HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain 1983 Conceptual.53-83.File 2Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
File No. 2
I N D E X
16. Planning Office November 29, 1983 memo to P &Z re: Additional
Review Requirements.
17. Art Daley's December 2, 1983 letter to the Planning Office re: Aspen
Mountain Lodge Multi -Year Allocation Expiration Date.
18. Joe Wells' December 5, 1983 letter to the Planning Office requesting
tabling of the R -6 (RBO) rezoning request.
19. Planning Office December 6, 1983 memo to P &Z re: Additional
/ Review Requirements.
✓ 20. Planning Office December 8, 1983 file memo re: Lodge Inventory
Analysis.
21. Planning Office December 12, 1983 memo to Council re: Aspen
Mountain PUD Overview.
22. Planning Office December 20, 1983 memo to P &Z re: Additional
/ Review Requirements.
23. Planning Office December 29, 1983 file memo re: Available Lodge
Quota.
24. Jim Curtis'- December 30, 1983 letter requesting clarification'
of lodge condominiumization /employee housing requirements.
25. Planning Office January 3, 1984 memo to P &Z re: Draft Conceptual
PUD Resolution and Request for R -6 (RBO) Tabling.
26. Planning Office January 4, 1984 memo to Council requesting Aspen
Mountain Lodge review schedule.
26A. Art Daley's December 22, 1983 letter waiving Dec. 31st GMP deadline.
27. CCLC Resolution in support of Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD.
28. Planning Office January 11, 1984 memo to Council re: Additional
36. Planning Office January 23, 1983 memo to Council initiating
review of Aspen Mountain Lodge Conceptual PUD.
37. Bill Drueding's January 26, 1984 letter re: Black Duple
Verification.
Review Requirements.
29.
Planning Office January
11, 1984 memo to Council re: Multi -Year
Quota Update.
30.
Chuck Brandt's January
16, 1984 letter re: Submission of Condo-
miniumization Maps.
31.
P &Z's adopted .Resolution
re: Quota Allocation, Conceptual PUD
and Associated Reviews.
32.
Joe Wells' January 17,
1984 letter re: Tabling of the R -6 (RBO)
Rezoning Request.
33.
Joe Wells' January 17,
1984 letter withdrawing L -1 /CL rezoning
request.
34.
Joe Wells'- January 17,
1984 letter clarifying 700 S. Galena
GMP application.
35.
Dick Wilhelm's January
23, 1984 letter re: Legality of Six Con-
tinental Inn Units.
36. Planning Office January 23, 1983 memo to Council initiating
review of Aspen Mountain Lodge Conceptual PUD.
37. Bill Drueding's January 26, 1984 letter re: Black Duple
Verification.
Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Index
File No. 2
Page 2
38. Planning Office January 27, 1984 memo to Council re: FAR and
Peak Occupancy.
39. Gail Schwartz February 3, 1984 letter in response to Jim Curtis'
December 30, 1983 inquiry.
40. Al Bloomquist's February 5, 1984 memo to Council re: PUD regulations.
41. John Doremus'_February 6, 1984 letter to Council re: Registry
Hotel Corporation.
42. Planning Office February 7, 1984 memo to P &Z tabling request
for R -6 (RBO) rezoning.
43. Planning Office February 21, 1984 memo to Council re: Lodge
Conceptual PUD Review.
44. Planning Office February 27, 1984 memo to Council requesting
tabling of Lodge Conceptual PUD review.
45. Carolyn Doty's March 2, 1984 letter to Council re: Lodge FAR.
46. Planning Office March 5, 1984 memo to Council re: Lodge Conceptual
PUD review.
47. Planning Office March 6, 1984 memo to P &Z re: Temporary Withdrawal
of Request for R -6 (RBO) rezoning.
48. Al Bloomquist's draft conceptual PUD resolution.
49. Applicants' March 19, 1984 discussion draft /conceptual PUD resolu-
tion.
50. Planning Office derivation of multi -year quota allocation.
51. Planning Office March 26, 1984 memo to Council /draft conceptual
PUD /subdivision memo.
52. Applicants' March 30, 1984 revised TDA parking analysis.
53. John Doremus' March 31, 1984 memo to Council Re: Hotel Parking
Requirements.
54. Planning Office's April 2, 1984 -memo to Council /revised draft
/ conceptual PUD /subdivision resolution.
✓ 55. Council's approved conceptual PUD /subdivision resolution.
56. Planning Office April 10, 1984 FAR analysis /Aspen Mountain PUD.
0 0
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
FLOOR AREA AND FLOOR AREA RATIO ANALYSIS
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
April 10, 1984
LOT
1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE
1.
Lot area excluding vacated rights- of -way.1
211,254 s.f.
2.
Lot area including vacated rights -of -way.
241,107 s.f.
3.
Proposed external floor area.2
310,275 s.f.
4.
Allowable external floor area under existing
zoning excluding vacated rights -of -way.
229,309 s.f.
L -1 floor area
(21,089 s.f. @ 1:1 FAR) = 21,089
s.f.
L -2 floor area
(172,112 s.f. @ 1:1 FAR) = 172,112
s.f.
CL floor area
(18,054 s.f. @ 2:1 FAR) = 36,108
s.f_.
5.
Allowable internal FAR under existing zoning
excluding vacated rights- of -way.3
1.09 :1
229,309 s.f. floor area /211,254 s.f. lot
area
6.
Allowable external floor area under existing
zoning including vacated rights -of -way.
263,674 s.f.
L -1 floor area
(26,368 s.f. @ 1:1 FAR) = 26,368
s.f.
L -2 floor area
t
(192,172 s.f. @ 1 :1 FAR) = 192,172
s.f.
CL floor area
(22,567 s.f. @ 2:1 FAR) _ 45,134
s.f.
7.
Allowable external FAR under existing zoning
including vacated rights -of -way.
1.09 :1
263,674 s.f. floor area /241,107 s.f. lot
area
8.
Proposed external FAR excluding vacated
rights -of -way.
1.47:1
310,275 s.f. floor area /211,254 s.f. lot.area'
9.
Proposed external.FAR including vacated
rights -of -way.
1.29 :1
310,275 s.f. floor area/241,107 s.f. lot
area
LOT
2 SUMMIT PLACE CONDOMINIUMS
1.
Lot area.
5,360 s.f.
2.
Allowable external FAR under existing zoning.
1:1
3.
Allowable floor area under existing zoning.
5,360-s.f.
4.
Proposed external floor area.4
7,668 s.f.
5.
Proposed external FAR.
1.43:1
Page 2
7,668 s.f. floor area /5,360.s.f. lot area
LOT 3 TOP OF MILL CONDOMINIUMS
1. Lot area excluding vacated right- of -way.5 240,128 s.f.
2. Lot area including vacated right -of -way. 242,813 s.f.
3. Lot area excluding vacated right -of -way
and land zoned Conservation.6 135,128 s.f.
4. Lot area including vacated right -of -way
and excluding land zoned Conservation. 137,813 s.f.
5.. Proposed external floor area. 101,000 s.f.
6. Allowable external floor area under existing zoning
excluding vacated right -of -way and land zoned
Conservation.? ± 72,000 s.f.
L -2 floor, area
(45,000 s.f. @ 1:1 FAR) = 45,000 s.f.
R- 15(PUD)(L) floor area
(90,128 s.f. lot
area /15,000 s.f. /lot =
approximately 6 single -
family lots)
6 lots @ approximately
4,500 s.f. floor area /lot - 27,000 s.f.
7. Allowable external FAR under existing zoning excluding
vacated right -of -way and land zoned Conservation. ±0.53:1
72,000 s.f. floor area /135,128 s.f. lot area
8. Allowable external floor area under existing zoning
including vacated right -of -way and excluding
land zoned Conservation. 72,170 s.f.
L -2 floor area
(45,000.@ 1:1 FAR) = 45,000 s.f.
R -15 (PUD) (L) floor area
(92,813 s.f. lot
area /15,000 s.f. /lot
approximately 6 single -
family lots)
5 lots @ approximately
4,500 s.f. floor area /lot - 22,500 s.f.
1 lot @ approximately
4,670 s.f. floor area = 4,670 s.f.
9. Allowable external FAR under existing zoning
including vacated right -of -way and excluding
land zoned Conservation. -±-0.52:1
72,170 s.f. floor area /1.37, 813 s.f. lot area
10. Proposed external FAR excluding right -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 0.75:1
101,000 s.f. floor area /135,128 s.f. lot area
L
0 9
Page 3
11. Proposed external FAR including right -of -way
and excluding land zoned Conservation. 0.73:1
101,000 s.f. floor area /137,813 s.f. lot area
12.. Proposed, external FAR, excluding right -of -way
and including land zoned Conservation. 0.42:1
101,000 s.f. floor area /240,128 s.f. lot area
13. Proposed external FAR including rights -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 0.42:1
101,000 s.f. floor area /242,813 s.f. lot area
LOT 4 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUMS
1. Lot area. 21,600 s.f.
2. Proposed external floor area. 19,260 s.f.
3. Allowable external floor area under existing L -2
zoning. 21,600 s.f.
21',600 s.f. @ 1:1 FAR
4. Proposed external FAR.
19,260 s.f. floor area /21,600 s.f. lot area 0.89:1
TOTAL ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
1.
Lot area excluding
vacated rights -of -way.
478,342 s.f.
2.
Lot area including
vacated rights -of -way.
510,880 s.f.
3.
Lot area excluding
vacated rights -of -way and
land zoned Conservation.
373,342 s.f.
4.
Lot area including
vacated rights -of -way and
excluding land zoned Conservation.
405;880 s.f.
5.
Proposed external
floor area.9
438,203 s:f.
6.
Allowable external
floor area under existing zoning
excluding vacated
rights -of -way and land zoned
Conservation.
±328,269 s.f.
7.
Allowable external
FAR under existing zoning
excluding vacated
rights -of -way and land zoned
Conservation.
±0.88:1
328,269 s.f.
floor area/373,342 s.f. lot area
8.
Allowable external
floor area under existing zoning
including vacated
rights -of -way and excluding
land -zoned Conservation.
x-362,804 s.f.
9.
Allowable external
FAR under existing zoning
including vacated
rights -of -way and excluding
land zoned Conservation.
±0.89 :1
362,804 s.f. floor area /405,880 s.f. lot area
10. Proposed external FAR excluding rights -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 1.17:1
438,203 s.f. floor area/373,342 s.f. lot area
•
Page 4
•
11. Proposed external FAR, including rights -of -way
and excluding land zoned Conservation. 1.08:1
438,203 s.f. floor area /405,880 s.f. lot area
12., Proposed external FAR excluding rights -of -way
and including land zoned Conservation. 0.92:1
438,203 s.f. floor area/478,342 s.f. lot area
13. Proposed external FAR including rights' -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 0.86:1
438,203 s.f. floor area /510,880 s.f. lot area
Footnotes
1 22,654 s.f. of Dean Street and 7,199 s.f.- of Lawn Street.
2 Conceptual PUD /subdivision approval (subject to review of remainder
of PUD, City Council Resolution No. 84 -11, Series of 1984) .
3 while the Municipal Code makes no specific reference to the exclusion
of vacated lands in FAR calculations, Section 24 -2.5 states in part
that " . . . in determining land available for development, there
shall be excluded from the calculation of allowable density or required
open space those areas of the development tract acquired by vacation."
Density (i.e., dwelling units /acre) with respect to lodge uses is
a function of allowable FAR which in turn is a function of site area.
It would appear to follow, therefore, that vacated lands are excluded
from 'the calculation of allowable FAR for lodge uses since they must
be excluded from the calculation of allowable density "in determining
land available for development." Substantiation of this interpretation,
however, falls within the area of Council policy.
4 Approximately 5,112 s.f. currently exist on Lot 2.
5 2,685 s.f. of South gill Street.
6 105,000 s.f. of land above the 8040 elevation is zoned Conservation.
7 In those cases in which a building site is located in more than
one zone district, a structure's maximum external floor area is the
sum of the allowable external floor areas for those portions of the
site in each zone district, provided, however, that the structure
or use in question is permitted in each zone district and that each
district has an applicable external floor area limitation. Lodge
uses are prohibited in the C, Conservation zone district. As result,
that portion of the site zoned Conservation theoretically, could
not be used for purposes of calculating external floor area for structures
or uses permitted elsewhere on the property. Furthermore, there
is no external floor area limitation imposed on the Conservation
zone district and, therefore, no ability to aggregate allowable external
floor area as outlined above. From a practical perspective, inasmuch
as external FAR is a numerical statement of the relationship of the
size of a structure to its building site, it would seem logical in
mixed use PUD's to compare total building square footage to total
building site. The Municipal Code is essentially silent with respect
to the above issues, and, therefore, any interpretation is subject
to Council policy.
8 The 90,120 s.f. lot area assumes, for purposes of this analysis,
that the.14,500 s.f. of City -owned land will be conveyed to the applicants
and rezoned from Public to R -15 (PUD) (L). While the 90,128 s.f. R-
15 (PUD) (L) parcel could also be subdivided in .a single-family/duplex
lot configuration, the subdivision depicted produces the maximum
allowable external floor area and has, therefore, been used for compar-
ison purposes.
Page 5
9 Conceptual PUD /subdivision approval (subject.to review of remainder
of PUD, City Council Resolution No. 84 -11, Series of 1984).
t
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
GRANTING A MULTI -YEAR LODGE GMP ALLOCATION TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN
LODGE AND CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE LODGE PORTION
OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
Resolution No. 84-
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal
Code,. October lst of each year is established as a deadline for the
submission of growth management applications for lodge development
allotments within the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts of the City
of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, applications were submitted
for the Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen Mountain Lodge requesting development
allotments of forty -six (46) lodge units and two hundred and three
(203) lodge units, respectively; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on November
22, 1983 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider
these.lodge growth management applications and to evaluate, score
and rank them in conformance with the criteria set forth in Section
24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance #f35 (Series
of 1983); and
WHEREAS, the Commission did evaluate, score and rank the applications
submitted as follows:
1. Aspen Mountain Lodge - 60.71 points
2. Lodge at Aspen - 49.50 points
; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Commission's scoring, the. Lodge
at Aspen failed to `receive a minimum of sixty percent (600) of the
total points available under Section 24 -11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and
(4) of the Municipal Code, a minimum of fifty -one (51) points; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider an appeal. of the
scoring of the Lodge at Aspen application at their December 27, 1983
regular meeting and did deny said appeal pursuant to Section. 24-11.6(e)
of the !Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to allocate, pursuant
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
to Section 24- 11.6(f) of the Municipal Code, development allotments
to eligible lodge applicants prior to January lst'of each year; and
WHEREAS, the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge agreed
to. defer the allocation of the 1983 lodge allotment for a reasonable
period of time beyond the January 1st deadline so as.to allow.Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council consideration of the applicants'
conceptual PUD /subdivision application; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Mountain Lodge application has been revised
in response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office,
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council so as to reduce
the requested development allotment to one hundred seventy -two (172)
lodge units; and -
WHEREAS, the available quota for the 1983 lodge growth management
competition is sixty -seven (67) lodge units, consisting of the annual
thirty -five (35) unit Iodge quota for the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone
districts plus an additional thirty -two (32) lodge units which remain
a .
unallocated from prior years' quotas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may award, pursuant to Section 24-
11.3(b) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment for an entire
project to be constructed over a period of years provided that each
year during the scheduled construction the annual allotment provided'
for in Section 24- 11.1(b) is reduced by the amount of construction
permitted by the approval; and
WHEREAS, certain additional reviews and approvals are required
by the Aspen Mountain Lodge pursuant to the subdivision and zoning
regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to,
the following:
1. Conceptual PUD /subdivision approval for the lodge component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
2. An exemption from the City's growth management allotment
procedures for the reconstruction of two hundred seventy-
five (275) existing lodge units located on the Aspen Mountain
PUD site.
; and
t
Resolution No. 84- /f
Page 3
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the applicants' request
for conceptual PUD /subdivision approval for the. lodge component of
the Aspen Mountain PUD at a study session. held on January 11, 1984,
and at subsequent regular meetings held on January 23rd, January
`30th, February 6th, February 21st and on March 5th, 12th, 19th and
26th, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified, .
pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, two hundred
thirty -three (233) existing lodge units on the Aspen Mountain PUD
site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City's growth management
allotment procedures; and
WHEREAS, an additional forty -two (42) lodge units are eligible
for verification pending the settlement of outstanding litigation
between the Cantrup Estate and the City of Aspen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby allocate, pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(f)
of the Municipal Code, a development allotment of one hundred seventy-
two (172) lodge units to the Aspen Mountain Lodge, said allocation
to consist of the following:
1. The thirty =two (32) lodge units which remain unallocated
from prior years' quotas; and
2. Thirty -five (35) units each from the 1983, 1984, 1985 and
1986 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quotas.
The above allocation shall expire, pursuant to Section 24- 11.7(a)
of °the Municipal Code, in the event plans, specifica -tions and fees
sufficient for the is of a building permit for the one hundred
and seventy -two (172) lodge units are not submitted on or before
June 1, 1985.
The City Council's reasoning with respect to the above allocation
reflects the following.considerations:
1. The need, as' outlined in the Planning Office's 1982 draft
Short -Term Accommodations Report,. to substantially upgrade
the quality of the community's lodging accommodations while
maintaining a balance between the quantity of our acc ommodati'ons
and the capacity of our ski areas.
Section 2
That it does hereby grant conceptual PUD /subdivision approval
pursuant to Sections 20 -10 and 24 -8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the
lodge component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicants continuing to explore architectural treatments
of the lodge buildings as well as other techniques which
could be employed to give the appearance that, although
under common ownership and /or management, that there is
more than one lodging facility on the site.
2. The external floor area of the lodge component of the Aspen
Mountain PUD (i.e., Lot 1) not exceeding 310,275 s.f. and
the external floor area for the entire PUD (i.e., Lots
1, 2, 3 and 4) not exceeding 438,200 s.f.
3. The height of the proposed hotel not exceeding forty -two
(42) feet from natural grade to the midpoint of the roof
with the exception of elevator tower areas which shall
not exceed fifty -five (55) feet from natural grade to the
midpoint of the roof.
4. The applicants' resolution of the Fire Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas
of the lodge site for fire protection purposes.
5. Written clarifications as to which substantive representations
of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis the
applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen Mountain
PUD, in particular, further clarification with respect
to those techniques designed to mitigate the potential
impacts of peak occupancy on adjacent streets.
Resolution No.
Page 4
2.
'The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan identifies the Aspen Mountain
Lodge site as the most appropriate location for the development
of new short -term accommodations.
3.
The opportunity for additional lodge development in the
L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts, beyond that proposed
by the applicants, is limited given the remaining availability
of undeveloped parcels and the re'l'atively limited expansion
ca.pabili -y of the districts' existing lodges.
4.
Although there are potential growth impacts*on the community
associated with the award of a multi -year allocation in
the amount required by this project, such an allocation
is justified given the off - setting benefits which are expected
to accrue to the community and the fact that the project's
construction schedule will help mitigate potential impacts.
5.
The approval of a single major .project will have the effect
of confining construction to one time period rather than
piecemeal phasing of numerous small projects over many
years.
6.
The entire Aspen Mountain Lodge district will benefit from
a project of this magnitude as a result of the applicants'
commitment to participate pro rata in the Commercial Core
and Lodging Commission's proposed lodge improvement district.
7.
A desire to ensure the availability of lodge quota for
future competitions in the event the proposed hotel is
unable to proceed in a timely manner.
Section 2
That it does hereby grant conceptual PUD /subdivision approval
pursuant to Sections 20 -10 and 24 -8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the
lodge component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicants continuing to explore architectural treatments
of the lodge buildings as well as other techniques which
could be employed to give the appearance that, although
under common ownership and /or management, that there is
more than one lodging facility on the site.
2. The external floor area of the lodge component of the Aspen
Mountain PUD (i.e., Lot 1) not exceeding 310,275 s.f. and
the external floor area for the entire PUD (i.e., Lots
1, 2, 3 and 4) not exceeding 438,200 s.f.
3. The height of the proposed hotel not exceeding forty -two
(42) feet from natural grade to the midpoint of the roof
with the exception of elevator tower areas which shall
not exceed fifty -five (55) feet from natural grade to the
midpoint of the roof.
4. The applicants' resolution of the Fire Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas
of the lodge site for fire protection purposes.
5. Written clarifications as to which substantive representations
of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis the
applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen Mountain
PUD, in particular, further clarification with respect
to those techniques designed to mitigate the potential
impacts of peak occupancy on adjacent streets.
Resolution No. 84-
Page 5
6. Written clarifications as to the nature and extent of the
improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support
of their request for the vacation of various public rights -
of -way and the granting of encroachment. licenses necessitated
by the Aspen Mountain PUD.
7. The vacation of Dean Street being conditioned upon t_he
retention of all utility rights, public use of the street
for circulation purposes, and the submission by the applicants
of an acceptable maintenance and use agreement between
themselves and the Mountain Chalet.
8. Each utility franchised in the City signing off on all
proposed street vacations so as to ensure that the loss
of these rights -of -way will not interfere with each utility's
current or future needs.
9. The applicants' submission of a detailed subdivision plat
indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain
PUD site.
10. The applicants' submission of an acceptable survey of the
Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions.
11. The applicants' resolution of the various issues raised
by the Environmental Health Department in their memorandum
of October 22, 1983, with respect to various specific details
of the proposed hotel operation.
12. The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited
to the two hundred seventy-five .(275) units verified pursuant
to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished
within five (5) years of the date of demolition and being
restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
13. Written clarification as to the applicants' intentions
with respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis -a -vis
how the hotel will be managed.
14. The applicants continuing to investigate solutions to the
problem of increased pedestrian congestion in the project
area, in particular, the move of pedestrians between the
proposed hotel, Rubey Park and the adjacent commercial
core.
15. The applicants' participation in the proposed CCLC lodge
improvement district, said participation to be on a pro
rata basis or on such other basis as the district may deter-
mine.
16. The above conditions being met.prior to preliminary PUD
subdivision approval.
17. All material representations of the applicants' growth
management and conceptual PUD /subdivision applications
not specifically referred to above being made a condition
of this approval.
18. City Council's reservation of the right to amend or otherwise
modify the above conditions in conjunction with its conceptual
PUD /subdivision review of the remaining components of the
Aspen Mountain.PUD.
1-
c,
Resolution No. 84-
Page 6
19. The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD /subdivision
approval, pursuant to Section 24 -8.8 of the Municipal Code,
in the event a prelimina ry PUD /subdivision application
is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
24- -•8.11 within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. z
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
..at their regular meeting on April 2, 1984.
is
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
i-
r
S
�r
William Stirling, Mayor.
ATTEST:
' �� -
Kathrvn Ko h, City Clerk
s,
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: April 2, 1984
Attached for your review and consideration is a revised version of
last week's draft resolution granting a multi -year lodge GMP allocation
and conceptual PUD /subdivision approval to the lodge component of
the Aspen Mountain PUD. I believe the revisions reflect the actions
taken by Council at your March 26th meeting. Sections 2 and 4 of
the original draft resolution have been deleted and the conditions
of conceptual PUD /subdivision approval have been amended to reflect
your comments. Condition No. 5 (Condition No. 6 in the original
draft resolution) has been retained as originally drafted pending
Council's consideration of the applicants' parking proposal. The
applicants are prepared to present their rationale for the requested
reduction in required parking at your April 2nd meeting.
Should you have any questions prior to your Monday Meeting, or if
I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me jat the Planning Office.
DRAFT
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
GRANTING A MULTI -YEAR LODGE GMP ALLOCATION TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN
LODGE AND CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE LODGE PORTION
OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
Resolution No. 8.4-
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal
Code, October Ist of each year is established as a deadline for the
submission
of growth
management
applications
for lodge
development
allotments
within the
L -1, L -2, CC
and
CL zone districts
of the City
of Aspen; and
WHEREAS,
in response to
this
provision, applications
were submitted
for the Lodge
at Aspen and the
Aspen
Mountain Lodge
requesting
development
allotments of forty -six (46) lodge units and two hundred and three
(203).lodge units, respectively; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on November
22, 1983 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider
these lodge growth management applications and to evaluate, score
and rank
them in
conformance with
the criteria
set forth
in
Section
24 -11.6
of the
Municipal Code,
as amended by
Ordinance
f35
(Series
of 1983) ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did evaluate, score and rank the applications
submitted as follows:
; and
1. Aspen Mountain Lodge - 60.71 points
2. Lodge at Aspen - 49.50 points
WHEREAS, as a result of the Commission's scoring, the Lodge
at Aspen failed to receive a. minimum of sixty percent (600) of the
total points available under Section 2.4. -11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and
(4) of the Municipal Code, a minimum of fifty -one (51) points; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider an appeal of the
scoring of the Lodge at Aspen application at their December 27, 1983
regular meeting and did deny said appeal pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(e)
of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to allocate, pursuant
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
to Section 24- 11.6(f) of the Municipal Code, development allotments
to eligible lodge applicants prior to January 1st of each year; and
WHEREAS, the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge agreed
to defer the allocation of the 1583 lodge allotment for a reasonable
period of time beyond the January 1st deadline so as to allow Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council consideration of the applicants'
conceptual PUD /subdivision application; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Mountain Lodge application has been revised
in response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office,
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council so as to reduce
the requested development allotment to one hundred seventy -two (172)
lodge units; and
WHEREAS, the available quota for the 1983 lodge growth management
competition is sixty -seven (67) lodge units, consisting of the annual
thirty -five (35) unit lodge quota for the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone
districts plus an additional thirty -two (32) lodge units which remain
unallocated from prior years' quotas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may award, pursuant to Section 24-
11.3(b) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment for an entire
project to be constructed over a. period of years provided that each
year during the scheduled construction the annual allotment provided
for in Section 24- 11.1(b) is reduced by the amount of construction
permitted by the approval; and
WHEREAS, certain additional reviews and approvals are required
by the Aspen Mountain Lodge pursuant to the subdivision and zoning
regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to,
the following:
1. Conceptual PUD /subdivision approval for the lodge component
of the Aspen Fountain PUD.
2. An exemption from the City's growth management allotment
procedures for the reconstruction of two hundred seventy -
five (275) existing lodge units located on the Aspen Mountain
PUD site.
; and
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
WHEREAS, the Citv Council did consider the applicants' request
for conceptual PUD /subdivision approval for the lodge component of
the Aspen Mountain PUD at a. study session held on January 11, 1984,
and at subsequent regular meetings held on January 23rd, January
30th, February 6th, February 21_st and on March 5th, 12th, 19th and
26th, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified,
pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, two hundred
thirty -three (233) existing lodge units on the Aspen Mountain PUD
site which may be reconstructed eXempt from the City's growth management
allotment procedures; and
WHEREAS, an additional forty -two (42) lodge units are eligible
for verification pending the settlement of outstanding litigation
between the Cantrup Estate and the City of Aspen.
NOW, THEREFORE,.BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby allocate, pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(f)
of the Municipal Code, a development allotment of one hundred seventy -
two (172) lodge units to the Aspen Mountain Lodge, said allocation
to consist of the following:
1. The thirty -two (32) lodge units which remain unallocated
from prior years' quotas; and
2. Thirty -five (35) units each from the 1983, 1984, 1985 and
1986 L- 1,,L -2, CC and CL lodge quotas.
The above allocation shall expire, pursuant to Section 24- 11.7(a)
of the Municipal Code, in the event plans, specifications and fees
sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the one hundred
and seventy -two (172) lodge units are not submitted on or before
June 1, 1985.
The City Council's reasoning with respect to the above allocation
reflects the following considerations:
1. The need, as outlined in the Planning Office's 1982 draft
Short -Term Accommodations Report, to substantially upgrade
the quality of the community's lodging accommodations while
maintaining a balance between the quantity of our accommodations
and the capacity of our ski areas.
Resolution No. 84-
Page 4
2. The 1973 Aspen Land Use.Plan identifies the Aspen Mountain
Lodge site as the most appropriate location for the development
of new short -term accommodations.
3. The opportunity for additional lodge development in the
L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts, beyond that proposed
by the applicants, is limited given the remaining availability
of undeveloped parcels and the relatively limited expansion
capability of the districts' existing lodges.
4. Although there are potential growth impacts on the community
associated with the award of a multi -year allocation in
the amount required by this project, such an allocation
is justified given the off - setting benefits which are expected
to accrue to the community and the fact that the project's
construction schedule will help mitigate potential impacts.
5. The approval of a single major project will have the effect
of confining construction to one time period rather than
piecemeal phasing of numerous small projects over many
years.
6. The entire Aspen Mountain Lodge district will benefit from
a project of this magnitude as a result of the applicants'
commitment to participate pro rata in the Commercial Core
and Lodging Commission's proposed lodge improvement district.
7. A desire to ensure the availability of lodge quota for
future competitions in the event the proposed hotel. is
unable to proceed in a timely manner.
Section 2
That it does hereby grant conceptual PUD /subdivision approval
pursuant to Sections 20 -10 and 24 -8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the
lodge component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicants continuing to explore architectural treatments
of the lodge buildings as well as other techniques which
could be employed to give the appearance that, although
under common ownership and /or management, that there is
more than one lodging facility on the site.
2. The external floor area of the lodge component of the Aspen
Mountain PUD (i.e., Lot 1) not exceeding 310,275 s.f. and
the external floor area for the entire PUD (i.e., Lots
1, 2, 3 and 4) not exceeding 438,200 s.f.
3. The height of the proposed hotel not exceeding forty -two
(42) feet from natural grade to the midpoint of the roof
with the exception of elevator tower areas which shall
not exceed fifty -five (55) feet from natural grade to the
midpoint of the roof.
4. The applicants' resolution of the Fire Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas
of the lodge site for fire protection purposes.
5. Written clarifications as to which substantive representations
of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis the
applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen Mountain
PUD, in particular, further clarification with respect
to those techniques designed to mitigate the potential
impacts of peak occupancy on adjacent streets.
0 0
Resolution No. 84
Page 5
6. Written clarifications as to the nature and extent of the
improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support
of their request for the vacation of various public rights -
of -way and the granting of encroachment licenses necessitated
by the Aspen Mountain PUD.
7. The vacation of Dean Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights, public use of the street
for circulation purposes, and the submission by the applicants
of an acceptable maintenance and use agreement between
themselves and the Mountain Chalet.
8. Each utility franchised in the City signing off on all
proposed street vacations so as to ensure that the loss
of these rights -of -way will not interfere with each utility's
current or future needs.
9. The applicants' submission of a detailed subdivision plat
indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain
PUD site.
10. The applicants' submission of an acceptable survey of the
Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions.
11. The applicants' resolution of the various issues raised
by the Environmental Health Department in their memorandum
of October 22, 1983, with respect to various specific details
of the proposed hotel operation.
12. The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited
to the two hundred seventy -five (275) units verified pursuant
to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished
within five (5) years of the date of demolition and being
restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
13. Written clarification as to the applicants' intentions
with..respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis -a -vis
how the hotel will be managed.
14. The applicants continuing to investigate solutions to the
problem of increased pedestrian congestion in the project
area, in particular, the move of pedestrians between the
proposed hotel, Rubey Park and the adjacent commercial
core.
15. The.applicants' participation in the proposed CCLC lodge
improvement district, said participation to be on a pro
rata basis or on such other basis as the district may deter-
mine.
16. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD
subdivision approval.
17. All material representations of the applicants' growth
management and conceptual PUD /subdivision applications
not specifically referred to above being made a condition
of this approval.
18. City Council's reservation of the right to amend or otherwise
modify the above conditions in conjunction with its conceptual
PUD /subdivision review of the remaining components of the
Aspen Mountain PUD.
Resolution rho. 84-
Page 6
19. The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD /subdivision
approval, pursuant to Section 24 -8.8 of the Municipal Code,
in the event a preliminary PUD /subdivision application
is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
24 -8.11 within six (6) months of the date of this resolution.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
at their regular meeting on April 2, 1984.
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
William Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
TO:
RE:
•
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Stirling and
City Council Members
Parking Requirements for the
Aspen Mountain Lodge; Rebuttal
of Jack Crawford Letter dated
March 28, 1984
FROM: Alan R. Novak, John
Doremus, Art Daily
DATE: March 31, 1984
A. Applicants' Parkinq Philosophy
The parking proposal for the Aspen Mountain Lodge project is
founded on a clear and logical principle. We intend to provide
one (1) below grade, or. -site parking space for each and every_
automobile present on the site during peak occupancy periods as a
direct consequence of automobile usage generated by Hotel guests
and by other Hotel activities. In other words, we agree to
supply 1000 of the real and actual parking needs of this Hotel.
It is essential to the functioning success of the Hotel that we
be completely self - sufficient in this respect, and the Hotel
operator we select will simply not commit itself to the project
unless it is fully satisfied in this regard. On the other hand,
it would not be in line with either our own policy or that of the
City for us to construct additional parking spaces for employees
of the Hotel, although it is obvious to us that during most of
the year a sizable number of spaces.will be available for .
employee use. Finally, there is no justification whatsoever for
the idea of our providing additional parking in this Hotel for
use by the general public.
In order to determine what the real and actual parking
demands of this Hotel will be, the Applicants have retained the
services of Transportation Development Associates, Inc., one of
the preeminent specialists in this field in the United States.
TDA's initial study was necessarily conducted without an actual
on -site winter season survey, and the results of that study were
incorporated in the Applicants' detailed Lodge Submission. At
the specific request of the Applicants, over the past several
months TDA has also conducted an actual traffic and parking sur-
vey in the area of the Hotel Site. The results of that survey
and the impact thereof on our parking proposals are explained in
the March 30, 1984 Parking Study attached to this Memorandum, and.
we urge you to read the Study in advance of Monday's meeting. At
this time we only wish to point out to you that the reputation
and the continuing success of a highly professional and indepen-
dent firm such as TDA is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of
their projected parking and traffic requirements for projects
such as this one. Developers and Hotel operators throughout the
country are critically aware of the track records of such firms,
and we selected TDA in the first place because of their reputa-
tion for being right. In the case of this project, there is not
even the slightest evidence to suggest that they are not totally
accurate.
Generally speaking, parking in the area of the Hotel is cur-
rently a mess and reflects a lack of any coherent City policy or
administration on the issue. The Aspen Mountain Lodge develop-
ment will significantly improve the situation. In addition to
providing extensive underground parking, we intend to work with
the Lodge Improvement District -and with the City to create a
coherent and sensible street parking system for the area.
We have in our P.U.D. submission offered (a) $25,000 toward
a study for a Rubey Park Transit Center; and (b) the use of our
experts by City officials in planning future parking and traffic
programs. Our current parking budget for the Hotel is in the
area of $5,000,000. Our current construction design requires
excavation of four stories below grade. Construction limitations
and cost factors clearly preclude any further parking spaces at
the Hotel which would be over and above our real needs.
B. Municipal Code Parking Requirements
Let's identify once and.for all the off - street parking pro-
visions of the Aspen Municipal Code which apply to the Aspen
Mountain Lodge project. Under the general zoning code,
Section 24- 4.5(c) requires that in the L -2 District one (1) off-
street parking space be provided for each bedroom contained in
the lodge development, or that four (4) spaces be provided for
each 1,000 square feet of uses other than lodge and accessory
uses which may be developed on the site. These requirements are,
by their nature, mutually exclusive. If you develop a lodge use,
you follow the 1:1 guideline; if you elect to build something
other than a lodge use, you follow the 4/1,000 square foot
guideline. It should also be noted that Section 24 -4.3 expressly
requires that lodge or Hotel parking be located on the same lot
as that occupied by the principal use - a requirement which we
are strictly adhering to.
The other Code provisions which govern the off - street park-
ing issue, however, make it absolutely clear that, particularly
in the case of larger projects which are reviewed as Planned Unit
Developments, the 1:1 ratio is merely a guideline and many other
-2-
factors must be considered in determining the real and actual
parking requirements of each particular project.
The following Code provisions are especially pertinent:
(1) Section 24 -4.6 of the general zoning code states that
whenever the required number of parking spaces is subject to
"review ", such review shall be based on the following considera-
tions:
"(a) The projected traffic generation
of the proposed development;
(b) site characteristics;
(c) the pedestrian access and walking
distance to the downtown areas; and
(d) the availability of public
transportation,"
(2) Section 24 -8.3 specifically provides that in a P.U.D.
project, variation may be permitted in the number of required
off- street parking spaces, and Section 24 -8.17 sets out the fol-
lowing standards or factors which are to be addressed in making
such a determination:
"(a) The probable number of cars owned
by occupants of dwellings in the
P.U.D.;
(b) the parking needs of any nonresidential
uses;
(c) the varying time periods of use,
whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed;
(d) available public transit and other
transportation facilities to be supplied
by the applicant; and
(e) the proximity of the P.U.D. to the
commercial core or recreational
facilities of the City."
The foregoing Section goes on to state that "Whenever the
number of off - street parking spaces is reduced because of the
-3-
•
nature of the occupancy, the City shall obtain assurances that
the nature of the.occupancy will not change."
It is clear from the above that our Code goes to consider -
able length to ensure that the parking requirements imposed on "
any given project are carefully tailored to the specific needs of
that project. The Applicants have adopted and followed this phi -.
losophy to the letter.
C. Rebuttal to Crawford Letter
Mr. Crawford states: "Consulting firms hired by developers
always are supportive of the developer's position (in this case
simply that less parking equals less cost) ". This statement is
not correct. Any major operator will insist on parking at the
Hotel adequate to meet real parking needs and this was one of the
purposes of the parking,study. It makes no sense for us to spend
enormous amounts on a major facility and for an operator to risk
his reputation in a situation in which we do not provide adequate
parking for our Hotel guests and the functions at the Hotel.
Mr. Crawford states in his Paragraph 1 that "the Aspen Municipal.
Code requires one parking space for each bedroom (not unit) and
four spaces per thousand square feet for all other uses. As
pointed out above, this statement is erroneous. Moreover, to
state that the Code. requires one parking space.per bedroom is to
misstate the clear intent of the Code when all applicable provi-
sions are considered together. The P.U.D. Section clearly states
that in the presence of certain factors, the number of required
off - street parking spaces can be modified. This provision allows
the proposed projects in our P.U.D. to vary the general Code
requirements pertaining to off - street parking. If ever a project
deserved variation from the one to one requirement because of
considerations such as those contained in the Code involving
location and joint use, this is such a project. Additionally, a
whole array of programs designed to discourage auto use are being
developed by the traffic consultants in order to minimize the
need for the use of an automobile. This is totally consistent
with Aspen's policy of discouraging automobile use through the
use of major automobile disincentives. Finally, Mr. Crawford's
assertion that the relaxation in the past of the one to one
requirement for small lodges has no bearing on this Hotel is a
mistaken assertion. What the past decisions suggest and what is
also suggested by the laws of Aspen themselves with respect to
parking is that the appropriate standard for determining parking
requirements is the real needs of the project under considera-
tion.
-4-
In paragraph 2, Mr. Crawford suggests that the TDA study was
predicated on a zone change from L -1 to CL. That is not true.
The TDA study was predicated on the actual needs of the project.
We are not impacting any more in terms of our parking require-
ments by remaining L -2 than if we were rezoned to CL. We have
provided what is needed irrespective of the zone in which we are
located. We have six CL lots, or 7% of the total Hotel floor
area. We could have by Code asserted that our parking require -
ment was not one per room but rather one per room minus 7 %, which
would in this case have amounted to some thirty less parking
spaces if we followed the Code precisely. However, we deem this
sort of ajustment to be inappropriate.
In Paragraph 3, Mr. Crawford asserts that the Registry hotel
people testified that one employee per guest was required for a
luxury resort Hotel. That is incorrect. Registry has confirmed
our employee projections as reasonable, which is approximately
one employee per room. Moreover, Mr. Crawford asserts that Aspen
employees, most of whom have cars and will not take buses from
down- valley, will require parking in the Hotel. Our employee
parking policy is as follows: (1) we wish to discourage
employees from driving to work; (2) we can allow some employee
parking at the site during most of the year. Except for the 10
to 15% of peak periods, ample parking spaces at the Hotel will
exist, some of which can be segregated for employee parking; -
(3) we will set up a strict hierarchy of priorities under which
we will assign the right to park to certain employees during non -
peak periods. This will depend on need and status and other con-
siderations as determined by the operator; (4) during peak
periods, employees will be prohibited from parking at the Hotel.
We expect the City to develop a parking policy, together with the
Lodge Improvement District, in which we will participate. That
parking policy will determine the rights of Aspen citizens,
including our employees to park in the area and on the streets
around the Hotel. Such parking policy, in our view, may very
well prevent an employee from parking on those streets without
risking being towed away and /or ticketed. If he should choose to
do so, he will be towed, ticketed and, if it comes to our atten -.
tion that he has driven to work, reprimanded and /or fired by the
Hotel. Beyond this, we do not feel it is necessary for the Hotel
to go. It is important to remember that the employee housing
policy that we have submitted to.the City provides for employee.
housing and parking at locations all within walking distance of
the Hotel. We simply do not see any reason to provide parking
for employees contrary to a program of.auto use disinsentives
which we intend to strictly implement for the 10 to 15 %. of the
year when we are at peak periods.
-5-
Paragraph 4 asserts that fifty spaces on Dean Street will be
eliminated and that this is public parking lost to the citizens
of Aspen and that thirty spaces in the 700 Galena parking lot
will also be lost to the public. In each case, Mr. Crawford is
wrong. There are not fifty legal spaces on Dean Street; TDA has
estimated a net loss of twenty spaces and it is our belief that
Mr. Crawford is counting spaces which belong to existing lodges
such as the Continental. Parking in those spaces by the public
is illegal. The parking on the 700 South Galena lot is not .legal
public parking. It belongs to the same owner as the Continental
Inn. Not only will we be improving the parking in the immediate
area of the Lodge Improvement District by providing for all of
our needs on site, but by our participation in the Lodge Improve-
ment District and working together with the City, we will evolve
a policy for parking on the streets surrounding the Hotel which
will for the first time introduce order and consistency.
In Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, Mr..Crawford deals with the ques-
tion of conference parking, bar and restaurant parking, retail
shop and health club parking. In each case, Mr. Crawford has
simply failed to consider the realities of the situation. The
requirements created by food and beverage, conference facilities,
retail, health club, etc. are clearly spelled out in the TDA
Report. In sum,. the Hotel health club.is intended for Hotel vis-
itors only. The limited retail space is accessory only and.we-
assume retail visitors will be walking from the commercial core.
Some restaurant visitors will bring cars, but some Hotel guests
will drive their own cars to restaurants in town - essentially a
wash, although 15 additional spaces are provided expressly for
this purpose. We expect most conferees (80 to 1000) to be Hotel
guests. Twenty (20) additional spaces are provided to cover con-
ferees not registered. For any further clarification on these
issues our consultants from TDA will be happy to elaborate. It
is also incorrect for Mr. Crawford to suggest that the parking
requirements for the Hotel should be determined by the parking
requirements created by special events. Special, occasional in-
town events at the Hotel require special parking arrangments.
They certainly do not justify the building of excess parking at
$14,000.00 per space.
In Paragraph 8, Mr. Crawford takes on the role of traffic
expert and makes judgements about the number of cars used by a
more affluent clientele as compared to the existing clientele of
the Continental. He is not an expert and he has no idea as to
the appropriate relationship between current clientele and antic-
ipated clientele. The TDA Report specifically addresses this
distinction.
•
Paragraph 9 suggests that the only way the Hotel can meet
its peak parking requirement in winter and summer is by stack
parking involving valet parking. He is totally incorrect in this
regard. The facts are as follows: The TDA projections provide a
cushion during peak periods of anywhere from 10 to 20% above
anticipated peak demands. To quote from the Report "the demand
estimates are for the peak of winter season and the peak of
summer season with occupancy at an assumed 100 %. Fifth year
projected peak month occupancies are actually only 85% for winter
and 90% for summer. Because these 100% occupancy days will be
infrequent and because valet parking will be used in peak sea-
sons, proposed supply does not provide, nor does it need, an
additional cushion above projected demand.
In Paragraph 10, Jack Crawford suggests that the maximum
possible number of parking spaces ought to be located on our
Hotel site and that the Hotel should provide public parking for
the rest of the City. In both respects he is incorrect. The
City Planning Office has suggested that this site is not an
appropriate location for public parking. Furthermore, the sug-
gestion that we provide public parking for Aspen residents
because we are in the process of providing adequate parking for
Hotel guests is totally unjustified and inappropriate.
-7-
r krh
•
C rZ MIffIF0""a M) 3P M',`17Z0MIA MIEAUT,r
•
C ® mil ic'is. -111-41 "Y
3401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803
TELEPHONE 433 -7454 AREA CODE 213
March 28, 1984
Mayor Bill Stirling
City Council Members Al Blomquist, Chic Collins,
Dick Knecht and Charlotte Walls
130 So. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Parking. Anticipating that voting may take place before public
discussion next Monday, I felt it necessary for this "rebuttal
in advance" to the developers' presentation. To this end, I
have studied the basis of the developers' proposal, the TDA Inc.
Transportation Study .(traffic and parking analysis) dated 11/18/83,
contained in the Aspen Mountain 1983 Residential GMP Submission.
As a developer myself I realize (as I'm sure you do also) that
consulting firms hired by developers always are supportive of
the developers' position (in this case simply that less parking
equals less cost) and regret there is no independently funded
study available. I don't pretend to have the.transportation
expertise of this Seattle consulting firm, but I do have more
experience in the crowded parking situation at the site, having
owned a condominium next door to the Continental Inn for a dozen
years.
Please consider the following serious questions and shortages,
based on the TDA study:
1. The Aspen Municipal.Code requires one parking space
for each bedroom (not unit) and four spaces per 1,000 square
feet for all other uses. A copy is attached and this should
be adhered to. That this requirement has been relaxed in the
past for smaller lodges has no bearing (notice I didn't
say precedent) on this large luxury hotel which in addition
to rooms will house conference facilities, bars, restaurants
and health club.
Mayor and Council Members
March 28, 19811
Page Two
2. When referring to the Aspen Municipal Code parking
requirements, the TDA study states it was predicated on a
successful applied -for zone change from L -1 to CL for 2
blocks of the hotel project, which would have eliminated
any parking requirements whatsoever for the retail stores,
bars and restaurants. P &Z wisely did not allow this zone
change.
3. Only four spaces are being provided for all the employees,
which would be laughable if it weren't that the developers and
their consultant are serious. It has been proven, using the
developers' own expert testimony before City Council (Registry
Hotel in Scottsdale, a seasonal quality resort hotel) that
one employee per guest is required for a luxury resort hotel.
Using this criteria, Aspen Mountain Lodge could need upwards
of 1,000 employees during high season—where in the world
are they to park? All the Iiyatt hotels in Hawaii, for example,
(highly successful luxury hotels located in both congested
city and resort areas) provide one space per every four
employees.
We all know Aspen employees, most of whom have cars and will
not take busses from down valley (or wherever the hundreds
are supposed to find housing). The TDA study says "Employees
will be able to park on -site during the non -peak period if
experience shows that space is available." Overage, if any,
not needed by guests as per the code of 1:1 will obviously
be sorely needed for employee parking.
4. .Although Dean St. will remain open, management of same
by the hotel for its use will eliminate public parking thereon.
The TDA study says 20 spaces will be elininated but does not
take this loss into account, saying "these spaces currently
serve lodges that will be removed." This is not true as:
a) By count approximately 50 spaces will be eliminated, and
b) this is public parking which will be lost to the citizens
of Aspen. Likewise -., have observed that the vacant site of
the developers' soon -to -be -built 700 South Galena Condominiums
has been used for two years as much needed "public" parking
for 30 cars a day. This also will be eliminated for a total
unaccounted for loss of 80 spaces in current use'.
5. Only 20 spaces are being provided for the estimated
22,500 sq. ft. of conference space, despite TDA's figure of
one conference attendee per 40 sq. ft. of conference space.
Mayor and cif Members •
March 28, 19 4
Page Three
We all eagerly await attending large community oriented
entertainment, cultural and educational events in this fine
new facility, not its use being restricted to in -house
conference meetings. If you use TDA's figures and assume
two persons per car, a community event could require 281
parking spaces!
6. Fifteen spaces are being provided for all bars and
restaurants — grossly inadequate if the food's any good.
7. No spaces are being provided for retail shops or the
health club, both of which should generate outside business—
and cars.
8. Anticipating someone from the Continental's management
may speak Monday regarding his observation of few cars used
by the hotel's customers this winter, I suggest this is like
comparing apples and oranges. The Continental caters to the
low budget.vacationer and economy tour participant who is
content to fly into Grand Junction and be bussed for hours.
The anticipated clientele for the new luxury hotel should
be either affluent or convention attendees assumedly on
expense accounts. I can't see either of these using busses ---
they will fly into Aspen and want their own rental cars to
be able to drive to SnowTnass, the new Owl Creek Club, etc.
9. TDA's recommendation of less than the code requirement
admits this will not provide enough parking during peak
winter and summer months and the hotel will have to employ
valet parking to stack 40 to 80 cars in the garage and even
to remote parking (where ?) if necessary, plus require parking
reservations be made at the same time as room reservations.
Pidture.a morning during February with a local organization
arriving for their monthly luncheon and our wealthy doctor
from Burbank steps out to get his car to take his family
skiing at Buttermilk. After experiencing the congestion and
delay, where does he go next year? Deer Valley or Vail.
10. Let's face it, every skier wants to park as close as
possible to the Ajax lifts or Rubey Park bus stop. This is
your last opportunity to provide major underground parking
right where it's most needed — .don't reduce it! If this hotel
is like others, they will be happy to rent unused space (if
any) for a profit on a daily or hourly basis to outside
visitors and skiers.
Mayor and Counciembers •
March 28, 1984
Page Four
The_proposal to allow 25% under code (.75:1) as a trade -off for
the developers agreeing to participate financially later in some
future city parking effort should not be allowed.
1. The parking is needed now and right here.
2. Unless you require cash or a bond up front from the
developers for their share of the cost of the future parking,
consider the possible difficulty in enforcing the agreement
in the future given the anticipated changes in ownership of
the project, including condotel and its hundreds of condo-
minium owners.
PUD'Approval For The Entire Project. I think the anticipated
addition of Paragraph 20 to Section 3 of the Resolution is excellent
so that Council may subsequently change the hotel PUD if necessary
after analysing the impact of the developers' yet- to -be- approved
condominium projects in the area. I appreciate the pressure on
the Council to award PUD approval to the hotel and this seems the
only practical solution to the impossibility of examining the
entire project first. I read with considerable concern a quote
from Sunny Van in the 3/22/84 Aspen Times re: 700 South Galena:
"Given the relatively discreet nature of this development proposal
and its successful receipt of a development allocation, the
planning office proposes to waive conceptual PUD /subdivision
review pursuant to provisions of the municipal code." Considering
its location, I don't see how this could be considered a discreet
development proposal and feel most strongly the City Council should
not relinquish its right and duty to review and vote on each
conceptual PUD approval.
Sincerely yours,
ck Crawford
JC:sm
attachment
(Ord. No. 11 -1975, § 1; Ord. No. 49 -1976, § 3; Ord. No. 66- I
1976, § 1; Ord. No. 18 -1981, § 1; Ord. No. 38 -1982, § 7)
4.
c. 24 -4.5. Numbered spaces require
Required off - street parking shall be provided for each
use as cribed below in all zone districts. All requirements
for parking calculated on square feet of floor area shall be
calculated on gross floor area of the structure or use.
`'` ` `' ' ' ':��' ` " - •
(b) When any calculation results in a required fractional
fraction shall be rounded off to the next higher
space, such
number of spaces of one -half or greater, but shall be ignored
if less than one -half space.
(c) Off- street parking spaces shall be provided as follows:
PARKING REQUIRED
Zone Lodge Uses Residential Uses All other Uses
CC N/A Review N/A
:
C-1 N/A 1 /Bedroom N/A
C-L None N/A None
S /C /I N/A 1 /Bedroom 3/1,000 square feet
C N/A 1 /Bedroom 4/1000 square feet
commercial uses
O N/A 1 /Bedroom 3/1,000 square feet
for all other uses;
fewer spaces may
be permitted by
special review of
the planning commis -
lion but no fewer than
-
1.5 spaces per 1,000
square feet shall be
authorized by the
commission
L-1 1 /bedroom N/A 4/1000 square feet
1-2 1 /bedroom 1 /bedroom 4/1000 square feet
Supp. No. 26 1470.2
ZONING 1 24 -4.6
- "
Zone Lodge Uaea Residential Uses All other Uses
R (all) N/A I/bedroom except for Review
dormitory use upon
application of a resi-
dential bonus overlay
._
wherein the parking
requirement shall be 2
spaces per 3 pillows
A N/A Review Review
C N/A Review Review
P N/A N/A Review
Pub N/A NIA Review
Ira I/bedroom Review 4/1,000 square feet
(Ord. No. 11 -1975, § 1; Ord. No. 49 -1976, § 3; Ord. No. 66- I
1976, § 1; Ord. No. 18 -1981, § 1; Ord. No. 38 -1982, § 7)
INTRODUCTION
This report provides an analysis of the parking demand projected for the
proposed Aspen Lodge and compares that demand to the supply required under
Section 24 -4.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code versus the PUD provisions in
Section 24-8.17. The proposed parking demand is based on surveys of actualT
demand in Aspen and other ski areas as identified in recent surveys,
interviews and on -site counts.
PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located in central Aspen, within one block of the
downtown Mall and Aspen Mountain. The Aspen Lodge would be located.on a site
bounded by Durant on the north, Galena on the east, Monarch on the west and
Juaniata on the south (see Site Plan). It is located astride Mill Street,
which serves as a major pedestrian corridor between the Mall and (sift 1A and
Little Nell. The 33 -unit Top of Mill condominiums would be located at the
southern end of Mill Street, just south of Summit Street. Summit Place, a 3-
unit condominium, would be located between Snark and the Lodge. Another 12
condominium units would be located at 700 S. Galena Street.
Because most of the retail, commercial and restaurant /bar establishments
..in Aspen are within walking distance of each other and Ajax Mountain, there is
little need for a car to get around. Consequently, transit service plays an
important role in providing access to central Aspen from outlying areas.
Rubey Park, which is the transfer point for all city and county transit
routes (they are in the process of being consolidated), is directly across the
street from the proposed Lodge site. Approximately two- thirds of all transit
riders board or alight at the Rubey Park bus stop. Figure 1 shows the six
transit routes that stop at Rubey Park.
Approximately half as many visitors arrive by automobile during the ski
season than during the rest of the year. The higher auto usage from late
spring to fall reflects the fact that a higher percentage of visitors come to
Aspen from out of state during the ski season versus a higher percentage of
in -state visitors during the remainder of the year. In addition, snow, ice
and unpredictable road conditions make traveling to Aspen by airplane or bus
1
• s
�}� � y ' i t,.•aT y�i
O YV C
ww000wc
co
cc
LL
[I n
F1 n-
e `-
Ali ..............
a • �w v.l ltle 1 O
W V 0z
' �'�UJ -
LL
ir
Ix
n
more attractive daring ski season. The
commercial airline and
bus schedules:
between Denver and
Aspen reflect this pattern
(see Table 1).
10%
8%
Table 1. AIR AND BUS
SCHEDULES TO ASPEN
3%
--
Rocky Mtn
Aspen
Continental_
Airways
Airways
Trailways
Winter Schedule
7 flights midweek
11 flights midweek
M -TH 1 bus daily. -.',
(Mid December
daily
daily
Fri.. 2 buses
ek-- of=Apri 1)
11 flights on Sat.
Every 1/2 hr from
Sat: 4 buses
9 flights on Sun.
7 a.m. - 8 p.m. on
.5 /day'to Glenwood
Sat. & Sun.
.Springs'w /connections
to- Aspen .
Summer Schedules
5 flights daily
7 flights daily
1 bu.s /day
(June -Labor Day)
5 /day to Glenwood
Springs, w /connec,t.ions
to Aspen
Spring and Fall
3 flights daily
3 -4 flights daily.
1 bus /day
Schedules
.5 /day to Glenwood
Springs w /connections
to Aspen
SOURCE: TDA Inc.
Table 2 shows the mode of arrival for winter visitors (both in- and out-
of-state) staying at lodges and compares it with similar figures for Steamboat
and Vail. As the figures indicate, the percentage by automobile is
considerably smaller for Aspen (47 percent) than for Steamboat (70 percent.) or
"
Vail (79 percent).
Table 2. MINTER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO SKI AREA
Private Car
Rental Car
Scheduled Bus
Chartered Bus
Commercial Air
Private Air
Express Bus from Stapleton
Other
Aspen Vail
33%
57%
14%
22
4.%
6%
10%
8%
35%
2%
3%
--
Ctn�mhn�+
-- 3%
1% 2%
3 SOURCE:. Reference 1
56%
14%
5%
10%
13%
5%
11%
1%
t
Table 4. PEAK MONTH AVERAGE OCCUPANCIES
Lodge Condominiums
Winter: 88% 100%
Summer: 90% 80%
As a result of the conference facility, Aspen Lodge will attract large
groups that presently cannot be accommodated in Aspen. Because the majority
of conference attendees can be expected to use group packages that include
hotel and travel arrangements, most of them will arrive in Aspen by airplane
or bus. The relatively high summer occupancies are based on attraction of
national groups of.60 -65 percent of the Lodge's market.. For winter, the
market would be 40 -45 percent group business with the marketing emphasis
placed-on larger, more affluent groups than can be served currently.
The marketing plan will focus on groups that will also use the Lodge
facilities. However, an infrequent local event may use the facilities that
attract day visitors or in -state residents.. Often, in -state residents are
more aware of the accommodations available in Aspen and thus shop around for a -
lodge or condominium that is cheaper or most responsive to their needs.
Approximately 40 -50 percent of the condominiums would be offered for
short -term rentals by their owners for about 140 days per year (primarily in
season). At least ten of the Top of Mill condominiums will probably be used
solely as a residence for the owners and their guests.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The Aspen Municipal code (Section 24 -4.5) requires one parking space per
bedroom in zones L -1 and L -2. A portion of the property fronting on Durant is
in a C -L zone, for which there is no parking requirement.
The
retail, and food and beverage activities would be treated as accessory and not
require additional parking.
5
n
The PUD provision (Section 24 -8.17) of the Aspen Municipal Code states
that in the presence of the following factors, the number of off- street
parking spaces required can be modified upon review:
a) The probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in
the PUD
b) The parking needs of any non - residential uses
c) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed.
d) Available public transit and other transportation facilities to be
supplied by the applicant; and
e) The proximity of the PUD to the commercial core or recreational
facilities of the city.
These provisions allow the proposed praj (Lets two modify the cads
requirements pertaining to off - street parking.
The demand estimates are based on the peak days of the winter and summer
seasons when lodge occupany is assumed at 88 percent in winter and 90 percent
in summer. Because these-peak occupancy days will occur infrequently (less
than 20 percent of the year), much of the parking supplied to meet the
projected peak demand will remain unused most of the year. Therefore, the
proposed supply does not provide, nor does it need, a "cushion" above
projected peak demand. In fact, during most of the peak seasons, supply will,
provide a 10 to 20 percent cushion above average demand. To accommodate the
peak demand with a supply closer to the average demand, specific temporary
measures such as valet parking and shuttles to an additional parking supply
would be implemented during peak periods.
For winter, parking demand rate was determined to be ..55 spaces /bedroom
for lodge accommodations. The proposed project would have a maximum of 447
bedrooms demanding 216 parking spaces at peak occupant' (88 %). 'This was based
on the following considerations:
• A 1984 survey conducted by TDA, Inc. (on 5 separate days) of guest.
parking demand and parking utilization counts at 10 Lodges in Aspen,
(560 bedrooms) showed a parking demand rate of .5 spaces /bedroom.
6
Demand estimates are
- generally
less than
code requirements.
"Table 5.
PROJECTED-PARKING
DEMAND
COMPARED TO
CODE REQUIREMENTS SPACES
Code
Projected Peak Demand Proposed
RequtiTment WHY —W e—r
Sumer
Aspen Lodge
Guest Rooms
447
216
265 280
Restaurants
0
15
15 15 .
Conference Facility 0
20
:`20 _ 20 I-
Retail, Health Club 0
0
Employee (on -site)
0
.10
10 10
Residential
24
12
12 12
Truck loading berths
0
5
5 5
Guest loading berths
p
0
0 11
Subtotal
-----471
278
327 353 �¢
700 S. Galena
24
15
13 40
Top of Mill
132
66
53 80 ,
._ Summit Place
6
3
3 6
i... Subtotal
=, 162
84
69 126
TOTAL
633
362
396 479
*None required in CL
zone. Figure
shown
is for L -1, L -2 zones.
SOURCE:..
Aspen Municipal
Code, TDA Inc.
Aspen Lodge. Demand
estimates
recognize
the nature of Aspen Lodge, its
expected market and,
its unique
location.
The Aspen Lodge is in the commercial
core of Aspen, adjacent
to the
Rubey Park
transit stop, at the base of Ajax
Mountain, and within
walking distance
of
Lifts 1A and Little Nell.
Food and Beverage.
The 15 space estimate
was based on joint use
considerations-including:
8
- one Aa'dci1 L.N%syc.w111 Fe VYC\iG d.IV YY9L. .a.. ..•. •• •••• --• ^r —.- -- -- ---- -.
Down Valley locations.
All Aspen Lodge - sponsored employee housing will either be located
within walking distance of the Lodge or be provided with shuttle
service to the Lodge.
• Employees will be able to park on -site during at least 80 percent of
the year.
During the peak periods when only 10 employee spaces will be provided,
the Aspen Lodge will reserve available parking in a remote lot for
their employees and shuttle them to work.
1
Residential. Parking'demand for the six residential lodge, units was -stimatc:d
at 2 spaces /unit for the same reasons as those identified for condominiums.
As a result 12 spaces will be supplied for these units.
Loading Zones. The Aspen Municipal Code does not require any loading or
service vehicle parking, but the Master Plan submission requirements state
that this demand must be addressed. At build out, the Aspen Lodge will
require a total of 5 truck loading berths. In addition, the hotel main
entrance. provides loading space for 6 vehicles and the conference entrance
provides loading space for 5 vehicles.
Condominiums. Parking demand estimates are based.on a conservative projection..
of 100 percent occupancy in the peak winter months and 80 percent occupancy
during the peak summer months. Supply is expected to provide a 33 percent
cushion during the peak season.
Parking demand was estimated to be 1.0 spaces /one or two bedroom dwelling
unit and 2.0 spaces /3 or 4 bedroom dwelling unit. The 84 space estimate of
demand was based on the following considerations:
A 1984'TDA Inc. survey of parking at 10 condominium (on five separate
days during a peak winter week) developments in the vicinity of the
10
r
:
proposed Aspen Lodge site, showed that condominiums generate demand =
for only o68.spaces /condominium unit'in the winter. (Reference.lT)
• A 1979 survey of 753 condominium units (1,326 bedrooms) in Snovrmass
West Village showed a parking demand rate of 1 space /uni.t o r 52.
spaces /bedroom. (Reference 12)
• A 1980 parking study in Keystone conducted by Summit County, showed
the condominium demand for parking as 1.2 spaces /unit if the
condominium was located within a mile of the moutain and an average of
2 spaces /unit if located over a mile from the mountain. (Reference
13)
• A 1977 -78 Copper Mountain survey (during Christmas -New Years week) of
actual parking demand showed that at the rate of 2 spaces /condominium
unit, 1 space /lodge unit and •5 spaces /employee unit, only 61 percent
of uncovered spaces were occupied and 79 percent of the covered: spaces
were occupied. This overstatement of demand resulted in a 25 -30
percent over supply of parking. Based on this study, condominium
units are now required to supply parking at the rate of 1.5
spaces /unit. (Reference 14)
• .Table 6 summarizes a comparison of residential parking requirements at
Colorao ski communities. The proposed 126 spaces for the three
condominium complexes would exceed all but the Aspen code
requirements.
The Summit Place and 700 S. Galena condominiums would satisfy or
surpass Aspen's parking requirements. It is only the Top of Mill
units that are estimated to generate considerably less parking demand
than the City `provides for.in its zoning code.. -All 33 Top of Mill
units will have four bedrooms. These units generally would not
attract four separate vehicles because they would not be lockoffs..
• A TDA (November 1983) survey of condominium managers in Aspen
identified a demand for 1.25 spaces /unit in the winter and 1.5
spaces /unit in the summer (Reference 15).
Parkin Summar
Peak season parking demands can be met with 327 Lodge spaces and 84
11
-s
z
-
ca
C+
cn
-i
o)
.
o•
co
W
� CO
Ln
rD
01
e
C)
n
cn tv
C) cn
Q Q
d
cn
¢,
.>
N
C C
C
i
p
C (D
f7
C+
o
W
C)
cn
!
�.
C)
-n
f 1
CD
ca c)
Q o
Q,
cs
(D
c
6-4
Cl
C N
-b
O
(D.
"S
C
N
CD
N
3
--� to
cn
CA
H
J
C O
A
ct ;'
(D
x
CD
O
Fti
O
m
m
N
s
.
IO.
�
D
�
O
CL
C
`�
rTi
iA•
O
.�•
m
7z
M
m .
M
m
(D
V
(D
C
m
O
.
N
d
i
'S
3
O
C
(D.
d
N
.
12
condominium spaces; however 479 parking spaces are included in the total
supply for the proposed project. These are based on the conservative
application of experience elsewhere to the special characteristics of.Aspen
and of this project. 'The results shore that9 under a PUD designation, a 154
space reduction from zoning code requirements can be justified.
MEASURES TO REDUCE PARKING DEMAND
The Aspen Lodge and three cndominium projects will make the following
provisions to minimize auto travel and parking demand.- These area -
combination of disincentives for using an automobile and incentives to use
transit or walk.
1. Provide a total of four courtesy vans for connection to the airport,
evening trips for off -site restaurants and transportation to.other
ski areas.
2. Valet parking will be employed at the Aspen Lodge all hours during
the peak winter and summer months. This will provide more efficient
- use of the parking areas and a psychological disincentive to moving
a car once it is parked. Whenever parking demand exceeds 59 1 ,
the valet parking will stack cars in the arg age, thereby addin
another 4080 spaces..
3. During peak periods, parking reservations will be made at the same
time as lodging reservations. This will help provide planning for
peak periods.
4. Aspen Lodge and all three Condominium brochures and reservations
packets will. provide information on availability of courtesy vans
for airport connections and other trips, as well as information
about Aspen's free bus service.
5. Because a relatively large conference facility is not currently.
available in Aspen, Lodge marketing will emphasize large groups
package tours, particularly in the summer. Special. fare
arrangements for large groups will discourage arrival in Aspen by
car.'
6. The Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 S. Galena
Condominiums will take a lead in moviag the Lodge district
improvement program forward and encourage -the early formation of the
financing district. The Aspen Lodge will develop its facilities
(lighting, sidewalks, crosswalks, street furniture) in conjunction
with that improvement program.
7. The previously described pedestrian facilities will encourage
walking and transit travel.
8. The proposed project will agree not to protest an assessment for
improvements to Rubey Park and construction of a Transit Center
assuming costs are distributed euqitably among beneficiaries.
9. Whenever valet service is not being implemented, guests' vehicles
will be tagged and the garage monitored to control unauthorized
parkers from competing with guests for the parking supply.
10. A policy will be enforced stating that employees cannot briny
vehicles to work during periods identified as having peak parking
demand.. Violation of this policy by unauthorized employees will
result in an employee reprimand, ticketing and /or towing.
11. Employees will be able to park on -site during the non -peak periods
if experience shows that spaces are available. Transit passes will
be purchased for any employees who want to encourage their use of
transit for commuting to work.
.12. All Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 S. Galena
sponsored employee housing will.be located within walking distance
of the hotel or provided with shuttle service to get employees to
work.
If experience determines that peak parking demand exceeds. on -site supply,
the Aspen Lodge and Top of Mill Condominiums will agree to the following
additional measures:
1. During the peak periods, the Aspen Lodge will provide remote parking
if experience shows it to be necessary. This remote parking will be
serviced by valet service.
2. Contribute up to $25,000 for concept plans for the design of Rubey
Park.
14
a
REFERENCES
rt
1.
Out of State Skier, University of Colorado, Dr. Goeldner, 1977 -78.
2.
TDA parking data collected in Aspen in February, 1984.
3.
TDA parking data collected in Steamboat Springs in 1980.
4.
Vail Parking Code.
5.
Comparative Analysis of Aspen Visitor Studies, University of Colorado.
6.
Laventhol & Horwath, 1983.
7.
TDA Surveys in Sun Valley at Sun Valley Lodge and Elkhorn.
8.
ITE Trip Generation.
9.
TDA Surveys in Sun Valley at Sun Valley Lodge and Elkhorn.
10.
TDA Survey of banquet and restaurant space /person.
11.
TDA parking data collected in Aspen in February 1984.
12.
Snowmass Parking Study, Design Workshop Inc., March 1979.
13.
Summit County Planning Dept. 1980.
14.
Copper Mountain Parking Study, 1977 -78.
15.
TDA telephone survey of Aspen Condominium Managers, November 16, 1983.
16.
City of Aspen Engineering Department.
15 _.
41AI
I1 E I IORANDU M
TO: Aspen City Council
FROI1: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: March 26, 1984
Attached for your review and consideration is a draft resolution
granting a multi -year lodge GIIP allocation and conceptual PUD /subdivision
approval to the lodge portions of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The resolution
incorporates portion of Al Bloomcruist's earlier draft resolution,
the applicants' five point Discussion Draft submitted at your March
19th meetina, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's January 17th
resolution. i have included those provisions for which Council consensus
was apparently reached at your Niarch 19th meeting. In those areas
in which no consensus has been reached to date, or the issues have
yet to be discussed, I have simply incorporated the appropriate provisions
of the P &Z's resolution.
To refresh your memory, I have also attached a copy of the Planning
Office's January 11th memorandum to City Council analyzing the pros
and cons of a multi -year quota allocation. The Planning Office is
prepared to discuss both the draft resolution and the attached memorandum
in detail at your Monday meeting. Should you have any questions,
or if I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at the
Planning Office.
DERIVATION OF MULTI -YEAR QUOTA ALLOCATION
.
Aspen f4ountain Lodge
UNITS
1.
Proposed number of lodge units in the Aspen
447
Mountain Lodge.
2.
Existing lodge units verified to date.
- 233
214
3.
Additional existing lodge units to be verified.l
- 42
4.
New lodge units for. which an allocation is required.
172
5.
Unallocated lodge units from prior years' quotas.
- 32
140
6.
1983 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota.
= 35
105
7.
1984 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota.
- 35
70
8.
1985 L -1, L -2,-CC and CL lodge quota.2
- 35
35
9.
1986 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota.2
- 35
0
.The
thirty -six (36). lodge units awarded to the. Aspen Inn in 1978
which
are presently, under construction plus six (6) additional
units
in the
Aspen Inn basement, subject to settlement of the
Cantrup,litiga -'
tion,
final PUD approval and. the transfer of title to
the Aspen Inn
site
to the applcants.
2Upon deed - restriction and conversion. of the Alpina
Haus Lodge to
employee
housing, forty -four (44) units will be cr.edited.to
the L-
1, L -2, -CC and CL lodge quota thereby effectively elim'nating the
need
for the 1.906' quota all and reducing the 19Eallocation
to 26
units.
1
DERIVATION OF MULTI -YEAR QUOTA ALLOCATION
Aspen Mountain Lodge
1. Proposed number of lodge units in the Aspen
Mountain Lodge.
2. Existing lodge units verified to date.
3. Additional existing lodge units to be verified.l
4. New lodge units for which an allocation is required.
5. Unallocated lodge units from prior years' quotas.
6. 1983 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota.
7. 1984 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota.
8. 1985 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota.2
9. 1986 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota.2
UNITS
447
233
214
- 42
172
- 32
140
- 35
105
- 35
70
- 35
35
35
0
The thirty -six (36) lodge units awarded to the Aspen Inn in 1978
which are presently under construction plus six (6) additional units
in the Aspen Inn basement, subject to settlement of the Cantrup litiga-
tion, final PUD approval and the transfer of title to the Aspen Inn
site to the applcants.
2Upon deed - restriction and conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to
employee housing, forty -four (44) units will be ct- edited to the L
1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota thereby effectively eliminating the
need for the 1986 quota allocation and reducing the 1985 allocation
to 26 units.
•
•
^4, DISCUSSION DRAFT
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
t/ POINTS FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING A RESOLUTION GRANTING
CONCEPTUAL APROVAL FOR THE LODGE PORTION
MARCH 19, 1984
A pp licant proposes to reduce e the total FAR square footage
on Lot 1 by.30, 000 sq.ft. to a total of 310,275 sq.ft.
This reduction shall be made up of a mix in reduction of
room square footage and accessory square footage to be in
F the preliminary PUD /Subdivision Submission.
i \,/2. Applicant proposes that the height of structures on Lot 1
shall not exceed 42 feet from natural grade to the midpoint
of the roof with the exception of elevator tower areas
which shall-not exceed 55 feet from natural grade to the
midpoint of the roof.
3Q� 3. Applicant proposes flexibility to revise the mix of rooms
U• �. and units, but agrees that the total lodge unit count will
not exceed 447 units and the residential unit count will
not exceed 6 units. s-.3
4. Applicant proposes to continue to explore the architectural
treatments of the lodge buildings as well as other
�/ techniques which could be employed to give the appearance
that, although under common ownership and /or management,
that there is more than one lodging facility..on the site.
�. The City proposes to work with the Applicant regarding
�i measures acceptable to both parties which can be taken to
reduce the costs currently associated with the project.
(� Areas appropriate for such discussion shall include, but
not be limited to, parking requirement, location and
methods of financing; employee housing; and financing of
utilities and streetscape improvements.
JgI
t DRAFT
of,ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD
RESOLUTION K_ONCEPTUAL'�PPIZOVAL
WHEREAS, the Cantrup projects and bankruptcy have caused neg.ati
impacts on the resort and community, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD is offered by the new
owners as a means to resolve many of those negative impacts, and
T.i N F R F A S t h n 1- I�� -�z- i••u-r'— L"P'TTC�'p�LT'ci�`� ��:��° -`a -- --, Z S 4 i n n r �� - c
c--t- iii=- �% Spc -•I3 °�Ia�rn�ztl`m"I;t3�gtii�'-
s- ]rd- 1�e� =a s- ayt i�er �eclg�-.agpl i.(, a_t ion_ ; a
= a- enrt - f?c�Dy
WHEREAS, the Council has given full consideration to the pros
and cons of this PUD application for - "conceptual" approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Q plo - ,
City of Aspen, - Colorado, that the conceptual rtis Hereby /' ._•
-eel subject to the following conditions and consideration s
P4�9—p.r,o s is. p ct. / n
2. lam- .5 /c7aih.. z y ,dpacFs /2z) lie1/ge 6 -edge � tviU 6� 1���rui��ec� r �t !r 7:4k M i
Th . foy�ndat pn on tr - t on�e, t 8p,4 O,�gre ey,l /,ne
,�olltn�n
co ri t o - e at vo1Ze wiYl re e .
3. That the overall FAR for the PUD riot exceed 1 : 1 ,�e3 --N3.P a,_,kVaatkr
�a��'i�2- o:yirrg= tire-- mA?s- f-- t- 3,e-- txncier- ,�fr'Q�ts seer
Ti — t—•t= ..sue :l �- F1B,� -- ,(? C occ t� tG� ��
4. That no future GMP quota may be borrowed1 ��� !lI }1 �uc:�• °i
? b.
%.
'8.
9.
That no height from legal grade. shall exceed 1500 of
existing height limits for the underlying zone (42 feet).
bit f ;lam or
That the hotel shall appear as two hotels` with separate
names and appearances, each with As own auto entry and
registration desk, each with its own restaurant /bar, etc.
(common ownership, management, parking, laundry, etc. ar,3
to be allowed so long as the overall. im ression is of two or' Ac'i-
"smaller" hotels., (C�,co5), • /,,,�._
s i T�5/
That a trail be built through the Top of Mill with connections
East and West for a ski down trail to Lift 1 -A and the Little
Nell lift.
F re i( blll_�
That City�%�s at Top of Mill and vacated street_c.
be traded "even" for Koch parcel land to be deed restricted
for.park.use.
That the Koch Lumber parcel-StFat-1 be included in the PUD
at present zoning if a land trade for the City's Top of Mill
parcels is negotiated.
10. That sufficient lands in the Water Tank Parcel. owned by the
City man be added to the trade for the Koch Parcel to the
end that the entire Koch Parcel becomes a Park.
11. That a plan for the disposal and landscaping of all earth
fill removed from the site shall be approved by the Council,
and where possible shall be used to achieve beneficial public
purposes.
12.
That Resolution 84 -1 of the Aspen Planning Commission is
hereby adapted by rclfcre0nce, as appropriat:c� and when, consis-
tent herewith. C �G� a441p, 115a /;Iw/ 1,e? a,
/0 tp
0 -Zu. ,yam, /teaol ,,16 CoCt_,L ,u_o
t .
i
ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD
RESOLUTION GIV?NG "CONCEPTUAL•" APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the Cantrup projects and bankruptcy have.caused negative
impacts on the resort and community, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD is offered by the new
owners as a means to resolve many of those negative impacts, and
WHEREAS, the initial conceptual. PUD visualized a 35% .increase'
in FAR, zone map changes and other major concessions by the Council,
and
WHEREAS, the Council I believes the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
should be treated as any other lodge application, so as to not
set major precedents, and
WHEREAS, the Council has given.full consideration to the pros
and cons of this PUD application for only "conceptual" approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, that the conceptual intent is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions and considerations:
That no zone map changes will be made, and that the
PUD process is proper for the project.
That no foundation construction'a.bove the 8040 greenline
or any construction in the Conservat_:on zone will be
allowed.
3. That the overall FAR for the 'PUD not exceed 1:1, or the
y average FAR allowed by averaging the FARs for the under-
! }` lying zones, *whichever is the small overall FAR.
4. That no future GMP quota may be borrowed.
5. That, no height from legal grad shall exceed 1500 of
existing height limits For the underlying zone (42 feet).
6. That the hotel shall appear as two hotels, with separate
names and appearances, each.with its own .auto entry and
registration desk, each with its own restaurant /bar, etc..
(common ownership, management, parking, laundry, etc. are
to be allowed so long as the overall impression is of two
"smaller" hotels)
That a trail be built through the Top of Mill with connections
East and West for a ski down trail to Lift 1 -A and the Little
Nell lift.
That the City lots at Top of Mill and vacated streets shall
be traded "even" for Koch parcel land to be deed restricted
for.park use.
That the Koch Lumber parcel shall be included in the PUD
at present zoning if a land trade for the City's Top of Mill
parcels is to be negotiated.
That sufficient land in the Water Tank Parcel owned by the
City man be added to the trade for the Koch Parcel to-the
end that the entire Koch Parcel becomes a Park.
1. That a plan for the-disposal and landscaping of all earth
fill removed from the site shall be approved-by the Council,
and where possible shall be used to achieve beneficial public
purposes.
12.' That Resolution 84 -1 of the Aspen Planning Commission is
hereby adopted by reference, as appropriate and when consis-
tent herewith.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - R -6 (RBO) Rezoning Request
DATE: March 6, 1984
0
To refresh your memory, the applicants' request for a rezoning to
R -6 (RBO) of their Ute Avenue property to allow the construction
of approximately 50 employee housing units was originally tabled
on November 29, 1983, until. your January 3, 1984 meeting to allow
the applicants additional time to address the various concerns raised
by the Planning Office and the neigborhood. At the applicants' request,
P &Z consideration of this issue was again tabled on January 3rd and
on February 7th. In view of the fact that the City Council has yet
to award a quota to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project, the applicants
are requesting that P &Z consideration of the Ute Avenue rezoning
be dropped at this time. This item will be rescheduled for P &Z con-
sideration and renoticed when Council completes its conceptual PUD
review.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at. the Planning
Office.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Sunny Vann, Planning
Aspen Mountain PUD -
t.
March 5, 1984
FA
Director
1983 Lodge GMP Competition
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss the conceptual PUD
conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission in its
review of this project. To simplify your discussion, I have organized
the P &Z's conditions into four categories:
1. Height and bulk concerns;
2. Street vacations;
3. Parking and traffic considerations; and
4. Miscellaneous technical issues.
The Commission's conditions have been extracted from their resolution
and are provided verbatim for your consideration in the attached
outline. The Planning Office will briefly discuss the rationale
behind each condition and will be available, along with the applicants,
to answer any questions you might have.
In addition to the P &Z's recommended conditions of conceptual PUD
approval, I have attached an analysis of the lodge development which
would be permitted on the hotel site as a result of a strict application
of the underlying zoning regulations. This analysis was developed
by the applicants in conjunction with the Planning Office and accurately
reflects the zoning regulations which govern the lodge site. The
Planning Office is also prepared to discuss this analysis in detail
at your Monday work session.
Should you have any questions with respect to the attached material,
please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office prior to your
meeting.
CONCEPTUAL PUD CONDITIONS
The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that the City
Council grant conceptual PUD /subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections
20 -10 and 24 -8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the lodge portion of the
Aspen Mountain PUD subject to the following conditions:
I. HEIGHT AND BULK
1. The applicants continuing to investigate architectural
revisions to the proposed hotel, in particular the Durant
Avenue, lower Mill Street and conference entrance facades,
so as to reduce the hotel's mass, prevent the shading of
adjacent streets, and maintain and enhance public views
of Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic areas.
2. A determination by the applicants as to whether or not
the proposed hotel intrudes into the Wheeler Opera House
viewplane and the submission, if required, of an appropriate
request for review pursuant to the viewplane provisions
of the Municipal Code.
II. STREET VACATIONS
1. Written clarifications as to the nature and extent of the
improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support
of their request for the vacation of various public rights -
of -way and the granting of encroachment licenses necessitated
by the Aspen Mountain PUD.
2. The vacation of Dean Street between Monarch and Mill Streets
being conditioned upon the retention of all utility rights,
public use of the street for circulation purposes, and
the submission by the applicants of an acceptable maintenance
and use agreement between, themselves and the Mountain Chalet.
3. Each utility franchised
proposed street vacations
of these rights -of -way will
current or future needs.
in the City signing off on all
so as to ensure that the loss
not interfere with each utility's
4. The applicants' participation in the proposed CCLC lodge
improvement district, said participation to be on a pro
rata basis or on such other basis as the district may deter-
mine.
III. PARKING AND TRAFFIC
1. Written clarification as to which substantive representations
of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis the
applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen Mountain
PUD, in particular, further clarification with respect
to those techniques designed to mitigate the potential
•
•
impacts of peak occupancy on adjacent streets.
2. The applicants continuing to investigate solutions to the
problem of increased pedestrian congestion in the project
area, in particular, the movement of pedestrians between
the proposed hotel, Rubey Park and the adjacent commercial
core.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL
1. The applicants' submission of a detailed subdivision plat
indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain
PUD site.
2. The applicants' submission of an acceptable survey of the
Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions.
3. The applicants' resolution of the various issues raised
by the Environmental Health Department in their memorandum
of October 22, 1983, with respect to various specific details
of the proposed hotel operation.
4. The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited
to those units verified pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a)
of the Municipal Code.
5. Written clarification as to the applicants' intentions
with respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis -a -vis
how the hotel will be managed.
6. The applicants' resolution of the Fire Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas
of the lodge site for fire protection purposes.
7. All material representations of the applicants' growth
management and conceptual PUD /subdivision applications
not specifically referred to above being made a condition
of this recommendation of approval.
8. The,above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD /sub-
division approval.
February 27, 1984
Analysis of Development Permited "By Right"
Lot 1, Aspen Mountain PUD (Lodge Site)
Assumptions:
1. Assume 217,272 sq.ft.. site divided into 3 parcels
A. Existing Continental Inn (43,434 sq.ft.)
B. Parcel north of Continental (27,080 sq.ft.)
C. Parcels west of Continental (146.,758 sq.ft.)
2. Assume Continental remains, other two sites are built
out with smaller room size (375 sq.ft.), 50 sq.ft. per
room for circulation, min. support space of 25%
( required) per lot, (12.5 %above - grade, 12.5%
below- grade) , underground parking and off -site employee
housing.
3. Other Area and Bulk Requirements to be met:
25% Open space
28 foot height limit
5 foot side yard setback
10 foot front and rear yard setback.
4. Assume no credit for street vacations.
e
a �
\ \ \ \ A \3 .
\ _ \
RE/7-
Ak
/ �! ' � / l !' ` V - � �/j�i��l� fir. �l - f' •r. \; _— _i -•r�� i -
i� ,. Y .� / /�/ _ ��J _ _ \� '\ [y�� �• a i � \,\\`
/ 1
SUMMIT— SI'REF,T
CE CONDOMINIUMS
1' 5240 SO FT. \ -- - --
f �1 _
SNARN STHEF.T
/I'I•_� _.-__.— -- I \' ` --ill.– _� --`'- Jn,ID' -- t
JINIATA STHEFT _j _
'
i � • ASPEN 910UNTAIjy
.� Z SQfr I.AN%'N ST. YASATION
I$
o DI•:AN S . VACATION
z
DURANT AVENUE _ ..
IVA
- 1% '21, •�.ol"f JSI r�,� '��p�1�vr ''�r- ,�/6f�r
ASPEN MOUNTAIN D AwINC1TITL[ 1 CONSULTANTS DRAWING NO.
Mill �i...f
Hwyff�r W.. I,.v�
The Lodge -Galena •Top Of Mill
1.01PLAN
,
American Century Corporation DATE 1 DECEMBER 1983 _ n RrLJ
11
... _ /.. _. -. -.. _s.c .• �....:. I. .:.: .:.,y. -. : .. .,...4. ......:.,,.<,. .. �h -. .., ..:- .rr l:.ar au`S'"�'k;iii'Ysn �ma >..6i K1At"t• ?G:�iit''�"'Tkvs,F_.— .
1C West Parcels u
Land area: 146, 758 sq.ft.
(All L -1 and L -2 @ 1:1 FAR)
Allowable Building Square Footage for FAR: 146,758 sq.ft.
Roan sq.ftge. (87.5% of max F.A.): 128,413 sq.ft.
Above -grade accessory space (12.5% of max. F.A.) : 18,345 sq.ft.
Below -grade accessory space (excluded. fran F.A.): 18,345 sq.ft.
Total Building square Footage ( including below- grade) : 165,103 sq.ft.
Total Lodge Roams: 302 roans
Parcel FAR: 146,758
lA Continental Inn (to remain)
Land-area: 43,434 sq . ft .
Building Square Footage:
59,221
sq.ft.
Total Lodge Roams:
178
roans
Parcel FAR: 59,221
T3, 43T
1.36:1
1B North Parcel
Land area: 27,080 sq.ft.
CL land 02:1 FAR):12,035 sq.ft.
L -1 land (@1:1 FAR):15, 045 sq.ft.
Allowable Building ware Footage for FAR:
39,115
sq.ft.
Roan sq.ftge. (87.5% of max F.A.): 34,226 sq.ft.
34,226
sq.ft.
Above -grade accessory space (12.5% of max F.A.) :
4,889
sq.ft.
Below -grade accessory space ( excluded fran F.A.):-
4,889
sq . ft.
Total Building Square Footage ( including below- grade)
44,004
sq.ft.
Total Lodge Roans:
81
roans
Parcel FAR: 39,115
2 7, 080
1.44:1
1C West Parcels u
Land area: 146, 758 sq.ft.
(All L -1 and L -2 @ 1:1 FAR)
Allowable Building Square Footage for FAR: 146,758 sq.ft.
Roan sq.ftge. (87.5% of max F.A.): 128,413 sq.ft.
Above -grade accessory space (12.5% of max. F.A.) : 18,345 sq.ft.
Below -grade accessory space (excluded. fran F.A.): 18,345 sq.ft.
Total Building square Footage ( including below- grade) : 165,103 sq.ft.
Total Lodge Roams: 302 roans
Parcel FAR: 146,758
•
•
lA Continental I nn (to remain)
Land area: 43,434 sq.ft.
Building Square Footage:
59,221
sq.ft.
Total Lodge Roams:
178
roans
Parcel FAR: 59,221
1.36:1
1B North Parcel
Land area: 27,080 sq.ft.
CL land ( @2 :1 FAT,):18,035 sq.ft.
Lr-1 land (@1:1 FAR): 9,045 sq.ft.
Allowable Building Square Footage for FAR:
45,115
sq.ft.
Roan sq.ftge. (87.5% of max F.A.): 34,226 sq.ft.
39,476
sq.ft.
Above -grade accessory space (12.5% of max F.A.):
5,639
sq.ft.
Below-grade accessory space (excluded from F.A.):
5,639
sq.ft.
Total Building Square Footage ( including below- grade)
50,754
sq.ft.
Total Lodge Roams: @ 375 sq . ft .
105
roans
Parcel FAR: 45,115
�T
1.67:1
1C West Parcels
Land area: 146,758 sq.ft.
(All L -1 and L -2 @ 1:1 FAR)
Allowable Building Square Footage for FAR: 146,758 sq.ft.
Roan sq.ftge. (87.5% of max F.A.): 128,413 sq.ft.
Above -grade accessory space (12.5% of max. F.A.): 18,345 sq.ft.
Below - grade accessary space (excluded from F.A.): 18,345 sq.ft.
Total Building Square Footage ( including below- grade) : 165,103 sq.ft.
Total Lodge Roans: @ 375 sq.ft. 342 roans
Parcel FAR: 146,758
Total for Site
Total Land Area: 217,272 sq.ft.
Total Building Area for ,FAR Calculations: -245; 094- sq . ft.
FAR for Site: 251,094
1.16:1
Total Lodge Rooms: 625 roams
J. W.
3/5/84
u Committee to Preserve Ope Space
c/o Carolyn Nordin -Doty
Box 5091, Aspen, Co 81612 925 -1718
To: Aspen City Council
Re: Aspen Mtn. Lodge Project
March 2, 1984
MAIR 0 0 1984
ASPEN / PITKIN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
1.CONSIDER SIZE. We urge to consider the difference in size
allowed the Aspen Mountain .Lodge under existing zoning and under
the PUD. We despair in comparing number of units since units
can mean one, two or three rooms each, and room size changes
from 450 sq. ft. to 375 sq. ft. in the developer's comparisons.
The. only concrete comparison is absolute: how many square feet
can be built under existing zoning?
Present zoning allows:
Apllicants request:
Difference:
245,094 square feet building area
332,150 square feet building area
87,056
87,056 _
increase in floor area
245,094 r?, over present zoning limits!
We feel that to allow a 35% increase in size would be a disastrous
abuse of the purpose of a PUD, Which clearly states no increase
in density. It would also be a mockery of equitability, since many
small lodges could have "upgraded" years ago if they too had been
allowed a ?5% increase in size.
2. DEAN STREET. The. Dean Street vacation skews the FAR figures.
Compare:
AM
332,150 Sq' bldg area requested _ r
252 972 land area with Dean Street—
332,150 sq' bldg area requested =
217;272 land area without Dean Street
These calculations are based on the Lodge site (Lot 1 on map)
only. When FAR is figured on PUD usiig a nd not integral to lodge
site, the figure goes down to 1.13:1: These different FAR
figures are all for the same size building. We don't think a
difference between 1.13 and 1.53 is nitpicking: tA% just want to
compare apples with apples instead of with oranges.
t rs7i-
A*IIATA St7YT:IT Pt CF. GO \IbMI \(fills
VD, .. ,. ' /I / .. -- 5240 SO rr - - Lam.• \y� -_
•':•./ ,1 /�;I�1�' � -�
IIf 111 ? L._,:
ca
`'��_ ♦ 3t 1500 S(>F -
t
_LOT 111 7y �
j� Y �. --
. .. �:>lJ/ `\ �� •,� ,I,; Y��Snf f �. 1XM'\ ST_- 1'ACdIl(N:
\ i I •1 i
MAN ST. VACATlOti
IM
- ouaAxr Avwu1 �p
3. GUIDELINES. Since the PUD process allows f rticipation by
the city in the planning.& design process, we would like to make
these recommendations to the Council:
A. Do not include Dean Street in FAR calculations, and do
not allow. variations from underlying zoning, FAR allowances.
B. Do not allow a greater square foot building area than
254,094 which is allowed under present zoning.
C. Since the only density control in the lodge district is, the
GMP, do not allow future year allocations to be granted. Under
present guidelines, the developers may.build 344 units. (We
would like to see units interpreted as. rooms, since rooms are
what are being replaced to give this quota.)
277 Replacement
32-Prior years allocation
35 1983 allocation'
344
D. Do not allow zoning changes on other parcels of the project.
(Top of Mill should remain R -15)
E. Restrict height variations to no more than 20% higher than
underlying 28' height limit.
F. Require compensation for the Dean Street vacation in one
of these ways:
1. Cash payment for market value of land to be
placed in city open space fund, or
2. Donation of equal land within the city to.be
deed restricted.as Park.
•
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: February 27, 1984
It is my understanding that consideration of the Aspen Mountain Lodge
PUD application is to be tabled at your Monday, February 27th meeting
until March 5, 1984. The decision to be tabled is acceptable to the
applicants and will allow additional time for staff to prepare a con-
cise agenda of the issues surrounding the applicants' submission
before consideration by Council. We would hope to address these
issues systematically beginning on March 5th, in preparation for a
Council vote with respect to the applicants' lodge GMP /PUD application.
Should you have any questions, please contact the Planning Office or
the City Attorney.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: February 21, 1984
To date.,: the Council has reviewed the applicants' Conceptual lodge
PUD submission with respect to area, bulk, height, parking and traffic
generation. Yourhaveealso reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion's reasoning with respect to their recommendation that Council
grant Conceptual approval to the lodge.portion of the Aspen Mountain
PUD. While a number of issues haveiyet to be discussed, including the
P &Z's conditions of Conceptual PUD approval, the applicants' request
for a multi -year allocation and the question of employee housing, both
the applicants and the Planning Office feel that it is imperative that
we resolve the question of the extent to which Council is willing to
vary underlying height and F.A.R. restrictions for the lodge portion of
the PUD prior to addressing the remaining outstanding issues.
The purpose of tonight's meeting, therefore, is to review the appli-
cants' revised conceptual architecture for the proposed hotel. In
response to the various concerns raised by the Planning Office, the P &Z
and Council, the applicants have reduced the number of hotel units,
resulting in a concurrent reduction in the total number of rooms con-
tained in the hotel and inethe PUD's overall F.A.R. The applicants are
prepared to present their revised architecture and to discuss the
proposed reduction at your February 21st meeting.
Inasmuch as the Planning Office has not had an opportunity to review
the applicants revised architecture and development program, we will
reserve our comments until after the applicants' presentation. Ideally,
Tuesday's meeting will provide sufficient time for Council to thoroughly
discuss the extent to which a variance in the underlying F.A.R and
height: requirements of the zone district maybe allowed. The approxi-
mately two hour meeting should also allow sufficient time for extensive
public comment.
Should you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance
prior to your meeting, please give me a call.
0 •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - Request for R -6 (RBO) Rezoning
DATE: February 7, 1984
As the attached letter indicates, the applicants of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge once again have requested that their application for the re-
zoning of their Ute Avenue parcel from R -15 to R -6 (RBO) be tabled.
The purpose of the requested tabling is to allow the applicants
additional time to continue their review of their conceptual PUD
submission with the City Council prior to investigating alternative
employee housing solutions. The Planning Office suggests that you
open the public hearing with respect to this matter and continue it
to your first regularly scheduled meeting in March. The date of the
continued public hearing will be March 6, 1984.
Doremus.&com.pany
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, Colorado 81611 • telephone: (303)925 -6866
_Mr Sunny Vann
Director, Aspen.Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny.
As we discussed by-phone, the applicants for the Aspen Mountain
PUD wish to continue discussions with City Council regarding.
the proposed lodge prior to finalizing a new employee housing
proposal. It appears to us to be premature. and perhaps
wasteful of the Planning and Zoning Commission's time to bring -
forward a new employee housing program until we have received a
more precise response from City Council regarding the Lodge.
As you know, amendments to our previous proposal may require
optioning additional parcels and /or buildings at increased
expense to the applicant and we do not feel it is appropriate
to do that at this time.
We will defer to staff's opinion as to whether we should
continue the February 7th hearing as renoticed.or allow the
hearing to expire and begin the process again at a later date.
The applicant will, of course, bear the expense of republishing
at a later date in either case..
Sincerely,
Joseph. Wells
JW/ jb .
� �'�"'' d�`-�"+' .r ,�', *��p ��f' �,��j; .�� Mr.nt rr �,"�•� #°� �'wv1 .*A` �9 }�f��i4fa�,� �>r,� � c�� � t.
�� i4 €: ..`v r`w'i ,t5� s� ty � }:L�,e�" .�:�f t, ryl•� � „�, � •"�� rg lY
To:., City Council
From: Doremus and Company
Re: Proposed Hotel Operation
Dated: February 6, 1984
At Mayor Stirling's request, we are forwarding some
information regarding Mr. William Balsiger and the Registry
Hotel Corporation.I Mr. Balsiger will be at tonight's Council
meeting to comment on the economic viability of the Lodge
proposal and to respond to questions which may be raised by
the Council. Registry Hotel Corporation is currently
negotiating with the applicant regarding their possible
involvement as operators for the Lodge.
WILLIAM D. BALSIGER, Executive Vice President of Development.
Mr. Balsiger's educational background .includes a Master of Business
Administration Degree from. Southern Illinois University. He began his finance
career as an Account Executive for Dupont Walston. In his next position he was
Vice President of Northland Mortgage Company, a national mortgage banking firm,
for eight years in Minneapolis, Minnesota. There he handled transactions
concerning mortgage loans, tax exempt industrial revenue bonds, sales and joint
ventures for all kinds of major real estate projects including hotel and resort
projects. Immediately prior to joining HMC, he was a partner in OMNI Venture
Ltd., a private real estate development and asset management firm based in
Minneapolis.
He is a member of The Urban Land Institute, The National Association of
Industrial and Office Parks, The International Council of Shopping Centers and
The American Hotel and Motel Association. He currently holds a securities and
real estate brokerage license.
Mr. Balsiger is responsible for the site selection, financing and
development of HMC owned properties. He is responsible for negotiating
pre- opening consulting and ''management contracts for new and existing hotels and
resorts. He assists HMC clients in obtaining favorable debt and equity
financings. He also arranges joint ventures between our clients and HMC when
appropriate.
FRANZ R. NIKODEMUS, Vice President and General Manager of The Registry Resort,
Scottsdale, Arizona, and Corporate Vice President of Food & Beverage.
Mr. Nikodemus was formerly Vice President of Food & Beverage Services at
the Arizona Biltmore Hotel. At the Biltmore, Mr. Nikodemus managed, directed
and marketed all food and beverage services for this 5 -Star resort. Prior to
joining the Biltmore, he gained extensive food and beverage experience in many
top hotels both here and abroad, including five years with Rock Resorts in
Wyoming.
Mr. Nikodemus' professional recognitions include: Chef of the Year for the
State of Arizona in 1967, runner -up for National Chef of the Year on two
occasions and Chairman of the Chefs Association of Greater Phoenix.
Mr. Nikodemus is also a member of the American Culinary Federation and is
currently on the advisory council' of both the Scottsdale Community College and
Phoenix Union High School.
Mr. Nikodemus is responsible for the planning and development of food and
beverage facilities- in new Registrys and for maintaining the high quality level
of food and beverage service in the existing Registry Hotels.
i= —
I I oiI i "c
�1
LJ
N E
,z, die •
REGISTi��'
f �olC'/ G0Vvolution
W S R G L L
Barbara Lanham
214/248 -4300
A S E
THE SCOTTSDALE REGISTRY RESORT ACCEPTED INTO THE LEADING HOTELS OF THE WORLD
MEMBERSHIP
Dallas, Texas, October 5, 1981...The Scottsdale Registry has been
accepted for membership in The Leading Hotels of the World, a select organi-
zation of the finest hotels throughout the world which set the highest
standards of service and accommodations, it has been announced by Charles W.
Lanphere, Chairman, The Registry Hotel Corporation.
The Scottsdale Registry joins the ranks of such prestigious American
member hotels as: The Beverly Wilshire, Beverly Hills, Calif.; The Plaza
Hotel, New York; and The Ritz - Carlton, Chicago.
Internationally, such hotels as Paris' Plaza - Athenee and the George V in
London, The Savoy and the Claridge; and in Hong Kong, the Mandarin are
represented in the group's membership.
"We are very proud to have been considered and accepted for membership
in The Leading Hotels," said Mr. Lanphere. "The Scottsdale Registry Resort
is indicative of our corporation's high standards of luxury and quality. Our
properties currently under development will also reflect such dedication to
the finest."
-more-
162150 Pat- Aai,ay, Suitt, 105 Dalla , 7'52 =18 (211 ) 2.1n' 1,30
THE SCOTTSDALE REGISTRY RESORT ACCEPTED INTO THE LEADING HOTELS OF THE WORLD
MEMBERSHIP
Page Two
The Registry Resort anticipates that the affiliation will attract a new
dimension of business to the Phoenix - Scottsdale area because of reservation
referrals by member hotels on both a national and international level. This
new affiliation compliments our marketing strategy of attracting foreign
conventions, group meetings and social guests to The Scottsdale Registry.
The Scottsdale Registry will also be able to refer reservations to member
hotels in order to fulfill the exacting requirements of the demanding,
discriminating traveler.
The new directory for The Leading Hotels of the World will. be
distributed in December, 1981.
The Scottsdale Registry Resort, which opened in 1978, has hosted many
top Fortune 500 meetings and conventions and has won the 1980 Gold Key Award
from Meetings and Conventions magazine for its consistent excellence in
serving the meetings industry.
r
-30-
a fA e .
ft� I / J- (a J
PLID Nued Pot AUIGrl�± At�
..�.. •ze w `%I A flaw s
cv ts.1 Ip er-
L
11 Rmcer
0
A�
� *Af
C ® WWALA ��
� � w ,QK FA R� �
w/ •G
@dJ1J3•
0 T
%� • .
at C G -e t reiu
A+ Ile "+
ARTICLE VIII. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT*
Sec. 24 -8.1. Purpose.
The purpose -of this article is to encourage flexibility, in -.
novation and variety in the development of land and to 'pro -
vide performance criteria for planned unit developments
(PUD) which will:
(a) Promote greater variety in the type, design and lay -
out of buildings;
(b) Improve the design, character and quality of new de-
velopment;
(c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets,
utilities and governmental services;
(d) Preserve open space as development occurs;
(e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type, design and
layout of residential development to a particular site
and. thus encourage the. preservation of the site's unique,
natural, and scenic features; and
(f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with sur-
rounding areas.
The objective of these sections is to create W more desir-
able environment than would be possible through strict ap-
plication of other sections of this code. The ,rovisions of this
article shall be interpreted to achieve the purposes lis ed in
V
V
`J , �J• i
Ia alim��
11 +)
s
n pu D
44 , j, '?uD
pr r 6 '
to •.
110
�#' &
Bur, 4-L .node dwe * cL lie w " bi to
A aAjA..a� �� „ VA RY FA 9 . 5µg 5," 4"
ICA
24 -8.3 ZONING 24 -8.4
Sec. 24 -8.3. Variations from zoning code requirements.
To
facilitate the objectives of planned unit development
there
may be permitted variations from the provisions of
this Chapter 24 as hereinafter specified:
(a)
Variations may be permitted in the following zoning
code requirements : Open pace, minimum distance be-
tween buildings, maximum height (including view
(Z—
planes), minimum front yard, minimum rear yard,
minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot
area, trash access area, external and internal floor
area ratios, and number of off- street parking spaces.
(b)
Variation shall not be permitted in allowable uses nor
from the requirements of specially planned area and
FA Z!
historic designation, or from use square footage limi-
tations and sign regulations of this code.
(c)
Although clustering of units is encouraged, the den -
2
$rh; pF. sit of the overall project shall not exceed the allow-
a le density w in the zone district in which the PUD
li r F,ti.
(d)
Anything above to the contrary notwithstanding, build -
ings may not be so arranged that any structure is in-
accessible to emergency vehicles.
(e)
These variations may be followed singly or in combi-
nation provided the objectives and standards of this
Article VIII are maintained and all variations clearly
indicated �0..� ` ��
indicated on the final plan.
Except as hereinabove stated, no application for a planned. vA unit development shall be approved unless the application and 1
the accompanying plats and .plans comply with all subdivision
regulations of the city and all zoning regulations for the k.® W Y
-zoning district or districts in which are located the land area
and structures shown in such application. (Ord. No. 71 -1975,
§ 1)
Sec. 24 -8.4. Maximum density.
� 1 12 :'
The maximum density in any zoning district shall not be I It 0
allowed as a matter of course, and the actual density for any t'•
Supp. No. 13
1489
� �! base s of
b � d ® b "�
�f
t
•
• -
§ 32.01[1]
ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 32 -2
®.
large scale development. The planned unit development is a residen-
tial development in which prevailing density regulations a2ply to the -4- -- j inep• .4 014 it
ro'e as a whole rather than to Its individ -- lots. The PUD makes
use of varying lot sizes and integrates different building structures
(such as single - family homes, multi - family buildings and tewn- .
houses). Densities are calculated on a project -wide basis, permitting,
among other things, the clustering of houses and provision of com-
mon open space.' The structures are clustered in c„ch a ways �.
achieve the same overaldensity that would have bee f he 0
developer a aid out the project in the conventional grid zoning
pattern.2
U It
I L Sul) t,&4 "14 60.04
of
CLA 4% dv La, can WeAACL ° ►
(1 Q'
sue, We ' VA uoLh oeti k.onv% ` i%t /bay 4a a- UJ
Am cu Vag:
d A% 0 UA De
aU 44 ,@,� � a� 1 cam. F A Q FA R 4
`$'L &* halo 14
it C k"414
'a
15S U%e 5
•
aA
1.ie y (J
P9
. {,c "tl Coukf ... ®► tars, Cr&&.�
Eat, k,-� d.-a. +L.- C-a-e
b 14u#
W04 A&
Now A4 td e ► a c:e. AA4 w 614 A.Lre a &K co f
'�tS�oria rLAAA uwf'tM% G� ®rte �� �mu�®. pAA
K4 Lt CA4
40* bay o l 1� 9 s w to wf
4. rte►k..,°1 arQ,wA +%,-L$ J Wkctk' b.A- 2� 5 ®/
PKI ,0 c 0-$44 t c CA.AI&I 44 j *
�'�.su T(w- Cdk 4 +W�A Alof ®UA e ��►1
y.
���~ ` ' f; 1 _ _
February 3, 1984
]i@ Curtis
300 East Hyman
Aspen, CO 81621
Dear ]j@'
gy
juj
PLANNING OFFICE
As we have discussed, 1 met with Sunny Vann and Alan Richman
of the Planning Office and addressed some of the concerns in
your letter dated December 30, 1983.
1. If was conc2ued that the affadavjf which has been
filed by Dick Wilhelm on behalf of the CanfruP estate
is deficient (per section 20-22) in the following
areas and requires further clarification:
A. There is a need to identify the use of the Melville
77 Building and the Black residence relative
to employee occupancy in the last 18 months.
B. Based upon an independent jnvesfigafjOn by the
Housing Offices we belejve that the 7oVnPlace
Aparimenfs have been utilized on a ions term
basis by employees of the Continental Inn. 7nfor-
mVjon which has been providec/, leads us to believe
that too, 2 bedroom units have been occupied
by such employees.
C. There is a need to identify all of the off-sjfe
housing utilized by the Aspen Inn, the Blue Spruce
and the Continental Inn e@PlOyeeS.
D. The need for clarification on the exchange of
the Hillside Property Vor the Holiday House Property
Per the number Of employee units in each building
so that we could be further satisfied relative
to fhe deed restricted nature of those units.
The second portion of your letter referred to off-rife
housing and the need to Sainfajn all Previous housing
supplied within the current Proposal. If was determined
that under code section 70-272) for lodge condominiumi-
zaNun/ that all previOUs housing is to be maintained.
This would include, for examples and not limited to.,
the housing at the Mine Dumps and at the Holiday House.
3. The 9uestjon also arose retarding the 24 employee
units which were included with the 36 free market
units from 7he Aspen inn GMP exPaOsion aPPro;al.
The first 9uesfion concerns the number of People intended
to be housed. Secondly, the identification of those
.
41i.
f
•
Jim Curiis
February 3, 1984
Page Two
replacemeni unify
further explained.
Mai reel acemeni
cur reni Proposal.
Lie helpful.
11
in Me curreni Proposal should be,
The Planning Office does not feel
of the 24 unNs is evideni in the
An explanaiion of ihis if would
Should You have any sues0ons, Please coniaci myself or Sunny
Vann.
Sincerely..
Gail Schuariz, Direcior
Program Cie vel oilmen i
GSIc I m,
cc: Plan Richman; Planning Office
I Sunny Vann, Planning Office
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
DATE: January 27, 1984
0
As Sunny will be abesnt from your meeting on Monday, January 30, I
will be responsible for presenting information to you regarding the
Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD.
Mayor Stirling would like to begin the meeting with a definitive
review of the architecture, FAR and height of the proposed building.
The applicants are therefore submitting for your review additional
data regarding project peak occupancies and detailed area and bulk
calculations. I would expect there to be considerable discussion of
these items, including time for comment by Council and the public.
Please note that the Planning Office has not had opportunity to
review the methodology employed by the applicant in calculating the
FAR for the individual sites. _ .
I met with Joe Wells and John Doremus, representatives of the app -
licant.,tood scuss�-L:ahy. new issues which might be heard on Monday. I
had wanted to present information to you on the transportation issues
surrounding the project, but the applicant's consultant on this issue
is not available at this time. The applicant would like to review
transportation issues (i.e. parking, street vacations and encroachments)
with you on February 6.
The new issues that we would like to focus on for the meeting on
January 30 are those associated with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
rationale for recommending the allocation of sufficient units to build
a lodge ataa maximum of 480 units. The 10 issues we will address can
be found on page 3 of the resolution contained in your packet.
Please call me if I can provide you with any additional information
prior to the meeting.
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
Project Peak Occupancies
Projected
Hotel -Peak Occupancy as per L &H report of 1/11/84 980
Residential:
J. Doremus
1/20/84
700,South Galena - 12 units* 35
Top of Mill - 33 units* 165
Summmit Place - 3 units* 9
Total Occupancy Residential units
209
Total Proposed Occupancies
1,189
Existing
Existing
Lodge Units:
Continental Inn (actual Xmas '83)
578
Aspen, Inn Including Chalets &
apartments(actual Xmas '83)
117
Blue Spruce, Including apartments
(actual Xmas '83)
52
Blue Spruce Annex 17 rooms
@ 2.15 /unit as per L &H report
36
Existing
Residential Units:
Towne Place - 4 units Actual 11
Paas House - 2 units Actual 4
Hillside Apts. - 14 units Actual 32
Chase Duplex - 2 units Actual 1
Melville #2 - 1 units Actual 5
Black - 1 unit* 5
Summit Place - 2 units* 6
Demolished residential units*
6 units* 18
Total occupancy residential units
82
Total Existing Occupancies
(865)
Net Increase in persons
324
*Based on formula: 1 bdrm. = 1.5 persons /unit, 2 bdrm.
= 3 /unit, 3 bdrms. _
4 /unit,
4 bdrms. or more = 5 /unit.
J. Doremus
1/20/84
•
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Doremus and Company
DATE: January 27, 1984
SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge
0
We are forwarding some additional information regarding floor
area and open space for the Aspen Mountain PUD, in response to
questions that came up at last Monday's meeting. We will
present the information at Monday's meeting.
As we point out in our applications, when the zoning code was
written and the standards for the L -1 and L -2 zone district
were established, the City could not have anticipated that such
a large parcel . in an area near the Commercial Core, designated
for intensive tourist development, would come under one owner-
ship. The PUD regulation was adopted to accommodate considera-
tion of a project such as this and all of the elements of the
proposal can be accomplished within the flexibility provided
for under PUD procedures.
It is very difficult, however, to
Area and Bulk Requirements of the
instance, clearly describe how to
allowed for sites which lie in
nor for mixed use projects which
dential development.
compare the proposal to the
Code. The Code does not, for
calculate maximum development
more than one zone district
include both lodge and resi-
For instance, because of a Planning Office interpretation, our
FAR calculations have always omitted the 103,912 square feet of
land zoned Conservation which is within the PUD. The Code is
silent on this issue, however, and we have included a calcula-
tion in Table .1 which indicates what the FAR would be for the
overall PUD if the Conservation -zoned land is included in the
calculation.
The intent of the PUD regulation is to encourage flexibility,
innovation, and variety in land development. Inherent in the
PUD procedure is a philosophy that development of larger sites
offers both an opportunity for efficiencies as well as
.community benefits that are unlikely to be achieved under
piece -meal development of the same land that warrant
consideration of variances from Area and Bulk Requirements.
Because the criteria are quite subjective, the process
necessarily leads to negotiation and refinement between the
City and the developers. We believe our current - proposal is
very responsive to the suggestions made by the staff and P &Z
to date and we anticipate the need for further changes to
address additional concerns raised by Council members. As the
following tables indicate, we believe our proposal responds
well to.the PUD intent by clustering the most intensive deve-
lopment in the area nearest the Commercial Core and maximizing
the open space on the more remote portions of the site.
Floor Area Ratio
In response to Councilman Collins' request, we have prepared an
analysis of proposed floor area and floor area ratios on a
parcel -by- parcel basis (See Table 1). The conceptual lotting
plan which is enclosed has been designed to reflect logical
ownerships, rather than to try to balance area and bulk
calculations on an arbitrary basis. For instance, the Top of
Mill condominium owners would retain ownership of the large
tract of land to be included in the Open Space Easement, so
that they can assure proper maintenance.
As Table 1. indicates the FAR for the entire PUD site is 1.27 :1
if the 103,912 square foot Conservation -zoned parcel is omitted
from the calculations and 1.01:1 if it is included.
Table 2 compares the Lodge proposal first with North of Nell
and Aspen Square which have both been mentioned as projects
which have unacceptable impacts on the community and secondly
with the existing Continental Inn.
Both North of Nell and Aspen Square present imposing full -
block facades immediately adjacent to the sidewalk which
clearly plays a role in the two project's impacts, but their
above -grade FAR-is an additional measure of their relative
impact. In the. case of Aspen Square the above -grade FAR is
1.80 :1 and at North of Nell a startling 2.87:1.
In contrast, Table 2 indicates the above grade FAR for the
Aspen Mountain Lodge, as proposed for Lot 1 as drawn, is.
1.49 :1. This can be compared to the present level of develop-
ment at the Continental, which has an above grade FAR of
1.36 :1.
Open Space
Table 3 illustrates open.space included in our conceptual
proposal. When there is a minimum open space requirement in
the Code, it is 25% of the site. The open space commitment for
each lot in our PUD proposal exceeds that 25% requirement. The
open space provided on Lot 1 under the new Lodge proposal is
31% of the site-. It should be noted that this figure does not
include the open space areas within the room wings. The two
smaller lots, 700 South Galena and Summit Place include 40% and
46% open space respectively. Open space at the Top of Mill
site is fully 75% of Lot 4. For the entire PUD site, the open
space commitment is 53% of the site, in excess of 6 acres,
including 3-3/4 acres in the Open Space Easement.
January 27, 1984
TABLE 1
ASPEN MJUNTAIN PUD
Proposed Floor Area and Floor Area Ratios by Parcel
i
i
Lot 1 Ashen Mountain Lodqe
Proposed External Floor Area
= 377,650
241,144
Parcel Size
sq.ft.
i
External Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
= 1.57 :1
(Aggregate FAR permitted under
existing zoning, ccnsidering the CL zoned land,
is 1.05:1)
Lot 2
S mrnit Place C ondcminiuns
Proposed External Floor Area
= 7,668 sq.ft.
Parcel Size
= 5,240 sqitt.
External Floor Area Ratio ( FAR)
= 1.46:1
Lot 3
Top of Mill Condc niniuns
Proposed External Floor Area
= 99,000 sq.ft.
Parcel Size
= 1 5,129 sq . ft.-
(excluding Coned land)
External Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
_ .72:1
(excluding C -zoned land)
Proposed External Floor Area
= 99,000 sq.ft .
Parcel Size
= N2,U _ sq.t_.
( including C- zoned land)
External Floor Area.Ratio (FAR)
_ .41:1
(including C -zoned land)
Lot 4
700 South Galena Condcminiuns
Proposed External Floor Area _
= 19,260 sq.ft.
Parcel Size
= 1,bUO sq.
External Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
_ .89 :1
TOTAL,
PUD Site
Proposed External Floor Area
= 514,078 sq. ft.
Parcel Size
= 406,113 sq.ft.
( excluding C -zoned land)
External Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
= 1.27 :1
(excluding C -zoned land)
Proposed External Floor Area
= 514,078 sq.ft.
Parcel Size
= !)I U, U_ _ sq. � . ft.
(including C -zoned land)
External Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
= 1.01 :1 j
(including C -zoned land)
J
i
Aspen S aware
Parcel Size:
54,000
sq.ft.
i
January 27,
1984
19,020
sq.ft.
TABLE 2
78,294
sq.ft.
Total
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
sq.ft.
Canpariscn of Above -Grade FAR's
for Various Projects
Aspen Mountain Lodge.
Continental Inn
Parcel size:
241,144
sq.ft.
Above -Grade floor area:
Above -Grade Floor Area:
Conference Roans
2,587
Total Hotel Space
495,150
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
-Less Belau Grade Space
135,000
sq.ft.
Total
Total Above -Grade Space
X150
sq.ft.
59,221
Above-Grade FAR:
360,150
sq.ft.
= 1.49.1
sq.ft.
North of Nell
Parcel Size:
30,750
sq.ft.
Above -grade floor area:
Ccnnercial Space
27,100
sq.ft.
Condo:nini ums
61,383
sq . ft .
Total
sq.ft.
Above - Grade FAR:
88,483
sq.ft.
= 2.87 :1
U,�6
sq.ft.
Aspen S aware
Parcel Size:
54,000
sq.ft.
Above-Grade floor area:
Canmercial Space
19,020
sq.ft.
Condominiums
78,294
sq.ft.
Total
97,314
sq.ft.
Above -Grade FAR:
97,314
74,000
sq.ft. = 1.80:1.
Continental Inn
Parcel Size:
43,612
sq.ft.
Above -Grade floor area:
Conference Roans
2,587
sq.ft..
Building One
32,342
sq.ft.
South Wng
24,292
sq.ft.
Total
-59,221
sq . ft .
Above -Grade FAR:
59,221
sq.ft. = 1.36 :1
j
January 27, 1984
TABLE 3
i
ASPEN MDUNTAIN PUD
Proposed Open
Space Square Footage by Parcel
Land in
Additional
Open Space
Land in
Total
% of
Parcel Size
Easement
Open Space
Open Space
Total
Lot 1
Aspen Mountain
241,144
21,500
54,010
75,5101
31%
Lodge
Lot 2
Summit Place
5,240
1,550
850
2,400
46%
Condanini uns
Lot 3
Top of Mill
242,041
83,000
99,500
182,500
75%
Condani.ni uns
Lot 4
700 South Galena
21,600
--
8,700
8,700,
40%
Condonini uns
Total
PUD Site
510,025
106,050
163,060
269,110;
53%
l Does NOT include
open space internal to roan wings
in courtyard areas.
j
ASPEN MOUNTAIN °`"w' " °r'na °�`" °°"w' " ° " °.
The Lodge •Galena!Top Of Mill Conceptual Planned
Unit Development
American Century Corporation Deis 1 December 1883 DDRJo
13
+r ' Of 12venthol 44iorwath. • Denver1800 Emerson Street , Colorado 80218
Certified Public Accountants (303) 861 -2500
January 11, 1984
-e
Mr. Alan Novak
East /West Partnership
1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Novak:
This letter summarizes certain conclusions outlined in our
preliminary letter"report dated September 20, 1983 concerning
the proposed luxury resort hotel to be located in Aspen,
Colorado. The following documents directly relate to the
proposed project's unit mix and configuration as well as the
projected utilization in terms of guest occupancy, and are
based on our research of the Colorado ski resort market and
knowledge of the resort lodging industry.
Unit Mix and Configuration
The ro osed
p p property is anticipated to be developed as a
luxury resort hotel. Accordingly, the product offered at
such a property will have to fulfill the expectation of the
luxury resort market. The hotel plans contain 430 !units,
that are configured in the following unit mix:
Number of
Number of Approximate rentable
Unit type Units square footage rooms
Lodge room 250 450 300
One bedroom 75 700 125
Two bedroom* 50 1,000 -
Penthouse 55 n/a 55
430 480
*The two bedroom units will lock -off to provide fifty, 300
square foot hotel units and fifty, 700 square foot one -bed-
room units, thus providing a total of 480 rentable 'units.
A member of Horwath & Horwath International with affiliated offices worldwide.
i
Mr. Alan Novak January 11, 1984
East /West Partnership Page two
The furnishings and fixtures of the units will be of the
highest quality available and will compliment the world -class
orientation of the proposed facility. Each unit will offer a.
living /dining area, wet bar and refrigerator in addition to a
well- appointed and furnished sleeping area or separate bedroom.
Projected Unit Utilization
The proposed property is expected to be a unique project.
Because of its high level of quality, its location relative
to the ski mountain and Aspen's shopping and dining choices,
the property will enjoy high visibility and exposure!. The
extensive amount and quality of facility and amenity offerings,
the anticipated marketing to the group meeting market segment
together with the contemplated affiliation with a nationally
recognized luxury resort operator would enhance the proposed
property's competitive market position.
A review of the seasonality and occupancy patterns at various
Colorado ski resorts were used as a measure to project occu-
pancy /fill patterns the proposed property can expect to
achieve.
These factors along with Aspen's reputation, and the lack of
any luxury resort facility in Aspen, would permit the proposed
property to operate at utilization levels higher than those
facilities at other Colorado ski resorts. Attaining! these
operating levels is contingent upon quality management and
aggressive marketing efforts by management.
Our projections of annual occupancy, is shown in our prelimin-
ary--letter dated September 20, 1983, is as follows:
Year of operation
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Projected occupancy
52%
59
64
65
67
The estimates of annual market mix are shown below for the
third, or stabilized, year of operation. The property could
be expected to achieve slightly different market mixes in
prior and subsequent years.
" t
�
Mr. Alan Novak
January 11, 1984
East /West Partnership
Pagel three
i
I
Projected Market
Mix and
Unit Utilization **
Average
persons
Market mix
Percent
per unit
Group
As
5.8%
2.00
Continuing education 14.5
2.00
Corporate
29.0
2.00
Corporate incentive
5.8
2,00
Tour travel and other 2.9
2,00
Commercial
4.5
1.20
Tourist and skier
37.5
2.50
Total
100.0%
2.15*
*Weighted
average
** Based on all
lodging units in
proposed hotel
Based on our survey of comparable ski resort areas and our
knowledge of the resort lodging industry, the multiple; occu-
pancy factor (average number of persons per unit) by general
market segment is expected to be two person per unit for the
group markets, 1.2 persons for the commercial market and 2.5
persons for the tourist and skier market. The weighted 'aver-
age, based on the projected market mix and expected multiple
occupancy factors, therefore would be approximately, 2.15
persons per unit.
Our experience in the luxury resort hotel industry indicates
that multiple occupancy levels are lower than those at'other
types of lodging properties. Our surveys of the ski 'resort
areas indicate the luxury two - bedroom units that can be
divided into two separate rentable rooms represents a lower
average multiple occupancy of only 1.7 persons per room
which compares to the expected hotel average multiple occu-
pancy of 2.15.
Based on this projected utilization,
guests at the hotel during peak per
percent occupancy, would be approximat
the total number of
980 persons.
Mr. Alan Novak January 11, 1984
East /West Partnership Page four
If we may be of further assistance in this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Very ,truly _youps,,g
y J. Schettl, Senior Principal
nagement Advisory`Services
G13:gcm
TO: Robert Calloway, Alan Novak
i
FROM: Richard R. Wilhelm
SUBJECT: Hotel /Lodge Occupancy
•
RE: Head Count /Occupied pillows
This report has been prepared to present a::case study on the occupancy of lodge units
in the Aspen Lodge Area, as to the number of persons per occupied unit on;a nightly basis.
While it veries depending on the particular week (Christmas Week, Spring break, Wash-
ingtons Birthday, World Cup, July 4th, Labor Day, National Ruggerfest, Fall foliage,
weekends, ect.) and it varies depending on group bookings (high level corporate,
seminars, medical meetings, annual National Lung Conference, International Design
Conference, college groups, educational meetings) basically the per unit number of
people, the occupancy within the hotel site (Continental Inn, Aspen Inn, Blue Spruce,
Towneplace, Hillside, Paas House, Chase Duplex) currently resides at the following
(we have attached additional information for review).
That site known as "the Aspen Lodge Site ":
A. Sample Peak Week Dec. 24 - 31, 1983
(nightly average for those 7 nights)
Total Persons (i.e. occupied pillows) 801
Total Available Pillows 1056
Total Pillows currently possible 1376
Occupied pillows to available pillows 77
_- Automobiles /registered guests 25
Automobiles to occupied guest units 9.5%
Automobiles /Employees (including management &
bankruptcy management) 24
1/0' Total autos to total occupied units i 19%
0Z Total autos to total legal units
cc:
15%
Ella Pyle
Art Daly
Richie Cohen
John poremus
harry Yaw
El
HOTEL SITE
Actual Occupancy Pillow Count
(For Dates Listed)
Average on a nightly basis for the period
Dec. 24 - 31, 1983
v
`
Units
'X
People
= Occ: ;pillows
Pillows avail.
% Occ.pill.
Occ. /Avai 1
Continental
Inn 170
X
3.4
= 578
702
82%
$781702
,Aspen Inn
;(1)43
X
2.7
= 117
172
68%
695/874
Blue Spruce
18
.X
2.9
= 52
72
72%
747/940-
Towneplace
4
X
2.75
= 11
20
55%
758/966
Hillside
14
X
2.3
= 32
56
57%
790/1022
Chase
2
X
.5
= 1
10
10%
7,91/1032
Paas
2
X
2.0
= 4
18
22%
795/1050
Haerdtle
3
X
1:6
5
" " 6
83%
$00/1056
256
X
3.2
800
IDS
83%
910-71-0 5-6
)ummary:
This week was selected as
it was
at 100%
occupancy of 1)256 units,
on every 'available
unit within
the "hotel
site ", at
a higher,.than
normal occupancy.
And this
rate showed
300 persons
sleeping in
256'units
on an average
of 3.2 persons per
unit.
82
79
78
78
77
77
76
76
76
ASP'EN40P1T*K1N&EG1ONAL BU IL_O1 DEPARTMENT
January.26,.1984
;3
Mr. Joe Wells
Doremus &.Company
698 E.`Hyman "Ave
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Black Duplex
Lot 5, Capitol Hill Addition:
and —legal attached
Dear Joe:
This letter is,:to confirm. that at`4:00 p.m. on January.23, 19`84,
I made-an "inven.tory inspection at' the. mentioned
property.
I observed a concrete,block building in''the - configuration of a
duplex: The lower unit.coritained- ;three bedrooms, baths, kitchen:,
living area and independent entrance. The upper unit contained.
two bedrooms, bath, kitchen, living area.and independent entrance.
The building also contained two fireplaces (dirty burners).
Sincerely,
William L Drueding
Zoning Enforcement-Officer
cc Planning, .Office. `. ;
Paul`Taddune, City Attorney.,'. .
`WLD /ar
i
offices : mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street
aspen, Colorado 811511 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: January 23, 1984
The purpose of tonight's meeting is.to initiate your consideration of
the Aspen Mountain PUD. As we agreed at your January 11th meeting,
the discussion tonight will focus on the Conceptual PUD aspects of
the lodge portion of the project. The applicants are prepared to
present revised conceptual architecture for the proposed hotel which
responds to the various concerns raised by the Planning Office and
the Planning and Zoning Commission in its review of the project. To
facilitateeyour review, I have attached the Planning Office's January
11, 1984 memorandum.and the Commission's adopted resolution.
I
TO: Joe Wells
1• "��� FROM: Dick. Wilhel
n.
111'
(MEMORANDUM
,il II
II
•
DATE: January, 23, 1 984
SUBJ: Approved Unit Count /Hotel Site
Robert Callaway, Alan Novak, John Doremus� Art Dailey, Ella Pyle
`••,: It is.my understanding based on the meetings which Bill Drueding,
you and I; had,! that 'we must come, (forth with the burden of proof on
s(le
the six units 'on the lower' vel (basement) of the Continental
Inn (Block 91,; Lot'MNOPQRS, City of Aspen).
Therefore, I present the following substantiating evidence that
'the units are legal units, as built in January 1966.
I
• 1. Building permit (Exhibit A) issued for 16 units, basement level,
on January 26, 1966. These 16 units represent the east wing, lower
level, rooms 141 - 149 and 191 ! 196`.
Permit #943 - C(addition)„ signed by H.W: Thuflston, Building
Inspector, Bill Burks (Ski Land Builders) Contractor and Hans B.
Cant'rup, Owner.
,`
2. Building Permit 943C,(Exhibit B) stamped. "job completed ".
�,. Also marked: "Building shall not be occupied:until a certificate
.,of occupancy has been issued. " With the box marked "X" and refering
j to his "X" circled as approved by signature of John H. McLaren.
•. a I I � I I'i
3. Other permit approvals',by Building Department:.
• a. (Exhibit C) ,Gas fitting permit,- #943 G - 1/27/66
b. (Exhibit D) Heating, ,(Air ,Conditioning & Ventilating Permit #943
••.: Represents . "radiation) 4000, sq. ft. P7which' is ,the size of the
16 unit area. 1
k, I
C. (Exhibit E) Plumbing,:1 on' domestic appl. permit #943 P (B) 1/27/66
Represents 16 'sewer tap, 16 wash bowls,
16 water closets and one
Imajor drain. Signed�;by�,: Peter Mocklin, Class A Contractor, Lisc.
#945,1 H.W. Thurston, City! Bui.'lding Inspector
d. (Exhibit F) . Electrical) Permit, #943 I' . Represents ,13 circuits,
y 14 utilit �6,y
'I 1
f f
i
i j;1
V..
TO: Joe Wells
1• "��� FROM: Dick. Wilhel
n.
111'
(MEMORANDUM
,il II
II
•
DATE: January, 23, 1 984
SUBJ: Approved Unit Count /Hotel Site
Robert Callaway, Alan Novak, John Doremus� Art Dailey, Ella Pyle
`••,: It is.my understanding based on the meetings which Bill Drueding,
you and I; had,! that 'we must come, (forth with the burden of proof on
s(le
the six units 'on the lower' vel (basement) of the Continental
Inn (Block 91,; Lot'MNOPQRS, City of Aspen).
Therefore, I present the following substantiating evidence that
'the units are legal units, as built in January 1966.
I
• 1. Building permit (Exhibit A) issued for 16 units, basement level,
on January 26, 1966. These 16 units represent the east wing, lower
level, rooms 141 - 149 and 191 ! 196`.
Permit #943 - C(addition)„ signed by H.W: Thuflston, Building
Inspector, Bill Burks (Ski Land Builders) Contractor and Hans B.
Cant'rup, Owner.
,`
2. Building Permit 943C,(Exhibit B) stamped. "job completed ".
�,. Also marked: "Building shall not be occupied:until a certificate
.,of occupancy has been issued. " With the box marked "X" and refering
j to his "X" circled as approved by signature of John H. McLaren.
•. a I I � I I'i
3. Other permit approvals',by Building Department:.
• a. (Exhibit C) ,Gas fitting permit,- #943 G - 1/27/66
b. (Exhibit D) Heating, ,(Air ,Conditioning & Ventilating Permit #943
••.: Represents . "radiation) 4000, sq. ft. P7which' is ,the size of the
16 unit area. 1
k, I
C. (Exhibit E) Plumbing,:1 on' domestic appl. permit #943 P (B) 1/27/66
Represents 16 'sewer tap, 16 wash bowls,
16 water closets and one
Imajor drain. Signed�;by�,: Peter Mocklin, Class A Contractor, Lisc.
#945,1 H.W. Thurston, City! Bui.'lding Inspector
d. (Exhibit F) . Electrical) Permit, #943 I' . Represents ,13 circuits,
y 14 utilit �6,y
'I 1
Fq,
NI. ,
ill I?
I
I',
�I yr
:t
r.n
x•11 .f•
41I� , •
a- Oe 2' Januar Unit Count Me mo Y 23,1984
Permit signed 'Jan: 1 31,: 11966 bye: 'Jim, Hall, Loper Electrical�Wm, B.
Phelps, Loper Electrical,, H.W. Thurston,.Building Inspector-
!
4. The'6 units,llquestioned�,by, the building department have in fact
been used as'nightly rental' since . x,966. To give proof of fact that
these units wereirented {on a nightly basis, we have received
notarized statements from tYe;foll.owing individuals: Hans Graminger,
David Embry,lBarry Lefkowitz, Robert Morris, Ted Edmonds, Roy Prinz
and`Richard Wilhelm..Copies.;,aww of_these statements are attached,
the originals werelsubmitted tol'the Planning and Zoning Commission
on approximately Decembert6! 1983.
a. Exhibit G: Hans - currently a liscensed real
estate broker, stating; the uni�ts, were rented during the...period
1966 to 19681'when!he waslemployed by Continental Inn.
b.. Exhibit H: Davd'Embry!'i, currently the Manager of the Aspen
Inn; stating 'the 6_units;iwere rented during the period 1969 to 1975,
when he,was employed byl�Continental Inn as a desk clerk.'
c., Exhibit',I'_Barry Lelfkow tz - currently a liscensed CPA in
Aspen,,-stating the16 units were�rentedlon a nightly basis in 1970 and
1971, when he was employed by;�the Continental Inn as an accountant
and Front Desk Manager.l j
d. Exhibit•J: Robert Morris - currently an attorney in Aspen,
stating that the 6 units were rented during the period of June 1974
to May 1976,,when he was Front'Office Manager.
e.1 Exhibit K: TediEdmondsll- currently owner of Aspen Ski Tours. -
stating the 6 units were rerited!'during.the period of August 1975 to
June•1977, while he was,l.Front lOffice Manager and Resident Manager
at the Continental Inn.;
f. Exhibit K: Roy A.Prinz - currently a chef /manager in Aspen -
stating the 6 units were rented during the period of 1977.to 1979
when he was Manager of the'Continental Inn.
g. Exhibit M: RichardIlWillhelm - currently General Manager,
Hotel and Property!Operations;,i'The Cantrup Estate.,- stating the
6 units were rented as nightly units from 1979 to 1981.
Therefore, the above notarizefd letters state that the 6 units in
question were rented asinightl'y units from 1966 to 1982.
I
I�I pl I,I
i
II i I I I I ll
i II lil j
11
[XCITY (M ASPEN —COUNTY OF PITKINLiLl LORADO
DRESS' GENERAL'
JOB CONSTRUC I
Ix
PERMIT
WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES T WORK DESCRIBED BELOW.
55' OF WORK: NEW ADDITIONX ALTERATION REPAIRX MOVE ❑ WRECK ❑
NE R
NAME u/2 ADDRESS PHONE
LICENSE LICENSE
NA,',tE (AS LICENSED CLA S NUMBER
zzz 2
S� -7 co 2,
INSURANCE
A F)['.: ZF o 1-42 WA_T_� PHONE
__SS ___
SUPERVISOR
FOR TH I S JOF NAME DATE CERTIFIED
L
0 IN L� T NW BLOCK NO.. ADDITION
'E ATTACHED E] DESIGN A LIC.
BY P E NO..
NOe�_U41VI a,LV
STORIES
140TAL
UNITS
OCCUPANCY
GROUP /PE
DIV.
A E N FIN. GARAGE SINGLE [ATTACHED
01
U14FIN. —
4
] TOTALqF�eLM
TYPE R E
v
DOUBLE ❑ DETACHED ❑
ROOMS
CONSTR.
EPTi
:tow
FIRST Z' PACING SPAN
AGENCY
A ORIZED
11
DATE
RADF:__
FLOOR
BY
BUILING
REVIEDW
OK -- _AQE161I1
(TER 1(11,�
)OT
o
CEILING
ZONING
5'9 t-
(TERIOR CONC. ❑
?K'1
'7
)N. WALL
i ICKNI SS MAS 'Y
ROOF
P A
IICK CAISSONS
❑ ❑
ROOFING
PUBLIC HEALTH
5.�7=11-4,r F/L
A 13 a OR. B[AMS
MATERIAL
ENGINEERING
ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
OCKN S, IST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3R[) FLR.
im) sizi, ZX� ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
�.PACE It IST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR.
_60 �j
It K-,,,, L L k C,;O 67,EAR FWT/7-/v S
44, -
z
5 TO APPLICANT:
VSPi:C I IONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925-7336
VALUATION
.LL 'NORM, DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
'LIAI`�rii WITH Ili' UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY
G CPDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR.CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER
$
S.
tE
le/7",Aj
�
T (:;P
TOTAL FEE
AT[ ;'�RMJIS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS ple
MIN— POOLS AND FENCES. ia
c o
T 1::-,. 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED.
FILED
DOUBLE
Z_
I CHECK
RED !;4SPICTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN AD VA
$ 15*00
HAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED.
FEE ❑
L�
CASH El
k/\
, 'Ult _0ING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. k
BUILDING DE2ARTMENT
T S!_I"JECT TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY WS �A M E.,
kTURE
�__
t
)F
CANT:
PPn DATE
FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY
D E
PERMIT NO.
LICENSE #
RECEIPTS CLASS
AMOUNT
66
943-Cr
(Addition)\
-
Paid
15-00
:N VALIDATED HERE
s'
m
WNW,
9
FmR1.T..KINI -�pI �;_CO ADU-<,-
}+ r PERMIT
�jlE [ �j{yQtjY ' TO Bey/ BURDING, IfISPEGTION OEPART/y1�NTtTHI$ PERMIT AUTHORIZES TH WORK DESCRIBED BELOW '
KF � „ `1, .• ly , t #�rf jp .����' { 'sii %x+` Irt J Vt7 k t�"',� r } i,r��•� �e fi �r � a � i 'i.. � r : � t.
fNy pfy .3! l+` x$ �iQ� �'�i)•v/{j�/'('�J i_ Y� �( - PL'}1a'�:1�(J.S.' '� y rx f s f:'. j +'., :• :.
ALT&AT•ION EPA
9LI d MOVE O WRECIC'O
I� -0 �_' ty ✓ D : p y F r. is r 1i '.. d.ri ti i ti4 �v .:�� yr .•.. �. :; '..
8VJN9:R :. iyt� :�:( *c'�'I �'.� � ; F ,' f y17��^gr - ., ._. r
` 5 PHONE [�L�
NAMEe, �`M� _ sADQRES'. "(' �Gatc. -•% S_ T /
LICENSE LICENSE
�.,, CLASS NUMBER
NAM E'(AS.LICENSED /;.. t'
INSURANCE
� ) (,fir
S t Q
I iG !DRESS"r , .C�.. I ,} I PHON
AD E 12 I:
`¢ SUPERVISORr.., w 11
g L' FOR THIS JOB °, NAti1E!,,, DATE CERTIFIED ,
1
-
bSCRIP:TION ax..��OT�N;,(` 1, �!. l ,ia BLOCK" NO' "I „ADbITION
l SURVEY ;!I I ATTACHEfDl,O DESIGNI r til t, i A LIC
} I
BY...II
No
.ARLA3(S.F)1 r} NEIGH I NO OTAL OCCUPANCY 4
_ f
I 9 STORIES UNITS t :{ ,` GROUP
4 ALT GRADE j I ,.:.(FEET ) -` :•
E .' / o
r TYPE V ' k FIRE
FIN. SINGLE ATTACHED Q AT ii �
BASE* UNFIN n G RAGE eii� .T��U LEA. S)E1tACH Ps❑ 90AAS al' CONSTR .. �. . ZONE
DEPTH 4 ° SIZE SPACI G SPANa ORIZED DATE
BELOW a ' IY ` aFIRS7 ri�Y r t; `i, t b)t, AGENCY 8,�,
iiT' Yir KCOOR. • d i t tT]:�� +� #, ) ' iyr t) At�t�iJq F
Z GRADE
o
REVIEW,-
EXTERIOR t
7)
SIZE
Pgid+ rjs;y� . 0 . CEILING
O
+
EXTERIOR w NC Q y., >1 %s �, t 4tr( 1 1�i pr K yet R f A
.a FON. WAl r vt ,;t t' ROOF'tt i"i r tD+I a�wf ytll rV 1`I . �t S) } ;
•O THICKNESS -•, ^;> MAS.Y [], '. +s 4 < )' ,irr. - + µh r �' �, - ,+ v ( i1L x yr }. .Y.... ` °t ;.
r t b bU�B (CALjH r x
µ rrIICK CAISSbNSa i
.ROOFING
I SLAB .� ' B:GR BEAMS �f, MATERIA�
_ y ; '
r r i T
1 ABOVE r a, ENGINEERING Y
MASONRY ,t5 -ABOVE r
THICKNESS . ' J 1ST: FLR
ABOVE. 2ND FLR II +, 3RD ,FIR <
EX I LfZIO
,j-LL ;TUD SIZP".^ "' ABOVE , ;,.,:ABOVE .1 r i ,.., a t , ,� ABOVE
8 SPACE r:1ST F,IR 2ND FLR :'L 3RD;FLR V
I .
A Ai
' ':NOTES TO APPLICANT I r k ; : I ;, ,. •..
•,`FOR INSPECTIONS OR JNFORMATION •CALL 925 - 7336
—FOR ALL- WORK, :DONE, UNDER'T.HIS,PERMIT THE PERMITTEE'ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM G BUILDIN CODE THE" COUNTY ZONING.' RESOLUTION ' OR CITY
ZONING OjtD,INANCE,.ANQ ALL;:OTHER COUNTY '.RESOLUTIONS OR, CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER'
'••SEPARATE: PERMITS MU BE.OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL PLUMBINGiAND HEATING SIGNS r1, PL'AN �—y TOTAL FEE, ,
SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES t , i �t T FILED T P'' v
PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED
o DOUBLE CH EC F.
REQUIRED
INSPECTIONS.SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY INIADVANCE `1'
e FEE
d ' ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL'BE MADE'ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED r+
;
THIS BUILC)ING.SHAIL NOT BE-. OCCUPIED. UNTILA�CERTIFICATE :.OF,.00GUPANCY HAS' BEEN .ISSUED B.UIL LNG,. A TMENT
y r
PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATIO'�J''OR :SUSPENSION FOR VIOLA710N OF ANY WS GOVERNING A E
�IIGNATURE J.3 1 �c
;OF �}
f *.ygaf PPROVAL BY DATE
APPLICANT „fl
PERMIT NO LICENSE # RECEIPTS CLASS, S ';AMOUNT * L
THIS FORM IS A hERMIT� ONLY 4, : , i . r
VV H EN; VALIDATED HERE, wpm_ -pp}^y ],00-
iI
• i � 1i i ire, `i•'7..; i I '� k k r t �' .1+ i r + +t+,l r.,4, �x t< 1�. r�4
� t
t tKA
bCONSTRUCT�ON
� t
v .
,yip, P. _. .._. _ _
'�-•• ".:h'•� '"�?t�yry., {Yj� 'i, ",.r.:. jui�t"f fi + J•LL�`` �.0 "ziX y� 't4F i '''� Y er: n tr 1 i:.' i �
�Y "� '' - .. e
ee 'r -,:i` ,
DOE y
PERMIT,, �' .
r' t
y� P
5� P
..it /
r. ; " r : E�1'SIGNE {AND'' A4,,, ,:D $T .'', ING (SE PART MENT4THISkPER/v�IT`AU)HORIZE$ THEiWORK DESCRIBED: BELOW , a J ` ;
�4>. fk X +` sn. ', o i' ! r S t r' rZy {^ '�,J 1 , : ,, t 7 ' : x ti r� s { ... , 1
S 1^ x $.''. �
�',4�/ l
�EAO.OIi'IOR r' REPLACE �
"N , N E R 4, _.� ' a Lx 4�� X _� w� y7il i i r Si �e,, i ti, a r ,� g�ti t s f k i! s
�s' 1 t
.�D S
I - + 1 y1r r : 4 y ; 1 LICENSE / ,'rM1 k' LICENSE Y.. a c
Q ,+; .
. "
'� Li u �' U t c , r �, �, r' ;' yai r .�> c t' 1 n. ' H ! ',{ F
': ;' {
{_y +
%,DL)RESS }
7 -
t x
.p s
5(--- (_1 I Jt� /'1NCY -. � '� �,� , I !` T :' �'e .., .'' �'.: :�, ",,n. n j. . F r < " a. � t,4 .11 { F
F1
11 G
GROUPI o
N O C) r w
w F t p
p ,.rc ,
, fi,
NITS t
ti.: '
UNITS r
r� ?;' "
i., D
7 A
? }
AP L
11. O
DOMEST,IC A
}> t
' r
a 5 � s
r
�.. a n' a....,,.r, k N
x t
ti B
,I ---' '
N�, :
: fit'. I
It a� - 1t: qr w , -ri r T' ;d + r .r j
;�` R HC7�TiWATE_R HEATER$ �! F, ' ".r �3w�, "
, �
""
1. °
�„ � . , p r:.v V' •I; ri k . • h F v a 1. 11;; k '. r t ,
, k. a h
h r
r `
+
t4 �
- m
mat -n r
,1 3 r
r(. . ”' ,7 `. h 'tCt 'S k + t
' ,.j �
.•t� -V, t
xri5 § ,
�._ �
.ft .i i:in i3 . , .t K ...t ; t 4. .
.. ,+t;'sk ?
1.
.SAUNAS b^' q
.ti, �
F I.: N' ,.' Y tkt y+' J
111 �'!1'L +�� �
� f 7 I ky ... 1J .t Y i -` �� t R
i .
r, t� t ;l<t ,
,;,,� I C
,` i
i;',.r T .' -- t i i.? y t�St .w r�.';i r ft" -- ,,rm {3 f} . 1
11,; ,:' !3 .
., .y S, YC'y .., .... Ilj',5 a!r � .. D4.` I ayI t ' 1.
ti t,OTHER� eo �y� , > ,., i `'' �
k dl .r ,.,,. R
' t �
t,' A� �W } "fi S1L ar .,`i L ,
, �3 t
t �f 1 ! i A, - .n` Y kt'� j4�..B.
— G
GAS PIPING t
'r�. {n. "
t f. }
11 / �
^ •' a,. l
+ ,'-;: `
- S
f ', r i
i tl a ' "a r
SIZE ': zLENGTH f
r �
..... -- -
- -- 1
�' "' �`' u
y't'LENG —
u
,� ;
iS fY+ +r rt F'� r
; i
rr t
l
_.._.,
RE :t 1I:K5 ,
,. + t1'
P ,:.
_ P
., i
r{ ,
�I f
t b :_ _s J ,.Yl w r
f ,. r r
NOTE ±f�P I,ICAN'j���fORa1NSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL�,925J33f�Z H y � i ' "'�� V
VALUATION I ,
;IHE 1.;LUA N�;:O� EACFi.°P.ERMANENfi FIXTURE OR' APPLIANCE SHALL BE A .'�,ri tt t 1 : t�' .., !
r
<.Y+ O
OF: WORK t ... .
J e.A} fi �t ircerv�''aLrF�l, '. fir;, I �� �
pLAN ,` %:.. s `
`i;TOT L`�F
FOR ALLY WOAI- rDQNE',,VNDER,!j IS PERMIT;.THE,.,p R
p �
' } j 1
.,- ,.O1, "
,, :
yµ k
y }. 0 r
r rl
f i
FEC'+ fASH 4
R '
s
'5irr n,.^^'4 'ar4-Ta.: 4, V}'7N P vY y,: Ht- y'"Ittt kt ry e,'t x3l. ,h 7 '{ t4s: ,i { "fie••• YlT"'C•' +�r`" v,In,e�.yTr d yC.l, i r?`"l'` jai4. °. %1, `4`.k"%F'i
rr• ^x" 4 u'�#frV
,,,atv;_? »tTsv
s.7::., .e?.�TP"uft��' ,y,, .,ew if • .. siI k �.mat»t�4 � �..: ?.:�. ?. a x dxa � . _ *^:,�',r L T *� r. � { �.i......�. v`+.E � ?_ � T .. vs - i,9-
}�
:,a_r.,s.?k � •;tws sir 4 .,s :s4 Ti AQb , "MI F ASPEN SzSr�,UN YFOFrPITI(IH � ,,'. OR ADO_. L,1 '+W k.;, -r >:. t
h .. , IMi '.ix) 4 . +JT ,� 1'f t f 7}'�•F ',, t 11 1✓
` KA� ,
J'.EJrJ �{i� �� t,
- i
HEATING AIR,;
" ^`C6NDIT�ONINO'8 c
L
r st
yk
i c± n aMZ TT@�n �r r�, ��,i 4 > k
J y
"I d77. " i7 �' '' it ,r '
aarF� �1 j'
k VENTILATING,'
`
{ .
,Y'
f +Ix ' ' 7vm sx fi t'`^ . 3i ry`i. ria S� l__ `SY '
11
PERMtT
BELOWf
¢2 WHENkSIONED''F{44JLIDATED pzpzY.BUIL O Of'd RTMENTH ERM�T AUTNORIIES -.THE WORK DESCRIBED .
,:
t };L! • td '»'4 C � {;'�l gg J"7*; i t k•t ,� 5'; y'1+7 +?�ree�rgrr t •� 1 y t + i' 9'N . .. 1.
11 ,.
{• '.,} r !` �/ s t; 1'ft"r ° E p fyYa t},t
L�, • flF* WORK `} ti 1lEWd U aDDI IOid.' , 'RE- LACE, ,���14Y, AR ..ID�1,(O <<,, •R dIR.. , MO.dE ❑ . WRECKCI••. ; 1.
iT! f '4. y t +'! i�r'q.,, i CS�,4 .�,,£'�e a iyt l� •Ci. '1 -1, ` l w,�� r �, _.l �{ �a tot rF 7 5. '}'. ,,, ,y L p, t( ' ,
7. 4rc `i �'3 �, . \tsv h ,Ifs. •—'�0. /+4 '�r.y k�." ;
ry i,....A }7 ;�y M>~ t .1 = \1' '.!_
Xtl: <.• ,
?, S, �,Ln a c' 3x �•W V`',�
/ `` I �PHOME
wS '
Ni— ' NAME ' �� 'v -�., M s " A�DRE$ ;Qtc h,•
tY
_= -- 1 a ( v7}r w' � w{ s ">b � "�ia,4,, C SE+,': 2 3'LICENSE
r �?. r �t� ¢r r �� n y + C4ASS' , 4 , *` o °NUMBER
h h' r v
Cy.
y
r . , rE ct L,
' t.ICEN5Eby,r�:,,2t' �+ i §�' !"�yy,,�,i •.� . - r ; ,L,ety ,
LJ
NAME (AS 1.
A M b ' 1 , fr• S ',•9 Y .I yj ( '�' a�.y r {/r �4,L A'y'. f ,p� tCr. ''tY r �i (. y ,� b 1d.: 4 h
}. ?''.'_:•:' F}" a ! { 4 M1 T r µp;,, rfi (r ^1l 'F t r ?t' 'S3 Y ,, + ti
r �., T/2l�. `"/� ��•�+ ,�. •��` I \�'t {¢�t1• ��0.^` �11FdY�'h"'i `I .i.� }1 /��/ 1 ..
: �}
G.
y `�t'YL��y�..a'S , +rt' i'...�Q t,'1
I r +r. - ♦,J' 1 '1'!!n 1 ��' l{
,,
X t •\�.. �i 1
W.
1L
1—.
tf, :� i y .' < },-
,• - 4 7'' J �l. . r' I/+ 1,
ADDRESS 9 , ,�M^' �'�� O, Y +- +(•�� PHONE r
Z
O
-- s - r•- _��. :.fl �S , Fs x.. %r . , .rt'F i�•5 :. ¢,'i$ e ° v iTt! >t �'.. ;v raw nr v r~ r a ' t ti r r r
'w `w`if ;. . x C p r.4> t , $"•9 r- !3V #" S •t� Iti�'+L + n �. 6- .
.11 K1 `:'' . "C -•i � "..,'
'yr„j z.t r .�r��r A,tl)4� tl� s t% t �'^ 1 ,Tq ., -, �(tl 1 1 1 •j`F"7F; r �4t
'y'Itq 4 +�r � •f I—' i`��a
"sr J ?''t y
U
,°Ar ` +.,
;IJPERVI50R � :, ;4� �i; r. ^!,+e b M' !yu J , " � :' 4+ \
, �Y � F
'II
OR'..THIS.'JOB r, .,. NAME.xx� e,t- +' I Ir� + a
CCUPANCY
> F' .v .; F r.: }y A,.. N
t;; . i y�lr� wtZS S tJ ,?tfi
r ). y
�fj e �^...r
tii 93 a: lti
E Y d Fi f.
t }p.. y><'; I ,c. r r
1 f'.{ -T 1,, ( it r / II , ¢ p: 1 S.,'. 1 l hi ,�' ,y
h
R 0 t..
".l ,, t ` T�etP v'..?,�IV•�SION'; r'.,�+^'?•JT�u
GROUP; n , 1`
�CC
.w'..t�
Y� t (mil �4>
+[!� Ji. Y�.�i\ Skr�i \l S f h y .}4�L�
...
O. OF
x
Il "�, .r %1 t. - (' L t'. tl., t 1L. -.� v+ t,
�y , �1 ', ��wTYPE�OFStUNIT, =mss �, ":,,fir
NO y�'�
� Ik ¢ r. 4.e'�S + J 7'. • Y - ,:• J i {
'*� TYPE OF,U 41Ti ,n �: �y,�� ,� f.
°3 :�, yj';.�xh ,.ti +r
NITS
� i� h , a� t .,.' ' r
I N I i S
Fa
r
r.r 7• N /
o /4;, 1 h tijy r
> , , t H tt ;
{.N, r
<.� fir;
;
,y.I d ; ,i 4 r Y, ♦< ,r It L. . "1IJ h3•
'VENTILATING SYSTEMS; ,, ;.�� ��
,3 Q� � r , ;(, � �'
HATING r ;, ti
z a �t
�t l�� �; I i, .
''
J_j
,.r %;r t�in.''..Yly"' t'Stir�dt ' r
?{e
?», &+h.- ,i,y�7
::
: t'f }.kS.SrpUS�`.TOCK''Bs�VAkPOR REJ�IOVALSYSTEMS� -
i
-tk'ip ; ,t,
,,, t.FURNAC.ky 1, u r B T Ur t
kh�
r':. ( 9' {�'..}
1
,:_
a. ljt ts, ` +, > y: ns -,! y '+, .z r k_. 4
,
Sy?�{t
` "r�A t.
.
�`'} 1�(.t t- + a _, I v... S: .. .. �'t , 1' 14.
`RANGE Fi00D C CO2 SYSTEM R�QUIRED� fi
t
',.,t SPhAC LIEATER'I' hsur B.T.U.
-;
1` H, t� 1 -,1� I > ,.-
11 .
k I <
7J;J S.'f+,A3 5 �, -''� :.' , Sr :2r
(SYSTEM : F, x. '
THROUGH WALL 1iEAT,ERS , B,T: u.
,b?;.EXHAUS
__ __ -
} 7 - ,+. 4 5'Y 1 }� ,
�` '
<�i,y,
"�'
?�,J t fi n - v r f " .'A r , i 1.
CONDITIONING SYSTEM
UNIT HEATERS' `�' , ti' a T. U
>` r?�'
i' FAIR
_
1. t
HE�t,��RS t , .a r ?Jt:+ + `
' rd
; f
Z," v t1:
w r:.
E 5 „
1 'A . ' y } `r'
�'>ryrefaOTH R. '' ^Y ";
;WALL S4 I'y ,,,' B T. U",Tr'1
._i—
I.
F�:'.,.. •1, {,.ft ie rt r(lc.( 5 r" , 1 `,;yt 1 :!. H
' S'
N. 4�-y( ,
a•'b�+��*
R,Fjti�'g,?ly r t`i t i S t• } ' a �f 3{ .. a
+; 4# r 4 , T.
.
I BOILER SQt. RADIATION x ti
,a�..
_.
--__ .q. •v "+ W Y t J Y1: :.
1. i"y.{R. 1Y t�p} •,,, 1'1 S llr J�U i
( r'1 a..
L 't, ';%,41, F�"` F' fl hlat(rs v,r r / �t ), 1
3 t�i'�. Ugh 1.11 r ,'I, rJ Y.. 'an ,�'! rtf ri Sl+`t. ,
POWER. BOILE�2S� 's r; +t,l" r HP
I P,
r
_ .._I
rt tl•t ci: + J4 �,r s.i ; , :( A 1 '.r
, 't
F7�I�,.I '• L x d r r i ! 'Yr }F s'( d' _ yr 't hi'�'•.
x s.;
t T
a��s �.'jST �x ,.4 Y t
�j
;.x' tr
PRESSt)RE VESSEL'S etK'.yY i"'s�'' °. '�'
1rCIC c`7' f J. k1 ctl�— —
`
p. —L�
« ;
,, . 4 ' � :,O r.
...
n .: , - N ., ,
(� ) ,, ;r r ,r 5J j.
\KS Z 1 .t
r:
.`�AI
't. . Ir F.
d i �
,t T //
r ''
+ .y
OTES ..TO APPLICANT FOR INSPECTIONS'OR INFORMATION CALL 925 -736 VALUATION`
rry °'y
HE VALUATION'.OF EACIi PERMANENT FIXTURE OR APPLIANCE SHALL BE � y Fr e . e rz{ ,
` ^ psv t OF WORK -, �'` "
' to a�,yi :i} , °
ICLUDED IN THE PERMIT APPLICPTION t ��µ x j'. '(
fix" n•!,:. } zL -I., i �.
e �, y A a.r ,l ,
4��,���T -z 4V
4..' }
'VJORiC THIS PERMIT THE PERMITEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILIZI� EORrO/J(PLIANCE PLAN ` EE ,, �:
OR ALL QONE.UNDER
/ITH EUILDING' REGULATIONS, CITY`.OF ASPEN; THE •UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ,AN0114LL';OTHERtCITY�3} -FILED , T., I".P p �r.. :'
RDIt1AtdCES OR ,COUNTY RESOLUTIONS(WHICHEVER APPLIES It f+.,*a� 4Jir.; ?r + ,. S + r
1,,' o (tkzY�$+ srrl a�� DOVBIfi CHECK J�
y a s*I'+' dE xt't?,'," w{ �, �,
IOLATgqIOrI AN FEE j I� CA51 4 1 r',
SUSP J,� f30V T�ING
ERN !'; SI.IeJECT TO REVOCATION OR: kOFr ,�A `Ei} {' % �n , -r y`
NSILbN rFO£y `tl
ADVANCE it 4+r?Fl" a; k "BIJI ' 'TMENTta '
SOLI ',f U INSPECTIONS SHALL BE RE ESTED• 0 O I DAY IN r , Tf�xt ING DE PI �r „ .
' UP YJS` WITTED' �`4,rt4fi�T; 1, , IK t / n . j A. ,�` }' 1. �� 9r S
M BEFO E. rA
} ) .. t.eLTY J... f a :l J �,c ( .5 } r e f },
Flr a ItJSPECTiON SHALL
ilGi?., fi1RE };; } I. `' �' -, Ott' ?. `r' nrr Z.
• SL + t t t tir i; fR�k +aNra r14rr�f fiJ �, .�gg t r4 -
.., :'fF t -i' ;.;jDAT� "�
}P��`'
:. t t F r , aay,'.l ''tt YerS'aIa'r anti "� r VA BY:.. y lK!ti +.t ;i i
c ,f , t. ? ,x <,; fS,
�PF_! .ANT:: ,h - , e^ r,
t .' µ' Y. y . !j
= r ' ': jrp A �F LICENSE. RECEIPTS CLASS r`�. AMO.1 %
'' t �y, a �i HERMIT Ij0 �:y
! f r Y 33DATE,° . �\
'CORM. IS A PERMIT< ONLY ', 1 ,
TN' -� r'� �, '�I,t+"'a�/�.9 � ;' O °s r=, ,
HERE , �. T ytCC+ y,i t �� y ;,
VALIDATED y.(�!� �C��,ff� h ", r r ,,
- - "f,-:. .'. _,V,.. : a :' .:�... , . [ _; ;;tl r_ �,, , + r_ . I!M'r..f; (;., . '�.�16!, . 3'�! 1._ ,,. ?• . Jt . :7, , +f ?�..., 1 -� r .. .. >;.• .. ., _'.��, li
v ,�^
°,Tis ( `..
a+.n':), �2 Se-�qz r, .:�A,ui.-
y,...:
I:,CIT,.X;,.O PEN ;..000NTY,,Q PITKINU:C RAD,O r
f I e iil �_ r r ys` '•, - �h4 s Pl. •.• I t Yt v � ...�, , -
ati; y' ww4 'j ! inn �t �, ,xt,,, , ;� #r• t y )
) PLUMBING OR o
o
;F JOB c+lY. arrC..DV1.�.♦'�GM� A/►'t D
DOMESTIC APPL
Yt ,
P ERMI�,T,.
,',. t ..i?(.Ke t
;.. P
WHEN
SIGNED •AND V.ALIQATEQ:BY BVILDING INSPECTION,DEPART(vSEN� �}j15 PERMIT UTF)ORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW
Y,b {' {
' a • t s r'It.% t F' f?'� i I'.;1:. i.' 1K +t.' +, i{ � Lr;'' ''�s "n. `� i,�r' �,
A OF WORK ,;1..NEW j.. ADDIT10Pd' .
.t'r - A
W I L 7v4 '• l �k. fl M � 'J .. �.,., ;. r p�+ � f r� ` +�rf ',Kr: {, t y,.. f 'h _ r ,�y .
..,
er NAME .. .` /
/jV��l '
4.
LICENSE, '
.i.,,�E:(AS LIC.ENSED)' CLASS
L)!�RESS ?
t
' SUPERVISOfZ t
FOR THIS JOB NAME :
PLUMBING D
DOMESTIC "'APPLIANCES.
FLOOR B
BSMT 1
1 2
2 3
3 4
4 5
5 ;
;6 7
7 B
B, O
OTHERS N
NO. OF
T0. .',SHER i
UNITS ;
;DESCRIPTION OF vVORK'
"` �
�' U
i ”
r
fH;TUG x
x i
is r I
AUTOMATIC WAS r
NK. FOUNTAIN.
DISH WASHER
i'WASHER G
G r
r5
OR DRAIN r
rs�t
} t
t } W
SOFTb, ER
zi
B. DISPOSAL
wl
o
fi 1 s
i,✓� i.x';r,
. �I' rs. r�axlr�' �' F•:' �" �s. Y`.,a,.§.;a'�::�'4��`rt;`�,cr�'
cT;
i,✓� i.x';r,
. �I' rs. r�axlr�' �' F•:' �" �s. Y`.,a,.§.;a'�::�'4��`rt;`�,cr�'
cT;
u
]0
��.
~°.""".^"` ."� wnxx DESCRIBED BELOW.
ASS o/ vvonm NEW [] ''' '
NAME
LICENSE LICENSE
NUMBER
ADDRESS
�7
__2 PHONE
FOR THIS JOB NAME
DATE CERTIFIED
UNITS
NO.
..OF EYIfSCRIPTION OF W�ORKK
OF U N ITS DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TEMPORARY METER
TRANSFORMERS & RECTIFIERS
NEW SERVICE ENTRANCE
WIRING MOTORS & CONTROLS
NO. AMPS
NO. OF OIL BURNERS STOKERS,
FORCED A] R SYSTM
CHANGE SERVICE ENTRANCE
OTHER
NO AMPS
MOTORS H. R
CIRCUITS
SIGNS
LIGHTING
HEATING
NEON INT'R SIGN & I TRANSFORMER
POWER SUB-CIRCUITS
ADDITIONAL TRANSFORMERS,
UTILITY (RANGE DISPOSER,
COOLER, FAN,DRYER, WATER HEA
NO. OF INCANDESCENT LIGHTS
OTHER
FIXTURES----
OTHER-
PUBLIC
WORKS
ES TO APPLICANT: �VALUATION
I V..; 0i EACH OF THE ABOVE UNITS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF WORK.
)RK UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TOTAL FEE
P. LAN
ON); f: 'A'1111 THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, THE CITY OF ASPEN ORDIIJANCES, AND FILED T p
LL COUNi ( RESOLUIlONS, CITY ORDINANCES, STATE LAWS, WHtCHEVER APPLIES. DOUBLE CHECK Ll
Rmi� �.USJFCI iU REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING- SAPAE.
'QUI,�"V INSI'LCTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE.
FEE I CAS111 of
FINAL'.1!4SPICTION SHALL BE MADE BEFORE POWER WILL BE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1EA' L - , AND BEFORE THE BUILDING MAY BE OCCUPIED.
LA RNOVAL BY DATE
DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUN
3 FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY
_-N, VALIDATED HERE
`
12/6/83
�J
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I WAS EMPLOYED AS MAINTENANCE MANAGER AND ASSISTED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTINENTAL INN FROM 1966 to 1968 RESPECTIVELY.
THE CONTINENTAL INN EAST WING WAS COMPLETED IN 1960.
DURING THAT PERIOD SIX LOWER LEVEL INTERIOR ROOMS FACING DEAN
STREET WERE RENTED ON A REGULAR NIGHTLY BASIS AS DORMITORY
ACCOMMODATIONS BEING ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT.
YOURS TRULY,
ans R. Gr ige._.�—
Notorized this 6th day of December 1983 by
My Commission Expires
�
.�
�
�
'
l2/6/83
�
.�
. City of A,�,pen
Planning and Zoning Conunissi '
To whom it may concern:
'
I was employed by the Continental Inn and the Aspen Inn
/
from November 1969 to April of 1975' as Desk Clerk-
During that time the six lower level interior rooms 191 to 1.96
were rented on short term nightly rental basis.
Sincerely,
.`
/
David Embry /
0otozized this 6th day of December 1983 by
My Commission expires '
X
/
/�\
v-/ ' ' .
f
Q
12/6/83
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COW - IISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I WAS EMPLOYED AS THE ACCOUNTANT AND FRONT OI'FICE MANAGER
AT THE CONTINEN`.I'A.L INN DURING THE WINTER SEASONS OF' 1970
AND 1971 RESPEC`T'IVELY.
DURING THAT PERIOD SIX LOWER LEVEL INTERIOR ROOMS FACING
DEAN STREET WHERE IN FACT RENTED ON A REGULAR AND CONSISTENT
NIGHTLY BASIS AS DORMITORY ACCOMMODATIONS AND WHERE QUITE
ECONOMICAL AND POPULAR.
S TRULY ,
°ARRY I,EFKOWITZ
1050 EAST WATERS AVE. 13
ASPF ^I , COLO . 8161-1
NOTORIZED THIS 6th DAY OF DECEMBER 1983 BY f /
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
u
0
12/6/83
ro
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Commission Members: ,
_jC,- vz-- --
During the period of approximately June 1974 to J-a �-1976,
I was the Front Office Manager of the Continental Inn.
During this tenure, to the best of my knowledge, the units
known as 191 to 196 were nightly rental units and were rented
as such.
Since then, as an attorney, developer and owner of Aspen
Reservations, Inc., I have been involved with the Continental
Inn and to the best of my knowledge those units have continually
been rented as nightly rental units through 1981.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Morris
Notori.zed this 6th day of December. 1983 by
My Commission expires
F]
12/6/83
City of Aspen ,
Planning and Zoning Commission
To whom it may concern:
I was employed by the Continental Inn as Front Office Manager
and Resident Manager from August 1975 to June 1977.
During that time the six lower level interior rooms facing Dean
Street were rented on a regular nightly basis as dormitory
accommodations.
Yours truly,
Ted Edmonds
} Notorized this 6th day of December 1983 by
My Commission expires
12/6/83
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
To whom it may concern:
r�
1 was employed at the Continental Inn as Manager from
1977 to 1979.
During that time the six lower level interior rooms facing
Dean Street were rented on a regular nightly basis.
Notorized this 6th day of December 1 -983 by
My Commission expires
z:
`
�
..
`
' Kidud R. \ViUu|x)
' /zna^/. xxNaG�x '
�� ��T���T����
� ^����� � �l���1� ����� INl*
and Conference Center ut Aspen
'
'
Deccmboc 6. 1983 '^
Ill jnoim| & ino Commission
City o[ Aspen
Aspen, Coloradn
.
^ . Dear Members:
'
This is to state that I have been involved with the
ment o� the Continental Inn from l979 �u 1982.
'
That during the period of 1979 to 1981 we rented out
and otherwise used those units known as lgl to 196
at the Continental Inn as nightly rental units.
' In addition, we have attached herewith, signed
affidavits ootocized' that those units were rented
on an on-going basis from 106d to 198I as nightly
rental or short-term units' by persons in a
manaqco�cot capacity at the ContimxnLal Inn during ihai
21 year period.
Thank you for your d'ionLioo to this matter. Koch of
us is avuiia}/]o for further questions-.
'rely
"v' -
/
^ '
� Notorized this 6th day of December 1983 bylz&
my commission expires ' / |
513 S0U111 ..xLiN-\ AH`[N. ',)U)KA00 x\^|| ()03' 925-1 150
-_ '
. '
Doremus &co Pany
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866
January 17, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Director, Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Sunny:
r 1, 4.`v G
My letter is to clarify certain aspects of our residential GMP
application for the 700 South Galena Project. As you know. 700
South Galena is part of a larger PUD submittal currently under
review by the City called the Aspen Mountain PUD. As your
office has pointed out in its review of 700 South Galena, in
order to proceed as presently proposed, the project must
continue to be included in the overall PUD. Separating 700
South Galena from the other projects in the PUD would require
redesign of the building to bring the project into compliance
with the area and bulk requirements of the underlying zone
district.
Since the project as proposed is therefore linked to the City's
review of the overall PUD, we believe that 700 South Galena
should be scored by the P &Z on the basis of the commitments
contained in our application as written. Specifically, we
believe that the commitments to upgrade the water, sewer, and
storm drainage systems in the area as contained in our
residential application will improve the quality of service in
the area and therefore assure that we receive the maximum score
of two points in those categories, rather than one point as
recommended in your scoring. Further, we believe our
clarification will strengthen our ability to obtain the maximum
score as indicated' in your recommendation for the categories of
fire protection, trails, and open space.
Doremus &c®
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866
January 17, 1984k
Mr Sunny Vann
Director, Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny-
As we discussed by phone, the applicants.for the Aspen Mountain
PUD wish to continue discussions with City Council regarding
the proposed lodge prior to finalizing a new employee housing
proposal. It appears to us to be premature and perhaps
wasteful of the Planning and Zoning Commission's time to bring
forward a new employee housing program until we have received a
more precise response from City Council regarding the Lodge.
As you know, amendments to our previous proposal may require
optioning additional parcels and /or buildings at increased
expense to the applicant and we do not feel it is appropriate
to do that at this time.
We will defer to staff's opinion as to whether we should
continue the February 7th hearing as renoticed or allow the
hearing to expire and begin the process again at a later date:
The applicant will, of course, bear the expense of republishing
at a later date in either case.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wells
JW /jb
RESOLUTION OF ASPEN PLANNING.AND ZONI711- COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A °MULTI -YEAR LODGE GMP ALLOCATION
TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE, RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE LODGE PORTION OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD,
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED- REZONING TO COMMERCIAL
LODGE OF THE CHASE DUPLEX, TOWNPLACE APARTMENTS, HILLSIDE
LODGE, MOUNTAIN CHALET AND BLUE SPRUCE NORTH SITES,
AND GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR THE
CONVERSION OF THE ALPINA HAUS LODGE
TO DEED RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Resolution No. 84- 1
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal
Code, October lst of each year is established as a deadline for the
submission of growth management applications for lodge development
allotments within the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts of the City
of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, applications were sub-
mitted for the Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen Mountain Lodge requesting
development allotments of 46 lodge units and 203 lodge units, re-
spectively; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on November
22, 1983 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider
these lodge growth management applications and to evaluate, score and
rank them in conformance with the criteria set forth in Section 24-
11.6 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance #35 (Series of
1983) ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did evaluate, score and rank the appli-
cations submitted as follows:
1. Aspen Mountain Lodge - 60.71 points
2. Lodge at.Aspen - 49.50 points
and
WHEREAS, as a result of the Commission's scoring, the Lodge at
Aspen failed to receive a minimum of 60 percent of the total points
available under Section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Muni-
cipal Code, a minimum of 51 points; and
WHEREAS, the available quota for the 1983 lodge growth manage-
ment competition is 67 lodge units, consisting of the annual 35 unit
lodge quota for the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts plus an addi-
tional 32 lodge units which remain unallocated from prior years; and
'Resolution No. 84 -� •
Page Two
WHEREAS, certain additional reviews and approvals are required
by the Aspen Mountain Lodge pursuant to the subdivision and zoning
regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not _limited to, the
following:
1. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion
of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
2. A rezoning from L -1 to CL, Commercial Lodge, for that por-
tion of the Aspen Mountain PUD :site currently occupied by
the Chase Duplex,.Townplace Apartments, Hillside Lodge,
Mountain Chalet, and Blue Spruce North.
3. An exemption from the City's growth management allotment
procedures for the conversion of the 44 unit Alpina Haus
Lodge to deed- restricted employee housing.
4. An exemption from the City "s growth management allotment
procedures for the reconstruction of approximately 277
existing lodge units located on.the Aspen Mountain PUD
site.
; and
WHEREAS, certain of these additional reviews were conducted by
the Commission at a duly noticed public hearing held on November 29,
1983, and at subsequent Planning and Zoning Commission meetings held
on December 6th, 13th, and 20th,'1983; and on January 3, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
That it does hereby find that the 1983 growth management appli-
cation submitted for the Lodge at Aspen is ineligible for a develop-
ment allotment pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(a) of the Municipal Code
and,'. therefore, does hereby consider the application to be denied.
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council allo-
cate to the Aspen Mountain Lodge the 1983 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge
quota of 35 units; the 32 lodge units which remain unallocated from
prior years; and sufficient additional quota (approximately 92 units
or two and two - thirds years quota) from future years, as provided for
in Section 24- 11.3(b) of the Municipal Code, to allow the construction
of a maximum of 480 lodge units, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants continuing to address the Commission's
concerns with respect to the bulk., mass, FAR and unit count
of the proposed hotel so as to reduce its actual and /or
_ perceived visual impact and mitigate potential growth
related problems, in particular, increased vehicular and
pedestrian congestion, resulting from a multi -year quota
f ;,Resolution No. 84- •
Page Three
i_....allocation. Its recommendation with respect to the alloca-
tion of a multi -year quota notwithstanding, the Commission
reserves the right to require a reduction in the total
number.of lodge units contained in the proposed hotel as a
condition of preliminary PUD /subdivision approval if neces-
sary to obtain said reduction in the visual impact of the
project and the mitigation of growth related impacts.
2. The expiration, as proposed by the applicants, of all
allocated quota in the event the applicants fail to submit
plans, specifications and tees sufficient for the issuance
of a building permit for the lodge portion of the Aspen
Mountain PUD on or before June 1, 1985.
The Commission's reasoning with respect to this recommendation re-
fleets the following considerations:
1. The need, as outlined in the Planning Office's 1982 draft
Short -Term Accommodations Report, to substantially upgrade
the quality of the community's lodging.accommodations while
maintaining a balance between the quantity of our accommo-
dations and the capacity of our ski areas.
2. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan identifies the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.site as the most appropriate location for the develop-
ment of new short -term accommodations.
3. The opportunity. for additional lodge development in the L -1
L -2, CC and CL zone districts, beyond that proposed by the
applicants, is extremely limited given the remaining avail -
ability of undeveloped parcels and the relatively limited
.expansion capability of the districts' existing lodges.
4. Although there are potential growth impacts on the community
associated with the award of a multi -year allocation in the
.amount required by this project, such an allocation is
justified given the off- setting benefits which are expected
to accrue to -the community and the fact that the project's
construction schedule will help mitigate potential impacts.
5. The approval of a single major project will have the effect
of confining construction to one time period rather than
piecemeal phasing of numerous small projects over many years.
6. The entire Aspen Mountain lodge district will benefit from a
project of this magnitude as a result of the applicants'
commitment to participate pro rata in the Commercial Core and
Lodging Commission's proposed lodge improvement district.
7. The historical precedent which exists for the award of a
multi -year lodge allocation.
8. The applicants' assertion that approximately 480 lodge units
are required to ensure the economic viability of the proposed
hotel given the nature and extent of the proposed guest
amenities, conference facilities and overall site improvements
to be provided by the project.
9. The applicants' assertion that the bulk, mass and visual.
impact of the proposed hotel can be reduced prior to pre -
liminary PUD /subdivision approval without a reduction in the
total number of lodge units.
10. A desire to ensure the availability of lodge quota for
future competitions in the event the proposed hotel is
unable to proceed in a timely manner.
Section 3
That it does hereby recommend.that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual PUD /subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 20 -10 and
f Resolution No. 84 -� •
Page Four
24 -8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the lodge portion of the Aspen
Mountain PUD subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants continuing to investigate architectural
revisions to the proposed hotel, in particular the Durant
Avenue, lower Mill Street and conference entrance facades,
so as to reduce the hotel's mass, prevent the shading of
adjacent streets, and maintain and enhance public views of
Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic areas.
2. The applicants' resolution of the Fire Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas
of the lodge site for fire protection purposes.
3. A determination by the applicants as to .whether or not the
proposed hotel intrudes into the Wheeler Opera House view
plane and the submission, if required, of an appropriate
request for review pursuant to the.viewplane provisions of
the Municipal Code.
4. Written clarification as to which substantive representa-
tions of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis
the applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen
Mountain PUD, in particular, further clarification with
respect to those techniques designed to mitigate the poten-
tial impacts of peak.occupancy on adjacent streets.
5. Written clarifications as to the nature and extent of the
improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support
of their request for the vacation of various public rights -
of -way and the granting of encroachment licenses necessi-
tated by the Aspen Mountain PUD.
6. The vacation of D,
being conditioned
public use of the
submission by the
and use agreement
Chalet.
:an Street between Monarch and Mill Streets
upon the retention of all utility rights,
street for circulation purposes, and�the
applicants of an acceptable maintenance
between themselves and the'Mountain
7. Each utility franchised in the City signing off on all
proposed street vacations so as to ensure that the loss of
these rights -of -way will not .interfere with each utility's
current or future needs.
8. The applicants' submission of a detailed subdivision plat
indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain PUD
site.
9. The applicants' submission of an acceptable survey of the
Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions.
10. The applicants' resolution of the various issues raised by
the Environmental Health Department in their memorandum of
October 22, 1983, with respect to various specific details
of the.proposed hotel operation.
11. The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited to
those units verified pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the
Municipal Code.
12. Written clarification as to the applicants' intentions with
respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis -a -vis how the
hotel will be managed.
13. The applicants continuing to investigate solutions to the
problem of increased pedestrian congestion in the project
area,,in particular, the movement of pedestrians between the
proposed hotel, Rubey Park and the adjacent commercial core.
.Resolution No. 84-
Page Five
14. The applicants' participation in the-,'-',,
improvement district, said participa-t....", p 'no-on -7ca
.faro
basis or on such other basis as
All material representations of the
manage*ment and conceptual
specifically y-referred to above bei),, tI i a d a c o, -ion
c.
this recommendation of approval.
16. The above conditions being met prio,..,
J.,
division approval.
_qone-f-inn A
That it does hereby recommend that the As. ,.Ctiv_l Y ,
the applicants' request for - a rezoning from L 1
Lodge, for that ,portion of the Aspen Mountain ["J"
occupied by the Chase Duplex, Townplace Ap ar tin
Mountain Chalet, and Blue Spruce North for the U
1. The uses proposed by the applicants';. t a i e -a to be
rezoned are inconsistent with the intc-.rt.- --ofF, -'One::
district.
2. The uses proposed by the applicants, Inv
right or by special review under the
classification.
3. The primary reason for the applicant:" - n. t-. qiui 0- -�V E S t.p
them to take advantage of the more fay /� .,'��,Dl'e'-., EA -1:1
available in the CL zone district. Vrovisf
of the existing L-1 zone district may 4- to
the PULY regulations, a -rezoning mere]..-y fr'b -re"c'.1a+ke: th-e
of the., - ke-'quested variance is inappropricate.;
4. The proposed rezoning is inconsisten.tift
zone.district classifications.
That it does hereby find, pursuant to Sect-li.f-M' 2`4"3ij:i? ,z2,(4I )' r J-,Ine
Municipal Code, that the conversion of the 44 -ti)-.iic Alpinz:. Iia-'O.'s ItOdge
to deed-restricted employee housing, as set for `-!.J-, -10a t'ne.
Lodge growth management application, will resul in pieallcq
impacts on the community, and .that said change ! I"i 6 L s
complying with the growth management allotment of: thla,
Municipal Code subject.to the following conditj..,�1�3.z
1. The deed restriction of the 44 units,' b;y.
applicants and recommended by the r
maximum rental price guideline of e`)),
-I',r)-LI'-)"VI_-,:CD:, LY
h,
average annual income, or $250.00 per
e- rs q n per monl
whichever is less.
2. The deed restriction of the 44 units to 'a m,aximum occupzIncy
of 47 employees with first priority given to empIovees ()'L-'
the Aspen Mountain Lodge.
3. The -retention of all existing on-siti_:� and tl�',.,.
submission of various alternatives f. c= -L-1-2.e of
Resolution No. 84-
Page Six
potential impacts resulting from the non- conforming status'
of the Alpina Haus' parking, said alternatives to be included .
in-the applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision submission.
cAr, + r-�„ ti
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council in-
struct the Planning Office to credit, pursuant to Section 24 -11.2 of
the Municipal Code, the 44 units removed from the lodge inventory as
a result of the conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to deed- restricted
employee housing to the L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota, said credit
to take effect at such time as the units are deed restricted and
removed from the lodge inventory. The Commission's reasoning with
respect to this recommendation reflects the following considerations:
1. The Alpina Haus Lodge is a non-- conforming use in the R -MF
zone district. As a result, the 44 units removed from the
lodge inventory may be credited to either the L -1, L -2, CC
and CL lodge quota or to the L =3 lodge quota.
2. The relatively limited build-oat remaining in the City's L -3
zone district and the adequacy of the existing annual L -3
quota to ensure the limited expansion of existing lodges
consistent with the intent of the City's adopted L -3 zone
district regulations.
3. Since the conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to deed -
restricted employee housing is an integral component of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge growth management application, the 44
units removed from the lodge inventory should be credited to
the quota for the lodge district in which the proposed hotel
is to be located.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on January 17, 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ,
By /lam Cpl /Z��L�
Perry lorvey, Chairma
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
HOLLAND & HART
DENVER OFFICE ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 2900
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET 600 EAST MAIN STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 80202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 575 -8000 TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3476
TELEtCOPIER(303) 575 -8261
MONTANA OFFICE
.SUITE 1400
17S NORTH 27TH STREET
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 252 -2166
TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669
CHARLES T. BRANDT
(303) 925 -3476
Paul J. Taddune
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen,.CO 81611
January 16, 1984
RE: Condominium Hotel /Commerce Savings
Dear Paul:
Thank you for your January.5th letter..
answers all of my questions except one.
WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
SUITE 1200
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C.20006
TELEPHONE (202) 466 -7340
TELECOPIER (202) 466 -7354
WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 650
2020 CAREY AVENUE
CHEYENNE,WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONE (307) 632 -2160
TELECOPIER(307)778 -8175
- r ^�°
L
/ASP (� / F'E I t% CO.
PLANNING OPF SCE
Your letter
You indicated,that the condominium map is usually
submitted prior to preliminary plat review. Since the
condominium map is prepared when a structure, in this case the
Hotel, is substantially completed, a condominium map cannot be
submitted prior to preliminary plat review. It has been my
understanding of the procedure that.a subdivision plat showing
the proposed location of the Hotel is, of course, submitted
prior. to preliminary plat review. In other words, the propose d
condominium project is approved with an appropriate subdivision
plat approved and filed of record. Thereafter, and -as part of
the approval conditions, the condominium map is prepared when
the building is substantially completed (showing the vertical
and horiozontal measurements of the building, the units,
parking, etc.) and submitted to the City Attorney and the City
Engineer for review and approval. If this procedure as I have
outlined it is correct, I would appreciate your confirmation.
Very �truly yours.,
Charles T. Brandt
for HOLLAND & HART
CTB /vb
cc: Alan .Novak
James.M. Holbrook, Esq.
John Roberts
John Doremus
0 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Analysis of Award of Allocation
DATE: January 11, 1984
Since the Aspen Mountain Lodge is the only L -1 /L -2 lodge development
project submitted in 1983 which met the minimum scoring threshold, it
is eligible for a 35 unit allocation by you. The applicants have
also verified that 269 units exist on the site which can be rebuilt
without having to compete for an allocation. The applicants, there-
fore, have the capability to build 304 units as a result of having
successfully won this year's competition. You should also recognize
that 8 other units which are found on the site may also be eligible
for rebuilding.
The applicant proposes to build a total of 480 lodge units by having
you award the following additional units to the.project:
The 32 units which
The 44 units which
residential at the
deducted from the
L -1 /L -2 or the L -3
L -1 /L -2 quota).
remain as unallocated from prior years.
are being,_:changed in use from lodge to
Alpina Haus and which therefore must be
residential quota and added to either the
quota (P &Z recommends adding them to the
100 units from future years of quota (the 1984 and 1985
quotas, plus 30 of the 35 units for the year 1986).
Following below is an analysis of the pros and cons of the discre-
tionary request for the additional 176 units needed to complete this
project. This analysis is an updated version of a similar presenta-
tion to the P &Z made in November, 1983.
Mae]
•
1. Full allocation would permit
the substandial upgrade in
the quality of our lodging
inventory in return for the
expansion of that inventory
(Note: the reconstruction of
approximately 269 lodge
rooms represents about 250
of the entire inventory of
lodge rooms in Aspen).
2. The development of this
facility would constitute
the first addition to the
lodge inventory in Aspen
since the 54 unit expansion
to the Woodstone in 1976.
3. The proposed addition of
units on this site is con-
sistent with the intent of
the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan
to centralize our tourist
accommodations at the base
of Aspen Mountain.
CON
1. Granting the full allocation
will result in an unusually
high rate of growth in the
Aspen Metro Area over the
short term, particularly;if
combined with construction o:`7
of the Centennial, Hotel
Jerome and Highlands Inn
projects.
2. The allocation of future
years of quota will virtually
preclude any other�iL -1 /L -2
applicant from obtaining a
substantial allocation to
expand an existing /build a
new downtown lodge (Note
that with` the exception of
the Little Nell parcel and
a smaller parcel near Lift
1A, virtually no vacant par-
cels exist in the L -1 /L -2
district which are not under
the ownership of this applic
cant. Note also that the
5. The increased competition
in the lodging industry may
result in the attrition of
some of the smaller,
somewhat marginal operations.
In fact, should the project
proceed as proposed two
small facilities (the
Copper Horse and Alpina
Haus) will be taken out of
the inventory.
6. The addition of these new
units will further concen-
trate lodging in Aspen
while the bulk of our
skiing capacity is outside
of Aspen or in Snowmass.
s can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and
pposed to the allocation of the additional 176 units requested. The
pgrade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the
reation of a major conference facility are consistent with the
Analysis of Award Allocation
Page
Two
4.
Full allocation provides the
construction of the Hotel
developer with the capability
Jerome project will require:
of building a full service
us to further use future years
hotel complex, including
of quota, amounting to about
substantial tourist amenities
65 units. Finally, note that
such as conference rooms,
the 10 unit per year L -3 quota
ballroom, and recreation
will continue to be available
facilities.
regardless of this project).
,5.
The development of a facility
3. The construction of such a
of this magnitude in this high
large project may be a sign
profile location may change
to the skiing industry that
the popular image of the
the next growth cycle in
quality of Aspen's lodging in
Aspen is underway and it is
one shot.
time to plan for ski area
expansion. There may also
6.
By awarding a full allocation,
be a cyclical impact on
we permit the master planning
the commercial sector,
of the entire area, the
where vacancies and under -
accomplishment of the total
employment at existing
upgrade of that area, and the
businesses may be replaced
minimization of the length of
by full occupancy and
construction impacts upon
maximum employment, with
Aspen.
commensurate impacts on the
Community.
7.
There is no substantial
benefit to be gained from
4. There may be a short term
making the project compete
inability of certain
again for an allocation in a
portions of the infra-
future year provided that you
structure to accommodate
support the development of a
the growth associated with
project of this scale.
this project, particularly
if combined with a community -
8.
Since it will take two years
wide economic resurgence
to construct this facility,
such that.units with low
there is an automatic phasing
occupancy and commercial
mechanism built into the
space which-is vacant are
project.
once again full. Facilities
which we feel will be
9.
There is a precedent for
especially hard hit include
awarding a multi -year lodge
the sewage treatment
allocation, since in 1978
plant, transit center,
Council awarded 76 units,
airport terminal and the
taken from the 1977, 1978,
road network (both into
1979 and 1980 quotas, as well
Aspen and inside Aspen).
as 4 units from 1981.
5. The increased competition
in the lodging industry may
result in the attrition of
some of the smaller,
somewhat marginal operations.
In fact, should the project
proceed as proposed two
small facilities (the
Copper Horse and Alpina
Haus) will be taken out of
the inventory.
6. The addition of these new
units will further concen-
trate lodging in Aspen
while the bulk of our
skiing capacity is outside
of Aspen or in Snowmass.
s can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and
pposed to the allocation of the additional 176 units requested. The
pgrade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the
reation of a major conference facility are consistent with the
Analysis of Award Allocation
Page Three
growth policies which the Planning Commission has been developing.
The accomplishment of a master plan for lodging in this area is
consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, as well as the wishes
of City Council, when it last reviewed the proposed amendments to the
Aspen Inn construction project. However, building this facility in a
single increment is not consistent with the growth rate policy and
will virtually preclude any other major downtown lodge expansions in
Aspen for several years. By its very magnitude and importance, the
project is likely to have spin -off impacts on.other portions of our
economy and may set off a new growth cycle in Aspen.
,Given the very real need at this high profile location in Aspen for
lodging facilities which provide quality and value, the Planning Com-
mission and the Planning Office both feel quite strongly that the 32
units wh charemaihlasuunallocated from_�pkiorayears and the 44 units
made available as a result of the change in use of the Alpina Haus be
;allocated to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. However, P &Z found it
much more difficult to address the question of allocations from
future years. Issues which were raised repeatedly by the Planning
Commission included the impact of the project on the growth rate,
over the short term, as measured by the impacts on community facilities,
fits considerable size, its cyclical impact on other lodge operations
and its spin -off effects on the commercial and skiing sectors of our
economy.
Ultimately, a majority of the Commission felt that the growth related
impacts of awarding about 3 years of future quota were manageable, when
balanced with Aspen's need for a major new lodging facility which
will not only upgrade approximately 250 of our basic lodging units,
but also be large enough to justify the creation of substantial
conference capabilities and other tourist amenities.' The Commission
also recognized that their concern with the bulk of the project could
be mitigated by design alternatives available to the applicants which
would not affect the number of rooms it contains. The Planning Com-
mission therefore recommends that you award the project a sufficient
allocation to build a 480 unit hotel, subject to the applicant being
able to address the Commission's design concerns at the preliminary
PUD stage of review.
0
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: January 11, 1984
The attached Planning Office memorandums are intended to serve as
background information to be used throughout Council's consideration
of the lodge portionoof the Aspen Mountain PUD. Given the complexityy
of the memorandums, and the.fact that they were not available until
this morning, I do not expect you to be able to wade through them in
their entirety prior to tonight's work session. All we really hope
to accomplish. this :evening is to provide you with an overview of the
project, identify and briefly comment on the relevant reviews re-
quired by the- pproject, and summarize the Planning and Zoning Commis.. =icil.
lion's actions and recommendations with respect to the project to
date. The more detailed analysis and discussion of the various issues
associated with this project are expected to be dealt with in subse-
quent meetings.
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: January 11, 1984
The applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge are requesting PUD /sub-
division approval for the development of their approximately 11.7
acre site located south of Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch
Streets at the base of Aspen Mountain. The proposed resort hotel
to-be constructed at the north end of the site, involves the recon-
struction of approximately 269 tourist units currently located within
the Continental Inn, the Aspen Inn,and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The
applicants are requesting a GMP allocation for an additional 211 units
bringing the total hotel project to 480 tourist units.
The applicants also propose to construct on -site in conjunction with
the resort hotel, an approximately 22,500 s.f. conference facility,
a 4;.500 s.f. health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and
various recreational amenities, including two swimming pools and-ian
ice skating rink. In addition;to the hotel, an approximately 33 unit
residential project is planned.for the southern portion of the site
and a :smaller, 12 unit project for the adjacent 700 S. Galena parcel.
The applicants' objective is to provide Aspen with a high quality,
full service resort hotel with an array of year round tourist facilities
and servicesaand extensive on -site amenities and public spaces. The
ability to provide these four facilities is directly related to the
size of the hotel project. While the Planning Office supports the
reconstruction and upgrading of existing facilities as well as the
provision of much needed tourist conference facilities and amenities,
a project of this size will invariably impact the City in a variety
of ways and trade -offs between competing community objectives will
obviously be required.
The lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD successfully competed in
the 1983 lodge GMP competition.which was conducted by the Planning
and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983. As I pointed out in my
memorandum which forwarded the results of that competition to City
Council, the project is quite complex and required extensive addi-
tional review by P &Z. The Commission has essentially completed its
review of the lodge portion of the PUD and has prepared a draft
resolution summarizing their recommendations. This resolution is
expected to be formally adopted on January 17, 1984. The purpose of
tonight's meeting, is to initiate Council's consideration of the
applicant's request for a multi -year lodge GMP allocation and to
consider the various additional reviews required by the lodge portion
of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
The various additional review requirements of the lodge portion of
ths,PUD include: PUD /subdivision review, two requests for rezonings,
exemption from growth management for the lodge'soemployee housing,
a change in use exemption, two street vacations, and, possibly, view -
plane review and an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission.
Condominiumizationoof the lodge rooms will probably also be requested
by the applicants at a later date. The Planning Office's comments
with respect to each of these additional reviews are outlined below.
Out specific recommendations dre summarized at the end of this memo-
randum.
Aspen Mountain PUD0
January 11, 1984
Page Two
CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION
While. the Municipal Code allows the Planning Office to waive con-
ceptual PUD /Subdivision review for those projects which have re-
ceived a development allotment, the complexity of the proposed
resort hotel and the applicants' request for a multi -year lodge
allocation necessitate, in our opinion, conceptual PUD /Subdivision
review by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. —
A residential GMP application was:: subm tted�•.in•'Decein bet - , -for the
700 South Galena project as well as a request for a GMP reconstruc
tion exemption to allow the development of the approximately 33
unit residential project at the top of Mill Street. Conceptual
PUD /Subdivision review for these two portions of the overall Aspen
Mountain PUD will occur concurrently with the applicants' residential
.GMP application and request for GMP exemption. A commercial GMP
application will also be required for the non - accessory restaurant
.space to be constructed in conjunction with the hotel.
To be eligible for PUD approval, an applicant must demonstrate the
reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the
design requirements of the PUD regulations, the lack of adverse
impacts of the proposed development, and the plan's compliance with
the intent and purpose of the planned unit development regulations.
The purpose and intent of the regulations is to encourage flexi-
bility, innovation and variety in-the development of land so as to
create a more desirable environment than would be possible through
strict application of the zoning code. In.our opinion, this appli-
cation is consistent with these objectives and with the design
requirements of the.PUD regulations..
.In order to achieve PUD design ob.jectives,.the PUD regulations
permit variation in most of the area and bulk requirements of the
zoning code. No variation, however, is allowed in permitted uses
or density. While several rezonings are requested in conjunction
with this application, the uses to be included in this PUD are
currently allowed under existing zoning. The major variations from
the area.and bulk requirements which the lodge portion of the PUD
will require involve the applicable FAR and height requirements of
the underlying zone districts. All of the elements of the applicants'
proposal,..however, can be accomplished within the flexibility
provided for in the PUD regulations.. Additional information•with
respect to the extent of.the zoning variations requested by the
applicants will be provided at your Januar`y4:11,'`work . session.
Generally speaking, the impacts of the proposed resort hotel are
reflected in the scores which the project received in the GMP
process. Similarly, the receipt of a GMP allocation would tend to
indicate that the majority of those impacts have been successfully
mitigated. However, given the fact that it is possible to obtain a
GMP allocation without scoring the maximum points available in each
category or without mitigating all project related impacts, the
Planning Office recommends that the following additional issues
with regard to the applicants' conceptual PUD/Subdivision applica-
t ion . ;b`e„r" &solved=pror-to preliminary PUD /subdivision approval.
Architectural Design /Visual Impact
The Planning office's major area of concern with respect to the
lodge portion.of the Aspen Mountain PUD lies in the architectural
design and visual impact of the proposed resort hotel - a concern
which is reflected in the relatively low y o scores recommended by the
Planning Office in these two GMP categories. While the PUD regula-
tions provide for detailed architectural review at the preliminary
PUD stage of the process, we believe it is important to identify
our concerns with respect to the bulk of this project at the con-
ceptual level.
Aspen Mountain PUD• is
January 11, 1984
Page Three
To reiterate our GMP review comments, we believe the architectural
design to be innovative in that it makes use of extensive excavation
to reduce the perceived bulk of the buildings and to maintain public
views of Aspen Mountain. There are, however, in our opinion, elements
of the project which are clearly incompatible with surrounding develop-
ments and with the overall scale of Aspen in general. The applicants'
use of traditional architectural treatments and the use of compatible
building materials helps to blend the hotel buildings into their
surroundings. However, both the main hotel and conference entrance
areas substantially exceed the height limitation of the applicable
zone district, resulting in major building masses which are out of
scale with the surrounding lodge district. These building masses
restrict public views of Aspen Mountain and will, to varying degrees,
alter scenic background views ffom Durant Avenue, Rubey Park and
Wagner Park.
While variations in the height and bulk of the proposed resort hotel
are allowed under the PUD regulations, we believe that the approxi-
mately 50 foot plus height of the Durant Street or conference en-
trance facade are excessive. We strongly recommended to P &Z that
the applicants reduce the visual impact of these building masses by
revising the architectural design and /or reducing the overall number
of lodge units. Such a reduction, if required, would also reduce the
growth impacts associated with a multi -year lodge allocation. The
Planning and Zoning Commission concuredc:with our recommendations and
have requested the applicants to investigate architectural revisions
to the proposed hotel so as to reduce the hotel's mass, prevent the
shading of adjacent streets and maintain and enhance public views of
Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic areas as a condition of concep-
tual PUD approval.
Two additional design related concerns which have been identified at
this time include the adequacy of access for fire protection purposes
and the potential intrusion into the Wheeler Opera House viewplane by
the proposed hotel. Although the applicants have represented that
state -of- the -art fire protection techniques will be employed in the
resort hotel, the fire department has questioned the accessibility
of the;- internal areas of the site for fire protection purposes. This
Issue is to be explored further by the applicants in conjunction
with the fire department and resolved prior to preliminary PUD approval.
The applicants' representations notwithstanding, the Engineering
Department has indicated that the proposed hotel may protrude into
the Wheeler viewplane. The issue of whether or not the project
violates this viewplane is to be addressed by the applicants and
an appropriate request, if required, submitted consistent with the
viewplane review provisions of the Code prior to preliminary PUD
approval. -
Traffic Impacts /Parking Requirements
While the existing road network in the vicinity of the proposed
hotel is adequate to handle the increased traffic generated by the
project, the TDA Associates report submitted in conjunction with
the applicants' GMP submission refers to numerous actions to-be
undertaken by the applicants which are designed to further reduce
traffic impacts in the general site area. The.report also addresses
a number of proposals to.further reduce the demand for off - street
parking generated by the new hotel. While these various actions
are referenced in part in the GMP submission, the specific pro-
posals to be undertaken by the applicants as part of this project
should be outlined in detail as part of their preliminary PUD
submission,.
Street.Vacations /Encroachments
The vacation of two City streets will be required to implement the
lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD: 1) two blocks of Dean
Street between the Galena Street and Monarch Street rights -of -way,
Aspen Mountain PUD•
January 11, 1984
Page Four
and 2) Lawn Street from the Monarch Street right -of -way east to—its-
termination within the Aspen Mountain site. The vacation of public
rights -of -way is accomplished through ordinance of -City Council.
However, given the implications of such requests on the overall
street network of the City, the Council typically requests input
from the Planning and Zoning Commission to facilitate their review.
As a result, the applicants requested- P; &Z's. cons =der-at'ion -.-.,of
the proposed street vacations as a part of the PUD review process.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicants'. request and
has concluded that the proposed vacation of the two blocks of Dean
Street and the Lawn Street right -of -way east of Monarch would not
adversely impact the general area from a circulation .standpoint.
Lawn Street is a dead -end right -of -way that is currently used
almost exclusively for access to the applicants' property and is of
little value to overall circulation in the area. Of the two blocks
of Dean Street for which vacation is requested, one block will be
maintained as a public street through the site and will continue to
provide access to the south side of the Mountain Chalet. In light
of the overall circulation improvements and reduction in vehicular
conflicts created by the site plan, elimination of the one block of
Dean Street from the area street network does not represent a
significant problem.
The portion of Dean Street between Monarch and Mill Streets will be
vacated to the benefit of both the applicants and the Mountain
Chalet. This block of Dean, although requested for vacation, will
remain a public street within the proposed PUD. The Engineering
Department recommends that this vacation should be conditioned
on the maintenance of all utility rights as well as public use of
the street itself. For those rights -of -way which are to be com-
pletely eradicated, i.e., Lawn Street and Dean Street between Mill
and Galena, the Engineering Department further recommends that the
City should be reimbursed.by the applicants for the rights being
vacated in each instance. The reimbursement could take any number
of forms, but the Department recommends that the applicants be
required to undertake off -site street improvements comparable in
value to the value of all.rights the City vacates. This could
include, in addition to the improvements already suggested by the
applicants, the reconstruction of the Monarch and Durant intersec-
tion and the reconstruction of the full extent of Gal -ena from
Durant Avenue to Mill Street.
Inasmuch as the various public rights -of -way which are to be vacated
contain numberous existing utilities, the Engineering Department
recommends that each utility franchised in the City, regardless of
whether or not they maintain utility easements in the rights -of -way
in question, sign off on the requested vacations in order to verify
that the loss of these rights -of -way will not interfere with their
current or future needs.
The proposed . resort hotel will require, in addition to the vaca-
tions discussed above, substantial structural encroachments into
the underground portions of Durant Avenue and Mill Street as well
as an overhead encroachment on Mill. The Mill Street encroachment
involves the creation of an underground connection between the
parking structures as well.as an overhead pedestrian bridge inter-
connecting the major public areas of the proposed resort hotel.
The Engineering Department recommends that an encroachment license
be granted for the Mill Street structures since both encroachments..
serve to accommodate circulation of pedestrians and vehicles between
the two adjacent sites, thus removing both people and vehicles from
street level. This provides much safer and simpler circulation
within the hotel complex and removes numerous potential conflicts
from the street. Engineering conditions its recommendation, how
ever, upon the provision by the developer of off -site improvements
Aspen Mountain PUD• •
January 11, 1984
Page Five
The Engineering Department further recommends-that-the site plan be
modified to eliminate any encroachment into Durant :Avenue. The
plan currently suggests that the underground vehicular access into
the eastern parking structure will loop into.the Durant right-of-
way. Unless the developer can provide substantial evidence of the
need for this encroachment! Engineering will recommend against it.
The Commission essentially concured: with the Engineering Department's
recommendations. The specific conditions which they attached to
their conceptual PUD /subdivision approval are outlined in their reso-
lution.
Subdivision
Although this issue is not addressed in the applicants' GMP /Con-
ceptual PUD submission, `,subdivis' on_of',rthe Aspen Mountain.
PUD parcel will be required in order to accomplish the various
ownership proposals contained in their application. Based on the
information submitted to date, the Planning Office does not en-
vision the subdivision of the parcel to be a major area of concern
at thie time. A condition of conceptual PUD approval, however,
should be the_ submission of.a detailed subdivision plat indicating
the specific parceling of the PUD site prior to the preliminary
PUD /Subdivision < appk -oval.
Ownership
The City Attorney has reviewed the applicants' ownership documents
for compliance with Sections 24- 8.5(a) and 20- 10(b)(4) of the
Municipal Code. It is the attorney's opinion that the Aspen
Mountain Lodge GMP/ Conceptual PUD /Subdivision submissions have
met the substantive requirements of these Code provisions. The
attorney recommends, however, that an acceptable survey of the ---
hotel site be submitted to the City clarifying property descriptions,.
or, in the alternative, that the Engineering Department accept the
property descriptions as substantially correct prior to the award of
any lodge allotment by the City Council.
The Engineering.Department also raised -the question of the avail-
ability of an up -to -date property survey and suggested-_that'the-,pro,-
vision of a new survey be a condition of conceptual PUD /Subdivision
approval.
Miscellaneous
The Environmental Health Department has
and has raised several questions of'a m
specifics of which relate to conditions
The applicants, however, are encouraged
ment's comments and address the issues
to preliminary PUD submission.
REZONINGS
also reviewed this project
ore detailed nature, the
of preliminary PUD approvals.
to review the Health Depart
which have been raised prior
The Aspen Mountain PUD application includes a request for four re-
zonings, two of which are directly related to the lodge portion of
the PUD. The applicable zoning regulations require that the Planning
and Zoning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider rezoning
requests and report its recommendations to City Council for their
consideration. Vie-P &Z held -a public hearing on November 29th, 19 -831
and adjacent property owners were notified. The two-lodge related
requestssfor rezonings which were considered are examined below.
L -1 to CL
A rezoning to CL (Commercial Lodge) was.requested for the Chase
Duplex, Townplace Apartments and Hillside Lodge sites (Lots A
through Di Block 91) and for the Mountain Chalet and Blue Spruce
North sites (all nine lots in Block 84 to the west of Block 91).
Aspen Mountain BUD• •
January 11, 1984
Page-Six
As the applicants' attached exhibits indicate, these parcels are .
presently separated from the commercial core by Rubey and Wagner
Parks.
Rezoning applications by private applicants are typically heard by
the Planning and Zoning Commission only during meetings.scheduled
by the Commission for this purpose in the months of April and
October of each year. An applicant, however, may request either
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council to _sponsor their
request for rezoning,.thereby circumventing the twice yearly re-
striction. The applicants,.in order to allow consideration of.
their rezoning requests in conjunction with their lodge GMP applica-
tion, requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to sponsor their
application for rezoning from L -1 to CL.
In reviewing a request for rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion and City Council are requested to consider the following evalua-
tive criteria: 1) the compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the
surrounding zone district and land uses; 2) the impacts of the re-
zoning upon traffic, parking and utilities; 3) the impacts on air and
water quality; 4) the community need for the rezoning; 5) the compati-
bility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen Area General Plan as
amended; and 6) the extent to which the proposed rezoning will promote
the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors
to the City of Aspen.
The applicants' principal argument in favor of this rezoning is
that "the rather dramatic increase in traffic along Durant Street,
particularly associated with public transportations, that has occurred
since L -1 zoning was originally applied to the area makes it unde-
sirable to locate lodge rooms at ground level immediately adjacent
to and oriented toward Durant Street." They therefore believe that
commercial uses at ground level, as allowed under CL zoning, are
more appropriate.
While there is unquestionably some truth in the above observation,
the uses proposed by the applicants on these sites, e.g. the main
hotel lobby, guest drop -off, etc., are clearly inconsistent with
the intent of the CL zone district. To_ refresh your memory, the
intent of this zone is to provide for the establishment of commer-
cial uses at street level but requiring that all additional stories
be lodge accommodations. With the exception of the proposed lease-
hold commercial restaurant space to be constructed at the corner of
Monarch and Durant Streets, ground level uses of the proposed hotel
are limited to essentially non - commercial, hotel related support
services. Were the applicants taking - advantage of this zoning classi-
fication to provide street level non - accessory commercial space ad-
jacent to the transportation center at Rubey Park and to allow archi-
tectural variation in the.Durant Avenue building masses, the Planning
Office might be more inclined to support this rezoning._
.In our opinion, the applicants' primary reason for requesting this
rezoning is to :enable them to take advantage of the more favorable
FAR ratio available in the CL zone district. By utilizing the
district's, 2:1 external FAR ratio, the applicants can reduce, at
least statistically, the overall FAR of the lodge portion of this
PUD. As noted in the conceptual PUD discussion, the applicants are
requesting a variance from the underlying FAR requirements of the
applicable zone districts. Obviously, the greater FAR allowed in
the CL zone district would make the proposed resort hotel appear
smaller than if FAR were calculated under L -1 zoning. Inasmuch as
the underlying FAR requirements of any zone district may be varied
.pursuant to the PUD regulations., we see no benefit in rezoning this
property from L -1 to CL simply to produce a more favorable FAR 1Z
figure. The Planning Office, therefore, requested ;that;,P&Z. -'deny /the -.
applicants' request for sponsorship of the rezoning and recommend)
denial to City Council. The Commission unanimously.recommended
denial.
Aspen Mountain PUD
January 11, 1984
Page Seven
R -15 to R -6 (RBO)
•
The applicants are also requesting a rezoning to R -6 (RBO) for an
approximately 7.5 acre site on Ute Avenue on which they propose to
build a 50 unit employee housing project. Sponsorship of this
request by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council is not
required as the Code - allows requests for residential bonus overlay
rezonings to be heard at any time during the year. This rezoning is
required in order to accommodate the proposed mix of employee housing
unit types called for in the employee housing proposal developed for
the hotel. The City granted a similar request for rezoning to R -6
(RBO) for the same site in 1982 for an employee housing proposal
filed by the Little Annie Ski Corporation. The City Ordinance
granting the rezoning, however, provided for its expiration on
December 31, 1983 in the event the Little Annie Ski Area were not
under construction at that time.
The Planning ~Office reviewed this request for rezoning and.,-while
we found it generally consistent with the'Res.idental Bonus
Overlay review criteria, we requested that P &Z not take formal
action on this issue at its November 29th meeting. There were a
a number of details requiring clarification and /or submission of
additional information on behalf of the applicants which needed to
be addressed prior to formalization of the Planning Office' recom. -_-A
mendation. The applicants are currently working with P &Z to resolve
various problems associated with this request: --and the public hearing
has been tabled until February 7, 1984. The Commission recommenda-
tions will be: forwarded to Council upon completion -of ;review:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTIONS
The applicants of the Aspen Mountain PUD are requesting three exemp-
tions from the GMP allotment procedures for the hotel portion of
their proposed project. These exemptions are requested for the
following development activity: 1) the reconstruction of 269 exist -
ing lodge units pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the zoning regula-
tions, 2) the construction of a 50 unit employee housing project on
the Benedict/ Larkin parcel pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(f), and 3)
the conversion of the Alpin =a Haust.Lodge to deed restricted employee
housing pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(j). Each of these requests is
examined below.
Reconstruction
The resort hotel to be constructed as a part of the Aspen Mountain
PUD will essentially replace the existing Continental Inn, Aspen
Inn, and Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicants, with the assistance of
the Building Department, have inventoried these facilities and have
submitted to the Planning Office a request.for the verification of
277 existing lodge units. After review of the applicants' documenta-
tion, the Planning Office and Building Department have agreed to the
verificationo6f 269 lodge units. Eight additional units are cur-
rently undergoing further review by the staff. A decision with
respect to the eight units should be forthcoming prior to Council's
award of the lodge quota.
No specific P &Z or Council action is required with respect to this
request for exemption. The Planning Office, however, suggests that
any conceptual PUD approval with respect to the hotel portion of this
project include the following conditions which are consistent with
the reconstruction provisions of Section 24- 11.2(a) of the Code.
1. The applicants should be limited to the reconstruction of
only those units verified pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a).
2. The reconstruction of these lodge units must be accom-
plished within five years of the date of demolition.
Aspen Mountain PUD,
January 11, 1984
Page Eight
3. The reconstruction of the demolished lodge units should be
limited to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
Employee Housing
As discussed under the request for R -6 (RBO) rezoning, the appli-
cants propose to construct a 50 unit pure employee housing project
on an approximately 7.5 acre site located northwest of the Ute
Cemetary on Ute Avenue. These units will house a portion of the net
new employees generated by the proposed resort hotel. The site,
known as the Benedict /Larkin property, is. presently zoned R -15 and
will require rezoning to R -6 (RBO) to allow construction of the
proposed employee housing units. Exemption from,GMP allotment
procedures is allowed pursuant to Section 24- 11.'2(f) subject to the
special approval of the City Council based on the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The review of any request for exemption of employee units from the
development allotment procedures requires a determination of com-
munity need considering, but not limited to, the project's compliance
with any adopted housing plan; including the number and type of
units proposed, their location, the number of bedrooms in each unit
.and.the size of the unit; the rental /sales mix of the development;
and the proposed price categories to which the units are to be deed
restricted. The Aspen. /Pitkin Housing Authority and the Housing
Office staff have reviewed the proposed employee housing project for
consistency with the above requirements and have recommended approval
of the applicants' request for GMP exemption subject to the following
conditions:
1. The 50 unit project is to consist of 24 one - bedroom units
averaging approxiately 550 sq. ft. each and 26 two- bedroom
units averaging approximately 750 sq. ft. each. Ninety
hotel employees are to be housed in the project with the
applicant reserving the right to house an additional 11
unspecified employees at a future date.
The hotel employees are to be given first priority in
renting or purchasing the 50 units. If vacancies should .
occur, the applicant may rent .to any qualified low or
moderate income employee of the Community.
The 15 units are to be deed restricted to the City's
adopted moderate income housing price.guidelines.
The Housing Authority reserves the right to review rents
sales, prices, and other restrictions to guaranteee com-
pliance with the City's housing guidelines.
The rezoning required4to permit the construction of this employee
housing project is still under review by P &Z and therefore no action
has been taken by the Commission with respect to this GMP exemption.
Chanae in Use
In addition to constructing the 50 unit employee housing project on
the Benedict /Larkin site, the applicants also propose to deed restrict
for employee housing purposes two existing structures - the 47 unit
Alpina Haus Lodge, and the 14 unit Copper Horse Lodge. Together these
two facilities will house the remainder of the net new employees
generated by the proposed resort hotel, or a total of 90 employees.
The Alpina Haus has historically operated as a non - conforming lodge in
the R -MF zone district and therefore will require a change in use
exemption from the GMP allocation procedures pursuant to Section 24-
11.2(j) for its conversion to long -term residential use. The Copper
Horse, however, is an individually historically designated structure,
and, as such, is exempt from the change in use provisions of the
Municipal Code. A rezoning of the Copper Horse from L -3 to O - Office,
however, will be required in order to accomplish the conversion of the
0 0
Aspen Mountain PUD
January 11, 1984
Page Nine
lodge units to deed - restricted employee housing as multi - family resi-
dential units are a prohibited use in the L -3 zone district. The
applicants are expected to file a request for this rezoning as part of
their preliminary PUD subdivision submission.
To be eligible for a change in use exemption, the units must be con-
tained in an existing structure which has a certificate of occupancy
for at least two years and the applicant must demonstrate that the
change in use will result in negligible growth impacts on the community.
Growth impacts are defined as any activity which results in more than
a negligible increase in employee housing or parking spaces; generates
more than a negligible increase in traffic, water and sewer needs,
fire and police protection requirements, off -site drainage and road
demands; or otherwise requires the provision of more than a negligible
increase in governmental services. The Planning Office has reviewed
the applicants' request for the conversion of the Alpina Haus and
believes it to be consistent with the requirements of the change in
use exemption.
The proposed change in use will offset the demand for employee housing
created as a result of the construction of the resort hotel by deed
restricting the existing lodge rooms at the Alpina Haus to employee
housing guidelines. Similarly, traffic may actually decrease slightly,
since there is generally less turnover within a long -term residential
project than in a short -term lodge. Fire, police, water, sewer and
governmental services needs will remain relatively the same resulting
in no additional impacts on the community. Existing parking, however,
is currently non - conforming and, therefore, should be retained. The
Planning and Zoning. Commission concured with the Planning Office's
recommendations and is prepared to grant a change in use exemption
from growth management to the Alpina Haus Lodge subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. The deed restriction of the 44 units, as proposed by the
applicants and recommended by the Housing Authority, to a
maximum rental price guideline of 250 of the employee's
average annual income, or $250.00 per month, whichever is
less.
2. The deed restriction of the 44 units to a maximum occupancy
of 47 employess with first priority given to employees of
the Aspen Mountain Lodge.
3. The retention
submission of
potential imp
of the Alpina
cluded in the
mission.
of all existing on -site parking spaces and the
various alternatives for the mitigation of
acts resulting from the non - conforming status
Haus' parking, said alternatives to be in-
applicants' preliminary PUD /subdivision sub-
RESOLUTION OF THE
COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (CCLC.)
IN SUPPORT OF THE "ASPEN MOUNTAIN
LODGE PROJECT" WITH CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS
AND CONDITIONS WIIICII CCLC WOULD
WISH TO SEE INCLUDED IN AN ORDINANCE
. OF FINAL APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL
Resolution No. 84 -
WHEREAS, the need for a first class conference facility
in Aspen has long been in evidence, and
WHEREAS, many existing lodging facilities in the project
area under consideration are in desperate need of upgrading
and beautification, and
WHEREAS,the project area is centrally located for visitor
convenience thereby alleviating many transportation related
problems, and
/WHEREAS, approV�al of one major project will have.the
effort of confining construction to one time period rather
than piecemeal phasing of numerous small projects over many
jr -years, and
WHEREAS, CCLC perceives a need and visitor desire for
lst class accommodations in a full service complex currently
unavailable in sufficient quantity in the community, and
(G' ✓ WHEREAS, the entire base mountain lodge district will
benefit from a project of this magnitude if the developers
commit to a.pro rata share of the public improvements and
upgrading proposed in CCLC's "lodge improvement district"
project, and
XWHEREAS, the lodge, project addresses much needed off
street parking and her_c -to -fore unavailable transportation
alternatives in the base mountain lodge district.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT.RESOLVED, by the Commercial Core
and Lodging Commission -to approve and recommend the approval
of the "Aspen Mountain Lodge Project" by the City of Aspen.
-2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any ordinance of final approval
be predicated on execution of a contractual committment on
the part of the project developers to assume a pro rate share
of the costs of public improvements of the proposed . "base
mountain lodge improvement district ", in keeping with the
adopted CCLC plan. The.intent of the contract should be to
obligate the developers to pay their share of the public improve -
ment� costs, either in cash or actual in -kind construction
as part of their project, regardless of the success or failure
of the over improvement district initative.
APPROVED, by the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission
at their regular meeting on January 4, 1984.
COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION
by:
Gary P uml- , Chairman
ATTEST:
Pamela Osburn, Deputy City Clerk ..
0 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: 1983 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition - Aspen Mountain Lodge
DATE: January 4, 1984
The Aspen Mountain Lodge, a component of the Aspen Mountain PUD,
successfully competed in the 1983 L -1 /L -2 lodge GMP competition and
is, therefore, eligible for the annual lodge GMP quota. In addition
to the 1983 quota, the applicants are requesting the award of those
lodge units which remain unallocated from prior years as well as
sufficient units from future years' quotas to allow the construction
of their proposed 480 unit resort hotel. Given the complexity of the
project, the applicants have agreed to waive, for a reasonable time
period, the December 31st deadline contained in the Muncipal Code for
the allocation of Iodgbcdevelopment allotments by City Council.
In addition to a development allotment, the proposed PUD requires
numerous supplemental reviews and approvals pursuant to the sub -
division and zoning regulations of the Municipal Code. Specific
additional review requirements of the lodge portion of the PUD in-
clude: PUD /subdivision review, two requests for rezonings, exemption
from Growth Management for the lodge's employee housing, a change in
use exemption, two street vacations, and, possibly, viewplane review
and an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission. The Planning
and Zoning Commission has considered these additional review require-
ments at meetings held on December 6, 13 and 20, 1983, and on January
3, 1984. The Commission's actions and recommendations to Council
with respect to the Aspen Mountain Lodge are contained in a resolu-
tion which is to be approved by the P &Z on January 10th.
Given the project's complexity, the need to proceed with the 1983
,L -1 /L -2 Icodge GMP allocation and the,ap.plicants' desire to move
forward in an expeditious and timely manner, the Planning Office
would like to suggest the following review schedule for Council's
consideration. The length of most regularly scheduled Council meet-
ings makes it difficult to allow sufficient time for the considera-
tion of a project of this size; therefore, the applicants have re-
quested and the Planning Office recommends that Council hold a work
session the week of January 9th to initiate discussion of this item.
The applicants' and the Planning Office's preference would be to hold
a work session on either Wednesday the 11th or Thursday, the 12th of
January. An- -additional work session would most likely be required
during the week of January 16th. Council's formal action with re-
spect to the award of a development allotment could be scheduled for
your regular January 23rd meeting.
Your cooperation in the scheduling of these work sessions would be
most appreciated by the Planning Office and the applicants. We are
prepared to discuss this schedule at your January 9th meeting;
however, should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me at the Planning Office.
0 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: January 3, 1984
Attached for your consideration is a draft of a resolution summarizing
the actions taken to date by the Commission with respect to the Aspen
Mountain Lodge. While the resolution, I believe, adequately addresses
the various conditions requested by P &Z, there are several problems
associated with your recommendation regarding the allocation of the
quota that I would like to discuss at your Tuesday, January 3,
meeting. I have also attached for your review a copy of a memorandum
from Alan Richman updating the status of the available quota. The
Planning Office erred in its original computation of the available
quota for 1983. This error may or may not have implications with
respect to your decision to award a multi -year allocation. The
Planning Office is prepared to discuss this error and our concerns
regarding your quota recommendation on Tuesday.
As you may recall, the applicants' request for a rezoning to R -6
(RBO) of their U.te Avenue property to allow the construction of
approximately 50 employee housing units was tabled on November 29,
1983,until your January 3, 1984 meeting to allow the applicants
additional time to address the various concerns raised by the Planning
Office and the neighborhood. The applicants are again requesting a
tabling of this issue until your February 7 regular meeting. They
are also requesting a work session with P &Z on Tuesday, January 10th
to discuss various alternative solutions to meeting their employee
housing requirement. These dates will also be discussed at your
Tuesday, January 3.meeting.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A MULTI -YEAR LODGE GMP ALLOCATION
TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE, RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE LODGE PORTION OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AND
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED REZONING TO COMMERCIAL
LODGE OF THE CHASE DUPLEX, TOWNPLACE APARTMENTS, HILLSIDE
LODGE, MOUNTAIN CHALET AND BLUE SPRUCE NORTH SITES
Resolution No. 83-
(Series of 1983)
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 11.6(a) of the Municipal
Code, October lst of each year is established as a deadline for the
submission of applications for lodge development allotments within
the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, applications were sub-
mitted for the Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen Mountain Lodge requesting
development allotments of-.46 lodge units and 2.03 lodge units, re-
spectively; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on November
22, 1983 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider
these lodge Growth Management applications and to evaluate, score and
rank them in conformance with the criteria established in Ordinance
#35 (Series of 1983) which amended Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did evaluate, score and rank the appli-
cations submitted as follows:
; and
1. Aspen Mountain Lodge - 60.71 points
2. Lodge at Aspen - 49.50 points
WHEREAS, as a result of the Commission's scoring, the Lodge at
Aspen failed to meet the minimum required threshold of 51 points; and
WHEREAS, the available quota for the 1983 lodge Growth Management
competition is 67 units, consisting of the annual 35 unit lodge quota
for the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts plus an additional 32
lodge units which remain unallocated from prior years; and
WHEREAS, certain additional reviews and approvals are required
by the Aspen Mountain Lodge pursuant to the subdivision and zoning
regulations of the Municipal Code; and
N
•
•
WHEREAS, these additional review requirements were considered by
the Commission at a duly noticed public hearing conducted on November
29, 1983, and at subsequent Planning and Zoning Commission meetings
held on December 6th, 13th and 20th, 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
That it,does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council award
the 1983 L -1, L -2, CC and CL lodge quota of 35 units; the 32 lodge
units carried over from prior years; and sufficient additional quota,
as provided for in Section 24- 11.3(b) of the Code, from future years
to allow the construction of an approximately 450 to 464 unit hotel.
The Commissions reasoning with respect to this recommendation re-
flects a desire to balance its concerns regarding the size and mass
of the proposed hotel, the growth implications of a multi -year allo-
cation, and the need to ensure the economic viability of the project,
thus enhancing the likelihood of its being constructed.
Section 2
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual PUD /subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 20 -10 and
24 -8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the lodge portion of the Aspen
Mountain PUD, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants continuing to investigate architectural
revisions to the Durant Avenue, lower Mill Street and
conference entrance facades of the proposed resort hotel so
as to reduce their mass, prevent the shading of Durant
Avenue , arid✓ .DednrStreet;.candiittotma?inta ni andnenhahcece
public views of Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic
areas.
2. The applicants' resolution of the Fire Department's con-
cerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal
areas of the lodge site for fire protection purposes.
3. A determination by the applicants as to whether or not the
proposed hotel intrudes into the Wheeler Opera House view -
plane and the submission, if required, of an appropriate
request for review pursuant to the viewplane provisions of
the Municipal Code.
4. Written clarification as to which substantive representa-
tions of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis
the applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen
Mountain PUD.
5. Written clarification as to the nature and extent of the
improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support
of their request for the vacation of various public rights -
of -way and the granting of encroachment licenses necessitated
by the Aspen Mountain PUD.
- 2 -
6. The vacation of Dean Street between Monarch and Mill Streets
being conditioned upon the retention of all utility rights
and public use of the street, and the submission by the
applicants of an acceptable maintenance and use agreement
between themselves and the Mountain Chalet.
7. Each utility franchisediinzthe City signing off on all
proposed street vacations so ds to ensure that the loss of
these rights -of -way will not interfere with each utility's
current or future needs.
8. The applicants' submission of a detailed subdivision plat
indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain PUD
site.
9. The applicants' submission of an acceptable survey of the
Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions.
10. The applicants' resolution of the various issues raised by
the Environmental Health Department in their memorandum of
October 22, 1983, with respect to various specific details
of the proposed hotel operation.
11. The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited to
those units verified pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the
Municipal Code.
12.` Written clarification as to the applicants' intentions with
respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis -a -vis how
the hotel will be managed.
13. The applicants' continuing to investigate solutions to the
problem of pedestrian access between the proposed hotel,
Rubey Park and the commercial core area.
14. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/
subdivision submission.
Section 3
That is does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council deny
the Aspen Mountain PUD applicants' request for a rezoning from L -1 to
CL for that portion of the PUD site currently occupied by the Chase
Duplex, Townplace Apartments, Hillside Lodge, Mountain Chalet, and
Blue Spruce North for the following reasons:
1. The uses proposed by the applicants for the area to be
rezoned are inconsistent with the intent of the CL zone
district.
2. The uses proposed by the applicant are currently allowed by
right or by special review under the existing L -1 zoning
classification.
3. The primary reason for the applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantage of the more favorable F.A.R. ratio
available in the CL zone district.
4. Since the F.A.R. provisions of the existing L -1 zone dis-
trict may be varied pursuant to the PUD regulations, a
rezoning merely to increase the allowable F.A.R is inappro-
priate.
5. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the surrounding
zone district classifications.
-: 3 -
0 0
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on January 3, 1984.
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
- 4 -
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
0
Perry Harvey, Chairman
:�C'�' f .. * •
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
December -30 1983
Mr. Sunny Vann, Director
Aspen Planning Department
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611 .
Dear Sunny: -
On behalf of the Aspen Mountain PUD could you please give me your
interpretation of the following questions as they relate to the
Aspen Municipal Code.
1. Section 20 -22 Condominiumization. Attached is an affidavit from
Dick Wilhelm presenting the historical use of the residential
properties included in the Aspen Mountain PUD. Could you and
the Housing Authority review this information and give me an
interpretation if this sufficiently demonstrates that development
of the residential portion of the PUD will not reduce the supply
of low and moderate income housing and therefore will not have
any employee housing requirements upon condominization.
2. Section 20 -23 Condominiumization of Lodges. Per the letter
from Dick, he has given the historical use of the lodge
properties included in the Aspen Mountain PUD. Could you and
the Housing Authority review the information and give me an
interpretation of the applicability of Section 20 -23(2) and
specifically your position concerning employee housing relative
to condominiumization of the lodge properties. Could you please
address the definition of employee housing under Section 20- 23(2),
i.e., housing that has been historically deed - restricted for
employees, housing that has been used for employees on a year-
round basis, etc.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter and feel free to call
on me for any clarification.
Sincere ,
qm Curtis
North of Nell Building
P.O. Box 3159,Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone: 303) 9254530
CONTINENTAL -INN
and Conference_ Center at Aspen
Richard R. Wilhelm
GENERAL MANAGER
December 22, 1983
Ms. Gail Schwartz
Assistant Housina Director
PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
0100 Lone Pine Rd.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Gail:
Pursuant to our conversation recently of supplying to
you information-relevant to any free - market /employee housing that
has taken place on the Aspen Lodge site over the duration of my
involvement, I have been involved with the operations within the
"hotel" site for a five -year period, but it is my understanding
that you only need an aiffidavit only for the past three years.
Therefore, I offer you the following statement, describing,
to the best of my knowledge and ability, the use of buildings
within the hotel site over the past three -year period.
1. Continental Inn (Block 91 - Lots M -R): The Continental
Inn has never been used for employee housing during the high season
of winter or the high season of summer. It has always been used
as short -term rental property. Some employees in small amounts
have stayed at our property for periods during the height of the
off - season.
2. The Chase Duplex (Block 91 - Lots D & E): This has never
been used for employee housing but has been used as a residence for
Mr. & Mrs. Cantrup, and as offices.
3. Townplace Apartments (Block 91 - Lot C): There are four
apartments in this building together with some commercial frontage
on Durant. This property has been used occasionally for manaqement
level employees but is generally used for short -term nightly rental
or high -rate monthly rental ($1000 per month for a two- bedroom
apartment and $750 + /- per month for a studio). This building
has been rented through the Continental Inn front desk at nightly
Letter to Gail Schwartz
12/22/83
racks rates during certain high season periods, and monthly at other
periods. We have had extension phones, cable TV, etc., provided to
the Townplace from the Continental Inn.
4. Hillside (The Aspen Ski Co. ownership, Block 91 - Lots A
& B): This buildinq has been used by the Aspen Ski Company and has
not been under the control of the Cantrup Estate.
5. Mountain Chalet (Block 84 - Lots A, B, C & D): This
property has been used for occasional monthly rentals and weekly
rentals during the off - season, but during the season (including this
year) we are renting it on a nightly basis at a $40 -60 /night rate
(depending upon the time of the winter season). This property is
booked through the Continental Inn, and daily audit sheets are avail-
able.
7. Aspen Inn: The main building
ments have been used for nightly rent
year period. Once again, we have had
term employee housing, but nothing of
the high season of summer and winter,
high rates, or high weekly or monthly
and the six two - bedroom apart -
31 only, during the last two -
occasional off - season short -
any duration; especially during
it has been nightly rental at
rates.
8. blest & East Chalet: These two chalets have been used as short -
term nightly rental during the season at a _$300- 400 /night rate, with an
occasional drop to $150 /night rental. The East Chalet this winter is
being rented at $1250 /month, but the West Chalet will continue on a
nightly rental only in the $300- 400 /night range.
9. The Paas House (Block 91 - Lots K1, K2 & L): This is a duplex,
of which part is used for offices recently, but which previously was
an apartment, and of which the other half is an apartment which I have
been renting the last years at $1000 /month.
10. Melville #2 (Lot 8): This property is controlled by Ralph
Melville and I cannot state the use.
During our meeting, you mentioned that you were surprised
that we did not keep an on -site maintenance manager or similar person
within the confines of our property. I would like to clear that up
by stating that we have some off - premise housing which has been used
for employees periodically & on a temporary basis as needed, and that
many of our employees (particularly on a management /supervisory level)
live down - valley or in other parts of Aspen in housing which is not
part of the Cantrup Estate.
Page 2 of 4
Letter to Gail Schwartz
12/22/83
Again, we may house employees for brief periods at our properties (a
few days or no more than two weeks while they are trying to establish
permanent housing within the community).
Please realize that it was to our benefit in 44& L2-and Ll
zone to do what those zones provided for, which was to operate lodging
(and benefit from the nightly rentals) rather than employee housing
(loss of revenues). Once in a while, we may have subsidized an employee
beina housed in other property outside the hotel site, but infrequently.
Gail, that covers in context all the buildings which have been
rented on the "hotel site." Please advise me if you have any further
questions about the property. I would be pleased to meet with you
anytime to review this schedule. Thank you for your cooperation.
truly yours,
1
Richard R. Wilhe m
General Manager
Hotel & Property Operations
THE CANTRUP ESTATE
RRW:Id
cc: Spencer F. Schiffer
John Doremus
Joe Wells
Robert Calloway
Alan Novak
Jim Curtis
Ella Pyle
John Roberts
page 3 of 4
I
Letter to Gail Schwartz
P.S. Gail, please also note that although the building
department has not recognized units 191 - 196 at
the Continental Inn, these units have never been
rented out on a nightly basis in the free market
area. We have submitted to the planning office
notorized letters from management level.employees
of the Continental Inn from 1069 -1982 (amongst
them an attorney, a developer, a certified public
accountant, and a licensed real estate broker),
stating that those units were always used as
nightly free - market rentals and have never been
used for employees.
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me
this -2-2— day of December, 1983, by Richard R. Wilhelm.
My commission expires:
Wi ss my h nd and
official seal.
ary Public:
Address: p S
page 4 of 4
12/22/83
J
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Available Lodge Quota
DATE: December 29,1983
Introduction
At your direction, I have performed a detailed review of the status
of the Lodge Development Quota since its inception. I have found
a basic ' in the calculation methodology which changes the number
of unis currently available. In sum, the status is as follows:
Quota Allowed 1977 -1981. 18 units per year = 90 units
1982 -1983 35 units per year 70 units
Total 160 units
Allocations 1978.- Aspen Inn 36 units
Awarded 1981 Lodge at Aspen 31 units
1982 - Carriage House 26 units
Total 93 units
Quota currently available 160 -93. = 67 units ,(32 previous plus
35 current)
Following is a detailed review of the above °summary
Analysis
On May 8, 1978, City Council adopted Resolution No. 8, Series of
1978, awarding development allotments to Lodge.competitors. Council
awarded the following allotments:
Aspen Inn - 36 Lodge units, 24 employee units
Mountain Chalet - 8 Lodge units, 8 employee units.
The above total of 44 lodge units and 32 employee units was
authorized to be deducted from the Lodge quota for the next several
years. In fact, the quota was used for 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980
and 4 units of 1981
The next pertinent action with respect to the lodge quota was the
expiration -in 1980 of the 16 units allocated to; the Mountain Chalet.
As a result of this action, the quota available: in 1980 was 12 units.
It is important to note that Ron Stock, the City Attorney at that
time, erroneously wrote you a memo identifying the quota as 30
units in 1980. This error is the source of the continuing mistake
in the calculation of the lodge quota, which has persisted to this
time. No applications for lodge allotments were made in either
1979 or 1980.
Two lodge applications were received by the Planning Office in
1981, these being The Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen.Inn. During the
course of reviewing these applications, City Council decided that
the deduction of 24 employee units at the Aspen Inn by the
former Council was a mistake. These 24 units were added back to
the lodge quota. The 24 units,. plus the 18 available in that year,
plus the 12 from the prior year, meant that the total available
was 54 units. A 31 unit quota was allocated.to. The Lodge At Aspen
during that year, leaving 23 units unallocated.
ordinance 26, Series of 1982, changed the lodge quota to'35 units
per .year. Therefore, the total number of lodge units available
in 1982 was 58.. The only applicant last year, The Carriage House,
successfully applied for a 26 unit. allocation. Therefore, 32 lodge
units remain from prior years. When we add these units to the 35
available in 1983, there are 67 units available for allocation.
Conclusion
This memorandum corrects a mathematical error first made by Ron
Stock in his memo to you dated April 1.0, 1980, which has been
compounded in my memos to the file dated July 21, 1981, September 15,
. 1982 andlAugust 9, 1983. The mistake lies in the fact that we have
been calling the competition by the year subsequent to the one in
which it is actually held. From now.on, it should be obvious that
the. 1983 competition takes place in 1983, the 1984 in 1984 and so on.
This error has no effect on the residential or commercial quotas,
since these have not been carried over as were the lodge quotas.
The error also has not adversely affected any applicant, since an
adequate number of units has been available to cover the awards
we have made, and no applicant has-been turned down for lack of
allotments. Hopefully, this analysis should clear the record for any
action to.be taken with respect to the 1983 allocation to The Lodge
at Aspen.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen.Mountain Lodge - Additional Review Requirements
DATE: December 20, 1983
The purpose of this memorandum is to sumarize the status of the
various additional approvals required by the Aspen Mountain Lodge.
To refresh your memory, the specific additional review requirements
of the lodge portion of this PUD include: PUD/subdivision review,
two requests for rezonings, exemption from Growth Management for the
lodge's employee housing, a:change in use exemption, two street
vacations, and, possibly, view plane review and an amendment to the
1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission. Your actions to date, and the Planning
Office's recommendations with respect.to those reviews still out-
standing, are outlined below.
Conceptual PUD /Subdivision
While the P &Z has made no motion to date with respect to the appli-
cants' request for conceptual PUD /subdivision approval, the various
issues identified by the Planning Office in its November 29th memo-
randum were discussed at your.November 29th meeting and at subsequent
meetings held on December 6th and December 13th. The Planning
Office has reviewed the Commission's comments with respect to these
issues and recommends the following.motion and preliminary conditions
for your consideration. Should you concur with the Planning Office's
recommendations, the appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to approve the conceptual PUD /subdivision submission for
the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD subject to the
following conditions:
The applicants continuing to investigate architectural
revisions to the Durant Avenue, lower Mill Street and
conference entrance facades of the proposed resort hotel so
as to reduce their mass and to maintain and enhance public
views.of Aspen.Mountain and surrounding scenic areas.
`2. The resolution of the Fire Department's.concerns with
respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of
the lodge for fire protection purposes.
;-1'3. A determination as to whether or not the proposed resort
hotel intrudes into the Wheeler.Opera House view plane
and the submission, if required, of an appropriate request
pursuant to the view plane provisions of the Municipal
Code.
4. Written clarification as to which substantive representa-
tions of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis.
the applicants intend to implement as part of this PUD.
5 . TY'e reimburs� mentl�f the amity b the applicants for, all
vacat�ed;rigYits -of -way and �ncro chmens, s-u�cre�mbu sernent
pr,,eferabl`y _/to\\bejin`,t'e' form of off - improvements.
✓/6. The submission of a detailed subdivision plat indicating
the specific .parcelling of the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
;a
7. The submission of an acceptable survey of the Aspen Moun-
tain PUD site clarifying property descriptions.
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge - Additional
Review Requirements
December 20, 1983
Page Two
8. The resolution of the various issues raised by the Environ-
mental Health Department with respect to specific details
of the proposed hotel operation.
9. The applicants' reconstruction of existing.lodge units being
bp limited to the verified total of'269 units, being accom-
plished within five years, and being limited to the Aspen
PY PUD site. In the event the applicants are able to sub -
`., stantiate the existence of additional lodge units on -site,
S U' the P &Z will revise.this condition as appropriate.
�N 10. The vacation of Dean Street between Monarch and Mill Streets
being conditioned upon maintenance of all utility rights
and public use of the Street.
11. Each utility franchised in the City signing off on all
proposed street vacations so as to ensure that the loss of
these rights -of -way will not interfere with each utility's
q rrent or future needs.
�1. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/
�3 subdivision. submission."
We would like to point out that the above conditions are preliminary
in nature and reflect.the Planning Office's.understanding of the
P &Z's review comments to date. Additional concerns raised by the
Commission for which we cannot distinguish a clear concensus include
the pedestrian bridge over Mill Street, pedestrian access to Rubey
Park, and the appropriate form of reimbursement for vacated rights -
of -way. These concerns will require additional discussion at your
December 20th meeting.
Rezonings
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously denied the applicants'
request for P &Z sponsorship of a.rezoning from L -1 to CL for the
Chase Duplex, Townplace Apartments, Hillside Lodge, Mountain Chalet
and Blue Spruce North sites at its November 29th meeting. The Com-
mission also moved to recommend to Council denial of the proposed
rezoning in the event Council should wish to sponsor the applicants'
request.
The Commission tabled the applicants' request for a rezoning to R -6
(RBO) for an approximately 7.5 acre site on.Ute Avenue to their
regularly scheduled January 3,`1984 meeting. The tabling was granted
at the applicants' request in order to allow the applicants additional
time to address various concerns raised by the Planning Office.
Growth Management Exemptions
Planning and Zoning Commission action with respect'to two requests for
exemption from the GMP allotment- procedures are required for the
hotel portion of the Aspen 'Mountain PUD. Consideration of the appli-
cants' request for exemption from Growth Management for the construc-
tion of an approximately 50 unit employee housing project. on Ute
Avenue has been deferred to your January 3, 1984 meeting.. This exemp-
tion is directly related to the applicants' request for a rezoning of
the approximately 7.5 acre Ute Avenue site to R -6 (RBO) which has
also been tabled to your first meeting in January.
The remaining exemption involves the conversion of the Alpina Haus
Lodge to deed restricted employee housing. The Planning Office, in
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge - Additional
Review Requirements
December 20, 1983
Page Three
its November 29th memorandum, indicated that the Copper Horse Lodge,
as opposed to the Alpina Haus, would require a change in use exemp-
tion. Further review, however, indicates that the Copper Horse is an
individually historically designated structure and,'as such, is
exempt from the change in use..provisions . of the Municipal Code. A
rezoning of the Copper Horse -from L -3 to 0 Office, however, will be
required in order.to accomplish the conversion of the lodge units to
deed restricted employee housing as multi - family residential units are
a prohibited use in the L -3 zone district.
..Similarly,, further investigation of the.Alpina Haus indicates that
the project has historically operated as a non - conforming lodge in
the R -MF zone district. As a result, the project is subject to the
change in use provisions of the Municipal Code. The Planning and
Zoning Commission considered the applicable review requirements. at
its December 13th meeting and indicated its willingness to grant a
,change in use exemption subject to the following conditions:
�? The use of the Alpina Haus being restricted to employee
housing for the proposed resort hotel.
2. The units being deed restricted as outlined in the appli-
cants'. 'proposal; and
rL(',;i.k 3. The submission of various alternatives for the mitigation
of potential impacts resulting from Tthe non con ormi.ng
status o`er -t-he Alpin' a�Iaus' _parking. p -w'
The Planning Office concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
review.of this request and recommends that the Commission grant such
approval by formal motion at its December 20th meeting.
Multi -year Allocation
In.addition to the above review requirements, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered, at.its December 13th meeting, the appropriate -
1 ness of recommending to City Council the award of a multi -year allo
'\ /1 cation to the lodge portion of .the,Aspen Mountain PUD. After consider-
able deliberation, the Commission moved to limit the size of the
11 proposed resort hotel to 464 lodge units and to recommend to Council
o the award of sufficient future quota to allow the proposed hotel's
iconstruction.. The exact amount of future years' quota which will
.have to.be, awarded to accomplish the Planning Commission's objective
r. will be determined by the Planning Office and contained in your final
resolution.
t
Conclusion
I believe that all of the outstanding issues associated with the
additional review requirements of the lodge portion of the Aspen
Mountain PUD have now been addressed by the Commission or tabled to a
future date. The specific wording of the various conditions which.
the Planning Office has recommended, however, needs to be addressed
by the Commission as well as the additional language associated with
your recommendations for inclusion in your resolution. Assuming.we
complete this discussion at your December 20th meeting, the Planning
Office will prepare a draft resolution for your consideration at your
regular scheduled January 3, 1984 meeting.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1984 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: I December 12, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
The applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge are requesting PUD /Subdivision
approval for the development of their approximately 11.7 acre site
located south of Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets at
the base of Aspen Mountain. The proposed resort hotel, to be constructed
at the north end of the site, involves the reconstruction of approximately
269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the
Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicants are requesting a
GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel
project to 480 tourist units.
The applicants also propose to construct on -site in conjunction with
the.resort. hotel an approximately 22,500 sq. ft. conference facility,
a 4,500 health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various
recreational amenities including two swimming pools and an ice skating
rink. In addition to the hotel, an approximately 33 unit residential
project is planned for the southern portion of the site and.a smaller,
12 unit project for the adjacent 700 South Galena parcel.
The applicants' objective is to provide Aspen with a high quality;.
full service resort hotel with an array of year -round tourist faci-
lities and services and extensive on -site amenities and public spaces.
The ability to provide these support facilities is directly related
to the size of the hotel project. While the Planning Office supports
the reconstruction and upgrading of existing facilities as well as
the provision of much needed tourist_ conference facilities and amenities,
a project of this size will invariably impact the City in a.variety
i� of ways and trade -offs between.competing community objectives will
obviously be required.
V N�he he lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD successfully competed in
1.984 lodge GMP competition which was conducted by the Planning
my-and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983. As I pointed out in
memorandum which forwarded the results of that competition to City
Council, the project is quite complex and is currently undergoing,--- G
substantial additional review by P &Z. The Commission is e pec toS�
complete its review on or about December 6, and to ado solution
summarizing their recommendations on or about Decembe 13 "t Since
he Council must allocate the 1984 lodge quota prior o nuary lst, b�
�e have scheduled an initial presentation of the project -by the
applicants for your December 12th meeting. The P &Z's and Planning
d� Office's recommendations with respect to the lodge portion of this
•VD 'will be presented at a Council work session to be held on December.
19t Formal action with respect to the various review requirements
of his project could take place at your December 27th regular meeting.
While the Municipal Code allows the Planning Office to waive con-
ceptual PUD /subdivision review for those projects which have received
a development allotment, the complexity.of the proposed resort hotel
and the applicants' request for a multi -year lodge allocation necessi-
tate, in.our opinion, conceptual PUD /subdivision review by both the
MEMO: Aspen Mountain PUD
December 12, 1983
Page Two
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. A residential GMP -
application was submitted on December 1st for the 700 South Galena
projects" as well as a request for a GMP reconstruction exemption to
allow the development of the approximately 33 unit residential project
at the top of Mill Street. Conceptual PUD /subdivision review of
these two portions of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD will occur
concurrently with the applicants' residential GMP application and
request for GMP exemption. A commercial GMP application will also be
required for the non - accessory restaurant space to be constructed in
conjunction with the hotel.
In summary, the Planning Office is prepared to present a brief overview
of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD and the complex review process
-which this project entails at your December 12th meeting. The
majority of the time allocated for this item, however, will be devoted
to the applicants' presentation. The details of the various review
.processes will be.considered at a subsequent session(s). Should you
have any questions prior to Monday's meeting, please give me a call.
•
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1984 Lodge GMP Competition
DATE: December 12, 1983 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
The applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge are requesting PUD /Subdivision
approval for the development of their approximately 11.7 acre site
located south of Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets at
the base of Aspen. Mountain. The proposed resort hotel, to be constructed
at the north end of the site, involves the reconstruction.of approximately
269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the
Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicants are requesting a
GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel
project to 480 tourist units.
The applicants also propose to construct on -site in conjunction with
the resort hotel an approximately 22,500 sq..ft. conference facility,
a 4,500 health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various
recreational amenities including two swimming pools-and an ice skating
rink. In addition to the hotel, an approximately 33 unit residential
project is planned for the southern portion of the site and a smaller,
12 unit project for the adjacent 700 South Galena parcel.
The applicants' objective is to provide Aspen with a high quality,
full service resort hotel with an array of year -round tourist faci-
lities and services and extensive on -site amenities and public spaces.
The ability to provide these support facilities is directly related
to the size of the hotel project. While the Planning Office supports
the reconstruction and upgrading of existing facilities as well as
the provision of much needed tourist conference facilities and amenities,
a project of this size will invariably impact the City in a variety
of ways and trade -offs between competing community objectives will
obviously be required.
The lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD successfully competed in
the 1984 lodge GMP competition which was conducted by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.on November 22, 1983. As I pointed out in my
memorandum which forwarded the results of that competition to City
Council, the project is quite complex and is currently undergoing
substantial additional review by P &Z. The Commission is expected to
complete its review on or about December 6, and to adopt a resolution
summarizing their recommendations on or about December 13th. Since
the Council must allocate the 1984 lodge quota prior to January lst,
we have scheduled an initial presentation of the project by the
applicants for your December 12th meeting. The P &Z's and Planning
Office's recommendations with respect to the lodge portion of this
PUD will be presented at a Council work session to be held on December
19th. Formal action with respect to the various review requirements
of this project could take place at your December 27th regular meeting.
While the Municipal Code allows the Planning Office to waive con -
ceptual PUD /subdivision review for.those projects which have received
a development allotment, the complexity of the proposed resort hotel
and the applicants' request for a multi -year lodge allocation necessi-
tate, in our opinion, conceptual PUD /subdivision review by both the
r�
MEMO: Aspen Mountain PUD
December 12, 1983
Page Two
•
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. A residential GMP
application was submitted on December lst for the 700 South Galena
project, as well as a request for a GMP reconstruction exemption to
allow the development of the approximately 33 unit residential project
at the top of Mill Street. Conceptual PUD /subdivision review of
these two portions of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD will occur
concurrently with the applicants' residential.GMP application and
request for GMP exemption. A commercial GMP application will also be
required for the non - accessory restaurant space to be constructed in
conjunction with the hotel.
In summary,. the Planning Office is prepared to present a brief overview
of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD and the complex review process
which this project entails at your December 12th meeting. The
majority of the time allocated for this item, however, will be devoted
to the applicants' presentation. The details.of the various review
processes.will be considered at a subsequent session(s). Should you
have any questions prior to Monday's meeting, please give me a.call.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: - Lodging Inventory Analysis
DATE: December 8, 1983
•
I have reviewed and updated the data included in our Short -Term
Accommodations Report (April, 1982) so as to respond to various
questions posed by the Planning Commission in recent weeks. Follow-
ing is a summary of my approach and findings.
I reviewed the entire .list of short term accommodations in the Aspen
Metro Area from the prior survey and identified approximately 54
facilities which could be considered to be traditional lodging faci-
lities. The remaining accommodations include condominium complexes
and single-family or duplex houses.
I found that the 54 lodges contain approximately 1727 units, including.
1380 lodge rooms (no kitchen), 259 lodge apartments (1 or more rooms.
with kitchen) and 88 dorm units. The condominium complexes and
houses contain 1041 units, for a total short.term accommodations in-
ventory in the Aspen Metro Area of 2768 units. The total pillow
count in these units is approximately 10,750.
I focused'on the 1727 units in lodges as being most pertinent to
any questions with,respect to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. First, I
categorized these units as to whether they were rented at economy,
moerate or expensive rates. I based this analysis on information pro-
vided by ARA, supplemented by calls to individual lodges, when necessary.
I was able to obtain information from lodges accounting for 1684 total
units. Following is the breakdown among these facilities.
Economy = 291 units = 170
Moderate = 773 units = 460
Expensive = 620 units = 37%
The facilities within the Aspen Mountain Lodge project represent a
considerable proportion of the inventory. The Continental Inn includes
172 ,units, or almost 28% of all expensive units in the Aspen Metro
Area. The Aspen Inn includes 65 units, or about 8.5% of all the
moderately priced units in the inventory. The Alpina Haus, Blue
Spruce and Copper Horse collectively include 86 units, or almost 30%
of all economy units in the inventory.
The total lodge inventory includes only 88 dorm units. Of these,
14 are found in the Copper Horse and 7 in the Continental Inn for
a total of 21 dorm units within the project, almost 25% of the entire
inventory. Other lodges with dorm units areas follows:
Snowflake Lodge
2
dorms
Mountain Chalet
3
dorms
Holland House
8
dorms
Highlands Inn
9
dorms
Endeavor Lodge
8
dorms
St. Moritz
12
dorms
Little Red Ski Haus
5
dorms
Boomerang Lodge.
1
dorm
Snow Queen Lodge
4
dorms
Heatherbed Lodge
15
dorms
All of the dorm units are located in lodges rated as economy or moderate.
Another important question we can answer from our inventory is what
percentage of our lodge units have been or are about to be recon-
structed. I find that within the past 5 years, the following lodges
have been totally reconstructed:
Woodstone
Inn
92
units
Red Roof Inn
BE REBUILT
50
units
Applejack
Inn
35
units
Aspen Ski
Lodge
33
units
Ullr Lodge
120
24
units
Prospector
Lodge
23
units
Hotel Lenado
6
17
units
Coachlight
Chalet
11
units
TOTAL 285 units
The 285 units which have already been upgraded represent 16.5% (1/6)
of the traditional lodge inventory or just over 10% of the total
short term accommodations inventory.
Projects currently under review would considerably augment the number
of units we have upgraded. These projects are as follows:
Should these projects be constructed, the 475 units which would be
upgraded would constitute an additional 27.5% of the traditional
lodge inventory. The total number.of units which the community
would have upgraded in about a decade would be 760 units or 44%
of the lodge inventory. The 760 units also represent slightly
more than 1/4 of the total Metro Area short term accommodations
inventory.
We should also take into account the degree to which projects now
being considered would increase the inventory. The 430 new units
plus the 31 units allocated to the Lodge at Aspen in 1982 would
increase the inventory of lodge rooms by 33% (1/3) and the entire
accommodations inventory by 16.50 (1/6). At that point, 1190 of
our lodge rooms would be new or recently rebuilt.. fully 65% of the
1810 total lodge units and 37% of the total accommodations inventory.
Obviously, this analysis does not take into account any attrition of
facilities which may take place during this time, nor any other addi-
tions which may take place among lodges, condominiums and houses.
As a last point, it is worth noting that with the exception of the
Continental Inn and Holiday Inn', all of.the units within projects
we are now considering fall.in the economy .or moderate price
ranges. I would expect that following the.reconstruction of these
facilities, the total profile of Aspen's Lodging might shift more
toward the expensive end of the price spectrum. However, once again,
it is very difficult to estimate whether any existing units will drop
into the lower price categories as a result of the growth in the
lodge inventory.
UNITS TO
NEW
PROJECT
BE REBUILT
UNITS
TOTAL
Aspen Mountain Lodge
269
2.11
480
Highlands Inn
37
132
169
Holiday Inn
120
-0-
120
Hotel Jerome
39
67
106
Carriage House
6
20
26
Endeavor Lodge
4
-0-
4
TOTAL
475
430
905
Should these projects be constructed, the 475 units which would be
upgraded would constitute an additional 27.5% of the traditional
lodge inventory. The total number.of units which the community
would have upgraded in about a decade would be 760 units or 44%
of the lodge inventory. The 760 units also represent slightly
more than 1/4 of the total Metro Area short term accommodations
inventory.
We should also take into account the degree to which projects now
being considered would increase the inventory. The 430 new units
plus the 31 units allocated to the Lodge at Aspen in 1982 would
increase the inventory of lodge rooms by 33% (1/3) and the entire
accommodations inventory by 16.50 (1/6). At that point, 1190 of
our lodge rooms would be new or recently rebuilt.. fully 65% of the
1810 total lodge units and 37% of the total accommodations inventory.
Obviously, this analysis does not take into account any attrition of
facilities which may take place during this time, nor any other addi-
tions which may take place among lodges, condominiums and houses.
As a last point, it is worth noting that with the exception of the
Continental Inn and Holiday Inn', all of.the units within projects
we are now considering fall.in the economy .or moderate price
ranges. I would expect that following the.reconstruction of these
facilities, the total profile of Aspen's Lodging might shift more
toward the expensive end of the price spectrum. However, once again,
it is very difficult to estimate whether any existing units will drop
into the lower price categories as a result of the growth in the
lodge inventory.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge
DATE: December 6, 1983
We request that you please bring your November 29, 1983 memorandum to
tonight's meeting. At this point in time, no additional information
has been provided to the Planning Office requiring the preparation of
a new memorandum. However, should additional information become
available, 'we will prepare a revised memorandum and will call you so
that you can pick it up in time for the meeting.
December 5, 1983
Mr. Sunny Vann, Planning Director
City /County Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge -
R -6 (RBO) Rezoning Request
Dear Sunny:
�H'VNING I T" c
One aspect of our Lodge GMP Submission for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge project involves a request that the City rezone from R -15 to
R -6 (RBO) a portion of the 7.6 acre "Benedict /Larkin Parcel" on Ute
Avenue in order to accommodate roughly 50 units of employee housing
on the site. As you know, in recent .weeks several neighboring
landowners have expressed concern regarding our proposed develop-
ment plan for the property. We obviously wish to provide this
housing in a manner which is most advantageous to the Aspen commu-
nity, and we'd like to take the time to explore further all of the,
options that may be available to us. For. these reasons, we
respectfully request that this particular rezoning application be
tabled for the present time by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
We don't wish to imply any present intention to modify our GMP
Submission.
Our commitment to fulfill our employee housing
requirements, as set
and it might be that
options we will ask
again on the agenda.
to in that we are pro
bring the matter bef
forth in the Submission, remains unchanged,
following consideration of all possible
that the subject rezoning request be placed
It simply makes more sense for us to be cer-
posing the most desirable solution before we
ore the community for approval.
Sincerely yours,
Wells for Doremus and Company
0 0
7�TL�ZiI�yH7a.
SUITE 2900
S55 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 575 -8000
TELECO PIER (303) 575 -8261
MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 252 -2166
TELECOPIER (406) 252 -1669
ARTHUR C. DAILY
(303) 925 - 3476
Mr. Alan Richman
City /County Planning
130 South Galena
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3476
0
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
SUITE 1200
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (202) 466 -7340
TELECOPIER (202) 466 -7354
TEL
DEC 0 51983
WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 500
HREY AVENUE
WYOMING 82001
(307) 632 -2160
(307) 776 -8175
LAVER OFFICE
December 2, 19834Sp ,)j / p ,�' .B' 11 G 5 -SUITE 4002
P LAN /—(�`/�_XMLEWOODTCO COLORADO 80111
Ir'` -a OFFICEPELEPHONE (303) 575 -8350
Department
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge -
Multi -vear Allocation
Dear Alan:
At last Tuesday's Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on
the captioned project, Lee Pardee and other Commission members
expressed concern that granting the applicants a sizable GMP allo-
cation might sterilize the City's lodge growth policies for an
unacceptable period if the applicants do not utilize the allocation
within a reasonable time frame. The community clearly ought to be
protected in this regard, and the applicants would propose the fol-
lowing solution.
The principal existing control is contained in Section 24-
11.7(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code, which provides that a lodge
allocation automatically expires two (2) years from the deadline
for the submission of the related GMP application if the applicant
has not secured a building permit for construction within that
time. The City interprets this requirement to mean that the appli-
cant must have submitted all plans, specifications and fees neces-
sary to obtain a construction permit within the two (2) year
period. In the case of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project, this
period would end on October 1, 1985. The obvious risk is that if .
the present applicants do not apply for a building permit by that
date, the expired allotment will not be available in the quota
until the 1986 competition.
The applicants are willing to have .their entire allotment
(past, present and future years) conditioned upon their satisfac-
tion of this requirement prior to June 1 of 1985. Potential inter-
ference with Aspen's growth policy will be reduced by fifty
•
Mr. Alan Richman
City /County Planning
December 2, 1983
Page 2
HOLLAND & HART
Department
•
percent, in that the allotment can remain outstanding and unused
for only one year (1984) rather than two. Moreover, prospective
applicants for the 1985 competition will have a full four (4) month
period in which to prepare and submit their applications.
A development of this complexity obviously needs all of the
lead time that it can reasonably ask for However, the ultimate
success of the project is heavily dependent upon the creation and
preservation of an effective balance of community and development
requirements. We hope that the above - described allotment expira-
tion proposal meets this objective.
Very tru y yours,
fL� _
Arthur C. D ily
for HOLLAND & HART
Attorneys for the Applicants
ACD /jlf
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
Mr. John Roberts
Mr. Alan Novak
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
Aspen Mountain Lodge - Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
As indicated. in the Planning Office's L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition
memorandum dated November 22, 1983, the Aspen Mountain Lodge.requires
numerous additional reviews and approvals pursuant to the Subdivision
and Zoning Regulations of the Municipal Code. Specific additional
review requirements of the lodge portion of this PUD include: PUD/
Subdivision review, two requests for rezonings, exemption from
Growth Management for the lodge's employee housing, a.change in use
exemption, two.street vacations, and, possibly, view plane review
and an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission.
Condominiumization of the lodge rooms will probably also be re-
quested by the applicants at a later date. The Planning Office's
comments with respect to each of these additional reviews are
outlined below. our specific recommendations are summarized at the
end of this memorandum.
CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION
The applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge are requesting PUD/
Subdivision approval -for the development of their-approximately
.11.7 acre site. The proposed 480_unit resort hotel is to be con-
structed at the north end of.the site and will replace the existing
Continental Inn, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce Lodge. In addition to
the hotel, an approximately 33 unit residential project is planned
for the southern portion of.the site and a smaller, 12 unit project
for the adjacent 700 South Galena parcel.
While the Municipal Code allows the Planning Office to waive con -
ceptual PUD /Subdivision.review for those projects which have re-
ceived a development allotment, the complexity of the proposed
resort hotel and the applicants' request for a multi -year lodge
allocation - necessitate, in our opinion, conceptual PUD /Subdivision
review by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
A residential GMP application will be submitted in December for the
700 South Galena project as well as a request for a GMP reconstruc-
tion exemption to allow the development of the approximately 33
unit residential project at the top of Mill Street. Conceptual'
PUD /Subdivision I review for these two portions of the overall Aspen
Mountain PUD will occur concurrently with the applicants' residential
GMP application and request for GMP exemption. A commercial GMP
application will also be required for the non - accessory restaurant
space to be constructed in conjunction with the hotel..
To be eligible for PUD approval, an applicant must demonstrate the
reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the
design requirements of the PUD regulations,.the lack of adverse
impacts of the proposed development, and the plan's compliance with
.the intent.and purpose of the planned unit development regulations.
The purpose and intent of the regulations is to encourage flexi-
bility, innovation and variety in the development of land so as to
create a more desirable environment than would be possible through
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Two
strict application of the zoning code. In our opinion, this appli-
cation is consistent with these objectives and with the design
requirements of the PUD regulations.
In order to achieve PUD design objectives, the PUD regulations
permit variation in most of the area and bulk requirements of the
zoning code. No variation, however, is allowed in permitted uses
or density. While several rezonings are requested in conjunction
with this application, the uses to be included in this PUD are
currently allowed under existing zoning. The major variations from
the area and bulk requirements which the lodge portion of the PUD,
will require involve the applicable FAR and height requirements of
the underlying zone districts. All of the elements of the applicants'
proposal, however, can be accomplished within the flexibility
provided for in the PUD regulations. Additional information with
respect to the extent of the zoning variations requested by the
applicants will be provided at your November 29 meeting.
Generally speaking, the impacts of the proposed resort hotel are
reflected in the scores which the project received in the GMP
process. Similarly, the receipt of a GMP allocation would tend to
indicate that the majority of .those impacts have been successfully
mitigated. However, given the fact that it is possible to obtain a
GMP allocation without scoring the maximum points available in each
category or without mitigating all project related impacts, the
Planning Office recommends that the following additional issues
with regard to the applicants' conceptual PUD /Subdivision applica-
tion should be resolved.
Architectural Desiqn /Visual Impact
The Planning Office's major area of concern with respect to the
lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD lies in the architectural
design and visual impact of the proposed resort hotel - a concern
which is reflected in the relatively low scores recommended by the
Planning Office in.these two GMP categories. While the PUD regula-
tions provide for detailed architectural review at the preliminary
PUD stage of the process, we believe it is important to identify
our concerns with respect to the bulk of this project at the con-
ceptual level.
To reiterate our GMP review comments, we believe the architectural
design to be innovative in that it makes use of extensive excavation
to reduce the perceived bulk of the buildings and to maintain
public views of Aspen Mountain. There are, however, in our opinion,
elements of the project which are clearly incompatible with sur-
rounding developments and with the overall scale of-Aspen in general.
The applicants' use of traditional architectural treatments and the
use of compatible building materials helps to blend the hotel
buildings into their surroundings. However, both the. main hotel
and conference entrance areas substantially exceed the height
limitation of the applicable zone. district, resulting in major
building masses which.are out of scale with the surrounding lodge
district. These building masses significantly restrict public
views of Aspen Mountain and will, to varying degress, alter scenic
background views from Durant Avenue, Rubey Park and Wagner Park.
While variations in the height and bulk of the proposed resort
hotel are allowed under the PUD regulations, we believe that the
approximately 50.foot plus height. of the Durant Street facade, the.
lower Mill Street facade, and the Dean Street or conference entrance
facade are excessive. We strongly recommend that the applicants
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Three
reduce the visual impact of these building masses by revising the
architectural design and /or reducing the overall number of lodge
units. Such a reduction, if required, would also reduce the growth
impacts associated with a multi -year lodge allocation. We would
hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission would concur with our
.recommendations and request the applicants to redesign the Durant
.Avenue, lower Mill Street and conference entrance.facades as a
condition of conceptual PUD approval.
Two additional design related concerns which can be identified at
this time include the adequacy of access for fire protection pur-
poses and the potential intrusion into the Wheeler Opera House view
plane by the proposed hotel. Although the applicants have repre-
sented that state -of- the -art fire protection techniques will be
employed in the resort hotel, the fire department has questioned
the accessibility of the internal areas of the site for fire pro-
tection purposes. This issue needs to be explored further by the
applicants in conjunction with the fire department and.resolved
,prior to preliminary PUD submission.
The applicants' representations notwithstanding, the Engineering
Department has indicated that the proposed hotel may protrude into
the Wheeler view plane. The issue of whether or not the project
violates this view plane should be addressed by the applicants and
an appropriate.request, if required, should be submitted consistent .
with the view plane review provisions of the Code prior to preliminary
PUD submission. .
Traffic Impacts /Parking Requirements
While the existing road network in the vicinity of the proposed
hotel is adequate to handle the increased traffic generated by the
project, the TDA Associates report submitted in conjunction with
the applicants' GMP submission refers to numerous actions to be
undertaken by the applicants which are designed to further reduce
,,p �,y�'traffic impacts in the general site area. The report also addresses
y�r a number of proposals to further reduce the demand for off - street
parking generated by the new hotel.. While these various actions
are referenced in part in the GMP submission, the specific pro-
posals to be undertaken by the applicants as part of this project
�1 should be outlined in detail as part of their preliminary PUD
submission.
.S Street Vacations /Encroachments
The vacation of two City streets will be required to implement the
lodge portion of.the Aspen Mountain PUD: 1)'two blocks of Dean
Street between the Galena Street and Monarch Street rights -of -way,
and 2) Lawn Street from the Monarch Street right -of -way east to its
termination within the Aspen Mountain site. The vacation of public
rights -of -way is accomplished through ordinance of City Council.
However, given the implications of such requests on the overall
street network of the City, the Council typically requests input
from the Planning and Zoning Commission to facilitate their review.
As a result, the applicants are requesting your consideration of
.the proposed street vacations as a part of the PUD review process.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicants' request and
has concluded that the proposed vacation of the two blocks of Dean
Street and the Lawn Street right -of -way east of Monarch would not
adversely impact the general area from a circulation standpoint.
Lawn Street is a dead -end right -of -way that is currently used
•MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Four
almost exclusively for access to the applicants' property and is of
little value to overall circulation in the area. Of the two blocks
of Dean Street for which vacation is requested, one block will be
maintained as a public street through the site and will continue to
provide access to the south side of the Mountain Chalet. In.light
of the overall circulation improvements and reduction in vehicular
conflicts created by the site plan, elimination of the one block of
Dean Street from the area street network does not represent a
significant problem.
The portion of Dean Street between Monarch and Mill Streets will be
vacated to,the benefit of both the applicants and the Mountain.
Chalet. This block of Dean, although requested for vacation, will
remain a public street within the .proposed PUD. The Engineering
Department recommends that this vacation should be conditioned
on the maintenance of all utility rights as.well as public use of
the street itself. For those.rights -of -way which are to be com -.
p.letely eradicated, i.e., Lawn Street and.Dean Street between Mill
and Galena., the Engineering-Department further recommends that the
City should be reimbursed by the applicants for the rights being
vacated in each instance. The reimbursement could take any number
of forms, but the Department recommends that the applicants be
required to undertake off - site street improvements comparable in
value to the value of.all rights the City vacates.: This could
include, in addition to the improvements already suggested by the
applicants, the reconstruction of the Monarch and Durant intersec-
tion and the reconstruction of the full extent of Galena from
Durant Avenue to Mill Street.
Inasmuch as.the various public rights -of -way which are to be vacated
contain numberous existing utilities, the Engineering Department
recommends that each utility franchised in the City, regardless of
whether or not they maintain utility easements in the rights -of -way
in question, sign off on the requested vacations in order to verify
that.the loss of these rights -of -way will not interfere with their
current or future needs.
The proposed resort hotel will require, in addition to the.v.aca
tions discussed above, substantial structural encroachments into
the underground portions of Durant Avenue and Mill. Street as well
as an overhead encroachment on Mill. The Mill Street encroachment
involves the creation of an underground connection between the
parking structures as well as an overhead pedestrian bridge inter
connecting the major public areas of the proposed resort hotel.
The Engineering Department recommends that an encroachment license
be granted for the Mill Street structures since both encroachments
serve to accommodate circulation of pedestrians and vehicles.between
the two adjacent sites, thus removing both people and vehicles from
street level. This provides much safer and simpler circulation
within the hotel complex and removes numerous potential conflicts
from the street. Engineering conditions its recommendation, how -
ever, upon the provision by the developer of off -site improvements
of offsetting value.
The Engineering Department further recommends that the site plan be
modified to eliminate any encroachment into Durant Avenue. The
plan currently suggests that the underground vehicular access into
the eastern parking structure will loop into the Durant right -of-
way. Unless the developer can provide substantial evidence of the
need for this encroachment, Engineering will recommend against it.
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983.
Page .Five
Subdivision
Although this issue is not addressed in the applicants' GMP /Con-
ceptual PUD submission, apparently subdivision of the Aspen Mountain
PUD parcel will be required in order to accomplish the various
ownership proposals contained in their application. Based on the
information.submitted to date, the Planning Office does not en-
vision the subdivision of the parcel to be a major area of concern
at thie time. A condition of conceptual PUD approval, however,
should be the submission of a detailed subdivision plat indicating
the specific parceling of the PUD site prior to the preliminary
PUD /Subdivision review.
Ownership
The City Attorney has reviewed the applicants' ownership documents
for compliance with Sections 24- 8.5(a) and 20- 10(b)(4) of the
Municipal Code. It is the attorney's opinion that the Aspen
Mountain Lodge GMP /Conceptual PUD /Subdivision submissions have
met the substantive requirements of these Code provisions. The
attorney recommends, however, that the following conditions be
satisfied prior to the award of any lodge allotment-by the City
Cou cil:
a G�' That a duly- executed power of attorney or letter of
consent executed by Joseph A. Luciani and Briget Luciani
p be submitted pertaining to the properties known as the
Copper Horse and the Aplina Haus.
2. That an acceptable survey of the hotel site be submitted
to the City clarifying property descriptions, or, in the
alternative, that the Engineering Department accept the
property descriptions as substantially correct."
The Engineering Department also raised the question of the avail-
ability of an up -to -date property survey and suggests that the pro -.
vision of a new survey be a condition of conceptual PUD /Subdivision
approval.
Miscellaneous
The Environmental Health Department has also reviewed this project
and has raised several questions of a more detailed nature, the
specifics of which relate to conditions of preliminary PUD approvals.
The applicants, however, are encouraged to review the Health Depart-
ment's comments and address the issues.which have been raised prior
to preliminary PUD submission.
REZONINGS
The Aspen Mountain PUD application includes a request for four re
zonings, two of which are directly related to the lodge portion of
the PUD. The applicable zoning regulations require that the Planning
and Zoning Commission conduct a public hearing.to consider rezoning
requests and report its recommendations to City-Council for their
consideration. The November 29th meeting is a published public
hearing and,adjacent property owners have been not The two
lodge related requests for_rezonings are examined below._
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Six
L -1 to CL
A rezoning to CL (Commercial Lodge) is requested for the Chase
Duplex, Townplace Apartments and Hillside Lodge sites (Lots A
through D, Block 91) and for the Mountain Chalet and Blue Spruce
North sites (all nine lots in Block 84 to the west of Block 91).
As the applicants' attached exhibits indicate, these parcels are
presently separated from the commercial core by Rubey and Wagner
Parks.
Rezoning applications by private applicants are typically heard by
the Planning and Zoning Commission only during meetings scheduled
by the Commission for this purpose in the months of April and
October of each year. An applicant, however, may request either
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council to sponsor their.
request for rezoning, thereby circumventing the twice yearly re-
striction. The applicants, in order to allow consideration of
their rezoning requests in conjunction with their lodge GMP applica-
tion, are requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission to sponsor
their application for rezoning from L -1 to CL.
In reviewing a request for rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion is required to consider. the following evaluative criteria: 1)
the compatibility of the rezoning proposal with.the surrounding
zone district and land uses; 2) the impacts of the rezoning upon
traffic, parking and utilities; 3) the impacts on air and water
quality; 4) the community need for.the.rezoning; 5) the compati-
bility of the proposed rezoning.with.the Aspen Area General Plan as
amended; and 6) the extent to which the proposed rezoning will
promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and
visitors to the City of Aspen.
The applicants' principal argument in favor of this rezoning is
that. "the rather dramatic increase in traffic along Durant Street,
particularly associated with public transportation, that has occurred
since L -1 zoning was originally applied to the area makes it unde-
sirable to locate lodge rooms at ground level immediately adjacent
to and oriented toward Durant Street. They therefore believe that
commercial uses at ground level, as allowed under CL zoning, are
more appropriate.
While there is unquestionably some truth in the above observation,
the uses proposed by the applicants on these sites, e.g., the main
hotel lobby, guest drop -off, etc., are clearly inconsistent with
the intent of the CL zone district. To refresh your memory, the
intent of this zone is.to provide for the establishment of commer-
cial uses at street level but requiring that all additional stories
be lodge accommodation -s. With the exception of the proposed lease
hold.commercial restaurant space to be constructed at the corner of
Monarch and Durant Streets, ground level uses of the proposed hotel
are limited to essentially non - commercial, hotel related support
services. Were the applicants taking advantage of this zoning classi-
fication to provide street level non - accessory commercial space ad-
jacent to the transportation center at Rubey Park and to allow archi-
tectural variation in the Durant Avenue building masses, the Planning
Office might be more inclined to support this rezoning.
In our opinion, the applicants'.primary reason for requesting this
rezoning is to enable them to take advantage of the more favorable
FAR ratio available in the CL zone district. By utilizing the
district's 2:1 external FAR ratio, the applicants can reduce, at
least statistically, the overall FAR of the lodge portion of this
PUD. As noted in the conceptual PUD discussion, the applicants are
requesting a variance from the underlying FAR requirements of the
applicable zone districts. Obviously,, the greater FAR allowed in
the CL zone district would make the proposed resort hotel appear
• 1 1 .
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Seven.
smaller. than if FAR were calculated under L -1 zoning. Inasmuch as
the underlying FAR requirements of any zone district may be varied
pursuant to the PUD regulations, we see no benefit in rezoning this
property from L -1 to CL simply to produce a more favorable FAR
figure. The Planning Office, therefore, requests that you deny the
applicants' request for sponsorship of the rezoning and recommend
denial to City Council.
R -15 to R -6 (RBO) 11-eV
The applicants are also requesting a rezoning to R -6 (RBO) for an
approximately 7.5 acre site on Ute Avenue on which they propose to
build a.50 unit employee housing project. Sponsorship of this
request by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council is not
required as the Code allows requests for residential bonus overlay
rezonings to be heard at any time during the year. This rezoning is
required in. order to accommodate the proposed mix of employee housing
unit types called for .in the.employee housing proposal developed for
the hotel. The City granted a similar request for rezoning to R -6
(RBO) for the same site in 1982 for an employee housing proposal
filed by the Little Annie Ski Corporation. The City Ordinance
granting the rezoning, however, provided for its expiration on
December 31, 1983 in the event the Little Annie Ski Area were not
under construction at that time.
The Planning Office has reviewed this request for rezoning and,
while we find it.generally consistent with the Residential Bonus
Overlay review criteria, we would request that P &Z not take formal
action on this issue at its November 29th meeting. There are a
number of details requiring clarification and /or submission of
.additional information on behalf of the applicants which need.to be
addressed prior to,formalization of the Planning Office's recommenda-
tion. Your consideration.of the various additional review require -
ments associated witn the Aspen Mountain PUD will most likely be
continued until your December 6th meeting. This additional time
should enable the Planning Office to complete its review of this
..request.. We would suggest that you open the public hearing for this
rezoning, published.for November 29th, discuss the applicants'
proposal conceptually if you so desire, and continue the public
hearing to your regularly scheduled meeting on December 6, 1983.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTIONS
The applicants of the Aspen Mountain PUD are requesting three exemp-
tions from the GMP allotment procedures for the hotel portion of
their proposed project. These exemptions are requested for the
following development activity: 1) the reconstruction of 269 exist-
ing lodge units.pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(a) of the zoning regula-
tions, 2).the construction of a 50 unit employee housing project on
the Benedict/ Larkin parcel pursuant to .Section 24- 11.2(f), and 3)
the conversion of the Copper Horse Lodge to deed restricted employee
housing pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(j). Each of these requests is
examined below.
Reconstruction
The resort hotel to be constructed as a part of the Aspen Mountain
PUD will essentially replace the existing Continental Inn, Aspen
Inn, and Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicants, with the assistance of
the Building Department, have inventoried these facilities and have
submitted to the Planning Office a request for the verification of
277 existing lodge units. After careful review of the applicants'
documentation, the Planning Office and Building Department have
agreed to the verification of 269 lodge units. The eight units
,MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional. Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Eight
which the staff is not prepared to verify were either illegally
constructed or demolished without a permit prior to the adoption of
the reconstruction provision of the Code.
No specific P &Z or Council action is required with respect to this
request for exemption. The Planning Office, however, suggests that
any conceptual PUD approval with respect to the hotel portion of
this project include the following conditions which are consistent
with the reconstruction provisions of Section 24- 11.2(a) of the
Code.
1. The applicants should'be limited to the reconstruction of
no more than the verified total of 269 lodge units.
.2. The reconstruction of these lodge units must be accom-
plished within five years of the date of demolition.
3. The reconstruction of the demolished lodge units should be
limited to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
Employee Housing��`' %�
As discussed under the request for R -6 (RBO) rezoning, the appli
cants propose to construct a 50 unit pure employee housing project
on an approximately 7.5 acre site located northwest of the Ute
Cemetary on Ute Avenue. These units will house a portion of the net
new employees generated by the proposed resort hotel. The site,
known as the Benedict /Larkin property, is presently zoned R -15 and
will require rezoning to R -6 (RBO). to allow construction of the
proposed employee housing units. Exemption from GMP.allotment
procedures is allowed pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(f) subject to the
special approval of the City Council based on-the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The review of any request for exemption of employee units from the
development allotment procedures requires a determination of com-
munity need considering,.but not limited to, the project's compliance
with any.-adopted housing plan, including the number and type of
units proposed, their location, the number of bedrooms in each unit
and the size.of the unit; the rental /sales mix of the development;
and the proposed price categories to which the units are to be deed
restricted. The Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority and the Housing
Office staff have reviewed the proposed employee housing project.for
consistency with the above requirements and have recommended approval
of the applicants' request for GMP exemption subject to the following
conditions:
1. The 50 unit project is to consist of 24 one - bedroom units
averaging approxiately 550 sq. ft. each and 26 two- bedroom
units averaging approximately 750 sq. ft. each. Ninety
hotel employees are to be housed in the project with the
applicant reserving the right to house an additional 11
unspecified employees at a future date.
2. The hotel employees are to be given ,first priority in
renting or purchasing the 50 units. If vacancies should
occur, the applicant may rent to any qualified low or
moderate income employee of the Community.
3. The 15 units are to be deed restricted to the City's
adopted moderate income housing price guidelines.
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Nine
4. The. Housing Authority reserves the right to review rents,
sales prices, and other restrictions to guarantee com-
pliance with the City's housing guidelines.'
Change In Use
In addition to constructing the 50 unit employee housing project on
the Benedict /Larkin site, the applicants also propose to deed re-
strict for employee housing purposes two existing structures - the
_—�-7 -unit Alpina Haus and the 14 unit Copper Horse Lodge. Together,
these two facilities will house the remainder of the net new employees
generated by the proposed resort hotel, or a total'of.90.employees.
The Alpina Haus is currently zoned R -MF, operated as a multi - family
residential use and will require only the deed restriction of the
existing units to the City's adopted employee housing price guide-
lines. The Copper Horse,.however, is currently zoned L -3, is operated
as a lodge and will require a change in use exemption from the GMP
allocation procedures pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(j) for its conver-
sion to long-term-residential use.
To be eligible for such an exemption, the units must be contained in
an existing structure which -has had a Certificate of Occupancy for
at least two years and the applicant must demonstrate that the
change in use will result in negligible growth impacts on the Com
munity. Growth impacts are defined as any activity which results in
more than a negligible increase in employee housing or parking .
spaces; generates more than a negligible increase in traffic, water
and sewer needs, fire and police protection.requirements, off -site
drainage and road demands; or otherwise requires the provision of
more than a negligible increase in governmental services. The
Planning Office has reviewed the applicants' request and believes it
to be consistent with the requirements of the change in use exemption.
The proposed change in use will offset the demand for employee
housing created as a result of-the construction of the resort hotel
by deed restricting the existing lodge rooms at the Copper Horse to
employee housing guidelines. Similarly, traffic may actually de-
crease slightly, since there is generally less turnover within a
long -term residential project than a short -term lodge. Also, the
applicants are proposing to house only 43 employees as opposed to
the 53 person capacity of. the existing Copper Horse. Fire, police,
water, sewer and governmental services needs will remain relatively
the same resulting in no additional impact on the Community. Exist-
ing parking, however, is-currently non - conforming and, therefore,
should be retained, if not increased.
The Planning Office supports the applicants' request for a change in
use exemption from the GMP allotment procedures for the conversion
of the Copper Horse subject to the following conditions:
1. That the new use of the Copper Horse be restricted to the
housing of 43 employees of the proposed resort hotel.
2. That the 14 units be deed restricted to the City's adopted
moderate income housing price guidelines.
3. That the existing parking be retained.
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Ten
RECOMMENDATIONS
Should you concur with the Planning Office's review comments, the
following motions and preliminary conditions are suggested for
your consideration:
1. A motion to approve the conceptual PUD /Subdivision sub -
mission for the lodge portion of the.Aspen Mountain PUD
subject to the following conditions:
a) The Durant Avenue, lower Mill Street and conference
entrance facades of the proposed resort hotel.should
be redesigned to reduce their mass and to maintain
and enhance public views of Aspen Mountain.and sur-
rounding scenic areas.
b) The resolution of the Fire Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal
areas of the lodge site for fire protection purposes.
c) A determination as to whether or not the proposed
resort hotel intrudes into the Wheeler Opera House
view plane and the submission, if required, of an
appropriate request pursuant to the view plane pro -
visions of the Code.
d) A clarification as to which substantive representa-
tions of the TDA,.Associates traffic and parking
analysis the applicants intend to implement as part
of this PUD.
e) The reimbursement of the City by the applicants for
all vacated rights -of -way and encroachments, such
reimbursements preferably to be in the form of off -
site street improvements.
f) The submission of a detailed subdivision plat in-
dicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain.
PUD site.
L
V ,�� "g) The submission of a duly- executed power of attorney
or letter.of consent executed by Joseph A. Luciani
and Briget Luciani pertaining to the properties known
as the Copper Horse and the Alpina Haus.
.h) The submission of an acceptable survey of the Aspen
Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions.
i) The resolution of the various issues raised by the
Environmental Health Department with respect to
specific details of the proposed hotel operation.
j) The applicants reconstruction of existing lodge units
be limited to the verified total of 269 units, be
accomplished within five years, and limited to the
Aspen Mountain PUD site.
2. A motion to deny the applicants' request for P &Z sponsor=
(/II2 ship of a rezoning from L -1 to CL for the Chase Duplex,
Townplace Apartments, Hillside Lodge, Mountain Chalet and
Blue Spruce North sites.
r /"VZ V
0
MEMO: Aspen Mountain Lodge
Additional Review Requirements
November 29, 1983
Page Eleven
•
3. A motion to grant a change in use exemption, pursuant to
Section 24- 11.2(j) of the Municipal Code, for the con-
version of the Copper Horse from short -term lodge use to
long -term residential use subject to the following con-
ditions:
a) That the new use of the Copper Horse be.restricted to
^ the.housing of 43-employees of the proposed resort
hotel.
b) That the fourteen units be deed restricted to the
City's adopted moderate income employees housing
price guidelines.
c) That the existing parking be retained.
The Planning Office requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission
delay action with respect to the applicants' request for R -6 (RBO)
rezoning and their related request for an employee housing exemption
for the deed restricted.units to be constructed on the rezoned site
until additional information and clarification has been provided by
the applicants to the Planning Office.
We would like to point out that the above recommendations -and con-
ditions are preliminary in nature and reflect the Planning Office's
consideration of the applicants' additional review requests based
on the information submitted to date. Obviously, the Planning and
Zoning Commissi.on,.following its consideration.of.the applicants'
requests, may wish to amend, delete or add to the Planning Office's
preliminary recommendations. The Commission's consideration of
the applicants' requests will most likely be continued until December
6th, at which time a more definitive set of recommendations will be
forthcoming from the Planning Office.
l