HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.01A-89ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920 -5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 - 63250 -134
00113 - 63270 -136
00113- 63280 -137
00113 -63300 -139
00113 - 63310 -140
00113 - 63320 -141
Referral Fees:
GMP /Conceptual
GMP /Final
Sub /Conceptual
Sub /Final
2 -Step .
1- Step /Consent
00125- 63340 -205 Envir. Health
00123- 63340 -190 Housing
00115- 63340 -163 Engineering
Sub -Total
County
00113 - 63160 -126
00113- 63170 -127
00113 - 63180 -128
00113 - 63190 -129
00113- 63200 -130
00113- 63210 -131
00113- 63220 -132
00113- 63230 -133
00113- 63450 -146
Referral Fees:
GMP /General
GMP /Detailed
GMP /Final
Sub /General
Sub /Detailed
Sub /Final
2 -Step
1- Step /Consent
Board of Adjustment
00125 - 63340 -205 Envir. Health
00123 - 63340 -190 Housing
00113- 63360 -143 Engineering
Sub -Total
Planning Office Sales
00113 - 63080 -122
City /County Code
00113- 63090 -123
Comp. Plan
00113 - 63140 -124
Copy Fees
00113- 69000 -145
Other P &Z Sales
Sub -Total
TOTAL
f I
Name:
Address:
(i
Check # "
n,)
Phone: ?
Project:
Date: (/
Additional Billing: # of Hours:
IV.
DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP
OF PROPERTY
e 3 - 3 35of3
joue l2 0il
SUPPLEMENTAL PUD AGREEMENT
City of Aspen - Hotel Jerome
M. ► rc�9
This supplemental PUD agreement is entered into this 10th day of May, 1991
by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred
to as "the City") and HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES, a Colorado general partnership
(hereinafter referred to as HJA),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, HJA's predecessor in title entered into an agreement with the City
entitled Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Agreement, Hotel Jerome
Renovation and Addition, dated July 31, 1986, recorded September 15, 1986 in Book
519 at Page 921 of the records of Pitkin County, and
WHEREAS, HJA has applied for a PUD amendment to modify the landscaping
plan approved in 1986 and to allow 125 outdoor dining seats instead of the 44
allowed in the 1986 agreement and
WHEREAS, the City has approved such application subject to certain
conditions,
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein
and of the City's approval of HJA's application,
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. Paragraph 4 of the 1986 agreement and its approved landscaping plan
is amended. Exhibit A, attached hereto, is the new amended approved landscaping
plan for the courtyard area westerly of the historic hotel. The approved courtyard
landscaping plan attached as Exhibit A includes the comer planter box and trees on
the small service deck shown on the 7/6/90 Gibson and Reno landscape plan, as well
as the planters and trees on the large deck shown on the 7/27/90 plan. In addition,
shrub plantings (5 gallon size minimum) shall be installed along the.street side of the
decks adjacent to the wooden planter boxes. These landscape elements shall be
installed no later than May 1, 1991 and be maintained in perpetuity unless
amendments are approved by the PUD amendment process.
2. Paragraph 7(e) is amended to allow for 125 outdoor restaurant seats as
shown in Exhibit A, instead of 44. The additional seating beyond that previously
approved may be used only between the dates of May 15 and September 15 of each
year.
3. New paragraph 7(f) is added to the PUD agreement as follows:
7. f) The approved special events for which the
outdoor dining seats are not limited to 125 are as follows:
Winterskol, World Cup skiing events, F.I.S. skiing events,
Food and Wine Classic, 4th of July, Labor day, and no
more than twenty (20) weddings, and private cocktail
receptions, e.g., MAA. Special Event seating over the
approved number shall be allowed only during the hours
of the events and must be removed promptly after the
events.
4. It is agreed that under paragraph 9 of the 1986 agreement, twenty-seven
(27) parking places are reserved for employee parking, and twenty-four (24) are
reserved for guest parking. HJA shall dedicate and mark twenty seven (27) employee
parking spaces within the underground garage, and the amended plat recorded
herewith reflects these HJA employee parking spaces. The Planning Office has
inspected the marking of the guest and employee places and the City accepts that
painting as sufficient; provided, however, HJA shall periodically repaint as may be
necessary. Contemporaneously with the execution of this agreement, the parties also
execute the Hotel Jerome Amended PUD Plat, Amended Page 5, containing a
notation as to the 24 guest/27 employee parking space restriction, which is to be
recorded in the records of Pitkin County.
S. Prior to installing the additional outdoor seating, and
contemporaneously with the execution of this PUD Amendment, employee housing
for .96 persons shall be deed restricted to the conditions required by the Aspen Pitkin
Housing Authority.
6. Any changes to this approved Final PUD Development Plan and this
amended PUD agreement are subject to subsequent reviews and approvals required
by the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen.
7. This agreement is authorized by the Resolution No. 70, Series of 1990,
adopted on November 12, 1990, and the commitments herein when completed fully
meet and are accepted as fully complying with that Resolution.
8. It is understood that HJA reserves ijs position for any future application
that it is entitled to credit for the diminution in employees occasioned by the
M
conversion of the former tea room, a restaurant, to an antique shop, a retail use.
9. The parties agree that all conditions precedent to the issuance of a
permanent certificate of occupancy upon the Hotel Jerome remodel and its addition
have been satisfied and a certificate or certificates duly issued. The City
acknowledges a certificate of occupancy for the Hotel addition, Phase 11, has been
issued pursuant to Section 8, p. 14, Amended and Restated PUD Agreement.
10. Either party may receive upon thirty (30) days notice an estoppel
certificate from the other that states all monetary obligations under the Amended and
Restated PUD Agreement or this PUD Amendment have been met and satisfied and
that, to the best of the parties' knowledge, there are no other defaults under the
Amended and Restated PUD Agreement and this Amendment. As of the date of the
execution of this Amendment, the parties acknowledge that each has satisfied any
monetary obligations to the other, and to the best of their knowledge, neither party
is in default under the Amended and Restated PUD Agreement and Amendment.
11. The City acknowledges that the one (1) year warranty of good
workmanship concerning the Hotel Jerome developer's landscaping and site
improvements as set forth in the 1986 Amended and Restated PUD Agreement,
Section 6, has expired.
12. The City acknowledges that the requirement in Section 8 of the 1986
Amended and Restated PUD Agreement restricting four units on site to employee
housing in the Hotel annex is no longer of any legal effect, having been so determined
by Resolution No. 1, Series of 1987 (Cortina units replacing annex units). The
Cortina Declaration and Amendment are deemed to be in full satisfaction of the
employee housing requirement of Section 8 including (but not limited to) the
substitution provision of Section 8, page 15, Amended and Restated PUD Agreement
and this Amendment, so long as a sufficient number of units to house nineteen (19)
employees at the Cortina are so restricted, together with housing for one (.96)
additional employee which is the requirement arising from this application and
amendment (a total of 20 employees). That is, there is no longer any on -site
employee housing requirement for the Hotel Jerome.
13. The City agrees that Section 12, Amended and Restated PUD
Agreement has been fully complied with.
14. Section 16, Amended and Restated PUD Agreement as to notice to
parties is amended to provide as follows:
3
City: City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
copy to: City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Hotel Jerome Associates: Hotel Jerome Associates
TCC (The Continental Companies)
3250 Mary Street
Miami, FL 33133
copies to : Hotel Jerome Associates
Tobishima Associates, Ltd.
Attn: Mr. Tony Yamada
350 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
and
Hotel Jerome Associates
Whitman & Ransom
Attn: Kenneth S. Brown, Esq.
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
15. Section 17, Amended and Restated PUD Agreement and "binding
effect." The restrictions of the Amended and Restated PUD Agreement and of this
Amendment are intended to run with the land, but are not intended to be personal
obligations of previous owners, i.e., owners of the Hotel Jerome property are released
from these obligations once there is a transfer of ownership and a new owner in place
who is charged with compliance.
16. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Amended and Restated
PUD Agreement remains in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties execute this agreement as of the date set
forth above.
4
�F
Attest:
13
Approved as to form:
lc�wl .
M. Caswall, Esq., City Attorney
Attest:
E
CITY OF ASPEN,
a municipal corporation
�0
L.
OWNERS:
HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES,
a Colorado general partnership
By T.A. AT ASPEN, LIMITED,
a Delaware corporation, PSPt�
as a general partner thereof
Q
By
Toy amada, President
0
Llh,rF' .
b
e
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '&A? of
1991, by William L. Stirling, as Mayor, an' L K--e
as�Ci Clerk of the City of Aspen. tfyrNGELA T si
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:_,
&damu
Nota - Public
/c uA2n= ao'Y7b 11
Address
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss
County of )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of
, 19911 by Tony Yamada, as President and by
Lt Inc cJg as Secretary of T.A. at Aspen, Ltd.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
CLAUDIA WATSON
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 07 WA4817495
Qualified in Westchester County
Certificate Filed in New York�Cpunty
Commission Expires July 31,_CYY, Notary Public
`3 aa'� 14 xw-
Address
M autiT Vc" viv mq(o:
CAwPX- PVgapud3kag
R
AMENDMENT TO CORTINA DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS
This amendment to the agreement concerning the Cortina Lodge is entered
into this 10th day of May, 1991, by and between HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES,
a Colorado general partnership, and the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation.
WITNESSETH:
WIIEREAS, the City and the Hotel Jerome entered into a Declaration of
Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions for the Cortina Lodge dated November 21,
1988, and recorded in Book 581 at Page 332 of the records of Pitkin County, and
WHEREAS, the Hotel Jerome is currently using eleven (11) units in the
Cortina to house 19 employees of the Hotel Jerome (Units 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14,
15, and 16, with 13 being a common kitchen), and
WHEREAS, the Hotel is obligated to house an additional .96 employee, which
for present purposes, it designates as one (1) employee, to meet a condition of the
granting of permission for outside seating at the hotel of up to 125 seats and for
special events, all as is set forth in Ordinance 70, Series 1990,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval above mentioned and for
other consideration, the City of Aspen and Hotel Jerome Associates agree as follows:
1. To meet the additional employee housing requirement of Ordinance 70,
Series of 1990, Hotel Jerome Associates, hereby dedicates Unit 5 of the Cortina to
house at least one Hotel Jerome employee for so long as Hotel Jerome Associates
operates 125 outside restaurant seats instead of the previously approved 44, and no
longer than as is set forth in the original declaration, par. 5, Book 581 at Page 336.
2. The City accepts such dedication as meeting the requirements of
Ordinance 70, Series of 1990.
3. The parties acknowledge that the original Cortina declaration, referred
to above, and this amendment, are intended to bind the Cortina real property and the
current owner of the Hotel Jerome, as that current owner may from time to time
change. That is, the obligations of the Cortina Declaration and amendments run
with the Cortina property but prior owners of the Hotel Jerome and the Cortina
property are released from Cortina obligations once they have transferred ownership
of those properties.
4. This agreement shall be recorded in the records of Pitkin County to
restrict the land upon which is located the Cortina Lodge, which is Lots P and Q,
Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen.
5. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Original Declaration
remains in full force and effect.
Attest:
Executed as of the date and year above written.
S.
Approved as to form:
Edward M. Caswall, Esq., City Attorney
Attest:
— 4t
2
CITY OF ASPEN,
a municipal corporation
By p
William L. Stirling, Mayor
OWNERS:
HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES,
a Colorado general partnership
By T.A. AT ASPEN, LIMITED,
a Delaware corporation,
as a general partner thereof k
Q
Q.
By
Tony ra cli, President
0 IT
1
rc
a`
,o
6• III
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss
County of Pitkin
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /f Div of
—)u 1991, by William L. Stirling, as Mayor, and Y&dnyn=SKvsh
as\City lerk of the City of Aspen. "-rNc.&Z;ti' - 15tei
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: „ A2 Z��
Not4j Public
Address
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss
County of �/VV )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /3*�, of
19911 by Tony Yamada, as President and by
as Secretary of T.A. at Aspen, Ltd.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
CLAUDIA WATSON
Notary Public State of New York
No. 01 WA4817495
qualified in Westchester County
Certificate Filed in New York County
Commission Expiros July 31 !gaa-
n18Vgam 4kag
c: \wpbmpVyaoor4kag
3
Notary Public
3" �
Address
JLd7–v- ZLnclu N\�(D55'4-
Aet)
4��tC (f{ S
PVC 373 - %s
3 33 So.
AMENDMENT TO CORTINA DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS
This amendment to the agreement concerning the Cortina Lodge is entered
into this 10th day of May, 1991, by and between HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES,
a Colorado general partnership, and the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City and the Hotel Jerome entered into a Declaration of
Covenants, Restrictions, and Conditions for the Cortina Lodge dated November 21,
1988, and recorded in Book 581 at Page 332 of the records of Pitkin County, and
WHEREAS, the Hotel Jerome is currently using eleven (11) units in the
Cortina to house 19 employees of the Hotel Jerome (Units 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14,
15, and 16, with 13 being a common kitchen), and
WHEREAS, the Hotel is obligated to house an additional .96 employee, which
for present purposes, it designates as one (1) employee, to meet a condition of the
granting of permission for outside seating at the hotel of up to 125 seats and for
special events, all as is set forth in Ordinance 70, Series 1990,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval above mentioned and for
other consideration, the City of Aspen and Hotel Jerome Associates agree as follows:
1. To meet the additional employee housing requirement of Ordinance 70,
Series of 1990, Hotel Jerome Associates, hereby dedicates Unit 5 of the Cortina to
house at least one Hotel Jerome employee for so long as Hotel Jerome Associates
operates 125 outside restaurant seats instead of the previously approved 44, and no
longer than as is set forth in the original declaration, par. 5, Book 581 at Page 336.
2. The City accepts such dedication as meeting the requirements of
Ordinance 70, Series of 1990.
3. The parties acknowledge that the original Cortina declaration, referred
to above, and this amendment, are intended to bind the Cortina real property and the
current owner of the Hotel Jerome, as that current owner may from time to time
change. That is, the obligations of the Cortina Declaration and amendments run
with the Cortina property but prior owners of the Hotel Jerome and the Cortina
property are released from Cortina obligations once they have transferred ownership
of those properties.
ID • t J„
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office
Re: Hotel Jerome GMQS Exemption- Change in Use and
Conditional Use Amendment - Public Hearing
Date: February 21, 1989
SUMMARY: The proposal involves approving the conversion of the
Grand Parlour Suite guestroom on the first floor to office space
(GMQS Exemption, Change in Use) and to consent to Planning
Director approval of both the Conditional Use Amendment for the
office space and an Insubstantial PUD Amendment, listing
permitting commercial uses.
APPLICANT: The Hotel Jerome represented by Andrew Hecht,
Garfield and Hecht, Attorneys at Law
LOCATION: 330 East Main Street, Lots A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I,
Part of N, O, P, Q, R, Block 21, Townsite and City of Aspen
ZONING: "CC" Commercial Core with "H ", Historic Overlay
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a
GMQS Exemption for the change in use for the Grand Parlour Suite
guestroom to office use, approval of a Conditional Use Amendment
for the office space, and approval of an Insubstantial PUD
Amendment, establishing a list of permitted retail uses, for
this project, to include the antique store previously converted
from the tea room.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: In a memo dated February 7, 1989 from Elyse
Elliott of the Engineering Department, no problems are
noted for parking considerations. She finds that the
changes in use proposed do not impact parking or public
facilities, however, she makes the following comments which
should be considered:
1. It was represented in the original PUD that trash
facilities would include an indoor compactor.
Currently there is no compactor on site, and the
dumpsters are located outdoors.
The Engineering Department suggests that the limousines
(vans) park in the parking lot inside of the hotel
instead of on the street. It would also be preferable
if the limousines would drop off guests inside the
parking garage. This would improve traffic and
circulation in front of the hotel.
Housing Authority: Staff member Janet Raczak states in a
memo dated February 15:
1. According to the Housing Authority Guidelines, the
applicant is required to supply housing for 3.9
employees per 1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable; however,
City Code states that the applicant is required to
provide mitigation for 3.5 - 5.25 employees /1,000 sq.
.' ft. of net leasable. The Housing Authority states that
impact mitigation for 5.25 employees based upon the low
income category guidelines is recommended. _ (�Q`io Ac,
2. The space was previously utilized as a guest
amenity /tourist accommodation and overflow lobby.
These uses have minimal impact on employees generated.
However, commercial /business /office space does have an
impact and should be addressed by the applicant.
The Housing Authority recommends that the applicant be
required to provide housing for, or mitigate the impact of,
at least three (3) employees, depending upon the exact
square footage of the change of use space.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning office staff has the following
comments:
GMQS E7M4PTION CHANGE IN USE: Section 8- 104(B)(1)(c) allows
for the Exemption by Commission for the enlargement of change of
use of an Historic Landmark which develops more than 500 sq.ft.
of commercial or office space, provided that the following
impacts are mitigated:
Requirement 1. Employee Housing must be provided at the
level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-
106 for the use.
Response: Currently, 19 employee units are being provided
based upon the 1983 approval. These units were calculated
prior to the present day standards being employed by the
Housing Authority. The applicant argues that the original
approval was for 105 hotel guest rooms with only 94 actually
constructed, and that an 'additional 13,000 sq.ft. of
commercial space was approved and 0% was actually built;
Oco t efore the employees that might be generated from the new
1,600 sq. ft. of commercial have already been compensated
t or. The applicant's position is that there will be no
)J impact on employee housing by its proposal that has not
L,p 0 been fully satisfied by the original provision of 19
employee units.
2
Staff feels that while this argument may appear valid, the
.2 to .4 employee - per -guest room percentage levels in place
back in 1983 were most likely conservative then, most
definitely far below reality now. In arguments over
employee generation at the proposed Ritz - Carlton hotel, Mr.
Butera stated that the Jerome employs closer to two (2)
employees per hotel guest room. Calculating that employee
generation at today's 60% threshold, it is safe to say that
the Hotel Jerome may be providing for only approximately
25% of the employees generated. Staff recommends that the
applicant provide for the three (3) additional employees
based upon the Housing Authority's calculation.
Requirement 2. The applicant must provide for parking
according to the code Standards.
Response: Based upon the Engineering Department's referral
comments and the new use, we find that parking impacts have
already been met.
Requirement 3. The applicant must meet the project's water
supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, transportation,
fire protection and solid waste disposal needs.
Response: As pointed out by the Engineering Department, a
problem exists with both the trash compactor agreement and
transportation needs for the hotel's vans. During initial
review of the PUD, the applicant represented that vans would
not park in this location due to conflicts with Main Street
traffic. This has been a difficult representation for us to
enforce over the years, and must be addressed by the
applicant.
Requirement 4. The applicant must demonstrate that the
project's site design is compatible with surrounding
projects and appropriate for the site.
Response: No exterior changes other than signage for the
new antique store are proposed with the application.
In summary, staff finds all the criteria for a change -in -use
under GMQS Exemption has been met with the exception of the
affordable housing impacts, trash compactor and van parking
requirements. We recommend that the -Housing Authority's
recommendation of impact mitigation of 5.25 employees based upon
the low income category guidelines ..is warranted under the
circumstances. -'
3
Insubstantial Amendment to PUD Agreement
Background: In December, 1988, Staff approved and Council
consented to a request to convert the Tea Room into an antique
store, subject to the Planning Office receiving an application to
amend the existing PUD agreement with a list of permitted retail
uses. The applicant has complied by submitting the following
list for your review. Code allows this activity to be approved
and signed off by the Planning Director, or if you prefer, this
issue pay go before City Council for their approval.
The purpose of the CC zone district as stated in Section 5- 209(A)
;?+' 'of the Code:
"to allow the use of land for retail and service
` commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with
`l customary accessory uses to enhance the business and service
character in the central business core of the City."
The applicant states that the following list of permitted uses
are consistent with the purpose of the CC district, and are in
fact less extensive than what is allowed by code.
Professional land business office
2) Restaurant, cabaret and night club, tea room
3) Retail commercial establishment limited to the
following and similar uses: antique store, art
gallery, bakery, bookstore, camera shop, candy, tobacco
or cigarette store, clothes store, florist shop, gift
shop, hobby shop, jewelry store, photographic shop,
record store, shoe store, sporting goods store,
stationery store, variety store
4) Service commercial establishment limited to the
following and similar uses: catering service,
-- financial institution; personal service including
arber and beauty shop, /custom sewing
I
5) Rental, repair and wholesaling facilities in
conjunction with any of the uses provided in #1 through
#4 above, providing all such activity is clearly
incidental and accessory to the permitted use and
conducted within a building
6) Storage of materials accessory to any of the uses
provided in #1 through #5 above, providing all such
storage is located within a structure.
The applicant further states that the above list of permitted
retail uses is restricted to those uses that are consistent and
4
compatible with the Development Plan for the Hotel Jerome.
STAFF'S COMMENTS: In a memo dated June 3, 1986 to the Planning
and Zoning Commission from Alan Richman, very similar discussion
was given to the variety of proposed commercial uses associated
with a "full service" hotel. Given the proximity of this site to
shops in the commercial core, it is quite obvious that all of
these uses are already within walking distance of guests.
Further, it could be expected that these uses will draw
additional patrons (and impacts) to the hotel, not simply acting
in an accessory manner for guests only. The key criteria here is
maintaining a "quiet corner ", a primary goal represented by both
the applicant and staff during the development stages. This
site is already maximized. As stated by Alan Richman in a letter
to the applicants in October, 1988 "...By putting a retail use at
the corner of Mill and Main is in direct conflict with the
representations made as to reduced pedestrian traffic and may
affect other representations regarding parking and employee
housing. Adding any retail or office space to the hotel is in
conflict with the representation that there would be no such
space included in the building." The Planning Office finds the
applicant's proposed list of uses excessive due to the downtown
location of the Hotel Jerome, and request that the P &Z recommend
a revised, smaller list that is more in keeping with the original
PUD approval.
We recommend that P &Z consider revising the proposed list,
eliminating the following uses:
1)
Clothes store
2)
Hobby shop
3)
Record store
4)
Shoe store
5)
Sporting goods store
6)
Variety store
Condition Use Amendment
Summary: This is another provision of the application which may
be approved by the Planning Director, however, should P &Z find
the criteria for granting such approval has not been met, a
recommendation for Council approval would be in order. Again,
Conditional Use Review Section 7- 308(B) of the Land Use Code
states the criteria for review of conditional uses as follows:
CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the purposed goals, objectives
and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in
which it is proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: Staff finds the office use proposed meets this
CRITERIA 5. Compliance with all additional standards imposed
by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other
applicable requirements.
RESPONSE: Staff finds the use complies with this criteria.
To conclude, we find that the proposed office use will create
minimal impacts to the hotel itself, and generally meets the
review standards above.
ALTERNATIVES: The Planning and Zoning Commission may chose to
either recommend that the Planning Director sign off on the
Conditional Use Amendment and the Insubstantial PUD Amendment, or
recommend that the Insubstantial PUD Amendment be taken before
Council for their approval. The GMQS Exemption for Change in Use
is a one -step process, which could also either be approved or
denied at this meeting or tabled pending further information.
C:7
criteria.
CRITERIA 2.
Consistency and compatibility with the character
of the immediate vicinity and surrounding land
uses.
RESPONSE:
The applicant states that with the change to
office from the Grand Parlour Suite, less interior
lobby traffic with be the result. It can be
argued that the change to office use, other than
for the hotel itself, may generate its own
significant traffic, independent of the hotel
traffic.
CRITERIA 3.
Minimization of adverse effects on surrounding
properties.
RESPONSE:
The applicant states that the new employees for
the office space are already employed at the
hotel, therefore, no additional employees are
being generated. No exterior changes are taking
place to the structure. Staff argues that while
Mr. Butera's real estate office may be the sole
office to occupy the space at this time, it is
likely that other businesses will occupy the
space in the future which may create additional
impacts.
CRITERIA 4.
Adequacy of public facilities and services to
serve the office space.
RESPONSE:
Staff finds the proposal will create no impact to
the public facilities and services.
CRITERIA 5. Compliance with all additional standards imposed
by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other
applicable requirements.
RESPONSE: Staff finds the use complies with this criteria.
To conclude, we find that the proposed office use will create
minimal impacts to the hotel itself, and generally meets the
review standards above.
ALTERNATIVES: The Planning and Zoning Commission may chose to
either recommend that the Planning Director sign off on the
Conditional Use Amendment and the Insubstantial PUD Amendment, or
recommend that the Insubstantial PUD Amendment be taken before
Council for their approval. The GMQS Exemption for Change in Use
is a one -step process, which could also either be approved or
denied at this meeting or tabled pending further information.
C:7
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve the GMQS Exemption for Change in
1 Use subject to the following conditions:
^> ,� i c r.
1) Compliance with the Housing Authority recommendation to
provide impact mitigation for three (3) employees.
2) Compliance with the Engineering Department's
requirement of an indoor trash compactor
3) Compliance with the Engineering Department's
requirement of limousine /van parking and drop off
i
We further recommend that P &Z revise the'list of permitted retail
uses under the Insubstantial PUD Amendment as recommended by the
Planning Office, to be approved and signed off by the Planning
Director. Finally, we recommend that the Conditional Use
Amendment be approved as proposed.
memo.pz.jerome
4
/7�� -
L -
r.;
7
1Z
PC
r.
4tAl
RONALD GARFIELD*
ANDREW V. HECHT**
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.'"
ROBERT E. KENDIG
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON
CATHERINE H. McMAHON•sr«
•Jw dI w
New Y04 Bar
••alw dmin<d w
ciao-:. d Col. nm Bar
•••Jra dmivd w
Ncb�ssta ad Me. Bar
••••ilso dmi�cd w
Ifirola far
HAND DELIVERY
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
Roxanne Eflin
Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
February 10, 1989
TELEPHONE
(303) 925 -1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925 -3008
NEW
RE: Hotel Jerome GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Amendment
and PUD Amendment
Dear Roxanne:
As requested by you in our telephone conversation of
Wednesday, February 8, 1989, this is to set forth facts that are
pertinent to your department's and the Housing Authority's
consideration of the above - captioned application's impact on
employee housing.
The 1983 Hotel Jerome PUD Renovation and Addition approved
by the Aspen City Council on April 11, 1983 (recorded in Book 440
at Page 750 of the Pitkin County real estate records) provided
for a total of 105.hotel rooms and 13,000 square feet of retail
space in the new addition. Based on those numbers, the City
Council imposed an exaction of nineteen (19) employee housing
units from the developer. In 1986 the Amended and Restated
Planned Unit Development Agreement, Hotel Jerome - - Renovation
and Addition ( recorded in Book 518 at Page 921), reduced the
number of hotel rooms from 105 to 94 and eliminated all 13,000
square feet of retail space in the new addition. No credit was
given the developer for the reduction in employee generation by
reason of the foregoing, although there were clearly fewer
employees generated by both the reduction in rooms and the
elimination of the retail space. The developer provided all
nineteen employee units.
The present application seeks an increase of approximately
1000 square feet of office space (conversion of the Grand Parlour
Suite to office space), while reducing the number of hotel rooms
from 94 to 93. Three of the four persons who will occupy the
GARFIELD & HEGHT, P.G.
Roxanne Eflin
February 10, 1989
Page -2-
proposed office space are present employees of the applicant who
will move from inadequate and cramped office space already in
place. Since the purpose is to relieve the present overcrowded
condition of that space, no new employees will be moved into the
space formerly occupied by the three who will move into the
proposed offices. Accordingly, the only new impact is that of
one employee.
The City Council deemed the original assessment of nineteen
employee units sufficient to satisfy, (in addition to other
commercial space in the hotel), the employees generated by 105
rooms and 13,000 square feet of retail space. Since that
assessment, the applicant has added only 600 square feet of
retail space (with a corresponding reduction in restaurant
space), by the conversion of the Tea Room to the antique store
(approved by the City Council on its December 12, 1988 Consent
Agenda). Theoretically, the original assessment would satisfy
the employees generated by an additional 12,400 square feet of
retail space, as well as twelve more rooms.
The applicant seeks only 1000 square feet of office space
(which generates fewer employees than retail space and fifteen
percent of which will consist of restrooms to be utilized by
other hotel staff in addition to servicing the office space), and
will generate only one new employee. The impact of that employee
was previously provided for by the original employee housing
assessment.
It is, therefore, the applicant's position that there will
be no impact on employee housing by its proposal that has not
been fully satisfied by the original provision of nineteen
employee units.
Sincerely yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
\ q
Catherine H. McMahon
CHM /km
DATE RECEIVED: 1 89
DATE COMPLETE: /// a 8
PROJECT NAME:
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737 - 073 -21- 001- O1A -89
STAFF MEMBER:
Project Address: 330 East Main Street
Legal Address: Lots A B, C, E, F, G, H, I. Part of N. O, P, O,
R, Block 21
APPLICANT: Hotel Jerome
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Andrew Hecht, Garfield & Hecht
Representative Address /Phone: 601 East Hvman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611 5 -1936
PAID YES NO AMOUNT: $810.00 NO. OF COMES RECEIVED: 4
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: \// 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Dates — i PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: / Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: V Date:
DATE REFERRED: /I/ W K INITIALS:
FI NAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: /o% YINITIAL:
/ _
�! City Atty City Engineer _ Zoning _ Env. Health
Housing
FILE STATUS AND
Other:
LOCATION •
REFERRALS:
Attorney
Mtn. Bell
School
District
City Engineer
_V,lCity
Parks Dept.
Rocky
Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir.
Holy Cross
State
Hwy Dept(GW)
— Aspen Water
Fire Marshall
State
Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric
Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth.
Roaring Fork
Other
Aspen Consol.
Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: /I/ W K INITIALS:
FI NAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: /o% YINITIAL:
/ _
�! City Atty City Engineer _ Zoning _ Env. Health
Housing
FILE STATUS AND
Other:
LOCATION •
CASE DISPOSITION
To: File
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: The Hotel Jerome, 330 East Main St.: GMQS Exemption,
Change in Use and Conditional Use Amendment
Date: August 21, 1989
On February 21, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
the applicants request for three items:
GMQS Exemption, for the change in use for the Grand Parlour
Suite guestroom to office use;
A Conditional Use Amendment for the office space; and
Insubstantial PUD Amendment approval, establishing a list of
permitted retail uses for this project, including the
antique store previously converted from the tea room.
(Note: Please refer to staff memo and P &Z Minutes of the
February 21 minutes attached)
Approval was granted for the GMQS Exemption, for the change in
use. The three conditions recommended by the Planning Office,
stated in the memo, were not included in this approval. Approval
was also granted for the Conditional Use Amendment for the Office
Space.
The Commission further granted approval for the Insubstantial PUD
Amendment, adopting the Planning Office's recommended revisions
to the applicant's proposed list, as stated in the memo. The
approved list is as follows:
1) Professional and business office
2) Restaurant, cabaret and night club, tea room
3) Retail commercial establishment limited to the
following and similar uses: antique store, art
gallery, bakery, bookstore, camera shop, candy, tobacco
or cigarette shop, florist shop, gift shop, jewelry
store, photographic shop and stationery store
4) Service commercial establishment limited to the
following and similar uses: catering service,
financial institution, personal service including
barber and beauty shop, custom sewing
5) Rental, repair and wholesaling facilities in
conjunction with any of the uses provided in #1 through
#4 above, providing all such activity is clearly
incidental and accessory to the permitted use and
conducted within a building
6) Storage of materials accessory to any of the uses
provided in #1 through #5 above, providing all such
storage is located within a structure
Further, the above list of permitted retail uses is restricted to
those uses that are consistent and compatible with the
Development Plan for the Hotel Jerome.
cd.330em
2
Revised Recommendations - Hotel Jerome memo
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve the GMQS Exemption for Change in
Use subject to the following conditions:
1. The Housing Authority requirement of impact mitigation
for 3 employees (60% of the 5.25 employees generated)
shall be met prior to office occupancy by either:
a) deed restricting units to accommodate three
(3) employees at the Northstar Lodge, prior to
C.O., or
b) payment -in -lieu of $75,000 based upon the low
income category guidelines of the Housing
Authority, prior to issuance of a building permit
for the Change in Use
2. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering
Department's requirement to provide an indoor trash
compactor, as represented in the original PUD
agreement, within 60 days of the Change in Use
approval or prior to issuance of a building permit for
Change in Use, whichever is soonest.
3. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering
Department's requirement that guest drop off be
accomplished via the inside of the parking garage, and
that no limousine /van parking or drop off be allowed
at the main entrance on Main Street. The Applicant and
the Engineering Department shall arrange for the
installation of "No Parking, Loading or Unloading"
signs at the main entrance to eliminate the associated
traffic problems.
We further recommend that the P &Z revise the list of permitted
uses under the Insubstantial PUD Amendment as recommended by the
Planning Office, to be approved and signed off by the Planning
Director. We also recommend that "Professional office" and
"Financial Institution^ be removed from the permitted use list in
addition to the deletions noted earlier in this memo.
Finally, we recommend that the Conditional Use Amendment be
approved as proposed.
memo.pz.jerome.2
IJ
Lis
oat,
All,
j L -"
jr
1
- --
It
i( �`�� att C� �{} �) Grp
I
VIA K }
ML. Alwi r.,,.um,ul
April 29, 1986
Page 3
HOTEL JEROME
Item
Approved
Proposed
Net Difference
Floor Area Ratio
2.7 to 1
2.23 to 1
-
.47
Square Footage
128,822
106,769
-
22,053
Historic
42,749
43,569
4
820
New
66,073
63,200
-
22,873
Parking - On -Site
- 0 -
50
+
50
Parking - Square Footage
- 0 -
16,400
+
18,400
Number of Rooms
105
94
-
11
Iistoric
28
27
-
1
New
77
67
-
10
Open Space
11,928
13,200
+
1,272
Height
51.5
53.5
+
2
Retail
13,000
- 0 -
-
13,000
.; ..:t:! ....,.
- - q ;C
.. - 2 )0 s
.its -
200
Fia�c:ry
5,0L'0
4,000
-
1,060
PERRY A. HARVEY
601 East Bleeker Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -4545
April 29, 15P,6
Mr. Alan 1ticnnlan
Director of Planning
city of Aspen
13U South Galena
^,s ^en, Coiurado 61611
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 24 -8.26 of the City of
Aspen Zoning Code, the Hotel Jerome submits this request for certain
specific amendments to the Planned Urban Development for the
._. o,n`ic ;n .::n:i 4(;'64tion.
;'h1= I(Ill owl na chances in conc:itioils since the .ccorl atior, of
tike Agreewont create the need for this req:)est:
1. HISTORIC: As part of the Listing of tnc Jero;re on the National
Register of Historic Places, the National Parr: Service approved
the concept of an addition but rejected the d =_sign of the
addition with the large bay windows as approved by the City of
Aspen. Thus, a redesign of the addition is necessary.
2. ANNEX: As approved, the plans called for removing the Annex anti
joining the addition to the north side of the historic Hotel
;)casing, the Annex was retained for kitc :inn and employee
housing. A redesign is required to accouunoda.e the continued
xist,ncr of the Annex.
3. PARKING: 1;. l r h.t, wil,_n
oil tn•. ., 1., l „.. ,.. .1' „• .t .. h.. ti:. .,
coincide with the Jerome redevelopment. As t:.• p:irrcing
structure is still a future consideration any 'ne Hotel must
convonjol;t 'parxilnj, thy' re•1•.•til111 •.Ill! ;/:- :J.. I)I7 -',I C11
parking for employees and guests.
4. USES: Tie approved plan has 13,000 squilre fe_c of retail shops,
4 restaurants with some 450 seats, and 5,0U0 s'luare lcct of
meeting space. The current owners wish to eliminate the retail
space, keep only the existin two resrant and reduce
g t u s the
meeting space, to be accomplished through a redesign.
Mr. Alan Richman
April 29, 1986
Page 2
W;in t follows is a description of the proposed addition and a
C): tilt, lmpacL of tai:sit c71allges to Life situ and the
C.::uIP U I:1 t l'. 111 Conjunction with till` desci iption, plea!:C ICi:el' to tarn
chart 1 have prepared comparing the specifics of the approved and
proposed designs
Tile new design more closely reflects the desires of the
National mark Service in echoing many elements of the Historic
building using brick ",with horizontal banding and arched windows with
the distinctive "eyebrows" of brick. The footprint of the building
has been changed to accommodate retention of the Annex. An area of
open space.has been created to provide a break between buildings,
light for the Silver;'nueen Dining Room and ventilation for tiie Annex
housing. Tile remainder of the building is much the same as
approved, located in the parking area and to the west in the pool
area'.
The approved design called for a tiered setback on Mill Street
and at the corner of Mill -and Bleeker. These setbacks were to
reduce the winter shading on Bleeker and to give visual relief to
the facade of the addition on Mill Street. The proposed desi.gn
Vli3 d .i Y: i)t !" sethaer: on nil -el:Cr (ti:el\)e f°et). 'i!1^_ i•il:l `;tree'
elevation is no longer setback, due to the need to provide spacious
'note! rooms I.hile maintaining tile imaxi!!lum possible open space.
Access from the historic to the addition was along the eastern
side of the historic into the new. The new access, down the west
side of the historic building, requires a secondary lobby on the
west. This will be glass to detract minimally from the facade. The
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) has changed dramatically from the approved
plan. Retention of the Annex has made the historic portion larger
but the overa-11.FAR has been lowered by 178. The total project has'
been reduced by almost 23,000 square feet.
&d'i'ne this is a significant reduction, of greater importance is
the reduced impact on the site and the environs due to the changes
. .. °+ ?: -. .. li ii• ^.:. .:Ili +'!f!:It 1,1 ;1 Cif Cii•• retie] 1 i1:: (':• b] l l a•�tr red A;.•
�, ':! ) i is i.: •17 1 :1 .: f:i:1:1 1:1 i
:UI .. •.I1, i.. •1•:It':.
in . -:f :a•C1.5 no tllle V117i :i:l.n l'•..1� J....
1 Uil
v,aln ano i *il i l allow tut' a more gradual ii1111a CL to Lac t:IlLi Lt.' L1 Ci' ui
Aspen.
GUOS" impact on tin.. Site and ilm"ediate neitinborhoutl has also
hoNln su.)s*_anLially improved. The approved plan had 28 rooms in the
historic ;wilding and 77 in the new, with the sole guest .iron) -off
and pick -up on Main Street. The proposed plan has 27 rooms in the
historic and 67 in the addition, for a reduction of 11 rooms over-
all. 'A s•acondary guest delivery and pick -up has been designed off
Bleeker Street in the enclosed parking area. 'Taxis and special
events vehicles can use this second means of entry to alleviate the
congestion on Main Street.
Mr. Alan Richman
April 29, 1986
Page_ 4
i,n.• rc)ow dc!Iign is a critical cl ^n,cn,_ in thr% addition. They
to the roow!: in Lin- :ij .l.oric in spaciousness and
Uf'i I, L U O U S 1 WS!; . :, J. not, I ,jUesLs 1:1Iahll• L(, r•_:;crv;: historic rooms may
clloos: a,tornate lodging, creating a prohlom comparable to the Brown
palace's in Denver. The success of the hotel Jerome with a reduced
number of rooms requires that all the rooms ue equal in feel to
those currently existing. Please keep this in mind during your
review of this proposed design.
originally parking was set at 60 spaces, 35 for employees and
25 for guests. The analysis made several key assumptions: (1) The
Hotel would provide three limousines and market itself as a central
facility with no need for a car; (2) the Rio Grande parking lot
-,:ouip be replaced with a parking structure; (3) there would be no
parking on the Jerome site; and, (4) the off -site employee housing
location was unknown and thus assumed to be a commute.
The proposed plan comes in light of today's realities. The
limousines and the marketing plan are unchanged. The Rio Grande
parking still exists and there will be fifty spaces on -site.
Finall•:, the Cortina Lodge has been approved for off -site employee
.:lui eig ^t parxirg places orhL• bluc". from) the Hotel
entran--c. Instead of the sole harking facility being the Rio Grande
structure, the Hotel and the orie- blocr: vicinity will boast 50 spaces .
on- site, 8 employee "spaces one block away, and the continued exis-
tence of parking at the Rio Grande. Thus, if we need 35 employee
spaces and 8 are at the Cortina, we need 27 spaces on -site, leaving
23 for guests. For 94 rooms, the ratio of one space for 4.1 guest
rooms is marginally better than the approved ratio of one for each
4.2 rooms.
Ine new design provides for better delivery to the Hotel. As
approved, trucks had to pull across Bleeker and back in, stopping
traffic and creating potential problems during the winter. This
improved plan allows trucxs to back directly into the parking garage
or directly into two off- street parallel spaces.
..
1'..•1: :4t4V !ia:i :,l °'Ii 1[..:l Cal::•: .. I I•i; -. , -!{ to V, 'I I I e
r n,l�_ 13 1!1. t:uo•. ,u....... i:.. jf•ron:r alcion; the s:, ::c.•
between the historic and new building, un mill Street; anu along
Meeker Street.
The proposed building is two feet higher- at the corner of mill
ahcl [Sleeker. Tnis change is due to the Ashen code, which requires a
harap•.t of at least 30 'inches. The zoning officer has chosen to
interpret the code so that the building height will be measured to
the top of the parapet. The actual building roof is 50.5 feet with
36 inches of parapet.
Mr. Alan Richman
April 29, 1986
Page 5
The, consctruetiun schedule for Phas_• 11 has a best case and fall
!);IC plan. 16",1117, cunstruc 0011 w)(i :4•.In thi;: summer immediately
a11.01, '•;ranted. 1:g811)I et. lh:'. .:! i 1,.• In Cline for winter
us(t of tho ruows. The winter room us,! is lilt, critical element. If
construction is delayed:.so that no rentals will be possible for the
winner of 19.66 -1987, then construction will be :ustponed to toe
spring of 1987 for opening in December of 1987.
Employee generation was estimated to be at 80, with 30 part -
time and 50 full- time.`'As the new format will not increase restau-
rant space, these employee projections are still valid. The
Amendment will not alter the approved housing plan for 4 employees
on -site and 15 off - site.
In addition to thel',Amendment, a variance is requested from the
Planning and Zoning Commission for the trash service area. Area and
Bulk requirements call - -for a trash service area abutting the Alley.
Section 24.3.7(H)(4) allows variation of this provision by the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission. Under Article 24.3.5(b), we deserve a
variance because we provide for enclosing trash compactors within
the garage and easily moved containers for use by trash personnel.
I loo,: forward to further discuss:cn: regaroin, this improved
redesiut: u: the Hotel ierome.
Sincerely,
Perry A. Harvey
PAH /nkb
Attachment - 1
MEMORANDUM
To: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
Date: February 7, 1989
Re: Hotel Jerome GMQS Exemption- Change in Use; Conditional Use
Amendment and Insubstantial PUD Amendment
The Engineering Department has the following comments on the
above application:
The changes in use have apparently already been made by the Hotel
Jerome. We have no problem with these changes, we do not view
them as impacting the parking or public facilities. However, we
would like to make these comments on other aspects of the hotel:
1. It was represented in the original PUD that trash facilities
would include a compactor and be indoors. There is not a
compactor in use and the dumpsters are located outdoors.
2. We would like the limousines to park in the parking lot
inside of the hotel instead of on the street. it would also be
preferable if the limousines could drop off guests inside the
parking garage. This would improve the traffic and circulation
in the front of the hotel.
RONALD GARFIELD'
ANDREW V. HECHT **
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. * **
ROBERT E. KENDIG
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON
CATHERINE H. McMAHON * * **
•alw admitted to
New York Bar
'•also admired to
District of Columbia Bar
•'also admitted m
• Nebraska and Texas Bar
-also admitted to
Illinois Bar
0 0
GARN E1LD & HECHT, 1P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
January 19, 1989
Aspen Planning & Zoning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Development Application for Hotel Jerome
GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Amendment and
PUD Amendment
Gentlemen:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925 -1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925 -3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $20.00 to cover the
increase in the fee for the above - captioned Development
Application.
CHM /km
Enclosure
Sincerely yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Catherine H. McMahon
4MI 9
4 y
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
January 13, 1989
Andrew Hecht
Garfield & Hecht
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Hotel Jerome GMQS Exemption- Change in Use; Conditional
Use Amendment and Insubstantial PUD Amendment
Dear Andy,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application IS complete with the exception
of that the fee is $20.00 short. Effective 1/1/89 the fees for
City applications changed. Instead of $680.00 for a one step
application the fee is $700.00. Please forward the difference to
US.
We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission at a public hearing to be held on Tuesday,
February, 21, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. The
Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a
copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at
the Planning Office.
The Conditional Use portion of this application is a public
hearing which requires that the applicant post a sign and mail
notice of the public hearing to adjacent property owners. I have
enclosed a copy of "Public Hearing Notice Requirements" for your
information.
If you have any other questions, please call Roxanne Eflin, the
planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office
"i
RE: Hotel Jerome GMQS Exemption- Change in Use; Conditional
Use Amendment and Insubstantial PUD Amendment
DATE: January 16, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Andrew Hecht on behalf of the Hotel Jerome requesting approval
to convert the Tea Room at the corner of Main and Mill to an
antique shop and to convert the Grand Parlour Suite guestroom on
the first floor to office space.
Please review this material and return your comments to me no
later than February lo, 1989 so that I have time to prepare a
memo for the P &Z.
Thank you.
jo -5
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
FOR
HOTEL JEROME
GMQS EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT
AND
PUD AMENDMENT
SECTION
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VIZ.
VIII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
LETTER OF APPLICATION
STREET ADDRESS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
VICINITY MAP
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR HOTEL JEROME GMQS EXEMPTION,
CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT AND PUD AMENDMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
B. BACKGROUND
C. GMQS EXEMPTION
1. Code Requirements
2. Review Standards
D. CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT
1. Code Requirements
2. Review Standards
E. PUD AMENDMENT
1. Code Requirements
2. The Insubstantial Amendment
3. Review Standards
I.
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
�m
AarAr��ttxr 1
LAND USE APPLICAnCU FUW
1) project Name Hotel Jelarie
2) project location 330 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(indicate street address, lot & block rLzber, legal description where
appropriate)
Cr - Ccmrercial Core
3) Present Zoning (H - Historic ri- signation) 4) lot Size 47,712 square feet
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Hotel Jerom
330 East Main Street, Aspm, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -1000
6) Representative 9 s Name, Address & Phone # Andrew V Hecht Barfield & Hecht. P.C.,
601 East Human Avenue Aspen Colorado 81611
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
X Conditional Use orneptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Cornoeptual PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition
Mounta- n View Plane _ Subdivision _ Hi-s-toric Designation
Condaminivmi nation T1e3et/Map Amendment _ QK�S Allotment
Int Split/lat Line —X CK2S Fmmptim
Adjustment X PUD Amendment
8) Description of Ecictim Uses (ember and type of existing structures:
apprmc mate sq. ft.; ember of bedrooms: any previous approvals granted to the
Pte)-
The Jotel Jerome consists of the renovated original hotel and the new addition
to the north Sloe Or the n157011(, IIULC I
square feet. The existing uses include 94 bedrooms (27 in the historic hotel
and 67 in the addition) , two restaurants with some 225 seats, and some 4000
scruare feet of meeting space Previous approvals granted to the property are
the Hotel Jerane PUD, Renovation and Addition recorded on May 10, 1983 in **
9) Description of Development Application
The applicant seeks to (1) convert the Maa Rom at the mrnar of Main and
Mill Streets to an antique shop, and (2) convert the Grand Parlour Suite
guestroom on the first floor to office space.
10) Have you attached the following?
X Response to Attac meat 2, MUUZLM SUbmIssIcn Oxternts
X Response to Attac mernt 3, Specific Submission 0ontennts for PUD Amendment
y_ Rye to Attadment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
* *Book 444 at Page 750, Pitkin County, Colorado, and Amended and Restated Planned
Unit Development Agreement, Hotel Jerome - Renovation and Addition recorded on
September 15, 1986 in Book 518 at Page 921, Pitkin County, Colorado.
*Not applicable for GMQS Exemption and Conditional Use
II.
LETTER OF APPLICATION
'IN
RONALD GARFIELD'
ANDREW V. HECHT"
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.' *'
ROBERT E. KENDIG
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON
CATHERINE H. McMAHON * * **
•alu admitted to
New York Bar
••also edntood to
Doatt. or Commb,e eat
•••alw Ar000 d to
Neb,.k eM Team Bar
• ••ala adminM to
Moto, Ban
l /
GAR ELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission Members
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
January 5 , 1989
�.M
\a✓
RE: Development Application for Hotel Jerome
GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Amendment and
PUD Amendment
Dear Commission Members:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925 -1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925 -3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
Enclosed are four (4) copies of the above - captioned
Development Application, together with a check in the amount of
$810.00 to cover the processing fee. The Applicant's name and
address is:
Hotel Jerome
330 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
920 -1000
The Applicant's representative authorized to act on his behalf
is:
Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925 -1936
Please schedule the Developme Application on the Planning
& Zoning Commission's agenda on the arrest possible date.
HOTEL
BY:
T. Richa
Butera
III.
STREET ADDRESS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
STREET ADDRESS
HOTEL JEROME
330 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, O, P, Q, R, S and the
East 20 feet of Lot N, Block 79, together with the East
170 feet of the alley in said Block 79, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN.
2735AB
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRAf 7 REPORT
Made Forparf ield & Hecht, P. C.
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, 0, P, Q, R, S and the East 20
feet of Lot N, Block 79, together with the East 170 feet of
the alley in said Block 79, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN.
$100.00
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of
Marketing Corporation of America
NOTE: Structural improvements and appurtenances including basements,
foundations and fixtures situated upon the subject property were
conveyed to Jerome Palace Limited Partnership by Deed recorded June
7, 1985 in Book 487 at Page 495 as Reception No. 268763.
and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following
Lease Agreement between Marketing Corporation of America
! "Landlord ") and Jerome Palace Limited Partnership ( "Tenant ")
evidenced by Memorandum of Lease Agreement recorded June 7,
1985 in Book 487 at Page 499 as Reception No. 268765, and
Amendments thereto recorded December 10, 1986 in Book 524 at
Page 739 as Reception No. 283978 and in Book 524 at Page 742 as
Reception No. 283979. (Affects Lots 0 -S, the East 20 feet of
Lot N, and Alley)
Lease Agreement between Marketing Corporation of America
( "Landlord ") and the Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership
( "Tenant ") recorded August 8, 1986 in Book 516 at Page 194 as
Reception No. 280302. (Affects Lots A -I)
A Deed of Trust dated September 16, 1985, executed by The Hotel
Jerome Limited Partnership and Marketing Corporation of
America, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an
See Continuation Page
EXCEPT all easements, right -of -ways, restrictions and reservations of record.
EXCEPT any and all unpaid taxes and assessments.
This report does not reflect any of the following matters:
1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report
by more than fourteen (14) years.
2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or
until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years.
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be construed as an abstract of title,
nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen,
Inc., neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any state-
ment contained herein.
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 13th
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
BY A,22!, �25
Authorized Signature
Stewart Title Form OEZ 10/82
day of December A.D. 19 88 at 8:00 A.M.
ORDER. NO.:2735AB
rAGE 2
OV
indebtedness of $6,000,000.00, in favor of The Bank of New
York, recorded September 17, 1985 in Book 495 at Page 228 as
Reception No. 271473.
NOTE: Loan Modification Agreement recorded December 10, 1986
in Book 524 at Page 700 as Reception No. 283976, given in
connection with the above Deed of Trust.
Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting
the subject property, notice of which is given by Financing
Statement from The Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership, debtors,
to The Bank of New York, secured party, as Filing No. 09451,
recorded September 17, 1985 in Book 495 at Page 274 as
Reception No. 271474.
Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting
the subject property, notice of which is given by Financing
Statement from The Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership, debtors,
to The Bank of New York, secured party, as Filing No. 09452,
recorded September 17, 1985 in Book 495 at Page 275 as
Reception No. 271475.
Liens filed by the State of Colorado Division of Employment and
Training: recorded February 3, 1986 in Book 504 at Page 701 as
Reception No. 275373; in Book 504 at Page 702 as Reception No.
275328; in Book 504 at Page 703 as Reception No. 275329 and in
Book 504 at Page 704 as Reception No. 275330.
A Deed of Trust dated August 22, 1986, executed by The Hotel
Jerome Limited Partnership and Marketing Corporation of
America, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an
indebtedness of $9,000,000.00, in favor of The Bank of New
York, recorded December 10, 1986 in Book 524 at Page 660 as
Reception No. 283974.
NOTE: Disburser's Notice recorded December 10, 1986 in Book
524 at Page 733 as Reception No. 283977.
Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting
the subject property, notice of which is given by Financing
Statement from The Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership, debtors,
to The Bank of New York, secured party, as Filing No. 10438,
recorded December 10, 1986 in Book 524 at Page 708 as Reception
No. 283975.
A Deed of Trust dated December 9, 1986, executed by Marketing
Corporation of America, a Connecticut Corporation and The Hotel
Jerome Limited Partnership, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin
County, to secure an indebtedness of $1,600,000.00, in favor of
Jerome Hotel Company, recorded December 10, 1986 in Book 524 at
Page 746 as Reception No. 283980.
Security Agreement between the Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership
and Marketing Corporation of America, debtors, and Jerome Hotel
Company, secured party, to secure six promissory notes totaling
$600,000.00, dated June 6, 1985, recorded December 10, 1986 in
Book 524 at Page 757 as Reception No. 283981.
Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting
the subject property, notice of which is given by Financing
Statement from The Hotel Jerome Limited Partnership (formerly
Jerome Palace Limited Partnership) and Marketing Corporation of
America, debtors, to Jerome Hotel Company, secured party, as
Filing No. 10440, recorded December 10, 1986 in Book 524 at
Page 764 as Reception No. 283982.
V.
VICINITY MAP
5CAL E * 10 - 0,bO 1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Au OF LoT5 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, O P, Q, R, 5, THE EAbTEKL4
20 FEET OF LOT N AND THE EA -*EkL4 I -10.78 FEET OF THE
VACATED ALL.E4, MOCK 79, CIT4 AND TOWN51TE OF
A PEN, F'ITKIN OX94 N, COLOKAPO•
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I JAMES F KES K 1� KE6u CMnFLi THAT TH15 FINAL
�LAr'gNED UNIT iJEVELOPMENT PLAT OF74 -IE HOTEL
JEADME ACCUKATEL4 REME5EM'5 AN ACTUAL FIELD
5L)IZVE4 MADE UNDER M4 5UPEKVnI0N IN AarOKDANOE
..nr_j riv rolPY1 oF%11hFfi ^TATI rrF'g IQ %'� TITI G 'SSA
VI.
�r
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE
(See discussion contained in Development Application,
Section VIII herein)
n
VII.
.,J
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
CITY OF ASPEN ,..,,,
PRC,APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUR,,,.wkRY
PROJECT:
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: S-
1 Iq 3
OWNER'S NAME: �1L V t L�
1. Type of Applicat
2
7
Describe action /
Areas is which
types of reports
Policy Area/
Referral Agent
SUMMARY
requested:
Applicant has been requested to respond,
requested:
Comments
4. Review is: ( &Z Only) (CC Only) Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJ ROPERTY
OWNERS. (YES)' (NO) Disclosure of Ownership(: (YES))(NO)
c
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: D -t-
8. Anticipated date of submission: ASAP
9. COMMMEN/TS / /U.NI�Q�UE CONCERNS: J-- a1b�a_ �A
I LTV �U
frm.pre app
VIII.
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
FOR
HOTEL JEROME
GMQS EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT
AND
PUD AMENDMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
FOR
HOTEL JEROME GMQS EXEMPTION
CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT
AND
PUD AMENDMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
This Application seeks the following in connection with
the property commonly known as the Hotel Jerome and more
particularly described in Section III herein ( "Property "): (i) a
Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") Exemption by the Planning
Commission pursuant to Section 8- 104(B)(1)(b) of the Aspen
Municipal Code (the "Code "); (ii) a Conditional Use Amendment by
the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 7- 308(B) of the Code;
and (iii) a Planned Unit Development ( "PUD") Amendment by the
Planning Director pursuant to Section 7- 907(A) of the Code.
The purpose of the GMQS Exemption and Conditional Use
Amendment is to allow the conversion of the Grand Parlour Suite,
a guest room on the first floor of the hotel, to office space.
The PUD Amendment, is for the conversion of the Tea Room,
the restaurant at the northwest corner of Main and Mill Streets,
to an antique store, and to identify permitted uses for that space
in anticipation of possible future changes in its use. Following
the Planning Director's recommendation in a memorandum dated
November 29, 1988 that the conversion of the Tea Room to an antique
store be approved, the City Council approved the change on its
December 12, 1988 Consent Agenda. (A copy of that memorandum is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A ".) The approval was given with the
understanding that the Applicant submit a development application
that included an insubstantial amendment to the PUD listing
permitted uses for the storefront in conjunction with its
application pertaining to the Grand Parlour Suite conversion.
B. BACKGROUND
On April 11, IP983 the Aspen City -Council approved the
Hotel Jerome PUD Renovation and Addition (the 111983 PUD
Agreement "), which was recorded in the real estate records of
Pitkin County in Book 440 at Page 750 on May 10, 1983. When
ownership of the hotel passed from John Gilmore to its present
owners, it was necessary to amend the original PUD to accommodate
a phased development program for the renovation of and addition to
the hotel, and to reflect some minor changes in the concept of the
project. Accordingly, the Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development Agreement, Hotel Jerome - - Renovation and Addition
(the 111986 PUD Agreement ") was approved 'by the Aspen City Council
on June 17, 1986 and recorded in the Pitkin County real estate
records in Book 518 at Page 921 on September 15, 1986.
1
Paragraphs 12 and 20 of the 1986 PUD Agreement bind the
owners of the hotel by all written submissions and representations
made in writing to the Planning Commission and City Council during
the course of the PUD approval process and incorporated by
reference into the Agreement. Whe April 29, 1986 application for
the PUD Amendment submitted by the Applicant "presented) that all
of the 19,000 square feet of retail space that had been allowed in
the prior approval was being eliminated, resulting in no square
footage of retail area for the hotel. This was not intended to be
a representation that no future retail use would ever be
reinstalled. Although it is apparent that the representation
pertained to the new addition and that the application should have
recognized the historic retail use of the storefront and bar, the
matter should be clarified. In addition, the application
represented that the historic portion of the hotel would contain
27 guest rooms,, and the conversion of the Grand Parlour Suite to
office space reduces that number to 26.
C. GMOS EXEMPTION
1. Code Requirements.
Section 8- 104(B)(1)(b) of the Code provides that
[a]ny change in use of an existing
structure between the residential,
commercial /office and tourist
accommodations categories for which
a certificate of occupancy has been
issued for at least two (2) years
and which is intended to be
reused...
may be exempted by the Planning Commission from the GMQS
provisions of the Code where there is a demonstration of minimal
impact. Since the conversion of the Grand Parlour Suite to office
space results in a change in use from tourist accommodations to
commercial /office space, a GMQS Exemption is required.
2. Review Standards.
In order to qualify for a GMQS Exemption, it must be
demonstrated that the proposed change in use will have minimal
impact upon the City. A determination of minimal impact requires
a showing that: 1) a minimal number of additional employees will
be generated by the change in use; 2) employee housing will be
provided for those employees generated; 3) a minimal amount of
additional parking spaces will be demanded by the change in use
and that such parking will be provided; 4) there will be minimal
visual impact on the neighborhood from the change in use; and 5)
minimal demand will be placed on the City's public facilities from
the change in use.
2
The conversion of the guest suite located off the lobby
on the first floor of the hotel to office space will have minimal
impact upon the City. The space is approximately 1000 square feet
and contains a bathroom. Its present use as a tourist
accommodation generates a considerable amount of traffic in the
lobby due to the party activities encouraged by a suite of that
size. That traffic will be significantly reduced by the change in
use to office space. The space has no access to Main or Mill
Streets and thus no traffic circulation impact on the exterior of
the hotel.
It is not anticipated that additional employees will be
generated by converting the space to offices, as the three or four
employees that will be using the space are already employed by the
hotel. Additional employee housing will thus not be needed. The
same is true with respect to parking spaces. Because no new
employees are expected to be needed by virtue of the change in
use, no additional parking spaces will be required.
There will be no visual impact on the neighborhood as a
result of the change in use, as the space has no exterior frontage
on Mill Street. There will also be no additional demand placed on
the City's public facilities as a result of the change in use.
The foregoing facts clearly demonstrate that the change in use
will have minimal or no impact upon the City.
D. CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT
1. Code Requirements.
The Hotel Jerome is located in the Commercial Core (CC)
Zone District ( "CC District ") , in which a hotel use can be
permitted as a conditional use pursuant to Section 5- 209(C) of the
Code. Both the 1983 and 1986 Hotel Jerome PUD approvals by the
Aspen City Council permitted the operation of the hotel as a
conditional use.
Under Section 5- 209(B) (2) of the Code, office space is
a permitted use in the CC District. Section 7 -201 of the Code
provides for development of a permitted use (one designated as a
permitted use for the applicable Zone District in Section 5 of the
Code) as a matter of right, since permitted uses are consistent
with other land uses in the same Zone District in which they are
located.
The elimination of the Grand Parlour Suite as a guest
room by its conversion to office space results in a change from
the conditional hotel use approved in the 1986 PUD approval
process to a permitted office space use. This change from hotel
to office use thus requires an amendment to the conditional use
permit approved in the 1986 PUD Agreement.
3
2. Review Standards.
Amending a conditional use to a permitted use logically
results in a use that is in fact more consistent with other uses
in the CC District. Nonetheless, the review standards for the
development of a conditional use as set forth in Section 7 -304 of
the Code will be applied to the proposed office space use to
demonstrate that the proposed use meets those standards.
a. Consistency with the purposes, goals, objectives
and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and
with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
Since Section 5- 209(B)(2) lists professional and
business office as a permitted use in the CC District in which the
Hotel Jerome is located, the conversion of the guest room to
offices is wholly consistent with the goals, objectives and
standards of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the CC
District.
b. Consistency and compatibility with the character of
the immediate vicinity and surrounding land uses.
The use of the Grand Parlour Suite as offices is
consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate
vicinity and land uses surrounding the Hotel Jerome. It should be
noted that there is a professional office building at 201 North
Mill Street directly across Sleeker Street from the Property, as
well as a mixture of other CC District permitted uses in the
immediate vicinity. Due to its accessory relationship to the
hotel and the existing office space in the hotel, the office use
is also consistent and compatible with the hotel itself.
Moreover, as pointed out in Section C above, the amount of
interior traffic in the hotel lobby will be reduced by the change
in use.
C. Minimization of adverse effects on surrounding
properties.
Use of the guest room as offices will have no adverse
effects on surrounding properties. There will be no change in
visual impact, as the exterior of the building will remain
unchanged. Since the anticipated three or four occupants of the
offices are already employed by the hotel, there will be no
additional impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation or
parking. There will be no added trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations or odor by reason of offices as opposed to a guest
room.
4
d.
No additional public facilities or services will be
required to serve the offices.
e.
applicable requirements.
Since the proposed office use is permitted in the CC
District, it complies with all additional standards and applicable
requirements of the Code.
E. PUD AMENDMENT
1. Code Reauirements.
Section 7- 907(A) of the Code provides that an
insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be
authorized by the Planning Director.
The 1986 PUD approval provided that the space on the
northwest corner of Mill and Main Streets was to contain a Tea
Room. During the course of the PUD approval process, a written
representation was made on behalf of the owners of the Property
that the Property would contain no retail space after renovation.
As the Planning Director has acknowledged (see Exhibit A hereto),
the historic use of the storefront in question has always been
retail and the 1986 application should have recognized that fact.
In addition, the antique store has considerably less traffic and
employee impact than the Tea Room and has an accessory
relationship to the hotel in that it will sell the types of items
displayed throughout the hotel. Accordingly, the change from Tea
Room to antique store was approved by the City Council on its
December 12, 1988 Consent Agenda.
Since the representation that there would be no retail
space should have been confined to the new addition and not have
included the historic retail use of the storefront, the Planning
Director directed the Applicant to process an insubstantial
amendment to the PUD. The amendment is to identify permitted uses
for that space in order to eliminate potential confusion should
there be a proposed change in use in the future.
2. The Insubstantial Amendment.
The 1986 PUD Agreement should be amended as follows:
The following uses are permitted in the historic
storefront space located in the Property on the northwest
corner of Main and Mill Streets:
\, J
1) Professional and business office;
2) Restaurant, cabaret and night club, tea room;
3) Retail commercial establishment limited to the
following and similar uses: antique store, art
gallery, bakery, bookstore, camera shop, candy,
tobacco or cigarette store, clothes store, florist
shop, gift shop, hobby shop, jewelry shop,
photography shop, record store, shoe store, sporting
goods store, stationery store, variety store;
4) Service commercial establishment limited to
the following and similar uses: catering service,
financial institution, personal service including
barber and beauty shop, custom sewing;
5) Rental, repair and wholesaling facilities in
conjunction with any of the uses provided in 1
through 4 above, provided all such activity is
clearly incidental and accessory to the permitted
use and conducted within a building;
6) Storage of materials accessory to any of the
uses provided in 1 through 5 above, provided all
such storage is located within a structure.
3. Review Standards.
The purpose of the CC District as stated in Section 5-
209(A) of the Code
is to allow the use of land for
retail and service commercial,
recreation and institutional
purposes with customary accessory
uses to enhance the business and
service character in the central
business core of the City.
That all of the permitted uses set forth above are consistent with
that purpose is confirmed by their listing in Section 5- 209(B) of
the Code as permitted uses.
It should be noted that the list of permitted uses
proposed by the Applicant is less extensive than that allowed by
Section 5- 209(B) of the Code. Rather it is restricted to those
uses that are consistent and compatible with the Conceptual
2
Development Plan for the Hotel Jerome. Accordingly, the
insubstantial PUD amendment should be approved.
c: \chm \re \jerome.da
7
Respectfully submitted,
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
One of said attorneys
RONALD GARFIELD*
ANDREW V. HECHT **
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. * **
ROBERT E. KENDIG
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON
CATHERINE H. McMAHON * * **
.also dmin w
New Yark Bm
-- i Amil b
Dieuict of ColumM By
* "alro aAmind m
NeUrasta W Rxas Bar
• ••tlso admiBN b
Illirois By
HAND DELIVERY
N
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Roxanne Eflin
Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
February 10, 1989
TELEPHONE
(303) 925 -1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925 -3008
M ',
RE: Hotel Jerome GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Amendment
and PUD Amendment
Dear Roxanne:
As requested by you in our telephone conversation of
Wednesday, February 8, 1989, this is to set forth facts that are
pertinent to your department's and the Housing Authority's
consideration of the above - captioned application's impact on
employee housing.
The 1983 Hotel Jerome PUD Renovation and Addition approved
by the Aspen City Council on April 11, 1983 (recorded in Book 440
at Page 750 of the Pitkin County real estate records) provided
for a total of 105 hotel rooms and 13,000 square feet of retail
space in the new addition. Based on those numbers, the City
Council imposed an exaction of nineteen (19) employee housing
units from the developer. In 1986 the Amended and Restated
Planned Unit Development Agreement, Hotel Jerome - - Renovation
and Addition ( recorded in Book 518 at Page 921), reduced the
number of hotel rooms from 105 to 94 and eliminated all 13,000
square feet of retail space in the new addition. No credit was
given the developer for the reduction in employee generation by
reason of the foregoing, although there were clearly fewer
employees generated by both the reduction in rooms and the
elimination of the retail space. The developer provided all
nineteen employee units.
The present application seeks an increase of approximately
1000 square feet of office space (conversion of the Grand Parlour
Suite to office space), while reducing the number of hotel rooms
from 94 to 93. Three of the four persons who will occupy the
GARFIELD & HRGHT, P.G.
Roxanne Eflin
February 10, 1989
Page -2-
�t
4%
proposed office space are present employees of the applicant who
will move from inadequate and cramped office space already in
place. Since the purpose is to relieve the present overcrowded
condition of that space, no new employees will be moved into the
space formerly occupied by the three who will move into the
proposed offices. Accordingly, the only new impact is that of
one employee.
The City Council deemed the original assessment of nineteen
employee units sufficient to satisfy, (in addition to other
commercial space in the hotel), the employees generated by 105
rooms and 13,000 square feet of retail space. Since that
assessment, the applicant has added only 600 square feet of
retail space (with a corresponding reduction in restaurant
space), by the conversion of the Tea Room to the antique store
(approved by the City Council on its December 12, 1988 Consent
Agenda). Theoretically, the original assessment would satisfy
the employees generated by an additional 12,400 square feet of
retail space, as well as twelve more rooms.
The applicant seeks only 1000 square feet of office space
(which generates fewer employees than retail space and fifteen
percent of which will consist of restrooms to be utilized by
other hotel staff in addition to servicing the office space), and
will generate only one new employee. The impact of that employee
was previously provided for by the original employee housing
assessment.
It is, therefore, the applicant's position that there will
be no impact on employee housing by its proposal that has not
been fully satisfied by the original provision of nineteen
employee units.
Sincerely yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Catherine H. McMahon
CHM /km
-, EXHIBIT "A"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director Ni`_
RE: Consent Agenda Item: Hotel Jerome Tea Room
DATE: November 29, 1988
Attached is a letter I sent to Dick Butera of the Hotel Jerome
and the original letter which Mr. Butera sent to me. In the
letter, it is requested that the Tea Room be permitted to be
converted into an antique store.
My response to this request is that it should be approved. The
applicant represents that the storefront in question has
contained various retail uses during the Hotel's 99 year history.
He also notes that the antique store has considerably less impact
than the Tea Room and also has an accessory relationship to the
Hotel, where similar antiques are displayed.
The only reason to question this change is the representation
made by the applicant which we found when reviewing the PUD
Agreement and original PUD application. The applicant stated in
an April, 1986 letter that the 13,000 square feet of retail space
proposed in the "Gilmore Plan" was being eliminated. The
applicant has clarified for me that the 13,000 square feet of
retail space referred to in the application was located in the
new addition and that the application erroneously neglected to
recognize the historic use of the storefront for retail use. In
fact, the application also neglected to recognize the historic
use of the bar. Obviously, both the bar and Tea Room had been in
operation for several months at the time of this letter and
should not have been considered to be eliminated by this
statement.
Unless Council objects to my determination, I will inform Mr.
Butera that he can proceed with this change. As you will note
from my letter, I have already informed him of the need to
process an amendment application for the proposed new offices
within the hotel, to include a list of permitted retail uses for
the storefront. Having such a list, which we also have for the
Little Nell and Ritz - Carlton projects, should eliminate any
potential confusion in this regard in the future.
jeromeconsent
Aspen%PitkinTlanning Office
130 sou th'gaIena street
aspen, colorad .81611
November 29, 1988
Mr. T. Richard Butera
Hotel Jerome
330 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Dick,
I have reviewed your letter dated November 25, written in
response to our meeting of that same day. In the letter, you
request the ability to convert the Tea Room into an antique
store. You suggest that this is an appropriate use of this
storefront because its historic use has always been retail, its
impacts are significantly less than that of a restaurant and the
antique sales have a natural relationship to the hotel, which is
filled with similar antiques.
After considerable thought, I have determined that your arguments
are reasonable. The most persuasive argument for me is that the
corner storefront has always been some type of retail shop. The
only problem for me is the representation made in the Hotel
Jerome PUD approval that all retail uses were being eliminated.
In our meeting, you stated that in April, 1986, when the
representation about retail uses was made, the tea room was
already in operation. I can verify that this is true and can
also understand your position that the applicant made an error by
not being clear that all proposed retail space was being
eliminated, not the historic retail uses in the old hotel.
Given the lack of clarity in the PUD representations, I am going
to place this item on the City Council consent agenda for
December 12. The memo to Council will state that I am prepared
to sign off on the change in shops unless Council objects.
The second request made in the letter, to convert the Grand
Parlour Suite on the first floor to offices, will require
submission of a land use application. As I explained to Andy
Hecht on the phone yesterday, this change in use requires
submission of a land use application for GMQS exemption and
conditional use amendment by P &Z. Simultaneously, you should
process a minor amendment to the PUD, within which you identify
the list of permitted retail uses in the old hotel. This list
might be as extensive as that permitted in the CC zone district
or might be more limited. It is up to you to propose the list,
to which we will react in our review memo.
r a
✓y
If you do not submit this application, we will have to look at
future changes to the use of the retail shop in the same manner
as we have done for the current proposal. This will require that
any retail use have some accessory relationship to the hotel
itself, a relationship which does exist with the proposed antique
store, but which may not for a future proposal. I hope you will
agree that we can avoid a lot of unnecessary arguments through
this minor clarification and that you will proceed with this
application. Please be aware that the processing fee for all of
the requested changes is $680 and that four copies of the entire
application should be submitted.
Please let me know if I
information on this matter.
cc: Andy Hecht
Fred Gannett
buteraltr
can provide you with additional
Sincerely,
&7t hman
Planning Director
11►
JEROM E
November 25, 1988
Alan Richmond
City Hall
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan,
The purpose of this letter is to clarify our request
regarding the Tea Room and the Grand Parlour Suite on the first
floor of the Hotel Jerome.
In regard to the Tea Room, we have made a decision to
convert it into a shop selling Victorian antiques. Zoey
Compton, the decorator for the hotel, plans to operate it, and
sell the kinds of things that are displayed throughout the
hotel.
We know the restaurant on that corner has failed a couple
of times, so it is not feasible to continue that kind of an
operation. In fact, the impact of employees and traffic, as a
result of a victorian antique shop, will be significantly less
than what goes on there as a restaurant. We estimate that
there will never be more than two employees on duty in the
shop, and in most cases, it will be only one. We feel that it
is compatible with the historical tradition of the Jerome and
that corner. As you know, that corner has been a retail shop
of one kind or another for 99 years.
In regard to the Grand Parlour Suite, which is next to the
Tea Room and the Lobby of the hotel, we request a change in use
of that space. As you know, that space is along Mill Street,
and was historically, retail space. There have been various
retail shops in and out of there for the past 30 years, that I
know.
We thought that we could convert that into a hotel suite,
and eliminate the commercial use on Mill Street. As far as
eliminating the commercial use on Mill Street, I think
aesthetically it has been a good thing not having those doors
and traffic along that side of the hotel.
However, the Suite really does not work as a hotel room
because it's on the first floor. The guest's have found it to
3 3 0 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A 5 P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 I I- 3 0 3 / 9 2 0. 1 0 0 0
be noisy, and it just doesn't seem to be something that is
attractive to a potential user. It was probably a bad concept
from the beginning, on our part.
We now would like to convert it to offices. It is
approximately 1000 square feet and contains a bathroom. It
lends itself perfectly to that use, having frontage only in the
lobby as it does now. We have no intention of having access to
Mill Street.
Another planning mistake in the hotel was that we came up
very short on office space for the operation of the hotel. We
are continually fighting this problem and always will be.
Converting this space to office space will help in that area
because we will have some hotel management operations going on
in there. In addition, we will probably have a real estate
broker in the space to help justify the economics.
In regard to impact, I don't see much difference in what
is going on there now, as opposed to a real estate office.
Generally, when the suite is rented it contains two people who
do generate a good bit of traffic because of their partying
activities in a suite like that. I anticipate that the number
of people in that space would be three or four, some of whom
are already employed in the hotel.
I would appreciate your attention to this matter at your
earliest convenience. I realize that we have changed concepts
here a couple of times, and I apologize. However, it is
Christmas and the Tea Room space can generate some much needed
revenue for the hotel, if we are permitted to open as an
antique shop as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
4/' C.:/L
T. Richard Butera
cc: Andy Hecht
J
3 0 E A 5 T M A I N S T R E E T. A 5 P E N C 0 L 0 R A D 0 ! 1 0 1 1 .] 0 3/ 0 7 0 1 0 0 0
TD ..
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Consent Agenda Item: Hotel Jerome Tea Room
DATE: November 29, 1988
Attached is a letter I sent to Dick Butera of the Hotel Jerome
and the original letter which Mr. Butera sent to me. In the
letter, it is requested that the Tea Room be permitted to be
converted into an antique store.
My response to this request is that it should be approved. The
applicant represents that the storefront in question has
contained various retail uses during the Hotel's 99 year history.
He also notes that the antique store has considerably less impact
than the Tea Room and also has an accessory relationship to the
Hotel, where similar antiques are displayed.
The only reason to question this change is the representation
made by the applicant which we found when reviewing the PUD
Agreement and original PUD application. The applicant stated in
an April, 1986 letter that the 13,000 square feet of retail space
proposed in the "Gilmore Plan" was being eliminated. The
applicant has clarified for me that the 13,000 square feet of
retail space referred to in the application was located in the
new addition and that the application erroneously neglected to
recognize the historic use of the storefront for retail use. In
fact, the application also neglected to recognize the historic
use of the bar. obviously, both the bar and Tea Room had been in
operation for several months at the time of this letter and
should not have been considered to be eliminated by this
statement.
Unless Council objects to my determination, I will inform Mr.
Butera that he can proceed with this change. As you will note
from my letter, I have already informed him of the need to
process an amendment application for the proposed new offices
within the hotel, to include a list of permitted retail uses for
the storefront. Having such a list, which we also have for the
Little Nell and Ritz - Carlton projects, should eliminate any
potential confusion in this regard in the future.
jeromeconsent
Asp en /Pitkin Planning Office
130 south. 'galen,au s tree t
aspen; color,ado 81611
November 29, 1988
Mr. T. Richard Butera
Hotel Jerome
330 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Dick,
I have reviewed your letter dated November 25, written in
response to our meeting of that same day. In the letter, you
request the ability to convert the Tea Room into an antique
store. You suggest that this is an appropriate use of this
storefront because its historic use has always been retail, its
impacts are significantly less than that of a restaurant and the
antique sales have a natural relationship to the hotel, which is
filled with similar antiques.
After considerable thought, I have determined that your arguments
are reasonable. The most persuasive argument for me is that the
corner storefront has always been some type of retail shop. The
only problem for me is the representation made in the Hotel
Jerome PUD approval that all retail uses were being eliminated.
In our meeting, you stated that in April, 1986, when the
representation about retail uses was made, the tea room was
already in operation. I can verify that this is true and can
also understand your position that the applicant made an error by
not being clear that all proposed retail space was being
eliminated, not the historic retail uses in the old hotel.
Given the lack of clarity in the PUD representations, I am going
to place this item on the City Council consent agenda for
December 12. The memo to Council will state that I am prepared
to sign off on the change in shops unless Council objects.
The second request made in the letter, to convert the Grand
Parlour Suite on the first floor to offices, will require
submission of a land use application. As I explained to Andy
Hecht on the phone yesterday, this change in use requires
submission of a land use application for GMQS exemption and
conditional use amendment by P &Z. Simultaneously, you should
process a minor amendment to the PUD, within which you identify
the list of permitted retail uses in the old hotel. This list
might be as extensive as that permitted in the CC zone district
or might be more limited. It is up to you to propose the list,
to which we will react in our review memo.
If you do not submit this application, we will have to look at
future changes to the use of the retail shop in the same manner
as we have done for the current proposal. This will require that
any retail use have some accessory relationship to the hotel
itself, a relationship which does exist with the proposed antique
store, but which may not for a future proposal. I hope you will
agree that we can avoid a lot of unnecessary arguments through
this minor clarification and that you will proceed with this
application. Please be aware that the processing fee for all of
the requested changes is $680 and that four copies of the entire
application should be submitted.
Please let me know if
information on this matter.
cc: Andy Hecht
Fred Gannett
buteraltr
can provide you with additional
sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning Director
Y.v,.
November 25, 1988
Alan Richmond
City Hall
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan,
The purpose of this letter is to clarify our request
regarding the Tea Room and the Grand Parlour Suite on the first
floor of the Hotel Jerome.
In regard to the Tea Room, we have made a decision to
convert it into a shop selling Victorian antiques. Zoey
Compton, the decorator for the hotel, plans to operate it, and
sell the kinds of things that are displayed throughout the
hotel.
We know the restaurant on that corner has failed a couple
of times, so it is not feasible to continue that kind of an
operation. In fact, the impact of employees and traffic, as a
result of a victorian antique shop, will be significantly less
than what goes on there as a restaurant. We estimate that
there will never be more than two employees on duty in the
shop, and in most cases, it will be only one. We feel that it
is compatible with the historical tradition of the Jerome and
that corner. As you know, that corner has been a retail shop
of one kind or another for 99 years.
in regard to the Grand Parlour Suite, which is next to the
Tea Room and the Lobby of the hotel, we request a change in use
of that space. As you know, that space is along Mill Street,
and was historically, retail space. There have been various
retail shops in and out of there for the past 30 years, that I
know.
We thought that we could convert that into a hotel suite,
and eliminate the commercial use on Mill Street. As far as
eliminating the commercial use on Mill Street, I think
aesthetically it has been a good thing not having those doors
and traffic along that side of the hotel.
However, the Suite really does not work as a hotel room
because it's on the first floor. The guest's have found it to
3 3 0 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N . C G LO P A D O 0 1 6 1 1� 3 0 3/ 9 2 0 - 1 0 0 0
be noisy, and it just doesn't seem to be something that is
attractive to a potential user. It was probably a bad concept
from the beginning, on our part.
We now would like to convert it to offices. It is
approximately 1000 square feet and contains a bathroom. It
lends itself perfectly to that use, having frontage only in the
lobby as it does now. We have no intention of having access to
Mill Street.
Another planning mistake in the hotel was that we came up
very short on office space for the operation of the hotel. We
are continually fighting this problem and always will be.
Converting this space to office space will help in that area
because we will have some hotel management operations going on
in there. In addition, we will probably have a real estate
broker in the space to help justify the economics.
In regard to impact, I don't see much difference in what
is going on there now, as opposed to a real estate office.
Generally, when the suite is rented it contains two people who
do generate a good bit of traffic because of their partying
activities in a suite like that. I anticipate that the number
of people in that space would be three or four, some of whom
are already employed in the hotel.
I would appreciate your attention to this matter at your
earliest convenience. I realize that we have changed concepts
here a couple of times, and I apologize. However, it is
Christmas and the Tea Room space can generate some much needed
revenue for the hotel, if we are permitted to open as an
antique shop as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
�L
T. Richard Butera
cc: Andy Hecht
3 3 0 E A S T M A I N S T U E E T - A S P E N. C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1- 3 0 3/ 9 2 0 1 0 0 0
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
RE: HOTEL JEROME CONDITIONAL USE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, February 21, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider an
application from the Hotel Jerome requesting an amendment to
their 1986 conditional use approval in order to convert the
existing Grand Parlour Suite which is a guest room located on the
first floor to office space. The Hotel Jerome is located at 330
East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-
5090.
s /C. Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
e
't
, -