The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.Golf Course.1981 .~ .' N' ~- ~,. ...;~, -~u.i-e.& \\!oD}tl. "-,, ~ No. 51- ~L CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: p\i,lqu.st to, t'l 0 f STAFF: t1hV\~; ('.JHl)'l~ c.' (j A 2. APPLICANT:\~ ~ I ,,s ppA't ) 3. 'REPRESENTATIVE: \-.ot.l\~ hu dl Yle.r. ~I\c{' '.!)~ 'C'l~ rf JJ.~~.. 1 '.... I ~ 9as -0)00)1) )(.,Q J 9 4. PROJECT NAME: ~If' {j;IiKre SlI.bcl;()/s/071j - CnMepfuoI 3ubYY1fs:.r~. 5. LOCATION: .f'tiy &hI! ('nf/r.J'e;J J1(Jl'o/-A %' f/adjt'd cht) IJJe2t ~Ide ~ ~~M_J 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: LReZOning P.U.D; Special Review Growth Management HPC 1SUbdiVision Exception Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus _____Stream Margin _____8040 Greenline _View Plane _Conditional Use _Other C {)y\(I.f!f"~ miSS. MK 7. REI}RRALS: ~torney ~Engineering Dept. ~USing _Water' _City Electric +0 P;~Dtti'~~'~J \9~1 ~nita~ion District ____School District ~ountaln Bell , ~ocky Mtn. Nat. Gas ~rks . , _____State Highway Dept. ~y Cross Electric _Other , _____Fire Marshal/Building Dept. 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: ,-..\ .~, ~ I J - --. - v._' , ,,~ -- --~----:-'-~"'..-"'" ,-~,.,~_.~-,-- . r--' .-.. 9. OISPOSITION:/ p & Z4 Approved 'Denied ~~,\-<>.J; ~ \. i;\\",^,,,,,t,.\,,o,,- o~ l*-s ~* '\ ~ ~""i <;,k) <(~.~ ' ~. ~toV'- gf ~ ~ \.,+ 31 ~O'- \"'~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ct~\ w~ S~~ ~ ')o~ G-,~r- G~ 0 ~ ~4 "'-il+ :Se "l <<i>~ Dr ~ <?~~ ,"t~ +"-"\-~\~ Date ~j; L15'! {<7,,1 . ( f/VQ ~S . >u\'Q,^,,~~ Council J / Denied Date ~ '1,)<;",1 Approved ~~ 1r<> ~ 11UTING: Attorney ~"'i'9 ~Uilding Other ,- /---" .1..'....\ ~ ~ - t', ~. 1""'\ ~ - APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION - GOLF COURSE SUBDIVISION The request is hereby made on behalf of the CIty of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation, under Chapter 20, Subdivision Regulations, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, for concep- tual presentation with respect to parceling of the City Golf Course, property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The application involves subdividing a current single parcel of approximately one-hundred eighty-six (186) acres into four parcels. Parcel One being appro- ximately one-hundred eight-one (181) acres; Parcel Two being approximately four (4) acres; Parcels Three and Four being app- roximately twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet each. Parcel Two has the existing fifty unit lodge with restaurant located thereon. The subdivision of this property is necessary for the purpose of dividing and transferring the ownership of Parcels Two, Three, and Four. There are special circumstances and conditions affecting the subject property such that subdivision is sought. The subdivision is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; that the granting of the subdivision will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject pro- perty is situated. The zoning for the area is "P" - Park with a transportation overlay in the area of Parcel Two. The applicant wishes to apply for rezoning of the property to an appropriate zone for each parcel. The applicant is willing to agree to a covenant on Parcels Three amd Four to restrict their use to City of Aspen employees only. This application should be deemed the conceptual presentation pursuant to Section 20-10 of the Municipal Code. Thank you for your cooperation in processing this application. Should you have any questions or need additional information, . . i"""'. ,;-. please contact: Louis Buettner ,~ Engineering Department City of Aspen 925-2020 Extension 219 , ~ , r", .-. , . ,4\ i', ." ""j, CITY,.,OF"~'ASPEN f " , ' ~" ' , 130 Sf;lUth galena~~treet asp e n~",~~,o I ~r ~ d.~/~81611 -.." :,..j%iJiiI;> , ----~'...,~.,' MEMORANDUM , . DATE: December 16, 1981 TO: Plum Tree Proposal Selection Committee FROM: Lois Butterbaugh RE: Plum Tree Purchase Submitted herewith is my basic economic impact analysis of four of the proposals to purchase the Plum Tree property. The fifth proposal was not included due to the lack of specific date submitted within the proposal package. The analysis is from a cash flow approach and my rankings on the economic 'criteria questions ( given to Monroe ) were made in isolation from the other criteria points. For your evaluatiOn the average sale proceeds per guest unit and the average annual sales and property tax revenue per ~uest unit must be tempered with your opinions relating to the other criteria: i.e., do condo units versus lodging rooms compare equally as a unit of measure for economic evaluation, or'should condos be weighted to equalize their density impact. My evaluation identifies the per unit cash flows related to the proposals. /!,. further analysis ( which requires developer expertize ) is needed to determine if the relationships of the future market value of the developed units to the developer's profits ( after consideration of the cost of the Plum Tree property plus construction and marketing costs) result in a feasible project which can succeed or, on the other hand, if the profits are excessive ( indicating under pricing of the sale of the City's property). This analysis can be done using standard costs, but would be more useful if it resulted from submission of estimated costs by the developer and analysis by the VOICE group. Cash flow data within the proposals were used in the analysis. Where not 'provided, I used common comparisons and personal knowledge of local data to derive usable data. If the developers wish to have explanations of my methods, to challange the amounts, I will be available next week to work" with them. I would welcome their input on the analysis prior to submission to the City Council, ,also I do encourage the VOICE members to review the analysis and submit feedback. I ,'-..h.1'.l-l\ (hi" ~ it'1t.,:",..;n,,'.. , ' 1 ; ,.,!..AtII1l..."d8,': ~-"--""---'''.;':---' '...,.." 'ic -.....; .' C,.L~, '~~f((~-:"'ft:"I'-!.I-....n"I';):_"'-' .- ---,.., -,.,.........:C;"'IW'"..Vct/':'\.t.t.[.t~''''' :~.~' 'd~C.(,)_ d~-,t:::h.+.f-6;;....~'..(" ._...I/./~/o/'H_ .". .......'" .~-" ., '.."', -, .. ' ' ~'..J..,j.,tJ "",'mn'I" '~"'/(7tV+l :Jll. '~C(:)/, ,., ,~, =':s="].!=()?~~.-~=:_''','==':-:'~:~.-''~'-.' '=~=~"',:.;, '..~,',]r::~-;:!:~Ja;~.~.;~..~I:i'::,,~~:~'~/'; .~\: ~~;('J' I It ._j f . ~ IB;J. (2;<>-"".<"..,.", I 1/ 'I ' ~C. .~ ~-J. -"'->^!'. <<fl';,! . r,..U." ,"l-~,"-"'>>"',.,_"_,_"____,,,,, _.., ~"I",I:: (r~'~7M': ~'9 I?ftn7V<7 I t:>U'"!"""."'4,,,"' ;,If?f,.;--/!',,, "-.:1,,.. . I !i(), 7-:' ~I?.. -:..;',... ,--- ,~n_I!: _n :1"'1 If l~ Ii) i! I Iln rIll i i! I I : : 1 [:- J'l't -'---I'-1=:i\J""~:L<-'-<;:"\.>- ~-~"'-.--7-'i"J rr'-:,~ :~of'~i~i; -1' >~:?~~t1..t--r;r:,})~ttT':t 'Jt.;.~: ::;~r-T1 ---j r..--~;t';n5"">_"'1J:-tl_e;.-':+"i'''$''+j'''~~O' !1J~i" , ',-'. j- , I [I'i -:;-};:,~nTtf-~~~'''I'/~::~,::t''i;.--3 -, "I~ I, ....tUUJ-.[" ,.--d"J..-<: ,,,,,.{ t..,~, "-r-.-," '1- tLfiil-- t, 1- --I '......'In,',-f..~~, - 'J,' ~.- -:, :.~!"'~"-4 ~"r-:~-~--- ....-.I--n c.Lti- I"-T .L i M--ttr-ft- -iL~""/l""~4~~,-I"'-r5 -r-,' " . --.1+.1 G r --:'-- ~--r-+-i16 ',' '. "',"""','. 'I',c......-_k_Cw.(.", -. r 1+ .. l..--.. L 'j'_-I-.l_i_ 1..1 I._~,..I_ ,...J~ I' ." I I ! I I' l' I n i r " I 7 ;; ,u/J t.. ./11 /! ') 1 "P'''' , ,~..J Jill"'/)' 0 "'/ 'n'fJ,J' ""01 'I' S -, -,' --UdV-.L-tf/....k._-/j1'~t>:1~c:.!Q~f':L~_~I-,'.uJ. f'f'''Etl.p......H=' "''t'l'(/ff': 1" if;, if.-ts -j-" --- .---- .....JL--'-Hrr- -F r-L ._L ......-,,--'- .- L__l_._ .....L-, , . ,I-- / '/. II I I ' " '.' ' r ' 1'.,' '1 ~ ~5(".c; ....,e..... /1,.:../".. ~4.'~ ___ I~ , I ,,' " . -1 :, !1" :,:~ji:'f;' " . ,;:;~?!,,)C'~:' ;,.1C , t7 J '-,,,' -/: -II r-~ 'r':;:i ....I,J-t- PI ::-:-;: fI-t-a 'U, i i--: 1 :::r'f"" 'L.(;U~"",,~ 0-!/."""",_..x.~'i20._ - Lk''tUJ.vJ f[BT' h- - -If' 'r--:"-- ' -'--- .-- l! __ _~ . tttl '_.Ll -L I 1 __ II! i-till'! lHl! i.:,: ! .7{ / L~..-: ff ,1 //.....d II H ! I i!1 I++" ~I H' -rr-r--,! LII I I! E --.,- .Q\..-Ct<.. G'-'i-A'~(..,~"J-~""'d_.._ ---,- --1---+ - -. -If.] ...1...r1.. fL....' - - .-.... I- I I 9.../- j/ I; 0 I -f-'.l I 10 1 II i I I I ' ("t:) !.' l' I I 1 I (~~~_:....::.r..!J-.('A" .,flF..L....rl..._12.Q7-t/,q,_'}j ;a..o.,l..D.a.'? _,_. .vr3:.b.v.t ....:_ ~'sfl,;i{/:).-.::.,I!. ~,..., ,/ d I' 1,lf' I ' Ii! II 111'~ If.. II II "0 , _ ,/,./.;4. il .r)II!.!), I, ';:tol"j/"'?) ll~/...-:'/ I ! I.;J~/""".) Itl '35 . . -"-I--~VI~i'-;t;::;d;7~':;r-"5'" "'i:-;-::;'::;-)-:~ ~-;;.- -,,,,':;'~ '::~-; ., . --, ~;~;:~~0~;[ ....v-, ,......... ,IT ......~ 1f---fj--'i''''I,41 ...-'i-':'+- i7~;/~!.t~-_..,- -j-I"-;";-J,-'-;;-- I-!"'~;'rl:-:- A/'I. tl;. l:f-J -~LA. '; {t!...- Ii ~I I,' "QrJOO -...; II LII ': !' i 1;1(;. --v-t4."'I'~ _t:........._,_,. i "'-~i1r.--- , ,T J.L.LI - "1-t, .J1,tX -r-'- -j,~. -;---T-I If- \' I' 1-'-'-+--'- ~t;" 11. tQ L ~- '(.'it j ~- -i.'V'Y\:1 '- ~ J.Y 6J{10t...~)~..,1 ~~'~ .J'::!.....' '''It,; } ~:.~ :zc _,,=,,',)~-,-J.;,,~u,_ -~..~.,.. -, .'<ft..:04_[h-r-~t --~~"---'I"~' r<~~t../.. -' f"""-"-1.I.\. -'/':-rIT' --- .--- ! II ......'"/... /'/ "I I' I :' I I " I" 'I 11 I I I ' " f l I' i " 2' l 'I // ~, I ' II " " J 1 ,j '.. I :1' . . " - ..Li r:~rrrrlTi"i:' i I~ :r;.: I I .; ; : '.d.....::'i22 . I Gt:::':J~TJ I P -+...j....j...j.."..Y-:'--~-- ---~T-..L.l-"...J._- ->-; -"'r- -. .-._~- '- u, I . ,,-- -L-f.bx;:.(__~l~..:w.}....~~J-_-J'-5'D7.;(3C?qL~.- ,.:$;7.~C'7.:i:i __f 3..11, ;;:!5'Q, .b3L'?.;t7'::CO _ __~,~: i ~~-d.",\"n(A- 9./.J~,.7".~, f 'i;.:.r~:S'lrJ~7-:~'-:;- :;i-;:"q-~'-:':-=T1'?';;;;r-, =::;;""1i-'--;'-;;;:t -;-=2~ n-i-II (if/ '~O-~--Q j :U4'V...../r--r-/-r;-:kr~r--r- IT'T1i"'rt-11 i:>rl.~.i~lh1' :''d~: c Ij'>':"l: l..;VIi:~,;:, ..:A;?/.~::-r..,.....~.r...,:..L_____. 6'j,<""''''':-'~"i!'' ,'::2' Li-LL... ,- un' '4-TC'u.'4,.A~e.n,-p'{./.(:.w.- .-, L ' -I A _/ I , II"" I' I I l+' I. I I 'I ,', I I ' 11 ' ." .,~ ('4'__ -"YV - -- h---.-+---!i---1-.-f-I-L.L t+-, LI ' ~_-L-t f_L- -::..:.: ,'\ 1"1 ,< /., ;;"./ -r l I~:: 17" , ;1 I.O....1!/.:.,;;: i 'It; 1/,<1" I Ii 'LJ' i,-i',:-JI Ii I [,,1/1;/,..1 :i 2; :(.Al::::'/~,J.:J...r:-':~J.~7~-~-/;;"./-)I- i 'J[~_lLl?~I~::~:: . t~~~(J-jI' f/f~~I~ i; rt)~/~t-r; ~'i' I Lr....1....l.,.("'r'-f2;>--,;~/~4..-f"-/D... -nr~ >r-r-rn ~r-rt2. y..:>'...1 Ii J-tti: rf--~ ;) t ll.J-. fJ. t ~~t, 1 I Ii, tt 1 I: . H~ ~r r---t . . :1;1'>' "'..... ~...,t>.. A;'.A."t.,..7. '&"-., ~I II 1~Dn!/o! I r-;'I"')~""."7 ( ,I -I L ,:",'rrnl .it3C , .... _J -....,~ .........,..~....,~'" .~-- - . .-"-P4- If- ....._.:'\7.:r-- - ..><,.."~ -1- ......TT- -". '~I'" ""Z'-_.~, 1 TI..l.'i -f/., ....,'" }~...\. >..a/U~: kr., .... tz; , ! I h Iv;;> Il cJZ};+!! i, I~ I :: I I ~I ~~;?I :i 3: _--l~,J :J~~"""--'- .....r.'-....,~.;:-..., ........-.._~- ...--~ ~=".f-,;I-,~...:w-..,"'-I --,.... ~._ JIb t; ~ . r=:';/'lr" v. "" . ~- -! l' j Ii' 1 j l i ,1J lJ I ~ ; I I; il . .. . . I. I i.1 1;\3~ '. -,LF...~<~~"-- jtl "J[{tf(i ~f~1i -1;l'f(), i~ ~--tffff?L1:; --I " ' - -.,-- IT ;;..- -r'-+T..L '",'- ..t l" . ' II .,' I. 'I I I,ll h '-,--'--'fl ::-~ . . , ' II I' -- T r il 1 iTi- it"; ---"-i-- I --...---.----- .....--;---- I - - , .1 .I'.., -rr --n-~' ", ' I I!' Ii' '13' ').-l"iU " , , +-' ~ ..J. I I~ \ ~,!i,,:, -, -',: I r '~'liI- 1: iI i!3' --r-", --"---'-f-'-" ,', +L.) .. + - R r:' ''''1r ,+r, +-1 T' , !:e ,/ p ! - I, I.. 'I .,J~,n,n. o::>~.~.+ II'...., -",:A.- I ,0'" I' I . .I4C --+--,Uv.> 'r... /\Iv ,...t/C...{..U.L.d_,..__.....,'__' -. ,. v_'LI,_ -". -"-r-..\ .,.:,' - I 1<7.,'_ ".)L ,"'~ -, ~;U,o.Ja:?.:::t-l- __J-+On~~, '4L))rJ",.C:..I.td.'2<.h.%, -!~li),4~\i1,{jJi.~--11.. I ,~ide -11-",,) '4~d9,.._.:i.;z~i/L'l'J4-~~ -~-If7 " ..-...J_-J,_-I,Li-f~~L ._;l__ {iIB-l I.p-'d-~-I~-H-U~ --~l-..tl Ul-t,' 'i:',-:-',.r.\.'L.",tl_~li'/ &,:,.1..7t, ;,.dtul-"I'';?H/P".... J-, -I~/~~, 1 [;2~(<?_:l.. ..:(J1'~ 11!/i"..f-fI"I'1 I '1"; n,.-,~,',I, ,r"/I/'1{) II '>-iO 1 ..j1"/1 " '-". '4, "--',' ;"\L.\.cw:.,,.-l-O,.1....~.UI..I....I..J.,.,;.I,~.,-'I...'~Jr.... r "II II ..- -- n I/!J ....- -.. -rrJ.:lU . '''T' . v .::l,~iS: __J__ ,~~J-:jl:~:,.=......-.-.~~=-~~~=.=::...:.'==_~~J~L:~illlLL 'Ir 111---, -rH+f I"";i- HIH-I'-:~f. ,__L},.__./; .,... "-(1/ -'/f-/IJ.!l:(ll.} ~J! 1-I!tl!l! i :1'-i~$lf7!1 IiI !!$!.; :i: !!J~ _......j.j_ _" ~1.."'~'t', -.: ....;,...-I;iI._I_L..P,g~':..:Ll_J_.._~f/fz5J I 7l~J2.r) ...2-'r:.:;?f.,-,H2'5:.._..;.~ -"-1,. -iL -U?/'-" " ..', ..' ... '. ". 1/.' '.,-" Tii .T1I:rn7.1/--I---.;i'..--...lTf.J7!..... il;..~l'.~I"jI,~':j~/-D'~'...I~r!.-i"Vi I.r;:'f: 'j' ~~ "1 1/(_......t~-t..-:',I..t"f.,"I.J . 'II !/~..,', II .(~,t i I 1.;))1:-'.. ',' .-... I'J .. .."I :' <, · '..v,. - '..- . -,., ",'" 'r : '1' , , , '" 'I" '. " .. "", I , " I, ','., 'I ,I I I I! I" .' I "I" ' ' " () v I "'1 .' ., J I ! . I I.. I: ': '] ~ ; ~ .' l' . , : " . \ : 1.1:, , . i I ; ! '; ': ; .. , , . . .' ! : ..: 1"""'-, ^ ,/' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: DATE: Go lf Course Conceptual Subdi vi si on APPROVED AS TO FORM: I November 2, 1981 Zoning: Lot Size: Location: Applicant's Request: Review Procedure: Agency Review Comments: ........... .', Park, small portion with Transportati ~ 187 .1:8 Acres Highway 82 and Cemetary Lane (,224J4 State Highway 82) This is an application made on behalf of the City of Aspen by the City Manager and Engineering Department to subdivide the existing golf course property into four distinct parcels and to rezone each parcel into an appropriate zone district. The four parcels which would be created would include the golf course itself, the Plum Tree Inn and two employee housing sites. Also under consideration at this time is the second reading of a Code Amendment which you initiated to create a new zone district, the Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. The appropriate review procedure for this application would be as follows: 1) Conceptual review by P & Z: conceptual presentation of subdivision into four parcels; review of code amendment creating Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. 2) Conceptual review by Council: conceptual presentation of subdivision into four parcels; lsLand 2nd readings' of an ordinance creating Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. ' 3) Preliminary plat review by P & Z: public hearing on subdivision into four parcels; public hearing to rezone parcels to park, R-15 and Golf Course Support Overlay District; subdivision exception to exempt employee units from GMP. 4) Final plat review by Council: final review of sub- division into four parcels; 1st and 2nd readings of an ordinance rezoning the parcels to park, R-15 and Golf Course Support Overlay District; subdivision exception to exempt employee units from GMP. Comments were received from the Water Department, Metro Sanitation District and Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, indicating that utilities are available to service the Plum Tree Inn and the employee housing sites. The Engineering Department reviewed the application and finds the plat to be more than adequate for a conceptual review. The reviewing engineer also notes that adjacent zoning to the employee housing locations is R-15 and would permit construc- tion of a duplex on each parcel (20,000+ square feet each) and that each site has utilities available to it. The City Attorney notes that a development allotment is required prior to the approval of a subdiivision. He further notes that an allotment is unnecessary to subdivide off the Golf Course and Plum Tree Inn, and that the employee units may be exempted from the GMP pursuant to Section 24-11.2(h). ~ ~ Memo: Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision and Code Amendment Page Two November 2, 1981 P & Z Action: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision and Code Amendment at a special meeting on September 28, 1981. The me,eting was attended by numerous members of the public who strenuously objected to the proposal to remove almost an acre of open space from the golf course for the purpose of housing key City of Aspen employees. P & Z, in their Resolution 81-13, dated October 20, 1981, and attached for your review, concurred with the public in recommending that you eliminate the employee housing sites from the subdivision.~Xil further indicated that if these sites remain in the subdivision at the preliminary plat review stage, they wtll deny the app licati on. Fi na 11y, P & Z recommended that the subdivision show a third parcel, the parking lot adjacent to the Plum Tree Inn, which should also be zoned Golf Course Support Overlay. P & Z also concurred with your proposal to create a Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. They made only two substantive comments regarding this Code Amendment. Ftrst, P & Z felt that it was important to create a review mechanism within the zone district and therefore followed the Planning Office recommendation that this be done by requiring that the area and bulk requirements be set by PUD. Second, P & Z requested that you add employee housing as a permitted use in the zone district. Planning Office Review: ___ The Planning Office brought Ordinance 68, Series of 1981 to you at your meeting on October 13. At that time you expressed a single concern regarding this Ordinance, this being the 'potential delay which might result from imposing the pun require- ment on the new zone district. -~~ ,,~" Since we first brought this ordinance to you, we have been coordinating closely with the City Attorney and the City Manager to work out any inconsistencies which have developed during the review process. The City Attorney pointed out to us that the overlay zone districts which were previously created do not necessarily have accompanyi ng permitted uses and area and bulk requirements shown in the charts in the Code. Instead our Code typically indicates on the underlying zone district what uses and area and bulk requirements are appro- priate, which in this case would be those of the park zone district. We have therefore amended the ordinance to now show those uses which you wanted in the overlay zone as permitted uses in the underlying park zone district when it has a Golf Course Support Overlay. We have also spoken with the City Manager to determine how the proposed PUD area and bulk requirement review would impact the anticipated development program for the Plum Tree Inn. It is clear that the present plans for renovating the struc- ture and adding certain new facilities, including a relocated pro shop, would invoke the PUD review provision. The Planning Office believes that it is most important that we provide you and P & Z with a review mechanism to consider such variables' as the architecture, landscaping, height, mass and setbacks of any building which, will be highly visible due to its location within the Highway 82 scenic <;;orridor. However, we also recog- ni,ze that the time delay of a full PUD review at this time would not be acceptable and that the termS of the lease cur~ rently being negotiated provide one method of review to protect the City's interest, although without public participation in the rev,iew ofthe"plans. Having Qon~ideredall,of the pros and cons of this difficult issue, the Planning Office has rethought its position and is now dropping its objections to the version of Ordinance 68, I"'" ,..-, Memo: Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision and Code Amendment Page Three November 2, 1981 as proposed by the City Attorney, City Manager and City Council. As you will note, the resulting ordinance proposes no changes to the area and bulk requirements for the park zone district, since these are currently listed as no require- ment. The revised ordinance will permit City Council to move ahead with the development program for the Plum Tree Inn and will only require compliance with the terms of the referendum and with the lease you negotiate with the developer. The ordinance does not require any review by the Planning Office, instead placing the burden for review with the City Manager and City Attorney. The Planning Office would request that we be given an opportunity to review the detailed plans for the Plum Tree property as they are formulated so that we might provide staff level input to the process. We would also sug~ gest that at such time as there isno longer a time constraint upon the development of the Plum Tree that you consider t.,king a second look at the Golf Course Support Overlay Zone Uistrict to reevaluate the desirability of having a PUD review mechanism incorporated into the process. Council Action: Should Council concur with the revisions .made to Ordinance 68 and the Conceptual Subdivision and wish to proceed with their adoption, the appropriate motions areas follows: "Move to read Ordinance 68, Series of 1981" "Move to approve Ordinance 68, Series of 1981" "Move to approve the Golf Cour,se Conceptual Submi ssi on subject to the following conditions: 1. El imination of Lots 3 and 4 (proposed employee housing sites) from the subdivision. 2. Addition of a third parcel to the subdivision, to include land which is adjacent to, but not part of the land to be subdivided as the Plum Tree Inn, but which should also be zoned Golf Course Support Over- lay Zone District." (""".. ..-. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision and Code Amendment DATE: September 1, 1981 Zoning: Park, small portion with Transportation Overlay Lot Size: 187.18 acres Highway 82 and Cemetary Lane (22474 State Highway 82) This is an application by the City of Aspen to subdivide the existing golf course property into fourdisUnct parcels, these being the golf course, the Plum Tree Inn and two employee housing sites, and to rezone each parcel into an appropriate zone district. The City Council is also initiating, at this time, a zoning code amendment to create a new zone district, "The Golf Course Support Overlay District." Since late in 1980, the C.ityhas been working with local developers in an effort to sell the Plum Tree Inn. On December 1, 1980, five offers were received by the City to purchase and redevelop a four-acre tract which includes the existing lodge. Follow,'ng a detailed review procedure, three of these proposals were eliminated and one dropped out of the competition, necessitating a re-evaluation of the procedure,being followed by the City. Throughout the review process, the Planning Office argued that whatever offer the Ctty finally did accept, that the app 1 i cant be requ ired to compete uncler th,e GMP for any expansion of the facility. We also suggested that the mechanisms for renovating and reconstructing the faci 1 ity already existed in the Code, (that is, the lodge preserva- tion ordinance) and that any rezoning of the non-conforming lodge was therefore unnecessary . Finally, the Pl anning Office cautioned City Council that residential use of the property would be inconsistent with the current master plan, while short term accommodations which are directly supportive of the golf course could be construed to be consistent with the plan. Based on these discussions (and due to the fact that the funds which were used to purchase the golf course require voter approval for any change in use) the City placed the issue on the May 5, 1981 ballot fora referendum by the voters. The language of the referendum which the voters did approve is included in your packet, and can be summarized as follows: Location: Applicant's Request: Background: 1. The purchase price for the 4.0 acres and its improve- ments shall not be 1 ess th,an $2.5 mill ion. 2. The private development shall be for short term units in conjunction with the construction of public golf course support facilities. 3, The development shall not exceed tlie, existing number of bedrooms (50) nor the exisUng FAR (approximately 60,000 square feet). 4. Should further development be sought, it shall be sub- ject to prior approval by the voters and receipt of an allotment under the GMP. ^ ~ Memo: Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision and Code Amendment Page Two September 1, 1981 Review Procedure: Agency)Review Commeots: '[\., 5. City Council will enact such zoning legislatiol)\ as necessary to accomplish the sale of the Plum Tree Inn. Subsequent to voter approval of the referendum, Council again initiated the process of solicitation of offers. At this point in time it became clear that the nonconforming nature of the use made its sale unlikely. Developers argued that bank financing of the development was difficult for a nonconforming use, despite the legislation currently in the City Code permitting renovation and reconstruction (which is all that is permitted by the referendum). Council there- fore decided to take the visible step of rezoning the property to a new zone district in which it is conforming. We have attached a copy of Resolution 39, series, of 1981, forwarding their report to you for consideration. The appropriate review procedure for this application would be as follows: 1) Conceptual review by P & Z: conceptual presentation of subdivision into four parcels; review of code amend- ment creating ,Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. 2) Conceptual review by Council: conceptual presentation of subdivision into four parcels; 1st and 2nd readings of an ordinance creating Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. 3) Preliminary plat review by P& Z: public hearing on subdivision into four parcels'; public hearing to rezone parcels to park, R-15and Golf Course Support Overlay District; subdivision exception to exempt employee un its from GMP. 4) Final plat review by Council:, Final review of sub- divisi,on into four parcels; 1st and 2nd readings of an ordinance rezoning the parcels to park, R-15 and Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District; sub- division exception to exempt employee units from GMP. Comments were received from the Water Department, Metro Sanitation District and Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, indicating that utilities are available to service the Plum Tree Inn and the employee housing sites. The Engineering Department reviewed the application and finds the plat to be more than adequate for a conceptual review. The reviewing engineer also notes that adjacent zoning to the employee housing locations is R-15 and would permit con- struction of a duplex on each parcel (20,000+ square feet each) and that each site has utilities available to it. The City Attorney notes, that a development allotment is required prior to the approval of a subdivision. He further notes that an allotment is uncessary to subdivide off the Golf Course and Plum Tree Inn, and that the employee units may be exempted from the GMP pursuant to Section 24-11. 2(h). The 1'1 anning Office has the foll owing comments regarding the subdivision and code amendment: 1. The proposed new overlay zone district includes as permitted uses not only the lodge itself, but also several types of support facilities such as conference facility, restaurant, bar, sport shop, recreation building, golf cart maintenance facility, tennis courts', and swimming pool s. These permitted uses t"""--, ,,-,, Memo: Golf Course Conceptual Subdivision qnd Code Amendment Page Three September 1, 1981 " reflect Council's desire to have high quality golf course support facilities developed by whoever pur- chases the site and also reflect the suggestions of a committee of public and private interests formed by Council to assist in the development of the new overlay zone district. The zone does not include residences as a permitted use, since any residential units which are condominiumized would be subject to the six month minimum lease restriction, and there- fore would not comply with the requirement of the referendum that the units be used for short term tourist rental. The Planning Office also notes that kitchens are not permitted in lodges in Aspen, despite the desire of several potential developers to put these facilities into a reconstructed Plum Tree Inn. 2. The resolution by Council initiating the overlay zone district does not indicate any area and bulk require- ments recommendations. The Planning Office and Council both wanted these requirements to emerge from the review process instead of coming to P & Z as a "fait accompli". The Planning Office would recommend that an alternative for you to consider would be to have the requirements set by PUD, as is already the case for the NC zone district. This approach would provide P & Z and Council with a mechanism by which any proposal to develop the Plum Tree Inn site could be reviewed as to architecture, site design and land- scaping. This approach also reflects the fact that the referemilum lan~uage is a more stringent limitation on development than<would be established by specific area and bulk requirements. 3. The two sites designated as employee housing parcels for City of Aspen employees would remove almost an acre of open space from the golf course, which was purchased with 6th penny funds. The City recognizes that this land was purchased with money expressly designated for open space acquisition, but feels that it is important to provide certain key employees with a subsidy of their housing costs. 4. Desite the fact that this subdivision and code amend- ment have been initiated by the City, the Council is anxious to get input from P & Z as part of the review process. Council has also asked that the Planning Office express to you the importance they place on the sale of the Plum Tree Inn and of the necessity to proceed expeditiously with:the review process. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that you approve the Golf Recommendation: Course Conceptual Subdivision and that you send a report to City Council endorsing the creation of the Golf Course Support Overlay Zone District. The Planning Office has no conditions to attach to this approval. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: .~ ,~ MEMORANDUM Alan Richman, Planning Department ~ Jay Hammond, Engineering Department~ August 31, 1981 Golf Course Subdivision Conceptual Review Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: JH/co 1. The plat submitted with the application is more than adequate for a conceptual review. 2. Zoning on the parcel is currently park, adjacent zoning along Cemetary Lane and in the Homestake, Silver King Drive area is R-lS. Extension of the R-lS zone into parcels 3 and 4 would permit construction of duplexes on each lot. 3. Although not included in the application, the City has title insurance on the 186 acre parcel. 4. Lot 2 is currently developed with a lodge structure, Lots 3 and 4 are undeveloped but have access to existing utilities. ,-- -, CIT PEN MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 1981 TO: Alan Richman ~---- \:"G\ \ Paul Taddune FROM: RE. Golf Course Subdivision - Conceptual Submission Reference is made to Section 20-5(b) which provides that no sub- division shall be approved (nor exemption or exception granted pursuant to the provisions of the subdivision code or until the applicant shall have been awarded a development allotment pursuant to the Growth Management Quota System) whenever such allotment is required for the proposed development of the subdivided land. Lot 1 is the golf course and is already developed as such. Lot 2 is the Plum Tree parcel, which has been improved by the con- struction of the presently non-conforming Plum Tree Inn structure. This parcel has been approved for sale by the voters at a referen- dum at the last election and is subject to the constraints of the ballot question. As regards Parcels 3 and 4, proposed development would either need an allotment or exception under the Growth Management Quota Sys- tem. As employee housing units, the proposed development may be exempted pursuant to Section 24-ll.2(h) subject to the special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission which approval shall include a deter- mination of community need considering, but not limited to, the number of units to be constructed, the type of units, and the rental/sale mix of the development. Additionally, in order that any development be consistent with underlying zone requirements, these parcels most likely would have to be rezoned from P - Park to the residential zones adjacent to the parcels. PJT:mc /"""- ,-, ;M~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Proposed Amendments to the Aspen Municipal Code (Sections 24-2.1, 24-3.2 and 23-3.4) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 8, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider proposed amendments to the Municipal Code creating a new Golf Course Support Overlay District,estab1ishing permitted and conditional uses for that district and establishing area and bulk requirements for that district. ' For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Olof,Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 20, 1981 City of Aspen Account ' '., -, . . --- ,- ~./'/ 1'""\ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Resolution Initiating Golf Course Support Overlay District , J DATE: August 18, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: vu (I, d }u.~Fv~) I , Attached is a copy of the resolution which we briefly discus session today. We will be available at your meeting on Augus, further questions you may have in this regard. ,-" -, ASPEN WATER DEPARTME "f11g8~ ~-:, 8)') "'il Ll1J-tl, I, ' ~(...- ,I ~ IWG ul1981Jli' ~ -- ASPEN / PiTKIN CO. PLANNiNG OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ALAN RICHMAN-PLANNING JIM MARKALUNAS GOLF COURSE SUBDIVISION-CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AUGUST 17, 1981 We have reviewed the proposed application for subdivision and for see no problems associated with the water utility, since the property in question (existing 50- unit lodge with restaurant) is presently serviced with City water. Parcel 1 is presently being used as a golf course and under irrigation with raw water. It is not anticipated by the Water Department that this use would change. Parcels 3 & 4 are adjacent to a 6" water main ("Golf Course Interconnect") and water would be available to these parcels upon application for utility connection permit. It is assumed these two lots are to be used for residential purposes. In reference to Parcel 2 with the transportation overlay, it is assumed that this would allow for some tyPe o~ public facility. In the event that such public facility were constructed in this area, water could be made available by special tap from the new 15" "West-Side/Down-Valley " transmission main presently under construction. In essence, water is available to all four parcels. ~ C?i1~- t""'\ ~ Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Engineering Department City of Aspen Water' Department Aspen Metro. Sanitation District Mountain Bell . City of Aspen Parks Department Ho lY Cross El ectri c Fire Marshal/BuildingDep~rtment Rocky Mountain' Natura 1 Gas FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Golf Course Subdivision - Conceptual Submission DATE: August 7, 1981 , Attached is the Conceptual Submission for the Golf Course Subdivision submitted by,the City of Aspen. This application propose,s to divide a single parcel of . 186 acres into four parcels, and requests appropriate rezoning for each parcel. Please review and return any comments you may have, by no later than Friday, , August 28, 1981. This item is scheduled for the September 8, 1981 meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.' . ' Thank you! ,,',' - / /1 . r)~ ~ r~vJ~~~' -o'h4 ~~ffJ-~"~ -5-i~~44 ~ -1!Jf- CJd-f 411 ~ ..d'~~ f~4J1. f '-zJ~(~ . ,!!)~ md/r1cl~ # ~ >>zI: >>a/~ 3 . f"""'.. I"""'> Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena'street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Engineering Department Cit~ of Aspen Water Department A,spenMetroSa:nitation District Mountain Bell City of Aspen Parks Department Holy Cross Electric Fire Marshal/Building Department Rocky Mountain Natural Gas FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Golf Course Subdivision - Conceptual Submission DATE: August 7, 1981 Attached is the Conceptual Submission for the Golf Course Subdivision submitted by the City of Aspen. This application proposes to divide a single parcel of '186 acres into four parcels, and requests appropriate rezoning for each parcel. Please review and return any comments you may have by no later than Friday, August 28, 1981. This item is scheduled for the September 8, 1981 meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. ' Thank you! /VI:> f3 f F r;c:.- b r- As (1;;:"~ I--/",it ~ """'t~"'- SA"-tTAi"/.,)"""- \-> J (, 7 ~( ,-,(" . ~ ~(;t7 "A"1 (; 'D /"1~ ~Ie.. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 \~. MEMORANDUM TO: ~aul Taddun~, City Attorney ~En9ineering Department ~City of Aspen Water Department ~Aspen Metro Sanitation District Mountain Bell ~City of Aspen ,Parks Department Holy Cross Electric Fire Marshal/Building Department ~Rocky Mountain Natural Gas FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Golf Course Subdivision - Conceptual Submission DATE: August 7, 1981 Attached is the Conceptual Submission for the Golf Course Subdivision submitted by the City of Aspen. This application proposes to divide a single parcel of '186 acres into four parcels, and requests appropriate rezoning for each parcel. Please review and return any comments you may have by no later than Friday, August 28, 1981. This item is scheduled for the September' 8, 1981 meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. ' Thank you! . ,... ....- ~ '-", MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office RE: Plum Tree Inn APPROVED AS TO Fo~Cia.J1;J.h"f DATE: July 23, 1981 Asa major contri butor to the memorandum prepared by Monroe Summers, the Pl anni ng Office is in basic agreement with the contents of that analysis. We would like to take the analysis one step further by providing you with a recommendation. The Planning Office feels that it is premature at this time to create a new zone district or to rezone the property. We are concerned about the desirability of creating a zone district for which we are presently unclear as to 1. what may be appropriate uses to be included in the zone; 2. what underlying area and bulk requirements may be needed to promote the appropriate development of the site; and 3. whether a developer may come up with some special needs which are not anticipated in the creation of the zone district. We feel that an alternative can be identified whereby a developer can take a first step toward the redevelopment of the Plum Tree Inn within the constraints of the existing code. We recommend that as a first step the developer of the Plum Tree Inn reconstruct the facility through expenditure of at least fifty percent (50%) of its value. The reconstruction could be to either lodge or residential use, with the presence or lack of kitchens being the main deter- minant of the difference. We would caution the developer that if the units are to be condominiumized, the Code does not permit their short-term use as residen- tial units. We would also note that development of golf course support faci- lities could probably be accomplished within the constraints of the existing park zone district which lists recreation building, sport shop, restaurant and park maintenance building as conditional uses. For the developer interested only in the development of fifty bedrooms not ex- ceeding the existing floor area of the Plum Tree Inn, this first step would be a relatively simple review process, with subdivision review being the only approval necessary. A developer intending to pursue the option of future addi- tions to the facility would be required to take the second step of rezoning the property and then seeking voter approval and growth management allocation for the expansion. The Planning Office recommends that the rezoning be to a new zone, "Golf Course Support Overlay District"oand that it be pursued only if the developer is committed to requesting an expansion of the existing facility and the voters have approved the expansion plans. ~^', ,;.,:i;..~,<>':",l<,'::_:;',';;' ,;"..",..;...,.,.":.,,....... """'''':;:'~'''''''''''. ".....;..;:.',." ~i>.'.:& ,.. 3 1""'\ .~ . ,I, ,". Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office . . 130 south galena:street aspen, co lor a d 0.81611 v ME~10RAUDUM .. TO: Monroe Summers FROM: Alan Richman RE: Pl um Tree Inn f{oncon'form;ng Use Status DATE: June 22, 1981 Background: Most persons connected in any way with the proposed sale of the Plum Tree Inn are aware of its status as a nonconforming use. However, most persons do not have a complete understanding of the limitations that nonconformity places orr the re-development of the property, nor of the,methods available to eliminate the non- conforming nature of the use. This memorandum, therefore, seeks to set out several alternative approaches which a developer might consider if he were to purchase the Plum Tree Inn from the City.of Aspen. Current Constraints: The Plum Tree Inn is a lodge use located in the "Park" zone district, and as such, is a nonconforming use. Section 24-13.4 of the Code, "Nonconforming uses of structure or of structures and premises in combination" imposes the following limitations to development of the Plum ,Tree Inn under its current status: 1. The structure shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered except in changing the use to a permitted use in the zone district. 2. The nonconforming use may be extended within the building but not to occupy land outside such building. 3. The use of the structure may be changed to another use of the same or higher classification if no structural alter- ations are made. , 4. Uses discontinued for more thQn one year shall subsequently be used in conformity with the zone district regulations. The second ,constraint upon the development of the property is the terms of the ballot referendum passed by the voters on May 5, 1981. The limitations of that 'ballot issue include: ." Monroe Summers June 22, 1981' Page Two Ava il ab 1 e Alterna- tives: . 1""., ~ 1. Development of the site must be for use as short-j::erm touri st accommodations in conjunction with golf course support facilities. 2. The existing accommodations are permitted to be replaced by not more than fifty bedrooms (the number currently at the Plum Tree Inn). 3. The existing' floor area of the Plum Tree Inn is the maximum allowable size for the development of the property. 4. Should additional development be sought for the property, it must be approved by a majority of the voters and any necessary develop- ment allotment must be obtai.ned pursuant to the Growth r~anagement Quota System (Article 24-11 of the Code). 5. Council will sponsor, and enact such zoning legislation as may be necessary to accomplish the sale. There are two major categories of alternatives available to the developer of the Plum Tree Inn. The developer may either: 1. Renovate or reconstruct the facility as a nonconforming use within the constraints of Sections 24-13.10 and 24-13.11. 2. Rezone the facility to either lodge or residential use and develop as a permitted or conditional use. Each of these alternatives is addressed in detail below. Renovation and Reconstruction Section 24-13.10 of the Code, "Lodge/residential preservation", provides that nonconforming uses are allowed and may be improved if the following conditions are met: 1. If a use is to be renovated (that is, upgraded by an invest- ment of less than fifty percent (50%) of the value of the structure) it shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure. 2. If a use is to be reconstructed (that is, upgraded by an invest- ment of more than fifty percent (50%) of the value of the struc- ture) it shall meet the area and bulk requirements of the under- lying district. 3. In either case, no increase in the number of units or square footage is allowed, and any change in use shall be to a use of the same or higher classification. Monroe SUr.I!Iers June 22, 1981 Page Three ' . t""'\ t""'\ These provisions have the following meaning for a developer of the Plum Tree Inn. A developer could reconstruct the 50 bedrooms in the Plum Tree Inn as either lodge or residential rooms (i.e., with or without kitchens) since lodge is the same classification while residential is a higher classification than the existing use. The park zone has no underlying area and bulk requirements to meet, so the developer would only be limited by the number of units and floor area of the existing building and would not be limited to any degree by its nonconformi ng status. A developer who reconstructs the Plum Tree as a lodge who also wishes to condominiumize the units would need to apply for a sub- division exception and,upon approval, would be eligible to utilize the units as short-term accommodations. A developer who reconstructs the Plum Tree as a multi-family development would need to receive full subdivision approval of the proposal. If the units were also proposed for condominiumization the developer would be further limited by the 6 month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 of the Code and would therefore be precluded from short-terming the units. A developer could renovate the 50 bedrooms in the Plum Tree Inn but would then be saddled with the limitations of its nonconformity.' This would allow changing of use to a higher, but still not per- mitted use, only if no alterations are made to the structure; or changing of use to a permitted use which would allow structural .alter- ations (enlargement, extension, reconstruction, etc.) to be made~ Since none of the permitted or conditional uses in the park zone are related to guest accommodations or residential uses, renovation of the existing building would be an extremely restrictive option for the developer. One further mechanism available to the devaloper as part of the re- novation/reconstruction alternative is the provision that a noncon- . forming lodge may be extended, reconstructed, enlarged or structurally altered for the purpose of constructing deed restricted employee units for the employees of the lodge. Recently'adopted Ordinance 25, Series of 1981 amends Section 24-13.11 to establish a conditional use review process to evaluate the compati bil ity of expansion with the surrounding uses and to require no increase in rental rooms or square footage. This mechanism could provide the developer with the only means of enlarging the Plum Tree Inn as a nonconforming use, although the limitations of the referendum may preclude any expansion of the floor areas, even for employee housing. . Rezoning To entirely avoid the limitations of nonconformity, an applicant would need to pursue a rezoning of the property to either lodge or residential uses. Applications by private landholders to rezone must be submitted by August 15th of each year, with hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission occuring during October. The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, however, may initiate a rezoning at any time. ,-"'" ".- ,,' Monroe Summers June 22, 1981 Page Four Surrunary: . .",- r"-,. ,,-,, The two nearby residential areas, the west Aspen Subdi"vision off Cemetary Land, and the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision, in Pitkin County, are zoned R-15 and RS-30 PUD, respectively. If the approxi- mately 4 acres of land were rezoned as R-15 or R-30, the allowable number of residential units for the property would be approximately 17 in the R-15 zone and 11 in the R-30 zone due to minimum lot area per dwelling unit restrictions. This would permit a developer to construct 16 three-bedroom units and 1 two-bedroom unit in the R-15 zone and meet the 50 bedroom limitation of the referendum. Applica- tion of a residential bonus overlay to this district would double the allowable density if half of the units were restricted within employee housing guidelines. A developer could obtain significant'ly greater flexibility if the property were rezoned to L-2. This zone district permits either lodge or residential uses. The underlying area and bulk require- ments in this zone include a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,250 square feet for a one bedroom residential unit with no FAR requirement; or no minimum lot size per dwelling unit for lodge rooms but an internal FAR of .5:1, increasible to .75:1 if 1/3 of the increasement is devoted to empl?yee housing and with .25:1 of non-unit space. Either the lodge or res identi alopti on wourd appear to be feasible, within the constraints of the ballot referendum, through rezoning to L-2. The major problem with either of these rezoning alternatives is that neither provides a mechanism for the construction of golf course support facilities such as a locker room, pro shop or restaurant. In addition, the rezoning of this property to residential or lodge district status would not be in keeping with the master plan for Aspen. Therefore, a preferable alternative would be the creation of a new zone. "Golf Course Support Overlay District" which could be applied to this property and permit the desired use of the developer. The Planning Office recorrunends that as a first step the developer of the Plum Tree Inn reconstruct the facility through expenditure of at least 50 percent of its value. The reconstruction could be to either lodge or residential use, with the presence or lack of kitchens being the main determinant of the difference. We would caution the developer that if the units are to be condominiumized, the Code would permit their short-term use only as lodge and not as .residential units. For the developer interested only in the development of fifty bedrooms not exceeding the existing floor area of the Plum Tree Inn, this first step would be a relatively simple review process, with sub- division review being the only approval necessary. A developer in- tending to pursue the option of future additions to the facility would be required ,to take the second. step of rezoning the property and then seeking voter approval and growth management allocation for the expansion. The Planning Office recommends that the rezoning be to a new zone, . Monroe Summers June 22. 1981 ' Page Five cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune . ~ t~ "Golf Course Support Overlay District" and that it be-pursued only if the developer is committed to requesting an expansion of the existing facH i ty. ---~- / ./ ~ . r~\. ",.. ~~ ^ . ,CITY OF ASPEN 130 ;southgalena street aspen, colorado 81611 ... 303- 92 5 ~ 2020 . MEMORANDUM TO: Members of City Council FROM: Monroe Summers J1'/~ SUBJECT: Plum Tree In~~tions, , Approved as to form 'Wee ,j{ ity Manage Background On May 5, 1981, the ters approved a ref~rendum granting Council the right, at its discretion, to negot~ate a sale of the property known as the Plum Tree Inn. A copy of the referendum v:erbage, which places certain restrictions' and terms on the sale and use of the property is attached. ~ Many individuals and groups have expressed some interest in the project but to date no one has come forth with any concrete proposals. Most persons connected in any way with the proposed sale of the Plum Tree Inn are aware of its' status as a.nonc=<?I).for~,ng use. Many feel that a general lack of understanding of the limitations _plliat aonconformi typlaces on ,the redeyelopment 0:1; th.~.property" and of r the methods available to eliminate the nonconforming nature of the use, :__.__~J:',e,c.ontributing factors in this ,lack of inter~st. ' This memoradnum, therefore, seeks to set out several alterna- tive approaches which a developer might consider if he were to purchase the Plum Tree Inn or which Council might wish to initiate to expedite the sale or long term lease options. Current Constraints The l:'lum Tree Inn is a lodge use located in the P, (park zone) district and as !;uch, is a nonconforming use. Section 24-13.4 of the Code, "Nonconforming uses of structure or of structures and premises in combination" imposes the following limitations. tlo,' development of the Plum Tree Inn unders its current status: - ". . .,'O,'-".,'.,..c\.......~ ...^'_..,~...,...;...."'....",';.; '.'., "'.c;,;..':'!.._'"' '..~",' .' _, """,,_, ... ....::..".,J.., ,.;.,;,':.t:.;.;...... \.".:~..~.". ~:,,", ~ ,,,"--.. ~-----;.-,--...:Iio.Ij ~, ,-. Memorandum to City Council Plum Tree Inn Options Page TWo 1. The structure shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed moved or structura1'ly altered except in changing the use to a permitted use in the zone district. 2. The nonconforming use may be extended within the building but not to occupy land outside such building. 3. The use of the structure may be changed to another use of the same or higher classification if no structural alter- ' ations are made. 4. Uses discontinued for more than one year shall subsequently be used in conformity with the zone district regulations. ,':.. ,The second constraint upon the development of the property is the terms of the ballot referendum passed by the voters on May 5. The limitations of that ballot issue include: 1. Development of the site must be for use as short~term tourist accommodations in conjunction with golf course support facilities 2. The existing tourist accommodations area may be replaced by not more than fifty bedrooms (the number currently at the Plum Tree Inn). 3. The purchaser will not be permitted to expand the square footage of the eXisting structure'. 4. Should additional development be sought for the property, it must be approved by a majority of the voters and any necessary development allotment must be obtained pursuant to the growth management quota system (Article 24-11 of the Code) . 5. Council will sponsor and enact such zoning.1egis1ation as may be necessary to accomplish the si3;le. Sell Options There are two major categories of alternatives. available to the buyer of the Plum Tree Inn. He may either: 1. Renovate or reconstruct the facility as a nonconforming use within the constraints of Sections 24-13.10 and 24-13.11 2. Rezone the facility to either lodge or residential use and develop as a permitted or conditional use. ,. ..:"=;.",.;.i...",,..~~ 0.;l,L~..:i ,..,-...."...;,;",.", -.."" ,..,,ji.,; r-. ..-" Memorandum to City Council Plum Tree Inn Options Page Three The sell options are defined in detail below. 1. Renovation and Reconstruction, (based on current constraints). Section 24-13.10 of the Code, "Lodge/residential preserva- tion", provides that nonconforming uses are allowed and may be improved if the fOllowing conditions are met: a. "If a use is to be renovated (that is, upgraded by an investment of less than fifty per cent (50%) of the value of the str~cture) it shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure." Meaning for Developer (A developer could renovate the 50 bedrooms in the Plum Tree Inn but would then be saddled with the limitation of its nonconformity. This would allow changing of use to a higher, but still not permitted use, only if no alterations are made to the structure; or changing of use to a permitted use which would allow structural alterations ,(enlargement, . extension, reconstruction, etc.) to be made. Since none of the permitted or conditonal uses''''in the P, park zone arE!' related to guest accommodations or residential uses, renovation of the existing building would be an extremely restrictive option for the developer.) b. "If a use is to be reconstructed (that is, upgraded by an investment of more than fifty per cent (50%) of the value of the structure) it shall meet the area and bulk requirements of the underlying district." c. "In either case, no increase in the number of units or square footage is allowed, and any change in use shall be to a use of the same or higher classification." Meaning for Develop~r (A developer could reconstruct the 5~ bedrooms in the Plum Tree Inn as either lodge or residential rooms (i.e., witth,cor witho.ut kitchens) 'jsince lodge ',!i.:s the same classification while residential ~s a higher classification than the existing use. The park zone has no underlying area and bulk requirements to meet, so the developer would only be limited by the number of units and floor area of the existing building and would not be limited to any degree by its nonconforming status. i'.<...., ;>;.;~,',(,. .' -_....;.._.~_.,.._:,-,......._.- 1... ",......, ",......, Memorandum to City Council Plum Tree Inn Options Page Four A developer who reconstructs the Plum Tree as a lodge who also wishes to condominiumize the units would need to apply for a subdivision exception and upon approval, would be eligible to utilize the units as short-term accommodations. A developer who reconstructs the Plum , Tree as a mUlti-family development would need to receive full subdivision approval of the proposal. If the units were also proposed for condominiumization the developer would be further limited by the six- month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 of the Code and would therefore be precluded from short- terming the units.y One further mechansim available to.the.developer as part of the renovation/reconstruction alternative is the provision that a non- confomring lodge may be extended, reconstructed, enlarged or structurally alt.ered for the purpose of constructing deed restricted employee units for the employees of the 'lodge. Recently adopted Ordinance 26, Series of 1981, amends Section 24-13.11 to establish a conditional use review process to evalua,te the compatibility of expansion with the surrounding uses and to require no increase in rental rooms or square footage. . This mechanism could provide the developer with the only means o,f enlarging the", Plum Tree Inn as i'\.. nonconforming use, although the limitatIons of the referendum may preclude any expansion of the floor areas, even for employee housing. '. 2. Rezoning To entirely avoid the limitations of nonconformity, an applicant or Council, would need to pursue a rezoning of the property to either ,lodge or residential uses. Applications by private landholders to rezone must be submitted by August 15th of each year, with hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission occuring during October. The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, however, may initiate a rezoning at any time. a. Existing zone designations available The two nearby residential areas, the west Aspen Subdiv- ision off Cemetery Lane, and the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision, in Pitkin Ca.unty, are zoned R-IS and RS-3f> pun, respectively. If the approximately 4 acres of land were rezoned as R-lS or R-30, the allow- able number of residentail units for the property would be approximatelY 17 in the a-IS zone and 11 in the R-30zone due to minimum lot area per dwelling unit restrictions. This woald permit a developer to construct 16 three-bedroom units and 1 two-bedroom unit in the R-lS zone and meet the 50 bedroom limitation of the referendum. Applic ation of a residential bonus overlay to this district would double the allowable density if h~lf of the units were' restricted within employee housing guidelines. 1"'"'. ~1emorandum to City Council Plum Tree Inn Options Page Five ~ A'developer could obtain significantly greater flexibility if the property were rezoned to L-2. This zone district permits either lodge or residential use,s. The underlying area and bulk requirements in this zone include a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,250 square feet for a one bedroom residential unit with no FAR requirement; or no minimum lot size per dwelling unit for lodge rooms but an internal FAR of .5:1, increasible to .75:1 if 1/3'of the increasement is devoted to employee housing and with .25:1 of non-unit space. Either the lodge or residential option would appear to be feasible, within the constraints of the ballot referen- dum, through rezoning to L-2. b. ~eating an overlay zone The major problem with either of the above rezoning alternatives is that neither provides a mechanism for the construction of golf course support fac1lities such as a locker room, pro shop or restaurant. In addition, the rezoning of this property to residential or lodge district status would not be in keeping with the master plan for Aspen., Therefore, a preferable alternative would be the c1:'eation of a new zone. "~olf Course Support Overlay District" which could be applied to this property and permit the desired use of the developer. If Council supports this concept, then it can proceed through either of two different courses of action. ,1. Council may wish to accept an offer which is predicated on a rezoning request initiated by the buyer(s) as'necessary to effect his wishes assuming Council finds his proposal acceptable and within the constraints of the referendum verbage. 2. Council may wish to sponsor an amendment to the zoning code creating an "Overlay Zone" wherein the City defines the per- milt ted,l.uses and constraints placed on the property. Procedure Staff can proceed to place into effect all of the above Plum Tree options with the exception of the zoning code "overlay" initiative without an immediate motion. If Council wishes to sponsor an initiative, then the sug'B'ested motion and procedure would be as follows: ...-:.,....:: ...:..~'.."'..---.;..,_ ";',"...",",'-k ._ "."'...,...~,.'(... ., ...._..;,....;...;~..,_.:,- r-, ,-." Memorandum to City Council Plum Tree Inn Options Page Six ,"Move to sponsor and initiate an amendment to the text of the Aspen Zoning Code. The amendment is the creation of a new overlay zone called a 'Golf Course Support Overlay for the Park Zone'. Further move to appoint a committee composed of staff, Council and the private sector to prepare recommendations for restrictions and permitted uses within the new overlay zone." Suggested and required steps to facilitate the initiative , are as follows: 1- to meet zone. Immediately fOllowing an approved motion, form a committee with planning and resolve criteria for the proposed overlay 2. The Planning Office prepares recommended language to be presented to P&Z at a public hearing (15 days official notice " required - August lath at the earliest). 3. P & Z recommendations to Council - Council First Reading on the Ordinance. 4. Council Second Reading and public hearing on the Ordinance, 5. We should realistically allow for a minimum of' 60 days on this initiative. Lease Options There is a current school of thought which says that the community's interest might best be served by entering into a long term lease and maintaining control of the property. It is doubtful that anyone would wish to lease the property as is. One possible benefit to a proper lease might be that the leasee, having minimized his initial capital expenditure, could apply some of the saving to the renovation/reconstruction of the lodge and the development of the golf course amenities. It would appear that a lease option could be considered under any of the preceeding sell option scenarios, renovation/reconstruc- tion being the most likely. In the event that an investor required rezoning under a lease arrangement it would probably be incumbent on Council to sponsor the initiative. Obviously pursuit of a lease option arrangement is predicated on sufficient interest and invest- ment commitment from the private sector. MS:ds . . ~ ~. o )> (t' a- ~ ~ t'D C :,"",3 ~ " ::I o ~a: ;. 3 N'l.\l ~ (") t'D ;:, ~ ~Q. 5' o;t~~ ~:ao- ~ -. Co I"l t'D tT.: ::l /'tI ;E ::r.., a::l ""t l.\l "C t: f'b(;' rtl t"D ~ 0 ....." -< - ~ s~,~ ~ 5' :a ~ ~;.a.~ " _::I c:r::l :r!'"' I'f) t'D (t) .- l.\l~.....\:r 0.. "," (lJ 0" "C J:I c'< "'" ~ .., ~ ~ ...< ....ft) t'D re C'" a- s ~ 'g < . 0. ~ 3:E~" "'" " ,,(tl - 0 II'> ::r~~~ t'D ~"'C :r 0- ~. ~ oa g g .S" a. 0.. .., oe ~ (f) (b_f'..:l o..e:Q~ c.. I'D ~ w t'DVI.....'\.o "crO :r..a _-.1"1).....\ ~ ::I " 0 ~.(JC ("l ~ :e .1.\1 - " ~ ,;.J :>> ~ ] &: ~ ~=o...~ !.~g. -o=~ ;'b=: :."O.::l I't ... = 0 0 ~ c=.~~~;c:o"":a :: 0 ~...::; '" :'..000.;. ."'~ &.~.Q 5'3 o~~ -"';3~~;rO'g- s-.~ 0 ... .... _, ::. ... Q.. :;., .,,~: :: =- ~ ~ g ;. yo tC 0 ~ ~. III ....." =' '< o ; n. 0.. ~] =-"':1 ... C oo~:~~.v.~c -, 0.. ~ ~ ;!!..Jl.>,,:,.., > C ...' 3 ." ;:; 2:.2 (5 -: '" ; g- iii ~ -=:: a. 1Cl ~."5 g.;:~a<?c:::~i;:- ~;' Q. Q. ~.~ go.g ::I 0 s.: _a8C-!lo,;"'Ig ~ a.~'l~';'~ =;.~ S'a:Q.~~~S'::- = 0 III :I !'Il I'l OQ o ::I g :I ~ ... Jl.> S' ~ -.:; yo =: ~ ... ::I llol :.; r:r II> Q,> = ::r Q..:: _" o ... :::I ~ Ill;." Jl.> '" &. ~ Q. '" ~ II> ~ gg Q ~ Q;a ~ !'Il ~ ~ ~ ~. ::!.~ ;r... ~::r ~ ~ c.. o -. ... E; " O"':::l I'l ...~~."~oOQ_",, o U;' :::I ... ~ ... E ." ~ ~. 0.. ;;=' ~ =~.'S~~'o("';5.~ c Fg"::r~ g"~''i... ;. III !"I . ~ '< b ~. ~ ~ VI 3 ; '<~'c:~;::a;~o~ !. ... Jl.> g ;; -. ... c ;. r;.=.. 0 r; a ~. !2eQ.3'a=~c~ .S'tr~ ~~-" !. ~, ~ = 0 ~ ~ 0 g ;'~Q.~~~.3;-? gcg~~~~~? .... e:< ~ ~ Q.:;'c ~ ']Il 1l>~~e:~3~~~ ~ == ==... ~ qQ OQ qQ !.. W 'I -< " '" I"'" ?S ~ ;;;.~ ;j ~ :;: <: ('l ... "0 -l ;:;. ::f Cl ~ (t !. :r 'tl~S!i:;o': 3' a-" .... I'D ::I ~ _'<:ro~~Q;I S.8:'~501)~' S =. =."'0 ~... 1'1) (t ::I 0 r!) Vt ~. I"*l g-~~~~:g =0 1'1)::1 ... Q.l ::I 0.._ t"l r:::r c ;:rio..~~~.~- :r:::"~;'..::"'C" ~~.....(t(l.ls-g s'-i"Q;t'tlo. oc~'O<=rS'- ;:; ::I CVl~ 0;" ;- :i' 0..!'t!~Q.::ri;Q.; c: ":r (C 'tl ~ ,::; ~g.e;~;:...:r 0.. c..5' 'C ~ ~ ae "P"Cae:~::Iltlo- cO'03-- ;:;-'0 :rO'" =r I'C :E l't) Itl : e; Cl ::ll'tl ~ :3 ::r 3 ~. VI ... \I'> c: 'tl ~ss.g-=.cr; "C:E;'8~.g~. ~::" 3~ 0..'0 ftl ;::;: c..1'I) -~ 01 "'::ro_.cr~;:::;: ....~::Io:r'< /'t) ... ~ .::1 Itl Cl ~ .1Jt ftl 0..::1 I"*l '< .... Q.l 5' C 3 ~;. m a Q.l I'D ['joc;:o!.< .=.;::;:-< ~ 0'- 9.. -< :...:r Q.; ;:0 g.. ~ ~. ~ ;. Q.l t't !'t! - I'D :: e; IJt i; Q.l o..N "0 - \I'> \I'> i'!) re !'t! 2- s:-::"'~\C;:;.~ ~ - o 3' ." <:<3 o < Cl ~ .1'1 ('tI flI ~ == -< ::l ~ ~ Q..~ '" " o ><,0 ., ;; g: 2::1 _. o o..~ o ..... :=. ::: =-0 ~ " ::l ;-'Q= ~ 0 ~"< :1 _fn"'Q.. C~:;;' ~ " ~ :rtD~ .. .. '" '" '" ::; 3 ~ N <..C 2 o ~,.'~ .... :r " ~ " ;;; ~ ~ < ~ ;; 3 3' '0 a < '" 3 " ::l - ~ " .. " 3' 3 " 0.. g;' - " ::I ,~ 0.. ~ ~ " .. ~ " ::l ~ ~ " < " ::I " " ~ '" ~ " ::I o - ~ ~ ;:; is' ;a sr '0 " < .. ~ -< o " '" o '0 ~ o iii' Z ~ :;. " .,., 0-" g 2' 0..;;; ~ ~ ~ -. " =r; o-~ " " '" " '" ~ 0:0' o 3 < " " ~ ~ ~ ;.. ~. " ;; ~ x :r - " ~ v: " <:;. " " E; " ~ 0 ~ - Q.. :;. '" ~ '" ~ '" ~ 3' '0 .. o < '" 3 " ::I - ~ '" ,;- " '" ~ ~ '" =- <: :'" ii'~ ,- '" " '" ~ < ~ .~ Cl '" ;; -< o S' " q , " IIC '" o ~ '" 0; a " '(6' 01 " ::I :;:'0- " ~ :r " !!. -0.. 0.._ ~ 0 '" .go ::;. 'C '" " ~ 5" n " " ~ ::I " - '" " ~ '" " " ~ :r 0< -" " '" '" ~ 0' " ~ .....0- ~g 0.. .t""', '" o ::I 0.. - :;' '" ::I " :i' IIC ;;; ~ ~ ~ ;. '" ... IV ~ W ~ ~ ~ '0 .. '" ~ " ;a < " 2" " '" '" < :;' IIC ~ - ~~ 3~=r "0-<-< ~ I 0)>= <(1)0 t'D I :s 3<c.. t'Dg.,., :s I _0 ""C1:S "'CO~ O~ ...:S "'r") t;O ~ :r n~CJQ ,...,... ~t'D< ~ t'D ~ (I) C c,; ~ ~ ~ ;. ~ =- ~ ~. ~ !. ~ ;. ~ '= ~~~I~o~~._;f&~'&3 ~~~ ~ ~~ <~.- ~~&~0~-~~ ~~r~?~~!.:~s~~;;~~-'~_ _3:.......c .-o'-,-,<"l=:'= ; s- ".t.>.= 0 -0. ~ = a. c :: = ~ ;;..' ~ =: ._, r.I ::;' = 0.... . ..... _ ., r~~" ~.~~~ ~g::""~~~~ e.n'~ ;'.;;~.c"" -'g'c~:.~:; 0 g ~ g~g~:~~~~[~~..i~~_~~~~ l~~!.ar!~=~Q.3.',:as-~~~~ =~=.c~;'~l'Il"':'"'~ Q,.l'Il"" .... :;-~ ~. ell>'" 0." ;- >-l ~ .... ~ 0': n.'" ? g !" 2 =~~~.:: :r;'~"':l Q..::;.d"'~:; ~ .. III "" f't=_,Q,.c=,,<~o~o. ~ ~ CIl ~;; 2. ~ "tl cg;; c; ~ ; ~ ~ e- ~ ~ ~ O".g ~ ~ ~.;; ~ ~ g ] ~ '< (j o::':;3'tS::.-=:::I"''''"':J ...=~ ~O -'c=~3=",$I.>~.....o~n<o=c. ....<"l-...o't>"~"'-~::;:J=""-.o l~' ;~~. ~'~n~;E:~E~ :: S g 3 ~ ~;:~:g W =::; ~; ~ ';'S. ~~.~ E.1'l Se;i;i:?:.... =~ ~....c Q.~c...~qQ=~:r~ i"o.. O'o.....~o~ ;g~~3&:;~~ ...3..::.;=~o -... i E" g:;~ g' ~ ~ ~: .~.' : ~ g" 3 .; !.g" iI;; ~~.~~ ..a.Q~S - 0._ 3==>-l_z~~2~~ = ~ =. " .:. c... ... ... -, " ~.3 ;.::t>:; ;:;::o;;.._.~_~-o .~O.., "c-Q,,"tlw~~g-,E~. g.~ ~3 ~ Q..~ ~.:; :r"""~'~' -''3" .~.~3~ oo=I'\~~::...g;. ~ ~ ~ -. ~ ('l ::.;';:' to> II> ~ 0. ~ .o".~' g ~ '0 ~ ~ 0 :; ~] a..~ U H ~ !n il~3t~~ ;:;.~ S' .....~. if ~;- /ii' ::. '=-9~ .4>0 :.< ~ 0 a. ~ ~ ~ g :s;: g. ~ ~ :!'. ~ 3' :a- l!: '"0 I'll ..S: C = C "I :.. ~ ;' g ~ g. ;.g !r: ~~~a~a.~~~~ ,,3 ~os.. ~:;~sg:; ::""~ g"g. ~;;:~ or;....~'c.Q. g:;,o o Iii' .... < ~ r;.:; $1.>::: ~ :;-~ '" a.-.r og~' o,:j~.a.~:l. ~~~ 'S- ;.:ra 0" ~Dl 1\1 R.QQ...... :: N co -< " ~ '" " ~ " " ;a - :r '" ::I " "t:: 3' ~~ . "'" <3 0." r; ~ -<'" " Q. ~ '" o ". ... ;;- 20 o ..., o. ;. = .~ ;''''Q " C ~3 o~ ~. ~ ~ ;- ::I IU (") ;:;. '" o ..., :> ~ ." 3 C"l o C ~ ~3:c.n 0=:> :. s: " "'" -. t'"' 1i m ;= -:> ~ t- :. r"* o 0 ::I >oj s: " '" en .... '" 00 .... " , t""'- r>-, TO: City Council .A ,Ill t4onroe summersf/f/.tIl)/ F'ROt4: DATE: January 20, 1981 S UB,TECT : Plum Tree Inn Sale Selection Committee Evaluations Approved for submisSion to City council~ cit Background On September 8, 1980 we requested direction from Council concerning disposition of the City owned Plum Tree Inn. Council voted at that time to authorize staff to: e Contract for an opinion of value . Solicit, accept, evaluate and qualify all offers received before 12/1/80 - presenting the results of same to C9uncil. . Approved real estate commissions of 6% across the board where applicable. Five offers were received prior to the deadline and were opened simultaneously by the Selection Committee on 12/1/80. Three meetings of the Selection Committee were held subsequent to December 1. During this time, the attached uniform selection criteria was adopted and offerors were given an opportunity to give oral presentations to the Committee. Departmental study and recommendation assignments were also made, asking individual committee members to report on those items of the selection criteria which most closely related to their particular discipline or field of expertise. On January 16 we met to synthesize the results of our individual studies and interdisciplinary recommendations into an arithmatic , rating system designed to identify which,offers moSt closely satisfied ,the overall selection criteria. In as much as the majority of the criteria deal with adopted land use pOlicies, ordinances and codes, it was felt the resulting rating priorities would be the most accurate reflection of community sentiment. Even with low growth and minimal impact considerations taken into account by this rating, we still must eventually deal with the reality of the Plum Tree as a nonconforming use before we can enter into serious negotiations with the offeror which you select. , f""""\, r-.. Recommendations In order to expedite the process I have refrained from incl~ding 'voluminous data in this memorandum. Attached you will find: 1. A brown bound booklet which contains complete copies of all correspondence which has transpired to date including all five offers as we' received them. 2. A brief synopsis of each offer. 3. The list of selection criteria and the final ratings adopted by the committee for submission to Council. (Please note that the lowest numerical score represents the highest rating priority.) During our work/study session on 1/20/81 we will review the items on the selection criteria and furnish rational for the ratings, we as a Committee, have adopted. The position we have taken with the offerors is that we will present all offers to Council, opening negotiations with Council's first priority selection. If negotia- tions are unsuccessful, we will move on to priority number two, etc. Council Action If Council concurs with and accepts the Committee's recommendations, the proper motion is: "I' move to accept the committee's recommendations giving the offerors priority as follows: 1. Red Roof Inns 2. Aspen Park 3 . HBR Group 4. Moore-Bird Group 5. Hans of Aspen I further move to instruct staff to proceed with negotiations, prepare presentations for p&Z, and schedule a special referen- dum prior to March 1, 1981, if required and appropriate." OR If Council disagrees with the Committee's recommendations, the proper motion is: "I move to deny the Committee's recommendations and establish the following offeror priorities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I further move to instruct staff to proceed with negotiations, prepare presentations forP&Z, and schedule a special referen- dum prior to March 1, 1981, if required and appropriate." "f MS:ds Attachments I I , . ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: City Council of the City of Aspen Hans R. Gramiger, Hans of ASPEN REALTY Plum Tree Inn redevelopment proposals January 20, 1981 In your regular meeting of September 4, 1980, YOU authorized your staff to solicit "imaginative" proposals for the disposition of the currently city owned Plum Tree Inn. " A screening committee of City staff members was formed to evaluate the five proposals received by December 1st, 1980. Hans OL ASPEN REALTY represents a principal who is willing to build on the east bank of Maroon Creek a 360 unit full service resort complex with conv~ntion facilities. It is obvious that such a redevelopment of the present non-conforming use will need a major philosophical and (for lack of a better word) political look at the pros and cons. We believe that Aspen should have at least one large resort hotel convention complex with as many spring, summer and fall amenities as possible. I know of no better site than the east bank of Maroon Creek with the open space of the golf course and the open space of the Zoline property on top of the west bank. ',., Our proposal stands on its own merits. We are not after a quick get rich condominiumized or time-shared, fractional-interest gimmick or a typical highway-traffic oriented motel. As a matter of fact we invite a deed or lease restriction prohibitina future subdivision (which would effectively prohibit oondominiumization). - 1 - ,-., ^ ~ to: City Council of Aspen page two 01-20-81 Ours is a give and take proposal from the point of view that we will give the town of Aspen something. that Aspen needs very badly and in order to accomplish this we must have very strong cooperation from the city. In our opinion a new Maroon Creek bridge adjacent to the existing bridge to the north is a certainty. Therefore we have opted to build the resort hotel a considerable distance away from the highway corridor and we are satisfied with access from the highway via the general access to .thegolf course or by way of a frontage road on the golf course side or on the Tennis Club Subdivision side of the highway which will connect with the proposed modernized Prince of Peace Chappel intersection. We do not wish to be on the highway nor ~o we solicit for a vari- ance for a sign on the highway. My principals want to build up a truly destination resort and convention complex which thrives strictly on pre-booked reservations. This community and its elected officials must make the very difficult decision whether or not and to what degree and in what fashion we can survive without having to succumb to the worldwide trend of the "resort-industry" to provide luxury type resort hotel complexes with convention facilities on the site. This may be your most difficult philosophical/political decision in your career as elected officials but do not despair because an economic study most assuredly would provide you with a sound rationale. I am authorized to state here that my principals would be willing to financially participate with you in a study by a recognized consultant of your choosing to address this question. - 0 00- , I"""'-- .1"', ~"', \' '.;;'''' Real Estate Brokerage and Consulting m January 19, 1981 The Mayor of Aspen City Council Members It has been our privilege to be involved on a first-hemd basis in working with the City onasolution of the Plum Tree Inn situation. The members of the ranking committee, in particular Alan Richman of the planning office, were very thorough. We were not able, at the time of the ranking process, to interject or comment on the outcome of the rankings for each criteria; We would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on the Aspen Park Proposal. The following areas, we feel, are of major Concern to the City and electorate and should be re-emphasized for the City Council's consideration: 1. Employee Housing 2. Condominiumized Lodge Units 3. Price 4. Aspen Park's Comments on the Ranking Report 5. The "Opinion of value" as prepared for the City by James J. Mollica and Associates (included in Aspen Park's oringinal proposal) 6. Discussion of Other Proposals We feel that the Aspen Park Proposal is the best possible solution to meet the needs and desires of the Aspen community. We ask that the Council review the Aspen Park Proposal thoroughly and weigh the pros 'and cons of the qualified proposals evenly. If there are any questions on any point, do not hesitate to call us. /Jr~ Mark P. Hesselschwerdt ASPEN 'REALTY EXCHANGE, INC. FOR COLORADO REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, INC. MPH/gp Po,t Orfic~ Box 3123 Asren, Colorado 8161 I 303925.4513 I""'< t"""\ ASPEN PARK PROPOSAL January 19, 1981 We feel there are SDme misunderstandings by the City staff cDncerning the Aspen Park PrDposal. We wDuld like tD address these specific areas Df misunderstanding and clearly state Dur pDsiticm. 1. EmplDyee HDusing and Aspen Park prDpDsal AccDrding to the preliminary "OpiniDn Df Value" fDr the Plum Tree Inn, Aspen, CDloradD prepared fDr MDnrDe Summers by James J. MDllica and AssDciates (a complete copy Df which was included in our original prD- pDsal package submitted on December I, 1980), the construction of employee hDusing cDuld present visual Dr Dther prDblems. I qUDte Mr. Mollica, "EmplDyee units are essential fDr the success Df a lodge facility Df this nature. Key employees such as assistant manager, night desk clerks,auditDrs, barmen and breakfast cDDks shDuld be hDused Dnthe premises. This wDuld ensure high-quality DperatiDn, management and maintenance. It is my DpiniDn that these emplDyee facilities can be fairly basic and cDnsidered Dn a rental basis, Dwnedby the assDciation. I do nDt feel'that a typical employee hDusing project (i.e., Water Plant) ShDUld be considered on.this highly visible and valuable amenity tD the City Df Aspen." . Our positiDn fully agrees with Mollica's conclusiDns. We are hereby indicating our full intentiDn tD prDvide Dn-site hDusing fDr the key people of the lodge/restaurant staff. Our plans wDuld call for staff housing for between 10 and 20 employees. The,exact number of units should be available upon further architectural wDrk and a IDdge/restaurant employee hDusing need study. The Housing Action Plan, as stated on Page 3 of the planning Dffice memorandum of January 13, 1981, states, "based on criteria developed in that plan (Housing Action Plan), the area tD the west Df Aspen was judged tD be an imprDper IDcatiDn for large concentratiDns of emplDyee hDusing." We dD fully agree with the Housing ActiDn Plan and Jim Mollica which indicates 'the Plum Tree site unsuitable for concentrations of emplDyee housing along the lines Df the LDne pine Project, Water Plant PrDject, etc. In-hDuse emplDyee housing, as we have indicated, would nDt cDntradict MDllica Dr the Housing ActiDn Plan, but still prDvide necessary, relevant emplDyee hDusing for the, Aspen park' prDject. ' - 1 - ;'LJ , , , i I ! I 1'"'\ ~ As we have stated at our verbal and visual presentation of December 16, 1980 and reiterated by Mark Hesselschwerdt to Monroe Summers on December 22, 1980, Aspen Park would be agreeable to cooperating with the City concerning the construction of employee housing at some other site, if the City deemed this solution more acceptable. 2. Aspen Park's Condominiumized Lodge Units A second area of misunderstanding by the planning office conce,rns the use of the to-be-constructed lodge units. We, in no way, intend these condominiumized lodge units to be occupied as primary dwelling or to sit empty with absentee owners. It is our understanding that the Securities and Exchange Commission precludes anyone from insisting on managing units that are for sale without costly S.E.C. registration. However, if possible, we would be agreeable to limiting owner use during the winter season according to City Ordinances No. 14 and 15. Archi,tecturally, our plans for the 2 and 3 bedroom condominium/lodge units will include a separate bedroom/bath lock-off system. This will allow the flexibility necessary to accommodate overnight guests, single individuals, etc. Our plan includes the necessary amenities to run a 24-hour tourist oriented short-term rental facility, including night desk, in-house maid service, etc. 3.' Price Structure The Aspen Park original plan evolved by trying to keep density to a minimum yet generate enough economic strength to: A.) Finance the construction of a quality country club facility. B.) Reward the City monetarily for the land to be purchased. We feel that our's is the best proposal given these criteria. We would like to officially 'alter our proposal to indicate that, if the City would like to see a higher cash offer from the Aspen Park Proposal, we will pay the City of Aspen Four Million Dollars ($4,OOO,OOO) ,if the City will allow Aspen Park to increase it's density from 50 free market units to '65 free market units (with the additional 10-20 employee units as previously indicated). 4. Aspen Park's Comments on the Ranking Report The following is a point-by-point explanation of Aspen Park's position with regard to the criteria for ranking as set forth by the City's ranking committee. The point ,numbers refer to corresponding criteria from the committee's worksheet. - 2 - 1""'\ ~ Point IB (1973 Aspen Land Use Plan) The Aspen Park Ptoposal was arbitrarily ranked behind Red Roofs and HBR. The land use plan asks for five points. They ate as follows: 1. Preserve and create scenic views from public places. Aspen Park is the only project to indicate in writilf9 that they would have the utility lines buried along the highway to improve the view from both the lodge suites and the public facilities. 2. Increase the number of employee units. Aspen Park plans to include employee housing for in-house staff, as we have pr~viously stated. 3. Hold level of growth below the past. Aspen Park received a #1 ranking 'concerning the G.M.P. {;' 4. strengthen the community's economic base and,: encourage diversity of quality recreation. Aspen Park is the only proposal to: a.) Indicate the tennis courts would remain available to ;"the public. b.) Indicate a major renovation of the swimming pool, sun- bathing area and keep itopen to the public. c.) Indicate a quality, first class facility to compliment the municipal golf cou~se, including capital expenditures for a pro shop, cart storage,~T~. 5. The land use Plan's last point asks that the projects preserve the communi tie's natural resources and promote high quality development. Aspen Park is the only project to indicate, in detail,'the high quality construction planned by the developers as set forward by Fritz Benedict and Associates. Aspen Park will preserve the natural resource of the golf course by designing a compatible project. Aspen Park has also promised extensive landscaping to add to the quality of the whole area, including berms and natural waterways (see site plan) . Point Ie (Buttermilk Land Use Plan) Again, the proposals incorporating use of the existing building were improperly ranked ahead of Aspen Park. The IluttermilkLa,nd Use Plan calls for the retention of open space and views. The Aspen Park project would be much more aesthetically pleasing than the existing building (as indicated by by a #1 ranking for visual impact) . ,. - 3 - ,r. J "....., '.~ Point ID (!lousing. Action Plan) The Aspen p'ark project was ranked last in ' employee housing units due to the staff's misunderstanding of the employee housing we would be providing. We feel we have cleared up the employee housing questions earlier in this docu- ment. There are several points in our proposal that could indicate Aspen park the best proposal for employee housing. Point IE (Open Space Plan) Once again the Aspen Park project, although using no lIlore land than either the Red Roof Inn or !lBR proposal is penalized for no apparent reason. Actually, the Aspen Park project is the only proposal to make a visual presentation with illustrations as to how. the projected development would enhance the open areas through landscaping and extensive use of the on-site water for streams and ponds. Again, how can a #3 rating be justified? Point IF (Trails) PointlG. (Transportation) Point'lll'{AirportMasterPlan) The ranking show that none of the five proposals wer,e much affected by these, three policies. point#lI (Existing Zoning Conflict) This category is merely a ranking of the point totals for the afore- mentioned criteria and, because of the inaccuracies involving Aspen Park, this criteria is again misleading and we are subjected to double jeopardy. Point 2 ' (Compatibility 'with Surrounding Land 'Use This criteria, as explained in planning .office summary, was the open space and recreational use and was "therefore rated in an identical fashion to the Buttermilk and open space plans;'" We are being jeopardized twice to the erroneous previous ranking. Point '3 (Density) The Aspen Park project felt that the important factors to the people of Aspen would be: 1.) Compliance with the G.M.P. 2.) Density 3.) Quality (visual impact see Point #4) 4.) Developer strength (see Point #10) - 4 - t""" ,1""'\ The Aspen Park group has designed the project around these primary criteria. We have indicated to the City Qn several occasions, both verbally and in writing that if the City would like a.) more money for the acquisition, b.) employee housing on-site or elsewhere, or c.) any changes at all that the Aspen Park proposal is extremely flexible. Point 4 (Visual Impact Our #1 ranking indicates our sincere attempt and emphasis on making Aspen Park the best visually acceptable project remedy to the hodgepodge associated with the Plum Tree Inn's existing layout, The committment to major landscaping, first class construction and renovation and the incorpora- ting of Fritz Benedict, Ted Mularz and AssQciates as architects reflects this desire to creale the finest project possible, fully attuned to what Aspen would 'expect and admire'. Point 9 (Employee Housing Impact) This is the last point handled by the planning department. Again, their summary alludes to Aspen Park having no employee housing. This is not fact. Please refer to .our previously stated position on employee housing (Page 1 of this report). Summary to Planning Office Evaluation . There are two summaries in the planning office evaluation that speculate on the Aspen Park proposal. The first su~~ary (beginning on Page 4 under eval.uation of proposals) speculates on th,e "certain liabilities" and "major drawbacks" that simply are not true. The planning office evaluation points out the advantages of, visual impact (aesthetics), density and compliance with F.M.P., but incorrectly states,there will be no employee housing and speculates on "improper c1evelopment" having a negative impact on open space and recreation functions. It is our opinion that allowing the con- tinuation of the existing building would be a mistake. That structure is 17 years old. It is below current code and is not a well constructed or an attractive building. The evaluation alludes wrongfUlly to the 50 condo- miniums not being in the tourist short-term rental pool. On page 7 in the summary of the planning office evaluation. The planning office indicates that there is a choice between: 1.) the proposals that retain the existing structure, and 2.) ,the Aspen Park proposal that offers the City a first class alternative to the existing structural problems. If all of the developers involved could start from Tree property, we feel certain no one would create what scratch with the Plum is ,there now structurewise. - 5 - " .> ,~ , ,.-., ,""" It rs a classic case of poor layout and architectural planning, The Aspen Park project concurs with the Opinion of Value from James J. Mollica & 'Asso- ciates. Paragraph #8 is reprinted for your reivew. "The subject's current building is in fair condition at best. It requires substantial improvements in order to make it a viable summer tourist attraction. Based upon the memo from Monroe Summers, it appears that substantial roof maintenance is necessary, along with complete remodeling of nearly all the rooms. . After analyzing the lay- out, condition and quality of the facility; it is my recommendation that the new purchaser be allowed to raze the current structure from the site and to build a new structure offering a better layout, quality and design appeal. In order to complete this adequately, it may be essential to offer additional parking or additional land." The remaining criteria (Points 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12) were prelimi- narily ranked by the appropriate staff member and approved by vote of staff. We would like to comment on each one on an individual basis. Point 5 (~ourist'Bed Base Effect) Initially, Aspen Park was going to be rated last in tourist bed base effect because of minimal units built (50). Then, it was decided that, because there was 2 and 3 bedroom units, they should count each bedroom. The staff then gave Hans of Aspen a first for 360 units, then second place went to Red Roofs for 69 bedrooms (actually 4th place overall total). Aspen Park third for 112 bedrooms, 4th to HBR for 57 bedrooms and 5th to Moore-Bird for 214 bedrooms. I feel a fuller explanation by the staff could be h~lpful. Point 6 (Compliment 'to Golf 'Course) . It obviously makes more sense that a new structure with $750,000 spent on on-site improvements such as landscaping, etc. is more complimentary to the golf course than a remodel of the existing structure with, no major land- scaping improvements" Our proposal wi 11 work wi thin the land area available and be specially designed to compliment the golf course in it's present 18-hole format. Point 7 (Tax Revenue 'Potential) First of all, the city will gain 3.25to 4 million dollars. Second, the real estate transfer tax will be paid on all sales. This will amount to over $78,000.' Third, the additional revenues from golf course use, sales tax revenue, etc. should be substantially increased. Point 8A (purchase 'Price - Terms) Here again the dollar figure is easily ranked and cash is the best of terms. - 6 - ;-", """'- ,-,., ,-,., Point 8B' (Purchase Price - Acreage) On Point 8B the Aspen Park proposal is penalized in the rankings. Although the Red Roof proposal received a first place ranking, their proposal uses the same amount of acreage as the Aspen Park project, yet Aspen Park received ",second place ranking. what is the explanation? Point 10 (Qualifications of Developer) A. Track Record B. Financial 'Strength This is another il1stance of an'arbitrary decision going against Aspen Park. MonreDe Summers (Chairman of the Ranking Commissee) fOr\iarded the idea that because Red Roofs has build Red Roofs before they were most qualified. We respectfully disagree. The qualifications of the two developing partners in Aspen Park is beyond question. Mr. McGuire and Mr. Burke have extensive expertise in not only hotel and condominium development, but,also in restau- rants, homes, motels and apartments. The list of honors bestowed to these men and the civic contributions in their hometown (Buffalo, New York) can not be matched by anyone. (See resumes provided to the City in the supplement to' the original proposal.) Point 11 (Meeting and Conference Use Potential) This point was handled by taking the three proposals that included con- ference facilitie.s arid ranking them according to size of lodge complex. This formula is open to criticism. The decision that bigger is better is not applicable pere. Use potential might be more adequately defined according to overall design. Our intention is to incorporate a well-designed conference facility that will fully compliment the restaurant, lodge and public ~ecreational facilities. 'point 12 (Site Design Quality) A~ Highway Interface B: Parking The criteria of high1>'ay interface was to indicate how each of the proposals dealt with ingress and egress off of Highway 82. This ranking was handled by the engineering department. Because none of the proposals addressed a new driveway (i.e., highway interface) the staff decided to rank this criteria on who changed the.existing site the least. Again, this logic escapes us. In essence. Red Roof received 2 fewer points than Aspen park (Red Roof ranked In. Aspen Park f3) and neither proposal addressed the issue. Also, the category of parking was addressed by only two proposals, Moore-Bird and Aspen Park, yet the staff gave Moore-Bird a first place and gave everyone else a second. They gave a second place to three proposals that gave no indication as to whether or not they would even offer parking. In summary, we feel that Aspen Park was unduly penalized on a number of points. It was only due to the fact that we could not challenge these points at the time the staff forwarded their opinions (January 16, 1981) that they are now on record. Aspen Park has made every effort to be the best proposal for the City of Aspen and we will do all we can to communicate our position clearly to the City of Aspen., - 7 - 1"', ^ , In the City Council's regular meeting of september 8, 1980, the City Council authorized staff to contract for an opinion of value from a pro- fessional appraiser. This opinion was completed by James J. Mollica and Associates on October 27th, 1980 over a month before the developers pro- posal's deadline. In spite of the fact that his letter of opinion of value was public, Aspen Park was the only proposal to attempt to meet the recommen- dations of this letter. ,In fact, the Aspen Park development process had started over one year before Mr. Mollica's report waS finished and Aspen Park had arrived at the very same conclusions independently. A "top-quality, highly maintained facility" would be the best compliment to the golf course and City's investment there. Aspen Park included Mr. Mollica's report as part of it's original pro- posal, yet, in the rankings, the staff choose to ignore this professional opinion and actually indicated through their votes, that they wanted to keep the existing building. We strongly feel that given the opportunity to explain our proposal in full to the City Council, they will agree that Aspen Park is the best proposal for the golf course, ,Aspen residents and tourist traffic in general. 5.. The .Opinion of Value" as Prepared for the City by James J. Mollica and Associates (included in Aspen Park's original proposal) It is the Aspen Park Development Team's position that the "Opinion of Value" by Jim Mollica is a very relevant and informative document. We <:,sk that all City Council members'kindly review this document and 'be familiar with it's content and conclusions. A complete copy of the subject "Opinion of Value"WAs attached and made a part of Aspen Park's original proposal: , . , .6. Discussion of Other Proposals It is the opinion of the Aspen Park Development group that ours is indeed the most thorough and best thought-out proposal of the five pro- posals before the City for'the Plum Tree Property. , We feel that, for several obvious reasons, there are really only two, qualified offers: 1.) ,Aspen Park, and 2.) The Red Roof Inn Proposal, repre- sented by R. P. (Dick) Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald has made several attempts (i.e., his letter to the City dated December 19, 1980) to discredit the Aspen Park Proposal. We would like to clarify'his "mudding of the waters" and bring to the attention of the Council some major discrepanceis in the Red 'Roof Proposal. To first address the discrepancies and inaccuracies of Mr. Fitzgerald's letters to the City dated December 19,1980 and January 15,1981, 1.1 In his letter dated December 19, 1980, Page 2, Mr. Fitzgerald states that gross income on the rooms would be "$435,000 with good management (far in excess of the past performance)", yet in his letter to the City dated - 8- (""'\ ...-. Janl,lary 15, 1981, Mr. Fitzgerald projects gross room revenue to be $1,050,000.00. Are we tobelieve that 20 additional lodge rooms and the redecorating of the Plum Tree will increase room rental by over 241%? That hardly seems possible. 2.) Mr. Fitzgerald indicates in his letter of December 19, 1980 that the Red Roof Inn has no way of controlling whether or not the sold condominiums will be available for rent. 3.,) Also in his letter of December 19, 1980, Mr. Fi tzger,ald makes erroneous statements concerning the Aspen Park proposal. He states, "the only "proposal- that even comes. close to Truman's is that of Mark Hesselschwerdt who is asking for more property, mOre density and proposing $750,000 less money to the City". A.) In saying Aspen Park wants more land, Mr. Trueman is also asking for the same amount of land. But, he has structured his offer so that he City will be selling him the land necessary for the lodge units and giving him for free, the additional land for employee housing. The end result in both proposals is the same acreage. B.) Mr. Fitzgerald indicates Aspen Park has more density, yet Aspen,Park was ranked~l by the City's planning office in both density and compliance with the Growth Management Plan. C.} Mr. Fitzgerald would like to have the City believe that Mr. Truman's dollar offer is the highest among the five. Allow us to point out some fancy footwork here. In the contract to the City from Red Roof, Inc.! Mr. Truman, on Page 4 under point ~2 Purchase price, the offer is for rour million dollars ($4,000,000) However, on page 4 (5B) and I quote, "Each of the motel rooms in said project now, and at the time of closing, will be complete with personal property, equipment and fixtures ordinarily found in mOb"l rooms." Mr.~ Truman app,ears to be requesting some unspecified furnishing package ,for the entire motel. The City has indicated in it's September 10, 1980 report that there is over $153,600 worth of immediate capital improvements for the interior only. Further quoting from Truman's proposal (Page 5-5D) "TO the best of its knowledge. and belief, the Project and the ImprovemE!nts (including, but not by way of limitation,' the site improvements, plumbing, sewage, drainage, electrical, heating and other mechanical systems) are in conformity with all applicable municipal and other legal requirements, including, but not by way of limitation, conformity with the health and fire code of the applicable governmental authority and the building' and safety engineering department, or similar department ,of the applicable governmental authority. Said systems are and at the Closing Date will be in good maintenance and repair and there are no repairs - 9 - . . I"'-. ,......" "of any type or sort whatsoever which may be required presently or at Closing' Date in order to render said Improvements, fixtures or pers,onalty safe and reasonable maintained. Shou'ld the Improve- ments, fixtures or personalty need repair or maintenance between the date of this Agreement and the Closing Date, then Seller shall be responsibile for the repair or replacement of such Improvements, fixtures or personalty." Mr. Truman indicates in this section of his contract (offer) that the City would be responsible for bringing the present up to repair and code. This cost would far outweigh any advantage from the larger sum of monies offered by the Red Roof Proposal. Aspen Park is offering $3,250,000 for the property as is. 4.) Mr. Fitzgerald, on J;'age 3 of this December 19, ,1980 letter says, " Also, Hesselschwerdt's figures do not add up. His "proposal" states that the "total cost would be in excess of fifteen million dollars." At the meeting called by the Selection Committee he stated that condominiums would be sold for $275,000 to $325,000. If they were to sell the units for $300,000 cash they would merely gross $15,000,000 before any advertising, sa~es commissions, etc. I doubt that they want to lose money." The total cost referred to by Aspen Park is the total long-term loan amount and in spite of what Mr. Fitzgerald says, our figures do, indeed, add up. We have tryed as best we can to figure out how the Red Roof, Inc. proposal would balance the figures and can come up with no reasonable methodology, but can only speculate that they might not be using conventional methods of cost analysis. ' 5.) There are two points in the Red Roof proposal that need clarification (Page 8, Point 9a and 9c). Although Mr. Truman has indicated they, would only be selling onefhalf of the lodge condominiums, Paragraph 9a states that the entire project will be condominiumized. Point 9c of this "contract" states that there will be a contingency that Red Roof, Inc. will be allowed to establish a private club on the premises. Red Roof Inns has said that their "contract" is the best proposal for the City, yet they did not make the effort to indicate cooperation with the City on any of the points ~he City asked to be addressed (as did.the Aspen Park Proposal) , i.e." pro shop, cart storage, locker rooms, showers, etc. Their only indicated concern was for a "p,ivate club," Hardly in the best interest of the resident and visitor of Aspen. - 10 - ." , ,""'" ,..-." THE FITZGERALD REAL ESTATE CO. BUSINESSES SICI LODGES CONDOMINIUMS HOMES BUILDING SITES f2ANCHES& ACRE:AG,ES INVESn....ENT TRUS,$.i LANOSYNOICATES 1RAOeS ~.~..;., ~, 'y 520 E. Cooper Sl. Aspen Colorado 81611 Phone 303- 925-1630 Januarv 19. 1981 Selection Committee &: Ci ty Council Ci ty Hall Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Plum Tree Inn Sale i , . i t f I I I I I , , , , I I I I Dear Committee and Council: Thank you for including me in your January 16th meeting where upon the Committee made their final recommendation to Council based on the 12 items of the selection criteria., actually 23,items. Although I am happy with the outcome I would appreciate having the opportunity of discussing several of the "items" should there be any changes made with regard to points added or subtracted to any of the scores. We feel that we should have had even a greater spread from oUr closest competition if the proper considerations were given to items (la), (3)" (4), (5), (7), (9) and (11) and even more of a spread if the particular items were weighed according to their importance. In any case, we have nothing further to add should there be no alteration to the points already given. ~~our", C6:, ~: P. Fitzgerald RPFjap SKI COUNTRY U.S.A. '. TEL. 925- 7267 (AREA CODE 303) ,-.,. ..-., SITE OF PROPOSr::O '"R RESTAURANT 5 NIGHT CLUB,' "ll "ON THE ROCKS" , .. '1 ~", -, /" BANS OF ASPEN REALTY )i ,A BOX 67 ASPEN. COLORADO. U.S.A. 81611 HANS R. GRAMIGER. LICENSED BROKER Se!ling&Bvying Agent for: Homes BIJilding5ites 8",sinesses Motels R4nehes Spi!ClJlative land Values LOII"S Property Development Consultant Appraisals P'"perty Management Tradelntermecljary Building Contl",ting Fe4sibilityStudies Corresp"ndents !nAlI Principal U.S. Citjel,Resorts and in Foreign Countries Espllnol Oeutson Fran~a;s January 19, 1981. Mr. Monroe Summers, Director Marketing/Communications City of Aspen l3Q So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Plum Tree Inn Sale. Dear Monroe : As I told you at the conclusion of the Screening Committee's rating last Friday, I thought then that we would not quarrel with their findings because ou;~ proposal for the luxurious resort-hotel complex had as its basis a different philosophy of what will benefit the long range goals of this City than the four other proposals. In the meantime we have had an opportunity not only to di~ gest the rating sheet but also to analyze the Planning Office's "Evaluation" on items 1. (A through I), 2, 3, 4 and 9. Apart from the philosophical and (for lack of a better word) "political" differences that the Planning Office and the other members of the screening committee had to evaluate each proposal we find inequalities that can only have been applied because of non-existent assumptions. The most important omission in the entire screening process was the faillure to corelate all proposals by the application of a common denominator, such as total amount of "rooms" for each proposal. I am referring to condominiumization of one-, two- or three- bedroom apartments. Nobody builds condominium apartments without living rooms, kitchens, dining rooms (or at least dining areas) etc.etc. Inasmuch as I must communicate with my principals by phone and D.S.Mail I will only be able to present you and the City Council with self-rated scoring sheet with rationale by the earliest Monday the 26th. The Planning ./ -,- ,..." ,..." HANSR. GRAMIGER . BOX 67 ASPEN. COLO.. U.S.A. TEL. 925.7267 (AREA CODE 303) page two to: Monroe Summers D.irector Marketing/Communications City of Aspen and Research Department of my principals seems to think that their proposed resort-hotel complex should have scored between the low forties and the low fifties. Of course, as aforementioned, if the ultimate choice philosophically and "politically" would be made with an evaluation of additional criteria such as (a) long range benefits to the tourist economy of Aspen in view of increasing competition, (b) potential land-lease revenue to the City for a 49 or 99 year lease term with inflation-escalator incorporated therein instead of outright purchase of the building site., and (c) up- grading and modernization serving as example and war- ning to our local lodging businesses, the scoring of our proposal would quite certainly become more favor- able yet. Let me call to your attention a few examples of where we think that disparities and shortcomings in the ratings of our proposal seem to be apparent most intensely. We propose to house the entire staff, of employees necessary to operate the resort hotel. The Housing- Action Plan "recommends" that businesses house the employees they generate. Why would we rate under Criteria I.-D. a score of 4 instead of a score of I? We propose extensive landscaping with a pond at the Maroon Creek level with extensive trails and in the oral presentation we proposed a foot trail down the east bank and up the west bank of Maroon Creek. Again we get a score of 5 instead of a score of 1 under Criteria I.-F. Under Criteria I.-G. we propose that we do not need direct access to Highway 82 but would prefer to be served together with access to the golf course with a frontage road if and when major highway improve- ments are made (including a new Maroon Creek Bridge). Again why should we rate a score of 2 when we earn a score of I? The same rationale applies to Criteria No. 12.-A (Highway interface). We earn a score of 1 instead of the score of 5, as rated. Under "Compliment to Golf course", Criteria No.6, we were rated with a score of 5 instead of a score of 1 the rationale being that our proposed building site on the bank of Maroon Creek adds usable land to the golf course and gives an unobstructed view of Pyramid Peak from every point of the golf course. - 2 - /,""" ,r-, HANSR. GRAMIGER ""'BOX 67 ASPEN. COLO.. U.S.A. TEL. 925-7267 (AREA CODE 303) page three to: Monroe Summers Director Marketing/Communications City of Aspen Last but not least we have been penalized to the point of 8 score points for my principals instruction not to disclose at this point in time their identity. Please accept this letter in the spirit 'I have been authorized to write it to you, a spirit of cooperation and constructive criticism. This letter alone and then supplimented by the forth- coming self-evaluation with rationale and your and City Council's evaluation of our philosophical and "political" treatise of what we consider important for Aspen's long range tourist based economy is at issue; My principals do not need Aspen and have no intention to force their philosphy on any community. They ~dshto do business in a business and political climate where it is recognized by the leaders of the community that their contribution by far outweighs a few negative impacts (actual or imagined). HRG:se 1. " 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . 7; 8. . , r\ PLUM TREE INN SELECTION CRITERIA RATING SHEET JANUARY 16,1981 consistency with Adopted Policies A. Growth Management Plan B. '73 Aspen Land Use Plan' C.'75 Buttermilk Land Use Plan D. . Housing Action Plan E. Open Space Plan P.' Trails ' G.. Transportation H. Airport Master Plan 1. Existing Zoning Conflicts Compatibility with surrounding land use Density Visual Impact, Tourist b~d base effect .--~- Compiiment to'Golf Course' / Tax Revenue,Potential . Purcha.se Price A. Terms B. Acreage 9. 'Employee Housing Impact 10. Qualifications of Developer A. Track Record B. Financial strength 11. Meeting/Conference use ~otential 12. Site A. B. design quality Highway Interface Parking (Member) ,^, / ~ 2-....1:::- 2- , " " , I " , , / . '.. . . , . --- "'3: -;:0 -0 :>1> '" :J: :>1>:J: .... 0 ::SCll '" V> ;;),.c:o V> '" 0 0 ::s 0. ....-0 0'::;:0- '0 ::s "'.... V> "'Cll '" Cll V> 'OCll ::<> ::s "", ::s I 0 0 co 0 ..., ~. ..., .... 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 . " 7. 8. . 9. 10. 11. . 12. 1"", PLUM TREE INN SEL,ECHON CRITERIA RATING SHEET JANU~RY 16,'1981 consistency with Adopted Policies A. Growth Management Plan B. '73, As'pen Land Use Plan c. '75 Buttermilk Land Use Plan D. : Housing Action Plan E. Open Space Plan F. Trails G.. Transportation a. Airport Master plan I. Existing zoning Conflicts , compatibility with surrounding land use Density Visual Impact Tourist bed. base e,ffect Compiimentto. Golf_Course' .-0>/ ,/ Tax ~evenuePotential " .' Purchase Price A. Terms B. AcreCj.ge 'Employee Housing Impact Qualifications of Developer A. Track Record B. Financial strength .' Meeting/Conference use ~oten~ial Site A. B. design quality Highway Interface Parking '. " (Member)~' ^ , 4- t ( ,:2- 7., .<2, I a , 4 <1 4 tit' S I /3 " :3 4- -e. '2, IJ Q < p ~ ~ '/' z 3 z. 2. -L ~ ..iL t -? L::; -:: '?L::; ~ '? .,.:.:; f' 2 .ct. r.1.. 'i'. ~ '" . ~ 5 ~ "2, '? I 7 I ,/.< I 7':j .'1 2 S I Z5 ! ~ 5 ~ f ' 2- 3 4- .., 2 '5 (/ .5 ~ 5 / Z / ? . , I .~, 6. 2 4.., , '. $ ..\ l.. '(~ '\ \ 'l.. "I 4 / '\ m:;: "'0 00 c:... , "0 ell , I '" .... ... C>. I I 2 ..L .....;;0 :>ell :>C>. V> ;;0 o o .." ~ r. , '3 ~ , '2 2. 5 2. '2". l '$" -o~ I1llV> -s ."'C ",ell :> ~::I: V>I1ll "0 :>. (0.(,1) :> 'G'>:t: ...'" 0;;0 c: "0 o .." . . 1. 2. /"",\, .... . PLUM TREE INN SEL~CT[ON CRITERIA RATING SHEET JANU1\RY 16,'1981 . . . . consistency .,ith Adopted' Policies A. Growth Management Plan B. '73 Aspen Land Use Plan' C. '75 Buttermilk Land Use Plan. D. : Housi-ng Action Plan E.: Open Space Plan F. Trails ' G.. Transportation H. Airport Master Plan I. Existing Zoning Conf~icts , " ' Compatibility with surround~ng land use ,.3. Density purchase Price A. Terms B., !,creage 9. 'Employee Housing Impact 4. 5. 6,. . 7. 8. . . 10. 11. 12. -----' Visual Impact, Touristbed.p-ase effect . ' . '". . . ..-'-- \, Compliment to Golf Course ..6"";/ Tax Revenue,Potential . .': Qualifications of Developer A. Track Record B. Financial strength . ,,- . Meeting/Conference use ~otential Site A. B. _ design quality Highway Interface Parking ~e /. /~;/ j/ ,'.44'..t( <.1..,....,44.4~A' (Me er) , . '. .\11,;'...41 ,.-, .~ ' " J', . .~, .." ..i .- . . ".... .' , ~ 2......!L .JL , q. I 2> I .. /? ,:..,,- < t ~ 0., Q c:; < 19 Q '/? :7 ".:< ;'1 2 4- , 'J.. f' ",,- // ' " :?, ?, ?, ';" 5 ,<<, -=< ." '"' Q I I / I I a /? /3: I 3' 4 .. 2: :3 2 &:; ,~ q 3 / 2- ~ :J 4 'l. / /} - ~ J 5 2 ~ 4 I , ' S f 2- S q.. I .3 (.' /1 - - "t" :7 .1 / 2, <1 ,- .~ 4 I ? "', ,..... , '.' f ~, 5, Q /! ~~, ~ , P / 2 4 5 .3 I _~J i *' '2' .4- I 4 / '3 2 ,..-, ~ v /. '2 2 ?- ,., .- 1/ /' "vi ~ /' / '. 17- q8 58 .i&.L 21' 4 I rz.. "3> S <n 3: ~::o -0:>> en :J: :>> = ,",0 ::>m <UVl '"'''' Vl<U 00 ::>0.. ""'-0 0 ::0 -a =:s ~ c'"' Vl 7'(0 C (0 y,' -om 6' ::> '0 ::> I 0 '" 0 -Il ~. -Il '"' 0.. '~'----'-~'~'-'.-..-"'~-""'~~-'~~"---'~--~-"--'--'.".:----'----.-'.'.~~-- -::~ ~~ ;. ~ ,..-" Joshua Saslove Aspen, Colorado. tlr. t10nroe Summers City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81612 Dear Sir, Let me first state whet he right.or wrong, win or lose, this has been an enormous undertaking by the election Committee and the prospective purchasers. However, the Real E tate involved is so significant and it's best use so critical to the Cit of Aspen, that anything less would be inappropriate. I would like to submit th following in response to the meeting of January 16th, ,1981 with the Plu tree Inn Selection Committee. The method by which the evaluation of each of the proposalS was done was, not clearly understood by the Moore Group a d therefore may have lacked important information. It would be necess ry for you to have this information in making an intelligent up to dat recommendation to the City Council: 1. In the latest Moore re ised plan dated 12/20/80, there are no buildings in the way of the cur ent golf course and the plan calls for a repositioning of a practice put ing green. 2. The office lobby would contain a full time reception desk to handle vi s itors upon thei r arri al. 3. The short term avaiTab lity of all the roomscan be guaranteed' by a deed restriction allowing wners to occupy their individual units for no more than 14 days during pea seasons. . 4. In our plan we have sh wn considerable parking which was recognised by the Transportation committee members. In addition we would be pleased to work with the Highway and' Trans ortation departments in the designing and construction of allaccellerati n, decelleration, entrance and exit lanes as necessary. 5. It may now be apparent to you with the full time reception and check-in desk, the high availability of rooms and the conference centre, along with it all, this plan has a high meeting and conference room potential. 6. Permitted the time necessary (one week) we would be happy to present to this evaluation committee or any other persons, necessary letters of high recommendation with resp ct to the financial abil ity of the Moore Group. _ '7. We would not hesitate t make available to the committee, City Council, or any of it's represen atives, information qualifying the ability contI. . . . . . . . . . . .".,,': 1". .. 1""'\ t"""\ .,;;-, 2. of the Moore Group as highly c pable developers. If necessary an on-site physical inspection is possibl of completed developments. 8. Aesthetically, the vi ual impact would be so designed that a blend between the mountains, t e golf course and the buildinqswould be highly desireable to the envir nment and the human eye, makinq it a) totally compatible with surr'ounding la d use and b) have great visual impact. 9. The long term income otential to the City of Aspen must be considered over the long haul, and surely the tax potential increases by makinq these units available to the short term tourist market. In summation, I would like the commit'tee to understand that it is the intention of the Moore Group to work with the City in the develo[lment of a project that would be inkeepin with the needs of our community. Modifications to our plan to make it more con istent with adopted policies and proqrams can be made where necessary. Thanking you for your tim and attention to our proposal. Yours very truly, --------<~ Sc-uh \,;~ ~p Joshua Saslove /,/' JSjSH I ,".' '<"';: :.".,,', ,..,~,~ I"""'. .<"""\ , , . .:, CIT OF"'ASPEN 130 suth galena'street asp en ,. co lor a d (); '81611 .. ." .f' .-"""'. ~- .........r .;, MEMORANDUM TO: Mo~roe Summers FROM: Daniel, A. McArth r f)/fv-- DATE: J auuary IS. 1.981 RE: Plum Tree Inn Sa e The purpose, of this mem randum is to provide selection committee members with a rating a determined by.the Engineering Department ,for the site d'esi.gn qua ity items b'ased on the information as submitted in the five' proposals. ~.c,."",.- t. Based on the.,Site Design Quality 1/12A Highway Interface, I have rated't:hefive proposals on the following: A. 'All fTve develo ,ers 110t making any improvement to the Highway int rface. . B. New traffic imp ct on the Highway interface based on total. existi g units and new proposed units. I- RE ROOF INNS 2. H. .R. ASSOCIATES 3. AS EN PARK 4. MO RE:-BIRD 5. HA S OF ASPEN II. Based on the Site D sign Quality 112B Parking, I have rated the: proposals on the following: A. Due to the 1ack of information supplied in the pro-. po's,a-]ls, by four of the developers, I am forced to rate HOO,RE,...B,IRD Ifl, a d the other four developers 1/2. .'. ~ 1""'\ ~ MEMORANDU~1 TO: Monroe Summers FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Planning Office Evaluation: Plum Tree Inn Proposals D^TE: January 13, 1981 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a planning evaluation of five proposals submitted to the City of Aspen concerning the purchase and redevelopment of the Plum Tree Inn property. These five proposals may be identified as follows: 1. The Moore-Bird proposal involves conversion of the lobby and 24 rooms into a convention facility; renovation of the remaining 25 units for Use as employee housing; the construction of 102 new two-bedroom units and 10 one-bedroom units; and the renovation of the existing garage into a club house/pro shop. 2. The Red Roof Inns proposal involves construction of 2D additional lodge rooms and 12-15 employee units along with the renovation of the existing lodge, with half of the lodge units being condominiumized. 3. The Aspen Park proposal involves renovation of the lodge facility to include lounge and locker rooms, a pro shop and conference facility; removal 'of the existing 49 lodge units; and construction of fifty . luxury condominiums between the ninth and tenth fairways. 4. The HBR Associates proposal involves three alternatives, the most com- plex of which includes conversion of the lodge rooms to time sharing, construction of eight new lodge units and 12-24 employee units, and the addition'of a clubhouse and maintenance of the pro shop. 5. The Hans of Aspen proposal involves demolition of the existing lodge facility; construction of a new 360 unit lodge along Maroon Creek to the rear of the golf course; and provisionof an indeterminate amount of employee units sufficient to house the staff to operate the new lodge. In order that a complete understanding of the nature of these proposals and their potential impact upon the surrounding area may be obtained, it is first necessary to develop some background data regarding the property and the planning that has been done which affects it future Utilization. There~ fore, the remainder of this memorandum is organized into the following sec- tions: first, an analysis of the site from a planning perspective, based on the current zoning and usage limitations, as Well as the results of a site visit; next, a statement of the major policies adopted by the City of Aspen which have bearing on the evaluation of the subject property; and finally, an evaluation of planning criteria suggested by the selection committe at a meeting on December 9, 1980. [ t ! B. SITE ANALYSIS AND DESCRIPTION As the site has been defined by the City, the Plum Tree Inn property consists of 3.906 acres of land described in the plat of survey included as infor- mation in the memo from Monroe Summers to City Council on August 19, 1980. This memo also contains a history of the property's acquisition and subse- quent management whi ch need not be reiterated here. The Plum Tree Inn is located along Highway 82 across from the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. It is zoned as Park with a Transportation Overlay. The reason for the transportacion overlay is that the City formerly used por~ tions of the property as a location for storing impounded cars and currently [ J Memo: Plum Treetnn Proposals January 13,1981 ,t'"""'\ Page Two t'"""'\ uses part of the property for storing highway-related fill material. The permitted uses in the zone include: ,open use recreation facil ity, park playfield, playground, golf course, riding stable, nursery and botanical garden. Conditional uses in the zone include recreation building, sport shop, restaurant facility and park maintenance building. Due to the presence of the transportation overlay district, additional permitted uses include public transportation facility., terminal building, transportation information and, service facil ities, and publ ic underground parking struc- ture. As a result, the existing lodge can be classified as a nonconforming u~e in thi s zone 0 ' , A visit to the site provides an additional perspective on the property which is important in the evaluation of its future uses. First impressions of the area indicate that this portion of the community has been dedicated to open space and recreational uses. In addition to the open expanse of land of the golf course which provides both summer enjoyment for golfers as well as a winter location for cross-country skiing and ice skating, the area has many additional aesthetic amenities. Just to the west of the property is located a softball and soccer field. Several hiking and biking trails are found along the perimeter of the golf course including the Airport Business Center Trail and a spur which follows along Maroon Creek to a picnic area. The Maroon Creek floodplain and hillside provides an additional vast open space in the area, and the undeveloped character of the area provides pro- tection of the water quality in Maroon Creek. Finally, the views of the surrounding Buttermilk and Highlands Ski Areas, as well as the exceptional view of Pyramid Peak from ,the front entrance of the lodg~ place this property in a unique location in the Aspen community. The lodge fits into the over- all west entrance to Aspen as a moderate intensity use in the midst of an overall undeveloped area and provides a final transition from the tourist accommodations in the Buttermilk area to the open areas between Maroon and Castle Creeks and finally the development of Aspen itself . Across from the golf course as well as behind it toward Snowbunny are found several residential areas which provide additional transition toward the developed areas of Aspen. However, the overall character of this location as pro- viding relatively close-in open space relief for residents of the area will be a dominant feature in the evaluation of any proposal for the Plum Tree Inn property.. C. ADOPTED PLANNING'POLICIES I I I I t I I i t I Following is an analysis of key planning policies adopted by the City of Aspen which provide the basis for formulation of criteria to evaluate.the five proposals. Growth Management Plan. An annual simple growth rate of 3,47%, amounting to 39 residential units and 18 lodging units, was adopted for the City of Aspen. Development approvals are based on the availabil ity of ser- vices such as transportation, water and sewer, the impact on the sur- rounding environment and the provision for employee housing. 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. The property is designated as open space which is described as follows: "The lands necessary to preserve and enhance the natural heritage and environment of the community and ensure future public access to natural features." Key policies contained in the plan include: ' f 1. Preserve and create scenic Views of the mountains from public places 'IIithin the community. 2. Increase ,the number of employee housing units. 3. Hold 'the level of growth to a level below that in the past. 4. Strengthen the community's economic base with respect to tourist activities and encourage diversity of quality recreational and cultural development. 5. Preserve the community's natural resources and promote high quality development. -- "Hemo: Plum Tree Inn January 13, 1981 Page Three --, Proposals 1975 Buttermilk Land Use Plan, In this small area plan, the property was designated as a golf ,course and open space. In the general comments on the Castle Creek-Maroon Creek Area, the following statements are found: "The impact of the golf course (as a permanent open space and recre- ational area) must be recognized in future land use ~hanges... The public golf course tract establishes a strong recreatlOnal feature for both permanent residents and vi sitQr~... The gener~l character o~ the area would be enhanced by the rete~tlon of la~ge prlVa~e and PUb~lC open spaces throughout, combined wlth pedestnan and b~cycl~ tralls and protection of the, scenic upper slopes and valley Vlews. Housing Action Plan. The concerns of this recent planning effort provide some i nsi ght into issues currently before the City of Aspen. The 1"1 an proposes three interrelated housing strategies: -production of new uints; -promoti ng better uti1 izati on of exi sti ng housing and the reduction of the loss of units; and -reduction of demand. A key acti on program recommended by the 1"1 an is that busi nesses house the employees they generate. A final aspect of the plan is the evaluation presented of various areas of the communi ty consi deri ng thei r desi rabi 1 ity fOr locating new employee housing units. Based on criteria developed in that plan, the area to the west of Aspen was judged to be an improper location for large concentrations of employee housing. Open Space Plan. The functions of open space which are mentioned in this .plan and which are provided by the golf course property include: 1. Areas for passive or active recreatio'nal use with more intense activity encouraged in close proximity to population centers; 2. Lands which may be utilized for shaping urban growth; 3. Undeveloped corridors along transportation routes; and 4. Areas accessible to population centers, especially those where non- auto travel is available. The criteria identified for determining the importance of an area as open space include visual, recreational, natural, cultural and accessibility. Trails Master f>lan., This plan expresses overall support for trails as a recreational source and as an alternative means of transportation. The goals of the plan include: , I ~, I i 1. Conserve and protect environmental quality; 2. Connect frequently used destinations and follow heavily traveled routes with a trails system; and 3. Enhance the trails system for residents and visitors. Transportation. lihile numerous transportation proposals and planning studi eshave come before the communi ty, the ones whi ch will have the most bearing on this evaluation are the alignments being proposed for Highway 82. Instead, the major transportation issues which need attention are: " 1. If Highway 82 is expanded to a four 1 ant;!, wi 11 the new al1gnment be closer to or further from the lodge? 2. If transit lanes, busway easements or similar improvements are planned, how wi 11 these affect the proposa 1? 3. Since the current ,-right-of-way for the road is 100 feet and the lodge is located over 200 feet from the road. If the right-of-way were expanded to 150 feet, how would this impact upon the lodge? There I i 1 ; t F Memo: Plum Tre~n Proposals January 13, 1981 Page Four ,-. is as yet no clear consensus on what improvements will be made to Highway 82 and so a firm evaluation at this point will be difficult at best. However; it is clear that any development proposal that suggests additional development closer to the existing right-of-way could be incompatible with plans for Highway 82. Airport Master Plan. The current,airport master plan contains no recom- mendations which should impact on the evaluation of the five proposals. In fact, since virtually all aircraft operations take off and land in the direction opposite from the Plum Tree Inn (i.e.. to the North) there should be little if any noise impacts on the Plum Tree property. As a result, even though an update of the' airport master plan is currently underway, it is not expected to have any bearing upon the evaluation of the fi ve proposa 1 s. Summary The major issues identified in the above analysis include: 1. Plans indicate the importance of the subject property as a recreational and open space resource. This value include's not only the provision of opportunities for active and passive play, but also the aesthetic concerns related to the entrance to Aspen and the role the surrounding property plays in shaping the urban growth area. 2. Significant level s of growth above and beyond that allowed under the GMP would be inconsistent with community goals. 3. While increasing the number of employee housing units available in the community is a generally accepted goal, this may not be the ideal location for a large scale development. 4. No new development should be allowed which would preclude future plans for Highway 82. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS The criteria established by the selection committee for evaluation by the Planning Office are: 1. Consistency with adopted policies; 2. Compatibility with surrounding land use; 3. Density; 4. Visual impact; and 5. Employee housi ng impact. The method selected for activating these criteria is to develop a matrix and to assign values to each proposal ranking them 1 through 5 for each criter.ion with a "I" being the most desirable ranking and a "5" being the least desirable ranking. The following table summarizes the results of the evaluation. ' Prior to examining each point included withi,n Table 1, it might be useful to describe the overall results of the evaluation. In essence, the five proposals can be grouped into three categories. Proposals 1 and 5 are clearly incompatible with existing land use, open space and growth management plans since both propose significant levels of development beyond the existing 49 units. Proposals 2 and 4 involve the least change to the prop- erty, with only minor additions to the existing lodge proposed. Neither proposal would significantly impact the open space and recreational func- tion of the golf course nor exceed gro\'lth managementguide1 ines by an excessive amount. Both proposals do provide for some employee housing with- out creating a new large scale employee development on the outskirts of the City. Overall, either of these proposals appears to be the most desirable from the planning perspective. Proposal 3 is of a different kind from the others, involving redevelopment of an entirely new residential area to replace the existing lodge. While the development appears to have advantages' in terms of visual impact, density and the fact that it trades 49 existing units for 50 proposed con- dominiums, thereby not considerably affecting the growth rate adopted as Memo: Plum Tree January 13, 1981 Page Five 1"", II... Proposals ,.-... pa~t of the GMP, it doe~ have certain liabilities. The major drawbacks of thlS proposa~ ar: that lt offers no employee housing units and could possibly have a negatlve lmpact on the open space and recreation functions of the property iLd:veloped improperly: ,In addition, by removing 49 lodge units from t~e. tOUrlst accommodations lnventory and replacing them with 50 lUxury cOndOmlnlUmS, the long term versus short term aspects of the tourist rental market is negatively affected by this proposal. Table 1 - Matrix Evaluation of Plum Tree Inn Proposals 1 2 3 4 5 Moore- Red Roof Aspen HBR Hans of Bird Inns Park Associates Aspen Criteri a Proposal Proposal Proposal Proposal Proposal A. Growth Mgmt Plan 4 3 1 2 5 B. '73 Land Use Plan 4 2 3 2 5 C. '75 Buttermilk Plan 4 2 3 2 5 D. Housing Action Plan 1 3 5 2 4 E. Open Space Plan 4 2 3 2 5 F. Trails Master Plan 3 3 3 3 5 G. Transporta ti on Plans 3 3 3 3 2 H. Airport l1aster Plan 1 1 1 1 1 1. Zoni ng Code Confli cts ----A. 2 ---1. ----1 5 1. Overa 11 Consis- tency with Adopted Pol iet es 28 21 25 18 37 2. Compatibility with' Land Use 4 2 3 2 5 3. Density 4 3 \ 2 5 4. Vi sua 1 Impact 4 2 1 2 5 5. Employee Housing Impact -1 --.l. ---.1. 2 4 Total Evaluation 41 31 35 26 56 Rank 4 2 3 1 5 Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office January, 1981 Following is an explanation of the assignment of points for each criteria for the five proposals. In terms of consistency with the Growth Management Plan, proposal 3 was rated as best since it only involves the addition of one new unit. The existing 49 short term units would be replaced by 50 condominiums but the absolute growth rate would be very small due to this proposal. The most growth would be generated by proposal 5, while proposals 4, 2 and 1 would provide for less growth. Consistency with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan involves several elements, the most important of which is the preservation of the open space qual ities of the site. Additional key elements of the plan include policies that growth levels be kept down, that employee housing be provided and that natural resources and scenic views be preserved. Both proposals 2 and 4 appear to best meet these criteria by adding some new units without taking significant additional land. Proposals 1 and 5 both involve large scale new growth and the development of additional parcels on the golf course and are inconsistent with this plan. Proposal 3 falls in the middle of the two extremes since it does involve new land development on the golf course but could be quite compatible with the open space use of the site and does not involve large scale new growth. The 1975 Buttermilk Land Use Plan envisons the subject property as pro- viding primarily open space qulities. As a result, proposals 2 and 4 appear to be most consistent with this plan while proposals 1 and 5 are least consistent with this plan. Once again, proposal 3 falls somewhere between the two extremes as regards this plan. I ~. . ":x"",,,;,-,~ .-. -- Memo: Plum Tree Inn Proposals ,January 13, 1981 Page Six The key aspect of the Housing Action Plan that relates to these proposals is the encouragement of employee ,housing production. In this regard, proposal 1 provides for the most employee housing, while proposals 4, 2, 5 and 3, respectively, provide somewhat less employee housing. However, since this plan also indicates that this area of the community is not a desirable location for employee housing, it might be useful to consider negotiations wi.th those making proposals to construct the employee housing in another location where land is available. The evaluation of the consistency of the proposals with the Open Space . Master Plan follows exactly the rationale used in evaluating consistency with the Buttermilk Land Use Plan and the assignment of points also follows that discussion. ' All of the plans are equally consistent with the Trails Master Plan with the exception of proposal 5 which would take land along Maroon Creek and inter- rupt the existing spur trail located there. As a result this proposal was rated lower than the other four. None of the plans are inconsistent with any plan t()"expand Highway 82 or to add a busway to the ri ght-of-way. However, proposal 5, whi ch waul d move the lodge location well away from the road, appears ,to be the least incon- sistent with any possi ble road improvement ,and was rated as the best alter- native. None of the proposals would have any impact upon the Airport Master Plan and were thus rated equally. All proposals are in conflict with existing zoning regulations and do not fall within any provision of the Code which would allow approval outside Of the GMP process. As a result, special legislation would be required to amend the Code; granting equal treatment to all similar proposals within the City. However, the five proposalS were rated as to how closely they corresponded with exi sti ng zoni ng and other codeprovis ions. Therefore, proposals 4 and 2 were rated as the mO,st desirable based on this criteria si nce they closely approximate the provi si ons of the lodge preservati on ordinance. Proposals 3, 1 and 5, respectively, are considerably less con- sistent with current code provisions and were so rated. i I f ! I ! . , ; ! i Summari.zing the analysis of conSistency with all adopted plans, it can be seen that the rank ordering of the proposals to this point is as follows: Proposal 4 - 18 points Proposal 2 - 21 points Proposal 3 - 25 points Proposal 1 - 28 points Proposal 5 - 37 points The remalnlng four criteria do not provide significant additional clarifi~ cation of the issue. As regards the compatibility of the proposals with existing land use, this criterion was based on the open space and recreation considerations and was therefore rated in an identical fashion to the Buttermilk and Open Space Plans. The density Crl teri on is based directly on the total number of units being proposed on the site, and was ranked with proposal 3 being most desirable with proposalS 4, 2, 1 and 5 following in order. I The visual impact criterion is based on the rather subjective judgment that the Aspen Park proposal appears to have paid the most attention to land- s,caping and fitting the development to the site. Proposals 2 and 4 both would add to the existing structure without a major new Visual impact, particularly as regards the additional bulk that the new structures would exhibit. Proposals 1 and 5 would entail large scale new developments of differing kinds but both having very significiant visual impacts, both adding very significant new bulk to the open space of the site. Final1y, the employee housing impact mirrors the ranking given to the Housing Action Plan criterion with proposal 1 being most desirable and proposal 3 providing no additional employee housing and being the least desirable. Once again it should be recognized that this area of Aspen is not the optimum location for providing new concentrations of employee housing according to'this plan. t I I I , l ! l ! i I I I r I ! I ,....., Memo: Plum Tree Inn Proposals January 13. 1981 Page Seven ,....., In summary, then; the Planning Office evaluation of the five alternatives has led to the following ranking: Proposal 4 - 26 points Proposal 2 - 31 points Proposal 3 - 35 points Proposal 1, - 41 points Proposal 5 - 56 points These results appear to point in two directions. If it is the desire of the committee to recommend a proposal which retains the existing structure, adds some additional lodge and employee units and does not change the basic open space and recreational character of the area, then either proposal 4 or 2 could be chosen. The actual choice between these proposals should be based on criteria other than just planning considerations. However, if the committee feels that the existing structure is not worth retaining, does not value the need for additional employee housing from this site and believes that a new development could be more in harmony with the golf course and open space than is the existing building, then proposal 3 rep- resents a viable alternative. Based on planning considerations, proposals 1 and 5 are clearly inconsistent with adopted plans and policies of the City of Aspen. . I I I I I I i , I I I I I I I ! ",,',";.;..,,'.,. 1 ....,~:.:"':'I;I!"...t..;.,.;'".;.'ii'::'4-;.".L.""-';'tI"".1,;.~"""'~., "~ ., ~., f h',,,,~4'<~""'~,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,;~"'l!; ,. J ~. , j f f i I . ! I f I I I. [- 1m ! -, ~ . ,,.-"'1 .~ , 'Ii'; .. ,t..-... il \ . .. .... . . L' 'ci. ~ ill' '" .. ~ - .,.: ~, . .:3 ... I- ... :: ..; .. 1Ii .oJ :;; '" ,.. - - ... '" " .." ~ - ~ u " " ell - C ~ .~ r::.2 e.2 " " -..c ... - " " -E 0 '- " oz " ... ""t; 0 '" '" "'Q " ~~ o _ <>"0 0;;- cl: ~ i :; ..!I ... "' ,::- " 'Ii " - .-. ;;; <>.. '" <: '- ::> C U. . . .. ~ 'C ~}t~ u E;~ ~~~=..u =-~ ~, ~~~ t~~~i! 'iis jl ~:lo "C.;.,... Yo nlt:c -l"O ."c ~E~.~~'':: "gg~ ~~ f~~~~~8E;~ eo~~i ~~ g.""'.~t'o."'~.aa;. ~'" ~.D .~~~~Yg...~o... Y~~ s~ loOt ~ 0. U -5 .-.::1 ",...0 y !{ ..... .$ :.... Y p N ~. .~ '(:f: ..t::"..c y..c .. 0 ell ....!::l ti.,N ;.; >- ,- "'0 "C "'.D -- :J.... m ~ Q......c.:::Eo=~Y-,:I "'>-.D "'... '" '" ~ U ti E t1l "' '/:10;; .~.t: e ~ 0 ......" ::l Y 0. S .~ '" "d c.' -:..2. ~ y'" Q.Sc...a_o~;~)C ilI'- ="C ~3"''':~:i;=''''''' ~E~ "'cu ~~~O.~.e~S "'",:::I ~~ .~ . ~ ~. -e ... :I. ... '" "C :'5 5 it ... =~c~~!~~AB ..c oil eo" 0-1-:r:::I""06... ~..g'2 ~ :;:. ~ a y.3 i: E E.S c....,::I :3 ,.Q -'~~~ls .e",t ",,,,.~ =i ~ r-- u y ... III _O..c c. oS .5. d .g Cl.E'-~"'~.~~~", >......s ~"C eE~o~~~~IIl~ A~~ ~; .C;;::l............ 0 v.:!l.Eo ~:::g bO.... t;. '" !! ~ o..c ~ = g c "'bo..o" ~ 1:J ~~~g~:~g..o~ g~~ ~E 'Q:.5~"'::&.Y~6 I/}'::!." "o=.,ll C ~ ::I ':":l .... c.,.c -:r: '" e ... w :'::t:r:.~c.:r:::I="'o ~...4: N ~oL"C_-"""'~t ~c~ .~J :::I c..... ".- e:::: ~ - .... ~ 5 Y d sa.:: Q~og~uo~~~~EIE""cul/}o U >- >.... ::I ~ bO '" <.;;;; v t: .c..o .... ~ ... >.': 1: c.o bll.~....t,,::;:1 0_ 0 >-~..a .~ 5 ::I ~u 8:a g c Q., .!:"V ~ == Vl c: '" U...8 v?;-... ::I...,~ ".... ~...g elI"ff" ~ ~ O/,l.!::....,Jj._.~Q"'I,l.....cc.,, :""0=0 ..c: ;:; ... ~ u (oj'" ::: Y r--.:: .. t "'. ... .... ... - .~ E : "'"Q 0 .- ... "'..:: a & _.~ 00.... ....:lc.tt..ccs:::Eo....:...t..c....."'._ U -: c .( =a ..~ :: .2 t E 2 ~. ~ :; ~ == ~ ~ 1 -. s..... "C ~.S t: c. c - .... <.0;" C E" 0::1 . .~ II 'yO C -.;....::1 '" c ~ E >. "5 4> cu U '" - ~ ~ ~.~ E .'2 ~ ~ '0 ~ ~ ;; a oS ~ >.. ~ ,0 'f ti. U E eo ~ 8 "'a';; e be'::!, 8. "g ; ~ J! & 1i .5 ~ lI'l g 0 ~. ~ 0 ..a .g g <..:; ~:E '" ~ 'S 'V) '" ... N 8 ==..= '" ... a.. .~ ..c ~ c ..c ~ 0'- .::: c' '" ... C <II U )C v.l 0 0 ... t-o .... it: .".-:; E-5.~~.s 'li ...::: ~ E.tJ CN..c c..- ~._ II.> €::u.... ... t"I "'~- o:r:~:r:~~ ..~~ ~; N '-o:r.e.- tt .. " >- o Z 0-- I'( ~ l i . ... j , ~ i ..~.:,...<~~" , 1""-, ,,,,",, IVtEr'i0 Ri\N Dun tb fSl' coPY TO: Aspen City Council FROlII: A hln Ri ehman, Pl anni n9 Offi ce RF: K gotiations for the Sale of the Plum Tree Inn l~ : ':)' " , .' _.,,~"-,...._._--_._..^---_..__._.,-_."._._.._---'---_.------'--. FI^OIil the perspective of the Planning Office, one major consideration in negotiiiti ne] with the Red floof Inns and Aspen Purk offerecs is the ~c: 'Illi '1' each me," C . i^Qvis'ions. fJhi1e the City's initial solicltatlOn o. offers indicated the po:ential for code an:endments, we be 1 i eve that 'it woul d be rab 1 ' ment coul d be reached whi-ch nri " . e"" y'v' . , mana-ement re u a 1 ,Ie'1y oub 'fu that an. exem c; e ~ u a no se a rece..nt 0 re uest1n Slml conceSSl ,e sa e could " Council i(l thlS process, we provide the fOllowing summary ordinances, ~ - 1) ~1a~9aLmE't Ouotr <;"0+",,, - Under the provisions of Section .2~ 0 tn~ ?de, no ~ore than p;nht<,~n nA'M lnrlClP units may be . \In the C1ty of A: n <;.arE ::;~~. :'ectlon oescntJes 'lon procedures' and critet'ia for competi- . tive evaluation of lodge deve'lopment proposals. Applicat'ions for lodge development allocations are ~Ia ~n C^p~^mhn~ 1 nT ~~rh\ln~~. The attached ' 'ck do cri bes the ~ 0 rlge U throu h this . . a lme,~e Ul11tS were aval a ,e or a ocation. During the past year's competi- tion .Q." "nit" ",A...A ,11M'~~'" As a result" during the 1981 competition , 48 um ts woul d be avail ab shoul d that OJ Ila e number 0 "polnts during the competit'iono ~~oet~~~t~~ ~~;'~v~~u~~~w~~~m~~:~ ~~~bY Tho ning Office recommends l'ea Q'Posed npw i''n the event . d ny r'\\f"'r\("OC::c:. , 2) the Code provides a means . ct A) Ne\~ construction or l'econstruction must meet the underlying area and 'bulk l'equirements of the zoning district; B) Renovati on shall not increase the non-.conformity of the structure; C) No increase in the number of units or square footage of the lodge is allowed. In addition, tional em 10 erla;n"p current code nA,,,lv aclpqted Sec:ti?n 24,-13.11 of the Code allows ~ ee units to be prOVl aed 1 n non-conrorml n lod if r ai n 1Jl:' per, un er provisions, re \ . ed . . , oweve r, if the eveloper wished to add .tn. .thCl' rllV'rpnt,nliarp . fn()f~(1(.). gf' i:.h.. bLljldi nq by the construction of a pro shop and clubhouse, then ~mA r'~~<"';-- ~.,. . thr ~v;<Hn(' r>-"-~ ! If (or possibly the accessory buil(fingson the same ~,~~lT~I~~:~ ~:::~~~M~o\.,~~~~\I:~i ~1. ~c~:~~~t:;y tn~:~~ji ~:: ~d~~ :~{t~ase, which RY'P rpn"p~torl ..' 1""'., ."-'" O;e7~d -:!. MEMO: Negotiations Page Two February 3, 1931 for the Sale of the Plum Tree Inn :J) r:". .; _ Section ?4_1? ~ of the I ( 1 "".', c: ')Ty "j Ui" Code provides a process inn;";l SIJCll requests , ..,' \,/.;,~ i,: !':::. ! i ,'; d 'i '1 ('i 'j '':';C'' whereby a {1re hear'a /_; b'...'. j\.:" l_lst ,.,,-, 1"')\" ',.:_ ('.' h 15, , (:::'" ';;:; _,I' ; ,., . " .-:\ U;"C:i" ;':", -: i', : ,"'. ; 11,":,:-' 1:-\ j; . ,- -'n'l' "","'.1) ,'_:::", ..i' i-'j'.-', /f"~ ;11;; n('r:~" ':;<:'('\' nf"'(~l'" ".,', ,y i'- ( ..'1','\-- '(;T, a,:'.';';l'lc.~'\'C'\G;'; i:L,".J~n;..., .,':L(:. i;':,':':;'1!'~,;;,;,llU j',C Ci\'hi.\";.' 't'r;'.1.!";"\" ','iii,'_,!, L,~.'" ."p ',.' 1""",,ll li.'"cl;"~ljr\f) (~~? -"'d~,.-j-;~'" "'-, ;1. 'ion un(t~~ r ];",; \';1! I IV\~';:'(J \)C. ")U;~Sl!C~C 'i tZiil.' aoch .: ,"",-::t"1 - ., "; }~e reCU<2Sl.. f2n:; .ooe reason ,0 -. lcve ...nat rp7nn;nq of this p.rope~"ty au )c "roued to be ill 0(1,' " .'\(1 ." due to the surroundi n9 open spac_ na ure 0 tnc iJrea. However, the generally accepted tests for :'.a1idat'ing a spot zoning_by the courts include the fo'i1owing: A) Is the zonin change in COnfOl'lllanCe with a com rehens'ive plan? B) Can the an not ga1n 0 zonin an ar an 1n be shown '1 rary or d 1~ to be to the benefit of the unreasona ,e Si nce the exi sti ng buil di ng is not 'j n conformance with the adopted Buttermi1 k Area Plan Amendments, it is most likely that the arguments would center on the second criterion. If e uestion of rezoning were a rov th a C wo .' general welfare aspects of thp rp"M<n~o " 't '.(.:' 1 . '" d There are to become su Y should Cooncil not wish First, ~~rlnp~ whir~ ~rg ~ City. a pursuing Summary . ffi ce recommends course of acti 1n nc Ir 9 an s en Park offerees: 2) n cthat an prov1s10n uo ! tSt"{'4l - 1) constror"t"i o.n m n'" c. $.. S f dme -truction n- scan rocee " n, Dr cess a roval of he P ann1 ng . nce 1 s prepar u, further in an frTn~r Tn r;nn~n , to allow for such new lodge unit detrimental to the ado ted growth and 'et remain consistent s. 3) P , .1". If al .' '" justifi cati on of "j ti on of the the ac "Ion tor .. a court of l~w. ,/ ., .- /""", .- A PRELIMINARY "OPINION OF VALUE" FOR THE PLUM TREE INN, ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR Mr. Monroe Summers City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 '. . -- PREPARED BY: James J. Mollica, MAl Appraiser-Consultant I I ! I , ;1 "j JlllIIl~S J. Mollim ~ \sSlll'lilll'~ Im~ Real Estattl Appraisers and Consultants 1"'"" ~, MEMBER OF . October 27, 1980 THE: AMERICAN INSTlTVTE OF REAL. ESTATE AF'PRAI$ERS Mr. Monroe Summers City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: A Preliminary "Opinion of Value"for the Plum Tree Inn, Aspen, Colorado Mr. SUli'JT1e,rs: At your request, I have persona11y inspec1;,ed the subject property, reviewed your memo of August 19, 1980, and have gathered and analyzed applicable market data for the purpose of offering you this preliminary "Opinion of Value". --- Please note that this is not a formal appraisal, but rather a preliminary analysis reflecting a valuation range along with my professional opinion of how the property should be marketed. Due to the present status of the Plum Tree Inn and the indecisiveness of the City Council, it is impossible to place an exact value on the subject property. Before a value can be formulated, the City Council should decide certain para- meters by which the purchaser would have to abide. As I see the problem, the following factors should be considered: 1. Determining how much land will go with the sale--2.803 acres, 3.906 acres, or will the additional triangular portion to the east be included? Further, will parking be made available on the golf course/ball field land or only the parking within the ,boundaries of the Plum Tree property? 2. Will the tennis courts be included in the purchase and/or will the Plum Tree purchaser b,e responsible for supplying a pro shop/locker room and cart storage for the City golf course? If so, how many square feet will be included in this area and will it be a lease or purchase situation by the City? 3. Will the future purchaser of the Plum Tree be allowed a) major remodel- ing to the existing str,ucture, b) razing of the structure and new development of a similar~sized facility, c) any expansion to the existing dens.ity or utility, d) condominiumizat.ion and individual sale of the units and ,e) how many employee housing units will be requi.red? 4. Will convention ,facilities or meeting rooms be required or allowed? A~ /vltlaav. M. A. I. CRYSTAL PALACE BUILDING' 300 EAST HYMAN AVENUE' ASPEN. COLORADO 81611. 303/92S-8987 ",., "......c,::"i~..,;v,,>. 1""\ ,,,,",,, Hr. Monroe Summers Page 2 October 27, 1980 Until the preceding questions are anSwered ,by the City Council, a detailed formulation of value is not practical. However, in the following paragraphs I have analyzed the subject's current value, assuming only minor remodeling canbe,accomplished,by the purchaser. VALUATION SECTION The i'Ppraiser has had the 9PP9rtunity to analyze and value approximately 25 lodges in the Aspen-Sn9\o,mass area oV,er the past four years. Some of the most recent properties considered are as follows: Prospector Inn, Holiday House, Nugget Lodge, Aspen Ski Lodge, Molly Gibson, Pomegrani'te Inn and Continental Inn. Complete details regarding these properties are contained in the appraiser's files and may be made available ata point when .1' formal appraisal is necessary. - I have analyzed the subject's current improvements in comparison with numerous lodge sales in the area. The Plum Tree has been' considered on the basis of cost to purchase comparable land and to rebuild, market comparison along with recent sales, and income-producing potential based upon an analysis of income and ex- pense information throughout the Aspen lodging industry. After completing a cursory investigation of each of these valuation techniques, I have concluded that the subject's current improvements would have a current Market Value in the range of $3,000,000 to $3,250,000. This value is, in the appraiser's opinion, the most probable selling price for the Plum Tree if marketed in its current condit,ion. This further assumes tha.t no expan13ion or change of use can be accomplished. Since value is ba13ed on thehigbest and best use to which a property can be placed, additional value could be obtained through condominiumization, addition- al unit development and/or the availability of conference r09ms, club house facilities and additional tennis facilities. As an example, if 49 condominium units can be allowed to be developed on the property and offered on a free market basis, the land alone could easily be worth the $3,000,000 to $3,250,000 ($60,000 per u.nit) without any allocation to the , existing improvements. Contained in my files are numerous land sales of multi-family development land to support this premise. RECOMME~~ATlONS FOR SALE AND DEVELOpMENT OF THE PLUM TREE INN: Aftl'rinspecting,the subje,ct improvements and preparing this preliminary valu- at.ion analysis, I have prepared the 'following list, of recommendations to the Council. Theserecommendations..ar.e..basedon my seven ye'ars experience in the Aspen market, coupled with data collected from over 30 lodges in both Aspen and Snowmass. Please note that I am not a lodge developer, owner or designer but, rather, a valuation consultant who has, had an opportunity to review income and expense statements, physical facilities and to interview numerous lodge owners. 'The follOWing list of recommendations should be reviewed by the Council and considered as they detail the parameters for the Plum Tree sale. Jmnes J. MoUim ~ ,ISSlIflilll'S, lilt. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants ,-, ,.-" Mr. ,Monroe Summers Page 3 October 27, 1980 1. The location of the subj ect property creates a non-conforming use and a highly visible impact to the entrance of Aspen. I feel it is necessary to have a top-quality, highly maintained facility at this point. 2. The facility should be homogeneous with the golf course to create a very desirable summer tourist attraction with good-quality clubhouse, showers, snack bar and pool facility . A great deal,of money was spent on the golf course improvements ,and they should be complemented. 3. The restaurant, bar and 10\.lnge should be allowed to continue and pos- sibly enlarged to accompany cOnvention facilities. 4. The Aspen-Snowmass lodges which appear to be most profitable are those with meeting rooms and/or major conference facilities. A good example - i,s the Stonebridge Inn, operating at Snowm,ass Village. This 95-room facility offers a complete package for conferences including meeting rooms," restaurant, full...;time hot:elmanagemerit and conference director" etc. When comparing this facility to the Pokolodi Inn at Snowmass, which has baSically nofacilitioes of its own, a more profitable situation is reflected. , '. Further, the Stonebridge Inn has been condominiumized for separate owner- ship in approximately 1977. Typically, condominiumization has been considered to have a negative impact by the Aspen City Council. I have interviewed the management of the Stonebridge Inn and found that very few negative features have surfaced s,ince condominiumizat,ion and, on the contrary, many positive features have resulted. (The same management was also present prior to condomini\.lmization.) The main negative feature usually considered is that to\.lrist beds will be taken off the market by owners. The Stonebridge Inn has a ,total of 95 \.lnits, of ,,'hic'h 9 are owned and operated by the condominium association. Out of the balance of 86 units, only three units do not offer their property in the rental pool. Fifty-five of the units' owners have never stayed in the unit and have purchased it strictly as an investment. The balance of 29 unit owners use their property less than two weeks out of the year. Therefore, it is obvious th'lt very few units are lost in the tourist bed market. The major pO$itive fe,ature ofcpndominiumization is that the ,operating costs and managemen.t 'fees are borne by a large number 'of owners versus by an individu,allod,ge owner. It is easy to see by inspecting nume,rousAspenl,odges that 'll.:i:gh-qti,alityfacilities cannot be maintain,ed by single ownership. Remodeling of small ma and pa lodge operations is done only a few units at a time; whereas, a continual high-quality maintenance and remodeling programs canbeaccomp'lished "ith multiple condominium ownership. 5. A good example of how conference facilities Can be made to pay for them- selves is, again, in the Stonebridge Inn. The 9 units that are owned by the condominium association are operated as 9 individual hotel rooms during the winter seasons when tourist beds are in great demand. The .Iii/lieS .I.lflollim It !\sSlll'lil1l'~ iiiI'. . Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants <".ii" . " I"'" ^ Mr. Monroe Summers Page 4 October 27, 1980 balance of the year (being late spring, sununer and early fall), these units have convertible walls which offer high-quality convention and meeting room facilities. By the presence of these.conventibn facilities, greater revenues are created for the association, as they allow for greater occupancy to the remaining 86 units. In my investigation, I have found much greater summer business and profit margin for the Stone- bridge Inn than othe,r Snowmass lodges. As an additional note, over the past 3-4 years, Snowmass in general has been extremely successful with the conventi.on business; possibly Aspen is losing a strong market. The golf course facility cou14 be a major feature in attracting similar sum- mer traffic. 6. Employee units are essential ,for .the success of a lodge facility of this nature. Key employees such as assistant manager, night desk clerks, auditors, barmen and breakfast cooks should be housed on the premises. This would. ensure high-quali,tyoperation, management and maint,enance. It is my opinion that these employee facilities can be fairly basic and considered on a rental basis, owned by th~ 'association. I do not feel that a typical employee housing project (i.e., Water Plant) should be considered on this highly visible and valuable amenity to the, City of Aspen. - 7. As most lodge owners would concur, it is a much more profitable venture to op'erate 100 units ormor,e versus 49 units. However, it is not my recom- mendation at this time that additional rooms be developed on the site. As much as I think this site could handle it, it would seem inconsistent with current zon'ing regulations and therefore open a "can of worms" with the other lodges. 8. The subject's current building is in fair condition at best. It requires substantial improvements in order to make it a viable summer tourist at- traction. Based upon the memo from Monroe Summers, it appears that sub- stantial roof maintenance is necessary, along with complete remodeling of nearly all the rooms. After analyzing the layout, condition and quality of the facility, it is my recommendation that the new purchaser be allowed to raze the .current struc,ture from the site and to build a new structure offering abetter layout, quality and design appeal. In order to complete this ,adequately, it may be essential to offer additional parking or addi- tional land. In summary, it is my op1.n1.on as a professional as well as a citizen of Aspen that the gO,lf course property isa very valuable asset to the City of Aspen. Since the City Council is neither interested in or competent to run a high-quality lodgingfacilit'y at the Plum Tree, some directives and lenients should be offered toa proposed purchaser in order to create a facility that is both economically feasible and a strong tourist attractor in the summer and shoulder seasons. Jumes 1 Molllm << rlssllrlilll'~ 11If. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants ""'" t"'''\ Mr. Monroe Summers Page 5 October 27, 1980 In this letter, I have covered, on a very brief basis, numerous points concerning the Plum Tree Inn. It may be difficult to follow my complete thought process in this brief letter ,bu,t I would be more than happy to meet with members of the City Council at any time and more fully clarify my position. I trust that this brief analysis will be helpful to the City of Aspen in their preliminary ,decision-mak:i.ng processes ahd negotiations with the proposed pur- chasers. If I can be of further assistance in the interpretation or application of ,the findings in this letter ,please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. -- Sincerely, JJM:kb .Iumes Hllllliw IUSSlIl'lilll'S.11I1'. Roal Estate Apprai5ers and COrisullants ,"'" !"""\ Jilmes J. ~lOmca [Associates, In~ Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Aspen, Colorado Crystal Palace Buitding. 300.East Hyman. Avenue -Aspen,Colorado 8161" . 303/925.8987 QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER James J. Mollica, M.A.I. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraiser's, M.A.1. 116085 Associate Member, Society of Real Estate, Appraisers (SRA, SRPA) Instructor, University of Colorado Continuing Education Division Lic"nsed R,eal Est;3te Broker in the State of Colorado Member of Aspen and Colorado Boards of Realtors Member of National Association of the Board of Realtors ,'-=-: EDUCATION: Ohio University, 1973, Business and Advertising, BSJ Society of Real Estate Appraisers: Course 201, Capita1ization American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course ,I-A, Principals Course VIII, Residential Course 2, Urban Properties Course IV, Condemnation I BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: Incorporat,ed James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., 1977 Independent Fee Appraiser as,sociil'tedwi,th Mason & Morse, Inc., 1974-77 Associated Consultants and Appraisers, inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1972-73 MAJOR CLIENTS SERVED: Aspen Highlands Ski ,Corp. Aspen Ski Corp. Aspen Savings and Loan Assoc. Bank of Aspen City of Aspen County of Pitkin First National Bank of Aspen First Western Mortgage Corp. Majestic Savings and Loan Nature Conservancy Trust for Public Lands United States Forest Service TYP,ES OF PROPERTY APPRAIS,ED: Commercial Condominiums Lodges -.'Ranches Residential Vacant Land PURPOSES OF APPRAISALS: Acquisition Condemnation Estate Planning Insura.nce. Liquidation Mortgage Partition Sales Tax Planning 1 , Scott M. Bowie,R.M. Randy Gold Bill Whaley Associate Appraisers II', '.',"i",' ,. James J. Mollica, M.A.I. Appraiser-Consultant I I ,