Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.204 E Durant Ave.9A-86CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT 2735-131-05-002 9A-86 cloosaD I VA 414 4r ASPEN/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 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 - 52100 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 - 52100 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47332 - 52200 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47333 - 52200 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47342 - 52200 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47343 - 52200 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47350 - 52200 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47360 - 52200 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 - 52200 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 09000 - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 09000 - 52200 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 - 52200 COUNTY CODE - 63063 - 09000 - 52200 ALMANAC - 63062 - 09000 - 00000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 - 00000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 - OTHER Name: _ Address: Check # Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: Date: # of Hours: CARRIAGE HOUSE 204 E _ DURANT AVE- ASPEN CO_ 1 1 GIBSON 6 RENO • ARCHITECTS 1 l �D v\-D - P I -76 a AMMENDMENTS TO THE 1982 LODGE DEVELOPEMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION FOR 23 LODGE UNITS AND 3 EMPLOYEE UNITS AT 204 EAST DURANT AVENUE ASPEN,COLORADO MARCH 14, 1986 ■ ■ CONTENTS page Synopsis 1 Zoning Data 2 Comparative Project Data 3 ■ Comparative Scoring Data 5 Text ■ I. Availability of Public Facilities and Services A. Water 6 B. Sewer 6 C. Storm Drainage 6 ■ D. Fire Protection 7 E. Roads 7 ■ II. Quality of Design A. Architectural Design 8 B. Site Design 8 ■ C. Energy Conservation 9 D. Parking and Circulation 9 E. Visual Impact 10 ■ III. Amenities Provided for Guests A. Meeting Areas 10 B. Dining Facilities C. Recreation Facilities 11 11 IV. Policy Goals A. Employee Housing 12 V. Bonus Points 12 ■ Drawings I. Approved 1982 Allocation A. Zoning/Location Map 13 B. Site/Utility Plan 14 C. Basement Floor Plan 15 D. First Floor Plan 16 E. Second Floor Plan 17 ■ F. Section 18 G. Elevation 19 ■ H. Typical Unit Plans 20 II. Amended 1986 Application A. Existing Conditions Survey 21 ■ B. Site Plan 22 C. Basement Floor Plan 23 D. First Floor Plan 24 F. Second Floor Plan 25 F. Third Floor Plan 26 G. Elevations 27 H. Sections 28 I. Typical Unit Plans 29 J. Employee Unit Plans 30 K. Off Site Employee Housing 31 ■ L. Photo'of Model 32 SYNOPSIS: LODGE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDED APPLICATION An allocation was granted in December, 1982 for a lodge of 26 free market and 5 employee units (15,000 SF) to H.B.C. Investments. At the time of approval 6 additional short-term units (3,694 SF) existed on the site, which Cantrup indicated he intended to rebuild on another site. (Permission never obtained.) Subsequently, the project was sold to Ralph Melville who allowed the existing units to be used long term. Two six-month extensions and an alley encroachment licence have been granted to allow the new owner to revise the design. The Amended Design, as herein described, seeks to improve upon the Quality of Design and Amenities, and to reduce service and visual impacts, while retaining the Spirit of the Approved Application. We request the following Special Review: 1. Approval of the Application, as Amended 2. G.M.P. Exemption and Deed Restriction of the Employee Housing 3. Change of Use from Long Term to Short Term of the existing multi -family units For convenience and clarity, we have compared the Amended Application side -by -side with the former Application, since we understand that the two are to be scored comparatively one against the other, under the 1982 Scoring Criteria. ZONING DATA: 1. Project Name 2. Location 3. Street Address 4. Parcel Size 5. Zoning 6. External FAR 7. Open Space Requirement 8. Internal FAR Maximum Rental Area Minimum Employee Area Minimum Public Space "Carriage Ilouse" Lots K, L, M, N, & 0 Block 77 City of Aspen 204 East Durant Avenue 15,000 SF L-1 1:1 (15,000 SF) 3,750 SF (25 0) 10,000 SF 1,250 SF �750 SF 15,000 SF 9. Parking; one space per room 10. Existing on the site: 6 multifamily units (3,694 SF) 11. Owner: Ralph Melville 333 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-7797 12. Architect: Gibson & Reno Architects 418 Fast Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611. (303) 925-5968 COMPARATIVE PROJECT DATA: *EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA *OPEN SPACE PARKING INTERNAL FLOOR AREA: Rental Areas Employee Area Public Space Storage NUMBER & TYPE OF UNITS SIZE OF UNITS Free Market Employee Units SC11L'DULE APPROVED 1982 ALLOCATION AMENDED 1986 APPLICATION 11,300 SF (new) 31f,g4 SF (existing 1.4,910 SF 14,:)f)4 SP rebuilt) 2,845 SF, or 19*.' 4,138 SF, or 28% 22 covered, 26 covered, 9 uncovered 5 uncovered 5, 894 SF (new) 3,694 SF (existing, rebuilt) 9,270 SF 9,588 SF 1,254 SF (on -site) 841_SF (off -- site) 1,650 SF 2,095 SF 3,750 SF 3,949 SF 240 SF 210 SF 23 new lodge rooms 5 (existing lodge rooms rebuilt) 26 lodge rooms 28 lodge rooms 3 employee units (on -site) 3 employee units _ (off -site) 5 employee units 6 employee units 20 lodge rooms @ 330 SF 6 lodge rooms @ 370 SF 5 employee rooms @ 330 SF .J U111 t,in, L'vt". (Indefinite) 21 lodge rooms @ 337 SF 2 lodge rooms 356 SF (avg.) On Site: set p.4 employee rooms @ 384 SF 1 employee un*7`fst @a,)u 381 SF M�r�i V,k ^�f 72 Off Site: employee units 310 S F'AWw%vAill ' - y t V 1 employee unit @ 220 S F '? f{;,,,"d c•Lip-1 ear 6 units total Construction will begin in June, 1986 *Note.: Scale Drawings will be made available to Planning Office, and at the Public Hearings. 3 Q 4-) a� +1 +.) a� a) m w L. a) L. a) b0 0 +1 4-) U 41 . o > m U W M O t^. H m a ^ a) O H C: M x 0 3^ 0^ a) .- 3 U m M L. 0 ­4 >•. Cl) 11 0 V o (L) O O 0 3 +) v L. 0 L. L. 0 (a) w 0 a a� m +1 0- a a cn ,4 O N L. G V) u 4+ N L. a m — - q -W - .-a a) a r-1 4•4 -C a) a) 41 N m O .14 m ^ -4 4j x r-1 0 U 'v Lo>�• 4 N a) to 1-4 m L. +1 m O t- a +> -4 m a) O u 0 bo L. > 0 0 r-1 1-1 N O V) ..-+ I Cv a) O N (n a bo S. m U r-+ a 4. .-. 0 3 0 mo t"., CO L. L. - c a 4r a) 1-4 c 0 (L) .x x 4. 0 r-1 3 U O r., a O M .-, O U O En O O co 0 Cz, a' .- V) O) O• r-+ 0 M 4J 0 L. C-. M 0 1 a) u m r-1 L. L. 4) M M 11 a) 4•4 a) U L. 0 ,a > (L) r-1 co c1b V) a CN Z 4� N c (a 0 1-4 0) S~ • 4 •ri > 0 M a) +1 c0 It [ G. U 0 .-q -4 r1 O > L. ca V) -11 O () L. L. a) a) M M V) +-) m .. O i-1 a t. m () • • +3 V) U co 0) m 4-) CM •rq 4) .-a a) b M a) co u cd a m- (3) o x u 1~ L. 0 '-1 a a (0 L. a >+ " bo M 00 >, •., 11 W q ^ _ a m 0 m M +, 0 Q +1 00 3 0 O •r1 M O •ri - N 0 a) •11 -1 7 -4 m M r••1 -4 .•. r-1 m C*. p 4-) L. bo m • -J -4 '10 U 'V r-+ 0 • • G c� a u N 00 a� m ^ a a) M a) r. u m ++ m C; -ri - r-4 u U 0 a) a c M m N O 41 •-+ m a) -:3 a:J 4•) m •r-1 m m a 0 r+ �+ .14 C: S. m a m 1:1 a ,C M 0 m 0 :3 r-i Z • a a 1-4 0 m 4J -H u rn .-I ,-, v bo -, a •rd V) L. L. 1-1 n �n a) M m L. L. •r1 ,p It 0 O c} L. L. L. >~ a m • - G a) O O U L. M by • - -!C Cl) N X a) a) :� U 11 •.-1 () N .-, a) Q) t7 0 r1 .. b a) +•> 1-4 4•+ CO a) m .[ •-• — 3 m bo u 0 / .[ m a) a a M 4J o v o 0 3 L. L. G m 0 00 00 - 0 C L. L. En 4, 0 r1 U 3 M S. L. .0 -P m 3 0 -4 m 0) 1-4 r-1 L. m 0 0 4, r-•1 m L. 0 m M bO u q 'v alo ++ M i-) M ^ L. ^ L. , O O a) 4)m +-) a) ::I•r1 ri a) a) 00 0 m m CD Cl) m 0o : ^ ^ 0 x N a 0 m 00 M C. 1 > 1-7 fr N .0 3 to N Cl) > N A N N a 0 ri N N CD r•-1 O E-+ N L r 1 LO CD Cl) N a o2i CD 00 <` 00 0 N r1 cD CL i bo O O O U CD .-1 .-� r-1 •-4 N CD CD CD N 0) CM l- a) d' [}' � to O [!' C -ri N r-•1 ri 4� C1. O O +•> w 0 r� rn En x m -P 0 > m u a) M U X m T) a) O bo to — Cz M Q) O Q) bo p (D a) U r-1 m [ -4 N a) q 1-1 > •r♦ W C. a m L. ca m +) - O a) •� .0 Ca r-1 m H •14 -4 m a) Q) •- C. 4-) r-1 0 O >1 .. r-+ os m (2L, ­4 U L. 4 0 R � .. a .-. M 0 M N - M -•-1 C r-/ a) 0 ca m bo L. m M M m .0 m Cl) r-1 N +•> - (1) +-) a a) () U L. M m a r 1 4. L. 4-) (1) a) L. ++ a 00 a w ^ m (U r a s a a u u r-1 0 C. (3) a Q) •11 m Q) L. •r♦ m M 0 4i Q) U +3 +J A -1 m m U O • 4 a) .--+ O - +-) X •+-) 0 +, > m v• 4- m 0 a a •0 0 m to a a) 0 0 (L) (i m a m u P• 4 a -4 00 a) ob C. m M .0 41 a a O ^ C. C m M R x Q4 m m M m :y -•i N" ++ :3 0 r-4 .-+ CD • 1- " :j a) 3 rn O a a) M 0 ++ 41 0 1-1 qt Itt r-+ 0 to 0 H r-4 r- I v O a a) M O S.. •. m m M L. m M 0 N m H Sr 11 •d L. >, .0 G ­4 O M 0,— a) bO 4+ a a) m -4 0 a L. i. M a a 4-3 1-4 C: u m U" .0 o a M 4 a) a 4) C-. 0 o �5 m n) a O N 0 L. u m v •r•1 M L. m v m 0 0 •� a M V) L7 r-1 to �• [ a •+, 3 •-+ >. 0 +- a m (L) • r•1 " a L. a Cy 4•. -0 m L. L. a 03 Cy ..0 () m m w W a •'-1 M .' r-1 C1 L. 4) 0 +, m L. g L. 44 by •r1 O to 1-4 .q Cy O a +) x 3 M 3 LI +-) ^ x 0 M (2) m u m 0 Cj ::1 41 +•> 0 x H to r•1 U x 0 to 0 L Ia. ca >, co ca co o m -v 0 •N a v r•-+ a M m- 0 m 1�1* N D r. ca v (D u ,o a) - - L. m +.1 :j to O L. m • 4 a) r-4 U x v - '-, O -4 - - 0 -4 ^ a E. to 00 00 v a M ,n --1 8 a a 4J -4 a) — a) 0) N 00 4. r 1 ca � - N N a � �- to r-1 -4 w U H � G m cx a 0 W w bo C3 .14 •r•1 �a a� 4J —4 H A m ::f •14 z Q) O V] > U 4J u H w bo •r♦ w r 1 L. L. +1 m H m W y E-+ C: U L. C7 m U m a) •14 O z a m +1 O +' r+ 0 of a M d m 0 0 H S.. 0 u m v H w La -r1 w p„ U A L+ >4 (1) a) bo F•i bo 41 w d' a E-1 -P A >$ C; r-1 E•a C bo m >• N F-1 •.-1 bD •r1 m H •ra S•., a) O •� a) m L. u 't1 a .O a) L. 44 v z +-) • 4 L. a z U • -) 3 0 L. m d u +1 a) L. m w a) a o Q. 0 >• a 3r to co w a o cn w a y c A a w oPQ c� a w. E+ H U H H H H to qcT rr r� ,�► r� s �t mono M� m r +■r wr ca r ri 1 I. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES Approved 1982 Allocation I Amended 1986 Application. A. Water (max. 2 vts. 8" line exists in Aspen St. and a 6" line in Durant Ave.; new tap :into main line is proposed. R. Sewer (max. 2 nts.) 8" sewer lines exist in Durant, Aspen St., and the alley of Block 77. "Maintenance of the sewer in the alley" was promised as part of the application, with no apparent specific mechanism, arrangement or details offered to carry this out. C. Storm Drai 1. Drywells were discussed to collect roof and surface runoff, but none were indicated on the drawings. 2. Additional catch basins (2) were discussed as possible improvements in conjunction with the 18" and 27" storm drains existing in Durant and Aspen Streets, but none were offered to be provided as part of the Application. 8" line exists in Aspen St. and a 6" line in Durant; new tap into main line is proposed; large enough to accommodate fire sprinkler systems, 4" minimum size 8" sewer lines exist in Durant, Aspen St., and the alley of Block 77. The applicant will be replacing 150 l.f. of the 8" line in the Alley as part of his Project at his own expense. This line will be routed adjacent to the underground parking garage, with frequent access and maintenance points, built to the Sanitation District's specifications. 1. Applicant proposes to install a french drainage system around entire perimeter of building (500 lineal feet) to collect subsurface drainage 2. Surface drainage will be collected through a drainage mat system below the sod, and through drainage grates at all surface slabs and walkways, covering approximately 12,000 SF of exposed surface area. j 3.. Roof drainage of the 50% of the roof which drains to the center will be collected in an internal roof drain system. All storm drainage will pass through a debris, dirt, and gravel trap with clean -out located in the basement mechanical room. D. Fire Protection LMax 2 pts) 3 nearby hydrants exist: 3 nearby hydrants exist: corner of Durant and Monarch; corner of Durant and Monarch; corner of Cooper and South corner of Cooper and South Spring; corner of Durant and Aspen; corner of Durant and Aspen. 6 blocks from Aspen. 6 blocks from firehouse; water pressure 65 firehouse; water pressure 65 psi psi E. Roads (Max 2 pts) 1. 2 new streetlights are proposed along Durant St. 2. Pedestrian benches are proposed at the corner of Durant & Aspen Streets 3. Parking garage entrance is proposed off of the alley. However, a encroachment by the Deep Powder Lodge in fact prevents such an entrance, prohibits adequate turning radius, and narrows the alley down to 14' at this point. 1. 2 new street lights are proposed along Durant St. 2. A new bustop/gazebo with pedestrian benches is proposed at the corner of Durant & Aspen Streets 3. Parking ramp entrance off of Aspen Street is the most practical solution, given the constricted alley situation. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Approved 1982 Allocation Amended 1986 Application ��. QUALITY OF DESIGN A. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (Maximum 3 points) 1. Materials: heavy 1. Materials: brick, patterned timber and moss rock: flat concrete, redwood siding, cedar roofs. shingle siding, metal roofing. 2. Character: `modular 2. Character: "Victorian/Post- look'; similar to the Modern look"; similar to the Prospector and the Aspen Hotel Lenado, but not same as. Inn (recently demolished). Looks like a small hotel with Looks like 'more condos'; character and identity; -similar forms and -varied forms and materials materials B. STTE DESIGN (Maximum 3 points) 1. Although the Appli- c:ntion claims 290 open space, it includes the pool and pool deck in the calculation, which is not allowed. Actual zoning code -required open space amounts to only 19e as measured from the approved site plan (2,845 SF) 2. 6 units face onto the alley. 3. All utilities under- ground. 4. Alley will be repaved for 150' behind the Property. 5. Landscaping of trees and shrubs; (no details are offered). 8 1. The Amended Design yields 43% open space, if the pool and pool deck are included. However, the code -required open space amounts to 28% as proposed herein (4,138 SF),or, 45% more than the Approved Application. 2. No units face onto the alley 3. All utilities underground 4. Alley will be repaved for 270', the entire length of the city block. ?. Landscaping will include a row of 2 1/2" caliper (min.) Mountain Ash (12) along Durant, similar to those being placed throughout the city by the Park's Department. Lilac, Tammy Juniper, and Potfn"tilla shrubs will be placed adjacent to porches and entrances. The entire unpaved surface of the Project will be sodded in kentucky bluegrass/rye grass and irrigated. 1 C. ENERGY CONSERVATION (Maximum 3 points) 1. 20 of 31 units orient South. However, the Con- t.inuous 10-14' deep decks on the South insure that no sunlight could pene- trate the units! 2. Electric: heat is pro- posed. 3. Standard construction, with 100 over code mini- mum insulation. 4. No Active Solar heat- ing is proposed. 1. 23 of 31 units orient South These have generous bay windows with 6' decks located along- side, not in front of, the windows. 2. Hotwater heat will be used. 3. Poured -in -place concrete floors (8" thick) will be used. These "mass floors" will store the passive heat collected during the day and slowly re -emit it during the night. The mass creates a "flywheel" effect which minimizes the normal daily heating and cooling demands one experiences with standard construction. Insulation will be at least 10% above code -minimum. 4. Active Solar Heating (twelve, 12, 3' X 8' roof -top panels) will provide the treat for the outdoor swimming pools and the domestic water. D. PARKING & CIRCULATION (Maximum 3 points) 1. 9 surface parking spaces, 22 underground 2. Cars partly screened from view of street 3. 8' long trash./utility area alone; alley, [code 24 -3-7 (h) (4) , re(4ui res 33' therefore, parking plan clods not work as shown, without a variance. 1. 5 surface parking spaces 26 underground spaces 2. Cars totally screened from view of street 3. 33' long screened trash/ utility area adjacent to alley is provided as required. B. VISUAL IMPACT (Maximum 3 points) 1. Flat roofs, 28' high. 1. Varied rooflines. gable, 1-dimensional forms are dormer, tower, and arcade forms, I F], E. VISUAL IMPACT (Maximum 3 points) 1. Flat roofs, 28' high. 3-dimensional forms are repetitive, monotonous, and boxy. 2. Building location ' follows front and side yard set -backs very closely; shown 10' in front; 5' on side (should be 6'-8" along Aspen St.) F1 L�� 1. Varied rooflines: gable, dormer, tower, and arcade forms, avg. 28' high. Variations in 3-D forms: curved and rectilinear; positive and negative, are used for contrast and interest. 2. Building location sets back 10' from Aspen St., and, as it turns the corner, steps back an average 42' for 116 lineal feet of frontage along Durant! Approved 1982 Allocation Amended 1986 Application AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS A. Availability of On -Site Common Meeting Areas, Such as Lobby & Conference Areas (Maximum 3 points) 1. Lobby and Conference area 1. Lobby & Conference area of of 2,410 SF is offered. 2,198 SF is provided. This This counts four spaces: includes three spaces: the the Lobby circulation Lobby/Sitting area (601 SF) and space (315 SF), the Bay the Dining/Meeting room sitting area (165 SF), (1,417 SF) the Dining Hall (250 SF) and the subgrade window- less meeting room (1680 SF). 1 10 IB. Availability of On -Site Dining Facilities (Maximum 3 points) [J LI 1 1 1 I 1. 2,255 SF of "dining area" is represented. This includes three spaces: the Dining Room (410 SF) (includes 160 SF of out- door deck in this figure!), the Bar area (1.65 SF), and the Meeting Room (1,680 SF) (It should be noted that the meeting room has no adjacent kit- chen facilities and would require catered meal; also this space is being `double counted' as both Meeting and Dining. Therefore, for consis- tency, the amended app- lication will also double count this space.) 2. Kitchen shown is 100 SF. 1. 2,108 SF of "Dining Area" is provided. This includes two spaces: the Dining/Meeting room (1,417 SF) adjacent to the kit- chen, and the Lobby/Sitting area (601 SF). No outdoor space is counted,,although extensive pool deck area is available contiguous to the dining/meeting area) 2. Kitchen facilities of 498 SF will provide full sit-down meals for guests and/or special banquets. C. Availability of On -Site Accessory Recreational Facilities (Maximum 3 points) 1. 1753 SF are represented, which includes pool, pool (leek, and `health club' 2. Pool is 16 X 30' and pool deck is 664 SF 3. 'llealth Club' is 448 SF but is undefined, unde- signed, and windowless. 1. 3,394 SF are provided, which includes pools, pool terrace, steam room, exercise room, and locker rooms. 2. Swimming pool is 18 X 36' with an integrated 7' X 7' whirl- pool at one corner, pool deck is 1,668 SF. 3. Steam Room, Exercise Room, and Locker Rooms (M & F) are 1,056 SF and include exercise and nautilus equipment with views of the pool. 1 11 I 11 11 IV. Conformance to Local Policy Goals (Maximum 20 points) Approved 1982 Allocation I Amended 1986 Application A. Provision of Employee Housing (Maximum 20 points) 1. 5 rooms @ 330 SF are of- fered on -site for 2 employ- ees each; a total of 1,650 SF and 10 low-income employees. 1. 1 manager's efficiency apartment @ 374 SF (1.25 employ- ees); 2 dormitory units on -site @ 440 SF avg. (4 employees) 2 off -site cabins* @ 310 SF complete with fireplace, kitchen and bath (4 employee's); 1 off - site cabin @ 220 SF with fireplace (1 employee); a total of 2,095 SF and 10.25 low-income employees. *Note: Proposed off -site deed -restricted cabins are located at the Swiss Chalets, West Main Street, cabin U , 2, &: 3. (See maps following.) 4 V. Bonus Points 'Maximum 5 points) Approved 1982 Allocation I Amended 1986 Application Though a standard small lodge in the HBC mold, this design provided several nice amenities and was awarded 1.5 bonus points by one Commiss- ioner in the 1982 scoring. r] If high quality, small scale, extra amenities, innovative de- sign, and fireproof construction are important to the Aspen Lodg- ing market, then this Project should certainly be awarded bonus points in the 1986 regrading;. ft 12 lillp"Iffillimps �u 1—___-______-- IpURANTT— AVE. JUNIATA ST. ZONING/LOCATION MAP I 13 1982 LF CID fill Ho8vNOlV 0 W u -- InvO A N V Q Al) Q LL. W Q J C C) J 0 - --- ~ Y Wa.._.o - SITE/UTILITY PLAN 1982 14 1u- Icol 15 04 �a 0 x BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1982 ru d,ali , � �,�� II o ZF s � � - � `" .nci�" �•I •I,_ jyl I ,�1•t. � ��1LIL •I f T t' � 1- ,_ _ _ - �'�:I ICI' ' � I' � I 1Ii11' i? I' III 11- j ci \ \ jl i�,' 1�1 (� I I I I �� � •r I�an III II t • � . ',' I� (� + i� I':j � � `, I l� I 1 r ��, , ,,f,, , � I `• ltx� J' u HI w I-- � I SECOND_FLOOR PLAN 17 (3RD FLOOR SIMILAR) 1902. '1 . XI �TION 1982 ,G- gI I . I I I /.-TYFlu \ 1Y►� EMPLoyE9 UNIT. 6Mf LAyEE UNIT. LAID SOU i 7l^ ii,ljji' .i:il,�, :i� rv.•.ci;t:'lfytl .,;�,� ^; � _ Jam► � � � }� j. y' LIv7NC. # bicarvla j Ihxls�(1-y" l� TYPICAL UNITS L4&LC-oN Y 1 ate+-ro►V�r . ' tpT T06 - _ 1 TYPICAL UNIT P ANS �:_: I 1 min C la X £ z x�4�oY : ix �� , �� �a �a o0 oa� o� � � o a ao- Jo MUDEM M M M 11 PH I IIi RC z wo - Zpu Ode- i 21 s iTe PLAiU Z Q J a cc O O J LL H W Q 7 0 23 t- i CJ U i a ei :1 co I 1=0 1 I I W W J W W J W 2 � ON < b i IL W I C 24 r� 1 u co 0) T 25 C 26 1=10 All ro = a mo--= swas ■ ■ im RI■ ■ 28 29 3,-" / - n /, I f (D Co 0) z m cl z 0 5/ 30 �_. o 3RD ST. t T 0 —, Cl) rmca I f di, m rq. S 4TH ST. -" � �o 0 LLJ LJbc s z I ` N U d oo•zz �� _ �CA o Z of 00 •zz 0 I r ri 31 ` CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED:_ 1 - DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: PROJECT NAME APPLICANT: / Applicant Addr ss/Ph ' REPRES ENTAT IV E: RepresentativeAddress/Phone: Type of Application: I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Pl a t 3. Final Plat II. Subdivision/PUD I. Conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat III. All "Two Step" Applications i/ IV. All "One Step" Applications V. Referral Fees -Environmental Health, � ousing Office 1. Minor Applications 2. Major Applications Referral Fees - Engineering Minor Applications Major Applications 9 G.S E NO. STAFF: 20 $2,730.00 12 1,640.00 6 820 .00 14 $1, 900 .00 9 1,220.00 6 820 .00 11 $1,490.00 5 $ 680 .00 2 $ 50 .00 5 $ 125.00 /1 jJ P&Z CC MEETING DATE: ' V\'w` � PUBLIC' HEARING : YES NO NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: RE 7Rij,ALS : --------------- ---------------- / --City Atty ✓ Aspen Consol. S.D. School District �,City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas -Housing Dir. Parks Dept. S tate liwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State llwy Dept (Gr. Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn �^ Envir. Hlth. =____�Fire Chief Other Roaring Fork Energy Center FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer _ V _ Buil di nq Dep�/./ Other: l� Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCAT ION : 31 ` •Roviewed by: , Dn Jtita� 6, iR�� tlu , 0 spen P&Z City Co( ail t J �i� 2 =-1 A drainage plan showing retention on the property of all on- site runoff water shall be submitted to the satisfaction of .— the City Engineer prior to issuance of a buildinq permit. The t-rr mature spruce treel on the southeast az�_ corner of the property shall not be cut dcwn and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House desicn. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office and Engineering Department addressinc the areas below. The landscaping, sidewalks2, curbs an8 streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Retention of spruce trees on the site. b. Tree clustering that is consistent with the concepts and plans of the Lodge Improvement District. C. Planting of no fewer than twelve mountain ash (caliper of 3 inch minimum) , 18 lilac bushes, 8 potentilla and 35 tammy juniper on the property and adjacent rights- ' of -•ray in a screening arrangement similar in concept to r- that shown in the amended application. d. Two streetlights and conduits for two more streetlights shall be installed as to be consistent with the Lodge Improvement District plan and agreeable to the CCLC. CCLC review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. Sidewalks and curbs shall be redesigned to be consis- tent with the Lodge Improvement District plan. 4. The applicant shall agree to join the Special Improvement District for the lodge area and any other special improve- ment districts that include this property upon formation of such districts and shall state this commitment in an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. 5. The on -site manager's efficiency apartment and two dormitory units as represented in the current application shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guide- lines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Cabi ns 1., 2 and 3 at the Swiss Chalets shall be deed restricted to the low income emt1 ovee housing guidelines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If Kitbzuehl Lodge units are approved by the Housing Authority F' to be acceptable substitution for the Swiss Chalets employee • cabins, subject to upgrading as appropriate, then they shall be low income deed restricted instead of the Swiss Chalets prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Housing Authority review must be accomplished prior to City Council approval of the GMP amendment, and an interest in the units must be demonstrated at the time of P&Z scoring, or the application must be tabled pursuant to Section. 24- 1 1 . 1 0 (a) nf �-h n rnr?,+. amended. r I— - r] Reviewed by: city ct .1cil r r (N., Pit ffj �V MAI� V, 4VO Ot, reviele Z Icv: Ar, spePEZ City Council I Reviewed by: t,soen P&Z City Councill On f'l t i, 6 C,ir Co.,,,� 1 1�,r p� .nni�uc, J iia4,ru cn as ;J 4 COqf Wy I; b ,'3c 3 a. , S C, 1S Ana 6 �A 4,t���� I � I v 11 ('c �� �0�"5 J a U�� �JL, ►�t'� cL1,.7J �+ "yu 11J? L(a(,, 114 P4 Lw� 1t11Q &1r� 0 • .t *0!Ilk }fL',A ti"zT Gi 1i1 // 1. A drainage plan showing retention on the property of all on - site runoff water shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The mature spruce tree on the southeast corner of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House design. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planninq Office and Engineering Department addressing the areas below. The landscapina, sidewalks, curbs and streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. P,etention of two of the four spruce trees on the site. b. Tree clustering that is consistent with the concepts and plans of the Lodge Improvement District. C. Planting of no fewer than twelve mountain ash (caliper of 3 inch minimum) , 18 lilac bushes, 8 potentilla and 35 tammy juniper on the property and adjacent rights - of -way in a screening arrangement similar in concept to that shown in the amended application. d. Two streetlights and conduits for two more streetlights shall be installed as to be consistent with the Lodge Improvement District plan and agreeable to the CCLC. CCLC review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. Sidewalks and curbs shall be redesigned to be consis- tent with the Lodge Improvement District plan. 4. The applicant shall agree to join the Special Improvement District for the lodge area and any other special improve- ment districts that include this property upon formation of such districts and shall state this commitment in an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. 5. The on -site manager's efficiency apartment and two dormitory units as represented in the current application shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guide- lines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Employee Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Kitzbuehl Lodge as upgraded according to the Housing Authority's recommenda- tions shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guidelines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4 1O E . MEMORANDUM q 11 U g c. TO: Aspen City Council THW: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Carriage House GMP Extension DATE: November 10, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that you grant a 180 day extension to the Carriage House allocation. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On June 9, 1986 Council granted an extension of the Carriage House Lodge GMP allocation to 6/30/86 to allow the applicant to submit plans to the Building Department to construct the facility. BACKGROUND: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 24- 11 .7 (a) of the Code, the applicant submitted plans to the Building Department to construct the Carriage House in June, 1986. According to the UBC, the applicant has 180 days (i. e. , until December, 1986) to obtain said permit or to obtain an extension on the plan check from the -Building Inspector. However, Section 24711 .7 (a) (2) states that the applicant must obtain the permit within 120 rather than 180 days or the allo- cation shall automatically expire. Council can grant an exten- sion of said deadline by up to 180 days on a showing of____gQQd_ cause and diligence, provided that said extension has been requested prior to the end of the deadline period. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The principal problem with respect to this request is that the applicant has requested it subsequent to the end of the deadline period, since over 120 days has passed since the plans were first submitted. Therfore, while the applicant is still on target for complying with the Building Code, his allocation is in violation of this zoning provision and has technically expired. It is my recollection that Council purposely set a 120 day period for the deadline to obtain a permit, in order that construction would proceed expeditiously once an allocation is granted. It is clear now that by establishing two different "clocks" for applicants to follow in the zoning and building codes, we have created unnecessary confusion for applicants. The problem of variations between our codes is one of the key findings of our Code Simplification study, and is something we intend to correct. It seems unfair to me to penalize this applicant, who was aiming to obtain a permit by December, by catching him between the two deadlines. We recommend that an extension be granted and that staff work to resolve the differences between the two Codes in our simplification effort. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to grant an extension of 180 days to the allocation to the Carriage House." CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: AR. 2 C • • k_= GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS November 6, 1986 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE Dear Alan: On behalf of my client Ralph Melville, and in accordance with Sec. 24-11.7 (a)(2), I wish to request a time extension of 120 days to the normal plan checking and building permitting period. As you know, plans sufficient for Building Permit were submitted to the Building Department in June, 1986, along with the required plan check fee. Since June, the plans have been undergoing review by the Building Department, Zoning Official, Engineering Department, and Planning Department, are currently in midst of this process. I request this consideration only because the review process ---has been, and is presently, a process over which neither I nor my client have any great degree of control. Once the permit is obtained, construction is anticipated to begin within the suggested time period of 120 days (i.e. Spring, 1987). Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, avid avid Gibson, AIA DFG/rm c: Ralph Melville 418 E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN. CX]L_ORAOO 61811 303/ 925-5966 11 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 212 GL NWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-1004 July 17, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Carriage House Dear Steve: I have reviewed the plans for the Carriage House and offer the follow- ing comments: A - The street scape appears adequate for the districts preliminary design. The district will have sidewalk width and street tree planting details by January, which the Carriage House should adapt should they proceed with these projects at their expense prior to district construction. We would anticipate district construction on Durrant in 1988. B - The exterior of the building will be an enhancement to the district. We feel it will upgrade the entire neighborhood within the district. Sincerely, SER DON MEYER, INC. Ron ompso Project Manager RT:ls/5726 V Ur - MEMORANDUM I AIL TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Department FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department DATE: July 10, 1986 RE: Carriage House I have reviewed the proposed drainage plan and found that it meets our approval. EE/co/CarriageHouse • MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Vi RE: Car r iage House Pl ans Check f or Compl iance w ith Conditi ons of Approval DATE: July 11, 1986 1. Retention of pine trees as approved. 2. 10 mountain ash caliper of 2 1/ 2" rather than 12 @ 3' caliper . 12 lilac bushes caliper rather than 18. 9 potentilla (groupings) rather than 8. 31 tammy juniper rather than 35. 3. "Bus -stop gazebo" onsite plan appears to be a bench. (Note: there may be more detailed building plans in submittal) 4. 2 new street lights provided as represented - and conduits for 2 more streetlights (note: streetlights must be reviewed by CCLC prior to Certificate of Occupancy) .(6,6,c•• 41,I<<<c&,:Arz,•t�Firt�s•��10�` 5. Drainage plan must be submitted to satisfaction of Engineer- ing Department prior to building permit (Note: Dave Gibson said he will present Engineering Department with drainage plan) . 6. Site plan must be reviewed by Engineering Department especially regarding consistency with the Lodge Improvement District plan./,!of,. i or (& ,,r.:I 96. TL�;.P,., a. Bill Ness should be consulted: re: enough room forhrk:r�cor�t` roots of spruce tree on corner of Aspen & Durant (lesscr:,��;y, than 6' from edge of building) (3/4 of drip area) is a standard to leave for tree roots, according to Gibson). 7. Employee units on site should be measured for conformity. Questionable that Unit 13 is employee dorm unit, should be checked. Gibson said Unit 10 is employee unit in present plans. 8. Modifications in elevations include: a. Skylights on roof over lobby. b. Change in railing. • 0 c . Loss of 1 intel s and sil 1 s on all but end w indow detail ing . (Note: Gibson said he would consider putting in sills and lintels) . d. Loss of stashes in windows. e. Glass brick instead of double windows on west elevators. f. window detail-ing--on 2nd floor of west elevation. Alan believes these;',are all minor changes that are within the architect's ability to change without further review. SB .711 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Carriage House GMP Amendment/Employee Housing GNP Exemption/Change in Use DATE: May 6, 1986 ZONING: L-1 LOCATION: 204 E. Durant Avenue Townsite of Aspen (NE corner of LOT SIZE: 14,965 square feet Lots K, L, M, N and 0, City and Aspen and Durant) APPLICANT's REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to amend the 1982 Carriage House Lodge GMP application to place 23 lodge units and 3 employee units on site and 3 employee unit off site. The architecture and site plan have changed. The applicant also requests a GMP Exemption for his employee housing project and a GMP Exemption for a Change in Use from lodge to residential units for the off -site employee housing at the Swiss Chalet. BACKGROUND: The original Carriage house GMP application was the only project in 1982 seeking development allotment in the L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition. The project met the threshold and received a GMP allocation for 26 lodge units and GMP exemption for six employee units. The six multi -family units on the parcel were not included in the 1982 application request as HBC Invest- ments hoped to use them for credits for transfer to another site. On May 13, 1985, Council granted a 180 day extension for the GMP allocation, and again on November 25, 1985, Council granted another 180 day allocation expiring on June 1, 1986. Mr. Ralph Melville purchased the property from the Cantrup estate and has redesigned the project. I. GMP Amendment Rescoring - Attached for your review is a proposed rescoring of the Carriage House lodge GMP applica- tion The submission is being rescored in conformance with the procedures of Section 24-11 .7 (b) of the Municipal Code. This regulation requires rescoring of substantial changes to GMP proposals to determine whether the allocation should be confirmed or rescinded. If the scoring remains above the minimum threshold and the applicant's position relative to • others in the competition does not change, the Commission makes a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness of the changes and any further conditions of approval. The Planning Commission originally awarded the project a score of 60.9 points (prior to the bonus points section) which placed it above the threshold of 54 points. The Carriage House proposal was the only application in the 1982 lodge competition; and therefore, there is no potential change in the position of this project relative to the GNP project s. The Planning Office recommends a revised score of 63.2 points, while we recommended a score of 54 points for the original application. Some of the important differences in the scores for the project include: 1. The site design calls for cutting down three of the four spruces on the edges of the property as well as a number of younger deciduous trees. Three of the spruces are large mature trees contributing shade and beauty to the streetscape. The 1982 plan retained the spruces. The recommended scoring decreased to 1 for this flaw, even though the rest of the landscaping and site design is very good. 2. Energy conservation commitments in the current plan are improved and are scored higher than in the 1982 review. 3. The accessory recreational facilities are rated higher than those represented in the 1982 application due to larger space and an improved design. 4. Recommended score for the provision of employee housing has been increased because of changes in the calcula- tion of points in the current version of the Growth Management Quota System. The percentage of employees housed by the project has been calculated as the same. Following is a summary of your prior and our proposed scores: P&Z Oricinal Recommended Score Revised Score 1. Public Facilities 6.7 7 and Services 2. Quality of Design 28.1 23 3. Amenities Provided 17.5 19 for Guests 4. Employee Housing 8.6 11.2 5. Bonus Points .28 0 TOTAL 60.9 60.2 2 C: • APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF CODE: Section 24-11 .7 (b) states the requirements and criteria by which a GMP amendment application shall be reviewed. In part, the Section states: "The Planning and Zoning Commission shall rescore the original application in order to determine whether: (1) The applicant would no longer meet the minimum threshold he must achieve in each category or for all catecaories to receive an allocation; or (2) The applicant's position relative to the other applicant's during the competition would have changed. Should either of the above two (2) conditions be met, the commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the applicant's allocation should be rescind- ed. Should the above conditions not be met, the commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council as to the appropriateness of the amendments to the original proposal and any further conditions of approval which the applicant shall meet." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The amended Carriage House application meets the two criteria of Section 24-11.7(b) by exceeding the minimum threshold and having no other competition in 1982 against which its position would change. Therefore, the application should be viewed as a primarily acceptable project to which further conditions of approval may be appropriate. The Planning Office believes that the following areas should be addressed in condi- tions of approval: 1. Drainage Plan - The applicant has committed to a drainage system that will retain all runoff from the site on the property. Due to the large subsurface area this design to accommodate all runoff requires different components than represented in the amended application. A new plan should be submitted meeting the Engineering Department's approval. 2. Sidewalks, Curbs and Plantings - The applicant has agreed to modify the site plan to be more compatible with the Lodge Improvement District Plan (Preliminary), including wider sidewalks with brick edging and clustering of plantings adjacent to rights -of -ways. The number of plantings and the overall landscaping concept seem appropriate and should be retained. Two streetlights compatible with the plan and agreeable to the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission and conduits for two more streetlights are also part of the Carriage House commitment. The applicant agrees to join the Lodge Improvement District upon formation. C 3 . Removal of Spruce Trees - The Planning Office and Parks Director are concerned with the loss of the large spruce trees on the site. It is highly desireable that the two trees on the southeast and southwest corners of the property be incorporated into the Carriage House design even though this would require changing the subsurface space. 4. FAR - It should be noted that according to the Planning Office understanding at this time, the subsurface area is exempt from FAR. The Building Department will need to make the interpretation of countable and uncountable FAR space upon review of construction documents; and this project must comply with Code requirements in this regard. 5. Off -Site Employee Housing - The applicant has discussed off site employee housing conversions at either the Swiss Chalet or the Kitzbuehl Lodge. The Housing Authority recommended approval of the use of the Swiss Chalet units (two dorm units and two dorm cabins) but has not had a chance to review the Kitzbuehl alternative in which Mr. Melville has recently expressed interest. If this substitution is to occur, the units should meet the approval of the Housing Authority prior to Council approval. Through Housing Authority review, the degree of upgrading needed to be acceptable employee housing should be established. The number of employees housed and the square footage should be no less than the Swiss Chalet alternative. As of the time of writing no proof of ownership or interest in the Swiss Chalet has been shown by the applicant. If there is no such proof by the time of the P&Z meeting, then the applicant cannot claim any points for converting the units, Aspen Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1986, amending Section 24-11.10(d) of the Code. Should this be the case, we suggest that the application be tabled until interest in the employee units can be shown. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends the Planning Commission to confirm the recommended rescoring of the amended Carriage House application and to recommend Council to confirm the GMP allocation for the project subject to the following conditions: 1. A drainage plan showing retention on the property of all on - site runoff water shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The two mature spruce trees on the southeast and southwest corner of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House design. 4 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office and Engineering Department addressing the areas below. The landscaping, sidewalks, curbs and streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Retention of spruce trees on the site. b. Tree clustering that is consistent with the concepts and plans of the Lodge Improvement District. C. Planting of no fewer than twelve mountain ash (caliper of 3 inch minimum) , 18 lilac bushes, 8 potentilla and 35 tammy juniper on the property and adjacent rights - of -way in a screening arrangement similar in concept to that shown in the amended application. d. Two streetlights and conduits for two more streetlights shall be installed as to be consistent with the Lodge Improvement District plan and agreeable to the CCLC. CCLC review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. Sidewalks and curbs shall be redesigned to be consis- tent with the Lodge Improvement District plan. 4. The applicant shall agree to join the Special Improvement District for the lodge area and any other special improve- ment districts that include this property upon formation of such districts and shall state this commitment in an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. 5. The on -site manager's efficiency apartment and two dormitory units as represented in the current application shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guide- lines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Cabins 1, 2 and 3 at the Swiss Chalets shall be deed restricted to the low income emp2 ogee housing guidelines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If Kitbzuehl Lodge units are approved by the Housing Authority to be acceptable substitution for the Swiss Chalets employee cabins, subject to upgrading as appropriate, then they shall be low income deed restricted instead of the Swiss Chalets prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Housing Authority review must be accomplished prior to City Council approval of the GMP amendment, and an interest in the units must be demonstrated at the time of P&Z scoring, or the application must be tabled pursuant to Section 24- 11 .10 (d) of the Code, as amended. 5 II. Employee Housing GMP Exemption and Change in Use. Applicants Request: The applicant requests an employee housing GMP Exemption for the three units proposed on site and three cabins off site. The three units off site are at the Swiss Chalets, used alternately short-term and long-term and presently in the lodge inventory. Applicable Sections of the Code: Section 24-11.2 (f) and (j) of the Municipal Code state the requirements for the GVP Exemptions for deed restricted employee housing and change in use respectively. Relevant criteria for employee housing GMP exemptions include: community need, compliance with any adopted housing plan and proposed price categories. Relevant criteria for the change in use GMP Exemption include: traffic impact, utility requirements and fire and police protection requirements. Problem Discussion: The Planning Office and Housing Authority believe that the proposed low income deed re- stricted employee housing units on site needed for employees generated by the lodge project and are adequate in size and price category for the intended users. The Swiss Chalet off site employee units also appear to meet a community need and ac low income units would be appropri- ately priced. Their conversion to long term employee units would not negatively impact traffic nor change utility or safety requirements. Recommendation: we recommend approval of the requested GMP Exemption for employee housing for manager's unit and two dorm units on site and the two dorm cabins and one effici- ency cabin at Swiss Chalets as represented in the applica- tion subject to deed restriction to the low income employee housing guidelines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This recommendation is conditioned upon docu- mentation being submitted by the applicant prior to or at your meeting demonstrating an interest in the units. Without said documentation, the application must be tabled, pursuant to Section 24-11.10(d) of the Code, as amended. SB.9 � 1 N. CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS PROJECT: ___irriage House GMP Amendment__________ DATE: 4/30/86 _ 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing, level of service in the area of any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (Multiplier: 1) RATING: - POINTS: I_ COMMENTS:1- current applicantmaking approximately the-n ommitment as H.B.C. Investment! • made to abandon existing lines1 have a history of • •lems and to install • 1 line of minimum ' inches. According to the Water Depart- ment, and • • es not in ! • e theagality of the b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer :ystem to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: --I_— (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: �COMMENTS: The applicant commits to replace a_m6=_*w-* 'wum49A ear Leetof t sewaae line Be-causeof ffln• -� • •. . •-. �• • t -► c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop- ment site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 CO MMENTS : runoff on site and has agreed to present a drainage plan to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department The recommended scoring has not changed d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire Department to provide fire protection according to its established response without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 1 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1 e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. (Multiplier: 1) Low GIVEIM-10 or-low-Jor-tv IN RATING: 2 POINTS: 2 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) . 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with the existing neighborhood developments. (Multiplier: 3) RAT ING : 2 POINTS: 6 • -- story structure with a major evel has an FAR of anuroximatgl 1-1 on the 15,000 s.f. site, Pit = -I I . 1 - . ! . ! - . • } • ! • • opts WIN! 1 1 1 - • •• 1 - • • f - • • • • • ! • f 1 • - . 1 • - ! • it - • . ! . • �• f - I p • • • - b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RAT ING : (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 remo�ai of the spruces, This is a major site design flaw and the recommended scorinq has decreased, C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RAT ING : 3 (multiplier: 1) POINTS: 3 d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public vi ews. RAT ING : 3 (Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 9 0 • COMMENTS: proposes to provide five paved surface spaces off -Applicant the alley and 26 underground spaces. As the dininc area is to be for primary use of the hotel guests, no parking recuirement e4r;p1ies to this part of the project; and the mrkina commitment exceeds the Joinimum parking requirement of one space_ per bedreom. One on -street space will be removed from Aspen Street, The number of unc7erground spaces on this application (26) exceeds those in the original proposal (22) and surface spLces are fcwer. Garage access off Aspen Street appears to work better than the on yinal desian with access in the alley. The recommended retina has not changed. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering_ the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RAT ING : 1 (multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3 COtlt'ENTS : In the review of the 1F'82 application the Planning Off is e recommended a rating of one point due to the height and mass of the structure, views blocked from the Deep Pow6er and. Limelight LoCges and inconsistency with the one-story Aspen P"anor. next door It was noted that the three story Southwint Condos and Lift One have already created si ynif i cant negative impacts in the area The current application has not significantly chant c7 the height and mass of the structure and this imf:act will not be reduced. The architecture with varied roof lines uh to 32 feet high and curved corner will makes the build nca less; obtrusive from street level.,,--- _somewhat 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proibsed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following, formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality of spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terns 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: 4. a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 3) RATING: POINTS: 9 COMMENTS:1 •ject includes a l• • • of 601 s.f. and a • 1 b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) RATING: 2 POINTS: 4 COMMENTS: A dining/meeting room, lobby space and 498 s.f. kitchen are included in this j2r!QJQQ. The QAonnaal meets the C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. (Multiplier: 2) RATING: 3 POINTS: 6 • f • - • 1 1 • / . . 11 - "94 f CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points) The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Commission shall award points as follows: • 0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 4% housed. 41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 12% housed. RATING: (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 11.2 COMMENTS: The applicant has committed to house the equivalent of 10.25 low income employees Two unite on -Fite and three, units off -site (in the Swiss Chalet or Kietzbuhl) will be provic;ed. In the original application it was calculated that ten (30) em- pp ogees would be Qenerateci by the Carriace House However, the pl anni ng Office calculated and the Housing_ Authority concurred that there would be a total of 19 employees. The current applicant has assumed that the same approximate level of services_ will be rrovided in the hotel as i' is presently desicneC The number of lodge units is now 23 comL,ared to 26. Similar dining • • — �MiZd�leye tFl l��Tie�•IiF 41R�1�L1�ll���li%�� �i�l!]�C•�sI tool 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points) The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten 010) percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awardi na bonus points shall provide a written justifica- tion of that award for the public hearinc; record. RATING: 0 (Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 0 Ll G . TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4: SUBTOTAL: Bonus Points: TOTAL POINTS: 6 (Minimum of 3 pts. required) 24_ (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required) 19 (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required) 11.2 (Minimum of 5.25 pts. required) 60.2 (60% threshold = 57.6 pts.) 60 _2 (Total of 96 Available) Name of Commission member: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office SBA Reviewed by: Aspen P&Z (; City Council, O A �� 1 Q" .�. � � � U .� C \ t � � C• � ��r�v�,� ^�v''�c� ��'4t.1 H q?�/ l�'L"� � �' �.^.�'h � �v� �� / l�iJ,i �tiit 1Nr. i,} ' �:.i 4 4,,L, ,1 ,p t ►tom N� �� jvi 0. t1 't�ti �'! .nLi v� 1l','✓y�'J, �C� i i •d i-�ipr�5 `� 3A L)dt k.A I "��Al�'F�t"►��Cfvh n7tr�i<� �G �(�f �,�r t; �� Q��t V� V: . 1 .f 7; ��i�. tau ��t c�r�•, i%� +r ��. 1. A drainage plan showing retention on the property of all on - site runoff water shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The mature spruce tree on the southeast corner of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House design. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning office and Engineering Department addressing the areas below. The landscapina, sidewalks, curbs and streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Retention of t410 of the four spruce trees on the site. b. Tree clustering that is consistent with the concepts and plans of the Lodge Improvement District. C. Planting of no fewer than twelve mountain ash (caliper of 3 inch minimum) , 18 lilac bushes, 8 potentilla and 35 tammy juniper on the property and adjacent rights - of -way in a screening arrangement similar in concept to that shown in the amended application. d. Two streetlights and conduits for two more streetlights shall be installed as to be consistent with the Lodge Improvement District plan and agreeable to the CCLC. CCLC review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit. designed to e. Sidewalks and curbs shll be the Lodge ImprovementeDistrict plane consis- tent with 4 . The applicant shall agree to join the Special Improvement District for the lodge area and any other special improve- ment districts that include this property upon formation of such districts table to the City Attornel,state this commitmer.t in an agreement P 5. The on -site manager's efficiency apartment and two dormitory units as represented in the current application shall be deed restricted'ssuancethe oflow a certific temployee of occupanc�,,guide- lines prior to + 6. Employee Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Kitzbuehl Lodge as upgraded according to the Housing Authority's recommenda- tions shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guidel�eS prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. I s MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Ron I1itchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: Juno 3, 1986 RE: Carriage House Gl*!P- Spruce Tree Removal ---------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Engineering Department recommend-> that the large spruce tree on the northwest corrier of tine Durant and Aspen Street intersection not be removed. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council, on May 27, 1986, approved the GMP allocation for the Carriage House Amended GIfP project subject to several conditions. The question of whether or not the large spruce tree on the southwest corner_ of this property could be removed on the grounds that it is an obstruction to line of: site was brought up and it was decided to refer it to the Engineering Department for recommendation. BACKGROUND: The Carriage House site design calls for cutting down the mature spruce tree located on the southeast corner of property. This design has a subsurface area which could not he constructed without the removal of the tree. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Measurements were taken indicating the position of the tree relative to the edge of the curb on both Durant and Aspen Streets and the position of the stop sign relative to the corner of the intersection. Line of sight was calculated using criteria established in A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways from the American Association of State Highway Officials. The results indicated line of sight at this intersection was more than adequate with the tree in question in its present location. ALTERNATIVES: The Engineering Department does recomi,iend the removal of a large lilac bush located northwest of the spruce tree near the edge of Aspen Street. This bush creates an obstruction to line of site at the Aspen and Durant Street intersection according to calculations. RECOMMENDATION: The Engineering Department recommends that, because there is no obstruction to line of site in this case, this tree should not be removed. jg/treeremn cc: Jay Hammond GIBSON & RENO ARCHITECTS May 28, 1986 El Mr. Steve Burstein Assistant Planner 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT Dear Steve: As you know, the City Council last night approved the Carriage House Amended GMP Application, the Change of Use of the existing on -site units to short-term, and the Employee Housing GMP Exemption. At the same time, the Council requested additional information and a possible change of building design concerning the large spruce tree on the Southwest corner of the property. Although the Council did not grant a formal extension to the GMP expiration date before which building permit drawings must be filed (June 1, 1986), 1 understand that the Planning Office feels that an informal extension of a minor period of time (a couple of weeks) is warranted in order to satisfy the Council's request, before the submission of final building permit plans. I am presently in touch with the City Engineer's office to attempt to get a recommendation on the Traffic impacts of the tree at the earliest possible date. If you differ or disagree with the interpretation of the informal 'time extension' as discussed above, please contact me immediately. Otherwise, I will proceed on this basis. Yo truly, David F. Gibson, AIA DFG:mr cc: Alan Richman Ralph Melville 418 E. COOPER AVENUE 0207 ASPEN. COLORA00 B1611 303/9255968 • TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office(,-" RE: Carriage House GMP Amendment: Spruce Trees Condition and Extension Request DATE: June 3, 1986 BACKGROUND: On May 27, 1986, City Council unanimously passed a motion to confirm thm�F allocation for the Carriage House Amended GMP Project subject to five (5) conditions stated in the May 20, 1986 Planning Office memorandum, while tabling action on the conditions pertaining to the spruce tree located on the southwest corner of the property. In addition, it was noted in the Planning Office memorandum that the GMP allocation for the Carriage House would expire on June 1, 1986, but no request for extension was entertained. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached is the memorandum from Engineering Department dated June 3, 1986, recommending retention of the subject spruce tree. The Planning Office continues to support the position that the tree is a site specific and community amenity and it should not be removed. In David Gibson's letter, a request is made for a minor extension of the GMP Allocation. The Planning Office supports a three week extension for the Carriage House application to enable the applicant to prepare working drawings taking into account the retention of trees and other conditions of approval passed by Council. We believe that the intention of Section 24-11 .7 (a) (4) is being met by this short extension because the applicant has been proceeding through an additional review process so to build a more desireable project which has taken additional time. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to change and approve the additional conditions of approval for the confirmation of the GMP allocation to the Carriage House amended project: 2 The mature spruce trees on the southeast and southwest corners of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into M1e� the Carriage House design. 3(a) Retention of three of the four spruce trees on the site." "Move to extend the GMP allocation granted to the Carriage House for twenty-one (21) days, expiring on June 30, 1986." • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council 41_� THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office(}{ RE: Carriage House GMP Amendment: Spruce Trees Condition and Extension Request DATE: June 3, 1986 BACKGROUND: On May 27, 1986, City Council unanimously passed a motion to confirm the GMP allocation for the Carriage House Amended GMP Project subject to five (5) conditions stated in the May 20, 1986 Planning Office memorandum, while tabling action on the conditions pertaining to the spruce tree located on the southwest corner of the property. In addition, it was noted in the Planning Office memorandum that the GMP allocation for the Carriage House would expire on June 1, 1986, but no request for extension was entertained. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached is the memorandum from Engineering Department dated June 3, 1986, recommending retention of the subject spruce tree. The Planning Office continues to support the position that the tree is a site specific and community amenity and it should not be removed. In David Gibson's letter, a request is made for a minor extension of the GMP Allocation. The Planning Office supports a three week extension for the Carriage House application to enable the applicant to prepare working drawings taking into account the retention of trees and other conditions of approval passed by Council. We believe that the intention of Section 24-11 .7 (a) (4) is being met by this short extension because the applicant has been proceeding through an additional review process so to build a more desireable project which has taken additional time. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to change and approve the additional conditions of approval for the confirmation of the GMP allocation to the Carriage House amended project: 2 The mature spruce trees on the southeast and southwest corners of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House design. 3(a) Retention of three of the four spruce trees on the site." "Move to extend the GMP allocation granted to the Carriage House for twenty-one (21) days, expiring on June 30, 1986." MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Dept. Aspen Consolidated San. District Fire Chief Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RF: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT Parcel ID# 2735-131-05-002 (Case No. 09A-96) DATE: March 25, 1986 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Ralph Melville requesting an amendment to the design of the Carriage House (located at 204 E. Durant Avenue) which was granted an allocation for 23 lodge units in the 1982 Lodge Development Growth Management Competition. Please review this application and submit your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than April 15, 1986, in order to give this office appropriate time to prepare for its presentation at a public hearing before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Thank you. 0 M E-M 0 R A N D U M TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, HOUSING OFFICE DATE: MAY 27, 1986 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT Parcel ID# 2735-131- 05-002 (Case No. 09A-96) ISSUE: Do the units at the Ki tz Buhl meet the standards (and upgrades required) of the Housing Authority for dormitory units? BACKGROUND: An allocation was granted in December, 1982 for a lodge of 26 free market and 5 employee units (15,000 sf) to H.B.C. Investments. At the time of approval 6 additional short- term units (3,694 sf) existed on the site, which Cantrup indic- ated he intended to rebuild on another site. (Permission never obtained.) Subsequently, the project was sold to Ralph Melville who allowed the existing units to be used long term. Two six-month extens- ions and an alley encroachment license have been granted to allow the new owner to revise the design. The applicant (Mr. Melville) proposes that the employee housing be situated at the Kitzbuhl in three units housing five employees (see attached drawings) with the following proposed upgrades: 1) Emp. Unit 1 (two employees) 319.11 sq. ft. Provide new double bed - Murphy Type fold down unit Provide new light fixture @ Existing box for new bath exhaust fan Recarpet and repaint entire unit 2) Emp. Unit 2 (one employee) 209.8 sq.ft. Expand bath to include lay. ; relocate door. Rearrange and expand kitchen Rebuild closet Provide new double bed (Murphy Type) Repaint entire unit; recarpet bath Replace bath light fixture; new exhaust fan 1 3) Emp. Unit 3 (two employees) 319.11 sq. ft. Expand bath to include lav; relocate door Re -arrange and expand kitchen Build new closets (2) New exhaust fan in bath Provide new double bed with Murphy Type folding dining table Repaint & recarpet entire unit. The square feet for the units exceed the dormitory code however, the planning and zoning (see attached memo from Steve Burstein) requests a HIGH level of upgrade for the units. HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom- mends approval of the application amendment with the upgrades proposed and asks that all units have new carpet, linoleum and paint, new window coverings, and the kitchen units cleaned and upgraded where necessary, bathroom tile should be replaced and regrouted and a general upgrade to the units should be approved by the Housing Staff when completed before the certificate of occupancy is given to the Carriage House. 2 M E'M 0 R A N D U M TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, HOUSING OFFICE DATE: MAY 27, 1986 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT Parcel ID# 2735-131- 05-002 (Case No. 09A-96) ISSUE: Do the units at the Ritzbuhl meet the standards (and upgrades required) of the Housing Authority for dormitory units? BACKGROUND: An allocation was granted in December, 1982 for a lodge of 26 free market and 5 employee units (15,000 sf) to H.B.C. Investments. At the time of approval 6 additional short- term units (3,694 sf) existed on the site, which Cantrup indic- ated he intended to rebuild on another site. (Permission never obtained.) Subsequently, the project was sold to Ralph Melville who allowed the existing units to be used long term. Two six-month extens- ions and an alley encroachment license have been granted to allow the new owner to revise the design. The applicant (Mr. Melville) proposes that the employee housing be situated at the Ritzbuhl in three units housing five employees (see attached drawings) with the following proposed upgrades: 1) Emp. Unit 1 (two employees) 319.11 sq. ft. Provide new double bed - Murphy Type fold down unit Provide new light fixture @ Existing box for new bath exhaust fan Recarpet and repaint entire unit 2) Emp. Unit 2 (one employee) 209.8 sq. ft. Expand bath to include lay.; relocate door. Rearrange and expand kitchen Rebuild closet Provide new double bed (Murphy Type) Repaint entire unit; recarpet bath Replace bath light fixture; new exhaust fan 1 3) Emp. Unit 3 (two employees) 319.11 sq. ft. Expand bath to include lav; relocate door Re -arrange and expand kitchen Build new closets (2) New exhaust fan in bath Provide new double bed with Murphy Type folding dining table Repaint & recarpet entire unit. The square feet for the units exceed the dormitory code however, the planning and zoning (see attached memo from Steve Burstein) requests a HIGH level of upgrade for the units. HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom- mends approval of the application amendment with the upgrades proposed and asks that all units have new carpet, linoleum and paint, new window coverings, and the kitchen units cleaned and upgraded where necessary, bathroom tile should be replaced and regrouted and a general upgrade to the units should be approved by the Housing Staff when completed before the certificate of occupancy is given to the Carriage House. 2 ME MORAN DU M TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Department FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department DATE: June 3, 1986 RE: Carriage House - Removal of Corner Tree We have reviewed the location of the large spruce tree at the corner of Durant and Aspen Streets and determined that it does not interfere with a safe vehicle sight -line. This was reviewed according to specifications established by National and Pitkin County standards. However, according to the Aspen Municipal Code Section 7-141-9(a): On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstruction shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within thirty (30) feet from the lot corner. EE/co/CarriageHsTree • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering D`partiiient 15, DATE: June 3, 1986 RE: Carriage House GMP- Spruce Tree. Removal -------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Engineering Department: recommends that the large spruce tree on the northwest corner of the Durant and Aspen Street intersection not be removed. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council, on GMP allocation for the Carriage House to several conditions. The question spruce tree on the southwest corner_ removed on the grounds that it is an was brought up and it was decided to Department for recommendation. May 27, 1986, approved the Amended GMP project subject of whether or not the large of this property could be obstruction to line of site refer it to the Engineering BACKGROUND: The Carriage House site design calls for cutting down the mature spruce tree located on the southeast corner_ of property. This design has a subsurface area which could not be constructed without the removal of the tree. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Measurements were taken indicating the position of the tree relative to the edge of the curb on both Durant and Aspen Streets and the position of the stop sign relative to the corner of the intersection. Line of sight was calculated using criteria established in A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways from the American Association of State Highway Officials. The results indicated line of sight at this intersection was more than adequate with the tree in question in its present location. ALTERNATIVES: The Engineering Department does recommend the removal of a large lilac bush located northwest of the spruce tree near the edge of Aspen Street. This bush creates an obstruction to line of site at the Aspen and Durant Street intersection according to calculations. RECOMMENDATION: The because there is no this tree should not jg/treeremn cc: Jay Hammond Engineering Department recommends that, obstruction to line of site in this case, be removed. 'IL= GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS May 28, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Assistant Planner 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT Dear Steve: MilY28 � ;' As you know, the City Council last night approved the Carriage House Amended GMP Application, the Change of Use of the existing on -site units to short-term, and the Employee Housing GMP Exemption. At the same time, the Council requested additional information and a possible change of building design concerning the large spruce tree on the Southwest corner of the property. Although the Council did not grant a formal extension to the GMP expiration date before which building permit drawings must be filed (June 1, 1986), 1 understand that the Planning Office feels that an informal extension of a minor period of time (a couple of weeks) is warranted in order to satisfy the Council's request, before the submission of final building permit plans. I am presently in touch with the City Engineer's office to attempt to get a recommendation on the Traffic impacts of the tree at the earliest possible date. If you differ or disagree with the interpretation of the informal 'time extension' as discussed above, please contact me immediately. Otherwise, I will proceed on this basis. Yo truly, David F. Gibson, AIA DFG:mr cc: Alan Richman Ralph Melville 416 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN, COLORAOO 61611 303/9255968 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Officec4l RE: Carriage House GMP Amendment: Spruce Trees Condition and Extension Request DATE: June 3, 1986 BACKGROUND: On May 27, 1986, City Council unanimously passed a motion to confirm the GMP allocation for the Carriage House Amended GMP Project subject to five (5) conditions stated in the May 20, 1986 Planning Office memorandum, while tabling action on the conditions pertaining to the spruce tree located on the southwest corner of the property. In addition, it was noted in the Planning Office memorandum that the GMP allocation for the Carriage House would expire on June 1, 1986, but no request for extension was entertained. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached is the memorandum from Engineering Department dated June 3, 1986, recommending retention of the subject spruce tree. The Planning Office continues to support the position that the tree is a site specific and community amenity and it should not be removed. In David Gibson's letter, a request is made for a minor extension of the GMP Allocation. The Planning Office supports a three week extension for the Carriage [louse application to enable the applicant to prepare working drawings taking into account the retention of trees and other conditions of approval passed by Council. We believe that the intention of Section 24-11 .7 (a) ( 4) is being met by this short extension because the applicant has been proceeding through an additional review process so to build a more desireable project which has taken additional time. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to change and approve the additional conditions of approval for the confirmation of the GMP allocation to the Carriage House amended project: 2 The mature spruce trees on the southeast and southwest corners of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage [louse design. 3(a) Retention of three of the four spruce trees on the site." "Move to extend the GMP allocation granted to the Carriage House for twenty-one (21) days, expiring on June 30, 1986." Reviewed by: Qn a.. AS en P&Z � City Council N -J��� � G " r� a u • ,� -%� � �.� 1 j ;- �( ci , ' � c `1�� � n � � s� �t Q -� � l:, I � • � i _ 1� If/In.S � ( �'L L� � ✓ n �% ���I 1.. yl .!„AJ„`.L�1 �•j�,�Cfv�1 .�.�/U {� 1'VL i'�'J ftl ,•},�,4•�'. .V s,A „(\..y}�� ;/L�1� 1 p 71 Y 1. A drainage plan showing retention on the be submitted to property the satisfaction of all on - of site runoff water shall the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The mature spruce tree on the southeast corner of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House design. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning office and Engineering Department addressing the areas below. The landscaping, sidewalks, curbs and streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Retention of two of the four spruce trees on the site. b. Tree clustering that is consistent with the concepts and plans of the Lodge Improvement District. C. Planting of no fewer than twelve mountain ash (caliper of 3 inch minimum) , 18 lilac bushes, 8 potentilla and 35 tammy juniper on the property and adjacent rights - of -way in a screening arrangement similar in concept to that shown in the amended application. d. Two streetlights and conduits for two more streetlights shall be installed as to be consistent with the Lodge Improvement District plan and agreeable to the CCLC. CCLC review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit. d to designe e. Sidewalkh the Lodge improvementDistrictplan.be consis- tent wit and curbs shall be 4. The applicant shall agree to join the Special Improvement District for the lodge area and any other special improve- ment districts that include this property upon formation of such districtsand shall state this commitment in an agreemencce table to the City Attorne1,P 5. The on -site manager ted inf ncy theecurrepnttent a�ppl ication shall Is efnd two dormitory units as ep deed restricted to suancee ofow income a certificate of occupancy.aui e- lines prior to Employee Uniing 1, 2, and 3 of the Kitzbuehl Lodge as 6. upgraded accor to the Housing Authority's recommenda- tions shall b deed restricted to the low income employee housing guidel es prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. in • • MEMORAIIDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department C DATE: June 3, 1986 RE: Carriage House GIMP- Spruce Tree Pemoval SUMMARY': The Engineering Department recommends that the large spruce tree on the northwest corner of tine Durant and Aspen Street intersection not be removed. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council, on GMP allocation for the Carriage House to several conditions. The question spruce tree on the southwe�:t corner_ removed on the grounds that it is an was brought up and it was decided to Department for recona.-tendation. May 27, 1986, approved the Amended GMP project subject of whether or not the large of this property could be obstruction to 'line of site refer it to the Engineering BACKGROUND: The Carriage House site design calls for cutting down the mature spruce tree located on the southeast corner of property. This design has a subsurface area which could not be constructed without the removal of the tree. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Measurements were taken indicating the position of the tree relative to the edge of the curb on both Durant and Aspen. Streets and the position of the stop sign relative to the corner of the intersection. Line of sight was calculated using criteria established in A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways from the American Association of State Highway Officials. The results indicated line of sight at this intersection was more than adequate with the tree in question in its present location. ALTERNATIVES: The Engineering Department does recommend the removal of a large lilac bush located northwest of the spruce tree near the edge of Aspen Street. This bush creates an obstruction to line of site at the Aspen and Durant Street intersection according to calculations. RECOMMENDATION: The Engineering because there is no obstruction this tree should not be removed. jg/treeremn cc: Jay Hammond Department recommends that, to line of site in this case, GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS May 28, 1986 r � 2 8 1 Mr. Steve Burstein `J Assistant Planner 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT Dear Steve: As you know, the City Council last night approved the Carriage House Amended GMP Application, the Change of Use of the existing on -site units to short-term, and the Employee Housing GMP Exemption. At the same time, the Council requested additional information and a possible change of building design concerning the large spruce tree on the Southwest corner of the property. Although the Council did not grant a formal extension to the GMP expiration date before which building permit drawings must be filed (June 1, 1986), 1 understand that the Planning Office feels that an informal extension of a minor period of time (a couple of weeks) is warranted in order to satisfy the Council's request, before the submission of final building permit plans. I am presently in touch with the City Engineer's office to attempt to get a recommendation on the Traffic impacts of the tree at the earliest possible date. If you differ or disagree with the interpretation of the informal 'time extension' as discussed above, please contact me immediately. Otherwise, I will proceed on this basis. Yo truly, David F. Gibson, AIA DFG:mr cc: Alan Richman Ralph Melville 416 E. COOPER AVENUE *207 ASPEN. COLORA00 B1611 303/9255968 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THPU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Carriage House GMP Amendment/Employee Housing GMP Exemption/Change in Use DATE: Vlay 20, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council (1) confirm the GMP allocation for the Carriage House amended application; (2) approve the requested GMP exemp- tion for the employee housing on -site and at the Kitzbuehl Lodge; and (3) approve the requested GMP exemption for change in use of the existing residential units to lodge units. In addition, the applicant may verbally request another extention to the GMP allocation, as it will expire on June 1, 1986, in order to have time to prepare working drawings sufficient for issuance of a building permit. ZONING: L-1 LOCATION: 204 E. Durant Avenue, Lots K, L, M, N and 0, City and Townsite of Aspen (NE corner of Aspen and Durant) LOT SIZE: 14,965 square feet APPLICANT' s REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to amend the 1982 Carriage House Lodge GMP application to place 23 lodge units and 3 employee units on site and 3 employee units off site. The architecture and site plan have changed. The applicant also requests a GMP Exemption for his employee housing and a GMP Exemption for a Change in Use of the existing residential units to lodge units. BACKGROUND TO GMP AMENDMENT RESCORING: The original Carriage House GMP application was the only project in 1982 seeking development allotment in the L-1/L-2 Lodge GP.iP Competition. The project met the threshold and received a GMP allocation for 26 lodge units and GMP exemption for six employee units. The six multi -family units on the parcel were not included in the 1982 application request as HBC Investments hoped to use them for credits for transfer to another site. 1 • 0 On May 13, 1985, Council granted a 180 day extension for the GMP allocation, and again on November 25, 1985, Council granted another 180 day allocation expiring on June 1, 1986. Mr. Ralph Melville purchased the property from the Cantrup estate and has redesigned the project. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS: The Planning Office recommended a rescoring of the amended application which the Planning Commis- sion voted to confirm on May 6, 1986. The Carriage House GMP Amendment was rescored in conformance with the procedures of Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code. This regulation requires rescoring of substantial changes to GMP proposals to determine whether the allocation should be confirmed or rescinded. As the scoring remained above the minimum thres- hold and the applicant's position relative to others in the competition did not change, the Commission is recommending to Council that the proposed changes are appropriate subject to the six (6) conditions listed in the recommended motion, and Council should continue the GMP application. The Planning Commission gave a revised score of 61.2 points to the amended application, while the score for the original application was 60.9 points (prior to the bonus points section) . Some of the important differences in the scores for the project include: 1. The site design calls for cutting down three of the four spruces on the edges of the property as well as a number of younger deciduous trees. Three of the spruces are large mature trees contributing shade and beauty to the streetscape. The 1982 plan retained the spruces. The scoring decreased to 1 for this flaw, even though the rest of the landscaping and site design is very good. 2. Energy conservation commitments in the current plan are improved and are scored higher than in the 1982 review. 3. The accessory recreational facilities are rated higher than those represented in the 1982 application due to larger space and an improved design. 4. The score for the provision of employee housing has been increased because of changes in the calculation of points in the current version of the Growth Management Quota System. The percentage of employees housed by the project has been calculated as the same. Following is a summary of the Planning Commission's 1982 and 1986 scores: 0 P&Z Original P&Z Revised Score (1982) Score (1986) 1. Public Facilities 6.7 7 and Services 2. Quality of Design 28.1 23 3. Amenities Provided 17.5 19 for Guests 4. Employee Housing 8.6 11.2 5. Bonus Points .28 0 TOTAL 60.9 60.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Carriage House application should be viewed as a primarily acceptable project to which further conditions of approval may be appropriate. The Planning Office believes that the following areas should be addressed in review of the requested confirmation of GMP allocation: 1. Drainage Plan - The applicant has committed to a drainage system that will retain all runoff from the site on the property. Due to the large subsurface area this design to accommodate all runoff requires different components than represented in the amended application. A new plan should be submitted meeting the Engineering Department's approval. 2. Sidewalks, Curbs and Plantings - The applicant has agreed to modify the site plan to be more compatible with the Lodge Improvement District Plan (Preliminary) , including wider sidewalks with brick edging and clustering of plantings adjacent to rights -of -ways. The number of plantings and the overall landscaping concept seem appropriate and should be retained. Two streetlights compatible with the plan and agreeable to the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission and conduits for two more streetlights are also part of the Carriage House commitment. The applicant agrees to join the Lodge Improvement District upon formation. 3. Removal of Spruce Trees - The Planning Office and Parks Director are concerned with the loss of the large spruce trees on the site. It is highly desireable that the two trees on the southeast and southwest corners respectively of the property be incorporated into the Carriage House design even though this would require changing the subsurface space. The Planning Commission recommended that the spruce tree on the southwest corner be retained, but the other one can be cut down. 4. FAR - It should be noted that according to the Planning N Office understanding at this time, the subsurface area is exempt from FAR. The Building Department will need to make the interpretation of countable and uncountable FAR space upon review of construction documents; and this project must comply with Code requirements in this regard. 5. Employee Housing - The applicant has committed to provide three (3) low income employee housing units on -site which the Housing Authority has reviewed and approved. The three (3) off -site low income employee units at the Kitzbuehl Lodge will be reviewed by the Housing Authority on May 21, 1986. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Kitzbuehl segment of the employee housing program provided that housing Authority approval is received prior to Council approval for the units upgraded as necessary. At the Council meeting, the Housing Authority's recommendation will be presented. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to confirm the GMP allocation for the Carriage House Amended GMP project subject to the following conditions: 1. A drainage plan showing retention on the property of all on - site runoff water shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The mature spruce tree on the southeast corner of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House design. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office and Engineering Department addressing the areas below. The landscaping, sidewalks, curbs and streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Retention of two of the four spruce trees on the site. b. Tree clustering that is consistent with the concepts and plans of the Lodge Improvement District. C. Planting of no fewer than twelve mountain ash (caliper of 3 inch minimum) , 18 lilac bushes, 8 potentilla and 35 tammy juniper on the property and adjacent rights - of -way in a screening arrangement similar in concept to that shown in the amended application. d. Two streetlights and conduits for two more streetlights shall be installed as to be consistent with the Lodge Improvement District plan and agreeable to the CCLC. CCLC review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit. tU I l 4 h � �"-a-=, �� t �, } j 1 1 �.� ��, � r, v� , Guwr,... � n . ��^ � iwv✓yvw� 0 e. Sidewalks and curbs shall be redesigned to be consis- tent with the Lodge Improvement District plan. 4. The applicant shall agree to join the Special Improvement District for the lodge area and any other special improve- ment districts that include this property upon formation of such districts and shall state this commitment in an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. 5. The on -site manager's efficiency apartment and two dormitory units as represented in the current application shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guide- lines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Employee Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Kitzbuehl Lodge as upgraded according to the Housing Authority's recommenda- tions shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guidelines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. EMPLOYEE HOUSING GMP EXEMPTION AND CHANGE IN USE Applicants Request: The applicant requests an employee housing GMP Exemption for the three units proposed on site and three units off site. The applicant also requests a GMP exemption for a change in use of the residential units on -site to lodge units. Applicable Sections of the Code: Section 24-11.2(f) and (j) of the Municipal Code state the requirements for the GMP Exemptions for deed restricted employee housing and change in use respec- tively. Relevant criteria for employee housing GMP exemptions include: community need, compliance with any adopted housing plan and proposed price categories. Relevant criteria for the change in use GMP Exemption include: traffic impact, utility require- ments and fire and police protection requirements. Problem Discussion: The Planning Commission and Housing Au- thority believe that the proposed low income deed restricted employee housing units on site are needed for employees generated by the lodge project and are adequate in size and price category for the intended users. The off site employee units also appear to meet a community need and as low income units would be appropriately priced. The Change in Use of the residential units on -site should create negligible impacts in service demands and the low and moderate income housing inventory. Those impacts are being adequately mitigated through the proposed improvements and housing provi- sions of the Carriage House project. 5 0 • RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "Move to approve the requested GMP Exemption for employee housing for the manager's unit and two dorm units on site and employee hosuing units 1, 2, and 3 of the Kitzbuehl subject to deed restriction to the low income employee housing guidelines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy." "Move to approve the requested GMP Exemption for change in use from the six (6) on -site residential units to lodge units." SB.93 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THR.U: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Carriage House GMP Amendment/Employee Housing GMP Exemption/Change in Use DATE: May 20, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council (1) confirm the GMP allocation for the Carriage House amended application; (2) approve the requested GMP exemp- tion for the employee housing on -site and at the Kitzbuehl Lodge; and (3) approve the requested GMP exemption for change in use of the existing residential units to lodge units. In addition, the applicant may verbally request another extention to the Gf;P allocation, as it will expire on June 1, 1986, in order to have time to prepare working drawings sufficient for issuance of a building permit. ZONING: L-1 LOCATION: 204 E. Durant Avenue, Lots K, L, M, N and 0, City and Townsite of Aspen (NE corner of Aspen and Durant) LOT SIZE: 14,965 square feet APPLICANT's REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to amend the 1982 Carriage House Lodge GMP application to place 23 lodge units and 3 employee units on site and 3 employee units off site. The architecture and site plan have changed. The applicant also requests a GMP Exemption for his employee housing and a GMP Exemption for a Change in Use of the existing residential units to lodge units. BACKGROUND TO GMP AMENDMENT RESCORING: The original Carriage House GMP application was the only project in 1982 seeking development allotment in the L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Competition. The project met the threshold and received a GMP allocation for 26 lodge units and GMP exemption for six employee units. The six multi -family units on the parcel were not included in the 1982 application request as HBC Investments hoped to use them for credits for transfer to another site. 1 On May 13, 1985, Council granted a 180 day extension for the GMP allocation, and again on November 25, 1985, Council granted another 180 day allocation expiring on June 1, 1986. Mr. Ralph Melville purchased the property from the Cantrup estate and has redesigned the project. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS: The Planning Office recommended a rescoring of the amended application which the Planning Commis- sion voted to confirm on May 6, 1986. The Carriage house GMP Amendment was rescored in conformance with the procedures of Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code. This regulation requires rescoring of substantial changes to GMP proposals to determine whether the allocation should be confirmed or rescinded. As the scoring remained above the minimum thres- hold and the applicant's position relative to others in the competition did not change, the Commission is recommending to Council that the proposed changes are appropriate subject to the six (6) conditions listed in the recommended motion, and Council should continue the GMP application. The Planning Commission gave a revised score of 61.2 points to the amended application, while the score for the original application was 60.9 points (prior to the bonus points section) . Some of the important differences in the scores for the project include: 1. The site design calls for cutting down three of the four spruces on the edges of the property as well as a number of younger deciduous trees. Three of the spruces are large mature trees contributing shade and beauty to the streetscape. The 1982 plan retained the spruces. The scoring decreased to 1 for this flaw, even though the rest of the landscaping and site design is very good. 2. Energy conservation commitments in the current plan are improved and are scored higher than in the 1982 review. 3. The accessory recreational facilities are rated higher than those represented in the 1982 application due to larger space and an improved design. 4. The score for the provision of employee housing has been increased because of changes in the calculation of points in the current version of the Growth Management Quota System. The percentage of employees housed by the project has been calculated as the same. Following is a summary of the Planning Commission's 1982 and 1986 scores: 2 P&Z Original P&Z Revised Score (1982) Score (1986) 1 . Public Facilities 6.7 7 and Services 2. Quality of Design 28.1 23 3. Amenities Provided 17.5 19 for Guests 4. Employee Housing 8.6 11.2 5. Bonus Points .28 0 TOTAL 60.9 60.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Carriage house application should be viewed as a primarily acceptable project to which further conditions of approval may be appropriate. The Planning Office believes that the following areas should be addressed in review of the requested confirmation of GMP allocation: 1. Drainage Plan - The applicant has committed to a drainage system that will retain all runoff from the site on the property. Due to the large subsurface area this design to accommodate all runoff requires different components than represented in the amended application. A new plan should be submitted meeting the Engineering Department's approval. 2. Sidewalks, Curbs and Plantings - The applicant has agreed to modify the site plan to be more compatible with the Lodge Improvement District Plan (Preliminary) , including wider sidewalks with brick edging and clustering of plantings adjacent to rights -of -ways. The number of plantings and the overall landscaping concept seem appropriate and should be retained. Two streetlights compatible with the plan and agreeable to the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission and conduits for two more streetlights are also part of the Carriage House commitment. The applicant agrees to join the Lodge Improvement District upon formation. 3. Removal of Spruce Trees - The Planning Office and Parks Director are concerned with the loss of the large spruce trees on the site. It is highly desireable that the two trees on the southeast and southwest corners respectively of the property be incorporated into the Carriage House design even though this would require changing the subsurface space. The Planning Commission recommended that the spruce tree on the southwest corner be retained, but the other one can be cut down. 4. FAR - It should be noted that according to the Planning 3 Office understanding at this time, the subsurface area is exempt from FAR. The Building Department will need to make the interpretation of countable and uncountable FAR space upon review of construction documents; and this project must comply with Code requirements in this regard. 5. Employee Housing - The applicant has committed to provide three (3) low income employee housing units on -site which the Housing Authority has reviewed and approved. The three (3) off -site low income employee units at the Kitzbuehl Lodae will be reviewed by the Housing Authority on Play 21, 1986. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Kitzbuehl segment of the employee housing program provided that Housing Authority approval is received prior to Council approval for the units upgraded as necessary. At the Council meeting, the Housing Authority's recommendation will be presented. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to confirm the GMP allocation for the Carriage house Amended GMP project subject to the following conditions: 1. A drainage plan showing retention on the property of all on - site runoff water shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The mature spruce tree on the southeast corner of the property shall not be cut down and shall be incorporated into the Carriage House design. 3. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office and Engineering Department addressing the areas below. The landscaping, sidewalks, curbs and streetlights shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a. Retention of two of the four spruce trees on the site. b. Tree clustering that is consistent with the concepts and plans of the Lodge Improvement District. C. Planting of no fewer than twelve mountain ash (caliper of 3 inch minimum) , 18 lilac bushes, 8 potentilla and 35 tammy juniper on the property and adjacent right:: - of -way in a screening arrangement similar in concept to that shown in the amended application. d. Two streetlights and conduits for two more streetlights shall be installed as to be consistent with the Lodge Improvement District plan and agreeable to the CCLC. CCLC review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit. n • • e. Sidewalks and curbs shall be redesigned to be consis- tent with the Lodge Improvement District plan. 4. The applicant shall agree to join the Special Improvement District for the lodge area and any other special improve- ment districts that include this property upon formation of such districts and shall state this commitment in an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. 5. The on -site manager's efficiency apartment and two dormitory units as represented in the current application shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guide- lines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Employee Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Kitzbuehl Lodge as upgraded according to the Housing Authority's recommenda- tions shall be deed restricted to the low income employee housing guidelines prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. EMPLOYEE HOUSING GMP EXEMPTION AND CHANGE IN USE Applicants Request: The applicant requests an employee housing GMP Exemption for the three units proposed on site and three units off site. The applicant also requests a GMP exemption for a change in use of the residential units on -site to lodge units. Applicable Sections of the Code: Section 24-11.2(f) and (j) of the Municipal Code state the requirements for the GMP Exemptions for deed restricted employee housing and change in use respec- tively. Relevant criteria for employee housing GMP exemptions include: community need, compliance with any adopted housing plan and proposed price categories. Relevant criteria for the change in use GMP Exemption include: traffic impact, utility require- ments and fire and police protection requirements. Problem Discussion: The Planning Commission and Housing Au- thority believe that the proposed low income deed restricted employee housing units on site are needed for employees generated by the lodge project and are adequate in size and price category for the intended users. The off site employee units also appear to meet a community need and as low income units would be appropriately priced. The Change in Use of the residential units on -site should create negligible impacts in service demands and the low and moderate income housing inventory. Those impacts are being adequately mitigated through the proposed improvements and housing provi- sions of the Carriage House project. 5 RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "Move to approve the requested GMP Exemption for emplcyee housing for the manager's unit and two dorm units on site and employee hosuing units 1, 2, and 3 of the Kitzbuehl subject to deed restriction to the low income employee housing guidelines prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy." "Move to approve the requested GMP Exemption for change in use from the six (6) on -site residential units to lodge units." SB.93 r SYNOPSIS: LODGE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDED APPLICATION An allocation was granted in December, 1982 for a lodge of 26 free market and 5 employee units (15,000 SF) to H.B.C. Investments. At the time of approval 6 additional short-term units (3,694 SF) existed on the site, which Cantrup indicated he intended to rebuild on another site. (Permission never obtained.) Subsequently, the project was sold to Ralph Melville who allowed the existing units to be used long term. Two six-month extensions and an alley encroachment licence have been granted to allow the new owner to revise the design. The Amended Design, as herein described, seeks to improve upon the Quality of Design and Amenities, and to reduce service and visual impacts, while retaining the Spirit of the Approved Application. We request the following Special Review: 1. Approval of the Application, as Amended 2. G.M.P. Exemption and Deed Restriction of the Employee Housing 3. Change of Use from Long Term to Short Term of the existing multi -family units For convenience and clarity, we have compared the Amended Application side -by -side with the former Application, since we understand that the two are to be scored comparatively one against the other, under the 1982 Scoring Criteria. 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 A J73a1G HiGSV t[ 1 t i k}< a I E� I L �< 21 aLLINN U11111114amommWEL.—A PON ■E go Oil I ��Ilflll l ■ 0 0 w co r OI k • The printed portions of this form approved by the I Colorado Real Estate Commission (SC 22.2-81) THIS IS A LEGAL INSTRUMENT. IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, LEGAL, TAX OR OTHER COUNSEL SNOULD RE CONSULTED BEFORE SIGNING COMMERCIAL CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (Seller's Remedy limited to Liquidated Damages) Dye Mach 1 19 86 1. The undersigned agent hereby acknowledges having received from Raf-ph Mey4 e the sum of 20,000.00 ,in the form of a check to be held by Marcy Pen � nos as earnest money and part payment for the following described real estate in the City oA A-spen Countyof P.ctkin Colorado, to wit: Lots A thnough G Block 38 City and Town�site of Aspen Known as "Swiee Chatettl together with all easements and rights of way appurtenant thereto, all improvements thereon and all fixtures of a permanent nature currently on the premises except as hereinafter provided, in their present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, known as No Y 435 Y. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 (Street Address, City, Zip) and hereinafter called the Property. 2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 17, the undersigned person(s) Ralph Metvitte o4 amqm (as joint tenantsitenants in common), hereinafter called Purchaser, hereby agrees to buy the Property, and the undersigned owner(s), hereinafter called Seller, hereby agrees to sell the Property upon the terms and conditions stated herein. 700,000.00 20, 000. 00 3. The purchase price shall be U.S. E -. ._ , payable as follows: S hereby receipted for; $280,000.00 Cash $400,000.00 Note 10 yeah.s @10% 4. Price to include the following personal property: Regutan 6u-mn tune and �k'xtu-tu o� 2entaf- un.ctb to be conveyed by bill of sale at time of closing in their present condition, free and clear of all personal property taxes, liens and encumbrances, except: None and except any personal property liens in any encumbrance specified in paragraph 11. The following fixtures of a permanent nature are excluded from this sale: None 6-1.fne_w loan is to be obtained by Purchaser from a third party, Purchaser agrees to promptly and diligently (a) apply for such loan. (b)execute all documents an' all information and documents required by the lender, and (c) pay the customary costs of obtaining such lean. Then if such loan is not approved on or before 19_, or if so approved but is not available at time of eloeirrg;-W s contract shall be null and void and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned 6. If a note and trust deed or mortgage is to be assume aser agrees to`appfy-tuLa loan assumption if required and agrees to pay (1) a loan transfer fee not to exceed $ and (2) an interest rate not to exceed �-''k�ar-Annum. if the loan to be assumed has provisions for a shared egitity-atrv`ariable interest rates or variable payments, this contract is conditioned upon PurAalirrTaxiswing and consenting to such provisian.&-H-Me lender's consent to a loan assumption is required, this contract is conditioned upon obtaining such consent wi vtc range in the 7. If a note is to be made payable to Seller as partial or full payment of the purchase price, this contract shall not be assignable by Purchaser without written consent of Seller. of 'ages to be abbe date -s+k*-bepeid_by- 9. An abstract of title to the Property, certified to date, or a current commitment for title insurance policy in an amount equal to the purchase price, at Seller's option and expense, shall be furnished Purchaser on or before June 10 19 86. If Seller elects to furnish said title insurance commitment, Seller will deliver the title insurance policy to Purchaser after closing and pay the premium thereon. 10. The date of closing shall be the date for delivery of deed as provided in paragraph 11. The hour and place of closing shall be as dee*gyrabed - L: )h Metvitte 11. Title shall be merchantable in Seller, except as stated in this paragraph and in paragraphs 12 and 13. Subject to payment or tender ss above p ovided an compliance by Purchaser with the other terms and provisio s hereof, Seller a execute and deliver a good and sufficient ene%La warranty deed to Purchaser on June �0 19� , or, by mutual agreement, at an earlier date, No. SC-22/S-2-81. Contract to Huy and Sell Real Estate (Commercial) 3-84 Bradford Publishing Co., 5825 W. 6th Ave.. Lakewood. Colorado 80214 —(303) 233.6900 \` conveying the Property free and clear of all taxes, except the general taxes for the year of closing, and except None free and clear of all liens for special improvements installed as ofthe date of Purchaser's signature hereon, whether assessed or not; free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except None except the following restrictive covenants which do not contain a right of reverter: None and except the following specific recorded and: or apparent easements: None and subject to building and zoning regulations. 12. Except as stated in paragraphs 11 and 13. if title is not merchantable and written notice of defect(s) is given by Purchaser or Purchaser's agent to Seller or Seller's agent on or before date of closing, Seller shall use reasonable effort to correct said defect(s) prior to date of closing. If Seller is unable to correct said defect(g) on or before date of closing, at Seller's option and upon written notice to Purchaser or Purchaser's agent on or before date of closing, the date of closing shall be extended thirty days for the purpose of correcting said defect(s). Except as stated in paragraph 13, if title is not rendered merchantable as provided in this paragraph 12, at Purchaser's option, this contract shall be void and of no effect and each party hereto shall be released from all obligations hereunder and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. 13. Any encumbrance required to be paid may be paid at the time of settlement from the proceeds of this transaction or from any other source. Provided, however, at the option of either party, if the total indebtedness secured by liens on the Property exceeds the purchase price, this contract shall be void and of no effect and each party hereto shall be released from all obligations hereunder and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. 14. General taxes for the year of closing, based on the most recent levy and the most recent assessment, prepaid rents, water rents, sewer rents, FHA mortgage insurance premiums and interest on encumbrances, if any, and None shall be apportioned to date of delivery of deed. Purchaser shall be responsible for any sales and use tax that may accrue because of this transaction. 15. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Purchaser on June 10, 1986 subject to the following leases or tenancies: None If Seller fails to deliver possession on the date herein specified, Seller shall be subject to eviction and shall be liable for a daily rental of 8 100 - 00 until possession is delivered. 16. In the event the Property shall be damaged by fire or other casualty prior to time of closing, in an amount of not more than ten percent of the total purchase price, Seller shall be obligated to repair the same before the date herein provided for delivery of deed. In the event such damage is not or cannot be repaired within said time or if the damages exceed such sum, this contract may be terminated at the option of Purchaser and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. Should Purchaser elect to carry out this contract despite such damage, Purchaser shall be entitled to all the credit for the insurance proceeds resulting from such damage, not exceeding, however, the total purchase price. Should any fixtures or services fail between the date of this contract and the date of possession or the date of delivery of deed, whichever shall be earlier, then Seller shall be liable for the repair or replacement of such fixtures or services with a unit of similar size, age and quality, or an equivalent credit. 17. Time is of the essence hereof. If any note or check received as earnest money hereunder or any other payment due hereunder is not paid, honored or tendered when due, or if any other obligation hereunder is not performed as herein provided, there shall be the following remedies: (a) IF PURCHASER IS IN DEFAULT, then all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited by Purchaser and retained on behalf of Seller and both parties shall thereafter be released from all obligations hereunder. It is agreed that such payments and things of value are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and (except as provided in subparagraph (c)) are the SELLER'S SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY for the Purchaser's failure to perform the obligations of thin contract. Seller expressly waives the remedies of specific perfomance and additional damages. (b) IF SELLER IS IN DEFAULT, (1) Purchaser may elect to treat this contract as terminated, in which case all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser and Purchaser may recover such damages as may be proper, or (2) Purchaser may elect to treat this contract as being in full force and effect and Purchaser shall have the right to an action for specific performance or damages, or both. (c) Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, in the event of any litigation arising out of this contract, the court may award to the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expense, including attorneys' fees. 18. Purchaser and Seller agree that, in the event of any controversy regarding the earnest money held by broker, unless mutual written instruction is received by broker, broker shall not be required to take any action but may await any proceeding, or at broker's option and discretion, may interplead any moneys or things of value into court and may recover court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 19. Additional provisions: An addtt�onat $20,000.00 5haQt be pa.'d by May 10, 1986 220. If this proposal is accepted by Seller in writing and Purchaser receives notice of such acceptance on or before Ma , rh I 19 86 , this instrument shall become a contract between Seller and Purchaser and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of such parties, except as stated in paragraph 7. Raenh Metv.tte Maneh 1 1986 Purchaser 14 �/1T s Date Purchaser Purchaser's Address_ 333 E. Dunan-t Avenues' A.Spen, CO 81611 (The following section to be completed by Seller and Listing A4e/nt) 21. Seller accepts the above proposal this 1 day of Ma itch Seller's Addres 19 866,w+rdsgrees- "S s T ': iZs =L^5R r� H ►r t` r. Y � O 4 •� 1. T' w -am. W o w .�. B` i `fl I H cq �I ►'b0 I Q Q O , 7 Ot Garry -r or— M6 �2, �14� 0i s M . Tow- . Y R Y► I • �• 9 I 0 Dear 64 a Y I3 � to w �►a.+a /��• � « pa T-106M • r • � o N sv � \ M � 1� • ` �� itJCi30AL111NQ csicu�L CR►VLWAY \\� • -r Lo-r . S N 75' � •lT �� O.s. l6 (Foo M7Q W E T N LeM V tom. N t-1 E-w_- S c -.- IFUp 19"Trb) Str Qaco►.►.• (F NO 197iv) The printed purIIona of Ibin form app"red fly the Colorado Heal Flilste Comminriun(SC 20.2.1i1) THIS IS A LEGAL INSTRUMENT. IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, LEGAL, TAX OH OTHER COUNSEL SHOULD BE CONSULTED BEFORE SIGNING. RESIDENTIAL CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (Seller's remedy limited to Liquidated Damages) March 31 1 J86 1. The undersigned agent herel> Ralph Melville or Nominee g 6 y acknowledges having; received from � �—,�n the sum of $�yy U� in the form of �]�r_snna 7 r•hark to lie held b COm ___--g ive Pro ert y-- 'P- P_ Service broker, in broker's escrow or trustee uccount, as earnest money and part payment for the following; described real estute in the County of P itkin Colorado, to wit: I All of Lots R & S, Block 46, City of Aspen, State of Colorado. I together with all improvements thereon and all fixtures of a permanent nature currently on the premises except as hereinafter provided, in their present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, known as No 300 West Hyman Aspen. Colorado (Kitzbyhe 1 Lodgg) (Street Address, City, Zip) and hereinafter called the Property. ' 2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 17, the undersigned person(s) _. Ralph Melville or Nomine hereinafter called Purchaser, herehy agrees to buy the Property, and Seller, hereby agrees to sell ththe undersig•nedten n owcr(s) Ilercinafterlcnlled e Property upon the Lerms and conditions statc(I herein. 3. The purchase price shall be U.S, $ 450 , 000 . 00 , payable as follows: $20 , 000 . 015tn7� reby receipted for; the balance in the amount of $430,000.00 to be paid in the form of cashier's check or certified funds on or before closing, plus purchaser's normal closing costs. 4. Price to include any of the following items currently on the Property: lighting, heating;, plumbing, ventilating, and central air conditioning fixtures; attached TV antennas and/or water softener (if owned by Seller); all outdoor plants, window and porch shades, venetian blinds, storm windows, storm doors, screens, curtain rods, drapery rods, attached mirrors, linoleum, floor tile, awnings, fireplace screen and grate, built-in kitchen appliances, wall -to -well Carpeting , and all furniture, fixtures, appliances, and accessories currently on the premises which belong to the seller. An invento is to be supplied to purchaser within 10 days of acceptance of this contract, all in their present condition, conveyed free and clear of it11 taxes, liens and encumbrances except as provided in paragraph 11; provided, however, thtit the following fixtures of a permanent nature are exclu(led from this sale: NONE Personal property shall be conveyed by bill of sale. H'HIbi e , I ,) VpA'fy�'1,*hl,1'A'1''/' �I/1/'yef'Vtl` i11Y' ON"/e/'VGA'/'l f/'/r/ '/`tnIr"'!a/tl�`/n/i�'s� r� r�'Y�'n/�r�slt,♦r�r� Y-N/t f/ 1''Jt� �' Vrs�d MPH V' . y') V°I't/`Vy/�r sH-1 Vlr�'I` f ig'f!�'l)�'IH,1'Yi>�Y i��/t�4 YOAV V Y'/�AVIl -VVA lnlo/ V�' "i >< Y` V/r''Sys/'Y1/pft/vftYI/"/NVt/tHIAyl✓V iht-,�%�l-/i/'NIt�'tN��tl�"/'l-VIOV!��VOYI1011"Aill AV, Vv�lA>V�1/e�t�,�tdtV O'lr*,/VIA IAN-Vefv/''l1/e/,t/u/,yf -/Ifa/1HV"I'li-NdAv�t✓r.)/I t�e�• 1 G./I//iNth A'Y'l/iV'✓Lk'ig//,/I/,A'✓/�`✓`✓I/et/tt�c/t%t�r/e� 4�r/a!rJl✓/<r!/tArtt/�ft✓ rl�rl(4�rYh/id Ve,4Vi✓cA /il1(VI✓6g/(>t;<V.A)/'1/V> )/r>/1r(rY�r/L✓44f/I/ir��rY'/ Vt�/eY��>/tV 1-� 4111H Al/ VnlQ(.V..sI ✓.vie ✓�//Q(V 1- L4_1/-�4/41-41-1-ICI lsVrAI X fVLl/II Vf I NeI V;il, /./bh A.VsIIV Jti/hltV )1r61Y�V1Y/ >�o/ J S(►1G ►/t i �f ((t1(t�! 61/y/.r /i>ltrf e i/'✓el'/:✓✓t/(F�/I✓V+1^'NiVlf flrl'/IY�'JtA,/t✓ilI'll/I'/tr/tIVlk)SIYV4 n//(/NI✓IA !�l/ci�1/51�r✓r�Yii/1/il�ti/rl�l/i/r✓til/r>/li/i�/ds/r/h 1%////�J,.J//11///,c('�IAJJr//(',11,c(„l/%Y//i><(.;/�i✓4L�1////r►l�I/�/(/11/6'/`,/!I//i,/Stu%d"1(.X/'/c,/�'l/t/Vidt1/tl4idl,/tA41/11ii/wdilh 9N/'7"14Y ,Y'1I'Yt7-V- ,ViA/I/e/�V''/"/'/' ,IAfSr/;I/t/o/'7c�/t✓cl' �oAr! `!- �7i,i tl.A, kAl/P/�/dl�V. V ht VV f0p/'/y'/"/,t'Vt//ly/ I'MeAVV./I✓/I//"// /'t//tl{1/�I//o/ V�"/1/'VyHcYI/fI>LA)H':H/ 14IN,/t V Nip' AVt�V-VI/4V t1 `/'7 slN'r<►/'/ I�/' /i l c/ /s/ r/11 i 1 /'t/ L�/' 7' � ! °! `1 V I t/' / t/ ' yt 7- No. SC20.2.81 I CONTRACT TO HUY AND SELI, RF;AI, F.STA1 E (Hesidenliali Rrallunl Ibbl"llillf, 5921 W, hill A,e , I akewtuxl, Co )to21.; -• 1101) 211.6900 s•as I'�.; •1 J i h. t;u,l ul';uty :al,I,ruis;al fur lulls purpusus to lie ubtuined aI'le' this ditto shall h,: paid by purchaser it r 11• Xt7g7Q Kli{tXtxtlCpi �{�p*M}�C}tIjC9G'A'iitX•}(?['}k�{} �{tk�ilCtXX'St�currunl cunttnilntent fur title insurance policy in tin II antuunl cgtull to Lhu purchase pril•e, tit Sullel•'s xo1 )Oxxxtkexpensu, shall he I'urni::hud to Purchaser on of, befure II lit-8.6.17C5Lt1DUxi�x€X>M>KxilSxHaaxae�x�€xfxxatx�¢x,sellertvill deliver the tiLlu iusuruncu policy to 1'urchuser itRur closing and pay the pre Ilium LIwreun. I IU. The date of closing Shull be the (lute 1'or delivery of duel Its provided in purvagraph 11. The hour and plueu of closing Shullbuits designattedby_COMI) -henS1-V@--R-party--"rvices- 1 I. 'Title Shull be naerchuntuble in Seller, except as Stute,l in this purtigl•tiph and in p&lrugraphs 12 and 13. Subject to payment or tender us above provided and cumplitancu by Purchase• with the other tot -ills and provisions heruuf, Seller shall execute and doliver it good and sufficient GAnPrA1 _war runty deed to I'wehuse of June 2 , lb8 � , or, by ntuLuul agreement, tit till ea rlier dale, conveying the Property free and cicur of ull tuxes, uxcept the gene•ul LiLxeS for the your of closing;, and except no _ free &laid cleur of' till liens for special iill provennents installed us of the lute of Purchuser's signature hereon, whether assessed of not; free and clear of till liens and encumbrances except prescripptive rights in favor of adjoining property to the west for existing driveway, sidewalk and planter encroach— ments presently in place, li except recorded and/ur apparent easements for telephone, electricity, water, saulitary sewer, and eaSenlenl:r 1'or I. none �I except the fulloving restrictive covenants which do not contain a right or reverter: reservations & res- trictions of record which do not interfere with purchaser's l intended use of the propertyj old subject to building and zoning regulations. II 12. Except as stuted in puragruphs 11 and 13, if title is not me chtantable and written notice of defect(s) is given by Purchuser ol• Purchasur's agent to Seller or Seller's agent on ur before dale of closing, Seller Shull use reaSunahle efrurt to correct suid defuct(s) prior to (lute of closing. if Seller is unable to curl•ect said defoct(s) tin or before dote of closing, ut Seller's option and upon written notice to Purchaser air Purchaser's agent on or before date of closing, the lute of closing Shull lie extended thirty Buys for the purpose of c ol-recting staid defect(s). Except as stuted in purugruph 13, if title is not rendered merchunluble us provided in this purugt•aph 12, ut Purchaser's option, this contract shall be void and of no effect land each party hereto shall be released from all obligutiuns hereunder and ull payments Lund things of value received hereunder shull be returned to Purchaser. 13. Any encumbrance required to be paid may be paid tit the time of settlement from the proceeds of this trunsuclion or fa -um uny other source. Provided, however, at the option of either purty, if the total indebtedness Secured by liens on the Property exceeds the purchase price, this contract shall be void land of no effect and ouch party hereto shall be released ('runt all obligations he•ounder and till payments and things of value received hereunder Shull be returned to Purchaser. 1.1. Gcne'ul tuxes fur the year of closing, bused on the most recent levy and the most recent assessment, prepaid rents, water rents, sewer rents, PHA mortgage insurunce pt•enriunls land interest on encumbrances, if any, and r e n t a l j OMPa nA_P eA S e.S— �g p• p-0Sa.tS shall be apportioned to date of delivery of deed. 15. PUSSUSsiull ill' Lhu Property shall lie deliveed to Pu•clluse• on transfer of title subject to the following lenses or tenancies: None except those which provide they may be terminated with not more than sixty (60) days' notice by landlord. iIf Scllor fuils to dclivel• possession on the (lute herein specified. Seller shall be subject to eviction and shall be liable for u doily rental of $ 59Q,,-QD until possession is delivered. 16. In the event the Property shall be clumaged by fire or other casualty prior to time of closing, in an amount of not more thun ten percent of the total purchase price, Seller Shull be obligated to repair the same before the date herein provided fur delivery of deed. 1n the event such cluntrtge is not o• cannot be repaired within said time or if the I dumuges exceed such sum, this contruct nluy be terminuted ut the option of Purchaser and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. Should Purchaser elect to curry out this contract despite such damage, Purchaser shall be entitled to till the credit for the insurance proceeds resulting from such damage, not exceeding, however,.the total purchase price. Should any fixtures or services fail between the date of this contract and the date of possession or the elute of delivery of deed, whichever Shull be earlier, then Seller shall be liable for the repair or replucentent of such fixtures or services with a unit of similar size, age and quality, or an equivalent credit. 17, Tillie is of the essence hereof. 11' tiny note or check received as earnest stoney he•cunde• or tiny other payment due hereunder is nut paid, honored or tendered whet clue, o if' ;uny ulhe obligation hureunde is not pe fo need its heroin provided, there shall be the following rcnledieS: I (it) Ili PL11(UIIA8I.Ii IS IN M) PAUI,T, then all payments and things of vulue received hereunder Shull be forfeited by I'llrehaser and retained of behalf of Seller urld both purlics shall therellfter be released from all obligations hereunder. It is ugrced lhut such payments and things of value are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and (except as pruvided in subparugl•taph (c)) are the SELLER'S SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY for the Purchaser's fuilure to perform the obligations of this cunlruct. Sclio• expressly waivus the remedies of specific perfurrnunce HMI additional rhanal;es. I(W 11•' SEE.LER IS IN DE' AULT, (I) !hIl'chuSe• Maly elect to Lretl this cetu'act as terminated, in which Buse Lill payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to 1'urchuser and Purchaser may recover such (lunulges us "lay be proper, or (2) Purchaser may elect to treat this contract its being in full force and effect t land 11111-chttser shall halve the HAM to till action for speeiric pe•furntlunce o• (1aan,1ges, or both. (c) AtiyLhilig Lo the cunlrrtry harem nulwilhslouding, in file event ill' ;Illy liligIlliun ItI.isil lK out ill' this cunlrvtcl, the court may award to the prevailing party till reasonable costs and expet,u, including utto•neys'roes. 18. Purehuse• land Seller agree that, in the event of ally coltt•ovorsy regur(liug the earnest honey held b� h; oker, unless mutual written instruction is received by broker, broker shall not be required to take any action but nut)' await uny proceeding, or ill broker's option and discretion, naty interpluard any moneys or things orvulue into court &and may recover court costs and reasonable uttorneys'.fees. I 19. Additiunal provisions: 1) Earnest money deposit shall be held in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the purchaser. 2) Purchaser acknowledges that he shall be responsible for payment of a "Real Estate Transfer Tax" which is payable to the City of Aspen in an amount of k of 1% of the purchase price. 20. If this proposal is accepted by Seller in Nvriting nod Purchnser receives notice of such acceptance on or before I' Agri—3___-_, ll, 86_-, this in3L'.11"lent "ll"ll hecOlne a contrrlct between Seller and Purchaser and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors tend ;lssign4 nl'such ptlrtics, exc•epL as stated in paragraph 7. O.L. Fields in Co-operation/ >„-clwaTer �+�,�----c -�/ n BrokelComprehensive Property SPr�,; yes ii Purchuevi B y :-- 011ie Fields Purcl,;lser'sAd IresS333 East Durant, Aspen, CO. (The following section to be completed by Seller and Listing Agent) i 21. Seller accepts the above proposal tl is 2nd day of April 1g86 and agrees to pay a commission of three and one_ �a 1)L J n h purr else price or services in this transaction, and agrees thnt, in the event of forfeiture,y of panlents and things of villue received hereunder, Such payments and things of vnlue shall be divided between listing broker and Seller,w 'kftW+Fr -"F-to . ni(l' h •oker FrCCtmnTTMTrSTi, and the balance to Seller, thr-ree an � one tai pef cen �� ttr )J ASeller � Kay Reid �. i Sr lei. y s orneY' _ ` t % Douglas P. Allen, Seller's Address c/o Douglas P. Allen, 530 E. Main` St., Aspen, CO 81611 Listing Broker's N:ulle and Adlh•ess _ Com r—h-enS. ive Pro -e-T Y-3Stii�e s ;43_4E _CAspen, ooper ; l li is i MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: April 11, 1986 Re: Carriage House GMP Amendment The Engineering Department has the following comments on the above application: Utilities The present water and sewer facilities will provide sufficient service to this project. No new fire hydrants are necessary. The proposed surface and sub -surface drainage proposals are ample to service this project. Street Lights The applicant must check with the Engineering Department and the CCLC regarding the placement and style of the street lights. Trash The proposed trash and utility area is 36' x 101, which exceeds the minimum requirement for a building of this size. This area is easily accessible to the trash collection service and utility readers. Parkina The 31 parking spaces are ample for this project which proposes 23 free market units and 6 employee units. Encroachment City Council recently granted an encroachment license to Ralph Melville for the underground encroachment underneath the alley. In exchange, the applicant has agreed to pave the length of the alley. This will greatly improve the quality of that alley. s • 100 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department �k Re: Carriage House GMP Amendment Date: April 29, 1986 As an addendum to my memo of April 11, I have re -assessed the storm drainage system proposal and found that, due to the large sub -grade structure, the Carriage House will not retain all of its storm drainage on site. The Engineering Department does not require that all storm drainage be retained on site. However, we do require that new proposals at least maintain the historic drainage of the site. We require that the applicant quantify the existing and the proposed storm drainage for this site. ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: CARRIAGE HOUS DATE: APRIL 1, 1986 27�RKPI-21 APR - 2 1986 We have reviewed the ap4Aication for the Carriage House and wish to comment that water is available to the sight (formerly the Pines), from a 6" water main located in Durant St. There has been a history of service line problems at this location. We would like the applicant to agree to abandon the maze of existing poor services for one new water service line of adequate size to supply the complex. Water will be made available to the applicant upon payment of the necessary fees (if any). JM:ab CITY OF ASP 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 MEMO TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Karen McLaughlin, City Attorneys Office DATE: Aoril 16, 1986 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE r7l? A"1.ENDMENT I have reviewed °dour memo o` 3-25-36 regarding the Carriage -louse's apolication for an arq;:�ndment to the design of. the Carriage ''ouse. I offer the fol.low._.g comments: 1. Section 24-1.1.6 of the City Code provides that no one shall, after submission of an application pursuant to Section 24-11.6(a), amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial ;part and for the 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. 2. Section 24-11.7 (Rescinded and Expired Hermits), Paragraph (b), provides that a public hearing must be held when an applicant who was previously, awarded a development allotment deviates from any essential element of his proposal. 3. I understand that the Carriage House wants to proceed with excavation in advance of the decision on their application. Due to the short construction season in Aspen, we are of the opinion that the Carriage House may proceed with excavation pending review of their application, provided: (a) the Carriage House acknowledges in writing that they are proceeding with the excavation at their own risk of financial loss should the application be denied; and (b) the Carriage House posts a bond or produces a letter of credit in an amount sufficient enough to cover the cost of restoring the site to grade if the approvals are not implemented within 120 days. 4. In our opinion, it would be most prudent for you to notice a hearing on this application for amendment to design of the Carriage House. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call or stop by. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 6, 1986 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 o'clock P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an applica- tion submitted by Ralph Melville requesting an amendment to the design of the Carriage House (located at 204 E. Durant Avenue) which was granted an allocation for 23 lodge units in the 1982 Lodge Development Growth Management Competition. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, Ext . 225. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 27, 1986. City of Aspen Account. ASPEN*PITKA REGIONAL BUILANG DEPARTMENT Dave Gibson 418 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Dave: f11 E= IJ March 28, 1986 MAR 3 I i� Re: Carriage House Aspen & Durant St. 204 W. Durant On March 26, 1985, I made a physical inspection of the Carriage House's six (6) units for bedroom and fixture count. Unit *1 contained: Kitchen - Dishwater, two -compartment sink (3) Three Bedrooms (1) One Bath - lav, tub, water closet Downstairs contained two rooms currently being used as bedrooms. However, these rooms would, under current codes, be illegal as bedrooms. They had substandard ceiling heights and egress windows. (1) Kitchen sink (2) Baths - two lays, two water closets, one tub, one shower. Unit #2 contained: Kitchen - sink, dishwater (2) Bedrooms (1) Bath - lav, tub/shower, water closet Unit *6 contained: Kitchen - one compartment sink (1) Bedroom (1-2/3) Baths - two lays, two water closets, one tub Unit *5 contained: Kitchen - two compartment sink, dishwasher .(2)" Bedrooms (1) Bath - lav, water closet, tub/shower Unit *4 contained: Kitchen - one compartment sink (1) Bedroom (1) Bath - lav, water closet, shower offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado B1611 ASPEN*PITKIIV REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dave Gibson March 28, 1986 Page 2 Unit #3 contained: Kitchen - one compartment sink (1) Bedroom (1) Bath - lav, water closet, tub/shower The structure also contained one clotheswasher, three (3) hose bibs, one swimming pool and one jacuzzi. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William L. Drueding Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Water Dept. Planning Dept. Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official WLD/ar offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 • ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER P.O. Box 9950 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8885 April 24, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein: Aspen Planning Office ' FR: Steve Standiford: Director `' RE: Review Comments on Carriage House GMP Amendment Energy Components Listed below are the RFEC comments on the Carriage House proposed energy conservation features as listed on page 9. 1. Repositioning the decks to allow the sun to freely enter the bay windows will greatly help in providing a free source of heat for the proposed rooms. This will decrease the amount of conventional, non- renewable energy needed to heat these spaces. 2. Eliminating the use of electric heat was a very wise choice. It may be less expensive to install, but future operating costs would far exceed those associated with hot water heating systems. As well, electricity generated from centralized power plants creates a great deal of environmental pollution. Further, over two-third's of the the electrical energy generated at the power plant is lost in the transmission to it's end use. 3. Using mass floors for storing solar energy is one of the most cost- effective strategies for helping to heat spaces. This excellent feature is reinforced with above code insulation levels which will help retain this stored heat, thus reducing utility bills. 4. The active solar heating system is another welcome change from the 1982 proposal. Although, it must be stressed that the 12 solar panels will only assist the conventional heating system and not provide all the heat needed. This is a good strategy though because trying to serve 100% of the heating load would be very uneconomical. The exact percentage is impossible to define without further information on the system. It would probably be less than 50%. In summary, all of the proposed changes look very good from an energy conservation perspective. Using both passive solar features and an active solar system makes sense. This blending of renewable energy components should make for an energy -efficient development. Based on the limited amount of detail available for our review, we have nothing but praise for the Carriage House Amendment's energy components. A Branch of the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation 7 Gibson & Reno, Architects Aspen, Colorado pimps. xw. _. Socrr� 5.JF-. w • ok,if ► )) r H-I3-37 LL, a�� ,� a > k; p, �, P m f(t. ✓rut,► _ I i 14 , W'+ -YwT jw,,o p140VI) l� nvf bfI, v�f�rw D�J+JtrJl uovl,��, sin+ nit I, j4 tl, r,v f�S, 4 ►h ,oi 1 �° �— y� ICE, �� yj � br,41 0A,,, f-� foe-) I lks IV PA, k (�FtilJo,r,� Tv-le.ri.wh s«IoJ 6041 (VITe— j s-rn. f.&l pp� ► -} P""k►vly ���1rt h.i I'�J(v,lf��J��j1dt tw�h i 5 e I/ \_ I -Cln�,�, � 'T D �S' ►1j z�,►�r/off ����„f 1-4 --C bh Fi !�!'1�1 ♦ I sJ4 fo �NJ/Zi /jx -:?, 1 % wok/��,�;�,.>r • ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFT E 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 RE: Dea r _ This is to inform you that the Plannin Office has completed its preliminary review of your application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application is co m pl et e . is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) . Additional copies of entire application. Authorization by owner for representative to submit application. Response to the attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ is due. _ A. Since your appli ation i- complete, we have scheduled it C B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. for review by the on We will be calling you if e need any additio 1 information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum available to you. Please note that it (is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you. AR: Please feel free to call- ��/h�J , who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, Planning �a61d Development Director jlr s iF i *A LA Nit MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Dept. Aspen Consolidated San. District Fire Chief Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE GMP AMENDMENT Parcel ID# 2735-131-05-002 (Case No. 09A-96) DATE: March 25, 1986 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Ralph Melville requesting an amendment to the design of the Carriage House (located at 204 E. Durant Avenue) which was granted an allocation for 23 lodge units in the 1:982 Lodge Development Growth Management Competition. Please review this application and submit your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than April 15, 1986, in order to give this office appropriate time to prepare for its presentation at a public hearing before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Thank you. r� ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 RE: v Dear 3", _ This is to inform you that the Plannin Office has completed its preliminary review of your G ­"` ' application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application _. is complete. _'— is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: / Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) . / Additional copies of entire application. v — Authorization by owner for representative to submit application. Response to the attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ 001 " ___ is due. A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it for review by the on We will be calling you if we need any additional information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum available to you. Please note that it (is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on thel next available agenda. Please feel free to call # ham"' ► who is the planner assigned to this case, g if you have any questions. Sincerely, A'S�P�EN/PI'TR[IN PLANNING OFFICE r Alan Richman, Pl nning and Development Director AR: jlr (303)925-7797 Man.ch 20, 1986 City aj Aspen Ptann.ing and Zoning Cammi66-ion Aspen, CO Gen-ttemen : 333 east durant avenue aspen, colorado 81611 This Qe-tteA 16 to authasrize David F. G.ib6an cj Gibson S Rena AAch.iteeh6 .to nep�Lesen-t Rafph Metvitte, and to 6ubm,i-t ptans and appf-ieatians an h.i6 behat�, at meeting6 a� the Ptann.ing and Zan,irg Commission aj the City aj A6 pen . Respee-t6utty yauns , v Ratph Metv.itte IN ASPEN- 303-925-7797 333 east durant avenue the mountain chalet has IN SNOWMASS— box 5066 aspen, colorado TWO LOCATIONS snowmass village, 81611 303-923-3900 colorado 81615 87 Recorded at— -. __- o'clock— M:p_,�- r--.S Reception No.-.—____-_______ - __ --- —_-Recorder. h F b r 1984 FILING STAMP THIS DEED, Made this 15t day of e rua y I , between COMMERCE SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OF ANGLETON, "JITL'XAS, a Texas chartered savings and loan association r�Z 11� C.J7 Cj of the first part, and RALPH MELVILLE AND MARIAN MELVILL La J ) U -c7 J L.J `, 2 j whose legal address is 333 East Durant, Aspen, Colorado 81611 C cl: UJ of the County of Pitkin and State of Jcc I--'- i - Colorado, of the second part: U LLJ� ;: I- , WITNESSETH, that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of N Q-A.. a ($10 00) and other good and valuable considerations ;A) crr rn o� m Ten Dollars N cn CJ') rft�lylr6JiF�e� �i�cy�ir�<�J/t%I�i kli�k�r�s�cj��:�t�t �i/ln the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted• bat -gained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said parties of second part, their heirs and assigns forever. in tenancy in common i all the following described lot S or parcels of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: Si�,r•E DOCUMENTARY FEE Lots K, L, M, N and 0, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen c, also known as street and number 204 East Durant Street, Aspen, Colorado .......................... -,1 TOGETHER -Mth all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise apper- taining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in \� ;� •- and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premise, above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the said patties of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. And the said party of the first part, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, does covenant, grant• bargain and agree to and with the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, .sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear front all former and other grants• bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind ot• nature soeyer, except and subject to general taxes and assess- ments for 1984 and subsequent years, U.S. Patent reservations and exceptions, visible or otherwise apparent easements or other encroachments or encumbrances which are not of record, and existing month to month tenancies in the improvements on the property and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said patties of the second part, the survivor of them, their assigns and the heirs and assigns of such survivor, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said party of the first part shall and will WARRANT AN D FOREVER DEFEND. The singular nuniher shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said party of the first part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above,written• COMMERCE SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OF Signed. Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of STATE of C,(MJ.. N `, ss. r 4-'--, ! County of ANGLETON, TEXAS - - -- -- -- - ----[SEAL] By'N=_a' `x��") �� - (SEAL) Ella S. Pyle, S.'ior Vice -President _ . _..- - - -- - ----- - - -[SEAL] jThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / z day of February 19 84, by Ella S. Pyle as Senior Vice -President of Commerce Savings Association of ;! Angleton, Texas. A My Commission expires �A`r t Pr/!?^1Cri�M �',,rJr�+s ��,t� �q� , 19 Witness my hand and official seal. 2900 FIRST OF DE`,rvcg11 P! AP, W3 SEVENTEc�.ILit Hd:�rp�5 No. 921A. H'ARRANTY DEED.— —Copyright ©1978 Bradford Publishing Co., 1924.46 Stout Street. Denver, Coloradn (523-&0111 —9.7s • `lL= GIBSON & RENO - ARCHITECTS March 17, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Department 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 RE: CARRIAGE HOUSE Dear Steve: MAR 1 7 U86 U, You will find enclosed seventeen copies of the Amended Carriage House GMP Application for Lodge Developement. The Amended Design has been pur- sued in the spirit of the meeting with Alan Richman (1/31/85) and with you (2/18/86) in which minor changes to the design, and retention of the exist- ing units on site was encouraged. In introducing changes to the Design we have sought to remain within the Spirit of the original Allocation, while reducing service impacts and visual impacts where possible. In rebuilding the existing units that exist on -site, we also allow five (5) of the allocated units (3 free market and 2 employee) to return to the "pool". Ann Bowman has reviewed the proposed employee arrangements, and finds them quite satisfactory. If you have any questions or need clarification, please don't hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, David F. Gibson, AIA Enc I : cc: Ralph Melville 203 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORAOO 81611 303/925 5968 r MEETING N PROJECT: Carriage House \) PRESENT: Steve Burstein, Da ►,1 GIBS OEM 2 3 06S ibson & RENO - ARCHITECTS OTE: 12-1 8-8 TIME: 4 : 00 NOTES: 1. Discussed new design. According to G.M.P. section of City Code, it is necessary to seek an ammendment to the application if ancnf the following are changed: a. Design b. Internal or external features C. Impacts or services required. Since it appears we are doing all three to some degree, we must seek ammendment (Planning must review materials first). 2. Ammendment process: a. Submit materials to Planning Office, written narrative and graphic materials sufficient to compare the application in detail to the formerly -approved application. (15 copies) 1. These are referred out to several agencies for responses (4 weeks) b. Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing follows for purpose of rescoring the project. (Rescoring is a comparative measure against the former application and competitors in the 1982 L-1 competition. (late February or early March) C. City Council then takes action on application ammendment. 3 Note: Steve to send scoring sheet and transcript of P&Z delibera- tions of 1982 scoring session and competition if anyt COPIES TO: Ralph Melville Steve Burstein BY: David F_ PJ hsnn� A1A 418 E. COOPER AVENUE 0*207 ASPEN. COLORPOO 81611 30:3/9255960 r ru.-[1rr Lll-t]11v1r %-killr r, nLLV k—r. D.Ur1rifni • PROJECT: ;rrw9t o:se men m<,% firma) AlfPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE: DkG -t �tia--v, 12 - "-8 S REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: nj4 SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 1 L_otL�, L�`Ho+a.�c, a17 r�/� i � t°n� r / CF_t_y,.p�..t C:n•.�._`,�_l-17.;�/�i e��y2i�� d_H/-/2,� �t!•� � C1,+r.�: 4-�. 'A^. <! e p1r,-U-, I L' 4w tL► � /' ✓� �h�'"` / C L i t i .io : �y M (.1 ��iGc^+�^.ti� G: . 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments Qs -..A j t ( rf t �tiZ l Ci"ei�it Tyr t�fl>�(n� Un is �10'y : / _ k 1 In Ri �fa ° �Sw(t t r+� PfjorO�Al " A° �►� 1 Oic 1 A `!i ret+ipti, 9 §; Lj.-1I.-7 (L) _ 0 1 1 1 n 4. Review is: (P&&ZZ Only) f� �1�?v lc"L� S{��'"�� t1 Inur4��✓ # /j iomi (4r{4)t, ►et. (CC/ BOCC Only) "& then to CC/ BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: ( ES (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) NO Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 8. Anticipated date of submission: T" Y'"" Weeri 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: r��ew�" :ri�l'o ,'�4?L� FA� Cf�►''F'"t'�j'�M by('rwrxp ��. r !;t'�i�.�) �i1 3 Teti iMtth to Qt411 GrJ�rtj✓1U jnllf d /7 /: /y?A.{ . tltSj1 hL' N/ itit J A' �•� Jw�Sfil��P{1♦'if� SCI,t, [ti�l,t+t�.r, � Ry�q,1w�y {�.,�;4�(iF'�:�l��f./ i �[tv�-k'ts�?'L���1�/to��l��.�.,-�t��� (�:..:� C.Ai!t-�^�.� '�--1utl� %1.�try�� ;Zr1iS,-�.M A-LLx1t Cc:i.t>+11v1: 24^fi �- .�iLt%-r„«••:,y'� G1�-G7•c,�{/..G� rCl..,� CJy� tof En nS(�•'x JT. t.. YKt—AYYLILAT1UN CUNrtKtNCt 5UMMAKY 2—I$46 PROJECT: AlfPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: g 4lp� t�c I�' b 1�'I7yT�1__. M 1. Type of Application: CMP AMtM)M-e'+ 2. -sc D ribe action/type of development being requested: CA�.�ry+,� ht !� I HppI�GF an fcr R-ejtori,14. Gip 7Vh4 11 ml , (3) E►►+p)byc Ih l° 1:� en ILti�h�¢ ih s c — Sk0j dU ani hn-s, < M 5 ei),I I?tf"r PA. .1n Rai.-f,'��111v�g1« 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments R�Se�r,n. y,,+i IkE2 ►r18� 6%iPer,ft,�� Z��fj L �^ �ecor,ttrvdlbn oN')44. — G� (�;l�r�i_ pt,)'tt,►tiew�'►oha� C haN�e 1 e 0,i--E C�nerhi ISSu�T Faerus,�;e�,�!Cpl;uiq 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) l.htn,� W, �.�FPloyeti iiou)uh P�,n'�S� C�I�IAt,oy � QJ I��1''�t,,lri' (vAlrFy Ors, h , iiu�t� G� ,for WhyIl�s flu s 6 �tt� r �Zt,y��s amino an3,it tik,�w�i�,.►,�*,."� Ili e�(i�in, 6yKi)j ( +a,�1+i l� l� �1 o�<�e 3-6mnr(re.hK�, u►►;%a�,�-I►.��+�. WA ���p� �El;rves 14y2Gaicv�twhwr�tolr;1, f�'��fiwE:J,IN�g,��.S,Iyf+%y7MNirirerx tVA tD pY� MInijYei) Yr,4 ad R)t4 44 PhiM04 I, epicl4sr 4 e vt a mr l+ye�s .) soap oni=�s - tk,-,t�n3 urI I, �c1► D'Wl oj,; 1 ucr.� . 41,, 0 &1,, 407 (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 8. Anticipated date of submission: 9. COMUIENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: MEMORANDUM TO: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Carriage House Encroachment Application DATE: February 19, 1986 The Planning Office has reviewed the Carriage House encroachment request for placement of below -grade parking under the alley of Block 77. Because the encroachment is entirely below grade,no negative land use impacts are foreseen from this proposal. It appears that the encroachment will allow placement of the proposed Carriage House Lodge further back from Durant Street, creating a larger front yard. Encroachment may give the applicant the opportunity to expand FAR because it entails reorganizing under- ground space, some of which is not exempt from FAR (athletic facility) . However, this appears to be a minor ramification of ! the encroachment. The applicant should commit to relocate all effected utility lines in the alley and to pave the alley for the length of his property (149.651) SB.20 i ' ME MORAN DU M FEB 111986 I j To: Streets Department Building and Zoning Department Planning Department--S Electric Department From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: February 7, 1986 Re: Carriage House Encroachment Application Attached for your review is an application for an Encroachment License from Gibson & Reno Architects on behalf of thier client Ralph Melville for the Carriage House. They're asking for an underground encroachment for a parking structure. Please return your comments by February 17. Thank -you. n 1 -1 A'ti C 1V, "IAlh t'I�; `S Serf.,, PH oi'4r — f'vTil/c �cr/v/� �ntl,�'�/A t ' �`S• Qnly»7a�i`lin.l� 1 ' B/BSON&REPJO^ ARCHITECTS Project: Carriage House Block 77 Lots K. L. M. N. & 0 Applicant: Ralph Melville 333 East Durant Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Abutting Property Owners: Block 70 Lot I Werner, Sarah R. 510 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611. Lot S Sabbatini, Richard E. Post Office Box 2781 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Block 77 Lot 4 & 8 Hallam, Augustus Felton and Hallam. Margery L' 41U South Aspen Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots C, D, E, & F Poos, Leroy G. 228 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot P Aspen Manor Lodge Ltd - An Oklahoma Ltd' Partnership 411 Suuth Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 The encroachment is proposed for Block 77, Lots K, L. M, N. & 0' The encroachment will be 8`-0^ into the alley on the North side of the property and will run the length of the property (149'65^)' The purpose of the encroachment is to allow for parking below the proposed lodge' The utilities located in the alley will be relocated according to utitily company guidelines, at the expense of the applicant' The applicant shall also provide the waivers and guarantees desired by the utilities (electric, gag, sewer)' 4,o E. 000Psn ^vswus #aor ^ ASPEN, ooLoRAoo 81611 ^ 303'925 5968 \ v E r MOYOSED a9Ea Of ENCAWCw1EM- ii i� j OURP.KT AVE ALPINE SURVEY. INC. _ . BOX 1730 t,SMN, Clx ORADO 81611 R I—l_- +—J--- l ALP ?DWFI5 W ia01-wMer CwG V RVEYOR�S rmin • Ka[at mate♦ A MutJtl;.lC M1 f -(}1 MMWf ),IY1f b 101e w 0 0 0 0 C oCol oCOF::iC 1C�O OCC OC�.0 COC� C�OCC .orn r rw f. aDQ • 0 ax ALLEY r-9LOCAT.D POW!! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 7 7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !z- Z AMA OF WCROA�CHIMNT -X t3 V f DDr%DnC!Crn% BUILDI b�iNyqZ O�y DURANT STREET SITE PLAN SCALE 1/6*-I'-O*lj BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8*•1'-0 Ij 2. • .9p. U 0 CARRIAGE MOUSE Gray 4RCH. C42a6N PAoVoAlG4 ClR,C V��- • /M ol M6vi7 7 > 4�r iv Pry M4'�< Oq PTS�.)j 240 126 W (277� �pew \ .. 6 Ear tc-- ifccrr- 2- vN 8,f wtzc, K / A-oz . / , /`FB+C /0 4��ot. `77q�tz�Z.r �+E � W • 2!� !Ji✓rJE�u 33 wc,;�) C� (111AX ::24 Pam•) 1 /7 1 /7 Llo��4,.Oc . /s P-s) 3•J449 @ q5;2Ac5 -rFr.= /460 5p cro m a) 5 / At- Fes--• F. M. ,5� 3 4�)P` 15 q 7 5F' . -7 sP N m �• �r�-vs � � 74 ¢SF 7. �. M. uVIAIer G-- -f 3�7s i • MEETING NOTES PROJECT: Carriage House PRESENT: NOTES: GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS Alan Richman, Ralph Melville, David Gibson DATE: January 31. 1985 TIME: 9:00 AM We reviewed the GMP Allocation which was given to the Project in 1983. 1. Changes to the Application can take form of: .•• •. • u' • ��-� to Plannino, andZonLncLas to whether the changes constitute suhstantive changes requiring re -application or minor changes within the spirit of the original approval requiring only an am,pndment. 3_ 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 Buildinq 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. COLORA00 61011 303/925596£3 • • 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 and 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: f 418 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN. COLORAOO B1611 303,1925596B PHONE MEMO GIBSON s RENO • ARCHITECTS PROJECT: r f f DATE: �) �> TALKED WITH: c��l�'S�Cl/y TIME: %C OF: �/ �471 /X �l �i� 4/�,r• REGARDING: FOLLOW—UP ACTION REQUIRED: COPIES TO: BY 418 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN. COLORADO 61611 303/9255968 v To low. Date Time - W , � You Were Out M of Phone AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED V1 PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Message�l� l�tJ open for CHALLENGER' BRAND 01761 A DUALITY PARK PRODUCT To Date— Time ' While o Were Out M of Phone AREA CODE 2 ✓ (00 NUMBER EXTENSION Message I)�A� iJn�11UF✓ 11 rotor TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL R;; : b () I CHALLENGER' BRAND 01761 A QUALITY PARK PRODUCT EMP. UNIT 3 EMP. UNIT 1 350 SOFT. 2 EMPLOYEES EMP. UNIT 2 240 SQ.FT. 1 EMPLOYEE EMP. UNIT 3 360 SO -FT. 2 EMPLOYEES II EMP. UNIT 1 EMP. UNIT 2 rcl) U Q) 00 FIRST FLOOR PLAN WEST HYMAN AVENUE a z 0 cn 0 cn 0 z ID 0 (1) Ln I Ln cu m M 0) 0 m w cl 0z as C) LLJ L) w :3 z w cc Lj D 0 < IT 0 If u 0 -i 0 (n u w w U w < w < M IL a < I u - co 0 10 1 u I co I q < I w 0 cl 11 0 .j w SHEET NO: EXISTING FLOOR PLANS. _ J 1 Ah, a To -� Date _ Time While Youjuere Out M of Phone X AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Message Carr'l+e Ze Hvo; t � c�,nrc�, f+c .Gt>� 4j.P.� a>, q,��,�6t a'►N / Oper CHALLENGER" BRAND 01 761 A QUALITY PARK PRODUCT