Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.204 E Durant Ave.Carriage House/985-6(Y)-03 Carriage House Lodge .GMP Conceptual Application r 3z; CARRIAGE HOUSE LODGE GMP APPLICATION MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS CITY OF ASPEN* . 3ue- ) +"ru 46 MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS CITY OF ASPEN e4- 330 sq. -k a-� 3-70- (o(cb sq � (-;S20 59, f-0 -5 — -is o� Min. l � lL4-7 'ram( DPP / c � x L.,W, i-- C mot 4- -� ev- s i N►f j* MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS CITY OF ASPEN Fib. l� Arch. /3 K Z s i �2 0.�iQn 'j3-K Z = 0- Arexs 3 - q 6� of 90 �o b dlo ac qU = S�{ �f n-�- -ttvr4 v6d CARRIAGE HOUSE ;. 5:.; �:�R .. ,. `v j` ry �. eY. ,�{ .:. '� � �: �t f.• uaf� a":Sf ��..`�T - _ _._.. ... � .. Qo ALL�eY 1. t =L. PLAN =KE& Mi1K K.ET �JN RS 5"TT� �' �MPto�(Ee uxITS �A1�kirJG' 3PAGF'i ell O PtA N 4rA4::e 1p', �eauIER277 t fSebX 25.L�375-0 ALLBY i N P�oJID&o : X213%- 43"16 0 I , met � I ' tAWAP.LG- • I Oo 1 5 F I I. 4F, ?YPG A- 1 r iL 17 16 p _. 1 , 1 i �% z I F.M. ONIT 37o'= 37o 0 TYVIGV 15.o• i '.--. ,,;, ,r' = .. r •I { e -- - -- O P.:5UG AREA lit 60 ID -. Hots; LObB'( 1 lo co O� -- "• "� f �' THIS UNIT 14 THIb UNIT AT �-- 3-(►NP UNITS �? TOT�I- 5� 00 [71 P.M. UM" AT THIICD VL—W 19 k UN - THIRD RNP RTo�Fd' PaNT TYPE D IT, _ �jiiCOND �L. _ r EMP•UNIT. F-MP•ON17. Ey.P.M,UNITha 15od=2,&¢0it Tf-`�' _ _ I+oTE: ^.' w`';y`I, �" . c` _ - �,1 - — -- -- -•- Lr. M. UNIT +j70 0 = --70 0 "Tfs «B.. 'r,�.< " -_ _ _ ♦ ?III5UNITIS A=1 A-1 1-f•M.UNIT Aso 4SOcp,1z1'PE • . a - - __ .. 3./ DFE1 gPAiCG I ..,d; & jt' 'i1P10 % .0 YUti61G Alts^ pJ�l'iq w ATPt THiFw ak. i-Qw. UNIT 3300 _ (oG041 'jbTAt. 7l000 -07 THIRD PO. i 1 -✓ p 7-�M. UNRT �' 33oU c,310> TYPc j /' 1-F.M. UNIT 370 0 = 310 �YPE..6, J J �- I-F. M • UNIT 1So� = 450 (P cYM • I I A - — �A ' 1 I-F•M, UNIT r-&oV)= ,�•,boQ� rYPC D' 1'GNT�oUhG -�;I 1•I .A I / I' C j, �� �4 -Q � ! QD1-tG AXBA 8� Q7 O w, 2ND A 3RD FI•`. -;To.'OTAL4iZ4o�- TOTAI• F.A.A. I4gIoC� � 1 •�' - - - A �CIIO - 10 0 7 ., 9, 15,. _ '.._ _' t_ / IS' { 15' 15 TRY /' QM — ^' -...-. (Ni61C10fZ F A•f� - AL-OWABLG 10,M. UVItyG S�AC�(MAA.) 10,000 d) 'p�. 0: 6nf'. LIVIM4 yPA (MIN) 1, ?so to, r1� PEP.* 5T5ioo0, •' oQc1YEfG P�M: IN.4" 9I'AFi 6 . •:Vn� uv►Ma � .1.�1 U61.tG g 419;r.(Ae>V. osavf)3 � _ i4 Quo ep I _ I•II�TIrI� tt� : jlA�t�W :•�.��, 1 � G�D� _ a - . N � a1u a. R' t _ -_ t •1: 1 r�� jai 7. �,.. _t I -:-SCT I ON 1 4 F- --j L- - - - - -- --1 --� - - -- , - ---, - - - - -- - ---- -- - ---- -- -- SOUTH F= LEVA7 10 t4 T 'r � •bay, � , ... r i� GiINn �b'7I�J 11 �Zlx,bl 'iP' � _ Q hu11a7�s � tiNlnli �. DM19a�9 '� SNI/�l7 - I 1 if ' \.// F� � t _ El �z t 01S (INN 11N(1 93%O'idW •lINn iakoidWEa -Izdi �y - I fir � fl� 6 3' bl Xa01 1 I �II'!I 9N!l.Ld3 '�' �NILLIr9 IIj ;.I! � (Itlijil ! �5xo5 � RiT �naVA _ .... _ ---------- �RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT SPENCER F. SCHIFFER KATHERINE HENDRICKS WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. KIRK B. HOLLEYMAN • GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 September 2, 1982 Mr. Sunny Vann City of Aspen Planning Department. 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: GMP Submission for the Carriage House Dear Sunny: TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" In accordance with our conversation this afternoon, I am submitting herewith a revised application for a Growth Management 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 ambiguities 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 understanding that you would 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. This submission, of course, would not affect the validity of our original application should you decide not to accept it. I very much appreciate the consi:1e ration you are giving us in this regard and ;giant to thank you.for your cooperation. SFS/pg enclosure cc: Hans B. Cantrup Very truly yours, GARFXFLD & HECHT r F. Schiffer • • 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 81612 303/925-9365 0 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 Mouse/Pines Lodge. -2- • LODGE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION APPLICATION SUMMARY 1. Project Name: 2. Project Location: 3. Street Address: 4. Parcel Size: 5. Current Zoning District & Zone under which Application is submitted: 6. Maximum External FAR: 7. Open Space Required: • 8. Open Space Provided: 9. Internal Floor Area Ratio Requirements: Maximum Rental Area Minimum Employee Area Minimum Public Space • 10. Internal Floor Area Ratio Provided: Rental Area Employee Area Public Space Storage Areas 11. Number and Type of Units Proposed Carriage House Lots K, L, M, 14. O. Block 77 City & Township of Aspen 204 East Durant Avenue 15,000 sq.ft. L - 1 Zone 15,000 sq.ft. 3,750 sq.ft. (25%) 4,395 sq.ft. (29.3%) 10,000 sq.ft.. 1,250 sq.ft. 3,750 sq.ft. 15,000 sq.ft. 9,270 sq.ft. 1,650 sq.ft. 3,750 sq.ft. 240 sq.ft. 14,910 sq.ft. 26 Lodge Units 5 Employee Units 12. -3 0 • • 12. Size of Units 13. Price Range of Units 14. Subdivision Review 15. View Plane 16. Special Procedure required 17. Stream Margin Review 18. Historical Preservation Review 19. P.U.D. 20. 21. Stream Margin Review 20 Lodge Units @ 330 sq. ft. 6 Lodge Units @ 370- 660 sq.ft. 5 Employee Units @ 330 sq. ft. 26 Short Term Rental Lodge Units at Market Rates. 5 Employee Rental Units Under Low Income Rental Guidelines No None - Property is unaffected by Wheeler Opera House View Plane No No Poo No No 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. -5- 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 "L" 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.) has a capacity of 3 million_ gallons per day, of which an average of 2.3 million gallons are used. Consequently 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. • • 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 -wells 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 -.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. -7- 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 1-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.M.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, Univer:;ity 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. 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 "O" 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. 0 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-1 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 wil 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 regradi:ig 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 minimize 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 10a 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 is 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: 0 - 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). -12- 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 7.90 (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 higi 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 total rental area of the lodge. When the banquet facility is Eidded, 2255 sq.ft., or 24.3% of the accommodations are in this category. Seldom, in such a small lodge, will there ever 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 i!!corporation 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 vi.;itor amenities provided in relation to the overall size of the lodge. (4) Conformance to local points) . The commission degree of conformity with • public policy goals (maximum 20 shall consider each application and its local planning policies, as follows: -13- 0 • • a.) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 500 of lodge employees housed on or off site - 1 point for each 10o 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 *1000 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/bar 1 bellboy 1 maintenance service people 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 commission members may, when any one 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 am�-)unt 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- Prw ass rcti-t *axraa sLtc•.� vc. vo srr+>cL. p .-- _ . .. - 9 6 IF). L .._.1- : �Y •--- tL?L.�.. rn-.n •:ca s.a.a-`�L rst� sr.� t_+:s z»K w,l tI 5 67 ! 123- 1 2 3�> F39�l1'•I o awJs--v--���} � a1+�i at-av rJ�. 4�e.t as vtca xv a�*� ewo r.4: aco ear rtw - - .. _--_ fi�p< liU accw %.O F•/.. tt•-t :4. t�0 Y� Cc. L•w� rp4: J 1✓��,r 7 Jam~ I�V L, . sa. ea:s rwr. afs rt.. aa. �o +.v ai3 `^ • rs�� tea. ss+. a. avr aeo oaoi �a � �» ia.-n t a u _ 1 -A 1-- .� _— L01 t 0 J CV I 'Al 12 Irf n O %V_4 N 0 �111 X-1 19 or Ze August 1Q, 1982 Mark Danielson c/o HBC Investments 450 S . Galena Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: I have looked over the new replacement project on lots K - 0 ( 5 ) on got 77 et Aspen. town site. This project,* I understand, will be "27" studio units 0.7 approximately 375-400 sq. ft. Also "5" employee units or:_co-*!-parablle size •will be included in this project. 1 find that this area is well covered by fire hydrants a-.d see no rel'so^ to add additional hydrants in the area. All four corners of approaches are now covered by hydrants. I see no Problem wi h this project to r Plan Ze the -present facilities. ---Th a nk ------ LJ APPENDIX A SI-IA L LODGE CAR GENERATION r.' +L.Y:,IS G.M.P. rental rooms Average room occupancy 3/ - Occupied rooms People per roor People lodged { Average people arriving by car 4/ People arriving by car ,Average'.people per car 5/ Estimated cars Winter l 1 Hi c;h_ Use Peri cd 1931 26 x 95 s - 25 x2 Su iaer 2/ '. i ch Use Period 193i 26 x 80`, 21 x 2 50 42 44=_• _ 95 22 40 :3 :3 8 14 l . ' - ASPEN TITLE C0:4PANY, LTD. FERE'BY CERTIFII.S froiil a search of the books in.this office_ ' at '110 owner of Lets K, L, N, 11,11 and 0, Block 77, CITY xtND T O'vrr SI OF ASPhV Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorac'.o, app�--nrs ro be rested in the name of '} . CAIN'TIZIU11 by that Certain Warranty Deed recorded in Book 411 at rage 317 ana that tI?e above described property appears to be subject to the fo?lo-w ng: 1. Deed of Trust from Helen R. Scales and Richard F. Sabbatini, as te^aits in common to the Public Trustee of. Pitkin County, Coloraea for the use of David H. Hasty and Pauline T. Hasty to secure $215,000.00, dated m`_-y 17, 1974, recorded_ May 30, 1974 in Book 287 at Page 756 and re -recorded to correct azzount to read $221,150.65, dated July.1, 1974, recorded July,l,.197=a in Boo'-: 283 at Page 829. - Said Deed of Trust is further secured by Assignment of Rents recorded. May 30, 1974 in Book 287 at Page 758. (Covers additional property also) 2. Deed of Trust from Ronald D. Austin, David F. Jones.anL Perry A. Harvey to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado for the, use o` Richard g, Sabbatini and Helen R. Sabbatini a/k/a ?Ielen R. ScaleS to secure $i.50,00U.0U, dated June 1, 1981, recorded June 1, 3.981 in Book 409 a: ?roe 239. Modification. Agreer.:ent recorded in connoctio,' with said Deed of Trust on July 9, 1981 in Book 411 at Page 23. Assignaent .of said 'Deed --of Trust_to. Ban' of Sno-.D.ass recorded March 25, _1982 .. in Book 424 at Page 78. 3. T.,ed of -.Trust from Hans . B.- Caritrup and June �11en Moss Ca:ar�p to tie Public - - Trustee.of Pitkin County,: Colorado for the use of First `rational Bank of Dzncre-r, - -___ to secure- $8,000,000.00, dated _'arch 30, 19.92, recorded _"a rch 31, i9t 2 in - Book .424 .at .Page 359..-(Covers additional property also). . - - -Taces .to the. year. 1931 a:i1_thereafter. --- -- -~_ — --=- - - ._.NOTE:.. k1though..we believe the facts_ stated .herein..are true, it is unueYstood r= and agreed _ that the liability .of Aspen' Title Company, Ltd, rill be 1i--ite'd to - -- - = - =the amount -of- the fee charged hereunder -This Certificate - is not -to be- co tined-- -.Y-- _._ -=-:-as-an--Abstract- of title nor an opinion of title or a g - � - -' P , ,iz�znty of tit].e. --= - Dated this 16th day of Au;ust 1982 at 8:00 A.M. ASPMi TITLE COXPA.tiY, LTD. f � _ Authorized Signature reviewed by: Aspen .. Z (City Council C��Aje �aos� Lome ESP-C11er, o.;,� p ^- 0 cIwAd P 130 ba L'tt" �y M en , At gat& al(,J � e•� i e��cc: 51�: t.spen P&Z City Council A ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THW : Hal Schilling, City Manage ` FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office k`l-, RE: Carriage House Lodge GMP - Extension of Allocation DATE: November 19, 1985 SUMMARY: The Planning Off ice recommends that Council grant an extension of the Carriage House Lodge GMP allocation by an additional 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 development 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. 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". The original application was made by Hans Cant r up . 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 establishes procedures for applicants 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 • 0 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. ALTERNATIVES: 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 this deadline. As this is the second extension, we recommend that the applicant be put on notice that any f urther extensions beyond that approved herein would likely be deemed inappro- priate. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: None required. RECOMMENDED MOTION: SB.6 "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" . 2 0 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER SANDRA M.STULLER ALAN E. SCHWARTZ. October 28, 1985 Alan Richman Planning Director 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920-1018 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 180-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, MYLER, STULI. SCHWARTZ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manage FROM: 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 units on September 1, 1982. The project scored in excess of the established threshold and was awarded a development allocation by Council Resolution 35, Series of 1982 or. 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 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 be ley., ty, si ate ad " an Y• �y� I �O s ©II, Ei t If u ace. aat . to Du ancil ides ant I; ct- :11 ice terms of the agreement have not been fulfilled, then there is no agreement. Schiffer said, there are two questions; ,ne is the subdivision question, toid ther is the GMP question. The GMP question gets r rred back to P & Z to see if ths still an allocation. The subdivision question wo be decided by Council. Schiffer there are other things the applicant has been d cussing, 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 permit. Schiffer said he felt it would be in everyone's interest to be tabled to the next it. Taddune said this should be referred to the city manager. Chapman said the building permit has expired. If the applicant reapplies, Chapman would look at the terms of the agreement and would tell the building department, they have failed to meet the terms of the agreement so a building permit should not issue. Chapman said he feels they would have to start the process over. Chapman said Muller and his 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 what 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 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 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 agreed with this course of action. EASTERN WINDS 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 Winds; 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. RESOLUTION #35, SERIES OF 1982 - 1983 Lodge GMP Allocation Alice Davis, planning office, told Council the competition was 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 carry over 50 units to,next year's quota. Ms. Davis said the applicant is request 26 lodge units, 5 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 units; therefore, they have a credit of six units. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council that. 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 TDR, 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 TDR ordinance, it means these units may be gone forever. Mayor Edel said the 26 units is fine; they competed for 26 lodge units. On this piece of land, the applicant is maximizing it at a total of 31 units. Mayor Edel said the end result is the city is getting six more units than are allowed on the land; there is no TDR, it does not exist. Taddune told. Council without a TDR ordinance, the units the applicant proposes to inventory, cannot be built anyplace else. Mayor Edel questioned the verbiage about something that does not exist. Councilwoman Michael asked about the conference area. Mark Danielsen said it will be about 1650 square feet, will hold about 150 people for conferences and 100 - 120 for dining. Ms. Davis told Council the resolution allocates 26 units and gives conditions that the applicant make representations to in the application. Councilman Parry moved to approve Resolution #35, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. Upper use. The Plating Office recommends thV the Commission, Elementary as was the cwith the Building Dept,vethe School (cont.) applicants a one year conditional use permit. It is also recommende6 that a master plan for the long term use fo the building be provided before August 31,1983 at which time the leases expire. 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 carried. Aspen Welton Anderson stepped down as he was the associate . Downtown architect on the storage warehouse. Roger Hunt nominated Storage 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 authorize the acting chairman, Lee Pardee, to sign it upon the inclusion of. the additional "whereas". Jasmine seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Lodge GMP Welton asked to make public his familiarity with the Scoring 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 yearis 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 units 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. Lodge GMP Dining Facilies: The project include small (cont.) indoor/outdo dining area, a bar, and Le possibility of using the meeting 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 applicant intends to house ten people in five units. They estimate that they will only generate ten employees. Planning office feels that ten employees will not be enough. The planning office increased the number of employees from ten to nineteen. With nineteen employees and housing 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 points. Mark Danielson, representing the applicant, told the commission that the Carriage House is a small lodge development proposal located on 15,000 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 f 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 lines by replacing them with one new line. Mark told the Commission that Aspen Metro Sanitation was responsible for the sewer lines and if the applicant committed to financing periodical maintenance it would help 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 Engineering Dept. Mark thought that the scoring handicapped projects already in an excellent location with regard to fire protection. There is already excellent fire protection in the area of the Carriage House. Considering the quality of design, Mr. Danielson stated that the lodge was small in comparison with surrounding developments. In terms of height, the lodge was an intermediate step in the neigborhood being three stories high. There is also a compatabi-lity 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 amenities and services for the guests. The applicant disagreed with the visual impact score because of the computability 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 responsibility anyway. There is nothing out of the ordinary being provided. This is also true with the sewer lines. Fire protection 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SO C. F, MOFCKFL R. B. S L. C.). _ Aspen Plannina and Zoninq Commission October 19, 1982 Lodge GMP can be improved in the general area, if not on the (cont.) specific 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 housing, increasing the score. Alice -said that the applicant did provide a lot of energy conservation devices but a score of 3 is 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 zoning and i therefore illeagal because maximum height was already logged by the zone. This is not correct. Zoning and GMP applications are two seperate issues. i Alice asked the applicant to clarify how committed they were to the proposal. The application proposes things 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 presentation. 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 carried. Lee Pardee moved to adjourn the meeting. Alan Blomquist seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. _L&, Aale<� .z - ie Markalunas ty Clerk's Office IIM 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 GIMP 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, 11085." 2 C: • �L= GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS March 12, 1985 Mr. Alan Richman 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE 204 East Durant Street Dear Alan; `11 1819A6 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 1 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. Yours Truly, David F. Gibson, A.I.A. ` J Ralph e�, Owner cc: Ralph Melville DFG/fh 418 E. COOPER AVENUE * 207 ASPEN. COLORAOO B1B11 303 / S25 5S66 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manager FROM: 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 units on September 1, 1982. The project scored in excess of the established 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 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, reauests 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 GMP 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." K • GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS March 12, 1985 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. Yours Truly, David F. Gibson, A.I.A. Ralph "fvlelville, Owner cc: Ralph Melville DFG/fh 418 E. COOPER AVENUE *207 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 303/9255968 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office SUBJECT: Carriage douse 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 units on September 1, 1982. The project scored in excess of the established 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 GVP 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 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 GMP 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 Mr. Alan Richman !i 1 130 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, 1995, 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. Yours Truly, David F. Gibson, A.I.A. Ralph "fvlelville, Owner cc: Ralph Melville DFG/fh 418 E. COOPER AVENUE *207 ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 303/9255966 9 Aspen/Pig 130 s aspen Mr. Ralph Melville Mountain Chalet 333 E. Durant Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ralph: i. March 1, 1985 • ing Of f ice treet 31611 This letter is written to inform you that pursuant to Section 24-11.7 (a) of the Municipal Code, as amended, your Carriage House Lodge GMP allocation will expire on June 1, 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 1. 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 PROJECT: Carriage House GIBSON & RENO - ARCHITECTS PRESENT: Alan Richman, Ralph Melville, David Gibson DATE: January 31, 1985 TIME: 9:00 AM NOTES: We reviewed the GMP Allocation which was given to the Project in 1983. 1. Changes to the Application can take form of: Re-applirafinn for GMP allotment Plqnn'nq Offirp ran evaluate any changes and recommend to- Plann*nq and Zoning as to whether the changes constitute suhstantivP changes requiring re -application or minor changes within the spirit of the original approval requiring only an amendment. 1 The Planning Office is open and agreeable to minor changes to this Application, especially as regards Architectural Design and the proposed transfer of units off of the site 4. Time line for the Project is as follows: A. Deadline of June 1, 1985 to have Application for Building Permit into Building Department, or, B. An extension of the deadline as recommended by Planning and approved by City Council; 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 Application was discussed at some length. A. Amendments would have to come within the spirit 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 COPIES TO: BY: 418 E. COOPER AVENUE *207 - ASPEN, COLORAOO 61611 303/925 596© f MEETING NOTES GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS DATE: 1 /21 /85 PROJECT: Carriage House TIME: 9:00 AM PRESENT: Page -2- NOTES: this could be done through the Special Review and amendment process. C. This amendment process would be a two-step approval: 1) Planning and Zoning 2) City Council 6. Special Review is required to review deed restrict land approve the employee 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 Council. 9. Fee of $1490.00 is required for the P & Z and Council Review (assuming 11 hours in house,more or less hours will be either billed or refunded over or above the $1490.00 amount). COPIES TO: Alan, Ralph BY: j 416 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN, COLORA00 B1611 303/9255968 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 63 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS i PROJECT: Carriage House DATE: October 19, 1982 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing.level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (a) WATER (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 x1= 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 agreed to abandon these two lines and install a 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 area- (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 1 x1= 1 COMMENT: The three existing 8" sewer lines 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 improve sewer service in the area. Such maintenance would include clearing tree roots which may block sewer lines and cleaning manholes_ contaminated by grease from a nParhy restaurant This ahpP ars to he 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 applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. Rating X Multiplier 1 XI = 1 COMMENT: A series of drywells is proposed to provide sufficient capacity to retain runoff on -site. The applicant has suggested that the area's drainage would be improved t�-y placing two new catch basins on the northerly rnrnerc of the intersection of Street and Durant Avenue. Engineering has stated that the applicant should firmly commit (as opposed to suggPsting) to nngrnviditwn new ratch hasins at lnratinns 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 facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. Rating X Multiplier 1 xl = _] COMMENT: Existing facilities provide excellent fire protection. Due to the location of the site and the abundance of fire hydrants with good water pressure, the applicant felt there was nn means of im roving fire service in the area, (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 x1 = 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. Shp existing road system can accommodate tfie increased volumes a ..rih,:tahle to the 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: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design., 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design.. The following shall be rated accordingly: (a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (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 _3 = COMMENT: The uoiect's architectural design is accpptahlp as it is a three-stnrV structure located near four one- and two-story structures and two three-story struc- tures. Building materials include wood, rock and glass, all typical in the neinhhnr- 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 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 x 3 = 6 COMMENT: Open space proposed is 29%. Landscaping screens parking and attempts to create a small, quaintlodge atmosphere. Benches are to be provided along the streets. All utilities are underground and an undergrnund parkinq garagp arms to the Site 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 sources. Rating X Multiplier 2 x_1 = 2 COMMENT: Project includes thermal, insulation which exceeds standards by 10%: ene-g-y efficient fireplaces using heat return ducting, glazed fire openings, double damper controls and exterior combustion air; units have a southern solar orientation 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 public views. Rating X Multiplier x-3-= 9 COMMENT: An underground parking garage for 22 vehicles is proposed a face spaces. This provides sufficient parking for the employee units as well s th I free marQ+ units. Landscaping with large trees and bushes are.to screen the 9 surefacel spaces. The alley behind the project is to be paved to provide access to the project's parking. Access to trash facilities is acceptable. (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 impact created as a result of the proposed 3-story structure is significant and represents a major design flaw. Even though the project is wit in the 28 foot height limitation, views of Aspen Mountain from the Limelight and Deep Powder lodges behind the project will be obstructed due to the height of the proposed 3_r,f-nr_y structure- The A-,ppn Manor next door is a 1-story structure while the two projects across the street are 3 stories (Southpoint Condos and lift 1) and they have created significant negative visual impacts in the area. Views of Shadow Mountain are not obstructed. The project does not appear to be in any public viewplanes. 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 development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality 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 lodge rental area - the lobby is 7.9% of this rental space (730 sq.ft.), the meeting room is 18.1% of the rental space (1,680 sa_ ft_) _ Comhined, the lnhhy and cnnference rnom rover 2,410- sq.ft-. 26V/ of the lodge rental area, which appears to be an exceptional percentage in relation to the overall project 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 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_ Dining facilities represent h°/ of the lndge rental area without the—ba.Agwet facility and 24% of the rental area including the banquet facility. This proposal meets the needs of the lodge's guests, but it does not provide exceptional dining Icilities. 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. n U -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). points as follows: The Commission shall award 0 - 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. Rating X Multiplier 5 xl= 5 COMMENT: The employee units are proposed to house 10 people The applicant imates the project will generate 10 employees (3 desk clerks, 3 maids, 1 bellboy, 1 maintenance person and 2 dining/bar service people). The Planning OffiCe fePlg a lndgQ mapag@p will also be needed. 2 dining/bar employees appear to be an extremely low estimate, especially if banquets are held. With 4 employees running tha har and 6 running tho 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 any one 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 n xl = 0 COMMENT: The Planning Office does not feel the Pr bonus points as requested by the applicant, in that the overall project, its design and compatibility within the naiahhnrhnnd is merely standard. Bonus paimts are awarded if it is determined that a project has exceeded the above criteria and achieved an outstanding overall design which merits recognition. Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office 5 0 5 Z O 1--1 N C ,2 E 00 O Ln Z Q Z --I C) Or F— Q U LU O 2 _J F- LU _J w (D Q UJ Q S N N Q F— � Z >- r ( _J S O J a. < 3 O N C7 co w 0- C7 in O J M co dl r a! CI C),l l0 C O r _ O 41 r r N I� lD l0 - 0, l0 M 3 r 1IJ - M. S_ Lo L1i N r O (V r 4J •r N r r r N LD lfl N Ol M lfl «1 N r 7 411 IIIII I IIIII l!') C, J I N r N col0 1� N Ol lfl M dl ll') Ln S- O o_ J J J ¢ Q ¢ Ln CD cn CD O m m Ln Ln W N 4J L LJ +•) C7 r a) +•) N D7 C (a -a-- 0 r a: .O +-) r p tN r O 0.— LA •r Z a) 4-3 U LL J r a) U Q C C:) (O S- r .—(a N O > r p U 4-) LL c) O O M •r Z r S U +-) LiJ N (0 r- (N L LJ U U CO 4--) C7 (O U U M (O Li- 0 U H S.- C to 10 (O N (O O F— > > •r N LN Z3 O) C C d S- O U C N F V) LN p S- U O D7 0- 0) U1 +-) U d U- 4J M >> C r O S m (O Q S_ S.. FE N O •r 0) •r (O N •r lU C 4J O7 LL- w N S.- U -0 _Cw S- . X = L)J +-) 4-- r S_ C +) y O S- (0 >- U +-) O S_ (n r-+ U C C U •r- U M N 4-> •r O F-- S- r C r0 •r H N O •r N • O J _J Z F- �• m Q L)J LLJ N a (O U Cr 7 O 06 4 n. r N M r O N S.. L DLO CT Q1 co O > lfl Q LO N r I Q C O r O O 01 � r � 3 O Ln r O r O Ln Lfi r- O C •r N -, N1 O N (O LP LP 41 )O "0 O lD J I lD l0 O W CL C7 Q d W W 2 N J J 1 1 1^ to N Z F-• F-- W W aJ O O Q � = N Lu �L Q N N + O O F-- ro E = Ln CD cu as rn W O U O Ltl CL W •r >-• c �7 4J O N Ci O J O O J U i O W N W m M 7 00 O oS p1 CC C: Ll IN : uu MEMORANDUM Aspen City Council Alice Davis, Planning Office 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) Total Quota Available from Previous Years: New Quota Available for 1983 Total Available Quota for 1983 +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 41 35 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 6.7 Quality of Design 28.1 Amenities Provided for Guests 17.5 Employee Housing 8.6 TOTAL SCORE 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. C� Memo: 1983 Lodge GMP - Carriage House Lodge November 22, 1982 Page Two Council Action i "I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 1982." 0 • 1982 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE 1. Applicant: H.B.C. Investments 2: Project Name: Carriage House 3. Location: 204 E. Durant Avenue (NE corner of S_ AS a2 n and E. Diwant) Block 77, Lots K. L. M. N and 0 4. Parcel Size: 15,000 square feet 5. Current Zoning: L-1 6. Existing Structures: The Pines Lodge - six multi -family units. 7. Development Program: 26 lodge units - 20 units at 330 square feet 6 units at 370-660 square feet 5 employee units - 330 square feet each 31 Total Units Proposal includes a lobby, conference area, bar, dining area, health club. swimming pool and 31 parking spaces, 22 of which are underground. 8. Special Review Requirements: GMP exemption for the 5 employee units; 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: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1983 Lodge GMP Applications DATE: 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. uota 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) Total Quota Available From Previous Years New Quota Available for 1983 Total Available Quota for 1983 +108 units - 60 Aspen Inn -16 Mountain Chalet +16 Mountain Chalet -31 Lodge at Aspen +24 Aspen Inn Employee Units 41 35 76 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. Memo: 1983 Lodge Page Two October 19, 1982 GMP Applications 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-1 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 T � Quality of Design 26 Amenities Provided for Guests 17 Employee Housing 5 TOTAL SCORE 5� Planninq 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 �I ` •983 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS • cO PROJECT: 111,4 DATE:�?�; 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (a) WATER (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 �� X1 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 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 '�� xl T 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'� 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. Rating X Multiplier�— COMMENT: 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points).. The Commission shall application with respect to the quality of its exterior and shall rate each development by assigning points according to formula: 0 - Indicates a totally deficient design.. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design._ The following shall be rated accordingly: consider each site design and the following (a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the compatibility f of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. Rating X Multiplier XZ COMMENT: i (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of j 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 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 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 is — COMMENT: (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 YZ COMMENT: 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 development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality 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 2,1 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 X2- 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 x2 COMMENT: -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points aS follows: 0 - 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. Rating X Multiplier / Z� xl COMMENT: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one 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 xl COMMENT: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: �� n (o y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION �� 083 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS • J PROJECT:-�2�{�'i � ��6� DATE: \CAV221 cd2 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (a) WATER (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 1xl 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 X1 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 —� x1 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 1 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. Rating X Multiplier 2 xi Z r COMMENT: VlC,\ 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 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 compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. Rating X Multiplier 2% 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 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 2A ` 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 COMMENT: Jz_ 0 ( DG -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 A= 3 COMMENT: 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 development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality 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 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 l x11 COMMENT: 4\ rOo1 d� v,r*- wti�—��e;� �,�� �, El (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 V� x2 COMMENT: • • -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 - 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. Rating X Multiplier S xl ' me 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one 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 xl COMMENT: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: S� r Points in Category 5: Q TOTAL POINTS: 2 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION �i LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS • j'� 1l PROJECT: 1; A (Lr = �'" �`' L DATE: 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (a) WATER (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. 1 Rating X Multiplier ( xi 1 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 if x1 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 xl 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 COMMENT: (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 1 serve the increased usage attributable to the development. _ Rating X Multiplier xl �- 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 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 compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building ; materials) with 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 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. 3 L 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 �— 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. 3 Rating X Multiplier—x,2 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 x? COMMENT: 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 development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality 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 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 xB 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 x2 COMMENT: -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 - 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. Rating X Multiplier `� xl COMMENT: 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one 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 (100/0') of the total points awarded under those sections. Rating X Multiplier xi COMMENT: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: t TOTAL POINTS: i Name of Planning and Zoning Member: �/,. PLANNING AND ZONING CONiM1SSION EVALUATION 063 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS • PROJECT: /c- DATE: 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (a) WATER (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 %.J xi Comment: Sc�,-� GuJ�U , d/�(I ,I r1rd-el (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- xi 2 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 Z" xl 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. I xl Rating X Multiplier COMMENT: • -2- E (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 x1 2- COMMENT: 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each ,5 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.. The following shall be rated accordingly: (a) COMMENT: 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. 2 G Rating X Multiplier �- /d r�r ) t (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 9 points). Considering the quality and character of the �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. j \ f 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 I maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating X Multiplier '�'�X0 .?.lam! COMMENT: I . I (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� COMMENT: (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 COMMENT: 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 development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality 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 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. 2 I� Rating X Multiplier ' XT_ 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 x2 COMMENT: -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 - 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. xl g Rating X Multiplier COMMENT:�� l c�'eGS lC) -o�c l Iylg !i' P <1 oe1.c , Zed?, 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one 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 U xl COMMENT: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: O TOTAL POINTS: '- Name of Planning and Zoning Member: �0 • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION A I (� 7 * 2 = %� 083 LODGE GMP APPLICATIONS • PROJECT: 006A4i DATE: d �� 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (a) WATER (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: (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 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 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. xl or ( Rating X Multiplier 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. Rating X Multiplierxl COMMENT: !gM t, 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 39 points). The Commission shall application with respect to the quality of its exterior and shall rate each development by assigning points according to formula: 0 Indicates a totally deficient design.. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design.. The following shall be rated accordingly: consider each site design and the following (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 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 COMMENT: (c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to j maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. f Rating X Multiplier " 41 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: (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 9 points). Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Z Rating X Multiplier COMMENT: 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 development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality 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 4 x3 = 9 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 --a A g q 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. 2x2 XqI Rating X Multiplier COMMENT: -4- 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 5. 0 - 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. ' r Rating X Multiplier S COMMENT: BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one 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. '2Lx1 L I Rating X Multiplier COMMENT: Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: �P7 Points in Category 5: Z 2-- TOTAL POINTS: (� Name of Planning and Zoning Member: � T RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /O\Y N C. F. M�ICS L �. \. � L� Co. V • i ORDINANCE NO. (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- mission has recommended to the City Council that the zoning regu- 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: 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 compl6te application with the city planning office, on or before September 1st of each year, which application shall included the following: (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves lMM V C. P. MnrrKri ..... 1. CO. -- 1 (2) (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 applicable, a schedule for phasing con- struction. 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 improvements proposed to insure privacy froin such areas. 04 • rz RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Pn v C. I. Mnr'Krl ..... i. Ca. _ I (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 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service 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 thp- 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 and reliability of the JyJtf,Ic1nn1./�Ill� pl_i7posed. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to C, • IM RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /OnY % c. r. a rcKEL ■. 1. ! L, c0. 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 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 storage 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- ••ing 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: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: (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 splice 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 tiie safety and privacy of the users of the development. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. r. MOr!Krl 1... ! L. CJ. (cc) 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- ings to maximize 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: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient 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). (cc) 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). (4) Conformance to local public policy goals.(maximum%t INQ points)-. The commission shall consider each ziPplication ano its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: Q M RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves r OMB V C. r. MOrfM[L 1. r. ! L. C% -- (aa) ehabilitation or reconstruction of exis . g u is (maximum 5 points). 'The commiss' sha award 1 point to each applican agreeing 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 a upgrading of the structure an 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 accompl' hed in a similar or different fo print at a imilar or differ- ent size to original con f uration, pro- vided that a units ate rebuil on the same site. T e eligible for points this sec- tion, applicant shall provide a c ceptual prog m identifying the proposed impro ments to a made to the units and the timetabl for it restoration or rebuilding. (bN Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 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 any one 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(7 multi^li -d tho nu. h-r r)f poi,hts as^ignod under each of the following sections by the corresponding multipl ier: C� )e • M RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Section Points Multiplier Available 24-11.6(b)(1)(aa) (Water - 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(1)(bb) (Sewer - 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(1)(cc) (Storm drainage - 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(1)(dd) (Fire pro- tection - 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(1)(ee) (Roads - 2 points) 1 2 24-11.6(b)(2)(aa) (Architectural design - 3 points) 3 9 24-11.6(b)(2)(bb) (Site design - 3 points) 3 9 24-11.6(b)(2)(ce) (Energy con- servation - 3 points) 1 3 24-11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and circulation - 3 points) 3 9 24-11.6(b)(2)(ee) (Visual impact - 3 points) 3 9 24-11.6(b)(3)(aa) (Common meeting areas - 3 points) 3 9 24-11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities - 3 points) 2 6 24-11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational facilities - 3 points) 2 6 24 • on a 24-11.6(b)(4)(6AJ (Employee housing - 15 points) 1 15 24-11.6(b)(5) (Bonus points - 5 points) 1 5 Total AIV Any project not receiving 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 h^ forwarded to the City council on or before November 1st of each year. (e) flavinq received the commission's report, the city coun- cil shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants;. 7 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /O.. •1 C. F..n,r.,l 8. R.. L. 11. provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there was a denial of due f 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 or.ii.n,inee is for any reac.on held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such . In RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves room C. 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 Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: 1983 Lodge GMP Applications DATE: 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 availahle 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-1 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 & Quality of Design 26 Amenities Provided for Guests 17 Employee Housing 5 TOTAL SCORE D' 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 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PRO 17ILE 1. Applica t: H.B.C. Investments _ 2. Project Name: Carriage House 3. Loca Li on: 204 E. Durant Avenua �NFcorner of S _ A -,pp Land F - nurant-)- Bl ck 77. Lots K. L, M.N and 0 4. Parcel Size: 15,000 square feet 5. Current Zoning: L-1 6. Existing Structures: The Pines Lodge - six multi -family units_ 7. Development Program: 26 lodge units - 20 units at 330 square feet 6 units at 370-660 square feet 5 employee units - 330 square feet each 31 Total Units Proposal includes a lobby, conference area bar, dining area, health club swimming pool and 31 parking spaces, 22 of which are underground. 8. Special Review Requirements: GMP exemption for the 5 employee units; 0MP exemption for demnlition/reconstruction nfthP h axictitin .m,!lti_-.fami1y units. 9. 14iscellaneous: 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. 0 12 PLANNING ludo ZONING C01-i;,11:)510N LVALUA I I ON 1SJOLODGE GMP APPLICATIONS • PROJECT: Carriage (louse DATE: October 19, 1982 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: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing.level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (a) WATER (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 1xl= 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 agreed to abandon these two lines and install a 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 area. (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. lxl = 1 COMMENT: The three existing 8" sewer lines 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 improve sewer service in the area. Such maintenance would include clearing tree roots which may block sewer lines and Cleaning manholes contaminated by grease from a nParhy restatirant This appears to he 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 applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. Rating X Multiplier 1 xl - 1 COMMENT: A series of drywells is proposed to provide sufficient ca ap city to retain runoff on -site. The applicant has suggested that the area's drainage would be improved �y plena two new catch basins on the nnrtherly rnrnprs nf tha intArcprtion_of !Aspen' Street and Durant Avenue. Engineering has stated that the applicant should firmly mlprnyiding two new catch hasins at- Incations 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 facilities which may be necessary to serve the project; including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. Rating X Multiplier 1 xL= COMMENT: Existing facilities provide excellent fire protection. Due to the location of the site and the abundance of fire hyd rants with good water pressure, the applicant fe_1t_tlici�wa�nn�L11nS_of iinprovinn._fire �:��[L; in tile area• ^_ (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 = 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 PXactina road system can accommodate the increased volumes attrih.:table to the 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: 0 -F 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 compatibility of the proposed building (.in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. Rating X Multiplier 2 x `3 = 6" COMMENT: The prole .t's architectural design is_ acceptable as -?1 three-stnr)J structure located near four one- and two-story structures and two three-story struc- tures Building materials include wood rock and glacq, all tyniral in the npighhnr- 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 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 x = 6 COMMENT: Open space proposed is 29%. Landscaping screens parking and attempts to create a small, quaintlodge atmosphere. Benches are to be provided along the streets. All utilities are underground and an undergrni,nd parkinq garagp arms to the citp 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 sources. . Rating X Multiplier 2 x 1= 2 COMMENT: Project includes thermal insulation which exceeds standards. by 10,; Pnpray efficient fireplaces using heat return ducting, glazed fire openings, double. damper controls and exterior combustion air; units have a southern -solar orientation 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 public views. Rating X Multiplier x-3_.= 9 COMMENT: An underground parking. garage for.22 vehicles is proposed as well a3_9 face spaces. This provides sufficient. parking for the employee units as well ps th free- markot ��nifs Landscaping•with large trees and bushes a•re•to screen the J sur?ace! spaces. the alley behind the project is to be {)aved to provide access to the projects! 2arkingi Access to trash facilities is acceptable. (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 iiii act created as a result of the proposed 3-story structure is significant and represents a major design flaw. Even though the project is wit In the 28 foot height limitation views of Aspen Mountain from the Limelight and Deep Powder lodges behind the project will be obstructed due to the height of the proposed 3-story ry ctructurP ThP Acben Manor next door is a 1 s ory structure while the two projects across the street are 3 stories (Southpoint Condos and Lift 1) and they have created significant negative visual impacts in the area Views of Shadow Mountain are not obstructed. The project does not appear to be in any public viewplanes. 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum 21points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed `l 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: I 0 -- 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 i'n relation to the overall size of the proposed lodging project. Rating X Multiplier 3x3 = 9 COMMENT: The project includes 9,270 square feet of lodge rental area - the lobby is 7.9% of this rental space (730 sq.ft.), the meeting room is 18.1% of the rental space (1.680 ,q_ft_) CnmhinPd, the lnhhy andl rnnferenrP ron'll cover 2,410-s�1�_, 26% of the lodge .rental area, which appears to be an exceptional percentage in relation to the overall project 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 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 4al1_ Dining facilities reprPsent 6% of the lndge rental ar-ea—with96at t,hp banquet facllity 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 Icilities. 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. 0 1 0 4. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). The Comnissiori shall award points as follows: 0 - 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. Rating X Multiplier 5 xl= 5 COMMENT: The employee units are proposed to house 10 people. The applicant estimates the project will generate 10 employees (3 desk clerks, 3 maids, 1 bellboy, 1 maintenance person and 2 dining/bar service people). The Planning Office fe will also be needed. 2 dining/bar employees appear to be an extremely low estimate, especially if banquets are held With 4 employees running the har and 6 running the 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 any one 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 n xl = 0 COMMENT: The Planning Office does not feel the proposed prQiec+ bonus points as requested by the applicant, in that the overall project, its design and compatibility within the neiahhnrhnnd is merely standard. BeHus -points are awarded if it is determined that a project has exceeded the above criteria and achieved an outstanding overall design which merits recognition. Points in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4: Points in Category 5: TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and "Zoning Member: Planning Office --- 54--_ 100E �,� 2pl Z21 5 Ids 1 r 1 I i A i a l i Z --` i n� I SNOWFLAKE DER BERCiHO� �; COOPER LIMELIGHT 081 I ►lo ; 2f02g i --r ul J 1 9 I 135 WINFIELD' A g ARMS DURANT JUAN 11� � i I I t 3 13 Ot4 7�1 MINE DUMP" 17 ❑ 192-0 1 ! SOUTHP z, l 2A5 N 71 I - I 218 1 I 9 i f . S a z 0 2 3 s I ` 1601 POOL BLOCK I7 I t t i t tY-. 111 I l0 9 1 4 61 300 ;7: -- - LAWN ` ST. _ 619 w -- -� t 1,0 CNAL T 78 9 IG II � GILBERT ST. 64� I - - } J7 JUJyJ�.TI� R I 2 3 4 i35 20 _ c,gp Hous t4 i 13 12, ! tl HSLL ST. t U � � w Y jn! tr q Q A.. .o W - n� _ S 00e HDSIW8V!D . � H M N m h� s ce — i W t9 W = OF H08VNOW ti W / Z W . jolt, o N3dSt1 / PE mu. W a owe C � N i Q - ��a W 1- y Z X 1� i MEMORANDUM TO: GMP Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: Commercial and Lodge Quotas DATE: September 15, 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 past 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-1 10,000 square feet NC/SCI 7,000 " of Office 4,000 CL & other 3,000 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-1 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 8,973 square feet NC/SCI 7,000 of it Office 4,000 It it CL & other 2,567 of if Lodge Quotas In a memo issued prior to last year's lodge competition, I identified the quota available for competition as li-9 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, Ser.ieq of 1982, there is '.a :35 unit quota GM11 Niles - Coill Ill c• al and Lodge Quotas • Page Two September 15, 1982 available for this year. Therefore, the total quota available for competition purposes includes the 4-1 units available from previous years, plus the 35 units available from this year, for a total of 76 lodge knits . cc: Sunny Vann Colette Penne Alice Davis GAR FI EILD & H ECHt - ATTORNEYS AT LAW A I� rj `� 19182 RONALD GARFIELD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ) 0 I rC;. (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER SPENCER F. SCHIFFER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-3008 KATHERINE HENDRICKS CABLE ADDRESS WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. August 27, 1982 "GARHEC" KIRK B. HOLLEYMAN 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. Very tr �y yours, GARFID , & HECHT Slaenbdr F. Schiffer SFS/pg cc: Mark Danielson Hans B. Cantrup t MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Electric City Engineering Department Sanitation District City/County Housing Departments Building Department City Water Department Fire Chief FROM: Planning Office .RE: GMT Applications DATA - .•..cir 'aavcl.. . t? AttacJwd ipiease.find fbvr t4) applications submitted to the Planning Office: Planner �fi-ette i=ern,�' `�'�"l�a�rtd7it `ng 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, co^raining some commercial lease space which would house related services. The Aspen Downtown �iot-dye apPlication pertains to the proposed development of a se3f=strn•aige warehouse J`oe ;1•; t.Y 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 -expansior.'.anto the £x;� :__ ',hale of a Wash laundry for commercial and office development. These three applications will be reviewed at the October 5, 1982 City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so please review the applications and return any comments regarding same to the Planning Office, attention Colette -Penne, by Monday20th 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 application •rill be presented before the October 19th City Planning and 7rnrirr �o any referral comments should be back to Alice Davis at the Planninu-011fice by Monday, October 4th. Please remember that the C,ty GMP scoring procedures have been amended during the past year, so your comments should address these new regulations. If you - are unfamiliar with t,+- new Ordinance, please contact either Colette Penne or Alice flavi5 di: J-'ZGZ3, •tAL. 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. IV rd I C6I ¢Gj rn � r r r N 1p al N O O 1 d O l I — a) r r N l0 Ql l0 M Ol lfl lD N 3 i m a1 r N tD 1; lD Ql M I� �' Ln O N r- OC aJ C Z •r O E H N r r N m N al M lD1 Ql l N -1 l.[) 1 Ln N r- cN 7 H co Ln Q Z J O � U W O E J F— W J W CD Q W Q = to to � to to ►Z+ J aJ � 11 O� CD I N r N ko 1- N Ol CO M m .1 to r- Q J 3 F- O N U eiS W Cl. CD C] O i J i a1 M a co Ol r- (N F4- FQ-- F- CD cn O U F- F- D m C m (N N m >. p O O W N a) LLB CN •I- (N O w Ln •r N W C +J Co ,- a +� V7 C m •r •r ' •r O r- d' 4-j r- p N •r � O O r' to •r- CL Z a) 4-3 U L.r_. J r a) (J Q C m r0 i r r- its a O > .- im U +3 LA-' • V) O O 01 •r Z r i U +- W to ai r- N W U U ro +j, U r. O rC U, r- r-- $.. H •r •r C U r--+ i O N -0 (d H aJ •r- b a) F- > > •r- a) (N :3 0) O c CL > i () U O H i i (0 +-) W 4--) •r O (o E O Q U rU O 0)H N (N C] S.- a)a) cm0. rn a) +J U 0- LL i C] a C r- C i En (d Q i i N O r LT •r- RU N •r- w C a) m U- a1 a1 w � s al S...Y O W 4--) 4- ., i +J O i M >- U i-) (1)i CA ►+ O O C U -r U io U 4-) r O F- i •r c t0 •r F- a) O •r a) 4-) ► + 3 N LN U- Q' + Q Ln W 13. >- H E U C] 4' • O J J Z F- > co Q W W N a tb a U C N Cr 7 O *a ce- N M 0 v �t Ln a� 0 S- ai Co 0 > d La Qc p .- C11 o d O r LD 3 - ' S-. N p Ln Ln N C LnL!) N O N m LA Ln 7 !Ora d Ln Ln O CO l0 CD to Oko to J S.. N S' d W �- CD �S a w W ' w N J J � � Z w E W C7 Q Z a� N 2 Vf C9 Ln z o Q � N z 0 a O CD S.- U N W 0. W r C'J p O J F- W � O IV O J a- W (/) 7 O 0000 O ON C 0- v 0 9 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALICE DAVIS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: GMP APPLICATION FOR THE CARRIAGE HOUSE LODGE DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1982 r SEP 13 1982 :�'SPEN / PITKIN CO. PANNING OFFPCE 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 ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT 565 N . Mill Street Tele. 925-3601 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 l� �%'/'4�c^T/��- �.AS lLEec-1z %30Aie /4t-h 1T CA<- i3� s �= r -� c ,- n /3 Y T/t F_ /i S /'e 1�lSTXIc_i S ri 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, 1980 Project Name Address ?, Owner Attorney/Agent/RepresentativeO Address p�tin Reviewed by Date I. Residential Application (section 24-10.4) ®A Public Facilities & Services O - Infeasible to provide 1 - Major deficiency 2 - Acceptable (standard) 3 - No forseeable deficiencies Water_ ( 3 pts. ) Capacity of system for proposed needs without facility upgrade at public expense. 7 * Sewer (3 pts.) Capacity without s stem upgrade. Z Storm Drainage (3 pts.) Adequate d' sposal f urface ru off . �,s Parking Design (3 pts.) 1 Off street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience. Roads (3 pts.) Capacity of road system to handle needs without altering traffic patterns Vr overloading streets or requiring more maintenance. /A - // Page 2 Growth Management Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services O - Requires new service at public expense 1 - Existing service adequate 2 - Project improves quality of service Public Transportation (2 pts.) 2 - On existing route. 1 - Within 520 feet of route. 0 - 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 0 - Totally deficient 1 - Major flodw 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.) III.Lodge Development Application (section 3 ir} A. Public Facilities and Services (same as residential) • Page 3 Growth Management Review Checklist B. Social Facilities and Services 0 - Requires new service at public expense. 1 - 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 j Site Design (3 pts.) Amenities (3 pts.) ?i Visual Impact (3 pts.) -Sala and location as it affects public views of scenic areas. Conformance to Policy Goals (3 pts.) Reduction of parking in coordination with limosine service (1 pt.). Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.). Prohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt.). IV. Zoning (All applications) Zone _ L - 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 Required Actual Maximum Height Building Dist. Bldg. Sq. Footage _ Open Space External F.A.R. Internal F.A.R. 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%EGIONAL BUILDAG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 0 ! P, f 1 TO: Planning Dept. ,1 1 QQ" LU FROM: Patsy Newbury, Acting Building Official AS PITKIN CO. PLAN NG OFFICE DATE: October 27, 1982 RE: The Pines - Carriage House '} IVcv ". L Ior lot 15r If approved as presented, who keeps account of transfered credit units (6). Do they go to Mr. 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 Q� �f N U ' J Co \ r N l0� lD C\ Ql l0 N �1 Gi cf" r-' C O r^ O �- Q) r r N � l.p lD al CD M Ql lD lD N 3 Q) r O N r Z •r O !n r r r N l0 l0 N Ql M lD cn Cn ra N r C7 7 r--� Z , m Z Z ro > v w o � J F- w w CD Q w ¢ _ cn cn z�n N r N co lD N 6l l0 M J 3 F^ O N a C3 06 UJ cl. Ca O S Q) M d co r Q I U F-• F^ F^ F- m C m N (n m O =D LU N Q) N r N aD Q) to r N LU S= 4j co •r Q) +3 Cn ZT C ra • - r N •r- O 0.- to� •r- L U_ _J r Q) U � N $- •r •r r0 N O > r U i-3 U." • • Ln U Q) 0) •r Z r S- U 4--) t17 rn 03 r V1 W U U CO i-J CD m Q) U Cl ra U, r r• � j.., r-� •r C '--+ S- C to '� ra '--+ Q1 •r (a Q) F— > > Q)U (N :3 U) O C �L S- QJ U C rr S_ S ra }a UJ +-1 •r O (0 E CDQ U «3 O C- J Q) w S. O G U v7 U r-+ C U- r Q) Cn CN C) S . Q) Q) a� d CT Q) +� i U d U_ +-� U a C r C S_ m ra Q S_ S E to CDr C� •r N N Q) C O UJ -0 4- •r i.. C 4-J } O i-• ra >- U +-J Q) S.- to �-+ O C Cu •r U ra Q) 4--) •r O I--- S-. •r C CO •r F-- Q) O . - a) • O -J m j UJ ZD W N CL ra .L] U 'TJ N CY ra .0 U -0 w 7 O co p. 0•• N M 0 b r. 0 a L LO a� rn a� co 0 Lfi N I O r C)l d O CO N r tD 3 ' N a' N Nt!) N O N b 11) LC) r7 (I rJ d to � O 00 lD O l0 N tD l0 J d � 1 Z Z N d L1. C) CD rn .n N H CD 0- +� O N • O J } U i O W N W ca O � ce I a v Ui a, Q rp L� S- a) > 00 r� Ql I-- r r r N 10 1 all d N 01 �' d' r Q I C O i- r O r r r N lD l0 lD CM CT lO l0 N 3 S- Ln to�l to t.c) Q1 r N lD CS' lfl CT M cl' r� Gt' d" Ln O CV r N C Z r N r r r N l0 l0 I d N CT M lD Ql N L!i N to N �-- N '7 r-r E 00 N Z _L O U dl W O � J F— W J W co Q W Q S cN (n -::c Z ►--� J N r Q1 J N r N CO l0 N dl l� M CT In Ln r Q ¢ 3 F-- O N CD c3 W d C'3 O S. J S. O M C� 00 Q1 r— i J J J Q d Q H m C m to 0 CO O O O W Vf w O at Ln •r- co =3 N N •r LN W C -P co •r- w +-t Cn •� O r� � L � r- O Vf r O O •r- 0 •►- LL. J r- O U i O b S.. •r- •r- b O O > •.- O U d-) LL-" CN N O tm •r Z r S` U 4-3 W (A (U •r- N W U U to i•J C-0 rU O U s , O to Li- S. ►-� •r •r C U $--r S-. C VI 'O rU t r N r rU N ►— > > .r N (N O CT O C D. > S- N U C S.. S- (a 4-J W 4-) •r O (0 O Q U rU O E J O w S O O U V1 U ►+ d' C LL- •r- U N N CA S.- 4J N Ol d CT O 4-3 S. U d L" i M >1 C r C $- O rU c= S- S.. E H O r- tm •r- (o tN •r- (J C (D Cc p1 LL. O N 9— O •0 L O S.. Y = W 4-) 4- •r- S. C +j 3 O S rU >- U 4J 0) S.- Vf ►-+ N C C U N i� r O F— S_ ., C rU •r F— N O •r- N •1-� ►-+ 3 N N LL or Ln W O.. ►-+ C3.. O • O J -J W d W N CL rU .O U fl C1 (Br rU .a U -6 GJ r4 U 7 O ca ce 0- p, r— N VI; 1 i I W C'3 Q L1. F-- W W S N J J F�- z W W Q z S F-- 3 O C7 W CD Cn O J M co CT -o r- 0 v s LO cu U rn a� co 0 S= O 4-3 r O O O p r l0 3 - i N 1 -1 '— O r' p LO LO N C •r t In N O N m LO Ln 7 4� f[3 L1. Ln l!') a) co �O O l0 4v 1p tD J d• � 1 N N Z Z CD to a �. = UI C9 d Q CD CD N O_ F-- � S- H +� O N - U i O W N W ca 7 Ocx ei! 10 CITY OF ASPIO MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Assistant Planning Director 2'A _ 1 l v OSPEN/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/PRELIMINARY 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/PRELIMINARY 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 SUBTOTAL 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 Name: Phone: Address: Project: Check No. Date: Additional Billing: No. of Hours: