HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.313 W Main.1384
,
,,~
(
"-- -
,
i--
h
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
,"'~
'''"'
PROJECT NAME. .JL. /l-sPEtJ - 5~t. ~evlaJ
APPLICANT: ""Bob ~rri5 - ~ ~lcI
REPRESENTATIVE: G,~ ~~
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
,~
)
CASE NO. li-.4
STAFF: G>\~'\\~
Phone:
Phone: <:J~S,Slh'
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1.
2.
3.
Conceptupl SUbmission
Preliminpry Plpt
Finpl Plpt
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1-
2.
Conceptupl SUbmission
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
3.
III.
EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2' step)
"7
.L.
IV.
SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step)
1. Special Review ""0 ..LAy.,",,<<
2. Use Determinption
3. Conditionpl Use
4. Other' -
(FEE)
($2,730.00)
($1,640.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,900.00)
($1,220.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,490.00)
($ 680.00)V'
pll It, ". P I
P&Z MEETING DATE: ,~,..J... \, i
CC MEETING DATE:
DATE REFERRED: 31221~'I- ~
REFERRALS:
/ City Attorney
, LCity Engineer
~Housing Director
_____Aspen Water Dept.
_____City Electric
Environmentpl Hlth.
, Aspen Consolo S.D.
..--
Mountdn Bell
---
~prks Dept.
~oly Cross Electric
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
,_____SChool District
_____Rocky Mtn. Npturpl Gps
_____State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
_____Stpte Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
~uilding Dept.
_____Other. '
FINAL ~ING' .
, ..0!ty Attorney
~ Engineer
_____Other.
0ther.
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION. d~ ~
DATE ROUTED: ,~/?:Y r
~ldin9 Dept. '
"
,
~ i. .
,..
.rl:i.
....i
.
.
.
1"'"'.,
~
DISPOSITION:
-1--
l -., I
/ - ,"j ?je'I!..Q.S
e::ew Ir_ZM!rJ!:!E1i1:
Q -{.(
-7 ---4../ l..---c {i
,/-;2:e.~L('~;;I'){j\~,I~(i
, ~~ Q ho r:Li''''O -' I '-2( , fi ~-~ >~
j j
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinanc:e No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
"
,
.1,;'
,.1;,
~'.i
Ordinance No.
,-.,
,-,
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Colette penne, Planning Office
TO:
RE:
DATE:
The Aspen - Special Review (City Case No. 013A-84)
August 7, 1984
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION:
ZONING:
311 W. Main (formerly the Applejack)
L-3
APPLICANT'S REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting Special Review approval to increase the size
of this recently rebuilt lodge to the maximum allowable FAR in the L-3
zone (1:1).
BACKGROUND:
The three additional lodge units which would be added to the Aspen if this
Special Review is approved were awarded a GMP allotment in Resolution No. 4
(Series of 1984). You reviewed this Special Review request to increase
to a 1:1 FAR at your meeting of April 17, 1984. At that meeting you indicated
that the design solution which placed the units on stilts was unacceptable,
and you tabled action until a new design solution which got the building
off stilts was submitted for consideration.
This design change was therefore required by the Planning and Zoning Commission
upon recommendation of the Planning Office. The change is also a result
of the subsequent Special Review application, rather than a design amendment
to the Growth Management submission anticipated by the applicant.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW:
We do need to substantiate that the proposed changes will not affect the
GMP scoring so that it would be under the required minimum threshold.
The Aspen received 65.19 points. In addition, a minimum of 30% of the
points available in each category must be scored. These minimum category
scores are:
MINIMUM PTS.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Public Facilities and Services
Quality of or Improvements to Design
Amenities Provided for Guests
Conformance of Public Policy Goals
3
11.7
6.3
4.5
No changes are proposed which would alter the scoring of categories 3 and
4. In category 1, there is no change to scores for water, sewer, storm
drainage or roads, but the elimination of provision of a new fire hydrant
eliminates a point, bringing the category 1 score down to 5.85 points.
Category 2 will have scor ing changes in all areas. Previous scores were
as follows:
Perry David Jasmine Roger Welton Lee Pat
Architectural 1 2 2 .5 1 1 0
Design
Site Design 1 2 1 1 1 1 0
Energy Conservation 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 3
Parking and 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0
Circulation
Visual Impact 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
Average: 14.92
,-...,
,-,
The scoring formula in this category is:
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
The Planning Office recommends scores for the new design to be:
Architectural Design 2 x 3 (multiplier) = 6
Site Design 2 x 3 (mul tiplier) = 6
Energy Conservation 3 x 1 (multiplier) = 3
Parking and Circulation 2 x 3 (multiplier) = 6
Visual Impact 2 x 3 (multiplier) = -6.
Subtotal: 27
We feel that unless several of you disagree with these recommended scores,
it is obvious that the project will accumulate a much higher score than
it attained in the earlier scoring. If your scores were consistent with
the Planning Office reconunendation, the total point score would be 76.27,
considerably above the 65.19 score received the first time. The exercise
of complete rescoring appears to be unnecessary.
The 20 parking spaces required in the competition have been accommodated
on-site and the entire parking lot has been paved with spaces delineated.
Removal of the stilt structure makes the circulation of the parking lot
better. An additional drywell has been removed, since its purpose was
to handle roof drainage from the additional structure (which has now, of
course, been eliminated). All site drainage must be retained on-site.
The growth impacts associated with three new lodge units were sufficiently
addressed for the project to be a successful competitor in the L-3 lodge
GMP competition. The only problem area was in Architectural and Site Design.
We feel the new solution is much better than the stilt structure and should
be of minimal visual impact.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Office recommends Special Review approval to allow the Aspen
to increase their floor area ratio as proposed (and not to exceed the L-
3 zone's maximum of 1 :1) by the addition of three new roof-top units with
the following conditions:
1. On-site water accumulation must be retained and dealt with on-
site.
2. A new sidewalk along the west side of Second Street from ~Iain
Street to the alley must be provided.
3. All lodge traffic shall be required to exit the site via the
alley. This eliminates a mid-block conflict on Main Street.
4. Installation of clearly visible signing to indicate "No Exit"
on to Main Street. Singing also to indicate the parking lot
exit to the alley.
- 2 -
,-.,
~
CIT
reet
611
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Colette Penne
FROM:
Barry Edwards,
Assistant City Attorne~
DATE:
July 26, 1984
RE:
The Aspen GMP Amendment/Special Review
We have reviewed the changes in the special review appli-
cation submitted to us on June 27, and have no comments at
this time. Apparently, when the application has been
rescored, the planning office supports this amendment which
takes care of the old "units in the parking lot" problem.
If you have any specific questions, let me ~
>
,1"""\
,-..
MEMORANDUM
D m@ m 0 jg n
&26. U
/'':
"
TO: Colette Penne, Pl~~~J1ing Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering *
DATE: July 24, 1984
RE: Aspen GMP Amendment/Special Review
I have attached a copy of our October 1983 Growth
Management recommended scoring of The Aspen (formerly
The Applejack) As you will note, the checklist in
use at that time is out-of-date and, rather than change
the incorrect scoring, I have also attached current
scoring form.
The revised application suggests a couple of changes to
the pla,n from an engineering standpoint. Elimination of
the fire hydrant and drywell, as well as a cleaner parking
design are reflected in minor scoring changes. Let me
know if I may provide further comments.
JH/co
Enclosure
,"
1"""\
~
~
,"
<~
GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS
July 13, 1983
Mr. Gideon Kaufman
611 West Main St.
Aspen, Co. 81611
RE: APPLEJACK LODGE
Dear Gideon:
As per your request we have calculated the existing floor areas
in the Applejack Lodge. Below are listed: :lotareaj' gross floor area
by floors, and a brief description as tg:how we arrived' at our final numbers.
1. The lot size is 165.07' X 100.00' which equals an area
of 16,507 square feet.
2. The total building, area as we calculated it is 15,710 square feet.
This square footage breaks down to:
First floor 5,614 S.F.
Second floor 5,048 S.F.
Third floor 5,048 S.F.
Total BuilDing 15;7'10 S.F.
,
Our calculations are for a building 74'-6" X 76' -0" in size, with
area subtracted for mechanical areas and open areas due to the configuration
of the ,balcony walkways on the Second and Third levels. I might add that
the Pool, which is 312 S.F. is inCluded in our calculations.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
sincer11 yours, //
\ ;..._-.<.::. -
~.- :;f~
~fTo'Rt A<A
AGR/fh
xc Robert Morris
City of Aspen Planning Office
203 s. GALENA STHEeT
ASPEN. COLO,qAOO 81611
303/925.5968
~,
~\:: GIBSON 8.. RENO. ARCHITECTS
~
"j,
June 20, 1984
JUN 22 1994 \ \
ASPEN i"PrrKlN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
Mr. Alan Richman
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: THREE UNIT ADDITION TO THE "ASPEN"
Dear Alan;
We have researched and prepared the Design Drawings for the three-unit penthouse
addition to the "Aspen" IlJdge at 313 West Main Street. To the best of my know-
ledge, this addition will meet applicable code andz0ning requirements, including
area, bulk, height and parking.
I have met with Jim Wilson and Jay Hammond to establish the height and parking
measurements and we have been approved for design by H.P.C. (May 8,1Q84}.
Thank you for your consideration.
~~
cc: Robert Morris
Gideon Kaufman
DFG/fh
203 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/825.5868
i"",
,~
.
MEIIORABDOM
JUN 2 6 RECb
FROM:
Paul T'addl1nec,.. Ci~y A~torney
Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Colette Penne, Planning Office
The Aspen GMP Amendment/Special Review
June 27, 1984
TO:
RE:
DATE:
======:============================================~======================
Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of The Aspen, has submitted revisions to
this office for the three unit addi Hon to The Aspen. The changes
are bieng made to the previously submitted growth management and
special review application in order to respond to the Planning Commis-
sion I s concern about the location and design of the addition. Therefore,
we would like your comments with respect to the specific changes
included in Gideon I s letter and drawing as they would affect the
growth management competition and also any comments regarding the
Special Review request to increase the FAR to 1:1 on the site. This
case is going before p&Z on August 7. We would appreciate having
your comments no later than July 24, 1984, in order for this office
to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z.
Thank you.
~ MEETI~ NOTES
PROJECT:
PRESENT:
"
r"\,
GIBSON IS. REND. ARCHITECTS
Aspen Addition
Alan Richman, Collette
DATE:
TIME:
Penne, Dave Gibso.n
June 27, 1984
9:30 AM
NOTES:
Discussed zoning and code requirements for the Aspen three unit addition.
1. Height was discussed. Height conformance of the building has been
established to meeting with Jim Wilson on 4/17/84 and subsequent
verification ot the meeting findings with Jim on 5/16/84. Height is
to be measured from adjacent railroad tie retaining wall on the west
and grade on the east. The 30' ridge limit and 25' height limit will
be observed in this manner.
2. Parking requi rements. Parking Plan as discussed with Jay Hammond on
2/7/84 and as referred to by Jay in letter of 2/9/84 and as presently
bui It was discussed. It was noted that the structure shown on the
Parking' Plan which is elevated on piers will not be there, however the
Parking Plan otherwise remains the same. It was noted that two of
the three new spaces which have been added for the Addition are
already in place and this is okay, according to Alan and Collette.
a. It was note.d that the parking lot has been blacktopped as .well as
the adjacent alley. This was offered on the earlier GMt' application
and it was noted that it has now been provided in advance.
3. F.A.R.. Lot coverage of 16,507' is allowed. Presently 15,426' exists,
only leaving 1,081' allowed to be built. It ,,!as noted that the proposed
Addition for 1075'. Alan suggested these findings be verified with Bili
Dreuding at this early date so that a problem does not develop after.
the project has gone through GMP process.
4. Alan said he would call Bi II and forward him materials and I sho,uld
get together with him next week.
COPIES TO: ' Bob, Gideon, Alan Richman
BY:
DFG
203 S. GALENA STF=lEET
ASPEN, COi..OAAOO 81611
30:.3/925586S
~
-.
L.AW OFFICES OF
,.-,
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX1QOOl
611 WEST-MAIN STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
June 15, 1984
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. E1SENSTElN
Alan Richman
City of Aspen
13 0 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Amendment to Growth Management Plan
Application for The Aspen
Dear Alan:
Please consider this letter a request on behalf of
The Aspen for an amendment to their 1984 Growth Management
Plan Submission. In response to concerns expressed both by
the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission the 3
unit addition has been relocated from the parking lot to the
roof of the existing structure. The HPC was very supportive
of this change as was the planning staff. Because of the
significance of the change we feel it is necessary at this
time to be rescored in order to establish that we still meet
the minimum GMP threshold.
In addition to relocating the units there are
other minor changes that were necessitated by the move. In
our original application we proposed to add a hydrant to the
south side of the property. We felt this was necessary
because we ate "~~;i,n 3R ' ent
structure. Now that the new addition is being placed on the
roof of the existing building we can incorporate the new
units into the existing sprinkler system thereby eliminating
the need for a new hydrant. Our original application added
a dry well which would retain runoff from the new structure.
Since we are now putting t,he addition onto, ~t~hee ~ ex' _ '
there' no need for an additional dr w~ The last
change involves clarification 0 our commitment with respect
to energy. In the original application we devised a
separate solar energy system for the new structure. Because
we are putting the structure onto the existing building we
do not feel there is any need for an independent system. We
will keep the solar collectors but they will augment the hot
water system that presently exists. We do not feel there is
a need for a new hot water system. In addition because of
the design of the new units there is no need for radiant
heat to offset the cold air beneath the
s ed units One noteworth addition to our app ~cat~on is
repavin . e lot. This is now practical s~nce we are
r v~ng the structure from the parking lot.
'"
,-...
~,
Alan Richman
June 15, 1984
Page 2
In summation, I feel that we have addressed the
concerns raised during the Growth Management and Special
Review hearings concerning our design. We feel that the new
plan enhances the existing building and improves the stilted
design of the old submission. The changes that we are
making to the original GMP application are certain to meet
the minimum threshold for GMP. If you have any questions
please feel free to contact me. Otherwise please put us on
the next available Planning and Zoning Commission agenda.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
GK/kl
1"""\
,1"""\
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NA TURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
0132 ATLANTIC Ave. ."ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, ASPEN, COLORADO 91611 PHONE (303) 925.2323
June 1, 1984
Gibson
203 s.
Aspen,
& Reno
Galena
CO
Architects
Street
81611
To Whom It May Concern,
I have reviewed the proposed addition to The "Aspen", formerly
The Applejack Inn, with David Gibson, and foresee no new prob-
lems being created by that project for Rocky Mountain Natural
Gas Company.
Service can be provided to the project by an existing 4" gas
line located in the alley.
Sina:erely,
];Jd~{I(?&7L
Willard Clapper
District Manager
Rocky Mountain Natural
Gas Company Inc.
,-.
,""'"
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
May 30, 1984
David Gibson
Gibson & Reno
203 So. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Dave:
This letter is intended to confirm our discussion of this
morning regarding The Aspen (formerly The Applejack Inn).
We foresee no problems being created by the project
addition of the three roof top units. We are, in fact,
pleased to see that the proposed units have been removed
from the parkin ,. ea where they obstructed access to several
of spaces A ne!w--S~-zn"'Ofi'"~'I1'E!"'We"S1: 0 c
treet from Main Street to the ' uired
aVJ.ngt e a e, orderJ.ng the southern property line, while
not being required, would be beneficial. The surface
drainage surrounding the site has not created any problems
for the City due to a storm sewer inlet located a
~est sornpr of Main and Second Streets. On-site water
accumulation must be retained ~~ with on-site.
Sinc, erely, "'/
(" {J, @u...... ~
,aY~7. ;ammond
City Engineer
JWH/co
~
-
:Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation rDistrict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Tele, (303) 925-2537
May 25, 1.984
David Gibson
203 S. Ga1.ena st.
Aspen; Co1.orado 81.61.1.
RE: "The Aspen"
Dear Mr. Gibson:
This project consisting of an addition of three more units
to the old Applejack Inn called "The Aspen" can be served by the
Aspen Conso1.idated Sanitation District. The old Applejack Lodge
is already on the sewer and an additional three units will have
no significant impact on the system.
Sincerely
~r/
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
" '
-'\-- MEETIN~
RECEM~'~1I.lY i 8 iS34
NOTES, GIBSON 6:. RENO . ARCHITECTS
\"../
PROJECT:
PRESENT:
f'
"Asoen" Addition
DATE:
TIME:
April 19,1984
Jim Wilson, Chief BtiilcllM Inspector; Dave Gibson,
9'30 AM
Architect
NOTES:
The orosoective addition of three units to the "Aspen" in a roof-
too location was dis'cussed and the followino conceotual decisions
and observations were made:
1. HeloM: 25' limit with 5' additional to oeak of (lable or
cambrel roof (Asoen Code 24:3.7l.
a. This mav, be measured as a straioht line from 25' above
el<istlno orade at east walito 25' above rai'sed oarkino
:Hea 5' from buildincon west side.
h 'RidQe Iimit'is a line 5' above the heloht limit line.
c GAbles within the main roof mav be raised below the 'ridoe
limit'
d Decks mAY be cut into the mal n roof
? Ar:r.p~!=l
~ Twn !=:hilr~';"'wpl hAt;. required
b. Sprinkleredstairs<~ithsmoke ventinQ as required for
atrlums (U.B~C;iU:;~ction 1715) seems to be an acceotable
',.:." ,:.'<-,",. ,A',''''~/'';/ '...'
solution.: Architect will make a more specific proposal in
" ,
this reoardfor' consideration.
c. (Fallina accellt'anceof b. above, covered enclosed n.!:?!1-
sprinklered stairs to the uDDer level are acceotable.)
3 Handi capoed access
A Fnr a three':'unltadaition to an existina facilitv
no handicaopedaccessible uni ts are recui red
h' Colorado handicapped requirements (C.R.S. 1973) ex~empt this
project by Section 1 f 9-5-102 (n "aaolicabilitv of standards"..
hP-(,:~lJ~A' nf' thA'impr:.tr.tir:abilityl and 'unusual hardshio' it would
Neate to locate handicpped-accessible units in the Addition.
.4 No othp.r r.nnA rel~tp.r.l i!=:!=:IIp.~ werA noted at thi~ time (1/8" scale
sketches were reviewed of roof Ian section
'"-'"
cOPIes TO: Jim Wilson, Bob'Morris, Randy Gold BY
~ <l' Ac"u"A'P. ~~ ~ "'" .
",0:3 S,GALENA ST"EET ASF"EN, COl..O"AOO B1B11 ,C+t\ o,,/s~~~I:J?'~ c::>ll'1::-/C-1~..
, s-//"Ie~
~'
-i
r:?':~':~~~:' ~'::':":f:-'
p:.::..--......:.::..
..~,....._...i,\
\,' ~-E)
-:l :;
\'
/'..~,' .'
~
..
..
-r'( , ~'
/) .~
j >-.,)-:.
} ~; '~~,
!
(
"
.!
'-'-
L__
'i~
-:---""0"'~''i
" i
'. ~
"\"
V
'it~
1;~
!.l,.:\,;
~
\
\,$
""'I I.
'~. I '
'-
'i{~
)
~ '
~''\-
tt~
'Ill
~
.~
I
"
/
",.....,
.;
.-..../
____-,-.,
,.-.. ! '~
~>.i I; n
;l....-___.....J ;; "'... j ;-..
~l~~~;~:r'c..: j'
.,.j __lj \1
':', ~_ ,t,"' :
.-" f
.. 1: t___ . ~
~~c
f,
~ t ~ ri
~ ~ j. ,J
~ Q ~..,
~ "~"'"
\ 1','il;I:;:I!
. . '.~ "
.1.' 0..
\ ..\ :' ':.
I ':, I
I I"
II l' \,
\ /' ...j
..:.. --.J..:
-...
.......
\,:.
./ "" .
-.
:,-1"._.
-~
: I. ~..'
. . . :=
":..---::-::~"::i':.;"~ 1:,_.;:. .: .
I' I. ~...,,:I..,"
.----.'.--'':811
~ ,.
" 'I'
: ~.-,-.::.~': . .
...,...._' .--" I .
,. : .
:.~::,-~-...:I;;'
r:~:':-; .
'.......I:..;.-~. .:.:..,.
... ....-':'-:1
. .
.~;_:~:. :.::;~.:: ;:~.~,:.
I," ."
'., "
. .' .
. I'.
i . I, ,II.
..'.......-:i ,', : I
..,'" j' ..'
" :"10"'"
,!~..:~;:t:,::, ": ,
:' . :~.ii' ::
I :",.; .;., <; .,'
: .' ~'I' "" I
" '11::1'.'':'':'''':.'
. II~' I . ..-........
.. t l ,~! ,;: !.
::~.... !"
. 1"1;":
I:': .'in
t ~ ~', "1': '. ~ ~i~;~:~:~::j':
-...... ", f~ ~_:"....:::...:,..
" ":--~,: ,_':~~~l:-~::;;;:"
__._h.,......_... ..
'",:.
'-
:-'1'::;
,
',:
"'.1
','
,. ~..;
"
"- .~
,:
:. ~
,
l
, .: '\ ~'H .
.<",J i':
.1 :,:
,
.....; ,.
...l'
.' .
,
,
i
!
,
i'. .
].1
.~
z~
~~
$~
~ ~
, <J
~
"
""
II
..
~
,
.\
\
Ii
:!
Y"/./ ::
(f~, :
. .
,
.i.g
4f1:S
~~
-<:0
'0
"1:-' 0
/'~.;)C
0:"
"'a.
c"
0<
..
6
-"""
..;'-~.;/
r'.
-,
.
[
I.
'!
"-'i
. ,'I ~
",
.-......
,
r~..
~~i'
~. I ,.
~ ,w,~. ,:
:J ~, ",'
{~ :
_,~ -r\' :'
---.
~
1\:'.
:11';;.
,\f\,.
it'
~':
00;1
. ,
~
..~
~t
\""-
.....'''t-
"":-
1\ . .
" '\.~
)S!t
~(::tL
----0". -~
.._\
1//
, "
/
..'
'...,.....
.
"
;/
,
':0
'<:"0
0",
,. ~
<0
,-'6'0
/''''''''cO
<I> .
0:"
cog
,,"
0<1:
"
.a
a
:~
',-,
,/
'"
~
~:
',i:
i ;
~ '~:
~;:
:: i
':,;
k
,-,
f
~;
~
~~:...,.,.------_.,
....~...~_.
,
,,-.. .~~
.,......,.
",n
..
,.{
i
I
"-
~,
.::t'
III
~ ~.~-=-
iJ.'
~
;:
, ,
, I
--I,
, ,
h
\,
i.
\
I'
I
~
b
1'\
!
- .
,
'\
, -~....~.
'~j;:
',~>~. ,'~
t~j;~'
~~'
'~j
:r~~~:
if!
'II
'..,.,....
-:e -- i
,-,
r...
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
....., ,
FRor,!:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
The Aspen - Special Review
Case No. City 013A-84
April 17, 1984
RE:
DATE:
----------------------------------------------------------_._---------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZONING:
311 1'1. r'lain (formerly The Applejack)
L-3
LOCATION:
APPLICANT'S REOUEST:
The applicant is requesting Special Review approval to increase the
size of this recently rebuilt lodge to the maximum allowable FAR
i~ the L-3 zone (1:11.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW:
Section 24-3.5 sets criteria for evaluation of a special review appli-
cation. It further limits that the Commission need only make findings
relative to criteria (1) for applications in the L-3 zone district.
This criteria reads:
"(1) The compatibility of the development with surrounding land
uses and zoning, including size, height and bulk, proposed
site design characteristics, including landscaping and
open space and visual impacts such as viewplanes."
The addition being considered received an allotment for the three
lodge units it contains in the 1983 L-3 GNP competition. In the
design categories of that scoring, commission members gave 22.5 points
(out of a possible 63 points) for Architectural Design. Scores ranged
from 0 - 2, with an overall average of 1. 07. Site Des ign was awarded
21 points (out of a possible 63 points) with scores ranging from
o - 2 and an overall average of 1.
The Planning Office recommended scoring for Architectural Design
and Site Design was a "1" in each case which "indicates a major design
flaw." The comments made by the Planning Office to the Planning
and Zoning Commission on the recommended scoring sheets were as follows:
Architectura.l.Design: "The design solution of placing the new
units on a stilt structure in the middle of the parking lot
does not fit with any of the Main Street buildout. Allowing
such construction could set an undesireable precedent."
Site Desi9n; "The entrance canopy and fencing of the parking
lot are privacy and safety improvements. Considerably more
bulk is being added to the site and a two-story structure is
resulting from the use of stilts. Rearrangement of the parking
lot for more efficiency is fine, but filling it up to the degree
requested is negative, in light of the incompatible character
of the structure."
The other elements of GMP scoring were more positive and the growth
impacts associated with three new lodge units were sufficiently addressed
for the project to be a successful competitor in the L-3 lodge competi-
tion.
The design solution is unnatural, in our opinion. If stilt structures
are round to be acceptable, it is very possible that this form of
building could become widely used in the City of Aspen. Parking
spaces can be built under structures and height limitations still
,
-
" -
J
,-,
,-,
Page 2
maintained. A structure built on-grade would add less perceived
bulk to the site and could be more compatible lvith the el:isting ~lain
Street streetscape.
The facelift that has been completed on the main part of the lodge
has upgraded the ,facility and its appearance sUbstantially. Placing
this structure on stilts in the parking lot will, in our opinion,
diminish the positive steps achieved by the earlier construction
work.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Office recommends that the increase to a 1:1 FAR for
the construction of the three additional lodge units at The Aspen
be tabled until a new design solution which gets the building off
stilts is submitted for consideration.
,
1"""\
~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, City Engineering~
March 30, 1984
TO:
DATE:
RE:
The Aspen, Special Review
I have reviewed the above application for special review to
increase the FAR of The Aspen to 1:1. Since we had the
opportunity to comment on the site plan, etc., during the
L-3 GMP competition, we have no additional corrunents or
concerns at this time.
JH/co
"'....~~.', .'.,'
',- .-...~' -- ......................... ,'!'.
APR - 4- 1984
ASPEN i"PITiWl:co.
PLANKING ()ff1CE
. ,
.
~
,-.
CIT
reet
611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 27, 1984
TO: Janet Weinstein, Planning Office
FROM: City Attorney
RE: The Aspen - Special Review
We have no comments on this application, except to point out once
again that we advise that all applications for land use approval
be signed directly by the applicant or someone with a power of
attorney to act for the applicant.
PJT/mc
~
~
ME1WRANDUN
RE:
DATE:
gy Attorney
:/i ty Engineer
Janet Weinstein, Planning Office
The Aspen - Special Review
TO:
FRON:
March 22, 1984
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review is an applicati on submi tted by Gideon Kaufman,
on behalf of the Bob Morris and Randy Gold, requesting special review
approval to increase the FAR to a ratio of 1:1 in the L-3 for The
Aspen (f/k/a The Applejack). This case has been scheduled to go
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April 17, 1984.
Please return your referral comments to Colette penne no later than
April 3, 1984, in order to give Colette adequate time to prepare
for this presentation before the Commission.
Thank you.
,~
~
, 3 ,., 'I
-"'1>
.
.<fi."
LAW OFFICES OF
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
GIDEON J. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
AREA COOE 303
925-8166
'DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
March 16, 1984
Alan Richman
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re:
The Aspen (formerly
Application for Special
increase FAR to 1-1
The Applejack)
Review Approval to
Dear Alan:
Please consider this letter an application on
behalf of the owners of the Aspen, formerly the Applejack,
for special review approval to increase the FAR of the Aspen
to 1-1. As you are aware the Aspen received GMP approval as
well as HPC approval for its 3 unit addition. However, in
the L-3 zone to increase the FAR to 1-1, special review
approval is required.
The proposed addition meets the special review
criteria set forth in 24-3.5 (1) of the City Code. The
units are located in the back adjacent to the newly upgraded
and renovated structure so as to be compatible in size,
height, bulk and site design characteristics. The very high
quality renovation done by the applicant to the old
Applejack must be emphasized, along with the fact that the
proposed addition will fit in extremely well with the
neighborhood and serve to upgrade it.
Enclosed is a set of plans which show the addition
from different views and also shows the material and size of
the proposed addition. The landscaping and open space are
also depicted. The Historic Preservation Commission in
reviewing the proposed addition, agreed that the new units
would serve to inlprov/;'the neighborhood. The HPC felt that
the new units wou\l,d:block the unsightly A-frames in the back
of the property ,a.nd' blend in nicely with the design and
motif of the newly renovated and upgraded lodge structure.
\
Although 'it seems that requiring special review is
unnecessary and buitlensome when an applicant has already
been through the Growth Management Process and HPC review,
since the Code does require it, by this application we are
complying.
.,.~
'"
~~\
~
Alan Richman
March 16, 1984
Page 2
If you need any additional information please let
me know, otherwise I look forward to this being place on the
next available Planning and Zoning Conunission Agenda.
Enclosed is a check to cover special review costs.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
9!Jly
Gideo1Jaufman
GK/kl
Enclosures
cc: Randy Gold
Bob Morris
.
-
,-
"
CIT
,SPEN
'reet
611
February 9, 1984
David Gibson
Gibson & Reno Architects
203 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Revised Parking Plan for The Aspen
Dear David:
This is to confirm our discussion of February 7 as well
as your letter of January 31 regarding revisions to the
parking plan for The Aspen. Pursuant to your letter,
we are generally satisfied with the new parking
configuration providing twenty spaces for the project.
The resulting narrowing of the entrance from Main Street
is also satisfactory subject to the following:
1. All lodge traffic shall be required to exit the site via
the alley. This actually results in an improvement to the
overall circulation for the site since it will eliminate
a mid-block conflict on Main.
2. Installation of clearly visible signing to indicate
"No Exit" onto Main Street.
3. Signing to indicate the lot exit to the alley.
The reconfiguration of the site meets with our approval subject
to, the above conditions. I would further ask that you supply
us with architectural elevations and sign specifications
indicating sign location and type. Let me know if I may be
of further assistance in this matter.
'ncv~
W. Hammond
sistant City Engineer
JWH/co
cc: Gideon Kaufman
Colette Penne
, \- MEETI~
,-.,..
NOTES
GIBSON I;. RENO . ARCHITECTS
PROJECT:
pRESENT:
"Aspen" - 3 unit Addition
Jay Hammond, Dave Gibson
DATE:
TIME:
2/7/84
9:00
NOTES: 1. Looked at new parking plan with proposed 3 unit addition designed, to
create 3 more on-site spaces.
a. 2 parallel spaces created by narrowi ng down Mai n Street
entrance to 13' wide and posting "NO EXIT" signs.
b. 1 parallel space created at alley by relocating non-conforming
mechanical room.
c. Existing area of "greenspace" maintained through introduction of
three new planting areas at former impervious locations.
d. 4 Ft. long piers adjacent to standard size parking spaces.
O.K. since remainder of, space is unobstructed.
2. Proceed to submit plan to planning department to satisfy G.M.P. award
condition re: parking. (Call Jay if any questions)
COPIES TO: Bob Morris, Gideon Kaufman
BY:
203 s. GALENA ST~EET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/925.5868
Growth Management Review Checklist
City'of .Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1-980 \
project Name --rk ~ (A~PJ<u.k3
Address
Owner_-::[eR.. ('..... k '
- Att6r~ey/Agent/R presentative t1pf~{~k ~
Address 'Z.~ r.. f""<>:-r;-4Q... I
_ Reviewed by _'<<fA:-
/
./
f
.'-"'.
.~
~t;,~ ,
Date
to-A! -~:o:..
24';10.4)!t..e,0 ~F'
I. Residential Application (section
A. Public Facilities & Serv~ces
. KI.w-i.~}i:i.>> 0-' - 0 - .Inreasible'. to 'pJ::ovide
~~~ I 1 - Major deficiency
~~~.Z 2 - Acceptable (standard)
.. . I 3 - No forseeable deficiencies
3> * Water ( 3 pts.)
Capacity of system .for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at pub),.ic E;xpens,e. {( \
. AM-t-(.I-~ r!>-t-' ~1~ f~ ~~ ~
L
-L'
3
.
'..::s ...::':'.~,,:,:,
* Sewer (3 pts.)
caA~~hO~t7m
upgrade.
2.,
Storm Drainage (3 pts.)
Adequate disposal o~surface
e>~- ~~h 0.1 w~l \
runoff.
Parking Design (3 pts.)
Off street parking, vi;lual, ~aving, .flJrfety, ,and convenience,'
~-~'ik ~~""~<X'-- Ot-. \~\:-~:':t t.:l.{i ....t. ,IO<L. ~ .
40 ~J-.a.~ --fl.::.., ~I\-~.. '" ' .
. J'
- .,
Roads (3 pts.) . ." ,... "<ii; ....iY:}
Capacity of road systeni to handle needs without altenng .i:;'>',:;;',:,c';'T'
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more:i&;::,!~ii2;.';;X&t,;J,t~,ijl
maintenanfje. It (I ('... ..../" 111/ .... :,{;,:,;;;.,..,,::..,:'i~;;,;
~~t\ F~~ ~, ~(~~"~,.:,;\~~;27~,~:~:t:*~;~,at:[~~!I~r~~~l
.', ' .. ...,- ....'. '. ..._,',...... '''''''''''''''' '.-' .1...~"'':_'''~~.>;.1<
.' :.:;.,:.~:.r;'o';'J)""'';''''~'':;~..i:\i';'~i.::......,.:.~,~t,~.:'-:':i..''''~~~I.,;.;~'.~,.':t't,a\t~.:.::.;!!.:... ,'..
., _. ...._':l':"~"'0i0"?.~iC:....:IIF.'.,"wt.'._~:..~.1..._~..':..........'r~m ,,1-...
. ---.
,//
Growth Ma~~ement Review Checklist
.-...-=..~~'::. -'~\":::
~
~
B: -Social Facilj.ties and Services
: - 0-' - Requires new service at public expense.
1 -~ ~xisting service adequate.
2 ~ Project improves quality of service.
1
Public Transportation (6 pts.}
6 -'Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift.
4 - Within 520 feet of bus ~oute and lift:
2 - W. ithin 520 feet of bu~ router or lift. (:,'
c..t~ {o 1~ C o.lo..:,.~-~.J M;'t:, +0 (, v'
C.
Quality of Design
--
1:..,
Si~)},DEl;;ign (3Jtsr) ,('.f- l {>J..~. ..to
D.K-~Wlt- to e.J \)(l..\-Q..... l"4 !'\'We.- -'-1 Q......
~{- ~~k p(GM.. - ,. ,
Ameni1j,ies" (3 p"1;S.) -. - I( //AeP"(..{~c...
f:.u<u>~ ~M4M.IHQ.b II'\. ~cN!.- I
~~ J-eJ.. <Q ~ ~-~-l-~ll-1A-' "
f CM'.-J...:.c."f} ~{
h.....
~;,( ~IU.
l~
t.
Visual Impact (3 pts.)
Sale and location as i~ aff~cts
~o.{o ~ 0\ z,;-'k.
public views of scenic areas.
? ' Conformance to, Policy Goals (3 pts.)
Reduction of parking in coordination with lirnosine service
- (1 pt.). "
Limo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.).
Prohibition of emplp~ee paFking on site (~ pt.).
Mot fO"'~fC<lII1>..ly ~ ~I"-. Art.
Zone
NS - Not Sufficien NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement
Required Actual
Lot Area
Lot
Lo
ront Setback
Side Setbacks
Rear Setback
'""'"",., .....,,;
...... '. ........
. . ...- ;?:i~~~~t~:.~
...... . ".~........:"; .."'C':......4.~..,'~~.~..~#O'if'~~~.~..."'~-,.:.......~.
. _ ,:.. ;,.,';' ~.: .-:.~:;..~,;"":.'.:":,, ~,"...~::Y..:t~.~tt::I\:(~.Q,.~~"l"'I)oO"';":t;'~';!.. ";.', .~~~_:
.. -', ':..:~.'~:~ .~., .,....~ ':'~, :..~:.~~....:"'--t.~T... ..:'~':~;:"';-;""":":"M$' ~~~""'-:!':~'~I''';''' :: :-;,,:,.
. _ '..0",: ... .~'.. 1...._. ... .....~"".~......l...--~:.::O.. ..~. ."::. ';oh :1'..:10 ....~!.:: .
.. . '. .., .~., . '. .. ~.. .... "',~ ..:'fi..... ~~".. . ..:...l'" "-r.-'.
.' .~...;s...,.....,..."=.~n...e..t:. ":'c:......,I. .:":.-........~...~-.:..\~.,. -:':""':''''J;
.: .,.:{"!".'I~.i'~~~T'(.~~~'''~~-:~~~ - ..~.;. ~~~ '"
...,... '.'~ '1~~..;.:.~t"':.r"~.IIiJ"~'rio_.-..~~.. .='IiIf: ...j:
'.
.'....... .'
, . ',':.~' P! :..: :.
:...... :',
": ~:.:}'.~~~.:.. .
,""':.':'"
.........-..,.. "
'. ~::~~~::~,:~":-:'.;'~ '.'.''''. ..
.
~
"-",
,
~
GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS
January 31, 1984
Mr. Jay Hammond
City Engineering Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen CO 81611
RE: Applejack/"Aspen" Parking Plan
Dear Jay;
Thankyou for taking time to meet with me regarding the parking plan.
Some of the ideas we discussed to tighten up the existing plan of 17 designated
spaces will be helpful in creating 3 additional designated spaces required as part of
the GMP-approved 3-unit addition.
In particular:
1. Creating a row of parallel spaces (4) alongside the decks.
(Possible net gain of 2 spaces)
2. Narrowing down the entry area and prohibiting exit traffic onto
Main Street.
3. Exploring reconfiguring the alley mechani cal room to create an
additi"onal parking space in its former footprint. (Net gain of 1)
I think each of these ideas can be made to work architecturally with the proposed
addition and without reducing "open space" as existing.
Again, Thanks for your assistance. I may need to call upon you again as the design
work progresses.
~g~
David F. Gibson, A.I.A.
DFG/llr
cc. Bob Morris, Randy Gold, Collette Penne, Gideon Kaufman
203 S. GALENA S,REET
ASPEN. COLORAOO 81611
3Q3/925-5968
-
r
,'V
c
'jjj
~
.1-1
,,' 1
" .1.1
..I..,. .
....'~l
*
*
*'
..
,- - -..If ~r
~'!
.
,
..1 ':
,
.. ,
0': jf
.*
o
-
:aaa..:as PUB
"
..
.
"
~ ':
,
~I ~':
1 :1 :
I
.;
;. t
'fl I.'
.;., '1\'
~. r '
~ ~ 1
~ 1
\. ,
~. t' --
, ~
._~-t.~, ,it
....'
~
~
;.
.."
; ~
....
/l.--
*:
~
1llE,
l'l'll
o
III oJ
.Eu
u-
. C
'S( :J
W
~
,1/
.
---...,.
I
I
I
1
,
~
;.
~
.
'.
~
~
.
g~
,--
, .
,'II
I
,
,
I
.
~
.
,;
..
.;
~
..
..
, I
J~I
~I I
fl,
QI
,
~
III
. 11I.5
ii~t
allll~
:Eb",
B L
8 ...
oE~
_DO
00.
liD.
:*~
:~1""
*C
*"
.J .1
<.- ,,i . I
. . ~ I
g --I
!
~
I
-'<-'I<
"
~
'<--'<-'-
~,.s~-l Ji> t
c .
llJ.. 41
.. UI
a.-Zc
W'jjj
D.~
CU)41
._ <( III
~..1Il
L~~
If ~~
b
III
,
o
N
,
o
',"
,
III
o
e
ID
~
::t.
U
o
jj
>:
.!
CD
!"""'\
-. ..:~~f .
I Lodge I~";-;'
~ ~'
,
J
GROWTH MANAGEMENT- REVIEW CHE~KLIST '
CITY-OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DECE!1BER-- i 983
Project Name ~
.- -
-
Add):-ess:_-
owner-~R: ,-' rc;,O. -, , -"
Agent/Repres~ntat,i:!e' hl~'~ .c~
-A-&pw
"/
~r' Ar!eitU'0 - -
Phone "lJ&.Co.. _ _ '_
Date 1-z-s-9/(
AddresS
R~~;'ewedBY ~~,
(1) Public Facilities and,Services
o - New facilities required at public expense.
1 - Facilities adequate, improvements benefit project
only.
.-
2 - Project improves neighborhood service.
(aa)
Water (2 Pts')f
;::{hIA 'n<.a.,{,'Gr- 0
N-)J~b.W, "'-,'
Sewage Disposal (2
~i>~k (}';c;/'j
,hy4:6'
.'
~l)~ b~Q.l-f 10
(bb) ----L-
pts. )
(cc) {
Storm Drainage (2 pts.)
Na c~r- i-~eK~{-h<-J
(ee) , {
Roads (2 pts.)
, Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased
traffic. Applicant's commitment to finance
road improvements to serve increa$ed usage
attributable t.o the development.: '
M h,.\-M4J
C)..ww.~
'.-k
.
1""'\
-2-
~
.
"-
,;
u
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST - Lodge
(2) Quality of or Improvements to Design
o Totally deficient design.
1 Major design flaw.
2 - Acceptable, (but standard) design
3 - Excellent design
(bb) Z- Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character of landscaping and open
space, extent of utility undergrounding, pedestrian
amenities, provision of safety and privacy for
-- de.velopment users. --~ik r'1ro-v~fJ- ~~}i,,;-fr.r......J:;
l~,;,,- \~er~ ,<W4-;, ~~ Jo..rV~
(dd)
?
Parking and Circulation (3 pts.)
Internal circJlation, parking, service vehicle
access, loadinq areaS, and extent, of screening of
parking areas.
:C~~,~rk ~rOMI?Qt~, fo-.JMl-i
,.
.
.
.~
.(
~
GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS
September 22, 1983
To: Robert Morris
APPLEJACK/"ASPEN"SQUARE FOOTAGE UPDATE
Net F.A.R. allowed:
Net as built (figured 7/13/83)
Avai lab Ie: Before remodel:
ADDS:
Rear storage sheds (not figured previously):
Kitchen space:
Fill in balcony void:
Front entry canopy:
DEDUCTS:
Remove 3 balconies at 143,
plus portion of 4th:
Shorten 4 walkways:
Fireplace mass:
NET CHANGE:
NEW NET ALLOWABLE S.F.
DFG/fh
203 S. GAL-ENA STRC"ET
,ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
220 S.F.
35
84
36
+375
463 S.F.
160
36
-659
303/925-5968
,-"
16,507 S.F.
15,710
797 S.F.
284
1081 S.F.
r-
.Lalalt:I.LS CNC:::JalS
V\
o 1
-)1
o
a
II
I-
W
W
II
?-
m
C~l
. · I
/I .
~
2
~
~
0....
. .
o
:5
ij
~
-i
'''-.../
,-(""'>r"'v~ ("'-7\
~ t.-.
e , \"' .1
~
" \,,1 ,,,,,,J
"..
. I I
I I
I
i
I
2
C(
..I
Dl =:j D.
C
:i2 III W
.. ~
m l-
II ~ -
u lIS
0
.J
m
>
w
.J
.J
~
~
(,
"
o
'"
S!
o
o.C
" a,!!
-""
C' ""'._
::la'll
1 a'll
l'III~
DO
..._DD
~
/""
III
~I :1
m'~~
<-- Z I w -,
m
i
;~
-~:::'
".-.,
~
2
o
-
~
:>
w
oJ
w
I
I-
EI
o
2
,;
In
c
'iii
~
v
2
o
-
~
:>
w
oJ
W
?-
m
~
w
III
c
"ii
~I'~-7
I--zw
I
~
~
OJ
c
d f~
m ,-
~2 JJ~
I " -
2
0
-
~=' ~
:>
w
OW ..I
w
B~f ?-
m
w
S
= ,~D
2 I Ill= 1=
IBB'o
0
-
,--- I~ ~
,II II
" I >
I:I~[ lQr II W P=UD
I I I I I II ..I 1 I =
[I 'III I I I~j : w 6- I
==
I . I ! I j JI 'IE]
II I
..
"Ii! :J
0
- m
=LI
c:
I
,""
III
~,!! ,EO ~
'D,E ~ ~ ::
ii- Gl:- "
~ILj
( I ~.
\
m
<l
2
o
-
I-
U
W
OJ
r
-,
:
;~
o
'"
o
N
g
m
2
o
-
I-
U
W
OJ
'"
o
{:V
..
Ul
c:
'Iii
~
c:
d
Gl '.
<-2 ~---7