The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.BrassBed926 E Durant Ave.38A-866�A�6 m coLT BRASS BED 1986 - L73 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63721 -47331 - 52100 - 63722 - 47332 - 52100 - 63723 - 47333 - 52100 - 63724 - 47341 - 52100 - 63725 - 47342 - 52100 - 63726 - 47343 - 52100 - 63727 - 47350 - 52100 - 63728 - 47360 - 52100 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 - 52100 00123 -63730 -47380 - 52100 00115 -63730 -47380 - 52100 County 00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 - 63712 - 47332 - 52200 - 63713 - 47333 - 52200 - 63714 - 47341 - 52200 - 63715 - 47342 - 52200 - 63716 - 47343 - 52200 - 63717 - 47350 - 52200 - 63718 - 47360 - 52200 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 - 52200 00123 -63730 -47380 - 52200 00113 - 63731 - 09000 - 52200 00113 -63732 -09000 - 52200 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63061 - 09000 - 52200 - 63063 - 09000 - 52200 - 63062 - 09000 - 00000 - 63066 - 09000 - 00000 - 63069 - 09000 - Name: _ Address: GMP/CONCEPTUAL GMP/PRELIMINARY GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/PRELIMINARY SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL COUNTY CODE ALMANAC COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: 50 00 Check # Additional Billing: Date: — # of Hours: I. CASELOAD Si4MKARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: ZJ C1. DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: PROJ E T NAME: S1111I (U) tom. � � - APPLICANT: Applicant Addres /Phone• REPRES EN TAT IV E :�� Representative A,' dress/Phone: Type of Application: GMP/Subdivision/PUD 11 fi (--- E NO. STAFF; A6Z 1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2L7 -00 _ 2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 II. Subdivision/PUD 1 . -once pc ual Submission 14 $1 , 900 .00 2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220 .00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 IIIII . All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1, 490 .00 `,/IV. All "One Step" Appl ications 5 $ 680 .00 V. Referral Fees - Environ ental Health, Housing Office 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00 2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00 Referral Fees - Engineering Minor Applications / 80.00 Major Applications 200.00 &Z CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES5 NO DATE REFERRED: � INITIALS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- REFEERRALS: / City Atty ✓ Aspen Consol. S.D. School District City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Z Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center p_________________ l INAALL ROOTING: DATE ROUTED- / 9 7C, IN IT IAL : l r v Cit-y Atty ZCity Engineer V Building Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Other - C//-\ �,A + 1986 L-3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLY SHEET PROJECT: BRASS BED INN P&Z VOTING MEMBERS: WELTON JIM DAVID AL JASMINE MARI ROGER MULT. AVG. 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) b. Sewer Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) C. Storm Drainage 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 (1) d. Fire Protection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) e. Roads 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) SUBTOTAL: 6 6 5_ 5 5 5.3 _J5 _ _5 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN a. Architectural Design 6 6 6 6 6 _6 6 (3) b. Site Design 6 6 7.5 6 6 _6 _ 6 (3) C. Energy Conservation 2 2 2.5 2 2 2 2 (1) d. Parking and Circulation 6 3 4.5 3 _ _ 3 (3) e. Visual Impact 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 (3) SUBTOTAL: 26 23 26.5 23 23 3 23 23.9 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS a. Meeting Areas, Lobbies, Conference Facilities 6 6 6 6 6_ _6_ 6 (3) b. Dining Facilities 6 6 6 6 _�66 (2) C. Recreational Facilities 4 4 4 4 4_ 4 4 (2) SUBTOTAL: 16 16 1_ 16 1 �_ 16 16 16 4. CONFORMANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY GOALS a. Employee Housing 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 (1) b. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units .5_ 15 15 15 15 15 5_ (1) SUBTOTAL: 30 30 30 30 3Q 30 30 30 TOTAL POINTS (1-4) 78 7_ 77.5 74 74 L— 7_ 75.2 5. BONUS POINTS 0 0 __5 _0 Q_ 0 0 (1) 0.7 TOTAL POINTS: 78 _75 82.5 74 _74 74 74_. 75.9 CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Planning and Development Director 'r1 d(Vril'�s1:.:7.Y.%.G•.cL'l..itGs�.•;+.h13P1..:r.ri::a�=+'+i1k...wJb..":iii4H:w'.:F.Yc.�.HV.Y:!/Y.asr57..u�...�....-�S1Yaw+1?�7iL�,f.. s"'- .�:..wrS:lbn..r eu.... -,:c...nur••. r..4.u-.eRs�1.., ... RECORD OF PRfKT-,EDING S 100 Leaves Resolution No. (Series of 198G) A RESOLUTION GR1'NTING LODGE ALLOTIMENT TO THE BRASS BED INN PURSUANT TO THE 1986 L-3 GRff:'111M I•i.%UAGE ENT COI=:PETITION WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.6(a) of the Municipal Code as amended, October lst of each year is estab- lished as the deadline for submission of applications for lodge development allotments within the city of Aspen; and 11HEREAS, pursuant to this provision, an application in the L-3 zone was submitted by the Brass Bed Inn for a nine unit lodge allotment, and no applications were submitted in the L-1, L-2, CC, CL and other zone district category; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on November 18, 1986 to consider the L-3 application, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the project; and WHEREAS, the project met the minimum threshold of 60 total points and did also meet the thresholds in the individual categories, and did receive a total average score, not including bonus points, of 75.2 points from Commission members; and WUEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made by the Brass Bed Inn applicant in scoring this project, including but not limited to the following: A. The existing structures will be demolished and a new structure containing 29 lodge units will be built. The new lodge will contain 3.3 ,800 s. f_. of which at least RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 5,875 s.f. will be "non-unit/public" space. Included in this space shall be a lounge of about 295 s.f., including a fireplace and entry lobby, a 700 s.f. dining area, a jucuzzi, ski storage room, sauna and r / terraces for_ at least all but 3 of the rooms. Tw-a- cf� employee units will be constructed containing a total 01 of about 488 s.f. H. All existing tress on the site will be retained or, if located within the footprint of the new building, will be replanted elsewhere on the site. Any replanted tree which does not survive shall. be replaced with a new tree of similar dimensions to the satisfaction of the City Parks Director. A detailed landscape plan will be provided to the Planning Office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project specifying the form and dimensions of the landscaping to be provided and adding to the concept plan low growing shrubs along the street. C. A revised site plan shall be provided to the Planning Office prior to building permit issuance designating eleven rather than ten parking spaces off the alley. The site plan shall also show the new sidewalk along Durant, interior walkways and terrace around the jacuzzi. D. Utilities will be placed underground on the site and the trash area and meters will be screened. E. Passive solar orientation will be employed, as will exterior wall insulation at a value in excess of R-25 and roof insulation value equal to or greater than R- 30. All windows and doors will have double paned insulating glass. Active freon collectors will be used for domestic water heating and will be located so as not to be apparent on the exterior of the building. F. The two employee units will each include a kitchen and bath. One unit will house one person and the other two persons, and both will be restricted to low income rental and occupancy guidelines, as specified in the Housing Authority memo of November 6, 1986. G. Materials for the building will be wood and stucco, and will be used to create an "alpine chalet" appearance similar to. the existing main lodge facility and as depicted in concept in the application. ; and ,- .<� .,..- .. _ _....»..,,�-e....+,a�c'ew ... ....--.r—.�...._. -., -�-e^�rrll9l^r^^".."^.'. • ,.. T+r ,_ _ ..-.._�._.�_..._�.....7�fL; --+�.- . .�--...-.w�..�.... RP.MIZI) OF Plt(►(•;;F;DINGS 100 Leaves ====c==--��===c=�aaaammasa: r; r� a asrs==a.•-...`=�===c===cs______________� � WHEREAS, the quota available lit the 1986 L-3 zone distriVI competition has been calculated by I.he Planning Office as beil)(I six units; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Cot►t%,. i 1 , at a regular meeting 00 December 8, 1986, reviewed the sc("% I.rlg by the Commission of th' Brass Bed Inn and finds that the pix units available from tl►" 1986 L-3 quota and three of the u"i i s from the 1987 quota shoal 01 be awarded to the project for the 1'%,\Ilowing reasons: 1. This is a hi g!i quality l,roj ect which substantial 1 V exceeded the ::ripetiti� ,, threshold, and no pubIJ purpose would 1x� served making it compete again next year or by pha:-,i iq the p.t ' 1ect. 2. This project, at nine tts, is consistent with th" philosophy of L-3 ZO"`6 to permit small expansion" of existing l o, = as are ; ;Ice ntive for their upgrade. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV111' ,Iy the City Council of Aspe►Ii Colorado that it does hc, ty allot`+,�.e the six units remaining III the 1986 L-3 quota and three uni 4 ,� from the 1987 quota to th" Brass Bed Inn. BE IT FURTHER Rh: %.'1.VED by ..he City Council of Asp(. II r Colorado that the above, 311.locat, � shall expire pursuant 1 " Section 24-11.7 (a) of "tunic; "al Code in the event plant'i specifications and fees the issuance of a buildll,'l permit for the proposed :.�' t' are -�,;,, submitted on or before J111 V 1, 1989. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Dated:- ee e-(,- I O , 1986. r , William L. Stirling, Mayo I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting to be held on the Dday of�1986. Kathryn Roch, City Clerk AR.012 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director "Nff RE: Brass Bed Inn - GMP Allocation; GMP Exemption DATE: December 1, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that you adopt Resolu- tion + ol .,_, Series of 1986 granting a 9 unit L-3 allotment to the Brass Bed Inn. We also recommend that you exempt the proposed new employee unit from the competition requirement. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None. BACKGROUND: The Brass Bed Inn is an existing 20 unit tourist accommodations facility located at 926 E. Durant Avenue in the L- 3 zone district. The owners propose to demolish the several structures on the site and to replace them with a new structure of approximately 13,800 square feet, at an FAR of 1:1 (this represents an increase of about 5,100 s.f. from the present buildout) . Copies of the application describing the proposal in more detail have been submitted to you separately. The Planning and Zoning Commission scored this project under the L-3 quota system regulations at its regular meeting on November 18, 1986. As shown in the attached tally sheet, the project met the thresholds in the individual categories and substantially exceeded the 60% minimum overall threshold by scoring 75.2 points prior to bonus, which is 75% of the points available. It is, therefore, eligible for consideration for an allotment by Council. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The L-3 zone district GMP competition has been in effect since 1983. As this is the fourth year of the competition, and the annual quota is ten units per year, there have been a total of forty units available, including those for this year. Following is a summary of the awards to date: - . ? - 1 =- • • 1. 1983 Hotel Lenado 4 The Aspen 3 1984 Hotel Aspen 13 1985 Crestahaus 14 Total 34 Therefore, since this project requests nine new units, the applicant is requesting the six units which are available this year and three units from the 1987 quota. This was the only L-3 project submitted in 1986 and since it met the competitive threshold, it is automatically entitled to the six units avail- able this year. Therefore, the only allotment issue before you is whether or not to award the three units from the 1987 quota. The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that you allocate the additional three units for the following reasons: 1) This is a high quality project which substantially exceeded the minimum competitive threshold. No public purpose would be served by requiring the project to compete again next year for the additional three units, nor would it be sensible to force the applicant to phase the additional units. 2) When the ten unit L-3 quota was adopted, it was recognized that it might be necessary to award slightly in excess of the adopted rate to allow small projects to be built. The ten unit quota sets the tone for the zone district of small expansions and should not be revised; however, it should be applied flexibly to provide an incentive for lodge upgrade. There is one additional issue for you to address at this time. The applicant intends to provide two employee housing units on site. The applicant has submitted a revised program from that contained in the application (attached) , involving a unit of about 180 s.f. (for one person) and a unit of about 308 s.f. (for two persons) . Each unit meets the Housing Authority standard for a dormitory unit, of 150 s.f. per person, and each has a small kitchen and bath. The units are proposed for restriction to the low income rental and occupancy guidelines. The Housing Author- ity and P&Z recommend that you accept these units as replacement for the existing units and to mitigate the impact of the new development. We concur and recommend that you grant the GMP exemption to reconstruct the existing unit and build the new unit, subject to the conditions listed in the Housing Authority memo of November 6, 1986. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: 1) Move to adopt Resolution 4� Series of 1986. 2) Move to grant GMP exemption to the applicant to reconstruct the existing employee housing unit and to build a new employee unit, subject to the conditions listed in the Housing Authority memo of November 6, 1986. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: AR.013 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: AL AN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANNE BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER RE: BRASS BED INN L-3 GMP EXPANSION, GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE UNIT CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FAR INCREASE IN L-3 ZONE DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1986 BACKGROUND: This is a review submitted by Jack Walls requesting remodel of, and addition to, the Brass Bed Inn located at 926 East Durant Avenue consisting of Lots P,Q,R,S and the Westerly 18 feet of the vacated Cleveland Street, BLock 118, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The requested allotment is for nine new lodge units, with one new employee unit which will be built in conjunction with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the existing structures on the site. 9 units x .3 = 2.7 (.3 is the median level of service) Applicant proposes to house three employees in two units of dormitory housing (see Attached floor plan) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of application with the dormitory deed restriction as follows: 1. The Owner hereby covenants that the employee rental units snail remain rental units and shall not be condominium- ized. Use and occupancy of the employee rental units shall be limited to housing for qualified employees in accordance with the low rental guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Quali- fied employee" as used herein shall mean any person cur- rently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements estab- lisned and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the employee rental units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the employee unit to a qualiried employee the unit shall be made available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing Authority guide- lines, provided the Owner shall have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not be unrea- sonably delayed or withheld. 3. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Board or County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non -complying tenants during the period or the life or the last surviving member of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty-one years, or for a period of tifty years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. 4. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee rental unit snail provide for a rental term of less than six consecutive months. 5. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maint- ained on each unit. 6. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Ottice after recordation. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD RECOMMENDATON: The Housing Authority Board recommends approval of the staff recommendation. T MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Brass Bed Inn - L-3 GMP Review; Associated Reviews DATE: November 18, 1986 INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review is the Planning Off ice' s recommended points allocation for the one application submitted on October 1st for the Lodge GMP competition in the L-3 zone district. No applications were received in the L-1, L-2, CL and other zone district this year. QUOTA AVAILABLE: The L-3 zone district GMP competition has been in effect since 1983. As this is the fourth year of the compe- tition, there have been a total of thirty units made available, not including those for this year. Following is a summary of the awards to date: Year Project 1983 Hotel Lenado The Aspen 1984 Hotel Aspen 1985 Crestahaus Total Lodge Unit Allocation 4 3 13 i_4. 34 units Therefore, since this project requests nine new units, the applicant is requesting the 6 units which are available this year and 3 units from the 1987 quota. The project also involves the reconstruction of twenty existing lodge rooms and 1 employee unit and the construction of 1 new employee unit. PROCESS: The Planning Office will summarize this project at your meeting of November 18, 1986; will review procedures with you; and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the application. The applicant will give a brief presentation of the proposal. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 60 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1, 2, 3 and 4 (b) and 35% in 4 (a) to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 3.0 points; Category 2 = 11.7 points; Category 3 = 6.3 points; and Category 4 = 9.75 points. Should the application score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum threshold. This project, should it receive a development allotment, requires that the following additional reviews be conducted: 1) Special Review to allow FAR of 1:1 in L-3 zone (P&Z action is final) ; 2) GMP Exemption for one employee unit (P&Z recommend- ation); and 3) Veritication of the existence of twenty lodge units and 1 employee unit on the site (staff action only re- aui red) . Each of these items is summarized in the body of this memo. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the proposal. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assign- ment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Public Services Design Amenities Policies Total 5 23 16 30 74 The recommended ratings of the Planning Office substantially exceed the minimum threshold in each category, as well as for total points. The Planning Office finds this to be a high quality project which is eligible for an allotment. Should you also score the project above the thresholds, we recommend that you recommend that Council grant the project the six units available this year as well as three units from 1987. FAR SPECIAL REVIEW: Section 24-3.5 states that increases in FAR in the L-3 zone district are subject to special review, consider- ing: "The compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses and zoning, including size, height and bulk, proposed site design characteristics, including landscaping and open space, and 2 visual impacts such as viewplanes" Land uses which surround this property include mostly condomin- iums such as the Old Hundred, Ute Condominiums and Chateau Roaring Fork, several one, two and three family units, the Alpina Haus and North Star Lodge. In effect, this neighborhood is a combination of short and long term housing, and is predominantly multi -family. Zoning in the surrounding area is RMF and does not change to lower densities until Waters Avenue or unless one crosses the river to the east. The development of this site at an FAR of 1:1 does not appear to be out of scale with surrounding uses. The Old Hundred is a very large building, as is the Chateau Roaring Fork and some other nearby uses. To the rear of the property sits a vacant lot in which the Ute City Place project has been approved at 1:1. The vacant lot across the street (925 Durant) has been the subject of numerous past development applications for a multi -family use at 1:1 FAR or greater (using RBO) and will probably eventually see a large development. As noted in the scoring, the project poses no impact whatsoever to public views. We have two concerns with respect to approval of the FAR in- crease, these being specificity of landscaping and the site design problem of the removal of 5-6 existing parking spaces. As regards the landscaping, we simply need to see more detail as to the feasibility of replanting the seven spruce trees which the applicant commits will be replaced (5" to 8" caliper) and the size of the trees which will replace any which do not survive the replanting. We also would like to see more detail on the paving, the terraces, the deck and fence around the jacuzzi and the final look of the front yard, including the addition of some street trees along Durant Avenue. All of these matters can be handled by submission of a detailed landscape plan to our office before a building permit is issued. A much more significant problem is the loss of the existing parking on the site. The policy of the City in reconstruction (i.e. , the Applejack) has been to try to maintain existing parking when it is less than Code requirements and to meet the needs of the newly added units. This block is already rather busy, with its mix of employee housing and tourist units, and we do not believe it appropriate to push additional parking onto the street. Since the applicant appears to intend to leave the front yard level, the Engineering Department suggests that one or even two curb cuts could be used to replace the existing continuous curb cut and permit parking to occur in the front of the build- ing. While we do not prefer this solution from a design point of view, as we much prefer the rolling form of landscaping which occurs next door at the Old Hundred with its contours, bushes, etc. , we find no choice but to require that the spaces be provided. We suggest that the applicant also look at squeezing 3 additional spaces along the alley as the best location to meet this requirement. We also recommend that the applicant seek a waiver from Council of the parking requirement for the new employee housing unit so that one of the ten spaces in the rear can count for the spaces lost in the front. The Planning Office recommends that you grant the special review for the project to obtain an FAR of 1:1, subject to: 1) The applicant will provide the Planning Office with a detailed landscape plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. The plan shall specify the form of the landscaping and the dimensions of the plantings to be made. The plan shall also show the materials for the paving, the terraces and the deck and fence around the Jacuzzi. Finally, the plan shall provide for trees of a similar character to replace any of the seven spruce trees which cannot be replanted or which does not survive the replanting. 2) The applicant will provide the Planning Office with a revised site plan designating fourteen parking spaces on the property. Should the Planning Office find that the revised plan is a significant deviation from the site plan reviewed by P&Z in the GMP process and detracts from those features which received credit in the scoring process, then the plan shall be presented to P&Z for review and approval. 3) The applicant will request an exemption from the employee parking requirement from the City Council in conjunction with the allocation to the project. GMP EXEMPTION: The applicant has submitted a revised employee housing program from that contained in the original application, involving a unit of about 180 s.f. (for one person) and a unit of about 308 s.f. (for two persons). Each unit has a kitchen and bath and is proposed for restriction to the low income guide- lines. The units both fall within the dorm/lodge standard of the Housing Authority guidelines, requiring a minimum of 150 s.f. per employee. The Housing Authority recommends that you accept these units as replacement for the existing unit and to mitigate the impact of the new development. We concur that you should recommend that Council grant the GMP exemption, subject to the conditions listed in the Housing Authority memo of November 6, 1986. VERIFICATION OF UNITS: Section 24-11 .2 (a) of the Code provides that an applicant may demolish existing units in a lodge and rebuild them without obtaining additional allotments if they first verify with the Planning Office and Building Department that said units exist. The floor plans provided would appear to 4 demonstrate that 20 lodge units (four with kitchens, one in an apartment configuration) exist on the site. The applicant must, however, prior to issuance of a demolition permit, have the Zoning Official inspect the site and write a memo to the Planning Office verifying that twenty legal lodge units and one legal employee unit exists on the property. AR8601.memo W CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-3 GNP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: Brass Bed Inn DATE: 11L18/85 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING• 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 • I 1 - _ I MY# 1!vilp VOW14=1I 1 b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: 1 POINTS: 1 • I !- - 1 1• L ! • -• 1 ! IM,! $54 • • 1• 1 - *3WIM-TeMEW, MTRW4 1- 1--• W • P. •- I IMPIWWW402weOU P 101:141• I- i - 1 1 •• - i i_ • ! c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 • • • - - - • { { • • . d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 •T V- • Ij • • - •. e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 2 2. (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 COMMENTS:This • unit project(nine lodge, I employee',Mt,ould have minimal impacts on the street network due to its location, There are presently no problems on Durant Avenue which the applicant couldhave addressed QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) RATING: 2 POINTS: 6 • i .}- •• • } } -}• M • • • • } • } • • • } • _ • - • • }•_ b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6 3 • - • 1 • 1 _ 1 • • • } } } • - • • 1 • • } ii •• . 1 1 • • _} 1 • • • i i i u vim• - - • } - • - } - / • •�- • - • 1 } • ! • {I • 11%• 1 • 1 • 1 • I1 . - ! C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2 COMMENTS: Passive solar orientation for all but two units and insulation beyond code requirements are the principal conserva- tion tools employed in the project, There is no detail on the type of mechanical (boiler) system to be used which the RPEC feels has a ma* impact on energy consumption. d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 COMMENTS: T •arking iolates Code Provisions t• not J 1 - }- �-• • • } - • • �- • } 1 • - • } } - • 1 • e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 3. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6 . - - • •1 - 1 • 1 NV - • I - • _ . _F. _ I • 1 • . 104W43 I =4 flim• I • W 47071910rWiV 4 IMMOVE01-9 1 - • . _ I P P I I TUM AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6 • I MIN • • L-Val • TIMUM or-I.-IFUT-IMM ' • • -3 MY#i I . - • • 1 • { i - I • • • { i 1 b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 6 E COMMENTSThe lodge presently has a • _ 1 _ 1 • - • • kitchen area will be about700 1') a substantial impr• ment forsmall • • • of • • c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) RATING: 2 POINTS: 4 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS ( maximum 30 points) . The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% housed. The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the 1.1 applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio One -Bedroom Two -Bedroom Three -Bedroom or larger: Dormitory: (Multiplier: 1) 1.25 residents 1.75 residents 2.25 residents 3.00 residents 1.00 resident per 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: 15 POINTS: 15 • 1 1- • 1 - n• • • 1 t141! 1 .. 1 t •1- {i• •� . 1- • • t •• • 1 • • 1 • • • t - • t _ - - • t - t • 1 • - n • • • - 1 - - • - • • n u • • • - 1 - - i1fi" •• •1 b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: 15 POINTS: 15 For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment (s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1) ,(2) ,(3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11.6(b) (1) ,(2) ,(3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: 0 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 0 -too ale] oil FIR WN�f 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: _5 (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: 2— (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: 16 (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: 30 (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) SUBTOTAL 7 (Minimum of 60 pts. required) Bonus Points: 0 TOTAL POINTS: 74 Name of Planning and Zoning Members: Aspgn/Pi tkin Planning Office A NOV 3 P-86 MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office ')4- FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: November 3, 1986 RE: Brass Bed Inn L-3 GMP Expansion, GMP Exemption for Employee Unit Conceptual Submission, Special Review for FAR Increase in L-3 zone Parcel ID# 2737-182-37-005 The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and has the following comments: Utilities This development will be adequately served by the existing City utilities. The 8" sewer main located in the alley and the 6" water main located in Durant Avenue will be sufficient. The applicant has agreed to underground utility lines and to screen utility meters but the location of these meters should be indicated on their site plan. Trash The applicant has indicated that the trash area will be screened and has shown the location of the dumpster and fence on their site plan. The area provided for this dumpster is more than adequate for the size needed for this development. Trash truck access to this dumpster will be adequate as long as the dumpster is on wheels and can be moved out into the alley for pickup. Storm Drainage The applicant has indicated that all roofs will be drained directly into drywells and proposes the retainage of all surface runoff by these on -site dry wells. Calculations should be made to determine the increase in impervious surface area (additional roof surface, paved parking lot, new concrete walkways, and new terraces) of this development and submitted to the Engineering Department. To maintain the historic runoff in this area, only roof area equal to the results of these calculations should be drained directly into the drywells. Page Two November 3, 1986 Brass Bed GMP Construction Schedule The applicant has submitted a construction schedule but a more detailed one must be —given to the Engineering Department that will discuss barricading, truck access, staging and storage area. Parking Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code requires one parking space per bedroom for development in an L-3 zone. Ten off-street parking spaces are proposed whereas all previous parking was on - street. This provides one parking space per bedroom for each of the new units and would adequately serve the development because of the close proximity to the commercial core, skiing, and city bus service. Visual impact of this parking will be minimized because of the location on the alley side of the building. Traffic This development will not substantially impact the traffic in the adjacent streets. Durant and West End Streets will easily handle the additional traffic generated. jg/brassbed2 cc: Jay Hammond ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 MEMORANDUM October 23, 1986 TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office 170 FR: Steve STandiford, Director 2 a 1986 RE: Brass Bed Inn L-3 GMP Expansion Review comments on energy related aspects of the Brass Bed Inn expansion GMP TNCTTT.A T 7/1N Using the specified wall components and assuming relatively tight construction, the building addition's walls will be quite adequate. Roof insulation of R-30 exceeds the code, but it would be helpful if the proposal defined the building components used to reach these values. Windows are satisfactory. The overall insulating level of the new structure sounds good. SOLAR ENERGY Taking advantage of passive solar gain is commendable (ie., 80% of the units are south -facing). There are, however, two units with north facing decks which is a definite disadvantage with the expected high winter use. Solar energy should be considered as a possibility for active domestic hot water heating. It appears that no consideration of active solar energy was made. A south sloping roof makes this potential attractive. WATER CONSERVATION There is no mention of water conservation. The project should specify the gallon -per -minute usage rate for all plumbing fixtures (ie., showerheads, faucets, toilets). An adequate water conservation plan would be desirable since demand at certain times of the day will be high during peak seasons. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS The type of heating system for the addition is not specified. From the basement/garden level floor plans, it appears that a natural gas boiler is currently used and would be moved or replaced. The type of heating system to be used has a great impact on the future energy consumption of the building. This should be specified in the proposal. CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-3 GNP SCORE SHEETS Q PROJECT: �5 /-3") 11Jk) DATE: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: (multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: Pa (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: POINTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide f or the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 COMMENTS: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1-2i COMMENTS: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 4 3. RATING: (multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: ` (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) RATING: POINTS: 5 COMMEN TS : c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. RATING: �L (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS ( maximum 30 points) . The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% house d. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% housed. The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the 6 applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio One -Bedroom Two -Bedroom Three -Bedroom or larger: Dormitory: (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 1.25 residents 1.75 residents 2.25 residents 3.00 residents 1.00 resident per 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: POINTS: b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: POINTS: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment (s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. COMMENTS: 5. BONDS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1) ,(2) ,(3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. i.xv o &ev (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: 9jc- (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) SUBTOTAL z (Minimum of 60 pts. required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Members: C CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-3 GNP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: DATE:I)�. 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS• b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 4 (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: POINTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. RATING: -Z- (M ul ti pl i e r : 3) POINTS COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the devel opment. RATING: �- (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 COMMENTS: C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 2- (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: L. COMMENTS: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: �7 COMMENTS e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 4 (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: Z. POINTS: �D 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 4- (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: �{ 5 COMMENTS: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. RATING:_ - (Multiplier: 2) COMMENTS: POINTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% house d. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% housed. The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the 6 applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio One -Bedroom Two -Bedroom Three -Bedroom or larger: Dormitory: (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 1.25 residents 1.75 residents 2.25 residents 3.00 residents 1.00 resident per 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: I �� POINTS: b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: I `-5 POINTS: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment (s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6(b) (1) ,(2) ,(3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4: SUBTOTAL Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: RATING: (� POINTS: r (Minimum of 3 pts. required) L_ 4 (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) (Minimum of 60 pts. required) 0 -! Name of Planning and Zoning Members: 1.1 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-3 GNP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: DATE: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: _ (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: POINTS• b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING (Multiplier: 1) POINTS. COMMENTS: C. STORK DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: f (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: POINTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. J RATING: L (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc. ) to enhance the design of the development and to provide f or the safety and privacy of the users of the development. �J1 RATING. (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: ' 2� 3 COMMENTS: C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2, L COMMENTS: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. ) RATING (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 4 3. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: ; COMMENTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 5 COMMENTS: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: 1 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% housed. The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the 6 applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: 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 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: / (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: POINTS: / _ For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. COMMENTS: 5. BONDS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS • Uy 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1:(Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: �JMinimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4:� (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) SUBTOTAL A-44-(Minimum of 60 pts. required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Members: DA CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-3 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: Z �25 9EL Z2�z, — DATE 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the , provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS• I b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: i (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: I COMMENTS: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: POINTS: I 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) RATING: Z- POINTS: 10 COMMEN TS : b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users .of the development. RATING: _ �Y (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: b 3 C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: -Z�- COMMENTS : d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: r (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 4 (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: 2� POINTS: (o 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: (O COMMENTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: �O 5 COMMENTS: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS ( maximum 30 points) . The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% house d. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% housed. The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the A applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio One -Bedroom Two -Bedroom Three -Bedroom or larger: Dormitory: (Multiplier: 1) 1.25 residents 1.75 residents 2.25 residents 3.00 residents 1.00 resident per 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: POINTS: COMMENTS: b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: POINTS: i For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: D (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 60 COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: 2'3 (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: 1(0 (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: '30 (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) SUBTOTAL !tQ (Minimum of 60 pts. required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Members: C:3 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-33 ,GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: DATE: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: / COMMENTS: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: % (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: / COMMENTS: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: POINTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. RATING: 2 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: li COMMENTS: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: v" (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: Z COMMENTS: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 COMMENTS e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 4 (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: 2 POINTS: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according ,to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: Z (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: (' COMMENTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) RATING: 3 POINTS. 5 COMMENTS: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. n RATING: <- (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% housed. The Commission sh al 1 em pl oy the advice of the City Co un ci 1 ' s housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the C applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio One -Bedroom Two -Bedroom Three -Bedroom or larger: Dormitory: (Multiplier: 1) COMMEN TS : 1.25 residents 1.75 residents 2.25 residents 3.00 residents 1.00 resident per 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: 1,5 POINTS: 15 b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: /S POINTS: / S For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS RATING: POINTS: l� Points in Category 1: (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: 23 (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: 1�e7 (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: �_ (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) SUBTOTAL ZQ- (Minimum of 60 pts. required) Bonus Points: 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Members: ��- 8 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CONNISSION EVALUATION L-3 GNP SCORE SHEETS 1 PROJECT: ! I� r � S S ' JcC- v DATE 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equi Anent to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: K (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 COMMENTS: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 4 RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 5 COMMEN TS : c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: COMMENTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL. PUBLIC POLICY GOALS ( maximum 30 points) . The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYES HOUSING (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% house d. The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the .1 applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: 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 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: POINTS: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS i. RATING: POINTS: - Points in Category 1: ' (Minimum of 3 pts. required) Points in Category 2: 1 ✓ (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: 3C'" (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) SUBTOTAL -/ ( (Minimum of 60 pts. required) Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS L+ Name of Planning and Zoning Members: F CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-3 'GNP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: - --� "�_ i� DATE: 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: e r b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: r (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City' s drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: COMMENTS: d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: L COMMENTS: e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the Applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 04 (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: POINTS: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: , COMMENTS: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: r (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: L' 3 COMMENTS: c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: � d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. 1 RATING: (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 1 COMMENTS e. VISUAL IMPACTS - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 4 (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 3) COMMENTS: RATING: POINTS: b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: (Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 5 COMMENTS: c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging or any addition thereto. RATING: L (Multiplier: 2) POINTS : L , COMMENTS: 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS ( maximum 30 points) . The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (a) PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle -income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following sched- ule: 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 4% house d. 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing - 1 point for each 12% house d. The Commission shall employ the advice of the City Council's housing designee in the determination of the number of employees the project 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 by the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the designee. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees it shall award to the 0 applicant the full fifteen (15) points available within this subsection. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the project who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio One -Bedroom Two -Bedroom Three -Bedroom or larger Dormitory: (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 1.25 residents 1.75 residents 2.25 residents 3.00 residents 1.00 resident per 150 s. f. of unit space RATING: POINTS: b. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points) . The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 10% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non - unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: i (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: For the purposes of this section, rehabilitation shall include the upgrading of the structure and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment (s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purpose 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. 7 For the purpose of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but. intended to serve the guests of the facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. COMMENTS: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justifi- cation of that award for the public hearing record. (Multiplier: 1) COMMENTS: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: RATING: POINTS: c= (Minimum of 3 pts. required) (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) Points in Category 3: `�' (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) Points in Category 4: (Minimum of 9.75 pt. required) SUBTOTAL -4-0 (Minimum of 60 pts. required) Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Members: v 0 IA ]' `. IIJ:1 TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Brass Bed Inn L-3 GMP Expansion, GMP Exemption for Employee Unit Conceptual Submission, Special Review for FAR Increase in L-3 zone Parcel ID# 2737-182-37-005 DATE: October 7, 1986 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Jack Walls requesting remodel of, and addition to, the Brass Bed Inn located at 926 East Durant Avenue consisting of Lots P, Q, R, S and the Westerly 18 feet of the vacated Cleveland Street, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The requested allotment is for nine new lodge units, with one new employee unit which will be built in conjunction with the recon- struction and rehabilitation of the existing structures on the site within the objectives of the Growth Management Plan and of the L-3 Lodge Zone. Please review this application and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than November 3, 1986 so that the Planning Office has adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z on November 18, 1986. Thank you. pRJi'OSP/> V R_oSP__,- GAw %>P JEAt I,L a 1_� r r1+2 Ao ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM '- '�5' L �2, D TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKLAUNAS SUBJECT: BRASS BED INN L-3 GMP EX NSION DATE: OCTOBER 22 19864\-`' � �, ------------ The Water Department has no further comments, other than our letter of 9/24/86, which was included in the submission. JM: ab PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BRASS BED INN L-3 GMP EXPANSION, GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE UNIT CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FAR INCREASE IN L-3 ZONE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on November 18, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Jack Walls requesting remodel of, and addition to, the Brass Bed Inn located at 926 East Durant Avenue consisting of Lots P, Q, R, S and the Westerly 18 feet of the vacated Cleveland Street, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The requested allotment is for nine new lodge units, with one new employee unit which will be built in conjunction with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the existing structures on the site within the objectives of the Growth Management Plan and of the L-3 Lodge Zone. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 225. E/C Weiton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 16, 1986. City of Aspen Account. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney �City Engineer -,Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall "Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Brass Bed Inn L-3 GMP Expansion, GMP Exemption for Employee Unit Conceptual Submission, Special Review for FAR Increase in L-3 zone Parcel ID# 2737-182-37-005 DATE: October 7, 1986 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Jack Walls requesting remodel of, and addition to, the Brass Bed Inn located at 926 East Durant Avenue consisting of Lots P, Q, R, S and the Westerly 18 feet of the vacated Cleveland Street, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The requested allotment is for nine new lodge units, with one new employee unit which will be built in conjunction with the recon- struction and rehabilitation of the existing structures on the site within the objectives of the Growth Management Plan and of the L-3 Lodge Zone. Please review this application and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than November 3, 1986 so that the Planning Office has adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z on November 18, 1986. Thank you. THE BRASS BED INN GROWTH MANAGEMENT suBmi sSION ■ ■ LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Growth Management Plan Development Proposal is for the remodel of, and addition to, the Brass Bed Inn located at 926 East Durant Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. This property is legally described as follows: Lots P,Q,R,S and the Westerly 18 feet of the vacated Cleveland Street, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The requested allotment is for nine new lodge units, which will be built in conjunction with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the existing structures on the site, will facilitate the fulfillment of the objectives of the Growth Management Plan and of the L-3 Lodge Zone in the following ways: 1. The present lodge buildings have been remodeled and added to many times over the years in an attempt to revive visitors' interest in the accommodations. As a result of today's highly competitive market, this lodge is no longer adequate to serve its guests, and at the same time is not economical to operate. At present, the buildings have a vaguely Alpine chalet appearance. With the addition and the complete overhaul and remodel of the existing structures, this image will be enhanced and improved. The materials on the exterior will be wood and stucco, and will add to the overall European flavor. 2. Present landscaping will be retained and improved. All the existing trees, as shown on the Main Floor Plan of the existing building will be retained. Those trees that must be removed for the additional construction will be relocated on the site. Under the new plan, landscaping becomes an integral part of the design. 3. At the present time, no on -site parking is provided. The new design provides for 10 parking spaces in the rear of the building. The project is located in the L-3 zone (see zoning map), and the site contains 13,800 square feet of lot area. The existing structures contain 20 guest rooms and one employee housing unit (245.20 square feet). The lodge public areas include a lounge with fireplace, breakfast area, sauna and shower area, and outside jacuzzi pool and terrace. Support areas for the lodge include laundry, boiler and pool equipment room in the basement, and an office and kitchen on the main floor. Four of the guest rooms have kitchens. These kitchens will be retained, in different form, in the new building. Existing total developed gross building area is 8716.27 square feet. When the remodel is complete, including the nine new lodge rooms and the one new employee unit, the total gross building area will be 13,800 square feet, the maximum allowable on the site at a ratio of 1:1. WATER SYSTEM Water service from the City of Aspen is presently being used by the lodge, from a 6" C.I. main located in Durant Avenue. As indicated in the letter from the City of Aspen Water Department, the proposed development, including the nine new lodge units, can be supplied by existing facilities. The - 2 - present service is by a 1112" line. SEWER A meeting with the Aspen Sanitation District disclosed adequate sewer facilities for the project site. The 8" main located in the alley, and the 4" service tap, will adequately serve the new rooms. The Director of the Sanitation District has provided a letter specifically addressing questions in the GMP ordinance. ELECTRICITY AND GAS Natural gas and electricity are located in the alley, and presently serve the project area. Such increase as is needed can be supplied without restriction. DRAINAGE Historic site drainage will be improved. Roof drainage will feed directly from internal gutters to dry wells, and all surface moisture will be maintained on the site. DEVELOPMENT AREA The following figures will compare the maximum building area allowed by code, the existing building area, and the proposed building area. By right the owner can develop his property by a ratio of 1:1. With this in mind the following figures are submitted for your consideration: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT Lot area = 13,800 square feet Maximum possible development: .67 X 13,800 SF = 9,246 SF max. rental unit net floor area .25 X 13,800 SF = 3,450 SF max non-rental/public f.a. .08 X 13,800 SF = 1,104 SF max. employee housing Maximum open space required: 35% X 13,800 = 4,830 SF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Rental Units (internal f.a.) Non-Rental/Public Employee Housing Total Open Space Existing 5,515.36 SF 2,955.71 SF OAC on cc Proposed 7,436.34 SF 5,875.60 SF Ann nc rr 8,716.27 SF 13,800.00 SF 6,012.85 SF 5,934.24 SF These figures show that with the addition of the nine new lodge units and the complete remodel of the existing building, - 3 - we will have less square footage than allowed for rental lodge rooms. Additional public areas and amenities will be added which exceed the figures shown in the allowed development mix and breakdown. Since this lodge already exists, we will build employee housing to accommodate any new employees that will be required to service the new lodge units. Therefore, the one existing but remodeled unit and the new unit will be adequate to meet employee housing requirements. This will be discussed further elsewhere in the proposal. The open space to be provided will exceed the 35% required by code. TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS Due to the convenient location of the project, auto traffic increase will be negligable. Based on estimates of one vehicle per each two rooms, this project will add 4.5 vehicles to those currently using the surrounding streets. It is expected that 4.5 vehicles will use or be stationed at the proposed development. Hours of principal daily use will be consistent with typical lodge usage. Presently, there is no on -site parking provided. The development will include ten designated parking places, which is one for every new room, plus one more. Past experience has shown that very few guests at this lodge use personal automobiles, because they are not necessary. The Little Nell lift is 21/2 blocks away, two city bus routes are one block away, and commercial and retail services are within reasonable walking distance. (See 'Transit Map') In addition, the Ute Trail starts about 11/2 blocks to the south. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT LAND USE The proposed development is compatable with land uses of the immediate neighborhood. The project area is zoned L-3, while the surrounding area is RMF. The Old Hundred, a 16-unit condominium complex, is to the immediate west, and an eight unit apartment development is to the immediate east. Also in the block to the east is a triplex, a 12-unit condominium, and the Chateau Roaring Fork, with 43 units. Both the Old Hundred and the Chateau Roaring Fork are primarily short term - 4- rental developments. Across Durant Avenue are two duplexes which are also short term rental units; the Alpina Haus, 43 units of employee housing; and the 33 unit Roaring Fork Apartments, long term rentals. Across the alley are two single family houses, a three -unit long term rental property; the 5-unit Cooper Apartments, with a history of short-term rentals; and the 1001 East Cooper development, a combination of short and long term uses. The L-3 zoned North Star Lodge is one block to the south. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction is expected to begin within a year of approval and will be completed in one phase. SITE UTILIZATION MAPS The information in this section suppliments the maps and Preliminary Design Drawings submitted with this application. A. Preliminary architectural design drawings as required are attached at the back of this application. B. Landscaping is shown on the plans for the proposed building. There is a more detailed explanation in a later section. All utilities will be placed underground on the site. C. Parking, as shown on the site plan, is located to the rear of -the building and is thus screened from view. Bus routes servicing the project are shown on the Transit Map. D. The major street link to the project is Durant Avenue, little used in the block where the project is located, but becoming a major thoroughfare one block away. Cooper Avenue, Highway 82 in the area, is one block to the north. The Ute Avenue bicycle/hiking trail is 11/2 blocks to the south. E. Surrounding land uses are a mixture of short-term and long-term rental housing, with some owner -occupied multi -family developments. Zoning boundary lines are shown on the Zone Map. F. The applicant has given considerable attention to energy conservation and solar energy utilization features. It will be noted later in this proposal that the insulation characteristics of the proposed building will exceed the requirements of the City of Aspen's tough energy code. -5- Considerable attention has been paid to all areas of the architectural design to create an energy efficient and pleasing project. Required insulation R-values have been exceeded for wall, floor and roof. The possible use of solar gain, both passive and active, have been explored for this project. The design and the orientation of the guest rooms to face south offers good possibilities for passive solar gain. It is also the owner's intention to use active freon solar collectors for domestic water heating. We intend to locate these collectors so they do not create an unsightly appearance on the exterior of the building. It should also be noted that all existing windows will be replaced with new units that have double insulating glass. REVIEW CRITERIA AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1. Water: The existing water system of the City of Aspen has sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of the proposed development and will be able to supply water without any system extensions or treatment plant upgrade. The 6" main in Durant Avenue will continue to supply slater to the site. 2. Sewer: The 8" main located in the alley and now serving the site will continue to provide enough capacity for the development. No treatment plant upgrading will be necessary. 3. Storm Drainage: Historic site drainage will not be exceeded, but will be improved. All roofs will be drained directly to on -site dry wells, and all surface run-off will be retained on the site. 4. Fire Protection: It should be noted that the project is located about seven blocks from the fire station, thus giving a low response time for the fire department. The letter from the Aspen Fire Marshal (see attachments) identified response time and hydrant locations to be excellent. In addition, the building will be constructed to meet all fire protection requirements of the building code. Smoke detectors will be provided throughout, fire extinguishers will be supplied, and the basement will be sprinkled by a dry sprinkler system. 5. Roads: The property is serviced by Durant Avenue, West End Street, and Cooper Avenue, all wide enough to carry the small increase in traffic without necessitating any improvements. Because of its convenient location, guests historically have not found it necessary to use an automobile for trips to ski or to shop. QUALITY OF, OR IMPROVEMENTS TO, DESIGN 1. Architectural Design: In terms of size and height the building as designed will be compatible with others in the neighborhood, in that the existing buildings in the vicinity are moderate -sized condominium and apartment buildings. The planned exterior materials, wood and stucco, are predominant in the area. The present Alpine Chalet appearance of the building will be retained and improved upon. 2. Site Design: The existing landscaping will be retained and improved. One of the major design criteria was the retention of the mature plantings and large cotton- wood and spruce trees on the site. Those few trees that are now located within the future footprint of the building will be relocated and used in the new landscaping. We will also introduce new concrete walkways,and a new terrace will be constructed around the jacuzzi pool. There will also be terraces on the garden level floor. Since the lot slopes to the rear, it was decided that this topography should be used to give the rooms on this level a view of the mountain. With these two terrace areas we will introduce some more formal plantings contained in masonry planters. All utility lines will be placed underground, and the meters screened from view. The trash area will also be screened. 3. Energy Conservation: The majority of the guest rooms have been relocated so they face south, to take advantage of passive solar gain. Along with solar considerations, the remodel of the entire building will increase the conservation of energy. Exterior wall construction vrill use 3/4" Thermax and 6" fiberglass insulation. This will achieve an overall exterior wall insulation value that will exceed R-25. Roof insulation will have a value equal to or above R-30. Glass in all windows and doors will be double paned insulating glass. - 7 - 4. Parking and Circulation: Parking is provided at the rear of the lodge, with access by way of the alley. This alley is closed at the east end and present use is confined to other residents whose parking is accessed in this way, and to necessary service vehicles. This parking will be paved and clearly marked, with entrances to the building directly. The building itself will screen the parking area from view of the street in front. 5. Visual Impact: The public view will be entranced by the placement of the building toward the rear of the site, leaving the open space and its landscaping in view of the passerby, and minimizing visual bulk. The west wing ►•which cut off light as well as the view from the neighboring building will be removed, thus opening up the site in that direction. 6. Amenities Provided for Guests: The number of square feet included as non -rental indicates the spacious- ness of the public areas provided for guest comfort and use. There is a large lounge with a fireplace, and a dining area where a full breakfast will be served. A sauna, jacuzzi tub and outside terraces are planned, and almost every room will have a private deck or balcony. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS 1. Employee Housing: At the present time, the lodge is run with a staff of five people. With the additional nine new lodge units it is expected that only one new person will be hired. It is expected that with the remodel and revision of the building, the staff will be able to better service the guests because of the more efficient use of space. As noted previously, one employee housing unit was supplied with the existing building. This unit is 245.20 square feet. It has been redesigned and a new unit added, for a total of 488.06 square feet of net floor area. Each unit will have a small compact kitchen. 2. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units: Plans for this project include rehabilitation or reconstruction of 100% of the existing units and non -unit space, qualifying for the maximum points available under this section. This work, which will involve the demolition of part or all of the existing building, will be done in conjunction with the new construction, and will be occupied at the same time, or prior to, the new units. BONUS POINTS This proposed project has met or exceeded all the criteria outlined in the City Code for lodge development allocation. The plan will convert an inadequate, poorly designed and constructed lodge into a considerably upgraded one which will be attractive, pleasant and comfortable. It will cause no negative impacts on traffic, roads, public safety, drainage or utilities. Parking, which now takes place on the street, will be hidden behind the building. Open space on the site will be improved. Employee housing in the lodge will be increased. The project follows the current trend of upgrading tourist facilities and achieves the purpose intended in creating the L-3 Lodge Zone. vv F i II �, f 1 x a UT1 lTY MAP1OWNSIa :. \. \' \\ 1 Ow ASPEN INSTITUTE O \� �p9 �� N MEADOW V 9 \v( GP PROJECT MUSICTEH LOCATION O \ w ` 14 1` w HALLUM LAKE ,`\ BRASS BED INN ILVE IN LOT 13 BOO S. F. Q� EXIST UNITS - 20 NORTH \ ❑ ❑❑��❑"" ❑� `ET ON NEW UNITS - 9 SMUGGLER O 1`\ EMPLOY UNITS - 2 � �❑z❑ ❑ ❑ 1:1 ❑ D 73 �--- 75 W Wa�❑oAo❑ ❑ ❑❑�12 ' HALLAM 10 El I:axD _ LLx m QI�BI�LEEKER Z cc SIATE HIHWAY 02 �'❑y❑LLI I0❑�I I El t❑ 10 09 di a M A f N fM STREETM� ❑ ❑ P❑ ❑ ❑o❑ ❑ ❑ 7::] lzz 6 w HO K S Z ~ o W ~ ❑N❑Ix w❑ ❑1 ❑ S �❑ zW J HYMA" W ❑u❑.E:l 1 El ❑ ��3 > N COOPER AVE 1 ASPEN MALL < ❑ ❑ ® ❑ • Y RUBEY PARK BUS TRANSPORT CENTER Q 4 DURAHT MOUNTAIN VALLEY 3 ASPEN SQUARE O Q f 13, I O N 4 DURAHT MALL I INDEPENDENCE PASS 5 CITY MARKET AN `` 6 CITY HALL WATERS K E Y T FIRE STATION B OPERA HOUSE HIATl4 .r,J 0 MTN. VALLEY Y COUR1 HOUSE 10 HOTEL JEROME 11 12 NORTH H SCHOOL MILL PLAZA n K \r-\\\\.� �rF��QLy HUNTER CREEK O R 13 OSTOFFICE 14 COMMUNITY CENTER 15 VISUAL ARTS CENTER <I ASPEN J TRA 1 { S K I MOUNTAIN \�� THE BRASS BED INN ■ ADDRESS: 926 EAST DURANT AVE. LOTS P,Q,R,S & W'LY'18 FT. VACATED CLEVELAND ST. BLK.118 CITY OF ASPEN ■ OWNERS: DR. MORR IS FRANKL IN 4242 S. CROSS BLVD. SAN ANTON 10 , TX. 78222 LEN OLENDER 926 E . DURANT AVE. ASPEN , COLO. 81611 ■ ARCHITECT: JACK M. WALLS ARCHITECT P . 0. BOX 29 ASPEN , C O LO. 81612 A L L E V I n EMPLOY W 1 ' `� - LAUND fi UP B� S 1 EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 0 U R A N T A V E N U E O 5 16 BASEMENT FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA - 1732.66 S.F. GUEST INT. FLOOR AREA - 461.39 " EMPLOYEE HOUSING 245.20 BOILER 6 EQUIP. - 196.24 •• NON RENTAL AREA - 829.83 A L L E Y w MAIN FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA 5454.37 S.F. GUEST INT. FLOOR AREA - 4168.36 " NON RENTAL AREA 1288.01 " OPEN SPACE 8012.85 " 0 U R A N T AVENUE A L L E Y I I I i I 12 11 i I 1 �B B I I t � i 14 13 "t 1 I EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN O s 16 SECOND FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA 1529.24 B.F. GUEST INT. FLOOR AREA 885.81 NON RENTAL AREA 643.63 0 U R A N T AVENUE A L L E Y GARDEN LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA 4057.20 S F GUEST INT. FLOOR AREA 1501.37 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 488.08 NON RENTAL AREA 1987.77 GARDEN LEVEL PLAN 0 B 15 0 U R A N T A V E N U E A L L E V UP i --T -i r- i up `11 0 9-1 12 13 rY-r DECK o -- S I B K O r -- _ 114 STO. 8 iBci LINEN B ` Q O r] ,,, DECK DECK 4 7 8I 1 1 9 10 16 I I , - ��r fill! _ • y - DECK DECK DECK DECK - IVE� FujiI JACUZZI DINING -t i O U N E i I =a Q FFICE GE FP / ' �a•4wx�t(`r��%�u1q�ij�-`,`��+'� w MAI�IW`�" FLOOR PLAN r DURANT A V E N U E N MAIN FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA - 5111.45 S F GUEST INT. FLOOR AREA - 2530.53 NON RENTAL AREA 2580.92 OPEN SPACE 5834.24 A L L E V SECOND FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA . 4631.35 S F GUEST INT. FLOOR AREA - 3304.44 " NON RENTAL AREA - 1328.91 0 U R A N T A V E N U E m �- BASEMENT LEVEL O S E AS T E L E VATION 'IS L PROP. LINE `GARDEN LEVEL _T BASEMENT LEVEL W E S T ELEVATION a �� E. R GARDEN LEVEL-' � `.GARDEN LEVEL � IaASEMENT LEVEL S O U T H E L E V A T I ON C s 95 GAROEN LEVE- L— 1 / -- _ __ _ __ _�1_ I NORTH E L E V A T ION 05�r�r 15 LINE ST. GRO. INE GAO. SECTION EAST WING 25 FT. HEIGHT LIMIT ;.HEIGHT LIMIT MEAN ROOF ELEV. ----- ___ I'II,II C UNIT i ffy v « • �! UNIT- B UNIT ✓ FmMAIN FL Y « i PARKING C B- UNIT 'EXIST. GRD. A LLEY - - BTO. EXIST GRADE' - - - - _ l GARDEN LEVEL GARDEN TERRACE SECTION WEST WING 0 a '6 CITY OF ASPEN Alan Richman Planning Director City Of Aspen Aspen,Co. 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 September 23,1986 Re: Brass Bed expansion 926 E. Durant Ave. Mr. Richman: Mr. Jack Walls presented a G.M.P print to us this date. I have reviewed the project and the proposed area of construction. We find that the responce time is in the four minute time frame and that there is adequate water for firefighting. This area does include eighteen feet of vacated Cleveland St. Have a Fire Safe Day Wayi)e L . Vandemark Fire Marshal Aspen Fire Protection Dist. xc: jack walls Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Jack Walls, Architect 250 S. Spring Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-2537 September 23, 1986 RE: Brass Bed 9 Unit Addition Dear Jack, This letter is to indicate that upon preliminary examination of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District we can service a proposed addition of 9 units to the now existing Brass Bed located on Durant Street. Sincerely L Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District CITY ..-ASPEN 130 sa.altb:.0!9; :, -treet aspen,, solortda 41611 303-92l-1020 September, 24, 1986 Jack Walls P.O. Box 29 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: The Brass Bed Dear Jack: This letter is to verify that water is available to the Brass Bed at 926 E. Durant, and your proposed addition of nine lodge rooms and bathrooms can be provided with water upon application and payment of any applicable fees. Sincerely, Jim Mar alunas, Director Aspen Water Department JM: ab