Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.204 E Durant Ave.Carriage House . , . Re...~ie\'lcc By: ;.spe:n P&Z Ci ty Council " .... MEK>RANDUM FROM: Aspen City Council .~ Hal Schilling, City Manage~ Steve Burstein, Planning Office ~ TO: THm: DATE: Carriage House Lodge GMP - Extension of Allocation November 19, 1985 RE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: extension 180 days. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Carriage House Lodge submitted a growth management application for 26 lodge units and six employee units on September 1, 1982. The project scored in excess of the established threshold and was awarded a developnent allocation by Council Resolu- tion 35, Series of 1982 on November 22, 1982. On May 13, 1985 Council granted a 180 day extension for the Carriage House GMP allocation, expiring on December 1, 1985. The PI anning Off ice recommends that Council grant an of the Carriage House Lodge GMP allocation by an additional BACKGROUND: The project is located on the corner of Aspen and Durant Streets. The GMP approval was for a lodge to replace the exi sting buildings known as "The pines" on a parcel of land frequently referred to as "The Sabbatini property". The original application was made by Hans Cantrup. The new owner, Ralph Melville, obtained the project from the Cantrup Estate and is requesting this second extension. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Section 24-11.7 (a) of the Municipal Code e stabli shes procedures f or applicant s to follow to insure that their growth management allocation does not expire. The first step in this procedure is that applicants must submit plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within a period of 33 months subsequent to the date on which the application was originally submitted. The 33 month period for the Carriage House Lodge ended on June 1, 1985. Section 24-11.7 (a) (4) states the provision by which City Council may extend the expiration date of an application's growth management allocation. The section calls for a "showing of diligence and good cause" and "the finding that the extension is in the best interest of the community" in order for Council to approve the extension. The applicant has been involved in re-examining the project and exploring several options, as indicated in David Myler's letter of October 28, 1985. It appears that an amendment to the GMP application will soon be brought forward. There appears to be a good faith effort . to make a viable project of the Carriage House Lodge, overcoming the impedements of the Cantrup bankruptcy and the recent acquisition of the project by a new owner. ALTBRN~IVES: Options open to Council at this point are to grant the requested extension or to cause the allocation to expire on December 1, 1985. The Planning Office feels that it is in the best interests of the community to give the applicant an opportunity to present an updated design of the project. The 26 lodge units in this project have already been accounted for in the City's lodge quota system, and therefore, are within the rate of growth established for the com- munity. We believe that it is fair to provide the applicant enough additional time to present revised plans to P&Z and Council in the form of a GMP amendment. The project would then stand or fall on its merits rather than on thi s deadl ine. As thi s is the second extension, we recommend that the applicant be put on notice that any further extensions beyond that approved herein would likely be deemed inappro- priate. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: None required. RECOMMENDED K>TION: "I move to grant a 180 day extension to the growth management allocation for the Carriage House Lodge, said extension to expire on June 1, 1986". SB.6 2 . c :) MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER SANDRA M. STULLER ALAN E. SCHWARTZ 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920-1018 October 28, 1985 Alan Richman Planning Director 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: On behalf of Ralph Melville, the owner of the property located at 204 E. Durant Street, which is the site of the proposed Carriage House Lodge, we are writing to request an additional l80-day extension of the project's GMP allocation. We recognize that this represents the second request for an extension, but believe that the request is reasonable and neces- sary in light of currently evolving conditions within the Aspen lodging community. Specifically, Mr. Melville feels the need to re-examine the project to ensure that it will be competitive with other projects, both those being proposed as well as those now under renovation. The most probable result of this re-examination will be a project containing a fewer number of units, with the per-unit size substantially increased, eg. from 325 sq. ft. per unit to approximately 500 sq. ft. per unit. This, of course, would result in the construction of a fewer number of units on the site than are currently authorized under the project's allocation. It is our understanding that allocations for any units not actually constructed would lapse, and would be returned to the growth management pool for future allocations. In light of recent discussions in the community concerning future year's allocations, this would seem to be a positive result. Mr. Melville's long-standing commitment to the community is well known. Consistent with this commitment, he is intent on providing the highest quality development for this site, and feels that this extension will help to ensure that result. We believe that the community's best interests will be served in this regard, and trust that the Council will agree. Respectfully, SCHWARTZ By: I,: le II leY1 ed t ~ tY"l ate i ed I" an I y. ; , j; poso: ~it II If Ii nce~; hat Ii ke I' ou ! unc~l ideJl , I I I ant I I I I I rt- . cil I'! _, t Ii ~~e1'i ! on i: " ~', I t i: I ice i~ e Ii ~ Ii Ii e s h ts. i e Ii t t 'lr;.e (J. .......__....,,_._____:.-.. __ __';,;;;:.____ ~ L - ----- _n_ : ~~rms of the agreem~nt have n~t been ful~i~l~d, then ~here is no agr~ernent. Schiffer said there are two questlons; \)ne 15 the subdlvlslon questlon, tp.-"other l5 the GMP question. j 'l'he GMP ~uestion S!ets re~ 'rred ba<?k to P & Z ~o see i~ the ~s still an allocatio~. The i $ubdivis1on questlon WQ\ be declded by Caunell. Schlffer ~ald there are other thlngs ~he applicant has been dlScussing, and this will be resolved to Council's satisfaction. Schiffer said he would like to do this at the December 13th meeting. Mayor Edel stated the agreement has not been lived up to; there is no building per~it. Schiffer said he felt it would be in everyone's interest to be tabled to the next meeting. Taddune said this should be referred to the city manager. ! Chapman said the building permit has expired. If the appl~cant reapplies, Chapman would I look at the terms of the agreement and would tell the building department, they have I failed to meet the t~rms of the agreement so a building permit should not issue. Chapman s3id he feels they would have to start the process over. Chapman said Muller and bis associates are looking for some type of assurances from the city. Chapman said he would meet with Muller to find out what kind of assurances they are looking for. Muller said \' ~hat he is concerned about is that this will go back to negotiations between the applicant , and the city, and the adjacent property owners are not privy to this at all. Muller said I some accommodation might be reached without their input. Taddune recommended this matter be referred to Chapman to be handled administratively as the Charter requires matters like this to be handled. Chapman can report back to Council I at the December 13th meeting. Chapman said -the concern is that Muller and his associates would like to see something in writing, the determination in regard to this particular ,agreement. Mayor Edel suggested that Muller meet with Chapman to get this solved. Council i llgreed with this course of action. I , ~ EASTERN WINDS I Councilman Parry moved to add this to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in . favor, motion carried. / ! Councilman Parry moved to approve the request for expended premises for Eastern Windsj l seconded by Councilman Collins. Mayor Edel said he could not understand why these requests , come to Council after the expansion has already been made. All in favor, motion carried. I ( ~ ~ , i RESOLUTION #35, SERIES OF 1982 - 1983 Lodge GMP Allocation Alice Davis, planning office, told Council the competition wa~ scored by P & Z on April 19. There was only one application, the Carriage House. The total quota available for 1983 is 76 units, 41 of which are available from previous years. The applicant is requesting 26 units, the Council would carryover 50 units to,next year's quota. Ms. Davis said the applicant is request 26 lodge units,S employee units for a total of 31 units. There will be a conference area, lobby, bar, dining area, health club, swimming pool and 31 parking spaces, which more than meets the requirement. Ms. Davis told council the project is located at the corner of Aspen and Durant. There are six multi-family dwelling units currently there, and these will be torn down. The six units they will get credit for are not part of this application. The applicant will have a credit of six units, which they will have to get permission to move these units to another location. Mayor Edel questioned the credit of six units and should that credit not be part of the 26 units requested. Mayor Edel said the city does not have a law to allow transfers. Ms. Davis said it is at their risk to have a credit later on. Richman told Council the law says an applicant can demolish a unit and get a credit for it, by verifying that unit exists. The law does not say that unit has to be rebuilt as part of the rebuilding process. Richman said the applicant is not asking for those six units as part of this project. Ms. Davis said if Council never passes a law to allow transfer of credits, the applicant has lost these six units. Ms. Davis told council the applicant only had to ask for 20 units because they would have a credit for six, but they asked for 26 unitsi therefore, they have a credit of six units. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council tha~ an applicant can compete for any number of units under GMP that are allowed on the property by zoning. In this particular case, 26 units are allowed. The applicant could have chosen to claim a credit for the six that are there and compete for 20, or they could take a credit for 6 and compete for 26 in the event that something is developed in the city, such as a TOR, in which to use that six. If that does not happen, the six units are gone. Vann said he felt Council could force the applicant to use these six at this site. Schiffer disagreed stating there is no conversion ratio; these are multi-family units and how can they be converted to lodge. Schiffer said these are being torn down at risk. If there is no TOR ordinance, it means these units may be gone forever. Mayor Edel said the 26 units is finei they competed for 26 ,lodge units. On this piece of land, the applicant is maximizing it at a total of 31 UnltS. Mayor Edel said the end result is the city is getting six more units than are allowed on the landi there is no TDR, it does not exist. Taddune tol~ Council without a TDR ordinance, the units the applicant proposes to inventory, cannot be built anyplace ~lse. Mayor Edel questioned the verbiage about something that does not exist. iounci1~oman Michael asked about the' conference area. Mark Danielsen said it will be abou1 M650 square feet, will hold about 150 people for conferences and 100 - 120 for dining. s. Davis told Council the resolution allocates 26 units and gives conditions that tbe applicant make representations to in the application. ,..~.- ____~n..... Doc,",' 11+ irm i35. Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Upper Elementary School (cont.) Aspen Downtown Storage Lodge GMP Scoring use. The Pla'\(ning Office recommends the "the Commission, as was the Ci with the Building Dept, ~lve the applicants a 'one year conditional use permit. It is also recommende5 that a master plan for the long term use fo the building be provided before August 31,1983 at which time the leases expire. i I 1 , . , I I Ron Molford requested a mailing of agendas and summaries. Lee Pardee moved to grant conditional approval to the applicants outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated October 19, 1982 for the period extending from the present to August 31, 1983. This conditional use is conditioned upon the submission of a plan for the total use of the property on a long term basis. Included in this motion in the grant of a Conditional Use Permit. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carr ied. ' Welton Anderson stepped down as he was the associate architect on the storage warehouse. Roger Hunt nominated Lee Pardee to act as temporary chairman. Jasmine seconded the nomination. All in favor, motion carried. Roger Hunt mentioned that the P&Z'S action on the original Trueman plan pointed out that this piece of property should be designated as not having any major capital improvements on it. It has been identified as property that should not be significantly built on. The Commission asked Colette to check on and verify the recommendation that this parcel(Trueman) should not be developed to any significant degree. Roger moved to approve the resolution concerning Lot 3 of the Trueman property and to ~uthorize the acting chairman, Lee Pardee, to sign it upon the inclusion of, the additional "whereas". Jasmine seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Welton asked to make public his familiarity with the Carriage House property. Lee Pardee moved to have Welton Anderson step down. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. Lee Pardee and Jasmine Tygre in favor, Al Blomquist and Roger Hunt opposed, motion fails. Welton chose to stay on the commission during the discussion of the Lodge GMP. Alice Davis, Planning Office, informed the Commission that this years quota is 76 units and is derived from all of the units that have not been used in the past and from the present years quota of 35. The applicant is requesting 26 free market lodge units and five (5) employee units for a total of 31 units. The lodge facility will be located at the corner of Aspen and Durant Streets. There are currently 6 multi-family units there. The lodge would include a lobby conference area, bar, health club, dining area, swimming pool, and 31 parking spaces, 22 of which are underground. Should the applicant recieve a GMP allocation a GMP exemption from 5 employee units would not be necessary nor would he have to go through the new GMP exemption for demolition/ reconstruction. The six multi-family units currently located on the parcel will give the applicant credit for six units should they be demolished. The six unit credit is not included in the 26 unit request and there has been interest on the applicants part in moving these .uni ts to another location should someone "draw the line". Public Facilities and Services: Water: There are two existing lines that can service the project. The applicant will remove these two and replace it with a third. The Engineering Dept. states that this does not warrant a two and would not improve the quality of the service in the area because it is a service line which is not a City responsibility. ) J Lodge GMP (cont. ) Dining FacilJ'-ies: The project inclUde: l small indoor/outdo dining area, a bar, and tile poss~bility of using the meet~ng area for banquet facilities. If the banquet facilities are included, 24% of the rental space in going to be used in dining area. This is adequate dining space worthy of a score of 2. Recreational Facilities: The applicant has promised to put in a pool and a health club totalling 19% of the total lodge area. This is adequate but not exceptional. Provision of Employee Housing: The appl~cant intends to house ten people in five units. They estimate that they w~ll only generate ten employees. Planning office feels that ten employees will not be enough. The plann~ng office increased the number of employees from ten to nineteen. With nineteen employees and hous~ng for ten, only 50% of the employees are being housed. This works out to be a score of 5 points. Alice informed the commission that there should be a total of 54 po~nts. Mark Danielson, representing the applicant, told the commiss~on that the Carriage House is a small lodge development proposal located on l5,00U sqare feet, Lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77. Mark felt that the Carriage House provides a total compliment of guest facilities and amenities on a small lodge scale. Mark felt t that the application deserved 2 points for water rather than the one given it by the planning office. After talking with Jim Markalunas, head of the Water Dept., it was felt that a service would be provided by decreasing the maintenance of 2 water l~nes by replac~ng them with one new line. Mark told the Comm~ssion that Aspen Metro Sanitation was responsible for the sewer lines and if the applicant committed to financing periodical maintenance it would help ~~G all the users on the sewer line, thus improving service to the area. Mark said that the applicant would provide 2 new catch basins on a location determined by the City Eng~neering Dept. Mark thought that the scoring handicapped projects already in an excellent location with regard to fire protection. There is already excellent fire protection ~n the area of the Carriage House. Consider~ng the quality of design, Mr. Danielson stated that the lodge was small in compar~son with surrounding developments. In terms of height, the lodge was an intermediate step in the neigborhood being three stories h~gh. There is also a compatabi~ity of building materials with the surrounding area. The applicant feels that the design maximizes the materials and is most compatable with the height and size of the neighborhood while also maximizing the ameni,ties and services for the guests. The applicant disagreed with the visual impact score because of the compatability of height with the neighborhood. The applicant also mentioned that there would not be a full time employee for each job. Rather, the employees would be doubling as everything from restaurant to maid and desk clerk to maintenance person. Ten employees would be used only when the lodge is full. Mark felt that ten employees would be adequate to fulfill all of the needs of the lodge. Alice Davis responded to the comments made by Mark Danielson by saying that she had also talked with Jim Markalunas who said that replacement of the the water lines would improve service but that was the water department's responsibil~ty anyway. There is nothing out of the ordinary being provided. This is also true w~th the sewer lines. Fire protection ) ..;--"'- i I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '0lNl If e.'. lI(1fC!CfL 8. 8. 6 L. C,~ Aspen Planning and Zoning COmmlSSlon October 19, 1982 i Lodge GMP (cont. ) can be improved in the general area, if not on the speciflc lodge site, Alice said. The scoring system 'is designed so that if its difficult for an applicant to score in one area, such as fire protection, they can score better in another area, such as employee houslng, increasing the score. Alice 'said that the applicant did provide a lot of energy conservation devices but a score of 3 lS usually reserved for those applicants whO use active solar devices and is more into solar orientation. Miss Davis reiterated that the visual impact of the project was seen as a major design flaw because of the impact on surrounding structures. Gary Esary, City Attorney, disputed a conclusion that the applicant made concerning the consideration of height. The applicant said that consideration of height in GMP scoring would be spot zonlng and therefore illeagal because maximum height was already logged by the zone. This is not correct. Zoning and GMP applications are two seperate issues. . Alice asked the applicant to clarify how committed they were to the proposal. The ~pplication proposes thlngs that could be done but does not definitly commit the applicant. Mark confirmed that the applicant was committing to everything in the application and in the presentatlon. Lee Pardee moved to make a GMP allocation to the Carriage House should the numbers/score meet the minimum requirements. Alan Blomquist seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carrled. . Lee Pardee moved to adjourn the meeting. Alan Blomquist seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. ~~ ie Markalunas ty Clerk's Office -9- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Aspen City Council Hal Schilling, City Manage~ Alan Richman, Planning Office ~ THRU: SUBJECT : Carriage House Lodge GMP - Extension of Allocation DATE: May 13, 1985 ===================================================================== SUMMARY: The PI anning Office recommends the granting of a 180 day extension to the terms of the growth management allocation to the proposed Carriage House Lodge. PREVIOUS COUNCIL AC!ION: The Carriage House Lodge submitted a growth management application for 26 lodge units and six employee uni ts on Sept ember 1, 1982. The proj ect scored in excess of the establ ished threshold and was awarded a developnent allocation by Council Resolution 35, Series of 1982 on November 22, 1982. BACKGROUND: The project is located on the corner of Aspen and Durant Streets. The GMP approval was for a lodge to replace the existing buildings known as "The Pines" on a parcel of land frequently referred to as "The Sabbatini Property" across from the South Point Condominiums. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Section 24-11.7 (a) of the Municipal Code estab- lishes procedures for applicants to follow to insure that their growth management allocations do not expire. The first step in this procedure is that applicants must submit plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within a period ending 33 months subsequent to the date on which the application was originally submitted. The 33 month period for the Carriage House Lodge ends on June 1, 1985. Section 24-11.7 (a) (4) provides that Council may grant an extension of these deadlines based on a finding that said extension is in the best interests of the community. The new owner of the property in question, Ralph Melville, who obtained the project from the Cantrup Estate, requests that you grant such an extension. Ralph and his architect, Dave Gibson, have been working for the last several months on some refinements to the proj ect' s design which they feel will improve upon the prior proposal while retaining all of its positive features. ALTERNATIVES: Options open to Council at this point are to grant the requested 180 day extension or to cause the allocation to expire at this time. The Planning Office feels that it is in the best interests of the community to give the applicant an opportunity to present an ..,..... updated design for the lodge. This new facility has been accounted for in the City's lodge quota system and, therefore, is within the rate of growth establ ished for the community. The former and new owners of the property have been impeded from fully proceeding wi th the original project due to the Cantrup Bankruptcy. At this point, it appears that a viable project may, in fact, be on the drawing board. We believe that it is only fair to provide the applicant with the ability to present his revised plans to P&Z and Council in the form of a GMP amendment, and to have the project stand or fall on its merits rather than on this procedural deadline. PINARCIAL IMPLIClTIONS: None applicable. ADVISING COMRI~BE WORK: None required. RECOMIIBNDBD MOTION: "I move to gr ant a 180 day extension to the growth management allocation for the Carriage House Lodge, said extension to expire on December 1, 1985." 2 ...,,~ ~~ GIBSON & RENO. ARCHITECTS March 12, 1985 III 18:\~ Mr. Alan Richman 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE 204 East Durant Street Dear Alan; Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1985 regarding the June 1, 1985 time limit on our G.M.P. Allocation. As Ralph Melville and I mentioned to you in our meeting of January 31, 1985, we are interested in revising the design inherited from H.B.C. Investments, and fulfilling all the requirements of the G.M.P. Allocation, and constructing the new lodge in full. Since our meeting together, Ralph and I have completed photographic, survey, and as-bui It information from the existing site, and have been exploring design solutions. We hope to arrive at a revised Schematic Design Solution for the project by May 1st, which will be in the spirit of the original G.M.P. Allocation with minor changes, and will embody all of its positive attributes. Therefore, we hereby request that City Council would grant an extension of 180 days to permit us the time to prepare new Design Drawings, present to P & Z, and to subsequently develop final Construction Documents for the project. I trust you will convey this matter to City Council. Please apprise me of when and how I need to interface with the granting of the extension. ~ David F. Gibson, A.I.A. /~~~-d~ Ralph 1:AeIvi lie, Owner cc: Ralph Melville DFG/fh 418 E. COOPE~ AVENUE #207 ASPEN,COLORADO 816~ 303/925.5968 .,../ MEMORANDUM FROM: Aspen City Council Hal Schilling, City Manager Alan Richman, Planning Office ~ TO: THRU: SUBJECT: Carriage House Lodge GHP - Extension of Allocation DATE: May 13, 1985 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends the granting of a 180 day extension to the terms of the growth management allocation to the proposed Carriage House Lodge. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Carriage House Lodge submitted a growth management application for 26 lodge units and six employee units on Sept ember 1, 1982. The proj ect scored in excess of the establ ished 'threshold and was awarded a development allocation by Council Resolution 35, Series of 1982 on November 22, 1982. BACKGROUND: The project is located on the corner of Aspen and Durant Streets. The GMP approval was for a lodge to replace the existing buildings known as "The Pines" on a parcel of land frequently referred to as "The Sabbatini Property" across from the South Point Condominiums. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Section 24-11. 7 (a) of the ~Iunicipal Code estab- lishes procedures for applicants to follow to insure that their growth management allocations do not expire. The first step in this procedure is that applicants must submit plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within a period ending 33 months subsequent to the date on which the application was originally submitted. The 33 month period for the Carriage House Lodge ends on June 1, 1985. Section 24-11.7 (a) (4) provides that Council may grant an extension of these deadlines based on a finding that said extension is in the best interests of the community. The new owner of the property in question, Ralph Melville, who obtained the project from the Cantrup Estate, requests that you grant such an extension. Ralph and his architect, Dave Gibson, have been working for the last several months on some refinements to the project I s design which they feel will improve upon the prior proposal while retaining all of its positive features. ALTERNATIVES: Options open to Council at this point are to grant the requested 180 day extension or to cause the allocation to expire at this time. The Planning Office feels that it is in the best interests of the community to give the applicant an opportunity to present an updated design for the lodge. This new facility has been accounted for in the City's lodge quota system and, therefore, is within the rate of growth establ ished for the community. The former and new owners of the property have been impeded from fully proceeding with the original project due to the Cantrup Bankruptcy. At this point, it appears that a viable project may, in fact, be on the drawing board. We believe that it is only fair to provide the applicant with the ability to present his revised plans to P&Z and Council in the form of a G~lP amendment, and to have the project stand or fall on its merits rather than on this procedural deadline. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None applicable. ADVISING COMMITTEE WORK: None required. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a 180 day extension to the growth management allocation for the Carriage House Lodge, said extension to expire on December 1, 1985." ~ f\.-A '" ~9-, ~ - 0 Go '^",-,-J &1 C,~ b ~ ~ l8-~ 0",,- -- 2 , , \: ~ " GIBSON & RENO. ARCHITECTS March 12, 1985 ~m@mn\Yl~in M.6R I 81985 [,1\ ii!: JI Mr. Alan Richman 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE 204 East Durant Street Dear Alan; Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1985 regarding the June 1, 1985 time limit on our G.M.P. Allocation. As Ralph Melville and I mentioned to you in our meeting of January 31, 1985, we are interested in revising the design inherited from H.B.C. Investments, and fulfilling all the requirements of the G.M.P. Allocation, and constructing the new lodge in full. Since our meeting together, Ralph and I have completed photographic, survey, and as-built information from the existing site, and have been exploring design solutions. We hope to arrive at a revised Schematic Design Solution for the project by May 1st, which will be in the spirit of the original G.M.P. Allocation with minor changes, and will embody all of its positive attributes. Therefore, we hereby request that City Council would grant an extension of 180 days to permit us the time to prepare new Design Drawings, present to P & Z, and to subsequently develop final Construction Documents for the project. I trust you will convey this matter to City Council. Please apprise me of when and how I need to interface with the granting of the extension. Ji;?J~~ David F. Gibson, A.I.A. /uL~~L~ Ralph 1(:1eIville, Owner cc: Ralph Melville DFG/fh 418 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN. COLORADO 81sn 303/925-5968 " '"'-.".... ... MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: FROM: Hal Schilling, City Manager Alan Richman, Planning Office ~ SUBJECT: Carriage House Lodge GMP - Extension of Allocation DATE: May 13, 1985 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends the granting of a 180 day extension to the terms of the growth management allocation to the proposed Carriage House LOdge. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Carriage House Lodge submitted a growth management application for 26 lodge units and six employee uni ts on Sept ember 1, 1982. The proj ect scored in excess of the establ ished threshold and was awarded a development allocation by Council Resolution 35, Series of 1982 on November 22, 1982. BACKGROUND: The project is located on the corner of Aspen and Durant Streets. The G~lP approval was for a lodge to replace the existing buildings known as "The Pines" on a parcel of land frequently referred to as "The Sabbatini Property" across from the South Point Condominiums. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Section 24-11.7 (a) of the ~lunicipal Code estab- lishes procedures for applicants to follow to insure that their growth management allocations do not expire. The first step in this procedure is that applicants must submit plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit within a period ending 33 months subsequent to the date on which the application was originally submitted. The 33 month period for the Carriage House Lodge ends on June I, 1985. Section 24-11.7 (a) (4) provides that Council may grant an extension of these deadlines based on a finding that said extension is in the best interests of the community. The new owner of the property in question, Ralph ~lelville, who obtained the project from the Cantrup Estate, requests that you grant such an extension. Ralph and his architect, Dave Gibson, have been working for the last several months on some refinements to the project's design which they feel will improve upon the prior proposal while retaining all of its positive features. ALTERNATIVES: Options open to Council at this point are to grant the requested 180 day extension or to cause the allocation to expire at this time. The Planning Office feels that it is in the best interests of the community to give the applicant an opportunity to present an " '-<'...... updated design for the lodge. This new facility has been accounted for in the City's lodge quota system and, therefore, is within the rate of growth established for the community. The former and new owners of the property have been impeded from fully proceeding with the original project due to the Cantrup Bankruptcy. At this point, it appears that a viable project may, in fact, be on the drawing board. We believe that it is only fair to provide the applicant with the ability to present his revised plans to P&Z and Council in the form of a G~IP amendment, and to have the project stand or fall on its merits rather than on this procedural deadline. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None applicable. ADVISING COMMITTEE WORK: None required. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a 180 day extension to the growth management allocation for the Carriage House Lodge, said extension to expire on December 1, 1985." 2 . .' ... ~ GIBSON '-~ , ,,," &. RENO . ARCHITECTS March 12, 1985 D rn:~~: i~ Mr. Alan Richman 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE 204 East Durant Street Dear Alan; Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1985 regarding the June 1, 1985 time limit on our G.M.P. Allocation. As Ralph Melville and I mentioned to you in our meeting of January 31, 1985, we are interested in revising the design inherited from H.B.C. Investments, and fulfilling all the requirements of the G.M.P. Allocation, and constructing the new lodge in full. Since our meeting together, Ralph and I have completed photographic, survey, and as-built information from the existing site, and have been exploring design solutions. We hope to arrive at a revised Schematic Design Solution for the project by May 1st, which will be in the spirit of the original G.M.P. Allocation with minor changes, and will embody all of its positive attributes. Therefore, we hereby request that City Council would grant an extension of 180 days to permit us the time to prepare new Design Drawings, present to P & Z, and to subsequently develop final Construction Documents for the project. I trust you will convey this matter to City Council. Please apprise me of when and how I need to interface with the granting of the extension. ]j~"0t~~ David F. Gibson, A.I.A. /Ca:Ly( ~L~ Ralph ~ville, Owner cc: Ralph Melville DFG/fh 418 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN. COLOAAoo 81611 303/925-5968 -Aspen/Pit 130 s ing Office ..."..... March 1, 1985 Mr. Ralph Melville Mountain Chalet 333 E. Durant Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ralph: This letter is written to inform you that pursuant to Section 24-ll.7 (a) of the Municipal Code, as amended, your Carriage House Lodge GMP allocation will expire on June I, 1985. Section 24-11.7 (a) requires that the Planning Office notify you of the expiration date and the requirements which you must meet in order to avoid loss of your allocation. The Code requires that you submit plans to the Building Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the project by June I. If you are unable to meet this deadline, but wish to retain your allocation, please submit a letter to me, within which you request that City Council grant an extension of the deadlines of up to 180 days. To justify the extension, please demonstrate your diligence in pursuing this project and why the extension is in the best interests of the Community. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this regard. Sincerely, ~ Alan Richman Acting Planning Director AR/nec cc: Dave Gibson ~~ MEETING NOTES GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS DATE: January 31, 1985 9:00 AM PROJECT: PRESENT: Carriage House TIME: Alan Richman, Ralph Melville, David Gibson NOTES: We reviewed the GMP Allocation which was given to the Project in 1983. 1. Changes to the Application can take form of: A Ampnrlmp.nt!=: or R Rp.-~rrli~::ltinn for (.iMP :1l1otment ? Pl~nning Offirp r::tn P-V~lllt=ltP. rlny chanoes and recommend to P I~nning ~nrl Zoning ~s to whether the chanoes constitute ~lrh!=:t::lntivp. r.h::mCJp.~ requirinQ re-aoolication or minor chanaes within the "pirit of the oriQinal aporoval. reouirino only an rlmenrtmenL. 3 The Plannino Office is ooen and aoreeable to minor chan(Jes to this Aoolication. especiallv as reoards Architectural Desi(Jn, and the proposed transfer of units off of the site. 4 Time line for the Proiect is as follows: A. Deadline of June 1, 1985 to have Application for Building Permi t into Bui Iding Department, or! B. An extension of the deadline as recommended by Planning and approved by City Counci I; extension must be granted by June 1, 1985 (Council is favorably disposed to legitimate extensions such as this one). C. 120 days for Building Permit process maximum; D. 120 days until breaking of ground maximum. 5. Amending the Applicatipn was discussed at some length. A. Amendments would have to come within the spi rit of the original approval, that is, the functions, uses, open space, amenities, and square foot divisions within the Lodge would have to be similar or equal to those as approved. B. The locating on site of the six existing multi-family units in addition to the 26 GMP allocated units is an amendment which the Planning Office would look favorably upon and .g~ COPIES TO: BY: 418 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-5968 ~ MEETI~~ PROJECT: PRESENT: , ...~ "" NOTES GIBSON & RENO. ARCHITECTS Carriaoe House Page -2- DATE: TIME: 1/:'l1/R"- 9 :00 AM NOTES: this could be done through the Special Review and amendment orocess. C. This amendment process would be a two-step approval: 1) Pianning and Zoning 2) City Counci I 6. Special Review is required to review, deed restrict,and approve the emolovee housing portion of the Project. This review can be done as part of the two-step process above. 7. Before removal of the existing six units on the site, it is necessary to verify their existence and configuration by a walk-through of Bill Dreuding and a verification statement issued by Bill and Alan saying that they exist and in what form they exist. 8. If the Project is to be phased, such phasing should be identified and made part of the amendment before P & Z and Counci I. 9. Fee of $1490.00 is requi red for the P & Z and Counci I Revi ew (assuming 11 hours in house,more or less hours will be either billed or refunded over or above the $1490.00 amount). COPIES TO: f Alan, Ralph Ike $M>>- . BY: 418 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN, COLORADO 8161' 303/925'5968 PLANNING AND ZONING COr1~llSSlOr4 EVALUATION 33 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS ',..f PROJECT: Carriage House DATE: October 19. 19R? 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formu1a.( o -- 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 genera 1 . ' 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: Ca) WATER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading re- quired to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity' and reliability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of availability of water rights to serve the development. Rating X Multiplier 1 xl = 1 Comment: Two existing water lines can be used to service the proposed pro,iect. Since these lines have had leaks in the past which have caused engineering and maintenance problems. the applicant has aqreed to abandon these two line, ~nrl in,t~ll " new one to better service the project. These are service lines and are the applicant's re- sponSibility, therefore the new proposed line does not improve service in the ~re~ (b) SEWER (maximum 2 poi nts). Cons idering the abil i ty of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the app 1 i cant's commi t- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed. Rating X Multiplier' 1 xl = 1 COMMENT: The three exi sti ng 8" sewer 1 i nes surroundi ng the subject site (on Durant, S. Aspen and the alley) can service the proposed project. The applicant has agreed to finance maintenance of the sewer line in the alley to improve ,ewer ,ervire in the "rea. Such maintenance would include clearing tree roots which may block sewer lines and c1eaninq manholes contaminated bv <;Irease from ~ ne~rh,y re,t~lIr"nt Thi, "rre"rc to be a minor attempt to improve the area's service and does not warrant a score of "2". (c) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 pOints). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City~s drainage system, considering the commitment by the app1 i cant to i nsta 11 the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. Rating X Multiplier 1 vl = COMMENT: A series of drywells is proposed to provide sllffic;ent r~D~rit.Y to ret"in runoff on-site. The applicant has suggested that the area's drainage would be improved bv placing two new catch hasins on thp nnrthprly ~nrnorc nf ~q~ i~terCe(tio~ gf fi~p8n . Street and Durant Avenue. Engineering has stated that the applicant should firmly commit (as opposPo to sllQgpstinQ) tn prnvirling hAlf) qP.IAI ('~h:q b~c:inc .:It In('';:atinr::tc: approved by that department before a score of "2" is warranted. (d) FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the fire department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district 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 fad1ities which may be necessary to serve the project, inClUding, but riot limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. , I I I COMMENT: Existing facilities provide excellent fire protection. Due to the location I of the site and the abundance of fire hydrants with good water pressure the applicant fplt thprp w~s no mp~ns of imDrnv1ng firp sprv;cp in thp area. ' Rating X Multiplier 1 xl = 1 r"'~ -2- '....,,/ (e) ROADS (m~ximum 2 pOints). 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 patters, creating safety'hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the appli- cant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Rating X Multiplier ? yl = 2 COMMENT: Applicant agrees to install two new street lights and to pave the alley in order to. improve access to the Limelight Lodge, the Aspen Manor and Deep Powder. Thp pyi<ting road svstem can accommodate tile, increased volumps attrihlltahlp to thp proposed project. 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a totally deficient design, 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable Cbut standard) design. 3-- Indicates an exce 11 ent des ign, The following shall be rated accordingly: (a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 9 points).. Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighoorhood developments. Rating X Multiplier : i ? y --.3 = 61 , I I I I , I ! COMMENT: The oroiect's architf'ctural rlf'sion is arrpntahlp 0< it i< il thrpp-<tory structure located near four one- and two-story structures and two three-story struc- turf's. Buildino materials include woorl. rock anrl pla<<. 011 typirill in thp npiqhhnr_ hood. (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of util iti es, and the provi si on of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. ' Rating X Multiplier 2Y1=6 COMMENT: Open space proposed is 29%. Landscapinq screens parkinq and attempts to create a small, quaint lodge atmosphere. Benches are to be provided along the streets. All utilities arf' unde.rgrolmrl anrl an unrlprgrolmrl pilrking gilrilgp ",irl< tn thp dtp design. (c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy source1. 2 xl = 2 Rating X Multiplier _ COMMENT: Project includes thermal insulation wh1ch exceeds standards hy 10;1;;; pnprgy efficient fireplaces using heat return ducting, glazed fire openings, double damper controls andex;terior combustion air; units have a southern solar orIentation and, automati c thermostats wi 1l be used to control night time temperatures. (d) PARKING AND CIRCULATION (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from publ,ic views. Rating X Multiplier 3 l(~= 9 COMMENT: An underground parking garage for 22 vehicles is proposed as well as g <Uf- face spaces; ,This provides sufficient parking for the employee units as well as the free mark k,mits., . Landscaping with large trees and bushes a're ,to screen the 9 surface spaces,' alley behind the.p~o~ect.is to be paved to provide access to the project's parkina. ' Access to trash fac111tles 1S acceptable.. , "" -3- '" (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 9 pOints). Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. ' Rating X Multiplier 1 x_ 3 = 3 COMMENT: The visual im act created as a result of the proposed 3-story structure is significant and represents a major design flaw. Even though the project 1S W1t 1n . imi ati n views of As en Mountain from the Lime1i ht and Dee Powder lodges behind the project will be obstructed due to the height of ,the proposed 3-,;,,,,,.), <;.rllrtllrp Thp A<ppn Mnnnr nf'xt door is n 1-storv structure while the two projects across the street are 3 stories (Southpoint Condos and Lift 1) and they have created siqnificant neqative visual imoacts in thf' arpa. Vif'wS of Shadow MOllntain are not obstructed. The project does not appear to be in any public viewp1anes. 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum 21points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaCiousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project., The Commission shall rate each deve10pm~nt by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or 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) MEETING AREAS (maximum 9 points). Availability of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 3x3 = 9 COMMENT: The project includes 9,270 square feet of 10dqe rental area _ the lobby is 7.9% of this rental space (730 sq.ft.), the meeting room is 18.1% of the rental space (1 rfiRO c;q ft) r.nmhinprlr thp lnhhJt i1nrl ronfl=lrl=lnrl=l rnnm rO\lt:n' ? .L1.1Q !;q ft f ?fi<Yr: of the lodge rental area, which appears to be an exceptional percentage in relation to the overall proif'ct si7f'. (b) DINING FACILITIES (maximum 6 points). Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 2 x .2 = 4 COMMENT: The project includes a small indoor/outdoor dining area (410 sq.ft.), a bar (165 sq. ft. ) and the possibility of using the meeting room (1,680 sq. ft.) as a banquet hall. Oining fi1rilitil=lc; rpprpc;pnt F.OL of thp lor/go Y'on+~l ~Y'e~ Io'itt:lout t~Q biR'1b1et facility and 24% of the rental area including the banquet facility. This proposal meets the needs of the 10dqe's quests, but it does not provide exceptional dining f~ci1ities. , (c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 6 points); Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 2 x2 = 4 COMMENT: Amenities include a health club and pool totaling 1,753 sq.ft. or 19% of the total lodge rental area. >,-,,", j ... ,."., -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 pOints). The Commission shall award points as follows: o - 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 - 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 5% housed. ,The applicant shall provide the Planning Office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on sHe. The Planning Office, upon reason- able request, may advise the applicant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. Rating X Multiplier 5 xl= 5 COMMENT: The employee units are proposed to house 10 people. The applicant pstimates the project will generate 10 employees (3 desk clerks, 3 maids, 1 bellboy, 1 maintenance person and 2 dininG/bar service peoplp). Thp Planning OffirA fAA1< " lon9p. ~aRa9Qr will also be needed. 2 dining/bar employees appear to be an extremely low estimate, pspprially if banGuets arp hpld. With 4 pmplnypp< running thp h"r "nn h Y"lnniRg t~e restaurant and banquets, there should be 19 total employees. 19 employees with 10 housed represents 56% of the employees being housed for a score of 5 points. 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when anyone shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design 111eriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. Rating X Multiplier o xl = 0 COMMENT: The Planning Office does not feel the propospd projpd shOlllrl hp gr"nted bonus poin~s.a~ req~es~ed by th~ applicant~ in that the overall project, its design and comoatlblllty wlthln thp nplghhrp"honrl 11 mQrQl~' staruJaf's. BSfll:JS fJ6il,t3 11. t: awarded if it is determined that a project has exceeded the above criteria and achieved an outstandinG overall dpsign whirh mprit< Y'ecognitiQR. Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: ~ o TOTAL POINTS: ~'I Name of Planning and Zoning M~ber: Planning Office , ~ r-- lD ~ 00 N '" r-- ~ ::.:1 ~1~~N ~ lD~~mlD m N m ... ... r-- ~ c: o ..... ~ Ol :3: :\ ~ ~ ~ N ~ lD ~ ~ m lD o "" m lD lD ~ N ~ ~ 111N lD '" ... lD ~ m "" '" ... N '" r-- ... ... '" '" ~ Ol c: 1 1 ~N ""\ z: .~ 0 E ~ '" ~ ~ N lD lD m lD m N ... '" V1 ro N ~ ", ..., ~ ::E:' co ::> V1 z: c(: z: ...J 0 ~I 0. ~ l- I- co( z u w 0 ::E: ...J I- w ...J W t!J co( W c(: ::r: z: V1 V1 ~ ~ N lD\~ m\ "'\ co( I- ::;: z: >- ~, '" '" ~ ...J ~ m ::r: 0 ...J ~ N 00 N lD "" m '" ~ I- 0. co( :3: I- 0 N a: t!J 0<1 W 0. t!J ~ a 0 ...J "" 00 m ~ ...J ...J ...J ~ co( co( V1 l- I- w 0 0 V1 0 U l- I- l- I- ~ co c: co V1 '" co "" ::> 0 ::> w '" Ol ::> a: V1 .~ V1 ::> Ol '" .~ V1 W c: ..... t!J .~ Ol ..... V1 '" c: ro Ll'~ .~ .~ 0 ~ a: Ll ..... ~ 0 '" .~ ::l 0 o.~ '" .~ z: Ol ..... U u.. ...J~ Ol U co( c: 0 ro s- .~ .~ ro Ol 0 > .~ 0 .u ..... u..' V1 Ol Ol '" .~ z: ~ .. u ..... w '" ro .~ '" w U u ro ..... t!J ro Ol u 0 rou.. ~ ~. s- ~ .~ .~ c: u ~ s- c: '" "0 ro ~ OJ .~ ro Ol I- > > .~ Ol V1 ::l '" c: c: 0- "" .. Ol U c: Ll ~ s- .. '" ..... w ..... .~ 0 '" E 0 co( u '" 0 E ...J Ol Ol s- o 0 u '" u ~ a: c: u.. .~ Ol ~ V1 V1 0 s- Ol Ol '" 0. "'OJ ..... ::E: U 0. u.. ..... 0 >. c: ~ c:s- '" '" co( s- .. E lJl 0 .~ '" .~ '" V1 .~ <1l c: Ol '" u.. Ol Ol s- Ol "0 ..c:: OJ .. -"" ::l W .....4- .~ s- c: ..... :;: 0 .. '" >- u ..... Ol s- '" ~ Ol c: c: u .~ u '" OJ ..... .~ 0 l- s- .~ c: '" .~ I- Ol 0 .~ Ol ..... ~ :3: V1 V1 u.. a: ~ co( V1 W 0. "" ~, ::;:u 0 a: 0 ...J ...J z: I- "" co co( w u ::> ::> . ~ w N 0. '" Ll U "0 Ol CY '" Ll U "0 Ol '" Ll U ..., 0 0<1 a: 0. 0. ~ N '" , , '"", '. " Ul .po -0 ." -' ;0 U) go C> CO c... W OJ JT1 N JT1 C> 3: n , z -0 <: --l 0 c , 0 Cl Vl 0 ..... G> i -< ~. JT1 -0 JT1 :> n I 0 JT1 <C '" G> I ...... ., ;0 z ::c :3: ., 0 --l C) III ~. :0: I Vl c 3 '" --l , --l --l Vl c:r <C ::c I 0 0 ...... III III --l --l Z ., 5'; )0- )0- '" Vl ::c , , 0 Z I <= )0- j -0 -0 Vl '" 0 0 III JT1 ...... ...... :3: .I z Z JT1 --l --l z Vl Vl --l ~ ~ --l :>0> , , Ul .po -< Vl ::c JT1 JT1 --l . -0 )0- '" ~ JT1 N '" '" Ul 10 \~ 00 1~ l~ Ul N o \~ Ul c... '" Vl 3 ~. :> III \~ \0 Ul ~ ~ ~ \~ o f ~ o :0: III ~ ..... o :> r N ~ F I~ t '" If 0 CO U) '" V Ul .po IT ::r ., III Vl ::r 0 ~ a. MEMORANDUM FROM: Aspen City Council Alice Davis, Planning Office TO: RE: 1983 Lodge GMP - Carriage House Lodge DATE: November 22, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Introduction At a public hearing held during a regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 19, 1982 this year's only lodge GMP application, the Carriage House Lodge, was presented, discussed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. After P&Z scores lodge GMP applications, applicants are given 14 days from the date of the public hearing to file any challenges regarding the scoring and scoring procedures. This year the only applicant, H.B.C. Investments, did not file a challenge with the Planning Office and therefore the Council will not need to hold a protest hearing on the scoring of this project. Quota Available In tracking the history of lodge unit allocations and expired allotments, the following information summarizes how this year's quota has been calculated: 18 units per year for 6 years 1978 Lodge Allocations Expired 1978 Allocation 1981 Lodge Allocation Council's decision to return the Aspen Inn employee units to the quota (24 of the 60 allocated) +108 units - 60 Aspen Inn - 16 Mountain Chalet + 16 Mountain Chalet - 31 Lodge at Aspen + 24 Aspen Inn employee units + 41 Total Quota from Previous Years Total Quota Available from Previous Years: 41 New Quota Available for 1983 35 Total Available Quota for 1983 76 The Carriage House submission is requesting 26 free market lodge units which would reduce this year's quota from 76 to 50 units. Planning and Zoning Recommendation The following gives the average P&Z scores for the Carriage House project. Detailed scoring for each P&Z member and a profile of the proposed project is given in the attached tally sheet. Average Score Public Facilities and Services Quality of Design Amenities Provided for Guests Employee Housing 6.7 28.1 17.5 8.6 TOTAL SCO RE 60.9 > 54 TOTAL SCORE WITH BONUS 61.2 As shown, the Carriage House scored higher than the required minimum threshold of 54 points in the four major point categories. If Council agrees with P&Z and grants a GMP development allocation to the Carriage House Lodge, the applicant will need to proceed ahead with HPC approval and special review approval for the FAR bonus. !'" - .." ,/ Memo: 1983 Lodge GMP - Carriage House Lodge November 22, 1982 Page Two Council Acti on ~ .::: , "I move to approve Resolution No..:.l;""l Series of 1982." ,., """",\, '- '-' 1982 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE 1. Applicant: H.B.C. Investments 2; Project Name: Carriage House 3. Location: ?04 F [)Ilrilnt AvpnllP (NF rornpr of ~ A,p"n ~nrl F [)Ilr~nt) Block 77. Lots K. L. M. Nand 0 4. Parcel Size: 15.000 square feet 5. Current Zoni ng: L-l 6. Existing Structures: The Pines Lodge - six multi-family units. 7. Development Program: 26 lodqe units - 20 units at 330 square feet 6 units at 370-660 square feet 5 employee units - 330 square feet each 11 Total Ilnits Proposal includes a lobbY. conference area. bar. dininl} area. health Clllh. swimming pool and 31 parking spaces, 22 of which are underground. 8. Special Review Requirements: GMP exemption for the 5 emplovee units; ~MP pxpmptinn for r1pmolition/rpc:onstrlJr.tinn of thp h py;,t;ng mlllt;_f~m;ly units. 9. Miscellaneous: The six multi-family units currently located on the subject parcel are not part of the applicant's request for 31 units. The applicant, therefore, is not at this time using the credit these units provide when they are demolished to build the Carriage House. The applicant has instead expressed an interest in eventually obtaining the necessary approvals to reconstruct these units at another location. ,'-" ',-, ....... ""'" MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Alice Davis, Planning Office DATE: 1983 Lodge GMP Applications October 19, 1982 Introduction Attached for your review is the project profile for this year's lodge GMP submission - The Carriage House, the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for this application and materials summarizing the proposed develop- ment program. A copy of the application has also been provided for your review purposes. Quota Available The available quota this year is derived from the following Code provisions: 24-11.8 Building Inspector reports to Planning Office on lodge construction during previous year; 24-11.6(e) Unallocated allotments from past - distributed during later years; and 24-11. 7(b) Rescinded allotments - added to available allotments. In tracking the history of lodge unit allocations and expired allotments, the following information summarizes how this year's quota has been calculated: 18 units per year for 6 years 1978 Lodge Allocations Expired 1978 Allocation 1981 Lodge Allocation Council's decision to return the Aspen Inn employee units to the quota (24 of the 60 allocated) +108 units - 60 Aspen Inn -16 Mountain Chalet +16 Mountain Chalet -31 Lodge at Aspen +24 Aspen Inn Employee Units Total Quota Available From Previous Years 41 35 76 New Quota Available for 1983 Total Available Quota for 1983 The Carriage House submission is requesting 26 free market lodge units which would reduce this year's quota from 76 to 50 units. Process The Planning Office will make a brief presentation at your October 12th meeting to explain the GMP procedures and to discuss our scoring recommendations on the Carriage House application. The applicant will then be given 15 minutes to present his proposal to you. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each Commission memeber 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. Please note that the project must score a minimum of 54 points, 60% of the total points available. If the application scores below this threshold, it will no longer be considered for a development allocation and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum threshold. If!". -- """ ~ Memo: 1983 Lodge GMP Applications Page Two October 19, 1982 Planning Office Review The applicant's representative has informed the Planning Office that the subject property is for sale and that the applicant is seeking a lodge development allocation to make the parcel more marketable. Even though the applicant has stated that the project will be built as proposed, if the property is sold, it is very likely that the new owner will submit a request to amend this GMP application. The Planning Office review shows that the Carriage House application has satisfied conceptual application requirements and has conformed to the underlying area and bulk requirements of the applicable L-l zone district. The following is a summary of the Planning Office rating which is submitted as a recommendation for your consideration. A more complete explanation of the points awarded for each criterion is given on the attached score sheets. is applied) TOTAL SCORE -r~ 26 17 5 5~ Public Facilities and Services Quality of Design Amenities Provided for Guests Employee Housing Planning Office Recommendation Based on the analysis in the attached score sheets, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z concur with our point assignments and effectively approve the Carriage House application. The Planning Office further recommends that P & Z recommend to Council that the quota from previous years be carried over to this year for a total available quota of 76 units. Finally, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend to Council that a development allotment of 26 units be awarded to the Carriage House Lodge as a result of the 1983 Lodge GMP competition. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION '983 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS " " we 14-or\ (o<{) '.,..'" ~Yl.0 1/; I " J ,r.r- PROJECT: LrlJ!.(_I/e-;f€:- 7'j()i/~ , DATE: /1/,:;& 2r~ 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). ' The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- 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: (b) (a) WATER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading re- quired to serve the development., If a private system, considering the capacity and rel iability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of availabil ity of wa:t;er rights to serve the development. Rating X Multiplier /,.;- xl r-/,~ Comment: SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed. Rating X Multiplier, / xl:; I , COMMENT: COMMENT: (c) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the appl icant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. Rating X Multiplier J IS vl .:/, (d) COMMENT: ,FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering the abi'lity of the fire department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district 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 X Multiplier ! xl C I . "".... '-' -2- .. ..J (e) ROADS (maximum 2 points). 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 patters, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the appli- cant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Rating X Multiplier ~ y'7G....- COMMENT: 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 pOints). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major desJgn flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard j design. 3-- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: (a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. Rating X Multiplier ~ I ~'~I COMMENT: (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. I) Rating X Multiplier .?- ~"..~ COMMENT: (c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). 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. Rating X Multiplier '? xt e? COMMENT: (d) PARKING AND CIRCULATION (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. ~ Rating X Multiplier ~ ,,=~ COMMENT: ._----~ "..... ''-"' -3- """ ".,I (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 9 points). Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating X Multiplier z , : ft COMMENT: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum 2lpoints). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. The Commission shall rate each developm~nt by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or 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) MEETING AREAS (maximum 9 points). Availability of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier ~ x3: q COMMENT: (b) DINING FACILITIES (maximum 6 points). Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier ~ d. ~ (1 COMMENT: (c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum'6 points)c Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clUbS, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier ~ ( -/ x2 - ';J COMMENT: ....., "-" :) -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: o - 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 - 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall provide the Planning Office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on sfte. The Planning Office, upon reason- able request, may advise the applicant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. /~ Rating X Multiplier xl COMMENT: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when anyone shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceedfng ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. Rating X Multiplier Q xl C0I1MENT: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: 6?; o ~~ TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: I) )dJh,r- PLANN I NG AND ZON! NG CO~l~ll SS 101~ EV ALUA TI ON t: )83 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: --.f.~\ZJ{M. t\.(:tf. t\-cJl>>'0- DATE: T y~(L \0\ ~~ \nL.- 1 , c7..- ~ 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- 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 (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading re- quired to serve the development., If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being.proposed and the demonstration of availability of water rights to serve the development. Rating X Multiplier I xl Comment: (b) SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed. Rating X Multiplier I xl COMMENT: (c) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development 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 X Multiplier I yl COMMENT: (d) FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 poi nts). Consi,dering the abil ity of the fi re department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district 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 X Multiplier ' ~ xl COMMENT: ,,"" "~, -2- ~.. J , (e) ROADS (maximum 2 points). 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 patters, creating safety'hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the appli- cant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Rating X Multiplier 2. xl. L CO~1MENT: "9CuJ\v\~ cA ~ QM-kI-C (AA~ WuL Vu- i0v, ~Q~ 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 pOints). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: , la) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. Rating X Multiplier 2-X ~~(.. COMMENT: .,::> ?) (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. Rating X Multiplier 2..)( a =Cy, COMMENT: (c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximi ze conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating X Multiplier 2- xL "'-2... COMMENT: (d) PARKING AND CIRCULATION (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. Rating X Multiplier 3)(3 ::' I COMMENT: . ,,'" , -3- (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 9 points). Considering the scale and location of ' the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating X Multiplier ~3 COMMENT: 32.... 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum 2lpoints). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or 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) MEETING AREAS (maximum 9 points). Availaoility of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. :1 Rating X Multiplier 2\ x3 . -) COMMENT: 3 (b) DINING FACILITIES (maximum 6 pOints). Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. , Rating X Multiplier \ x~' 7 COMMENT: 4\0 St1 f\" ~ cu,'1 o,."h\'Y\LLteJ 52 1:L~c:, (2...(JeJY , 'IOOvY)} d~ Y\()(::; ~'V\ ('.It aery )O-~ ~0?~i1 illy S; n C0 , \oft:R,\2.~t If, 0- ~ Cn\r-.h ~~ +-1Y'1\fL ()2;(l m ' . (c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum'6 pOints). Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 2t x2 ' 4-- COMMENT: (!0 ~ , .. '~,../ '\ " -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: o - 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 - 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall provide the Planning Office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on site. The Planning Office, upon reason- able request, may advise the applicant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. COMMENT:be..t.Cl.l.A. c,Q... cA ~ J-A s 00\\ Vb V\ ~ ~r(l0Jc 0' rt<J iZ , . on()\ 6.-- ~\1l.C4eQ. ~JI (0- ~ \. LlvYl ~O\\DW~ ~ ~OJV\Y\A.0'-6 1GPt-\(Q.'':;' Q;Jhm~' VJO 7- Q.,yy)0<<:4~ fU2.-1 ?~O 'l.Gf- -G= ~ ~~ -+ ~ oJJ... ~ \/yY"' ~\/'C 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 pOints). The Commission members may, when anyone . shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. 5 xl co ..) Rating X Multiplier xl COMMENT: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: 5'2- o S'2. ~'O - ~ o 51- TOTAL POINTS: -i.. \ /C1 h d Name of Planning and Zoning Member:~ ---f; ~ PLANNING "AND ZONING CO~lMISSIOJ~ [VALUATION H ~ f\-t"' ~I . 3 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS ".. PROJECT: (2(J.-U! / '~ DATE:' 11 () a~ / 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula~ o -- 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: (al WATER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading re- quired to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of availability of water rights to serve the development. I Rating X Multiplier xl Comment: (b) SEWER (maximum 2 poi nts). Cons idering the abil ity of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being propDsed. Rating X Multiplier, I 1 xl COMMENT: (c) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the Ci ty "s drainage system, cons i deri ng the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facil ities and to maintain the system over the long term. Rating X Multiplier vl ( ( COMMENT: COMMENT: (d) FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the fire department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district 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 X Multiplier / xl I , , ,F""", -2- .-... - ,","'/ (e) ROADS (maximum 2 points). 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 patters, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the appli- cant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Rating X Multiplier Z"l L COMMENT: 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: ------ I (0 o -~ 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 (maximum 9 points), Considering the compatibil ity of the proposed bailding (in terms of size, height, location and building I materials) wi.th existing neighborhood developments. (( ~_ Rating X Multiplier ~ COMMENT: (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of util i ti es, and the provi sion of pedestri an amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. ) Rating X Multiplier ~ ~ COMMENT: (c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). 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. Rating X Multiplier 2- xl COMMENT: (d) PARKING AND CIRCULATION (maximum 9 points). Considering the qual ity and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. Rating X Multiplier 5' ,,; . 9 COMMENT: ,t"""... -3- """" - '"'.,... (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 9 points). Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 'X Multiplier I:, 3 COMMENT: 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum 2lpoints). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the fOllowing formula: o -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged to 5e exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly; (a) MEETING AREAS (maximum 9 points). Availability of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. ~ r -l/i x3 '7,} Rating X Multiplier ___ COMMENT: (b) DINING FACILITIES (maximum 6 points). Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall siLe of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier ~xk:t.f , COMMENT: (c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum'6 points). Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier '1/ x2:'-j COMMENT: ,-, '"".... " -- -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 pOints). The Commission shall award points as follows: o - 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 - 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site n 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall provide the Planning Office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on site. The Planning Office, upon reason- able request, may advise the applicant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications. of the number of employees the project is expected to generate. based on the size of the proposed lodge. ____ Rating X Multiplier ~ xl COMMENT: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may. when anyone shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achi eyed an outstandi ng overall desi gn meriti ng recogniti on. award additional bonus points not exceedi.ng ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. ,~ Rating X Multiplier ~ xl COMMENT: Points in Categories 1. 2. 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: ~- Sf r'-" \_) TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and ! .. Zoning Member: c:fJU~ :::'1 .. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION )3 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS '; a/V~e I-L,,<ye- DATE: Le-e &;' - ,- '" \DI-..) PROJECT: ;0 )0;/1' Z- . 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- 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 (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading re- quired to serve the development., If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of availability of water rights to serve the development. r- Rating X Multiplier I.~ ,,1 I. r Comment: ~M- hf-fu i' cJL IvrLt (b) SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed. Rating X Multiplier :2- ,,1 L COMMENT: (c) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development 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. . 2- 2- Rating X Multiplier vl ~~ d~7wd!4 ~ c:4 05K€S i ;,1v l- f. COMMENT: 4: des;~~ (d) FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the fire department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district 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 X Multiplier , xl ( COMMENT: t.~ ,., -2- ... ...... ""." (e) ROADS (maximum 2 points). 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 patters, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the appli- cant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Rating X Multiplier ? yl 2 COMMENT: 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: --// ( (../ o -- Indicates a tota lly defi ci ent des ign. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable Cbut standard) design. 3-- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: ta) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 9 points), Considering the compatibility of the proposed boilding (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. Rating X Multiplier 2- ,J ~ COMMENT: ~~ rJ';; Z .I I /" Q;;,'c, II '7"'~1-1'. ; I (b) SITE ~SIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of thei~oposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of u ilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc. to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the saf y and privacy of the users of the development. r- ~ Rating X Multiplier 2. ') a ?~ COMMENT: (e) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). 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. 1 ~ ..., xl 7. ( Rating X Multiplier . -- COMMENT: (d) PARKING AND CIRCULATION (maximum 9 points). Considering the qual ity and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. ? , Rating X Multiplier ~ x1'~ COMMENT: r2C;. r ,.,- '~ -.._./ " --' -3- (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 9 points). the proposed buildings to maximize areas. Considering the scale and location of public views of surrounding scenic Rating'X Multiplier 2!-,3 c COMMENT: \0 3. AMENITIES PROVIOED FOR GUESTS (maximum 2lpoints). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of qua 1 ity and spaciousness. 3-- Indicates services which are judged to De exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly; (a) MEETING AREAS (maximum 9 points). Availability of on-site common meeting areas such as lODbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier '? x3 9 COMMENT: (b) DINING FACILITIES (maximum 6 points). Availability of on-site dining ~ facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in _ 2.. "~/ relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. ,- Rating X Multipl ier J. '\ xJt ( COMMENT: (c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum'6 points). Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. " r- Rating X Multiplier .(. ~ x2' " ? COMMENT: -,-;,rJ ~,,-I)-1o I ~ rl. / ,'fj '-' ....". ~ . ~':" -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: o - 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 - 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall provide the Planning Office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on site. The Planning Office, upon reason- able request, may advise the applicant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. ,) .\ COMMENT: b-e. /;- ~eC8 ~ ~ d~ - t~ Z Rating X Multiplier <iT xl ~ 10 - o~ou.- f- 11115 po ,. "c! oeD.t... ( 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 pOints). The Commission members may, when anyone shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. ~ Rating X Multiplier o xl COMMENT: o / '10 o '10' Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: ~(o. ,; TOTAL POINTS: , ...,' (J \..I \ .;.. Name of Planning and Zoning Member: I 3 'i dl___ ;2 Ct. ... ~ I] o. CJ D~l ttI 10 })Sf PROJECT: PLANNING AND ZONING CO~U'lISSIOI~ EVALliATION :::;83 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS ) (:()/lhl4f. WO~ DATE: AI . r, G I f 7- ';.. i./) I:)t:;+ If t-c- 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula~ o -- 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 (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading re- quired to serve the development., If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being.proposed and the demonstration of availability of water rights to serve the development. Rating X Multiplier ~ Comment: A.a ...~ (b) SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- , ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity". and reliability of the system being proposed. Rating X Multiplier' f ,,] :.1 COMMENT: (c) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development 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 X Multiplier , ",:::. , COMMENT: (d) FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 poi nts). Cons ideri ng the abi] i ty of the fi re department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district 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 X Multiplier ( xl:: ( COMMENT: ,-...., -2- " '- (e) ROADS (maximum 2 points). 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 patters, creating safety'hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the appli- cant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Z. Rating X Multiplier ;i) ~1 COMMENT: -taJI. ~ ~ .... \)~... 4!-I a~ 1 'l.-- ~ 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each ~. application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and z shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: (a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 9 pointsl. Considering the compatibility of the proposed banding (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. 2 v~. ,- Rating X Multiplier __ ~ ~ COMMENT: (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of util iti es, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. I Rating X Multiplier 1.xJ=.1lt COMMENT: (c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). 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. Rating X Multiplier 2-X~ J. COMMENT: (d) PARKING AND CIRCULATION (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. ~ Rating X Multiplier J ~O I COMMENT: . r- '-' ',", ,"J -3- (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 9 points). Considering the scale and location of ' the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. ~ ~__I Rating X Multiplier ~ COMMENT: ..--' - 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum 2lpoints). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3-- Indicates services which are judged to lie exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: , (a) MEETING AREAS (maximum 9 points). Availaoility of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier , x3::' COMMENT: (b) DINING FACILITIES (maximum 6 points). Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 2. x~ ~ COMMENT: (c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum'6 points). Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 2. x2 =1.( COMMENT: , . I"" ....... ", '" -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: o - 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 - 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall provide the Planning Office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on site. The Planning Office. upon reason- able request. may advise the applicant. prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. I~ _/~ Rating X Multiplier ~ ~ COMMENT: ~lwt. \-0 C.~.d ~ M ~~ "T'~~ '\ 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when anyone sha 11 determi ne that a project ha,s exceeded the substantive criteri a set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. ' Rating X Multiplier ~xl - L- COMMENT: '~I . "'~_.,-..u"~"..5 , *~,"'- ~ Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: (P7 ~ 2-. "'2.. TOTAL POINTS: Ct1 + Name of Planning and Zoning Member: - "" . , r \ ..I . I i' I ! ,,[Of) . ' ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '011"1' e.'.KOfCI(~..~l\t~- ORDINANCE NO. d.::;- (Series. of 1982) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 24-11.6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN SO AS TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES FOR SCORING LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS; AND REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 19-98 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN SO AS TO REQUIRE SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER IN THE L-1 and L-2 ZONES WHEREAS, the Planning Office has been engaged in an update of ,; , the Growth Management Plan since June 1, 1981, and has worked with the Planning Commission and City Council to revise the Growth Man- agement Quota System, including the method of scoring and adminis- tering GMP applications; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 82-5, the Planning and Zoning Com- I I ! . i -mission has recommended to the City Council that the zoning regu- I' lations be amended so as to modify the scoring system for the , lodge GMP competition process as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to accept and implement the recommendations of the Planning Commission by revising the proce- dures for scoring lodge GMP applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-11.6 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen entitled "Lodge Development Application Procedures" be and the same is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows: . "Sec. 24-11.6. Lodge development application procedures. The following procedures. shall govern the award of develop- ment allotments for lodges: (a) 'Applicants shall file a compl~te application with the city planning office, on or before September 1st of each year, which application shall included the f~llowing: . (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: , \ / , . ,. r , II t ) ",.-..' .AI' . ,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '....11.' c. '.Il",r~n t. I.' l. I:~. (aa) Type of water system to be used and including information on main size and pressure and, if public, the excess capacity available for such public system; the location of the nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used and, if public, the existing excess capacity available from such public system; the loca- tion of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the build- ing. (cc) Type'of drainage system proposed to handle surface, .underground and runoff water. (dd) Total development area including lot coverage, internal square footage, and areas devoted to open space or landscaping. (ee) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed develop- ment; total number of vehicles expected to use or be stationed in the proposed buildings; hours of principal daily usage; on and off street parking to be supplied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike pathS, etc.); any auto disincentive techniques incorporated into the proposed development. (ff) Effects of the proposed development on adja- cent land uses in the vicinity of the pro- ject. (gg) The proposed construction ' schedule including, if applicabie, a schedule for phasing con- struction. (2) A site utilization map including: . (aa) preliminary architectural drawings in suffi- cient detail to show building size, height, material, insulation, fireplaces or solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conserva- tion or solar energy utilization features), type of commercial spaces or units, and loca- tion of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development site. (bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open space, and undergrounding of utilities. (cc) Motor vehicle circulation" parking, bus and _transit.stops and improv~ments proposed to insure privacy from such areas. 2 ) ...,.".. '" ,,-.r" . < P I I , I " ...... . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 'l)lttf'1 e. ',I""'Knl. t." LJ,;1. (dd) Any major street or road links and school sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts. . . . . (ee) General description of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning or his- torical district boundary lines, if any. (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of Septem- ber, reject those that are ineligible under section 24- 11.3(c) and present its recommendations at the planning and zoning commission no later than October 1st of each year or at the commission's first regular meeting subse- quent to that date. The planning and zoning commission shall review all applications taking into consideration the following criteria and point schedule with respect to each of the following areas of concern: . , (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The co~~ission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- 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 improve- ment 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: . (aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the abil- ity of the water system to serve the develop- ment, and if a public system, the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, con- sidering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of availability ,of water rights to serve the development. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the abil- ity of th~ sewer system to serve the develop- ment, and if a public system, the applicant'S commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, con- ~sidering the capacity an~ reliability of the sy~tcln being proposed. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the de9ree to which the applicant proposes to 3 .. - "-': . " #' i " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '011. II l;'.', 140lCltll.... .. . L_ t~. retain surface runoff on the development site~ If the development requires use of the city's drainage sys~em, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drain- age 'control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. .. (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department of the fire protection, district to provide fire protection according to the established response stan- dards of the district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addi- tion of major equipment to an existing sta- tion. 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 l;Itorage tanks. (ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capa- city of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed develop- ment without substantially altering the exist- '~ng 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 devel- opment. (2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points). The commis- sion shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: '. o Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: .. . (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neigh- borhood developments. .. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed land- scaping and open sp~ce areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to eDhance the design of the development and to proviCe for tile safety and privacy of the users of the development. 4 .' I r , " ) i' , , --,. / , I I I , . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '(IlttII" C. ,.1I0fCIlTlI. I. Il. C.1. (ee) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar. techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. (dd) Parking and circulation (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. " , (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of the proposed build- ingsto mp.ximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. (3), Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its pro- posed services for guests as compared to the over- all size of the proposed lodging project. The com- mission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: i' o Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 Indicates services which are judged to be deflcient in terms of quality or spacious- ness. 2 Indicates services which are judged to be ade- quate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spacious- ness. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Availability of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in rela- tion to the overall size of the proposed lodg- ing project (maximum 3 points). . (bb) Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to'the overall size of the proposed lodging project (maximum 3 points). (ecl Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other acti~e areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project (maximum 3 points). (4) Conformance to local public policy goal~ (maximum\f !oQ p..:Hnts),. The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: 5 /; -, " , ) , ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,... e.'.Mn'r.l(r~I.'.'l.(t!, (aa) ehaoilitation or reconstruction of exis g u 'ts (maximum 5 points). 'The commiss' sha award 1 point to each applican greeing to reh ilitate or reconstruct 5 e sting lodge ro s, in accordance with e applicable code requi ents, to a maximu f 25 total units. Rehab itation means e upgrading of the structure a appearan of a lodge room by an in-place res ratio of the units to a higher quality statu w ch may alter the size of the units. Recons ction means the par- tial or complete de lit n and rebuilding of units which may b accompI' hed in a similar or different fo print at a imilar or differ- ent size to original conf uration, pro- vided that e units are rebuil on the same site. T e eligible 'for points this sec- tion, applicant shall provide a ceptual prog m identifying the proposed impro ments to e made to the units and the timetabl for ir restoration or rebuilding. (~ Provision points). follows: of employee housing (maximum 15 The commission shall award points as o to 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of em- ployees housed on site. The planning office, upon reasonable request, may advise the appli- cant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. . (5) Bonus points (maximum 5 points). The commission members may, when anyone shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the number of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined in section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2); (3), (4) and (5), after havin'J !nU] tin] i"d the nUf",h"r of poirts assign""l under each of the followiny sections by the corresponding multiplier: 6 , ) ,"',", '. '" '"" , ,) ! . . i '0lItl.. e. '.llornrL ft,~." I. Vl. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Section Points Multiplier Available 24-11.6(b)(1)(aa) (Water - 2 points) 1 24-11.6(b)(1)(bb) (Sewer- 2 points) 1 24-11.6(b)(1)(cc) (Storm drainage - 2 points) 1 24-11.6(b)(1)(dd) (Fire pro- tection - 2 points) 1 24-11.6(b)(1)(ee) (Roads - 2 points) 1 24-11.6(b)(2)(aa) (Architectural design - 3 points) 3 24-11 .6(b) (2) (bb) (Site design - 3 points) 3 24-11.6(b) (2)(cc) (Energy con- servation - 3 points) 1 24-11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and circulation - 3 points) 3 24-11.6(b)(2)(ee) (Visual impact - 3 points) 3 24-11. 6( b) (3) (aa) (Common meeting areas - 3 points) 3 24-11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities - 3 points) 2 24-11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational facilities - 3 points) 2 E-I 11. J{t} \ "'t) \QQ.} \ X\t:uaU.l..LJ....cl~J.on aA~ _'I;;'1.,;vut=;)l:.L Ul.:I...LUU :3 t'vluL.o I ,&. 24-11.6(b)(4)(~ (Employee housing - 15 points) 1 24-11.6(b)(5) (Bonus points - 5 points) 1 Total 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 3 9 9 9 6 6 16 15 5 ft\o Any project not recelv~ng a minimum of sixty (60) per cent of the total points available under section 24- 11.5(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) shall no longer be con- sidered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. . (d) All projects shall be ranked according to the total points awarded by each commission member. The ranking shall establish the project each commission member scored as first, second, third and so on. The project which receives the lowest total ranking by all commis- sion members shall be deemed the first priority project, while the project which receives the next lowest total ranking by all commission members shall be deemed the second priority project and so on. The ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before November 1st of each year. In the event of ties as to the overall ranking, those pro- jects tying shall then be ranked according to the total points received (highest to lowest).and the ranking thus established by the commission shall b" fon.'Llrcled to the city council on or before r<ovember 1st of each year. (e) f1aving received the commission's report, the city coun- cil shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; 7 . . ,'", ';,.i ., I , . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '0llI.... c.',.."nUll....l.C1. provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the commission in its: scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the pub- lic hearing by the planning and zoning commission. (f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolu-, tion and prior to December 1st of each year, allocate the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, building or any other regulations of the city. Unallocated'allotments may be carried over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. (g) No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24-11.6(a) amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24-11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed' insubstantial. (h) The procedural deadlines established in this section 24-11.6 may be modified by the Aspen City Council for the year 1982 in the event that they are unworkable given the effective date of this article. Section 2 That Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen entitled "Construction of Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Required for all New Construction in Certain Districts" be and the same is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows: .Sec. 19-98. Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter required for all new construction in certain districts. . The building inspector shall not issue a certificate of occu- pancy for any new construction in the CC, C1, NC, L-1, L-2 and ,CL zone districts or other area as designated on the adopted sidewalk, curb and gutter plan unless sidewalk, curb and gutter has been constructed in the right-of-way adjoining the' building site." .- Section 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or . . . portion of this orJin~ncc is [or any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such tl i I . ''\ . '\ " ! , ' .' . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,~..e"."nH.Ilfl.....ltl.t', portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall,not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4 '. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of, , 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in' the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Cler~ FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1982. Herman Edel,' Mayor . ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk . 9 -- - "", '""" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: DATE: 1933 Lodge GMP Applications October 19, 1982 Introduction Attached for your review is the project profile for this year's lodge GMP submission - The Carriage House, the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for this application and materials summarizing the proposed develop- ment program. A copy of the application has also been provided for your revi ew purposes. Quota Avail ab 1 e The available quota this year is derived from the following Code provisions: 24- 11. 8 Building Inspector reports to Planning Office on lodge construction during previous year; 24-11.6(e) Una110cated allotments from past - distributed during later years; and 24-11. 7(b) Rescinded allotments - added to available allotments. .'-'""" Memo: 1983 Lodge GMP Applications Page Two October 19, 1982 Planning Office Review The applicant's representative has informed the Planning Office that the subject property is for sale and that the applicant is seeking a lodge development allocation to make the parcel more marketable. Even though the applicant has stated that the project will be built as proposed, if the property is sold, it is very likely that the new owner will submit a request to amend this GMP application. The Planning Office'review shows that the Carriage House application has satisfied conceptual application requirements and has conformed to the underlying area and bulk requirements of the applicable L-l zone district. The following is a summary of the Planning Office rating which is submitted as a recommendation for your consideration. A more' complete explanation of the points awarded for each criterion is given on the attached score sheets. Carriage House Rating (after multiplier is applied) Public Facilities and Services Qua 1 ity of Des i gn Amenities Provided for Guests Employee Housing ~ 26 17 5 TOTAL SCORE sf Planning Office Recommendation Based on the analysis in the attached score sheets, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z concur with our point assignments and effectively approve the Carriage House application. The Planning Office further recommends that P & Z recommend to Council that the quota from previous years be carried over to this year for a total available quota of 76 units. Finally, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend to Council that a development allotment of 26 units be awarded to the Carriage House Lodge as a result of the 1983 Lodge GMP competition. ,'-'" '-' -. 1982 RESIDENTIAL GROvJTH MANAW1ENT PLAN SUI3MISSION - PROJECT PROFILE 1. Appl icant: il. lL C. Investments 2: Project Name: Carriage I~use 3. Location: ?04 F. [)Ilrant ^vpnlle._J1'lL~.(lJ:Ilpr of ~ A<;ppn ill1rl F -D.w::aoW- [llill;k 77. Lots 1i.,--J.~M.J...3nd 0 4. Parce.l Size: 15.000 square feet ,5. Current Zoni ng: L-l 6. Existing Structures: The Pines Lodge - six multi-family units. 7. Development Program: 26 lodqe units - 20 units at 330 square feet 6 units at 370-660 square feet 5 employee units - 330 square feet each 31 Total Ilnits Proposal includes a lobbY. conference area. bar. dining area. health clllb. swimming pool and 31 parking spaces, 22 of which are underground. 8. Special Review Reauirements: G~'iP exemption for the 5 emplovee units: ..G/1Uxpmption for demolition/reconstY'lJCtion of thp h PYi<;tin~f!',!lt.i=fam.i.l!I- units. 9. Miscellaneous: The six multi-family units currently located on the subject parcel are not part of the applicant's request for 31 units. The applicant, therefore, is not at this time using the credit these units provide when they are demolished to build the Carriage House. The applicant has instead expressed an interest in eventually obtaining the necessary approvals to reconstruct these units at another location. ,:1 , . , ~ i'L/\!<li 1 ilG J\lHI lOll J l;C ell::,:-; J ~;~; ill:'; LV rll.u/\ j 1 ()r~ 1(: LOllCiE G~iP APPLICATIONS ''\ .J' PROJECT: Ca rri ilge 1I0use DATE: October 19. 1982 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (milximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application \'iith respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the fellowin9 formula~ o Projec! 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 i.tself improves the qual ity of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: WATER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a publ ic system, the appl icant' s commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading re- quired to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity' and reliability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of availability of water rights to serve the development. Rating X Multiplier 1 xl ~ 1 Comment: Two existing water lines can be used to service the proposed project. Since these lines have had leaks in the past which have caused engineering and maintenance problems, the applicant has aqreed to abandon these two lines and in,tall a np., nnp to better service the project. These are service lines and are the applicant's re- sponsibility, therefore the new proposed line does not improve sel^vice in the arpa (a) (b) SEWER (maximum 2 poi nts). Cons ideri ng the abil ity of the sewer sys tern to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commit- ment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed. Rating X Multiplier 1 xl ~ COMMENT: The three existing 8" sewer 1 ines surrounding the subject site on Durant S. Aspen and the alley) can service the proposed project. The applicant has agreed to finance maintenance of the sewer line in the alley to imprnve 'Pvier ,pr\lirp in thp erea. Such maintenance would include clearing tree roots which may block sewer lines and anin manholes co t mina d b r ^ 'e a minor attempt to improve the area's service and does not warrant a score of "2". (c) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requi res use of the City's dra i nage system, cons i deri ng the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. Rating X Multiplier 1 yl = 1 COM~lENT: A series of drywells is proposed to provide SIJffiripnt raparity tn rpteir runoff on-site. The applicant has suggested that the area's drainage would be improved by placing two new catch basins nn tllP nnrtherly rnrnpr<: nf thp irtpY'<:ec~ion of fi:;pen ' Street and Durant Avenue. Engineering has stated that the applicant should firmly commit (as opposNI tn slIggp,ting) tn prn\lirling to"n nl?,.1 retch bi)<:in. et lnre~inp. approved by that department before a score of "2" is warranted. (d) FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the fire department of the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district without the necessity of establishing a nel'i station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fil'e fi<]hting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fil'e protection fac'ilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but riot limited to, fire hydrants and water storage timks. , Rating X i~ultiplier ______LxL..J emINENT: ~~:~_illg facilities provide excellent fire protection. Due to the lociltion of the site ,lnd the abundallce of fire hydrilntswith CJood l'iater pressure, the ilpplicant ff)l r thp\'(\ ~'1(1(;__nQ--11lCiillS_Jl.L~_llUUt.illLlll0 It[e._s..I;;...L\L..u.:C-~'l thp OCQ!:0_ ".... ~ -2- ,--"\ J (e) ROADS (maximum 2 points). Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the necds of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patters, creating safety'hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the appli- cant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. Rating X M~ltiplier COflMENT: Appl icant agrees to install two new street 1 ights and to pave the in order to improve access to the Limelight Lodge, the Aspen flanor and Deep Thp p.i<;ting road svstem can accommodate tile inrreased vollimps attrih::table proposed project. ? .1 ~ 2 alley Powder. +0 tl1P 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a totally deficient des ign., 1 Indicates a major design flaw. 2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 Indicates an excellent design, The fo 11 ovil ng shall be rated accordingly: (a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the compati bil ity of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building 1 materials) with existing neighborhood developments. i Rating X Multiplier ? x,-.3 = 61 COMMENT: The oroif'C:t's architectliral design is auenteh1e e<; L,_ ',L three-story structure located near four one- and two-story structures and two t!il'ee-story struc- tures Buiidinq materials include vJOod. rock anrl alass, all tYf1ira1 in +hp nei~hhor- hood. (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of util ities, and the provi sion of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. ' Rating X Multiplier ,2 x ~ = 6 COMMENT: Open space proposed is 29%. Landscaping screens parking and attempts to create a small, quaint lodge atmosphere. Benches are to be provided along the streets. All utilities are undergrmmd and an undprgrOlmrl parking garege erlrl<; to thp <;ite design. (e) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). 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. Rating X Multipl ier 2 x..l = 2 COMMENT: Project includes thermal, insulation I'Jhich exceeds standarrls by ln1: pnprgy efficient fireplaces using heat return ducting, glazed fire bpenings, double damper controls and extel'ior combustion air; units have a southern solar onentation and, automatic thermostats will be used to control night time temperatures. (d) PARKING AND CIRCULATION (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from publ,ic views. Rating X Multiplier 1 '-3-= 9 COf1f1ENT: I\n underground parking ~al'age for 22 vphicles is proposed ilO, l'Iell ilS 9 slIr- face spacfls; This prov'idl's sufficipnt parkinq for the ell1r1oyee units as well ps thl' fre,e_.J!JilrJ<.Ht IInits. Landscaplnq' \11tl1 lar~2 trees ilnd bl,c,h!"~ ciTe ,to screen the 9 c,'!!'CfaCE spaces. Iile alley behind the pro.it'ct is to be pilved to pnJVide access to the pro.Ject'~ JldJ:k.:iIlCL-1kcl'5> to 1TslSI1.JQ.c i 1 i t i (o':2._J~ acccpt~]I:.!e. -3- J i I I ,..... '- " (e) VISUAL IMPACT (lIlilxilnum 9 [Joints). Considel'ing the scale ilnd location of the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating X Multiplier 1 x,3 = 3 COMMENT: The vi sual illl[Jact created as a result of the [Jroposed 3-story structure is significant and represents a major design flaw. Even though the project is within the 28 foot hC'iqht limitation, viC'Jys of Aspen Mountain from the Limelight and Deep Powder lodges behind the project will be obstructed due to the height of the proposed 3- 5 tory ,1'rlWtllfP Thp A<; ppn t~onor npxt door is 0 1-5 tory structure \,hi 1 e the two projects across the street are 3 stories (Southpoint Condos and Lift 1) and they have created siqnificant neqative visual impacts in the area. ViC'ws of ShodOl' MOllntain are not obstructed. The project does not appear to be in any public viewplanes. 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum 21 points). The Con~ission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project.. The Commission shall rate each developm~nt by assigning points according to the following formula: o -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. , f: , ' ! 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) MEETING AREAS (maximum 9 points). Availabil ity of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 3x3 = 9 COMMENT: The project intludes 9,270 square feet of lodqe rental area - the lobby is 7.9% of this rental space (730 sq.ft,), the meeting room is 18.1% of the rental space (l,fiRO '9 ft) r.nmhinpo, thp 1nhhy _il,llii rnnfpfpnrp fe,,,,,, rn,,"r ? ,410 59 ft , ?fi':( nf the lodge ,rental area, which appears to be an exceptional percentage in relation to the overall proiect size. (b) DINING FACILITIES (maximum 6 points). Availability of on-site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall si~e of the proposed lodging project. R. XM1'l" 2x2=4 atlng u tIp ler - - .. COMMENT: The project includes a small indoor/outdoor dining area (410 sq. ft.), a bar (165 sq. ft.) and the possibility of using the meeting room (1,680 sq. ft.) as a banquet hol1 Dining filri1itip, fppfp,pnt fi! nf thp 1n09" fentel ~rea without th@ blRqUgt facility and 24% of the rental area including the banquet facility. This proposal meets the needs of the lodge's quests, but it does not provide exceptional dining f~cilities. ' \c) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 6 points): Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and othel' active areas in relation to the overal~ size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 2 x2 = 4 COMMENT: Amenities include a health club and pool totaling 1,753 sq. ft. or 19% of the total lodge rental area. c -"""'\ . -4- i t I II Ii \1 ,I 4. PROVISION OF EI~PLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: o - 50% of lodge employees hou~ed on or off site -- 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 - 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site -- 1 point for each 5% housed. ii ,The applicant shall provide the Planning Office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on sHe. The Planning Office, upon reason- able request, may advise the applicant, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, of the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the size of the proposed lodge. Rating X Multiplier 5 xl= 5 COMMENT: The employee units are proposed to house 10 people. The apolicant estimates the project will generate 10 employees (3 desk clerks, 3 maids, 1 bellboy, 1 maintenance person and 2 dininq/bar service people). The Planning Offirp fppl< ri longe man"ger will also be nee?ed. 2 dining/bar employees appear to be an extremely low estimate, pspprially lf banquets are held. With 4 pmplnY0ps nmning thp her rinn 6 r'lOning the restaurant and banquets, there shaul d be 19 tota 1 employees. 19 employees with 10 housed represents 56% of the employees being housed for a score of 5 points. 5. BOHUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, \'ihen anyone shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceedi~g ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. Rating X Multiplier o xl = 0 COMMENT: The Planning Office does not feel the proposed projpct shnllln hp grrintC'd bonus points as requested by the applicant, in that the overall project, its design and compatibility within thp npighhqrhnnd i, l11<;)nalj' standar-Eh Bonu, peil,t3 /1, to: awarded if it is determined that a project has exceeded the above criteria and achieved an outstandinq overall dpsign whirh mprit< r~cQgnitign. Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: ~ o , I TOTAL POINTS: ~ Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office 'J . ", ,.... IOOE ---......- 1 9 , [-. l ""5 1 I." ~_:: t l -, I ,.' , .....1 I ,-I J 0_9 DER! I BERGHOF K. I L. I i 08 aDL.~ 'I I ml I' l}-l, ' " I c> ; .. I .~ ,\ ' i i TO i KIL I ;.ABERt BlpG~ I I 100 ~ 191 ,WINFIELD: ARNS rD >+,1: ro! , , II~ -DURANT 1FT -!I I 10' \ CArED 10 \1 J ! I I ~ , ZI zz.. I , I ! 3~ i JUAN !CD 7,8 I .-.---"'.. .- L-' ri-r. I 6-' ~ I 1 I I I ...-'-..... : 221: I' I I ~ SN OW FLAKE I ' , , , ! I , U ME LIGHT I ' t ,~ ' oS I i ~28 _-t.-- , I I I I E IG\-tl'; ! '.I: O' a:: <( z o :E I 0.....- ~ -------- ..-.--. (/) o o 10 COOPER K. i L. ! \ 21'0 I . HI I M1N~~ s I 14q "- -. ~- 601 (.. 7 I I 10 ':) 4611 i. ! 301 P~OsPECTo [ ~ " \, Z lIJ' CL. (I) <( J . . , WAG . , , p~ i , SO~T.1i.fQ N TI. 12.1~1 G II " ~ Pc)Ol \ i 2- , ~ BL. OCK I' ~:4 , ! , LI I ' ! ' &j PINEl) Ii! . 20~ ... ,~. ... aOO: LAWN .1 I I , 71a '9 10 I I ~o~ JUN/;.\ T A ,I " 170 . r~50 HOUS ': rc,tb~ , - - -"--~ - --. , i 18 14 13 IZ. 1\ , i" <) .~ , I I... , .. -, -, .' 19 HILL n rr -----..-.-.-.-. ST. 2-0 J''T,,!l !L 3 -4-1'S ST. %. ~ 04- 71'0 'tl. 11 ~I C AL T , ! f1, I J~ w > <t -~[ID~--' ,~ o. r<'l \. '0 I- lrl ,- ,,1l. (J) o~' -:g: " , 01\ 'I- ~ %({ (!) t-~- ~ CD " - it I&l ~ ~ 0 :: z -I II) .~ ' . - ~. r I&l > Go 0 L 0 N - If> 0 J N <1 ~ s OO~ ~ :> ::>' l-l'ioi !... liE' ..""I:.. . ~ II') ~ I l~ - III I - rn L I::. Cf' ::::.. 0 % mr-- a: a: CD . I&ll&l-' 0 f-0lIl <to..- ~ ~Ok. H~SIWij~9 , R']t-l \1\ . L.:J:x ~ ::::: , , p/\ . '---1- 0 - 1'---.('1 ~ -I'- (f> I&l -, (!) '&;..0- 0 ~- '" xO r<'l ~- ."'c.,- ~t-' -I, ~,. ,"" dD >i. 1.~ I I""" ....... Q: W Z C) <t ~ ~, .-' ',,< ,j Q: W a. o o o /; I ".:....:\-. ~ a: <t a. .,. ",J ~~'-~/ , .'\ .,.\ .j , -,,--' , , , -, .I !() <Xl ((l , . ! l , r t , f I , . -I , , H~~HfNOW It- .:r. ' <.:l ILl .J' H r<'l :1 ~II) en-a: -I&. -' ~ rJJ 84 o (0 ~ <l: Z 01<'- I&l z . -.(--- :z ,.... I&l Z Go , I N3dS~ II) 11\ I&l ' z-~- ii: f(, .2 ~~ g:z o c( ,.... J/). a: I&l ;:r; N . ... Z I&. <t a: ::> Q. c.. ~ -' . -ur- cC(!) -~-s-g eft :Ill( 1'= -0-'- <D.C -J I- ~ I i '- I , i I \\Ii r<'l l' I '~ ~ ' ~"~" ..... -.) , - -:.0. , , .' .~' '.'7".:;, "~';')., -> ~--.,;, d ~.,':: ,.fi'~, -- --" MEMORANDUM TO: GMP Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: Commercial and Lodge Quotas DATE: September IS, 1982 Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to identify the quotas which are available for competition this year for lodge and commer- cial development applications. This analysis follows the standard procedure of determining the quota which is available from previous years, subtracting the development which has occurred during the past year which is exempt from competition and adding the demolition which has occurred during the Rast year. Commercial Quota By Resolution 58, Series of 1981, City Council eliminated the quota for commercial development from previous years which was unallocated. By Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, City Council established the following new quotas for commercial development in Aspen:, CC/C-l NC/SCI Off ice CL & other 10,000 7,000 4,000 3,000 square feet " " 11 " " " During the past 12 months, there have been two commercial projects built which were exempted from competition under Section 24-11.2(1) of the Code. These projects include a 165 square foot addition by the First National Bank (CC zone) and a 433 foot addition by the Aspen Ski Company (L-l zone). Furthermore, two historic buildings converted space from residential to commercial use during this time, as permitted by Section 24-11.2(b) of the Code. These conversions included the Sport Stalker (2,732 square feet) and Epicure (2,943 square feet) both in the CC zone. Finally, the Pitkin Center demolished an existing use and delayed its reconstruction (4,813 square feet) in the CC zone; Based on these activities, we first subtract a total of 5,840 square feet from the CC-Cl quota and then add 4,813 to that total, for a re- maining quota of 8,973 square feet. The only other quota which is affected is that for the "CL and other" zones which is reduced by 433 square feet to a total of 2,567 square feet. Summarizing then, following are the quotas available for commer- cial development allocations: CC/C-1 NC/SCI Office CL & o.ther square feet II II 8,973 7,000 4,000 2,567 " " 11 11 Lodge Quotas In a memo issued prior to last year's lodge competition, I identified the quota available for competition as 4e units. Sub- sequent to that date, City Council decided to add 24 units to that quota which had previously been deducted from the lodge quota. These 24 units represent the employee units at the Aspen Inn and resulted in a quota availability of 72 units last year. Under last year's competition there were 31 units allocated to the Lodge at Aspen which must be subtracted from the 72 units which were available at that time. Based on changes to the quota made in Ordinance 26, Serie~ of 1982, there is '.a 35 unit quota GHP Files - Comme~al and Lodge Quotas '..... Page Two""" 'r' September 15, 1982 available [or this year. Therefore, the total quota available for competition purposes includes the 4~ units available from previous years, plus the 35 units available from this year, for a total of 76 lodge 'wits. cc: Sunny Vann Colette Penne Alice Davis RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT c o ., ; r;\ ,lBjml 'i] 198? I} IJ J TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" GARfIJEILD & JH[JECH1{r,- AITORNEYS AT LAW L'" CJ = VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDINlp "C'. 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 nJ"jli;i(":' SPENCER F, SCHIFFER KA THERlNE HENDRICKS WILUAM K. GUEST, P,C, KIRK B, HOLLEYMAN August 27, 1982 Mr. Sunny Vann Planning Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Sunny: The purpose of this letter is to confirm your interpretation of Section 24-3.7(e) (3) as amended by Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1982. In a meeting in your office with Alan Richman, Mark Danielson and myself on August 25, 1982, we questioned the interpretation of the referenced Section with respect to a possible Growth Management Plan Application for the "Sabbatini Property". You stated that any sub-grade area which does not meet the minimum requirements for natural light, ventilation, and emergency exits necessary for occupancy as a dwelling unit would not be included in calculating floor area ratios and allowable floor area. Thus, for example, a meeting area or health club located 100% below grade which has artificial ventilation and artificial light would not be included in calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area. Since we will be basing all of our calculations on that interpretation, I would appreciate your notifying me at your earliest convenience if you disagree in any respect with my restatement of that interpretation set forth above. Thank you very much for your continuing cooperation. SFS!pg yours, HECHT cc: Mark Danielson Hans B. Cantrup ..'. . . r ~ MEMORANDUM TO: ' Ci tyAttorney City Engineering Department tity/County Housing Department? City Water Department Planning Offit:e Gl'Ji>- App 1 iC'at'i ons City Electri c Sanitation District Building Department Fire Chief f"R(>>t: " '-'1tE: ",:.'<"'" :lATE: , "~~jO""""",, ~". .""-'; .:a~~ ,~'"". ",.. ''"'' . .-\y" . "'i, Attadled,~tl!a.se2fitldfaur +H applications submitted to the Planning Office: "...,.,'.. ..' '." ~'.~" . .....~,'"..- ".,.:;:,..:.~~~- .':' ~ ','I~"',,'...' . ;(."~.' ;'.'''.y.'' ,._.,.,:~,.,,' . '....,......~. PlanneT''eol~lte.~~''~~tiandiing 3 applications--Rubey Park Visitor's Center, and Aspen Downtown Storage, and Whale of a Wash. The first application, Rubey Park Visitor's Center requests construction of a Public Transportation Information Center, {)6Iltainii1g"sGllle commercial lease space which would house related services. The Aspen Downtown~~~rQ~ application pertains to the proposed development of a setf~"lurage warehousf:"1,l'c-i1-ity with manager's office, manager's apartment and two employee housing units on Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. The Whale of a Wash application (also referred to as 415 East Main Street) proposes '''''.anSi4r.Amto the exi~t';;; \~hale of a Wash laundry for commercial and office development. These three applications will be reviewed at the October 5, 1982 'City Planning andZoning'Commission meeting, so please review the applications and return any comments regarding same to the Planning Office, attention Colette "'~nne,by Mtmtiay;13ctt>btrZOth if at all possible. Planner Alice Davis is handling the attached Carriage House Lodge application. The applicant seeks approval for a 26 unit lodge to be located at 204 E. Durant ,.Avenue. This applicatiun will be presented before the October 19th City Planning and"Z~-<:'Olm\i'Ss;~~'lOC~1.-~n9 ,so any referral comments should be back to Alice Davis at tile Planning'Office by Monday, October 4th. Please remember that the City GMP scoring procedures have been amended during the past year, so your comments should address these new regulations. If you 1!1"e unfamiUar .with .,tIIe new Ordinance, please contact either Colette Penne or '1\1;ce1tclvi~di:925'--l:Gt:V;"'AL. 223 and ext. 227, respectively. Thank you. ,.... - """. - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Lodge GMP Score Sheets DATE: November 2, 1982 Attached for your information are the score sheets for the 1983 Lodge growth management competition. . I........ '....... /...... ...... .." ~ ...... \0 ~I ;\ ~I ~11 ~I ~111 \0\ 1 ~ ~\ 1 ~I ~I ~\ ~ ~I , , ~I ~I ~ ~ ~I NI ~ -~\O\ ~ ~~I \01 g\ ~\ \0 \01 ~I ~ ~ 111NI \01 ~r ~\ '1 ~I""'I ~I ~\ ~\ ~\ 01 QI e ~\ 1 ~\ 1 NI \01 \014 NI ~I ""'1 ~I NI~I ~I z .~ C) E ..... Vl ~ en '" en r:> ..... r co ~ en z \ I 1 \ I I 1 1 I I 1 \ \ I d; z -' C) ~1 0. ..... l- I- ..; z U UJ C) r -' I- UJ -' ..... <!J ..; ..... ..; :I: :z en en ~ ~ N\ ~I NI ~I \0\ ~ ~\ ~I \01 MI ~I ~I~I ~I ..; I- r z >- ~I ..... -' :I: C) -' I- 0. ~ ~ C) N 0::: t.!l "" UJ 0. <!J ~ I I 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 \ I I I I I 0 C) -' ...., co " 0'1 " ~ .... ~ \ .. .. .. -' -' -' , ~ ~ ~ I en ..... C) 0 en C) , U l- I- l- I- f ..... co e co en A Vl CO ::>0 ~ 0 ~ UJ Vl QI ~ 0::: en ,~ en ::::l QlVl .~ en i UJ c ~ <!J ,~ QI ~ en t7> e oS ..Cl'~ .~ l - 0 .... 0::: ..Cl~ .... I 0 Vl .~ :> 0 O.~ Vl .~ I ~ QI ~ U u.. -'~ QI U C 0 '" S- .~ .~ '" QI 0 > .~ 0 AU ~ ...' I .. en QI QI en - z ~ S- U ~ UJ Vl'" .~ Vl UJ U U '" ~ <!J oS QI U " " , 0 "'... .... .... ~ S- ...... .~ .~ C U ...... S- e Vl "C "', ...... Ql .~ '" 1 QI I- > > - QI en ::> t7> e c Co :0- S-'" U e r ..Cl ...... S- S- '" ~ UJ ~ .~ 0 '" E 0 ";U '" 0 E -' QI QI S- o Cl U Vl U ...... 0::: e ... .~ I QI ...... en en C) S- QI Ql en 0. enQl ~ ::E U 0. u.. ~ 0 >. c .... es- 0> '" ..; S- S- E Vl 0 .~ 0> .~ .. en .~ <11 e QI 0> ... QI QI QI "C .c QI S- .Yo :> UJ ~..... .~ S- e ~ 3: 0 S- '" >- U ~ QI S- Vl ...... Qle e U J .~ U '" QI ~ .~ 0 l- S- .~ e '" .~ I- <110 .~ QI I ~ ...... ~ en en ... 0::: ..... ..; en UJ 0. :0- ..... ::EU 0 0::: .. 0 -' -' Z I- ::>0 CO ..; UJ U ~ . . . . . ::::l . . . . :'i . . . UJ N 0. '" ..Cl U "C QI C1' '" ..Cl U '" QI '" ..Cl U r:> 0 "" 0::: . . . 0. 0. .... N ..... ; I "'Cl ,.....- ."'"". , 0 ..., .s;: _./ III OJ S- .s;: ..... '<t LO 11 ^ \0 ~\ ~ 00 :;:\ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~\ ~\ ~ 0\ ~ ~ LO\ ~ 0\ ~\ J\ LO\ ~\ 0\ ~\ ~\ ~l 00\ ~I 0\ ~I '" ~ UJ <!> < a.. . " l- I' UJ UJ I: :r: V) Ii .. .. >- ..,. on ...J " ...J , ;= ,... ,... l- V) V) 'I. Z l- I;;; '!. UJ Z \ ::E: .... .... UJ OJ 0 0 <!> III a.. a.. < ~ z 0 ...J -' ~ :I:: III <!> ;= g S- Z ~ . OJ OJ .... 0 :r: en .0 V) l- I-' I- <0 e => V) :3 .~ OJ 0 I;;; 0 s- ~ :r: 0:: s- .... <!> <0 c> UJ 0 U c: UJ "'- UJ .~ >- <!> ..... 0 V) Cl 0 ...J => 0 I- > a.. Z ...J U 15 0 UJ N a:l M " 00 0 "" O'l 0:: . . .- 0. a.. '<l" on _.~.--_.~ ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT lV.. ~@.IT~~l~ ~ I~/ ' &. S E P 13 1982 \ ,'\SPEN / PITKI(\! co. PLANNING OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ALICE DAVIS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JIM MARKALUNAS GMP APPLICATION FOR THE CARRIAGE HOUSE LODGE SEPTEMBER 10, 1982 We have reviewed the Carriage House Lodge application and concur with the statements made in regards to the water supply, these statements being predicated upon the abandonment of the two existing service lines and re- placed with one adaquate service of durable materials. Abandonment of the existing service lines shall be made at the point of attachment to the main. JM:lf cc: City Attorney City Engineering Department City/County Housing Departments City Electric Department Building Department Sanitation District Fire Chief ASP~N SANITATION DISTRICT 565 N. Mill Street Tele.925-3601 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 fr+!3- C-A /l.. fL./ A, Ce /i 0 v S E" Al'ft-ICI1T/O"- ~AS 1L1Zv-1E:-t--af-o, !3'f ,HE:- BOA/f-r;. ,A-""""- IT cA.<- ~E sen-~IL<>I> ny Ttif':. )l<;l'e~ SA-,r.-.rl'lrl'- 1>/ STf2..Ic--, ~ ~r/ A $' f) ;--f~ jUu PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1983 City of Aspen Lodge Growth Management Competition NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before " the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 19, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to review and score the Carriage House 1983 Lodge Growth Management application. For further information contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 227. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on September 23, 1982. City of Aspen account. Growth Management Review Checklist City of Aspen Engineering Department Revised January 31, 198~ proj ect Name CaJVd'D ~('), (-oj,~ <2~ Address _, zrl{ ~.-Y:,., ^"^ f \ Owner ~ Attorney/Agent/Representative ~ Address %1"> ~ ~(>(lA^i'l. Reviewed by ~ Date 10 -/7 --'R"~ I. Residential Application (section 24-10.4) ~ Public Facilities & Services o - Infeasible to provide I - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) 3 - NO forseeable deficiencies 7~ * Hater ( 3 pts.) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. We.- ~ ~ v..w.-.'-'^--~ S~tcQ.....(~ 7- * Sewer (3 pts.) Capacity witho~t system upgradEJ' ~~ F~ et.:b> ()..e ~ +- VIA.A Cv\.. '\-0."",- ~~ \fr&6 7- Storm Drainage (3 pts.) A~~t~~o/sa~f~ac~k~'cr,F<'~t' 'rIJ~ io '1 :;::{Jt~ <l!A.. c..o-.~ k~~ {t\0\. 'r~.:> ~t- c:t~ '0k+~ s~,dA. ~-k~~ b~u.:x>-0(~ le<2.. <yp~n<(~ Parking Design (3 pts.) I I G:err::J:1~i?~~~' safety, and convenience. .~ ,"<; Roads (3 pts.) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns ~r overloading streets or requiring more maintenance. :r:~ ~ f<w€- ~j{/ 'page 2 Growth Management Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services o - Requires new service at public expense I Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service FublkTransportation (2 pts.) 2 - On existing route. I Within 520 feet of route. o Not near service area. Bike Paths Linked to Trail System (2 pts.) Design Features for Handicapped (2 pts.) II. Commercial and Office Development Application (section 24-10.5) A. Quality of Design o - Totally deficient I - Major flaw 2 Acceptable 3 Excellent Site Design (3 pts.) Quality and character of landscaping, extend of under- grounding of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy of circulation. Amenities (3 pts.) Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways. Trash and utility access areas (3 pts.) <,i-I[,1o III.Lodge Development Application (section ." -10 () A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) Page 3 Growth Management Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services o - Requires new service at public expense. I - Existing service adequate. 2 - Project improves quality of service. ~ Public Transportation (6 pts.) 6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift. 4 - Within 520 feet of bus route and lift. 2 - Within 520 feet of bus route or lift. C. Quality of Design :3 Site Design (3 pts.) Amenities (3 pts.) V Visual Impact (3 pts.) Sr)o and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. ~('e..- -b.!S- Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (l pt.). Limo with regular service per 25 guests (I pt.). prohibition of employee parking on site (I pt.). IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone L- { NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement Required Actual Lot Area Lot Area/Unit Lot width Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback Page 4 .,' Growth Management Review Checklist Haximum Height Building Dist. Bldg. Sq. Footage Open Space External F.A.R. Internal F.A.R. Required Actual V. possible further review of proposed project (All applications) Subdivision Exemption Exception Stream Margin View Plane * Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment to be made in the Engineering Department memo. . ASPEN.PITKIN'REGIONAL BUILDI~G DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM r c:::1 r;:;1 I~J<;"J.~'f7" ,,-1, r;-. ::'." I. J2.~l!L.i~ ''':J1JL "'i !.... !f 'I ,- . ,"'lL"'"'''' " ~ <.-_C~~_ ,~, ..... . I 'I 1/ I ~ I, \, / I" ;; " ,~ ~ j i\~( r""u\{ 1... lOR?'::; Jl \" ~V~ :,1,1 ul .\.'.....;J ""ASW1' PITKIN co:'--~. PLANNING OFFiCE TO: Planning Dept. FROM: Patsy Newbury, Acting Building Official DATE: October 27, 1982 RE: The Pines - Carriage House iv" 't- t~- It. L \.,(,.->l~ loli"'/5~ If approved as presented, who keeps account of transfered credit units (6). Do they go to !'lr. Cantrup or are they transfered with ownership? Does the Planning Department include these units in Growth Management numbers? The other concern is the proposal of 26 fireplaces (one in each lodge unit). These should, perhaps, be limited to bar, dining and lobby areas. They are a very inefficient heat source and of some concern to the Health Department as to air pollution. Sorry so late with comment. 506 East Main Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 ,,"', .,"/' ........ - (.oJ N - "0 "0 . . :<> "" C) c... n CT I>> ~ f1) 00 n CT I>> JO f1) 00 n CT I>> "0 N (T1 . . . . . . . C . . . . C 0 (T1 ~ CO "" -; :z r- r- 0 :<> c 03: ..... "" "0 (T1 V> ~ ..... :<> "TI V> V> ::E: .... .... f1) ~. 0f1) -; ~. I>> :> ~. ..., -; 0 ~. .... f1) I>> 0 ~. n :> :>f1) .... '" ..., f1) r+ n -< I>> ..., 0 '" .... :> ..., ~. ........ (T1 <:: '" ..., f1) ::r- Oo f1) ~ m m "TI 10 m :> m ~. V> I>> ~. 10 ~. C) ... ..., ..., ~ I>> 10 ...,'" - '" '< C .... .." "0 0 :;: .... m<c "0 10 m m ..., c V> V> .... m ~. "TI '" ;C .... 0 '" n c 0 ..., m m r- 3 0 I>> n~ C) 3 I>> 0 ~. r+ (T1 .... I>> ..., ..., .... CT :> n m..., <: 'C :> :> 10 <:: V> f1) ~. < < -; m I>> ~. m .... I>> 00 ... :> ..., .... n :> ~. ~. .... ..., .... .... "TII>> C -, n m I>> G'> .... I>> n n (T1 '" ~. 1>>'" (T1 .... 0 ..., .... :z ~. 10 m m V> ."TI r+ n. c ~. < 0 f1) I>> ~. ~. ..., I>> C :> ~ n m .... .- .." n .... m :z ~. '" ~.o C) <:: ~. ... C .... r+ CT :<> .... 0 ~. ... ... CT I>> :> 10 V> .... f1) ~. G'> .... :> rn V> ~. ",m c V> ~. V> :<> c m ... (T1 c 0 c "" CO ... V> CO :> CO .... -; -; -; d 0 C) en C) (T1 ~ ~ ~ en r- r- r- .. .... \0 ~ CO (.oJ r- C) c G'> "0 (T1 "" G'> :<> N C) l~ I~ 110 F I~ Nr~ I!& ~ "0 ::j (Jl (Jl 10 '" N '" N .... r- C) :x: .- .... (Jl -< :z :;: -; ~ en en :z :x: ~ (T1 ~ G'> rn .- rn -; r- :;: C) (T1 0 z I~ ~ -; -; ..... "0 C) r- :z ~ :z V> c CO :;: ..... IONr ~ ~ c... Vl .... N I>> V> (Jl ..,. N 10 O'l <oJ '" '" N .... .... '" .... 3 C) ~. :z :> f1) .... (Jl (Jl ... ..,. ..... (Jl N ... (Jl <oJ 10 r. O'l ..,. (Jl '" N~~~ .... ~ N .... O'l '" 10 w C) IlOrl '" I N ....~I .... ::E: m - .... o :> (Jl .... ..... ... ..,. 10 N 10 r 10 r r '" r r ~ .... ~ .... I~ .... ..... (Jl I~ '" ..... ~ , '" """ - "-". U'\ "'" '" 't:l -' . . ;0 '" "" 0 0> c.. W to .., N .., 0 :;:: n r- :z '" < -1 0 c:: r- 0 0 tn 0 .... CO> -< - .., '" .., ::s n 0 .., '" D> CO> .... .., ;0 :z :I: :;:: .., 0 -1 0 C1l ~. 2C tn c:: 3 D> -1 -1 -1 tn CT '" :I: 0 0 .... C1l C1l . > ~ ~ :z .., ~ -, CO> '" :I: r- r- 0 :z <: ;roo '" '" '" CO> 0 0 C1l .., .... .... :;:: :z :z .., -1 -1 :z tn tn -1 -' -' ~ I r- r- U'\ ~ -< .. tn :I: .., .., -1 . -0 ;roo ~ CO> .., N I~ \0 l~ 00 1~ i~ U'\ N o I~ (Jl c.. D> '" 3 ~. ::s C1l I~ o l~ r ~ f \0 f -' o 2C C1l -' .... o ::s r ~ F r I~ t '" ~ 0 CO . '" '" V U'\ "'" .... ::T .., C1l V> ::T 0 -' 0- " W N ~ '"0 '"0 . ;;0 go C> c.- O <:T '" ~ ID 0- 0 <:T '" .0 ID 0- 0 <:T '" '"0 N I'Tl . . . . . . . . c: . . . . c: n I'Tl :.- '" <: -l :z r- r- 0 I ;;0 c '~~ .... <: '"0 I'Tl en :.- .... ;;0 ." en en ::E: .... c+ ID ~. OlD -l ~. '" " ~. .... -l 0 ~. rt '" '" n ~. 0 " ='''' .... VI .... '" c+ n -< '" .... 0 :s c+ " I .... ~. ..... rt rn c: 7<" .... '" ::r 0- lD .... '" '" ." "" ID " ID ~. en '" ~. "" ~. C> VI EI .... .... :.- '" '" ...." ~ " '< Cl rt ." '"0 n ~ c+ "'''' '"0 '" '" '" .... Cl en en .... '" ~. ." " ;;0 .... n VI 0 Cl 0 .... ID '" r- EI 0 '" 0:'- 0 EI '" 0 ~. rt rn rt '" .... .... .... <:T " 0 "'.... <: '0 " " '" c: en '" ~. <: <: -l ID '" ~. ID .... '" 0- VI " .... .... 0 " ~. ~. .... .... ~ ~ .,,'" Cl .. 0 ID '" '" rt '" n n I'T1 VI ~. "'VI rn c+ n .... ~ :z ~. '" '" '" en ,'" c+ n. Cl ~. < 0 '" '" ~. ~. "1 '" Cl " :.- n '" ~r- ." n c+ '" :z ~. fIl ~o 0 c: ~. fIl Cl ~ c+ C' ;;0 ~ 0 ~. ~ ~<:T '" " '" en c+ ID ~. '" c+ " I'Tl en ~. fIlID c: en ~. en ;;0 c: ID fIl rn c: 0 c: < CD fIl . en '" " CD .... -l -l -l -l n C> en C> C> I'Tl );! );! );! en r- ,.... r- .. .. ~ .0 I I I 111\\ \ 1\ II ~ ex> (.0.) r- C> Cl '" '"0 I'Tl go '" ;;0 N C> Iy; I~ 1.0 l~ len 1.0 I~ ~ len IN I~ r~ t~ -l :E: :.- '"0 -l ~ ex> N ,.... C> :J: r- .... ~ -< z 3: -l :.- en en z :J: :.- I'Tl :.- '" I'Tl r- rn -l r- ~ C> I'Tl I I I 111\ ,~ n :z :.- -l -l .... '"0 C> r- :z :0- :z en c: CD 3: ~IN 1.0 N r \en \en IN ~ I~ ~ I ~ .... I~ 1(.0.) c.- en ~ '" en ~ ID VI .... 3 C> ~. :z " ID ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....., ~ N ~ ~ (.0.) .0 r. en ~ ~ en N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ en len lID I~ len lID I t en r IN~~II: ::E: '" ~ c+ o " I~ ~ I~ .0 N ID r.orren r r ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ en ....., ~ ~ ....., ~ N ex> , , , , , II "" .". -0 on ~ . . :<l \D "" 0 ex> c.. <.oJ to ,." N. ,." 0 :;:; n .... :z -0 <: -I 0 <= .... 0 CJ V> 0 ..... '" -< ~ ,." -0 ,." :> n 0 ,." <0 D> '" .... .., :<l ~ :I: :;:; .., 0 0 ro ~. ~ V> <= S D> ,-I -I V> <T <0 :I: 0 0 .... ro ro . -. ~ ~ :z .... S;; " '" VI :l: .... .... 0 :z c: ::> -0 -0 VI '" 0 0 ro ,." .... .... :;:; 'I :z :z ,." -I -I :z V> V> -I ~ ~ ~ .... .... "" .". -< .. ., V> :I: ,." ,." -I . -0 ::> '" ~ ,." N IE 10 IE lex> 1m I~ 10 \~ \"" I~ \0 f r r 10 f \~ - ._____u .-.< ...~.__.- r ~ ~ f i~ c.. D> VI S ~. ::l ro ~ Ii I::: t I~ CX> ~ en \/ "" .p- ..... ::l" .., ro VI ::l" 0 ~ Q. ---*'- , CITY OF ASP!O . MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN AICP ! \ Assistant Planning Director' r') I \ 'L e-- 'f . f\e -\-t.. ~ ~\\~' \~\I((t ~ lA \pL +t~ ~,,\J \,\~ ~~ {Lee, 1/2 A;-<:, A;-- .~~',^-.l+ oE- '^-C....) 0"-0./ f \ L <> kl J F \k l S LQ"'-c, L~l~ Itt tl'4>vkl '" "-- A; V/,(l r~/t,~~1 v..~__---t +- '( e ......,'-- l (- -to " .\-~ ,~ l \ ~ e 2>\ _ \ \.'l C co.') ~ l "" ^--^,,<.N~ .A' ) I \ a - ti 0 k ~- p,-llo(A~-- '-'I it L'--,,+ ,,'>((;~""- V~+, I l, \ \ ) IS's '" ' it f u, L..-IJe ~ N ( ~\=k t.+- *'" t1~ ..J~ 0 .'" ") I, 1 &-~ , A- '-...t S <-v--+-- 0 F- 01... "'-L,-", ''Ty1y I \ L 4 N -:., ) I-~~Q ;tv'- Q,'(~ c,\ C "'- ~ ~ \ ~"-C ~{- L <, - - '. - \SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 . 63721 .47331 - 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 63722 - 47332 - 52100 GMP/PRELlMINARY 63723 . 47333 - 52100 GMP/FINAL 63724 .47341 - 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL 63725 . 47342 - 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY 63726 . 47343 - 52100 SUB/FINAL 63727 - 47350 . 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION 63728 . 47350 - 52100 REZONING 63729 . 47360 - 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW SUB.TOTAL County 00113 . 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL 63712 - 47332 - 52200 GMP/PRELlMINARY 63713 . 47333 - 52200 GMP/FINAL 63714 - 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL 63715 . 47342 . 52200 SUB/DETAILED 63716 - 47343 . 52200 SUB/FINAL 63717 . 47350 - 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 . 47350 . 52200 REZONING 63719 . 47360 - 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL SUB.TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 . 63061 - 09100 . 52200 COUNTY CODE 63063 - 09100 - 52200 ALMANAC 63062 . 09100 - 52300 GMP 63066 . 09100 . 52300 COPY FEES 63069 . 09100 OTHER SUB-TOTAL TOTAL #1(:J -ciJ- ,", .-'-, '-/{-...., .\ ~', .~ '--)L "Name: /11 III ii-,Li~ ..l~~t jl'(~1n l?'., /,(..- Address: '''T')' Ie" (:-7.-J (el '{'..- ,V,-'v r-r-~ i.:;;o"'[.~' J-_._____ -- Check No. ....J,~) .':;'<~ Additional Billing: Phone: ..s -~ Project: ' ! "',',' -.'.~--t .I .l, (1/fi /....' "~ate~! /) . . No, of Hours: GAlRfHlElLD & JH[IECJ!H - RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AvENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER KA THERlNE HENDRlCKS WILLIAM K. GUEST. P,C, KIRK B. HOLLEYMAN September 2, 1982 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" Hr. Sunny Vann City of Aspen Planning Department, 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 816ll Re: GMP Submission for the Carriage House Dear Sunny: In accordance with our conversation this afternoon, I am submitting herewith a revised application for a Growth Hanagement Plan allocation for the referenced project. As I indicated to you, our client, Mr.Cantrup, has requested that I do this for technical clarification of some awbiguities which you might find in the document as submitted as well as to correct various typographical and grammatical errors in the original submission. It is my understandin9 that you \;ould not accept a substitute application except for such technical clarifications and you will compare both versions to determine whether or not that is in fact true, reserving the right to not accept the one submitted herewith in the event that you find that there are any substantive changes therein. Thi's sub"lission, of course, ~Iould not affect the validity of our original application should you decide not to accept it. I very much appreciate the considecation you are giving us in'this regard and 'Jant to thank you for your cooperation. Very V'UlY GARF dLD & your s, HECHT iP r F. Schiffer SFS/pg enclosure cc: Hans B. Cantrup THE CARRIAGE HOUSE LODGE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR 26 LODGE UNITS AND 5 EMPLOYEE UNITS AT 204 EAST DURANT AVENUE SUBMISSION DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 LODGE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION 26 LODGE ACCOMMODATIONS 5 EMPLOYEE UNITS SUBMITTED: City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 APPLICANT: H.B.C. Investments 450 South Galena Street Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-8610 OWNER: Hans B. Cantrup P. O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 303/925-9365 81612 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL This application is submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, Ordinance 27 Series of 1982 for a Growth Management Plan allocation of twenty-six (26) lodge units and five (5) employee units. The project, including both the lodge and employee units, will be located at 204 East Durant Avenue, on a site which is presently occupied by the Carriage House/Pines Lodge. -2- LODGE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION APPLICATION SU~rnARY 1. Project Name: Carriage House 2. Project Location: Lots K, L, M, N. O. Block 77 City & Township of Aspen 3. Street Address: 204 East Durant Avenue 4. Parcel Size: 15,000 sq.ft. 5. Current Zoning District & Zone under which Application is submitted: L - 1 Zone 6. Maximum External FAR: 15,000 sq.ft. 3,750 sq. ft. (25%) 4,395 sq.ft. (29.3%) 7. Open Space Required: 8.' Open Space Provided: 9. Internal Floor Area Ratio Requirements: Maximum Rental Area Minimum Employee Area Minimum Public Space 10,000 sq. ft. 1,250 sq. ft. 3,750 sq. ft. 15,000 sq.ft. 10. Internal Floor Area Ratio provided: Rental Area Employee Area Public Space Storage Areas 9,270 sq.ft. 1,650 sq.ft. 3,750 sq. ft. 240 sq.ft. 14,910 sq.ft. 11. Number and Type of Units Proposed 26 Lodge Units 5 Employee Units 12. 12. Size of Units 20 Lodge Units @ 330 sq. ft. 6 Lodge Units @ 370- , 660 sq. f t. 5 Employee Units @ 330 sq. ft. 13. Price Range of Units 26 Short Term Rental Lodge Units at Market Rates. 5 Employee Rental Units Under Low Income Rental Guidelines 14. Subdivision Review No 15. View Plane None - Property is unaffected by Wheeler Opera House View Plane 16. Special Procedure required No 17. Stream Margin Review No 18. Historical Preservation Review No 19. P.U.D. No 20. Stream Margin Review No 21. Description of Surrounding Existing Land Uses & Zoning: As shown on the address/vicinity map, the surrounding land use is predominantly that of short term lodge and condominium accommodations. The Chart House Restaurant and Wagner Park are also in the surrounding area. Existing projects and facilities contiguous or adjacent to the project include the Aspen Manor Lodge; Chart House Restaurant, Southpoint Condominiums, Lift One Condominiums, two single family residences which are next to the Inverness Lodge and Winfield Arms Apartments. Deep Powder and the Limelight Lodge. The Project as proposed is therefore most compatible with the existing zone district and surrounding land uses. Existing zone districts are shown on the vicinity map. -4- 22. Project Overview: The project will consist of twenty-six (26) lodge units and five (5) employee units. The employee units will provide sufficient housing for employees of the lodge and will be located on site. The site is the present location of the Carriage House/Pines Lodge which was once operated as a lodge and now consists of six (6) residential multi-family type units. Prior to demolition of those units the applicant would proceed through the approval process necessary for the verification and inventorying of those units in contemplation of their reconstruction at another location as residential multi-family units should the same be permitted at some future date within the purview of a transfer of development rights ordinance. Twenty-two (22) parking spaces would be provided in an underground garage and nine (9) spaces on the surface. Both parking facilities would be accessible from the alley adjacent to and north of the property. Amenities will include a lobby, conference area, bar, dining area, health club and swimming pool, all of which will be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness in relation to the overall size of the lodge. There will also be fireplaces in each of the lodge units. (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o - 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. a) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the water system to service the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. There is an existing eight inch water line on. Monarch Street and a six inch main on Durant Avenue immediately in front of the project. Discussions with Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Department, revealed that the existing main on Durant Street could easily handle the proposed project. There would be no system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. The project site is currently served from the six inch main via two lines that run onto adjacent properties as well as along the alley. These lines have both experienced leaks in the past and create an engineering and maintenance problem for the Aspen'Water Department. This lodge project can, in and of itself, improve the quality of water service in the area as the applicant agrees to abandon the existing old lines and install one new line to serve the project and adjacent sites. b) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. There is an existing eight inch sewer line and manhole on Durant Avenue immediately in front of the project site. There is also another eight inch 'line along Aspen Street that connects the Durant Avenue line with a third eight inch line that runs along the alley of BLock 77, immediately behind the project site. It is this alley sewer line that currently serves the existing facilities on the site, running to lot "L" of the parcel. Conversations with the Aspen Metro Sanitation Department, Heiko Kuhn, indicated there is sufficient excess capacity to serve the project without any system extension or treatment plant upgrading required. The existing sewer lines are most capable of serving the proposed project, and the existing sewer connection on Lot ilL" will also serve the new project. Wastewater and sewage requirements are directly related to unit size and occupancy. Applying the Colorado State Department of Health Standard of 100 gallons/person/day to occupancy standards of 1.5 people per lodge unit (in a size range of 330 sq.ft.), the project would generate 4650 gallons per day. The Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plan (A.W.P.1 has a capacity of 3 million gallons per day, of which an average of 2.3 million gallons are used. Conseouently it is seen that the plant is running at only 77% capacity. As this project would generate less than 1/6 of one percent to plant capacity, it is well within the capacity of the system. -6- The project; ,in and of itself, will improve the quality of sewer service in the area in that the applicant will commit to financing the maintenance of the ,sewer line in the alley for clearing out cottonwood roots that, occasionally block the lines and cleaning the manhole blockage that occurs as a result of grease contamination from the Chart House. Such maintenance will keep the lines clear for all users on the'line in the area, while improving service to all the users and eliminating the history of litigation involved with the blockage of those lines in the area. c) Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development 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. This development will have a drainage control system to collect and retain water drainage on the site. A series of drywells located at various places under the project will provide sufficient capacity to retain runoff. The dry\vells will be designed and placed consistent with standard engineering . practices. The result of this system will be to effectively retain and disperse underground, surface, and roof water runoff. The existing storm drainage facilities in the area include a 27" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the center of Aspen Street and an 18" RCP on Durant Avenue. Storm drainage'service could be imrpoved in the area by placing two additional catch basins on ,the northerly corners of the intersection of Aspen Street and Durant Avenue which the applicant will commit to doing. d) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department or the fire protection district to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition or major equipment t.o 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. There are three fire hydrants in the immediate vicinity of the project. One hydrant is at the corner of Durant Avenue and Monarch Street by the Blue Spruce Lodge; another is located at the intersection of Cooper Avenue and South Aspen Street by the Cooper Street Lofts; a third is immediately adjacent to the project site, at the northwest corner of Durant Avenue and South Aspen Street. As per the letter from Willard Clapper, Fire Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department, all four corners of the property are well covered by fire hydrants. The fire department therefore has excellent ability to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the district without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to the existing station. The project site is only 7 blocks from the fire station; and within a 4 minute response time. Water pressure in the area is 65 P.S.I. static. Due to the excellent location of the site and abundance of fire hydrants with good water pressure, there is no means of improving fire protection service in the area. The excellent service already provided in the area is an inappropriate handicap under the current G.M.P. scoring methods~ e) Roads (maximum 2 points) 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 s;:reet system; and" the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development.' The project is ideally situated with respect to roads and traffic circulation, and clearly would not substantially alter existing traffic patterns, create safety hazards, or overload the existing street systems. The site is at the corner of Durant Avenue and South Aspen Street, both of which are served by the City of Aspen Free Transit and Pitkin County buses. The Rubey Park bus terminal is only two blocks away. Lift I-A is only four blocks away. The commercial core and downtown ,area is only three blocks away. The original car generation data supplied by the U.N.T.A. in 1978 has been updated by the "Aspen In-Room Survey, 1979/1980" (by C.R. Goeldner and Aletta Stamp, Business Reserach Division, University of Colorado). Using data developed by this study done for the Aspen Chamber of Commerce, it is estimated that 26 tourist rental accommodations will generate approximately 8 to 14 vehicles in the winter and summer seasons respectively (see appendix A). Traffic impacts are therefore negligible, if any. -8- Comprehensive traffic count information along Durant Avenue is not available to quantitatively estimate any traffic impact. Hours of principal daily usage is expected to be between 8 - 10 A.M. and 4 - 6 P.M. Both South Aspen Street and Durant Avenue are major street linkages being of a width and capacity to easily handle the needs of the proposed development as a consequence of which there will not be alteration in existing traffic patterns, creation of hazards, nor overloading of the existing street system. These streets were part of the major road improvement program implemented last year which substantially upgraded the streets in the area. Access to the project's parking areas will be from the alley, and will therefore not require any additional curb cuts. --. The project will, in and of itself, improve the quality of road service in the area in that the applicant will commit to regrade and pave the entire alley in the rear of the project. This will improve road access to the Aspen Manor, Limelight Lodge, and Deep Powder. The applicant would also commit to install a street light at the end of lot "0" on Durant Avenue, and another light at the end of lot "K" on Aspen Street to improve road.safety. (2) Quality of design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 - Indicates a major design flaw. 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 - Indicates an excellent design. a.) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. The proposed building was specifically designed to be compatible with existing neighborhood developments in terms of size, height, location and building materials.. . With respect to size it is of a moderate size relative to surrounding developments such as the South Point Condominiums, Timber Ridge Condominiums, Limelight Lodge and 210 Cooper Street Lofts, as a consequence of which it blends well with both the larger and smaller developments. -9- The architectural design of the project with respect. to height also blends in well with the diverse elevations seen in the surrounding developments. The project meets code requirements at 28 feet and offers an additional intermediate step between the one story high Aspen Manor and the four story high South Point Condominiums. The roof is also graduated to give character to the roof line, and follows the property contours. The project is located in the L-I zone, surrounded by other short term accommodation developments. Vehicular access has been designed from the alleyway to minimize curb cuts. The lodge faces Durant Avenue and Aspen Mountain. ,The lobby entrance is South Aspen Street. This design is most compatible with the neighborhood. Building materials to be used include wood, rock and glass, all. of which are typical in the neighborhood. The earth tone colors used will blend in with the existing larger trees on the property. b) Site design (maximum 3 points) considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the. safety and privacy of the users of the development. The project site wile have significant landscaping and open space areas on both of the sides facing Durant Avenue and South Aspen Street (see first floor plan of the architectural drawings.) Both sides have extensive landscaping of shrubs, bushes and the large trees. The alleyway side shall also have some open space with shrubs. These green areas provide an excellent buffer between the street and the project itself. The total amount of open space is 29% of the site, which not only meets, but exceeds, code requirements. The landscaping of the open space areas creates the visual characteristic of a small quaint lodge, while significantly adding to the privacy of the users of the development. Several benches will be provided alongside the streets for pedestrians and guests. Quality of the project is enhanced by placement of all utilities underground. An additional pedestrian amenity will be provided by the regrading and paving of the alley as previously mentioned. The excellent site design also allows for underground parking for 22 vehicles which substantially adds to the privacy and safety of guests and pedestrians alike. -10- c) Energy Conservation (maximum 3 points) 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. The project is designed to maximize thermal characteristics and min~m~ze fossil fuel demand. Several methods will be employed to conserve energy. The architectural design itself will promote energy savings by means of minimizing exterior wall exposure via use of common walls, and by vertical space organization. This means the project has a minimal ratio of exterior surfaces per square foot of occupied space. The units are also oriented with highest use . of interior spaces to the south, thus maximizing passive solar heating potential. Substantial areas of the roof are flat, and are designed to allow the units to retain the additional insulation value of snowfall layers. Insulation methods will be employed which will exceed the current thermal insulation requirements by 10% or more. . Electric energy is currently designed as the project's primary interior space heating. As a substantial portion of the community's electric energy is hydrogenerated, this will provide an additional reduction in fossil fuel'demand. Energy conservation is also realized through the use of efficient fireplaces. Heat circulation fireplaces will be employed, using exterior combustion air, double damper controls, glazed fire opening, and heat return ducting. Automatic thermostats will be used in the lodge rooms to control night time temperatures. These architectural and construction techniques result in an excellent project design that maximizes energy conservation. . d) Parking and circulation (maximum 3 points); considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, including the proposed trash and vehicle access and loading areas and the design features to screen parking from public views. The project has been designed to achieve an optimal circulation and parking system while totally screening parking from the public views. These goals are achieved by means of an underground parking garage for 22 vehicles. Only nine surface spaces are provided, and access to both surface and underground -11- parking is from the alley behind the project. This alley will be paved, providing improved accessibility as previously stated. Further screening of the surface parking area is provided by a landscaped green area with bushes and a large tree toward the entrance of the alley. This high quality, efficient system maximizes the efficiency of internal circulation and parking for the project. The trash area is also easily accessible from the alley, next to surface parking space #8. The loading area is also on the alley. e) Visual impact (maximum 3 poins) considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. As was previously discussed, the Carriage House is an excellent project of a suitable size in a most appropriate location. There are no public viewplanes affected by the lodge. The visual impact of the project itself is minimized by the landscaping, green open space areas, and large trees on the site. The relatively minimal area of the site for a lodge maximizes public views of surrounding scenic areas in itself. The graduated flat ~ roof design also aids in maximizing vies and one column of units is only two levels high, furthering any potential views. (3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. The commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: o - Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 - Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or 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. a.) Availability of on-site common meeting areas such as lobbies and conference areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project (maximum 3 points) . - -, ") This small lodging facility is complimented by a lobby and conference area which is exceptional in quality and in its size in relation to the project as a whole. The lobby is a high quality entrance to the lodge which provides for 730 sq. ft. of area for the guests. This is a ratio of 7.9% (lobby space:rental area) in relation to tourist accommodation space. The meeting room provided on the basement level has 1680 sq.ft., or 18.1% ratio of conference space to accommodations area. This is an exceptional amount of high quality conference area in any lodge. The total amount of lobby and conference areas provided is 2410 sq. ft. or 26% of the entire lodge's rental area. b.) Availability of on-site dining facilities including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project (maximum 3 points). The Carriage House provides total on-site dining facilities, including indoor and outdoor areas for the restaurant, a bar adjacent to the lobby; and the conference room which doubles as a banquet facility when otherwise not in use. The indoor-outdoor dining area is about' 410 sq.ft. The bar area is another 165 sq.ft. combined, they represent 575 sq.ft., or 6.2% of the t:otal rental area of the lodge. When the banquet facility is added, 2255 sq.ft., or 24.3% of the accommodations. are in this category. Seldom, in such a small lodge, will there E,ver be a conference and a banquet scheduled for the same day and' time. c.) Availability of on-site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas in relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project (maximum 3 points). . This project also provides exceptional recreational facilities by incorporation of a health club and pool area. Both are excellent quality amenities that provide a combined 1753 sq.ft., or 18.9% of short term accommodations area to guest recreation. Indeed, the quality of the proposed project is exceeded only by the spaciousness of vi5itor amenities provided in relation to the overall size of the lodge. (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 20 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: -13':' a.) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: o to 50% of lodge employees housed on or off site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of lodge employees housed on or off site - 1 point for each 5% housed. The Carriage House contains five on-site employee units. These units account for a total of 1650 sq.ft., significantly exceeding code requirements for employee space. Each unit will house two lodge employees. The employee units will house a total of 100% of.the employees required for the lodge's operation. Given below is a detailed list of all employees required to serve the project: ") ( 3 desk clerks 3 maids ..,/2 dining Ibar service people 1 bellboy 1 maintenance person 10 employees necessary to operate the Carriage House. Of these employees, all of them will be housed on-site. (5) Bonus points (maximum 5 points). The co~~ission members may, when anyone shall determine that a project has exceeded the substantive criteria set forth above and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total points awarded under those sections. This application should receive the maximum permissible bonus points. The premium location, coupled with the total . availability of all public services in the area, warrants at least one extra point. It is noted that a major inconsistency in the scoring criteria exists: the most appropriate location for a lodge in terms of highest level of services available in the area will score the lowest amount of points (no improvements are necessary and quality of service is complete) while the most inappropriate location in terms of a poor level of service that requires major upgrading necessary to serve a lodge will score the highest amount of points. The Carriage House has an excellent design, both architecturally and in terms of site planning. The project is most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and allows for safety and privacy for users of the development while' providing excellent open space areas in -14- proportion to the size of the total site. Underground parking insures efficient circulation and minimal impact. Efficient energy conservation features include fireplaces, architectural design, and insulation that exceeds current code requirements. For these exceptional features, at least 1.5 bonus points should be given in recognition of the outstanding quality of design. This relatively small lodge provides a substantial amount of guest amenities in proportion to its overall size. The on-site dining facilities include indoor-outdoor areas as well as an inside bar. An excellent lobby area combined with a very large conference/banquet facility meets, and exceeds, every need for common meeting areas in this type of lodge. These amenities, plus the health club and pool, certainly warrant at least one bonus point. In addition to providing for the safety, privacy.and full array of amenities for the guests, the lodge also provides housing for all of its employees. This minimizes any potential housing impacts upon the community, and exceeds the maximum scoring' criteria. As such. 1.5 bonus points would be most appropriate, " for rarely would a small lodge do so much for both visitors and employees. -15- .....r.";~l-~ .. - ;y.....~~n:.~~~p.u;o~1:<(Or;'O'O\t>Ylo>e;lO~-___ _ Zt._ ;/. .- __ V I OUJ..J .:).. _ '\ iiJW)' B . R /.' ,.- .._~, -----,-, ,_. , ,';;" \, . a ~ I, ,~,r - - ' - ~ "'\. '-r-~-rTTr ; Ii llTt'~r.'r-' 1 . ,tl/"I~l l I j : i I ,"3, rin-i--r-T, i ~Cj f ! li ~ ~ I' ~ 11 t I ~'7;!. , : I I Ii!! j\ I I , I I I \,Jf.23h-~.~~I,-~"..,~ P;';:PCI\E ~~.;~J;;0:?:5;-_:;tlJ uJ !~}LL1_J-.! \,LLU(~ I, .T"'TTTP ~{~p,~~" ~ nTITr(TT~ 2 1;.~-TrTrrn \"t, ill'---"f ILl J J 1..11 ~'_~~~:_~,_l-~- I J L_~J~(LUJJ ~ ,. _; l ! ! ,li i ! I UL I t r.,. ;)Ij.~ It:;.>q..--.:.=.o r...... ~;.U. ......,........... :r.;..:"t.... :.7~." ~:: I-,. ~ ~ ,!cT~Er, ~,' ~l,~!) r!'L:'I~i~r'I'TTI U' ; rill! [T.JIJITr~ ~ 1-1 i form-on I' 'I 1.\ I I j ".0"," I' i : : ir~: I : i ! ; !.~'~\,-1~_.. L.._ ..~':::.:tl__. ._ ~ l~l~:r.J. _l_Li ,',',' -' '8]lliJr~-----'------'lL-~TTTnJ I !~]{n[!m" r(:)"", ~\; I : 'VPO/-:.' '. i' ! [[[--iftJ11 U ' 1~"'",l~iA .,-. TllJ]] , ;; .:!,_u1 ., en , ~ ' .rkillJ : ." I :; , r-~. .. - , u -.;y a -~~,,,,,, ~'--:~D,;r;:.~l.: ~ ' ff .,. ~ \"~(>'i'R, ~~~' "'., rrr~ ~~9 : i [lli~n1r1 r-o ( l P ", I ~~~J~ll f I I I I I I l '" d:PLlt! ~ ' (D~T"n,) 'I' [ ll,>Jj)j_-L_ iJJJiIT'-=--'~~T--r"~~rillU ~ ". J ~IIIIOI .~-~'~~''''' '." - ~ ! .~,Ir:' , "I ' -,' ,r;r;w", "~-Tlji'~~777c~~~T'rrUiI~ .~,. _~_ f 23'. ,~ '0 9Ih~!I.,:~LLLUdJJ-.' : i '~iII1.l.~'U-U6> ' . ~ _~EA.'l ",,-_51 ~__ ~__"'!.'l!w:'-'I8:...-_==-.::<"._r:lO"iJ;f.I<4J1~~>Ow""" ""'" .v~:=.>~ ~~__"""'1IXa~~-=3............~ '. . II -~ ; :~dl.EIT3Lj5 ~ 7~J-'---LfrDLU!rl::llil;I'~lln-1111121.3r41;!iF:~11M-1iHll'.I-/ICvIH- ""q ,-~\:::<.i - ~-' . l!.- !'::.:--=." _ ~-j- . I pi I' I,' I ,~~, !' '-""_ ,. """-_0 il. - '~1171' ,,1,- '7r.:-J'<>!?CI?J,-J. tll1f-l-'f". L Ii ) ,<_1-..-"-'! . }----!~~ I - ~ I u~;;;7=7-d L _.";0'... ,-,.t-~"'~~-'r~l ~;----. rj;l--.~~---"--l-.''i:''-''''T---~l--- .,., ..- - _.' ,1-- -- - . - ,_. '. ~~___, _ _ .L'l _ ,._' _~' ~" I'" I I, - .,- ,:.>iJDJl- 8, - tl.~ JUAN 'ST. ',-::--:--_::,; H_ ,__...1 5 I lJ rTrTTI-~.l--'-:-!:::'-::'-' ::~~~~'L'~-liW~~:;'r:~Hl,~ I~ L~~~ '-:i<~;: - ", "~~~i;' ,-,' L :: '_ '.[t~T tl !~ "~~i"l', ~~I · c;TI..c;.g, :c~ 01' I~ [0' }rtTTi I~_ ','! I' i'<i I I i '011 I 10 6 'Of), nr 'll ~ 1 WJ 1(; ,;; I , f-- '-""~ .," 19~ ,=<An' ,'f <',<_0, -- i " ! I .....'" ~~ ---- . HII' sr:." l---------.r.-.......,:>. .~ _n'?~~\:~ ~? f.~I...Fl=-r.T~.I.~. ~i. :r~llli hJ 111~1 8.' 7 ;~ 0 1'\ 11'-.\ &- ":.{~,,~. -~T=-- '~ t'J..Lolt,--~::cil~, ":C: LL-LL,-L.~22! , "'<:..'!--,_C_' 1 '7'':\; II ,'i\ =>-- . / \ lI"'l ,'----r/ o I~;o r- 'R I c.rr -;;.:.. ">.1- ~ It I l.j I I I~' f.. ,l :-~ ~ ~:--~ ~ i---~ I :"'\. _~ __ 11 ':.. I.,.! ,"'~ ;.1._J H U ..:_.,-,}~.? ~> J ;:>0 I I . , ,,,''''''''-. ,=- 'I ,_. I, "j' .' i ':(1 II "\.'.'J~'"'' r"'''' <,--,,', ". ;,- ~... ~cLL~...t.JJ__L ....;........ ITlliII I'I~P;--F1l1 .--- \--1- : L II ! L_.....:~ __'-I ! 'I '[~l---l 1(') t ..', '1' I Il J ___ .(J), i ,..! I '''-'-If--rl, ir-o.8 !j! L 1;0 "2 I ' !Lq;: I , . l ~ I -. I"N-'~' - l-- "N-:;:"'--- - o z ,- ----ijj-- w -------- I-r-;J- 0 tl[O-~t--~ , <'lAI ~ '-'-o., '-". '~-'" -z r~'H-~ 'F:~ !! ::~ ';:j I ..__m }. -. ,. -____1 /1 1'!2~ lul I ' I!--- : t():::?: ~ ,. . ff--;'~~I /i I H':2G -I' ~_JII r-:-:- ;: r,"\' . : {\J t1 ; '-'J I, ,___ ' t ;! I ( " ~Jg/ll L :::>~.' IJ i I ;<}._I;:'-'y'1 ,I i 0(':;'Z/'- . I. . t' 'i)/, , . .. :.' - <0: I I :f I --0(')';;d- . -~':~ -, I I :::~ ~ ~i h; '0-1 l~f , I : ; , , I).... ....! !J i '. , I I I t i ; i i I , I :,( (,) o .. -' C cg IT / r.o -Q - -r _-t:.. J \~ -{- :<\ --N ....- s oo~ " N':"dSv":':"~"'::> I ...--.- ~,~. .;J._u.'_.-~..--~-N_;-;\~. t -f~- __._~_H_____._ [~l~ ,_ll~L~.._ r~"~:-' -,ir==r=--~r--!fu~~=7r(;;~)- 'L_e-i ---~ll: - ,_.I~~.. ql:;J-. .'1 .=d:~.~_-ill~;~1B--lf~.:~l ij .in.!---T!'Y~, .1~:~-{~: -. r .1"'.,,_..-..,..,.,1-, --=,-, _ _C':'_!"- 01_',__1 l-+~.---" i.... I___~ '_u'm___..."_. -I-----=,;",'C!:-,=_-__-Cl.-.~: '[10 ~':!8 n~ 1'r ," ~----i I~-l-T=- -",1;' -, ":;~ 11[~ f- r.- ---Jm ,....-:-:~--: -;,i~.3~ .~,' ~,Ft~'~--~~nu~ ;"id~-cc~(' t:,~I~.=.~: r.. !~ ..-C ll_nu_C ".~;L ~I'-~B.~' .~,I.! ~l~l--+' -~1 J'.;~:~~. II .'1 I"... "~.I i!~J I ^'!! " ,- ~r'~ --,-" : I _ 0 . I ,-LQ_.2...., -. i; I r- '--,. ; . X __ : ____._. '--:1 -: l l\"i:'--~- I,,~ /---1 -~;~-~;--~' e. r~ -,,-II I r I~>\~\!/ 1,__ ..--, ';,;1-- 110m 'L ;:jl t, A J lit :- .' " ,I I 1 lC 0 ' j . " ....:: . ~. '-,.I: '-- ,.1 .....: : i.:.J 0 , :10.. -~ / ' f! 3 ~'- ~ ' t ~~ L I, :::::..u___ I. :--0-- { .. . . l. _ r- rv . ,-' ~ (( <i c.... ., w :;~ ~0 CO t9 <-r ".~ :.::".. " .1 '.:. :.. :_j :~l ~. "I I; , I lit , -1-'---" ...-, roc (!) . u -::i' ro w N ._ :::__.__t;\!_ HJd'v'NO!N , " I - -- -- 1-; g': =--rIJl i w-,x<<:- I -- '-' I ~,~~~~-JI! i ~ - -~~ -.. - ! I~- - .~ .~,~ ! ~; - Ii'- \ \'" \, . "i 1 -I f;--.. ~ 'j t~\ \0\ \ \\) ! - -" -o.- -, II ~l~~~~~:l!' ~ _"__On, .~~~~~~~}:' -' -Irtii--~ OI,..l~~-~,~~~~~~~{ T! -- ,- ~t1_ ~ It- i\'\ O~-'\\ \ u: I .--' rer;:,~-uh l~L~'::,' \\,\~ 1 I w..; _.' \ \, '.\ \. i , ---_I ~--- I i -_'._"~-";'.: . - _._.'_..'--~.~--- . P- _:!:. c.9 _-c' __.. ____ ' .. c::: ~,-._--, l~ 0.. 0 -'0' '-..~.., OJN - -0,.--" , , , " ,;.,/f /. , [' "',r.:)/JOj"} ,~ c;; (/..../. ..,/ fii), /' ::or ~~) , ',,' ' flfd::nup/t:' @ZZf7 c<{]j)yria/:::A7le/!~-: }1a!"k D3nielson c/o HiJC Investment" , 450 S. Calena Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 To "'horn I t Hay Consern: ......~ J'? ,~...;..:::). .0/ ,t?f:~~:i9-\~ .r,~,;v~..>"t:\',\ [I r: r;.o:\":,......... "'. \:10 '~F I ,/""'\ ' ,,< ...<"y~' ""D ..r,. , "'\...... \/,,,.; .' ," ,~~ . ~::.."'J .,~...-.:..;...-.. f~r":2;'?:~ " 0 ~ .:'20 E H;;:~.:I:\":; Sf:;==T :...SPE~J :.;~G;~..\...:;;),~;1511 A"gw;t !q. lC)8:? I have looked ov?t the nei<, tepl"~"8ent pr'oje~t on lots ;(-0 (5) on 'LOt 77 or Aspen to';o1n site.. This project, I understand, ,'t~'ill be ,o271t stccio u';tits of 'approximately 375-400 sq. ft. Also "5" employee u:1its or .c,,-"l~'?;!:ra~\le size will be included in this project. ! find that this area is well to add additional hydrants in are nOt" covered by hydrants. the-present facilities. cO~oJered by fire hydrant"s n::d. S2e nO :-e~scr: the area. All fOllr corners of 2?prcacl~es I see nO proble~ ~ith this ?~0ject tv r~pI2~~ "~~~Thank,you.,:. .._-_._--_._---_.~-_..__.........,..,.. Sincerelv~ .r-..... r"_ !:; . i . .. _. . (:,.{j~f::.~_; ~:-:l:'~..' ~ ., .":. -..-/ :....--t~?:..:~.:-::.:-:-- -......., -. . Hilh:rd C. ClaP?2-...- -_.~-- tn'e Lhie~ .Aspen \r,,)lu::1~2:er-rire .,. . - ._,. -.. . .__._--,-_.__._----~--._---'- --_._-_._-.~--- --- , . De?e'. ..,-=--~..~---'-- . ~. .;~:,-':;:;;~- ~~~ - - ..-- ,----.- .'- -.r-:.;~'~-,-. . . .'. ..,".------,...- .-- -- ,.------ ------..-.. .-,..-,..----:.~.- ._..~.__...,..~ ,..' ":. -- --..,--- .-.-- . ;~'...-.., '.:::~;':,i \?~ i:-:'~;:' .'.,2....,-. .-:,'.... .. APPENDI X PI' S!,!AL L LODGE CAR G~NERATION r\;;,';[,'i~-.rS Hinter' II Hi ~:h__U.!_~ Peri cd 1981 St;l~iner 2 "i~h .Y~2' Pedoct I 1981 26 26 , J . x 95;~ x SO~; , Occupi ed rooms People pel- room 25 21 x 2 x 2 People lodged , Average people arriving by car 41 50 44'; 42 95;~ . 22 73 Estimated cars 8 40 73 14 ----.--.-----... . -"'0._'--'"' .- --'-- .. ....__._~---_.._-.- . -- -~.._-.__.--- Footnotes a~d~ssumPtions , - ._---~ ______lL)li.J:lt~r high-~~~_p,~~i~~_i~~~a' \1eeks Christrr.as enc Fe:>~ and t-::n~ch.. - ... . -,,--'c--~'rT'Room occupil'n;4es'f~O~:U::l~r\Tectir1i i:'al t'!emo~in-Gum 23~'Ap~il, '1977:';' :::~,"-}~~~?~f;: - 21 ' Suir.iiiejO-high:'use peri od'i s average'~leekend, , - .... .,', , - ---...---.-.-.- . ., . '.- . --, ," ..-, '--..'~~' -'. _~__.___..__"__..._u_.. ____ , - ,--::.::~':~r/--Peopl e 'arri vi ng & Aletta Stamp, _.___.u__ __... . ....--..--..,.. by ,cirr esti~ate__fro:nAspenln-Roai-l c$u;vey, _ C. R _ ,Goe ldnet-'~ ,-';.;;i~;~ Bus i ness ResearchDi vision" Uni vet'S i ty c f 'Co 1 aredo ;"193C_'-::--;",:-,:,~" '51 Ibid. ..-..: ,~;~.:;L. ,:~:~~~ . ~::~~~f~t~~/ ,..'-: '. , , ASPEN TITLE COMP,~~y, LTD. ....~, HEREBY CERTIFIES from [\ se,-l!."ch of th~ bOD~S i~l. this off!,:-::. ~h:!~ t~e o~~'n~r of .Lots K, L, N, Nand 0, Block 77, CITY MiD 'j'o\..';'SI'f:, OF ASP]>)! Siteatcd in the County of Pitkin, State of Colo:-a(~o, ~~?I)::::2rs ~o b~. v~s~~d in the HniTIe of IL"0:S B. C/i~rC~GP ,. by that Certain W3rranty Deed recorded in Ba0k 411 ut P3ge" 317 a~j thnt the 'above described property appears to be subject to the fol10....ing: ,...... ..~:_... -- 1. Deed of Trust from Helen R. Scales and ~ichard E. S3bb3ti~i, as tcnants in CO~'11on to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorac..:> fa:" t;:e use or David H. Hasty and Pauline T. Hasty to secure $215,000.00, dated y~y 17, 1974"recorded Hay 30-;- '197l, in Book 287 at Page 756 and re-recorded to correat a:::ount to read $221,150.65, dated July 1, 1974, recorded July I, 1974 in BOuk 288 at Page 829. Said Deed, of Trust is further secured by Assign2ent of ~ents recorded, Hay 30, 1974 in Book 287 at Page 758. (Covers additio.,3.l prop=l:ty also) '.. 2. Deed of Trust from Ronald D. Austin, David F. Jo~es ,a~d P2r~y A. Ea",.ey to the Public Trustee- of Pitkin County~ Color2do for the'use of Ric:h2.rd E. Sabbatini and Helen R. Sabbatini a/k/a Eden R. Scales t:o seaure $750,000.00, dated June 1, 1981, recorded June 1, 1.981 in Boo~.; 1,09 ,,~ ?ege 239.' }fodificatio~ Agreem~~t re:cord~~d in conn2ction- -;.;ith 52-it! D~ed of Trust on July 9, 1981 in Book 411 at Page 23. " ......'. ~ - -'~'-,~:-"Assignt:!ent:-of ,said Deed ,-, "in Book 424 at Page 78. -of Trust to_Bank of Sno'.TI2ss recol:::ed }!arch 25, :1982 '::3.' l;."~d '~f :,Trust frot:! Hans'B.' Carii:~up and June Allen }!oss C2:ltr"? to th'ePliblic- Trustee ,of Pitkin COl1nty_~'__ Colorado.."<f_or the use __C?~. First .~~2.t:ioaal Ba;k of Denve.l:' to secure $8,000,000.00, dated ;'!arch 30, 19S2"recol:ded ~!2r:ch31, 1:Ji'1 10.:-"n, Book424';t Page 359. ,(Covers additional pl:operty 2150). .~...- --- -- ----.._-_.~----~_..._-------- -----.--- ~~~J~-...._T2.xes .to t~~_,"ye..3.r ..19S1 and _ thcreaftc.:::__.. --~---..~-- ..._;'" .----- . . .... ,- ~'--' ~ ::';;'::':,'-=:;-: \- -;-~ ':':-~':':~~:_~~':~;i_~~~:L_~:_-'. . ,-:::.:?:.:~:f:~-;_;;(.:E_~ -_.~.~-_.... .'- .~: '~_:;~-.~;;:-(~',~~..:-:~.:..: ,.-.-.----------- :._ . ___ . ...,,-~-_-.._ ,-- n ---c,.-:-.:::7""':'~,-;:_7"':-.:;-; .o-,.~,:_NOTE:.. Although..we believe the facts. stated _he:rein_ .are tru2 ~- . it is und2rs::ood . . ::; I~.'--~-;- and agreed, that- the liabiiii:'y ,of Aspen Title Coropal:.y, Ltd, ,.rill be' li::ited to ",_"-:'~':~="":: --~'c::::::the-amount -of--'thefee'-charged-hereuni:ler;-"-'This Certif icate' is -not-to- be' conttu-eJ '~.,.~:"c": ,:->~, . >:~~,a:s~an-abstract:of title, nor an opinion of title, or a gU2.o:'anty of title. -.., '~:::::::,':?;-C ~:-.--.::-':-:.~''':~-,=,"''' - .~.-'-.'... .--.-, '_n. ---- ____. _~_~:h--.-_:-j..:i,c~:.::..~~~~s:?~ - -.:~:~~ .::'.--:;-.::;::" ---- -. - -~-~-'----- Dated this 16th d"yof August " 19f1:;> at 8:00 A.~'l. ASPE~ TITLE CO~Wl~Y, LTD. Jk~~ _(i-t~J!() A .. . .~. ~ ", .....,"f"J"f'W !'~ .... .. ..1 CARRIAGE HOUSE , "~'" ':1;.,,~... ',:. , ~ . " ...i , ,"ft. " ,1 " "~~ , "11: " .. .,~ ~;.'"" :$,'-;.f.,. -'. '" .~ t::i.. , ~'J!... ' ...-. :..... \: ..-.~",: "Of".." '. . ~~ ,. .. " .......'. i; ~3: ,..~ j~ ~o J: ~~ " ~ ~. ~ , Z ~~ ~ " ~ L 1JI N ~ "' '" m ~ ~ iii z . -I ! L .. " : , ~ I j l ~ " '" . ~ .' \ .<--~""- ~ . -;f _ :,'C~=~ ..::l.. --.=> "! ~ U; ~ Cii:- .. :t. i'l v~ . <. m t ~, -< PN. _' iil~~ i lidt:_:=-J . ,...." "i -,. ~ ~ ~ ~. !'" '-j __:1 ~.. ~ :~ -' ,~ ~---- ~ a ,< I i 1 ---~ " ~,~ .;:: ;+..; ',' j. k" " '!~~ :>;~ ,;"'!~ .~.. : ,,~ }, ~ '~ . ",.I .1 ::,)1 , ,-- '7W""---=' - ~(,,~ 1~1 ~;,:" . ,...... l'-'~ "':~ ...;.,. ~ '.~ ,! c, I --<----j. ., l ' il:,':"'~ IQ , -1+, . , _ -.-.~ -<" ,<.~, ~... {, ... --~. m ~ ~ A oOT "j :.'t; ) " I . "'~] ~ I\i". J, ~"" 1J!Uji..'~ " ~', <........_c';! "I';' _- d_ ", \l'~ j' .:. ',\; (I ~ 'i ~ , ~ J j J .~ "J I ,.j "i ~.,f\-, l> , r \1l -< " ).>~"U; '" J#t._ ; .. )-:\~) - ~,:. ... p 'O'~- . " ~~.,.... .' t I A :!>:,IJJ; ~~ u- ," ---i I \t'~1~ i '~I , 11 i' I ..~ " ,..,,' --~\.. / ~ / . ,3 >=' , .1,c:O , ~ , ';1' I'.' " ;ii '" lJl 6' ~ , , , " '" .. " ,. ~ ~ , " , l' b . " L-< ~ 1- ~ ~ " " y " ~ Z ~ " , " '" ~ m :j . " ~, ol' " ?" -~~. .r- eS o. , , ~~ .n 01:): " " .. .~ ~ i'!~~ [;: 'Z ~ )l ~ m .::j 2 ~ b" ~ -< z.~~ CJ ., " m ~ > ~.. ;1l 111 11 }! "~,",;,,""I-\ ~ ~ !, ,,~ !- c:.:'I":"\~~! ~=' >> -< > . ~. ~ ~~r . C :f' [" C l' r ~ ~ 'i c. c-.i , :<; < ;x .'Z ,.. :-q ~ ~-=i ~ ~=:' " " Nl ~" A~(JI" ~ , ~1..~1t' ~ U ~ 7' . ~ ~ ll- e !f . t ".vl" ~~ Z _ ~ '1~~ 'is ~'J -i . &e. ! m.. lOP II" I ;xx. ~'" I ~ '" ...:.....;... r ~\\ ....u.l"" ~\;' I _,"''I:~ 'Ii!'" I ...~ ~!i e-& ~-e-e 7:1~ 1 ~ 00 ~l'\ o 8- -i...t::t " ~, ..e- -(-(..( ~ " ~ ~H 'iJi'1 I o:{\:..>~ I .."'~';) ~ .... ., , -l-\....~ .... i~i~ .. . iii ..., "," i >>' ~ .. . I O.().lJI~. -. w ~"'''W w ~I.H 0 00 .. "",ee ,i \ - ' \ \ \ \ t \ \ \ , " .:> ~ ::" .,.... , >,. .. ~ , '- \ \ ..> "- ""- " t ~ , '" >~ ',' <- ~ '.":' , '- ,,' . ..., r-~7,~~"- I I I j. ... 0' -It -l '"' <> ~ ---------- ..- ---- -.. -- \ ! f~. o. 1, f- ~.tt ,: ~~. ~ \ , \ \ ., 0.::. .., .. .. \ \ ';:j \1 '1'~" ;. ,'.. ,\ '<.i:,\. l, ~..:,- "--: , :,';':l';' " " ' \'1 " "J'- '", \. \; ~ ": oIl, , , \ " "'. '1 )8 .:c:) , ~ 0, 10'-';" I , i I i j_ '0 ! '9 r .~ i , I '0 .!II o % it )-.'{~-'l '---"" ,\ . ~' , '- " . , ---t; ,- ~, , \ )J..Z " , ?-~iJ; ~, Hi 2!;; },.Q W ~ -oJ ~~~- \,' .1. :..-.\~;. ' ;'~~ ~"" ...~:.,:~A~ ,.- >>:~) ~ ':V )f ,,-...:1 ... , ~',,,, .. " ,.' \.<. ----~ ,( _J '" , ~"... . - ~ ~ I ~ ! :::;:-.!i - ,~i \' ..!.'L'" " m <. ). :w I- 'i. ~ -11"41 1_~~o R1~'\J';; ~~,. o. :J! .~,>.. 10"'. -, -1 , >' " . . I I l '0 ~ '0 '0 '0' t '0 ,. H H . ~ < r ..Ill "-'--Qo~ ~~~~;e , ~.., , 0. c.c: ~ i)~~!O .;.........-4 . . ~ r (?) ~"",' Ulr-v _\Jl:'"11 ~~~';'J.el~ ~ I~CSl.l~ . '1-< (\. . -l 0 c:: ').c C.I'~ . '1 71 Z . '!' ~ ~:.. ~- Ii) ~~) ." ~~ :: ~o.. " . '!' '" ~"". UJ '6~~ ~ e<&-6- S II 1111; '1' UtH ~ 6-e.g.e-6 g " ~ :;l"'-1"'uJ'~ f' ~~~~ 0 ..tit e.ftee-6 . . ~ H ,l)>. . , ... ~'1 ...~ 1111 t'l. p.~ ), ,.' IIo.j ".. r~~- ... roT )> \ r {it -< I -j-7,,0 I · I I , I , I '. 1/6 I I I 1_- ~. .,. , , ,<l> ~ .. ",4 ...~ ~ l t 105__~9~_. +-- " " ~ . 71 & ~ "171 ~il ~ ~ ~ ... i'i : ",. 1 .. c.,~ i"~ . ~ ...........Ul '" ... ~Z1 -It'" ~ ~ ]I , - r '..r:": , '" '~'.?-;k: -',4 ,:J ,. .~.~ " , " I i '1 " 1 , , , '" . ' , " ii j ; ,;l J " " ~ . I ,~ " /j -tj .:! " ~.; ~ ,~ 'f , , ',' c' ".1 o. .~ , .'.~' . ~~ ~(. .... _.~ ~ 1 r~ ] I II I r-l I L I I r'~ J I I. II I ' I) II I I I'"~ '; 1 I) I LI I'~--H H II r/~'T:I' ,,' t"=-= 3 I iJ I , . II · I I ~ I I' II II I II I 'I f II I I II I, II I I II I I il I I I] I I II I [;0::"''" 111 r ~ ~ o ~ ;- 0, O. I r fe:' , > " , , l . , ~ " ! . 1~ ~ , ~ ~.',. ..,~ ' "~"'.t- r t' I ! , , , , I , i I t~ \ I ,I , I :1:, I , & ~ '0. I I , ....1" ; " ,~ - I l I , , , ~ I, _"';"._L " ;;'0 : L rr , , , , , I I I I i II I I , , , : W' I " f : . , , '\ ~ I ! I . , 1\ ~ I " , " , \ ~ , , I .' I", " , pI , n .;-.---L -\ T- . 0 L , : I ; , I , ; ,... I -, . I 0 , L 0 i: . -.. .'. ....-." ',. i~ ,- ,~ i '" .....'-,0. ., . 1 I 1 1 I j J ~ , ~ ! i l \ <, I .~ I " 1 1 . ,. ."'J ~~ . ~,r,' ,"" ~...y . ~~-' -' '\ .ry'l"-i " , " , .. ,,;,~--\ ~;, I~_W~~ ~,~ , ~...J " ~. ~' ~, ,'. ~., ',' ~I --' o - o. X. ~; ! 'I 'Z ~ (3 If;] (~ u~ -+, ,'! .. , " 11' , ,., I , " r-----~L - J..._,-,.._.._~_________._, -'T II " ~~ : , ~___,-------L-~___,_,_~,_____, .~ !i ! ~ ":\1' ~ -( r- <: -1' ~~ ... Pole 0 a ,."", ,f': , ., :1" ~. :(.,1 (P ;," ,;[" "t :~-.;;~i!:l. :~t~ . u~:~II~m~I!Ii/i; if~'I'ij~"t:i;it', :(,~\Iq/._.. .~:. -~ D !"~--1 '; G,M~; -;,< - ~C)) 1\\ " .. ,. , !~ .[ -l -{ ~ ~ r c Z -l ()I ," ,"l , up ~ .'~ ,"'. -~.., :'~ "L ,~~ ,','~ ( , ,'~I ,.. tiE. ------- 3: ~ Q ~ P m 3: ." r- () -< , '"" m <n 0:~; c z ;:i '. < rr1 :?; 11 f) @ -< m -. lJ\ c Z ;-I ;i ~ ~~:j .~i~.. '"