HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Endeavor Lodge.55-82
DATE CERTIFIED COMPLETE:
2. APPLICANT: '. ~ttJ};"~t:V '.
, .' "'. 0...
. ..
. , ' ,
",'-" '~'.'".'. ~~
'"Ii., ." thI- #3/13- k P..p 2-
,...;Y,;-)....,..: ..,,:.,."."..... . '~or' III'u. .... ' "
"'<'~"""", ',.,,' vr','/~' . ,"
."\',\>,~>':':,;.,,., ': -::,.':::-, , " '->:,,':-._-~,,'->,: '-
City of Aspen
STAFF: .~ ;];A/}A'!t? _~~.l
t?~~- -- .:J8'L/7
REPRESENTATIVE:' M~fZnPh~>
9as - .-t6-7t7
4. PROJECT NAME:. tnhlVl~ htidff'~(Jd~'-~Agfl.; JPMU;AAr--
'5. LOCATION: 'C/O.!) e ,~e-pIP;t.rp;;) tiv.t ' ..' . ,.'
,... ..' '~.-/".' ",' ",
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
GMP (
PUD (
),
)
. Subdivision
Subdivision E~ception (
. " '~" <: '
GMP Exception (,:.
)
)
Rezoning. (
.~ i,\(
)
SPA ",:1
" '.' ",. ')~~
Use Determination;
,\'
, .' '<'
Conditional Use
! Special Review(b{~trJ '
HPC
)
Other:
neeri ng Dep'C'
ing
~ /-1-/-9'3
./ Sanitation District,
~Mountain Bell
~arks
, Holy Cross Electric
" Lire Marshill/Building Dept.
_School District
_Roc~y Mtn. Nat. Gas
'____State Highway Dept.
-.-Fire Chief
. --,.---9 ther
Z- Denied'
f1
Q
rtJ1:r>1.'\.-S
\' "
~,-_..~",.~~.:"" ",., - ...::
~
(',
,--Attorney
_____Engineering Dept.
ng
_____Water
City Electric
----- ,
_____Sanitation District
_____Mountain Bell
-"arks
_____Holy Cross Electric
Fire Marshal/Building Dept.
____School District
_____Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
____State Highway Dept.
Other
Denied Date
,...-~
FINAL PLAT
Council
Approved
Denied
Date
ROUTING:
Attorney
Buil di ng
Engineering
______Other
G
,/- ,
,
,~
. ._^'_':H~~.._,_
~
^
~
l'iGEr:Di\
-~--,--_._,<-----~~--"--_.__._--_._...,------_.._---,.--.---.----.-.--------
ADPEl'.~ PTJ/".,NFJII'TG I\ND :,~o~.n:nG C()I'H.IISSIO~T
flay 8, 1984 - Tuesday
5:00 P.P.
City Council Chambers
Regular f'.':eeting
--"._._,-------_._-_._,_..__._-~----_._----_.--------'_._,._._.,-*--~----
----------,---~.,._------_..__.'.' ---_._-_._~_.-_._-------_.._._-----_.
I. COr'!r.lI SS IOEERS I COI'Jr.'IENIJ:S
II. r,1INUTES (distributed separately)
^. September 20, 1083 Regular Meeting Minutes
B. Octobe~ 4, 1983 Regula~ Keeting Minutes
c. October 18, J.983 regular ~!eeting ~Iinutes
D. March 27, 1904 Special ~leeting tlinutes
E. I\pril 3, 1981 regular Feeting :linutes
F. April 4, 1984 Continued Regula~ Eceting Minutes
G. l',pril 10, 1984 Special rIeeting !\inutes
III. PUBf,IC HEARI~:G
A. Aspen Club TIezonins/Lot. Split/rUD l~,mendment
TIT. OLD BUSINESS
A. Endeavor Lodge - Special Review
.~_.........._;......_..r~"'~-
B. Aspen r-lountain LOGge Employee Housing
v . AT\.10UI:1'~ I2EETING
...
"!
.,
f,m!10RAHDUtl
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FRaN:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
Endeavo~ Lodge Expansion - Special Review
City 055A-82
DATE:
Hay 8, 1984
----- - - --- -- - - - - -- - -.-- - - - ---.-- - - - -" -- -.- --------_._----------------------~-----_._-
-------------.------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
An FAR expansion to inc~ease to the maximum of 1:1 allowed in the
r,-3 zone ~TaS g~anted for the Endeavo~ in Ha~ch of 1983. A Gnp e::emption
was also granted (along with a pa~king exemption) for th~ee (3) deed
~est~icted employee rooms. The review verified that eleven (11)
lodge bed~ooms existed in the 10clge in the fo~m of nine (9) dorm-
type lodge ~ooms and two (2) additional bed~oomB in a free ma~ket
apartment in the A-frame st~ucture at the rear of the lodge.
The applicant now would like to modify the special ~eview app~oval
to provide large~ guest rooms with private baths ~athe~ than dorm
rooms with sha~ed baths. Also, rathe~ than providing th~ee (3) ~ooms
of employee housing which share Zl bath, the new p~oposal is fo~ a
tI~O (2) ~oom employee suite (with private bath and kitchen). Since
prior to the review in 1983 the~e was no deed-rest~icted employee
housing at the Endeavo~, this nel'l configu~ation still represents
an inc~ease in the p~ovision of employee housing. The Housing Office
suppo~ts the change, as they feel the la~ge~ suite will be more advan-
tageous to the living situation of the employees.
The ~atios of types of space have alte~ed in the following ways:
!carch 1983:
Rental Space
Non-Rental Space
Employee
2,635 s.f.
1,490 s.f.
_:U..5_..a...L
4,500 s.f.
.59:1
.33: 1
...illl..:.J.
1:1
Present Proposal:
Rental Space
Non-Rental Space
Employee
3,004 s.f.
1,125 s.f.
371 s......f....
4,500 s.f.
.67:1
.25:1
.....Q..,.'L;..l
1:1
Both configu~ations meet L-3 zone ~equirements fo~ internal floor
a~ea ~atios.
The change in the ~ental/non-~ental totals reflects 320 s.f. of upstairs
lounge space that is being converted to unit space. This lounge
,will be replaced with a subg~ade lounge of 1,250 s.f. The Building
Depa~tment memo evaluating this conversion is attached. They find
this lounge space to be exempt f~om floo~ area calculations because
it is subgrade and subordinate to the p~incipal use of the building.
The~e is no building code ~equirement fo~ natu~al light and ventilation
for a lounge area as an occupancy g~oup. They als~ point out that
the stairway to the lounge a~ea enc~oaches into the side ya~d setback
and will ~equi~e a variance.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMME~mATION
The Planning Office ~ecommends app~oval of the new plans fo~ the
Endeavo~ Lodge expansion to a 1:1 FAR and that the approval for a
-
~'<~';j;;+::.
\.,
.
>,
Page 2
GNP exemption for employee housing be amended to one unit with the
following conditions:
1. A variance be obtained f~om the Boa~d of Adjustments fo~
the stairway to the lounge a~ea.
2. The applicant obtain an Encroachment License to ~etain
the five pa~king spaces in the Hopkins Avenue ~ight-of-
way.
3. The applicant be required to join any a~ea imp~ovement
district in the event one is formed. If an imp~ovement
dist~ict ~esults in the loss of parking spaces, they must
be replaced in the alleyway.
4. A finaJ. plat of the ~econst~ucted lodge be fiJ.ed.
5. The applicant will submit deed ~est~ictions fo~ the employee
unit \o/hich \o7i.J.l be app~oved as to form by the City Atto~ney
befo~e the issuance of a ce~tificate of occupancy fo~ the
nevI lodge units.
.:..'''''''';., ;. ,.:../"';:,-",,,i};O -.;.c.JSf;."
.,
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
1) Again, as the Building Department stated in the March 28, 1983, memo, it is
difficult to accurately review this project without a recent survey and
elevations.
2) The applicants plans indicate a new stairway downward going to the lounge
area. This would require a Board of Adjustment variance as this stairway
encroaches into the 5' sideyard setback.
3) Section 2, Ordinance No. 11, Amending Section 24-3 and 24-13 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, (ee), states "Subgrade: Any story of a structure which is one hundred
(100) percent below existing grade, subordinate to the principal use of the building,
and used for parking, storage and other secondary purposes. For the purpose of
calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, sub grade space constructed in
conjunction with single-family or duplex structures in any zone district are not
required to be subordinate to the principal uses of the building."
Also, Section 4(e)3 states, "For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and
allowable floor area, parking exempt areas and those sub grade and subbasement
areas not in conformance with the minimum requirements for natural light, ventilation,
and emergency exit for the applicable occupancy group shall be excluded from floor
area calculations in all zone districts. Basement areas and those subgrade and
subbasement areas meeting the minimum requirements for natural light, ventilation
and emergency exit for the applicable occupancy group shall be included in floor
area calculations provided that subgrade and subbasement space in single family
and duplex structures constructed in any zone district shall not be included in
floor area calculations."
There is not a building code requirement for natural light and ventilation for the
"lounge area" occupancy group. Artificial light and ventilation may be used for this
occupancy group. This subgrade space would therefore be exempt from F.A.R.
calculations. A change in use, however, might change the occupancy group
classification to one that requires natural light and ventilation, therefore
requiring it to be counted as F.A.R. The use should be clearly stated and
maintained.
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Jim Wilson, Building Official
BD/ ar
~
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 81611
iM E M 0 RAN
,- - - .....;.. - - -
"f\'I~ nir;:::;:;, ".,]r-"'J' ri;';lOr;jr,-ili
Hu,;'6i!V,~&,C~ \v/ ;''''1,'1,11,
D U M(-'-~~---~-~) i 'I
," I'
- - l\! - 2 01984 !iUl
.G- __ .J'C.::::J
PlanmASPEN / PITKIN CO.
PlANNING OFFICE
Director
TO:
Jaziletwefnstein,
James L. Adamski,
i
Ap:[iil 13, 1984
I
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Engeavor Lodge Expansion - Special Review
In reviewing the ~ndeavor Lodge Expansion, the proposed
, '
change does not conflict with the housing pOlicies as
there has been no! generation of additional employees.
i,
As the original a~Plication has already been approved the
Housing Office fipds that the conversion is certainlytc, the
ad!\i'antage.of,the ~mployees.asthe new rooms will be consider-
ably larger ,and sp I support this expansion application.
,:--,
..'
,-.,
llEHORANDml
DATE:
~ng Depart1n, ent, Bill Drueding
J!'6using Office,! Jim Adamski
Janet Weinstein!, Planning Office
Endeavo~ Lodge ~xpansion - Special Review
Case No. County! 055A-82
Ap~il 3, 1984
TO:
FRO~I:
RE:
==============~==========k===========:===================================
i
I
,
,
In ea~ly 1983, we proces~ed a special ~eview to allow the Endeavo~
Lodge to expand its fldor a~ea to the maximum of 1:1 allowed int
he L-3 zone district withtut adding any new rooms. At the time the
applicant was proposing:to rebuild the existing tourist dorm rooms
as new dorms. The applic4nt now wishes for the ~econst~ucted ~ooms
to be traditional guest :lodge rooms and to change the configuration
of the employee unit to h6use two rathe~ than three people. ~!e will
be b~ing this item befo~e the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
on May 8th to ~econfirm ~hei~ p~ior approval. Please let us know
if you have any comments.
Thank you.
.-.c
.-\
C. Wczlton Andczrson & Associatczs
Architczcts
TO: Calette Penne
DATE: 15 March 1984
RE: Endeavor Lodge reviSed plans
,
Persuant to your request .of 9 March 1984, the following are the praposed
internal FAR figures for t~e revised Endeavar Lodge plans. As stated
earlier, it is the applica~t's intentian to replace the existing 11 darm
and rental roams with the ~ame number lf larger raoms with, in fact, fewer
pillaws. While the ratioiaf unit space ta nan unit space has changed
abaut 7% in favor .of unit space fram the earlier applicatian, a subgrade
1250 sf lounge (not initia~ly planned and exempt from FAR) will more than
make up for the 320 sf ups~airs lounge being canverted ta unit space and
more than daubles the nan unit amenity space.
Rental unit space 3004 square feet .67:1
Non unit space 1125 square feet .25:1
Emplayee 371 square feet .08: 1
4500 square feet 1:1
These figures are the code requirements and vary slightly fram the plans
dated 9 Febuary 1984, which: will be revised ta meet these ratios. Since
the Zoning Enforcement Offi~er will verify all square faatages and ratias
during plan check, I suggest you leave verification of campliance to him.
,
Planning / Architecture / Interior D~sign
Box 9946! Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925.4576
~
~,
C. Welton Anderson ~ Associates
Architects
TO: Sonny Vann, Alan Ridhman, Colette Penne
,
DATE: 16 Febuary 1984
RE: Changes to Endeavou~ Lodge Expansion Plans
On March 28, 1983, Aspen P&Z granted a FAR expansion request from .79:1 to 1:1
with no increase in rental! units for the Endeavor Lodge. It also reccomended
exemption from Gf,1P for 3 d~ed restricted employee rooms created from existing
rooms and exempted the 3 n$w parking spaces required. In effect, the 3 rooms
converted and one demolish~d were to be replaced by 4 large new rooms and the
7 remaining dorm rooms wou1d stay unchanged.
This winter has shown that!dorm type rooms are not in demand in Aspen like
they once were, so John We~ning asked me to revise my completed construction
drawings to include a majo~ upgrading of the front part to provide larger \
guest rooms with private b~ths rather than dorm rooms with a shared bath. \cu~~
Since the 1:1 FAR approved \wOUld not be varied from and the only significant -6Q~\4Q
quantitative difference wou~d be a 2 room employee suite (with private bath '. \,\1~6
and kitchen) rather than 3 Fonverted dorm rooms sharing the quest bath, I ~v ~7
felt that the Planning OffiFe would agree that the changes were not substantial \o~ .
enough to warrant repeating! the legnthy and exoensive multi-stage process.
I advised John that before bhanging all the drawings, we should request the
Planning Office to review the changes and determine if they agreed that it
was substantially what had ~een already been approved and no productive
purpose was served by repeating the full process. We met with Colette and
Alan on Febuary 14 and theYlagreed that the full process was probably not
warranted and that I should!submit this letter and information outlining
the changes to the original !submission to the Planning Office for administrative
review and determination.
Should you concur that more !P&Z review is not needed, a letter stating so
would be appropriate. If yqu don't, I believe a single appearance before
P&Z to explain the changes slo they might formally ammend their approval
should suffice. !
Attached are annotated conceptual floor palans explaining the proposed changes
which you can compare to the' approved plans you have on file.
'-,,-'~ r:~~q.n.....'~~
]n" ,',.' ..,., "'. """'1, ",""""." ".,'.."...-n1
U i ' :':;:, \ j ;:, ,,::1.,.. \ ' \\/: ;;;':: '1 ,~
;;J....:; '-');'~Ir'~ ,'/ ,"~'~'i lll~
f\\r"..-..-.,-.'---~!111
IlL- FEI ~ 1984)l1lJ
,<<, ASPEN / PITK~ CO.
, fUNNING OffiCE
Planning / Architecture / Interior De ign
,
Box 9946/ Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925.4576
~ .,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Endeavor Lodge Expansion
March 28, 1983
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Location:
905 East Hopkins.
Zoning:
Applicant's
Request:
L-3.
GMP exemption for three newly created and deed restricted
employee units and exemption from providing parking
spaces for the employee rooms.
Referra 1
Comments:
Engineering Department
Having reviewed the application and made a site inspection,
the following comments are made:
1. The applicant should be required to provide off-
street parking adjacent to the alley for three
cars to accommodate'the net increase in bedrooms.
2. The applicant should be required to join any area improve-
ment district in the event one is formed.
Housing Office
The proposal is satisfactory and not in conflict with the
housing policies of the City of Aspen with one possible ex-
ception - the size of the rooms to be converted from lodge-use
to employee-use are very small. Since no points are needed for
a GMP competition, the size of the units may be irrelevant.
"Certainly I have no qualms about the size of these units as
long as they are not used to secure points or bonus considerations.
If this, then, is the case, I support the expansion application."
Water Department
The project will have minimal impact on the water system and
water will be available. Water tap fees may be applicable.
Fi re Ma rsha 11
No problem with the expansion.
Sanitation District
No problem in providng sanitation service to this proposed
project.
Building Department
"We would require a survey and elevations before we could list
Code requirements.
City Attorney
No comments received.
.~
~
""
Memo: Endeavor Lodge Expansion
Page Two
March 28, 1983
Planning Office
Review: The Planning and Zoning Commission made findings as to the
compatibility of this lodge reconstruction with surrounding
land uses and zoning as per Section 24-3.5(a)(1). Special
review approval was granted for the expansion of the floor area
of the Endeavor Lodge to 1:1 under the provisions of the new
lodge preservation ordinance for the L-3 zone.
The existing lodge consists of 9 dorm-type lodge rooms and two
additional bedrooms in a free market apartment within an A-
frame structure on the rear of the property. The applicant
proposes to demolish the living room, kitchen/dining area and
one of the bedrooms in the apartment and to deed restrict three
existing lodge rooms to low income employee guidelines. These
four rooms will be placed with four new lodge rooms for a total
of 11 bedrooms for lodge use (4 hotel-type and 7 dorm rooms).
An increase in square footage of 927 square feet will bring the
total square footage of the lodge to 4,500 square feet for an
exterior FAR of 1 :1. The internal FAR after the completion of
the remodeling will be as follows:
Renta 1 Space 2,635 square feet .59:1
Non-rental Space 1,490 square feet .33.: 1
Employee 375 square feet .08:1
, 4,500 squa re feet 1:1
The ,internal floor area ratio requires that 33-1/3 percent of
all rental space above the .5:1 level be employee housing in
order to receive the bonus. This application meets this requirement,
as the, rental space is only .09 above the .5:1 ratio, due to a
greater amount of non-rental space (.33:1 as opposed to .25:1).
An addendum to this application requested that an exemption be
granted from providing parking spaces for the three new employee
rooms. The applicant presented three well articulated reasons
to justify this request and the Planning Office agrees with
them:
"There are five right angle parking spaces in the Hopkins
Street right-of-way which are rarely used at present, most
guests walk due to the lodge's proximity to skiing and
services. Secondly, the newly-housed employees will live
and work in the same place, and when necessary, use the
lodge's Suburban, which doubles as a limo for guests.
Thirdly, the only space available for on-site parking on
this 45 foot lot is the landscaped south yard facing the
alley which is used for apres ski sunning and outdoor
socializing by guests year round. It is an amenity the
lodge now useS and genuinely needs more than three new
parking spaces."
The applicant does need to retain the five parking spaces on
Hopkins and obtain an Encroachment License for their continued
existence in the City right-of-way.
The applicant further proposes to provide perimeter foundation
drains in gravel to an adequately-sized drywell to catch all of
the roof drainage on-site. This is not part of the review
criteria, but useful information for you to have.
i~
,~
Memo: Endeavor Lodge Expansion
Page Three
March 28, 1983
The final point we want to make is to discuss the size of the
emp 1 oyee rooms. Approximate sizes:
Room No. 1 12' x 12' = 144 square feet
Room No. 2 10' x 12' = 120 square feet
Room No. 3 8' x 12 ' = 96 square feet
360 square feet
These rooms are all well below the minimum acceptable size set
by City employee housing standards. However, there are three
considerations which convince the Planning Office that this
arrangement is sufficient. First, the rooms are intended to be
sleeping rooms and the requirements of kitchen and bath are
fulfilled within a proximal location to the rooms. These are
not intended to be studio apartments. Also, by placing the
units under'low-income housing price guidelines, they will be
some of the most affordable housing in town. Secondly, the
Endeavor basically functions in a manner similar to a European
hostel and as such, fills a need unmet in other segments of the
community. In order to retain this character and have enough
guest rooms to allow it to operate as an economically viable
project, the employee rooms cannot meet the 300 square foot
minimum standard. Finally, the purpose of the L-3 zone is to
allow lodges which have previously been considered non-conforming
and therefore unable to make improvements to upgrade their
facility and increase their viability. Inherent in this effort
is the flexibility to view individual situations and determine
if their plan is feasible. In the case of the Endeavor, we
feel there are employees in the community who will be very
satisfied with such an arrangement.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office
recommend that the three employee housing rooms proposed be
exempted from GMP competition and that an exemption from
providing parking for the employee rooms be granted with the
conditions listed below.
Council
Action:
The appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to grant approval of an exempti on from Growth Management
competition for the three new employee rooms at the Endeavor
Lodge and grant an exemption from the provision of parking
spaces for the employee rooms with the following conditions:
1.
The applicant obtain an Encroachment License to retain the, ,; ,
~ive pa, rking $paces in the HopkiT!s AVenlje-bight-of-Way,o..V'.d--l-k,.,.),J
i{-UL 0'10-')(0"'- ""- CLU,+kO>-1 {r..cl 4 cli~-+zd $(0.4"\ +kc.. doc..v.~,-" ~~1-
T~e a~p li'r;ant be requi red ~o joi n any area i ~pfdvement ,,\5 ,":Pt",,'''J, "
dl stn ct 1 n the event one 1 s formed. If an lmprovement ~\.t),-'C.. c.;J'j
district results in the loss of parking spaces, they must '-i~~~\s:
be replaced in the alleyway. ~ ~
A final plat of the reconstructed lodge be filed.
The applicant will submit deed restrictions for the three
employee units which will be approved as to form by the
City Attorney before the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the new lodge units."
2.
*
4.
-
---"'"-'-'-'''-'--~~.
I'"",
I'"",
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Endeavor LOdge Expansion
DATE: March 8, 1983
LOcation: 905 East Hopkins.
Zoning: L-3.
Applicant's
Request:
Special review approval for the expansion of the floor area of
the Endeavor LOdge to 1:1 under the provisions of the new L-3
and lodge preservation ordinances and GMP exemption for three
newly created and deed restricted employee units, and exemption
from providing parking spaces for the employee rooms.
Referral
Comments:
Engineering Department
Having reviewed the application and made a site inspection,
the following comments are made:
1. The applicant should be required to provide off-street
parking adjacent to the alley for three cars to accommodate
the net increase in bedrooms_
2. The applicant should be required to join any area improve-
ment district in the event one is formed.
Housing Office
The proposal is satisfactory and not in conflict with the
housing policies of the City of Aspen with one possible
exception - the size of the rooms to be converted from lOdge-
use to employee-use are very small. Since no points are needed
for a GMP competition, the size of the units may, be irrelevant.
"Certainly I have no qualms about the size of these units as
long as they are not used to secure points or bonus considerations.
If this, then, is the case, I support the expansion application. 11
Water Department
The project will have minimal impact on the water system and
water will be available. Water tap fees may be applicable.
Fire Marshall
No problem with the expansion.
Sanitation District
No problem in providing sanitation service to this proposed
project.
Building Department
"We would require a survey and elevations before we could list
Code requirements."
City Attorney
No comments received.
~
,~
Memo: Endeavor Lodge Expansion
Page Two
March 8, 1983
Planning
Review:
Office
Section 24-3.5(a) (1) of the Municipal Code requires that the
Planning and Zoning Commission make findings relative to the
following criteria:
"(1) The compatibility of the development with surrounding
land uses and zoning, including size, height and bulk,
proposed site design characteristics, including landscaping
and open space and visual impacts such as viewplanes;"
'"
't'~x
\'"
The Endeavor is situated in the middle of an RMF neighborhood.
The Gavillon and Pioneer condominiums are situated to the east,
the Queen Victoria and Aspen River Manor to the north, the
Coordes Apartments to the south and a Victorian cottage to the
west..
Most of these projects were built under the 28 foot height limit.
This addition will conform to the new height restriction of
25 feet. Side setbacks will not be impacted and the rear yard
will be reduced by 8 feet, leaving an adequate 21 foot rear yard.
The expansion is not increasing the non-conformity of the structure.
The expansion proposal, therefore, conforms with the neighborhood
character, land uses, zoning and area and bulk requirements and
viewplanes are not affected.
;(
The existing lodge consists of 9 dorm-type lodge rooms and two
additional bedrooms in a free market apartment within an A-frame
structure on the rear of the property. The applicant proposes
to demolish the living room, kitchen/dining area and one of the
bedrooms in the apartment and to deed restrict three existing
lodge rooms to low income employee guidelines. These four rooms
will be replaced with four new lodge rooms for a total of 11
bedrooms for lodge use (4 hotel-type and 7 dorm rooms). An
increase in square footage of 927 square feet will bring the total
square footage of the lodge to 4,500 square feet for an exterior
FAR of 1:1. The internal FAR after the completion of the
remodeling will be as follows:
Rental Space 2,635 square feet .59:1
Non-rental Space 1,490 square feet .33:1
Employee 375 square feet .08:1
4,500 square feet 1:1
The internal floor area ratio requires that 33-1/3 percent of all
rental space above the .5:1 level be employee housing in order
to receive the bonus. This application meets this requirement,
as the rental space is only .09 above the .5:1 ratio, due to a
greater amount of non-rental space (.33:1 as opposed to .25:1).
An addendum to this application requested that an exemption be
granted from providing parking spaces for the three new employee
rooms. The applicant presented three well articulated reasons
to justify this request and the Planning Office agrees with them:
"There are five right angle parking spaces in the Hopkins
Street right-of-way which are rarely used at present, most
guests walk due to the lodge's proximity to skiing and
services. Secondly, the newly-housed employees will live
and work in the same place, and when necessary, use the
lodge's Suburban, which doubles as a limo for guests.
Thirdly, the only space available for on-site parking on
this 45 foot lot is the landscaped south yard facing the
alley which is used for apres ski sunning and outdoor
socializing by guests year round. It is an amenity the
lodge now uses and genuinely needs more than three new
parking spaces."
r-..
,~
Memo: Endeavor Lodge Expansion
Page Three
March 8, 1983
The applicant does need to retain the five parking spaces on
Hopkins and obtain an Encroachment License for their continued
existence in the City right-of-way.
The applicant further proposes to provide perimeter foundation
drains in gravel to an adequately-sized drywell to catch all of
the roof drainage on-site. This is not part of the review
criteria, but useful information for you to have.
The final point we want to make is to discuss the size of the
employee rooms. Approximate sizes:
Room No. 1 12' x 12' 144 square feet
Room No. 2 10' x 12' 120 square feet
Room No. 3 8' x 12' 96 square feet
360 square feet
These rooms are all well below the minimum acceptable size set
by City employee housing standards. However, there are three
considerations which convince the Planning Office that this
arrangement is sufficient. First, the rooms are intended to
be sleeping rooms and the requirements of kitchen and bath are
fulfilled within a proximal location to the rooms. These are
not intended to be studio apartments. AlSO, by placing the
units under low-income housing price guidelines, they will be
some of the most affordable housing in town. Secondly, the
Endeavor basically functions in a manner similar to a European
hostel and as such, fills a need unmet in other segments of
the community. In order to retain this character and have enough
guest rooms to allow it to operate as an economically viable
project, the employee rooms cannot meet the 300 square foot
minimum standard. Finally, the purpose of the L-3 zone is to
allow lodges which have previously been considered non-conforming
and therefore unable to make improvements to upgrade their
facility and increase their viability. Inherent in this effort
is the flexibility to view individual situations and determine
if their plan is feasible. In the case of the Endeavor, we feel
there are employees in the community who will be very satisfied
with such an arrangement.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that you grant approval of the
special review request for the Endeavor Lodge to demolish and
reconstruct a portion of the existing lodge and deed restrict
three existing rooms as employee housing. We further recommend
that you recommend that the employee housing rooms be exempted
from Growth Management competition and that an exemption from
providing parking for the employee rooms be given. The FAR of
the remodeled lodge will be 1:1 and there will be no increase
in the number of lodge bedrooms. The following conditions are
recommended for this approval:
1.
The applicant, obtain an Encroachment License to retain the
five parking 'spaces in the Hopkins Avenue right-of-way.
2.
The applicant be 'required to joint any area imJ;>rovement ---,_,.:,','
di~,t.rict,il1; It"",h, e 7v, ~~t one iSJ~,ormed.~ ~ 1Y'/l"'n-J-'Z,:,//'f2.-j<\\ d,"~:'.:r-';:'i
r"S..~rt:,-,l'l'c;.\:7'}:;:._;,..S~~~- fOJr~\~~ spo.-~JLSi-f-r~O-d0/l;~'t- ~ M'!:)!O'7.5!<.\
;:"t\nal"Plat o:f-)th(Jreconstructe'cf lodge be file'd:: i
/
4.
The applicant will submit deed restrictions for the three
employee units which will be approved as to form by the
City Attorney before the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the new lodge units.
~
--
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: John Werning, owner of the Endeavor Lodge, 905 East Hopkins
RE: Addendum to Endeavon Lodge Application dated December 27, 1982
DATE: February 28, 1983
This addendum requests that the application dated December 27, 1982 be ammended
to include a request to exempt the applicant from the requirement to provide
new parking spaces for each of the three newly created employee rooms. The
applicant feels this request is justified for three reasons. There are five
right angle parking spaces in the Hopkins Street ROW which are rarely used at
present, most guests walking due to the lodge's proximity to skiing and services.
Secondly, the newly housed employees will live and work in the same place, and
when necessary, use the lodge's Suburban, which doubles as a limo for guests.
Thirdly, the only space available for on.site parking available on this 45 foot
lot is the landscaped south yard facing the alley which is used for apres ski
sunning and outdoor socializing by guests year round. It is an amenity the lodge
now uses and genuinely needs more than three new parking spaces. Your
consideration of this request for parking exemption for the three employee
rooms is appreciated.
While not specifically mentioned as a review criteria for this approval
process, the applicant appreciates the city engineer's concern about sites
draining into city streets and proposes to actually improve the site drainage
for the entire building by providing peremeter foundation drains in gravel to
an adequately sized drywell to catch all of the roof drainage on-site before
it reaches the street.
~\
,I""'-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering ~
DATE: January 24, 1983
RE: Endeavor Lodge Expansion, Special Review
____ ____ _ _ _ ___ ____ _ ___ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ __.__.__;,;;.;;.....~,..:;;' i
.~j'i.;:-,;."'.~,,;,,....' ~
.':: ~..
Having reviewed the above application, and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The applicant should be required to provide off-street
parking adjacent to the alley for three cars to accommodate
the net increase in bedrooms.
2. The applicant should be required to join any area improvement
district in the event one is formed.
JH/co
,~,
.-,
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 61611
ME M 0
,-- .--
TO:
Collette Penne
Jim HamiltoC:
FROM:
DATE:
January 2 ,
RE:
Endeavor Lodge Expansion - Special Review
I have reviewed the Endeavor Lodge Expansion - Special Review and have found
the proposal to be satisfactory and not in conflict with the housing policies
of the City of Aspen with one possible exception.
The size of the rooms to be converted from lodge-use to employee-use are very
small. However, it is my understanding that because the applicant seeks no:and
needs no points under GMP competition that the size of the units may be ir-
relevant. Certainly I have no qualms about the size of these units as long
as they are not used to secure points or bonus considerations.
If this, then, is the case I support the expansion application.
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
',\:"\,~"~:;;:~~
,~
n~o !:'7:lr-l.--,r;'-')""r--J
nil' - ,"' ~l~ :~, :' '; ,?~ n
" >> .- t ~ I
)( .- '-, - ...... II
\~ ,\) "
\>, Ie" ~"U:
~~ vn!~ "S ,I
\\ .. v :
" ASPEN I err-;<tN CO. /'
'~LANNING OFFiCE /
,~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
COLETTE PENNE, ALICE DAVIS - PLANNING
JIM MARKALUNAS iiL
GMP APPLICATIONS FOR THE ENDEAVOR LODGE, .it~iJh"WEISS''t:OOG8-.
JANUARY 10, 1983
We have reviewed the applications for the proposed renovations and
improvements for the Endeavor Lodge and the Edelweiss Lodge condomin-
iumization and each project will have minimal impact on the water system
and water will be available. Water tap fees may be applicable on each
of these projects.
cJ~
,-",,',-,~~
~,
,~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
Engineering Department
Housing
Water
~Sanitation District
Fi re Marshall
Building Department
Colette Penny
Endeavor Lodge Expansion - Special Review
January 4. 1983
CPLANNER:
RE:
DATE:
Attached is an application to expand the floor area of the Endeavor Lodge
under the new L-3 ordinance.
Please look over the materials and return your comments to the Planning Office
no later than January 23 so that we may prepare its presentation before P&Z
in a timely manner.
Thank you.
;VO fRot'> ../:'1 /'" I'~()"I"'I--'" $"''''',.,.''.,.'0.... $"'''''''''-8 Tu
rillS PAt oP IUIf!,1> I'j/l-03F<r
~ F"~
.A SPl!:... ~A....../..,.....?,.- I>i'S'""C,"-
"74"'''''-''' .e..
,,,,,,,",,
.""""",
MEMORANDUM
TO:
~i9- Attorney
~}p~eering Department
..)t6)l s 1 n g
yWa ~e r
~itation District
~~ Marshall
~ilding Department
PLANNER:
RE:
DATE:
Colette Penne
Endeavor Lodge Expansion - Special Review
January 4, 1983
Attached is an application to expand the floor area of the Endeavor Lodge
under the new L-3 ordinance.
Please look over the materials and return your comments to the Planning Office
no later than January 23 so that we may prepare its presentation before P&Z
in a timely manner.
Thank you.
(oj\ ~ ~~~ 2L (p ; 2! I + - NOI:~:~J-V'^- egJ \.
&iI~ ~'" lih""^~ 21/9 - Od at -t~ ~{; I
;\Ii- ~: ~itt~:
f>OY-k.-~ "":?\ spG--ct.-s
o~V\ SF<=-<-
W~~C 'ls,4jh ~~I~ ~~~ ~ , ~
.i- ~_V'}+- d\"S+;V\9t4$~V'- '~, ~^ ~\YD-'~''-''- \;bVY~
\Od~ er-""- -+W5~ r \o.YS, '
SJwJvJL $.i+c \li~+.
I I
zlI9or2/2/.
, -.~ (......... f,J
.~..sL- ~S~ CUr"-. ;'UI__
. . "
-'"
,-,
TO: City Attorney
Engineering Department
Housing
Water
}Sanitation District,
v' ~ire Marshall
Building Department
PLANNER: Colette Penne
r--,
MEMORANDUM
RE: Endeavor Lodge Expansion - Special Review
DATE: January 4, 1983
Attached is 'an application to expand the floor area of the Endeavor Lodge
under the new L-3 ordinance.
Please look over the materials and return your comments to the Planning Office
no later than January 23 so that we may prepare its presentation before P&Z
in a timely manner.
Thank you.
-C\ ~ ~ ~ (iZfZ.-vJ. ~ ~ ~ tfV~v
~.;e/~~~.
~ rilj';;~ 4~~ ~)
^
,.-,
i
MEMORANDUM
-.'''.'''':'''<''fJr:f.
TO:
City Attorney
Engineering Department
Housing
Water
Sanitation District
. li re Marshall
VBuilding Department
PLANNER: Colette Penne
,..--...,--....
,
p.
I
'"
RE: Endeavor Lodge Expansion - Special Review,
DATE: January 4. 1983
Attached is an application to expand the floor area of the Endeavor Lodge
under the new L-3 ordinance. '
Please look over the materials and return your comments to the Planning Office
no later than Januar~so that we may prepare its presentation before P&Z
in a timely manner.
Thank you.
Iv'€- .lJc?;:.~?;:J
I3Erak Jt-<e.
~aptiflf!L &'1....
(j:v,/,UJ) -Lf s r
tf<JifFtf/1Z 17);r.... 77fE IJP..lt..v/~C;
1l,j,11.i'11r;/ur ;$/fj'(;-/,? 3;U [/7h-::.s'c
~wu.;-e2i
,4 9~ I-%z ,c) t1.;v"Q t: t..Euc<..rI<).lU5>
(1 ~;:Je /'Cc?U.f.-t cr'1f.e~
/)(?/? r7f-IL iMe,^-,1
n/u:ve.... liaA!J'.
"
11' wa;..u.J) /:Jt3
)111'rILE t'
vtJ {.-
"
~
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: John Werning, owner of ,the Endeavor Lodge, 905 East Hopkins
RE: Special Review for L-3 Lodge expansion, and Exemption from GMP for
three new deed restricted employee rooms.
DATE: December 27, 1982
Under the provisions of the new "L-3" and "Lodge Preservation" Ordinances,
John Werning as owner of the Endeavor Lodge requests Special review approval
from the Commission to expand the floor area of the lodge with no increase
in rental units.
At present the lodge consists of 9 dorm-type lodge rooms and two additional
bedrooms which are part of a freemarket apartment in the 'A' frame at the rear.
The applicant proposes to demolish the living room, kitchen/dining area and
one of the bedrooms in the apartment, and to deed restrict 3 existing lodge
rooms to low income employee guidelines. These 4 rooms are to be replaced with
4 new first class hotel rooms to complement the remaining 7 dorm rooms.
There is proposed a net increase in floor area of 927 square feet, raising the
external FAR by 20% from .79:1 to 1:1. The internal FAR's are also revised
in accordance with Sec. 24-3.4 as shown in the attached chart, providing
considerably more non-rental to rental space than required.
The criteria for P&Z Special Review for L-3 Applications are listed in Sec. 24-3.5
as follows:
"The compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses
and zoning, including size, height, and bulk, proposed site design
characteristics, including landscaping and open space and visual
impacts such as viewplanes."
"Surrounding land uses" include the Gavillon and Pioneer condos to the East, the
Queen Victoria and Aspen River Manor to the Nnoth, the Coordes Apartments to the
South, and a Victorian cottage to the West. Virtually all the buildings in the
neighborhood are multifamily (both long and short term), and are built out to
their maximum FAR, bulk and density. Visual impacts of the proposed expansion
are minimal because the addition is in the same area as the old 'A' frame at
the rear of the site and will be lower than most of its neighbors which were built
under the old 28 foot height limit. Side setbacks remain essentially the same
and the rear yard is to be reduced by only 8 feet.
~
't'_'::" " "'~
~. ~
~; ... .}he second approval requested of the Commission is to recommend to Council
''>..i <~xemption from GMP for the three newly created employee units. Existing
Il'''''",:ilodge rooms 3,4, and 5 will be deed restricted to low income guidelines and
reserved for lodge employees. Presently these rooms accomodate 4, 4, and 2
tourists respectively, and should therefore easily house the 4 employees
needed during peak season ( 3 are now now employed at peak season).
Your consideration of this application is appreciated.
~
.-,
Memo: Endeavor Lodge
Page Two
December 27, 1982
TABULATED DATA AND FLOOR AREA RATIOS - ENDEAVOR LODGE
Existing lodge: 3573 square feet
To be demolished: 881 sf
To be constructed: 1808 sf
Fi ni shed lodge:
927 sf
4500 sf
Net increase:
EXISTING PROPOSED CODE
Externa 1 FAR 3573 sf-.79:1 4500 sf- 1:1 4500 sf- 1:1
Internal FAR
Rental 2222 sf-.62:1 2635 sf-.59:1 .67:1
Non-rental 1351 sf-.38:1 1490 sf-.33:1 .25:1
Employee o sf- 0: 1 375 sf-.08:1 .08:1
Freemarket
unit count
11 rooms
11 rooms