Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Blue Spruce.1977 P I T K I l~ c o U 1'1 T Y (""'., ,.-" Ct:;>>JY)0'...L ~{wv 4:1- ::5>t[ 506 E; Main DIRECTOR OF HOUSING e . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE, (303) 925.6612 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1977 TO : B .0 . C . C . FROM: Brian Goodheim RE: The City of Aspen is currently reacting to a proposal from Bob Scarborough to construct 15 studio condominium units on the site currently occupied by his Blue Spruce Lodge" This building has been offered to t:he Housing Authority for moving and renovation into 16 to 17 units of employee housing on a site owned by Pitkin County just east of the old hospital" This memorandum presents the physical, financial and timing considerations involved in your decision to accept the building. The proposed site is 2.441 acres owned by pitkin County" The property lies directly east of the existing hospital between Silverking, Hunter Creek and Lone Pine Drive. It is currently zoned R-15 (PUD) and is used as Trail Head Park for the Hunter Creek Trail. For about a year now, the Housing Authority has been examining the feasibility of dormitory projects in association with the development of the existing hospital as a community service facility. The economics, however, . have not been sufficiently attractive for such projects to be financed because of the low rents associated with music student housing and employee housing. The current proposal circumvents this problem by making facilities available at a very low cost, hence making the project feasible. The low acquisition and renova'tion expenses allow the units to be reasonably rented to music studen~s and Kinter employees. A site planning process involves three types of consideration: Physical: 1. Hunter Creek flood plain limit 2. Soil conditions (tailings and fill) 3. Underground tennellinq and air shafts 4. Demolition of ambulance barn? 5. Future expansion of site into additional dormitory housing 6. Depth and gradient of sewer main 7. Availability of all utilities MEMO B.O.C.C. ~' May 4, 1977 Page l'Wo ,1""'\ .~ Interface: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. Use of site to get Hunter Creek surface water to hospital Construction of cafeteria at end of hospital Use of site as Hunter Creek Trail Head Roof heights consistent with hospital and Silverki g Visual impact from Lone pine Drive . Legal: 1. Zoning. Currently R-15 needs to be changed to PMH. 2. Building code problems. Building needs to be renovated to meet fire code, installation code and building code. . Fred Crowley and I have thoroughly inspected the Blue Spruce building for code violations and have highlighted the following deficiencies: 1. Windows - Needs either new thermopane windows or storm windows to be put over the existing single glaze. 2. Electrical - GFI (Ground Fault Interrupter) breaker need to be installed in bathrooms and extra convenience outlets in each room. Other miscellane us minor code violations possibly need to be corrected 3. Exits - We need additional exits to upstairs apart- ments. 4. Fire Code - For one hour construction, party and exterior walls need to be 5/8 in. sheet rock" 5. Thermal Code - Extra roof and atic insullation and possibly wall styrofoam is needed to bring the unit up to the 18 BTU/sguare foot standard. 6. Tin Roof - Cover with asestos shingles, shakes, or other roof material for aesthetic purposes. Project Budget: Building Preparation (carpentry) Moving - Thomas Linework - Phone Co. Permits Site Preparation & Soils Foundation & Footers (260 If)@$15 Utilities Connection Building Repair Reattach Porch & N. New Exits - South @ Windows 16 x $25 + Electrical $90 x 16 New Doors $50 x 16 DrYI'lall Insulation Fascia 300/unit x 4, ISO/unit contingency + contingencies x 4 3,00 3,90 12,00 5,00 2,00 1,80 50 2,00 80 3,00 5,00 MEMO B.O.C"C. . M.p.y 4, 1977 - Page Three ~ .,-" Project Budget Continued: Roof Finish Material (wood or elastometric) 6,800 Mezzanine & Mgr Apartment Contingency (on construction and sitework) 20,000 9,870 I, 00 I, 00 I, 00 I, 00 Architectural Engineering Legal Project Management TOTAL COST $90, 70 The proposed ownership entity would initially be pitkin County as we would be the entrepreneurial agent which would actually undertake the moving of the building. Eventually, the project could be sold in total to the Lodge Owners' Association or other under a long-term block summer lease to the Music Associates. I have investigated financing of the move and renovation with Tom Stardoj. He feels that the project is well conceived and feels also that the First National Bank could finance the project at,' say, $100,000 which would be secured by an assignment of rent For this, he would need a debt coverage of approximately 1.5 time The timing of this move is critical. The construction schedule for the 15 condominium units begins 6n June 6 and it is imperativ that the building either be removed or demolished by that time. With this timing constraint in mind, I have retained Chick Collin and Bob Sterling as engineer and architect to program the buildin 's removal and renovation. This consulting expense is financed thro gh the technical consulting budget of the Housing Authority. We have arranged to have Sil Thomas available for the move on May 22 and have based the attached budget on this schedule and route, It is therefore imperative that we decide upon this venture immediately as the Ovffiers wish to let contracts for demolition if we do not undertake the program. I have spoken also with Fred and Patsy regarding the legal ramifi- cations of moving the building prior to a zoning change. They fee that this can be accomplished with a special use permit and temporary building permit which would be contingent upon a zoning change for the hospital property from R-15 to PMH, This item is on your agenda for Monday should you wish to take official action" BLG:kc . ...r',-__..,.. ,.... ,-.. / MEMORANDUM TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Office (HC) RE: Blue Spruce Lodge Development - Conceptual Subdivision DATE: March 9, 1977 This is a request by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Scarborough, owners of the Blue Spruce Lodge in Aspen for conceptual subdivision approval to replace part of the existing lodge with a new facility of slightly less density. The property is zoned L-2, which permits lodges and ~Ulti-familybuildings ,and consists of 15,000 square feet of land. The ~roposal is to replace 17 existing lodging units with 15 studio apartments, each un~t containing approximately 650 square feet of area with kitchen and bath facilities. The existing building has an area for parking which is not clearly defined. The Engineering Department recommends conceptual subdivision approval and reserves more detailed analysis until presentation of the preliminary plat. The Planning and Zoning Commission, on February 22, 1977 recommended Conceptual Subdivision approval conditioned on the following: 1) The applicant make proposals for parking spaces and employee housing at the preliminary plat stage. 2) That rentals and occupancy be limited to a short term basis with the exception of employee units. 3) That management be on site at the Blue Spruce Lodge. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1) Remodeling of existing facilities is exempted from the current building delay instituted by the City Council. 2) The applicant alludes to supplying parking but makes no specific proposals to accomplish these goals. Fifteen parking spaces need be identified for the new building. ~.-. 3) The attached memo from Brian Goodheim details his concerns as to housing impacts of this proposal. /~ t " 1"""\ ~ Aspen City Council Page Two March 9. 1977 4) The project is l~ blocks from the Rubey Park transit terminal and generally at the base of the ,ski area. These factors promote pedestrian circulation for the lodge guests. 5) The redevelopment would,'not increase the density of the present lodging facility. 6) A map of the proposal wi 11 be avail ab 1 e at your meeti ng. 7) The Planning Office generally supports the upgrading of this existing facility and recommends conceptual sub- division approval conditioned on satisfaction of our concerns at the preliminary plat stage. . .!~ / '" ~ ,. /~ P I T K I N c o U N T Y """'" t...., DIRECTOR OF HOUSING .506 E. Main 0 ASPEN, COLORADO 81411 . PHONE, (303) 925.6612 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 1977 To:/"k"';i C1~Stacy Standley "--- FROM: Brian L. Goodheim RE: Blue Spruce Apartments: Employee Housing I met with Bob Sterling today and reviewed with him the proposal for the Blue Spruce Apartments. I communicated to Bob that I felt the proposed two units of employee housing: is'somewhat lo,w and told him I could support a larger figure. He said that he would discuss the matter with Scarborough and see how additional units could fit into his site plan. We also discussed the possibility of the Housing Authority or the City acquiring the existing Blue Spruce Lodge for purposes of employee housing. Of special iriterest to me right now is the idea of p1acir.g the existing units on the hospital site and using them in connecticn with theMAA Project. We have scheduled a meeting for later this .~ek to determine the feasibility of moving these buildings and how they would be used for MAA housing. BLG:kc ,~' ., ,r- .. !"""I !"""I STERLING ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS WOOOY CREEK, COLORAOO M€Mfill::RS A;A I po. BOX, 871 ZIP COPE' 611356! PHONe 303 923 - 4518 Februa ry 1, 1977 Aspen Planning and Zoning Com!11ission ,City of Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: On behalf.of Nr. and Mrs. Robert Scarborough, owners of the Blue Spruce Lodge in Aspen, I respectfully request that the f61101,ring prop:Jsed project be con- sidered for Conceptual Approval Revie\'i under Ordinance 22, Series of 1975 (Aspen Subdivision Requjrements). '~ Initial meetings with members of the Planning Department have encouraged us to pursue this application due to the nature of the development and its appal^ently favol'ab'le relationslrip to current City policies regarding adoption of the P.spenj Pi tI:in County GI'OVlth lI,anagement Pl an. The pur;:;ose of this project is to replace an already existing facility \'tith a nf'.t facility of equal density \'Ihich \'till serve to place the lodge in a more competi- tive posture for tourist trade. In addition, the oVlI1ers vlish to enter into negotiutior,s for the sale or trade of the existing building on the site to the City/County Housing !',uthority or private developers and have the buildinq !^e:noved and l^enovated for lO\'l-cost housing use. The feasibility for moving the building has already been established. Despite prevail ing attitudes toward accepting new projects for review, it is hoped that the circumstances and nature of this project \'Ii 1 1 be viewed as a positive form of development for the jl,spen tourist corrnunity and Illay be properly considered outside the rigors of more formal policies to be adopted in the future. It is in this spirit that this application is made. RS:ss < /----- " . ,':'~ , I"", .-, : STt:Rt.IN13 ASSOCIATES A!'lCI-lITE:CTS WOOOY C!'lEEK. COI-ORAOO MEMI,IE~~ AlA) RO. BOX a'11711:> ,CODf:: ,A1650j'PHONE 303 823-4610 DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION - BLUE SPRUCE APARTMENT PROJECT 1. PROJECT NAME: Blue Spruce Apartments 2, ACREAGE: 0.344 Acre 3. PROPOSED H<iPROVEf1ENTS: Owner proposes to replace 17 existing 'lodging uni":s with 15 stud'io apartments, each unit containing approximately 650 square feet of area with kitchen and bath facil ities. The owner intends to sell seven of the units and retain ownership of the remaining eight. He then intends to operate all of the units ona short-term rental and time-sharing basis, with management of the units carried on in conjunction with the ex'st- ing Blue Spruce Lodge operation. .' . f In addition to the apartment units, the Owner wishes to construct additioral area for the use of employee housing which ~Iill serve the apartments as well as the Lodge units on Parcel 2, and wishes also to incorporate a small meeting- activity room, therapy pool and off-street parking on the site. 4. PROPOSED POPULATION: The anticipated population of the development will be approxi mate ly 40 persons in the apartments pI us hlo to three employees for a tota 1 of 43 persons. The existing facility now houses approximately 40 to 45 persons, resulting in a zero population gain in the zone. . ,~ ,-." '.