGY _ (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. ' Rating 2 Comment: Applicant does propese insulation standards and use ~f efficient fi'replaces to maximize energy conservation, but does not guarantee the'use of solar energy devices, d. AMENITIES _ (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating 2 I Comment: Proposed open space is located in front of the Inn and also associated with the Blue Spruce and future conference facility. No bike path is currently found near this project. e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of bu'ildings to maximize public vi,ews of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 2 Comment: Whi,le the building conforms to underlying area and bulk requirements, its large site creates a structure substantially larger than anything else in the area. project does not fall within any view, plane limitation. 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following,items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: The applicant proposes 21,000 square feet of common areas, including a lobby, pool, health club and conference facility, b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: The Arya Restaurant provides three meal dining servicE, and is located on the lodge site. 4 c. Accessory recreational facilities - Umaximum 1 point). Rating 1 Coment: The lodge will provide a pool wi'th a terrace area and a health club. d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Coment: Tne appl icant proposes to Build a' 5000 s.quare foot conference facility on the site. e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating 1 Comment: The lodge is within walking di:s.tance of Lift l-A (approximately 750 feet from the lobby). f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 pOlnt). Rating 1 Comment: Provides a full range of touri~t facilities, as noted above, plus proximity to the ski area and downtown, 5. CONFORI-IANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Comnission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity witn local planning policies 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 potnts 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating 2 Comment: Applicant's calculations are incorrect. The maxi~um internal tourist F'.A.R. on the si,te is 0.66]:1 or 68,505 square feet., W.ith the proposed 8232 square feet reduction, this amounts to a 12.0% reduction in tourist F.A.R. on the sit~. 5 - . b. Bonus employee housing: The Convnission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 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 Rating 6 Comment: The applicant proposes to provide 24 units on site, with a two person occupancy per room. The 48 employees housed represent 80% of the 59 employees expected at the lodge. The " applicant may not change the types of rooms proposed in the previous appllcatlon wltnout a tormal amenoment. c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 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 withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 3 Comment: The applicant proposes to operate 12 limousines, to provide 114 parking spaces (48 new, 56 existing) and to prohibit on-site employee parking. 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 pOints) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quolity. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points 0 Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 45 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Poi nts 0 ' Tota 1 Poi nts' 45. Namp. of P & 'z Member: Planning Office 6 ,-... ""'" "- " PLANNING AND ZONIllG Cor~MISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: ~eA) lt0 0 Wf:}J~Dt-J DATE: txx Co, \q~L . 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning 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 " Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER" - (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. Rating " Comment: b. SEWER - (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. Rating 2.. Comment: c. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 poi nts) cons ideri ng the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating ~ ' Comment: '! ,."", I ~ I I I -. ' d. FIRE PROTECTION _ (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. Rating .3 Conment: e. ROADS _ (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 existi,ng street system or the necessity of providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance. Rating J Conment: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL fACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each appl ication with respect to its impact on social facil ities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separatelY): ' 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a 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. Rating \5 Comrnen't : 2 ""..'..... '--"," b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ tmaximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response, standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating 2- COl1l1lent: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rattng 2- ,Cormnent: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The COllJ1lission shall constder each application w1th. respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigntng points accordtng to the fOllowing formula: o - Indicates a totallY deficient design 1 - Indicates a major destgn flaw 2 _ Indicates an acceptable (but standard)' destgn 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maxtmum 3 points) consideripg the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height. location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 2 cOl1l1lent:Ctmm\~l~ 'rvl(' r()f\~S\eM~ voiced 'rt,S nbi,Fr.l1nfl'S, +n \ Z/'f~ Do\~ b:) ,I tU f\qs - ~ ~ V ~l O~lON ~.y roNf: in a..e<'.i)u;{WU'. IAiltM M-1jl&t ~ 'n<) I t ~ 51 f-€N'AO...uK.5> b. SITE DESIGN _ (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent ofundergroundi ng of util ;ties, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating :;- Comment: 3 ..-,.",- ,,,,,.- c. ENERGY _ (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 2-- CDnment: d. AMENITIES _ (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating J I COI1I11ent: e. VISUAL IMPACT _ (maximum 3 po nts) considedng the scale and location of buildings to maximize publ c views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating ,.. COlranent; 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following,items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Corrment; 4 ~, "." " c. Accessory recreational facilities - Umaximum 1 point). Rating I Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating I " Comment: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating / Comment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating / Comment; 5. CONFOffi1ANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree 'of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum allowable internal f.A.R. 0naximum 3 points) if reduction is greater than: 15% - 3 potnts 10% - 2 potnts 5% - 1 point Rating J- Comment: 5 '''., c'.-,'.... ...., ~' -' b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall aWi\rd points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or mOre of lodge employees housed on sHe - 4 points 25% or more of lodge employees housed on sHe - 2 points Rating {, Comment: , c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 pDints maximum): 1. One (1) limousi,ne wi,th regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of 10dge)- 1 point '2. Reduction in parking below minimum recommended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating 3 Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded. ) Bonus Points Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 ~ (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points o ~ Total Points' Na.mf' of P &Z Member: ~m'lY\.Q.. lL{ ~ 6 ...., ," PLANNING AND ZO[m~G cor.u.nSSION EVALUATION PROJECT: ~ 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS J?-A(V h IV , 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: DATE: !CJ~ {, - ~/ 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (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. Rating 3 COIlJ11ent: b. SEWER - (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 uP9rading. Rating '$ COIlJ11ent: JW cJ~((A.n~ c. STORl1 DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating 3 Coment: ~ cJe/Cla<C(~ l , '- - . ~ r"- '-- d. FIRE PROTECTION _ (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. Rating 3 COlIIDent: , e. ROADS _ (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. Rating I COlll1lent: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consi,der each application wtth respect to its tmpact on social facilities and serYicesand shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separatelY): 0- Project requires the provision of new,seryices 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points)~ Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski Hft and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walkin~ 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 etther. Rating c, Comment: 2 (0 "'" [' .~ ,^,,,. " b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating '2., COllJ1Jent: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating 2, ,CollJ1lent: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The COllJ1Jission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points accord1'ng 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating .3 COlTll1ent: b. SITE DESIGN _ (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating 2 Comment: 3 <1 ,', ',", '""",,, ~ c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. COllllllent: ItJo svfw Rating ?-- "1r /'c~L I~ d. AMENITIES ~ (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and Bicycle ways. Rating 2- COIlIllIent: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public vi,ews of surrounding scenic areas. Rating ,;2. COllllllent: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission' shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- ~ion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating ( Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1, point). Rating COllllllent: . 4 <6 ""':'-~",, - --- '"j c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating ( COllll1ent: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating COJIJI)en t: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating COlllllent: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating t COI1J1Jent: 5. CONFORr1ANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: a. Reduction of tourist rental space below ~aximum allowable internal F.A.R. (maximum 3 points) if reduction i.s greater than: 15% - 3 points 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating "'2- Comment: 5 ,& ,.';"', - -- '." '" b. Bonus employee housing: The, Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 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 to Rating Comment: c. Auto pis incentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows - (3 points maximum): 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 withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating '3 Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 pojnts) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Comment: Bonus Points :? 1.01 ~VtlJ;'jtr<- Cf/lJ ;-vft.ci ~jvV> J;>/ cfv k,...~ ~ /. i c- ~J S>~ /- r~' J..lJ' I j"J. ~ Ik tAA/I evt;4 1*4~ It<-Ctd")' r"ev< fr(7.~ h', Ii. 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points ? 61 Name of P & Z Member: Total/!?1nts , I J/; 6 12- '" \,..,,/ ~ PLANNING AND ZONIHG cor~~IISSION EVALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: 77fPEA/ Z4/A;/ DATE: 10' 6'- ? / 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (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. Rating 3 Comment: b. SEWER - (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. Rating ? Comment: c. STORl4 DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating ;;2 Comment: , ..,,~, ... .,,; d. FIRE PROTECTION - (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. Rating ::J Conment: e. ROADS - (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. Rating ;;; Comment: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL fACILITIES AND SERVICES; The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on 'social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): , ' 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a 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. Rating S- Comment: 2 "".... '",.... '", '" b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ 0naximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protectton according to reasonable response standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating 2 COIII1lent: -c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating '2 ,COIII1lent: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The COllJTJission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o ~ Indicates a totallY deficient design 1 ~ Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard} design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL' DESIGN ~ (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed bui.lding, (in terms of size, height; location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating ~ COlll11ent: b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating ;p Comment: 3 ,'-... ,." ,.-.", "".,..,"" c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating :2 Comment: . d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and Bicycle ways. Rating ::2 COl1II1ent: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating ;:( COlll1Jent: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The COlll1Jission's considera- 4ion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: - a. Spaciousness and quality of cOlll1Jon meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating ( Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating r Comment: 4 " '"" ,..., . c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating I COI1IIlent: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating ( Conment: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). I , Rating Conment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Comment; 5. CONFOro~NCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Conmission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with. local planning policies 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 5% - 1 point Rating .3 Conment: 5 " , " ,- .~" , . , / ", ,.- b. Bonus employee houstng: The Commtsston shall award points as follows ~ (6 points maxtmum): ' 75X or more of lodge employees housed on site ~ 6 points 50% or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 25X or more of lodge employees housed on site ~ 2 points Rating (;' COIIJIJent: c. Auto disincentive ~ considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows ~ (3 points maxtmum): 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 withltmousine service - 1 point 3. Prohtbition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating '3' COlIJ1len t : 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded. ) !lonus Points Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 ~ 5 L/ ~ (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points Total Points ~~- Name of P & Z Member: n/<~,/ 6 )/cP7V7 -,,""'- " ",--.,,,,,' , 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 " Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (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. Rating .3 Comment: b. SEWER - (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. . Rating .J COI1l1lent: c. STORl4 DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating .J Comment: ,; ," ,.., ,,~, ..",1''- d. FIRE PROTECTION _ (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. Rating~ C()IlIlIent: e. ROADS _ (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. Ratfng I Conment: Rate the following features accordi,ng1y: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a 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. Rating~ Comment: 2 /) ',",j ,""'..... '....",'..; b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ Vnaximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response, standards without the necessity of additional faci 1 ities, personnel or equipment. Rating :J,.. COIlB1lent: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating :L. ,CoJll1lent: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The COJll1lission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o - Indicates a totally defi'Cient design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 _ Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN _ (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibil ity of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. 'Rating .L COJll1lent: b. SITE DESIGN _ (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rati:ng ~ Comment: 3 d ....'..... " ,"""",- c. ENERGY _ (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficlent ftreplaces to maximizeconserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating' , Cooment: d. AMENITIES _ (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and Bicycle ways. Rati~g~ Convnent: e. VISUAL IMPACT _ (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating I Conunent: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS; The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- 4ion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaclousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating---!- Convnent: 4 Ii #'''. " ~, , c. Accessory recreational facilities - Vnax;mum 1 point). Rating COllJl1ent: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating I COllJl1ent: " e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating-1- COlli1lent: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maxim~m 1 point). , Rattng--1- COIlJI1ent: 5. CONFOR/1ANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The COllJl1ission shall consider each applicati,on and its degree of conformity with local planning policies 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 5% - 1 point Rating .J..... Comment: 5 ' \ 1"..... , ~". " b. Bonus employee housing: The cOllJlltssion shall aW<lrd points as follows - (6 points maximum): " c. Auto disincentive ~ considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows ~ (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousi,ne with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)~ 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below minimum recollJllended in Code when done in coordination withlimousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rati ng -.3 COl1JT1ent: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits rec9gnition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awa rded. ) Bonus Points Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 I/~ (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points Total Points /1 g/ Namp. of P & Z Member: t\ <,"","" - ~UtJf ",.,;,/ ~..,'" PLANNING AND ZONING Cor.,NISSION EVALUATION /.\ _ n 19~2 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: ~ lAJ.u 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: DATE:~ f)~ S?r 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 I' Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (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. Rating ? Comment: b. SEWER - (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. ' Rating ---z..- Comment: c. STORr., DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Rating -? _ Comment: ..".."" " ,<".#' d. FIRE PROTECTION - (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. Rating~ COlTlllent: e. ROADS - (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. Rating L--- COlTlllent: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The COlTlllissi,on shall consider each application with respect to its impact on -social facilities and seryi,cesand shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the fOllowing formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separatelY): o _ Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense 1 - Project may be hClndledby existing level of service in the Clrea 2 - Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a 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 walkin~ 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. Rating Lfr;- Conunent: 2 - " ........ ...,y..-l b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ tmaximurn 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable respDnse, standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating -z-. COl1JlJent: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rat ing -z..-.- , COIlIi1ent: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The COl1JlJiss'ion shall consider each applicat'ion with respect to the quality of its exter'ior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o - Indicates a totally def'i'cient design 1 ~ Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accord'ingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibil ity of the proposed building (in terms of size. height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 2.- COl1JlJent: b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of util'ities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating ~ COlMlent: 3 ,.--" /"'"" "..",JII' """" c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating "'L COllJl1ent: d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and Bicycle ways. Rating ~ , COI1I1Ient: e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating --z-- Comment: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- ~ion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating ( COI1I1Ient: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Comment: 4 "',..'.... - - ,",,/ c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rattng ~ CORlDent: d. Conference and banquet facil i,ties - (maximum 1 point) . Rating-I- COIIJIIent: " e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating , CORlDent: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maxim~m 1 point). Rattng-L CORlDent: 5. CONFOffi1ANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies 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 5% - 1 point Rating ~ Comment: 5 . ,." ............ ....",..., ~;J b. Bonus employee housi,ng: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 75'; or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50% or mOre of lodge employees housed on sHe - 4 points 25'; or more of lodge employees housed on sHe - 2 points Rating b Comment: " c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows ;. (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) ltmousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge)- 1 pOint 2. Reduction in parking below mtnirnum recommended in Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rati ng -=J Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum'12 points) provided the project merits rec9gnition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awa rded. ) Bonus Points 0 Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in / l--1 .:- Categories 1 - 5 ~ (Minimum of 35 needed to be , eligible in competition.) Bonus Points Total Points Ne,ml' of P & Z Member:-JtU,JJ7 6 . "'. -, .......... '<, .,,~ PLANNING AND ZOrHlIG COHNISSION EYALUATION 1982 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: ~ '~!J DATE: o .()~f)) 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning 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 " Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (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, tts 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. Rating ~ C,,",ot, ~ b. SEWER - (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. ' Rating /? Comment; c. STORl~ DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. _ ' Rating~ {JM, gf/V T~ f 'ertfiM1! h/s~ Comment: ,..T--' :f5f-~~ ,..... d. FIRE PROTECTION - (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. Rating :b Comment: e. ROADS - (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. Rating :? (# Comment: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact on -social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning poi nts accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points). Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a 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. Rating f5 Comment: 2 .-., 4,1, -- .""J' b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response, standards without the necessity of additio>>31 facil Hies, personnel or equipment. ;1 Rating ~ COllJIlent: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points), Rating' Z-- 1 , Corrment: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN: The COl1J1Jission shall consider each application \'lith. respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the fDllowing formula: o - Indicates a totally defi'Cient design 1 ~ Indicates a major design flaw 2 ~ Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the fOllowing features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating~? c, COl1J1Jent: b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating ~ ~~> Comment: 3 .-"""-, r' .....',,;; ~ A 1-, c. ENERGY - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. COlllllent: ~ (~ Rating ~1'~' :7 - ~,. .' d. AMENITIES _ (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public open space and pedestrian and Bicycle ways. Rati~g~7q Comment: e. VISUAL IMPACT _ (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. ,z. " h, Rating Comment; 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission shall consider each application with , respect to its proposed services for guests. The COlllllission's considera- tion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating--J- COIlIllent: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point). Rating j COlllllent: 4 "'0' ~ (. I \ ~'''''' c. Accessory recreational facilities - (maximum 1 point). Rating r COlII11ent: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point). , Ratin9+ " Conment: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). , Rating~ Comment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rattng+ Comment: 5. CONFORr1ANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with, local planning policies 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 5% - 1 point Rating~ Comment: 5 ' , . "....... " " '._,1 ,# b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 751:: or more of lodge employees housed on site - 6 points 50~ or more of lodge employees housed on site - 4 points 251:: or more of lodge employees housed on site - 2 points Rating ~ Comment: I) c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows . (3 points maximum): 1. One (1) limousine with regular service per 25 guests (based on theoretical capacity of lodge). 1 point 2. Reduction in parking below mini,mum recommended i,n Code when done in coordination with limousine service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant - 1 point Rating "'? -/1 Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum'12 pOints) provided the project merits rec9gnition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded.) Bonus Points Comment: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Categories 1 - 5 ~, (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points Total Points N... of P & z M"b"'--Wil~ ~ 6 - ,.... ", " PLANNING AND ZONWG COf-1NISSION EVALUATION IA . IT 19~2 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: ft:j,ST1ffJ J1J!l! ' DATE: {Jc f (rl 6/ 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The Commission shall con- sider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formu~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 " Rate the following features accordingly: a. WATER - (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 treabnent plant or other facility upgrading. Rating 3 Comment: b. SEWER - (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. Rating :3 Comment: c. STORr-1 DRAINAGE - (maximum 3 points) considering the capacity of the drainag~ facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. Conment: Rating eX) J rr-J2 ~ ~ " ;: ~~ "'""' "..... -"'" ...... d. FIRE PROTECTION _ (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. Rating -::s COllJllent: e. ROADS _ (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., Rating 3 COllJllent: 2. AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The COllJllission shall consider each application with respect to its tmpact on social facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following formula (except for public transportation, which is evaluated separately): 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 Rate the following features accordingly: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - (maximum 6 points)~ Six (6) points shall be given if within walking distance (520 feet) of a ski lift and abuts a public transit route. Four (4) points shall be given if within reasonable walking distance of both a ski li'ft and public transit stop. Two (2) points shall be given if within reasonable walkin~ 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. (/~ Rating _ '--" Comment: 2 ,~' ... ,-, ,,., b. POLICE PROTECTION ~ 0naximum 2 points) considering the ability of current police security services to provide protection according to reasonable response, standards without the necessity of additional facilities, personnel or equipment. Rating C---:: COllJllent: c. PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FACILITIES - (maximum 2 points) Rating ~ , ,COllJllent: 3. QUALITY OF DESIGN; The COllJlli,ssion shall consider each application with. respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each. development by assigning points according to the following formula: o - Indicates a totallY deficient design 1 ~ Indicates a major design flaw 2 _ Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an excellent design Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and bull ding materi a 1 s) with exi sting neighboring developments. Rating ~ COllJllent: b. SITE DESIGN _ (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and char- acter of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating '3 COllJllent: 3 ,..... /", - ,^,,# c. ENERGY _ (maximum 3 points) considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conserva- tion of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating ~ Conrnent: d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) considering the provision of usable public Dpen space and pedestrian and Bicycle ways. Rat11)9 3 Comment: e. VISUAL IMPACT _ (maximum 3 points} considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public vi,ews of surrounding scenic areas. Rating -z--- Comment: 4. SERVICES FOR GUESTS: The Commission sha11 consider each application with respect to its proposed services for guests. The Commission's considera- ~ion shall include, but not be limited to the following items: a. Spaciousness and quality of common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas - (maximum 1 point). Rating / I Comment: b. Dining facilities on site - (maximum 1 point}. Rating-f--- Comment: 4 ,.. ... '~ ,; c. Accessory recreational facilities - (~aximum 1 point). Rating-!- Comment: d. Conference and banquet facilities - (maximum 1 point) . Rating-+-- " Conment: e. Proximity to ski trails and ability to ski in and gain access to lifts on a walking basis - (maximum 1 point). Rating I Comment: f. Overall tourist appeal - (maximum 1 point). Rating+ Comment: 5. CONFOffi~NCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS: The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies as follows: ' a. Reduction of tourist rental space below maxi,mum allowable internal f.A.R. ,(maximum 3 points) if reducti:on is greater than: 15% - 3 poi'nts 10% - 2 points 5% - 1 point Rating v Comment: 5 , " ,.., '"",,,,, " b. Bonus employee housing: The Commission shall award points as follows - (6 points maximum): 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 Rating (~ COIIIUent: " c. Auto disincentive - considering the degree to which the application provides alternatives to conventional car use and parking as follows ~ (3 points maxi:mum): 1. One (1) li:mousine 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 withlimousi,ne 'service - 1 point 3. Prohibition against employee parking on property guaranteed by covenant ~ 1 point Rating 3 Comment: 6. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum 12 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points are awarded. ) Bonus Points /~ J Comment: ibt hClJ"}jl- jia"rV>d ?tlv C 871'4!/.J-~41('a4-,J'1l{JC;ruv-W PdD (!!h-t&/?! /';/1,9aJ At1 ;-?UUc ./217cC7d ' Pro !eLf /h~ }~Z-~1s PI) D to!t{c-!. (j v .!c.U7t1W1.c., 7 ~ tcU'C/ {C-u. pj~~ ~ );jjj~'7 U ;7 {/ (/ / 7. TOTAL POIlHS 4- Points in Categories 1 - 5 ~ (Minimum of 35 needed to be eligible in competition.) Bonus Points /2- Total pOints~ Y- <) Namp of P & Z Member: 6 -I o -I ):> r- "'C o .... :z --l <.n n ):> --l I'T1 Ci> o ;;c .... I'T1 <.n ):> I "T1 .". 00 tn .". .". 00 .". O'r .". ...... tn tn .". O'r tn tn ~ 00 "T1 co o :::l i:: III "'C o ~. :::l ... III --l o --l ):> r-, "'C o .... :z --l <.n n ):> --l I'T1 Ci> o ;;c .... I'T1 <.n ):> I I'T1 o w .. o o o C> ~ ~ N o .". 00 <.n c CO --l o --l ):> r- ~ ~ w ):> i:: ... o '" ~. III _. :::l n CD :::l ... ~. < CD III w N ~ -C ~ o '< CD CD :r o i:: III ~. :::l '" O'r tn ~ ~ --'WO"IN .". 00 ~ --l o i:: "'l ~. III ... ;;C CD :::l ... ." ~ ;;c CD c.. i:: n ... _. o :::l N ~ --I W en N .". O'r ~ --' W 0"1 N .". ...... tn tn .". ~ --'WO"IN ~ N W 0"1 W tn .". ~ --' W 0'1 N .". \0 . 00 ~ N I'T1 n o :::l ..., o "'l 3 ." :::l n CD ... o r- o n ." ~ "'C i:: 0- ~ -, Vl C CO --l o il r- n "'C o ~ _. n '< Ci> o ." ~ III O'r O'r o < CD "'l ." ~ ~ --l o i:: "'l _. III ... ):> -c -C CD ." ~ ~ tn Vl ,.. ~. "'C "'l o X -, 3 -. ... '< ~ .". n o ..., CD "'l CD :::l n CD "T1 ." n _. ~ _. ... _. CD III ~ w N ~ 0'\-'--'--'--'--'--' ;;c CD n "'l CD ." ... _. o :::l "T1 ." n _. '" :;: _. CD :::l CD _. ... :::l _. '" :::l '" "T1 ." ):> n "'l -, CD ~ ." ..... . V) ... ~, 0"1--'--'--'--1--'--' ~ CD III 0"1--'--'--'--'--'--' _. ... _. CD III ~ ~ ~ 0)--'--'--'--'--'--' 0"\--'--'--'--'--'--' 0"1 --' --' --' --' --' --' O'r '" . <.n CD "'l < -, n CD III ..., o "'l Ci> i:: CD III ... III Vl C CO --l o il r- ~ C> ~ ~ U1 < _. III i:: ." ~ .... 3 -C ." n ... N .". W ,N ~ ):> "'l n ::r _. ~. ... CD n ... i:: "'l ." ~ ~ CD :::l _. ... _. CD III I'T1 Vl :::l _. CD ... "'l CD '" '< '" CD III '" :::l '" CD III _. '" :::l N N N N N <...y N N N ~ o --' W N N N \D N --' N N N ~ o ~ w N N N N W W N'N + ~ NNW N W N ~ o ...... n "'C l>> N < o ... _. :::l '" :;: CD 3 0- CD "'l III .0 i:: ." ~ ~. Q o ..., o CD III ~. '" :::l ~ r- CD CD o ~ o ..., c.. ." III 3 _. :::l CD ~ :E CD ~ ... o :::l ):> ~ ~ "'C ;;C o c.. I'T1 n --l ~ ID CO N r- o '" Ci> I'T1 Ci> :;;c .0 :E --l :r ):> III -a CD :::l .... :::l :::l I'T1 X -a ." :::l III $ :z > <;) I'T1 3: I'T1 :z --l --l ):> r- r- oo<' IJ'l :r I'T1 I'T1 --l -. o :::l --c D> '" CD N #""" ,,'''''''", '.../ ",....' <Xl ~ -0 -0 . ;;0 "" 0 w '" ~ Vl U'I -1>0 W '" ~ -0 c... 0 C; N ITl 'no"~ 0" n n -0 -0 ~, ;;0 .." Vl Vl ~ ~ <: -l 0 0 c; '" 0 ~. .... m '" ~. 0 ~ ~ 0" ~ '" -s 0 ::e: .... n .... ~. ~ 0. m -s m m ~. m n ~, .." '" 3 -s -s .." ::3 -s m n '" -0 '" c.o ~ n n -s <::> Vl Vl n '" ~. -0 -l ~. 0 -s m m ~. 3: -a '" -s -s ~ .... '" -s -s ~ m m ~ 0 '" ~. m ~. < < ~. 3 ::3 .... ::3 .... n ::3 ~. ~. .... 0" Vl m '" ~. .... '" n' n ~, m ~ c; n -a m ~. c.o m m m -s ::3 -a .... 0 '" 0 m '" '" ::3 -a ~. -s ::3 0 0 .... '" '" ITl -s ::3 '" ::3 ::3 X .... .... 0. 0. '" ~. -0 0 Vl Vl ::3 -s ::3 m m '" Vl 0 -s Vl -s ~, c:: x < c:: < 0 <Xl ~. ~. <Xl ~. ::3 -l 3 n -l n 0 ~. m 0 Cl) -l ~ '" -l '" ~ ~ r- r- ~ ~ ~ <0 N N U'I N N N '" W W <0 CD '" r- 0 <::> '" ITl ~ r- -0 '" m ;;0 0 N N Q) W I--' W W W W Cl) "" 0 ~ N -l :c -0 -l 0 3: ~ ~ ~ r- :z :z . r- -l ~ -< Vl '" ~ 0 ITl ~ Vl ~ 3: 00 N N -1>0 W I--' W W W W '" :c r- ITl .." ", r- :z ", 0 -l -l n ~ -0 -l r- ~ ~ 0 :z :z c... Vl '" c:: ~ '" <Xl <0 N N U'I ~ I--' W N N W 3 3: ~, ~ ::3 Vl Cl) Vl ~ 0 :z 00 .p. ~ ~ N N N N W N N W U'I U'I ~ Cl) ~ ~ ~ 0 N N Q) W N W W N W .... 0 ::3 ~ o N Q) ~ U'I ~ ~ N w w w w w <0 N . ~ N ..... ~ '--"<< .-'"'~' "__1":';C;:~';O""-- .,:4~~~~~~~'it~...-,--,~,---~ - -----' ('303) 925-4444 \ ASPEN TITLE COMPANY p, 0, BOX 9590 - 530 EAST ~IAIN STREET ASPEN. GOLOHADO 01011 \' September II, 1981 Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: Aspen Title Company hereby certifies that the owners of the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, are as follows: Parcel 1 Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup 2 Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup 3 Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup 4 - Lots 7 & 8 Hans B. Cantrup 4 - Lots 11 & 12 Hans B. Cantrup'and June Cantrup 5 Hans B. Cantrup 6 Hans B. Cantrup 7 Hans B. C:mtrup 8 Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup ~:~ TITLE COMPANY , ;,} $( 7'114'_ <; ({~({ ~l~ BY Thomas S. Arnold "Represenlinn ,he lol/owinn underwrilers: Firsl American Tide Insurance Company, P*'" . r> n. I\f_,,____, 'r~.L I__.._n_M> ~-..J , '''I IFF Till"" ',u,ruYlnl'p". . EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1: Lots A, B, C and D BLOCK 84 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL 2: Lots I, 2, 3, 4 and 5 BLOCK 2 CONNOR'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL 3: A tract of land, being all of Lot 6, Block 2 and part of the unplatted portion of CONNOR'S ADDITION lying east of said Lot 6 and adjacent to the CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, said tract being more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said CONNOR'S ADDITION whence the Northwest corner of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., bears North 20 degrees, 8 minutes, 40 seconds West, 773.8 feet; THENCE South 15 degrees West, along the East line of CONNOR'S ADDITION 99.99 feet to the North line of Lawn Street; THENCE North 75 degrees West, along the North line of Lawn Street 57.75 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 6; THENCE North 15 degrees 49 minutes 50 seconds East, along the West line of said Lot 6, a distance of 100 feet to the Northwest corner of said lot, being a point on the South line of Dean Avenue; THENCE South 75 degrees East, along the South line of Dean Avenue, 56.3 feet to the POINT OF BEG1m~ING, and Lots 1, 2 and 3, DEAN'S ADDITION, adjacent to the CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PARCEL 4: Lots 7, 8, 11 and 12 ' BLOCK 3 CONNOR'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL 5: Lots I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the strip 30 feet wide East of Lot 6 and Lot 12 in Block 3, CONNOR'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, together with one-half of the vacated alley adja- cent to and at the rear of said Lots '1 through 6 PARCEL 6: A tract of land described as beginning at a point from whence the Northwest corner of Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. bears North 150 57' 43" West 1005.24 feet; thence North o 0 14 33' 22" East 129.64 feet; thence North 75 00' West 70.72 o fe8t; thence South 15 00' West 129.64 feet; thence South 75 00' East 71.73 feet to the point of beginning, formerly known and described as Lots 4 and 5, Dean's Addition to the City of Aspen, Colorado PARCEL 7: A tract of land being Lots 6, 7 and 8, DEAN'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, except that part of Lots 7 and 8 lying within the following described parcel: BEGINNING at U.S.M.S. 2535, Corner #1, whence U.S.M.S. Ute No. 4 bears N 850 12' 50" E., 2090.18 feet; thence S 150 00' W'6 3.79 feet; thence S 750 09' lr' E., 69.99 feet; thence S 14 33' 22" E., 307.20 feet to the true point of beginning; thence N 750 30' 42" W., 60.52 feet; thence S 140 29' 18" W., 104.03 o 0 feet; thence S 75 00' E., 60.41 feet; thence N 14 33' 22" E., 104.58 feet to the true point of BEGINNING. PARCEL 8: A parcel of land being part of Lots 7, 8 and 9, DEAN'S ADDITION TO TilE CITY OF ASPEN. Said parcel is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at U.S.M.S. 2535, Corner #1, whence U.S.M.S. 00, Ute No.4 bears N 85 12' 50" E., 2090.18 feet; thence S 15 00 o 0 W., 3.79 feet; thence S 75 09' 11" E., 69.99 feet; thence S 14 33' 22" E., 307.20 feet to the true point of BEGINNING; thence N 750 30' 42" W., 60.52 feet; thence S 140 29' 18" W., 104.03 feet; thence S 750 00' E., 60.41 feet; thence N 140 33' 22" E., 104.58 feet to the true point of BEGINNING. Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado - . I, ....'" ~ Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado, 81611 ) I ~ December 21, 1981 Spence Schiffer Garfield & Hecht 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Spence, As we have discussed, a number of problems have been identified with Mr. Cantrup's 1982 Aspen Inn Growth Management Plan Submission. Those problems constitute either a deficency in the original submission or involve issues for which technical clarification is required. Pursuant to Section 24-11.6 f of the Municipal Code, the Planning Office requests that you submit on behalf of Mr. Cantrup the following information: 1. A revised site plan whcih depicts an accurate representation of the total site area applicable to the Aspen Inn submission, 2. External F.A.R. calculations for the proposed expansion, and 3. A revised computation of internal F.A.R. to include maximum allowable rental square footage ( i.e., number of lodge units requested), minimum allowed non-unit square footage, and a proposed employee square footage. Upon,submission of the requested information, the Planning Office will ascertain the extent to which the changes would have affected the Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring of Mr. Cantrup's application. You are respectfully requested to submitt the above clarifications to the Planning Office no later than January 4, 1982. The Planning Office will review the material submitted in a timely fashion and you will be notified as to our decision in this matter at the earliest possible date. Thank you for your cooperation. SincerelY,~ _ f\ .J:&- 'L0L Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director cc: Paul Taddune Sunny Vann . T CITY OF AS~ EN ~ MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN - P J') "7 !o~ 6("' r ~ r r , ,f} ? ,"\) 'f 9 0, P f ~ A> r f ~ j (,r) ""V r - iT ~ VI -- . V'\ f ~\ 11'1 J.. J.V? ,,\r ..!. -' ~.-!. c0 r' , vJ V) ~ ~l ~ '1 ~ r V') /. r q.J J'> QJ -.J-f> ..s> "1 "* f q) "/ >- ..P 1>'\ .,.. 0 I I \II l' -+ r <f: ..J '"' .f '" '^ u. ~) ~ .- (b <.f"" --- ~ "r l' 1f\ " < ~ 1 '5 VI ~ j p ,r '~ ~ ~ L 0 -3 oJ ~ --- r ,~ ,/ .Q:, fJ V' II' if. I l' \^ \ '" , r- .,f:).J r f'\ r- <S ") i ,.- "1 ~ 1/\ " , GAHFIELD 8< HECHT Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN A VENUE ....-.....-.nGr:"'~ ASPEN, COLORADO ,~;f?":::' ::"L}'~":'I\ November 24, ~ 981- , "\\i \,\ NO'J 2 ~ 198 1 ~ 1_:J l..... ___ ~- --- ."" A'~'?FN / "-',,-':,.~,i! \,"';~' ;:;. ""'.,.' ',-.,.."<",....',... '- f'lANNlt,;v vcr,v'" TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPJ ER (303) 925,3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC' RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT SPENCER F, SCHIFFER KATHERINE HENDRICKS (ADMlTIEO IN MASSACHUSETTS ONLY) RE: Aspen Inn 1982 Lodge GMP Allocation Dear Paul: . Sunny Vann, Alan Richman, and John Kelly all inform me that you had conferred with the Planning Department and there was some disagreement as to our position regarding the relinquishment of the 24 additional units which the City Council agreed to allocate this year. I would like to reiterate in writing what I have already stated to both Sunny and Alan, which is also in accordance with John Kelly's understanding of what was represented, That is that if Council would restore the 24 units to the lodge quota, we were willing to relinquish the additional 24 units pIus any additional bonus which the Council \Vould be \villing to award in order to permit Lyle Reeder to complete his proposed 31 unit project. We never intended to relinquish any part of the 54 unit allocation which we won in the Gf,lP competition. He felt that such a proposed compromise would obviate the necessity for the challenge and would be in the best interests of all concerned. Although no specific mention was made of this by the Council in the motion that was adopted increasing the quota, I understand that this decision is entirely discretionary with Council and that they will exercise that perogative when the specific alloca- tion is actually made. . If you have any questions or comments, I would be happy to discuss them with you at your convenience. Very trjlY yours, GARFIELD & HECHT SFS/ms cc: Sunny Vann Alan Richman John Kelly Hans Cantrup Schiffer o o GARFIELD & HECHT RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V, HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 October 20, 1981 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK K, ROULHAC GARN RICHARD y, NEILEY, JR, SPENCER F, SCHIFFER HAND DELIVERED t,lr. Sunny Vann Aspen City Planning Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 1982 GMP - Lodge Dear Sunny: Enclosed please find a challenge to the P & Z GMP lodge scoring filed on behalf of Hans B. Cantrup together with a letter to Council on the quota. Would you please forward these to Council and place it on the appropriate agenda. Very ruly yours, GARF LD & HECHT SFS/pp enclosures F. Schiffer o o GARFIELD & HECHT RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V, HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK K, ROULHAC GARN RICHARD y, NEILEY, JR, SPENCER F, SCHIFFER October 28, 1981 TELEPHONE (303) 925,1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" Mr. Sunny Vann Aspen City Planning Director 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 1982 Lodge GMP-Challenge Dear Sunny: In view of what is apparently a minor controversy surrounding our challenge of the 1982 GMP Lodge Scoring, I would like to confirm the interpretation which you have given to Section 24-1l.6e of the code upon which our challenge is based. That is, in order for a challenge to be considered it must allege that a member or members of the Planning and Zoning Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or abused their discretion, in their scoring. If, for any reason that is not an accurate representation of your interpretation and position relative to a challenge would you please notify me in writing at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, SFS/mlc ,- -- /...... ,~, RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V, HECHT GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW j VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . October 30, 1981 .~.. CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK K, ROULHAC GARN RICHARD y, NEILEY, JR, SPENCER F, SCHIFFER ., TELEPHONE (303) 925.1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925,3008 }CABLE ADORESS "GARHEC' Mr. Sunny Vann Aspen City Planning Director 130 South Gal~na Aspen, Colorado 81611 R~: 1982 GMP - Lodge Challenge Dear Sunny: It has come to my attention that there is an error with respect to the calculations of F.A.R. in the GMP Challenge submitted in that, although the existing Chalet East was intended to be moved prior to submission thereof. it is sti 11 in place, and therefore the square footage of existing buildings should be increased by 1,500 square feet to account for the remaining Chalet East. Accordingly, I aln submitting revised calculations which I would ask that you submit ~ogether with and as an amend- ment to the challenge. Thank you for your cooperation. SFS/mlc yours, HECHT ~ , ".,. r- ....... Total Site 111,207 sq. ft. Less a) b) c) Existing Building: 6 unit condominium Chalet West previous GMP 36 units at 450 s.f. = 16,200 less: below grade 17 at 450 s.f.=( 7,650) 6,000 3,000 d) Blue Spruce 35 at 450 s.f. = 8,550 15,750 (33,300) 77 , 907 x .667 51,963 s.f. x . 15 7,795 s.f. Site Available for Use Maximum Internal F.A.R. Available 51,963 s.f. (7,945) 44,018 Thus, any building which has a total floor area of less than 45,020 sq. ft. is eligible for the maximum number of points. A. B. c. Assuming the quota available is 54 units; 54 at 450 sq. ft. = 24,300 s.f. Assuming the quota available is 72 units: 72 at 450 sq. ft. = 34,400 s. f. Assuming the quota available is 72 + 33% bonus = 96 units: 96 at 450 sq. ft. = 43,200 s. f. Since under either A, B, or C above the maximum internal floor area of the project will be below 44,018 sq. ft. the project MUST be awarded the maximum number of points in this category. Request is therefore made that the score be adjusted accordingly. "'''-', j;le ""-,/ Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney ~Dan McArthur, City Engineer v'Jim Markalunas, City Water Stogie Maddalone, City Electric Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation ~erb Paddock, Fire Marshal/Building Department ~~ocky Mountain Natural Gas ' ~Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer' FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Inn Expansion - 1982 Growth Management Competition - Lodge - City of Aspen DATE: September 3, 1981 ---------- The attached application is one of two competing in this year's Lodge Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981; there- fore, may I please have your written comments concerning this proposal no later than September 18, 19817 Please include sufficient information in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GNP competition. Thank you for your 'assistance. P"'~'~ ......;0>" Alpine Surveys 414 North Mill Street Post Otflce Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 October 6, 1981 To Aspen Planning and Zoning commission I have, by physical inspection, established the location of the bull wheel on lift I-A as shown on a copy of sheet H-14, topographic map of the city of Aspen. I have also drawn an arc with a radius of 520 feet on the same map showing the relationship of the bull wheel to the Aspen Inn. This arc goes through the existing pool at the Inn. Sincerely yours, ,- - / J,n;,ay;/.~ezet JFR/ml .r'"'- '-'"" w~ ~~cl/bWPff~ 420 E, HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO B 161 1 "' \ ;;/ '" ,10/1/ PI fltfr (Uh7",u~j 0>-' ;LZt-- 0( v " ~/)^cWcli;;'" 1~..(lx", (1 J ( I" /:j", A ,-T {J/:l ~ ,;/---&,,,1--,, Y (.,{/~.:) If; 7 \"C:R~I !IY' r;!/-CU2Z --C;'..J-<<"t {~}-u~k,~~~I-~ tV if'~/!J,j<,(r0' ~cz1 //l~tl..H, I, ii' '/--- d ~/!~ ~-V'~'C/ {J:tt ?4ctrlcJ)an-<'~ ~.. 'f4 ~( -UMJ" ~ 0/-4,. r (',,/- ) '# / !~II-pd7J!." ~'r':U-<-U . ,j Udv..JUC ..dA' !/J ;/ " {))~tt;{~ (ti'b'+(1 ai'-cv~~J ct <7"~ .. ,l,,-~--f /L;rtJ-, //~i-l...t~ V/~J:'7A~/7,Y"f { // / ~ { , '/iJ"I,~ItN~ , ,.' 'I ; /j' /~ /J //1 I (. i 1.1~/-t0 r { (;7'~<'/ .,_c"'.. ....... Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUt~ TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water St09ie Maddalone, City Electric Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal/Building Department Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Inn Expansion - 1982 Growth Management Competition - Lodge - City of Aspen DATE: September 3, 1981 --------'-- The attached application is one of two competing in this year's Lodge Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981; there- fore, may I please have your written comments concerning this proposal no later than September 18, 1981? Please include sufficient information in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competition. Thank you for your 'assistance. J 111; Ey~A'-J/''~ 0 t" rtfI': ~df'C- /....- /fA, f;,FI'~ AfPiJI.lJ...."1'-o, F ~ Ie JAI'-l T"A TI..:.- J eILV1'--F (3'1 r/fr- A~pe- ..rAA-'7""r,fJ~ r~/~TFl--IL'- j/. - 1\ I{ r~ . JL.-Lc1--L /~ :, I~ rt /'0--;: R, , , ~ IMtv -- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1982 City of Aspen Lodge Growth Management Applications NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 6, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to review and score the following 1982 Lodge Growth Management applica- tions: Aspen Inn Expansion The Lodge at Aspen For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. sf Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Conmission City of Aspen Account Published in the Aspen Times on September 3, 1981 . . -- - J'.... - Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM ~ ]t;')o",.,Q(:::Jq~wrQ ~ ~ jrJ ,- '_;-:1 u J?~ r: I,'li- ' ""'J p\ SEP 08 1981 i! d\ c..;, ASPEN / PITKIN CO PLANNING OFFICE TO: Paul T~ddune, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Stogie Maddalone, City Electric Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal/Building Department Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office Ao. ",' -,-," . .' . RE: Aspen Inn Expansion - 1982 Growth Management Competition - Lodge - C'ity of Aspen DATE: September 3, 1981 --,--------- The attached application is one of two competing in this year's Lodge Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 6, 1981; there- fore, may I please have your written comments concerning this proposal no later than September 18, 19817 Please include sufficient information in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competition. Thank ~:t~i'~ ft~--!~ y wd/ ~ /l:/ 1,J. ~~CZ47 --f1r~~ ~~ "" \y'of'd 7Uif", ' ~~4 WA ~ .~/- (?~ IJ~' 7J1~P~ 7fJ7l~~ // c ~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Alan Richman, Planning Office Jay Hammond, Engineering Office~ September 24, 1981 GMP Submissions for Lodge Development Allotments ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the two applications competing for the 1982 allotment of lodge rooms under the City's Growth Management Plan. I have attached evaluation checklists outlining those areas pertinent to Engineering Department comment. Please note that the point allocations are merely suggested scores based on comments or informational inadequacies pointed out in the checklist notes. I would also offer the following outline of concern relative to GMP requirements for each submission: The Aspen Inn 1. Water - The applicant should be aware that both the 6 inch and 8 inch lines adjacent to the site were installed by other developers and that any tap would require a reimbursement to the people that installed the lines as well as normal tap and PIF fees. 2. Roads - The Aspen Inn should be required to provide paving and curb and gutter as needed on Mill, Monarch, Dean and Lawn Streets. 3. Site Design - The application is not clear regarding how large service trucks, trash and delivery access will be accomplished. A facility of this magnitude would require a substantial service access seperate from the guest areas. 4. Amenities - The applicant offers to provide pedestrian ways and substantial amenities and landscaping. Site plans included with the application, however, do not indicate where needed sidewalks, etc., are to be installed. 5. Visual Impact - While the building apparently conforms to area bulk requirements for the zone (although the cross section includes no scale from which to check building height) its rather large site creates a structure substantially larger than anything else in the area. , '" """ '- -- Growth Mariagement Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 1980 Project Name /J 5PFAJ / A/ A.l Address 717 / 5t1J.V'rff fl/~~ .r~ Owner Attorney/Agent/Representative Address Revimved by~ ,. :J~ . , Date ?/ /.1/8'/ 1. L4e.: p Residential Application (section 24-10.4) A. Public Facilities & Services o - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) 3 - No forseeable deficiencies r;:: .vla ter ( 3 pts.) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. 1'HGIt.t'E. ($ A '"7"'(15 P"v FEiE rt1~ "?i"oUr /",f _ #" __ d~ DEI"AfJ? ('C " At.~O 7"W~- C7 ,.17 "'~. ,.... 7t? -r-#F p'ed?l.~ e.v/.;iJ ,.,lUS 7'ifl.I..g;> J"#r .,{/tvE . upgrade. 7'"/I'E $cPc.e 1.5" 5',6&Ue"/e.. 1//.5712/<:( 1/# 7" Y#E c/'T"Y S6eV.E~ / ~* Sewer (3 pts.) Capacity without system I.-.,J/~ C-. {(C:k6 ,"S Storm Drainage (3 pts.) Adequate disposal of surface runoff. o,~-f(&-0 0-" ~t> b~r~-h"( ~ Parking Design (3 pts.) Off. str'let parkj,ng, visual, pa{viing, safety, apd convenience {1 .f!PfIICA-b-tHl co-n./~ ,,,...;~ 0 iJ.M.-lo d7<t~.f!.'/}--v~./ 7'" (IC'V:; 01- Crflr~'W r&\f€l-r , +~"'j VU're>>0d,tt9 er'f1<€f6 (CVl I:,.,; u)/! d;sc(~;e_ ~1'\..frh71.. t'-W-f1/'rt9 e~ $€0nv.> faJfl.l, Roads (3 pts.)/ I ' ,Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more maintenance. ( . I J I 1 / E"fo.,l\l)l~\. wo.)tl r~5ure...... $J.b~,:'{.'a. r"'7 I &Jtl'\ ea..V'.N2.te. <1rl. ~Gj(l.~-7\'l ./1r<!e~ %~ 1--',JiUv,,14./ rl!-.J{V> ~Pf(>eA,,-b ~..,(~(J...1r<>-Ji~ I Page 2 Growth Management ~ew Chec!clist B. So 'al'Fadilities and Services o - equiles new service at public expense 1 - E is 'ing service adequate 2 - P oj ct improves quality of service I' nsportation (2 pts.) 2 - 01) e isting route. 1 - W'thi 520 feet of route. o - N t n ar service area. Bike Paths inked to Trail System (2 pts.) Des gn Featur s for Handicapped (2 pts.) \ c~mmerCial\ail, Office Development Application (section 24-10.5) A. Qualit~ 1f Design o - Tot ~lY deficient 1 - Maj flqw 2 - Acctable 3 - Exc llent II. Site De~'gn (3 pts.) Quality I nd character of landscaping, extend of under- groundip of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of drT ,cion. Amenitles (3 pts.) usablel'OP~ space, pedestrian and bicycle ways. Trash ,nd ~ility access areas (3 pts.) III.Lodge Development Application (section 24-10.6) A. Public Facilities ana Services (same as residential) t Page 3 Growth Management R~ew Checklist ........ .~ . ~ B. Social Facilities and Services o - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. 'I' 4 Public Transportation (6 pts.) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - ~ithin 520 feet of bus route or~liftr 6-t~fe....- 5-.-+rL abv-b ~s n.-.)~, ~\I.~- de i'-e-L. ---0> c. Quality of Design a Site Design (3 pts.) . ' (r ' ' . h J~ ~'7 11 T,~ '!(fOJ ,-I\. it?",.,..., Q Of"""- '".;>fF'cJL... lh1.~fO-W\.rJ.. ()4H~UlLJ, No (;- cJk-.. ?~ ~e.>o-V'~(.Q~ V'l2-~fI:~f~, 10 ---4:5 Amenities (3 pts.) --r~/,\ ~ I -/T'.nk ~l:,,1 {!~6c.. 1flLm..f. ~ 1-~ (pro-V~iL0.J.o, su.wQfI:s I o..lS() 7/'0-JrJ bfL r~C'if<?cI.. -10 r<>1l,"&'/L cv.0.l1lo.""tuh\. c.wrC.1'-- -r~u:Q/ o.->M",(.IU,. Vi~ual Impact (3 pts.) I Sale and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. f:,truJu-<f2..- ri~"'7Js '-l~ (().Al~t ,bv~(dMt.J ~f\. '-//~- .:ur.../',-(!~ ~, 04trP o.r!~~ , 1.- ~ Conformance to Policy GORls (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt.). Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.). Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt.). IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone . L - z- NS ~ Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area Lot Area/Unit Lot Width Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback IOIX:J:S{ Nt:. 1.1e. Nt.:.. ~k -- I\{&.:" - ., Page 4 Growth Management ~iew Checklist Required Maximum Height Building Dist. Bldg. Sq. Footage Open Space External F.A.R. Internal F.A.R. 2.'1) 10 z<S" ;;: (',' Actual . ~(~.;r ...;;.~ 1"'"""'... __of ',. V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption Exception Stream Margin View Plane * Areas to be checkcd'by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority: Otherwise no COlnment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. PEAl-) S~ I1IAJI9/t-c-fI ;f ,IV tC 6.J?..S' C J ~ f HIt.. '- ' #c€.p.? S wi..... s-r.' f?Avnvu- / 5t..O/-c , ASPEN.PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMENT "",l.l" MEMORANDUM / FROM: Alan Richman, Assistant Director;" Planning Office Thomas S. Dunlop, Director, ~D Environmental Health Department TO: DATE: RE: September 14, 1981 Aspen Inn Expansion, 1982 GMP, Lodge - City of Aspen -------------------------------------------------------------- This application has been reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department for the following topics. Water Supply: Service to this project by the City of Aspen Water Department lines is in conformance with policies of this office. Sewer Service: Service to this project by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District is in conformance with policies of this office. Site Drainage: On-site retention of surface and roof run-off through the use of dry wells is in conformance with policies of this office. Air Pollution Control: Should any new air pollution sources be planned for this project (fireplaces) it is the request of this office that they be designed as follows: 1. Glass doors be installed on the firebox. 2. Outside combustion air should be installed to supply the firebox. This would be in lieu of using room air as part of the combustion process. 130 Soutoh Galena Storeeto Aspen, Colorado S1611 303/925-2020 Page 2 September 14, 1981 Aspen Inn Expansion, 1982 GMP, Lodge - City of Aspen Swimming Pools/Spas: If modification of existin9 pools or spas is planned or if new pools or spas are planned, they shall be submitted for review and approval by the Colorado Health Department and this office. TSD/co , "', , -"--:-;~~'BI : '.' 7~'! - , .1 d I' ,II . ;t,' ". P ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT i iJ. (' . 011 28 1981 MEMORANDUM -'--' f J;-'~'-"'-'--;.~ ~...~~i0u. "~ f Li\i~l';;'(u (J1cflCE,ljJ?" TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ALAN RICHMAN-PLANNING JIM MARKALUNAS ASPEN INN EXPANSION-1982 SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION-LODGE- CITY ,OF ASPEN It would be redundant for uS to make further comment pertinent to this application, since everything previously stated and/or written is enclosed in the application. At this point in time, work is proceeding on the Aspen Mountain Interconnect to the Aspen Mountain Tank and the 6" Monarch Street line has been interconnected with the 12" Aspen Mountain Interconnect. It remains only for us to invoice the applicant for the facilities constructed. Should the application be approved, we request that it be conditioned, as stated in the application, upon the internal fire line distribution be interconnected between Monarch and Mill. cc. Dan McArthur-City Engineer ~9t(~