Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain Lodge.53-83.file1I N D E X 1. Fee Receipt (GMP /Conceptual PUD and Subdivision, Rezoning). 2. Public Notice (GMP and Rezoning). 3. Referral Comments. 4. Art Daley's October 1, 1983, Letter to Paul Taddune Re: Ownership of the Aspen Mountain PUD Site. 5. Lyle Reeder's October 5, 1983, Letter to Planning Office Requesting Clarification of the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Submission. 6. John Doremus' October 27, 1983, Letter to Planning Office Technically Clarifying the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Application's Request for Bonus Points. 7. Chuck Brandt's October 28, 1983, Letter to Paul Taddune Requesting Clarification of the Municipal Code Requirements Pertaining to the Submission of Condominium Plat Documents. 8. Planning Office November 9, 1983, Response to Lyle Reeder's October 5, 1983 Letter. 9. Joe Wells' November 11, 1983, Letter to Jay Hammond Technically Clarifying the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Submission. 10. Miscellaneous Planning Office Review Notes. Ord. #35, Series of 1983, Ord. #36, Series of 1983 11. Planning Office November 16, .1983, Analysis of Aspen Mountain Lodge Request for Multi -Year Allocation. 12. Planning Office November 22, 1983, P &Z GMP Competition Memo. 13. Public Comments Submitted for the Record. 14. November 22, 1983, P &Z GMP Scores. 15. Planning Office December 1, 1983, Memo to Council Forwarding GMP Scores. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning DirectoAz RE: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition DATE: December 1, 1983 Attached for your information are the Planning and Zoning Commission's scores for the 1.984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition held on November 22, 1983. Pursuant to Section 24- 11.6(d) of the Municipal Code, the rankings established by the Commission must be forwarded to City Council on or before December 1. Of the two projects competing, only the Aspen Mountain Lodge met the minimum points threshold and is, therefore, eligible for a development allotment. The project, however, is quite complex and is currently undergoing substantial additional review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is expected to complete its review on or about'December 6th, and to adopt a resolution summarizing their recommendations on or about December 13th. We have therefore scheduled an initial presentation of the project for Council's December. 12th meeting. Given the complexity of the project, we would suggest that Council consider continuing their December 12th discussion to Monday,'December 19th in order to allow sufficient time for review. Council's formal action with respect to the applicant's request for a multi -year quota allocation and the miscell s associated reviews could.take place as early as your Decembe 22n regular meeting. However, it is more likely that your consid rat' Hof this project will continue into early January. Should you have any questions regarding the proposed review schedule, please feel free to give me a.call. PROJECT: LODGE AT ASPEN P &Z VOTING MEMBERS 1984 L -1 /L -2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION PLANNING AND ZOINING COMMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLY SHEET PERRY LEE PAT JASMINE WELTON DAVID ROGER 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water Service 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 b. Sewer Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 d. Fire Protection 2 1.5 2 2 2 1.5 e. Roads 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1.5 SUBTOTAL: 7 7 7 7 7 7 7.5 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN a. Architectural Design 6 4.5 3 6 0 3 6 b. Site Design 1.5 3 3. 3 3 3 4.5 C. Energy Conservation �- .3 2 3 Z 6 6.75 d. Parking and Circulation 6 6 3 3 3 6 6 e. Visual Impact 6- 6 6 6 6 6. 6 SUBTOTAL: 21.5 22.5 17 21 14 20 25.75 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS a. Meeting Areas, Lobbies, Conference Facilities 6 3 6 3 3 4.5 3.75 b. Dining Facilities - �- T 4 2 4 4 C. Recreational Facilities 4 2 2 2 4 2.5 SUBTOTAL: 14 8 12 9 7 12.5 10.5 AVERAGE 1.07 =_1 2 1.86 1.14 7 47 4.07 3 2.36 4.82 6 20.25 10.54 ti 1984 L -1 /L -2 GMP Submission ,P &Z Points Allocation. Tally Sheet r Page Two P &Z VOTING MEMBERS 4. CONFORMANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY GOALS a. Employee Housing b. Rebahilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units SUBTOTAL: 5. BONUS POINTS i 1 TOTAL POINTS 1 -4: TOTAL POINTS 1 -5: PERRY LEE PAT JASMINE WELTON DAVID ROGER AVERAGE 11, 15 11 11 11 12.5 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 15 11 11 11 12.5 11 11.79 53.5 52.5 47 48 39 52 - 54.5 49.5 0 0 .0 0 0 0 2 0 53.5 52.5 47 48 39 52 56.5 49.5 PROJECT • ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE P &Z VOTING MEMBERS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICE: a. Water Service b. Sewer Service C. Storm Drainage d. Fire Protection e. Roads 2. 3. SUBTOTAL: 1984 L -1 /L -2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION PLANNING AND ZOINING COMMISSION POINTS ALLOCATION TALLY SHEET PERRY LEE PAT JASMINE WELTON DAVID ROGER QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN a. Architectural Design b. Site Design C. Energy Conservation d. Parking and Circulation e. Visual Impact SUBTOTAL: AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS a. Meeting Areas, Lobbies, Conference Facilities b. Dining Facilities C. Recreational Facilities SUBTOTAL: AVERAGE 2 2. '- 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1.5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2.5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 8..5 8 7 7 8 7 7.79 6 4.5 6 3 6 6 3 9 9 9 6 6 9 7.5 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 0 6 4.5 3 26 25.5 27 18 27 28.5 22.5 24.93 9 9 9 6 9 9 9 6 6 6 ZF 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 21 21 21 14 21 21 20 1984 L -1 /L -2 GMP Submission ..P &Z Points Allocation Tally Sheet Page g Two Aspen Mountain Lodge , P &Z VOTING MEMBERS PERRY LEE PAT JASMINE WELTON DAVID ROGER AVERAGE 4. CONFORMANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY GOALS a.. Employee Housing 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 b. Rebahilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SUBTOTAL_ : 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 6.* 71 TOTAL POINTS 1-4: 63 62 63 46 62 62.15 56.5 59.29 5. BONUS POINTS 3 5 0 0 0 2_ 0 1.43 TOTAL POINTS 1 -5 • 66 67 63 46 62 64.5 54.5 60; 71 LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 20S RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III GRAY A. YOUNG FREDERICK F. PEIRCE HAND DELIVER December 5, 1983 Mr. Sunny Vann City /County Planner 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Sunny: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 -2600 This is to advise you that The Gant Condominium Association, which I represent, has no objection to the tabling by American Century or Aspen Mountain Lodge of the re- zoning application for an employee housing proposal on land adjacent to The Gant. Because The Gant opposes employee housing at that location, we would like to receive notice if the matter is again renewed, and we would also like to receive notice of the work sessions sought by the applicant to evaluate the other alternatives that exist for the employee housing in question. We appreciate the applicant's willingness to explore these other alternatives. Thank you. JN`Mj r: Ins cc: Arthur C. Daily, Esq. Mr. James Curtis Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN B y kAdA fJ.Nicholas McGrath , Jr. r 'j DEC 0 6 1883 s< ASPEN / rrKM' 0 BANNING OFFICE November 29, 1983 Planning & zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 So..Galena Street Aspen, CO 31611 Dear Commissioners: NOV 2 9 1983 ' 1 ASPEN / ia!TKIN U-0. PLANNING OFFICE.- I started visiting Aspen 20 years ago, and have permanently lived here for the past 13 years. My opinion of the proposed hotel and "MORE" is shared by many who aren't heard because they feel helpless and /or don't realize the horrendous, per- manent impact it will bring. Yes, Aspen's ailing financially. Everyone, including our great country, is ailing. Assuming a 5 -star HOTEL is our cure, in this case the cure is worse than the disease. It's what accompanies the hotel /convention center "Cure" that will eventually kill the REAL Aspen. Aspen's savior is also willing to help us by requesting to develop a multi -story free market condominium complex on Galena Street, plus a development of 40 large million- dollar duplexes and triplexes at the top of Mill Street. What do these have to do with the 5 -star hotel we originally needed? He'll be adding more employees, more employee housing on .Ute Avenue, not to mention others. He's donating an average of 400 more cars, summer and winter, and will throw in additional pollution and congestion in the already most congested part of town. These benevolent developers stated in their proposal to the City that A significant condominium project planned for the South end of -the site and a smaller condominium project on the 700 S. Galena site would complement the hotel." Will their new restaurants, bars, shops, and other businesses complement our already existing, ailing businesses? Will the 5 -story above, 3 below, hotel and other large developments to come with it, complement our beautiful mountain; remaining open space; and the true character of Aspen? Who are we kidding? only the developers amenities, such as again, only for the This humongous and the special landscaping, ice special few! project will complement few within. The hotel's rink, etc., are nice, but November 29, 1983 Page Two They're asking to use up five years worth of room allotments, all at the expense of every other person's right for oppor- tunity in the immediate future. They want the right for more and bigger; to change our pro- tective growth plan. If this is allowed, it's only the beginning for them, and the end of Aspen's unique and charming character, for it would probably be unconstitutional to say "No" .to our next applicant for an offensive, imposing project. 40 years ago Miami Beach was also a small, charming community and resort, until each characteristic old Spanish -type villa was replaced by a concrete canyon of highrises, blocking the view of the ocean for miles, except to a special few! Next, the.regular, long -time, dependable visitors were replaced by the "trendy" type, coming to the new "IN" resort. They also left, for the newer "in" resort, with an 8 -star hotel! They left Miami Beach in a depression, with total loss of its old charm and character, and forgot to take their concrete mistakes with them. But they didn't have to; they built them in the next resort they ruined! You say it can never happen here? That's what they said! Nothing, not even Aspen, can be all things to all people. Without selling out our values and character, we thrived with the support of regulars, of modest taste and /or modest means. That's what has kept us unique, charming, and separate from all the Vails. We must preserve what brought us here and has kept us here for so long. It's really permanently threatened! If Mr. Novak, as his publicity stated, really came here for our charm, then build a charming, unimposing 5 -star hotel with convention accommodations, and forget all of the,other stuff!.! Most of us still haven't gotten over the Aspen Square, North of Nell, Mt. Queen, just to mention a few. It's mind - boggling that this proposed development can be seriously considered! Would Mr. Novak like his proposal to be built next door to his permanent home in Washington DC? No more than.any dog defecates in its own back yard! Sincerely, Carol Fuller P.S. This letter is not a personal attack on our benevolent developers, but I bet I don't get invited to the Grand Opening, if there is one! In 1851, Seattle, chief of the Suquamish and other Indian tribes around Washington's Puget Sound, delivered what is considered to be one of the most beautiful and profound environmental statements ever made. The City of Seattle is named for the chief, whose speech was in response to a proposed treaty under which the Indians were persuaded to sell two million acres of land for $150,000. How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony and man -- all belong to the same family. So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy our land But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. This shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father. The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers and yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give�any brother. We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's grave behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children, and he does not care. His father's grave, and his children's birthright are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plun- dered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert. I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring or the rustle of the insect's wings. The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whip- poorwill or the arguments of the frogs around the pond at night? I am a red man and do not understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond and the smell of the wind itself, cleansed by a midday rain, or scented with pinon pine. The air is precious to the red man for all things share the same breath, the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a many dying for many days he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred as a place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow's flowers. You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of.our kin. Teach your children that we have taught our children that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected. We may be brothers after all. We shall see. One thing we know which the white man may one day discover: Our God is the same God. - 2 - You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator. The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. But in your perishing you will shine brightly fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tame, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. The end of living and the beginning of survival. - 3 - . . 3401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803 TELEPHONE 433 -7484 AREA CODE 213 November 28, 1983 .._.. Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commission Members: As a citizen who plans to continue residing in Aspen forever, I must express my feelings about the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge. It is awesome to ;think of a five story hotel structure directly across the street from an existing four story mistake. Picture yourselves standing on the corner of Galena and Durant (freezing, of course, because you will be standing in the shade) and looking south on Galena, A Grand Canyon will be created, which will become a box canyon with the construction of the multi -story 700 S. Galena condominium complex. Since the street curves at 700 S. Galena, this particular property is quite visible from town. I feel that the Planning & Zoning Commission should make it a requirement of approval that the 700 S. Galena parcel be landscaped permanent open space so that we will at least be able to see green at the end of the tunnel. I am greatly concerned that this hotel, if approved, will use up our GMP lodge allotment for nearly five years into the future. This, of course, locks us into having one type of accommodation (expensive) being built for half a decade to come. For all we know, in this shaky economy, we will need inexpensive, quaint bed and breakfast type accommodations to recapture the not so affluent repeat skier and summer lover. These more modest accommodations should not be prevented. By the developer's own admission, the hotel will be operated by a major hotel chain. All we need is a "charm=ing" Hilton hotel in the heart of Aspen. God forbid! Planning & Zoning Commission November 28, 1983 Page 2 As anyone can plainly open space for all pr the hotel occupants. having to walk around open space "provided" above the 80401 line. see from the plans, the proposed landscaped 3ctical purposes will only be viewed by Open space should be shared by all, without many stories of bulk to find it. The other is laughable, since it is already preserved There is no question that if the rezoning requested by the developer is approved, it will create more unnecessary commercial space. This would be an injustice to our present fine establishments that desperately need our support. With the several hundred additional auto trips anticipated in the area daily, we may need a traffic light at Durant and Galena to get across the street. Help! In summary, I strongly urge you to: 1. Require the property at 700 S. Galena to be landscaped permanent open space. 2. Not give away future year GMP lodge allotments. 3. Not rezone and create more commercial space. Please give these points your serious consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Don Crawford �, Uk. PLANNING OFFICE X13 ir�la � WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Law X, -1 1 Nbvehtt4 1983 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 .SUITE 202 450 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 ,USA (303) 920 -2233 RE: 1984 Lodge GMP Competition; Application of Lyle Reeder; The Lodge at Aspen. Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent Lyle Reeder, an.Applicant in the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition in connection with the hearing before your Commission on November 22, 1983, to select a winning score between the two Applicants -- my client, Lyle Reeder and The .Lodge at Aspen; and the other applicants, Alan Novak, John Roberts and American Century Corporation and the Aspen Mountain Lodge. This letter is written to become part of the formal proceedings of the hearing and to set forth certain legal, objections and irregularities that have been discovered by my client and myself in connection with the procedures of the City of Aspen regarding the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen in general as it. pertains to this Competition. I have presented copies of this letter to the Counsel representing the Mountain Lodge, the Aspen City Counsel, the Director of the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office and each of the members of your Commission. Specifically incorporated herein are the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen which are pertinent to these applicants and to the 1984 Lodge GMP Competition. I shall set forth these objections and irregularities in numerical order for your convenience and reference: 1. In scoring each of the two applicants,' the Planning Director gave a decidedly unfair advantage to the. Mountain Lodge project because of the procedure which allows that project to qualify as a PUD project and still have to compete as'a project in:the GMP Competition.. Certain advantages were.obtained by the Mountain Lodge by it being allowed to.be of greater height and having more amenities, thus enabling it to receive a greater point score. WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. A?,orney at La% SUITE 202 450-S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 920 -2233 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 22, 1983 Page Two 2. The Mountain Lodge received 21 points for.having amenities for guests, at least a part of which score was due to having a larger number of. amenities than the Lodge at Aspen and so.receiving a higher.score. This treatment would discriminate against a smaller project . in general, since points are scored against each other on a one- to- one.basis, and in particular'.since the Lodge at Aspen is dealing with a smaller interior and exterior space 3. The Mountain Lodge is proposing to gain credit for the demolition.and reconstruction of 269 existing units, and consequently is seeking only 211 units from the Lodge GMP Competition. However, in scoring their project, the Planning Office considered the entire .480 units in granting points for.the.various categories ..when they should have only considered the actual number of the units that were being requested. This would have resulted in only scoring. 211 units as a percentage of the overall project (43.95%). 4. The proposed Mountain Lodge project is obviously the most complicated and most expensive to be proposed for Aspen. It is also the largest in terms of number of units, size of buildings, etc. For this reason, it is hard to see how it can be equated with. any other project, especially one of the size of the Lodge at Aspen. However, it is being scored against it and is being considered as a part of the Lodge GMP 'Competition in spite of its unique size and complexity:. In fact, it shouid.be a separately considered project. 5. The procedures of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, in general, and the Lodge GMP Competition, in particular, provide for certain qualifications before an applicant can submit an application. Obviously, these requirements are necessary in order to determine if an applicant actually has the necessary interest in the property to be seriously considered._ The interest of the Applicants for the Mountain Lodge appears.to be no more than an Assignment of the Right to submit the an application by.the actual lardowner,,Hans Cantrup, who, in turn, is unable'to legally handle his own legal affairs,. including his real estate holdings, without • WRIGHT HUGUS, JR. Attorney at Lay. SUITE 202 =150 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 USA (303) 9202233 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commissior. November 22,1983 Page Three the express approval and participation,of the United States Bankruptcy Court., Therefore, it would appear . that the applicants for The Mountain Lodge have no standing to file the application being considered by this Commission. 6. The applicants for The Mountain Lodge seek 211 units from this Competition: 35 as 1983 available units; 50 , as unused previous years' 'units; and 126 :. more from future years' units up to 1987. This unprecedented request for the use of so many future years'. units would be a violation of the intent, if not the rule,,of having an annual Lodge GMP Competition, No one can predict the future, and it would be impossible to determine the needs of the City five years from now, but since the years would -be used up by The Mountain Lodge project, others would be denied the right and privilege of even being able to compete in a competition designed, and'legally constituted,.for the determination of weighing interests. 7. Under the Law of the City of Aspen in effect.at the time of the deadline for .filing.1984 Lodge GMP Applications, an applicant who proposed to utilize City -owned land in their project, must be joined in the application by.the City of Aspen; also, such an application must be judged in two ways by the Planning Office: one as if the City -owned land were included and one as if it were not.included. At a City Council meeting on September 26, 1983, a.proposal.was _introduced to allow applicants (specifically The Mountain Lodge project) to file an application including City -owned land, without the joining of the City. This proposal was not formally passed at .that session and was, in fact, tabled until the next session of the City Council, held on October 12, 1983, when it was passed The Mountain Lodge filed its application, for Lodge.GMP Competition by the October'3, 1983 deadline but before the effective date of the new..law . allowing it to file without the consent and joining of the City of Aspen. Therefore, the application should not have been allowed since it did not conform to the. law of the Citv in those two respects. To: Aspen Pie.ning & Zoning Commission • From: Committee. to Preserve Open Space "I Re: Aspen Mountain (The Lodge - Galena- ,^ L ;`Mil MP `'Submission A Date: November 22,. 1983 . The Committee to Preserve 03 p p �ognizes the need. for a quality;. hotel in Aspen, and afte ';wing the proposed plan we congratulate them on.their-basical y good design, landscaping and trail proposal, much needed conference facilities, burying of overhead utility lines, and beautification inside the hotel with courtyards. However, the following issues concern us: 1) We are uncomfortable with the commercial plans inside the hotel because Aspen is presently commercially overbuilt. Offices and storefronts are presently standing empty as-shown by the "For Rent- - Commercial" ads from last week' :s Aspen Times' (attached). Aspen has changed from being able to sell�'leases'10 years ago to presently reducing commercial rents. Because of this.we do not feel that we need 15`1000 more sq.,..feet of food and beverage space. 2), The project will double the density.in.that neighborhood, which will cause negativ mpacts such as: traffic problems (their estimate is 447 more vehicles per day in summer), visual impact in the viewplane of Aspen Mtn., cut out sunshine for many surrounding the building, and take away what open space is left in. that area. 3) :'.. Although .the. project proposes a 32% open space of the total area, this figure is misleading since this includes land above the -8040'line which is not intended to be built on, and courtyards which will be incorporated into the buildings and will not be seen from the town. 4) The project is definitely too high for the area. They state they are_ "maintaining reasonable height limits," and that "The elevations of the buildings will where possible maintain and respond to the scale of the existing surrounding buildings," 'these are very vague terms and need to be defined exactly. Particularly since the pictures in the summary look much taller than surrounding buildings and a picture on pg. 17 in summary looks'as though it is 5 -6 stories above ground. 5) We are uncomfortable with the request to change the zoning near the top of the mountain from R -15 to L -2 to provide for duplexes and triplexes since the new zoning will allow: the area to increase in density and elimate more open space. We feel the area near the mountain should be kept as open as possible. PF9 /Open Space up 1I/,22/83 -. . r Page`.2. y 6') Rumors of all.: kinds are causinq confusion. We d. like to have some: of the :rumors_. caeared° np,:r 'such .as::; a) .the CI - traded y parcels; at the top of Galena' %Mill for w'r 4 the Koch Lumber property z this property has; ;mines" =underneath:' t an £'poses: a 'dan 'er` '`' t'r kT54 ": c) the Aspen, Meadows:. will, be next for "expansion with More t, F " density and removal -of open., space 7), This group has infekred in: their.' report: that a 'quality hotel in Aspen will bring in'more total.: -skier visits. They'compared Aspen to Snowmass because they have picked up skier visits. We. agree that quality accommodations and conference facilities might bring. some of the skier. visits- back.to Aspen Mtn., BUT the -'- g follown facts were stated= i.n'their report, but possibly not. fully, considered S A 4 tip•.. Z a):. the. skii industry, is.' declinn.g nationwide:' b)' the economy is., sagging 4 , c)? skiing is now - o,verpricec� for '.'the average :tourist These: facts defin fely. overpower the few= ski "er visits; that be brought, back - .because- of._:qua °lity a "ccommodations; and. conference facilities; . Therefore,,. we' feel that 480 units is overbuilding,,-,;.'' ;h for {,the.present'need. 8) Wei oppose the large, amount- of employee units being built to go along with this project when Silverking Phase IV`is being built at the same -time, particularly when they are able to use some of the older lodges for employees and might be able.to solve the problem this way without destroying more open space. 9) We oppose the bridge and restaurant over Mill Street because it will further block the view of Aspen Mtn. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Not allow zoning changes a) Not change zoning on b) Not change zoning at Durant from LI to CL top of mountain from R -15 to L -2 2. Change the present plans to: a) create more open space viewed from the town b) be clear on actual heights and lower them c) remove bridge and restaurant over Mill St. from plans P &Z /Open Space G p 11/22/83 Page 3 3. Ask for a comprehensive plan to be submitted for all parcels owned by this group to answer all rumors. 4. Ask Planning Office to review the project so that we can have an unbiased summary, and review the possibility-of requesting the use of old lodges to be used,as the employee housing for this project. 5. Allow the project to replace the existing 241 units (and possibly the 36 already allocated for the Aspen Inn) under the existing zoning and in the normal GMP process. Final Note: We feel that Aspen has maintained a quality different from Vail and other ski resorts because of its quaintness, beauty, and open space. Although a quality hotel may be needed,�we feel that a 480 room hotel covering the base of the mountain, and blocking views and sunshine is not preserving the quality of Aspen. . a .. . • for rent commercial ....... ............................... . FOR RENT: Small office space. Snowmass Shop - pute Center.$300 not including, contact Michael. 4r_5-1400. _ 42rtsc ........ ......... ................................ : .................... ........... FUR RENT: Pnme commercial space available. L.a•ated in Sopris Shopping Center, Carbondale. :Aeailahle Dec Ljust in time for Christmas`: Priced richt. gall Sheila. day;• 963 - 2620, nights 963 - 2�i2ii. 42rtsc ............................................... ............................... FUR RENT: Professional office space, 821 sq ft. idea) for medical practice. Long -term lease. He. L -d secured parking. 2nd fluor. Floradora Build - ing. Call 925 -5117. 4:3rt,,c ........................ ............................... . ...... ... .. FOR RENT: High visibility retail.'cotnmercial '- -pace in Basalt. Next to City Market, great loai- tion. Approx 1600 sq ft. 925 -4400. 43rtsc .......................................... ............................... . FUR RENT: ^_ oficc, spaces for lease, 200 and 400.cq 1t. Call 925 - 7106. 43rtsc ........................................... ............................... FOR RENT:500 sq ft prime commercial space in Aiiix :Mtn Building. corner of Hunter and Durant- j _nd level. $12001nio. Call•Steve Marcus. 925 - '61.i. 44rtsc ............................................. ............................... FOR RENT: PRIME DOWNTOWN GROUND FLOOR. SMALL SPACE FOR RENT. Approx 400 t ,e, ft long term. $675/mo.'Formerly Sunrise Fire and \1 ateri Located 308 S Hunter SC Call 1 -602- . ` 42 1257. Jerry collect .g447p Y F()ftRENT Office shop and cold storage space for,•. rent at AABC. -Call',k5.1662 8.30 am-to-noon. j ;:\lien6 pm ca111925 2390 r .46:49p ......................... .. a. ... ... ;,'TORRENT: Warehotiiie hghtmdustrial con.mer -- vial uses, 800:54 ft ;- Mai6,5treei .Basalt. 'i$200.. . Jl rvme.925 -7000 46rtsec . ... a FO R RENT 1500 air ft at Nortli'Mill Station Ex cellent location 'near po§f office: For info call 925, 164ip i.+ : Apartment office combination in AABC.$750 mo including- utilities: 925- f;. _ _t ....................... ... ... .....,..,... k FOR RFNT: Garage in Aspen for furniture stor- 'aj,e Starting Jan 84June 84.923 -2185 -- .46.49c 4.. .. ............................................ ............................... 'FOR RENT: Prime.650 sq ft location formerly: a. j, lwutique. Avail immediate. Call 925 -2043 or 925- 2634. 46rtsc ....................................... ............................... • FOR RENT: 1750 sq ft retail or restaurant loca- tion, formerly Aspen Industrial Bank. Call Frank, 925 -2043 or 925 -2684. - ._ .. 46rtse y . I."tR RENT Parking aeail uncovered or..undvr- round structure.. Starting at $50,mo. City Mk-t ,,,,wk. 925 -1250. rtsc . FOR RENT: 720 sq ft office space to Mountain Plaza. Prime location for professional or similar enant. Call Bert Bidwell. 925- 3312. 3691. 47rtsc _ .............................................. ............................... FOR RENT: Exec office space with commanding eiews of Aspen Mt in the prestigious Hannah Dus- tin Bldg. LOOOsgft at$16 %ft incl util. Avail immed. 925 -1196. 3rtsc ................................. ............................... FOR RENT: 600 sq ft of office or retail space in North of Nell building. Parking included. Call Nancv Monk 925.1220, ext 438. 15rtsc ............................................. I........................... . FOR RENT: Office space for lease. q et)ITZ v of =sizes with shared Xerox machine.& conference room. The Courthouse Plaza Executive Center. 925 - ti969. 16rtsc ............................................. ............................... FOR RENT: 400 & 800 sq ft ABC, ideal location next to Dudley's and Skiing Co, 925.5160.22rtscc ................................................ ............................... FOR RENT: 1000 ft finished office. $650 mu. 400 ft finished office, $300 mo. Airport Bus Center. Call w Charlie Cole 925 -2822. 23rtsc M ........................................ ..................RENT: 1100 sq ft office or retail space. North l Bldg. Enclosed parking included. 602 -948- 28rtsc .............................. FOR RENT: Vehicle storagelparking at AABC, 520 mo unsecured, $501mo secured and covered. i Call Jean 9252102. 29rise L145.......................RENT: Office space in mall. Will subdivide 200 sq ft or smaller. Rent negotiable. 925- • 3ortsc ......................................... ............................... FOR RENT:400 sq ft.ofprime commercial space at street level suitable for shop or office located in the Aspen Plaza Bldg, southwest corner of Hunter & Hopkins. at street level.$750 mo. Call Steve Mar- cus 925 -7615. 30rtsc a..... ................. ' I'011 RENT. Avatlahle Noy 1 Beautifully finished r pace divided mto 3;offtoes'$ reoeption area. 1st ilcwr_tianter Square Bldg 1025 sq ft.: $1220 mo K includes heat and all other;utihties except elec. Fronts, on landscaped courtyard ark . ;Assigned p- u)k .Call "Susan- Whitney 925 8530'or 925- , -s; x *,. ix. 34rtsc smo ..... ... . .......... FOR RENT 330 sq ft office of retail_space North of Nell.,Bldg Enclosed parking included. 602 -948- % 7804:.. Y 35rtsc FOR RENT. ABC office and shop apace, 680' sq ft to tlQs q :R. starting from $8.40 per sq. ft. For.more info call 1- 214 = 363 -4753 or 927- 3790.. 38rtac x:..........................:............... ............................... " R. RENT Make offer on th office space of your + ce 176 sq t 8 sq ft Tom is arson. -'4044 38rtsc a . ............................................................ • ............... FOR RENT: 510 sq. ft. commercial space located in tw'•Row Houses at Airport Business Center. $3751 22ni(intf plus "50% utilitiesJCall 9254770 ' 2:.'days. 139rtsc .:. .. ............................................ ............................... FOR RENT: 741.28 sq: ft. office.-Best deal in town-. -.. \lain and Spring wiwo- employee housing. 925 _900. 39rtsc :................................. ............................... F'OR.RENT:-Sumo's Tappan Resta6rant Turnkey operation of 5,000 sq. ft. Located in the Old Post to COflice.Building in.Aspen. For more detailg call '9•t5 -1196: - - .. •39tisc FOR RENT tL` , .ve office -te near t , area. r \ u N, of;Aapen Mountain and ependence Pass t; J > L600. ;"4O rtsc ittW'staatl restauraatspace "with outdoor sea - >pace.'Shop space from 300 sq It to 2000 sq ft. 8645: or 9252684 41rtsc RENT Now lea s)ngbfticespaceinAABC,350 and`up: Call-Jean 925 -2102. ` • .41ftsc ........................................... ............................... RENT: Available Nov 1, beautifully finished e divided into 3`offic&4 hkc Rion' area. 1st Hiintei Square Bldg, 1025'sf, $1220 mo In- es heat and alt other utilties except elec. its-on landscaped courtyard. Assigned park - Call Susan Whitiafy 925= 3530.or 925- ). 4lrtsc R......................................... ............................... t RENT:.Commecial space in AABC 576 and q tt` One with garage door. Rent starting 465 pcluding utilities. Call Jean'925.2102AIrtse E Perry Hnrvey, Ch.-irman Aspen Planning F2nd Zoning Commission City/CountV.Planning Office. 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611. Deer Planning and Zoning Commission flembers, • r Nov 1.6, 11383 As P property owner of a single.fEmil V residence at 1104.Watprs Ave (C D-1derwood SUt:-division, Lot 13)1 i have rpccivpd notice of the special Pub-lic. hearing that will be held Plilovembcr 29, 19F3 t o I; Lit L3 7 "7 0 n j .11 g p r 0 1' rl S F' T 5 c o n ce dir,,--�ct.ed '-C '11p E. c on 1:�' 3 r O.--i C) L 19 51 s' "j r e P thc 7+ 7icr---�s -j F I a n d o w d b y EU r2 f I d .1 c t L i--! r k, i n o n Lt P A v f-, n u Since w i :nag tp n t tend the public h Pa r I n q r7j-u that my letter be recorded as part o F the oublic record on this rezoning --'E-1U2St. As an adjacent property owner to the area proposed for rezoning, I am opposed. to the change in zoning for several reasnns. My concE?rns are as follows: the gF?nF?r3l impact of c-3 50 unit employee housing unit 2) the vehicular traffic and related vehicular noise problems 3) the r-pu--li-ty o" construction in em.pInVic-P housing 4 th thc -2 t i c imp c t Ple se fjml\!' this rr--zonin❑ request which would have an adverse �7, jT IT] 1-3 C t on residential arec.i. Fonda Def�n- E?r SO 11 /pj r ko- pit NOV 1 983 IiL PLANNING OFFICE s end P, e c u r i ty i n i q h D r h o o d th P cJ r, s 1- r i-In traffic -h 7) nc, se l v,.2 r o 10� h i d e n s. i t V 1-10 U s T1 F3 .:he - ,c k, o F o it, j n �--- I: TJ m r, r i -D file p r P, p o s c- d 'I �! n a, F'I L I s n tp c' r.2 F F c? c t s t h e r E, o on care g ri d I i- F, J. n t e n n c!- the i I d n, _I 7, end r o u n d s Ple se fjml\!' this rr--zonin❑ request which would have an adverse �7, jT IT] 1-3 C t on residential arec.i. Fonda Def�n- E?r SO 11 /pj r ko- pit NOV 1 983 IiL PLANNING OFFICE • MEMORANDUM • TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vanh, Planning Director RE: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition DATE: November 22, 1983 INTRODUCTION Attached for your review are the project profiles and the Planning Office's recommended points allocation for the two projects submitted October 1,. 1983 for the L -1 /L -2 lodge GMP competition. The applica- tions are for the 46 unit Lodge at .Aspen to be constructed at 771 Ute Avenue and for the 480 unit Aspen Mountain Lodge located south of Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets. The Lodge at Aspen has a prior GMP allocation for 31 units and the Aspen Mountain Lodge is proposing to reconstruct approximately 269 units. The two projects are therefore requesting GMP allocations of 1.5 units and 211 units, respectively. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Lodge at Aspen is a proposal to build an- entirely new lodge at the corner of Ute Avenue and Original Street. The Lodge would contain 46 tourist rooms and 6 employee units, each of which is approximately 216 sq. ft. in size. Since the applicant won an allocation to build 31 tourist units and 4 employee housing units on this site in 1982, and would relinquish those units upon the approval of this revised submission, the net effect on the lodge quota is a request for 15 additional units. Features of the project meriting attention include underground parking, proximity to Little Nell, use of solar collectors, and the proposal to upgrade neighborhood storm drainage and fire protection. The appli- cant also proposes on -site amenities for guests (dining and health facilities) and on -site housing for 80% the Lodge's employees. The proposal, however, does place a substantial number of lodge rooms on a 1/3 acre site. The rooms themselves are small and the site includes substantial paving in addition to a building footprint covering approxi- mately 36% of the site. In our opinion, the project does not compare favorably with the prior proposal in several respects. The rooms are smaller than before (216 sq. ft. versus 320 sq. ft.), the architecture is not nearly as in- teresting, and the common areas are considerably less spacious and elegant. However, the footprint --of..the_new:building_is_ -..substantially less-than-the.prior proposal and much more attention has been given to landscaping and pedestrian circulation. The Aspen Mountain Lodge involves the reconstruction of approximately 269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicant is requesting a GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel project to 480 tourist units. The applicant also proposes to construct on -site an approximately 22,500 sq. ft. conference facility, a 4,500 sq. ft .-, health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various recreational amenities including swimming pools, an ice skating rink, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. Additional features of the project meriting attention include underground parking, proximity to Little Nell and Lift 1A, the .proposal to upgrade 0 0 MEMO: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition November 22, 1983 Page Two neighborhood water service and fire protection, and the various aspects of the proposed lodge improvement district which the applicant intends to implement. The lodge proposes to house approximately 600 of its employees off -site in three separate employee housing projects. The applicant's objective is to provide Aspen with a high quality, full service hotel with a full array of year -round tourist facilities 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. PROCESS The Planning Office will summarize the projects at your meeting on November 22, 1983, will review procedures with you, and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the applications. The applicants will have an opportunity to present their proposals and a public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing, each Commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposals. The total number of points awarded by the Commission, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to each project. Any project not receiving a minimum of 600 of the total points available under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, or a minimum of 300 of the points available under each of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. The total minimum points which an applicant must score in Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 51 points. The minimum points requirement in each Category are 3 points in Category 1, 11.7 points in Category 2, 6.3 points in Category 3, and 4.5 points in Category 4. A maximum of 5 bonus points may also be awarded in the event a Commission member determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. Bonus points, however, cannot be used to bring an application above the minimum points threshold. SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS Both projects will require additional review and approvals pursuant to the Municipal Code. The Lodge at Aspen is requesting_condominiumi- zation and exemption from Growth Management for its employee housing units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge will require PUD /Subdivision review, two rezonings, exemption from Growth Management for the project's employee housing, a change in use exemption, an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP Submission, two - street vacations and view plane review. The additional reviews for the Lodge at Aspen will be accomplished subsequent to the applicant's successful receipt of a development allotment. The applicant for the Aspen Mountain Lodge, however, has requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission hear their additional review requirements concurrent with their lodge GMP application. Given the complexity of the project, the applicant would like to know as early in the review process as possible whether there are any substantive problems with their proposal. In view of the extensiveness of these additional review requirements, their consideration has been scheduled for a special. P &Z meeting on November 29, 1983. The Planning • MEMO: 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition November 22, 1983 Page Three Office will produce a separate memorandum additional review requirements which will consideration sufficiently in advance of PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS • addressing the various be available for your your November 29th meeting. The Planning Office has assigned points to the applications as recom- mendations for your consideration. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planners and objectively scored the proposals. The following table summarizes the Planning Office's recommended points assignment. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criteria is provided in the attached score sheets. Availability of Public. Quality.:.--' Amenities Conformance Facilities/ of _for Local Public -' Total Services Design Guests Policy Goals Points LODGE AT ASPEN 7 21 9 11 48 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE 7 24 21 7 59 As the above table indicates, the Planning Office scored the Lodge at Aspen three points short of the minimum 51 point threshold. Should you concur with our scoring, this application would be effectively denied at this point in the process. The Aspen Mountain Lodge exceeds the minimum point threshold by eight points. It also meets the 30% minimum point requirement in each of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. REQUEST FOR MULTI -YEAR ALLOCATION The Aspen Mountain Lodge's request for a 211 unit allotment necessitates a multi -year allocation. Such an allocation is provided for pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(b) of the Municipal Code. The Planning Office's evaluation of this request is contained in Alan Richman's attached memo dated November 16, 1983. • • PROJECT PROFILE 1984 L -1 /L -2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Appl ican t: American Century Corp., Commerce Savings Assoc., Alan Novak 2. Project Name: Aspen Mountain Lodge 3. Location: South of Durant Ave,. between Galena and Monarch Streets.at the base of Aspen Mountain.: _. 4. Parcel Size:510,025 sq. ft., or approximately 1L,7- acres 5. Current Zoning: . CL, L -1, L-2, R -15 PUD (L) , Public and Conservation 6. Maximum Allowable Build -out Subject to proposed rezoning and PUD review and approval.:.u._. _. 7. Existing Structures: Continental Inn, Aspen Inn, Blue Spruce Lodge, The Hillside Lodge and several small apartments and miscellaneous dwelling Ey, units. Development Program: A 480 unit condominiumized hotel with extensive conference facilities on the northern portion of the site; an approximately 33 unit residential condominium complex on the southern portion of the site; and a._12 unit residential condominium complex at 700.South Galena Street. An additional residential unit is also proposed for the existing Summit Place Duplex. 9. Additional Review Requirements: P'UD /Subdivision review, three . rezonings; exemption from growth management for the projects employee housing, a change in use exemption, an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission, three street vacations, view plane. review and.8040 greenline review. Note: Some of these additional.review requirements are associated with the residential portion of this PUD. 10. Miscellaneous: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition PROJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge Date: 11/22/83 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with.respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the.existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given, area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: The applicant proposes to install a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street which will upgrade the distribution network in the immediate area by providing increased fire flows for both the proposed project and for the surrounding.-.,neighbor- .hood. The applicant also proposes to install a valve interconnect in Monarch Street which will increase the overall reliability of water service to the area. b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the develop - ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to.serve the proposed hotel project. No upgrade to the system is proposed or required. The applicants relocation of the Mill Street sewer main, however, may result in the elimination of replacement of some existing lines which currently present maintenance problems. C7 v c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments• The existing storm sewer system has sufficient capacity to carry 5 -year developed runoff. The applicant proposes to detain on -site the difference between the 100 -year developed storm runoff and the 5 -year historical runoff in order to reduce peak flows. d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro - vide fire protection according to its established response standards with- out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit- ment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 4 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: The applicant's installation of a new 12 inch water main in Galena Street will provide increased fire protection to both the proposed hotel and the surrounding area The applicant is also proposing to install approximately four new.fire hydrants to further enhance fire protection to the project:and to adjacent uses. The proposed hotel will employ'state -of- the -art fire protection methods and devices. e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the.road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or over- loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: The capacity of the existing road network is adequate to handle the net traffic. volume change resulting from this project. The proposed reduction in curb -cuts and on street parking may.result in better traffic flow and reduced accident potential in the vacinity of the project. r. CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to.the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing heighborhood developments. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3, POINTS: 3 Comments While the architectural design is innovative in that it makes use of extensive excavation to reduce the preceived.bulk of the buildings and to maintain public views of Aspen Mountain, there are elements of the project which are, in our opinion, clearly incompatible with surrounding developments and with the overall scale of the lodge district and central core area. .Traditional architectural treatment and the use of compatible building materials help to blend the buildings into their surroudings. However, both the main hotel and conference entrance areas substantially exceed the height limitaion of the zone district resulting in major building masses which are out -of -scale with the surrounding lodge district. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 9 COMMENTS: Existing mature vegetation -. is retained and supplemented with extensive landscaping; all utilities will be placed underground; the applicant proposes to implement various elements of.the Aspen Lodge District Plan (e.g., sidewalks, lighting, signage, street furniture, etc.); on -site links- to pedestrian and bike trails are provided; open space.--areas are internalized and oriented for maximum solar exposure and the privacy of hotel guests. Total PUD open space exceeds minimum requirements. C. ENERGY CONSERVATION Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de- vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con - servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 3 Comments: Insulation exceed minimum requirements; buildings oriented to maximize passive solar gain; maior...hotel support functions are located sub -grade to reduce exterior. walls and roof thereby further reducing energy consumption; HVAC system is computer controlled. d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas,.and the design features to screen parking from public views. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 6 Comments: Approximately 380 underground 'spaces are provided for the proposed 480 unit hotel. Limo service and proximity to Ruby Park, the commercial core, employee housing and Aspen Mountain offset parking demand. Valet service will be provided. Internal circulation is excellent with main hotel and conference entrances._.set : back . from.Durant Avenue.: The parking- garage.exits via the conference ..entrance area further minimizing impact on Durant. Truck loading areas appear adequate. Guest leading areas are heaviiy 1anCscaped., e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 Comments: The substantial building masses associated with the main hotel and conference entrances and their attendant support areas significantly restrict public views of Aspen Mountain. The approximately 50 foot height of the Durant Avenue and conference entrance facades will, to varying degrees, alter scenic background views from • Durant Avenue, Ruby -Park and Wagner Park.. �J CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 24 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3. -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability.of or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 9 Comments: Applicant proposes to provide an extensive conference. center (22,500 sq. ft.) including an 8,000 sq. ft. ballroom and 10 meeting rooms. The conference center has its own separate entrance and support facilities and is sized to accomodate up to 600 persons. Lobby areas for both the hotel and center are expansive and contain _._.. accessory restaurants, lounges and slopes. b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 2 POINTS: 6 Comments: On -site food and beverage fadlities are extensive (minimum:.of 15,000 sq:.ft.), include three dining formats: coffee shop, grill and specialty.'restaurant, and total approximately 525 seats. A minimum of four lounges are provided throughout the hotel and conference center. The hotel's main kitchen is sized for full banquet service. .7 C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re- creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER 2 POINTS: 6 Comments: On -site recreational facilities include: two swimming pools, an outdoor skating rink, a 4,500 sq. ft. health club, a 1,900 sq.ft:.game room, extensive sun decks, ski access from Little Nell and Lift 1 -A, and a picnic amplitheater area at the base of Aspen Mountain. The applicant also proposes.to complete the Dean Street trail through the hotel site to provide summer access to Aspen Mountain and adjacent areas. CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 21 4.. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro- ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: 7 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 7 Comments: Applicant proposes to house 180 employees off -site or approximately 63 percent of the hotel project':s projected employee generation. The hotel's projected employee generation is 287 employees. Forty -seven employees are to be housed at the Alpiii:a: Haus, 43 at the Copper Horse and 90 in a new project to be constructed off Ute Avenue on the Benedict parcel. 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition; award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Comments: 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: Points in Category 4: SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1,2,3.and 4: Bonus Points TOTAL POINTS: RATING: MULTIPLIER: POINTS: 1 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) 24 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) 21 (Minimum 6.3 points required) 7 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) 59 (Minimum of 51 points required) (Maximum of 5 points allowed) 59 Names of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office PROJECT PROFILE 1984.L-1/L-2 LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: Lyle D. Reeder 2. Project Name: The Lodge at Aspen 3. Locution • 771 Ute Avenue - Corner of Ute and Original at Aspen Mountain Road 4. 5. 6. Parcel Size.: 15,386 sq. ft. Current Zoning: L -1 Maximum Allowable Build -out: 15,386.(1:1) 7. Existing Structures: A single family house :(one story, 3 bedroom, 1 bath) occupied by the applicant. 8. Development Program: 46 lodge- rooms and 6 employee units. Proposed buildout is 15,380 sq.ft. or virtually 1:1. Internal FAR breakdown is as follows: tourist units = 9936 sq. ft. or 0.65:1 employee units = 1296 sq. ft. or 0.08 non -unit space - 4148 sq. ft. or 0.27:1 9. Additional Review Requirements • Condominiumization, GMP exception for employee units 10. Miscellaneous: Should this applicant be- granted an allocation, he would relinquish the.31 unit allocation awarded in 1982. Therefore, the net additional units requested by this project is 15 lodge rooms. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen Date: 11/22/83 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: a. WATER'- Considering the ability of the water system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any,system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Markalunas notes that a looped water system would improve a neighborhood deficiency but applicant only commits to sharing the cost of the improvement., Therefore, applicant is only paying to improve the quality of service to his. own project. b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve.the develop - ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve the proposed lodge. No upgrade is proposed nor requested. C. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the.degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 2 Comments: Applicant proposes drywells of sufficient size to retain site and roof water runoff. Applicant commits to extend the storm sewer up the Aspen Mountain Road adjacent to his property at his own expense. Engineering rates proposed as excellent. d. FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the fire department to pro- vide fire protection according to its established response standards with- out the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commit- ment of-the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 1 2 POINTS: Comments: Project can be served by the fire protection district. Applicant proposes to locate a new hydrant at his own expense near the Northwest corner of the project. Fire chief would prefer hydrant on Northeast corner. e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major Linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the existing traffic.patterns, creating safety hazards or over- loading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 1 Comments: Engineering department finds roads in the area to have adequate capacity, although constrained by winter skier parking and '.'dead end" nature of this corner. Project will not substantially impact existing roads. Applicant proposes to blacktop Aspen Mountain Road at his own expense, an improvement which is largely cosmetic, not service oriented. CATEGORY 1 SUBTOTAL: 7 2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: ..0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. .2 -- Indicates an.acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - _Considering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing heighborhood developments. RATING. 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 3 POINTS. Comments. Building is generally compatible with surrounding developments, although the design is very standard. The peak of the roof is about 35 or 36 feet above grade, whereas the code limits the height to 28 feet plus 5 additional feet for the angled roof, for a maximum allowable height. of 33 feet. b. •SITE DESIGN — Considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to .the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches, etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide.for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 . COMMENTS: Site design includes benches and bicycle racks near Ute Avenue; sidewalk along Ute Avenue underground utilities, adequate peripheral landscaping, a building footprint of only 36% and heated sidewalks and driveways for snow control. The engineer feels that 2 curb cuts on Ute Avenue are excessive 0 as traffic flow could be handled by one cut on Ute and one on Aspen Mountain Road: this situation is magnified by the existing driveway for the Aspen Alps along the property on Ute Avenue The density of this proiect is approximately 130 units per acre. C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation, solar energy de- vices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize con- servation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. RATING: 3 MULTIPLIER: 1 POINTS: 3 Comments: Insulation is proposed at 20% above.code. Solar collectorson the roof will be utilized in the domestic hot water system. d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for.the project, or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features.to screen parking from public views. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 ..POINTS: 6 Comments: Parking is provided underground on the basis of .one space per lodge and employee bedroom. Parking is'also shown for three limousines. The turning radius for cars entering the parking area may not be adequate. Detailed information on trash access was not provided.. The three curb units for cars are excessive, as noted above. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views or surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 6 Comments: The building is set back from.Ute Avenue by approximately 85 feet and from Aspen Mountain Road by approximately 30 feet. The height of the building as shown is approximately 2 -3 feet above that allowed by code and must be reduced, but the overall design does not affect public views due to the already existant Aspen Alps Building. CATEGORY 2 SUBTOTAL: 21 3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality.or spaciousness 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates.services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of . quality and spaciousness. The following shall be rated accordingly: a. Availability of'or improvements to the existing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies.and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 3 POINTS: 3 Comments: The only common meeting areas in the lodge are the lounge /lobby which are 640 and 480 sq. ft. respectively or about 7%- of the entire internal floor area. The total internal floor area in the lodge devoted to "non- unit" space is 27% just above minimum 25% requirement. b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging projector any addition thereto. RATING: 2 MULTIPLIER: 2 POINTS: 4 Comments: The restaurant�wllProvide -food service for guests only in the lounge (winter) and also on the terrace (summer), and an Apres Ski Barg also in the lounge. C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site accessory re- creational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. RATING: 1 MULTIPLIER: 2 POINTS: 2 Comments: A hot tub, male and female saunas, and an.exercise room are provided below grade in the garden level parking area. No outdoor recreational amenities are provided on site. Health facilities amount to about 850 sq. ft. and do not count against FAR. CATEGORY 3 SUBTOTAL: 9 4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the pro- ject who are housed on- or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: 11 MULTIPLIER: 1 11 POINTS: Comments: Applicant proposes to house 12 employees on site, while lodge is projected to require 15 employees. The off -site housing proposal contains no specifics and therefore cannot be evaluated. Applicant's total housing proposal = 80% (note: the employee unit in the parking garage may not meet minimum building code habitation requirements.) 5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 5 points). The Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive .criteria of Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, but has also exceeded the provisions of these categories and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, prior to the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provided a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. z • Comments: LJ RATING: 0 MULTIPLIER: 1 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 7 (Minimum of 3 points required) Points in Category 2: 21 (Minimum of 11.7 points required) Points in Category 3: 9 (Minimum 6.3 points required) Points in Category 4: 11 (Minimum of 4.5 points required) SUBTOTAL: Points in Categories 1,2,3.and 4: 48 (Minimum of 51 points required) Bonus Points (Maximum of 5 points allowed) .TOTAL POINTS: 48 Name_ of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office 9 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Analysis of Award of Allocation DATE: November 16, 1983 Should you concur with the Planning Office's recommended ranking of the two L -1 /L -2 lodge development applications, you will also need to address the request by the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge for an allocation beyond the 35 units available this year. Specifically, the applicants request that the project be awarded the 50 lodge units that remain as unallocated /expired from prior years, as well as 126 units (3Z years of quota) from future years. While the ultimate de- cision on this matter rests with City Council, the Planning Commission has traditionally made a recommendation as to its feelings on the award of an allocation. Following below is an analysis of the pros and cons of awarding the full 211 unit quota request to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. .m 1. Full allocation would permit the.substantial upgrade in the quality of our lodging_,inven- tory.in return for the expan- sion of that inventory (Note: the reconstruction of approxi- mately 269 lodge rooms repre- sents about 25% of the entire inventory of lodge rooms in Aspen) . 2. The development of this faci- lity 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 consistent with the intent of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan to cen -. tralize our tourist accommoda- tions at the base of Aspen Mountain. CON 1 - 2. 4. Full allocation provides the developer with the capability of building.a full service 3. hotel complex, including sub- stantial tourist amenities such as.conference rooms, ballroom., and recreation facilities. 5. The development of a facility of this magnitude in this high profile location may change the popular image of the quality of Aspen's lodging in one shot. 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 of the Centennial, Hotel Jerome and Highlands Inn projects. The allocation of-future years of quota will virtually pre clude any other L -1 /L -2 appli- cant from obtaining a substan- tial allocation to expand an existing /build a new downtown lodge (Note: the code requires that we make 12 units per year available if the quota has been used. Note also that the construction of the Hotel Jerome project will require us to further use future .years of quota, amounting to about 65 units. Finally, note that the 10 unit per year L -3 quota will continue to be available regardless of this project). The construction of such a large project may be a sign to the skiing industry that the next growth cycle in Aspen is underway and it is time to plan for ski area expansion. There may also be a cyclical impact on the commercial sector, where vacancies and underemployment at existing businesses may be replaced by full occupancy and maximum employment, with com- mensurate impacts on the Community. • MEMO: Analysis of Award of Allocation November 16; 1983 Page Two 6. By awarding a full allocation, 4. we permit the master planning of the entire area, the accom- plishment of the total upgrade of that area, and the minimiza- tion of the length of construc- tion impacts upon Aspen. 7. There is no substantial benefit to be gained from making the pro- ject compete again for an allo- cation in a future year pro - vided that you support the de- velopment of a project of this scale. 0 There may be a short term inability of certain portions of the infrastructure to accommodate the growth associated :. with this project,.particularly if combined with a...community -widen economic resurgence such that units with low occupancy and commercial space which is vacant are once again full. Facilities which we feel will be especially hard hit include the sewage treat- ment plant, transit center and the road network (both into Aspen and inside Aspen). 8. Since it will take two years 5. The increased.competition in to construct this facility,. the lodging industry may re- there is an automatic phasing sult in the attrition of some mechanism built into.the project. of the smaller, somewhat mar- ginal operations. 6. The addition of 211 new units will further concentrate lodging in Aspen.while the bulk of our skiing capacity is outside of Aspen or in Snowmass. As can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and opposed to the allocation of the full 211 units requested. The up- grade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the creation of a major conference facility are consistent with the growth policies which.the Planning Commission has been developing. The accomplishment of a master plan for lodging in this area is con- sistent 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 e�onomv and may set off anew growth cycle in Aspen. Given the very real need in Aspen for lodging facilities which provide both quality and value, the Planning Office has no problem in recom- mending that the 50 units which remain as unallocated from prior years be given to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. However, we find it somewhat more difficult to address the question of future years allocation. We are concerned about the short term growth rate and its impact upon Community facilities. We also must question what social and'psycholog.ical impacts upon permanent residents of the Community will result from compressing several years of planned growth into the construction of a single project. The decision on this issue must therefore be predicated on whether or not you believe that Aspen needs a major new loding facility which will not only upgrade existing units but also be large enough to justify the creation of substantial conference capabilities. If you feel that this need exists, then it is probably reasonable to make the required.trade -off in terms of the growth rate. However, if you feel that obtaining the tourist amenities being proposed is not worth the trade -offs in terms of the growth rate and the scale of the project, you should not support the request for 32 years of future LJ quota. However, you should recognize that you probably cannot obtaii_) substantial tourist support facilities which essentially are not generators of revenue without allowing a substantial number of lodge rooms to offset the cost of such facilities. We believe that we have provided you with the necessary information upon which to make this fundamental choice. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '.0 C. F. HOECKEL R. B. a L. CO. ti ORDINANCE NO. .(Series of 1983) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24 -11.2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADOPTION OF A CHANGE IN USE GMP EXEMPTION WHEREAS, Section 24- 11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, GMP Exemp- tions, permits the remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any existing building, without requiring competition under the Growth Management Quota System, provided that no addition of dwelling units nor expansion of floor area takes place, and WHEREAS, implicit in the provisions of said section is a limitation on the ability of an applicant to change the use of any existing building at the time of its remodeling, restoration or reconstruction, and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council does wish to amend the Muni- cipal Code to explicitly identify guidelines, for the administra- tion of a change in use GMP exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE `CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That it does hereby amend Section 24 -11.2 of the Municipal Code by the adoption of a new subsection (j) to read as follows: "(j) Any change in use of an existing structure for which a. certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two years, provided that the applicant can demonstrate to the Planning .and Zoning Commission that said change in use will result in negligible growth impacts on the community. Any activity resulting in a change between the use categories identified in Section 24 -11.1 of this Code which is found by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion to cause a growth impact shall be subject to the need to acquire a development allotment,, pursuant to said Section 24 -11.1. For the purposes of this section, growth impact shall be defined as any activity which results in more than a negligible increase in employee housing or parking spaces; generates more than a negli- gible increase in traffic demand, water and sewer needs, fire and police protection requirements, off -site drain- age and road demands; or otherwise requires the provi- sion of more than a negligible increase in governmental services." N RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM •.4 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. CO. Section 2 That it does hereby amend the first sentence of Section 24- 11.2(a) of the Municipal Code to read as follows: "The remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any exist - ing building, provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor creation of additional dwelling units." If any section, subsection, sentence,.clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the' -_ day of , 1983, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _-2 day of 1983. William L. St rling, M or ATTEST: Kathryn S61Koch, City Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM H C. F. HOECKEL B. 0. @ L. CO. FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 1983. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FORM !D C. F. HOECKEL S. S. B L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves STATE OF COLORADO ) ss CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I,.Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was' introduced, read in full, and passed on reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on ��y o� s 19 D and published in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Aspen,p Colorado, in its issue of 19 03 , and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City ..Council on 19 and ordered published as U . ''// Ordinance No. �D Series of 19D_, of said City, as provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado this day of S E A L Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Deputy City Cler • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SA C. F. HOECKEL B. B. B L. CO. ORDINANCE NO. S5- (Series of 1983) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 24 -11.1 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTAS FOR INDIVIDUAL LODGE ZONE DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 24 -11.6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTA SYSTEM; AND AMENDING SECTION 24 -3.1 BY ADDING A SUBSECTION (gg) `!'HERETO TO DEFINE "DORMITORY" WHEREAS, on September 13, 1982, the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 38, Series of 1982, establishing an L -3 Lodge Preservation zone district, and WHEREAS, on December 27, 1982, the Aspen City Council did adopt Ordinance 68, Series of 1982, rezoning 25 lodges from vari- ous districts in which they were nonconforming uses to L -3, Lodge Preservation, and WHEREAS, during the course of the establishment of the L -3, Lodge Preservation zone district, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council did indicate their intent to review the lodge development quota system in light of the needs of and the limitations upon the new zone district, and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council does wish to amend the lodge development quota system so as to ensure that projects designed to upgrade existing lodges in the L -3 zone district may equitably compete with lodge development projects in Aspen's other zones, and WHEREAS, the growth management approach which the Aspen City Council believes will best deal with the needs of and the limita- tions upon the L -3 zone district is the establishment of a separ- ate quota for L -3 lodges and the amendment of the evaluation cri- teria and informational requirements for lodge developments to differentiate between new lodge developments and projects which merely add to existing lodges. J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. ROECREL B. B. & L. CO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIN[.,-D BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section '1 That Section 24 -11.1 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 24 -11.1. ,Limitations on development. All other provisions of this zoning code notwithstanding, there shall be constructed within the City of Aspen in each year no more than the following: (a) Within all zone districts, thirty -nine (39) residential units; (b) Within the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone district, thirty - five (35) lodge or hotel units; (c) Within the L -3 zone district, ten (10) lodge or tourist dormitory units; (d) Within the CC and C -1 zone district, ten thousand (10,000) square feet of commercial and office space; (e) Within the NC and SCI zone districts, seven thousand (7,000) square feet of commercial and office space; (f) Within the 0 zone district, four thousand (4,000) square feet of commercial and office space; and (g) Within the CL and all other zone districts, three thou- sand (3,000) square feet of commercial and office space; provided that these maximums may be deviated from under those conditions specified in Section 24- 11.3(a). No construction, except for that described in Section 24 -11.2, shall proceed until the project shall have been awarded a development allotment pursuant to the provisions of this article." Section 2 That Section 24 -11.6 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24 -11.6. Lodge development application procedures. The following procedures shall govern the award of develop- ment allotments for lodges: (a) Complete applications containing the following informa- tion shall be filed with the city planning office, on or before October 1st of each year. Prior to the filing date, applicants are encouraged to engage in a pre application conference with the planning office for the purpose of clarifying, as necessary, the following requirements: 2 FORM '.0 C. F. MOECNEL B. B. R L. CO. • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (1) A written description of the proposed development including comments as to: (aa) Type of water system to be used, including information on main size and pressure, the excess capacity available in the public water supply. system to serve the proposed building or the addition thereto; the location of the nearest main; proposed facilities necessary to provide fire protection including fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (bb) Type of sewage treatment system to be used, the existing excess capacity available in the sewage treatment system; the location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line; the estimated sewer demand of the building or the addition thereto. (cc) Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface, underground and runoff water from the building or the addition thereto. (dd) Total development area including lot coverage, internal square footage, and areas devoted to open space or landscaping. (ee) Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from.the proposed building or the addition thereto; total number of vehi- cles expected to use or be stationed in the proposed buildings; hours of principal daily usage; on and off street parking to be sup- plied; location of alternate transit means (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disin- centive techniques incorporated into the pro- posed building or the addition thereto. (ff ) Effects of the proposed development on adja- cent land uses in the vicinity of the project. (gg) The proposed construction schedule including, if applicable, a schedule for phasing con -. struction. (2) A site utilization map including: (aa).Preliminary architectural drawings in suffi- cient detail to show building size, height, materials, insulation, fireplaces or solar energy devices (demonstrating energy conserva- tion or solar energy utilization features), type of commercial spaces or units, and loca- tion of all buildings (existing and proposed) on the development site. (bb) Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving natural terrain and open.space, and undergrounding of utilities. 3 • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 5.0 L. F. ROECNEL R. R. 8 L. CO. (cc) Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops and improvements proposed to ensure privacy from such areas. (dd) Any major street or road links and school .sites, pathways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts. (ee) General description of surrounding existing land uses and identification of zoning or historical district.boundary lines, if any. (b) The planning office shall evaluate all development allotment applications during the early weeks of Octo- ber, reject those that are ineligible under section 24- 11.3(c) and present its recommendations to the planning and zoning commission at a regular meeting of the com- mission during November. The planning and zoning com- mission shall review all applications taking into con - sideration the following criteria and point schedule with respect to each of the following areas of concern: (1) Availability of public facilities and services (maximum 10 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon pub- lic facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improve- ment by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general. 2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. The following services shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Water (maximum 2 points) considering the abil- ity of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (bb) Sewer (maximum 2 points) considering the abil- ity of the sewer system to serve the develop- ment and the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development. (cc) Storm drainage (maximum 2 points) considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drain- age control facilities and to maintain the system over the long term. FORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (dd) Fire protection (maximum 2 points) considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addi- tion of major equipment to an existing sta- tion, the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water storage tanks. (ee) Roads (maximum 2 points) considering the capa- city of major linkages of the road network to provide for the needs of the proposed develop- ment without substantially altering the exist- ing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. (2) Quality of or improvements to design (maximum 15 points). The commission shall consider each appli- cation with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed . thereto, and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard),design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. . The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Architectural design (maximum 3 points) con - sidering the compatibility of the proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighborhood developments. (bb) Site design (maximum 3 points.) considering the quality and character of the proposed or the improvements to the existing landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches,.etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development. (cc) Energy conservation (maximum 3 points) con- sidering the use of insulation,, solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. 5 FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL'8. R. 8 L. CO. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS • 100 Leaves (dd) Parking and cirulation (maximum 3 points) con - sidering the quality and efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system for the project, or any addition thereto, includ- ing-the proposed automobile and service vehi- cle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public views. (ee) Visual impact (maximum 3 points) considering the scale and location of the proposed build- ings or any addition thereto, to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. (3) Amenities provided for guests (maximum 9 points). The commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its pro - posed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto. The commission shall rate each develop- ment by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities. 1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Indicates services which are judged.to be exceptional in terms of quality and spacious- ness. The following shall be rated accordingly: (aa) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (bb) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maximum 3 points). (cc) Availability of or improvements to the exist- ing on -site accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or any addition thereto (maxi- mum 3 points). (4) Conformance to local public policy goals (maximum 30 points). The commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: (aa) Provision of employee housing (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 2 • L' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 00 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & L. CO. - - 0 to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the project who are housed on or off -site - 1 point for each 5% housed. The applicant shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the plan - ning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off -site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of appli- cations, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to gener- ate, based on the proposed size,and level of services of the lodge. If the planning com- mission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. (bb) Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units (maximum 15 points). The commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or re- construct - 1 point for each 10% rehabil- itated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inven- tory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or. reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% reha- bilitated or reconstructed. For the purposes of this section, rehabilita- tion shall include the upgrading of the struc- ture and appearance of a lodge unit or of non - unit space by its in -place restoration to a substantially higher quality status relative to the segment(s) of the tourist population to which the lodge is marketed, which may alter its size. For the purposes of this section, reconstruction shall include the partial or complete demolition and rebuilding of a lodge unit or non -unit space which may be accom- plished in a similar or different size to the original configuration, provided- that the rebuilt portion of the lodge -is located on the same site. For the purposes of this section, non -unit space shall include those areas_.of the lodge not included within individual lodge units but intended to serve the guests of the 7 FORM !A C. F. HOECKEL R. R. 9 L. CO. • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves facility, including but not limited to the lobby, halls, recreational areas and dining facilities. In the case of both rehabilita- tion and reconstruction, the units and the non -unit space shall be required to meet all other provisions of.this zoning code and other applicable codes. To be eligible for points in this section, an applicant shall provide a conceptual program identifying the proposed improvements to be made to the lodge units or the non -unit space and the timetable for their restoration or rebilding which provides that the rebuilt por- tions of the lodge are suitable for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units for which an allotment has been requested. In the alternative, an applicant may submit an affidavit itemizing the expense incurred dur- ing the previous twenty -four (24) months and documenting that the expenditures have re- sulted in substantial upgrading of the inven- tory of tourist units in the lodge, and /or its guest facilities. Points shall only be awarded under this section to applicants located in the L -3 zone and not to those in the L -1, L -2, CC or CL zone districts. (5) Bonus points (maximum points). The commission members may, when an_y�one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), prior to the application of the cor- responding multiplier. Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written jus- tification of that award for the public hearing record. (c) The commission shall consider all eligible applications at a public hearing at the close of which each member of the commission shall identify the number of points assigned by him under each of the criteria outlined hereinabove in subsection (b) of this Section 24 -11.6 after having multiplied the number of points assigned under each of the following sections by the correspond- ing multiplier: Points Section Multiplier Available 24- 11.6(b)(1)(aa) (Water -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(bb). (Sewer -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(cc) (Storm drain- age -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(1)(dd) (Fire protec- tion -2 pts.) 1 2 FORM b C. F. ROECKEL B. B. Q L. CO. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS LJ 100 Leaves 24- 1.1.6(b)(1)(ee) (Roads -2 pts.) 1 2 24- 11.6(b)(2)(aa) (Architectural design -3 pts.) 3 9 2.4- 11.6(b)(2)(bb) (Site design- 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(cc),(Energy conser- vation -3 pts.) 1 3 24- 11.6(b)(2)(dd) (Parking and cir- culation -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(2)(ee) (Visual impact- 3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(3)(aa) (Common meeting areas -3 pts.) 3 9 24- 11.6(b)(3)(bb) (Dining facilities - 3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(3)(cc) (Recreational facil- ities -3 pts.) 2 6 24- 11.6(b)(4)(aa) (Employee housing- 15 pts.) 1 15. 24- 11.6(b)(4)(bb) (Rehabilitation and reconstruction - 15 pts.) 1 15 24- 11.6(b)(5) (Bonus pts. -6 pts.) 1 6 TOTAL: 91* 106 ** * L -1, L -2, CC and CL zones. ** L -3 zone. Any project not receiving a minimum of sixty (60) per- cent of the total points available under section 24- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) or a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the points available under each of section 14- 11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) shall no longer be con- sidered for a development allotment and the application shall be considered denied. (d) Projects shall, be recommended for the award of a devel- opment allotment in accordance with the following rank- ing formula. Each commission member voting thereon shall rank the projects in the order of their priority such that the project receiving the highest number of total points shall be deemed the first priority project for such commission member. Each commission member voting thereon shall then assign a common number to each project in the rank order of its priority (i.e., the highest project for each commission member shall be assigned the common number "1 ", the next "l ", etc.). For each project the common number assigned shall be averaged. The project receiving the lowest average num- ber shall be deemed to be the highest ranking project of the commission. The ranking thus established by the commission shall be forwarded to the City Council on or. before December 1st of each year. In the event of ties as to the overall ranking, those projects tying shall then be ranked according to the total points awarded to each project by each commission member voting thereon. The project receiving the highest number of total points shall be deemed to be the highest ranking project of the commission, and the ranking thus established by the com- a FORM '.0 C. F. HOECNEL B. B. B L. CO. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves mission shall be forwarded to the city council on or before December 1st of each year. (e) Having received the commission's report, the city coun- cil,shall consider any challenges thereto by applicants; provided, however, that the city council review shall be limited to determining whether there'.was a denial of due process or abuse of. discretion by the commission in its scoring. Any challenges must be filed with the planning office within fourteen (14) days of the date of the pub - lic hearing by the planning ad zoning commission. (f) Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings provided for in this section, during which the city council may amend the number of points awarded to any protesting applicant, the city council shall by resolu- tion and prior to January 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, building or any other regulations of the city. Unallocated allotments may be carried \over to the following year for possible distribution at that (or a later) time. (g) No applicant shall, after submission of his application pursuant to section 24- 11.6(a) amend, modify or change his application except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clarification or technical correction only. The standards of section 24- 11.7(b) shall determine whether or not a change is deemed insubstantial. (h) The procedural deadlines established in this section 24 -11.6 may be modified by the Aspen City Council for the year 1983 in the event that they are unworkable given the effective date of this article." Section 3 That Section 24 -3.1 of the.Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of a subsection "(gg)" to read as follows: "(gg) Dormitory: A building or space within a building which provides group sleeping accommodations for persons who are not members of the same family group in one room or in a series of closely associated rooms under joint occupancy and single management without individual cook- ing facilities. Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more than eight persons." Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such 10 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 9 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & L. CO. portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent . provision and such holding shall not affect.the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1983, at 5:00 P.M. in ,the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 1983. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: I Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 198 R G�GG -- William L. Stirling, r yor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ',0 C. F. HOECNEL 8. 8. & L. CO. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I,.Kathryn S. Koch,,City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was introduced, read in full, and passed on reading at a regular meeting of the City Counpcil of the City of Aspen on � 19 0 3 and published in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of,general circulation published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of / 194 3 and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the.City Council on OL u—i 196 3 , -and .ordered published as U Ordinance No. =, Series of 19 �3 of said City, as provided bylaw. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the.seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado this v ✓ day of 1903 Kathryn Koch, City Clerk S E A L Deputy City Clerk i I'I lil �lk� S ubm i �Sta1 �2CCu i reln�{s uni wh i c.j-- sc� ���ts 1 w-.s s acmes (L (►) 1 cc f e5 a-� a pr opo i f" f2 p1q ffakics. Qer,5 -� - it i ; 4 a � roxl�� tocal tm o L 5�! ud Ere- 5 , eien 5 i � , o o—& 4 �lit APP �. c, __ o-(- bulld(v locQ� 04 comrnk c h park 4- mCreLtia►6 L cnelzs ands NoE prov�?dC -I a �ar\c4�cap� r� an (b� a c�pn l lacc�pn tuoc(;dt� o{ h�- �I( orch.t �M?060 �►n c.�m�tfS U, , a(�ou�, �(ZU -Pwq , erg v CLe s � ; cc d e l oT,\ eKie lor- dsie,, buIt ( M95 ¢- te1ct cv\4lp i' 15 oV2e 5U iCi�(1�7 - iii y�5 % 5.rocii;o(\ \ -�{al �u�nbprp 0- � ' irk u'i1fS o` -Qd(� �a oa-f 3+- r� � n `'4 a vrA rr- 004 4P� 4 CODns vofi ur d Fro -0- �eA s frtce or >ln�qyb. 7 v u l Gud plr��iovs etic�� c'p o f e 10 (Z) MU5-� mom { QpQ�� d t i rec�v i reJ� f'S 1n 5e 1'o� to hcwd,ic ' I'' a one v rye re5i d��( pro ' eds L oalocZteA or ua'caRt e act -o (E3') Kc4 2ersonlq,g �rc�c�dvr�s �' n 24 -(Z 1n<<vd1r� a r , Provo ctC�u mfe s arc map o r- svff?es�vrE (tea( scrip f _ s-F � (Y, (b) r\ame s acorc51�s of- a c 2fs 5ubJ eC(' a�o1 na11'�5 C�dD�rEs�eS o all �i(� ( ow e'r 60 � I ij 4 appll6pvt� u�v shall be- -#v O( npr o 40- sab(r- c+ Qrt�Fper�y apP(i axk orn. few to ID 400- -(-{- re zs�rinq App(i cation n��cl Z> lcupls�aP� rtg P�a� 3, CDYI e (Ap (v Kr j - �l(oc:J in u�Hi�h �s Pp nod- ire a� re oh i arm -mod j�e9trrwm51 v ,I • a Mo P'--v cLO (-6 f e ri i ICI I� o#hborhbj � '-g►�s� ii! ! (Z -15- ld�ciztd Subdiu�s(an i5 to tlL k d 51 Co►r H Dl� au nrou nd� o se e � tae r QSLgn , . eu2n a {- 1.igh � shoucd ILSE De 9 nfa� {.bo/ Ci.t . C�tn l` • A f p3. Ui a G-Imk • r►� p?cE Nan -tom oxt yE; shd'£ tQr*L uses y � erout"5 bp27t _yd et h � Qrtt 4l` tpe " base- o¢ iM inoon4tin`�- nwF�ef� i� c�ProP�'4�L x hi 4�=r 9iuPit �Lisfq �lv% ,nfPr i 6an-! Q"�, FOwEU��; nOnton o•+.: si��e 'f+L A�p�art Alm �lt+n .[onLes��*+�fed slur -c- age ,d A � .. Kssryea¢, w,c �(wwe io/ n va�:t+e�Eial ��`�,/� T.�•\ -� ' ^ C L n ierw� w sF�vcytrXGl �++e�id�4 ^ tiii�V u �1E;r�^DW�t(� in H �+Td4(tol i'!t( ylJ a. k-4 i.. �►�¢ -a p d�5i n lo���ooi of bu�(o[i�nys,t'� ! ( ec�wv� z41- S.1 omo 7P 9 2 51M rout desl9h+ tlarP l¢r a Projects, proKoit elid;ti KLY pf JOLM,:U��(ifiCS y StrviCCS.,PrCS�u� .� oPn sQaCf , �nova!)ut silt Plarwiy, lkne ol fiLlat lcx dSp rtlw�eonsl.;P wish aurro<+.d�re5 a�ttis� P arc Irc�uS � n Q�otls o� �a�.s ".204 I p�oUed b` the-_ EiQUS� r(Uthor� 7 n hvusi� p(dv, t vsirg , USt� n��5 fo r a rde�� uni-Fs m5PA or, un i ze, X05 E, etc •, n i 5 �� g g ;n a Unit•5 a.rt'__ cOtnc�n t+ra�ed . on �L°- � h►� ier I; I� �fw�i�onal�t prr•elp4ee bousi�{ r�`y6.bari.a0 - ids . � Mcx n_gFo' ernpplt��a h(jusi �! . dPJ15l nCtg4�rl�cC�l cpnu itnirr. =to yaprl[ 6k(`n9 • \ info 'paLlGY►T�f Ylr\�� vi anti 2a �onmQ+�al -f- sa 0a ` tm ?ate buy �h CSU s+n P'�tktn -Cfl�l �41e..wte ro seueae wUdGfn a�PA -v6 , .. 'fie ""needs. sin E ls�sforicaliy ,I .n tMQ, uttinth�. Soya! jwvpctt -5- posii4w : >n anxtANr9 °,ti`P � lo[RiPd I � �5 1-2 � cxv 14 � u64x\ CL U uni - S Sze Ili m ar sidi rem�¢/ti S . emp ntie i "our gar '. cp �,'��� c�w�pc�.� b'l l � w+`�h area- �- � � l� o �t..0 ► �^� 5 - � ✓+i C�iC�gn�r.. mun U.a°�s♦ ;. dwelt: vru. -►33lS # ►` 'ol la{- 5� 38 l9 . Pd retv �fdt + ream se#bod q k1 hk requirerrteeb of Q• , M. 3 d�9fugde p > avti� U � A►gsrt wl \1( . 1u�QF�� Fromm 1 9 POW a t fossor z�c• l�,gf',�.r V•w.• vv lTr�ItY� -�tt.� �iPa�(1�_jn• t V �Q ;� l t ,is d15cour&& �- -{�(,� Qro�i�ior� of ��-�e_ Cos) I'' �tNo buS ro✓t-0-5 {1 ANLY PAMci - avfoi a►�-r= et;:% i vie AuQl�t�, Lthe corner .���t gOL;4 irtk lllQ IuG it edto�ninQd8� °gptc+"H/. toi e+nploY r ►t, �Part�'bi9'sfa�td uoa(( S�%�'i ""G` ' : p 5 s tD/�• ta[4y�.:o.eah. ;s �r Peiest►ign attPSS �, tar r�� °u{�E tracl� QC'(crvl6'QCL c`fi �` QpdQybrte.r�5 w `. OtL o4ew tl�. PYde Ntao'. a L4 iG -dies aitecoved b� Gfi� �ChC�ineenrl rYA do.l�e lope a oode o 9W ak N oc i A. ver! ✓� -kfni ;i nett r 5 �+ela h c"e- vnc��r j 5 Lie- i n aln v e r f.� • raer ...7 ca.reKc� "(0 n Mfd. 'X-t OL ci) i oil, i t.�h / 5u rro u r�o( t d 5 7(n go5 d n ghboQ-fta��� z,rP lord 0.19 {ern o,e5, sr- +OW Ifts vK C-- k�(j ert'�icsv lk� � ' � �• tits f�cx +, eas i l� eleoe.l�Peat, si�2 Iii d ID iu� - ILC�rvlS a� U6l - Sl (� L( ?xC`�r Ls t-C3 w6.ccl. �5 0 � � i ' v ud+,er u{w l:� i cJ¢n 't-I^2 locos toff• �I ' n h•E Ave. is under C"�+yf b-t�vr►l p o� 9 Pa -off o Ll �g obil� uide(i -Icy �rv1C*° ,ass ss o-� - �sccel i (m�e-E- an � covn.rnc�u�rf -t-) • o (a) imf � Cn f � Loakx- gval i'i-��{( y f nu rpr MQnt, -1 k- �A[+k re..Fe 4 t ca�v.rv`erFS o4' - ccm.r u(\i -(y We�- �' A t�z©n ?C�q } 40- 6n -{ h s� re..�zont s � i �P� e hdus�ng- Dl9efOO l Comur i+y bcLtcn NW t OUSI c l a d oris U Wp�n-(ro ed ,, �^ Neust � Aol -ivr %�� �- IeLe -t►vP''oj4+ *,5. ansumeg a eafhmun,+u wed - I n+0 (01 �- (nDU6�lg a3 ��� 4. >. fG2 SiL?Cit{�G. ut+i{- w+i1t .,br st=.e Pa•-iGEtttc. a �QS �4+t , lnenal P�Q� t cel�6 05 �hnQ� 5. PI�n ca145 k�ed Mt festdtjal uSeS, Caldrruz�d( �s a(5D � tit s td M res A�2n a l �L° a . A ►.��,�- mss; ll-"ko ho W i r� pro 'e � ryl WS u�cf� 'd3E+n9 3horE �`o. u�S - a ifAl rRar, Z lorq rw Calder'ux�bd., A 9r C.s� i�m,Pac}� o-E- �znni� �n cx�.�mP-}�►roj � {�vomoEe. -�{,� �`�%�� cr( 4v— tcs td6lfj C)-A-- 4 Le � `b I tlegal Par tdr\AJ okbrlg U+e- c sway lcl h4p d>°sigr tcafc . 1 61 PM-cd5 A-2- +- PJ b2 nr�i n�ai n� b�{ C i-�(� A "` e PIS i n� ort (Mile �m� r— pgf cels' a er b P--1 s / Pup on DeCO-m be.r 311 IM ord "4L Ia, . /9 gd� C04v- - R 4 oaa �4-- -1 QRl Pup �1-�. R.� Puev � _ k,� EtBU 3 P�r�( A-1 _:-5. d*:: :9.7 t3 acmes Ar- - monacabl e_, . -C ansfaa 6a(-"On + hu s tAldcden5 Parcel 4-2- "- T �e�e ,ffocbAno a, qqT acres Uni ±5 artd S(o M•S Plus 3 clorrri S M u � � Pte( A -3 - Ca k(n Parrcej ' ,3733 a M-� _ 4pProwd {� r - gr S 500 4 abo ue- 9 rual� �Z 5pace-5 PM-cd5 A-2- +- PJ b2 nr�i n�ai n� b�{ C i-�(� A Zh,� clpp (i � wins hes 50 �n Rte, e"love ust n Pr" j v-c t vr\ pgrcp _ A- 2 us�`r -thy otna arle-0. 104 , �- A - 2 and 3 f -%e-- CLI50 UJ I by � M--�zrve— -df e- r`i h.-� -(o bu i' t of 0�- upPl X- k �� on s para-� ctup[eac lo-� ^ at- a -�f 1 r2 e q► i Can- . And - . ahe-rna.-6- a-0 is gib', the- pr comKk -(r- --tUX unc-6 -6hru & gm p ee housini- scru i 6e-5 , & -{or 6-mp . s6ormy fvrFzje> will no P be_ guided Zhu. Pl �`Ca, rrt will bri'�t ift abc.umen6a�4ol aP 9°1 with u lc�c � ( r-kirts pro pe-rF-y . zhcse . 4wo 10-61X cecn 6� a�caeCoppot i m u t d ua t L A to -- IOe- us mefil well nod altou'leo( I-(- a- je-oelopmorf r9 or d tsl`� s i ner�a�cl ula -h.�e bo - lie- Pry vn C•1 -�C C�l sUbd i u i s i O n T4s On the- &nei r`e,�- / 1- -ar-lc in P- 80 ,2,rnplo yee hoUSi�� pro p�rfY, irl'lr. l�arkr�n wlshe s -E-) retry, n a dup tey- i trt �h% c)j i quine 6omp- q-vF- df 5 uboli utiston . A1w, --6i c A -t par(-e-1 2. -783 ac. Ll-Hle. ' .4nnit `feral �i-C-�� is 6LE, sold -j:) nw-ther owner, a subdi uk5i orl will .1e.. n C a( ffier2 c6c. ThO- Or r•Gtoni � Q�pi i`t an f al(��s not c is h rEques f 5 u f :�h' uisi'o& ,ppro ua.l a+- -this time -(or `tttv-- A-1 o(-5 1,e dop-3 16�(i F--6s) but,, n l -�j- amid �( (�rki n uY-tit Q CL U2 Zhu major problem witk .:5u be u%9 . 6LY(- a lo-� efftied -,6r- (_arki n i s -E - IC- - trust hates prie- to svba;uision. d•�elopmen-- a(-t-erna; ve_s -{or fro viatinl a lot c�i-� a ry a duPC\,Oc qe- 45 -e(Im' Gh� aPP(iCartt�i can c.anp�i�. Dec- - -(or fhb , W6 tlni-t� scori PrDc�sS will npsgt (\A Fyp{ Mar c c oo(di-�iana -1 ,, un�t5. The neCe5sotrry 9MPloyee. -are rq u %rvd - f Ar%udl \ `tip &AP -e._ -1e proddel -6r 2. 9 3U. - i t• z.CC� The- aPpli r arr s carp bu; (d a dupte-x ift nor-6h en at c(- -{de- proper+y t -fheA n a- to 5f I i-L- of proua l -f c ram -� h2 BBD Peel . Thy ri �� —z l,• lob- Split isin&- -Pie Code re-qv% re- 5 (a) Prt_. -ey j5+irL9 vni-f C-�,�2 �u> dupley -, -fry �� or -Euv o lafs can b� ur�af>°ol , 60�-h 3. Thi5 iSr1 oa dzo5 jra aHerrvx+ic),-P -to apiotica V sine �04iin �ee rP ALj -6 bvi td 9 C�tv A-F-�P-r oti51- v -sing -Ov- Su Pc i uib on issue, wig 6h 1.c -(aunol -fat- Win°.- is 0. �(L°�pderi f r errkdon) 7�-)r 6mP (amp eX�l pf ion s. (J,�e._ 0-(- One e�tp� ,�+esart� !6Z) 6;� C,,nPloyee `hous,'r> 6160-5 . nat pr, cdode. *e- use.. o-F - anvffer C�CrI� _Qj(ftP60f1 CsF top (v ri9.h¢ -�hQ_ RDO Pat -,el is t.C��o em p(o�ee hovsi ng , -the_ oipPli cartf c�tn o b tacit -th i3 � mP - -ffit Ofpli MRn -. J i !(_ has 4 K5 duP.(" bu h2 can suldiuiAe -&* -.uo Projeo� will -then tat - "r own con-Orm;ej l h� ' w5E- 5ho (AJ raj `ffi�, (,o& wos crew( p^ %or• -to El\ h� has ci dv ,Ple.tc- bc� �19nt -maw y unii5 - - - -� t[�lo l�t2P eXFlmp�(rn arct ul-Ei`�na�e.(.f, CL -f ukiviSidfl di v i di ng .4e KBo Pow! Pt1he— emAO fWLen-f ('0040 Prej eci r n�pfcc, murE- be bvi cf Prior {y ypbdi Ji >r ari cQt f G2 %mod ppr[Q(s. Th6 aL-6P-rna- hA:, �i�5 -66e_ east st way yo ji u2 4e- apP�i can{ vh at h� cvanfs .-� rvca� s� f o�g �r�L2aCen -�, bv .t�1�(o�oce:R kcs alr2crdy. se-�- -1j, Pne-e9deA-�_ once. ZhP— od Ps�ab�isheol �c Pi'�5 I�9 Q -MP ve(oppne ri h w M eutP �i o rt r: e ..� o bfa6`it a�. 6;, Pcz 11acQ`trcan pn B� p�rC.e-1 havC a. sF or dupl'O-C dpuelopri! E ri gh-(✓ � . LL'% Siricc no Z0� lPl�isld� %o�. oR -t-W- bcu(cs, u.e- fan not allpw d(D�merr-� c�°dits a� 6a� - _ mourt£alf� L2r(�i+'t �arc\�. s� Thy appl Pfr' c� o b-fz�u'nP.c( �h►?ro ugh -4�a �parafe.. -�tdl3ac�r`vn 5, -flnMC-6 h _ +-()Z) sepx;gLk.. dew 5 .'trace 4h.�'s G�y 25 nat toad by, -de wnen�r dc�trine ito -the-_ o ca + C-art .,hoc -t�-� se/?ara �.rM5 witJ� -tc o 15epar� d6LP- opm �r'9hfs exr'st, -then -Ec�o 6[0- qmett5 , rd'g12� caul occUd'. . 7Ve ��� 0!7b 6AVoge - hoo'5irl rrojvcf ('6m? O'mKian� � 6w� . lrndi vidual Pared : A lo-t Li rip- ad jvstmeA( LLz u [d - ' pr- 6bab(y. be redid �J�ct aa� appropri aie-- d.vp Let -.to-(- �. an - -4� pr opri'al�e- PD_- Of:. AJo . _ cko-u4nv- ra ght co old hc�c�le er - an eKW,51orn bF lot area cOov(0( j up PA More -PR-e mac_( (� 616e -r rm m ea on 1 me u se 'ol Zhu a p pl t cant ► 5 ��(�°yvt�?� -i n� -Eo ��urm�r�� : cl�RE? r2Rt c o w-w- -610-q a opplicar-- morf- l a-JAi Ch QAII 9h� U�i� �U� °�L►rl�2elf. . eK� S�c r�G �Gi�C�CS O�OI J U 5�Yn� d S r ad, j L) st men ano( - �r -�hE -Nv2 IniKt mvwL lof a alloc,c�o( v mass d� cto( cJ►n'� are ��ns�y per- dlk-r--nafi ve fhb *vo a lob (il.e SUl l o n - o Nei no+ ue (ob i n . a �rmP U)00(o( ,set o c(onqoyj vs P MOO , 2 2. q-A -1 2 �� i ace O.Uo vtp l i, � 4p QP�(c'ca�ts ��al 'i. Q 'A. I . Su bn���sion aqua ►reme -rTf S / &(-fc � Cyr t�ler� � o►� l9�ri -� i (1t %i D� 04 l a 4 t�C �� cl►'l�or (lumber o4 Aw d i (-Al 5 (mil CK Pro by � ��iv1 -b be de.mctis he9( - ���,olr'D� ; dept.. rEcon-djtr-u(*io , C►� SF + �Pl�e� ueri-Ft'� - hr-u 6emot +zor1PeMrF- bv,�;� -6o uf\ its 38 , L' m� kody— a coymo-C tot uses ��q L e 5 U eri �t ed �hro�9lh an � � CaAlor�,� -K� Qlanntir �. ma haue Mere mF ly . Blalk ,td. Cs C yduphc � i;uerPf�ed� �0 ot\- emu(' w trt S ��s< f;♦- s 5 nir4*1 --6:� J�,P- Cordi tcj ��nsifuc--cn 6(— a bu►Lol; i� 1i►�i d :Eo s i ( f- burn bbl 5ctlY\� ' cdiu icwa �F ctC[_�ssor «y�vrltierciQt Space ry1us�- COr�i �mGir� C �sO ri -t h� Qrimary 1) 5. Ubmis.si or\ -��Ul rem eltf-s +��evl C r i-%e ri UZI {}. d crNortt{ APFrO Uf. D% (a) Odff(Y)irvdion o-E a< rorn►muni�� d C.�tISZC%U'i�tC� rtt� (imid -jo -the Proj� cis c�rn�� ic�vttQ uiiJ� Ctnl� CtQ� �Gi I b 05' fj onh �AcIUJP, °humbvr„ o4 vri-b ProPb� , nuuynbQr d- t) 7e o� bed rcX�S , '�. reY�fo.� l scl(�S mid � `�2_ Pro�b s e el ,15 (yv 0 ,fir iC"( l Y1 QC �oCIV�(L° cJ,E aAD u t' P- i rre5 -%✓ i, svti d6AP5 Cr laY,, pri'ug si a(? F eft) c ui .t i �� d� b Uc�(-Wc ,n,5 -6rom co.w '40rsc IA1 piny ��s�o � � Aa II i 1; AIpim A.aus /COQKF tibcse - Jhorf rm Lo (2t'rr� er�.ploy��� s iR / 9 �� S u burl i s s t o� i2�c�u� renn�Ytf- 5 / Rev le{, Cri � r i � 0 . (d� m os-i- bxo «n e-ci sti ng s�+-ucfv t�e, �uh� ch has !' { Q. C O. 7EV 0.+ has been issOed -(Or jQar5 Cb) (Y1 ush d t:(�s-tt'a -}hat c hctr ° i r1 in, (leg i aj ► �- 9 r rove- k i mp acfs on -ihe anravru+q . ( rock i mpac�, a— d Fred as a`�! o L+W't4q cL�fk rrm, -EGA n r�c�li �bl� i ✓� �r� Aye�2 Irou5in9 parking -�r��ic� dernar�d , Wa (er t needs,�t� �- �l icy perr�cfi ►-e�v� �er^en{s oF� -sr, ctmat qe, * road. dOrarids t go S---C uL, s ,II m i -�i a s $i o r� ofjl ig i bLe- TPA c tot- irtcMasi hou5inj ne0s, bud- ►reduclnc� such ne�d5 by /fIrou,4it hovtAn -fix' qO EmP(o�e�� (�k1 A f nog 43 =` Copper' i re.mAi n a5 mu Y- oc o� r � ,.Jh,c�• ir\chd�° SPac�S a�- -H� Copper AVpi r\4L ttiu,�, 6 Zvi c. wI Lt O oho mow` Qr-ecf . qty, c��Qlieanl is on(y h©u�nGj L43 Lmd�Ys a3 �Fpo�dJn�2 573 �r5or\ ca�cr}y at- - CUQ tlor�° i pi re- } PO lc.CP- 9 cxrn� as -1 f^Q be— no ir\cre.�sei� i,rn it n �� P W •� it ® 1^�-�� onS . cq}erftrx 43 47.E ` ,Onueti D� (qO � 'tI�IS ap�C� Cad' ?On n P '` r. -r.T. Eployop— -4ov5I �►. Em to r��ra-E�on l I'Ddge- _Cffatfcn - . 34 ems oyee,5 �ro°rn - . _ _ ��l employees WOW rCOm 5 = a-LI S Ell 'ri(1L'�'5 ICE �Jrm 5 C �ambxtE 23 Job S l S . q- - SI °�'u C» _ / 7'� u1iP 5 13,5Cn 1000 a? ohs x4 3. �CCL°3 Kati 3 J �tP(�`ie'�l IMD ,5q- 02 (� PlA A rew 3.5 prrp� TO 1 A L g-MpU)Ytf5 (�cV fu&,ATF-p_ a8? onpl s 2 of 44 {v_5_ C alrmtdu h(x)s jn9 of Cow +fc-,5e, 3-- sc) on b 90" will hour l of eq1oYtV5, -E*2 rwlgir inj - (1 e r y s -o— tc> b- horsed 4) pwt - -E6� rtsid'2n•Eia( G�tV �pplitattcn.�. - :5'4 �'M iParo�s 7oTA� „-7 �: =- _�. Alpiw4 fiu C> - 570 tjo ptr..for eceA 10% hOUr -Od 5 51 - 1001%% *r eacck ,% ho USed Z /TO l use o to e-P.5 `7 o em C s x a,u f11Oer Y � (-o 3 o hc�c o -7 po��it5 W as (A)/() AW I rot Iry u5t r�8 �FOr dbr^'� Downs ' -wl rt. — ly 43 3-- sc) on b 90" will hour l of eq1oYtV5, -E*2 rwlgir inj - (1 e r y s -o— tc> b- horsed 4) pwt - -E6� rtsid'2n•Eia( G�tV �pplitattcn.�. - :5'4 �'M iParo�s 7oTA� „-7 �: =- _�. Alpiw4 fiu C> - 570 tjo ptr..for eceA 10% hOUr -Od 5 51 - 1001%% *r eacck ,% ho USed Z /TO l use o to e-P.5 `7 o em C s x a,u f11Oer Y � (-o 3 o hc�c o -7 po��it5 W as (A)/() AW I rot Iry u5t r�8 Pro b( :e _ - � rlvusrny 4 emp�v�ts) I. AIDIAq +4CU5 - -3 vn`ts Weir alftqdy rig- d u� a 0, -49reemene— '50 fey ZmaY(ut- count. 4ppt eOvit rmav a►^jure- 4a- - i�Ltt a rtf tS no if ID l �� hovtcc v*ol 4Z i 3 ?` empl�c mss• LOOS . O Chartged -6�e i41116f (� wi-th _ -e- Ski Co. S unI=(-3 art _ f he - lroum 4rclyt O.W dew rMS+66l nn U5-- bP— . a _be*-r R0--5 r (MUA,5 0n ad s vnct5. (110-E- I XF4A 9,90-d ffoye c-� Loll hou ,5 e 5 D c,-> c. '5 Qp,sct(- 6 P apDI icaAry a r l i u►n cam% �sL�p r�q 6p4LCC ' A M� 4. fi CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 30 points). The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of conformity with local planning policies, as follows: a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: O.to 50% of the additional lodge employees generated by the S" project who are house on or off -site - 1 point for each 10% housed. 51 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated by the 2 project who are housed on or off -site 1 point for each 5% housed. RATING: f MULTIPLIER: 1 Comments: 137 e 11401cgi .IP ar-e- -to bv- howed 6U O?� 2- g% ^nAjor-*4ori Al no's, A 44M )e, )e, 4L[ P(nDIWOP -, hOW8 ivhb. cvi ll; ' pay` mss% M in(b01r_ pr the A .Sa f_iv 101 imp tc % 1(ation .0-r.-i-5 (e,5S- C cx -Imo -c u Put- - 1e(la' is le-u� 9v qre t� �dprite pr►ct r�ju�a -4 it �+= W1 IL b8. pum 'Da x-) �ci I ca"(. ,� �EfiPs� r ur _ to ' h01 The applicant shall,.prior to the deadline for submission of applications, provide the planning office with a detailed list of all employees required to serve the lodge or any addition thereto as documentation for the claim as to the percentage of employees housed on- or off - site. The planning office shall, prior to the deadline for submission of applications, advise the applicant as to the number of employees the project is expected to generate, based on the proposed size and level of services of the lodge. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed project generates no new employees, it shall award to the applicant the full 15 points available within this subsection. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (Maximum 15 points). The Commission shall award points as follows: 0 to 50% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each loo rehabilitated or reconstructed. 50 to 100% of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct - 1 point for each 5% rehabilitated or reconstructed. 6 - RATING: MULTIPLIER: 1 Ili • r 70 5unriq R-un M i ce ke- k5pen Moufrcan I-od8� COMP- AppliC._oi +ion - Dock,=_ Ato upm,bu^ . to, to S3 _ Imo., r ' ial :d- Hauin ftui ewe-d -the. l elqe_r from zjoe UmIlt5 9 "arch' rig -6h e- l n car o ry o- - - (; 4ijh rtq un i-6 r 6i i I �vclirlg3 �vaLc�a�i can o� fh�'s ,nc,�n r�l haccv - rn ade. -f he �o l tows rt9 xn dcoi ons ¢ rr-(o *tcr0a r'w Zhu - . allow rl.9 c)ni =E cooiv- has and eed unN- veri-�'+ed L\e� I unii5 mw or- I aqa ( un ifs due -to lack o-F -k, - -the c6utrarc. f : t nAae �nnns A5(w-n z nn eon-` nen�al I n n-�. blue 5fruce - C�� e(Iir1� Url1 +5 -. reutoosk(. rifer( uni-fs � ASp�er� Inez 7COWn Placv- i3lup- :5prLY-C Paws �" 14i1151cle, tze Chase �pl�C FSta,c1 =-� TOT, L— ,bean uer-r Fc'e� s qr� either' thou9 hi - -lo be ally, Verified U ni-b (OS 172 32 2.61 , s g 4 2 2 ly 2 Ap pi ecams � Q��f'i c�£ia• �a1 -7S 32 a-r7 Oise 0 0 5� o $ D O 2 0 2 0.. 14 o :. 2 z (zips` P -acrnae5 4xi-lo -Uhrouq Oer Ca+t*'Cn Pr-(XQ55 MP- O-f- LthlCh Cpcw) was - Msolued: u n ids a-4- -ibhe hau,e__ no [eqq) oqms-5� ha(x rle2uw - ob-� ned o, Aa-ermiftO f be- i1ttgal. -T- agree- hdS been n4 Awed ka5 w major Probten5 tvrtl, Don -�+P- -dfifwn IDA- Were- reqLe-sk<d steed b� -me- haue bL 0-12f JO-Mb(i5ha prior- 76D - he- onsfrod?on 6-c- -fAQ A6�. Inn. 1 h2 8u i tel i(Al Oe-fctr-fMeJl-f bas r 0 Reqandlt55 01\, wli-etl x -6aal -thA iY- �;s cr u e- l'qJ 4-0 not allow feeZR5-troct Or\ b� of\q-5 PLr,5ua[X+ -to the 01P W-Imem 6D4- 5fn(e -1f weneo nLf C.Y%0-6-Ct'.,ec( prior -6 de-M, l'on - -(AB One- --L-)r\i+ ike- biack— r�(Jen Oe5 Luas riot- go l up bv -fhe- . qWca� PrOr ib � 5 o� mode a "0- I'A-5pcc ta) -60 Llerhe �r is unt-C -QT- e. U- (nark (LO+ Aotdif-ic% � Ov z 6LCk(-- 5� 0- ve r! v 4'M ff. The --�u) Q fficL:s ufii f 5 - have been v5ed rvicertf ly . Qs c ( C, S paces , bu- - -4e-y cie— z. hO& no Problem wi'(K_ c0(" ` hase- units )n iKE . (P-rfA (k_ i qn -6 �1 Thy t{ i t(5ide Lcdqe wo,5 -Ormrti t�uanec! b� the m sk; _ C, o. and c vas exci�ange-d - !nc ((v:h�it `�1 {}p(icl¢Y : E(o(�se �rtiun:-(cx15i5F�P1q o�- funs Tune C� -Fur -Ehe ADl i day Ro ose . _ Du & - o 3,e-wa 1 mak r "o by Iko- i(didlgy flAcm G'n"P) lon was pvoued,l The so_tje#*rtt cf- Ci u!' I _ C,(a1iart s A 4e- HO t l'dav -140O.Se vi' rent c-one!.5 or -lure_ owners -to ._ ,oC9,,ed rzfSfr-t c-- -he_ house` Coa(y� -{v emP(o�ee hou5 ir1g . In order r -Ehe �d9e o�pP(ccaRf _ -b Moir- -EGt+� l q -f W sio(e_ tod uri-F5, i E-- 5k(,1(6( be- e j.D(, umer(led - - .4a4-, -Me (vru.Yva(g4k o-tl- _un H5 f _ cc(� 55 -wig /L°S'f'! 1�C �U►l or am Crz(ge car no tt.sfr`d iCn 6600(d grid cu(n� -t�y bv(C -Ehaf -*C-- 40 dad �odgc_ 5Foud prov ids -fie �Scw�e (S uz2 de_4 fs , IOU4- lki Co. 5 app(cC�co .sbv(a(. Lercfc� t(ne. =A. /4VQ)jedlge ' pre_UicuA. ue rrfi unto .5kou(cL ad5o be a.d A -6:, -kh„_ -b+oil court. -for uP_r%ficccilory 2 ►.rst a l eaA* i4Z 11 C be_lmo 5mwc-h4�,-) 3 LDfs 16,,11 Am+vovq Aro-5 Lz-l:;o 5- �' �`�i. �` Y,. � i =•i s fn'f, y a• r£kt�, kx .far i:`�5 3 rx � jFirS;}a��J �-y � §atrk �p - i - •"t�tw �, _ j, „`i.`S' 3� i - ..9f "2 '1t.. �L � �:T. tt` •� � Ai �' ,J� V�'.,,�W" Ht. �1�rF.? �r''� � �i � � �9. ; -sazk ��xc. '�. c�`'r aura- - a� K.ua•�� '� �,! ;M November 11, 1983 Mr. Jay Hammond , Aspen Engineering Dept. 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Hammond: My letter is to respond to your request for clarification on certain points regarding our Lodge GMP applicaton for Aspen Mountain. 1. We have received clarification from our transporta- tion planners (TDA, Seattle) regarding the loss of on- street parking resulting from the proposed Lodge. Page 21 of the application states that 134 on- street spaces are removed; TDA based this deduction on prior planning documents which speak about parking reduction as part of auto disincentive programs. We have asked TDA to state the reduction in on- street parking that is actually required as a result of the hotel project. TDA has informed us that required reduction in spaces is 30 (12 on the north side of Dean, 8 on the south side of Dean and 10 on the south side of Durant). TDA has also identified 114 spaces which will be disrupted on a temporary basis at various times throughout the construction process (84 on Galena and 30 on Mill). 2. As I explained, there will be no direct emergency vehicular access to the interior courtyards because of the excavation in those two areas. We are, however, proposing state -of- the -art fire protection throughout the facility which we believe more than adequately addresses fire protec- tion needs for the hotel. If the fire department raises specific concerns about elements of our fire protection system, we.will be happy to respond to their concerns at that time. r 1- Mr. Jay Hammond Aspen Engineering Dept. November 11, 1983 Page Two 3. The issue of the land trade has been raised with the City Attorney. The trade will involve a portion of the Koch Lumber Site to be exchanged for approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of land west of Mill Street in the Top of Mill residen- tial site (Lots 7 through 12, 14 and 15 shown on the Existing Zoning Map on page 86). We believe the City Attorney will take up the land trade proposal with City Staff as appropriate. 4. We can confirm that no buildings are proposed on the site identified as Parcel B on the Parcel Plan for the employee housing proposal on Ute Avenue. The site has been included in the R -6 RBO rezoning request merely for density calculation for the employee units on Parcel A -2. 5. Installation of the cross - connect between the existing water lines in Monarch is a part of our our applica- tion on page 17. 6. We have. asked TDA to respond specifically to the question of the Summit Street extension between Mill and Monarch. We realize that the granting of an easement for the street alignment was a part of the Summit Street fourplex discussion, which has never been finalized. The street alignment disrupts, however, the ski easement which was a part of the 1978 Aspen Inn application and which we are now proposing to reintroduce. We do not believe it will be feasible to complete Summit Street and also maintain the skiing below this point; we think the ski access is desireable not only from the standpoint of our guests, but also for guests of other accomodations in the area. We anticipate that an emergency access route can be maintain- ed along Summit (although at times there may be conficts with the skiing) and we anticipate cul -de -sacs on either side of the trail which will provide access to the south sides of buildings along Summit between Mill and Monarch. . If ,you need further clarification, don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, sl Joe Wells JW /b " 608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866 Aspen /Pil 130,s a s p e Mr. Lyle D. Reeder P.O. Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Lyle, November 9, 1983 ing Of f ice treet 81611 Sunny asked that I respond to your letter dated October 5, 1983, regarding the 1984 L -1 /L -2 Lodge GMP Competition. Given my.fami- liarity with the Lodge at Aspen due to my review of the prior appli- cation on the site, I will be the person responsible for analyzing the current submission. Following are my comments on the five questions you pose in the letter. 1. Section 24- 8.5(h) of the Municipal Code provides that "An application may be made for PUD approval for development of lands within any zone district within the City of Aspen . . . However, as you noted, Section 24- 8.5(b) states that "The planned unit development must constitute an area of at least twenty -seven thousand _.(27,000) square feet unless the. land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit develop- ment on the zoning district map or is otherwise required by the zoning code to be developed according to the provisions of this Article." Therefore, it is true that the Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant may request to be-reviewed as a PUD, while the Lodge at Aspen applicant may not. However, you should note that the applicant has only requested consideration as a PUD and must now demonstrate compliance with same. You should be aware that in order to show such compliance, the required reviews for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be much more lengthy than those imposed upon your project, giving you a possible advantage in completing your project in a timely manner. 2. The Planning Office will review each application with respect to the specific criteria and requirements of Sec - tion 24 -11.6 of.the Code, Lodge Development Application Procedures. We will not compare the proposed height of the Aspen Mountain Lodge building to those of the Lodge at Aspen. Instead, we will evaluate how well each site accom- modates the specific development proposed for it. Further - more, with respect to the height variance, Section 24- 8.5(i) of the Code states that "The burden shall rest upon IN Lyle D. Reeder November 9, 1983 Page Two an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of this article, the lack of adverse effects of the proposed develop- ment and the compliance with the intents and purposes of planned unit development. 3. Article VIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Planned Unit Development, does.not refer to the review of on -site versus off -site employee housing for lodges. However, Section 24- 11.6(b)(4) does specifically provide for housing the employees of a lodge on or off -site. The appropriate FAR for the Aspen Mountain Lodge will be determined by PUD procedures. 4. The land to which you refer, zoned R- 15(PUD)(L), is not part of the lodge development application. This land is proposed for residential development and will be the subject of a separate application for a residential allocation. The data concerning this land has. been provided for informa- tion only and does not relate to the lodge application. i 5. The lots owned by the City are also included in.the.area for which a residential development application may be . submitted. However, for your.information, the following statement has been excerpted from the City Council minutes of September 26, 1983, as an interpretation regarding City owned property with respect to GMP /PUD applications. "Regarding GMP /PUD. applications, which would include City - owned property as part of that application, the City Council declines to be a joint applicant in this process, nor does it wish to discuss with the applicant any.disposition of the City -owned land prior to application, in order to maintain impartiality in all subsequent reviews. However, with the goal of encouraging all opportunities for discussion of the community good.in a public forum, the Council will deem the non - ownership of City land not to be sufficient grounds for disqualifying the application from further . public review through the appropriate process. The Council reserves all rights not to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.such City -owned land which is the subject of the application. The Planning Department and the P &Z are instructed to score such GMP /PUD applications in two ways -- with and without the City -owned land. Should the City subsequently not agree to sell or transfer such City -owned land the score will be what it would be without the City -owned land." Lyle D. Reeder November 9, 1983 Page Three • Lyle, I hope my responses are of assistance to you in preparing your presentation for-the meeting on November 22. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you in this regard. Sincerely, Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director AR: jlw cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune DENVER OFFICE SUITE 2900 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE(303) 575 -8000 TELECOPIER (303) 575 -8261 MONTANA OFFICE SUITE 1400 175 NORTH 27TH STREET BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 TELEPHONE (406) 252 -2166 TELECOPIER (406) 252. -1669 CHARLES T. BRANDT (303) 925 -3476 Paul Taddune City Attorney 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado HOLLAND & HA.IRT 81611 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN,.COLORAOO 61611 TELEPHONE (303) 925 -3475 October 28, 1983 • RE: Condominium Hotel /Commerce Savings Dear Paul: WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE SUITE 1200 1875 EYE STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C.200.06 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 This letter sets forth the question you and I briefly discussed by telephone today. The question is, for our planning purposes, when in the subdivision approval process will the City of Aspen require us to submit the Condominium Declartion and the Articles and By -Laws of the Condominium Association for review and approval? No mention is made of any such requirement in either 520 -12. Preliminary Plat- content, or 520 -15. Final Plat - content. Our client would prefer to have us prepare this documentation following subdivision approval for obvious reasons. Ideally, the condominium documentation could be submitted to the City for review along with the condominium map which will be prepared at the dry -wall stage of construction. This procedure would enable the City to review all condominium documents at the same time and in a logical sequence as far as the developer is concerned. Of course, the City °s final subdivision approval of the project would be conditional upon approval of all condominium documents before recording. At your convenience, please let me know your answer to this question. Thank you. Very truly yours, Charles T. Brandt for HOLLAND & HART CTB /vb -� cc: Sunny Vann John Doremus Alan Novak Mike Holbrook Ella Pyle 0 OCT 31 1983 ASPEN / PITKlN CO. PLANNING OFFICE Dore us & co Pany 608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925 -6866 October 27, 1983 Mr. Sunny Vann City /County Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sunny: With respect to the Aspen Mountain - 1983 Lodge GMP Submis- sion, delivered to .you on October 1st of this year, we wish to make a technical clarification. The clarification we refer to is in Section III, Lodge Growth Management Plan Submission, subsection B, 5, found on page 65 of the application regarding Bonus Points. In delineating those areas of the GMP application where we exceed the requirements, we inadvertantly specified subsection (1)(cc) Storm drainage, when in fact we meant to indicate instead (1)(aa) Water. We consider the proposed-new 12" main installed in Galena Street, the water conservation measures, and the additional fire hydrants are added benefits to the entire system and the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Si rely, n Doremus JD /b 0 nt e �3 f�SPi =P•t i .,fir,, C;J. Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 P. O. Box 4859 Aspen, Co. 81612 925 -5360 October 5, 1983 Attn; Mr. Sunny Vann, Director Re; 1984 Lodge (1 -1, L -2) G. M. P. Competition Applications Dear Mr. Vann; In reviewing the competiting applicants' presentation in preparation for the P & Z bearing scheduled for November 22,. 1983.1 would appreciate your assistance with the following questions which I am having difficulty in interrupting; I note that. on page 58 of the ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE applicat- ion "Because we are preceeding under the Planned Unit Develop - ment regulations, variations in the height limit established for the Zone District are permitted and can be approved by the City... "arid later 11 ..Generally speaking, around the Lodge perimeter, maximum heights from natural grade will vary from 30 to.50 feet in order to reduce the visual impact upon pedest- rians; within the interior of the Lodge footprint, setback from the street facade, heights in some locations of 40 to 55 feet are proposed..." I find in the Aspen Zoning Code at page 1490; Section 24 -8a5 General Requirements under paragraph (b) "The planned unit development must constitute an area of. at least twenty- seven thousand (27,000.) square feet unless the land is in an area designated mandatory planned unit development on the Zoning district map or is otherwise required by the Zoning Code to be developed according.to the provisions of this article. Also, Section 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 space, minimum distance between build- ings, maximum height (including view 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 historic designation, or from use square foot limitations and sign regulations of this code. Planning Offid- City of Aspen. Page October 5, 1983 Under the AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS on page 1451 of the Aspen Code it-.is indicated that for L -1, L -2 Zones the Maxi- mum height is 28 feet, External Floor area ratio is 1 :1, and Internal Floor Area ratio is "Lodge- Rental space .5:1 — .75:1* Nonunit space .25:1 with *33 1/3 percent of all renta3•.space above the FAR of .5:1 must be devoted to employee housing. Question 1; Can the Aspen Mountain Lodge application compete under the Planned Unit Development regulations while The Lodge At Aspen cannot because The Lodge At Aspen's site of 15,386 square feet is less than the 27,000 square feet minimum? There is no PUD designation for The Lodge At Aspen's site. .Question 2; If the answer to the above question is yes, how will the Planning Office reconcil to an equitable basis the heights proposed of upto 55 feet for the kspen-- Mountain Lodge while The Lodge At.Aspen's height is limited to 28 feet by the Zoning Code? In the Aspen Mountain Lodge application on page 63 and 64: No employee housing has been provided on -site to the hotel because it is felt off -site housing is both more desire- able and manageable from the employees' viewpoint and from the hotel's operations view..." Question 3; Apparently the above is possible under an approved PUD Plana Will the Planning Office allow the PUD applicant to compete with no on -site employee housing and require The Lodge At Aspen to devote 33 1/3 percent of all rental space above the FAR of..5 :1 to employee housing? On the subject of rezoning as proposed by the other applicant on page l4 which reads; "R- 15(PUD) (L) and L -2. L -2 zoning is requested for the lots owned by the City (11,000 square feet of land area) which are involved in the land trades proposal and which are presently zoned Public..." and on Page 74, I note that 11,000 square feet is included in the calculations of the Total Floor Area. Question 4; Doesn't the LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO G.M.P. competition allow only existing LODGE ONE and LODGE TWO properties to compete? Question 5; Is the City of Aspen a co- applicant to the Aspen Mountain Lodge application, since they apparently own the 11,000 square feet which is included in the application's total floor area? Planning Office - City of Aspen Pag October 5, 1983 It appears to me that one applicant in the competition may have available and is using the Planned Unit Develop- ment procedures which allow a freedom in variations from normal zoning codes that is not available to the other applicant. Your comments, answers and thoughts on the above questions and my comments would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Lyle D. Reeder ldr sed • l� October 1, 1983 HAND DELIVERED Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Commerce Savings GMP and PUD Submissions Dear Paul: Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas.has this day submitted to the City of Aspen Planning Department applications for a 1983 Lodge Growth Management Plan allotment and Conceptual PUD and Subdivison approval, and for certain ancillary approvals, covering a substantial number of parcels of real property situated within the City Limits of the City of Aspen. In conjunction therewith, I am delivering to you herewith the following- described documents executed by the present owners of the subject properties, to wit: 1. Definitive Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Real Property between the Estate of Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup (Seller) and Commerce Savings Association (Purchaser) dated September 30, 1983, covering all Cantrup Estate properties involved in the development applications; 2.. agreement for the Sale and Exchange of Real Properties between Ralph Melville and Marian Melville, and Helen R. Scales (as respective Sellers), and Commerce Savings Association (Purchaser) dated September 30, 1983, covering Lots 17 and 18, Block 2, Dean's Addition (as well as 5 lots in Block 77 which are not involved in the development applications); 3. Contract of Sale between Harry W. Bass, Jr., Trustee (Seller) and American Century Corporation (Purchaser) (which entity is named as a joint applicant with Commerce Savings Association in the development applications) dated September 23, 1983, covering Lots 9 and 10, Block 3, Connors Addition; O OCT 051983 ASPEN / PITKhN CO. PLANNING OFFICE Paul Taddune, Esq. October .1, 1983 Page 2 4. Option and Purchase Agreement between Fredric A. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict, Patricia Maddalone, Fred C. Larkin, Lucetta M. Larkin and Peter C. Boylan (Sellers) and Commerce Savings Association (Purchaser) dated September 30, 1983, covering the parcels of land along Ute Avenue which are more particularly described in Exhibit A to said Agreement; 5. Original Letter of Consent to Joint Development Applications from Andrews D. Black and Ruth Kay Eppich Black to the City.Planning Department dated September 30, 1983 covering Lot 5, Capitol Hill Addition, and an adjoining parcel of land more particularly described in Exhibit A.to said Letter; .6. Original Letter of Consent to Joint Development Applications from Copper Horse Associates to the City Planning Department dated September 29, 1983, covering the Easterly one -half (1/2) of Lot L and all of Lot M, Block 44 (commonly known as the "Copper Horse "); 7. Original Letter of Consent to Joint Development Applications from Joseph A. Luciani and Brigit Luciani to the City Planning. Department dated September 29, 1983, covering the portion of vacated Cleveland Street lying Westerly of and adjacent to Block 124 and more particularly described in Exhibit A to said letter (commonly known as the "Alpina Haus "); 8. Original Letter of Consent to Joint Development Applications from Fred E. Pearce to the City Planning Department dated September 28, 1983, covering Lot 13, Capitol Hill Addition; and 9. Original Letter of Consent to Joint Development Applications from Aspen Skiing Company to the City Planning Department dated September 30, 1983, covering Lots A and B, Block 91. Please be advised that with regard to those properties for which Consent Letters are enclosed, we will be delivering to you within a short period of time copies of fully - executed Agreements between the several property owners and Commerce Savings Association whereunder Commerce Savings will have the contractual right to acquire fee title to such properties. The various Agremeents being submitted to you herewith or to be delivered to you hereafter obviously contain many business terms and provisions which are really matters of concern .only between the parties thereto. Consequently, we would respect- fully ask that if for any reason these Agreements.must be examined by persons outside the office of the City Attorney, we be allowed to obtain and submit for such purpose Memorandum Agreements between the Paul Taddune, Esq. October 1, 1983 Page 3 • parties to such Agreements which recite merely the.essential legal effect thereof. To the best of my knowledge, the only properties incorporated in the development application which are not covered by the enclosed documents are those certain lots owned by the City of Aspen and more particularly described as Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, Capitol Hill Addition. It is our understanding that since it would be patently inappropriate for the City to be a joint applicant in a development submittal with respect to which the City itself is the final arbiter, the City has adopted a general policy to the effect that any applicant may include in its proposed development plan contiguous City -owned property which it considers susceptible of co- ordinated development. The applicant clearly does so at its own risk, in that the City has not yet made any determination that it wishes to part with ownership of its property or any interest therein, nor yet entered into any agreement regarding the terms, conditions and procedures under which any such interest transfer might properly be accomplished. The foregoing instruments are being delivered to you in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 24- 8.5(a), and such other similar requirements as may pertain, of the Aspen Municipal Code. Should you require any further documentation or information in this regard, please let me know as promptly as possible. Very tru yo s, Arthu C. Daly for HOLLAND & HART ACD /bb Enclosures CC to: Mr. Sunny Vann, City Planning Chairman Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas Doremus and Company LJ MEMORANDUM TO: --City Attorney 01,66 City Engineer -'City water Department Aspen Metro.Sanitation District ✓Housing Office GG'Z ✓Building Department :57-3 Parks Department *5,'�P- Gi ty— Manager —* ,--'Transportation Department FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director s ✓�1r� IMa,��VcLQ RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submission - L -1 /L -2 Zone DATE:. October 6, 1983 Attached are this year's applications competing in.the City for the 19.83 City Lodge GMP competition in the L -1 and.L -2 zones. One application is submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce.Savings Association of Angleton, Texas and Mr. Alan Novak. The applicant proposes to demolish the Continental, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce and replace them with a 480 unit hotel. The other application-received was submitted by Lyle D. Reeder. The applicant requests a. GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. The project is the Lodge at Aspen which is located at the corner of Ute and Original Streets. Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments to the Planning Office by�November 4, 1983, in order that we may adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983. Thank you. * These referral departments are receiving the application submitted by American Century Corporation only. ♦ P 0 CITI 130 asp DATE: November 22, 1983 TO: Sunny Vann ou trh g a 1 e -na. ;_ 1C o 0 MEMORANDUM FROM: Paul Taddune ° 6 • PEN reet 1611 RE: Aspen Mountain 1983 Lodge GMP Submission I have reviewed the above - referenced GMP application submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association and Mr. Alan Novack in light of the following provisions of the subdivi- sion and zoning provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code: 1. 20 -5(b) Development allotment. "No subdivision shall be approved (nor exemption or exception granted) pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter 20 unless or until the applicant shall have been awarded a development allotment pursuant to Article X of Chapter 24 hereof (Growth Management Quota Sys- tem) whenever such allotment is required for the proposed development of the subdivided land. On receiving a develop- ment allotment the applicant for subdivision approval may be deemed by the planning office to have satisfied the concep- tual presentation requirements of these subdivision regula- tions, and the office may authorize the applicant to proceed directly to preliminary plat review, all as provided in Sec- tion 24- 10.3(f). 2. 20 -10(b) "The conceptual presentation shall include the fol- lowing: (4) A disclosure of ownership consisting of a certificate from a reputable title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property described in the sketch plan and including all mortgages, judgment, liens, easements, contracts and agreements of record, affecting the pro- perty covered by such plan. At the election of the planning commission, the holders or owners of such mort- gages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts or agree- ments, shall be required to join in and approve the Memorandum to Sunny Vann November 22, 1983 Page Two application for subdivision before the preliminary plat shall be accepted for review." 3. 24- 8.5(a) "A tract or parcel of land proposed for PUD devel- opment must be in one ownership or the subject of an applica- tion filed jointly by the owners of all the property included." 4. 24- 8.5(e) "In order to facilitate processing of a PUD appli- cation, the applicant may simultaneously process a PUD and subdivision application, and the procedural requirements of both provisions have been adopted so as to facilitate concur- rent application." 5. 24- 11.3(f) "Any project needing subdivision or planned unit development (PUD) approval which has received a development allotment may be deemed by the planning office to have satis- fied the conceptual presentation requirements of the city's subdivision and PUD regulations, and the office may authorize the applicant to proceed directly to preliminary plat review." 6. 24- 11.3(1) "The award of a development allotment for any property shall not prevent the City of Aspen from entertain- ing or approving a rezoning application or other zoning code amendments inconsistent with the allotment, it being under- stood that the award of an allotment alone shall not consti- tute a vested right in the development proposed nor be con- sidered sufficient to bar later inconsistent legislative or adminsitrative changes to the City's land use regulations." Additionally, the following documents have been reviewed in connection with the certificate appearing on Page 203 of the GMP application: 1. Definitive agreement for the purchase and sale of real property between the estate of Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup (seller) and Commerce Savings Association (purchaser), dated September 30, 1983, pertaining to: (a) Aspen Inn - owner Hans B. Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (b) Chalets East and West - owner Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup /Cantrup Estate Memorandum to Sunny Vann November 22, 1983 Page Three (c) Blue Spruce - owners Hans B. Cantrup and June Allen Moss Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (d) Continental Inn - owner Hans B. Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (e) Robinson Parcel - owner June Cantrup a /k /a June Allen Moss /Cantrup Estate (f) "Paas House" Parcel - owner Hans Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (g) Chase Lots and Town Place parcel - owner Hans Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (h) Spar Parcel - owner Hans Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (i) Top of Mill Parcel - owner Hans Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (j) Part of Dean's Addition - owner Hans B. Cantrup and June Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (k) 925 East Durant Street - owner June Allen Moss Cantrup/ Cantrup Estate (1) 700 Galena Street - owner June Allen Moss Cantrup/ Cantrup Estate (m) Summit Place - owner Hans Cantrup /Cantrup Estate (n) Millionaire Mill Site - owner Hans Cantrup /Cantrup Estate 2. Agreement for the sale and exchange of real property between Ralph Melville and Marion Melville, and Helen Scales and Commerce Savings Association, dated September 30, 1983, covering Lots 17 and 18, Block 2, Dean's Addition. 3. Contract of Sale between Harry W. Bass, Jr., Trustee, and American Century Corporation dated September 23, 1983, pertaining to Lots 9 and 10, Block 3, Connor's Addition. 3. Option and Purchase Agreement between Fredric A. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict, Patricia Maddalone, Fred C. Larkin, Lucetta M. Larkin and Peter C. Boyle, and Commerce Savings and Loan Associa- tion, dated September 30, 1983, pertaining to the parcels of land Memorandum to Sunny Vann November 22, 1983 Page Four along Ute Avenue. The property is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" to the agreement. 4. Letter of Consent from Andrews Black and Ruth K. Eppich Black, dated September 30, 1983, covering Lot 5, Capitol Hill Addition. 5. Letter of Consent from Fred E. Pierce, dated September 28, 1983, covering Lot 13, Capitol Hill Addition. 6. Letter of Consent from Aspen Skiing Company, dated September 20, 1983, covering Lots A and B, Block 91, executed by Harry Holmes. 7. Letter of Consent executed by attorney Richard Cummins, per- taining to the easterly one -half (1/2) of Lot L and all of Lot M, Block 44 (commonly known as the "Copper Horse "). 8. Letter of Consent, executed by attorney Richard Cummins, dated September 29, 1983, pertaining to the portion of vacated Cleveland Street lying westerly of and adjacent to Block 124 and more particularly described in the exhibit to the letter (commonly known as the "Alpina Haus "). Based upon my analysis of the above- stated Municipal Code provi- sions and documents, it is my opinion that the Aspen Mountain 1983 Lodge GMP submission has met the requirements for GMP submission, in particular Sections 24- 8.5(a) and 20- 10(4), provided that the following conditions be satisfied prior to the award of any allot- ment by the City Council: 1. That a duly- executed power of attorney or letter of consent executed by Joseph A. Luciani and Bridget Luciani be submitted pertaining to the properties known as the "Copper Horse" and the "Alpina .House ". I have been assured by Art Daily that sufficient documentation will be forthcoming. 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. Although requested, I have not been able to locate a survey which accurately describes all of the hotel site properties. However, I have spent several hours with Aspen Title and am confident that the descriptions contained in the certificate of title are substantially correct. ti • Memorandum to Sunny Vann November 22, 1983 Page Five 17J Should the applicants receive allotments for this project, I recommend the following as conditions'to preliminary plat approval: (a) That all ownership transactions be sufficiently final- ized. (b) That the City Council and applicants successfully con- clude an agreement regarding City -owned properties. (c) That pursuant to Section 20- 10(b)(4) the Planning and Zoning Commission require that the holders or owners of mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts or agreements be required to join in and approve the application for subdivision before the preliminary plat be accepted for review or, in the least, that if approved, all owners, lien holders, etc. consent to the subordina- tion of their interest to the subdivision and PUD conditions. PJT /mc MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering Department DATE: November 15, 1983 RE: Aspen Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacations and Encroachments ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- As you are well aware, the proposed Aspen Mountain.Lodge project is quite complex in nature and involves several overlapping review procedures,as well as requests for consideration of street vacations, encroachments, rezonings and land trades. The following comments, therefore, attempt to differentiate our concerns as they relate to specific reviews as well as general.comments relative to various aspects of the site plan. Growth Management Plan The growth management criteria offer the best general review of the design as it relates to available services, area -wide circulation and overall neighborhood impacts. Engineering related concerns include: 1. Water - The project proposes improvements to the system including a 12 inch main in Galena, a cross - connect at the point of service in Monarch Street, and reconstruction of the Mill Street main through the underground parking structure. These improvements result in an improvement to water service in the area - .beyond the needs of the project itself. The Galena main and the interconnect both serve to increase flows and reliability in the area. 2. Sewer - The Aspen Mountain project basically proposes to tie in to existing facilities which have the capacity necessary to handle the project. They will also be replacing a section of the Mill Street line that will save the Sanitation District some maintenance problems. The line relocation does not represent an overall improvement to the service area but rather a standard solution necessitated by the project itself. 3. Storm Drainage - The storm drainage system for the project, as outlined in the Rea Cassens report, is excellent in its adherence to the concepts outlined in the City's own storm runoff management plan as prepared by Wright- McLaughlin in 1973. They have stated that the project will maintain the separation between the "clean" runoff from the mountain area to the south and the "dirty" runoff from impervious • • Page Two November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacations and Encroachments areas of the developed project. This concept is beneficial to the.area as a whole since the "clean ". runoff will ultimately be routed separately by.the City's future work in-the area..and the Aspen Mountain project will be able to accommodate the plan through a significant portion of the neighborhood. Design of the proposed storm drainage system will be forthcoming in further detail with subsequent submissions and, if it develops as presented conceptually, represents an improvement beneficial to the area as a whole.. 4. Fire Protection - This is an area of concern that should be addressed in detail-by the fire marshal., but we-would point out some.concern relative to access to the interior of the project. Joe,Wells has stated, in a letter of November 11, that emergency vehicle access will not be accommodated to the .inner courtyards,but that state -of- the -art fire protection will be included in the design. Some emergency vehicular access may be possible via the trail system in the summer time, but would not be feasible in winter unless the trails are plowed for that purpose. Fire access to the inner courtyard could be a real problem in the winter and the whole question warrants detailed review by the fire marshal and fire department. 5. Roads - A project involving 480 units will clearly have a significant impact on traffic volumes in the area of the lodge. The TDA Associates report is generally correct in its assertion that capacity exists on the area streets to accommodate the net increase in traffic volume that will be generated by the project. The site plan indicates minimal conflicts with existing streets by new curb cuts and in fact, represents a reduction in overall conflicts by creating access to parking at only two locations. In addition, it will be possible for vehicles to circulate between the two parking accesses within the underground structure under Mill Street. This will eliminate the need for above ground shuttling of cars between the two major parking structures and, again, helps minimize street conflicts. The project also requests vacation of two blocks of.Dean Street as well as the short right -of -way of Lawn Street. This subject will be covered in somewhat greater detail in this memorandum. Suffice if to say at this point that from a circulation standpoint we would view the impact of the street vacations as minimal. Lawn Street is a • • Page Three November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacations and Encroachments dead -end right -of -way that is currently used almost exclusively for access to the Aspen. Mountain property and is of little value .to overall circulation in the area due to its dead -end configuration. Further, of the two blocks of Deane for.which vacation is requested, one will be maintained as a street through the site continuing to provide access to the south side of the Mountain.Chalet. Taken -in light of the overall improvements in conflicts created by the site plan, elimination of the one block.of Deane from the area street network is not a significant negative impact. The Aspen Mountain application also offers substantial construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian amenities as well as repaving of several sections of the area streets necessitated by the construction. They offer their cooperation and assistance in formation.of the lodge.area improvement district recommended by the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission and state their.intention of constructing various improvements to compliment whatever design may be promulgated by the CCLC. The plan represents a genuine enhancement of.the public streets and rights -of -way adjacent to the project. 6. Site Design - The City Engineering Department would view the site design as excellent both in terms of undergrounding of utilities as-well as improvements to public rights -of- way and provision of pedestrian amenities. The site plan proposes.a pedestrian /ski link between Dean Street near Little Nell, the mountain to the south, and Gilbert to the west. Pedestrian circulation through the site both summer.and winter is ,greatly enhanced. 7. Parking and Circulation - Parking design for the project is very good, offering 380 underground spaces for a 4.80 unit lodge structure. The code would require one space per unit if strictly applied, however, the project offers several advantages which mitigate the parking need including its location r.elative to the mountain and commercial areas, the proximity of the Rubey Park transporation center, and the provision of lodge limosines. The application also suggests several measures intended to encourage employees not to use.their cars. We would suggest that the lodge's approval be contingent on implimentation of employee auto disincentives such as transit passes and provision of in -town shuttles from the lodge to the various employee • • Page Four November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacations and Encroachments housing sites. The applicant's offer of $25,000,toward development.of a conceptual plan for Rubey Park might also provide a real incentive for the City to resurrect its plans for that area. Construction of a project of this magnitude definitely reaffirms the need for an upgraded transit center at Rubey. We were initially adverse to the applicant's suggestion that 134 on- street parking spaces would be eliminated by the project. our request for clarification, however, indicated that the required reduction of on- street. parking amounts to only 30 spaces which, in light of the project's provisions for its.own needs, is a far more acceptable number. Circulation, as discussed in section 5 above, is generally enhanced by the limited number of access points required by the project. Access to the Benedict - Larkin employee housing parcel is adequate in terms of capacity although street improvements as well as improved wintertime enforcement of parking in the area may fall to the City to accommodate the traffic of the 50 proposed units. Conceptual P.U.D. and Subdivision A couple of brief comments regarding the application with respect to conceptual subdivision and P.U.D. requirements: 1. While the ownership information and site descriptions would appear to be complete and are probably adequate for conceptual purposes, the legal description does not jive with any available mapping for the area. While the description is probably based on a more up -to -day survey, we will need to see that survey and a new platting for the property in subsequent reviews. 2. There have been indications that portions of the hotel will be condominiumized and such actions will require platting upon completion of the structures. Some further indication of how,the ownership will be set -up as well as what, if any, parceling of the lodge portion of the project is planned should be required at the preliminary stage. 3. _Some parceling of the Benedict - Larkin site is indicated. 0 0 Page Five November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacations and Encroachments The application does not reflect whether development rights have been obtained to permit the splitting of the Larkin parcel. The applicant should also be aware that we may be .requiring the granting of drainage easements through the housing site. Any subdivision plan for the Ute Avenue site should indicate that parcel B is undevelopable due.to the avalanche potential in that area. Upgraded water and sewer systems will also be required by the developer for the units on the Benedict parcel. Rezoning The lodge application requests several rezoning actions including the following: 1. L -1 to CL - The application requests rezoning of a fairly substantial.L1 zone to CL adjacent to Durant Street. The most significant engineering related impact of this proposed rezoning is that of parking necessitated by the more intensive commercial uses allowed by the CL zone and the fact. that CL zoning does not require on- site parking. Pursuant to the proposed site plan, however, we do not view parking as a significant problem relative to the CL zoning for the following reasons: a. A large portion of the area proposed for CL is, and will remain., occupied.by the Mountain Chalet. b. The plan does not propose that a significant portion of the floor area within the newly created CL zone be used for shops or other intensive commercial uses. C. The project provides adequate parking for the lodge units that are proposed in the CL zone. The 380 parking spaces are, in our opinion, adequate for the lodge units in the entire project when offset by the location and alternative transportation opportunities discussed earlier. We would further comment that the impacts of the proposed CL zoning to other engineering concerns such as utility requirements are minimal. 2. R -15 to R -6 (RBO) - The other rezoning of concern at this time is the rezoning of the Benedict - Larking parcel to R -6 (RBO) to permit the construction of a fairly high Page Six November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacations and Encroachments density employee complex on a relatively small portion of the parcel. While this rezoning would result in a higher density development of the affected parcel, it, again, does not present substantial engineering related problems. As.mentioned previously, utility extensions will be necessary to accommodate the employee complex. Ute Avenue has the necessary capacity to absorb the net increase in traffic but this incremental .increase.in.traffic, when followed by development of parcel A -1 and other developable parcels in the area, will eventually necessitate substantial improvement..of the street. Upgraded pavement, curb, gutters, and sidewalks as well as parking enforcement will be required at some point to allow the full and efficient use of the street. Change in Use In addition to the rezoning requests outlined above, the applicant will be creating employee housing from two structures currently in use as lodges. The Alpine Haus at 935 East Durant and the Copper House at 328 West Main will both be deed restricted to employee use. Engineering related impacts of the proposed changes in use are minimal. Both locations,,particularly the Copper house, are somewhat deficient in their provision of off - street parking. The change.to employee housing, however, does.not represent a greater intensity of use at each.site and therefore the incremental impact to on- street.parking in each neighborhood should be minor. The same basis premise holds true relative to other utility and service.impacts for the new use. Changing from lodge to employee housing will not require increased provision of water, sewer, power, gas or other utilities nor will it create the need for additional snow removal, police, or fire protection..beyond that which currently exists. View Plane There is, included in the application, a request for view plane review in conjunction with the upcoming residential application for the southern portion of the ownership. While the major portion of the project for which the view plane may create a concern will be coming infer review at a later date, we would submit the following: Page Seven November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacations and Encroachments 1. Comments in the current application notwithstanding, it would appear, from the applicants own cross - sectional analysis., that the lodge structure itself does.in fact protrude into the view plane. 2. The analysis further suggests that exemptions already granted adjacent to the view plane base line have rendered the lodge structure, while technically in violation of the plane, actually invisible. 3. There may be some validity to the argument that the view plane was intended to control development in the foreground relative to.the base line to prevent blocking the view to the mountain. It was not intended to control development on the mountain, this is accomplished via the 8040 Greenline requirements. We are currently investigating the history of the view plane ordinance and will address the issue in greater detail during subsequent steps in the review of the project. Street Vacations We have briefly discussed the ramifications of the proposed street vacations in the roads section of the GMP analysis. In that discussion we concluded that vacation of the two blocks of Dean and Lawn °Street'east of Monarch will not adversely impact the area from a,circulation standpoint. The vacation of the southernmost section of Mill Street is not reflected in the lodge site plan and we will reserve comment on that particular request until the residential application is submitted. l: Lawn Street - Lawn Street is somewhat unique in that it is a dead -end right -of- way.in the old Connor's Addition. It is, by itself,. of limited value as a circulation route due to its dead -end configuration. It currently contains a sewer line, gas.,line.and overhead lines, most of which service the existing Aspen Inn. Vacation of Lawn Street to allow construction of ,the Aspen Mountain Lodge will require that each utility franchised in the City, whether currently in Lawn or not, sign off on the vacation to verify that vacation of the right -of -way will not interfere with their current or future routing needs. The lodge site plan will, of course, have to accommodate utility services as well as mains to the satisfaction of the --Page Eight November 15, 1983 Aspen. Mountain Project Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacation and Encroachments individual companies.servicing the neighborhood. Lawn Street is an example of a vacation in the proposal for which.all public rights will be vacated including street use and.utility installations. The right -of -way will be.incorporated..into.the lodge site plan and.the new structure will obliterate the alignment. It is our opinion that.the City should be reimbursed by the developer for the rights being vacated in each instance. In this case, all rights are vacated. 2. Dean between Monarch and Mill Streets - This.block of Dean must be vacated to the benefit of both the applicant and the Mountain Chalet. This block of Dean, although requested for vacation, will remain a.street within the lodge site plan. The vacation should be-conditioned on the maintenance of all utility rights as well as public use of the street itself. The conceptual plan would appear to suggest a bus staging area adjacent to the Mountain Chalet. Any use of the vacated right -of -way adjacent to the Chalet will be under the control of the Mountain Chalet owner. 3. Dean between Mill and Galena - This block of Dean.,.like Lawn, will be completely eradicated by the lodge structure. Its vacation should also involve the approval of all franchised utilities and should be reimbursed to the City. The reimbursement could.take.any number of forms but our recommendation would be that the developer 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 applicant, reconstruction of the Monarch and Durant.intersection and reconstruction of the full extent of Galena from Durant to Mill. Submission of the residential application may suggest further rebuilding of the full extent of Mill Street. Encroachments -The Aspen Mountain Lodge site plan suggests, in addition to the vacations discussed above., substantial structural. encroachments into the underground portions of .Durant and Mill Streets as well as an overhead encroachment on Mill. While we are not generally supportive of encroachment requests as a policy, the lodge site offers several special circumstances: Page Nine November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceputal P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacation and Encroachments 1. The ownership incorporates a very large site surrounding both sides of the Mill Street right -of -way. 2. The encroachment requests on Mill Street involve creation of an underground connection of the parking structures as well as an overhead pedestrian bridge interconnecting the major lodge structures. Both encroachments serve to accommodate circulation of pedestrians and vehicles between the two sites thus removing those people and vehicles from street level. This provides a much.safer and simpler circulation.within the complex and removes numberous- potential conflicts on the street. This is particularly beneficial in the wintertime, allowing guests to ..circulate.between the accommodations in the east structure and conference facilities in the west without leaving the warmth of the building and without having to dodge cars.on.a slippery Mill Street. Again, the City is vacating underground and overhead construction rights in its right -of -way and it is our recommendation that off -site improvements of offsetting value be required. The applicant.has offered., and will be required, to rebuild the Mill Street water line through the structure, as well as.to accommodate any current or future needs of the various utilities. The proposed bridge over Mill Street must, of course, provide adequate clearance for any vehicle including large trucks and emergency equipment. We would recommend that an encroachment license be granted for the Mill Street structures. Due to the uncertainly of the future of Rubey Park, and the overall importance of Durant Street to the City, however, we would further recommend that the site plan be modified to eliminate any encroachment into Durant. The site plan currently suggests that the underground parking access into the eastern structure will loop into the Durant right -of -way and, unless the developer can provide strong evidence of the need for this encroachment, we would recommend against it. Construction Logistics Needless to say, any project of this magnitude will involve substantial disruption of the neighborhood during construction. The applicant has made adequate representations, as this time, of their willingness to work with the City to mitigate these impacts to the greatest degree possible. We would suggest, • Page Ten November 15, 1983 Aspen Mountain Project Conceputal P.U.D., Conceptual Subdivision, Rezoning, Change in Use, Street Vacation and Encroachments during subsequent reviews,of.the project, that the applicant be required to address the following specific items:.. 1. The form and extent of temporary pedestrian ways and barricading anticipated during construction. 2. Detailed phasing plans to address where work will be occurring at any given time and where access and material .storage will be possible.on -site. 3. Location of disposal sites for the mass excavation and demolition contemplated. 4. Evidence of direct correspondence with all involved utilities addressing how their services and main routing will be accomplished through the project site. This should include adequate provision of easements and . anticipation of potential.future lines for the area. Scheduling to accommodate rerouting as well as installation of new lines will be very important to this project. 5. Further evidence.that reconstruction of Mill Street will occur in a timely fashion and that alternative access from at least two directions will be maintained to the south end of Mill throughout the period of time the street is disrupted. Conclusion Despite the magnitude of this..project, and the many complex issues involved, we feel that from a general engineering standpoint the project provides many excellent improvements. The potential this project offers.the neighborhood in terms of improved publ.ic facilities, undergrounding of existing utilities, improved streets.; --and upgraded circulation are great and well addressed by this conceptual application. JH /co To: Planning '-4- Aspen Mountain Project The Lodge,. Galena and Top of Mill From: Jinx Caparrella (Fire Dept) '" ' Qt, CiCE t: F Date: Nov. 159 1983 The height of some of these units seem to be higher than rest of the new units being; built. -in the county. This may-give us some access problems in. fighting fire in the F. lo.ors. upper floors. j, E: It looks like we will have access problems getting to i' the center units also. Additional hydrants are needed to supplement the existing ones. May I.suggest two on S. Galena f and twol on S. Mill. � Going over the top of Mill St.., there is a lounge, will it have enought clearance for our a.r al uint to ass. under, , t or clear, nce for delivery trucks? • MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office Building Department Parks Department City Manager* Transportation Department • FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: 1983 City. Lodge GMP Submission - L -1 /L -2 Zone DATE:. October 6, 1983 Attached are this year's applications competing in.the City for the 1983 City Lodge GMP competition in the L -1 and L -2 zones. One application is submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas and Mr. Alan 4 Novak.. The applicant proposes to demolish the Continental, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce.and replace them with a 480 unit hotel. The other application received was submitted by Lyle D. Reeder. The applicant requests a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units. The project is the Lodge at Aspen which is located at the corner of Ute and Original Streets. Please review the applications thoroughly and return your comments to the Planning Office by November 4, 1983, in.order that we may adequately prepare for its presentation before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983. . Thank you. * These referral departments are receiving the application submitted by American Century Corporation only. 4ovhae- Ar ^see: CAS-- TIC sFet-r-n nY rHe s i -«;- ASr�v /yon CAI.°' iCOq-,) C_ i: G/4a. (3 R SeA- - en r',y ),1+e h►STaic� /NL Aa-r1L �A&S vF Now. ra RP_ l.,orcK0A o v r 1,,t7-r+ - rrtvIft- r=te- �i�ee� O�2S, D r r CI_E_[1_u_ti_d_1�_0_U_hl TO: A_-penlPi akin County Housing Authority FROM mail Schwartz, Assistant Director UpenlPitkin County Housing Office LEA TE : November 11, 19S3 RE: Update GMP Lodge Submission for The Aspen Mountain The referral comments from the Housing Nuihorl ty recommended that the applicant Prot,ide further- information relative to the inclusion of living rooms in the room count, food and beverage service to the conference area, as well as addressing the issue of economy of scale which they claim will influence future employment upon ultimate buiIdoui. Based upon these suggestions., Jim Curtis as rep resen t i tine of the development group, and I _.ought information from the Sheraton Hotel operation in Steamboat Springs. It was eery helpful to discuss their- size and employment Ievel. as they are more comparable in their operation to that of the proposed Aspen Mountain. The Sheraton represents that they have one of the most efficient Sheraton operations in the country. Their quality standards are high but perhaps not quite as high as the Westin operation. Therefore, the Westin operation being substantially smaller has been Proven to be not a direct comparable but a good benchmark for estimating future employment. The area of the restaurant and it= employment of 3 employees. Per seat has been reinforced by the Westin analysis and exceeded in the case of the Sheraton anaIy:=is by a small degree. Therefore, the estimate: for the food and beverage operation are the best that we could apply. -The estimate sloes include the restaurant and bar operations as well as employee ki f Chen, room service., and food service to the conference facility. So the 22,000 s.q. ft. of conference facility should function within the staff anticipated for the entire hotel operation. It is assumed that there will be an on-call banquet staff uhi ch will be utilized in specific instances and the employees will not be of a long term nature. The retail estimate will remain the same. A revision in the lodge employment generation figures will be necessary. As contained in the attached memo, the room count we feel has been underestimated in the proposal., disregarding the impact of the living room of the suite .arrangements. Therefore, the room count has been .increased to 525 Projected rooms with 27 existing room= for a net generation of 24 rooms. Applying a factor of .35 employees Per room is Perhaps= a more accurate representation of future emPIo?ment. As demonstrated by the Sheraton and further- documented by operatins Proformas developed by Laventhol and Horvath, an estimate of .36 is more appropriate. Therefore, the net employment wuld be 89 employee: versus. the 124 calculated in the original memo. TO: FROM: DA TE i `I c1_E_er_u_t;_d_rI_a_u_rj Sunny Vann, Planning Office I Gail Schwartz, Assistant Di reci or i November- Si 1983 RED i ! GMP Lodge' Submission Review of Aspen Mountain, including: The Lodge, Galena and Top of Hill ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 � aetiuiiiu ❑_n�_Emeluymea.t_s.fandar-ds The Pror sisal for the GMP submission for The Ledge at AsFen Mountain includes! a review of employment generated through development of new hotel units, bar- and Pe_. iaurant, kitchen facilities., conferedc'elbanSuef faci1ifies, and accessory retail space. Tr'adifibally, specific standards have been utilized by the Housing Authority as benchmarks for MUMS "employment Per - industry: In the case of the hotel, operationally it will be of a standard exceeding other- hotel operation_ in the community. Based upon this representation, myself and _fim Curtis., as a repre_.entatit.e of the development group, gent to the Nestin Hotel in" Wail . The Nesjin Hotel is of a quality comparatle 1p the operation Proposed by this development. Therefore, the employment standard-=- of the tilesfin operation would be a better- indication of future employment. It was discovered at the Nes4in Hotel that their - employment standards far- exceeded those historically developed within 'this community. For. examples a standard of 13 to 17 employees per 100 beds has been generated through the Aspen and SnKmass Employee Sur veys since 1979. Q the Nestin, they have an 'eguiva.leni of 35 Jobs Fir 100 beds whii:h would be developed to a full time equivalent of 25.2 people Per 100 beds, translating into a factor of .5 employees Per room. For the restaurants, it was anal. +red that the Ne hh had during their Afer employment, .4 jobs Per reskaurani seat crePing an e9ui4bleni of 3 people Per seat (using a kcior of 1,4 :rob_. Per Person'. This included employment for, room service, the emP1 oyee W i chen, and c� �n f e rencelbanaue i facilities. The development group has represented that they are not addressing Peak sMon but rather average employment: based upon multiple ,lobs termed as a a month eauivalent. The Westin stated, all of iheirlabs during the winter season are full time. Therefore, R �3 using a�;1.4 factor to arrive at the number,' of employed eeoele.- this create] an estimate below the Peak wintzr season. ;�',;;, i, r�oal: Dais_ a_ f _Lod�e_Emelra�men.t_GeQer.�liuo The' • I oche l oPe ra t i on has identified' 1 02 employees as the net Shloyment generation, utilizing a full time equivalent rePresenta- fine oft jpverage seasonal employment. Again, a standard of .5 �i emeIoyees,Per room has been validated by a staffing analysis. WAY Whin Hotel, One area of concern of the Housing authority is the overs.i to i 0he room e timate ,for the living rooms ay ocialed with the Odes On 130 of the units. NPPro;:imately 100 of the rooms hate.•suife arrangements and they will most likely incorPor'aie some tape of' sleeping arrangements. The Ne On Hotel stated that 9": 'of` their rooms were seii fes and they had reasonable util i- Afion of the Iivin= rums for s1_er =ins If .3 factor of .5 was 'applied to the living Wooms for utilIzation and converted into aj room,,equivalent by one half, the 180 rooms would equal a:45 roam equivalent. Therefore, the room coun`- should then A, Increased from 480 to 525 less, 277 e isling rooms for a net room count of 248.a .5 employees Per room equaliO 124 employees. versus `the 102 employees being recommended by the developer. The developer- _. hould demonstrate that future emPlovmenf _.fand.ard may be reduced due to some economy of scale, as the Project will contain over I000 beds. The WOO WWII utilized as a comparable, had 368 bed_-, with n one third the operation of the Proposed development. Therefore, I anticipate that the developer would assess other comparables and procure information from (heir; consul (ants, Laventhol and Horwafh, in order fo demons irafe that their- employment could 'address the additional number of errFldyees due to lower standard_., yet Providing comparable quality. Lodge Rooms 1l Bedroc-im TSui f es L Redroob'Suifes Lockouts, Fenihou el Suites SuWo f a l Living Rooms - 18@ Total EVOstne1 a lon Nei Genr Ebloymen,f Standard I EmFloyees (Nei.) ;,,VSO ;x I X25 (utilization & room equivalent *118 .x .�, ]utilisation equivalent) = 90 II Rooms) 5E- 75 50 2 55 480 -454 525 2z '48 -5 rnom 12-4 = 45 Lied 500 1 E7 tea 110 at;0 - -- a01.#. 1, 050- 554 496 25z1t3d 125 • • j �' r�nalysis_o.f_Enud_and_6e�er. Asa_ ueeraiiun_Emnlaymani_G�n�raiion The hotel is Proposing to have 23n000 _.q. t t . a_'sociaied with res';fauranf, bar- and kitchen. The kitchen area is estimated to be 8:500 sq. f i . and the restaurant and bar- to be 15A06 sq. f i . MOM& there is 10000 sq. fi. which currently exists; the net Pr6ducKon will be 13000 4q. f f . of new restaurant related area. Utilizing Housing Office standards for veneration of employees Per restaurant seat or Per 1,000 59-K.; may Provide for' an excessive number of employees due' to the Potential for- one's kitchen to service three different restaurants, lounges, room service, and the conference area. I ' The facility analyzed at the Wesiin Hotel had a similar circumsiance: whereby 343 restaurant and bar- Ee.ais were serviced by one common kitchen as well as the conference facility. There was also another smaller- kitchen for room service and an emloyee cafeteria. The! area devoted to restaurant and bar was re -anaIv ed based upon the required square footage for each restaurant and bar sea't. If was estimated that approximately L000 seats would be generated by the restaurant and lounge areas utilising square •1004aves Provided by Laventhol and Horwath for each type of ope ?afii7n. By incorporating a standard of .3 employees Per seat as! developed from the Nestin Hotel as a full time equivalent.. thej requirement could be for 300 People, reconfirming the estimate for! the 23,500 _•q.ft, of restaurant and bar facility. Providing W4 the conference and banquet _'eats are in Proportion with the restaurant and bar- :eats, this level of employment could incorporate the other facilities •including the conference are =a, room service and the employee cafeteria. 4 Further-; documentation from the developer- is requested in order to address the Proposed 22,000 sq.fi. of conference area included in the j Proposal and the food and beverage 'service in that area. Again in this instance, a standard developed by a reputable fourced such as Laventhol and Horwath, mould be valuable in order- to Provide employment generation number= for an operation of VON seats, versus our coSparabl e of only 345 seats. 4.' 6ddi1iooa1_1AormaVoo j Rel.ativi to displacement of Previously housed employees, there have been no deed restricted employee unit_. contained, within the, hotel. Yet information which we developed independently indicated that approximately 10 to 12 units were made available during :the winter- time Period for employees. It is re•ason.able that unit_' historically used for employees•, although not deed resikicted, _houId be maintained along t,ii ih the es.timaied 27 units identified as Pre- existing. II' The infirgaiion on; uinfer- housing of seasonal eMplovees is estimated #o include i {, +o uni is in the Continental .inn: Wo uni it in the Blue SOiuces uni tsj mere also made l at,ailable in the Mine Dump akarimAks., the Holiday House, " and. the TownFlace aparimenk Acaied across. ihe; street. Four- f, fine employees were housed on a year round basis. Clarification of the number of units. used by :Wmpl ogees trill be necessary, should there be a reoui remen f to maintain These previously e ?;isAne units in the redeveloFmeni. The Housling Authority recommend_• that if reasonable information is Progided for 'the areas identified for clarification: the living rooms., the. conference area. and refinement for! economy of f scale, Thai they receive the Points appropriated for housing 60"' of f'heir- employees. Should a response not be satisfactory; then they Points to' be awarded should be ,adAsfed accordinAv. J- l' i i s • �1 (; ) f 1 i a l • CIT 130 asp yr � °� o 4,h ;ale",'mv o 11,ofr WA04 M E M O R A N D U M LJ PEN reet 1611 TO: SUNNY VANN, Planning Director FROM:. JIM HOLLAND, Director of Parks ly�-- DATE: November 7, 1983 �f•► RE: 1983 CITY LODGE GMP SUBMISSION L -1 /L -2 ZONE "ASPEN MOUNTAIN" - American Century Corporation Having reviewed the application for the project listed above, I have no comments at this time. Thanks. ASPEN *PITKIN40EGIONAL BUILT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning L FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer DATE: November 7, 1983 RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submission Please be advised that at this time I have no comments to make on the above mentioned review application. BD /ar offices: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 '303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 CIT 130 asp • PEN reet 1611 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 1983 TO: Sunny Vann FROM: Paul Taddune RE: Cantrup Properties This verification should be cross - referenced against GMP approvals, i.e. are all of these units legal or merely what exists at present? PJT /mc Attachment cc: Bill Drueding Wayne Chapman t C C: 1883, . ASPEN PJPON CO. L- "'!NG OFFICE i t i v- i I Doremus &company,, 608 east hyman avenue aspen, Colorado 81611 telephone: (303) 925 -6866 September 6, 1983 .Mr. Bill Dreudi.ng Zoning Enforcement Officer City c>f Aspen 110 (emit h .(,;;l -na St rPa+- is c.ompiete with the exception o:f.some.commercial space and three.resi.dential units (the Chase duplex.and .Black residence_) which we realize you will.need to .inspect in order to confirm.. My.count can be summarized as follows.: 1., Lodge Rooms According to my count, we recorded a total of 27,7 lodge rooms as follows: Aspen Inn 67 �" �'� "V^�' ~•{M��t Continental Inn 17.8 :Blue Spruce 32 Pte- A. Aspen Inn - The count includes 32 1- bedroom (or 2 -room) .Suites and.4..single rooms-in the new addition (under construction) 6 lock- off.bedrooms .in.the..horth: apartments, 1, dg_mnl`i�h Vim.( #14) and. a room which has been. converted . to, a. sauna , 0,(<,B:. Continental Inn - The .to al of 178 rooms c.l 2 rooms converted. ..i:n.- to commer.cia us_ a d' 22 rooms 4� with. kitchens .w i.c :; interprets . as. nonconforming lodge rooms;. V^W41 C. Blue Spruce - -..Six rooms: with kitchens ar.e. jL included .in .the. total count. of 32. rooms. 2.. Dwelling Units We recorded a total of 34 existing dwelling units as follows Aspen Inn 8 (North Apartments) (6) (Chalet East,) (1� pIZ (C.ha.l6t West) (.l ybl< Town .Place.. 4 OK. Blue .Spruce 2_ 01< Pa a s.. 2 OX. Hillside Iodge,.. 14 O:k Meivi1l:e 4.2 1 Oki Chase Duplex 2-:.' (. ©. Black 1 ( ?) 34 3.3 Included in .the 34 dwelling units is one studio unit in. the Blue. Spruce: which is unlike.the'6 lodge rooms with kitchens; we believe that unit should be counted as a :dwelling unit. In. addition., l of the 2 dwelling units in- the.Paas duplex has been converted to office space: accessory to the hotel. We believe that under the , intent of Ordinance 36/83,,we can make an.argument to receive credit for. that previously existing dwelling . unit. In regard to.the demolished units, I am including correspondence which Spencer.Shiffer provided us which describes those un -its which the City has previously verified. The total of 7 verified units in the count 0 4 Mr. Bill Dreuding September .6, 1983 Page Three, The Vogl house; .which was demolished to: al how cons ruc tion.of the Aspen.Inn addition, is the '.only :other demolished unit which..we are presently aware of which has. not been .verified by.:the City. The. building clearly appears on.thi- City aerials; w -& are researching. the history further. If verified.,:that.unit..would. aKe . a .total of six demolished. units available for. . reconstruction. ): 3. Bedroom Count The number of existing bedrooms 'is important for at least..two calculations the :park dedication fee and employee. housing requirement. You will note..that we have identified the 6 dwelling.units.in the Aspen. Inn Condomi.niums .(North. Apartments.). as one-bedroom .units because the l'ockoff bedrooms in those'units.have"been included in the lodge room count. The .bedroom count for the Chase duplex and the..Black residence . have.not been verified and the count for the demolished units is based on the best. available information. 4. Commercial Space The commercial square footages are based on.measure- ments taken by. Jim Curtis and myself on August 25, 1983. The Aspen Inn and Continental Inn bar /restaurant square footage of 9,770 square ,feet..is space that we believe will be.accepted.as.accessory to the :lodge operation: The .space in Town Place is non- accessory,.we believe..: Conference space in the Continental stial needs to:be: measured. 5. Fireplaces 2 W e have.. identified ied: a .total. 0 57 `istifig f.irepl.ace.s throughout the site to..date.._ e .believe there: are. .:a few addi.tiona.l fireplaces :in- vari'.ous locations no t included -in ..this .total- and :will continue to. .attempt . to verity. .these. 608 east hyman avenue aspen, colorado 81611_ telephone: (303) 925 =6866 Mr. Brill Dreuding September 6, 1983 Page Four We have asked Art Daily to prepare an affidavit regarding the inventory so.that. we can begin the process of. formal.verifica- tion by the City. When Art has completed the affidavit, I:will bring it over.. If you, .have. any questions about .;the :tabulat.ion : 'iii its:. p.rese.nt form, -please give.: me:.a call at 'Jo.hn .Doremus' ..office. rely'; J SP. ph We1 I'S . '. la.nnng Consultant... JW:cck cc: Dick Wilhelm', `, • INVENTORY. OF EXISTING UNITS I ASPEN.HOTEL PROJECT G September 7, 1983. CONTINENTAL INN East Wing 57 Lodge Rooms West wing. Total of 43 rooms and 1 room with kitchen (2 add'l rooms.converted to comm'l use) 15 fireplaces Basement: r bms G2K , Qoc� -" AW t "'J_ 1st Level:. 6. rooms rentable as (2) 3- room.suites (7�r- + 4 rooms rentable as (2) 2 -room s.u'ites Q( + 1 room and l:room w /kitchen rentable as(��pC� 1 2 =room. suite ( 2_ -add' 1 rooms converted to comm' 1 use) 5 fireplaces: 2nd Level- 12 .rooms rentable. as. (4) 3= room,s.ui..t6s V� f./ + 2 rooms__ rentable_-a-s:.(1). 27 room :suite < 57 f i:replaces. d![ 3rd Level 12 rooms . rentable as (4.) 3 -room s.u.ite-s.0, + 2 rooms. rentable \as (1) 2 -room suite.C) ireplace-.s: -� South. Wing Total of 40 rooms and 15 rooms w /kitchens 01< Basement: 2 lodge rooms &.2 rooms rentable as 13. (1) 2 -rm suite +.6 rooms & 3 rooms w /kitchens rentable as (3 ). 3 -rm suites ) 6� .1st Level: 2 lodge rooms + 8 rooms & 4 rooms w /kitchens rentable as (4) 3 -rm. suites - 1Y 2nd Level: 2 lodge rooms + 8 rooms & 4 rooms.w /kitchens rentable as. (4) 3 -rm. suites ..3rd. Level 2 lodge. .rooms J + 8 rooms.& 4 room.s w /kitchens rentable as (4)'3 -rm. suites C. L' Far South Wing. Total of 14 rooms and.6 rooms:;w / kitchens ; O 1st Level.:, 4 lodge .rooms & 2 rooms w /kitch.ens re.ntabl.e as.(2) 3 -rm.. suites. 1� 6(<2nd Level: 5 lodge rooms & 2 rooms w /kitchens rentable as (1) 4 -rm.. suit.e.and .(1) 3 -rm: suite 3rd Level: .5, lodge rooms :& 2 rooms w /kitchens rentable 7 as (11 4 -rm. suite and (1) 3 -rm. suite Total for Continental (` East Wing 57 Lodge Rooms -i"_ L ( cw ASih (yp �llO.f M UK West Wing 43 Lodge Rooms and 1 room W/ kitchen �+ ot/�c D[-'-South Wing 40 Lodge Rooms an 14 ooms w /kitchens 014,Far South Wing 14 Lodge Rooms and 6 rooms w /kitchens �K 154 Lo and 22 rooms w/kitche (2 ad.dl1 rooms converted to commercial use). ASPEN INN,.. Original Wing 06423 lodge rooms without kitchens —(1 additional lodge room demolished .a.nd.l, converted to sauna -in- .198.2) 0 /6otal. of 3 fireplaces i. n this wing New Addition (;1J'<.32. 2 -room suites + 4 single room -� L'2 7) Fireplaces C a,u� �AKK�► ..Qd P�. (�R , The Vogl house, which was located on the.site,of the addition was a 4- bedroom single family unit, according to,Dick Wilhelm. Not verified by_aty. North Apartments � Q(�6 2- bedroom multi - family dwellin units bedrooms w /bath can be oc ed. of and rented separately) b� 6 fireplaces (1 per unit). Chalet East D�Cll 1 4- bedroom multi = family dwelling unit S, 1 fireplace Chalet West / 1 5- bedroom multi- family dwelling unit Ott` .1 fireplace .CHASE LOTS Currently vacant and in use for Continental parkigg. CHASE DUPLEX C . ) f/.Z��ftY 0 � According to Dick Wilhelm, the .b ilding is ,,// 1 3- bedroom dwelling unit *"Nor Ole 1 1- bedroom dwelling unit with ukrtfu.� 2 fireplace TOWN PLACE C2� Z. 4 multi - family .dwelling . uni s. + oEfice space of 690 sq.ft• . . + a small shop HILLSIDE LODGE studio :mu.lti- family dwelling units and. r '4 1:- bedrom multi- family dwelling:. units.. ? fireplaces BLUE SPRUCE 32 ro South Wing:I/e17 North Wing :pt/- 15 OK � Dms and 2 multi - family dwelling units rooms rooms.and..l studio dwelling unit.and 2- bedroom dwelling unit Fireplace in 3- bedroom _unit ?" .fireplace in 1 of..the studios SNOWCHASE Lot. 1- According to. Dick Wilhelm,. the Snowchase.ncluded: 9 Capitol: H.i11 .. bedroom's and .4 baths .•in .a• dorm .a•rrangel ent with a• common kitchen. Verified by C.it:y. ' Lot 21 According to Dick Wilhlem, there previously was: a -� Capitol Hill 3- bedroom house with kitchen on. Lot•21. Verified by city. r. CITY SPEN 4 130�sou -t�h gale�naa,ostreet asp n- lra�a�o�8'1611 TO: City of Aspen Planning Director - Sunny Vann FROM: City of Aspen Transportation Director - Duane A. Fengel DATE: October 12, 1983 SUBJ: City Lodge GMP Submission - 1983 Thank you for passing the information on to me pertaining to the development on the south end of Mill Street. Visually, it will certainly dress up the area and I was impressed with the quality of the presenta- tion. The close proximity of the development to Rubey Park transportation center will encourage use of the free shuttle.system, and the design of the present routes and the'new equipment to be instituted in transporta- tion should be able to handle the increase in ridership initiated by this addition. Basically the only problem that I could forsee would be possibly the increase in traffic on Durant, and due to the physical design of this street, and-the climactic conditions of this road in the winter season, the impact could be serious. Perhaps this will be the catalyst to force the city into creating an underground parking structure at Wagner Park and eliminate street parking on Durant during the high season. Thank you again for your consideration. • CIT! 130 asp U reet 1611 WATER DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: SUNNY VAN, PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1983 RE: THE LODGE - ASPEN MOUNTAIN As stated under aa. Water, pages 27 -31, should the proposed water improve- ments be made in conjunction with the project, the Water Department feels it would support this project and further, the Water Department feels the additional consumption created by the new units (estimated approximately 36,000 gallons per day) would not have a detrimental effect upon the over- all water supply in Aspen. We assume that the recommended fire.hydrants will be installed as stated under dd. Fire Protection, page 35, and this was our recommendation in our letter of 9/28/83. If the recommendations, and.improvements are carried out, the overall neighborhood water distribu- tion system will be substantially improved. JM :1 if 0� t 0 PJ P 00' �1 1NG OFF'CE LANN ASPEN *PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny �7ann, Director Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director % "Q Environmental Health Department DATE: October 22, 1983 RE: 1983 GMP - The Lodge - Galena - Top of Mill. ----------------------------------------------------------- The above- referenced submittal has been reviewed for the following environmental concerns. AIR. POLLUTION: This concern has to be reviewed,for vehicle pollution, wood burning pollution, restaurant grill pollution and demolition Pollution. VEHICLE AIR POLLUTION: The submittal references total underground parking for all vehicles using the proposed facility. It will be the requirement of this office that adequate air handling facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate an_y build -up of air contaminants inside the parking structures. Further, Prior to exhausting the contaminants to the atmosphere, they shall be treated to the point that no increase in vehicle pollutants will be realized in the surrounding area. At this time in the review process, it will be assumed that any air circulation system for the underground parking areas will simply exchange inside and outside air. This type of system will in fact remove carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and hydrocarbons from the garages. However, it is anticipated that large quantities of the above- mentioned Pollutants discharged at specific times would act as a point source. This will have the potential of causing a deterioration in ambient air quality in the immediate area of the discharge vents. Engineering for such a filtration system does exist and should be investigated by the applicant. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020 • Page Two October 22, 1983 1983 GMP - The Lodge - Galena - Top of Mill WOOD BURNING POLLUTION: Compliance with Section 11 -2.3 of the Aspen Municipal.Code titled "Solid Fuel Burning Devices" will be required. This section addresses the numbers of wood burning devices allowed in various types of structures. RESTAURANT GRILL POLLUTION.: Compliance with Section 11 -2.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled. "Restaurant Grills" will be required. This section addresses the type of cooking devices which can be installed and operated in new or remodeled food service establishments. DEMOLITION POLLUTION: According to the submittal there will be extensive demolition of existing structures in preparation for the proposed new building construction. It will be a requirement of the applicant to initiate any or all customary air pollution control measures to minimize fugitive dust (wind blown) from leaving the property', This may take the form of continuous water application on the immediate work site through the use of sprinklers or hoses. .Whichever control measure is used it.must be effective. As a point of information none of the demolished materials can be burned. It must all be hauled to a designated land fill. Contact shall be made with the County Engineer to. determine land fill capacities and if the present land fill can accommodate the projected volumes of waste. SITE DRAINAGE: All site drainage from paved areas, roof drains and disturbed soil areas shall be retained on the project site. This may take the.form of diversion of the drainage into dry wells, non - discharging holding ponds or across vegetated.slopes. All attempts shall be made to not allow any discharge of site drainage into the City storm sewer system. Discharge of this type of effluent into the Roaring Fork River has been proven to be very detrimental to water quality. NOISE ABATEMENT: The project will be required to comply with Ordinance Number 2 Page Three October 22, 1983 1983 GMP - The Lodge - Galena - Top of Mill series of 1981 titled "Noise Abatement." Specifically, during demolition and construction Industrial Zone standards will have to be met. After construction is completed and occupancy is initiated,,the lower decibel levels of the Lodge Zone will apply. A caution will be expressed at this time that if live or recorded amplified music will be generated from the property it will be a benefit to the applicant to become familiar with the noise ordinance. WATER SYSTEM: Service of this project by the Aspen [dater Department distribution system is in conformance with policies of this office. SEWAGE SYSTEM: Service of this project by the Aspen Pietro Sanitation District collection system is in conformance with policies of this office. FOOD SERVICE AND LOUNGE AREAS: Conformance withthe Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado, July 1978 will be reauired. SWIMMING POOLS AND SPA'S: Compliance with the State of Colorado Swimming Pool Regulations and Standards will be required. It is suggested that the applicant review for pool deck widths. It appears from the submitted that compliance with this facet be met. TSD /co this regulation specifically preliminary design of the regulation cannot CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this, e'day of , 1981f, a true and correct copy of the attached N ice of 06blic Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. J et Lynn. instein PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Submission - Rezoning Application NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing which was tabled on November 29, 1983 has been rescheduled and will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 7, 1984, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena,. Aspen, Colorado, to consider a request to rezone 190,617 sq. ft. out of a total parcel of 7.641 acres of land owned by Benedict/ .Larkin on Ute Avenue, north and west of Ute Cemetary in order to accommodate a 50 unit employee housing proposal of one - bedroom and two- bedroom units, from R -15 zone designation to R -6 (RB)). For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130.South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. 81611 (303) 925 -2020, Ext. 225. s /Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times.on January 12, 1984. City of Aspen Account. CERTIFICATE Aspen Title Company, Ltd. hereby certifies that a search of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, reveals that the names and addresses of the owners of the real property within three hundred (300) feet of the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto are as follows, to wit: CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION Lot 1 Lot 8 Thomas J. Larkin & Harriet A. Larkin Henry S.-& Judith U. Hoyt 382 Hilldale Drive 54 Champlain Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Chatham, Mass 02633 Lot 2 Lot '9 Fay R. Chaffee Linda Soule Preston Box 389 1112 Waters Avenue Florence, CO 81226 Aspen, Co 81611 Lot 10 Lot 3 Maurice Thuillier & Anne Thuillier Elizabeth Marie Jones 1103 Waters Avenue Box P Aspen, CO 81611. Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 4 Lot 11 William J. Gandino Norma J. McLain Box 2237 Box 832 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 5 Lot 12. Waters Avenue Investment, Ltd. Jacques M. Lescan Craigmuir Chambers, Road Town Tortola, c/o Dale Potvi.n British Virgin Islands 520 East Durant Avenue Aspen, CO .81611 Lot 13.' Fonda Dehne Paterson Lot 6 500 W. Hopkins James S. Hearst &'Meryl Hearst Aspen, CO 81611 Box 67 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 14 William J. Geary & Renee M. Geary Lot 7 4800 S. Albion Gail Cottingham Koch Littleton, CO 80121 Box 797 - Aspen, CO 81612 Norma Ledingham 1116 Waters Avenue, Unit 3 Anthony & Nora Kastelic Aspen, CO 81611 570 South Riverside, Aspen, CO 81611 Herbert R. & Paula Molner 2$0 Cedar Street M.'Gordon Sheldon Highland Park, Ill. 60035 1801 Century Park East, Suzann Resnick Los Angeles, CA 90067 1116 Waters'Avenue, Unit.4 Aspen, CO. 81611 99 PAGE 2 .. Spar Consolidated Mining and Development Company 28 State Street Boston, Mass 02109. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena-St. Aspen, Colorado .81611 The Gant Condominium Association c/o Destination Resorts t�b 11611 San Vicente Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90049. Jane Z. Fraser Route 1, Box 80 Florence, Texas 77019 Sandor W. Shapery 8008 Girard Avenue LaJolla, CA 92037, Thomas P. Latham 2940 Taverness Houston, Texass 77019 June Howard Box 993-8 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Hayden Cutler 2018 W.- Freeway Fort Worth$ Texas 76102 Harley Baldwin 1 West 72nd Street New York City, New York 10023 Thomas F. and Cathryn R. Crum Box 2982 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lyle E. Reeder Box 4859 Aspen, Colorado 81612 William Wesley Hewitt Box 8825 Aspen, Colorado 81612 r �J Mort Augenstein and Larry B. Nathanson c/o Tres Jolie 965 Mission Street 41520 San Francisco, CA. 94103 Smuggler - Durant Mining Corp. c/o Mark Hyman, Jr. 221 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge, Mass. 02135 ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 f f� 'G a: i ' ��fT coNaot�iNlU.�c �-sS oClg?lo.� �QvV���� A®O P-46'=s S, . a. *Z3'4 K- 1 -7 moo.', Cp c� /N'�''��� 7�c� � � � s •� � � �, yam- : !� . 2�Ect4t,Q.f77 ed A1�s ax �`3�"/ ' ? ,71-.r 3 3 I SL) r)'U PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Submission - Rezoning Applications NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN -that a public hearing will be held before the the Aspen Planning and .Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November, 29, 1983 at 5:00 P.M. (a special meeting) in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider the following rezonings: 1. To rezone the Chase Duplex, Townplace Apartments and Hillside Lodge sites (Lots A through,D in Block 91) and for the Mountain Chalet and Blue Spruce North sites (all 9 lots in Block 84 to the west of Block 91), from L -1 zone designation_ to a CL zone designa- tion; and 2. To rezone 190,617 sq. ft. out of a total parcel of 7.641 acres of land owned by Benedict /Larkin on Ute Avenue, north and west of Ute Cemetery in order to accommodate a 50 unit employee housing proposal of one- bedroom and two - bedroom units, from R -15 zone designation to R -6 (RBO). For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (303) 925 -2020, ext. 225. s /Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November. 10, 1983. City of Aspen Account. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this Jrq1 day of SerAe 1983, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated.on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. aan& Lynn .W instein CERTIFICATE Aspen Title Company, Ltd. hereby certifies that a search of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado reveals that the names and addresses of the owners of the real property within three hundred (300) feet of Lots A, B, C, D, and E, Block 91, City and Townsite of Aspen; Lots A, B, C,--D E, F. G, H and I. Block 84 City and Townsite of Aspen; Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 Capitol Hill Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen a /k /a Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Little Chief Lode U.S. M.S. 5850; those parts of Little Chief Lode U.S.M.S. 5850 above the 8040 line; those parts of the Big Chief Lode U.S.M.S. 4237 and the Millionaire Millsite 3620B, below the 8040 line; those parts of the Big Chief Lode U.S.M.S. 4237 and Millionaire Millsite 3620B above the 8040 line are as follows, to wit: 'Ajax Mountain Condominium - Alpenblick Condominium - 20 u,.t A Durant Condominium - 30 Fifth Avenue Condominium --3 (-5 Fasching Haus Condominium- I) Fasching Haus East Condominiums— 'Z .4j ;,,Tipple Inn i 2 Urll-%S c/o Lee Miller 747 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Southpoint Condominium Association 205 E. Durant Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mountain Queen Condominium Association P.O. Box 8880 Aspen, Colorado 81612 North of Nell Condominium Association ^.S"1 (,t,t4o 555 E. Durant Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 700 Monarch Condominium Association c/o Stirling Homes 600 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 e Canada House of Aspen, Ltd. 411 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Limelite, Inc. Leroy G. Paas 228 East Cooper Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Certificate - Page Property Owners within 300 feet t Hans B. Cantrup P.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Guido Paul Meyer P.O. Box 1799 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Robert B. Goldberg Suite 3000 500 5th Avenue New York City, New York 10001 .Ajax Mountain Associates, Ltd. c/o Stephen J. Marcus P.O. Box 1709 Aspen, Colorado 81612 0 Herbert P. Balderson P.O. Box 493 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Joe Cabell 1765 Ala -Moana Blvd. Honolulu, Hawaii Valdamar Mark 515 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado Scott Investco P.O. Box 4257 Aspen, Colorado 81612 4 John and Frank Dolinsek, Jr. P.O. Box 275 Aspen, Colorado Spar Consolidated Mining and Development Company 28 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Wr Park Place Development Co. 620 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christopher B. Hemmeter Hemmeter Center Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 Certificate - Page 3 Property Owners within 300 feet jg City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 The Durant- Galena Co. c/o Stephen J. Marcus P.O. Box 1709 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Fred C. Smith 131 E. Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Burton Duenke Construction Company c/o Raymond & Emoly M. Lochhead 1018 Russell Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63104 Thomas J. Carlson 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 George'C. Perreault Apt. 218 4725 Gulf of Mexico Drive Longboat Key, Florida 33548 R. Sheldon Gentry 310 Ellis Blvd. Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Max E. Freeman and Jayne Frances Freeman P.O. Box 4609 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Preston H. and Claudia R. Hill 3910 S. Hillcrest Drive Denver, Colorado 80237 Effie M. Ecklund Lerner Trustee 221 N. Kentworth Avenue Oak Park, Illinois 60302 Roger A. Simpson 2440 Towncrest Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Margery A. 1�leiner P.O. Box 352 Saratoga, Wyoming 82331 Certificate - Page 4 Property Owners within 300 feet John P. Kleiner 327 Bartlett Court Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701 Helen R. Scales 626 W. Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Bank of Snowmass Box 5490 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. BY CERTIFICATE 67 Aspen Title 'Company, Ltd. hereby certifies that a search of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, reveals that the names and addresses of the owners of the real property within three hundred (300) feet of the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto are as follows, to wit: CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION Lot 1 Thomas J. Larkin & Harriet A. Larkin 382 Hilldale Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Lot 2 Fay R. Chaffee Box 389 Florence, CO 81226 Lot 3 Maurice Thuillier & Anne Thuillier 1103 Waters Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 4 William J. Gaudino Box 2237 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 5 Jacques M. Lescan c/o Dale Potvin 520.East Durant Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 6 James S. Hearst & Meryl Hearst Box 67 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 7 Gail Cottingham Koch Box 797 Aspen, CO 81612 Norma Ledingham 1116 Waters Avenue, Unit 3 Aspen, CO 81611 Herbert R. & Paula Molner 280 Cedar Street Highland Park, Ill. 60035 Suzann Resnick 1116 Waters Avenue, Unit 4 Aspen, CO 81611 W Lot 8 Henry S. & Judith U. Hoyt 54 Champlain Road Chatham, Mass 02633 Lot 9 Linda Soule Preston 1112 Waters Avenue Aspen, Co 81611 Lot 10 Elizabeth Marie Jones Box P Aspen, CO .81612 Lot 11 Norma J. McLain Box 832 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 12 Waters Avenue Investment, Ltd. Craigmuir Chambers, Road Town Tortola, British Virgin Islands Lot 13 Fonda Dehne Paterson 500 W. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 14 William J. Geary & Renee M. Geary 4800 S. Albion Littleton, CO 80121 Anthony & Nora Kastelic 570 South Riverside, Aspen, CO 81611 M. Gordon Sheldon 1801 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PAGE 2 • Spar Consolidated Mining and Development Company 28 State Street Boston, Mass 02109 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 The Gant Condominium Association c/o Destination Resorts 11611 San Vicente Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90049. Jane Z. Fraser Route 1, Box 80 Florence, Texas 77019 Sandor W. Shapery 8008 Girard Avenue LaJolla, CA 92037 Thomas P. Latham 2940 Taverness Houston, Texass 77019 June Howard Box 9938 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Hayden Cutler 2018 W. Freeway Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Harley Baldwin 1 West 72nd Street New York City, New York 10023 Thomas F. and Cathryn R. Crum Box 2982 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lyle E. Reeder Box 4859. Aspen, Colorado - 81612 William Wesley Hewitt Box 8825 Aspen, Colorado 81612 DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 100 s Mort Augenstein and Larry B. Nathanson c/o Tres Jolie 965 Mission Street X1520 San Francisco, CA. 94103 Smuggler - Durant Mining Corp. C/o Mark Hyman, Jr. 221 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge, Mass. 02135 ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1983 City Lodge GMP Submissions L -1 /L -2 Zones NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22, 1983, at a meeting which begins at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider the applications submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, and Mr. Alan Novak for a 480 unit hotel in the vicinity of the Continental Inn, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce Lodge, and also to consider the application of Lyle D.,.Reeder for a GMP quota of 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee units, located at the corner of Ute and Original Streets. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (303) 925 -2020, ext. 222. s /Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on Thursday, October 13, 1983. City of Aspen Account. Ar' (90 Q� Nay --� ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street C, '_�/ a Aspen, Colorado 81611 J v v (303) 925 -2020 I LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 63721,­ 47331 52100 GMP /CONCEPTUAL 63722 - 47332 52100 GMP /PRELIMINARY 63723 47333 52100 GMP /FINAL E63,724 47341 - 52100 SUB /CONCEPTUAL 63725 47342 - 52100 SUB /PRELIMINARY 63726 - 47343 52100 SUB /FINAL u 63727 47350 52100 EXCEPT /EXEMPTION ' 63728 - 47350 52100_ REZONING 63729 - .47360 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW I' r� SUB -TOTAL County f00113 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP /GENERAL 63712 -'47332 52200 GMP /DETAILED 63713 - 47333 52200 GMP /FINAL 63714 47341 - 52200 SUB /GENERAL 63715 - 47342 - 52200 SUB /DETAILED 63716 47343 - 52200 SUB /FINAL 63717 47350 - 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 47350 52200 REZONING 63719 47360 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES D0113 63061 - 09000 –52200 COUNTY CODE 63063 09000 - 52200 ALMANAC 63062 09000 - 00000 GMP 63066 09000 00000_ COPY FEES 63069 09000 OTHER TOTAL Name:_ Phone: Address — f9 f�fl iI `', +– Project Check No.— /?r� --� Date: Additional Billing: , No. of Hours: n t