HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1301 E Hwy 82.63A-88
1"""-,
j
~(
X
1\
I"'"'./'" ,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET '
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11~30/88
DATE COMPLETE: /Cllq_lf'?
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-181-00-047 63A-88
STAFF MEMBER: , C H
PROJECT NAME: Crestahaus Lodqe G~Amendment & Special Review for
External Floor Area Ratio
Project Address: 1301 East Hiqhwav 82 Aspen. CO
Legal Address: Part of Riverside Addition. Sec. 18 Tl0S R84W
APPLICANT: Harlev Baldwin
Applicant Address: 203 South Galena Street. Aspen. CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Andv Hecht. Garfield & Hecht
Representative Address/Phone: 601 E. Hvman Ave.
Aspen. CO 81611
PAID: YES
NO
AMOUNT: $1.620.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED:
ci:s;;EP:" ,/
~E~S~\ NO
PUBLIC HEARING: ~"'_
..l!-
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
1 STEP:
CI. -/
P&Z Meeting Date ~
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
NO
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
Paid:
Date:
REFERRALS :
V "city Attorney
~/City Engineer
---v Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consol.
S.D.
Mtn. Bell
(/Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
other
DATE REFERRED:
1;2.-0 ovid> J>'
INITIALS: cLJ ~
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED~m J
INITIAL: ~,
___ City Atty ____ City Engineer ___ Zoning
___ Housing Other:
Env. Health
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
.1""'\
...-"
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
Cindy Houben, Planning Office
Crestahaus GMP Amendment and Special Review
TO:
RE:
DATE:
February 7, 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Approval to amend the Crestahaus 1985 Growth Management
approval and increase the external FAR.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Harley Baldwin represented by Andy Hecht.
LOCATION: East of Aspen along Highway 82.
ZONING: LP/Lodge Preservation.
HISTORY: The Crestahaus has quite an involved history beginning
with a single family house, evolving into a "dude ranch" type
accommodation and then becoming a swiss chalet style
accommodation when it was purchased by Guido Meyer in 1960.
The lodge was again upgraded and remodeled recently after
receiving City approvals in the 1985 LP Growth Management
competition. At that time, the owner received approval for 14
additional lodge rooms and a total architectural revision to the
design and site plan. As part of the 1985 approval, specific
representations were made by the owner which resulted in
conditions being placed on the approval. These conditions are
outlined in Resolution 1 (Series of 1986) (see attached Exhibit
1) .
The existing Crestahaus Lodge is configured as follows:
Existing square footage of lodge: 17,017
# of guest rooms: 35
# of employee rooms: 1
# of parking spaces: 33
Setbacks:
front: 6' from Highway 82
side: 50' from the Riverside Subdivision (Lots 1-4)
side: 50' (north)
rear: 10'
In the 1985 approval the Crestahaus
landscaping, and prohibit buses in the
was required
parking areas.
to do
These
r".
,-....
concerns as well as noise concerns were all expressed by the
adjacent neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
The current applicant is requesting to add an additional 6,674
square feet to the Crestahaus facility. No additional lodge
rooms are proposed, however, the configuration and size of the
existing rooms are proposed to be modified (the additional lodge
room space is proposed to be 2,036 square feet). The major
portion of the additional square feet is to be used in common
space (4,618 square feet) for the guests of the lodge in the form
of spa type facilities. In addition, the application proposes to
significantly re-orient the parking spaces on the site,
redevelop the landscaping plan and add an additional pool.
Maps indicating the existing site layout and the proposed
modifications are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. A
map overlaying the existing and proposed plans will be brought to
the meeting.
The most significant portion of the proposed modification to the
structure is the south wing. It appears from the 1985 review
that one of the nicest features of that development was its
distance (excess of 100') from the houses in the Riverside
Subdivision (Lots 1-4). The new proposal extends the structure
into that 100 foot setback by approximately 40' leaving
approximately 60' between the building and the houses in the
Riverside Subdivision lots. The building then becomes only 10'
from the side yard property line (the minimum requirement being
5 feet). Additionally, an outdoor pool is added on this side of
the development, which may present conflicts between the
residential neighborhood and the lodge use. A new 5' 6" wall is
proposed to shield the Riverside development from the lodge for
the length of the Crestahaus southern boundary and for a portion
of the western property line as well.
Another major feature of the proposal is to redevelop the
parking and circulation pattern on the site. Currently the
parking is arranged to allow incoming guests to turn right into
the site, circle around an auto court to check in, then drive to
a parking space located either within the U shaped configuration
of the buildings or in one of two parking areas along the south
side of the project adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision. The
proposal is to remove the existing 3 bedroom detached unit on the
southern border of the property in order to expand the parking in
that location. These spaces would be brought from the rear of
the parcel in order to allow for the expansion of the
southwestern wing of the building. A total of 15 spaces are now
placed along the southern border of the parcel. The proposal
would reduce this to 13 but relocate them closer to the highway
and closer to the concerned residents of the Riverside
2
Subdivision.
,~
I"'""<-
The new site plan shows significant berming and landscaping
around the proposed new pool areas, with little to no additional
landscaping along the new (5' 6") wall along the southern border
of the property. Another new wall is proposed along HWY 82. The
application does not address the height of this wall and
mentions a berm on the street side of the wall but does not
mention the length or height of the berm. Landscaping appears to
be added on the interior portion of the wall with a few trees
placed near the entrance of the lodge on the outside of the new
wall. The wall appears to run for the length of the parcel along
the highway frontage.
The following table indicates the new proposal, the existing
conditions and the minimum code requirements:
J.. LOT SIZE
2. SETBACKS-
MINIMUM
Front
Side
(south)
(north)
Rear
3. HEIGHT-
MAXIMUM
4. OPEN SPACE-
MINIMUM
5. EXTERNAL FAR-
MAXIMUM
6. PARKING SPACES
CODE
REQUIREMENT
No Req.
10'
5'
10'
25'
35%
56,192 s.f.
l/Bdrm.
EXISTING
PROPOSED
56,192 s.f.
56,192 s.f.
6'
6'
7'
10'
10'
50'
10'
22'
22'
53%
The actual # was not
submitted, however,
the applicant agrees
that meeting the 35%
is a minimum.
17,017 s.f. 23,691 s.f.
(a 1,056 s.f.
existing building
is to be removed) =
22,635 s.f.
33
33
3
1""'\
,--
STAFF COMMENTS:
This application requires an amendment to the 1985 Growth
Management approval and an increase in the FAR which is
controlled by a special review in the LP zone district.
GMP AMENDMENT
Section 8-107(E) of the code requires that the Growth Management
approval be rescored by the Planning commission. If the new
score is equal to or greater than the original score, the
Planning Commission may recommend approval or approval with
conditions to the City Council.
The Planning Commission scored the 1985 approval giving it an
overall score of 74 points. The Planning Office recommended at
that time a score of 64 points. The proposed amendment only
affects the fOllowing sections of the scoring therefore the
Planning Office has attached a copy of the 1985 scoring with the
Planning commission scores and a, copy of the recommended
amendment scoring with modifications in the affected areas.
GM Items 1985 PC Score
Recommended
Amended Score
site Design: 4.5
Architectural Design: 7.0
Parking & Traffic Circulation: 5.0
4.5
6.0
4.5
Visual Impacts: 6.5
Availability of or improvements to
onsite common meeting areas:
6.0
6.5
6.0
Availability of or improvements to
onsite dining facilities:
Availability of or improvements to
recreational facilities:
4.0
4.5
5.6
6.0
The overall recommended score is 72.6 which is 1.6 points less
than the 1985 score. Therefore based on the Planning Office
score the amendment request should be denied.
SPECIAL REVIEW
The external FAR of a lodge in the LP zone district is set by
Special Review not to exceed a 1:1 ratio, pursuant to Section 7
niv. 4 of the Code. Specific criteria for the special review are
found in Sections 7-404 and 7-407 of the Code. These are as
4
r"
,-,
follows:
1. CRITERIA: The mass, height, density, configuration, amount
of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed
development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent
with the purposes of the underlying Zone District.
2. CRITERIA: The applicant demonstrates that the proposed
development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or
will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in
the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane.
3. CRITERIA: The Planning Director may recommend, and the
Commission may impose, such conditions that are necessary to
ensure a proposed development subject to special Review complies
with the purposes of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, this
division, and this chapter, including conditions to ensure the
integrity of the City's Zone Districts are maintained, and the
proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. This
includes but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk,
location, open space, landscaping, lighting, signage, off-street
parking, and other design features.
RESPONSE:
In 1983 when the Crestahaus was rezoned to L-3 the Planning
Office and Planning Commission expressed concerns that the
ultimate buildout potential on a 56,000+ square foot parcel was
too large for the intent of the L-3 zone district. It was felt,
however, that the community wished to allow these projects to be
included in the L-3 zoning since it has historically been a part
of the small lodge inventory.
The proposal is approximately .40:1 for the external FAR which is
far less than the potential 1:1 FAR. Due to the large lot size
the Planning Commission may wish to consider a smaller FAR
limitation (perhaps .5:1) for the Crestahaus due to the enormous
buildout potential and the resulting conflicts with the intent of
the LP zone district as well as the conflicts with the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
The request meets all the guidelines in the Code with regard to
the dimensional requirements in the LP zone district. The staff
is mostly concerned, however, with the impacts on the adj acent
neighborhood regarding visual concerns, noise, exhaust, lighting
and landscaping.
In the 1985 Growth Management review, it was evident that the
staff supported the upgrading of the then existing lodge because
it could fit in with the neighborhood without significantly
5
("\
,,,,,",,,
disturbing the surrounding residential development. The addition
at that time was approximately 8,500 square feet (doubling the
square footage at that time). The staff is presently concerned
because the largest changes which are now proposed affect the
area of the site closest to the Riverside neighborhood. The
setbacks on this southern side have been significantly reduced
and as' 6" wall has been added to separate the uses with very
minimal landscaping offered to break up this hard surface
approach to screening. A potentially loud outdoor pool area has
been placed in the area adjacent to the neighborhood and a second
level of the building is another 40 feet closer to the existing
Riverside houses. In addition, the parking has been pUlled back
closer to the highway making it more visible and bringing it
closer to the first 3 lots in the Riverside Subdivision (who
initially were very concerned about that use).
The proposal intensifies the parking problem by putting 13 spaces
together along the southern border, rather than breaking them up
into two separate lots, one of which was behind an existing
structure blocked from the highway view. The new parking and
circulation proposal also brings an additional 6 spaces along the
highway frontage and re- orients the 10 spaces in front of the
building in a single row design (part of which will be shielded
by the proposed center island of trees). The 1985 approval
allowed 33 'parking spaces to be established. The 1985
application states that this is 1 space per free market bedroom.
The applicant now represents that there are 35 free market
bedrooms and one employee room. This discrepancy should be
resolved and the correct amount of parking provided on the site.
An additional concern of the Planning Office is that the
application totally ignores that there will be an increase in
employees generated. The Planning Office feels that an addition
of 2,036 square feet to the size of the bedrooms and 4,618
square feet added to the common (spa) area of the lodge will
generate employees. It is the opinion of the Planning Office
that these new employees should be housed on site or that units
elsewhere in the Aspen metro area be deed restricted to the
Affordable Housing Guidelines. The Housing Authority suggests
that an audit of employees be done in order to determine if in
fact employees are generated by the addition. If so, the
applicant would be responsible for providing housing for those
employees pursuant to the Land Use Code Regulations.
The last concern is that the lodge is being upgraded to such an
extent that it will no longer be affordable or be considered a
moderate priced facility. These concerns were expressed by
members of the public and the staff in the 1985 review. The
staff, however, feels at a loss because imposing price
restrictions is not addressed by the Land Use Code and no
specific commitments were made by the applicant in the 1985
review to keep the lodge as a moderately priced facility.
6
r-,
r-,
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering: In a memorandum dated January 16, 1989 Elyse
Elliott of the City Engineering Department made the following
comments:
Easement - The city is planning to construct a bike lane
along Highway 82, adjacent to the Crestahaus Lodge, we would
like a 20' construction easement from the Crestahaus Lodge
for this purpose.
Retaining Wall - Was this built by the Crestahaus? If they
claim this wall, they should obtain an Encroachment License
because it is on Highway 82 right-of-way.
Neighborhood complaints In 1988, neighbors of the
Crestahaus complained that some of the utility lines used by
the Crestahaus were left above ground. All utility lines
must be undergrounded and repaired to the satisfaction of
the neighbors.
Landscaping - The dead trees should be replaced.
Plat A plat should be submitted that meets the
requirements of the Engineering Department.
utilities - This project can be serviced by the utilities in
place.
Circulation - The plan for circulation and parking meets
with our approval.
Construction Schedule - This should be coordinated with the
Engineering Department especially involving any work in the
right-of-way that might conflict with the construction of
the bike lane.
2. Housing: In a memorandum dated February 2, 1989 the Housing
Authority recommends that the applicant produce an audit of
employees to determine if there is an increase generated by the
proposed square footage.
3. Neighbors:
a. A letter dated January 29, 1989 from Tom and Carol Kurt
is attached (Exhibit 4) stating they feel the
Crestahaus parcel is already overbuilt.
b. A letter from Helen Klanderud dated January 28, 1989
expresses several concerns. She feels the application
is unclear and that past conditions of approval have
7
r'\
.~.
not been adequately addressed (see Exhibit 5).
SUMMARY
In summary if the Planning commission finds the Growth Management
score to be equal to the 1985 score the proposal can be
recommended for approval to the city Council. The Land Use Code
states that the applicant must receive the same or greater score
in order to have the amendments approved. If the proposal is
approved the Planning Office feels specific conditions should be
imposed. Generally, the additions are shielded from the Highway
and do not significantly appear to add to the bulk of the
project. The areas of concern are the support areas such as
landscaping, employee housing, parking and setbacks.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission scores the amendment
higher or the same as the 1985 score (74) the following
conditions shall be conditions of approval. If the Planning
Commission scores the amendment request lower than the 1985
approval the amendment request shall be recommended for denial.
1. Addi tional landscaping (in addition to the appl icants
responsibility to comply with the 1985 landscaping
obligations) shall be added to the proposal in the area
of the new parking along Highway 82 and along the
inside and outside of the wall along the southern
property line. This plan shall be submitted prior to
the review by the City Council. The plan shall be
reviewed by the Planning Office, Parks Department and
Engineering.
2. All existing trees which have died shall be replaced.
A bond for the new landscaping plan in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney and an amount
acceptable to the City Engineer shall be submitted by
the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit
for the new additions.
3. That the pool area/outdoor recreational area on the
south border of the property be restricted to hours of
operation. These hours shall be 8am to 9pm.
4. The applicant shall develop an audit system with the
Housing Authority in order to determine if any new
employees are generated by the addition. If so, these
employees shall be housed pursuant to the Land Use Code
requirements. If the alternative chosen is an on-site
alternative this proposal shall be reviewed by the
Planning commission and City Council.
5. That an encroachment permit be received by the
8
f"""\
,~M,\
applicant from the Highway Department for the wall
along Highway 82.
6. That the appropriate number of parking spaces shall be
placed on the site relative to the number of bedrooms
on site. This shall be resolved by the applicant and
the Planning Office prior to review by the city
Council.
7. An easement for the bike path shall be granted to the
city by the applicant.
8. The total buildout potential for the Crestahaus shall
be limited to .5:1 by Special Review pursuant to the LP
zone district regulations.
9. All conditions of Resolution 1 (Series of 1986) shall
remain in effect and apply to this application.
ch.chapp2
9
,--'---..
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Office
FROM:
Janet Raczak, Housing
RE:
Crestahaus - Amendment to GMP
DATE:
February 2, 1989
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the Crestahaus Amendment to GMP and Special
Review. While the Crestahaus does not intend to increase its room
count, it is increasing its common space and amenities by over 4000
s.f. Since this is a significant amount of usable space, it is the
Housing staff's recommendation that the applicant produce an audit
of employees to determine if there is an increase generated by the
proposed square footage. If so, at that time, the applicant would
be required to provide housing for this number of employees
pursuant to the Land Use Code employee requirements.
Since this is a staff recommendation, it will be taken to the
Housing Authority Board meeting scheduled for February 22, 1989 for
confirmation of this recommendation. If the Housing Authority does
not agree with the staff recommendation, you will be so advised.
,.....,
: ';~,; ,;~X!j~;~~;:~~;'''~';:'' "
n
FEB 2 u
January 28, 1989
Ms. Cindy Rouben
City of Aspen Planning Department
13{} S.outh Galena st.
Aspen,. Colorado 81611
Re: crestahaus GMP Amend.1!1ent.and Special R.eview
Dear Cindy:
,'--..- -, "My'residence 1S olf Lot: 2 Riverside Subdivision. adjacent -to
the. Crestahaus. In 1985 I stated my concerns about the Crestahaus
applicati,on for special review and, approval of fourteen additional
uni t.s in tlle L-3, now LP, Zone. The stated purpose of the 'LP Zone
is to "preserve existing lOdges. in tlieir existing, locations and to
permit the- limited expansion of' these lOdges whe,rev,er 'appropriate."
'The special review criteria for establishing LP Zone FAR is the
"compatibility of. the development with surrounding land uses and
z-oning." In my estimation the 1985 Crestahaus proposal was. more
than alimi tedexpanslon and 'proposed' serious incompatibili t,es with
. the. adjacent R:-15 zening. The current propos.alrequests additional
expansion of the lOdge and creates additional impacts on the
adjacent residential Riverside Subdivision.
The . 1985 application was extremely specific as to what
renov.ations and' changes would occur on the property. It 'was easy
to assess' what' impacts would, 'Occur on .adj acent properties. The
current.application is very gener~l and incorrect on a number of
points.
1. The application !States the number of guest rooms will
remain unchanged, but.does.not 'specify the number of rooms. The
residentIal unit to be torn. doWn constitutes one. l-odge unit,
although it has three bedrooms. Does theappiicant consider this
<me Or. three .units?
2. The aplllication ,sta~es the e,J(isting structural coverage
will be increas.ed from 8420 square feet'to 10716 square feet or a
total of 2296 square feet. It further states the external FAR will
be increased from .15 to .19. In 1985 the exis.ting square footage
at the ti.me of application was 11950 square feet. An additional
5067 square . feet was approved .which brought the total developed
$,quare footage, to 17017. The existing unit lot coverage--prior to
the'.1'985 appr()val )/'1as 8449 sq!lare feet;. The approval resulted in
Ii net lot coverage increase of 1867 square feet or a total of 10316
square. feet. The FAR w,as increased, to ..30. The current
application is not consistent, with what actually exists. It
appears as though the proposal iqnoresthe 1985 GMP approval., It
is 'not 'clear' whether the the Pl'Oposed square foot increase
,describesdevelope,d square footage or lot. coverage.
(""'I
(""'I
3. In 1985 the' impervious lot, coverage, including existing
units, parking lot and swimming pool totalled 24963 square feet.
'The impervious lot coveraiJe after., approval was 262-6{) square feet.
The. current application provides no information. as to addi,tional
iinperVious lot coverage even. though' there is .an ciddit'ional swimming
pool and rearrangement of parking spaces.
4. The 1985 approved lodge -expansion placed the new building
175 feet. from the adjacent resident.ial lots, including RiverSide
Subdivision Lot 2; which is my property. The current application
moves the building Significantly closer to the adjacent residenti.al
--_.'-:cprope-rty~""Ifst11T-oV'er 60 "-feet at -nearest poirit"from adjacent
res idences on Lots 1, 2, 3 and. '4 . . . " according to. the
aPJilLicati~n._Tllere is a significant diff.erence b,etween 175 and .60
feet and a significant impact.
5. ,The proposed swimming pool is on the southwest portion of
Htheproperty adjacent _ to the_ res.idential neighborhood. This
cJ:'eates' additional impacts on, the- residential neighborhood due to
increased. activity with resulting noise and probably. increased
lighting in that area.. -
.. .,
,
. 6. The removal. of_ the resi.dential unit is..a benefit because
it is -currently within the setback. Howev,er tr.ansferring parking
spaces to: that location will, create additional impacts. In 1985
the.. Planning Office and the - Planning and Zoning Commission were
consistent in their concern _about the impact of parking spaces
adjacent to the residential. neighborhood. The applicant was
required to construct a fence and to imp3:ementa"landscaping plan
to mitigate the impacts. The current application does not
correc.tly. indicate the revised, landscape plan on its si-te plan.
Its suggested landscape plan is less than what is currently in
place and what was approved but never, implemented. Should the
parking planbeapp-rovea. as pr~pos;ed; the spaces would need to meet
- the setback requirements and should provide substantial landscaping
. to buffer the parking areas from adj acent residential property.
7. The 1985 app1i'cation proposed to maint.ain trees currently
On ,the property. <Trees were moved to meet the landscaping plan and
some of ,them have died arid need to be replaced. .
A review 6fthe November 5, 1986 Planning Office memo, the
November 5;1986 planning and Zoning Comlllision GMP, scoring. sheet
and the November 26, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission special
meeting minutes give a clear history of the concerns of the
Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission.and adjacent
. residential property owners as to development of the Cresfahaus
property. The current application for amendment does not address
these concerns and substantially increases the impacts on the
adjacent reSidential neighborhood.
,......,
~
The 1985 application was. received favorably because it was
perceived as meeting. the goals of the LP Lodge Distri-ct. In 1985
the crestahaull was sorely in need of renovation. Approval was
qlven but with significant requirements to mitigate impacts on the
adjacent residential Ileighborh<lod. .The current application appears
to go beyond the intent of the LP LOdge District and fll,rther
impacts theadj acent residential neighbornood without demonstrating
any specified implementation of community goals or pol-icy.
The 1985.applicatiori on page 5, sectionS, paragraph 2 states,
It is espeCially noteworty that while the applicant is
expending signif1cant sums which will result in great
improvements to the lodge, the lodge. rooms will be
serving the same or similar clientele that it has
typically served resulting in improved service to this
segment of the market. '
Planning Commissioner Harvey at the Planning Commission meeting on
November 6; 1985 sta~ed on pCl,ge 3, paragi'aph2,
IAjnother concern was reagarding L-3 renovations creating
upscale lodging; at higher rates, thereby squeezing out
part of the market. Ths applicant wants to maintain a
moderate or middle rate lOdging facility which is also
an asset.
The current application suggests the creation of "upscale" lodging
rather than maintainenance of moderate or middle -rate lodging.'
, ".,' '-'_,."""",,,,, d" ,"" ,,," , ",' "" ',,_,' ""','" ,
I clearly object to this current' app'lication. Approval would
constitute further significant impacts on adj acent residential
property, and the application. .isiIicpnsistent with the goals of the
LP ZOne'Dist;r:ict. The-application is toogeaeral to clearly reveal
what impact,s would result to adj acent property, and it constitutes
an 'incremental approach to development which results in an
expansion not intended by- the 1985 approv.al. . .
Enclosed. please find a copy cfa portion of the 1985 approved
landscape plan. 'I have circled the trees planted by the Grestahaus
as required, and have indicated the 'dead tree.
Klanderud
,........,
~
-
MEMORANDUM
To:
Cindy Houben, Planning Office ;to
Elyse Elliott, Engineering Departmen~
From:
Date:
January 16, 1989
Re:
Crestahaus Lodge - GMQS Amendment
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. Easement - The City is planning to construct a bike lane
along Highway 82, adjacent to the Crestahaus Lodge, we would like
a 20' construction easement from the Crestahaus Lodge for this
purpose.
2. Retaining Wall - Was this built b~ the Crestahaus? If they
claim this wall, they should obtain an Encroachment License
because it is on Highway 82 right-of-way.
3. Neighborhood complaints - In 1988, neighbors of the
Crestahaus complained that some of the utility lines used by the
Crestahaus were left above ground. All utility lines must be
undergrounded and repaired to the satisfaction of the neighbors.
4. Landscaping - The dead trees should be replaced.
5. Plat - A plat should be submitted that meets the requirements
of the Engineering Department.
6. Utilities - This project can be serviced by the utilities in
place.
7. Circulation - The plan for circulation and parking meets
with our approval.
8. Construction Schedule - This should be coordinated with the
Engineering Department especially involving any work in the
right-of-way that might conflict with the construction of the
bike lane.
1'--
.~
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
December 12, 1988
Andy Hecht
Garfield & Hecht
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Amendment & Special Review for
External Floor Area Ratio
Dear Andy,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application IS complete.
We have scheduled your application for review at a public hearing
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a meeting to
begin at 4:30 P.M. on Tuesday, February 7, 1989. The Friday
before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy
of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the
Planning Office.
This application requires pUblic notice by the applicant. I am
enclosing a copy of the "Public Hearing Notice Requirements" for
your information.
If you have any other questions, please call cindy Houben, the
planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
cx&~~
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
Enclosure
ds
!-\
.,.-.",
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
City Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Director
Parks Department
Cindy Houben, Planning Office
Crestahaus Lodge-GMQS Amendment & Special Review for
External Floor Area Ratio, Parcel ID# 2737-181-00-047
TO:
RE:
DATE:
December 9, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Harley Baldwin requesting approval of an GMQS Amendment to the
Crestahaus Lodge and Special Review approval for External Floor
Area Ratio. The Crestahaus Lodge is located at 1301 Highway 82.
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than January 25, 1989 so that I may have time to prepare a memo
for the P&Z.
Thank you.
,.....,
,.....,
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMP COMPETITION - LP ZONE DISTRICT
project:
Crestahaus GMP
Date: 1985
L Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10
points)
Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with
respect to the impact of the proposed development or the
addition thereto upon public facilities and services, and
shall be assigned points according to the following
standards and considerations.
o --
Proposed development requires the
public facilities and services at
expense.
provision
increased
of new
public
1 -- Proposed development can be handled by the existing
public facilities and services, or any public facility
or improvement made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general.
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
The following public facilities .and services shall be rated
accordingly.
a. WATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1):
Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the proposed development and the applicant's commitment
to install any system extensions or treatment plant
upgrading required to serve the proposed development.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) = -L
COMMENTS:
An 8'" water line is located alonq Hiqhwav 82
ad;acent to the propertv and can serve this development.
There is adequate treatment plant capacitv available for the
increase in demand caused bv the pro;ect.
b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of
1) : Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer
system to serve the proposed development and the
applicant's commitment to install and sanitary system
extensions or treatment plant or other facility
I"'"'
.~
upgrading required to serve the proposed development.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) = ~
COMMENTS:
A 10" trunk sewer line is located alonq Hiqhwav
82 ad;acent to the nronertv and can serve this develonment.
The existinq treatment nlant can accommodate the additional
nro;ect demand.
c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points times multiplier of
1) : considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the
development site. If the proposed development requires
the use of the City's drainage system, the review shall
consider the commitment by the applicant to install the
necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain
the system over the long-term.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5
COMMENTS: The annlicant nronoses to install three drv wells
that would retain most of the "hill ton" surface run-off.
Enqineerinq the drainaqe on the site nrimarilv resnonds to
the increase in imnervious surface and additional buildinq
coveraqe.
It does not annear to imnrove the historic run-
off natterns.
It will be important that the naved bicycle
nath nrofile does not chanqe from that of the current
hiqhwav shoulder so not to chanqe drainaqe off the road.
d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of
1): Considering the ability of the fire department to
provide fire protection facilities and services
according to its established response standards,
without 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
commitment of the applicant to provide those fire
2
1""'\
~
protection facilities which may be necessary to serve
the proposed development.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) = -----1-
COMMENTS:
There are two fire hydrants within 150 feet of
the DroDertv.
Water Dressure and caDacitv are adeauate to
serve the site. accordina to the Water DeDartment
evaluation.
The main fire station is .75 miles from the
Dro;ect and reSDonse time is stated to be under 3 minutes.
e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1):
Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the
proposed development without substantially altering
existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or
maintenance problems, overloading the existing street
system, or causing a need to extend the existing road
network. Considering the applicant I s commitment to
install the necessary road system improvements to serve
the increased usage attributable to the proposed
development.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.16
COMMENTS: The Crestahaus is directlv ad;acent to Hiahwav 82.
There would be an increase in hiahwav traffic from this
Dro;ect.
The Mountain Valley bus line Dasses the DroDertv:
and there is a nearbY bus StOD.
The DroDosed bike trail
alona the Hiahwav for which the aDDlicant would contribute
$4.000 should imDrove bicycle and Dedestrian access into
town. However. an off-arade trail easement would aDDear to
be far more useful than this minimal contribution. The
aDDlicant has not DroDosed anv chanae imDrovina the siaht
distance from the Hiahwav of the entrance drive. with the
increase in traffic enterina and eaaressina from Crestahaus.
3
,I""',
,~
intersection hazards will aet worse.
2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated based on the
quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to
the following standards and considerations.
o A totally deficient design.
1 A major design flaw.
2 An acceptable (but standard) design.
3 An excellent design.
The following design features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier
of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings
in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in
terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and
building materials) with existing neighborhood
development.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (3) = --2-
COMMENTS:
The proposed renovation and new construction
proaram will increase the total developed floor area from
11.950 sa. ft. to approximatelv '17.017 sa. ft. on a 56. 197
sa. ft. parcel. The new pitched roofs would have a median
heiaht of 22 feet.
There would be no chanae in heiaht or
bulk of the modular house on the east side of the propertv.
The "small scale" massina elements. arcade walkwav. wooden
lattice-work and replacement of outbuildinas should make the
proiect more attractive.
This proiect would remain at a
scale mainlv compatible with the abuttina Riverside
Subdivision neiahborhood. and for its prominence on the
hilltop. However. some neiahbor's views will be affected.
4
f~
.-,
b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3):
Considering the quality and character of the proposed
development and its improvements to existing
landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site
coverage by buildings, the extent of underground
utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities
(paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to
enhance the design of the development and to provide
for the safety and privacy of the users of the
development, and for snow storage areas.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (3) = 4.5
COMMENTS:
The oJ" shane of the nronosed buildinq comnlex
tends to keen the massinq to .the north and west of the
nronertv. minimizinq visual imnact from the Hiqhwav. The
"auto-court" narkinq areas. nlantinq of trees and shrubs and
use of berms imnroves unon the nresent landscane/narkinq
scheme. A nath and seatinq areas will be constructed around
the back of the develonment.
The unscreened and
unlandscaned east narkinq areas are too close to the eastern
nronertv line and neiqhborinq residences.
This desicm
asnect will cause neqative imnacts on the neiqhborhood such
as visual detraction. headliqhts. noise. fumes and snow nile
drainaqe nroblems. which is a sicmificant flaw in the
nronosal.
c. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times
multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal traffic circulation and
parking system for the proposed development or any
addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the
design features to screen parking from public view.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (3) =-1hQ
5
1"'"',
f"'"'.,
COMMENTS:
The site plan allows for 33 parkinq spaces
arranqed around the inner court yard and alonq the eastern
property line (approximatelv 5 feet set back). The number
of spaces corresponds to the 33 lodqe units and does not
provide specificallY for employee parkinq (2 units and 6
employees).
Residential parkinq reauirements are set
throuqh P&Z review. pursuant to section 24-4.5 The
unscreened eastern parkinq areas are very close to the
ad;acent residences.
Circulation appears to work well. No
chanqe is proposed that would improve the siqht distance of
the intersection with the Hiqhwav. The increase in inqress
and eqress traffic caused bv the proposal will make existinq
conditions more hazardous.
d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of
3): Considering the scale and location of the
buildings in the proposed development or any addition
thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic
viewplanes.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (3) = ~
COMMENTS:
An attempt has been made to minimize visual
impacts bv locatinq buildinqs in the back (north and west)
of the parcel and keepinq a relativelY low roof line in 2
stsrv construction. The visual impact from Hiqhwav 82 would
not be siqnificantlv qreater than at present.
Views from
Riverside Subdivision Lots 2 and 3 to the west and south
would be somewhat blocked bv the new structure even thouqh
this winq will be 175 feet away from the houses. If
landscape and buildinq liqhtinq is keep very low keved there
6
.--
.1"'"',
should not be a sianificant niaht visual impact from the
pro;ect.
3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points).
Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to
the degree to which it includes resource conservation
techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the
following standards and considerations.
o -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the
Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation
of resources.
1 -- Proposed development meets the
Municipal Code, or results in a
resource conservation.
standards of the
standard level of
2 -- Proposed development exceeds
Municipal Code, or results in
resource conservation.
the standards of the
an exceptional level of
a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier
of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed
development uses passive and/or active energy
conservation techniques in its construction, including
but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar
orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and
solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed
development avoids wasting energy by excluding
excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices;
and the location of the proposed development, relative
to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably
result in energy conservation.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (1) ~
COMMENTS:
The passive solar orientation. solar heated
I
;acuzzi and use of insulation and double and triple nane
alazina renresent enerav conservation improvements over the
existina faci1itv.
However. this proaram does not exceed
current standard nractices.
b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier
7
I""'"
("',
of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed
development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures
and/or wastewater reuse systems in its design.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) ___
COMMENTS: Not Dart of 1985 review
c. AIR (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 2):
Considering the effect of the proposed development on
the city I s air quality, incl uding but not 1 imi ted to
whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than
allowed by law will be installed; whether existing
dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by
cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention
measure are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether
any special emission control devices are used.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (2) _
COMMENTS: Not Dart of 19.85 review
4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for
guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging
development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of
points according to the following standard.
o A total lack of guest amenities and services.
1 Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness.
2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following amenities shall be considered in this review
and rated accordingly.
a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE COMMON
MEETING AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3):
Shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
development or any addition thereto.
8
-
........
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (3)
6.5
COMMENTS:
The existina 576 sa. ft. common room will re
remodeled. and a second smaller common room will be made
available to auests of the lodae.
b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE DINING
FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2):
Shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars
and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging development or any addition thereto.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (2) ~
COMMENTS: The existina kitchen will be remodeled.
c. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE ACCESSORY
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times
multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health
clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the
size of the proposed lqdging development or any
addition thereto.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (2) ~
COMMENTS:
The Crestahaus will provide the followina new
facilities: a iacuzzL sauna. exercise room. ski storaae
room. and landscape liahtina for use of aarden path and
pool. The improvements represent a sianificant packaae of
recreation-related amenities for a lodae of this size and
price-ranae.
5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each
development application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city and with
the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be assigned as
follows:
Zero (0%) to sixty (60%) percent of the additional
9
,-,
,-,
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (1) = -L-
COMMENTS: Scorinq not affected by 1989 amendment.
c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 . points times multiplier of
1) : Considering the degree to which the applicant
proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the
development site. If the proposed development requires
the use of the City'S drainage system, the review shall
consider the commitment by the applicant to install the
necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain
the system over the long-term.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5
COMMENTS: Scorinq not affected bY 1989 amendment.
d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of
1): Considering the ability of the fire department to
provide fire protection facilities and services
according to its established response standards,
without 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
commitment of the applicant to provide those fire
protection facilities which may be necessary to serve
the proposed development.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (1) = -L-
COMMENTS: Scorinq not affected by 1989 amendment.
e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1):
Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the
proposed development without sUbstantially altering
existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or
maintenance problems, overloading the existing street
system, or causing a need to extend the existing road
network. Considering the applicant I s commitment to
install the necessary road system improvements to serve
the increased usage attributable to the proposed
2
r'I
~
development.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.16
COMMENTS: Scorinq not affected bv 1989 amendment.
2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated based on the
quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to
the following standards and considerations.
o A totally deficient design.
1 A major design flaw.
2 An acceptable (but standard) design.
3 An excellent design.
The following design features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier
of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings
in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in
terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and
building materials) with existing neighborhood
development.
RATING: 2
X MULTIPLIER (3)'= 6
COMMENTS: The proposal increases the pro;ect sQUare footaqe
from 17.017 sQUare feet to 23.105. an increase of 6.088
sQUare feet. The ma;or additions are placed to the rear of
the structure out of the Hiqhwav 82 view line as seen from
the front of the lodqe. The desian is proposed to be of a
consistent tvpe with the existinq architectural features.
The Riverside Subdivision is impacted bv the additional
development area to the south and the reconfiQUration of the
parkinq alonq the southern border of the property. A larqe
3
~;"
r--..
wall is proposed. however. which will help screen these
impacts.
b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3):
Considering the quality and character of the proposed
development and its improvements to existing
landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site
coverage by buildings, the extent of underground
utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities
(paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to
enhance the design of the development and to provide
for the safety and privacy of the users of the
development, and for snow storage areas.
RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 4.5
COMMENTS: The site desiqn beqins to push the impacts of the
pro;ect towards the edqes of the parcel. The 60' setback on
the south side is reduced to 10' and the parkinq areas are
pushed into larqer lots. more visible from the hiqhwav and
closer to the ad;acent Riverside residents. The landscapinq
plan alonq these borders is minimal and the existinq
landscapinq has been neqlected. ( and in some areas never
fully developed) and is dvinq.
c. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times
multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal traffic circulation and
parking system for the proposed development or any
addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the
design features to screen parking from pUblic view.
RATING:
1.5
X MULTIPLIER (3) =----L.2
COMMENTS:
The parkinq and circulation plan appears to be
functional for the lodqe use.
The Enqineerinq Department
has reviewed the proposal and feels that it is adeauate for
4
1"""-.
r-,
,
the develooment oroposal.
The visual screenina of the
perimeter parkina alona Hiahwav 82 is minimal. however. and
additional landscapina should be reauired.
The screenina
solution for parkina alona the southern border is a 5 I 6"
wall with minimal landscapina to breakup this hard feature.
The development appears to be lackina several parkina spaces
for the existina room count.
d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of
3): Considering the scale and location of the
buildings in the proposed development or any addition
thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic
viewplanes.
RATING: 2
X MULTIPLIER (3) =
6
COMMENTS: The proposal is to increase the buildina size bY
almost 1/3. The areas of the addition are well shielded
from the Hiahway corridor. thereby not blockina any public
view.
However. the proposal will add additional massina
from the perspective of the surroundina Riverside
neiahborhood.
The two storv south wina addition will be
hiahly visible (10" from the property line) from the
Riverside Lots 1-4.
3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points).
Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to
the degree to which it includes resource conservation
techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the
following standards and considerations.
o -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the
Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation
of resources.
5
1--
~-,
1 -- Proposed development meets the
Municipal Code, or results in a
resource conservation.
standards of the
standard level of
2 -- Proposed development exceeds
Municipal Code, or results in
resource conservation.
the standards of the
an exceptional level of
a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier
of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed
development uses passive and/or active energy
conservation techniques in its construction, including
but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar
orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and
solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed
development avoids wasting energy by excluding
excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices;
and the location of the proposed development, relative
to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably
result in energy conservation.
RATING: _ X MULTIPLIER (1) ~
COMMENTS: Scorinq not affected bv 1989 amendment.
b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier
of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed
development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures
and/or wastewater reuse systems in its design.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (1) _
COMMENTS:
Not Dart of 1985 scorinq.
c. AIR (maximum 2 points times multip1ier of 2):
Considering the effect of the proposed development on
the city's air quality, including but not limited to
whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than
allowed by law will be installed; whether existing
dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by
cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention
measure are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether
any special emission control devices are used.
RATING:
X MULTIPLIER (2) _
6
",..."
r-"
COMMENTS:
Not part of 1985 scorina.
4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points)
Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for
guests as compared to the size of the proposed lOdging
development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of
points according to the following standard.
o A total lack of guest amenities and services.
1 Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of
quality or spaciousness.
2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of
quality and spaciousness.
The following amenities shall be considered in this review
and rated accordingly.
a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE COMMON
MEETING AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3):
Shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
development or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
X MULTIPLIER (3) 6
COMMENTS:
The apPlicant proposes to add additional sauare
feet for lounae space.
This creates a larae lobbv /lounae
space which is more than adeauate in terms of spaciousness
for the lodae auests.
The views will be towards town and
Aspen Mountain.
b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE DINING
FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2):
Shall be considered, inclUding any restaurants, bars
7
1""'\
~
and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging development or any addition thereto.
RATING: 2.25
X MULTIPLIER (2) 4.5
COMMENTS:
The kitchen was remodeled in 1985 allowinq for a
continental breakfast to be served as well as wine and
cheese arranqements.
In addition. the kitchen can
accommodate soecial banauets and oarties. This is more than
adeauate for the size lodqe beinq served.
c. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON-SITE ACCESSORY
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times
multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health
clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging development or any
addition thereto.
RATING: 3
X MULTIPLIER (2)
6
COMMENTS:
The orooosal includes existinq iacuzzi. sauna.
exercise room. ski storaqe room and a 0001. The orooosal is
to add an additional 0001. convert the existinq 0001 into a
laD 0001. and add theraov massaqe rooms. These services are
exceotional for a small lodqe facilitv.
5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each
development application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City and with
the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be assigned as
follows:
Zero (0%) to sixty (60%) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development
are provided with housing; One (1) point for each
six (6%) percent housed;
8
i""".
-.,
Sixty-one (61%) percent to one hundred (100%)
percent of the additional employees generated by
the proposed development are provided with
housing; one (1) point for each eight (8%) percent
housed.
If it is determined that the proposed development
generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the
full fifteen (15) points available within this section.
RATING: 13.8
COMMENTS:
Technicallv the applicant has met the Emplovee
Housinq reauirements throuqh the 1985 submission.
The Planninq
Office feels. however. that additional employees may be qenerated
bv the proposed additions due to an upqrade in the aualitv of
service and should be monitored in order to determine if impacts
need to be mitiqated bv providinq additional emplovee housinq.
6. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS
(maximum 15 points): Development applications for projects
located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only
shall be assigned points for the rehabilitation and
reconstruction of existing units. Points shall be assigned
as follows.
Zero (0%) to fifty (50%) percent of the total
existing unit inventory or non-unit space in the
lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate
or reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten (10%)
percent rehabilitated or reconstructed.
Fifty (50%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the
total existing unit inventory or non-unit space in
the lodge which the applicant agrees to
rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for
each five (5%) percent rehabilitated or
reconstructed.
RATING: 13.6
COMMENTS:
The existinq house will be removed and qiven
credit as one lodqe room.
9
~
-
-,
7. Bonus Points (maximum 5 points). When it is determined that
a proposed development has not only incorporated and met the
substantive criteria of Sees. S-106(G) (1) through (6) but
has also exceeded the provision of these sections and
achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
additional bonus points not exceeding five (5%) percent of
the total points awarded under these sections may be made.
Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
10
r"'\
~
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
THRESHOLD
OF MAXIMUM
POINTS: POINTS:
5.66 4.0
21.0 14.4
2.0 3.2
16.5 8.4
13.8 9.0
13.6 9.0
SCORING CATEGORIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN
3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION
4. AMENITIES FOR GUESTS
5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
6. REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF
EXISTING UNITS
7. BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
72.56
63.0
Name of P&Z Commission Member: Asoen/Pitkin Planninq Office
11
/.;--
~,
--
Exhibit 2
...-,
,~$..;;;>;~lf
'.
"
~
.....""
~
o
'.1'..:,,'.,
,
,
'y ,
~:" .. ------....
h
}.;":
\ \
. .
\ \
\ \
\
,
1
~AI:lI(''''G
,)
\
,
1
\
\ \
. \
\ \
,
1
\
~~ '~~~r
~ ~ ~\~, &
c" ~ "b ~ ~v,
~l ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ r.:. ~>..
,~ ~ ~ );;, \J"-,
~.~t~
~~ ~
~~I 't
~ "'2' ~
~ .~,
~
Sl- (y)
rl. c
......- C)'-.
r k
V" J:".
~ Cr"
"1; '<.
"
-"'" "
t"'''' r\;j
,~ ~+
' "-
...--...,. :.>-~
~
;5> ~ ~.
';;, >-\
\~..- F':
'{ ,'~'> .
, -"
\_'-~
~ ~
_.1' ,j
I' i.~ ""
," ":--r-
.<..~t.. ~
',~'<<> .; .
,---:/ ~
"
"
-, Vl
(~:;
C:;:,", "'f')
I >~-
'\~
;:,J.} '/
".,
'"
l,
l'
-S"
S
~-
-.J~"
t.i'->
~:
.r-~~,.
o
"
"-
,~
"-
--
(\\
~
n
D.....".
. ;
,-(;C', .
m~;.
"
o
o ~1
'%.
~
.'
i
,
i,
i
J.
i
"j
DI
"!
2;
!
1jJ.
01 "'>:'l:'l~'
~.._;
,'~..
.'.$.1"
~~'~r.'
:1;';'1.
~~} !
~l" 't
fif
. ~.;~ ,,:"~'1}.::
. '::"I~.
m.. ";'..d,
..., " <';/i~'
?\' : ,'.-
.-. ,:' ,~::','H
::s ....
to ~,
; vr...~/
''0 ".',
.,.
D.:
2:\..
0'.
:rt'
m
,:0.
,"/
.,', IT
\ \
\
i
f
,
J
I
~
)~~ \
-,<
~\.'''+
:t-: (
.~
. }ri;l.~..'
.";;
'~~': ~,,:;'
~.L',,: '
~ "
~".,
',~, ". '-.:.:. '.
"i\":";2') ,~, :';
"'::,~(~,,; >~. !.
.,~~_.
'\
\
tJ
l>
D
;'Ii
2
/j)
\
i
,
\
G,,''''~'.lfIIi'. '
~-"'~",,~
. '7'", ~~
~( ..'
EXR'lG AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA~
Existing structural footprint:
Proposed addn'] footprint (less removed structure):
Proposed total footprint
8420. sf.
2684. sf.
1 1, 1 04. sf.
Existing lodge area (per 1985 app.):
Pr-oposed addn'j area:
Total: existing areas plus proposed addn'lareas, less
structure to be removed: .39 far
17017. sf.
5710. sf.
21,671. sf.
Area of proposed construction in rooms (replacement):
Area of proposed construction in circ/amenity:
2036. sf.
3674. sf.
Area under unenclosed roofs:
Addi t i onal i mpervi ous coverage:
Additional impervious covel-age relative to existing drains:
964. sf.
3684. sf.
2712. sf.
NOTES; A. It should be observed that:
1. There are no roof gutters di rect to drai ns on thi s property:
therefore the proposed increase in impermeable area has
little or no effect upon the existing drain flow.
2. Concentration of drain flow on open property such as this is
generally to be avoided unless storm sewers are provided by
the ci ty.
3. Virtually all surface drainage of this property is historically
impounded by the i rri gat i on ditch tt-aversi ng the lower
property 1 i ne.
B. Areas with unenclosed roof structures include:
1. Swirnming pool cover 484. sf.
2. Porte-cochere 240. sf.
3. Covered entry 240. sf.
If ttlese structures were i nc 1 uded withi n far ttle proposed
add'l area would equal: 5710. sf.
964. sf.
6674. sf.
Totalar-ea 'would then be:
less structure to be removed
17017. sf.
6674. sf.
23,691. sf.
1,056. sf.
22,635. sf.
Resultin!:1 far = .40
~ }'
t-
'- 1<>
..
r. 0
L ..J
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR
CRESTAHAUS GMP AMENDMENT AND
SPECIAL BEVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I. LETTER OF APPLICATION
Ir~ STREET ADDRESS AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
III. DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP
IV. VICINITY MAP
V. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE
VI. . PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
VII. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR
CRESTAHAUS GMP AMENDMENT AND
SPECIAL REVIEW
A. AMENDMENT TO LODGE
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
1. Property Description
a. Water System
b. Sewage
c. Drainage
d. Development Area .
e. Traffic
f. Effects of Proposed Develo~ment
on Adjacent Land Uses
g. Construction Schedule
2. Site Utilization
B. REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Availability of Public
Facili~ies and Services
2. Quality of or Improvements to Design
a. Architectural Design
b. Site Design
c. Energy Conservation
VIII.
C.
D.
d. Parking and Circulation
e. Visual Impact
3. Amenities Provided for Guests
4. Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals
a. provisions of Employee Housing
b. Conversion of Existing Units
c. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
of Existing Units
CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM
SPECIAL REVIEW~F EXTERNAL
FLOOR AREA RATIO.
SITE PLAN
November 29, 1988
Aspen Planning & Zoning
commission Members
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Development Application for Crestahaus GMP Amendment
and special Review
Dear Commission Members:
Enclosed are ~ copies of the above-captioned Development
Application. The Applicant's name and address is:
Harley Baldwin
203 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-2209
The Applicant's representative authorized to act on his behalf
is:
Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-1936
Please schedule the Development Application on the Planning
& Zoning Commission's agenda on the earliest possible date.
~(lrdt <
Hdr ley Bal in
CHM:kg
enc.
STREET ADDRESS
~
i
.. crestahaus UJdge
1301 HighWay 82
Aspen, Colorado 81611
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
"A" parcel of Land being part of the Riverside Addition to Aspen.
Colorado. Said parcel is more fully described as follows:
.Beginning at a point being a plast~c cap on a No. 5 rebar stamped
L. S. 2376 whence corner 8 of the Riverside Placer ~.S.M.S. No. 3905
A.M. being ~ brass cap dated 1954 bears North 85'08' West 55C.05 feet;
thence Nor.th-15'Cl' West "92.08 feet; .
thence North 1C'06'59" West 122.~2 feet;
thenc~ North 13'13'32" East~CO~5C feet;
thence North 78'22'05" East 33.31 feet;
thence North 37'3C'OC" East ~6.C5 feet;
thence North 68'2C'15" East 27.55 feet;
thence South 50'37' East 77.76 feet;
thenc.e .Scluth 3C'21' East 1.50.08 feet;
thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having a" radius of 760.0C
feet ( the chord of whoi-chbears SO'"th 24 oS,,' 'East 93.00 feet);
~he=>ce South 77'45'50" Wes~ 23~.32 to t:-.e p~:=:t c~ be;;.:=::':.:;.g.
COUNTY OF PITK!N.
STATE OF COLORADO
-
_._--_.~.. .-....-..--.-..-.-. ,"-'
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Trtle Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925.1766
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies that HARLEY BALDWIN is the owner in
fee simple of the following described real property situated in Pitkin
County, Colorado:
A parcel of Land being part of the Riverside Addition to Aspen,
Colorado. Said parcel is more fully described as follows;
Beginning at a point being a plastic cap on a No. 5 rebar stamped
L. S. 2376 whence corner 8 of the Riverside Placer U.S.M.S. No. 3905
A.M. being a brass cap dated 1954 bears North 85.08' West 554.05 feet;
thence North 15.41' West 92.08 feet;
the'nce North 14.06'59" West 122.02 feet:
thence North 13.13'32" East 40.54 feet;
thence North 78.22'05" East 33.~1 feet;
thence North 37.3"4'04" East 56.45 feet;
thence North 68.24'15" East 27.55 feet;
thence South 50.37' East 77.76 feet;
thence South 34.21' East 150.08 feet;
thence 93.50 feet along a curve t9 the right having a radius of 760.0~
feet (the chord of w~ich bears South 24.03' East 93.00 feet);
thence South 77.45'50" West 235.32 to the point of beginning.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO
Subject to the following described matter~:
1. Reservations and exceptions as contained in tbe United States
Patents recorded October 21, 1955 in Book 180 at Page 455 and
recorded in June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246 as follows:
Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his
ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect
the premises hereby granted; and right of way for ditches or canals
constructed by the authority of the United States.
2. Terms, conditions, restrictions, reservations and obligations as
set forth in occupancy and Rental Deed Restrictions and Agreement
recorded December 16, 1987 in Book 553 at Page 206.
3. Deed of T~ust from: Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. A Colorado Corporation
Leonard W. Koval and Barbara W. Koval
To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
For the use of Central Bank of Aspen
To secure $1,000,000.00
Dated December 15, 1987
Recorded December 22, 1987 in Book 553 at Page 765
Reception No. 296037
NOTE: Assignment of Rents and Leases given in connection with the
above Deed of Trust by instrument recorded in Book 553 at
Page 781.
4. Deed of Trust from: Harley Baldwin
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of Leonard W. Koval and Barbara W. Koval
to secure $300,000.00
dated November 15, 1988
recorded November 17, 1988 in Book 578 at Page 905
reception No. 306099
All matters certified in this certificate are the matters found of
record in the Clerk and Recorders Off"ice of Pitkin' County, Colorado,
a~y matters not of record are not a part of this certificate and the
company makes no representations as to matters not of Public recopd.
-
Certified this 29th day of November, 1988
TLE, INC.
BY:
~
...
-"'J
/~
\........
'R15
(p l.i Dr'
-I
i
,I
'I
..
~
)
Locator/Zoning .~
CRESTAHAUS ~-~ 2bo'
23
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE
The proposed development complies with the substantive
development review standards in that the score in each applicable
category will be equal to or greater than that awarded to the
approval development. All proposed changes to the original
development order enhance the existing development and its impact
on surrounding uses. The proposed development not only preserves
the previous commitments of the approval development, but upgrades
and expands the lodge use in conformance with city policies.
.
~.,.,'- ~~~'
-;f
,.
ClTY (.)fASPI:,N
PRE-APPL1CATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
(I... r ~ J 1'L,' 0.' Lt. ;)../.-' (; nl p ~~1) lh\.i..... url
{t r.A ~.~
PROJECT:
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIV:: (~.\ ri \
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: l(:.)(:.)'/l1 3G'
OWNER'S NAME:__lj,,-1ffl~;:~-l C JJ.~n. '1'-.>
. tl SU~Y
Type of Appl ication: (:'~(I it (;, iI;) ,j ni 1/ I-- -(
1.
2.
/l
~:~
of development being requested:
,
to respond,
Policy Area/
~eferral ]>,qent
"j,Ht) .
L.
I _i~"A"}-'J(\~{:..~
. t.
. ,.
'I
( " , ! I .J ~ J ~
. I) ,
(hi/l"/7l~
f
Comments
/1'-' . ~,I
.f ~ } "11-:' l' -,;/1.1 f?
/~/ ;,:/..._-(,.~_ -/?!~ I '-~~~ ~-lt J-c~o
, --cc.'---
,y t.-.'"' /)-t...~:::v!v.::.:-r L..,
C' ,0;. v .
, j -
/( " "tJr- , /Up( /"/..t.l)
,
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) <:!P&zthen to c~,
5. Public Hearing: c(iESD (NO)
6.
Did you tella~licantto submit list of ADJACENT- PROPERT-Y
~WNERS? <fiS! (NO) Disclosure of OWnership: C{YESJ) (NO)
What fee w~s .applicant requested to Submit:#"(190{tfj+"!J!2!;(.:m'
. r:n; . "(5
Anticipated' date of SUbmt:::::: ~ f- ~ E.~ ..
COJoSMENTSjUNIQUE C~NCERNS ~.-J<~ J'-/II"7(c.)A~~(,f-.'U")_
7.
8.
9.
frm.pre_app
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
FOR
CRESTAHAUS GMP AMENDMENT
AND
SPECIAL REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
This Application is for i) an Amendment to the
development order approving the Lodge Growth Management Allotment
in the L-3 (LP) Zone district for the property commonly known as
the Crestahaus and more particularly described in Section II herein
and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property") under
Section 8-107 of the Aspen Municipal Code ("Code"); and ii) speGial
review to approve increased external floor area ratio, and for the
removal and-future reconstruction of three units on the Property
under Section 7-404 of the Code. -
The purpose of the Amendment of the 1986 Growth
Management Plan approval_is to allow the upgrading of lodge units
and the construction of additional accessory use facilities for
guests of the lodge units and the substitution of new units for
existing units. (Some of the existing units to .be replaced will
be converted to accessory uses). The number of lodge units will
remain the same. The parking and circulation will be redesigned
as delineated on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit Band
incorporated herein by this reference.
The special review is for the increased external floor
area to be constructed in conformity with the site Plan delineated
in Section VIII herein. In compliance with Section 7-404 A.I. and
A.2. of the Code, the mass, height. density, and ~andscaping will
not change. The new90nfiguration of the buildings -will be
SUbstantially-the same and the reduction of open -space will be
minimal, all compatible with thec~aracterotthe surrounding land
uses. The changes proposed are consistent with the purpose Of the
LP Z.one district, which is to preserve existing lodges in their
existing locations. and permit limited expansion of these lodges
when such expansions are compatible with neighboring properties and
provide an incentive for upgrading of the existing lodge. Further,
the proposed developlllentwill not have any adverse impacts on
surrounding uses, because no additional density will I:>ecreated,
traffic will be the same, parking will remain at the same level and
no viewplanes will be obstructed.
A. AMENDMENT TO LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.
1. -Pronertv Descrintion.
The Property is situated in the LP Zone and contains
56,192+ square feet (1.29 acres).
. .
a. Water Svstem.
The project can still be serviced by existing capacity.
b. Sewaqe.
There will be no additional requirements.
c. Drainaqe.
Runoff from new construction will be maintained on site
in dry wells. Existing site drainage toward the irrigation ditch
will not be disturbed.
d. DeveloDment Area.
Residential rooms and public areas will be improved by
construction of additional amenity space and conversion of existing
substandard rooms to amenity Use. The number of guest rooms shall
remain unchanged. The existing structural coverage will be
increased from 8,420 square feet to 10,116 square feet, or a total
o~ 2,296 square feet. The existing external FAR will be increased
from .15 to .19. The existing parking of 33 spaces will remain the
same. -
e. Traffic.
The number of
Property will not be
development.
f. Effects of ProDosed DeveloDment on Ad; acent Land
Uses.
vehfcles and traffic anticipated on the
increased from the existing approved
since there is no increased density and the e)Cternal
floor area will not significantly increased, the proposed
development remains fully compatible with surrounding uses in the
neighborhood. To the extent there is additional construction there
will be relocation of parking to less visible areSA. ~
-----
g. Construction Schedule.
Construction is anticipated to commence as soon after
approval is obtained as is practically possible. There will be no-
phasing.
2. Site Utilization.
The information contained in this section supplements the site
Plan submitted with this Application in Section VIII herein.
a. The additions and modifications to the development
order shall comply with all energy conservation considerations of
the original approval and will in fact increase the energy
efficiency of the improvements.
.
.'
b. Landscaping will not be reduced and will in fact be
augmented very significantly as shown on the plan.
c. Parking shall not be reduced.
d.
unChanged.
streets, nearby paths and foot paths remain
e. The zoning district and surrounding uses remain
unchanged.
B. REVIEW CRITERIA.
1. Availabilitv of Public Facilities and Services.
The availability of water, sewer, storm drainage, fire
protection and roads remains unchanged.
2. Ouality of or Improvements to Desian.
a. Architectural Desian.
-
Architectural treatment is compatible with and improves
on the existing design. All additions will not exceed nor vary the
existing roof line. The plan is intended to integrate all
disparate buildings into a single theme without increasing the
bulk.
b. Site Desian.
The site design remains unchanged except that the
existing landscaping will be augmented. (See Site Plan, section
VIII herein) .
~ c. .. - Enerav Conservation ~
All new work will be in conformity with current codes.
d. Parkina and Circulation.
A berm and low stucco wall will shield the proj ect
visually from Highway 82. (See Site Plan,Section VIII herein).
There will be no Cbange in the relationship with the highway in
-terms of entry, signing and 1\Iirrors that currently exists.
e. Visual ImDact.
Visual impact will be.1\Iinimized.Buildingsare only 40'
closer to adjacent property and are still over ~O feet at nearest
point from adjacent residences on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Riverside
Subdivision.
.
,."
.
3. Amenities Provided for Guests.
In upgrading the amenities, a larger pool and jacuzzi
tubs will replace the existing pool and jacuzzi tub. The common
areas have been increased.
4. Conformance to Local Public policv Goals.
a. provisions of Emolovee Housina.
Employee housing will remain the same.
b. Conversion of Existinq units.
See site Plan, section VIII herein.
c. Rehabili tat ion and Reconstruction of Existinq units.
See_.Site Plan, Section VIII herein.
C. CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM.
The applicant will continue to operate the improvements
as a lodge.
D. SPECIAL REVIEW OF EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO.
The Code allows an external floor area ratio of up t-o. 1: 1
with special review in an LP Zone. The Applicant has the right to
build additional external and internal floor area on the Property.
This Application calls for construction of an additional 2,296
square feet. Accordingly, the proposed addition conforms to the
permitted internal and exte~nal floor area-ratios, as the external
floor area ratio will be increase~ .19_and the .internal floor
<rea ratio will be increased to ef =i.ate~y~;". ~/ ~.
I \e/)
! O-i
z,
:Lq~dJ
,..
...
"'"
...
...
SUBMITTED TO:
...
...
APPLICANT:
...
ATTORNEYS:
...
...
ARCHITECT:
...
...
I""
...
...
,....
...
...
~
CRESTAHAUS LODGE APPLICATION FOR
GMP L-3 ALLOTMENT
October 1, 1985
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303/925-2020
Crestahaus Lodge, I;:>n.
1301 Highway 82
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gideon Kaufman and David G. Eisenstein
Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C.
315 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 305
P.O. Box 10001
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303/925-8166
Gibson & Reno Architects
418 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303/925-5968
.....
i"'"
...
~.
-
...
...
,...
,...
,...
...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
1.
Project description
aa. Water system.
bb. Sewage.
cc. Drainage
dd. Development area.
ee. Traffic.
ff. Effects on adjacent land uses.
gg. Construction schedule.
2.
Site Utilization Maps.
B. REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Availability of public facilities and services.
aa. Water.
bb. Sewer.
cc. Storm drainage.
dd. Fire protection.
ee. Roads.
-
2. Quality of or improvements to desiqn.
-
,....
,...
-
-
"""
,...
aa. Architectural design.
(1) History of the Lodge
(2) Architectural Possibilities
bb. Site design.
cc. Energy conservation.
dd. Parking and circulation.
ee. Visual impact.
Page No.
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
1. Zoning/Locator Map
2. Existing Conditions
3. Perspective
4. Site Plan
5. 1st Level Plan
6. 2nd Level Plan
7. Elevations; SE, NE
8. Elevations; West, South
9. Landscaping plan
10. Utilities Plan
11. Drainage plan
12. Visual Vulnerability
,..
,...
...
...
.-
,
-
-
"'"
1.
2 .
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8 .
9.
...
...
"'"
"'"
...
-
,-
...
~
,...
-
3.
Amenities Provided for Guests.
4. Conformance to local public policy goals.
aa. provision of employee housing.
bb. Conversion of existing units.
cc. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing
units.
5.
Bonus points.
C. CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM
D. PHOTOS
History I, Victorian House
History II, Early Lodge
History III, "Dude Ranch"
History IV, "Old World"
History V, "Swiss Chalet"
Outbuildings
Bike Path
Leaving Town
Surrounding Buildin~s
E. DRAWINGS"
10
11
11
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
...
...
A. LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.
"""
....
1. proiect description. This Application for
GMP allotment under 5 24-11.6 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen (hereinafter "City Code") seeks an allotment
for fourteen (14) lodge units to be built in conjunction
with the improvement and rehabilitation of twenty-one (21)
existing lodge units located at the Crestahaus Lodge, 1301
Highway 82, Aspen. Colorado. This property is legally
described as follows:
...
...
See Legal Description, page 24.
...
This project is located within the L-3 zone on real property
containing 56,192 t square feet (1.29 Ac.). There presently
exists on the property a lodge containing twenty-one (21)
units of which nineteen (19) are lodge rooms and two (2) are
employee units. The lodge also currently contains a common
room area and an outside heated swimming pool. The total
developed square footage at this time is 11,950. The
fourteen (14) lodge units for which the Applicant is seeking
a GMP allotment under this Application will constitute an
expansion of the existing lodge and will represent an
additional 5,067t square feet of development.
...
...
...
Pursuant to 5 24-3.4 of the City Code which allows
an external floor area ratio of up to 1-1 with special
review approval in the L-3 zone, the Applicant, under this
GMP Application, has the right to build additional density
on the property. This Application calls for construction of
an additional 5,067 square feet therefore the Applicant
complies with density requirements; the FAR, with the
proposed addition would be only .30. This project meets the
other area and bulk requirements set forth in 5 24-3.4 of
the City Code. The Applicant, sensitive to the City policy
for preservation and upgrading of existing lodges, is
planning significant renovation and upgrading to the
twenty-one (21) existing units in the lodge along with the
construction of the high quality fourteen (14) new units.
Fifteen (15) of the existing units will be improved; six (6)
of the existing units will be demolished and totally
rebuilt. Thus the lodge use in this location will be
preserved, upgraded and expanded in con~ormance with City
policies which will be of benefit to the surrounding
neighborhood and the community in general as well as fitting
in perfectly with the intent and nature of the L-3 zone.
...
1'"'
...
...
...
...
...
Concurrent with this Application, applicant is
applying for special review to establish external floor area
ratio, and for change of use approval to change the use of
three units on the project from residential to short-term
lodging.
...
...
.-
-
...
aa. Water System.
Discussions with the City Water Department
indicate that the proposed development can be supplied by
the existing facilities. There is sufficient excess
capacity available from the City water supply to supply the
proposed development. An eight inch water main exists in
Highway 82 adjacent to the property. A 2 inch service line
currently serves the existing units on the subject property.
Water pressure in these lines is approximately 70 P.S.I.
The anticipated water demand is expected to fall well within
the normal lodge standards. The project is located very
close to the main fire station (.75 miles) so facilities
already exist to provide fire protection to the project.
Fire hydrants are located 50 feet from the north corner of
the property (City Hydrant No. 052) and 150 feet from the
southeast corner of the property.
-
-
)'
....
-
-
bb. Sewage.
Discussions with the Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District indicate the District has sufficient
excess capacity available to serve the proposed development.
A ten inch trunk line exists in Highway 82 adjacent to the
property which is already connected to the property.
Estimated system usage will be within the norm for lodge
use. The existing treatment plant can easily accommodate
the anticipated demand according to the Aspen Sanitation
District manager. (See Utilities, page 32.)
,...
-
...
cc. Drainage.
Historic site drainage from the site will be
improved. All parking surface runoff and roof runoff from
new construction will be maintained on site in dry wells.
Existing general site drainage toward the irrigation ditch
along the northwest will not be disturbed. (See Drainage,
page 33.)
...
I"'"
dd. Development Area.
Present existing lot coverage for the
twenty-one (21) existing units equals 8,449 square feet.
The present parking lot coverage is 16,094 square feet, and
the pool is 420 square feet. The total present impervious
coverages is, therefore, 24,963 square feet or 44% of the
lot. This leaves present open space at 56%. The proposed
addition of fourteen (14) new units will result in a net lot
coverage increase of 1,867 square feet. The parking plan
for thirty-three (33) autos will have a more efficient
configuration than presently exists, and will decrease
parking lot coverage by 570 square feet. The impervious
coverage total with the proposed new addition is, therefore,
26,270 square feet or 47% of the total lot area. This
leaves open space in the amount of 53%.
...
~
...
-,
...
ee. Traffic.
Based on the City of Aspen I s calculation
values of vehicles per lodge room, the added number of
...
- 2 -
,...
,...
,...
vehicles anticipated for this project is seven (7) during
periods of full occupancy. The property is serviced by
Highway 82, a state highway which can adequately handle all
anticipated traffic. It is expected that seventeen (17)
motor vehicles will use or be stationed in the lodge, as
expanded by the proposed development. The hours of
principal daily usage cannot be accurately determined but it
can be expected that hours will be consistent with typical
lodge use in the City of Aspen. There will be thirty-three
(33) on-site parking places supplied. All of these are
off-street parking. Existing bicycle routes and paths are
very close to the project. Bicycle storage racks will be
provided on the property. The Mountain Valley bus route
goes past the property on Highway 82. This proposed
development discourages automobiles usage in various ways.
The site is within easy walking or bicycling distance of
essential commercial and retail services and activities. A
bike path exists along the paved shoulder of Highway 82.
There is also a bike path that runs along Ute Avenue that
cuts back to Highway 82 through the Aspen Club area which
can be used to access the property in a less arduous manner.
The applicant desires to assist the City in building a 320
foot link to the existing bike path along the entire Highway
82 frontage of the property. Applicant estimates this 320
foot link will cost $6,000.00, and is willing to contribute
$4,000.00 to this cost. Applicant will pay this sum at the
time the City formally authorizes commencement of the
project to add this link to the bike path. (See photo, page
20. )
-
....
,...
-
-
-
-
,-
,...
ff. Effects of Proposed Development on
Adiacent Land Uses.
The proposed development is fully compatible
wi th surrounding uses in the neighborhood and will
positively enhance and complement the local character of the
neighborhood. The eleven unit "Alpine Lodge" is across the
street. The surrounding land (including the Alpine Lodge)
is zoned R-15. In the Riverside Subdivision, lots range
from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. Along Mayflower Drive,
Aene Park and the Ferguson cabins to the north, lots are
6,000 to 10,000 square feet. The presently built-out FAR on
the adjacent R-15 lots is .20 to .40, therefore our proposal
of .30 fits well within the range of existing built density
of the neighborhood. Thus the lodge use at the property has
been an existing beneficial use in the neighborhood, for
some time and the proposed development will only enhance
this use.
,...
-
....
,...
,....
gg. Construction Schedule.
No phased construction is
Construction is projected to commence Spring
completed by Fall, 1986.
planned.
of 1986, and be
-
-
- 3 -
,...
!"'"
indicated on maps.
-
ee. The zoning district is identified on the
zoning map (page 23). Surrounding uses are residential and
lodge. Historical district boundary lines, if any, are
indicated on the zoning map.
!"'"
B. REVIEW CRITERIA.
-
1.
Availability of Public Facilities and
Services.
....
aa. Water.
The existing water system of the City of
Aspen has sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of
the proposed development and will be able to supply water to
the development without system extensions beyond those
normally installed by the developer and without treatment
plant or other facility upgrading. An eight inch water main
is located in Highway 82 adjacent to the property.
-
!"'"
-
bb. Sewer.
This site is served by and already connected
to the ten inch trunk line existing in Highway 82 adjacent
to the property. The Metropolitan Sanitation District Sewer
System has sufficient capacity to dispose of the wastes of
the proposed development and will be able to serve the
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer. No treatment plant or other
facility upgrading will be necessitated by this development.
.-
-
-
cc. Storm Drainage.
Historic site drainage from the property will
be improved. All paved area and newly constructed roof
drainage will be retained on site in dry wells. The
development will not require any use of the City's drainage
system as the project provides for on site retention of 100%
of runoff from new roofs and from impervious areas. The
existing general site open space drainage toward the
irrigation ditch along the northwest of the property will
not be disturbed.
....
-
-
dd. Fire Protection.
The new lodge units will be constructed with
fire protection in excess of the Building Code requirements.
In conformance with the Code, smoke detectors will be
furnished throughout for added protection. In addition fire
extinguishers will be supplied. There are two hydrants
presently serving the Property;" these are located fifty feet
from the north corner of the property and 150 feet from the
southeast corner of the property. The project is very close
(less than .75 miles) to the main Aspen Fire Station and the
response time is under three (3) minutes, an exceptional
response time for a small mountain community. The Fire
Department is able to provide fire protection according to
-
-
-
!"""-
- 5 -
,...
,...
-
its established response standards without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to the existing station. Available water pressure
and capacity are more than adequate to provide for fire
fighting flows. No water storage tank is necessary to serve
the project.
,...
-
ee. Roads.
The major linkage of the road network can
easily provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic
patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system. The property is served by Highway
82, a state highway. The minimal increased usage
attributable to the proposed development will not
necessitate any road system improvements. Because the
project is very near to the City's commercial and retail
facilities and a bus line stops right at the project, all
automobile use from the project will be minimized and
bicycling, walking or the use of public transportation will
be maximized.
-
~
-
,...
2.
Quality of or Improvements to Desiqn.
aa. Architectural Design.
-
-
(1) History of the Lodge
The beginning point of the lodge is a fine
old, two-story brick Victorian house which once oriented
toward the highway. (See photo, page 14.)
,...
The house and property were purchased by the
Mi.llers in 1950, who added a three-room addition to the
west, and opened the "Millerest Lodge". The brick was
painted over at that time. (See photo, page 15.)
,...
,....
Around 1954, the lodge began to take on a
"dude ranch" look with the addition of horses, several small
outbuildings and a four-room log addition. (See photo, page
16.)
-
In 1956, the Miller's added two concrete
block wings to the north with eight (8) guest rooms and a
swimming pool, in the "old world" half-timber and stucco
vocabulary, and subsequently held a contest among their
guests to rename the lodge. (See photo, page 17.) The lodge
then became the nHighlander".
,...
-
This brick Victorian/half-timbered Scottish
Highlander/log cabin dude ranch assemblage of structures was
acquired around 1960 by Guido Meyer who immediately renamed
it the "Crestahaus" and proceeded to modify the imagery as
,...
-
- 6 -
"""
...
...
that of a "Swiss chalet" by adding curving gingerbread
fascias to all buildings. (See photo; page 18.)
,...
After this turbulent six-year building spree
and the resulting plethora of architectural identities, the
lodge has remained virtually unchanged, even though much has
changed around it, for the last 25 years.
,...
(2) Architectural Possibilities
,...
In spite of the montage of images:
Victorian/old world half-timber/log cabin dude ranch/Swiss
chalet, the existing lodge buildings have several postive
qualities upon which to build: (1) interesting massing and
roof lines , (2) small scale elements, (3) prominent dormer
and gable-end features, and (4) a covered arcade connecting
the buildings.
-
-
Therefore, applicant intends to emulate and
emphasize these positive features in its proposed addition
of fourteen (14) rooms. Specifically, the new structure is
designed as a group of smaller structures, each with the
6/12 and 8/12 roof pitches. The grouping of structures
continues the existing pedestrian arcade and creates an
"entry court" space for drop-off, pick-up, and pedestrian
circulation.
I"'"
~
...
At the same time, the negative detracting
features will be removed: (1) the substandard cabin
out-buildings (two units) and the log-cabin (4 units) will
be demolished and rebuilt as part of the new addition, and
(2) the fake Swiss fascias and dude ranch log vestiges will
be removed, and an airy lattice gridwork will be applied to
all gable ends to unify the old and new buildings, and to
lend a festive and modern look to the new "Crestahaus
Lodge". (See Perspective and Elevations, pages 25, 29, 30.)
-
-
-
bb. Site Design.
Serving the existing twenty-one (21) rooms is
a vast gravelled parking lot of 16,094 square feet which
inefficiently parks 19 cars. (See Existing, page 24.) We
propose a carefully designed and landscaped parking area of
only 15,525 square feet which parks several more cars. In
this manner, the new addition and cars can be accomodated
and the landscaped open space maintained at approximately
the present level.
-
I"'"
-
Cars will be screened from view by small
bermed planting islands in the' centers, and by bracketing
the ends of parking. Nine (9) existing pines and spruces 16
to 32 feet high along the highway frontage will be
maintained in the present locations. A row of 6 mountain
ash, l~" to 2" caliper, will be planted around the Auto
-
...
- 7 -
,..
,....
,..
Court circle, and low shrubs will be added. (See Landscaping
Plan, page 31.)
,..
Small paths will be constructed out into the
open space areas to the west of the site to invite guests to
wander and explore during good weather, and small seating
areas with benches will be provided.
-
Flowering plants and shrubs, and ground cover
will complete the Auto Court area, while existing junipers,
crab apple, and lilac will be retained. At the southeast
corner of the property adjacent to the highway, the 8 foot
willow shrubs will be maintained in their present locations.
....
,....
All disturbed areas will be hydro seeded and
revegetated with a Canadian bluegrass/perennial ryegrass
/brome/crested wheat mixture.
,...
cc. Energy Conservation.
Glazing
,..
Portions of the existing lodge to be retained
have several single glazed windows, and these will all be
outfitted with storm panels or replaced with double glazed
units. All new exterior window units in new construction
will be weathershield triple-glazed units or equal.
,....
Insulation
,..
-
To the existing lodge, 1" "thermax" R-8 solid
insulation will be added along the arcade walkway exterior
wall. In new construction, all walls will exceed R-20, and
roofs will exceed R-32.
-
Solar Heating
,..
The new jacuzzi tub to be added near the pool
will augment its water heating needs with two solar
collectors and a pre-heat tank (located in the sauna
equipment room) .
...
Passive Solar
-
The fourteen (14) new, and six (6) rebuilt
uni ts will orient south and west toward views, with major
glazing and overhangs, and will thus acquire considerable
passive solar heating benefit. The six units which are being
demolished and rebuilt presently have no wall or roof
insulation, and do not orient to the sun; thus the
rebuilding represents a considerable energy upgrade.
-
-
,....
- 8 -
....
Parking and Circulation.
addi tion of fourteen (14) uni ts is
expected to dd ven (7) cars to peak-season usage and
demand. Nevert eless, the Parking Plan (see Site Plan, page
26) provides one space per bedroom, or a total of
thirty-three (33) spaces for each of thirty-three (33)
free-market rentable rooms in the lodge as required by Code.
The Parking Plan creates a total of 15,525 square feet of
impervious area, as contrasted with the inefficient eXisting
plan with 16,094 square feet of impervious area which parks
only half as many cars. (See Existing, page 24.)
--
....
....
,...
-
....
Traffic flow within the site is to an Auto
Court pick-up/delivery/drop-off area centrally located at
the focal point of the pedestrian courtyard. Cars are
arrayed in small groupings of cars, visually bracketed on
three sides by planted areas, shrubs, and gentle berming to
soften the visual impact of the cars, both from within the
site and from neighboring vantage points.
-
,...
r-
Trash pick-up area is centrally located, but
trash trucks do not need to pass by lodge rooms or parked
cars to make the pick-ups.
,...
Access to Highway 82 is single-point access
as exists presently at this time. The present gravelled
"turn-out" areas which presently exist to both sides of the
highway entrance shall be maintained in their present
condition.
-
ee. Visual Impact.
New construction will minimize visual impact
in the following ways:
-
(1) Buildings are located 120 feet back from
Highway 82, at their nearest point.
....
-
(2) Buildings are over 100 feet at nearest
point from adj acent residences on Lots 1,2,3, and 4 of
Riverside Subdivision.
,...
(3) The two-story construction matches the
height of adjacent residence on Lot .1, and is lower than
those across Highway 82 on Lots 5 and 6 on Aene Park Drive.
(See photo Surrounding Buildings, page 22.)
-
(4)
feet, or 6 feet
requirements.
Median height of new pitched roofs is 22
lower than allowable under zoning
-
(5) Buildings are arrayed in a "J" shape to
create a courtyard; this "negative" space becomes the visual
focus from the highway, rather than the building itself.
(See Perspective, page 25.)
,...
-
- 9 -
,...
,...
,...
(6) Small scale massing elements are joined
together to create the new building, similar to those of the
existing lodge, thus extending the "village" character of
the existing lodge.
,...
(7) New roof shapes of gable, dormer, and
valley echo the existing attractive roof lines of the
existing lodge, and at the same steep pitches: 6/12 and
8/12.
,...
,...
(8) A collonaded arcade visually and
phyically joins the buildings, creating an inviting
pedestrian feeling. Again, the focus is that of a negative
space rather than the mass of the building.
,...
(9) View corridors of surrounding residences
are respected and maintained. (See Visual Vulnerability Map,
page 34.)
,...
,...
(10) The building is not visible from the
perspective of Highway 82, leaving town as shown in the
photo, page 21.
,...
(11) Gable ends of the new and existing
buildings shall receive a light lattice-work which gives a
small scale texture, and a light and airy feeling to these
dominant forms. (See Elevations, pages 29, 30.)
,...
3 .
Amenities Provided for Guests.
,...
aa. The existing 576 square foot common room
will be improved and will be more greatly utilized.
Continental breakfasts will continue to be served in the
common room. Wine and cheese service in the evening will be
added. New lighting in the main common room will encourage
intimate seating groups, and front lighting will serve
meeting and conference use. In addition, by remodeling, a
second common room/meeting room will be made available for
use by guests or by special reservation for meetings.
,...
,...
,...
bb. The existing on-site dining facilities
are being substantially improved. The kitchen facility is
being remodeled and upgraded so that in-house parties and
banquets can be provided and breakfast service may be
expanded.
,...
-
cc. To compliment the existing pool,
lighting will be added in and around the pool area to allow
nighttime pool usage. In addition, an eight foot jacuzzi
will be added to serve the property. A sauna is also being
added to serve the property. Additional amenities include a
13 x 32 foot exercise and Nautilus room, which will provide
guests additional recreational opportunities. A new ski
-
,...
- 10 -
""
~
....
storage room will be added to serve the guests. Landscaped
lighting will encourage evening use of the new garden paths.
-
Conformance to Local Public Policy Goals. U----
aa. provision of Employee Housing. ~~
The project is expected to generate one (1)
new employee. This has been determined based on the level
of service reflected by this type of lodge operation.
Adding a small number of rooms to an existing lodge facility
does not typically generate the need for additional
employees. This will make a total of four (4) employees
serving the lodge. The applicant agrees to provide employee
housing which complies with the guidelines of the City
Council's housing designee which will provide for 100% of
the additional employees generated by the project. The new
employee will be housed in a deed restricted "dorm" room
having a shared bath, containing 360 square feet of private
sleeping area. In addition, the employee using this dorm
room will have access to and use of the kitchen and the
employee dining area, as well as the other lodge facilities.
Although the private sleeping area portion of the employee
living space is less than 400 square feet, the employee will
have access to and use of living areas of not less than
1,030 square feet. This proposal will be discussed with the
Housing Authority. If the Housing Authority is dissatisfied
with this proposal, applicant will supply employee housing
of a size satisfactory to the Housing Authority for the one
new employee (100%) generated by the new units, as per the
provisions of !;24-11. 6 (b) (4) of the Code. Parking for the
employees will be discussed at special review as provided in
the section of the City Code addressing L-3 residential uses
and employee parking.
4 .
,..
....
-
....
-
-
-
....
....
bb. Conversion of Existing Units.
!'-
An existing fully constructed, unrestricted lodge
unit will be dedicated for employee use.
-
cc. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of
Existing Units.
....
Fifteen (15) existing units will be upgraded
wi th thermal, safety and cosmetic improvements. Six (6)
existing substandard units will be demolished and rebuilt
from scratch. Applicant is expected to expend at least
$350,000.00 to accomplish this rehabilitation and
reconstruction. The conceptual program for the construction
of the project, as set forth below, identifies the proposed
....
....
....
- 11 -
...
....
...
improvements to be made to the lodge unit and non-unit
space, and the timetable for the restoration or rebuilding.
Because the applicant will be improving on or rehabilitating
all twenty-one (21) existing units in the project, it is
entitled to maximum points under this section. The rebuilt
portions of the lodge shall be suitable for occupancy prior
to or at the same time as the new units for which the
allotment is being requested.
I"'"
...
r-
5. BOnus Points. The project has incorporated
and met the substantive criteria of S 24-11.6 (b) (1), (2),
(3) and (4), and has also exceeded the provisions of these
subsections and achieves an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. The project is tastefully designed to
blend in with and enhance the character of the neighborhood
and incorporates the best facets and technology of energy
conservation. There will .be no negative impacts on traffic,
roads, public safety, fire protection, police protection,
drainage, water or sewer service. Applicant will be making
improvements which will enhance various services and visual
qualities of the neighborhood. The existing services and
facilities are adequately situated and set up to serve the
project efficiently at no public fiscal increase. Great
care has been taken in the design of the project to conserve
energy and utilize solar energy. The project energy
efficiency rating significantly exceeds all applicable City
requirements. This proj ect significantly upgrades and
expands amenities available to the tourists utilizing the
lodge and the lodge overall is greatly enhanced and upgraded
in accordance with the lodge preservation policy of the City
of Aspen. The parking plan for the project is hidden from
view offering great safety and convenience as well as
preserving existing spruces, pines and aspen trees on the
property. Applicant is providing housing for one hundred
percent (100%) of the employees generated by the project.
...
,...
~
-
-
,..
...
-
It is especially noteworthy that while the
applicant is expending significant sums which will result in
great improvements to the lodge, the lodge rooms will be
serving the same or similar clientele that it has typically
served resulting in improved service to this segment of the
market.
-
I"'"
In sum this project has been very carefully
thought out to balance the needs of the developer to create
a viable project with the policies expressed by the City of
Aspen and the community in general. We feel this project
achieves this balance and is the kind of project that should
be encouraged by the City. .
-
C. CONCEPTUAL PROGRAM
-
The following is, in conceptual outline form,
,-
- 12 -
-
I'"
applicant's proposed plan for accomplishing the construction
at the Crestahaus Lodge.
-
l.
"outbuildings".
Remove
and
rebuild
substandard
I'"
2. Replace "dude. ranch" and swiss chalet
architectural decoration.
-
3.
Rebuild arcade walkway connecting all
units.
I'"
4. Make available second common area/meeting
room.
-
5.
Add exercise facility, jacuzzi, and
sauna.
-
6. Add thermal, safety, and cosmetic
improvements to eXisting rooms.
7. Create landscaped "auto court" entry
-
space.
-
8. Continue to operate the lodge as a
"family-style" guest facility with a middle to lower-middle
pricing structure.
-
9.
facility (there
Crestahaus).
Continue the Crestahaus as a single-owner
are no plans to condominiumize the
-
The total cost of these proposed improvements will
be not less than $350,000.00.
-
GMP/CRESTA
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 13 -
,...
~
,...
~
-
,...
-
,...
-
,...
,...
-
,...
,...
,...
,...
,-
r-
""::l"~":';~""""'"
~"~':':" ",;' ":'1'~'1'::~"
'.'" . ;.;&;.~~ I('~'I~ 'tor
. . ''''11''....'''..- .
~ . ~ "!!o,; .~ o. ~,'
, Q'!!t. ", ~..... -'"' ~.! C
:.," .!-~~~~{~~?:t.~..
:'!<<:~.~(.':..,...!
"'Il""~'. '1', .
~ 'iiI:.\"\':.,..:.,..... ..
"._ ...fi' :\'~ ,. ,~ ~.
-",~.","'" '.".
-_ll';'" l'.~ .'. ~.
..........~i~... ....
.~.:~' 4. '~~:~~:~:'
..'~ . '-S~jt:,s.
< "
'.
iHfA"
-
.
. .....~ :
~.;ri!.::;.,>: .'
.'
<'<'
For Sale at $15,000
This fine mountain home, . owned by a Chicago Automobile
Executive, is for sale only because he finds th<.1t ,he docs not huvc time
to spend mOl"e than one week out of each year in' Aspen.
This hom~ is located on a tract of land fronting State Highway
82 approximately 600 feet by about 550 feet dcep. It is located i.:,1
Riverside addition to the city of Aspen, Colorado, which city has un-
doubtedly received more national publicity in the past 6 months than
any other resort in the United States,
More than one million dollars has. been soent during the past
year by Mr, WalterP. Paepcke. Chicago Industrialist. in providing ae-
commodations for skiers in the winter and vacationers in the summel'
and fall. The world's longest, highest and fastest chair lift begins at
the edge of Aspen and terminates at the top of Ajax Hill more than
3,400 vC?rtical feet above the city.
This development as a resort center together with the definite
possibility of a large payroll due to the installation of a 1,000 ton flotation
mill to handle ores from this once famous silver mining camp~' con,'lbin0
to make the investment in this property well worth the amount asked,
The present owner's intentions were to live on the property with
his family and build several TentaI cottages, There is definitely enoLJgh
land available for such a twnil'd if t.hp nlll'rh;:l!,:pr $:on nf\sil'p.s. 14
History I
CRESTAHAUS
....
....
....
....
-
....
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
r-
-
-
-
\ I
"'~";:"M"'----lI' ~':U-""--l=E--"':1l' ~-E""'S--~~-~:"'-
--:_~" .. --. .- ".." : -. -- --.-
:~~~~..: ..,:~_ .'"'~'~":H- ~\_ .,':,- _.~~.~-.c~. _' "~ ~7.:;;~':;
:'::~jf~'M~jO,'Jio!>~" j
~~ ~~~~~~~:"-::
ASPEN, COLORADO
provides..._
Private Lake fishing.
Trips to mountain Jakes
with all latest equipment
Boats.. Motors.. Tackle &
Lun~heslncluded
I
J,
I
I
,
"
I
i
r-
~4~"
~. ." _' ,,_'-"'T~iI_. .......T'Cp..;
.~I,~..'I'. . .,' ,". . .' '~. '.' ,,,". ". . .
~;,"~'";.o..,,J.:. ,,' ;'l''lo'~''f"~. ..e,".." '~":-:-r''''''''' -". \,
..;~~~i::'"~,,:-::,;,:,,;~.,,,~~:'~ i, .~~..t~ ," 'I:~~,~7--:'""':"-""'':~~'''''''':' "',\ ~'
..........-. ,.. .', ,0" -,III rli":'i..."... ::"\:__..."..,\,~~,.".I,..lo...lo"" .,
History II
CRESTAHAUS
15
-
,. ,
."
;. :~::;,,'(,{:'.::':',I
'"I. . ".,~ "'... ~, .' ~.. '
~;:',.~' '.':~('.. .~?{;~;.:?:': ;.',.;.:':.:/7~:;it',j
.... ~ '1'- ...... ;::..1
.. .~~:;:jh~\ jk.;"j:~~;.::.: :..... ;': ...:......::.:1
'J!.' . .... ,.,.,'t:;~..:>. '. l 'i'. .... .1 ..~'.,
-,~ '~;... '.''''.JI~':;. r :....'..:'. ....' "", . '\'
.... ,~~. ,.~'~. 'oj ~-... ,.. "'.. ~ .
, ~1kt~~?\:;,,'..~:'~''':;~:~.;i;~i':~;{::. ',::;:".1
-'"...'.' <......" 'I '. ,.,.,..j~~. "" ,,' ,,"'," "j
.;~~;t:;f::'~::';f~'/';:~'>;1f:;r:r:j
" Tt ... ~ ",.., "', I
.t;;:~S:~.~';i;:::::(:::. :.::i.:;~::'~t}:i
'~;;""~~'f:,.: ~"'- ....-t"'.... '":,~~~.Z"J\.;.i
.:.;;~~.~'::}i ~~:"~;.'::;;~f?::\/!d
'", ..~~., ~,,,.. .:,. =1 ~ . ~"~"~""'~;" "~
'",..~. ...."..~....~..~:~.;~~~;.~'Pi...-.:..;J
'.. ..:...0(,,\, 1", .."'~' . ':", ~~ I ..... ._a
- '--~..~.......... j"" .-=;1...,."'.....~ ~':'.:
.~ ,; .~.&io,' .~.r~.~.: ...~......: ..'.1ooI..,".il",;.~ '~~' .
....; .tj;~~~~' ~_": i .., ..'~ ! ;fA.=""'Jfi
..,:~. .,,;~.r.~.~~tf.!l"'1 ...~.,....~..,t}'
... ..I[..~.''''lI'''''i_~.'~~'~''o!:''. .. ..J","","
~-<~ . .~ """~?-'-~ - ~.";):'iY'''.
. . " ,;-':a" '':';. ......;:;.. t.~:. ...,.:--:;
....~...~. ~':,::.:).\MlI ...-.:.;..,'i~. ...~.
. .: '~:~4;-r. .~: W:. '-;:" ~:
.- -;'''",,',..,~!;. ..a.. ..,..,'"
:".::.\;.:...C,...:~~,~..~~:, J.~C":~
. . -;,:..t::r~',"",," \ ,.".. ....
-=..~;a;~ ~ ~"ii:~~. :; ~".I.~'"
I"} .'J-' , ....... .'. -,::..r_" ~r-
.~.'~...." .~.' . _..~).~:.ti
..';",~.,iil . ..~~~,.~u
.-: '.~' ~~k: t~~?~
',., 1~a.:1. "", j,
'. ~~~J'~':-I
I I-'t'''.,~f''''
. .' .'''1'\. ..
''l.,~;.,~
'.; ":~~~~?"'ii
...... .~
I.. " \~....
'. ...:.:.~.;,;-.,:~
".:-).~'~l
..' ,..1
'.'.. .,.
~.'. ~,;
. ,,1
.' :.1
1 .-:1
.
.'
-
, ,
....
,: ,/
.' ,/
,.
-
'I
-
I'"" ,I
['
-
-
-
-
{
!!
i!
r
~' ,
o.
il',
~i':
(
'-'---.-.
':. '1
.1
.". ,.
-.-- .-_....._-....:...-...a.
-
-
....
History III
CRESTAHAUS
16
.... (per room)
No. Per day
Persons per person HELEN AND BUD MILLER
P.O. 80x 398. phone WA 5.7081
1 $7.00 or $8.00 Aspen, Colorado
.... . ..
2 $3.50, $4.50 or $5.50 r '.".~.",."'''''''''''<
. .. ... I
3 $3.25, $4.00 or $4.50
~ . .. ...
4 $3.00, $3.75 or $4.00
. .. ...
....
....
....
~
....
THE HIGHLANDER
RATES
- -'._0__.__.'-'.-'.-__'._0_'.-..-,,-,,-
No. Weekly
Persons
!'- 1 $45.00, $ 50.00 or $55.00
. .. ...
2 $45.00, $ 60.00 or $75.00
. .. ...
.... 3 $65.00, $ 80.00 or $90.00
* .. *..
4 $80.00, $100.00 or $110.00
. .. *..
....
$3 per day-each add. person in a room.
....
* Very nice rooms with sharing bath
with one other room; knotty pine in-
tcrIors; featuring great comfort.
H De Luxe quality rooms, with wall
to wall carpeting, private tiled com-
bination baths, and every known con-
ycnience.
....
....
-
· * * Larger, extraordinary luxury
rooms, ~urpassing in beauty and un-
excelled in western decor.
Sevcral Highlander rooms are KING
SIZE and equipped to accommodate.
lip to six.
!lfrs. lIIiller's famous 'all you ean eat'
American breakfasts are $1.-;)-5"
....
....
I""
A Rose . . .
ASPEN, Colo. - Enterprising Indt:('
propt'ictor Bud Miller held a contest
among all his formcl; guests to re-
name his Aspen hostelry.
Formerly known as The Milletcst
Miller's lodge will be 'known hcnce~
forth as 'I.'he Highlander. A former
Millcrcst" g11cst, Bob Clo!Ssncr or l{;Ul-
sas City, Mo., submitted the winning
na.m~.
Miller's reason for :renaming his
lodge, "Who COmes to Aspen to rest?"
THt lODGE DESIGNED WITH GUESTS IN MIND
. Spacious carpeted r(loms with tiled tub
and shower
. Aft~r-skj fun in our beautiful western
lovnge
. Variety 'Hi-Fi when you want it
. 'Lvxury at low cost. Special group and
weekly fates
. Mrs. Miller's famous breakfasts
. King-size parking area
By reservation only.
Brochure on request.
AS:'J'\. C:C;~()~A-:':)
T H f H I G H l A tl ::: r. R
j' C i'~.'1 .i, ~ .'.... .,",.'
"l& . ",',,'.:,',' ...' ",:~,.",~"'.";'."'~':':"'::~"f~'..:., I
, J. ...~. 'A\'"'I',~~~.~,~,'.^L"," ."'.. ",,),~,\,"/l""\"~~' I
"",\,~;.,~~~l1!~A.P~~:~:~. ' tf:.~:".,,;,;,~/,'~~~'~,'. .~,',?,:'f';'r;;;1\';"~:I~~',,'
,,".",",~'J~,,"lllrl_(."l'~~tlolW.~ ,F',~.,;,..""'; '''-;'/!:'''l''-'''''I' ',c~""", .:,AI'
!.r,-.'" l\Oi"'Y!:' '....;;,:.' ,L'.~t'~:"'~';'\"~' u.., ..10,;,:....1"., " 'I' ". I
"':~ijl~i~)~~:'" ' ~~:~" ',;' , ~'*;;~~1~~?1'fW't::}r':,;.;:;:'~7-,.:;;:;?.~
'\~~;..,:.~~~...".l,L:,~.:\"\,~:..,~. ~,~,..~.~ .~:.-:~~}~,'~f\ .-:l.';':\,":''"''';fj:::': ~'~Iri:~",':'.\ ,;"..,,,~. :JI
~~i"...; . "......~....'.Il".I...~:,~~~".....~..::'.~,':"'.,,.":'~I,~,,':'~ .,.,:::;:,\;.~:,'~
~ . '.' ~.. 'I'. . it .~J'''''
\'i' .,., ' .,. '.' .\. '. ,.,.....rj
.,::.' '.: :.... .' ~';:'.~ ..'''l'' .~;;.. ~ 1>1\.. i. ..' ,.,~ .....: .' \";~
".1... .,~. o' ;;'\'.,j;I;$".... \ ' J" .,,"'.,,"
"i~~' )~.: ". .. ._,"1' 'il',..,'.. .(,. -;,' ..,":"" ...~., .'. '~'"
l'",~l'.,...~,-. . .~. - _ .' --:'~. A....'Io~..'i!"~ ,.l.-,s. ...;t' .,,.., 1'!i"'~I'I._ . "".~..
. ..<""',If'7":.' . ..... ... ... :o;.'Ii;1"~'''~.'' :'~~ii.lllr"'. '. ' ..~i~\': ;......., .:'.. :'~'J
.. . '. . : '.. . .' . '-.. ." ..,..;.1.~;.~,~'lJ',.~-li .'.'., . ..: . ('f~ ('. "... '~,~~ .\.. ,,'~.'.
. .~, ~ ~. .. 1";.c1..'~!"':'." ."'ll~'.:"rq ~ l, ~;.~~~~1~. . ... .,..... .' .,'1 '~'. \ -r "':;;1\,\.1 ~.~.' " :'.. . '.:; ., . . .."~'".,
.~.'.'\'~":i::....~'+'ll';,~~I:,...:J:" . .... .".=,-,~..,.....;...:. ,.... .. .':~,
~\lo'..;. n'I'"''V:\'''il:'''''\:;''' ~.-.. . j~'::'~I'~'':''~~''~'''.:.'1,' ;'. .... . .'. ,.(
i1.'\~,\'~I.'-).,~.. ~.. . ..~. .~.~.,l'~"'....,~ \ .....'..:1..'..... ,. .... '..'
~'(I, I...... 0 ror;gr,'''' "" ,,"" ._.
"....... . . '. .'. ....&(~ ..&11'.' . .1I!ifl:,'.... . -. ,: . ,.,. ,,'.,. '\~ 1
iMh.t.:. .~:.:-.." ... ...... ' ..'1:~:~~~;!:~.'~otIl~~I.,:.:._:~...~~~_2~:.:__~._ .~:I
History IV
CRESTAHAUS
17
,..
-
-
......,,"'....~
"'-':-'~"""~"':':~:'~:~..:~'~~:":"'.'~~-_."~~'"-~"'-~-';~'~-"""'"'~"":"'~.'~'-:'.~'7j.~:::~".'\ '~:,::;.<.~.:~.:.~ :,~;t~~N
, ~ ..:. ': " ,
,:;....:,'.."
'..,"..
...,.."':. "'..
. ."
"'."
-
,...
""
1'"
r-
:.
\:
r-
',..
,..
l*
'~
CRES1AHOUSE MOTEL
A bi'; of Swil2erl,}nd in Colorado.. Heated Swimmiryg
p I Two redding rooms. Two f'rcf.\laces. I! Ulllts
w~~". privete bath. Hi-Fi in every room. R~n .In con.
nection with the Swiss 1M. Oper<lted by GUido :3~
Trudi v,eyer. OWllers.. Aspen, Co\or<'ldo. Box .
'1"'
..,..
-,..
""
History V
CRESTAHAUS
,...
18
-
-
-
...
-
...
...
....
...
...
...
-
-
...
-
...
...
...
-
-
20
Proposed
Bike Path
CRESTAHAUS
-
....
-
....
....
I"'"
....
....
....
-
,-
,..
-
-
-
I"'"
-
-
A.
-
Leaving Tawn
CRESTAHAUS
21
,-.
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
D.
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
c.
-
Surrounding
Buildings
CRESTAHAUS
-
22
1'"'"
-~
/'
. \........
~ .
-
,..
.
'Rl5
{p l.i Dr'
,..
-
,...
-
-
,....
-
-
II.
...
.Locator/Zoning .~
CRESTAHAUS r---no 260'
r"'
I
23
,...
^ parcel of land beinq part of the River~ide Addition
to Aspen, COlorado. said parcel is more fully described as
follows: beginning at a point being a plastic cap on a No. 5
rebar stamped L.S. 2376 whence corner'S of the Riverside
placer O.S.H.S. NO. 3905 A H. being 4 brass cap dated 1954
bears N 85.08'w,554.05 feet: thc!'lce N lso41'W. 9.2.08 feet;
thence N 14006'S9MW, 122.02 feet: thence N IJolJ'32"E, 40.54
feet; thence N 78.22'O~~F.. 33.31 feet: thence N 37034'04"&;
56.45 feet: thence N 6So24'lS.E. 27.55 feet: thence S SO.J7'E,
17.76 feet: thence S 34021't. 150.08 feet; thence 93.50 feet
along a curve to the right having a radiu50f 260.00 feet
(the chord of which bears S 24.03'&, 93.00 feet); thence
S 7704S'SO"W, 235.32 feet to the point of be9inning. Said
parcel COntains 1.7)3 acres more or less.
..~--
-
,...
~~AR.?EL.fE8'WY JOc1~S~~/ .~~:.}S~~R~~E S~~Yf:OCAyIN01H5uL~.TAI~i!5 O~F C~~~RADO,
PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN HEREON AND IMPROVEMENTS WERE FOUNO TO BE
LOCATED AS SHOWN. ALL [ASEME"'TS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE
OR KNOWN TO ME ARE AS SHOWN, SAID SURvEY IS TRUE AND CORRECT
TO THE BEST OF NY kNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND IS IN CONFO~MANCE WITH
ARTICLE ~t .SEC. '8. ~1-IOO,3 eeLORAOO R(VISED TUES.
~_~ ~.~~ /7_~ _~..::...a.
HA.ROLO W. JO~N LS. 9018
,...
-
,...
<'0
<
~...., 0
-"o#"P
'0 "V
~,. a
'~.,{O
-
-
.4-9
-
-
,...
,...
,...
-
'U'" t..
.,. .nl
\
,...
f;:XISTING CONDITIONS:
,...
>,/
/
Lot ArllB:
Inler".l Floor Area:
Impervic:lUll Co\rerage:
Open Space:
56.'92 SF (1.29 Ac.)
11,950 SF (.21 FAR)
24.963 SF (-<<'-')
31,229 SF (m.
'.~
..OTt;
EXISTING
~
. nu~ , Uf' L.... 100"
,...
24 CRESTAHAUS
1"--., .
o B '10
eb.
.... UJ
,... ~
Q) I
> ~
.-
.... .aJ
U
Q) UJ
- c. W
C/l
L II
Q)
.... a. U
-
....
-
,...
-
...
I'""
,...
-
-
,...
-.
-
r""
25
...
oeVELOPEMENT AREA:
...
Lot Ar..; 56,192 SF (1.29 Ae.)
Inter...' Floor Ar..: 17,017 SF (~FAA)
Impe....lous eo..er"lle: 26,270 SF (..1')1;)
Open Space: 29,922 SF (5~)
Rooms: 35 (Incl. 2 Employ...)
. PllriclngSpaces.: 33
...
...
-
-
,..
...
...
-
."..., .
-
SITE PLAN
CRESTAHAUS
00
I'
...
26
...
....
....
/""'
/""'
,...
...
...
,...
,...
....
....
~
,...
...
...
-
-
....
I
I,~
r' _."--
.., 0
OO~~O'O~'N3dS~ ~
as AMH .LS~.3 L.OE:L
::IEJCO., Sn"H".LS3t:t::J ;
SJ..::J3J..IH8t::lV' . ON3t::l "S' NOSBI8
,. ..~.....-=-
rT"' I
I .
~
):1:
lUl .
~ ,
,
.
2 .
<(
.J
D.
[[
0
0
.J
LL
~
[[
-
LL
.
I
~
,
.
.
;
.
.
.
..
zz
1=0
.j
. x5
______J____________~~_
~
~~
~5
om
27
-
,-
....
-
-
-
....
-
,...
,...
-
....
-
....
,..
,..
....
-
-
-".I.,looCo...-..ooo ".,...~::>''''_
__'''''''''~ ...............Ilal:IOO.....O....
S.1.:J3.LIH:Jl::IV' . ON3l::1 "'S NOS81Sl
,.,"='S
'0"""'....."
'uvc
,.........."'"
''''''.''''"'" '.... IIO~
00"'''0'00 'NildS'" ~
a:B AMH .LS"EI L.CCL
::!ElCO' sn'O'H'O'.LS3t:::t:J 1
II.
lUg!
!
~
2
ct
.J
D.
a:
o
o
.J
U.
o
2
o
U
w
m
,
.
,
~
.
,
,
~~
lis
5(5
.m
-------if,;-
n
OJ
om
28
I"'"
-'" ~.....~O .,.,.. _0"100 ..._..
._,_'COC'~ ",,,,,,-"'."",,=....3.'"
S..L::J3J.JH::Jl::f'V . ON3l::f "':9 NOSBIE)
OO~~O'O~'N~dS~ ~
as.^MH.LS~3 t..CEL
3EJCO'" Sn'<fH'<f.LS3t:1::::J i
I"'"
,.,.."",
'Qa>o"~",,,
, ~.""
'NM",'"
<c:"" ..O~
I"'"
..J
I"'"
... UJ
2 ,
.... 0
-
~ ,
I"'" :>
W
.J
... W
,....
,....
,....
...
....
.
,"'" . W
W .
. 2
UJ
I"'"
,...
EB
-
EB
I"'"
-
29
"'"
"'"
,,.,.."'"
''''0>0:>.'''''
,uvo
''''''''''''''
,..",,,.t\ftI '''''''IOCr
OO~~O'OO'N3dS~ ~l' ~
as AMH .LS,,"3 !"OEL ~
::JeJCO-' Sn~H~..LS::Jt:i:::J
S..L::J3..LIH::JC:l'V . ON3C:l "'S NOSGI8
-e...-o-..ooo ...,,,. o::r....cnoo...._.
.""-_'COI: .,_........ .n......... ..~......~ .'..
,....
r-
m
"'" 2 ;
0
-
"'" ~
.
:>
... w ,
.J
W
"'"
,..
r-
,...
I!fI'IIIl
r-
,....
,....
...
30
-
".
KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON .NAME ~ZE OTY
*" Jun/perlil Tam.llllolia 'Tammy' 'Juniper S'ClII. (ulstlng)
'L:::.J Slrlx Aretle Arctic Willow 8!,High (existing)
0 Populus Trem\jloldos AsplOn H to 4" 24 new
.. I"lcuPungst'l1 CotoradoSpruce 2t06" .
~ FraxlnUI Pennsyl~.nia Green Ash 2i" ,
- aulroellolla Lackman PotentlU, S;,'. "
i} Splreal SMw'mound Snowmound Spirn 5 Gat. 10
:;If< Lilac 4ft.dla. (existing)
* Pines & Firs 2t06" (exIsting)
Note: Olst..rbed a'eu not shown otherwise to be hydroseeded
"'- with CaMdlan Bluogress/8romtl!erested wheat/perrennlal
'" rye mixture.
. ""
". ""'. ~
\:. "'.""
. \
\
\
-
.-
J-
-
-
',.
-
-
-
\
\
-
\
\
\
-
...
....
.-
...
PARKING
...
----
-
LANDSCAPE ~
CRESTAHAUS ~ '" J, ." .0
...
31
"""
>
\,...
~
-
"""
.,
....... '. '"
.... "
......... "
...... "
"'.. "
........ "
"""
-
-
~\
.,
,
- \
, /
y/
'.
- /\
/ \
/ ,
-j \
/ \
,
""" \
\\ . -------.
----
0---- UTILITIES
Po er &
Tel.1.phone'
')h
,/ut:i1i~YPole
/.
/.'
/
/
/
-
j>-
-
CRESTAHAUS
40 50'
-
32
- \
\
- \
\
\
- \ I
\ .!1
... ~~
\ 1
\
\
... t
/.D~ Fl.ODIZ..
\1 /iiiI-~ IOS~ D'
...
..L ./ j
...
;;;--
...
...
....
...
",..
,.,.
r-
-
....
...
...
...
DRAINAGE
00
CRESTAHAUS 00 to 20 30 r-..
33
I"'"
I"'"
I"'"
-
~
,...
...
-
...
...
"""
...
-
~
-
34
1bo'
""-',
1""'\
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering: In a
City Engineering Dept
'Jtiu{Urr .,;<toS ~
2. Housing:
3. Parks:
Q,.--.f {/ /'1R/
memorandum dateJ/--- Elyse Elliott
. made the fOllowing comments:
(- !;
of the
SUMMARY
In summary the Planning Office feels that the proposal can be
acceptable if the following conditions are imposed:
1. Additional Landscaping
2. employee housing
3. hours of operation of the south pool outddor area are
established; no later than 9pm, no eariler than 7pm
4. additional parking????
5. rental $ cOll\Illittements on rent increases over a period of
z~m~_1n ~M~4(-
1ECOMMEN~i~A~P~l Vof the GM ammendment and the Special
review for additional FAR with the following conditions of
approval:
Ovt+(;tt~'
I /~lq,~~, ~o-J--
?- ~f J1..1~ f'~
3 f'I>~
.r\
NOTES ON THE CREASTA HOUSE
HELEN KLANDURUDE IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING, VEGETATION AND
BUSES AS WELL AS THE INCREASED PROPOSED SPACES COMING CLOSER TO
HER HOUSE.
,
CHECK OLD LANDSCAPING PLAN AND COMPLIANCE
CHECK PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS IN THE APPLIACTION
FOR PARKING, SETBACKS NEXT TO RIVERSIDE ,LANDSCAPING.
AFTER REVIEWING THE 1985
NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUEA WERE
LANDSCAPING.
FILE IT
PARKING
APPEARS
NOISE
,
THAT THE
LIGHTING
MAIN
AND
THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE ALL OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE
PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. CHECK W/ BILL DRUEDING TO MAKE SURE THAT
THESE CONDITIONS HAVE ALL BEEN MET ,ESPECIALLY LOOK AT
LANDSCAPING (DYING) AND PARKING RECONFIGURATION AS WELL AS THATTHE
BUILDING IS GETTING CLOSER TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PARCEL WITH
THE PROPOSED COMMON SPACE/ SPA FACILITIES. THIS MAY CREATE
CONFLICTS WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMPARE SITE PLANS ON LIGHT TABLE
CHANGES ARE OCCURING. COLOR THIS UP
V IIi/AI!
t.-fr~,-.... ,-' f \"--',
U /
.' " t,,/,'/
" .', '" ,~~, /'----f}' 0""/'-'/ ..
'-"nuJ ~~'Yl~;~ ~
J ll'tj in nw ~,j :, . & j.}""~-'Df
'J ~. clv(5 yd tJil1'1J/p l1y'r (Z?ve~
,/';
J ({v A ,.: i ./"" ~ '/fr1P&5-e~~' .,.7~
i iP .~ 1 '/ ;U' ./1 I" /3J' .
~. '.1/,11,1>_' / 'l;:;!!f ~ '1':1" IT .j..1
) n t. Jll) " /'l'pN)-^ /ry; ;,f/, /I ?fA'J11 L:rJl~ tl./.1.r-J-c?t""';1 ~
V J-J ~. ~Jj ,dfP."l:tP (:{f~~tl~-)~, u..!--f ~fZFY .~ 1(;/t:,/~~~,.
! ~pa U2- / brei t1r!J;;T) lcr1!s~ '
,4../ J()(f'0r-F
I "
!'
. I rill] .)}\( (ftf1'l. f)('i:t(!)L>
\.J ltt.,...?".....\ ..;,,, ~ ~ iV.../' d\
[JI A" ,...Ii -I1{7 }
v "f)c,;>~"I~ --"f7-r~'.". ~A..<f'!r
r"\::.. .', I SOt,
.e}JfA,f~
~ !
FOR WHERE THA ADDITIONS 'N'D
FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIPI\~>
\~:,.'"
\......;/ ,.
i
(j7}-i2..[
------
A
^
./
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CRESTAHAUS LODGE GMQS AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, February 7, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor
Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to
consider an application from Andrew Hecht on behalf of his
client, Harley Baldwin, requesting approval of an amendment to
the approved development order for the Crestahaus Lodge in order
to upgrade the lodge units and construct additional accessory use
facilities for a total expansion of 2,296 square feet. The
applicant proposes to replace the existing pool and jacuzzi and
increase the common areas. The number of guest rooms will remain
the same. The Crestahaus Lodge is located at 1301 SH Highway 82
more specifically described as part of the Riverside Addition,
Sec. 18 Township 10 South, Range 84 West. The property contains
approximately 1.29 acres and is zoned Lodge Preservation.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colprado 81611 (303) 920-
5090.
siC. Wel.ton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen, Planning and
Zoning commission
publ.ished! in The Aspen Times on January; 19, 1989.
city of Aspen Account.
',,*
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE
PROJECT: (i ;, Q A J-u t-l'/o'1."..4-f -' c;, if) P
') .".
APPLICANT'S R.EPRESENTATIVE: (~A\(LLy
q;:)>')'IC!)&
Jy1. C riA A iC'YL>
SUMMARY
t' '
';\1. \-LCyvi./v..-~-:t
tl l' A~~
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER'S NAME: til:ll1 f 0 L{j
2.
1.
Type of Application:
SUMMARY
4rYJ {J ()./J n ffy,'{r(!.hJ
h:, fl
--:1>/J ~-' (J-i"C.'..-'
v
it YLt:t:::> {d:/:.'./
__ fYi.",ic'i?"dut-J
.I
requested to respond,
Policy Area/
Referral Aqent
Comments
M+t} .
c .
?'"11 y;/r\.fl.(J ~11..0
I>ln7 M1~/l']f
I?bll1n {;~
/! .
INJ__")"f!/'~A, P
/' //h' (.-i'I.;-( (c..... , f%v'-k:-? ~
Nt! /~ fr)/.-, L/'J.
CJ . C/
/{( ~ ! /U/J(~~
4.
... 5.
- ,
6.
7.
8.
9.
Review is: (P&Z only) (CC Only)
Public Hearing: CCYEsi:> (NO)
~
'--....i.!'&Z then to CC) ...--'
Did you ~Plicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS? ES (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: C(YESl) (NO)
, . <I O.f., 4:. It . cC
What fee was applJ.cant requested to submJ.t: {1c) +8./+x:n.;/~72(),
. . l'flJ' ,IV-! "0
--.J (D)(<=..)
J'- /D "7(C)ltmfJ.v (S-c 'IS)-
Anticipated date of submiss~on: rtS41?
COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNSlu-U/ ~eJ;~
--
frm.pre_app