HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.720 E Cooper Ave.A66-92
. ".........._............'~_.'_........~_.__,'.."__A ~~..',...'~'.', ,~.'_"... ~_ . ... .._._~.._~.._. _... ~ _..__". ..... ___"_____~."'"..,, "'_""0'. .........
(
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 8/ 3/92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-27-003 _A66-92
STAFF MEMBER: 4:. Ie:r
PROJECT NAME: Bell Mountain Lodqe Inc. GMOS . ,
Project Address: 720 East Coooer Avenue. Asoen. CO 81611
Legal Address: Lots K.L.M.N.O.P.& W.20.66ft.of O. Block 105
APPLICANT: Bell Mountain Lodqe. Inc.
Applicant Address: PO Box 328. Asoen. CO 81611 925-3675
REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Cunniffe. Charles Cuniffe Architects.
Representative Address/Phone:520 E. Hvman. suite 301 ~~1D
Asoen. CO 81611 925~~$S
========================================================-=====
FEES: PLANNING $ 3.800 # APPS RECEIVED 21
ENGINEER $ 225 # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $ 140
ENV. HEALTH $ -\-- \~.
TOTAL $ 4.165
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: ---1L-
P&Z Meeting Date 11/3 PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date /olt
,
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
city Attorney X Parks Dept. School District
City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. >( Fire Marshal CDOT
Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
Envir.Hlth. ~ ACSD Other
X Zoning ~ Energy Center Other
DATE REFE~ED: ~/30 . INITIALS: 5W DUE: It/Ii
;;;~~=;~;;;;~7=)V~=========;~;;=;~;;;;7=Ti11Ttq3=;;;;~~~7~~=
___ city Atty ___ city Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health
___ Housing ___ Open Space Other:
~
~
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
/"--
,-
#358875 07/15/93 15:46 Rec $15.00 BK 718 PG 47
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
ORDINANCE NO.37
(SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE SITE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL LOCATED AT 720 E. COOPER AVENUE
(LOTS K-P AND PART OF LOT Q, BLOCK 105, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
WHEREAS, on February 22, 1993 the City Council granted
approval of Ordinance 3, Series 1993 for a 22 lodge unit growth
management allocation, multi-year growth management allocation, and
growth management exemption for deed restricted employee housing
for the re-development of the Bell Mountain Lodge; and
WHEREAS,
a request for Vested Rights for the development
approval was submitted to the Planning Office on behalf of the Bell
Mountain Lodge Limited Liability Co. by project representative
Michael C. Ireland; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a period of three years from the date of final approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
Bell Mountain Lodge site specific development plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested until February
22, 1996.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in
forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely
1
~
#358 3 07/15/93 15:46 Rec $15.C.'"'\BK
....." .~
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc
718 PG 48
$.00
and properly record all plats and agreements as specified
herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2: The city Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the city
of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
,
\
2
"'""-
#3~75 07/15/93 15:46 Rec
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty
$1;:)) BK 718 PG 49
Cieri", Doc $.00
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised statutes, pertaining to the following-
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
section 3:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /~
day of ~, 1993 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
~unC~l l::,~hU
ci ty of Aspen on the
as provided by
/~
law, by
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
day of
"'..
~(3~
John Bennett, Mayor
f ~,'~/,
" '! .i"~',
.t}''''<..~.f;,
.~LY' adopted,
, 1993.
passed and approved this
/~
day of
John ~et(?-;:;:;r
..'( ) f,' ~ ~ :l
3
r--,
'../
AL'
i
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ALLOCATION FOR 22 TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE LP (LODGE
PRESERVATION) ZONE DISTRICT, MULTI-YEAR GMP ALLOCATIONS, AND GMQS
EXEMPTION FOR DEED RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING FOR THE BELL
MOUNTAIN LODGE LOCATED AT 720 E. COOPER AVENUE (LOTS K-P, AND PART
OF LOT Q, BLOCK 105, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
ORDINANCE NO. 3
(SERIES OF 1993)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24, Article 8 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the City Council may grant allocations from the
Growth Management quotas contained therein upon scoring determined
by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-103.D. of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the City Council may grant multi-year Growth
Management development allotments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C.1.c. of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the City Council may exempt deed restricted
affordable housing units from the Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS) competition; and
WHEREAS, the Kappeli Family, for Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc.,
submitted to the Planning Office an application for Growth
Management allotment for 10 lodge units from the 1992 GMP
competition, 10 future allocations from the 1993 GMP competition,
2 future allocations from the 1994 GMP competition, and GMQS
Exemption for three deed restricted housing units; and
WHEREAS, the Bell Mountain Lodge proposal was the only
submission competing for the 1992 available units (as established
by Section 24-8-103.A.l.a. of the Aspen Municipal Code); and
WHEREAS,
the application was reviewed by the Engineering
1
-~
-,
-....-i
\.,,/
Department, the Aspen/pitkin County Housing Office, Environmental
Health Department, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Electrical
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and the
Roaring Fork Energy Center and those agencies submitted referral
comments to the Planning Office; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on December 8, 1992 the
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission scored the proposal pursuant
to the standards contained in section 24-8-106.G. and found that
the Commission's score of 81.625 points met or exceeded minimum
scoring thresholds; and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend granting multi-
year allotments from the 1993 and 1994 GMP quotas; and
WHEREAS, the Commission also voted 6-0 to approve the three
on-site deed restricted housing units pursuant to the review
criteria for GMQS Exemption within section 24-8-104.C.1.c.; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the proposal
and the Planning and Zoning commission's recommendation, does wish
to allocate 22 total lodge accommodation units to the Bell Mountain
Lodge Expansion project (10 lodge units from the 1992 Tourist
Accommodation Growth Management competition, 10 lodge units from
the 1993 competition, and 2 lodge units from the 1994 competition),
and grant GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing for one Category
II one-bedroom unit, one Category III two-bedroom unit, and one
three-bedroom Category IV unit (with the exception that the income
and asset limits for a lodge manager are waived for this unit) .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
2
r--
.... "
"'""
'-"
(
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
section 1: That it does hereby allocate 10 lodge units from the
1992 Tourist Accommodation Growth Management competition to the
Bell Mountain Lodge Expansion project pursuant to section 24,
Article 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
section 2: That it does also hereby grant and allocate multi-year
allotments for 10 lodge units from the 1993 GMP competition and 2
lodge units from the 1994 GMP competition pursuant to section 24-
8-103.D. of the Aspen Municipal Code.
section 3: That, subject to the conditions set forth in section
4 below, it does hereby grant GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing
for the development of one Category II one bedroom unit, one
category III two bedroom unit, and one category IV three bedroom
unit (with the exception that the income and asset limits for a
lodge manager are waived for this unit) pursuant to section 24-8-
104.C.1.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code.
section 4.
The conditions of approval which apply to this GMQS
Exemption are:
1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to
the Aspen/Pitkin county Housing Office for approval.
Upon
approval by the Housing Office, the Owner shall record the
deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property,
copies of the recorded deed restrictions for the dwelling
units must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3
~
-
" ../
--
3 .
All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning commission and City council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
~;,{ day of ~1993 at 5: 00 P.M. in the City council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior
to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
section 6:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
section 7: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the city Council of the
~ ' 1993.
/I
City of Aspen on the ,;(? day of
~ JJIJ'~
ohn Bennett, Mayor
4
.
,...
,,/
,.....,
--
approved this Ar
~ adopted, passed and
, 1993.
ATT,~.:: _
~.
Kathryn S'/,
bell. gmp. ord
~.d;J e
J I' J\r ~(jv1
J hn Bennett, Mayor
5
day of
".....
----.
.....,../
.
~
ORDINANCE 4
(SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION~
5-216.E.l. - PARKING REGULATIONS FOR THE LP (LODGE PRESERVATION)
ZONE DISTRICT, AND SECTION 24-7-404.B.l. - SPECIAL REVIEW.
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning commission
at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive and has reviewed
and recommended for approval certain text amendments to Chapter 24
arising from the Bell Mountain Lodge 1992 Growth Management
submission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission has reviewed and
approved at public hearing those code text amendments as
recommended by the Planning Director and associated with the Bell
Mountain Lodge submission pursuant to procedure as authorized by
Section 24-6-205 (A) 8 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text
amendments as approved and recommended by the Planning and Zoning
commission are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan and are not in conflict with other portions
of Chapter 24; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text
amendments will allow and promote compatibility of zone districts
1
.......
....... ../
(
and land uses with existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics and will be consistent with the public welfare and
the purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO:
Section 1:
Section 5-216. E.1, "Off-Street Parking Requirement" of Chapter
24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended, which new text shall read as follows:
"1. Lodge use: 0.7 space/bedroom of which 0.2
space/bedroom may be provided via a payment in lieu
pursuant to Article 7, Division 4 of this chapter."
Section 2:
Section 7-404. B.1, "Special Review" for off-street parking
requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, 'Colorado, is hereby amended, which new text shall read as
follows:
"1. In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Office (0,
Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), or
Lodge Preservation (LP) zone districts, the applicant shall
make a one-time only payment-in-lieu of parking to the City,
in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per
space required, based on the cost for such spaces stated in
the report entitled "Physical and Financial Conceptual Design
for Two Parking Facilities for the City of Aspen" prepared by
RNL
Facilities
Corporation..."
[Remainder
of
section
2
-
r-_
, ,
/
unamended] .
section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
section 5:
A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the ~~
day of ~ 1993 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing
of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the c:2~~
day of
1993.
-~/~ Fo;L
J hn Bennett, Mayor
~N~LLY, adopted,
~~ 1993.
passed
and
approved
this
;)-~
day
of
3
\
ATT~T :
~a(2
Kathryn S.
/
I
,.."
0,J
och C'
, J.ty Cler
.".
'-./
~u:nf~ jCdL
, Mayor
4
c
..- ''''
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU:
Diane Moore, City Planning Director
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE:
July 12, 1993
RE:
Bell Mountain Lodge Redevelopment Vested Rights - Second
Reading of Ordinance 37, Series 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the request
for vested rights for the approved redevelopment of this property.
The Bell Mountain Lodge project was granted a growth management
allocation for 22 new lodge units on February 22, 1993 and now
seeks vested rights to protect the project from changes to the land
use regulations for a period of three years from original approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Bell Mountain Lodge redevelopment was
approved by City Council by adoption of Ordinance 3 on February 22,
1993. First reading of this vested rights ordinance occurred on
June 14, 1993.
CURRENT ISSUES: section 24-6-207 dictates the process and ordinance
language requirements for establishing vested rights for three
years. Ordinance 37 contains the required text. Three years is
the vested rights period also established by state regulations.
The vested rights period shall run from February 22, 1993 through
February 22, 1996.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no costs to the City associated
with approval of vested rights for three years.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of vested
rights for the Bell Mountain Lodge project.
ALTERNATIVES: Vested rights approval for three years is not a
discretionary action by City Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have second reading of Ordinance 37,
Series 1993 for the approval of vested rights for three years for
the development plan/GMP allocation at the Bell Mountain Lodge."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 37, Series 1993
......"
'--,.....
MAR 2 0 ",~,~,
'.1-"",
"
J. Nicholas McGrath"
Michael C, Ireland
Jeanne C. Doremus
March 26, 1993.
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925-2612
Telecopier (303) 925-4402
J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P,C,
A Professional Corporation
Attomeys At Law
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge
Dear Kim:
I am writing this letter to confirm my understanding of several aspects of
the Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS approval that we have discussed in a piecemeal
fashion over the past few weeks. I have attempted to consolidate our discussions
into this letter for your review. The issues we discussed and our resolution of
them are as follows:
1. Under ~ 8-108 of the Aspen Land Use Code (the excerpt you had
delievered to my office) the GMQS approval is for three years from the date of
the city council approval of Ordinance 3, series of 1993, that is February 22,
1993. Since this is not a subdivision, PUD or SPA, not site specific development
plan is required to be approved and thus the three years runs from the date of
the approval of the ordinance.
2. My understanding from a review of the planning office
memorandum and ordinance is that no further steps are necessary on the part of
the property owner in order to obtain a building permit other than the imposition
and recording of deed restrictions for the three affordable units as described in
the ordinance. I also understand that no rL I At,l.,,- t1..IlR 8hl_L.h.ao a. buildiftg
~~ARi!t a~e np-cessary should the owner seek an extension of the approval.
. JJI<tA.a./ 'J1cf'5\
3. I also understand that the project is exempt from LP zone rear yard
setback requirements provided the existing encroachment in the alley is removed
and that you will provide a letter clarifying that point.
Finally, because ~ 8-108 of the Aspen Land Use Code is designed to be
similar to the provisions on vesting in ~ 6-207, we do not need a separate
ordinance to vest the development rights against, adverse impacts of future
zoning changes for the three year period. This is because, in part, the vesting
ordinance speaks to site specific approvals and no site specific approval is
required for the Bell Mountain Lodge. If you disagree at all, please let me know.
"Member, Cola, (f971). Calif. (f969), and D,C. (1966) bars
,"'"'
""""..'"
,-
J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH, p,c.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
d~-
BY: ichael C. Ireland
m93 valer325.ltr
'~'. \'
\ 1
,
I""
"-'
/'..~..-
'111-1=-
'-'"
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Diane Moore, city Planning
Directo@
(ttlNlf{
PP L!
rrO
TO:
Mayor and city council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, city Manager
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE:
February 22, 1993
Text Amendment for Parking in the LP (Lodge Preservation)
Zone District - Second Reading of Ordinance 4, Series
1993
RE:
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval
of the proposed code amendments which brings the parking
requirement for the LP zone into alignment with the parking
requirements of the other lodge zones: L/TR (Lodge / Tourist
Residential) and CL (commercial Lodge). The code amendments also
allow for Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission for
reductions of parking in the LP zone district.
First reading of Ordinance 4 was held on January 25, 1993.
BACKGROUND: In the early 1980's, the parking requirements of all
the lodge zone districts were established at 1 space per lodge
unit. In response to a parking study for the Roberts Hotel project
(known later as The Ritz), the city lowered the parking
requirements for the L/TR (Lodge Tourist Residential) and CL
(commercial Lodge) zone districts to .7 spaces per lodge unit. The
LP zone requirement was left at the higher level than the other
lodge zones in consideration that LP sites are located randomly
throughout the city rather than directly adjacent to the base of
the mountain.
During the last several years most lodges, large and small, have
taken proactive measures towards reducing traffic and dependency
on the private automobile, ie. lodge van service and promotion of ,/
public bus service. In light of this evolution, staff has come to ~
believe that the 1 space per unit requirement is unrealistic, and
may pose an unnecessary impact for parking on the small lodges and
their neighborhoods.
For at least two years, staff has heard concerns voiced from the
lodging community that develo ment in the LP zone has be st mi d
because of difficulty in meet1ng he oarkinq requirement~ currently
in place. A text amendment which would seek to rectify this
problem has been discussed amongst staff, but had not been
initiated due to office workload. This Applicant is proposing the
, 1
r"
\",."
,/
text amendments in order to make this, and hopefully, other LP
projects come to fruition.
CURRENT ISSUES: The current parking regulation in the LP zone
requires one space for each lodge unit. The Bell Mountain Lodge
is currently non-conforming as it provides 10 parking spaces for
18 rentable lodge rooms. Any redevelopment requires compliance for
only the expanded capacity of the site (22 rooms). The proposal
calls for a total of 40 short-term lodge units. The Bell Mountain
Lodge GMP application (covered by separate Council memo) offers 25
parking spaces on-site, 23 of which will be within an underground
garage. . arking plan is de nt on a ro of this cod
_amendment affecting e parking requirement of the LP zone.
.
The applicant has submitted a text amendment to provide the same
parking requirement for the LP zone as for the CL (Commercial
Lodge) and L/TR (Lodge Tourist Residential) zone districts. The
proposed language change to section 5-216.E.1. is:
"Lodge use: 0.7 space/bedroom of which 0.2 space/bedroom may t:!'
be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Art.7, Div.4."
Also necessary is the addition of the
which may be granted cash-in-lieu
section 7-404.B.1. shall read:
LP zone to the list of zones
status by the Commission.
"In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Office (0),
Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), or
Lodge Preservation (LP) zone districts, the applicant shall
make a one-time only payment-in-lieu of parking to the City,
in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per
space required...."
The proposed text amendment allows the Planning Commission by /
oopo~jal Rev1~ to take into account the exact location-specific~
requirements and constraints of a proposed LP parking arrangement
to-Ieduce parkinq from .7 space per room down to .5 space with
cash-in-11eu for the remaining .2 space per room.
The Planning commission and the Planning staff reviewed the
proposed amendment pursuant to section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal
Code and find that the review criteria are satisfactorily met.
The review standards for text amendments and staff responses are
contained in Exhibit "A".
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In future cases where the P&Z might grant
Special Review for reduced parking via cash-in-lieu, the city's
parking fund will be augmented.
RECOMMENDATION: On December 8, 1992, the Planning and Zoning
commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of this text amendment.
2
c
~.....
'--""
ALTERNATIVES:
requirements.
Bell Mountain
The Council could change the per room parking
Requiring more parking per room will invalidate the
Lodge's application as submitted.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve on second reading Ordinance
4, Series 1993 for amendments to the Aspen Municipal Code affecting
parking requirements in the LP (Lodge Preservation) zone district
as follows:
Section 24-5-216.E.1
"Lodge use: 0.7 space/bedroom of which 0.2 space/bedroom
may be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Art.7,
Div.4."
section 7-404.B.1. :
"In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Office (O),
Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), or
Lodge Preservation (LP) zone districts, the applicant shall
make a one-time only payment-in-lieu of parking to the city,
in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per
space required...."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance 4, Series 1993
"A" - Review Standards for Code Amendments / Staff Responses
3
"A II
ty CoaDC11 ~I~tt 11
.~ ,1'_
By Ordinance
Review Standards For Text Amendments (Section 24-7-1102)
Parking Requirements in the LP Zone District
1/25/93
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment does not conflict with any
portions of the land use regulations. The proposed amendment
supports the LP zone district's incentive program to maintain small
lodges.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: There are no conflicts with the existing Plan or its
sub-elements.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Bell Mountain site is fairly small and is located
within two blocks of the Gondola and is adjacent to the commercial
core. The change in the baseline parking requirement from 1 space
per lodge room down to .7 space will act as an incentive to
maintain and expand small lodge capacity in the city. As mentioned
above, the proposed text amendment allows the Commission to apply
special review standards to the Bell Mountain and all other
projects requesting cash mitigation for parking below .7 parking
spaces per lodge unit.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: Traffic generation is not increased by this proposed
amendment, nor is road safety diminished. Special review will be
required for proposed parking situations of less than .7 spaces per
room.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: The proposed text amendment has no effect on public
facilities, other than perhaps the potential of increasing fees
paid toward the parking fund because of special Review cash-in-
1
.
"""0
'.,~
lieu approvals.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: No impacts to natural features is anticipated.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the city of Aspen.
Response: The LP zone incentive package will be bolstered by the
proposed amendment, thus aiding small lodges in their effort to
remain and perhaps expand their economic viability.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
SUbject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The text amendment affects LP properties throughout the
city. In a general sense, the competition in the lodging sector
is creating a difficulty for some of the smaller lodges to remain
viable without improvements or expansion. Yet, current parking
requirements which are stiffer for the small lodges than the larger
hotels are a disincentive to maintain small, quality
accommodations. Special Review will determine those cases where
cash-in-lieu is requested.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
Response: The public interest will not be jeopardized by the
proposed amendment. The LP zone district incentive package will
be augmented by the proposed amendment.
2
MEMORANDUM
"'" 0-
,
THRU:
Mayor and City council
Amy Margerum, city ManagerGJ./ ~
Diane Moore, city Planning Directo~
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE:
January 25, 1993
RE:
Bell Mountain Lodge Expansion 1992 Tourist
Accommodations Growth Management Allocation, Future
Growth Management Allocations, and GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing - First Reading ordinance~, series
1993
SUMMARY: The Bell Mountain Lodge Expansion is the only lodge
application submitted for allocation in the 1992 competition. The
Planning and Zoning commission finds that the Bell Mountain Lodge
meets minimum GMP scores and recommends approval of the Bell
Mountain Lodge Growth Management proposal for 22 lodge units. This
includes a recommendation to grant future allocations from 1993 and
1994. GMQS Exemption for three affordable housing units associated
with the lodge redevelopment is also being forwarded with a
positive recommendation.
This project was presented along with a proposed amendment to the
parking requirements for the LP (Lodge Preservation) zone district.
The P&Z recommends approval of the amendment, which is covered by
a separate council memo and ordinance.
BACKGROUND: The Bell Mountain Lodge is located at 720 E. Cooper
Avenue (across from City Market) and is zoned LP (Lodge
Preservation). The applicants are the Kappeli family, who have
owned the lodge for almost thirty years. The parcel was the
subject of unsuccessful rezoning requests to 0 (Office) zoning in
the late 1980's. The purpose of the LP zone district is to promote
the preservation and maintenance of the community's small lodges.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application on
December 8, 1992. The Commission accepted the Planning staff's
score for the project which met the minimum thresholds and voted
to recommend that Council grant future allocations to the
development. The Commission also approved special review of the
Bell Mountain Lodge parking plan, which is dependent upon Council's
approval of the proposed code amendment for parking in the LP zone
district. A GMQS Exemption for the on-site employee dwelling units
also received favorable review by P&Z. The employee housing plan
1
---,._,,--------"._._~"....,.~_.,. ,..._-~~_._<
#
"
consists of one 1-bedroom unit, one 2-bedroom unit, and one 3-
bedroom unit.
This redevelopment plan calls for a basic demolition of the
existing structure. staff determined that there are 18 bona fide
lodge rooms wi thin the building. This is different from the
application which indicated 21 lodge rooms. The existing above-
grade parking will be replaced with an underground garage
containing 23 spaces. The site will be open and landscaped facing
cooper Avenue. Please refer to the attached application booklet.
Amendment information submitted subsequent to the application
booklet is attached as Exhibit "A". Referral memos from various
city and non-city departments are contained as Exhibit "B".
CURRENT ISSUES:
"Superblock" concept: This site is within an area identified in
the draft Aspen Area Community Plan as a future mUltiple-use
"superblock". Both the Transportation and Character committees
noted that uses such as affordable housing, commercial parking, and
neighborhood oriented business found in NC and SCI zones should be
integrated via a public/private development partnership. The focus
of this partnership will be to create a master plan for the
superblock and the inclusion of an underground parking structure.
Planning staff believes that the superblock area should be overlaid
with an SPA (Specially Planned Area) designation as soon as
possible to provide a format for future reviews and permits.
In recent workshop discussions with city council regarding the
Kraut parcel which is northeast of the Bell Mountain Lodge, staff
was directed to convene the property owners within the superblock
area to begin identifying the needs and goals of the owners. These
parties are City Market, the Buckhorn Lodge, George Vicenzi, the
Bell Mountain Lodge, and the Housing Office. Senior Planner Leslie
Lamont is working with the various parties on this project.
The Bell Mountain Lodge has acknowledged the superblock idea by
noting that their underground parking can be worked into a greater
parking plan. Of course it is currently not known the exact
structural details of either Bell Mountain's garage or the parking
layout of the superblock, but the Applicant is recognizing the
future potential. Until more details of the superblock concept are
ironed out, staff finds that the Bell Mountain Lodge has met the
minimum thresholds for parking requirements pursuant to the GMP
application and the proposed text amendment.
Future Allocation: The Applicant seeks the full 10 unit allotment
for the 1992 GMP competition for the LP zone. Also requested is
10 units of the 1993 allotment and 2 units from the 1994 allotment.
The Planning commission supports the future allocation request, but
also discussed and would recommend "reaching back" to claim un-
used lodge allocations for the benefit of potential future projects
2
~.",~~_"~_"<"",,__,,~......,...,.__.~..,_,,.,..~..--.....~__..,_.w."
in 1993 and 1994.
specific to this subject of unallocated development credits,
section 8-103 C. of the Land Use Code states that
"If following the award of development allotments there
shall remain unallocated development allotments, the city
council, following a public hearing for which notice has
been given pursuant to section 6-205(E) (3) (a), shall be
resolution either carryover the unallocated allotments
next year, or eliminate the unallocated allotments."
since there have been no submissions seeking lodge quotas during
the last several years, staff has not presented Council with any
resolutions to forward or eliminate the un-used allocations. Legal
interpretation indicates that the lack of either action during the
corresponding timeframe of the un-used allocations negates the
ability to regain these allotments at this time.
A future allocation may be granted by the City council if all of
the following standards can be demonstrated:
1) The quality of the proposed development substantially exceeds
that established minimum threshold for the scoring established in
section 8-105 .G. 7, by receiving 67% of the points cumulatively
available at the time of its scoring by the Commission.
Response: Total available points in the six lodge scoring
categories is 105. 67% of 105 is 70.35 points. staff scored the
project at 81.625 points, or 78% of total available points, thus
it meets this standard.
2) The site design of the proposed development makes construction
phasing infeasible. This requires but is not limited to a
demonstration that economies of scale will result from construction
occurring at once; the proposed development is intended as a single
building which cannot easily be constructed or operated in phases;
and that the public facility investments for the proposed
development such as roads, water and sewer facilities, must all be
installed at the initiation of the project, making phasing
economically unrealistic.
Response: As depicted in the drawings submitted, the new lodge
will be one structure built over an underground garage. One
construction phase is absolutely required due to this plan. All
infrastructure is in place, so this criteria is not pertinent.
3) The impacts of construction of the proposed development on the
surrounding neighborhood will be reduced by construction at one
time rather than phasing it over two or more construction period,
and such construction can be tolerated by the city.
3
Response: The Bell Mountain Lodge is across from City Market and
near several office, commercial and multi-family residential
structures. To spread construction over more than one time period
would be undesirable to the neighborhood in terms of noise,
traffic, and visual impacts.
4) The city is capable of absorbing the accelerated rate at which
impacts on its services and public facilities will be experienced.
It shall be considered sufficient evidence of service and public
facility availability if it can be demonstrated that sufficient
capacity is available in transportation, utilities, affordable
housing, parks/recreation facilities, police, fire, schools, and
hospital capacity.
Response: All basic infrastructure are in place for the
neighborhood. The increase of 22 units at once versus three years
is not an impact to the systems.
5) It can be demonstrated that granting allotments from future
years will be in support of the goal of community balance.
Response: There have been no GMP submissions or allocations for
the LP zone during the last several years, so the rate of
development in the small lodge category will not have been affected
in the long term. This project will be an enhancement of the small
lodge base in town, which is a goal of the LP zone district.
Growth Manaqement Exemption for Affordable Housinq: Pursuant to
section 8-104 C.1(C) the Council shall exempt deed restricted
housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines.
However the Commission shall review and make a recommendation to
council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the
review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this
section shall include a determination of the City's need for such
housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an
adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and
their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically
regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the
dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and
the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to
be deed restricted.
RESPONSE: City Council makes the final determination for deed
restrictions on the employee units. The Commission recommends
approval of the housing package for the three apartments. Please
refer to the amendments pertaining to housing contained in Exhibit
"A".
The Bell Mountain Lodge's Growth Management application includes
the provision of affordable housing for 63% of the employees
generated by the 22 new lodge units (7 employees). The applicant
is proposing to construct three garden level units in the
4
,.
,
..
reconstructed lodge. The proposed units will total approximately
2,300 s.f. of net livable area. The following proposed deed
restrictions have been reviewed and approved by the Housing Office:
3 bedroom unit,
occupied)
2 bedroom unit,
1 bedroom unit,
approximately 1,050 s.f.
RO (Resident
approximately 850 s.f. - Category III
approximately 625 s.f. - Category II
The largest unit will probably be occupied by the owner of the
Lodge who would likely exceed asset limitations of the four
price/income Categories. Thus, the RO restriction is logical for
that apartment. Occupants of any of the apartments must be
employees of the Lodge, per the permitted uses allowed by the
underlying LP zone district requirements. A recent example of a
similar situation is the 1992 approval of a deed restricted tri-
plex at the Crestahaus Lodge.
Affordable housing for employees of the lodge is listed as a
permitted use in the LP zone. The proposed units comply with the
dimensional requirements of the LP zone. According to the Land Use
Code, parking for residential use is not applicable in the LP
district. However, the Engineering Department would like approvals
to dedicate some of the on-site parking for use by the occupants
of the deed restricted units.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no identifiable financial
implications with the allocation of the 22 lodge units.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning commission recommends
allocation of the 10 lodge units available in 1992 for the LP zone.
The Commission also recommends approval of 10 allocations from the
1993 and 2 allocations from the 1994 Growth Management quota, for
a total of 22 new units.
The Commission
employees within
November 2, 1992
recommends approval of GMQS Exemption for 7
three affordable housing units as proposed in the
and January 19, 1993 application amendments.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council may
allocations, requiring this project
Management competitions.
choose not to grant future
to compete in succeeding Growth
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve 22 Growth Management
allocations for the Bell Mountain Lodge comprising of 10 units from
the 1992 Tourist Accommodations competition, 10 units of multi-
year allocations from 1993, and 2 units of multi-year allocations
from 1994."
"I also move to approve the Bell Mountain Lodge employee housing
plan and GMQS Exemption for the three employee units as proposed
in the 11/2/92 and 1/19/93 amendments to the application."
5
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance ~ , series 1993
Bell Mountain Lodge Application Booklet
"A" - Amendments for Parking and Affordable Housing
"B" - Complete Referral Memos
bell.cc.1.25
6
.~~------....----_.
WRIGHT & ADGER
/"'It;y COI1ocll
~roved
By Ordinance
itA- Jl
....fhlt:
, 1'_
,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET. SUITE 106
GARY A. WRIGHT
ALLEN H. ADGER.
ASPEN. COLORAOO B1611
.. ALSO ADMITTED TO
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA BAR
19 January 1993
Kim Johnson, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge GMPQS
Employee Housing
Dear Kim:
I am writing to provide the additional information necessary for the Bell
Mountain Lodge GMPQS Application,
Regarding employee housing, those units have been proposed, One one-
bedroom unit, which we propose to designate Category II, and which we expect will
consist of approximately 600-650 square feet, One two-bedroom unit, which we
propose to designate Category III, and will be approximately 850- 900 square feet,
The third unit is for the "owners" unit, and consequently we would propose to
designate this three-bedroom unit as "RO", This unit would be approximately
1,000-1,100 square feet,
If you have any questions or require additional information, please let me
know,
Sincerely,
WRIGHT & ADGER
,@ /'
'a A':--'Wright
GAW/mf
cc: Cindy Christensen, APCHA, by facsimile
RE\BELL_MT,PO
".
"'- '''"
,
.,
....,.J'
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
November 2, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms, Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Application Amendment
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter a request to amend the Bell Mountain Lodge 1992 tourist
accommodations GMQS application, The City has indicated that only eighteen (18) of
the existing lodge's twenty-one (21) units are exempt from growth management for
reconstruction purposes, As a result, it is necessary to recalculate the project's afford-
able housing, parking and quota requirements. Please note, however, that the Appli-
cant's original representations as to the percentage of employees housed, and the
project's off-street parking ratio, remain unchanged,
Requested GMQS Allocation
,
As only eighteen (18) existing units have been recognized by the City as being eligible for
a GMQS reconstruction exemption, a twenty-two (22) unit GMQS allocation will be
required to implement the project, as opposed to the original request for a nineteen (19)
unit allocation, The impact of the additional three (3) unit allocation on the project's
affordable housing and off-street parking requirements is discussed below.
Affordable Housing
As discussed in Section III,G, of the Applicant's GMQS application, two (2), three (3)
bedroom units were to be provided to meet the project's affordable housing requirement.
The project's nineteen (19) new lodge units were expected to generate nine and one-half
(9-112) new employees, or one (1) employee for each two (2) units, As the two, three
bedroom affordable housing units would theoretically house a total of six (6) employees,
approximately sixty-three (63) percent of the project's employee generation would have
been mitigated by the proposed affordable housing units,
Based on the original affordable housing generation factor of one (1) employee per two
(2) units, twenty-two (22) new lodge units would theoretically generate eleven (11) new
employees. Using the sixty-three (63) percent employee housing factor discussed above,
approximately seven (7) employees must be housed if the Applicant's original representa-
;)j(i : 'j:;~ f-LJ:- ,; ,
to; fl' I . i -, vy, C("-(J, F',:<: ~).rn~_~';'()-{L",:
c
o
Ms. Kim Johnson
November 2, 1992
Page 2
tions are to be maintained. To accommodate these employees, the Applicant will
reconfigure one (1) of the original three (3) bedroom units to include a one (1) bedroom
unit and a two (2) bedroom unit. The revised affordable housing unit mix will house a
total of seven (7) employees,
Off-Street Parking
As discussed in my October 7, 1992, code amendment application letter, thirteen (13)
new off-street parking spaces were originally proposed to serve the nineteen (19) new
lodge units. The resulting parking ratio was approximately 0,7 spaces per lodge unit (Le.,
13 spaces + 19 units = 0,68), To accommodate the three (3) units for which a GMQS
exemption is not available, the Applicant will provide two (2) additional parking spaces
in the project's subgrade garage, Please note that the revised off-street parking ratio is
identical to the original proposal (Le" 15 spaces + 22 units = 0,68), The revised garage
parking layout is depicted on the accompanying drawing,
Alley Encroachment
With respect to the encroachment of the existing building's rear wall into the adjacent
alley, the Applicant will remove the wall in connection with the construction of the
proposed development. The Applicant's willingness to eliminate the encroachment,
however, is expressly conditioned upon the understanding that the lodge's new rear wall
may be constructed adjacent to the rear property line. In other words, the removal of
the wall will not require that the LP zone district's rear yard setback be adhered to in the
design and construction of the proposed development.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
SV:cwv
cc:
Gary A. Wright, Esq.
Jan Derrington
2 """
\'...;~(
"J---'
c:\bus\city.ltr~"19892,kjl
.
"-""
,
,
j'
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
October 7, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge/Parking Code Amendment
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter an application for an amendment to the off-street parking
requirements of the LP, Lodge Preservation, zone district (see Pre-Application
Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The application is submitted
pursuant to Section 7-1103 by Victor, Werner and Nancy Kappeli, dba, The Bell
Mountain Lodge, Inc, The Applicants' representative with respect to this application
is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning Consultants,
Background
On August 1, 1992, the Applicants submitted an application for an allocation in the
annual GMQS tourist accommodations competition. The purpose of the allocation
is to permit the renovation and expansion of the Bell Mountain Lodge, which is
located in the LP, Lodge Preservation, zone district. The off-street parking which
was proposed in connection with the project, however, was erroneously based on the
parking requirements of the LffR, Lodgeffourist Residential, zone district.
To resolve this problem, the Planning Office has requested that the Applicants either
revise the project's design to increase the amount of on-site parking, or to process a
code amendment to amend the parking requirements of the LP zone district, As no
practical ability exists to provide additional parking on-site while maintaining the
project's proposed design, the Applicants have elected to pursue a code amendment.
This amendment, therefore, should be considered as an addendum to the Applicants'
GMQS application, and should be processed concurrently therewith,
As Table 1 below indicates, the existing lodge contains twenty-one (21) units and
provides ten (10) off-street parking spaces, The previously submitted GMQS
application requests an allocation for nineteen (19) additional units, which would
230 East Hopkins Avenue' Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 303/925.6958 . Fax 303/920-9310
c
o
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 2
expand the lodge operation to a total of forty (40) units. Thirteen (13) additional
parking spaces are proposed to accommodate the expansion. As additional parking
need only be provided for the new lodge units, the resulting parking ratio is 0.7
spaces per lodge unit (i.e., 13 parking spaces + 19 bedrooms).
Table 1
ParkinglLodge Uoit Data
1.
Existing Parking Spaces
10
2,
Proposed New Parking Spaces
13
3.
Total Parking Spaces
23
Sub grade Garage
Surface
21
2
4, Existing Lodge
Units
Bedrooms
21
21
5, Proposed Expansion
Units
Bedrooms
19
19
6. Total Project
Units'
Bedrooms
40
40
7. Parking Spaces per Bedroom
Existing Bedroom Ratio
New Bedroom Ratio
Total Bedroom Ratio
0,5
0,7
0,6
8, Minimum Parking Requirement2
LP Zone District @ 1 SpacelBedroom
UfR Zone District @ 0.7 SpaceIBedroom3
19
13
c
:)
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 3
1
Thirty (30) of the units have been configured so as to permit their rental as
fifteen (15) suites.
2
Computed based on proposed new bedrooms,
3
Pursuant to Section 5-215.E,1., 0,2 space/bedroom of the 0.7 space/bedroom
requirement may be provided via a payment-in-lieu subject to P&Z review
and approval.
As the table indicates, 0.7 parking space per bedroom is required in the lJTR zone
district, of which 0.2 space per bedroom may be met via a cash-in-lieu payment.
Based on this requirement, a minimum of ten (10) parking spaces would have to be
provided for the proposed nineteen (19) unit expansion (Le., 0.5 spaceslbedroom x
19 bedrooms), with the remainder of the requirement being met via a cash-in-lieu
payment. At 0.7 space per bedroom, a maximum of thirteen (13) spaces would be
required to seIVe the proposed expansion. As thirteen (13) new spaces are pro-
posed, the original GMQS application complies with the applicable off-street parking
requirement of the lJTR zone district,
The applicable off-street parking requirement in the LP zone district is one (1) space
per bedroom. No ability presently exists, however, to reduce this requirement via a
cash-in-lieu payment. As a result, the proposed expansion would require a minimum
of nineteen (19) to meet the off-street parking requirement of the LP zone district.
As only thirteen (13) new spaces are proposed, the GMQS application is deficient by
six (6) parking spaces based on the requirements of the LP zone district.
Proposed Amendment
The Applicant proposes to amend the requirements of Sections 5-217,E. and 5-303
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations to make the lodge off-street parking require-
ment of the LP zone district the same as the lodge requirement of the lJTR zone
district. More specifically, Section 5-217.E.1. of the Regulations, and the applicable
language of Section 5-303, would read as follows.
"Lodge use: 0.7 space/bedroom of which 0.2 space/bedroom may be provided via
a payment in lieu pursuant to Art. 7, DivA."
To the best of my knowledge, the lodge parking requirement of the lJTR zone
district was reduced from one (1) space per bedroom to 0.7 space per bedroom in
the early 1980's. I believe that this reduction was triggered in part by the parking
studies which were performed in connection with the original approval of what is
c
.~
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 4
now the Ritz Carlton hotel project. Savanah Limited's predecessor in interest, John
Roberts, provided extensive information, which was developed by the transportation
consulting firm IDA, regarding the appropriateness of the existing one (1) space per
bedroom requirement.
In discussing the parking requirements of the LP zone district with Alan Richman,
the author of the applicable regulations, he indicated that the one (1) space per
bedroom requirement was imposed to reflect the non-conforming status of many of
the LP lodge's parking, and the fact that they were widely scattered throughout the
City. The one space per bedroom requirement was apparently intended to help
mitigate the impact of expansion upon on-street parking within the City's residential
neighborhoods,
While this concept obviously has merit, we believe that it fails to adequately address
the needs of those LP zoned lodges which are located within or in close proximity to
the downtown area. Such lodges are arguably no more dependent upon off-street
parking than similarly situated lII'R zoned hotels. As a result, a similar degree of
flexibility should logically be afforded the LP lodges in order to further support their
continuation as an important component of the City's lodge inventory. As the
expansion of these older lodges is often essential to their continued economic
viability, the present LP parking requirement represents an obstacle to lodge
presetvation.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7-1103, a private application for an amendment to the text of
the Aspen Land Use Regulations may be submitted at any time during the year.
The review criteria for such applications, and the proposed amendment's compliance
therewith, are discussed below,
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this chapter."
The proposed code amendment complies with all applicable provisions of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, aka, The Aspen Land Use Regulations. No
variation in the dimensional requirements of the LP zone district, or waiver of any
applicable provision of the Regulations, is requested by the Applicants.
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
As discussed in the 1991 Phase One Report which was prepared by the
Planning Office in connection with the current Aspen area community planning
c
--.
v
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 5
effort, there is no single document which constitutes the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan consists of a variety of individual
elements and neighborhood plans which have been adopted since the preparation of
the original Aspen Area General Plan in 1966. The proposed amendment does not
conflict with any such element or plan.
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics."
This review criteria would appear to apply primanly to an application for
rezoning, and is not applicable to the proposed amendment,
4.
safety."
"The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the area's existing
road system. As any reduction in parking requested pursuant to the proposed
amendment would be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, all applications would be considered based on their specific circum-
stances.
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities."
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the City's public
facilities. As any reduction in parking requested pursuant to the proposed amend-
ment would be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, all applications would be considered based on their specific circum-
stances.
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment."
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the natural
environment.
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen."
-
"-
,....."
......,I
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 6
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is not applicable to the proposed amendment.
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment."
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is not applicable to the proposed amendment.
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conOict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter."
The public interest would be selVed in that the proposed amendment would
provide additional flexibility in addressing the renovation/expansion needs of the LP
lodges. This fleXibility is consistent with, and would significantly further, the
preselVation intent of the LP zone district. As any approval granted pursuant to the
amendment would be discretionary, no adverse impact would occur merely from the
amendment's adoption.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SV:cwv
Attachment
c:\bus\city,applapp19892,ca
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
g I
(
~ I
z
9 I
~
~ I
. I
z
:J
rJ-
!
.
. z
~ :J
~ ~
. ffi
.
o
.
.
I'''''..,
",.>-'
, ,
~h
3H
-+---
..
I __~ .
I -~
I '-..",
i
u
.
I
"
"
o
"
.n.,.==<
.
.
,
.
, .
.
-.,--=:r-i
I
I
I
I
I
, .
"
"
\
\
\
-1:-
.: ~
~
. .
. ~
I e
~ Do CD
.
"
.
"
----r .
"
I g
I ;
"
"
.
"
'ffi
-
C'oI
~
..--
:t
ei
.J
III
~~ 0
Z ~
" B
II:
~
".....
"-
"'"
..
VI' e..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, city Manager
THRU:
Diane Moore, City Planning
Direct@
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE:
February 22, 1993
RE:
Bell Mountain Lodge Expansion
Accommodations Growth Management
Growth Management Allocations, and
Affordable Housing - Second Reading
1993
1992 Tourist
Allocation, Future
GMQS Exemption for
Ordinance 3, Series
SUMMARY: The Bell Mountain Lodge Expansion is the only lodge
application submitted for allocation in the 1992 competition. The
Planning and Zoning commission finds that the Bell Mountain Lodge
meets minimum GMP scores and recommends approval of the Bell
Mountain Lodge Growth Management proposal for 22 lodge units. This
includes a recommendation to grant future allocations from 1993 and
1994. GMQS Exemption for three affordable housing units associated
with the lodge redevelopment is also being forwarded with a
positive recommendation.
At first reading, city Council, staff and the Applicant discussed
the Resident Occupied (R.O.) deed restriction for the owner/manager
unit which was proposed at that time. R.O. deed restrictions are
not allowed by the Land Use Code for Growth Management housing
mitigation. Planning and Housing staff and the Applicant have
since met to determine an appropriate deed restriction for this
uni t. In order to meet the needs of the lodge and the Code
restrictions, the proposed deed restriction is now category 4, with
the exception that income and asset guidelines for a lodge manager
occupying that unit are waived. All three units must be
continuously occupied by persons qualified through the Housing
Office.
Also included in this packet is the draft Planning commission
resolution forwarding the Bell Mountain GMP score to Council.
This project was presented along with a proposed amendment to the
parking requirements for the LP (Lodge Preservation) zone district.
The P&Z recommends approval of the amendment, which is covered by
a separate Council memo and ordinance.
BACKGROUND: The Bell Mountain Lodge is located at 720 E. Cooper
1
""-'-.~'.~---
c
8
Avenue (across from City Market) and is zoned LP (Lodge
Preservation). The applicants are the Kappeli family, who have
owned the lodge for almost thirty years. The parcel was the
subject of unsuccessful rezoning requests to 0 (Office) zoning in
the late 1980's. The purpose of the LP zone district is to promote
the preservation and maintenance of the community's small lodges.
The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed the application on
December 8, 1992. The Commission accepted the Planning staff's
score for the project which met the minimum thresholds and voted
to recommend that Council grant future allocations to the
development. The Commission also approved special review of the
Bell Mountain Lodge parking plan, which is dependent upon Council's
approval of the proposed code amendment for parking in the LP zone
district. Please refer to Exhibit "c" for the draft P&Z
resolution. A GMQS Exemption for the on-site employee dwelling
units also received favorable review by P&Z. The employee housing
plan consists of one 1-bedroom unit, one 2-bedroom unit, and one
3-bedroom unit.
This redevelopment plan calls for a basic demolition of the
existing structure. staff determined that there are 18 bona fide
lodge rooms within the building. This is different from the
application which indicated 21 lodge rooms. The existing above-
grade parking will be replaced with an underground garage
containing 23 spaces. The site will be open and landscaped facing
Cooper Avenue. Please refer to the attached application booklet.
Amendment information submitted subsequent to the application
booklet is attached as Exhibit "A". Referral memos from various
City and non-City departments are contained as Exhibit "B".
CURRENT ISSUES:
"Superblock" concept: This site is within an area identified in
the draft Aspen Area Community Plan as a future multiple-use
"superblock". Both the Transportation and Character committees
noted that uses such as affordable housing, commercial parking, and
neighborhood oriented business found in NC and SCI zones should be
integrated via a pUblic/private development partnership. The focus
of this partnership will be to create a master plan for the
superblock and the inclusion of an underground parking structure.
Planning staff believes that the superblock area should be overlaid
with an SPA (Specially Planned Area) designation as soon as
possible to provide a format for future reviews and permits.
In recent workshop discussions with City Council regarding the
Kraut parcel which is northeast of the Bell Mountain Lodge, staff
was directed to convene the property owners within the superblock
area to begin identifying the needs and goals of the owners. These
parties are City Market, the Buckhorn Lodge, George Vicenzi, the
Bell Mountain Lodge, and the Housing Office. Senior Planner Leslie
Lamont is working with the various parties on this project.
2
c
-
~
The Bell Mountain Lodge has acknowledged the superblock idea by
noting that their underground parking can be worked into a greater
parking plan. In recent weeks, the Kappelis have agreed to
actively and financially participate in a three month planning
study of the Superblock concept. It is currently not known the
exact structural details of either Bell Mountain's garage or the
parking layout of the superblock, but the Applicant is recognizing
the future potential. until more details of the superblock concept
are ironed out, staff finds that the Bell Mountain Lodge has met
the minimum thresholds for parking requirements pursuant to the GMP
application and the proposed text amendment.
Future Allocation: The Applicant seeks the full 10 unit allotment
for the 1992 GMP competition for the LP zone. Also requested is
10 units of the 1993 allotment and 2 units from the 1994 allotment.
The Planning commission supports the future allocation request, but
also discussed and would recommend "reaching back" to claim un-
used lodge allocations for the benefit of potential future projects
in 1993 and 1994.
Specific to this subject of unallocated development credits,
Section 8-103 C. of the Land Use Code states that
"If following the award of development allotments there
shall remain unallocated development allotments, the City
Council, following a public hearing for which notice has
been given pursuant to section 6-205(E) (3) (a), shall be
resolution either carryover the unallocated allotments
next year, or eliminate the unallocated allotments."
Since there have been no submissions seeking lodge quotas during
the last several years, staff has not presented Council with any
resolutions to forward or eliminate the un-used allocations. Legal
interpretation indicates that the lack of either action during the
corresponding timeframe of the un-used allocations negates the
ability to regain these allotments at this time.
A future allocation may be granted by the City Council if all of
the following standards can be demonstrated:
1) The quality of the proposed development substantially exceeds
that established minimum threshold for the scoring established in
section 8-105.G. 7, by receiving 67% of the points cumulatively
available at the time of its scoring by the Commission.
Response: Total available points in the six lodge scoring
categories is 105. 67% of 105 is 70.35 points. staff scored the
project at 81.625 points, or 78% of total available points, thus
it meets this standard.
2) The site design of the proposed development makes construction
3
c
......
...."
phasing infeasible. This requires but is not limited to a
demonstration that economies of scale will result from construction
occurring at once; the proposed development is intended as a single
building which cannot easily be constructed or operated in phases;
and that the public facility investments for the proposed
development such as roads, water and sewer facilities, must all be
installed at the initiation of the project, making phasing
economically unrealistic.
Response: As depicted in the drawings submitted, the new lodge
will be one structure built over an underground garage. One
construction phase is absolutely required due to this plan. All
infrastructure is in place, so this criteria is not pertinent.
3) The impacts of construction of the proposed development on the
surrounding neighborhood will be reduced by construction at one
time rather than phasing it over two or more construction period,
and such construction can be tolerated by the city.
Response: The Bell Mountain Lodge is across from City Market and
near several office, commercial and mUlti-family residential
structures. To spread construction over more than one time period
would be undesirable to the neighborhood in terms of noise,
traffic, and visual impacts.
4) The city is capable of absorbing the accelerated rate at which
impacts on its services and public facilities will be experienced.
It shall be considered sufficient evidence of service and public
facility availability if it can be demonstrated that sufficient
capacity is available in transportation, utilities, affordable
housing, parks/recreation facilities, police, fire, schools, and
hospital capacity.
Response: All basic infrastructure are in place for the
neighborhood. The increase of 22 units at once versus three years
is not an impact to the systems.
5) It can be demonstrated that granting allotments from future
years will be in support of the goal of community balance.
Response: There have been no GMP submissions or allocations for
the LP zone during the last several years, so the rate of
development in the small lodge category will not have been affected
in the long term. This project will be an enhancement of the small
lodge base in town, which is a goal of the LP zone district.
Growth Manaqement Exemption for Affordable Housinq: Pursuant to
section 8-104 C.1 (c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted
housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines.
However the Commission shall review and make a recommendation to
Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the
review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this
4
,-.
\",...
""
'-'
section shall include a determination of the City's need for such
housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an
adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and
their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically
regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the
dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and
the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to
be deed restricted.
RESPONSE: City Council makes the final determination for deed
restrictions on the employee units. The Commission recommends
approval of the housing package for the three apartments. Please
refer to the amendments pertaining to housing contained in Exhibit
"All.
The Bell Mountain Lodge's Growth Management application includes
the provision of affordable housing for 63% of the employees
generated by the 22 new lodge units (7 employees). The applicant
is proposing to construct three garden level units in the
reconstructed lodge. The proposed units will total approximately
2,300 s.f. of net livable area. The following revised deed
restrictions have been reviewed and approved by the Housing Office:
3 bedroom unit, approximately 1,050 s.f. - Category IV, with
waiver of income and asset limits for lodge manager
2 bedroom unit, approximately 850 s.f. - Category III
1 bedroom unit, approximately 625 s.f. - Category II
Occupants of any of the apartments must be employees of the Lodge,
per the permitted uses allowed by the underlying LP zone district
requirements. A recent example of a similar situation is the 1992
approval of a deed restricted tri-plex at the Crestahaus Lodge.
Affordable housing for employees of the lodge is listed as a
permitted use in the LP zone. The proposed units comply with the
dimensional requirements of the LP zone. According to the Land Use
Code, parking for residential use is not applicable in the LP
district. However, the Engineering Department would like approvals
to dedicate some of the on-site parking for use by the occupants
of the deed restricted units.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no identifiable financial
implications with the allocation of the 22 lodge units.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning commission recommends
allocation of the 10 lodge units available in 1992 for the LP zone.
The Commission also recommends approval of 10 allocations from the
1993 and 2 allocations from the 1994 Growth Management quota, for
a total of 22 new units.
The Commission recommends approval of GMQS Exemption for 7
employees within three affordable housing units as proposed in the
5
,--
....,,..-
........
",
November 2, 1992 and January 19, 1993 application amendments.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council may choose not to grant future
allocations, requiring this project to compete in succeeding Growth
Management competitions.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 3, Series 1993 at
second reading for 22 Growth Management allocations for the Bell
Mountain Lodge comprising of 10 units from the 1992 Tourist
Accommodations competition, 10 units of multi-year allocations from
1993, and 2 units of mUlti-year allocations from 1994."
"I also move to approve the Bell Mountain Lodge employee housing
plan and GMQS Exemption for the three employee units as follows:
one 3 bedroom unit, approximately 1,050 s.f. - Category IV, with
waiver of income and asset limits for lodge manager
one 2 bedroom unit, approximately 850 s.f. - Category III
one 1 bedroom unit, approximately 625 s.f. - Category 11."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance 3, Series 1993
"A" - Amendments for Parking and Affordable Housing
"B" - complete Referral Memos
"c" - P&Z Resolution Scoring the Bell Mountain Application
6
WRIGHT & ADGER
# C1ty CouJICll
Approved
By Ordinance
ilA- JJ
phthit
. 1t_
,"'"
---
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JEROME PAOFESSIONAL BUILDING
GARY A. WRIGHT
ALLEN H. ADGER.
201 NORTH MILL STREET. SUITE 106
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
.. ALSO ADMITTED TO
TEXAS AND LOUISIANA BAR
19 January 1993
Kim Johnson, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge GMPQS
Employee Housing
Dear Kim:
I am writing to provide the additional information necessary for the Bell
Mountain Lodge GMPQS Application,
Regarding employee housing, those units have been proposed, One one-
bedroom unit, which we propose to designate Category II, and which we expect will
consist of approximately 600-650 square feet. One two-bedroom unit, which we
propose to designate Category III, and will be approximately 850-900 square feet.
The third unit is for the "owners" unit, and consequently we would propose to
designate this three-bedroom unit as "RO", This unit would be approximately
1,000-1,100 square feet,
If you have any questions or require additional information, please let me
know,
Sincerely,
WRIGHT & ADGER
n
B~ ~
'a A':--'Wright
GAW/mf
cc: Cindy Christensen, APCHA, by facsimile
RE\BELL_MT.PO
,~'" "....
.....,../ '.-.,iII
"\.,..', i;
November 2, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Application Amendment
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter a request to amend the Bell Mountain Lodge 1992 tourist
accommodations GMQS application, The City has indicated that only eighteen (18) of
the existing lodge's twenty-one (21) units are exempt from growth management for
reconstruction purposes, As a result, it is necessary to recalculate the project's afford-
able housing, parking and quota requirements, Please note, however, that the Appli-
cant's original representations as to the percentage of employees housed, and the
project's off-street parking ratio, remain unchanged,
Requested GMQS Allocation
As only eighteen (18) existing units have been recognized by the City as being eligible for
a GMQS reconstruction exemption, a twenty-two (22) unit GMQS allocation will be
required to implement the project, as opposed to the original request for a nineteen (19)
unit allocation, The impact of the additional three (3) unit allocation on the project's
affordable housing and off-street parking requirements is discussed below,
Affordable Housing
As discussed in Section III,G. of the Applicant's GMQS application, two (2), three (3)
bedroom units were to be provided to meet the project's affordable housing requirement.
The project's nineteen (19) new lodge units were expected to generate nine and one-half
(9-1/2) new employees, or one (1) employee for each two (2) units, As the two, three
bedroom affordable housing units would theoretically house a total of six (6) employees,
approximately sixty-three (63) percent of the project's employee generation would have
been mitigated by the proposed affordable housing units,
Based on the original affordable housing generation factor of one (1) employee per two
(2) units, twenty-two (22) new lodge units would theoretically generate eleven (11) new
employees. Using the sixty-three (63) percent employee housing factor discussed above,
approximately seven (7) employees must be housed if the Applicant's original representa-
Ms, Kim Johnson
November 2, 1992
Page 2
tions are to be maintained. To accommodate these employees, the Applicant will
reconfigure one (1) of the original three (3) bedroom units to include a one (1) bedroom
unit and a two (2) bedroom unit. The revised affordable housing unit mix will house a
total of seven (7) employees,
Off.Street Parking
As discussed in my October 7, 1992, code amendment application letter, thirteen (13)
new off-street parking spaces were originally proposed to serve the nineteen (19) new
lodge units, The resulting parking ratio was approximately 0,7 spaces per lodge unit (Le.,
13 spaces + 19 units = 0,68), To accommodate the three (3) units for which a GMQS
exemption is not available, the Applicant will provide two (2) additional parking spaces
in the project's subgrade garage. Please note that the revised off-street parking ratio is
identical to the original proposal (Le., 15 spaces + 22 units = 0.68). The revised garage
parking layout is depicted on the accompanying drawing,
Alley Encroachment
With respect to the encroachment of the existing building's rear wall into the adjacent
alley, the Applicant will remove the wall in connection with the construction of the
proposed development. The Applicant's willingness to eliminate the encroachment,
however, is expressly conditioned upon the understanding that the lodge's new rear wall
may be constructed adjacent to the rear property line. In other words, the removal of
the wall will not require that the LP zone district's rear yard setback be adhered to in the
design and construction of the proposed development.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sunny Van CP
SV:cwv
cc: Gary A Wright, Esq,
Jan Derrington
c:\bus\city .Itr\ltf 19892.kj 1
r
J
V ANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
October 7, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
AspenJPitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain LodgelParking Code Amendment
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter an application for an amendment to the off-street parking
requirements of the LP, Lodge PreselVation, zone district (see Pre-Application
Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The application is submitted
pursuant to Section 7-1103 by Victor, Werner and Nancy Kappeli, dba, The Bell
Mountain Lodge, Inc. The Applicants' representative with respect to this application
is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning Consultants.
Background
On August I, 1992, the Applicants submitted an application for an allocation in the
annual GMQS tourist accommodations competition. The purpose of the allocation
is to permit the renovation and expansion of the Bell Mountain Lodge, which is
located in the LP, Lodge PreselVation, zone district. The off-street parking which
was proposed in connection with the project, however, was erroneously based on the
parking requirements of the LffR, Lodgeffourist Residential, zone district.
To resolve this problem, the Planning Office has requested that the Applicants either
revise the project's design to increase the amount of on-site parking, or to process a
code amendment to amend the parking requirements of the LP zone district. As no
practical ability exists to provide additional parking on-site while maintaining the
project's proposed design, the Applicants have elected to pursue a code amendment.
This amendment, therefore, should be considered as an addendum to the Applicants'
GMQS application, and should be processed concurrently therewith,
As Table 1 below indicates, the existing lodge contains twenty-one (21) units and
provides ten (10) off-street parking spaces. The previously submitted GMQS
application requests an allocation for nineteen (19) additional units, which would
230 East Hopkins Avenue. Aspen. COlorado 81611.303/925-6958. Fax 303.-'92C-93~O
~
,
Ms, Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 2
expand the lodge operation to a total of fony (40) units, Thirteen (13) additional
parking spaces are proposed to accommodate the expansion. As additional parking
need only be provided for the new lodge units, the resulting parking ratio is 0,7
spaces per lodge unit (Le., 13 parking spaces + 19 bedrooms).
Table 1
Parking/Lodge Unit Data
1.
Existing Parking Spaces
10
2.
Proposed New Parking Spaces
13
3,
Total Parking Spaces
23
Subgrade Garage
Surface
21
2
4, Existing Lodge
Units
Bedrooms
21
21
5, Proposed Expansion
Units
Bedrooms
19
19
6, Total Project
Units!
Bedrooms
40
40
7, Parking Spaces per Bedroom
Existing Bedroom Ratio
New Bedroom Ratio
Total Bedroom Ratio
0,5
0,7
0,6
8, Minimum Parking Requiremene
LP Zone District @ 1 SpacelBedroom
LffR Zone District @ 0.7 SpaceIBedroom3
19
13
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 3
1
Thirty (30) of the units have been configured so as to pennit their rental as
fifteen (15) suites.
2
Computed based on proposed new bedrooms,
3
Pursuant to Section 5-215.E.L, 0.2 spacelbedroom of the 0,7 spacelbedroom
requirement may be provided via a payment-in-lieu subject to P&Z review
and approval.
As the table indicates, 0.7 parking space per bedroom is required in the UfR zone
district, of which 0.2 space per bedroom may be met via a cash-in-lieu payment.
Based on this requirement, a minimum of ten (10) parking spaces would have to be
provided for the proposed nineteen (19) unit expansion (i.e" 0.5 spaceslbedroom x
19 bedrooms), with the remainder of the requirement being met via a cash-in-lieu
payment. At 0.7 space per bedroom, a maximum of thirteen (13) spaces would be
required to seNe the proposed expansion. As thirteen (13) new spaces are pro-
posed, the original GMQS application complies with the applicable off-street parking
requirement of the UfR zone district.
The applicable off-street parking requirement in the LP zone district is one (1) space
per bedroom. No ability presently exists, however, to reduce this requirement via a
cash-in-lieu payment. As a result, the proposed expansion would require a minimum
of nineteen (19) to meet the off-street parking requirement of the LP zone district.
As only thirteen (13) new spaces are proposed, the GMQS application is deficient by
six (6) parking spaces based on the requirements of the LP zone district,
Proposed Amendment
The Applicant proposes to amend the requirements of Sections 5-217.E. and 5-303
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations to make the lodge off-street parking require-
ment of the LP zone district the same as the lodge requirement of the UfR zone
district. More specifically, Section 5-217.E.L of the Regulations, and the applicable
language of Section 5-303, would read as follows,
"Lodge use: 0,7 space/bedroom of which 0,2 space/bedroom may be provided via
a payment in lieu pursuant to Art. 7, DivA."
To the best of my knowledge, the lodge parking requirement of the UfR zone
district was reduced from one (1) space per bedroom to 0,7 space per bedroom in
the early 1980's. I believe that this reduction was triggered in part by the parking
studies which were perfonned in connection with the original approval of what is
/ '
.
.
Ms, Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 4
now the Ritz Carlton hotel project. Savanah Limited's predecessor in interest, John
Roberts, provided extensive information, which was developed by the transportation
consulting firm IDA, regarding the appropriateness of the existing one (1) space per
bedroom requirement.
In discussing the parking requirements of the LP zone district with Alan Richman,
the author of the applicable regulations, he indicated that the one (1) space per
bedroom requirement was imposed to reflect the non-conforming status of many of
the LP lodge's parking, and the fact that they were widely scattered throughout the
City, The one space per bedroom requirement was apparently intended to help
mitigate the impact of expansion upon on-street parking within the City's residential
neighborhoods.
While this concept obviously has merit, we believe that it fails to adequately address
the needs of those LP zoned lodges which are located within or in close proximity to
the downtown area. Such lodges are arguably no more dependent upon off-street
parking than similarly situated UI'R zoned hotels. As a result, a similar degree of
flexibility should logically be afforded the LP lodges in order to further support their
continuation as an important component of the City's lodge inventory. As the
expansion of these older lodges is often essential to their continued economic
viability, the present LP parking requirement represents an obstacle to lodge
preselVation,
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7-1103, a private application for an amendment to the text of
the Aspen Land Use Regulations may be submitted at any time during the year,
The review criteria for such applications, and the proposed amendment's compliance
therewith, are discussed below,
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this chapter."
The proposed code amendment complies with all applicable provisions of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, aka, The Aspen Land Use Regulations, No
variation in the dimensional requirements of the LP zone district, or waiver of any
applicable provision of the Regulations, is requested by the Applicants,
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
As discussed in the 1991 Phase One Report which was prepared by the
Planning Office in connection with the current Aspen area community planning
/
,
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 5
effort, there is no single document which constitutes the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan consists of a variety of individual
elements and neighborhood plans which have been adopted since the preparation of
the original Aspen Area General Plan in 1966, The proposed amendment does not
conflict with any such element or plan.
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics."
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is not applicable to the proposed amendment,
4.
safety."
"The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the area's existing
road system. As any reduction in parking requested pursuant to the proposed
amendment would be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, all applications would be considered based on their specific circum-
stances.
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities."
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the City's public
facilities, As any reduction in parking requested pursuant to the proposed amend-
ment would be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, all applications would be considered based on their specific circum-
stances,
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment."
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the natural
environment.
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen."
~
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 7,1992
Page 6
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is not applicable to the proposed amendment.
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment."
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is not applicable to the proposed amendment.
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conOict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter."
The public interest would be served in that the proposed amendment would
provide additional flexibility in addressing the renovation/expansion needs of the LP
lodges. This fleXIbility is consistent with, and would significantly further, the
preservation intent of the LP zone district, As any approval granted pursuant to the
amendment would be discretional)', no adverse impact would occur merely from the
amendment's adoption,
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Sunny Va
SV:cwv
Attachment
c:\bus\city .applapp 19892,ca
I
I
I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I I
. ,
>
0
.
.
0 I
z
9 I
5
.
. I
0
. I
~
(~
iL
I
.
~ z
J
. ~
..
. <
. .
.
0
<
.
,
: '----~
I '...
~
.
~
I
-.
-.
o
-.
..,,-==<
.
.
r
I .
I.
~--,I
.
--,----c~1
I
I
I
I
I
"
.
-.
.0
~~~
~i ~
I __
., ----(-
\
\
,
\
-~
.: ~
.
z
J
~ .
. ~
.
~ ~
.
I . f .
-.
I .
-.
.
-.
.
-.
-I.
-.
I ~
I ;;
.
i .
I .,
. ,
('J
$
-
N
e.
z
~
J:
ei
oJ
w
~~ o'
~ \I
Z ~
i2 -.
II:
~
MESSAGE DISPLAY
"2. 'f
'Ci.ty Council Exbi.bi.t .J->
Approved , Ii _
By Ordinance
,
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: cindy Christensen
Postmark: Jan 19,93 12:08 PM
Subject: BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE GMQS HOUSING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
I JUST RECEIVED A FAX FROM GARY WRIGHT. WHAT HE IS PROPOSING LOOKS
GOOD. WE WILL HAVE TO DO THREE DEED RESTRICTIONS ONCE THIS IS
APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE RECORDED BEFORE A BUILDING
PERMIT CAN BE PULLED. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS NO PROBLEM THAT THE
HOUSING OFFICE HAS WITH ONE UNIT AS A CATEGORY 2, ONE AS A CATEGORY 3
AND THE THIRD UNIT AS AN RO UNIT. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
-------========X========-------
c
""
"~
MEMORANDUM
\ i
\'
Or.T
TO:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
RE:
October 16, 1992
Bell Mountain Lodge Inc. GMQS Application
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-27-003
DATE:
The applicant proposes to provide two on-site employee units. The
units will each have three bedrooms and a full kitchen, and will be
used solely for housing of the lodge employees. Based on Tourist
Accommodations Development Standards, these units will house six
employees which comprises sixty-three percent of the employees
generated by the proposed development.
The Housing Office feels that the employee generation range for
lodges is fine as stated, as long as the service level does not
increase significantly then what is being proposed.
\word\work\bml.ref
'.
SEC SERV 303 963 2390
r'
'"
TO
9205197
P.02
OCT-16-1992 13:08 FROM
"""\
'. ,-,..
ROARiNG FORK ENERGY CE.NTER' · 242 MAIN STREET · CARBoNDALE, CO 81623 .. (303)963.:0311
" .. . . . ,. . . .
. '. ,
::!o:::e~;:i:::~'PlariningOffi~e .....~: : ...., . · .. ..
FR:' Steve Standiford - Director " . ... .
RoE:. Coments for :Bell Moun.tain 1.odg - GMQSApplication
We submit the following COmmflnts regarding tile, energy
. .conservation.. oc;nnponents of, t~is' applic,~tion.
'\ . OCT
Ii'
6 \992
. . ", , , ,
. Insulation: . Theappl:icaHon s,ta'tes that ~. units .will.
'significantly exceed minimum in~ulatio~ $tandard~,. and that
· Exterior walls and the ,roof assembly.will achievea'minimum
value of R2l andR3'8 respectively ~" . The, Model', Energy Code
requires a U value o'f ..024 (R4L 67).for ,roof assemblies,. The
R38 r,epresented in the ',applicat.ion equates to a U value of
.026, greater, ,than the. Code minimum. The saine ')I'as true f,or walls.
BUilding Orientation
The application' states under thi,s ,section on page 40" that:. the
'"majority of the developments dwelling unit's are oriented to,
the south." Our count shows that '20 of the 45 units,
inclUding the three bedrooms 'employee units" are ori~nted t'o
. the south. ,The amount of' glazing. per dwelling. unit"appears
similiar,' ir~espective of orientation. To their credit; the
amount of north glazing is minimal, g~nerally providing
~atural daylightt~ corridor~. '
, ,
Liqhtiriq/Water Efficiency
, '.
We did not', see. if. energy efficieiit, l-ighting fi~ures will be
specified for'exterioilighting. .We would recommend lookinC]
, at compact fluouescent lamps and other ways to' c~nserve
~enerqy with lighting 4esign. ,We 'did 'not.see any water
efficient plUmbing fixtures speciried in the application.
Details on gilllons;..per-flushtoilets, "GPM rates..for
,showerheads and faucet aerators ,would be recommended.
.Overall:aecommendations
The Planning Office needs to develop a good'~etof criteria
. when awarding points for energy conse,rvation,. .:..' For .example.,
this application is still short of. the ,Model ,Energy Code yet'
.they are -asking for the maximum pOints in. this category~ If
another application'came .in that hadsuperinsulation, solar
.. heat~n9' panels and eff,i'cient 'li9'htin9'/wa~er usage, which
appl~cation'would deserve the ~aximumpo1nt total? It may
need' t,o be' based on a BTU 'consumption qr. total resource ,
consumption, chara~teristics. , ~ut, the point is that awarding
points should be based on something more empirical than an
applicatiQJlstating they will maximize energy efficiency
without know~q ~he ~etails :Of'how this willb~ac~o~lished, .
. " \:Qi '''flnted Ofl recycled pBf)e' to help COT/serve fiB/ural reSOUfot>". ~
TOTAL P.02
r'
(f)~ /~ ~9?' 2-
. /
~.. -'
43db::;V~~c1~
'.\ OCT 1 4 1992
\ .
. I
_.~ . ._,-,~
~ ~ ~ ~ .-v..-t!:d 4'./ ~ ~
~ 4Mtf? ~ ~.
~4~~~.u</~~~
4 ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~p#/-~(U
~ ~ d A'",;-e;; ~
~_ c.?~ ~4<2-- ~J ~ -b;IC~a~7' ~
~ ,h.<<.- It .4'e ~ ~~ ("" ~ ~<:~)
~ ~~(.Gp.v ,~-
r'"<'V ~~~ _ ~.~~~
7t>V ~~(ftfV~ ~)~ ~
d, ~ ~ ,4---' ~.
~/''''--'~~
~~~
r'
V
---.
....--'"
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer 'K3(
1'I0t/.
Date: Gr' Let-n, 1992
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge Inc. GMQS Application Amendment
The Engineering Department has reviewed the above, and has the following- comments:
1. The revised garage parking layout is acceptable. It is staffs recommendation that the
employee units be considered in the off street parking space calculations, (refer to
previous Bell Mountain Lodge memo Item 2,e..
2. The application amendment remedies the existing building encroachment into the
adjacent alley, If the other encroachments, the fence, sign and fountain are not removed,
conditions 1 and 10 of my previous memo remain applicable,
cc: Chuck Roth, City Engineer
nJCASELOAD9!.027a
c
.""'\
~
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
'"
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer, K5 \
Date: October 19, 1992
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge Inc. GMQS Application
The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and made a site visit.
The following scoring is recommended for GMQS:
1. Quality of Design
(a) Architectural design - no comment
(b) Site design (maximum 3 points) - recommended scoring: 2 points
The applicant has proposed more open space than required (based on the
applicant's figures which cannot be accurately verified because of the reduced
drawings provided in the application). The arrangement of the improvements for
efficiency and circulation on the property and the elimination of the curb cut on
Cooper Avenue all increase safety and privacy and adds one on-street parking
space,
The applicant should give consideration to snow storage for its parking area at
grade level. As the site plan on page 25 indicates, the existing split rail fence
along Cooper Avenue needs to be removed from the right-of-way. The existing
sidewalk has insufficient clearance between the street lights and the edge of
sidewalk. The sidewalk should be widened to allow for a minimum of five feet of
clear space.
(c) Energy Conservation (maximum 3 points) - recommended scoring: 2 points
Based on the conservation features the applicant has represented that will be
incorporated in the detail design of the project, it appears that this is an acceptable
design in terms of energy conservation,
c
--.,
"",,
(d) Amenities (maximum 3 points) - recommended scoring: 3 points
With the proposed features like the pool, spa, barbeque area, bike rack and park
bench the applicant has provided quality use of the open space. The applicant
might consider the placement of a bicycle rack for the employee units.
(e) Visual Impact (maximum 3 points) - recommended scoring: 3 points
This development will not infringe on the designated scenic viewplanes.
(f) Trash and utility access (maximum 3 points) - recommended scoring: 3 points
The applicant has provided' a trash area that is readily accessible to collection
vehicles. The adequacy of the two dumpsters provided will be determined by
actual use. Should problems arise the frequency of pick ups may have to be
increased, or a compactor installed. Adding dumpsters in the public right-of-way
will not be allowed.
Staff has interpreted the applicant's statement that it will relocate exisiting utilities
onto the project site to include the large switch gear at the western edge of the
building. However, there was nothing on the site plan to indicate a new location,
2, Availability of public facilities and services
(a) Water supply/fire protection (maximum 2 points) - recommended scoring: 1
point
The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services.
(b) Sanitary sewer (maximum 2 points) - recommended scoring: 1 point
According to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, there are downstream
constraints in the Galena Street line, the cost of which, will be prorated to upstream
development. The applicant will have to pay a connection charge surcharge for
these improvements,
(c) Public transportation/roads (maximum 2 points) - recommended scoring: 2
points
The proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services
in the area by committing to repave the full width of the alley, In addition the
proposed development also improve the traffic flow along Cooper Avenue by
reducing turning movements with the elimination of the curb cut on Cooper
Avenue,
c
,----
>.."..,;1
(d) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) - recommended scoring: 1 point
The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services
for historical runoff. The applicant has represented that the project will maintain
historic drainage patterns at current levels. If the applicant were to expand the
system to reduce off site flows staff would recommend a scoring of 2 points.
(e) Parking (maximum Y points) - recommended scoring: 1 point
This design for the subsurface garage is a definite plus in that it reduces conflict
with normal traffic patterns on Cooper Avenue, and it also removes the parking
from view.
The applicant is proposing a code ameridment to the 'off street parking
requirements of the LP, Lodge Preservation, zone district to match the requirements
of the VIR, Lodgeffourist Residential, zone district. The engineering department
takes no exceptions to this amendment proposal. However it does take exception
to the exclusion of the employee units in the parking space calculations. The
application has indicated that the proposed development will generate 9.5
employees and will house 6 on-site.
Parking in the east side of town is limited and a constant problem. The
engineering department continually receives complaints in that area regarding
parking. All employees should be considered for parking requirements, and to think
that not one of the six on-site employees will not have a vehicle is unrealistic. By
not considering the employees this development will further aggravate the parking
problem on the east side of town,
3, Provisions of affordable housing,
No comment.
4, Bonus points (maximum 4 points)
Overall a higher and better use of the site.
Recommended scoring: 2 points
Total points of items scored: 21 points
c
~
"..I
Recommended Conditions for Development
L The applicant must file an encroachment application with the City of Aspen for any
remaining encroachments.
2. No valve boxes or manholes will be allowed in the sidewalks or curb and
gutters.
3. The paving of the alley must be done in accordance with City of Aspen's
specifications. The grades and drainage of the alley must be approved by the Street
Superintendent.
4. All landscaping in the public right-of-way must be approved by the Park's
, Department.
5. Any work in the public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from the Street's
Department, with prior approval from the engineering department. (A site plan signed
off by the Engineering Department.)
6. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the Building Department, the applicant must
submit a construction plan to the Engineering Department to include, but not be limited
to the following:
a, Intended construction uses of the right-of-way, R.O.W..
b. The placement of gravel from any excavation areas prior to the
right-of-way to prevent mud on the streets.
c. Parking for construction workers.
d. Erosion control such that no storm runoff carries soil onto the
R.O.W..
7. The dumpsters are to remain in their designated enclosures, they are not permitted in
the right-of-way.
8. The sidewalks on Cooper Avenue must be 8 feet in width, Along Spring Street the
sidewalks must be five feet in width and align with the sidewalk to the north,
9. Submit drainage calculations by a State of Colorado registered profesional engineer.
10. The engineering department requests that the appliacant file a plat of the completed
work. If the applicant elects to record a plat any encroachments could be documented
on the plat in lieu of the encroachment process.
cc: Chuck Roth, City Engineer
rtlCASELOAD92.027
c
"""'
-""-/
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: Oct 08,92 8:51 AM
Status: Urgent
Subject: BELL MTN LODGE
Message:
BECAUSE OF THE MASS OF WORK BEING DONE ON THE LODGE IT WILL BE
NECESSARY TO BRING THE STRUCTURE UP TO CODE. THIS WILL REQUIRE AN
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND AN AUTOMATIC FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. I
WILL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS UPON REQUEST.
-------========x========-------
Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation (j)ist1fi~t,
565 North Mill Street \ !
Aspen, Colorado 81611
OGi
l,
,_ v
Tele, (303) 925-3601
FAX #(303) 925-2537
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J, Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy,
October 7, 1992
Kim Johnson
City/County Planning office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Sewer Service for Bell MOlmt",i,n Lodg'! GMQS
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr,
Dear Leslie,
At the present time the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
has adequate wastewater treatment plant and collection line
capacity.
Once detailed plans are available, we would like to review the
plans to be sure that surface run-off, roof drains, foundation
drains, and any other clear water drains are not tapped into the
sanitary sewer system.
An oil and grease interceptor shall be required for all food
preparation areas. An oil and sand interceptor shall be required
for the parking garage. The plans, including the plumbing layout,
for the interceptors must be reviewed by the District prior to
install ation.
The old sewer service line must be capped at the main sewer
line in t~e alley.
As usual all total fees shall be paid by the applicant to the
District prior to District allowing any connection to the
District's main sewer line. This fee will include charges for the
downstream constraints.
Once detailed plans have been submitted to the District for
review and fee calculation, we can comment in more detail on this
application.
c/Sin;Z;e~~?t1-
Tdmaf R. ~;well
Collection Systems uperintendent
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
r: ASPEN.PITKIN::)
ENV'll!iONMENTAL HEALTH OEPAl!iTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From:
Environmental Health Department
Date:
October 21, 1992
Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Application
Parcel ID # 2737-182-27-003
Re:
================================================================
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The
authority for this is granted to this office by the Aspen/pitkin
Planning Office.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant can serve the project with public sewer as provided
by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with
Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin Countv Requlations On Individual Sewaqe
Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems
wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of
individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not
feasible for public sewers".
The application states: ".. .The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District has indicated that the existing sewer service main is
located in the adjacent alley is adequate to serve the project and
collection system upgrades will be provided by the applicant." The
consul ting engineer, Jay Hammond, has indicated that required
surcharge for the sewer system off-site improvements is to be
applied to the sewer tap fee if this project is approved. The
sanitation district has committed to serve the project.
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The project may be served with water provided by the Aspen Water
Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55
of the Aspen Municioal Code requiring such projects "which use
water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system".
No system improvements are expected to be required by the addition
of the project, according to the consulting engineer. The city of
Aspen water utility has committed to serve this project.
AIR OUALITY:
This remodeled and expanded building is expected to eliminate the
existing wood burning fireplace. A gas-log-containing fireplace in
the lobby and a gas appliance in the meeting room are proposed.
They are allowed under current code. The new gas-log-containing
fireplace, we agree, improves the air quality over the existing
130 South Galena Street
Aapan. Colorado B1611
303/9&0-15070
fecyc!edpaper
c
,.......,
,",../
Bell Mountain Lodge
October 21, 1992
Page 2
Review
woodburning device. The applicant is required to register the new
devices and obtain a permit for their installation.
The dining area of the facility must comply with the Aspen Clean
Indoor Air Act.
NOISE:
No long term noise impacts are anticipated on the immediate
neighborhood as a result of the approval of this proj ect. However,
it is predicted that short term noise impacts on the neighborhood
will occur during the construction phase of this project. Should
complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen
Municioal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in
the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT
The proposal to have a bar and "catering" facility will
require compliance with the Rules and Requlations Governinq
the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of
Colorado. A license for such operations should be obtained
before beginning operations. The required license for a
commercial food service establishment is necessitated by the
need and condition of the liquor license and the plan to
furnish "apres ski hors douvres".
We understand tha the outside grill area is not to be used for
commercial cooking operations. Rather, it is being provided
as an amenity for private use by the guests. As such, the
outdoor area need not meet the commercial food service code
for outside operations. This may later be required if the use
is converted or intensified.
SWIMMING POOL AND SPA
If the spa facilities contain a pool or hot tub, the applicant
should consult the Regulations and Standards Governing
Swimming Pools, Swimming Areas, September 19, 1973.
ASBESTOS
In remodeling and demolishing parts of the existing lodge, it
should be determined that there is no asbestos prior to
demolition. The only sure method of determining the presence
of asbestos is through product sampling and analysis by a
certified laboratory. If any is present, it must be removed
by a qualified asbestos removal firm. Chapter 25 Article 7
c:-Y Council
A~rovec:l
By Ordinance
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SCORING
THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE EXPANSION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL FOR
22 LODGE UNITS INCLUDING FUTURE GMP ALLOCATIONS AND THREE DEED
RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS LOCATED AT 720 E. COOPER (LOTS
K-P AND PART OF LOT Q, BLOCK 105, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN).
Resolution 92-~
WHEREAS, the Kappeli family , for Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc.
submitted an application for 22 lodge units in the 1992 Lodge
Accommodations Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) competition;
and
"..~
I,...,
1-'1 11
_t..t~ C
, 1J_
WHEREAS, this application was the only submission for the 10 lodge
units available in the Lodge Preservation zone district's 1992
competition; and
WHEREAS, the proposal included three deed restricted housing units
(one each 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, three bedroom) within the lodge for
employees of the lodge; and
WHEREAS, as the application did
categories for the affordable
deferred discussion and approval
to the city Council; and
not specify the deed restriction
housing units, the Commission
of the specific deed restrictions
WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering
Department, Housing Office, Water Department, Electric Department,
Fire Marshal, Environmental Health Department, Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District, and the Roaring Fork Energy Center; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, in consideration of these referral
comments, submitted to the Commission a staff score of 81.625
points pursuant to the standards contained in Section 24-8~106.G.
of the Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on December 8, 1992 the Planning and
Zoning Commission accepted the Planning staff's score for the Bell
Mountain Lodge Expansion project, finding that the 81.625 points
meets the minimum point thresholds established within Article 8 of
the Land Use Code (Growth Management Quota System); and
WHEREAS, the
Exemption for
Section 8-104
commission also voted 6-0 for approval of GMQS
the deed restricted unit with conditions pursuant to
C.1.c. of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 5-1 in favor of granting multi-year
allotments from the 1993 (10 units) and 1994 (2 units) GMP quotas.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN
COMMISSION that it scores the Bell Mountain
proposal at 81. 625 points and recommends
PLANNING AND ZONING
Lodge Expansion GMQS
to City Council an
1
r"'
........
"'.........
, /
allocation of 22 lodge units utilizing future GMP allotments from
1993 and 1994 and GMQS Exemption for three on-site housing units
with the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon
approval by the Housing Office, the Owner shall record the
deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property,
copies of the recorded deed restrictions for the dwelling
units must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 8,
"; ~JL
JasmiRs "'~T'J"'~. 'rhrl i r
tV. 1S'I!uCe. ~/ t'll!6 -{lMII?-
2
c
....."
"""
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: Cindy Christensen
Postmark: Jan 19,93 12:08 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE GMQS HOUSING
Message:
I JUST RECEIVED A FAX FROM GARY WRIGHT. WHAT HE IS PROPOSING LOOKS
GOOD. WE WILL HAVE TO DO THREE DEED RESTRICTIONS ONCE THIS IS
APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE RECORDED BEFORE A BUILDING
PERMIT CAN BE PULLED. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS NO PROBLEM THAT THE
HOUSING OFFICE HAS WITH ONE UNIT AS A CATEGORY 2, ONE AS A CATEGORY 3
AND THE THIRD UNIT AS AN RO UNIT. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
-------========X========-------
c
:)
The Planning Planning and Zoning commission's score of the Bell
Mountain Lodge is as follows:
scoring Minimum
Cateqories Threshold Points
1) Public Facilities
and services 4.0 6
2) Quality of Design 14.4 29.25
3) Resource Conservation 3.2 5.5
4) Amenities for Guests 8.4 15.5
5) Affordable Housing 9.0 10.375
6) Rehab/Reconstruction of 9.0 15
Existing units ------ -------
------ -------
48.0 81. 625
Pursuant to section 8-106 E. (5) a development application shall be
required to meet the thresholds of each category and combined
categories to be eligible for an allocation. Combined minimum
threshold for categories 1-4 above is 45 points. This project was
scored at 56.25. Individual category thresholds have been met as
shown in the table above.
"
,-
'-
""'"
-..J
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FR@M:
Kim Johnson, Planning
RE:
Bell Mountain Lodge Expansion 1992 Tourist
Accommodations Growth Management >>.1Il!'~ and ~t.UFe..GMP
Allocations, ~xtAmendmen~ for Parking in the LP (Lodge
Preservation) Zone District, Speeial Revi~for Parking,
and GMQS Exempti~ for Affordable Housing for 22 New
Lodge units
ElATE:
December 8, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Bell
Mountain Lodge Growth Manag~ment proposal for i!.fl" l09ge.: un:l;ts. and
~ecial Review for parking in the LP (lodge Preservation) zone
district. Planning also recommends approval of arCalllendment to the
~arking requirements for the LP zone.
This memo brings forward the Planning Office's recommendation for
scoring of the Bell Mountain Lodge project. It is the ~nly lodg$
~pplication submitted for allocation in the 1992 competition. The
project seeks ]'uti1i'e"GMP allocations for 1993 and 1994,in addition
to the 1992 allotment. The Planning Office staff provides its
score to you as a consensus of the Office.
APPLICANT: Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc.
LOCATION: 720 E. Cooper Ave. (Lots K-P, and part of Lot Q, Block
105, Townsite of Aspen); the northeast corner of E. Cooper and S.
Spring st.
ZONING: LP (lodge Preservation)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Growth Management approval for 22 new lodge
units. The proposal requires all 10 units of the 1992 allotment
as well as future Growth Management Allocations for 1993 (10 units)
and 1994 (2 units). The application also seeks approval for a code
amendment for parking requirements in the LP (Lodge Preservation)
zone, Special Review for parking, and GMQS Exemption for on-site
employee dwelling units consisting of one 1-bedroom unit, one 2-
bedroom unit, and one 3-bedroom unit. Please refer to Exhibits "A"
and "B" for letters from Sunny Vann regarding the text amendment
and change to the employee housing configuration.
PROCESS: To structure the review process, the tlanning Off ice
recommends that the "auxiliary" reviews for ,the project take place
first, followed by GMP scoring of the' project. For your
information, we have included a table summarizing the staff's
"C'
""7..S
- ~y
-S all r- IH,
, 'J ,
c
:)
recommended score.
The Planning commissioner's shall individually score the project.
An average score will be calculated. TJ-~ hOl"'llissien" may .also
,l,tecide .~" accept staff's scoring of the project. If it is found
that the project meets or exceeds the minimum thresholds
established by the land use code, the project will be forwarded to
the city Council for allocation of development rights.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are contained as
Exhibit "C". A summary of highlight comments are as follows:
Enqineerinq:
1. The amended parking garage layout is acceptable. Employee
parking should be dedicated within the proposed arrangement.
2. The site arrangement improves efficiency and circulation on-
site as well as on Cooper Ave., and adds one parking space along
Cooper Ave.
3. There are encroachments into the right-of-way by fences, sign,
and fountain. These must be removed or obtain an encroachment
license through the Engineering Department. The sidewalk must be
5' minimum width on Spring st. and 8' along Cooper Ave. The
sidewalk clearance between the curb and the streetlight must be
improved. There shall be no valve boxes or manhole in the
sidewalks or curb/gutter.
4. The existing utility switch gear in the alley must be relocated
onto the subject parcel.
5. Alley improvements and the subsurface garage reduces traffic
conflicts with traffic on Cooper Ave. Alley design and resurfacing
shall be in accordance with city of Aspen, approved by the streets
superintendent.
6. Engineering takes no exception to the proposed text amendment
for parking in the LP zone.
Fire Marshal:
1. Automatic fire sprinkler and automatic fire alarm system is
required.
sanitation District:
1. Adequate treatment and line capacity is available.
2. Detailed plans must be reviewed by the District. Fees will be
calculated at that time.
Environmental Health:
1. Replacement of the log fireplace with the gas log unit improves
air quality. The new unit must be registered and permitted prior
2
c
.....\
'-./
to installation.
2. The catering kitchen may need license through the Environmental
Health Department. The outdoor grill for use by guests is exempt,
although if the use intensifies or changes, the grill may be
required to meet commercial standards.
3. It must be determined whether asbestos is present in the
structure prior to demolition. A certified laboratory should do
the sampling and analysis. If found, asbestos must removed by a
qualified asbestos removal company.
city Electric:
1. Three phase service in the alley may be used or the single
phase service currently used may continue if the transformer is
upgraded.
Housinq Office:
1. Based on the original application, the employee generation range
is fine. However the service level cannot increase significantly
from what is being proposed.
Roarinq Fork Enerqy Center:
1. A general lack of specifics regarding energy conservation
equipment or technique makes it difficult to score the application
very high. It does not meet the model energy code in several areas
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff suggests the Commission discuss and vote on
the auxiliary reviews prior to scoring for Growth Management
allotment. The Commission shall forward a recommendation to
Council on the proposed text amendment. The Commission shall make
the final determination to approve or deny the Special Review for
parking in the LP zone (pending final Council approval of the text
amendment) and the GMQS Exemption for the proposed affordable
housing units.
--."
...
,..,..
~fISl.lperblock" concept: This site is within an area identified in
the draft Aspen Area Community Plan as a future mUltiple-use
"superblock". Both the Transportation and Character committees
noted that uses such ascaffordable housing, commercial parking, 'and
neighborhood oriented business found in NC and SCI zones should be
integrated via a pUblic/private development partnership. The focus
of this partnership will be to create a master plan for the
superblock and the inclusion of an lM'Ilil'At:jroum!"parldng structur.e,
Planning staff believes that the superblock area should be overlaid
with an ~PA (Specially PlanneCl"'Area) designation as soon as
possible to provide a format for future reviews and permits.
In recent workshop discussions with City Council regarding the
Kraut parcel which is northeast of the Bell Mountain Lodge, staff
3
c
:)
was directed to convene the property owners within the superblock
area to begin identifying the needs and goals of the owners. These
parties are City Market, the Buckhorn Lodge, George Vicenzi, the
Bell Mountain Lodge, and the Housing Office. senior Planner Leslie
Lamont will be meeting with Jim curtis of the Housing Board before
Christmas to outline a process strategy.
The Bell Mountain Lodge has ~cknowledged the superblock idea by
noting that their underground parking can be worked into a greater
.~~~ng plan. Of course it is currently not known the exact
,. '. 'tural details\:liti'either Bell Mountain I s garage or the parking
layoUt of the superblock, but the Applicant is recognizing the
future potential. until more details of the superblock concept are
ironed out, staff finds that the Bell Mountain Lodge has met the
minimum thresholds for parking requirements pursuant to the GMP
application and the proposed text amendment.
Text Amendment Revisinq the parkinq Requirement in the LP zone
District: The current parking regulation in the LP zone requires
one space for each lodge unit. The Bell Mountain Lodge is
currently non-conforming as it provides 10 parking spaces for 18
rentable lodge rooms. Any redevelopment requires compliance for
only the expanded capacity of the site (22 rooms). The proposal
calls for a total of 40 short-term lodge units. The GMP
application offers 25 parking spaces on-site, 23 of which will be
within an underground garage. .~ls parking plan is dependent upon
approval of a code amendment for the parking requirement of the LP
zone. Please note that the application booklet was amended to
include the proposed text amendment (Exhibit "A") and a revised
underground parking layout (Exhibit "B").
The applicant has submitted a text amendment to provide the same
parking requirement for the LP zone as for the CL (Commercial
Lodge) and L/TR (Lodge Tourist Residential) zone districts. The
proposed language change to section 5-216.E.1. is:
,~~~r "Lodge use: 0.7 space/bedroom of which 0.2
D wl')lJ . be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant
~ Also necessary is the addition of the LP zone to
which may be granted cash-in-lieu status by
section 7-404.B.1. shall read:
space/bedroom may
to Art.7, Div.4."
the list of zones
the commission.
"In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Office (0),
Commercial Lodge (CL), LOdge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), or
Lodge Preservation (LP) zone districts, the applicant shall
make a one-time only payment-in-lieu of parking to the city,
in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per
space required...."
The parking requirement of the LP zone was established years ago
at the higher level to take into ~ccount that LP zones are site
4
"I "~'^ #t4h (yJ;?t~~'1C'i ~":C~(;lrrLi2.", j,r&\;E:C:~
~// l ~
'~!1p) (/I. " ,,"'rJ
I
specific and-located randomly throughout the city.c Same lodges
such as the Bell Mountain are adjacent to the downtown core and
ski are base. others however are surrounded by lower density
residential development and zoning (ie. the Molly Gibson) where
unsatisfactory lodge parking may create negative impacts.
For at least two years,"staff has heard.,concerns voiced from the
lodging community that ~velopment in the LP zone has been stymied
because of difficulty in meeting the parking requirements currently
in place. A text amendment which would seek to rectify this
problem has been discussed amongst staff, but had not been
initiated due to office workload. This Applicant is proposing the
text amendment in order to make this, and hopefully, other LP
projects come to fruition.
The proposed text amendment allows the Planning commission by
._ Special Review."to take into account the exact location-specific
requirements arid constraints of a proposed LP parking arrangement
to reduce parking from .7 space per room down to .5 space with
cash-in-lieu for the remaining .2 space per room.
The Planning commission shall review the proposed changes to the
land use code and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
section 7-1102 establishes the review standards for text
amendments:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response:
portions
supports
lodges.
The proposed amendment does not conflict with any
of the land use regulations. The proposed amendment
the LP zone district's incentive program to maintain small
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: There are no conflicts with the existing Plan or its
sub-elements.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The"Sell Mountain site is fairly ";;mall and is located
within two blocks of the Gondola and is adjacent to the commercial
core. The change in the baseline parking requirement from 1 space
per lodge room down to .7 space will act as an incentive to
maintain and expand small lodge capacity in the city. As mentioned
above, the proposed text amendment allows the Commission to apply
special review standards to the Bell Mountain and all other
projects requesting cash mitigation for parking below .7 parking
5
c
o
spaces per lodge unit.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: Traffic generation is not increased by this proposed
amendment, nor is road safety diminished. Special review will be
required for proposed parking situations of less than .7 spaces per
room.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: The proposed text amendment has no effect on public
facilities, other than perhaps the potential of increasing fees
paid toward the parking fund because of Special Review cash-in-
lieu approvals.
F.
Whether and the extent to
result in significantly
environment.
which the proposed amendment would
adverse impacts on the natural
Response: No impacts to natural features is anticipated.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The LP zone incentive package will be bolstered by the
proposed amendment, thus aiding small lodges in their effort to
remain and perhaps expand their economic viability.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
sUbject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The text amendment~~~~ts LP properties throughout the
city. In a general sense, the competition in the lodging sector
is creating a difficulty for some of the smaller lodges to remain
viable without improvements or expansion. Yet, current parking
requirements which are stiffer for the small lodges than the larger
hotels are a disincentive to maintain small, quality
accommodations.
.", ~ial Review will determine those cases where cash-in-lieu is
,requested.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
6
o
"""'
-"
Response: The public interest will not
proposed amendment. The LP zone district
be augmented by the proposed amendment.
be jeopardized by the
incentive package will
-",.:"..special Review for Parkinq: section 7-404 B. allows the Commission
, to grant a reduction of required off-street parking. The requested
text amendment requires 0.7 spaces per lodge unit in the LP zone
of which ~u..,pe provided via cash-in-lied"upon special Revievf"
approval. The cash-in-lieu payment is $15,000 per parking space.
The Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability
to place parking on-site, whether parking needs of the development
have been adequately met on-site, and whether the City has [plans
for] a parking facility which meet the needs of the community.
Response: The proposal includes 25 parking spaces on the property,
23 of which will be in a new underground garage facility. with the
proposed buildout of 4'11" lodge rooms, ..~ $pat;e,l;; per lodge unit will
be provided. The difference between lW''''''1!fnd'(}';6~'is 0.02 space,
multiplied by the number of new lodge rooms (22) equals o.~4'-epace.
section 5-301 E. of the Land Use Code specifies that fractional
spaces below 1/2 space be disregarded, so payment of $6,600 is not
necessary.
S:taff scored the project in the context of the proposed text
amendment and Special Review criteria for parking in the LP zone.
In support of the O.Q2 ,space per room reduction, staff recognizes
that ~ite is adjacent to the commercial core and ski area base.
The Lodge also provides a shuttle van for airport service and in-
town transit of guests. A_ing passage of the text ameneiment and
Special Review, staff found the parking program for the Bell
Mountain Lodge achieved 83% of the maximum allowable Growth
Managementpo~nts within the parking category.
Growth Manaqement ExemDtion for Affordable Housinq: Pursuant to
section 8-104 C.1(C) the Council shall exempt deed restricted
housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines.
However the ~m~ssion shall review and make a recommendation'to
"" _. .'~. . '. t
Counc~l regard~ng the hous~ng package. Accord~ng to the code, the
review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this
section shall include a determination of the City's need for such
housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an
adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and
their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically
regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the
dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and
the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to
be deed restricted.
7
c
:>
RESPONSE: Please refer to the amended housing submission contained
in Exhibit "B". The Bell Mountain Lodge's Growth Management
,:pplication. in. eludes the.RE, f'~v.. ision of affordabl~ housing for ~.3'\",
of the empIoyeesgeneratedlby.the 22 new lodge un~ts (7 employeesj.
The applicant is proposing to construct J;lu;~~,garden level units
in the reconstructed lodge. There will be on&"~droom unit, one
2-bedroom" unit, and ene 1-bedroom unit. The proposed units will
total approximately 2,300 s.f. of FAR but the exact size and layout
has not been presented to date. The City Council will determine
the final deed restrictions to be placed on the units. The
Applicant must present a complete deed restriction package for
;r council's consideration prior to first reading of the GMP
allocation ordinance.
Affordable housing for employees of the lodge is listed as a
permitted use in the LP zone. The proposed units comply with the
dimensional requirements of the LP zone. According to the Land Use
Code, parking for residential use is not applicable in the LP
district. However, the 'tiiljineering Department would like the
Commission to consider dedicating some of the on-site parking for
use by the occupants of the deed restricted units.
Growth Manaqement Allocation - Scorinq the Prooosal
As previously mentioned, the Commission may choose to accept the
score presented by the Planning Office, which could be augmented
by Commission bonus points. The Planning Office's consensus score
sheet is attached. A summary of the recommended scoring is as
follows:
Scoring Minimum ,1
Cateqories Threshold ,
Po~nts
1) Public Facilities
and Services 4.0 6
2 ) Quali ty of Design 14.4 29.25
3) Resource Conservation 3.2 5.5
4) Amenities for Guests 8.4 15.5
5) Affordable Housing 9.0 10.375
6) Rehab/Reconstruction of 9.0 15
Existing units ------ -------
------ -------
48.0 81. 625
Pursuant to section 8-106 E. (5) a development application shall be
required to meet the thresholds of each category and combined
8
c
.:)
categories to be eligible for an allocation. Combined minimum
threshold for categories 1-4 above is 45 points. This project was
scored at 56.25 by staff. Individual category thresholds have been
met as shown in the table above. Thus, ~"9fL_coriug finds,that
the Bell Mountain Lodge meets llhe lll'inimum point thresholds required
~ by t~e ~and use regUlation, s. Bonus Points may be given only by the.
~.I ~C?mmJ.ssJ.on., ,J LJ, (I ,r '
/, ~fW'c')~~, VV\~\)llN0'c\"JN~'fW,,,,,J,<M
1~''''~1)4ql Future Allocation: The Applicant s.eeks the fu1l4l:lrni'fJ;ll;""'aliotment
70r the 1992 GM~ competition for the LP zone. Also requested is
~10 units of the 1993 allotment and 2 units from the 1994 allotment.
A future allocation may be granted by the City Council if all of
the following standards can be demonstrated:
1) The quality of the proposed development substantially exceeds
that established minimum threshold for the scoring established in
section 8-105.G.7, by receiving 67% of the points cumulatively
available at the time of its scoring by the Commission.
Response: Total available points in the six lodge scoring
categories is 105. ~% of 105 is 70.35 points. staff scored the
project at 81.625 points, or 78% of total available points, thus
it meets this standard.
2) The site design of the proposed development makes construction
phasing infeasible. This requires but is not limited to a
-demonstration that economies of scale will result from construction
occurring at once; the proposed development is intended as a single
building which cannot easily be constructed or operated in phases;
and that the public facility investments for the proposed
development such as roads, water and sewer facilities, must all be
installed at the initiation of the project, making phasing
economically unrealistic.
Response: As depicted in the drawings submitted, the new lodge
will be one structure built over an underground garage. One
construction phase is absolutely required due to this plan. All
infrastructure is in place, so this criteria is not pertinent.
3) The i.mp.act.s.of construction of the proposed development on the
surrounding neighborhood will be reduced by construction at one
time rather than phasing it over two or more construction period,
and such construction can be tolerated by the city.
Response: The Bell Mountain Lodge is across from City Market and
near several office, commercial and mUlti-family residential
structures. To spread construction over more than one time period
would be undesirable to the neighborhood in terms of noise,
traffic, and visual impacts.
4) The city is capable of absorbing the accelerated rate at which
impacts on its services and public facilities will be experienced.
/0 At:) O-~'/,N) \)'^')t,~) .eJ/'J'R9Jf;{(f~ '~Jj 951, ~(;' I ~7~.Po^ -h q~ 60Je ~ ~ ~
,piC ,tli \ \) \J "I T' I _ ---
r r.\ 0 ~ t' \,';to I'D 'fi ~1 QQQc"" ~u.~(
() OJ\A - \\Jl \'VMIJ'0 a.)'\5LII ,c',S <Y',WMMJ-l-S'cIv 1 .J
o
J
It shall be considered sufficient evidence of service and public
facility availability if it can be demonstrated that sufficient
capacity is available in transportation, utilities, affordable
housing, parks/recreation facilities, police, fire, schools, and
hospital capacity.
Response: All basic infrastructure are in place for the
neighborhood. The increase of 22 units at once versus three years
is not an impact to the systems.
5) It can be demonstrated that granting allotments from future
years will be in support of the goal of community balance.
Response: ~e ~ave been no GMP submissions or allocations for
the:Qi!., zone Q.j,l.:p.ng the last several years, so the rate of
development in the small lodge category will not have been affected
in the long term. This project will be an enhancement of the small
lodge base in town, which is a goal of the LP zone district.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Text Amendment for the LP zone parking regulations, special Review
for Parking at the Bell Mountain Lodge, and GMQS Exemption for
affordable housing. staff also recommends utilizing 10 future GMP
allotments from 1993 and 2 GMP allotments from 1994 for the Bell
Mountain Lodge project.
fo-O
Recommended Motions: "I move to score the Bell Mountain ~Odge
J J 11J I Expansion at ~5"total points and find that the required minimum
::J. J)" point thresholds have been met, and that ~ allocations rom s---- /
~ ~- the l~~J and 1994 Growth Management quotas be ~granted to this
~ proposal." ~-(fo-.. ;;;7~
~I ~ "I move to recommend to city Council approval of the Text Amendme~ fo-o
L ~ "regarding parking requirements in the LP zone, and GMQS Exemption---::;. ~
(!.P 1 .t. f' jrI" for 7 employees wi thin three affordable housing units as proposed It'tP-
WQft ~ in the November 2, 1992 application amendment." -0
r n)IV~ ~^:f ('f-2CV~ ,\. h O.
--\"V "I m~e, to app, rove Special Review"for the pat'king plan for the Bell;or ~'~
Moun in 0~e, efJect-~e upon . council' approval the Text ~ --to
Amend ~ reg'ardi:'hg parkimyu the L :r;:;.efl(p ~O zon (r~ _~ t~
Attachments:
Bell Mountain Lodge Application Booklet
Exhibits:
"A" - Letter from Sunny Vann (text amendment for parking)
"B" - Letter from Sunny Vann (parking and housing changes)
"c" - Complete Referral Memos
Scoring sheet reflecting Staff consensus for the Bell Mountain
Lodge expansion
10
o
o
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMP COMPETITION
(Planning Office Consensus Score)
Project: Bell Mountain Lodqe
Date: 10/22/92
1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10
points)
Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with
respect to the impact of the proposed development or the
addition thereto upon public facilities and services, and
shall be assigned points according to the following standards
and considerations.
o -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public
facilities and services at increased public expense.
1 -- Proposed development can be handled by the existing
public facilities and services, or any public facility
or improvement, made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general.
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public
facilities and services in the area.
The following public facilities and services shall be rated
accordingly.
a. WATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1):
Considering the ability of the water system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any system extensions or treatment plant
upgrading required to serve the proposed development.
RATING:
1
X MULTIPLIER (1) = ~
COMMENTS: Per enqineerinq comments - Water department will
reauire replacement of hvdrant (suoolied bv water
department.)
b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1):
Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install and sanitary system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development.
RATING:
1
X MULTIPLIER (1) = ~
COMMENTS: Dollar contributions for downstream improvement is
standard requirement this is not therefore an "extra
imorovement".
o
""'
-'
c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1):
considering the degree to which the applicant proposes
to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development
site. If the proposed development requires the use of
the city's drainage system, the review shall consider the
commitment by the applicant to install the necessary
drainage control facilities and to maintain the system
over the long-term.
RATING: --1- X MULTIPLIER (1) = --1-
COMMENTS: Maintaininq on-site drainaqe.
d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1) :
Considering the ability of the fire department to provide
fire protection facilities and services according to its
established response standards, without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing fire-
fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to
provide those fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the proposed development.
RATING: ~ X MULTIPLIER (1) = --1-
COMMENTS:
e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1):
Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the
proposed development without substantially altering
existing traff ic patterns, creating safety hazards or
maintenance problems, overloading the existing street
system, or causing a need to extend the existing road
network. consider ing the appl icant I s commitment to
install the necessary road system improvements to serve
the increased usage attributable to the proposed
development.
RATING:
2
X MULTIPLIER (1) =
2
COMMENTS: Allev imorovements. eliminatinq Cooper Avenue curb
cut.
2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated based on the
quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to the
following standards and considerations.
2
o
~
o A totally deficient design.
1 A major design flaw.
2 An acceptable (but standard) design.
3 An excellent design.
The following design features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier
of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings
in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in
terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighborhood development.
RATING: 2
X MULTIPLIER (3) =
6
COMMENTS: "Little Nell-ish". Alley elevation is too olain
and unfriendly. tree removal (no discussion of reolacement).
Non-conformity for rear setback not beinq eliminated (althouqh
not required to eliminate).
b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3):
considering the quality and character of the proposed
development and its improvements to existing landscaping
and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, bike
racks, bus shelters etc.) to enhance the design of the
development and to provide for the safety and privacy of
the users of the development, and for snow storage areas.
RATING:
2.75
X MULTIPLIER (3) =
8.25
COMMENTS: No discussion about sidewalk and replacement (yes
or no). ADA issues lack: is ramp (sidewalk) at correct anqle?
Need more detail.
c. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times
multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and efficiency
of the internal traffic circulation and parking system
for the proposed development or any addition thereto,
including the proposed automobile and service vehicle
access and loading areas, and the design features to
screen parking from public view.
RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 7.5
COMMENTS: Parkinq for 6 on-site emo10yees not desianated:
airport shuttle service. Not full .7 spaces per lodqe unit
3
c
:)
(requestina cash-in-lieu) and no
amendment needed to make it work.
bonus.
emolovee oarkinq. Code
Underqround Darkinq a biq
d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3):
Considering the scale and location of the buildings in
the proposed development or any addition thereto, to
prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes.
RATING:
2.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) =
7.5
COMMENTS: Good ;ob with bldq. materials and articulation of
roofs. Scale of buildinq aDDears qood: nice architectural
features. Rear elevation not addressed well at all.
3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points).
Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to
the degree to which it includes resource conservation
techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the
following standards and considerations.
o --
Proposed development fails
Municipal Code or does not
of resources.
to meet the standards of the
result in a net conservation
1
Proposed development meets
Code, or results in a
conservation.
the standards of the Municipal
standard level of resource
2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the
Municipal Code, or results in an exceptional level of
resource conservation.
a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier
of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed
development uses passive and/or active energy
conservation techniques in its construction, including
but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar
orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and
solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed
development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive
lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the
location of the proposed development, relative to whether
solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy
conservation.
RATING: ~ X MULTIPLIER (1) ~
COMMENTS:
Per Roarinq Fork Enerqv Center - no technical
4
,.....,
'-'
~
evidence qiven for "above and bevond" conservation.
b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier
of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed
development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures
and/or wastewater reuse systems in its design.
RATING: ~ X MULTIPLIER (1) ~
COMMENTS: No technical
Irriaation olanned. but not
water reuse.
data on low floor fixtures.
a low-water landscape. No qrev
c. AIR (maximum 2 points times mUltiplier of 2): Considering
the effect of the proposed development on the city's air
quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or
cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be
installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will
be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices;
whether dust prevention measure are employed on the
unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control
devices are used.
RATING: 1.75 X MULTIPLIER (2) 3.5
COMMENTS: Eliminate 1 fireplace. oavinq the alley. reolacinq
w/qas. (Not sellinq the credit?).
4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for
guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging
development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of
points according to the following standard.
o A total lack of guest amenities and services.
1 Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness.
2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following amenities shall be considered in this review
and rated accordingly.
5
r-.
\.....
"""
--
a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE COMMON MEETING
AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Shall be
considered, such as 'lobbies and conference areas, in
relation to the size of the proposed lodging development
or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) 7.5
COMMENTS: Indoor and outdoor qatherinq
breakfast bar, ski storaqe, bike park.
these facilities. Bike racks.
areas, continental
Lack of detail on
b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE DINING
FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2):
Shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging development or any addition thereto.
RATING: ~ X MULTIPLIER (2) ~
COMMENTS: Not providinq a restaurant per application more
like hors d'oeuvres. but caterinq "kitchen" plan. If this is a
full restaurant, a conditional use is necessary.
c. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE ACCESSORY
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times
multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health
clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging development or any addition
thereto.
RATING:
2
X MULTIPLIER (2)
4
COMMENTS: Exercise room is functionallY Dart of a hallway.
Pool and soa orovided.
5. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each
development application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city and with
the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be assigned as
follows:
Zero (0%) to sixty (60%) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development are
provided with housing; One (1) point for each six
(6%) percent housed;
Sixty-one (61%) percent to one hundred (100%)
6
,....
"-'
-
-
percent of the additional employees generated by
the proposed development are provided with housing;
one (1) point for each eight (8%) percent housed.
The advice of the City Council's housing designee shall
be used in the determination of the number of employees
the proposed development is expected to generate. The
housing designee shall make available standards for
employee generation representing the various levels of
service which reflect the types of lodge operations in
existence or proposed for the city of Aspen. The
applicant shall be given the opportunity to present to
the housing designee information demonstrating that an
alternative standard should be employed. The alternative
standard may be employed upon the recommendation of the
designee.
If it is determined that the proposed development
generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full
fifteen (15) points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees
generated by the proposed development who are provided
with housing, the following criteria shall be used:
studio:
One-bedroom:
Two-bedroom:
Three-bedroom or larger:
Dormitory:
1. 25 residents
1. 75 residents
2.25 residents
3.00 residents
1.00 resident per
square feet of unit
space.
150
RATING: 10.375
COMMENTS: 63% of employees qenerated will be housed. Housinq
authority OK with plan as lonq as service level does not increase
siqnificantlY. 6 bedrooms provided for 7 emo1oyees.
6. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum
15 points): Development applications for projects located in
the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only shall be
assigned points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of
existing units. Points shall be assigned as follows.
Zero (0%) to fifty (50%) percent of the total
existing unit inventory or non-unit space in the
lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or
reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten (10%)
percent rehabilitated or reconstructed.
7
c
:)
Fifty (50%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the
total existing unit inventory or non-unit space in
the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct: one (1) point for each five (5%)
percent rehabilitated or reconstructed.'
For the purposes of this section, "rehabilitation" shall
include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of
a lodge unit or of non-unit space by its in-place
restoration to a substantially higher quality status
relative to the segment of the tourist population to
which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size.
For the purposes of this section, "reconstruction" shall
include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding
of a lodge unit or non-unit space which may be
accomplished in a similar or different size to the
original configuration, provided that the rebuilt portion
of the lodge is located on the same site. In the case
of both rehabilitation and reconstruction, the units and
the non-unit space shall be required to meet all other
provisions of this chapter and other applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code.
To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant
shall provide a conceptual program identifying the
proposed improvements to be made to the lodge units or
the non-unit space and the timetable for their
restoration or rebuilding which provides that the rebuilt
portions of the lodge are suitable for occupancy prior
to or at the same time as the new units for which an
allotment has been requested. In the alternative, an
applicant may submit an affidavit itemizing the expense
incurred during the previous twenty-four (24) months and
documenting that the expenditures have met the criteria
of this section.
RATING: 15
COMMENTS: Total reconstruction (will this remain mom/poD.
cozy motel? a character question)
7. Bonus Points (maximum 5 points). When it is determined that
a proposed development has not only incorporated and met the
substantive criteria of Secs. S-106(G) (1) through (6) but has
also exceeded the provision of these sections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meriting recognition, additional
bonus points not exceeding five (5%) percent of the total
points awarded under these sections may be made. Any
Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the pUblic hearing
record.
8
o
-
....,.;I
SCORING CATEGORIES
1.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
2.
QUALITY OF DESIGN
3.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
4.
AMENITIES FOR GUESTS
5.
PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
6.
REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF
EXISTING UNITS
SUBTOTAL POINTS:
7. BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS
Name of P&Z Commission Member: (Staff Consensus Score)
9
POINTS:
6
29.25
5.5
15.5
10.375
15
81. 625
,....
......
-
--.I
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC., TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS GMQS
ALLOTMENT, TEXT AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND SPECIAL REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 3, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
city Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application
submitted by Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc., P.O. Box 328, Aspen, CO
requesting approval for 19 Tourist Accomodations GMQS allotments,
text amendment which amends the parking requirements in the Lodge
Preservation (LP) zone district (Section 5-216. E. 1), GMQS exemption
for two on-site three-bedroom employee units, and special review
for parking. The property is located at 720 E. Cooper Avenue,
Aspen, CO, Lots K, L, M, M, 0, P, & West 20.66 feet of Q, Block
105, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact
Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, CO 920-5090
s/Jasmine Tvqre. Chairman
planninq and zoning commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 16, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
city of Aspen Account
,',.,
... ,.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE:
October 16, 1992
RE:
Bell Mountain Lodge Inc. GMQS Application
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-27-003
The applicant proposes to provide two on-site employee units. The
units will each have three bedrooms and a full kitchen, and will be
used solely for housing of the lodge employees. Based on Tourist
Accommodations Development Standards, these units will house six
employees which comprises sixty-three percent of the employees
generated by the proposed development.
The Housing Office feels that the employee generation range for
lodges is fine as stated, as long as the service level does not
increase significantly then what is being proposed.
\word\work\bmt.ref
11"\:
-..
, ~,! l!~1
I 5 1992 III
r;'~i
~~
c
SEP
I.... '.\
September 14, 1992
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge
Growth Management Application
Dear Kim,
Thank you for your letter of August 12, 1992 in which you
outlined some areas that need further clarification. As you know
from our recent meeting with Sunny Vann, he will be preparing a
code text amendment application revising the L.P. Zone parking
requirement to bring it in line with the other lodge zone
district requirements in response to your Item 1. This will be
presented at the appropriate time prior to the November 3, 1992
P & Z meeting for the GMQS public hearing.
In Item 2 you request clarification of the term "catering
kitchen" and the BBQ facility near the pool. These facilities
are intended solely as an amenity for the use and enjoyment of
lodge guests and will not be used for a commercial restaurant or
food service operation. The kitchen will be set up for
breakfasts, apre's ski hors douvres, small dinner parties, etc.
in connection with the activities of lodge guests in general or
special groups that may conduct meetings, seminars, etc. while
staying there. Similarly, the BBQ area near the pool will be for
parties of groups or random individual guests.
Regarding Item 3, the existing kitchenettes are solely for the
use of the lodge units in which they are located, and will be
replicated in seven (7) of the new lodge rooms. Specific
locations and configurations have not been selected at this early
stage of planning. The existing kitchenettes each have a
refrigerator, range/oven and sink with disposer in a compact
configuration which includes a small amount of base and wall
cabinets. We assume this will be confirmed by an on-site
inventory inspection by the Aspen Zoning Official as part of the
agency review process.
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS. 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . 303/925-5590 FAX 925-5076
c
/'"""\
"- .
Item 4, partial demolition of the existing structure entails the
removal of the majority of the interior partitions to allow for
the new lodge room configurations while retaining most of the
exterior shell in its' present location. New openings will be
made in the walls as needed for windows and doors in the proposed
new lodge design and some of the existing openings will be filled
in accordingly. A more specific demolition plan will be
submitted with the construction documents for building permit
review. During construction, temporary bracing, shoring, etc.
will be provided as necessary to retain the existing walls in
place until new construction of structural components, walls,
etc. are in place.
Finally, we are submitting herewith a check from the Owner in the
amount of $140.00 to cover the Environmental Health Department
referral fee as you requested in Item 5.
We believe the foregoing response should satisfactorily answer
the request for more information in you letter. Please advise us
if you require additional information or clarification of other
issues during the course of your review process.
(~ N& {~
J--~ur DUrrl~gt~lA
pt~ect Manager I
fC: Nancy Kappeli
Sunny Vann
Gary Wright
'"
o
(J
t' :J'((J' ( '}""
. r f ..... r-
'. ' Cr
~.
~~
August 12, 1992
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge
Tourist Accommodations
G.M.Q.S. Application
Dear Kim,
Upon reviewing the application booklet which we submitted on
August 3, we have discovered a few minor discrepancies,
deletions, typos, etc. which we wish to correct. Please consider
this letter an addendum to the application as follows:
1. Page 4, first line: the Vicinity Map should be called
Location/Zoning Map to correlate with map title on page
6.
2. Page 4, last sentence of first paragraph; change to
read: The site contains twenty thousand sixty-six
(20,066) square feet of land area . . .
3. Page 17, Item 8 and 9: See revised page attached.
4. Page 20, Line 22, insert deleted text as follows: (21)
spaces will be adequate for the requirements of the
Lodge. Furthermore, . .
5. Page 42, Line 13, insert deleted text as follows:
Directly above will be a meeting room labeled Guest
Breakfast Room on the Second Level Plan at page 29, for
small groups .
We would appreciate it if you would see that all referral
agencies, etc. who received a copy of the application booklet
would also get a copy of this addendum.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in processing this
application.
S~relY, M
Lh ~ L.
Ja~~rington AlA
~6ject Manager
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS' 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . 303/925-5590 FAX 925-5076
c
o
~.
~~
October 8, 1992
\\1
OCT _ S 199L
Aspen Planning Department
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Att:
Re:
Kim Johnson
Bell Mountain Lodge
INTERIORS
Dear Kim,
Through an oversight on our part we would like to submit an
amended first level floor plan with the addition of room 12 c so
that the drawings correspond to the 40 rooms indicated in the
text.
We are including 21 copies of the plan at 8 1/2" X 11" and 24" X
36" for your use.
If you have any questions, please call. Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
~.tZtwv~~\dLJ'
Jb~s Hardy
Architect
cc: Sunny Vahn
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS . 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . 303/925-5590 FAX 925-5076
,'"
r,.
\/
- .
, -'
t-r-
:j i
o
I
.
..l-
I
.
X ! ! ; I
dj ttl
J
.
I
.
.
,
.
.
;;
.
~
.
....,
.
. i ...
.
~
UI
. ~
I
, '"
~I ~
UI
ii . ~
oJ I 8
5 ,
. ~ 0
. ~
g ~ .
. ,
9 .
I:
0 ei
z . z
F , :J
. . ~
'I
., .
.
.
. 0:
~ .J
1Il
. > ~
I 1Il
.
.:.1-, I .J
. 1 f..... ~
.
T Ul
. It
-+ ii:
~ .
. ,
.
~33tU.S DNIUdS
5'
c
,
~ j;
'" ....
m
};
1\\ ~
m
2
"
m
2
~
m
"
2
~ P
~
,", "'DZ
\.~' ~ g
<::! 15<
>
::E ~
, m>
'"
"
~
'0>
~ l,."'O
~E~
j h~~
~ t*,~ n
",2 :z:
~
~
~>
'. ...,
'" -,.
~ ~ ~~
~~
~ \:.\ r!:
l :.J:r~
t. "."'
l~\ ~Q .~
"
2
I. t "" !1~
I" '" ~ 0Ek
_' ~- ~'" <m.
'^ t) ,.1"'1
,. (., ......
\:1 C t: ~
<
5'
c
.",.
;
.
a
-1 ~
'" "
Z ~
o
....
i , . ;.1
01 ~ ~
z. ~ t. ~
Z:; :r;
"
.., '" f) ..
); n n _ ~~
~ < g C b! <;l;
C:;o'" ~ ;; ~g :~
~ oz i : ~ r; g
~ 0 n "'';l>
. C:~ ~
"'j
, I ; ; ; : : ~ I
~~In ,~~
~ ;;: ,"'.ll ~...
J i~
~ $ ~ ~ 1\\
, > r;s
'" n c".j ~
,,2i ~l~ "
z I-~'~ JJ
2 ~
~ ,,~
~ Q>
\ ~
li,
~ ~-
~- ~-x
, '>
" ~~
~ ,,-
iIt 2
~"
\0 g
o
'"
~ ~%
" 2>
~ 03
~
\:;- );
~ z
'" ~
~ >
I~ ~
" ~
'" 0
Vj ~
<" <
. >
~ ~
g~ ~
,
~~ ~
I" ~
~I
>1
:::1
'"
o
c ~
~ ::I:
~ ~
" ~
\ m
, 8
C z
,,'t f.0.
"'.. II
'- "
'" .
~ J; I
' t
, C
C
"-
.eo
~ I--~,
>
~ ~
, I'
,.
N
"
\;\
,~
f
"
,
r
,
'"
~
1
~
r-
~
~
-.t\
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
c-
r--
-
-
-
~
r-
~ ~r--
~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. n
ooo~o..,,~~
... .... :lII 1ID n :II:' 01
<~~~mrn~z
i ~;t): !Z ~
mCO < ""'(5
m S;: z
~ 2 2
~ 8f><
o >
z -<
~ ~
l' '"
~
~a
~~
<j:
>l::
~i
::;
b'
3
1
;;
q~
~ ~..
~ ~
" to
co>
~o
~,.
~j:
~~
;;;m
);
z~
"0
<~
>>
~...
"TO Z ~ 8 ~
" ~ ~
~ ~ ;
m ~ ~
~ ~ ;g
"'ll ;g ~
13> 0 "
> :I:
" "
:I: :I:
2
0>
~~
<m
>~
~~
,,~
m>
~
m
,-
o
"
!\
6
2
--'
-I
-
-
z
..
,-
o
"
"
-
~~!~6
~ ~ DOS
x ~ E ~
S x p Z
m ~ Z Q
m n
~g
iQ-::
:s~~
.2-
iQ
"
~c
~~~
ZV;n
v;:I:-
~o
o
~ ~;
\ ~
,'1 I(
~
~, Z
I\. ~
~
I~ ~ "
I~ ~ :::
'i ~
m
~
"
m
m':
n>
go
0-
;;,!!,
ne
:'h
a~
.~.'
~!;>
~!
-~
i'~
~;-
,""
.
z
"
-; --l
-<
'"
('T.,..
~ I
"'.
r.r.
-< -
n'
\',
~ -
. .
-
--j
-I
'-=1
--,
-!
-'
v.:C
.
-r.
" ""
rT, -"
-< -
c""'U
"T1"
r-
c.
-<
.z.
r...
"
~
>
~
);:..
~
~
'"
"
~
,
~
t
-
"
~
o
z
~
.0
):- ""
C'''\>
/i .
~
~
~
,
- -
"
-:.. ._ r......
~;:~~
xc__
n ~v...
8v..Z-"
r ~j --l I
r.c>>_
~ -Q:;
po ,,-(\;
I
r "-'
::0-'
>::'1
::::
0'
~ c-:c
CT IT-::-
- . IJ-j
"-
-
=-
,-,
. -
I
l>
"T1
r.r.
-
~
!!!
2l
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
h
! ,:~'
'0 ;,
2
j; ',"
inl,
I
i
~
'It
"
,.~
\1\
It
I
-II
t
!I,
.,-
~ ~~
~9 S ~
:E ~
~,~ ~ ~
Z ~
~
~
~
>
;=
z_
Gln
>i!;
0-
o
'"
m
~
n
:::;
~n
"'>
-<0
>-
-<
m
Nn
->
"'!!l
j;
5 ~
~ D
~
m
x~_
> :I:
:I: >
nl"'.!!!
i"'~p
;.",:
..~>>
2<>~
9 m.....
o~-
~~~
Qm=
"):).-
ie ~,.c.;.
. .
oE~
:::t:-
~ ;.-:::
o f't ....
'" . .
-4-'::::
0:1:
~"..,
-~~
,\ ~ 8....
.~ -,,' <~ ~
~ !!'-~~ .
\\~~y,
P II
!t\ '\
~ ~
o
~ 0
~
.;:. ...;
. -
,
,
)>
'"
~
2 '"
m n
<>... :I:
J:~ l!< m
~v. R~ ~
:t "'..... m
~P\ - ~
I
.... ~n
...I~~<"Oi
o~ g~ I ~
. .;~ ~-- ~ rn
I'; ;lll
!It g
lo. 'V'
~['\: -::- ;lll
l:: '00
n'6 ):10 ."
1-<'; i lll.
~ > ~\)
-f-- '"
-< Z)>
:E9'V
'" 'V
;lll
)>
;;;
)>
..
'"
>
Z
Gl
m
8
~ !I
;.:~",
;lll
~_ '0 1ft
.,,~ )> n
z>.:!! 0
0""" -f ;III
> c
x
>
'"
>
~
~
~
'"
>
'"
n
m
r
Z
~
"-
~
~
\
'"
~
"
!
,/
,
~ ;:0 ~
~ a~ 2
~ - ~
N ~
~ ~; E ~ 410....
a ~!:!"' " 1\,,' 1"
" "N" '" I\)
.~ <3 ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,
: E.; ~ ~ ~ a ~
~. <:I \:, II \l ~
[:;:; Ifi!;; "
l~ i Ii -i:
:s 0 ~'.
j:2! m G; f;; .:
~.~ m,~,~ ~'5 0 0
~I~ olnl.;~I%I~ ~
~ 1 ~"lil;~1 ~ ~ ~
..,~! ~ iIi F, ;~~~I'~jl ~ ~ ij I; ~ ~
~z' ~ lIII i ao "'"r.!! If !: z- E '" %
o 140; ,.. ';:r: %!IIIi ~ --- '11
~ ~ ~ ""r.,5~ .... CO)
il~
" Z
~ 0
1;'
:5 a
'"
~
~
"
~
m
!
~
m
"'
"
"
~
!
~
,
I ]~ I~
~lh
I '~I~
z,<
I~\~
, 12
~~i
~~ I'll
:::1i~
o
2
J>
:u
-<
.()
~O
oc
"':u
"1'(J)
~fI1
~O
I I~
:u
J>
o
I "'ll~.!T1
I I'loi_
~.'" ::16
~'D"I-1
I ',~~IJ>
i r""'ir
1'1 !~ ~I jl
1M 1,-4;!0
1f\l1~~I"'U
i" i~~ ~
~ ~ i~!l'~"~
f\ ~ i-~," : ~I!
~ :"'8' !",I"n
i"'t :~~
. i~ I"
I~j--. ,
,CIl t..a. ~
:i~ ~
i~ J
~I~~
'" IC IJ>
c.1...... ('") .." J:o
1- l c-i 21::l
,;;: ~ :t> 0 l> :u
e~~~r; ~1j;
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
() C/T1~'"
I'T1 l> ~
., \ .,-i
~ ''''TT1 5
~ d ~
~I~
i) I, Ul
'"
J\ ,- t' (>l
r-~.:s,,,~
-
Q~~ ~
i\.l (J) Cl
.~ ~~ "-
~k~
I
I !
1
1
I~
z
o
c;
'"
~
'"
Ie
'"
]'"
~
,
~I~ ~81g Q ~ $j~I~,~ ~I~
~i~ z .'1~1ll!<!; '10
~Ii t~tt1 ~lil~lii Il~
" "
. z
"
~
~ !i
m ~
" ~
~ ~
~
m
8iR ~
~'g
~-~
~~~
~~~
."
~ ~
; ;..
t' ~~
.
o
I .
t. ~
r I~
oJ>
-I'I"'i Ll
t in,;!"'O
..... I~!mi::o
II ol~ 0
.. J>
11~ (')
If I ~
rl
~
~ri%
~r~
~r-
~~Ir
t-l'1>
~i~
I~I~
:tll",
't.16
1'" -i
\;., ?!-
~~
c ~
..
i
to
.
.-
.
~~~
~' '"
~.
i ~,~ II _;
i ~ t ~ ~~i
i ~ I
. ~
. ~
~ ""
.
:
.
o'
n-
n
o
I ~i
'.1
~ol
..
"-
or
"~
z_1
n.1
mr
~
.
n
~ r~
= ..j ~ ~ <E J>
"V "I..... .,., z
() ~ I"'~ ... ~ 0 0 .-
o a ., ~'''"'!
(j) _, \I -4<
-l~ l> ~
f" ~i~r-
N'
,- ~I "I 1 ()
~ ~l Il~-
-4lllllc
il~'r-
rfiit":t>
I- -i
:;Ito
giL z
ill~,li (j)
-"
~I~
I~I:
%,.
~'I'~n
.~
o
.
n"
II
m
~
~
o
;
~
[
<
o
.-
:.
,'-
--.I-t.
I,
o
z.
::j~
I~~
~-
O~
"
..--
:t.~~
'" u..
.. t.1 .
.. II 1\
II:~
o~
I<~
..
~~
o
"
zl~ (') ::tI ~ ,...
(') >- 0 n co
o::tl i: Z Z n
3:~~~~~
rTl ~::tI 50
>- U; Z Z
"'0 ~ 0 ~ iP
"0 "'0 Z 0
::tI :::tI C I"l
o 0 (I) (/I l>
J> J> 1"\ 5j -0
~ n >- ~
:I: ~ Z n
" ::; ~ ~
'r ~'-< J> ~
* .". .". 1 *t :;j (5
~ [I~~~
l\ ~r\ :;:!:( ""
\~ tt\\J>~
~J ~,t ~ ~ ~
.J'- ~.' t \ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ I, ~ 2l
CI) ~ t\::~
-i<'
\~fI1
!:(
",",
0'1(/1' - 'tl 0
~le J ! ~
S' ji' ~ ~;;
3' 3' -I GI ."
00 oO:::tI ~ ~
~ -i ~
o
!!'
.c
7
,;- !
~ Ii: :0 (Jl.
!ll~ ~ 0"
il~ i ·
I
I
~ t~
r g I~
. 0
- 3
.
I'
III
I
(')
"-
'(>
'"
!Ii
..
z
'"
r
o
"
"
-
-
-
-
\
X S~.v7
- 1-=
, -
.- -
g -
~ -
~ -
-
-
-
~i: ~
~ c 3
:: ~ 5'
a ~
0;
.
1
I :
"'I > i:I:
.00
9: 0' it
~!: -
Q\' g
. ~
,;-
1
1
I~o
z<'>
~n_
I. c-
~~:
zz-
~
o
z.
'0
00_
~!~
~%.....
~~
1
~
~
~~
fI1
~ J>
. :u
~ 2
~ Z
;;; '"
~ 0
;;! :u
~ -0
~ :u
!;: 0
m 0
~ C
z ()
~ -i
.., <'
;= fI1
m ()
J>
~=~
~~ ()
i!'=i
,~ -<
~!! .:..
~;o ~
uO
t,. 00;;::
. g: IT1
iii ~. J>
;;:;:' ."
'J
..,.,
'"
"
.. II
.. .
;;; C
,1,-
"
I'"
".
'" r
rr.
(F
-<3:
.
rv
c ;Z
. .
--
v.:C'
""
" )>
" ;;;
-c
C~
"".
r
c
-<
<:
v; rT v.. I
~ ~ : : \0
)< C ..... 'E
n Cl".lO\Z
C\.fo..Z-'''''m
I" rv ~, :::tI>-
Co.>- If).e
:c 1-<o400z
]:to ~ f\. ;
c:; I '"
C rl\.
C'"
CI
~~I
. '"
~ - tr~
:' ';' I~ D
~ li~ ~~ ~
im .... --
1(1) Z (I)
1U'! ~~~~
\"'C)~lDo-,l'T\
~ ; ~~< 0
I ..{ ~ vl~ ~
Is ....!:l g --'e- ;
-<-- \' 0 0
I~~ " ~,
,~
!'"
"
,- -
ex
-
<1'
-
I\.
I lr--nll
ll~ I \
~k [I
~\) ~ II
~ ~ j; I
0'i'i. ~
r- (J)
~"
~
."
I>
o
Z
.-
I>
Z
o
c
I~
'"
'"
* I~
..
I~
'0
,. -
I~ i
j~ !!
!~
I~
o %
J,: ~
~ n
"V ~
~ ~
~ ~
; ,~
~
I. ;
~ ~.
~~
:; I
o
::;
-<
..t ~
~~ 0 --'....
\<r... ....:- 1#1
- z...~
.
.
~
"
"
~
:;;....
~ ~
<> ~..
" c
~ "
~ ~
~ ~;
to ( U;~
~ ~
~
~
~
,
NO
1'0;
I~
Ir_
m",
"'I>
0"
1>-
-i
"'
%
I~ ~:
p ~~
,m ~
I::IJ oCJl
I~ .
,(I) ~z
Iz o.
9 l"I.:;!
I,,~ -
!!,'1-< I
I~~ ~
()
o
;;::
;;::
fI1
. I :u
, ()
....'
.,.ii l~ ~
n;:~...~ ::g
~)., t~ ~
S~ U) ~
~ '-l "-i
oW ~
in
:-I~-U' __
""m 0
no~
-,~ i
~~
fill \ j .
. I:E
. '"
'5
:;;-
;;
~
"
;=
::;
~
:0
I>
Z
C>
m
--
'p
-0
-0
:u
-J>
Ui
J>
r
:u
fI1
()
o
:u
o
II
,~
I:EO'S
l:u~ >--
~ ."
jZ- :;
..
X
I>
:0
'"
I>
iO
,0-
i"",
I>
.."'"
,~
~
~
.
>:
I>
I>
'0
I>
:0
o
'"
,-
Z
P
;f,
t~.
,
.
~
~
~
~
~
_' 1',
',\\....~. " '
\- ~ ~
t ....,
'':-li ,; ;\ .
:\,:t: - ~ -".t
-~
"
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, JANVER DERRINGTON, being or representing an Applicant
before the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of
the Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS application was given by 1) posting of
notice containing the information required in section 6-205.E.2.,
which posting occurred on October 19, 1992, in a conspicuous place
on the subject property and 2) mailing Notice of said development
application to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet
of the subj ect property, which mailing occurred on October 16,
1992.
Applicant:
BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC.
/
The foregoing AffidPJ'-fJt of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this 1\ day bf Oe~e),er', 1992, by Janver
Derrington on behalf of BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC..... P"O'moev
i
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Mr&....U..'...11/fH4,
i
d~l:
otary Public
",
.,,,,'
"'10:'"
M1
BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE
ASPEN. COLORADO
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC., TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS GMQS
ALLOTMENT, TEXT AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND SPECIAL REVIEW
NOTICE-' IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 3, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
city Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application
submitted by Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc., P.O. Box 328,. Aspen, CO
requesting approval for 19 Tourist Accomodations GMQS allotments,
text amendment which amends the parking requirements in the Lodge
Preservation (LP) zone district (Section 5-216. E.1), GMQS exemption
for two on-site three-bedroom employee units, and special review
for parking. The property is located at 720 E. Cooper Avenue,
Aspen, CO, Lots K, L, M, M, 0, P, & West 20.66 feet of Q, Block
105, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact
Kim Johnson at the Aspen/pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena,
..;'spen, CO. 920-5090 '. . .
s/Jasmine Tvqre. Chairman
Planning and Zoning commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 16, 1992
city of Aspen Account
vincent J. Higens
President
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX
Christina Davis
Vice President
ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of adjacent property owner's within three hundred feet of The Bell
Mountain Lodge as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors
Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
~~,
700 EAST HYMAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOC.
C/O STEVE HOPKINS AND TIM CLARK
650 S. MONARCH
ASPEN CO 81611
COtmON AREA
757253 ONTARIO LIMITED
C/O LANDAWN SHOPPING CENTERS, LTD.
11 POLSON ST.
TORONTO, CANADA M5A1A4
UNIT 812 (B), COOPER
GREYS TONE CONDOS
AJAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
SUITE 112
1501 NORTH PIERCE
LITTLE ROCK AK
UNIT 1, ORIGINAL STREET
CONDOS
72207
ALAN & KAREN BERKOWITZ
UNIT 11, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 335
BROOKLANDVILLE
MD
21022
ALAN B. & CAROL S. RUBENSTEIN
AND ROGER L. WEINREB
57 OLDFIELD DR.
SHERBORN MA
UNIT 19, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
01770
ALAN D. GARFIELD, ANDREW V. HECHT,
RONALD GARFIELD, WILLIAM K. GUEST
601 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN CO 81611
UNIT 321, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
ALBERT & MARY CHERAMIE
UNIT 220, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
139 CHERAMIE LANE
GOLDEN MEADOW
LA
70357
ALEXANDER GROSS
UNIT 216, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 9500
ASPEN
CO
81612
ANDREW R. PFEIFFENBERGER
UNIT 10, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
760 S. STEELE
DENVER
CO
80209
ANTHONY & NORMA C. GUILBEAU
UNIT 221, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
205 CHERMIE LANE
GOLDEN MEADOW
LA
70357
ARTHUR J. SEQUIN
4944 CASS STREET
SAN DIEGO
CA
ASPEN B. COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
C/O STEVENSON
1006 FAIRWAY ROAD
SANTA BARBARA CA
ASPEN NEIVE CORPORATION
C/O GERALD SEAY
P.O. BOX 490
TULSA OK
ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
617 E. COOPER
ASPEN CO
BARBARA GRIMES AND
GOSSAMER WINGS
1435 SEDROS AVE. SUITE J
SOLONA BEACH CA
BARBARA TOLL
21547 CYPRESS HAMMOK DR. #42D
BOCA RATON FL
BETTY ANN MILLIGAN GRAY
1416 N. ASTOR
CHICAGO
IL
BILL UNCAPHER
BOX 2127
LAJOLLA
CA
BLANCHE C. BERSCH AS TRUSTEE
OF THE BERSCH TRUST
415 N. CAMDEN DR.
BEVERLY HILLS CA
BLOCK 106 ASSOCIATES
C/O ASPEN INVESTMENT
710 E. DURANT AVE.
ASPEN
CAPITAL CORP.
UNIT 308, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92109
UNIT B (COMMERCIAL) ASPEN
SQUARE CONDOS
93108
UNITS PS-18, A, B, C & G,
THE DURANT CONDOS
74101
COMMON AREA
81611
UNIT 416, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92071
UNIT 35, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
33428
UNIT 417, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
60610
UNIT 408, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92038
UNITS 419 & 420, ASPEN
SQUARE CONDOS
90210
UNITS W4-W10, M2, M3,
PS16, E1, E5-E7, M1 &
PS17, THE DURANT MALL
CONDOS
CO 81611
BRICE A. & CATHERINE J. TONDRE
S-200, 4465 KIPLING ST.
WHEATRIDGE CO
BRIGITTA ULLA WEST
1490 REDHILL ROAD
OAKLAND
OR
C. WESTON SANIFER, JR. AND
DICKSIE LEE SANIFER
2836 WOOD DUCK DR.
VIRGINIA BEACH VA
CANDICE ANNAN
P.O. BOX 7695
ASPEN
CO
CARLOS ANDERSON
C/O KIRK WARD
617 E. COOPER AVE.
ASPEN
CO
CARLTON J. HUNKE
P.O. BOX 1389
FARGO
ND
CAROL CENTER DALY
300 PUPPY SMITH ST. 205-305
ASPEN CO
CAROLE E. GLUCK
176 E. 71ST ST.
NEW YORK CITY
NY
CDES PARTNERS
ATTN: BILL HOFFNER
720 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN
CO
CDES PARTNERS
C/O COATES, REID & WALDRON
720 EAST HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN CO
UNIT 8, MITTENDORF CONDOS
80033
UNIT 311, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
97462
UNIT 28, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
23456
UNIT C, CHATELETCONDOS
81612
UNITS 214 & 215, ASPEN
SQUARE CONDOS
81611
UNIT 12, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
58102
UNIT 317, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
81611
UNIT 31, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
10021
THE ATHLETIC CLUB UNIT,
THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB
BLDG.
81611
UNITS 3A, 3H, 3C, lA-II,
2A-2E, 3B, 3D-3G, ASPEN
ATHLETIC CLUB BLDG.
81611
CHARLES G. DIBRELL, JR.
FRANCES MICHALKE DIBRELL
7517 BEAUDELAIRE
GALVESTON TX
UNIT 27, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
77551
CHARLOTTE K. DILL AND
FRED DILL
411 BROOKSIDE AVE.
REDLANDS CA
UNIT 218, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92373
CHATEAU ASPEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOC.
C/O MCCARTNEY PROP. MGMT.
317 AABC
ASPEN CO 81611
COMMON AREA
CHERRYANNE SUTHERLAND AND
DICKSIE LEE SANDIFER
617 HERON POINT CIRCLE
VIRGINIA BEACH VA
UNIT 33, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
CHRISTIN L. TREUER
UNIT 11, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
981 E. BRIARWOOD CIRCLE NORTH
LITTLETON CO
80122
CITY MARKET, INC. LOTS A-I, BLOCK 106,
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 729
GRAND JUNCTION CO 81502
CITY OF ASPEN LOTS E-I, BLOCK 105,
ASPEN
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN CO 81611
COLIN CHAPAN & FRANCIS CHAPMAN TRUST UNIT B, CHATELET CONDOS
C/O LARRY HIZERMAN
620 EAST BLEEKER
ASPEN CO 81611
COOPER-GREYSTONE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE
COMMON AREA
D. KEITH LOWTHER AND
CHRISTY SILVA
23592 WINDSONG #38-H
ALISON VIEGO
UNIT 323, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
CA
92656
DAN B. WILLOUGHBY
UNIT 13, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
12322 RIP VAN WINKLE
HOUSTON
TX
77024
DANIEL PEARLMAN
UNIT 201, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
2714 FORRESTER DR.
LOS ANGELES
CA
90064
DAVID D. SALMON, JR.
UNIT 205, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
1805 CRYSTAL DR. #216
ARLINGTON
VA
22202
DAVIS AMMONS
UNIT 4, MITTENDORF CONDOS
14642 E. CHERRY CREEK ROAD
LARKSPUR CO
80118
DONALD H. & ANITA I. WITT
UNIT 3, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
1412 GRAND AVE.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
CO
81601
DONNE P. AND ELIZABETH A. MOEN
UNIT 307, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
8 CABALLEROS ROAD
ROLLING HILLS
CA
90274
DR. FRED M. ERNSBERGER
AND RUTH E. ERNSBERGER
1325 NW 10TH AVE.
GAINESVILLE
UNIT 206, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
FL
32601
DR. JACK & GESINE CRANDALL
DBA PATIO BUILDING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 1066
ASPEN CO
LOTS R & S, BLOCK 99,
ASPEN
81612
DR. JACK O. PIASECKI
UNIT 9, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
1324 NORTH BROADWAY
SANTA ANA
CA
92706
DR. LOUIS J. & BERNEVA M. FISHER
AND WALLACE G. & ARTHORA GILBERT
2534 CYPRESS GT.
LOMA LINDA CA 92354
UNIT 1, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
DR. SHIRLEY WRAY
UNIT 34, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
987 MEMORIAL DR.
CAMBRIDGE
MA
02138
DUDLEY J. HUGHES
UNITS 20 & 22, ASPEN
SQUARE CONDOS
4500 CRANE BLVD.
JACKSON
MI
39216
DURANT & ORIGINAL ASSOC., INC.
P.O. BOX 7846
ASPEN
LOTS R & S, BLOCK 106,
ASPEN
CO
81612
EDITH B. FEHR
UNIT 213, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
294 ROUND HILL ROAD
GREENWICH
CT
06831
EDMUND O. GODBOLD
UNIT 15, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
524 COLONY
HARTS DALE
NY
10530
EDWARD JOYCE
UNIT 17, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
THREE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA
CHICAGO IL
60602
EDWARD W. HINE P.C. PROFIT
SHARING TRUST
SUITE 224, 2620 SOUTH MARYLAND
LAS VEGAS NV
UNIT 301, ASPEN SQUARE
89109
ERNA MAVROVIC
UNIT 401, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
APT. 15C, 530 E. 72ND ST.
NEW YORK NY
10021
ERNEST AND BETTY MARTINELLI TRUST
2504 THE STRAND
4040 BROADWAY
MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266
UNIT 319, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
ETHEL CARO GOFEN
SUITE 300
455 CITY FRONT PLAZA
CHICAGO
UNIT 12, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
IL
60611
FLORENCE W. HELLINGER UNIT 7, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
1849 WYCLIFF DR.
ORLANDO FL 32803
FRANCIS P. HOFFMAN UNIT 2, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
210 INVERNESS LN.
SCHEREVILLE IN 46375
FRANK AND ELAINE M. FERREIRA
UNIT 6, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
72 FULL RIVER AVE.
REHOBOTH
MA
02769
FRANK J. WOODS AND
ANTHONY J. MAZZA
SUITE 301A, 205 S. MILL ST.
ASPEN CO
UNIT A (COMMERCIAL) ASPEN
SQUARE CONDOS
81611
FRANK J. WOODS, III
SUITE 301A
205 S. MILL ST.
ASPEN
LOTS P & Q, BLOCK 99,
ASPEN
CO
81611
FRED & BARBARA MARTELL
UNIT 702, 700 EAST HYMAN
CONDOS
3 QUAIL RUN
OLD WESTBURY
NY
11568
FRED H. DILL
UNIT 29, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
411 BROOKSIDE AVE.
REDLANDS
CA
92373
FREDERICK MARSHALL KARSTEN
AND DOUGLAS S. HILLUNIT
5305 WRILEY ROAD
BETHESDA MD
UNIT 8, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
20816
G & G PROPERTIES AND
C/O LANDAWN SHOPPING
11 POLSON STREET.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
JERRY SPRACKMAN
CENTERS
UNIT 1, MITTENDORF CONDOS
CAN M4A1A4
GARY P. SPENCE
UNIT 2, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 9806
ASPEN
CO
81612
GEORGE A. SMITH AND
SYLVIA B. BRINGOLF
UNIT E, 250 S. ORIGINAL
ASPEN CO
GEORGE SANTROPEITRO
13675 MULHOLLAND DR.
BEVERLY HILLS
CA
GERALD R. SEAY
P.O. BOX 490
TULSA
OK
GERTRUDE STRETTON BELSKY
333 E. 43RD ST.
NEW YORK
NY
GRAHAM A. & GWEN E. HATFIELD
P.O. BOX 128
WICHITA
KS
GRAHAM A. ROGENESS
3046 COLONY DR.
SAN ANTONIO
TX
GRAY BRAZINA
SUITE 305
8641 WILSHIRE BLVD.
BEVERLY HILLS
CA
GREGORY SHERWIN
1020 E. HOPKINS AVE. #26
ASPEN CO
HANNAH DUSTIN BLDG., ASSOC.
P.O. BOX 2238
ASPEN
CO
HARLAN DOPKIN
P.O. BOX 4696
ASPEN
CO
UNIT E, CHATELET CONDOS
81611
UNIT 322, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
90210
UNITS P-9, P-10, D, E & F
THE DURANT MALL CONDOS
74101
UNIT 409, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
10001
UNIT 402, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
67201
UNIT 211, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
78230
UNIT 304, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
90211
UNITS 2 & 4, ORIGINAL
STREET CONDOS
81611
LOTS A, B, C & D, BLOCK
105, ASPEN
81612
UNITS 816 & 814, 700 EAST
HYMAN CONDOS
81612
HAROLD AND AUSTINE N. STITT UNITS 302 & 424, ASPEN
SQUARE CONDOS
1450 SILVER KING DR.
ASPEN CO 81611
HAROLD AND BETH HORIUCHI UNIT 6, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
6205 W. JEFFERSON AVE.
DENVER CO 80235
HAROLD GRINSPOON
380 UNION ST.
SUITE 306-307
WEST SPRINGFIELD
CHILDRENS FAMILY TRUST
UNIT 208, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
MA 0189
HARRIS A. THOMPSON
UNIT 410, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
175 BELLEVUE DRIVE
BOULDER
CO
80302
HARSPEN PROPERTIES
C/O KAY E. HARTMAN
20 NORTH MICHIGAN AVE. STE 400
CHICAGO IL
UNIT 16, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
60602
HERRON-GRAY PARTNERSHIP
UNIT 5, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
P.O. BOX GG
ASPEN
CO
81612
HOLLAND & HART
ATTN: J.W. DAVIDSON, CONTROLLER
P.O. BOX 8749
DENVER CO 80201
UNIT 6, MITTENDORF CONDOS
HUNTER PLAZA ASSOC.
C/O ANTHONY J. MAZZA
SUITE 301A, 205 S. MILL ST.
ASPEN CO
LOTS K-O, BLOCK 100,
ASPEN
81611
JAMES A. & KAREN D. CUTTS
AND BARBARA LEMOS
P.O. BOX 321
ASPEN CO
LOTS D & E, BLOCK 100,
ASPEN
81612
JAMES FERRY, JR.
UNIT 14, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
P.O. BOX 166
GLENCOE
IL
60022
JAMES J. EDGETTE
SUITE 801
19900 BEACH ROAD
JUPITER ISLAND
FL
33469
JAMES L. PRICE AND
JULIA P. PRICE
32670 WOODSDALE LN.
SOLON
OH
44139
JANI JENNIFER WOHLGEMUTH
1040 AVONOAK TERRACE
GLENDALE
CA
91206
JASJIT SINGH GREWAL
ECHO RIDGE RANCH
P.O. BOX 1089
PAGOSA SPRINGS
CO
81147
JEFF W. & MADALYN B. SEQUIN UNDER TRUST
BOX 4274
ASPEN
CO
81612
JOAN H. KELSO
C/O NCNB TEXAS INDUSTRY
P.O. BOX 811234
DALLAS
CONSULTING GROUP
TX 75381
JOHN & BONNIE HENDRICKS
AND MICHAEL WILKIE
254 N. LAUREL AVE.
DES PLAINES IL
60016
JOHN A. ELMORE
P.O. BOX 861
WRIGHTSVILLE
NC
JOHN C. AND MARIANNE K. TAYLOR
340 WESTWOOD DR. N.
N. MINNEAPOLIS MN 55422
JOHN E. CARREIA
6730 E. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY
DALLAS TX 75231
UNIT 318, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
UNIT 4, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
UNIT 26, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
UNITS E-3, P-14,THE
DURANT MALL CONDOS
UNIT 412, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
UNIT 30, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
UNIT 1, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
801-807 EAST HYMAN SUB,
LOT 1, SECTION 18, 10-84
UNIT 23, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
UNIT 1, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
JOHN F. ROSS
UNIT 223, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
7600 CLAYTON ROAD
ST. LOUIS
MO
63105
JOSEPH & ANNA MARIE CARRILLO
UNIT 9, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
236 HENRY STREET
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS
NY
11201
JOSEPH B. WILSON AND JANE W. MOY
SUITE 104
720 E. DURANT AVE
ASPEN CO 81611
UNIT P-15, THE DURANT
MALL CONDOS
JOSEPH D. & LESLIE J. WATERS
UNIT 2, MITTENDORF CONDOS
4123 BRIARGROVE LANE
DALLAS
TX
75287
JOSHUA SASLOVE
THE REAL ESTATE BROKERS
720 E. DURANT AVE.
ASPEN CO
UNIT P-13, THE DURANT
MALL CONDOS
81611
KAREN B. BARRETT
UNIT 415, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
1397 VAIL VALLEY DR.
VAIL
CO
81657
KARL G. LANDL
UNIT 324, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
6 WEST RIDGE AVE.
PROSPECT HEIGHTS
IL
60070
LOTHAR M. VARADY DR.
UNIT 219, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 5687
INCLINE VILLAGE,
NV
89450
LUCIANNA G. ROSS AND
KATHERINE G. WELLS
33 PORTLAND PL.
ST. LOUIS
UNIT 7, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
MO
63108
M & B COMPANAY
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT
601 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN
UNITS 1-7 VICTORIAN
SQUARE CONDOS
CO
81611
MACWOOD CO. OF CALIFORNIA
C/O W. PHILLIP WOODWARD
19 OAK AVE
BELVEDERE CA
UNIT 8, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
94920
MADELINE LIEB SCHULTE TRUST
UNIT A, CHATELET CONDOS
800 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN
CO
81611
MALCOLM BREMER, M.D.
UNIT 422, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
3263 AVALON PL.
HOUSTON
TX
77019
MARIAN STEINBERG
SUITE A-16
2600 TORREY PINES ROAD
LAJOLLA CA
UNIT 423, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92037
MARIE N. FLY
UNIT 404, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
7447 PEBBLE POINTE
W. BLOOMFIELD
MI
48300
MARK A. BRADLEY
UNIT 309, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 1938
BASALT
CO
81621
MARLY P. HEMP
UNIT 3, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
15470 POMONA ROAD
BROOKFIELD
WI
53005
MATTHEW B. KELLNER AND
GEORGE S. KELLNER
P.O. BOX 3465
WALNUT CREEK CA
UNIT 15, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
94598
MERT WALLEN
UNIT 320, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
36 OCEAN VISTA
NEWPORT BEACH
CA
92660
MICHAEL LEINER
C/O ASPEN INVESTMENT
1845 W. 205TH STREET
TORRANCE
CAPITAL CORP.
UNITS P-8, P-7 & E-13
THE DURANT MALL CONDOS
CA 90501
MILLER MORTGAGE CO.
C/O CALVIN CHAMBERLAIN
1600 N. WOODWARD AVE.
BIRMINGHAM MI
UNIT 4, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
48009
MITTENDORF CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
C/O HILARY SMITH
P.O. BOX 1030
BASALT CO 81621
COMMON AREA
MRS. MARGARET JOAN CLIFFORD UNIT 24, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
146 WILD TIGER ROAD
BOULDER CO 80302
N.S.N. ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIT 2, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
11051 W. ADDISON ST.
FRANKLIN PARK IL 60131
NANCY WElL
UNIT 9, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
1404 23RD AVE. CT.
GREELEY
CO
80631
NICKOLAS AND!BETTE E. PASQUARELLA
805 E. COOPER AVE.
ASPEN
UNIT 7, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
CO
81611
ORIGINAL STREET CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
820 E. COOPER
ASPEN CO
COMMON AREA
81611
PAIGE BOVEE VITOUSEK AND
DONALD MOORE AND ARDEN BOVEE
1656 MALDEN ST.
SAN DIEGO CA
UNIT 19, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
92109
PATRICIA J. MCDONALD
UNIT 209, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
5514 CALUMET AVE.
LAJOLLA
CA
92037
PERRY POLLOCK &
WILLIAM C. RANDALL
P.O. BOX 950
ASPEN
LOTS K & W1/2 OF LOT L,
BLOCK 106, ASPEN
CO
81612
PETER K. BLOCK UNIT 210, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
RR1, BOX 725
NEW LONDON NH 03257
PETER R. BELSKY UNIT 310, ASPEN SQUARE
ASHTON CHEMICAL CORP. CONDOS
SUITE 101, 8955 KATY FREEWAY
HOUSTON TX 77024
PHYLLIS J. HESS UNIT G, CHATELET CONDOS
P.O. BOX 8582
ASPEN CO 81612
PRISCILLA BERRY WILLARD
SUITE 216
205 SOUTH MILL ST. PLAZA
ASPEN CO
UNITS P-12 & E-10, THE
DURANT MALL CONDOS
81611
R & R INVESTMENTS
UNIT 32, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
15238 OAK VALLEY ROAD
RAMONA
CA
92065
RAYMOND D. AND ANNE A. CALGI
UNIT 17, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
134 TEWKESBURY ROAD
SCARSDALE
NY
10583
RED FLOWERS PROP. CO.
SUITE 2515
ONE HUNTINGTON QUADRANGLE
MELVILLE NY
UNIT 212, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
11747
RED FLOWERS PROP. CO.
SUITE 2515
ONE HUNTINGTON QUADRANGLE
MELVILLE NY
UNITS 212 & 314, ASPEN
SQUARE CONDOS
11747
RED RIVER VALLEY INVESTMENTS CO.
SUITE 440
408 ST. PETER ST.
ST. PAUL MN 55102
UNIT 710, 700 EAST HYMAN
CONDOS
RICHARD G. BENTER, HOMEFED TRUST
C/O RICHARD G. BENTER
21 MORGAN
IRVINE CA 91718
UNIT 18, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
RIGGS & YVONNE KLIKA
32415 BURLWOOD DRIVE
SOLON
ROBERT & HELEN APEL
18 TIFFANY CIRCLE
MAHASSET
ROBERT ALLEN COLMAN
SUITE 218
610 SANTA MONICA BLVD.
SANTA MONICA
ROBERT BAUM
35 MAYFLOWER DR.
TENAFLY
ROBERT D. JARVIS
108 WALLINGFORD ROAD
GREENVILLE
ROBERT G. BLITZ AND
JOHN O. ANTONELLI
2907 BAY BOULEVARD
HUNTINGTON
OH
NY
CA
NY
SC
MD
ROBERT M. & LOUISE E. ANDERSON
1023 23RD ST.
CHETEK
ROBERT R. BONCZEK
707 WEST TENTH
WILMINGTON
ROBERT R. KREIS
235 PABLO ROAD
POINTE VERDE BEACH
ROBERT S. OGILVIE
WI
DE
FL
1354 PLAZA DE SONADORES
SANTA BARBARA CA
UNIT 3, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
44139
UNIT 312, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
11030
UNIT 204, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
90401
UNIT 704, 700 EAST HYMAN
CONDOS
07670
UNIT 303, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
29609
UNIT F, CHATELET CONDOS
20630
UNIT 222, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
54728
UNIT 313, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
19803
UNIT 405, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
32082
UNIT 25, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
93108
ROGER & MARIANN ZENSEN
2303 TERRAZA RIBERA
CARLSBAD
RON KRAJIAN
P.O. BOX 8867
NEWPORT BEACH
RONALD E. SODERLING
SUITE 205
3355 VIA LIDO
NEWPORT BEACH
RONALD J. & DANA L. COHEN
6500 ROCK SPRINGS DR.
BETHESDA
CA
CA
CA
MD
RONALD N. KRAJIAN AND
NANCY C. MCNAUGHTON
617 E. COOPER AVE. #114
ASPEN CO
RONALD RADER
2100 PENOTSCOT BLDG.
DETROIT
S.A. CO., INC.
800 OMAHA TOWER BLDG.
OMAHA
SCOTT G. KLEIMAN
3910 AUSTELL ROAD
AUSTELL
SHARON STRIBLING GREENER
426 RICHARDSON ROAD
MADISON
SIDNEY HENDERICKS
655 REDWOOD HIGHWAY
SUITE 300
MILL VALLEY
MI
NE
GA
WI
CA
UNIT 421, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92009
UNIT 14, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92658
UNIT 407, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
92663
UNIT 706, 700 EAST HYMAN
CONDOS
20817
UNIT 10, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
81611
UNIT 217, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
48226
UNIT 5, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
68124
UNIT 413, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
3001
UNIT 18, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
39110
UNIT 418, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
94941
SILVER BELL CONDOMINIUM
C/O NICK PASQUARELLA
805 E. COOPER
ASPEN
ASSOCIATION
COMMON AREA
CO 81611
SIMON P. & NORA D. KELLY
LOTS R & S, AND THE
EASTERLY PART OF LOT Q,
BLOCK 105, ASPEN
P.O. BOX 1583
ASPEN CO
81612
SPRING ST. PO.
C/O GULF CO LTD.
616 E. HYMAN AVE.
ASPEN CO
LOTS F-I, BLOCK 100,
ASPEN
81612
STANLEY SELIGMAN
UNIT 5, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
Pi .0. BOX 72
GRAND JUNCTION
CO
81502
STEPHANIE PHILLIPS
UNIT 224, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
985 FIFTH AVE.
NEW YORK CITY
NY
10021
STEPHEN A. ABRAMS LIVING TRUST
SUITE 318
301 NORTH CANON DR.
BEVERLY HILLS CA
801-807 EAST HYMAN SUB,
LOT 2, SECTION 18, 10-84
90210
STEPHEN J. & ELISSA TALZMAN
UNIT 708, 700 EAST HYMAN
CONDOS
789 WOBURN ST.
WILMINGTON MA 01887
SYDNEY GRAY UNIT E-12, THE DURANT
MALL CONDOS
969 RASE AVENUE
MENLO PARK CA 94025
THE DURANT MALL CONDOMINIUM ASSOC.
COMMON AREA
710 EAST DURANT
ASPEN
CO
81611
THE LAREDO NATIONAL BANK
ATTN: JOE GUNZALEZ
P.O. DRAWER 59
LAREDO TX
UNIT 203, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
78040
THE REAL ESTATE BROKERS
DURANT MALL PARTNERSHIP
720 EAST DURANT STREET
ASPEN CO
THOMAS & CAROL TADVICK
2354 NORTH 7TH
GRAND JUNCTION
CO
THOMAS A. KERSHAW
HAMPSHIRE HOUSE
84 BEACON STREET
BOSTON
MA
THOMAS IACONO
SUITE A-3
800 E. HOPKINS AVE.
ASPEN
CO
THOMAS J. VETRI
30 RIO VISTA WAY
LADUE
MO
THOMAS P. SATKUNAS
P.O. BOX 1794
ASPEN
CO
TOBBY J. & JANET L. MAZZIE
1425 SIERRA VISTA
ASPEN
CO
VERNON C. FRIESENHAHN AND
KATHLEEN D. FRIESENHAHN
SUITE 242, 711 NAVARRO
SAN ANTONIO TX
VERNON GEORGE &
J. LEE SAMMONS
5025 E. 6TH AVE. PKWY
DENVER
CO
VICTORIA SQUARE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE
UNITS E-2, E-4, E-8, E-9
& PS-19, THE DURANT MALL
CONDOS
81611
UNIT 7, MITTENDORF CONDOS
81501
UNIT 21, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
02108
UNIT P-6, THE DURANT MALL
CONDOS
81611
UNITS 5 & 10, MITTENDORF,
CONDOS
631224
UNIT 9, MITTENDORF CONDOS
81612
UNIT 3, ORIGINAL STREET
CONDOS
81611
UNIT 202, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
78205
UNIT 207, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
80220
COMMON AREA
W.C. MEARS
UNIT 12, SILVER BELL
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 102
BOCA RATON
FL
33429
WALHART REALTY CO.
UNITS 21 & 21A, CHATEAU
ASPEN APTS
899 SKOKIE BLVD.
NORTHBROOK
IL
60062
WALTER KIRCH
UNIT 414, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 1937
VAIL
CO
81657
WAYNE & FRAN WHITMAN AND
ISAAC & NECHAMA STUDENT
P.O. BOX 643
WESTON MA
UNIT 305, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
02193
WENDY SHERMAN AND JOHN M. CURLEY
APT. SIB 1628 12E. 86 ST.
UNIT 403, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
NEW YORK
NY
10028
WILBUR A. HABER
UNIT 4, CHATEAU ASPEN
APTS
20409 KISHWAUKEE VALLEY ROAD
MARENGO IL
60152
WILLIAM C. BALL UNIT 406, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 8930
ASPEN CO 81612
WILLIAM C. KING & CAROLYN THORNE UNIT 20, CHATEAU ASPEN
ATPS
409 BUCKINGHAM ROAD
PITTSBURGH PA 15215
WILLIAM CHAIKEN UNIT 3, MITTENDORF CONDOS
7328 E. PRINCETON
DENVER CO 80237
WILLIAM F. CARR, TRUSTEE UNIT 700, 700 EAST HYMAN
CONDOS
P.O. BOX 4619
ASPEN CO 81612
WILLIAM F. MESSINGER UNIT 36, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
555 E. DURANT ST.
ASPEN CO 81611
WILLIAM G. VANSANT, JR. UNIT 316, ASPEN SQUARE
SUITE 400 CONDOS
6330 NEWTON ROAD
NORFOLK VA 23502
WILLIAM J. PIZZUTI UNITS P-11 & H, THE
DURANT MALL CONDOS
1150 TIMBERVIEW TR.
BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48304
WILSHIRE COMPANY UNIT 306, ASPEN SQUARE
15 ALTARINDA ROAD CONDOS
SUITE 110
ORINDA CA 94563
ZAHARIA LUPOVICI UNIT 411, ASPEN SQUARE
CONDOS
44 W. 62ND ST.
NEW YORK NY 10023
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
stan Claus~nity Development Director
Leslie Lamont, Interim City Planning Director
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
September 11, 1994
Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Extension Request - Second
Reading Ordinance 51, Series of 1994
RE:
=================================================================
SUKHARY: The applicant, Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company,
has requested an extension to their 1992 GMQS allotment for the
redevelopment of the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720 East Cooper Avenue.
The extension request is for fourteen (14) months beyond the
expiration of the 1992 allocation in February 1996. The request
extends the allocation to April 22, 1997.
Staff recommends approval of a six (6) month extension to August
22, 1996.
Please see attached Ordinance 51, Series of 1994.
Council approved Ordinance 51 at first reading September 12, 1994.
However, Council also requested the applicant to explain the GMQS
extension request well in advance of the February 1996 expiration
deadline of the development allocations.
As stated in the application, Bell Mountain Limited Liability
Company believes they need to begin design and construction
planning for a building permit to be issued by the February 1996
deadline. The applicant will be in attendance at second reading
to provide Council with a thorough explanation for the request.
BACKGROUND: Council approved the 1992 GMQS allocation for 10 lodge
rooms, a future allocation from the 1993 GMP competition of 10
lodge rooms, and a future allocation from the 1994 GMP competition
for 2 lodge rooms, for a total of 22 new lodge rooms for the Bell
Mountain Lodge redevelopment. Please see Ordinance 3, 1993
attached for your review, exhibit A.
Since Council's approval of the Lodge allocation, the lodge
acquired new owners and the City has begun working with the lodge
owners, City Market, and the Buckhorn Lodge to redevelop the entire
block.
1
The City has been working with the private property owners for over
14 months in an attempt to create an underground parking garage and
significantly redevelop the Bell Mountain Lodge, city Market and
the Buckhorn Lodge as a unified project, referred to as
Independence Place.
It is because of the work between the city and private property
owners that the Bell Mountain Limited Liability company requests
an extension of the 1993 GMQS allocation in case Independence Place
is not realized. The company also requests a 14 month extension
which is equal to the amount of time that they have spent working
with the City on the Independence Place development.
Although the GMQS allocation does not run out until February of
1996, the Company needs to know whether they should prepare to
initiate the Lodge redevelopment based upon the GMQS proposal that
was approved in 1993. Please see the submitted request from the
Company's representative, exhibit B.
STAFF COHHENTS: Section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code states that
a development allotment and all other development approvals shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the latest date
of project approval, unless a building permit is obtained and the
project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of
the approval is obtained.
For developments other than a SUbdivision, an application for
extension shall be submitted prior to the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of city council that:
(a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its
final approval which were to have been met as of the date of
application for exemptions have been complied withi and
RESPONSE: Any conditions of approval that were required are
required prior to the issuance of any building permits. To comply
with those requirements at this time would be premature.
(b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the
applicant prior to construction of the project have been installedi
and
RESPONSE: No public improvements were required of this project
until the issuance of building permits.
(c) The
respects,
community.
project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable
and the extension is in the best interest of the
RESPONSE: The application has diligently pursued, with the city,
the Independence Place development for the last 14 months.
2
Although the applicant has requested a 14 month extension, staff
can only recommend a six month extension.
RECOHHENDATION: staff recommends approval for a six (6) month
extension of the 1993 Lodge GMQS allocation for 720 East Cooper
Avenue.
The six (6) month extension shall begin at the date of expiration
which is February 22, 1996 and expire on August 22, 1996.
RECOHHENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 51, Series of
1994, which extends the 1992 Lodge GMQS allocation for 720 East
Cooper Avenue from February 22, 1996 to August 22, 1996."
CITY MANAGER'S COHHENTS:
Ordinance 51, Series of 1994
EXHIBIT:
A. Ordinance 3, Series of 1993
B. Extension Request
c. Public Notice
3
ORDINANCE 51
~SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE 1992 LODGE GHQS ALLOTMENT GRANTED BY ORDINANCE 3,
SERIES OF 1993 FOR 720 EAST COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, city Council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six monthsi and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 1993, city Council approved a GMQS
allocation for the redevelopment of the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720
East Cooper Avenuei and
WHEREAS, development allotments expire on the day after the
third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awarded; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bell Mountain Limited Liability
Company, has requested a fourteen (14) month extension of the GMQS
allocation in order to continue working with the City to develop
the Independence Place project without losing the ability to
utilize the 1992 allocation if the project is not realizedi and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of a six (6) month extension of the GMQS
allotments approved in Ordinance 3, Series of 1993i and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendation for the GMQS extension does wish to grant
an extension for six (6) months.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
1
Pursuant to Section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code, city Council
does hereby grant the applicant a six (6) month extension of the
1992 lodge GMQS allocation approved by Ordinance 3, Series of 1993
for 720 East Cooper Avenue beginning February 22, 1996 and ending
August 22, 1996.
section 2:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
section 3:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
section 4:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper
of general circulation within the city of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the city of Aspen on the day of
, 1994.
2
, .
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, city Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
, 1994.
day of .
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
1&C The Aspen TImes' Sature/uy-Sunday, September 17.18. 1994
-----
r-' 0AIIPW"<<:E51
,. (!ERlESOF 1994)
AN ()IlI)lIIANCE OF TIlE ASPE1l erN COUNCIL
ClRAN'IMl A SIX. MON1lI 00E"CSl0N OF -mE 1993
UlDGE GMQS ALLOTMENT GRANI<Il 8Y ORlll-
NANCE 3. SERIES OF 1993 RlR 720 EASt' COOPER
Awu,ASPE1lCOLllRAOO.
WHEREAS. pursuant to Section 24-8-U8 01 the
_ """"'pal Code. City C"""" may"""
IlllI.mPon 01 GMQS alJocaUOOS up to six months;
...
WHEREAS. on Febnwy 22. 1993. CIty Council
IIJPftMd a GMQS allocatIOn ior die 1.4. I r IICIIl
of the BeD Mountain lAdle at 120 East Cooper
-...
W!GEAS. deoi.d .-all a1JotmentI eJqJire on the
daylllB'tbethlrdannlVerlalYoIthedaletheGMQS
IIot:ItiDID. or ocher devdopmeDl approwk. have
--....
WHEIlEAS. ... _ ............. Umllod
UabWty Company, haS requested a lourteen (14)
IDOIlIh edenSiDn 01 the GMQS aIJlXatIon U1 order to
CIllIldrue worldn& wllh the Oty to ckwIop the lnde-
pendence P\ace proiect w\thOUllo5inltheability to
... the 1993 aIIocatiOD.ls the protect Is not"-
-...
wtEREAS. the PIanninI 0Ifk:e. navinl revtewed
the appIk:aUon recommends approval of a six (6)
..... _ 01... GMQS.........-"""
III 0n:Bnance 3. Series cf 1993; and
.............._CIlyC""""......"""'"
endtbePlann6nlOllk:e's~lorthe
OMQS eaenUon dDeI wtIh to grant all menalOn lor
"(6)-
NOW, llIEREFORE. BE rr ORDAINED BY THE
em COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COL.
ORADO:
s.:don I:
Pursuant to Section 24-8-108 of the Munklpai
COOe.CIlyC"""",--_...-
...(6)......_ol...'9!II_GMQS
_ -""" ",0_1 s..;.. oll9!ll
lor T.iJI Fat Cooper Awrue beIPnninlJ February Z2.
19!16aDd endin&Aupt22,1996.
-~
U any section. subsection, sentence. clause.
phrase or portion of this onHnance Is lor Itt'f reason
hdd InValid orunconstitLllionai by ~(Wrt of com-
---.............--
shllllnotafteclthevalidltyoftheremainlnlpor'tlOOS
--
Sodlon l
ThilQrdlnarx:eshallnoteilecl.."exISlIn8U1tp
don and shall not operate as an abiIIement 01 any
tICUotI or proceed1n. now pending under or by
Wtue 01 the QtdInances repeakd or amended as
bsein provided. and the same shall be conduded
IftdCOAduded under sud1. pnorordlnanC'eS.
-~
A public heart.. on thr QrdInan:e shall be held
onlhe II day of October 1994 al5:00P.M. in theCIty
Counc::U Chambers. Aspen City Hall. Aspen Col-
orado. fifteen (15) days prior to wtUch hearing a
pubic: nodce 01 the same shall be published one In a
newspaper 01 general eirCUIaliOO wilhIn the Diy 01
......
1Nl1lllIlIXID. READ AND ORDEIOED P\JI!LI5HED
. pnwlded by law, by the City Coundl oIlhe CIty of
Aspen OR the 12 day 01 September, 1994.
-....... "-
AT1lST': Kathryn S. Koch. CityOerk
ANAlLY, ~p'ed, paned and approved this
day" ,199<.
John 1kI.M:tI, Mayor
Ansr: Kathryns. Koch.Cltyllln
PubUshed in The Aspen TImes on.5l!plembl!r 16.
\904.
,.
MEMORANDUM:
~
51-
t
.~ 1\
.0
Director~ \
gJ
y,~ \<17
TO:
Mayor and Council
S'
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Interim City Planning
DATE:
September 12, 1994
RE:
Bell Mountain L~e GMQS Extension Request
Reading Ordinance(J~, series of 1994
First
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUKHARY: The applicant, Bell Mountai
has requested an extension to thei 993 GMQS
redevelopment of the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720
The extension request is for fourtee
expiration of the 1993 all ebruary
extends the allocation April 22, 19
, . 't CompanY'A
allotment for the U
as er Avenue./'1i'~'
ths beyond the T_ ,Lq1
1996. The reauest .J
71J'
t~G~
staff reco
22, 19~
approval of a. six
-
(6)
month extension
ached Ordinance
, series of 1994.
BACKGROUND: Council approved the 1993 GMQS allocation for 22 lodge
rooms for the Bell Mountain Lodge redevelopment. Please see
Ordinance 3, 1993 attached for your review, exhibit A.
-!:::....
- C>
<6.
Cr
Since Council's approval of the Lodge allocation, the lodge
acquired new owners and the City has begun working with the lodge
owners, City Market, and the Buckhorn Lodge to redevelop the entire
block.
The City has been working with the private property owners for over
14 months in an attempt to create an underground parking garage and
significantly redevelop the Bell Mountain Lodge, city Market and
the Buckhorn Lodge, referred to as Independence Place.
It is because of the work between the City and private property
owners that the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company requests
an extension of the 1993 GMQS allocation in case Independence Place
is not realized. The Company also requests a 14 month extension
which is equal to the amount of time that they have spent working
with the City on the Independence Place development.
Although the GMQS allocation does not run out until February of
1996, the Company needs to know whether they should prepare to
,initiate the Lodge redevelopment based upon the GMQS proposal that
was approved in 1993. Please see the submitted request from the
Company's representative, exhibit B.
STAFF COHHENTS: section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code states that
a development allotment and all other development approvals shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the latest date
of project approval, unless a building permit is obtained and the
project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of
the approval is obtained.
For developments other than a subdivision, an application for
extension shall be submitted prior to the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of city council that:
(a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its
final approval which were to have been met as of the date of
application for exemptions have been complied withi and
RESPONSE: Any conditions of approval that were required are
required prior to the issuance of any building permits. To comply
with those requirements at this time would be premature.
(b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the
applicant prior to construction of the project have been installedi
and
RESPONSE: No public improvements were required of this project
until the issuance of building permits.
(c) The
respects,
community.
project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable
and the extension is in the best interest of the
RESPONSE: The application has been diligently pursuing with the
City the Independence Place development.
Although the applicant has requested a l4 month extension, staff
can only recommend a six month extension.
RECOHHENDATION:
extension of the
Avenue.
Staff recommends approval for a six (6) month
1993 Lodge GMQS allocation for 720 East Cooper
The six (6) month extension shall begin at the date of expiration
which is February 22, 1996 and expire on August 22, 1996.
RECOHHENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance
, series of 1994."
"I move to approve Ordinance , series of 1994 extending the 1993
Lodge GMQS allocation for 720~ast Cooper Avenue from February 22,
1996 to August 22, 1996."
CITY MANAGER'S cOHHENTS:
Ordinance
-'
series of 1994
EXHIBIT:
A. Ordinance 3, Series of 1993
A. Extension Request
ORDINANCE
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE 1993 LODGE GHQS ALLOTMENT GRANTED BY ORDINANCE 3,
SERIES OF 1993 FOR 720 EAST COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six months; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 1993, City Council approved a GMQS
allocation for the redevelopment of the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720
East Cooper Avenuei and
WHEREAS, development allotments expire on the day after the
third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awardedi and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bell Mountain Limited Liability
Company, has requested a fourteen (14) month extension of the GMQS
allocation in order to continue working with the City to develop
the Independence Place project without losing the ability to
utilize the 1993 allocation is the project is not realizedi and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of a six (6) month extension of the GMQS
allotments approved in Ordinance 3, Series of 1993i and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendation for the GMQS extension does wish to grant
an extension for six (6) months.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant a six (6) month extension of the
1993 lodge GMQS allocation approved by Ordinance 3, Series of 1993
for 720 East Cooper Avenue beginning February 22, 1996 and ending
August 22, 1996.
section 2:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
section 4:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the city Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, city Clerk
PINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
, 1994.
day of
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, city C1erk
3
EXHIBIT A
-"
..
)
/
ORDINANCE NO. 3
(SERIES OF 1993)
AJ.. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING A GROWTll MANAGEMENT
ALLOCATION FOR 22 TOURIST ACCOHHODATIONS IN THE LP (LODGE i
PRESERVATION) ZONE DISTRICT, MULTI-YEAR GHP ALLOCATIONS, AND GMQS !I.
EXEMPTION FOR DEED RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING FOR THE BELL
MOUNTAIN LODGE LOCATED AT 720 E. COOPER AVENUE (LOTS K-P, AND PART I
OF LOT Q, BLOCK 105, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24, Article 8 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the City Council may grant allocations from the
Growth Management quotas contained therein upon scoring determined
by the Aspen planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-103.D. of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the City Council may grant multi-year Growth
Management development allotmentsi and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-8-104 C.1.c. of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the city Council may exempt deed restricted
affordable housing units from the Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS) competitioni and
WHEREAS, the Kappeli Family, for Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc.,
submitted to the Planning Office an application for Growth
Management allotment for 10 lodge units from the 1992 GMP
competition, 10 future allocations from the 1993 GMP competition,
2 future allocations from the 1994 GMP competition, and GMQS
Exemption for three deed restricted housing units; and
WHEREAS, the Bell Mountain Lodge proposal was the only
submission competing for the 1992 available units (as established
by Section 24-8-103.A.1.a. of the Aspen Municipal Code)i and
WHEREAS,
the application was reviewed by the Engineering
1
,---
--'
Department, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, Environmental
Health Department, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Electrical
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and the
Roaring Fork Energy Center and those agencies submitted referral
comments to the Planning Officei and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on December 8, 1992 the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scored the proposal pursuant
to the standards contained in Section 24-S-106.G. and found that
the Commission's score of 81.625 points met or exceeded minimum
scoring thresholdsi and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend granting multi-
year allotments from the 1993 and 1994 GMP quotas; and
WHEREAS, t~e Commission also voted 6-0 to approve the three
on-site deed restricted housing units pursuant to the review
criteria for GMQS Exemption within Section 24-S-104.C.1.c.i and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the proposal
and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, does wish
to allocate 22 total lodge accommodation units to the Bell Mountain
Lodge Expansion project (10 lodge units from the 1992 Tourist
Accommodation Growth Management competition, 10 lodge units from
the 1993 competition, and 2 lodge units from the 1994 competition) ,
and grant GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing for one category
II one-bedroom unit, one category III. two-bedroom unit, and one
three-bedroom Category IV unit (with the exception that the income
and asset limits for a lodge manager are waived for this unit) .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
2
--. OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1: That it does hereby allocate 10 lodge units from the
1992 Tourist Accommodation Growth Management competition to the
Bell Mountain Lodge Expansion project pursuant to section 24,
Article 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 2: That it does also hereby grant and allocate multi-year
allotments for 10 lodge units from the 1993 GMP competition and 2
lodge units from the 1994 GMP competition pursuant to section 24-
8-103.D. of the Aspen Municipal Code.
section 3: That, subject to the conditions set forth in Section
4 below, it does hereby grant GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing
for the development of one Category II one bedroom unit, one
Category III two bedroom unit, and one Category IV three bedroom
unit (with the exception that the income and asset limits for a
I
lodge manager are waived for this unit) pursuant to Section 24-8-
104.C.1.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code.
section 4. The conditions of approval which apply to this GMQS
Exemption are:
1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to
the Aspen/Pitkin county Housing Office for approval. Upon
approval by the Housing Office, the Owner shall record the
deed restriction with the pitkin county clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property,
copies of the recorded deed restrictions for the dwelling
units must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3
--:)
n'
_..-,
3.
All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
~J), day of ~Ua.c.r1993 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior
to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Section 6:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional. by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
'1 provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
.'
---
.."-J
remaining portions thereof.
Section 7: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the
~ ' 1993.
/I
City of Aspen on the';;~ day of
c-/~ J rk- FovL
ohn Bennett, Mayor
4
.....
~ adopted, passed and
, 1993.
bell. gmp. ord
approved this ,A~
iAe
/" J\r ~ov1
. J n Bennett, Mayor
5
day of
August 18, 1994
HAND DELIVERED
AtJG , 9 1994
Ms. Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
. ...----.---- ._-------~.._,--<:
RE: EXTENSION OF BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE GMQS ALLOCATION
Dear Leslie,
This letter is submitted on behalf of my client, the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company,
requesting an extension of their lodge GMQS allocation. The request is submitted pursuant
to Section 24-8-108 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, "Expiration of Development Order". This
section states that development allotments awarded to a project shall expire on the day after
the third anniversary of final development approval, unless a building permit is obtained and
the project is developed. The section goes on to authorize extensions of the allotments, for
a period not to exceed six (6) months, and also authorizes granting of additional extensions.
On August 1, 1992, the Kappeli family, owners of the Bell Mountain Lodge, submitted an
application to the City of Aspen for a twenty-two (22) lodge unit and three (3) employee
unit expansion of their property. On February 22, 1993, the Aspen City Council adopted
Ordinance 3 (Series of 1993), allocating the lodge units to the Bell Mountain Lodge and
granting a GMQS exemption for the employee housing units. On July 12, 1993, the Aspen
City Council adopted Ordinance 37 (Series of 1993), granting vested rights to the
development until February 22, 1996.
In May, 1993, the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company purchased the property from
the Kappeli family. Shortly thereafter, the City approached the new owners, seeking their
participation in a partnership to evaluate the feasibility of developing a project to construct
municipal parking beneath their property, and that of the adjoining Buckhorn Lodge and
City Market properties.
The Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company has worked diligently as a partner with the
City over the last fourteen (14) months in an effort to realize this project. The owners
remain interested in achieving a project which can be of benefit to the community and which
is economically viable. However, during this time, they have been unable to focus on the
development of their approved project, placing their investment in the property at some risk.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 18, 1994
Page Two
Since the lodge allotments are scheduled to expire in February, 1996, at a time of year when
construction start-up is not feasible, the owners need to be prepared to initiate demolition
and re-development in the su=er or fall of 1995. This means they need to start preparing
working drawings and to obtain financing for development of their lodge project within the
next few months. The owners have not planned or budgeted for the expense of pursuing
two different projects at the same time. Therefore, the owners seek an extension of their
GMQS allocations by fourteen (14) months, to April 22, 1997, so they can continue to
explore options for the public-private partnership to develop municipal parking on this
property. Otherwise, the owners will be faced with the near term deadline of needing to
focus on development of the lodge, and they will be forced to drop out of the partnership.
While we recognize that the language of Section 24-8-108 refers to an extension of only six
(6) months, we believe that the regulations were not written to anticipate a unique situation
such as ours. The regulations were concerned with owners who had not acted in a diligent
manner or who were speculating in the real estate market and were simply trying to forestall
the inevitable expiration of their allotments. These characterizations certainly do not apply
to these owners. They have worked in an extremely diligent manner in cooperation with the
. City over the last fourteen (14) months, but they have been working on a project which has
taken them far afield from their original intentions in purchasing this property. They want
assurance that their investment will not be put at any risk as a result of this cooperation, and
the continuing cooperation they intend. Since the regulations permit a project to receive
multiple six (6) month extensions, we believe the requested extension can be acco=odated.
I understand that since the original allotments were granted by City Ordinance, the extension
must also receive Ordinance approval. This means a first and second reading will be
required, and you have informed me that first reading is not planned until September 12.
Because of the delicate nature of the ongoing negotiations with the City, and the
considerable expense the owners are encountering, they would like to receive a signal from
the City that this application"iII ultimately be approved. We ask you to explore whether
the City Council would hold a special meeting for first reading earlier than September 12,
or if the City can otherwise provide us with an indication of its position on this matter.
This letter will be followed by a check for $978, to pay the processing fee for this request.
Should we need to submit any other materials to you, please contact me as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PlANNING SERVICES
~lftyt
Alan Richman, AICP
SaturdaySunday, October 15-16, 1994. The Aspen Times 21-C
ORDINANCE NO. 46
(Series 011994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ThE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, VACATING
PORTIONS OF GALENA STREET ADJOINING
THE CUL-DE-SAC AT ITS NORTH TERMINUS
CONTAlNING APPROXlMATFl.Y 2,537 SQUARE
FEET All WJTHIN 11-IE CITY OF ASPEN, PrrKlN
COUNTY. COLORADO.
Coplet of thll ordlnance are avaUable In the
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 130 South
Galena, Aspen, during nonnal business hours.
FINAU... Y adopted. passed and approved thl,
11 day of October 1994.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
A 1TF.ST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times October 14,
1994.
ORDINANCE NO. 47
(SERIfS OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITYCOUN-
elL GRANTING A REZONING FROM Af.2 PUD
TO OPEN SPACE (OS) TO THE PUBLlCALLY
OWNFD ZOUNE OPEN SPACE SECTIONS 2 & 11,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE
6rn P.M., UIGHWAV 82, ASPEN COLORADO
Copies of this ordinance are available In the
ofllce 01 the City Clerk, City Hall, 130 South
Galena, Aspen, during Donnal business hour..
F1NAU.Y adopted, passed and approved this
n day 01 October, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayar
A1TFSf: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times October 14,
1994.
ORDINANCE NO. 48
(Serlesof 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUN-
en. DFSIGNATING 520 WALNlIT STREET, lDT 8
AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 3,
WlWAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
AS -H,- HISTORiC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO
SECTION 24-7.703 OFniE MUNICIPAL CODE.
Copies 01 Uus ordinance are available In lhe
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 130 South
.GaIena, Aspen, during nonnal business hours.
f1NAll Y adopted, PlWed and approved this
II day oj October, 1994.
A TrEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times Oclober 14,
1994.
ORDINANCE NO. 50 AN ORDINANCE OF niE
CITY COUNCU. OFniE CJTV OF ASPEN, COl.-
ORADO AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OFTHE
MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND lISE REGULATIONS,
TO PROVIDE A PLANNING AND WNING COM- '
MISSION SPECIAL REVIEW TO PFRMIT PARK-
ING ON GARAGE APRONS IN MUL TI-FAMILY
PROJECTS SUBJECT TO NEW REVIEW ClUTE-
RlA ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 24-5-302(A) AND
SECTION 24-7-404{B)
Copies of this ordinance are available In the
office 01 the City Clerk, City Hall. 130 South
Galena. Aspen, during normal business hours.
flNAU. Y, adopted,- PlWed and approved this
11 day of October, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
A TI'EST: Kattuyn S. Koch. City Clerk '
Published In The Aspen Times Oclober 14,
1994.
ORDiNANCE 51 (SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUN.
CIL GRAH11NG A SJX MOrmi EXTENSION OF
THE 1992 Woo[ GMQS AllOTMENT GRANT-
ED BY ORDINANCE 3, SERIES Of' 1993 FOR 720
EAST COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO.
Copies 01 tbis ordinance are available In the
olfJce 01 the City Clerk, City Hall~ 130 South
Galena, Alpen, during nonnal business hours.
f1NAU.Y. adopted, pused and approved this
11 day oj October, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
A TrEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times October 14,
1994.
PUBUC NOTICE
PSease take notice that the Board of County
Commissioners finally adopted approved on
October 11,.1994, the Iollowlng Resolution No.
94-181:
PrrKlN COUN'IY BOARD OF COUN'IY COMMIS-
SIONERS RESOL1JI1ON 94-181 AlJIlIORIZlNG
1lIE ISSUANCE OF PITKIN COlM"V, COL.
ORAOO, AIRPORT REflJNDlNG REVENUE
BONDS,SER1ES 1994, IN THE AGGREGATE PRIN.
ClPAL AMOUNT OF $1,140,000; AND PROVID-
ING DET AlLS IN CONNECTION THEREWTni
1be resolution authorizes the Board of Coun.
ty Commissioners (the -Board1, on behalf 01
Pitkin County, Colorado (the "County"), to
Issue the -Pitkin County, Colorado, Airport
Refundlns Revenue Bonds, Series 1994,- (the
-SerIes 1994 Bonds11n an aggregate principal
amount oj $1,140,000 lor the purpose oj provid-
Ins funds to refund, pay, and dlscharfle the
County's outltandlns Airport Refundlns Rev-
enue Bonds, dated as 01 April I, 1983 (the
-Relundlns Project-). The Series 1994 Bonds
wiU be dated as of October 15. 1994, will mature
on December I of Ihe years 1995 through 2004,
and will bear Intt., _. from their date to maturi-
ty at rates ranging from 4.IOto 5.50 per annum,
~able seml-annuaJly on June I and December
11n each year. commencing December I, 1994.
The Series 1994 Bonds will be subject to
redemption prior to their stated malurlty, aI
Public Notice
the option of the County, on December I, 1999,
or any date therealter.
The rellolutlon, In lummary outline. Is as 101-
mws:
Preamble recites the authority lor Issuance of
the Serle& 1994 Bonds and other matters relat.
Ing thereto.
Section I deRnes certain terms lor aU purpos-
es of this resolution.
Sectkm 2 ratllles all action previously taken
by the County In respect to the Refunding Pro-
tect and the aaIe and delivery of the Series 1994
Bond..
Section 3 authorizes the Issuance of the
Series 1994 Bonds,
Section 4 sets forth the details of Ihe Series
1994 Bonds.
Section 5 authorizes the optional prior
redemption 01 the SerIes 1994 Bondi.
Section 6 lets Iorth the execution and autho-
rization requirements.
Secllon 7 describes registration, transfer and
exchange procedlUe&.
Section 8 provides that the Series 1994 Bonds
be lully negotiable.
Section 9 states the necessity lor and
approval 01 the Project and the Series 1994
Bonds. .
Section 10 provides that the Series 1994
Bonds are equally secured.
Section II provides that the Series 1994
Bonds are special limited obligations 01 the
County and are not to be considered general
obligations or Indebtedness of the County.
Section 12 describes Ihe character 01 the
agreement.
SecUon 13 states that payment ol the Series
1994 Bonds IS not secured by the pledge of any
property.
Section 14 accepts the purchase contract lor
the Series 1994 Bonds.
SecUOn ISis reserved.
Secllon 16 authorizes Ihe execution and use
01 the final offering statement lor the Series
1994 Bo'lds.
Section 17 sets forth the lonn of the Series
1994 Bonds. Certificates, and Registration
......
Secllon 18 provides for the application ol
gross revenues.
Section 19 provides lor delivery of the Series
1994 Bonds.
Section 20 provides lor the disposition of
bond proceeds.
Secllon 21 provides lor the redemption of the
outstanding 1983 Refunding Bonds.
Section 22 provkles for the redemption ()f the
outstanding 1983 Revenue BOnds.
SecUon23ls reserved.
Section 24 provides lor the transfer 01 funds
and accounts.
Section 25 provides lor a Reserve Account
Section 26 provides lor a Rebate Fund.
Section 27 describes the general administra-
tion of funds.
Section 28 describes the rate malnlenance
_t _
Section 29 sets lorth tax covenants.
Section 30 selS 'orth additional general
covenants.
Section 31 provides for additional parity
_.
Section 32 dellIIt'S -Events 01 Default.-
kllon J3 ~eerm r>ffllOMtIu f-ori1w.wk.
Section 34 concerlll duties 'WOn default.
Section 35 specifies no Impairment of the
Series 1989 Bonds.
Section 36 concerns deleuance.
Section 37 provides for amendment of the
resolution.
Section 38 concerns successor registrars or
paylng agents.
Section 39 provides for bond Insurance from
AMBAC fndemnlty Corporation.
SecUon 40 specifies a payment procedure
pursuant to the municipal bond Insurance poU-
cy.
Section 41 specifies notices to be given t9
AMBAC.
Section 42 concerns consent of AMBAC.
Section 43 concerns the parties Interested
herein.
Section 44 concerns the eflect of actions on
bond owners.
Section 45 states findings about the maxi.
mum net effective Interest rate and remalnlnB
authorization.
Section 46 directs officers and employees of
the County to take all action necessary to effec-
tuate the provlllons of the Resolution.
Section 47 concerns leverablllty.
Section 48 repeals aU conftlctlng resolutions.
Section 49 provldel that the resolution will
be irrepealable until a certain time.
Section 50 provides that the resolution will
be ellectlve Immediately upon Its adoption.
Section 51 provides lor publication by title
and short outline.
FlNAlL Y ADOPTED AND APPROVED, the 11th
day oj October, 1994.
Copies of the lull text 01 the resolution are
available In the Pitkin County Clerk's Office dur.
Ing regular business hours at S30 E. Main
Street.
PlfiIshed 1be the Aspen Times on October
14,1994.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ALPINE BANK AA8C BRANCH OrnCE SPE-
CIAL-REV1EW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thai a public hear-
Ing will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board of County Commissioners, District
Courtroom, 506 East MaIn Street, Aspen to con-
sider an application submitted by Alpine Bank
requesting Special Review approval to aUow a
walk-In bank branch office at the Aspen Airport
Business Center. The property Is located on
Lot I, Block 3, Alina: 1, Aspen Airport Business
Center. For further InformaUoncontact Ellen
Susano at the AspeR/Pitkin Plannlns Ofllce,
92l).5()98.
sIRobert W. ChUd, Chalnnan
Board of County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen TImes on October 14,
1994.
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: OWL CREEK RANCH, LOT 8. SPECIAL
REVIEW TO ALLOW IN EXCESS OF 15,000
SQUARE FEET OF fl.ooRAREA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear-
Ing will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at II regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Pitkin County Board of County Comml,.
sloners, Dlltrlct Courtroom, Pitkin County
Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen to
consider an application lubmltted by Prime
Alpen Properties. Ltd., requesUng Special
Review approval to allow In excess 0115,000
square feel 01 floor area. The property Is locat-
ed at Lot 8, Owl Creek Ranch PUD. For further
Inlormatlon contact Rick Magill at the
Aspen/pltkln PI~ng Office. 920-5062.
s/Jody Edwards, Chalnnan
Pitkin County Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published In The Aspen TImes on October 14,
1994.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: OATES CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT
REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear.
Ins will beohekJ on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board 01 County Commlsslonerl, District
Courtroom. 506 East Main Street, Alpen to con.
sider an application submitted by John Oates
requesting approvaJlor a 600 square foot care-
taker dwelling unit In an existing cabin. The
property Is located on Lot 2, Wolfson Subdivi-
sion. For further Infonnatlon contact lUck Mag-
III at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 920-5062.
sIRobert W. Child, Chalnnan
Board of County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen Times on October 14,
19~'.
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: 624 EAST HOPKINS COMMERCIAL GMQS
AllOCATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear.
Ing will be held on Tuesday, November I, 1994
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. belore the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd
Floor Meeting Room, City HaU, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, 10 consider an application submitted by
MHS Partnerl, Box 1709, Aspen, CO, requesting
approval for a commercial Growth Manage-
ment Quota System allocation 01 2, 70~ net
leasable square feet to construct a two story
oIRce building. The property Is located at 624 E.
Hopkins AV. e.; Lot Q and the west {If Lot R,
Bioek98, C1tyanrl TO\-,(lltlt~ of As~:for rul'"
ther Information, contact Kim John:~.l\' at the
Aspen/PItldn Plannlns Office, 130 S. ~ena St.,
Aspen, CO 920-5100
s/Bruce Kerr, Chalrman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published In the Alpen Times on October 14,
1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
. RE: DELISE'II)41 HAZARD REVIEW &. GENER.
'AL SUBMISSION
NOTICE IS HERFBY GIVEN that a public hear-
Ing will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board of County Commissioners, District
Courtroom, 506 E. Maln St, Alpen to consider
an application submitted by Donald DeLise
requesting 1041 Hazard Review and General
Submission approval lor construction 01 a sin-
gle family residence. The property Is located on
the east sk:le 01 Castle Creek Road approximate-
ly 4 miles south 01 Highway 82; Philadelphia
mill site (M.S. 7570 B), the Highland Mary (M.S.
7570) and the Wilton Belle (M.S. 2117). For fur-
ther Information contact Tim Malloy at the
Aspen/PItldn Planning Office, 920-5095.
s/Robert W. Child, ChIIlnnan
Board 01 County Commissioners
Published In the Alpen Times on October 14,
1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 939 EAST COOPER AVENUE 1J\NDMARK
DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOP.
MENT REVIEW
NOTICE IS HERt:By GIVEN that a public hear-
Ins will be held on Wednesday, November 2,
1994, at a special meeting to healn at 5:00 pm
before the Aspen Historic Prelervatlon Com-
mittee In the second Roor meeting room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to
consider an application s~bmlUed by Bob &.
Dunell Langley requestlnl approval of land-
mark Designation and Conceptual Development
Review to duplex the exlltlng historic resl.
dence and to construct three detached units on
the property at 939 East Cooper Aven~, Lot A.
Block 37, East Alpen Addition, City 01 Aspen.
For further Information, contact Amy Amidon
at the Aspen Pitkin Planning OUlce, 130 S. Gale-
na St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096.
, s/Joseph Krabacher, Chalnnan
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
Published In The Aspen TImes on October 14,
1994
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: JAFFEE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GEN.
ERAL SUBMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear-
Ing will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meetlns 10 begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board of County Comml'lIloners, l>6strlct
Courtroom, 506 East MaIn Street, Aspen to con-
sider an application submitted by Wilton Jaffee,
Jr. requesllng approval of 1041 Hazard Review
and General Submission. The property Is Iocat.
ed approximately ttuee miles southeast of
Highway 133 on the louth side of Prince Creek
Road In Section 24, Township 8 South, Range 88
West. For further Inlonnatlon contact Ellen Sas-
sano at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 92().
5098.
s/Robert W. Child, Chalnnan
Board 01 County Commlsslonerl
Published In The Alpen TImes on October 14,
1994
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NCR'lCE: That the Board 'of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Col.
orado will conduct a public hearing on the fol-
lowing resolution on October 25, 1994 at 5:00
pm, and the Board of County Commlslloners
Meetlnll Room, Pltldn County Courthouse, 506
E. Main Street, AsPen. Colorado, at which time
and place all members 01 the public may
appear and be heard:
A RESOLUTION OF 1lIE BOARD OF COIJNJ'Y
COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COt.
ORADO, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORAOO, GENERAL 0BlJ.
GATlON OPEN SPACE REFUNDING AND
IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1994, IN THE
AGGREGATE- PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
$6.100,000 AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
DETAILS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Copies 01 the proposed resolution are avail=-
able lor public Inspection from 8:30 am to 4:30
pm In the oflJce 01 the Clerk and Recorder, 530
E. Main Street. Alpen, Colorado. Phone 920-51
80.
Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk .
Published In The Aspen TImes on October 14.
199.
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That the Board of
County Commlllsloners 01 Pitkin County, Col-
orado wUl conduct a public hearing on the 101-
lowing ordinance at 5:00 p.m. on the 25th day
of October, 1994, at the Board of County Com-
missioners Meeting Room, Pitkin County Court-
house Plaza. 530 East Maln Street, Alpen, Col-
orado, at which time and place all members of
the public may appear and be heard:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COt.
ORADO GRANTING AN ACCESS EASEMFNr TO
THE DEVELOPERS OF WILLIAMS RANCH
ACROSS THE MOWE GIBSON PARK Ordinance
No.
Series'J994
RECIf AlS
I. There Is currently being developed the
WOIlams Ranch subdivision which consists of
a1fordable hOUsing lor local residents oj Pitkin
County.
2. The developers of WUUams Ranch subdivi-
sion are desirous 01 obtalnlns a local access
road to the subdivision throush lands owned
by Pltldn County.
3. In exchange for an access easement, the
Williams Ranch developers will dedicate 1/2
acre of public park land within the subdivision
lor the use 01 the general public. The develop-
ers also agree to construct Improvements to
the Mollie Gibson Park at their expense.
4. In exchange for the access easement, the
Williams Ranch developers will dedicate the
section 01 Smuggler Road which traverses the
Smuggier Mine parcel to PItkin County, as fur-
ther described In the attached easement.
NOW, llIEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, that Pitkin County grant to
Williams Ranch subdivision an easement
across the Mollie Glblon Park as fully
described In the attached Easemenl Agreement
and authorize the Cludr to slJln any documeala-
tion related to the granting of such easement
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS Easement Agreement ("Agreement") Is
made this day ol , 1994, between the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County
("Grantor-) and the Estate 0' Stelan A1bouy,
("Grantee").
RECITAlS
I. Grantor owns certain real property situate
In Pitkin County, Colorado described on ExhIbit
A ("Grantor's property");
2. Grantee owns certain. real property situate
In Pitkin County, Colorado adjacent to
Grantor's property described on Exhibit B
("Grantee's property");
3. By the execution of this Agreement,
Grantor desires to convey to Grantee a non-
exclusive 60 loot access road easement for
vehicular Ingress and egress to the WIOlams
Ranch residential subdivision. By execution of
~~
this Agreement, Grantee desires to accept the
easement 115 provided herein:
GRANI'
I. In conslderaUon 01 the terms and condl.
Uons Itated In this Agreement, Grantor con-
veys to Grantee. Its successors and alslgns, a
perpetual, non-excluslve road easement for the
construction, maintenance, repair and use of a
roadway flCroSl Grantor's property lor ease 01
acceu to Grantee's property to the use of the
real property described In Exhibit C lor vehicu-
lar Ingress and egress across Grantor's proper-
ty for the benefll of the Grantee and the general
public to access Grantee's property.
TERMS AND CONDmONS
I. The road easement shall be appunenant to
Grantee's property and shall be of perpetual
duration. The easement will be revokable
based on lallure 01 Grantor or successors to
perform any of the terms and conditions
required herein.
2. Consideration. The folloWing consideration
shall be granted lor the access easement:
a. Grantee will dedicate one-half acre of land
within the WIlliams Ranch subdivision as pub-
lic park land with public access.
b. Grantee will dedicate the set;tlon of Smug-
gler Road which traverses the SmuRRler Mine
parcel, as described In Exhibit D. to Pitkin
County.
3. AHgnment and Legal Description. The
accesl easement shall conform to the allln.
rnent described on Exhibit C.
4. Width. The easement shaU be sixty feel In
width or luch llreater width as may be neces-
sary to satllly exlstlnll codes, conditions and
requlrementl of Pitkin County or such other
governmental aaency with appropriate jurIsdIc-
Uon.
S. Use, The road easement Is oorHJI:c1uslve
and may be used by Grantor, Its heirs, succes.
sors and ..signs. The easement shall be used
by Grantee. Its successors, assigns for ~
es staled In the Grant above. Grantee accepts
this easement on behall of the general public
and Its acceptance lerves 10 ensure the use of
this easement by members of the general pub-
lic to access Grantee's property.
6. Construction and Maintenance. Grantee
....ees to pay for all repairs and maintenance
costs and ex~nses attributable 10 Grantee's
use 01 the road easement. Grantee agrees to
prepare a temporary construction access plan
for vehicular and pedestrian Iralllc. Grantee
further aarees that all costs 01 lurveylng, engi-
neering, construction, repalrlOfl and maintain-
Ing the road easemen~ shall be paid solely by
Grantee, Its successors or assigns.
7. ConstNctlon of Improvements to Mollie
Gibson Park. Grantee agrees to construct
Improvements to the Mollie Gibson Park on- a
sub contractor basis lor Pitkin County.
8. SOU Removal. Grantee wUl dispose of 0U2
son removed Irom the Smugsler Mobile Home
Puk on the Smuggler Mine Property.
9. Warranlles. Each party warrants that It Is
the owner of the property Identllled In the
recltall and described In the exhibits as
granton and IIrantee's property. Grantor war.
ranis that he will cause all liens and encum-
brances to be released or subordinated with
'aped to the ealementgranted herein and
that he will warrant and defend Grantee's title
3Ild ~e oJ th~.~ anG 6d'ie'ft'/ii 01' ul the read
easement trom any and all claims to the road
easement by thfrd parlles made by, on, or
behaU of Grantot.
10. Delault. Either party shall have the right
to enforce the obllllatlonl of performance of
the other party as contained herein through Ut-
IgaIlon seekins an award 01 damages or Injunc.
tlve relief. The prevailing party In such litiga-
tion Ihall be entitled to recover all costs includ-
Ing reasonable attorney's lees.
II. Amendment. This Agreement shall not be
amended, modified. or supplemented except by
written Instrument lilgned and acknowledged
by the parties.
12. Successors and AIIISns. All provisions oj
the Agreement, Including the benefits and bur-
dens created thereby shall run with the land
and Ihall enure to the benefit 01 and be binding
upon the parties respective heirs. administra-
tors, successors and asslJlns.
13. Notices. Any notice required or pennltted
hereunder Ihall be in wrltlns and shall be
deemed Biven when personally delivered to
any party hereto or when mailed, postage pre-
paid, by registered or certified mall, return
receipt requested, to the 10lklwlRII addresses:
Grantor: Pltldn County Board oj County Com-
usloners
c/o County Manager
530 East Main Street
Aspen. Colorado &.1611
Grantee: Estate of Stefan AIbouy
C/o Gary A. Wright
201 North Mill Street, Sle. 106
Aspen, ColOrado 816) 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties under-
itand and aaree to perform and to be bound by
each 01 the terms, conditions of this Agree-
ment, the eflectlve of which Ihall be the date
flnt above written.
Copies of lhe proposed ordinance are avail-
able lor public Inspection durlnS regular bust-
ness hours In the office 01 the Clerk and
Recorder, 530 East Main Street, Aspen. Col.
orado. Phone 920-5200.
Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk and Reoordel'
published In The Aspen Times October
14,1994
.
LEGALS
DEADLINE
NOON 01'1 TuEsDAY
Copy must be clearly typed. No Fax transmissions accepted for publication
RATES
ist insertion - .5060jline; 2nd insertion - ..3680jline
Proof of publication - $2
-
...
Thir\1D\ NL~ fi L[~
(~'z~'\
f~{p ~tfz.
27"37--/9 2~ J. 7~403
...
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE
...
..
...
..
ASPEN, COLORADO
...
..
...
...
...
..
...
..
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS GMQS APPLICATION
...
...
AUGUST 1, 1992
...
...
..
...
..
...
...
-
-
August 1, 1992
~.
~~
-
-
-
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
-
-
-
INTERIORS
-
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge
Tourist Accommodations Growth Management
Quota System Application
-
-
Dear Leslie,
-
Attached for the Planning Offices' review are twenty-one (21)
'copies of the referenced application and a check in the amount of
$4,165.00 for payment of the GMQS application fee, the check
provides for th~ applicants' anticipated referral costs. In the
event that additional referrals are required, please advise us
and we will provide the appropriate fee.
Should you have any questions regarding our application or if we
can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
We wish to thank you, on behalf of the Applicant and Charles
Cunniffe Architects, for your cooperation in the preparation of
our application.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sincerely,
-
cLLLCv~
Charles L. Cunniffe,AIA
Principal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS. 520 EAST HYMAN AVENUE' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . 303/925-5590 FAX 925-5076
-
A TOURIST ACCOHHODATIONS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
FOR THE
BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE
prepared for
-
Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc.
720 East Cooper Avenue
P.O. Box 328
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303/925-3675
"-
-
.-
Prepared by
Charles Cunniffe Architects
520 East Hyman Avenue
suite 301
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-5590
In Association with
-
wright and Adger
Attorneys at Law
201 N. Mill street, suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-5625
Vann Associates, Inc.
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-6958
Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Consulting Engineers
1001 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
303/945-1004
-
Greg Mozian
Landscape Architect
117 South spring street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-8963
-
-
-
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
section Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROJECT SITE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 4
Location/Zoning Map 6
Existing Conditions Drawings 7-11
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A. Water system 12
B. Sewage System 13
- C. Drainage System
13
,-
D. Fire Protection 14
E. Development Data 14
F. Traffic and Parking 19
G. Affordable Housing 21
H. stoves and Fireplaces 21
1. Location 22
J. Impact on Adjacent Uses 22
K. Construction Schedule 23
Circulation Map 24
Proposed Development Drawings 25-31
">.>1'
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
A. Availability of Public Facilities 32
and Services
1- Water 32
2. Sanitary Sewer 32
3. Storm Drainage 33
i
-
-
-
..
-
.-
-
-
,-
-
v.
;.-
-
4. Fire Protection 33
5. Roads 33
B. Quality of Design 34
1. Architectural Design 34
2. site Design 36
3. Parking and Traffic circulation 38
4. Visual Impact 39
C. Resource Conservation Techniques 39
1. Energy conservation 40
2. Water and Wastewater 41
3 . Air 41
D. Amenities for Guests 42
1. On-site Common Meeting Areas 42
2. On-site Dining Facilities 42
3. On-site Accessory Recreational Facilities 42
E. Employee Housing 43
F. Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of Existing Units 44
G. Bonus Points 44
summary and conclusion 45
ii
-
,-
APPENDIX
A.
Exhibit 1, Land Use Application Form
-
Exhibit 2, property survey
Exhibit 3, Title Insurance Commitment
-
Exhibit 4, Authorization to Represent
B. Exhibit 1, Engineering Report from Schmueser
Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Exhibit 2, Letter from Aspen Water Department
Exhibit 3, Letter from Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District
-
iii
-
I. INTRODUCTION
The following application, submitted pursuant to Chapter 24,
Article 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a Growth
Management Allocation for the re-development of the Bell Mountain
Lodge's tourist accommodation units on a 20,066 square foot
parcel of land at the intersection of South Spring street and
cooper Avenue. (See Land Use Application Form, Appendix A,
Exhibit 1 and Property Survey, Appendix A, Exhibit 2).
The owner of the property for almost thirty years and the
Applicant is the Kappeli Family doing business as the Bell
Mountain Lodge, Inc. (Victor Kappeli, President; Werner Kappeli,
Vice-President; and Nancy Kappeli, Secretary-Treasureri See the
Title Commitment and Letter, Appendix A, Exhibit 3). The
Applicant's representative is Charles Cunniffe Architects (See
Authorization to Represent, Appendix A, Exhibit 4).
The Kappelis have owned and operated the Bell Mountain Lodge
since 1963. The Lodge Preservation Zone (LP) was created
specifically to require and encourage family-owned lodges to
upgrade and renovate their property by allowing the addition of
rentable rooms and support facilities to increase revenues to
amortize the improvements and make it possible to obtain
financing.
Due to economic pressures in the past few years, the
Applicant has explored alternative uses of their property and has
submitted proposals to the City for rezoning to the Office zone
which use which is consistent with the adjacent property zoning.
-
-
1
.
However, these proposals were rejected. The Applicant actually
prefers that the Lodge Use be preserved if the following
submittal receives the requested allocation for development.
The application has been divided into five basic parts.
Following section I, the Introduction, section II of the
application provides a brief description of the proiect site and
Existinq conditions, while section III addresses the Proposed
Development. section IV, responds in detail to the Growth
Manaqement Review criteria of the Land Use Code. section V is
the Summary and Conclusion. For the reviewer's convenience all
pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (e.g.,
property survey, title insurance policy, utility commitments,
etc.) are provided in the various appendices to the application.
The Kappelis have attempted to address all relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code and to provide sufficient
information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application.
If questions arise which result in the staff's request for
further information or clarification the Applicant will promptly
provide such additional information in the course of the
application's review.
The Bell Mountain Lodge has been owned by the Kappeli family
for almost thirty years and has served the Aspen tourist base for
almost forty years. In the 1980's it was arbitrarily re-zoned to
Lodge Preservation against the Kappeli's wishes. For the past
several years the profitability of the business has declined
because with the present number of lodge rooms it is not an
--
....
....
-
~
2
-
economically viable business. After extensive research and study
it has been determined that the only way to PRESERVE this Lodge
is to expand and remodel. Conventional financing can not be
obtained for a project that does not make sound economical sense
-
and this Lodge does not make economical sense without the entire
,-
requested .xpansion being granted in one rhase. The Kappeli
family believe that the proposed remodel nd expansion complies
with the clear intent of the Lodge Preser ation zoning and will
be an excellent beginning to the revitali at ion of the eastern
-
-
entrance to Aspen's commercial core.
~
IQ
,I ;,(' ;,1,\
/
') / 'f' ~ .
.r,,! ,_ .'l",
.,' I' 'I
.,/'/-'
{;
If' _
/L/
I
/4
, ,
, I
2.-
~
1\ (' -i I;,
-r;'[v. ( LI,
"
A
J
I
I
/ /1 /,
I
(vJ1.t-'\;;
I
I
-
3
,.....
II. PROJECT SITE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
~
As the Vicinity Map at the end of this section illustrates,
the project site is located at the northeast corner of Spring
street and Cooper Avenue on the fringe of the city's downtown
..
commercial area. The site consists of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, and
...
the west 20.66 feet of Lot Q, Block 105, city and Townsite of
Aspen. The lots, however, are in single ownership, and are
...
deemed to have merged pursuant to section 7-1004.A.5. of the
Regulations. The site contains twenty thousand seventy six
$20,0'~) square feet of land area and is zoned (LP), Lodge
preservation.
The topography of the site is essentially flat. Existing
vegetation includes numerous large blue spruce and aspen trees,
several smaller pine trees, and a variety of shrubs and bushes.
Existing man-made improvements are limited to the twenty-one (21)
unit/twenty-one (21) bath, Bell Mountain Lodge, an adjacent
surface parking area, a swimming pool and a spa pool. The two
and one-half (2-1/2) story lodge structure encroaches slightly
into the alley at the rear of the site, which is further
constrained by various above grade utility fixtures and several
large trees. See existing conditions drawings at the end of this
section.
-
The project site is presently served by all major utilities
(see Appendix B, Exhibit 1, Letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer).
A twelve (12) inch water main is located in Spring Street while a
fourteen (14) inch main is located in Cooper Avenue. An eight
4
..
...
-
-
(8) inch sanitary sewer and a four (4) inch natural gas line are
located in the adjacent alley. The area's existing electric,
telephone, and cable TV service has been relocated underground,
and is also available in the alley. stormwater runoff from the
property is transported via the adjacent system of curbs and
gutters to the storm sewer located in spring street. Two (2)
fire hydrants are conveniently located in the immediate site
area, one at the southwest corner of Spring and cooper and the
other at the northwest corner of cooper and original street.
-
.-
...
-
'.
-
'.
-
-
-
.-
,.-
~
...
..
..
-
..
-
..
..
5
-
-
..
:DO
ObSS-Sl6lfOf 3NOHd3Hl l19111 C'JO'.1lO"XJJ NX-SY ',>(5E xoe Od
~D~ :
IlUJ.ill1d I I
ID3JlH:)lN/mVlJOSSV , ~INNro S31lN>O
.
'"
w
if "
w;:!i ~w ~
~~...l~ ;;i
Q N~ iiii :E
z
W
"
W
...
I ~
>z
1-0
0:_
WI-
a.<
00
0:0
a....
W
...
o
:I:
>
0:><
00:
af
-
-
C/ I lS/ -r-M..'.NI"'~O -'--'-'-l'--"S':-"'.NlO",O _:.....~._ '_. \,,} ....\ '-:-;Q.:~ :~~;.;iY~ '~. ~.
-- . .-.---. --------! I ~:-<....:._l:: . "J'/."" \ ...
Pi6'.. ,CC.' """ 'Ir ! '"'1'"' 1,'1'" J, (J'o,,:., .~}.;.. ;.., ''}; s:
, \.i... 'Ii ,~' ," I. ~ , t... ~~'. .A/Ie:;
.. . \ I I I'~ \ ~ ,.... '~f-' . ,
.. '. ~' ,I ~~ . ,- '\ \ . ... 't . ,,' r'~ e"
_ ,1" ", " ,~fP'~~ - gpk' \ /1 ' ! ~1" 0" , ' "'~/" ~, ~ ;YI~ Z
\.'---IIP .. ~- ~,~ I I ~ .~ . ,,--~ ' 'ft:...-- _
'=- -~. ~ I , ' Z
= ~~-~';,~SI:-::"-'";-ON(""S,-:........~~ ._.~\._.",'"~ds__'I' . ; '7...J~.~;;;w 11::@
/ I '1" '!.,t 'r~"" I", {~t'" i'I" ''---f . i ' ,,~.~~ ""[ Z
,f ~ I. I~ I 7' I I o.--r ~ ;. , - ~J '- " 0
" ''-' '~, ,~i t-x --'....L?i ...J'l: ~':,:O' ,- f ./~~2.:';' W~ "',
:;;-- -, ',. :::> --;=-0 .:> i' I ..Jo. " ~ ..h ~ '7/ /,-'ff--. ~
/ ' ' , - ~ j '" ,,',i, ~ I :~ ~,. ,,': ~"O.... . . ,"-"';';;i ;;
'. . ( (. ,I. ' ~ ...,..J. ~: , ~Q;;- / \, " , ' 0
t-,:! ''k-:: \" ,I,~ ' , ,; ct . -_ l. j . .:' y.(I) " , \ '
~ . I' I :: ~; ,'" I ,. I . t t ~:r-:--" l" I ~ l ,I I 0
-;-;',- ;-: :] ~l..." I~.' ',j;.=- \ ~ ". 1 - ) ~ .....:.L/: (,; l~ jj (,'/1 ~ ~
I..--1S.._._......-~31MlH-.~._......_.+.-""":.~3J.~ ._._~; , 'f" .... I,! I" 1(1.
H', ~;. .l.i~i ",i jj. \ } 'r,~~ ~ ~'{ ~jr I ""'l'f - ,;1 ill) i~
" ~E"':~I f ~ I - .,. l' - II . J.: I 1 I I ' . I j, J
~ > . \ l I. . ~t "'a( ~ I -
. \ l j'" '~ - .--:;j"1 'I , ;e f:'tJ..... ,~ : I " L: l!t ~ ~ ~ ; , --c . 9// -'
'" 1\ '0, ~ " '. I I'~ ,,~ '1 I c ~ '.-.......-.::;;;.C'\.-. ""-:..
- ~= ~ a.. / I ~ I -+~ ~., :----t. 1 ,....", CS.' I r .:f '\, -
V1. ~ lf~ , ll~-,~"I'~ I' ,I. ...J" ..~-=7Xi:'J..Jr..L ""-
Ii r [;;Q ':c I ....J 1[' 'i ,.,1. ,.,t ' :1.1. . ~~
J..D.. i .:IJ,lJ-''';1 \. - I ;','" i~ \.-~~~)I\i O\J ".;' : ll~i(~,-=;' r:.
~::.r '",s"---'. \.~.N3~'" \............... ~ ~~' I~~.:f I ,,~.~;, ~. '''~tZ~
:'~:"" f7 I" :,__]~ ' r.,,', I;-''\.~; I. 0! :IT'ii ~, (10 hr-- I r-=~:l I' , ,-", ,"\,
~ "; ';i\. U ';'i~.> -:'ocj,:' , ,i~~ ,~~r~=n ~' J' :~-H)1i' i '- -":~~r":\\\\:~
,rlt::!.lJ . l! , we hi I .H L I.. 1\ ftl; I ~j ; ~ V I, ~ I
, r:- z~.__.. ," j"- " Q~i'l ....... <, . "J>.' ,"",,,", .:J ,L:.j-';~'~'I
'W~,' ',":81,~ llft~~L"'ll! ,~~~..! - ,", ",-, '~~ :~~,
~Iii' . '~ ~,~~_:ri ,,- I"".""! I' , .[Lil"rH- I
~! j",-~~T'--: f'-;._ -l'~q' g ~~0t~J t(:~ "'..-~~~ ~ [i) ,j ~-=2 )JI'-Z;';
_cd~; \ -r .! :::~I~' 0:" ,~ilil\'1 ~ .~ '-") , ~
-3!:-. i.~ .- f.-;- - 1 ,.. ~ .., "Ji~!' - J.-
, 'rn~" --~. It- l' .-q...;.', ".~ :.',," ( - //((', l,J:
\ :~~:4-""'- ~.. _- '--, ';-:-1 fh ~ _ ;c, ,.' .J i ',... I/~ ,OO'! (+.
-..HJlittNOW-.-!._._._._....,......,..lS.....~_._oQ:i,,~~. ,~(\. 0 ~
;, ., '.'-',' -..:. ~'F!i ::- ..~ i -1.1,}:r;:; I';J",;n;~ \ rr, fJ fi- \; '.1=1 % ..:81'><' ':,
'!,-",,--:t.,,;;,"~:v/'b'-~4 011-'1'3":~, rJ:i~... '..(.~, . "',,. .;,r.(\~
i .~ ','I.~r----' 0- n, ' ~ld;::i"-- ". rIP ; '8 1\' 'I['o(L If' ... ..', IfL....,.,'
.1;; ::::!olj... '..,_~", ~~;I.o "lfJ"'.1~(\r~ ~!:'.-_~ ;"'j rli.,. \~'; "'~. .\ )1','" ! 11'-") I
'., ,/" 0'.1 '~'--'" ._'1;J....C.j!: . .~--1 0;{ I) rTk .\"' I' . )1_1 .
- l" -- ~:~fO ~ ;:~ 1:' ~~' f.~:~;:: ": . b~' ';.~, ,- i: ~lr::]:l~tt, '\::",\ }J :7 Ii...;'
I. -'--- ',_. v. I.:.t;;.......,..~ \ ~'~ '4' ~ ...~:"\ 'hlioJ - .'
\ ... "'-". __ ~." = .,,"".' . ,~'H, ' __ . , -.... I
~'-' --'!';.-:;./..... _ : X. \ _.1-....... ,." " .\. . _ ~\
'-it~/., ''0'!l,'':'jf~L'" :Ymij'::: ~J-~ tt' : 1'\)1 r'~!r\-\"s::
,II n\~0r",,:;.,1~fri' '.~ ,,= '~~~'l i ,'- I L ',( I''''; ;i
"~ ,~. !l'i' ,,'~ ",/I/'j+:~.1 """ ,-- .- ~ In i I )"- IV Ii,' - ,~1f'-
- :..J \....' :l 0.:: ....0 r-,'/ Or>:' ~ :.:.....!\' : ~ u ~ir-~ : ---If \i. ':.- : /:"..'....::<i=' ".>',:::
.-
i 'r
-
,-
-
-
..
r
...
""
-
-
,-
-
-
..
~ '
~
~'"
~' 'I <:C<..!, '..:
1 w "-:",,.,
z .
':i 0;
\\i I 0":'
-
..
-
-
-
-
w
Z
~ I c
c '0
~~
I
: .O-.OL
>-
W
oJ
oJ
c(
~
w
~
2 ::
.. ,
c -,,'
CJ 0
\'~"""4
-
I
f:
I Wi:
I Z .
o! :
':z:, ,
ll.
-
'-
-
,.
-
L.
I
w
z
J
>
~
W
ll.
~
ll.
I
\
.~
>
f-
<i
o
w
Cl
Q
9
z
~
Z
:l
o
I
oJ
oJ
W
III
w
o
z
w
~
Q
o
~
is .
.I:
~
o
<(
=
f-
W
..
~
o
w
z
J
1
,
".. ".:1--
;
~,
JI! .
'-
,'.
, ,
,
.
w
z,
J'
~ '
wi
il
J I
~
I
.0-.0" iii
~
;-..... ". a:
\trr: W
II.
0
8
I
I
.'4,
~ 0 I:
.O!.:.
-..-rl
1
f -
'.LS E>NI~dS
I
,
,
L
J
(
CJ
Z
;;:
~
~
..
w
>
~
b
~
ll.
..
c
J
,<"
",""I'
......
,J-->.
\:' 0;
, .
,
1
f\._
~i
{)
: ,
I '
{-:J;,
\..L( I ~~
' (@.r .
"'L'..'J"';:
, ~ L.. ~ <--....,,-.
,( : '~\ .
',,- ~ ..' ",
. .", (, v
< ",~ . f ',j
'l 0 '>"'~:
I 5
i 0
I, ll.
~!'!~j .....
. . .
t". I, lII::
rr ~
i~ _~
Ie. --- I
,N 9!
'~___:J
I :' ,
I I
I..,l,
r 01:
~
1
~,~[J
50 . ')," I
I.
'. ,
: i
'---fJ' "
. . 't. .1 0'"
) , '.
;,,',/ ~ .,j
:t
()j
z
c(
~ o~
W 0
I- -
- ~
t/) -
(j)
Z
o
~
-
o
z
o
o
"
z
~
(j)
-
)(
W
7
,-
O! D 06SS-slblf{)(3f'.1C)H,;313J.lJ9!8ClO'o'K)"())N3dSY-I>fSfXOBO-",
I solWlOIN/S3MJOSW. ~JNNro 531IMO
-
;)
e
-
, j =n
<S" :1
s L
C.- o ;
1- --./
", I
~ ,
I
---
c: r --..d
\'
0 ;j
~ I
"
-
-
-
,.-
-
-
z
<
.J
l1.
.J
W
> l<
W
.J
I- ~
In
a: ~
-
u. ~
I'~' . ,- - - -j
I I
, I
~
~
~
,
~
~~
~'- ~ i
11 ~
1.2
I
J
I
1, , -
~\-
,< (0
~
~:
r>1
<;
I
I
I
I
I
~
_8
I ! N
I !. I- :
! ~ i I
en
z
o
-
I-
-
C
Z
o
o
~
z
-
I-
en
-
)(
w
e
z
<
.J
l1.
I- 0
Z N
W
~
W ~
In
< ~
lD ~
;) i
8
I~
I
'-0 D ObS5-SZ6lEor3NC:lHd31i1l191800V~:llO:>.N3dSV -~Sfxoa Od
1- i
I ; S03JJH;)lN/S3!"';)()SSV . u,jINNtO SlIM-O
,-
1
D
~
c'l
--r
I
<S'--
<;:)
\{"
b
r4
e
..
~ ITV I Q I
Ij-,
I Z
~ I 0(
Q-l .J
a.
I:; Q .J
:; I
J W
a >
cJ W
.J 0
N
,,\'\ C
" Z
N- O ~
0 ~
~ W
fJ) ~
~ Q
~
'1'-=
Q
\
..
".
,-
-
o
./
~
<=>
o
.-
~p
lIUlllliI 0
en
z
o
-
I-
-
C
Z
o
o
~
z
-
I-
en
-
><
W
"
-
: D D ObSS-SZ6/f0(3fl.l()Hd3'iLlI9IS~1O)'N~SV't{SfXoeOcl
_ ' S03JIIOlN/S3!....JOSSV , tilINNID S3llMO
-
-
.-
-
-
-
.-
-
"""
I
I
~i
I.
I'
II
I
f
I
,
I
_8
I 2 o::t
I 2. I" ,
! ~ i I
n,
'I i
z
0 Z
- 0
~
-
~ ~
W ~
oJ 0 W 0
N N
W 1 oJ
I tt ) W
I- ~ I- ~
~ In
0 ~ W ~
In ~ ~
.. ..
.. ..
>. >.
., .,
..- ..-
N .
o. ...
z. ".
N+ .+
en
z
o
-
I-
-
C
Z
o
o
~
z
-
l-
tA
-
><
W
-
D~ D 06SS-SZ6/flX3NOHd3111lI918ClC1w'llOlOJN3dSVK"SEXQ8 OJ
SL:>3JJH:llIV/nMXlSSV.. a.LHNNIU 91lMO
-
-
-
-
, ,,~
-
c c
1lJ! I.P
! ~iU
t/)
Z
o
-
I-
-
C
Z
o
o
~
z
-
l-
t/)
-
)(
W
=U
!
i '
I
"/
z
0 Z
- 0
0 ~
-
~ ~
W ~
CI ~ .J W 0
N
W .J
::t W
c I- ~ I- ~
g a: l/)
0 ~ < ~
Ell Z ~ W ~
C
.. ..
.. ..
n >.
.,
- ... ...
o~ ~
~.
z. ..
01 C .. ..
-
Ii:lI ell
-
.~
.. ..
- .. . .
>. ~y
.,
... ...
. ~ 11
0'. ~.
i .,.
.. ...,t
-4l-
-
...,
-
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Applicant proposes to partial1y~emolish the existing
lodge structure which will facilitate reconfiguring in order to
reconfigure the existing twenty one (21) lodge units in order to
accommodate the proposed development of fifteen (15) two-room"
suites and ,ten (10) single lodge rooms with a subsurface parking
garage and lodge support facilities. The projects ~ployee
housing requirement will be met via on-site living units that
will accommodate at least sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the proposed development. A more detailed
description of the Applicant's proposed development is provided
below.
-
..
-
..
".'"
-
-
.-
-
-
A. Water system
Water Service to the proposed development will be provided
via the existing fourteen (14) inch main located in Cooper
Avenue. A common service line will be extended from the main to
serve the project.
The Aspen Water Department has indicated that the proposed
service design is acceptable and that the municipal water system
has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development. The
water system design will be reviewed with the Department's staff
and additional information submitted in conjunction with the
Applicant's final subdivision plat application as may be
required. See the engineering report from Schmueser Gordon
Meyer, Appendix B, Exhibit 1, and the letter from the Aspen Water
Department, Appendix B, Exhibit 2.
-
..
-
-
...
..
-
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B. sewage system
The proposed development will be served by the existing
eight (8) inch sanitary sewer located in the alley behind the
project site. A new common collection line will be provided for
the project and will replace the existing collection line, which
will be abandoned and capped. The Applicant will be paying a
~urcharge to the Sanitation District for improvements to the
Galena street line which will upgrade service to the
neighborhood. According to the Aspen Consolidated sanitation
District, anticipated flows can be accommodated with no
improvements the treatment plant. For a more detailed analysis,
see the engineering report by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Appendix B,
Exhibit 1, and the letter from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, Appendix B, Exhibit 3.
c. Drainage system
The project's storm drainage system will be designed to
maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface runoff and
groundwater recharge. On-site drywells and/or surface detention
facilities will be utilized to intercept and detain runoff from
building roofs and impervious areas, and to control the rate of
groundwater recharge. These facilities will also function to
remove current peak loading conditions thereby reducing impacts
upon existing storm sewer in spring Street. A detailed drainage
plan will be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer in
conjunction with final plat review. For a more detailed
analysis, see the engineering report by Schmueser Gordon Meyer,
13
,-
..
-
_ Appendix B, Exhibit 1.
.
D.
Fire Protection
-
Fire protection will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department. The project site is located approximately four (4)
blocks from the fire station, resulting in a response time of
-
-
_ approximately three (3) to five (5) minutes. The proposed
-
development is readily accessible to fire protection vehicles and
-
two (2) existing fire hydrants are conveniently located at
-
opposite ends of the Bell Mountain block. For a more detailed
-
analysis, see the engineering report by Schmueser Gordon Meyer,
Appendix B, Exhibit 1.
-
E. Development Data
-
The Bell Mountain Lodge is currently comprised of twenty-one
,-
(21) lodge units and bathrooms. The redeveloped Lodge will
-
employ the suite concept as studies have shown that this is the
-
-
best economic approach for a small lodge. the proposed end
product will be ~ifteen suites and ten single lodge rooms, two of
-
which will be handicapped accessible. Due to the method by which
.~
"----/"
"'- -
c:
/'
-
the Land Use Regulation defines a "unit" the Kappelis require a
GMQS allocation of nineteen (19) units to be allowed to preserve
..
..
the Lodge.
-,
seven (7) of the existing units presently have 'kitchenettes,
which the Applicant intends to preserve (remodeled) in the
-
..
proposed development. The exact location and layout of
-
kitchenettes will be determined when the lodge design is more
-
fully developed at a later time, pending an interpretation by the
-
14
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
-
-
"pla.nning office of what qualifies as "preservation." The project
also provides'!'two (2) three-bedroom employee housing units with a
full kitchen in each.
Parking will be provided in a Sbbsurface parking structure
for twenty-one (21) automobiles, which is a.ccessed via the alley,
plus two (2) guest check-in parking spaces which will be accessed
via spring street utilizing the existing curb cut. The Qooper
Street driveway and curb cut will be eliminated as explained in
Section III.F. The ~isting lodge provides ten (10) legal
surface parking spaces and thus eleven (11) new on-site parking
spaces are being provided. The minimum of .5 spaces per new
lodge unit is exceeded for this project (19 x .5 = 9.5 spaces
required).
The proposed development has been designed in compliance
with the provisions of the Land Use Code and the dimensional
requirements of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District. As
Table 1 below indicates, the project provides landscaped open
space of more than fOrty-two percent (42%) of the site, thus
exceeding the minimum requirement of thirty-five percent (35%).
The encroachment of the existing building'S north wall along the
alley right-Of-way has been in existence since it was constructed
in the early 1950's. The Applicant proposes to incorporate the
existing building into the development plan and thus preserve but
not increase the encroachment, which has existed for nearly forty
years. The existing trees that encroach on the alley right-of-
way will be transplanted and incorporated into the landscape plan
15
-
-
-
-
to the extent practicable. similarly, the .xisting utilities
equipment (i.e. transformer, telephone pedestal, gas meter, etc.)
that c~rrently encroach on the alley~ight-of-way will be
relocated in the new development plan.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-.
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
-
."
,..
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:!"Of
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
'.
-
-
-
.
-
('..
-
1.
Table 1
Development Data
Zone District classification
Existing Zoning
LP-Lodge Preservation
2.
Total site Area
3.
Proposed Project Lodge units
Existing Units (remodeled)
New units
4.
Maximum Allowed External Floor Area
(FAR) @1:1
5.
Required Internal Floor Area (FAR)
Distribution
Lodge Rental Space (Maximum)
@ 0.5:1
Bonus Lodge Rental Space (Maximum)
@ 0.25:1 x .667
Employee Housing Space (Minimum)
@ 0.25:1 x .333
Lodge Non unit Space (Maximum)
@ 0.25:1
6. Proposed Building Area
FAR Area
Lodge Rental Space
Lodge Non unit space
Employee Housing space
?1 Rb
; ~ (h
,-:; .)
Subtotal
t
(//
\jr (" . Area exempt from FAR
7.
Minimum Required Open space (35%)
Proposed project open space
8.
9.
proposed site Coverage
Building Footprint
(including overhangs)
Parking, Driveway, utilities and Trash
Landscaped Areas
On-Site
Public Right-of-Way
Attributable to Open Space
percentage of open Space to project property
17
2l'; 066 sq. Ft.
40
21
19
20,066 Sq. Ft.
10,033 sq. Ft.
3,346 Sq. Ft.
1,671 sq. Ft.
5,016 Sq. Ft.
I .,' ~
Cj'1I" [""C" 0
, ,
~
,y
10,573 Sq. Ft.
7,086 Sq. Ft.
2,331 Sq. Ft.
/;/wffffA.,
19,990 sq. Ft.
2.220 Sq. Ft.
22,210 Sq. Ft.
7,023 sq. Ft.
,
.
10,222 Sq. Ft.
1,246 sq. Ft.
8,598 Sq. Ft.
1,453 Sq. Ft.
8,348 Sq. Ft.
42%
...
,.
...
-
10.
...
...
-
-
11.
-
-
-
'....
12.
-
-
...
-
'.
,-
~
,..
..
'..
'00
-
...
-
~
-
Minimum Required Setbacks
Front Yard
(Entry street @ Corner Lot)
Front Yard
(Side Street @ Corner Lot) 6.67 Ft.
Side Yard---- 5 Ft.
R arr--- -~ -.~" '-" ---19-.-5'--s.::::\acesFt*./
inimum Required parking '~
ilh 5,' spaces per lodge room
The r~ 'ninq 0.2 spaces per lodge room may be ~
rovi a by ~ash-in- ieu payment to cit~,,,
\ /' ~------_...-
Proposed proj ec parkin~____ ~//
Sub surface garage
Surface check-in
10 Ft.
21 spaces
/~
(_3 spaces
18
-
-
-
""
F. Traffic and Parking
The proposed development will have no adverse impact upon
the existing street system. According to the 1987 Transportation
Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, existing peak
traffic levels on Spring Street and cooper Avenue were thirteen
hundred (1,300) and thirty-nine hundred (3,900) vehicles per day,
respectively. Both of these figures are substantially below
allowable capacity levels. Given the proximity of the project to
the commercial core area, Aspen Mountain and the City's public
transportation routes, traffic increases on the surrounding
streets should be minimal. As the Circulation Map at the end of
this section illustrates, all municipal bus routes currently pass
through the intersection of Spring street and Cooper Avenue. For
a more detailed analysis, see the engineering report by Schmueser
Gordon Meyer, Appendix B, Exhibit 1.
In order to enhance traffic circulation, the Applicant
proposes to make significant improvements to the adjacent alley.
As noted previously, the existing Bell Mountain Lodge encroaches
into the alley, as do numerous trees and various utility
fixtures. The Applicant will relocate the existing utilities
onto the project site, transplant the existing trees to the
extent practicable, and~pave the entire alley. The existing curb
cut on Cooper Avenue which serves the existing lodge will also be
removed, and new curb and gutter installed as required. The
elimination of the curb cut on Cooper Avenue will significantly
reduce mid-block turning movements and, in conjunction with the
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
19
..
-
-
~
restoration of the alley to its full width, greatly improve
vehicular circulation in the immediate site area. A bus waiting
~rea with a bench will be provided off the sidewalk on Cooper
..
Avenue.
-
.
with respect to parking, the Applicant proposes to provide
-
twenty one (21) guest spaces in the underground parking
..
structure, which will be accessed via the alley, plus two (2)
..
check-in parking spaces off Spring street in the same location as
-
the existing driveway. The s~bsurface parking structure will, to
the extent possible, be 4esigned to anticipate possible future
-
-
-
~onnection to any other parking structure that may be built
r:.
within the block. The number of off-street parking spaces iS~/t;!
r,quired by Land Use Code to be calculated at 0.7 space per lOd~
If~1Jt
v-:;\..
However, the existing lodge provides ten (10) legal
Unit.
parking spaces or 0.476 per unit and has never experienced a
parking shortage even in the peak'summer season. Contributing to
the low demand for parking is the fact that the Applicant has
provided, and will continue to provide a free shuttle service to
and from the airport. Due to the project's close proximity to
the Central Commercial Core of town and the current auto dis-
,W
incentive philosophy of the community, the proposed twenty-one
(21) spaces, Furthermore, two (2) of the spaces have been
designated for handicap access in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The parking-to-unit ratio will be
-
improved to 0.538 spaces per lodge unit. The ~maining 0.162
-
spaces per unit requirement will be met via cash-in-lieu, if
-
20
-
.~
-
-
-
deemed appropriate by the planning office.
Pursuant to Section 5-301.B. of the Regulations, parking
requirements for employee housing units are established by
special review. The Applicant requests that the employee parking
be waived, pr at that perhaps one or two of the parking spaces
being provided be designated for employees.
G. Affordable Housing
The Applicant proposes to satisfy the employee housing
requirement of section a-109.F. of the Land Use Regulations via
the provision of on-site dwelling units. The units to be
provided will each have three (3) bedrooms and a full kitchen.
Based on Tourist Accommodations Development standards, these
units will house~~ix (6) employees. pending review by the
Housing Authority, we propose that the nineteen (19) new lodge
units will generate nine and one half (9.5) employees (one (1)
employee for each two (2) units). The Applicant's experience
over the past twenty-five (25) years bears this out. Thus, the
pix (6) employees housed on-site will be sixty-three percent
(63%) of the employees generated, which exceeds the minimum
requirement of sixty percent (60%).
H. stoves and Fireplaces
The existing lodge has one (1) wood burning fireplace. The
Applicant proposes to eliminate the woodbburning fireplace and
instead provide a certified gas log fireplace and,. gas appliance
,in the Lobby and Meeting Room respectively. The number and type
of gas devices to be installed will comply with all applicable
.-
...
-
.,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
.-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
21
-
...
..
-
~
city regulations.
I. Location
The project site is located on the fringe of Aspen's
downtown area. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area Gondola is located
less than two (2) blocks walking distance southwest of the
property while Herron Park is located approximately three (3)
blocks to the northeast. The city's commercial core area is
conveniently located less than a block to the west. City Market
is directly across Cooper Avenue from the property while Ruby
Park, the hub of the City's mass transportation system, is
located approximately four (4) blocks to the southwest. Spring
Street, which abuts the property, provides convenient access via
Main Street and Highway 82 to Aspen Valley Hospital, and the
Pitkin County Airport. As discussed in section III.F, all
municipal bus routes currently utilize Spring Street.
J. Impact on Adjacent Uses
The proposed development will not have any adverse impact
upon surrounding land uses. The structure will be lower than the
neighboring Hannah Dustin office building, the Durant Mall and
the Aspen Square complex. Vehicular traffic volumes generated
by the project should be less than the existing lodge operation.
All parking will be accessed from the alley, so that traffic
circulation patterns should substantially improve. The project
is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Zone, and is compatible with surrounding land
uses. As a result, the functional character of this mixed
-
-
.-
-
....
-
-
,-
-
-
22
..
residential/commercial area of the City will be improved by the
Applicant's proposal.
R. Construction Schedule
The anticipated date for commencement of construction is the
Spring of 1993, with the completion of the project by the end of
the year. Phased construction, if required by a partial
allocation, would extend the construction period for an
indeterminate length of time and may make it impossible to obtain
financing.
-
'..
..
-
-
-
-
,-
'.
-
..
-
..
-
-
23
..
..
-
-
: D, D ObS5Sl&l(0f1NOKlnlllI9IB~1O) N3dS'V' .f5fXoe Od
S03JJH:HN/S31\'DOSSV 'I 3:l:IINNrD S3'1lf'W'toO
~D! :
llliillJd I I
-
-
z
"
CJ ii:
~w Iii~
c ...u- ~cr
z SUi w2:
w "' 0-
&1
..J
II
W
I-
:>
o
a:
Ul
:>
"'
"'6-
o
o
ill
-
-
o
o
~i!i
0:_
~~
~O
..g
I-
w
'"
0:
..
:Ii
>-
l-
e:;
W
..J
o
:r:
>-
0:",
go:
",f
-
-
W
0:
U
: ~~I("F\,;, };~~..~,~,r.,.~ '. \'(1 ~. . '~70 ~ ,0' ,,;., ., ~,~:~0~~,: .~;;; J ~
_ ~-J'~' I ,'i,~ ,--;,:i~. . ;'.,' '\ \ .... 0, ----,'i ~., ,. . ,~r "-. - ;i-11h/" L-
L. \ \. -t;~(i i,,:..'i:' \.( :;.:",., 0, -', :, ' ,iJ(1ii ~
- ~..__. .5:!n.;tL'.(LuJ ~ .I,i' '; '" li).;iI,;:, \ I 0, ,0;. D, . ',_ ~Y.,c!: ..", ::!
:::;, 8=d:. LL 'Ji l ,qi ..... ! "t. , ,~ !fJ //', ....
- 7 0 ~~~A~C 0 'n ~, . A' 00&:0(.,,0 'n~0,,",-R!A.8hoo ,"", >'."'". /ii>>~K"f ~
- \.;' g jr~1'!' if:r t:l""" i", ) T' : ,n~ \ - '::J, ~' '71:;,~~_; ~~' 0
if II~;;'.',. ,'..p-'7'J ,',~, ,+il,{ d .~f: 'f-H:_=l ~ '~.;n{\<~00
: .501;-; -J' ,I ''k-: (lL/: l' r I.. }l 10 j ~", *.' ~. :~. ~~,,' i I.
'.";:.W"L,'" I.:':"'" ,':. '.'''; "'--.'i-:---,\ 'I 'i~: . j' ".><",.0:' 'I'
,- ~ H'~)s . Cc t ~;1;"(" ~)~~,):--c.- ~~3~' '~;:<.~-~~ '~J; r,'iiI1..l'I(:'i
(jij~H!E:~'t r~i i :;u~~ '--1(:\ .1Gc __ ~ r 1 ~II ;:L. I, ~! .. ,:;/111I;/1. /.
:J.. ~ 0 'l....l.. >-. .. "~. - i. ,....' .'. ' "l-l-;.' "'I. :.1 i l '" .f' : ~I';'l: )~.c. . .),;if ~___~' ,
~. ~o: \ ~ ,! :~:'n' '!! . L.:. P" -~-, L I f'~'" ~.. .,. .r=.
Til_ "" =; 'l; -, j -,---,-c ", """" .'.::,~'. ,~-. ~,..%~- :,-'-,
Ik' '.,i- 'ltITfl' \, '~~~'i 'I':~ : 'i'~').!1 i~ - 0~L~ ~ \i(~~.t:<-' 'I' ;;.~~.~. ..;....;"
~' 'o~'\. ~_,._~lI!lJ 'c' .\" .:!.....Y. .~...A _~'i-. l \ , 'n ~ ,...Y\':).., ,'-., _'.
:-';g,.!.; < L.,...N31;.,,\..... . ( " .. ~'....~ / ,. /I ' "'~'"
T..I' \ ~ t;\: . '" i r' " "1'"0" j [ --;-:-~,;::;. rl_re...' . "Q' .' I ..,') ~-\":-';t'
~~..!' ~ f ,I ~ j) ll![11 /, !. ,1-...., . ~ n.:1 ~I., '.Il'-\\\.r ':;
..... '" - In . I ~ I I . - '" ) '.. _, \ \. ,10
""ti _ \ ' " -.J I a: _......
. f'",!,,:}.<...Jr1 ~ ~ I" ! " 'f ,.-~" I- ~,~. ; . 10 '. ' ..
! :_OSOI~ f.;L.J..l "~'~ _~ Ijtfrj..__ -~)io (,' I _ .~..'}l>:r , ~
, 0:0 "0,:-,' ;" i' . OC" 1 . F~:'I' ".,=" ;".Pf ,;~,.
---,- ,,00 iug)' i .....,,~, ,;1;, ''-D~I: ".-:"".- "..IT .~.:, ';lII"~.
-, -a c. a:,.. I ' t-... I I' -. J ; . ,." - 0 ~. l-' . . ~ L.:... ;.4
4..p. Li:~- . i, , \. I '._. -.--!.,T1 .:1' -. >' ~~_~{ t'.' . O'.LI*' ~_~
~. ogN~."~~~~ 'l:.~1J~'0~~~0'~ "" "'~""~ ,r (..'~ 'III'~~'. .'
-:!n\l'h-~"~:ti"~:.\ ~~-~'A 0 E-FN'\' ":K'("':'" ~:[<];,-IIll~-:::) - ,-+:
~ .. -~ '{ ::"t.U\;'-~i, \ -t, " '----J g ~: .' . ", It;.' . ~ :..., :, ''; ,-' a -~ '"
l~. c ~- '.1_..0]$ "- f.-;- 0, i U Z " , I \ \,~- '-1 IIr' il :L(
... ~\ orr.~!:>';' t- _1 '_ !~LT, ,;" .,~. ,,' : - /:, ~-=
.:-\g;~~"',g-',,"I>"" l"_ '-~~:-' ~~ '.::..~''''' ", ~ J };;:.. (),.J. ~
: -~:~:;".~!:~ I 'j- 1~_~;Y~.Ni~"-. ~i'~"\~ ~lc~lf~ "Qi' 'f] H'-C \: ~~: ~)\1 " ,~
L~ l~;,~,- li~' - ~:~lit,~-f)'~-nii'T~ !~~); Br: I '\, '~'O\l~, ,..~:; 7-1'fj/ttr:(~1
- -'-':" I ,..'t';=. '." .>0 ..T', . =-- ! ,~\ r" f\. ",\ I}" I "'ili/\
'~":;;~I!",'::'.-,,,<" :~~L,~~....: ~1 '.,11 'i ..J ( 1/ im /1
-1i} <~~~:-r~:~~~'~~~~\ X.~i ,~o ~i~~I~t~\ l~ '=0 ,\ \~\~ . :'IIII'O/~' J/I ,!J
- ~1\~g,~-;::~'~dH~~;n~oo ~.~~~rt\I\-TrITI~ )I\'~\f' ~l:, ,~t
:tJ. '~i('\tt' ~'~vll] ,I~ f:r1~~~"~ ~..:l~_~ iir\.J'l ~"-Jr- !':, G' (~:;<;:t5JI:'~~"ii
,/\; 1;5 \1 ..... I I \lfl x \.,z.,n'). .;:.;. ':> ... '1!rF'V.lti 1- Ii i 1if'!~ I - L ' .1'~ t-J !
- >7'.L:!~ H.I IJ ,\!Vi)-"I, .,,:OJ. =-_'''~ ,& L.J~,II II! II I~ I ,11 ,_'~ .',
?.Il
-
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
-
...
-
.-
-
...
-
...
'.
..
...
...
..
"""
-
>
W
.J
.J
<
.
LJ
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
i
il
'I
. ,
"Q!i
ii
'I
!
i
.,1 f:
I
.__-__o~_
"
w1
..LS ElNlloIdS
~
III
a:
W
ll.
o
o
o
z
<
.J
0.
r-
Z
w
~
wOo
~g
~~
a:W
r-C
(l)W
3r-
.J-
-(I)
.
o
.
~
.
o
e
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
.~
,.- (:
.
~
~ ,
. I
z
9
5 I
.
~
,
. I
z .1
:J
I~- l
I ' I
. ~
,
- I
- -'-I ~
.
. . z
~ :J
- >
..
. .
. ~
-
f
-
'.
-
~- .'
~
I
u
I
~
.
-'-'-"
.
...
._--=-,
I
. I
I
-,I
J
~~i
H.
I __
,- ----t--
--<l.-._~
\
\
io----
I
11===;-. -
I =
I
oJ
~ .
~ ~
~ i
~
~
:
=
-1-;
=
""---"---
=
.
.
~
J:
ei
.J
w
>
n
II:
~
21i
...
..
.-
-
-
...
...
...
,-
-
. >
! I
· :l
\
-+---
"
,
-
...
-
-
-
-
~
3
.
.
g
9
i
;:
.
;c
.
-
I
I
I
i
I
,
+---
.
-
-
-
>
w
~
~
(
, I' \
. I
, , -t:ia ~ww./
, . \
,
.
~
~
.
z
Ii
..
3
.
rn
~
.
z
J
, ,
.'
"-"'-tl
I~
. ,
=
u
.
.
.
.
I
I
. I
.
~ i I
~ . I
. I I
~ 0
. . I
. I
J ,
~i
.
; !
I I .
I 0 III
~ 9
. .
, . ~
!' ri'
Q.... ,.)
.
I!
8.
n
.0
. ..
.
. I
.
~-'-"",""",,'~'--
~--_.
..L331t1.LS DNltldS
I
I
I
I
I
I
if
51
I
I
..
>
.
.
!
f
I
,
I
i
tj
~
~
,.
It
W
~
1:
e~
z
.J
III
n
Q ,
II:
<t
"
27
.
-
.
I
, ..
i'
~ .
I
5 ..
. ~
. ~ I
~ i, .
C I
, ' .
i .
.. I
. .
iC
.
.
I
.
~
I'
I -
Ii
.
,~~
.-b-
".
-
.
-
.
..
...
..
...
..
-
-J,
i
I
,
I
,
I
I
-
-
-
,-
,~
-
-
,-
.
., --t==-'-=- - -
: ! I
I
-------.,j-
I
.
lD C . I ~ I
~ ~ ~ ..
tLi tt I
J "- I
1 I'
· YrJ
I
. I
o
I
I
,
il:
I
.
; !
.
"
,,;
.
~I
.
I
,
~'-t
= 0,'
.
I
.
.
I
.
-;:t
i i-i-I
~h:
--+-J
-___-1
(
I!
)- ---+
..L331;I.1.S DNIt:ldS
-
-
-
~
to
~
..
co
ffi
~
:t
(Jj
oJ
LLI
n
iL
28
___~____,__'..~__._..'.M_'_ ---,-~--
..
..
-
..
- r,p ~11
. c . c
.. I I I I
. . . . I . .
" . . . . .
'.
.. 'I
,- ,
-
" 0
i ! .
- i u u u
; ;
- I~
.
" /
/
.
I
.
"
C
I
.
"
.
I
,
"
~I I:
c' e~
I
, ,
" I
~ z
. .' .J
I =1
. III
" >
,
. III
I ~ " .J ~
. :\i
c
~ / "- z
.. L------c.: 0
0
- III
,~ I/)
C
I
... . ~ ~
"
.....
, ,
T' ~
-
-G- ' , ~--- f
'"
-
-
.-
29
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
..
"'"
-
-
-
-
-
tEla
jB 33
30
4
.
-
-
4
'.
-
~- f'- -t-
! ~ .'
"
-, il
;1
I
,
I
i
..
-
'"
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
~,
11 t! i
}~i-
.
.
-
'.
.
-
-
z
o
i=
o
w
en
p
5 3
IJI
j I
t t
t t t
~ ~I ~.
z
o
~
~
w
n
z
o
-
;
~
W
..I
W
I-
en
w
~
31
'..
...
...
..
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
The following section addresses the various review criteria
against which the proposed project will be evaluated. The
information contained herein represents the Applicant's best
effort of compliance with both the letter and intent of the
criteria. We believe that in every category the proposed project
meets or exceeds the minimum applicable standard. Based on our
understanding of the various criteria, and the project's
compliance with the requirements, therewith, we have taken the
liberty of requesting what we believe to be an appropriate score
in each review category. Please reference as necessary the
appropriate headings in Section III. of this application for
detailed information in support of the Applicant's
representations and commitments.
A. Avai1abi1ity of Public Facilities and services
The proposed project's impact upon public facilities and
services is described below.
1. Water.
The proposed development may be handled by the existing
level of service in the area. The Aspen Water Department has
indicated that the existing fourteen (14) inch main located in
cooper Avenue is adequate to serve the project and that system
upgrades will not be required.
..
...
..
...
..
-
..
'..
..
...
-
...
..
...
-
-
..
..
Requested Score: 1 Point
2. sanitary Sewer.
The proposed development may be handled by the existing
..
..
-
..
32
...
...
,-
-
...
'~
'"
level of service in the area. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District has indicated that the existing eight (8) inch line
located in the adjacent alley is adequate to serve the project
and collection system upgrades will be provided by the Applicant.
Requested Score: 2 Points
3. storm Drainage.
The proposed development may be handled by the existing
level of service in the area. The project will maintain historic
flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater
recharge, thereby complying with the storm drainage design
requirements of the subdivision regulations and the City's
Engineering Department.
-
~
'..
..
..
'"
,-
...
-
...
''''
...
Requested Score: 1 Point
4. Fire Protection.
The proposed development may be handled by the existing
level of service in the area. The project site is located
approximately four (4) blocks from the fire station, resulting in
a response time of three (3) to five (5) minutes. Two (2)
existing fire hydrants are located on cooper Avenue at opposite
ends of the block.
Requested Score:
1 Point
..
..
..
5. Roads.
As discussed in Section III.F., the surrounding street
network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed
development. The proposed project will significantly improve the
..
..
-
-
33
-
...
-
-
,-
traffic flow in the immediate site area. The Applicant's
commitment to restore the alley to its proper width by relocating
fixtures and vegetation which presently encroach upon the right-
of-way will improve both safety and circulation in the area.
similarly, the provision of required parking access off the alley
will significantly reduce present vehicular turning movements on
Cooper Avenue, which conflict with the city Market parking
access, thereby improving the flow of traffic and reducing
vehicular congestion.
In addition to the above, the Applicant has also committed
to pave the entire alley, install new curb, gutter, and sidewalk
where required along cooper Avenue, and to landscape both public
right-of-ways. These improvements will not only enhance the
appearance of the streets cape but will significantly improve
pedestrian safety and circulation in the immediate site area.
Requested Score: 2 Points
-
'-
...
...
-
-
-
...
-
-
....
B. Quality of Desiqn
The quality of proposed development's design is discussed
below. The project site is located outside of the City's
Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. As a result, Historic
Preservation commission Review and approval of the project's
architecture is not required.
1. Architectura1 Desiqn.
The proposed development has been designed to be compatible
with existing land uses in the neighborhood. Given the diverse
architectural character of the immediate site area (e.g., the
-
-
-
...
34
-
...
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
...
-
-
-
...
,-
-
-
.......
...
...
-
...
...
-
...
-
Hannah Dustin building, the Buckhorn Lodge, Chateau Aspen
condominiums, Aspen Square, Durant Mall building, city Market,
etc.), considerable emphasis has been placed on creating a
vocabulary of forms and materials that will fit comfortably with
neighboring structures.
The project's architecture has been derived from forms and
materials which are prevalent throughout Aspen. The colors will
be muted earth tones and textures of materials will be interwoven
to soften the facades and present a predominantly residential
character. This will enhance the transitional nature of the
site's location between central commercial and outlying
residential neighborhoods.
The bulk and massing of the structure is less imposing than
the Durant Mall, Aspen square, and Chateau Aspen Condominiums.
The pitched roof forms carry down to encompass the upper level
floor which reduces the apparent height. Furthermore, the main
roof is punctuated with gable and shed roof dormers and a turret
form at the lobby entrance. This approach further evokes a
residential character and scale. The height is within the (LP)
Lodge Preservation Zone district's twenty-five (25) foot maximum
height limit and is lower than the neighboring Hannah Dustin
building. It should remain compatible with any future
development or re-development of the remainder of the Bell
Mountain Block. See the illustrative site Development, Floor
Plans and Exterior Elevations at the end of Section III. We
believe this design is deserving of the maximum number of points
35
-
..
..
-
available in this category.
,-
Requested Score:
9 Points
..
,,'...
2. site Design.
As the site Development Plan at the end of section III
illustrates, the structure has been set back as far as feasible
from cooper Avenue to reduce the perception of bulk, enhance
privacy and maximize the available open space in front of the
building. It should be noted that the large existing open space
to the east of the present structure will not be lost, but merely
relocated and combined with the resultant enlarged open space
which faces onto both Cooper Avenue and Spring Street. The
removal of paved surface parking in that portion of the site
removes the imposing auto presence from the site. This
facilitates the creation of a park-like open space adjacent to
the downtown commercial area which will be heavily landscaped not
only within the property boundaries, but in the streets right-of-
way as well.
The benefit derived from this design concept is two fold.
First, it will provide a pleasant landscaped visual and noise-
reduction buffer area between the lodge and the streets which it
fronts on, including the City Market parking lot. second, it
will be an amenity for the adjacent downtown area that will be
shared by the vehicular and pedestrian traffic which passes by.
A system of internal walkways provides convenient access to
the project's main lobby area from both Spring Street and Cooper
Avenue, and further enhances the park ambiance. These walkways
-
...
...
'...
-
-
..
-
...
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
...
...
...
-
-
36
-
..
..
..
.
will be9snow-melted and attractively illuminated with low level
lighting fixtures. site furnishings will include benches,
bicycle racks, and a barbecue area.
with the exception of the rear yard, which is an existing
encroachment as noted earlier, the site design provides setbacks
which meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Land use
Code for this zone district. All utilities will be placed
underground.
In order to enhance the alley scape and vehicle entry/ exit
area at the garage ramp, the proposed development will include a
fenced area adjacent to the alley which is designed to
accommodate a pair of two (2) cubic yard trash dumpsters. The
trash area is readily accessible to collection vehicles and is
more than adequate to handle anticipated trash generation.
Approximately 8,600 square feet, as well as 1,453 square
feet of right-Of-way or forty-two (42%) percent of the project
site, will be extensively landscaped for the benefit of both
project residents and the general public, as the Illustrative
site Development Plan at the end of this section illustrates.
Given the urban character of the project site, and its inherent
development limitations, the preservation of such a substantial
amount of open green space is a noteworthy accomplishment. While
the proposed development's extensive landscaping is provided
primarily for the benefit of the lodge guests, it will also help
to reduce the pUblic'S perception of the project's bulk as well
as offer considerable relief from the visual impact of
-
-
..
..,
-
-
...
..
...
-
-
'..
..
'..
-
...
-
'"
..
..
37
-
'..
-
....
-
... surrounding development. This perception will be further
enhanced as a result of the building setbacks from Cooper Avenue.
-,
We believe this project is deserving of the maximum number of
~
points available in this category.
-
-
Requested Score: 9 Points
3. Parking and Traffic circulation
As discussed in section III.F., the proposed development
will provide twenty-one (21) parking spaces in a subsurface
garage which is accessed from the alley, plus two (2) check-in
parking spaces accessed from Spring Street. As noted, two (2) of
the subsurface spaces have been designated for handicap access in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The alley access for parking reduces conflict with the
normal traffic patterns along Cooper Avenue and Spring Street and
the pedestrian access from the subsurface parking to stairs and
elevator to the lodge is protected from inclement weather. The
automobiles will also be totally screened from public view. The
surface check-in parking will have a hammerhead turn around
configuration which will allow cars to pull onto Spring Street
front-first, thus increasing safety.
Service vehicle access will be convenient to either the
receiving/utility/trash area off the alley, or the subsurface
garage where the mechanical equipment will be located. The
garage access ramp will be snowmelted and well lit and the entire
~lley will be paved for improved safety and maintenance.
The surface check-in parking area provides an auxilliary
-
~
-
...
...
-.
.
oM'
oM
-
-,
'.
38
-
~
...
-
..
..
..
delivery and service vehicle access to the site as well as taxi
pick-up and drop-off.
Overall, the parking and traffic circulation design for this
project is a significant improvement over the existing
conditions. We believe it is deserving of the maximum number of
points available in this category.
-
-
...
-
-
...
Requested Score:
9 Points
...
~
4. Visual Impact
As discussed in Section III.B.1 and 2, the bulk and massing
of the proposed project is in scale and compatible with the
neighboring buildings and is less imposing than the Durant Mall,
Aspen Square Complex and the Hannah Dustin Building. The
existing Bell Mountain Lodge structure is two and one-half (2.5)
stories and will be preserved and remodeled so that it's visual
impact is reduced. The present location of the lodge structure
is situated as far to the back of the site as possible which
allows the maximum open green space to the front of the site
which faces on the intersection of cooper Avenue and Spring
Street. This will be preserved and the additions will be kept in
compatible scale and configured so that the visual impact on the
neighborhood is as inobtrusive as possible. There are no
designated view planes in the vicinity of this site. We believe
this project is deserving of the maximum number of points
available in this category.
'..
-
...
...
,~
-
-
,~
,.
....
...
-
..
Requested Score:
Resource conservation Techniques
9 Points
-
c.
-
39
-
-.
-.
,~,
'",
..,
-'
~
".'
..
..
..
..
.,...
-
,~
-
The resource conservation techniques to be incorporated in
the proposed development are described below.
1. Energy. The proposed development will be
designed to maximize energy conservation. Energy conservation
efforts will be directed toward systems which have proven
performance over extended periods of time, and which provide
maximum benefit for the least energy expenditure. The following
specific conservation features will be incorporated in the
detailed design of the project.
a) Building orientation. The majority of the
proposed development's dwelling units are oriented to the south
in order to take advatage of the views, passive solar gain and
natural daylighting.
b) Glazing. All glazing will be Low E, double-
glazed units in order to minimize conductive heat loss. The
majority of the project's glazing, however, is oriented to the
south. operable windows will be utilized to provide natural
cooling and cross ventilation during the warmer months.
c) Insulation. Insulation values in both the
free market and affordable housing units will significantly
exceed minimum insulation standards. Exterior walls and the roof
assembly will achieve a minimum value of R-21 and R-38,
respectively. Exterior and interior vapor barriers will be
utilized to reduce infiltration and maintain interior humidity
levels.
d)
Mechanical systems. The proposed development
40
'.'
.,
~
will employ gas fired high efficiency boilers for domestic hot
water and comfort heating to be delivered via ~adiant a heating
system. While the initial installation cost of such systems is
higher than for more conventional designs, energy consumption is
significantly less.
e) Woodburning Devices. The proposed
development will eliminate the existing wood burning fireplace.
Based on the above, the proposed development exceeds
applicable minimum standards and, therefore, is deserving of the
maximum number of points available in this category.
Requested Score: 2 Points
2. Water and Waste Water. All plumbing fixtures to be
used in the proposed development will be of a low flow, low water
consumption design. While irrigation will be required in order
to ensure the maintenace of the proposed project's landscaping, a
system zoned and timed for short interval cycles will be utilized
to reduce runoff, has been incorporated in the project's
landscape plan. Based on the above, the proposed development
exceeds applicable standards and, therefore, is deserving of the
maximum number of points available in this category.
Requested Score: 2 Points
3. Air. As discussed in Section III.H., the proposed
development will eliminate the existing wood burning fireplace.
The lobby will contain one (1) certified gas fireplace and the
meeting room will contain one (1) certified gas appliance. No
adverse impact upon the community's air quality will occur as a
'..
...
...,
..,
..,
..,
,....,
...
-,
-.
-'
,.
41
~;
'.
result of the proposed develpment. As one (1) certified wood
burning device is presently allowed per building, the exclusion
of such devices from the project exceeds applicable standards.
The proposed development, therefore, is deserving of the maximum
number of points available in this scoring category.
Requested Score: 4 Points
...
.~.
...
...
-
-
-,
D.
Ammenities for Guests.
...
.
The proposed project provides numerous amenities for it's
guests, which are set forth below.
1. On-Site Common Meeting Areas
The main lobby area will seve as a common living room for
guests with comfortable furniture around a gas fireplace.
Directly above will be a meeting room for small groups of up to
forty (40) people. This area provides a bar and catering kitchen
which allows it to be used for a variety of functions, including
continentia I breakfasts for guests as well as apre's ski
activities and parties. The size of these facilities appropriate
for the lodge and deserves the maximum points available for this
category.
-.
..
..
..
.'
..,
.'
..
..
..
-.
..
.
Requested Score: 9 Points
2. On-site Dining Facilities
The meeting room, with it's bar and catering kitchen, is
capable of serving guests for continental breakfasts and small
dinner parties of up to forty (40) people. In the landscaped
"front yard" open space, a barbeque facility will be located
adjacent to a pool patio which can serve food for parties. These
..
..
-
..
..
42
-
"
-'
..
'ill'
-,
.,
-,
..
...
...
..
...
...
..
..
-
-
-
'd
-
-
.w
-
4
-
..
..
-
-
-
amenities are more than adequate for the size of the lodge and
deserve the maximum points available for this category.
Requested Score: 6 Points
3. On-Site Accessory Recreational Facilities
At the garden level, an exercise room with apparatus will be
provided for guest use. In the landscaped "front yard" open
space, a heated swimming pool and whirlpool spa will be provided
for exercise, recreation and relaxation of guests, adjacent to
the barbeque area. Bicycle racks will be provided for the
convenience of guests as well. These ammenities are more than
adequate for the size of the lodge and deserve the maximum score.
Requested Score: 6 Points
E. Employee Housinq
As discussed in Section III.G., the Applicant proposes to
provide two on-site employee housing units. The units will each
have three (3) bedrooms and a full kitchen and will be used
solely for housing of the lodge employees. Based on Tourist
Accommodations Development standards, these units will house six
(6) employees which comprises sixty three percent (63%) of the
employees generated by the proposed development.
Under the provisions of Section a-106.G.(5) (b) of the
Regulations, the proposed development is entitled to 10.375
points, calculated as follows:
43
~I~
1.
o to 60% Housed
60% Housed X 1 Point =
6% Housing Factor
61% to 100% Housed
3% Housed X 1 Point =
8% Housing Factor
10.0 Points
-
2.
0.375 Points
.
-
Requested Score: 10.375 Points
'..
F.
a_habilitation/Reconstruction of Existinq units
-
As discussed in Section III, all of the existing twenty-one
....
-
(21) lodge units will be rehabilitated and/or reconstructed
'4
during remodeling to ~4apt them to the new configuration of the
-
proposed lodge development.
As an integral part of the total development plan, the
-
rehabilitated/reconstructed existing lodge units will be ready
-
for occupancy at the same time as the proposed new lodge units
and therefore the project is deserving of the maximum available
-
points in this category.
Requested Score:
15 Points
G. Bonus Points
This project meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the
-
review criteria in all categories for the Tourist Accommodations
Growth Managemen~uQta system competition. Therefore, we believe
it is deserving of the maximum available points in this category.
Requested Score:
5 Points
..
'4
""
-
44
-
...
V. SUKHARY AND CONCLUSION
The Bell Mountain Lodge has served the Aspen tourist base
for almost forty years. It has been owned by the Kappeli family
for close to thirty years. In the 1980's it was arbitrarily re-
zoned to Lodge preservation against the Kappeli's wishes. In the
late 1980's the Kappeli's together with M&W Properties applied to
have the property re-zoned to Office but withdrew the application
when it was clear that their request would not be granted. For
the past several years the owners have been unsuccessfully trying
to sell the Bell Mountain Lodge but with the present number of
lodge rooms it is not an economically viable business. After
extensive research and study it has been determined that the only
way t~,PRESERVB this Lodge is to expand and remodel.
Conventional financing can not be obtained for a project that
does not make sound economical sense and this Lodge does not make
economical sense without the entire requested expansion being
granted in one phase.
The Bell Mountain Lodge GMPQS application significantly
exceeds the mandated thresholds and will be an exceptional
beginning to the restoration of the eastern entrance to Aspen's
commercial core. The lack of previous years' awards of the
allowed lodge room quota coupled with the quality of this
particular project and the financial hardship that would be
created by an award of less than the lodge rooms necessary make
appropriate the award to the Bell Mountain Lodge of nineteen (19)
lodge rooms to permit the addition of ten (10) suites. The
-
..
..
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
......
-
..
..
..
..
..
-
-
..
45
-
-
..
-
..
t....
Planning and zoning commission and the Aspen city council has
previously indicated their desire for maintaining certain small
family operated lodges including the Bell Mountain Lodge. To
honor the "PRESERVE" in Lodge Preservation and to reward an
exemplary project the Bell Mountain should be awarded its'
request lodge rooms to permit the construction of this remodel.
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
-
~
-
-
~
-
-
~
...
-
-
-
-
...
..
..
-
46
..
-
-
...
..
..
..
-
..
.."
'.
...
"'"
...
-
...
...
-
-
-
-
~
.
-
-
Appendix A
-
,-
'8
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
Appendix A, Exhibit 1
-
-
1) Project Name Bell Mountain Lodqe
..
2 )
Project Location 720 East Cooper Ave., AKA Lot K, L, M, N, 0, P and
..
the West 20.66 feet of Lot Q, Block 105, City and Townsite at Aspen,
...
Pitkin County, CO.
...
3)
Present Zoning LP
4) Lot Size 20,066 sq. ft.
..
-
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Bell Mountain Lodqe, Inc.,
720 East Copper Avenue, P.O. Box 328, Aspen. CO. 81612,
-
-
Telephone 925-3675
-
6)
Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Charles Cunniffe Architects,
'-
520 East Hyman Ave., Suite 301, Aspen, CO 81611, 925-2290.
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
-
-
-
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
~
X Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment X GMQS Allotment
Lot SplH:/Lot Line GMQS Exemption
Adjustment
-
-
'-
-
-
..
8)
Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals
granted to the property).
-
.0--
..
See Attached, Section II
-
'8
9)
Description of Development Application.
...
See Attached, Section III
-
-
10)
Have
Yes
Yes
Yes
you attached the following?
Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents.
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents.
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for your Application.
-
-
-
-
.-
.
...
...
-
-
-
..
-
-
z
~Ill~
"0'"
UJ-Q:
r 3:" .
.., u Z
IJ.J l.lJ 0 UJ
Z Z..J Q..
U- t- m en
:J ctl .<1:
If) aO U. 0
Q.at- 0 C
I- 0.. 0 UJ c[
2 z..J t- a::
..I :i II.. en 0
w ..0 z..J
~ ~... 3: 0
LJ :::.:: UJ 0 u..
>0 en LLI t- ~
I-LLd:5t-
0:: 0 ff'l >- z
0.. ..J t-- t-;j
'" ..,; _ 0
.c. 0 N U (.)
\
w
- (!)
0
0
,- ..J
Z
<l:
I-
Z
::>
0
::!:
-
-
-
-
.
,
'.~, !
!I'i"
'l'"I'
"'1 .
,,, ,
1','1!
., .
~5~ !e
~;~=8~
;'15Et;
~! "5:0
'llh
is,,!,
o .~,.
d!i';
Ili;i;
'!j!!!i
!'ill "e
"!I!i.
i~5:1;:ull
-
..
..
~
-
..
-
: j,
~ ~ ~
h
jl
'.
tt J
~'1 ~
, ,
I
.
..........,...
...~"'..,.
~':':;/;~i'.={3rt ..1
.~? ;;r~:i:~-c. \: \ :! j
~'-----r--:-'~,.: lill..,."
-'0J"r,,;i !!!
,I~.,~# -;..' , " ,~~,: )':,1 ~:!.!
,: . - 1 ~: ~~". 1'1 I., _ ~"
'~~. ,~ ,~'- '''';',,''')~;!
" ".~'i!
:::......:.' ';, 'r~'- 1,- I - ,-, / :::-J-!, I:
_~;l '
,
,
~,...............-- ~.::..c.1" ~
~..,.,~
'.
...~._... :....,-.-~)
(;.:: ,...:.,......"~
.
I
I
~ I
1 I
L
~
~
;f
~, I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
..
j 3,:
."
r
~ :i
~ >. '~
1.~
~o$l
H
: !
.
,
II
I;
. A Exhibit 2
AppendlX 1 ' ~
I' l
.! i~ z
t.. _s
1 ,;. Q
1 H 11~,'
. I' ~'l
I .,' 3,; ~
1 .~ ~~~~i~
., \ l I,! Ij !;H j
~ {, ~ 1 fi: / "~ 1 i .:::! 8 t ~
~ t 1 J ; J f', j l ; ~ I' :J' J . ~ 1'0
ell 1;-;-l~.n"Ii'!!lr\o j', ~'" '.~
iL Q -1-~3.d,.j- -f~-~ "'_
c ~I jji'j'kHH'.51 ~
z /l.nn ,q"I~1 ,~ ~ .~
&lJ "'" ~ L ~.lj 1'1 ~ .1 w
C) '" )r~ - 10 .,. 0
~ II I" cen 'f 1 !~H 1 .
.0 ! IBl ...... 1-*
I
,
,
ii
"'
'.
...
o 0
..I
~
I~ I~ ~-Jg
I
'.
g)
3 ,
,
~1l
~ ,
Z I'
o ,
~ );
~
" ,
c: I
m,
I ~
I
I
I
I _
I I _~___I
--- C)
~ I
~ ~ I
8 ~ 1_
----..- .J ~
!
!
~ ~ ~
: ~ ~
fl"f'
~. 0 ~
". ~ '"
.,i. i .. ~
1: ~ ,
3i" j B
~: I ! '.
~; I 0
.1~ ~
I' ,
~: ..
;: ~
"
ij
,.
1:
':
~
1;
.1:
~
"
"
t~
:10
:<>
:....
~ ~ I i
. "} I ~
h ...
: ~ 'a Ii
i~ . I
:(,,) .. t
:(;) 0 f
:"
:Q3
'e
ii1~
:r ~
r -
',.
i....
:,."J
'"
I'
: .
: t
: ~
. .
. "
: 0;
.
~,.-- -. -~r
I
I
I
I'
I
I
o
-~
.
,
I""
"
o
"
o
<,-=---'
...,-._....,r-)
.-.."...,..
~ ....~o
~.~- ;1~"''' --
'.1 S (.....',..y~..~)
.
,
,
~
l
i
i,
!JNUJdS
"
..
.
"-
...
o
..I
,
1
,
1
'.
l
. j ~
, ~
,
z
...
g
I
,'1:1
>-i..i ;-_
.1"'-'ii
';; H ~
,~
-.
"
,,-
~
...
g
!
""0
..I
...
g
'\
'\
~ \ "
t
~
j
l
I
~
"
o
H~nos
f
.v
I
J
1
~ '
I
II)
.
: . ~:
i!!!li ;:.
Q, ~. '- ~
.<
1
:1
~
I
~
,I
D
J
lj
'I
~
'I
.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
'"
"<
..
.
;
"
Il:
....
...
<>
<>
"
'i,IoI,!
~"l;!"~~ "
.. 1':1,.:.
.., I!!i"!
~ i~~ilii;i
I!~~i: .
I ;, !il'!l
i l"';II;;
'I!;! !l' ,
1';.;1;.,
"'i I.'
!!:lii!l~ i
,iI"I,!. ,
'.
Appendix A, Exhibit 3,
Page 1 of 6
Form No. 1343 (CO-gO)
_ AL TA Plain Language Commitment
.
-
-
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
,.,.
...
-
..
-
....
agent for
-
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
....
..-
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. referred to in thisCommitment as the Company,
through its agent, identified above. referred to in this Agreement as the Agent, agrees to issue a policy to
you according to the terms of this Commitment When we show the policy amount and your name as the
proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown
in Schedule A
lithe Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months aftertheCom-
mitmentdate, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also our obligation under this Commitment
will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy,
Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A
The Requirements in Schedule 8,1,
The Exceptions in Schedule 8'2,
The Conditions on the reverse side of this page
,-
This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections 1 and 2 of SCHEDULE 8,
.-
..
First American Title Insurance Company
By(j/~xI~ PRESIDENT
-
BY
III",(/': C.)czeyLJ.
SECRETARY
r.,...-"...............lI>,"''-"
..,.-~ ., " f 'i ".\
:, \ '. .. ~ - '.; S II \~\t
; \..."=' ,..... -1>... ,
. to' ". '"Y+ t
/ ." - CoO .. C" I,
d' ...- .: . .......J
...... .'.,.
,...... .. c-> ~
= . = r.
',- ~,. . ~ t'
,-. . "b ;
':~,r .-' ;;- f
" '\- ,.
. . ..... " J'
.... ;-
; C ~ ','1. ...__....--
-
~
-
BY
COUNTERSIGNED
-
Appendix A, Exhibit 3,
Page 2 of 6
,-
~
..
CONDITIONS
,..
..
1. DEFINITIONS
(a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument
(b) "Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title
according to the state law where the land is located,
-
-
-
2, LATER DEFECTS
The Exceptions in Schedule B' Section 2 may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances
that appear for the first time in public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date
and the date on which all ofthe Requirements of Schedule B- Section 1 are met We shall have no liability
to you because of this amendment.
-
-
3, EXISTING DEFECTS
If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may
amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encum-
brances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knewofthis information and
did not tell us about it in writing,
4, LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY
Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment when you have met its
Requirements. If we have any liability to you for any loss you incurbecause of an errorin this Commitment
our liability will be limited to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted
in good faith to:
comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B, Section 1
or
eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B, Section 2,
We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our
liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you.
5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
Anyclaim. whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title tothe
land must be based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms.
,
...
..
...
'"
..
..
..
-
COMMITMENT
SOiEOOLE A
Appendix A, Exhibit 3
Page 3 of 6
-
-
,. 1. Effective Date:
RE/re
July 17, 1992 at 7:00 AM
Order No. 401665-c2
Cu:st....tle<:' Ref==o.='
...
..
2. ALTA Owner's Policy
PL~Sed Insured:
llroount:
-
-
-
3. ALTA Loan Policies
PL~ Insured:
llroount: $
.,;...
PL~ Insured:
llroount: $
4. '!he estate or inl=.t=:St in the land described or referred to in this Ccmnitm31t and
cn:weyed herein is:
FEE SIMPLE
and title thereto is at the effective date hereof ,,=1=1 in:
-
THE BELL MXlNI'AIN LC.O:;E, lJIC., a Colorado CDJ:IXJraticn
'"
CMrEr's Pranium: $
Lerxler's Premium: $
Pdd'l Lerner Q);j: $
Pdd'l 01arges: $
Tax Certificate: $
EOOorsaTEnt Q);j: $
TED Olarge.s: $
'IUl'AL 0llUlGES: $
issued by:
Aspen Ti tie CorpJraticn
600 E. !bpkins Avenue, #102
ASPEN OJ 81611
FAX (303) 920-4052
(303) 920-4050 D2nver 595-8463
-
-
-
-
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE IN3\.JRlIN::E CXMPANY
-
~
'.
-
5.
..
-
...
-
-
...
-
-
'.
..
-
,-
Appendix A, Exhibit 3
Page 4 of 6
COMMITMENT
SOIEOOLE A (cxntinued)
Plat id No. 1 1
Order No. 401665-<::2
'Ihe land refe=ed to in the Catmi 1nEnt is CXIIIering the land in the State of
Colorado, County of Pitkin, described as follows:
lots K, L, M, N, 0, P and the West 20.73 feet of lot Q,
Blcx:k 105,
CI'lY AND 'lU'INSITE OF ASPEN
-
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURAN::E a::MPAN'l
-
-
Appendix A, Exhibit 3
Page 5 of 6
-
COMMITMENT
...
SCHEOOLE B
Secticn 2
..
-
E:l\u:;I;rl'.l~
Order No. 401665-c2
..
'Ihe policy or policies to be issued will antam excepticns to the following matters
_ unless the same are di~~ of to the satisfacticn of the O:mpany:
... Any loss or damage, iIcluding attorney fees, by reascn of th3 matters sl:xJwn below:
- 1.
Arq facts, rights, interests, or claims which are rot sl:xJwn by th3 public .Leco.:ds
wt which CD.Jld ascertained by an inspecticn of said lan:l or by making ~ of
persct1S in possessicn thereof.
-
-
-
2. Easarents or claims of easE5IEI1ts, IXlt sl:xJwn by th3 public records.
3. Discrepaoc:ies, cx:nflicts in b::JurxEry 1ims, sOOrtage in area, erx::roachrents, an:l
any otl2r facts which a =-ect SUIvey ~d disclose and which are IXlt sl:xJwn by
,- th3 public :r€sX>.LUs.
.. 4. Arq lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material lEretofore or lEreafter
fumished, iJ.ifOS€d by law an:l IXlt sl:xJwn by th3 public records.
5. Defects, liens, enc:umbrarx:-es, adverse claims or otl2r matters, if any, created,
first appearing in th3 public recx:lrds or attachi.nJ subsequent to th3 effective date
rereof, wt prior to th3 date th3 p.L~ insu:red acquires of record for value th3
estate or inte:rest or IIDrtgage therecn =vered by this CamIi trrent.
. 6. Taxes due an:l payable; an:l any tax, special assessrents, charge or lien iJllflosed
for water or ~ service, or for any otl2r special taxing district.
7. Restricticns, which do IXlt cx:ntain a forfeiture or reverter clause, wt anitting
restricticns, if any, as anta.i.red in th3 Deeds frem M. Go Miller, as County an:l
Prcbate Judge of Pitkin County, Colorado to Ann 0Jn:an, et a1 recx:l:rded Novanber 4,
1887, in I3cJd{ 59 at Page 78; Novanber 5, 1887, in I3cJd{ 59 at Page 79; December 2,
1887, in I3cJd{ 59 at Page 117; December 9, 1887, in I3cJd{ 59 at Page 186 an:l Janua:ry
16, 1888, in I3cJd{ 59 at Page 287.
"No ti tie shall be 00reby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or a:{tl&,
or to any valid mining claim or p::>ssessicn held urrler existing laws; an:l provided
further, that this deed is 00reby made and declared to be subject to all o::xrliticn,
limitaticns an:l :rest:ricticns CXJnta.i.red in Secticn 2386 of th3 RelTised Statutes of
th3 United States, ro far as th3 sane is applicable thereto."
...
8. All ores an:l minerals bearing rcx;k embraced within subject property, and ro nuch of
tlDse porticns of subject property bereath its surface as may be ~"'sary for
mining p..u:poses, with th3 right to enter within said premises with urrlerground
v.o:rkings an:l to mine, extract an:l rarcve th3 sane, as granted by Mary J. Ball, et
a1 to E. L. Ogeden by th3 Deeds r"'-ULUed May 21, 1891, in I3cJd{ 93 at Page 97; May
29, 1891, in I3cJd{ 93 at Page 117 an:l June 11, 1891, in I3cJd{ 93 at Page 149.
- (Ccntinued)
~
-
..
4
'. FIRST lIMERIClIN TITLE llSlJR.l\I'CE a:MPANY
~
,-
,. 9.
-
-
- 10.
...
Elu...J:.l-nOOS (cx:ntinued)
Appendix A, Exhibit 3,
Page 6 of 6
Order No. 401665-c2
All ores am Illimra1s am m:iJEral bearirYJ rock anbraoed within subject prcp:;!rty,
am so much of t:OOse partialS of subject property bereath its surface as may be
,....,.-.o"'sary f= mining purposes, with the right to enter within said pranises with
urrlergrourx:l world.n;;Js am to mine, extract am rarove the sarre, as granted by
Robert Shaw, et al be the Deed recorded June 13, 1891, in Bcok 98 at Pages 511,
518 am 521 am July 15, 1891, in Bcok 105 at Page 39.
Any am all uru:edeellled tax sales.
1'Ol'E: Upcn receipt of a Certificate of Taxes !AJe eviderx:iI:g that there are fX)
- ex:ist:iIYJ qJen tax sales, the above exc:I;!pti.en will I'Dt awear en the policies to
be issued hereuOOer. '
...
-
-
..
-
<.
-
...
.
...
".
-
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE IN5llRlIl'l:E CXMPANY
-
.~..
Appendix A, Exhibit 4
~
-
August 1, 1992
-
'..
M
-
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Bell Mountain Lodge
Box 328, Aspen, Colorado 81612
...
.
..
Re: Authorization to Represent
~
Dear Ms. Lamont:
,-
Please consider this letter our authorization for Charles
Cunniffe Architects to represent us in the processing of a
tourist accommodation growth management application for the
development of our property which is located at 720 E. Cooper
Avenue in the city of Aspen, Colorado. Charles Cunniffe
Architects is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect
to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned
application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
sincerely,
Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc.
/"'" ' )
y/d~J--
Nancy Kappeli,
v .
K <':<..--1'2- t~ ~_.e...
Secreta y - Treasurer
-
...
..
.,-
-
-
-
~
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
'.
-
.
,.
~
.
Appendix B
-
..
/ SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER tNC./ ~--, "
Appendix B, Exhibit 1, Page 1 of 4
P,O, Box 2155
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-6727
f-h Fax (303) 925,4157
W CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
-
-
August 2, 1992
'\\"\" i
'~
~
-
~
.
Mr. Jan Derrington
CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOC., ARCHITECTS
520 East Hyman Ave" Ste, 301
Aspen, CO, 81611
..
..
...
RE: Bell Mountain Lodoe Growth Manaoement Application. Enoineerino Report
..
'.
Dear Jan:
..
,-
This letter comprises an engineering report regarding relevant aspects of the Bell Mountain
Lodge Growth Management Application. The Bell Mountain Lodge owners are submitting an
application to the City of Aspen for a growth management allotment under the Tourist
Accommodations development criteria, Section 8-106 G" of the City of Aspen land use code,
I have endeavored herein to provide comments appropriate to the engineering-related criteria of
the land use code,
Introduction
The Bell Mountain Lodge was originally built in the late 1950's and is located on Lots K through
P and part of Lot Q of Block 105 of the Original Aspen Townsite, The property is on the
northeast corner of Spring Street and Cooper Avenue and is zoned LP, The existing building
contains 21 lodge rooms and the renovation/expansion will result in a total of 46 rooms including
40 lodge rooms (configured as 15 two,room suites and 10 one,room units) as well as 6 on-site
employee bedrooms, The expansion will provide at-grade parking for 2 vehicles as well as an
underground parking facility for 21 vehicles capable of expansion to combine with other
subgrade parking contemplated within Block 105, Engineering-related aspects of the Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS) criteria will be addressed as follows;
8.106 G.111 Availabilitv of Public Facilities and Services
(a) Water The project site is adjacent to the City water mains in both Spring Street and Cooper
Avenue. Both are relatively new (1980) large diameter mains in good condition, From
discussions with City of Aspen Water Superintendent Larry Ballenger, service is available from
either the 12 inch diameter main in Spring or the 14 inch line in Cooper. The development will
be served by a single tap and master meter, probably from the Cooper Avenue main. This
service connection will be sized to supply the needs of the entire project.
'~
-
Mr. Ballenger further indicated that no particular improvements are needed to the water system
in the immediate area, The two mains are in good condition, fire hydrants are available at the
southwest corner of the Spring and Cooper intersection and on the northwest corner of the
intersection at Original and Cooper. The proposed development, therefore, can be handled by
existing water mains in the immediate vicinity as further evidenced by the attached letter from
Judy McKenzie of the City of Aspen Water Department.
,-
..
-
-
1001 Grand Avenue. Suite 2.E . Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 . 303 945-1004
-
Exhibit 2, Page 2 of 4
-
...
""
-
August 2, 1992
Mr, Jan Derrington
Page 2
-
..
..
(b) Sanitarv Sewer The project site is also adjacent to an existing sanitary sewer main in the
alley of Block 105. The attached memo from Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD)
Manager Bruce Matherly indicates that service is available to the proposed project via connection
to the existing sewer line in the alley. The existing 8 inch diameter sewer main in the adjacent
alley is in good condition and does not require upgrade to serve the Bell Mountain Lodge
renovation/expansion, Bruce indicates, however, that downstream constraints exist on the older
Galena Street line downstream of this site, The Bell Mountain Lodge project would be required
to pay a tap fee surcharge toward the improvement of the Galena line by the ACSD. This
development, therefore, will contribute toward an off-site sewer system upgrade that will improve
the availability of public sewer service in the area.
-
...
""
-
-
-
-
(c) Storm Drainaae All existing streets adjacent to the site are currently curbed and guttered and
drain well to a storm inlet on the northwest corner of Block 105, Discussions with City of Aspen
Street Superintendent Jack Reid indicate no problems related to drainage in the immediate
neighborhood that might be addressed by the development.
The existing lodge includes substantial paved areas and a structure with no apparent on-site roof
drains or drainage retention system. The site plan design of the lodge expansion will incorporate
an on-site drywell to maintain historic drainage patterns at current levels. Should the City so
require, the proposed on-site system could easily be expanded to reduce off-site flows from
current development levels.
(d) Fire Protection As indicated in the water service section above, fire hydrants exist at the
southwest corner of the Spring and Cooper intersection as well as at the northwest corner of
Original and Cooper. The project site is also just 4 blocks from the Aspen Fire District's station
on Hopkins Avenue and is within a 3 to 5 minute response time, Fire Marshal Wayne Vandemark
indicates that no special provisions for fire protection or access are required beyond normal code
requirements (including an automatic alarm system).
,-
(e) Roads Spring Street and Cooper Avenue adjacent to the site are benefitted by the site
design both in terms of the elimination of one intersection conflict on Cooper Avenue, rerouting
of the guest traffic accessing the site to the adjacent alley and acquisition of additional on-street
parking, The Asoen Area Comorehensive Plan: Transoortation Element as prepared by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office in 1987, indicates traffic volumes on Spring Street and Cooper
Avenue of 1,300 and 3,900 vehicles per day respectively during peak ski season (which is
therefore probably higher than annual average vpd), Even using peak winter season figures and
assuming a growth of 2% per year since 1987, current traffic volumes are probably in the range
of 1,435 vpd on Spring and 4,310 vpd on Cooper as of 1992, These figures are well below the
design capacities of the respective streets of approximately 10,000 vpd,
-
'"
...
..
""
Utilizing Pitkin County's trip generation figures for lodge uses and assuming a strong transit
option (the site is adjacent to bus routes on Spring Street and four blocks from the Rubey Park
,-
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC,
-
Exhibit 1, Page 3 of 4
...
....
-
August 2, 1992
Mr, Jan Derrington
Page 3
..
Transit Center) the developments 19 additional rooms can be expected to result in a nominal 38
additional vehicles per day impacting adjacent streets. Traffic impacts, therefore, will be minimal
and revisions to curb cuts and on,street parking will actually benefit adjacent streets.
..
...
..
The applicant also proposes significant improvements to the alley of Block 105 including;
-
.
Relocation of utility pedestals, which currently encroach into the alley, into an on,
site trash and utility area,
-
-
.
Transplanting of encroaching trees.
-
.
Paving of the entire alley from Spring Street to Original Street
-
These improvements will render the alley access to the proposed underground parking facility
attractive to guests as well as reducing dust, drainage impacts and maintenance problems for
the City of Aspen and all other properties abutting the alley.
Improvements proposed by this applicant will serve to improve all adjacent streets by eliminating
the current access conflict on the more heavily travelled Cooper Avenue, removing
encroachments from the alley, paving the alley and establishing additional on,street public
parking where curb cuts are being removed. This project, therefore, results in improvements to
the condition, safety and use patterns of the adjacent street network,
8-106 G.l21 Qualitv of or Improvements to Desian
.-
(c) Parkin a and Traffic Circulation The existing site supports a 21 unit lodge with 10 actual on-
site parking spaces (I am defining an on-site space as a parking space which is entirely on the
property and which meets the dimensional requirements of a full parking space), The
renovation/expansion proposal will provide a total of 23 on-site spaces including a replacement
of the 10 that currently exist, 0.5 per bedroom for the 19 bedrooms that are being added to the
project, 1,5 on-site employee spaces and 2 spaces for check,in use. Of the proposed total of
23 spaces, 21 spaces will be located in an underground parking structure and 2 spaces will be
located off the Spring Street curb cut for guest check-in as well as overnight use. The subgrade
parking structure will be designed, to the extent feasible, to anticipate possible future connection
to any other parking structure that may be built within the block.
-
As discussed in the roads section of the public facilities portion of this report, this development
results in several improvements to circulation on adjacent streets by eliminating a conflict from
Cooper Avenue and paving the alley. From an internal standpoint, this site design will improve
internal circulation by relocating the parking access to the alley and providing an adequate trash
and utility area off the alley for deliveries and trash removal. On-site parking is entirely removed
from public view into the underground structure and at-grade landscaping is significantly
improved as a result. In short, the proposed site design utilizing underground parking and alley
access achieves all of the goals identified in the growth management criteria for parking and
traffic circulation and should receive a maximum score in this area.
".. I
,,.
...
..
-
!
-I
-I
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
..
-
Exhibit 1, page 4 of 4
..
"-
".-
August 2, 1992
Mr. Jan Derrington
Page 4
....
..
-
Conclusions
-.
The Bell Mountain Lodge site is ideally located for lodge use from several standpoints including
proximity to the downtown core, location on several transit routes, access to adequate utilities
and proximity to Aspen Mountain. The proposed renovation/expansion will serve to improve the
few shortcomings of the current site plan while allowing the existing lodge to be preserved within
the intent of the LP zone, The development plan offers the opportunity for improvements to the
general neighborhood in the areas of sewer service, roads, elimination of encroachments and
screening of on-site parking.
..
'"'
..
-
-
I hope these comments are adequate for submission purposes for the Bell Mountain Lodge
project Tourist Accommodations Growth Management application, Feel free to contact me if I
may provide further information or assistance.
"""
Very Truly Yours,
SCHMUESER0Ra:l:ER IN~~ ::::
Jay W. ammond, P,E,
Principal, Aspen Office
JHlin9102BGMP
-
...
...
..
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC,
-
Appendix B, Exhibit 2
CITY OF ASPEN
.,
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303.920.5030 Customer Service
303.920.5197 Fax
,~
,..,
-
,~
July 28, 1992
Charles Cunniffe
520 E. Hyman Avenue, Ste 301
Aspen, Co 81611
Attn: Jan Darrington
-
-
-
-
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge
Dear Jan;
The City of Aspen does have sufficient supplies of potable
water to serve the proposed project at 720 E. cooper Avenue.
All design, materials, and construction shall be in accordance
with the established standards of the City of Aspen. The Developer
shall be responsible for all tap fees and all other applicable
provision of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Please call me if you have any questions.
sincerely,
~ ,^ /,C~ /
''I~''d lie. J!
,/'. .,
'Judy McKenz1e, Customer SerV1ce superv1sor
City of Aspen, Water Department
-
cc: Larry Ballenger, Water Superintendent
~..
4
<.
...
..
..
...or
'......
...
Appendix B, Exhibit 3
-
...
Aspen Gonsolidated Sanitation CJJist1rict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-
...
Tele, (303) 925,3601
FAX #(303) 925,2537
..
Sy Kelly, Chairman
John J. Snyder, Treas.
Louis Popish, Secy,
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
...
...
-
MEMORANDUM
...
DATE: July 29. 1992
-
TO: Jan Derrington, Architect
FROM: Bruce Matherly
-
RE: Bell Mountain Lodge Project
*****************************************************************
This memo is to confirm that service is available for the
Bell Mountain Lodge from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District. The District line is located in the alley of Block 100
and currently serves that area.
We have not seen recent plans
contemplated for the Bell Mountain Lodge
comments as the project works it's way
department's process of review.
for the development
and will make detailed
through the planning
There are
the cost of
development.
downstream constraints in the Galena Street line.
repairing which. will be prorated to upstream
in the form of a total connection charge surcharge.
-
".,.
..
.
-
...
..
.-
-
..
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976, 1986 ' 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
C>
:r
1:
'"
~
z
~
3
m
z
o
a
C>
o
."
iii'
~
."
.2.
m
~
."
:r
o
~
~
I
r
~.
C>
:r
1:
'"
~
..
i
'"
~
z
~
3
~
<.-1'\
-.D
v.J
\.N
i
~
!l.
f
."
.2,
~
."
:r
o
~
~
-I
I' ~" ~
;.... N r-
>-.'"
:;, \
-} \.>..:
r "~
'-.J
r-,,\
c
~
r
;5\,
1>.
Z'
~
z
ma,Q
(0 (.oJ O~
00"Tl
O(X)",
<?<?o
......-'-11I..
"''''Ul
"''''I>
r-
m
Ul
go
",0
m c:
;:~
00
00
~Q.
m
'T1
:g
2!.
-I
S
I>
r-
1 ~
"-
1-.:
'tI
r-
I>
Z
Z
Z
, , "
al!:lO
00"Tl
om!!
'?9n
~~m
"''''Ul
"''''I>
r-
m
!I,l
~
'---
-'
";-
"i
..I
r----
r
go
",0
.. c:
..=.~
00
o 0
~Q.
..
or
..
2!.
~
(::'
Q
\J
"
000
000
,........ ....
}tl~
" :II
'f' " :II
",' I>
I:" I , , r-
~"''''"Tl
",,,,~n:lm
~,Jl.~c>>m
.0000(1)
r\,~~~"
~~!:lC;
-~
>-e
~,
mImm
::J 0 :::J ::J
<c(QCC
_00 -.-.
a _.::J::J
:::J ::J CD CD
3CO!.!.
.. ""
" ""e
~
I
..
III
'"
'"
00
~g
"
.:<
888
~~~
bltl~
:II
m
"Tl
m
:II
:II
I>
I I , . r-
!:l!:l!:l!:lm"Tl
U)(,)(.r,)(,)
~.J:lo.~c>>m
oooO(IJ
N~~~..
0"'''''''
c.noww
mImm
::J 0 ::J ::J
S. ; eg. CQ.
o _.::J::J
::J ::J CD CD
3UJ!.!.
.. ""
" "''''
~
I
..
III
'"
'"
00
~'g
"
.:<
:II
m
"Tl
m
'mmo,o,o,mmmmm
!:l*W(.OJ(.OJWWWWWW
N NNNNN........................
t.J .c..JI\)......OCOC>>'-Ie>>
Y19'?C?C?C?C?<?C?9C?
................................................................
,J::a.,J:a.,J::a.t.Jt.J(UCUNNNI\)
COO)(O(,JI\)......o(OQ)....,m
N<IlCl>I>I>CI>CI>CI>GlGlGl
OOiii==CCC;:;:;:
:!.p)a:::::......N mCIJDJ""'[] ""'[]""'[]
::J ooen------
"'n]>__::!10Gl"TlOGl
"'tJ::o."'b CD CD ::J !e. CD :r CD CD
_~~"C"C ~m::J.. III -Ill"
Ill,,-o]>]> -, -..
"-'<-0-0 iDOl i5';
OC !!.-o"C 0._ 0.-
~g ~~
~ ~ :t. =t.
_ 00
""
"' II>
I . , I I . . I I men
!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l!:l",,",
N.J:lo.NNNNN........................
(.oJc.n.Jlo.WI\)......OCOCD.....a>
C{1<?C?99999999
................................................................
,J::a..J:lo..Jlo.(.o)tr,)(,)t.JNNNN
(DC>>COWN......ocom....,cn
NO <IlCl>I>I>CI>CI>CI>GlGlGl
O---CCC
~,Ill !!l:::N<Il<Il<Il~~~
c5 a~cncn" 0 -Gl ~ ~ ~
0_--. -nOG>
""'[] _ CD CD.::::J !l CD 5" CD CD
Dr)>~"'O"'O ~I>> i I>> it:::J
",,-0]>]> =~-=..
_. <."." .. III .. ~
oC: ~"'O"'O 0._ o.~
::r!!l. ==
~~ &,~.
a gg
II> II>
o
o
C
z
:;!
%
~
o
:II
o
~~~~~~
CO(x)'"'-JQ)U'Im
~~~~~:II
U'IU'1U'1U'1U'1<
U'I-Clo(.LH\'.......
-I
o
Z
oCl>~~m
CD eli' i: :!!': ><
3 ,,~' B ..
o~~~3
=:;:' 0 "S
-.0 CD -,
o CD < 0
:::J < CD :::J
~:-
"~ ,
8
c
z
:;!
%
~
:II
o
0, I I I I "tI
!:l~~~~ill
WWWWW(IJ
CPCP-;-J<<PC{1m
..............................:11
U'IU'1U'1U'1U'1<
U'I-CloWN.......
-I
o
Z
OCl>~~m
CD cli' i: :!!': ><
3 "cl' B ..
!2..;::a::~~3
-, 0 "'0
g.OCD 6'
:::J CD < :::J
~~
00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
owwwwwwwww
~",,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,l\)'"
o (,,)(,,)WN......O(X)-...JU'I
9rprp9999999
0.....................................................
OU'lU'lU'l~~WWWW
8-...J'"'-J0......oco'"'-JQ)~
o
~
o
....
o
CCI>NCI>I>)>CI>CI>GlGl
rna:i'O -=TC:C:~~
CD:::J 2.!.....NCDCD"'lJ"'lJ
-I :::J (J)(J)----
I>> ~co 1!' _ _ ::!1 00 'T1 0
>< ~ "'lJ~ CD CD:::J 5'0
-3 ii1~"'O"'O ~~ I>>:::J
Q"""S1]>]> ..-ljl
CI> ol>>'''b-c "S "'0
-. -"'0"'0 c: -
co ::r = = I>> c:
:::J CD ~~ _ ~
"'lJ ~ ~.~.
.. 00
3 ~ ~
;-'
~.
~~~~~~i~~~
'i'NNOOOOOOO
. I I I I I I . .
0......................................................
OU'lU'lU'l~.('O)('O)ww
O'"'-J'"'-Jo......oCO'"'-JQ)~
o
o
~
o
....
o
C CI> N rn )> ... CI> CI> G) G)
CD cli' 0 ~=~CC!:!:
CD:::J 2.!.....NCDCD"'lJ"'lJ
~l~~rere~~~~
0'3Dr~"'O"'O~gAl:::J
~"""~-6']> ..-ljl
CI> 01>> "b "S "'0
_. -"0"0 c: -
co ::r lfg= Al c:
:::J ~ ~Al - ~
~ '" 6'6'
3 iil iil
fa""
or-
-I>
:;!z
.. Cl
c
Ul
m
I>
'tI
'tI
r-
o
~
o
Z
"Tl
m
m
Ul
~
"V
m
i!!:
..-"V
~!!!=i
-"1";
!!!~ -
$'0 Z
1O!2.G>"V
",0".-
9iila;:l>
"'S-::lZ
lilo>~ Z
o.....cn_
en..Z
::! Cl
o
"Tl
"TI
(';
m
~
C')-,
tr'-.
,
.~
~
n~
:;!z
.' Cl
C
Ul
m
I>
'tI
'tI
r-
g
o
Z
"Tl
m
m
Ul
)0'
1Il~
>.1
~Jlz
~h~
~~laE
en Z
:: Cl
o
"TI
"TI
i:t
~
~
()
'0