Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20101102 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, November 2, 2010 4:30 p.m. regular meeting— Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge), PUD Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Communi Development Department DATE OF MEMO October 28, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 2, 2010 RE: 500 W. Hopkins — Amendment to Zone District Map, PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMQS for Affordable Housing, GMQS for Change in Use, Special Review for Parking, Certificates of Housing Credit APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Aspen FSP -ABR LLC Staff believes the development of 100% affordable housing on this site represents a significant REPRESENTATIVE: community benefit. However, staff is concerned Michael Hoffman about the compatibility of the proposed building with the neighborhood. The proposal represents the LOCATION: same scale and mass that was approved in 2006, and 500 W. Hopkins permitted. CURRENT ZONING & USE SUMMARY: R -6 /LP /PUD. Boomerang Lodge Applicant requests the P &Z recommend approval of approved in 2006 for 47 lodge Rezoning, PUD, Subdivision; and approve GMQS units, five free market resident for Affordable Housing & Change in Use, Special units, two affordable housing units Review for Parking and Housing Credits. PROPOSED LAND USE: Applicant would retain the exterior as approved in 2006, but convert 'the use to 54 affordable housing units. Applicant requests rezoning the property from R- "' 1 6 /LP /PUD to RMF /PUD, including a PUD Amendment. Converting to affordable housing -- * - units requires GMQS approval, and subdivision approval. Existing East Wing of Boomerang Lodge. P2 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting a recommendation of approval of the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning] — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Amendment to the PUD — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the PUD. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision - making body. All of the above land use reviews are for P &Z to make findings and recommendations to City Council for final action. All the land use reviews below are for the P &Z to make the final decision. Regarding parking, the Council will still have this issue before them for discussion, as the number of off - street spaces must be specified in the proposed PUD. • Growth Management: Affordable Housing — An application for Growth Management: Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(4), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Growth Management: Change in Use — An application for Growth Management: Change in Use, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(2), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Special Review for Off - Street Parking — An application for Special Review for Off- Street parking, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.040 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. However, the number of off - street parking spaces is established in the PUD, and therefore subject to Council review. 2 P3 • Issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit — An application for issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to find that the development meets defined criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making bodv. BACKGROUND: In August 2006, the applicant received City Council approval for an expansion of the Boomerang Lodge, including 47 lodge units, five free market units and two affordable housing units. The applicant obtained a demolition permit for the Middle Wing and the West Wing of the existing Boomerang Lodge, which were removed that summer. The applicant had reached an agreement with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in 2006 to retain the East Wing of the original Boomerang Lodge, which remains standing today, along 4 Street. The rest of the property is currently vacant. The agreement gives the HPC review authority over the East Wing, but does not grant review authority for the rest of the structure. KEY ISSUES: There are seven different land use review processes related to the current application, as listed on the previous page. Many contain the same or similar standards; for example, a PUD, a Rezoning and a Subdivision all require consistency with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Rather than go through each review process one at a time, this memo is written in a more narrative form, visiting the "Key Issues" that staff has identified. The memo will reference various standards of review. The current 2010 application seeks to convert the Boomerang Lodge project into a 100% affordable housing project without changing the exterior of the proposed redevelopment, as approved by City Council in 2006. (The only exterior physical change contemplated is the removal of a small pool at the East Wing entrance, to be converted into a lawn area for future homeowners. This request is in a parallel review process with the HPC, although no application has been filed at this time.) Applicant's position is that the proposed conversion from lodging to affordable housing is an issue before the P &Z and City Council that should stand alone, and should be isolated from other considerations, standards and criteria such as height, mass, total Floor Area Ratio, architecture etc. The applicant's position is reflected throughout the current application: Rather than providing substantive responses to various standards of review, the applicant has stated, "No changes are proposed (from the 2006 Council approval)." The implication by the applicant is that many elements of the development are not a current issue to be deliberated. In a similar vein, the applicant intends to redraft interior floor plans to accommodate the use of affordable housing versus lodging, but does not intend to redraft the floor plans unless granted the land use approvals currently requested. 3 P4 After consulting the City Attorney's Office, the Community Development Department staff found that the current application is a new application, and all of the prescribed standards and criteria must be evaluated during the review process. For example, the PUD process often consists of weighing community benefits against allowing additional height, mass and /or density, while considering impacts on the neighborhood. It is a holistic style of review, considering a wide range of factors. For example, during the 2006 PUD review process, consideration of the lodge use was weighed heavily as a community benefit, resulting in the granting of the dimensional variations allowed by a PUD process, as specified in the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district (Section 27.710.320). As part of the 2006 review, the applicant also utilized the Incentive Lodge Development portion of the Growth Management section, which incentivized lodge redevelopment that featured small room sizes. (As part of the 2006 approval, the lodge incentives allowed housing mitigation to offset the free market residential on a per unit basis, rather than on a square - footage basis.) In the current application, the proposal to convert lodging to affordable housing effectively trades one community benefit for another. From staff's perspective, this means all the elements of the proposal are again on the table for discussion. In other words, both the P &Z and City Council should once again weigh community benefits against dimensional variations and neighborhood impacts. This discussion may result in the same project or may lead to amendments. Amendment to the Zone District Map (Rezoning) — The current application seeks to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential (R -6) / Lodge Preservation (LP) / Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential Multi - Family (RMF) / PUD. This rezoning reflects the applicant's desire to convert the primary use from lodging to multi- family residential. One of the key standards (see Exhibit D) to consider in a rezoning application is, "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." Staff finds that the proposed RMF -PUD zoning designation is compatible with the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, which includes some RMF parcels, some PUDs, some affordable housing and a large amount of R -6 and R -15 zoning. On its face, R -6 and R -15 zoning would seem incompatible with RMF zoning. However, the existence of R -6 and R -15 zoning in this neighborhood can be traced back to the 1970s, when a dramatic downzoning was approved for this neighborhood. The fact is that much of the existing development in this neighborhood does not reflect the uses or dimensional limits of R -6 and R -15 zoning, which limits development to low density single - family homes and duplexes, with relatively low Floor Area Ratios, ranging between .3:1 and .54:1. In fact, much of the existing development in the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood reflects the dimensional prescriptions allowed by RMF zoning, which allows high 4 P5 densities, along with Floor Area Ratios between .75:1 and 1.5:1. In addition, the adjacent Mixed Use Zone District along Main Street allows high - density residential and lodging uses, and allows Floor Area Ratios of up to 1.25:1 FAR. While there are a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Planned Unit Development (PUD) — The current application seeks to utilize the PUD process to increase allowable FAR from the 1.5:1 limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District to the 1.66:1 that was approved in the 2006 PUD process. The current application also seeks to use the PUD process to exceed the maximum 32 foot height in the RMF Zone District to features a maximum height of 37'6 ". Part of staff's responsibility for reviewing the current PUD application is to weigh the community benefit against dimensional variations and compatibility with the neighborhood. Table 1: Current Application compared to underlying RMF Zone District Dimensional Req. Current Application RMF Zone District Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sq. ft 6,000 sq. ft. Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 500 sq. ft. No requirement Maximum Allowable Density 54 units No requirement Minimum Lot Width 270 feet 60 feet Minimum Front Yard 5 feet 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" — east* 5 feet 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5' 5 feet 2 " floor balcony 43" into setback Maximum Site Coverage Per 2007 plat, subject to No requirement alterations to meet Residential Design Standards Maximum Height 37'6" 32 feet Minimum dist. between N/A No requirement buildings Minimum Open Space Not required No requirement Allowable Floor Area 1.66:1, or 44,915 sq. ft. 1.5:1, or 40,500 sq. ft. Minimum Off - Street Parking 54 One space per dwelling unit * Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 Staff finds the community benefit to be very significant. "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged ...," according to the 2000 AACP. Also, the community has not yet reached the upper goal of 1,300 new units defined in the 2000 AACP. 5 P6 In addition, the 2000 AACP emphasizes "the importance of the private sector playing a greater role in the production of affordable housing" — lifting part of the burden of providing this critical community asset from the shoulders of the public sector alone. In fact, the current proposal would be one of the largest affordable housing facilities ever produced solely by the private sector in the history of the affordable housing program. This affordable housing project is made financially viable by a recent change in the Land Use Code, which grants Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit to developers who build affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. The developer can then sell these housing credits to other developers who need to provide housing mitigation. By adopting the concept of the Housing Credit into the code, staff believes City Council took an important step toward bringing the private sector into the business of producing affordable housing. Staff believes another important feature of this new program is that it reflects a superior form of mitigation. In other words, when a future development project is required to provide mitigation, it can buy Housing Credits, which reflects affordable housing units that are already built and occupied. This style of mitigation is clearly preferable to cash - in -lieu payments or the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which are not required to be occupied. However, regarding the PUD variations sought by the applicant and subsequent impacts on the neighborhood, staff finds that the current proposal does not meet the AACP standard that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " The proposed 1.66:1 FAR would exceed the FARs found in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. While there are properties in this neighborhood with FARs ranging between .7:1 and 1.5:1, there are none larger than 1.5:1, and no structures with a fourth floor of any appreciable size. Please see Table 2 below. Table 2: Sampling of Floor Area Ratios in the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Property / Development FAR Boomerang Proposal / 1.66:1 West Hopkins Christiana / W. Main .85:1 Little Ajax / W Hopkins .63:1 Fireside Condos / W Cooper 1.5:1 Jewish Community Ctr .73:1 Approved; unbuilt W Main Cottonwoods Condos / 1.26:1 West Hyman St. Moritz / W. Hyman 1.1:1 6 P7 Property / Development FAR Ullr / W Main .9:1 Single- family .92:1 300 W. Hopkins Shadow Mtn Lodge / .73:1 W Hyman Former Kitzbuhel Lodge /W. Hyman .62:1 Staff also finds the application doesn't meet the PUD standard requiring "compatibility with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area," or the PUD standard that requires a "scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage favorable to the character ... of the surrounding area." (See image below, from the 2007 plat for the Boomerang Lodge development. Figure 1: Recorded Elevation for the approved Boomerang Lodge ti ��c =i 77 ° . � d rsr rams n mod 1t ITT v -_u. ff Weighing potential dimensional variations with the community benefits and compatibility with the neighborhood, staff recommends that the applicant's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be limited to the maximum allowable in the RMF Zone District, or 1.5:1. Establishing a limit of 1.5:1 FAR would translate into 40,500 square feet — a reduction of 4,320 square feet from the current proposal, or a 10% reduction. This would likely result in removing approximately two - thirds of the fourth floor, leaving a very small fourth level (about 2,000 square feet). As it happens, staff's concerns regarding the mass, scale and height of the current project are very similar to the staff concerns expressed when the process for the Boomerang Lodge went through P &Z and Council review and approval in 2006. As noted above, staff believes the current application is a new and separate application, with all issues on the table to be considered. Staff is providing the following strictly as background information: The 2006 Boomerang Lodge Review The P &Z last reviewed this property in 2006, when the same applicant requested approval of a lodge, free market residential and on -site affordable housing mitigation. 7 P8 The initial request included a maximum height of 42 feet, and a total of 51,365 square feet (a 1.9:1 Floor Area Ratio). These were substantial variations from the underlying R -6 zoning, allowed only if a PUD were established for the parcel. The May 16, 2006 staff memo to P &Z emphasized strong support for the redevelopment of an historic lodge with small rooms as meeting very important community goals. However, the memo also said, "the proposed four floor and 42 -foot height is potentially out of character with the neighborhood ... Staff does believe the height should be reconsidered and possibly lowered to a three -story building, at least in significant portions of the site." During the P &Z process in 2006, the applicant removed two lodge units, lowering the total square footage from 51,365 square feet to 49,170 square feet. The applicant also reduced maximum height from 42 feet to 39 feet, though retained much of the fourth floor element. That maximum height of 39 feet occurred on 20% of the rooftop, according to the proposal submitted to City Council. When the updated proposal went to City Council, the staff memo noted that the highest areas of 39 feet occurred on the Hopkins Street (south) side of the development, "where numerous trees help to diminish the impact of the height on the neighborhood." Although most of the fourth floor still remained, staff recommended approval of the proposal, emphasizing the increase in bed base as critical to the long -term viability of the resort. With regard to concerns about height and massing, the memo said, "Staff believes the most recent reduction in height ... helped the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. When viewing the structure from the public ways in the vicinity, staff feels that the project is compatible with the setting, given the way the building is obscured by other buildings and trees." (Underline added.) During City Council review, height and mass remained issues for debate, and the applicant again agreed to some reductions: The total height dropped from 39 feet to 36'6 ", and the total square footage dropped from 49,170 to 44,915, according to Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006. (In January 2007, staff approved an Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD, increasing the maximum height by one foot — to 37'6" — in some portions of the structure, due to Building Department requirements for minimum ceiling height.) Special Review for Parking — With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 54 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 12 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street; • 8 parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins. The applicant can only achieve 54 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a 8 P9 PUD showing an additional eight parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins as dedicated exclusively to the project. At this time, staff can only count 31 spaces in the garage, as approved in 2006 — and has yet to receive confirmation from the applicant and Building Department that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 12 head -in spaces in a 100- foot -long right of way on 4` Street. - (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) However, staff can't support the additional dedication of eight more spaces in the right of way on W. Hopkins for exclusive use of the housing project. It is the general policy of the Engineering Department and the Parking Department not to dedicate public right of way for the exclusive use of adjacent property owners. Future applicants could claim any range of community benefits to obtain exclusive use to a right of way, and there is currently no process by which to evaluate what uses should rise above others in the use of public right of way. From staff's perspective, there is a deficit of eight (8) to ten (10) off - street parking spaces for this project, depending on whether the garage space can accommodate two more spaces. While staff has concerns about this deficit, they are significantly alleviated by the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." [Section 26.515.040A1.] In addition, the City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of eight parking spaces can be absorbed by on- street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Staff acknowledges that the parking deficit would have some impact on the neighborhood, and is a matter for the P &Z to discuss under the Special Review for Parking process, pursuant to Section 26.515.040 (please see Exhibit H for staff findings). Staff finds that 44 off - street parking spaces is sufficient for approval of a Special Review for Parking. The AACP and Affordable Housin• Livabilit — Finally, the lack of floor plans for the affordable housing and the lack of plans for decks, balconies and separate at -grade entryways, are a concern for staff. The question of livability of affordable housing is addressed in the 2000 AACP (Policies / Pg. 26), and is therefore a consideration under Rezoning, PUD and Subdivision. Although the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority (APCHA) has approved the housing plan, staff would prefer more information to determine whether the layout would compromise the "livability" of the affordable housing units. 9 P10 In a related issue, the City's Residential Design Standards require multi - family buildings to have "one street - oriented entrance for every four units, and each front unit must have a street - facing principal window," pursuant to Section 26.410.040(D)1. Although it would be helpful to know the applicant's intent during the review process, this standard is only required to be met at the building permit phase, and could be handled administratively. OTHER LAND USE REVIEWS: The following sections address the remaining land use reviews required for this application. Subdivision — The key standard for subdivision relevant to this application "is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan," which staff has addressed under Rezoning and PUD. Also, the Subdivision criteria that requires the application to be "consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area" is addressed by staff under Rezoning. Growth Management for Affordable Housing — Staff finds the applicant has met the criteria for this land use review. As required, the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority has found that the proposal meets required guidelines pursuant to Section 26.470.070(4). Growth Management for Change in Use — Staff finds the applicant has met the required standards of review; the proposal does not require mitigation because it is 100% affordable housing. Issuance of Certificate of Affordable Housing — Staff finds the applicant meets the required standards of review. Housing certificates would be issued in the equivalent of 97.5 Full -Time Equivalents (FTEs) as determined by APCHA, upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While staff supports a rezoning to RMF, staff believes the FAR should be limited to the maximum allowed in the RMF Zone District (1.5:1), and the proposal should not rely on a PUD variation to reach the requested 1.66:1 FAR. The current request for 1.66:1 FAR translates into a total of 44,820 square feet, while a 1.5:1 FAR would translate into 40,500 square feet — a reduction of 4,320 square feet, or 10 %, from the applicant's request. If applicant makes this approximately 10% reduction in square footage, it would help to bring the development into compatibility with the neighborhood by reducing mass and scale, and removing approximately two - thirds of the fourth floor, thereby reducing staff concerns over height. Because this reduction would result in the elimination of 5 -6 units, it would also bring the project so close to conformance with off - street parking requirements that staff would again find the project meets the standards of a Special Review for Parking. 10 P11 PROPOSED MOTION: There are at least two options for a motion. If the Planning and Zoning Commission agrees with staffs recommendation and wishes to continue to review an adjusted application, they may use this motion "I find that the application should be remanded back to the applicant to adjust the allowable floor area to 1.5:1, generating a new set of elevations /architectural rendering for further P &Z review, and to provide interior floor plans /unit layout and information on decks, balconies and at- grade entries." If the Planning and Zoning Commission is ready to pass on recommendations to Council with conditions, they may use this motion: "I approve Resolution No. 20, Series of 2010, with the condition that the applicant adjust the allowable floor area to 1.5:1, generating a new set of elevations /architectural rendering for City Council review, and to provide interior floor plans /unit layout and information on decks, balconies and at -grade entries." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff findings for Rezoning Exhibit B — Staff finding for PUD Exhibit C — Staff finding for Subdivision Exhibit D — Staff finding, Growth Management for Affordable Housing Exhibit E — Staff finding, Growth Management for Change in Use Exhibit F — Staff finding, Issuance of Certificate of Housing Credit Exhibit G — Staff finding, Special Review for Off - Street Parking Exhibit H — APCHA Report Exhibit I - Letters from the public John Staton / October 25 D. Scott & Tamara B. Stuart / October 27 Norman A. Brooks / October 21 Fred Fine / October 22 J. Alan Hayman / October 20 Martha Madsen / October 14 Stuart Brafman / October 16 Meredith C. Carroll / October 22 Kevin Kirvida / October 22 Daniel and Meryle Verner / October 25 Jane Click / October 25 Stephen R. Goldenberg / October 28 Cheryl Goldenberg / October 26 Patricia Kanipe / October 25 Al West / October 26 Joseph E. Edwards III / October 27 Exhibit J — Supplement to Application / Change in Use Exhibit K — Revised Parking Plan Exhibit L — Application 11 P12 RESOLUTION NO. 20, (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CHANGE IN USE, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF - STREET PARKING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING, AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 54 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB -ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop 54 affordable housing units at 500 W. Hopkins Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge units, 5 free - market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006), commonly known as the Boomerang Lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 500 W. Hopkins Ave. and is currently zoned Medium - Density Residential (R -6), Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended remanding the application to applicant to reduce allowable FAR from 1:66:1 to 1.5:1, to meet the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) standard of compatibility with the neighborhood; and, Page 1 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 20 (2010) P13 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2010, by a vote, with conditions: and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Growth Management Approval for Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, creating 54 deed - restricted affordable housing units not required for mitigation, as reviewed by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors on October 8, 2010. The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 3 and 4. There will be 35 Category 3 and 19 Category 4 units. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process and meet APCHA guidelines. Design of the units, parking on -site and storage will be finalized with the recordation of a PUD Plat. Unit Type Number of Units Category 3 Category 4 studio 7 7 0 One bedroom 34 18 16 Two bedroom 13 10 3 Total 54 Section 2: Growth Management Approval for Change in Use Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Change in Use, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the review criteria of Section 26.470.050. Page 2 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 20 (2010) P14 Section 3: Approval of Special Review for Parking Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Special Review for Off - Street Parking, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the standards of review pursuant to Section 26.510.040, and setting the Off - Street Parking requirements at 33 sub -grade parking spaces, and 21 at -grade parking spaces. The at -grade parking includes 12 head -in parking spaces on 4 Street that are in the Right of Way, allowed by a Revocable Encroachment License granted for parking in March 2007; see Pitkin County Clerk Reception #535627. Eight (8) parallel spaces on West Hopkins are in the Right of Way, without an Encroachment License at this time. Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves issuance of 97.5 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, such certificates to be granted subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, pursuant to Section 26.540.040. Unit Type Employee Housed Number of Units Certificates of AH studio 1.25 7 8.75 One bedroom 1.75 34 59.5 Two bedroom '2.25 13 29.25 Total 9 7.5 Section 5: Amendment to the Zone District Map Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby finds that the proposal to rezone the 500 W. Hopkins Ave. property from R- 6 /LP/PUD to RMF/PUD meets the standards to Amend the Zone District Map, pursuant to Section 26.310.040 and recommends approval by the City Council. Section 6: Planned Unit Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision, with conditions. Dimensional Req. Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 500 sq ft Maximum Allowable Density 54 units Minimum Lot Width 270 feet Minimum Front Yard 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" — east* 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5' 2 floor balcony projects 4'5" into setback Maximum Site Coverage Per 2007 plat Page 3 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 20 (2010) P15 Maximum Height 37'6" Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space Not required Allowable Floor Area L66:1, or 44,915 Minimum Off- Street Parking 54 * Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 Section 7: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed Right -of -Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, will meet all applicable standards. Minimum required site improvements are as follows: • Construction of approximately 430 linear feet of five -foot (5') wide sidewalk in the public right -of -way along 5 Street and West Hopkins Ave. • Installation of two ADA sidewalk ramps at the intersection of West Hopkins and 5 and one ADAS ramp on 4 Street. • Installation of two concrete alley ramps. The alley ramp on 5 Street will include an ADA sidewalk ramp. • Construction of approximately 150 linear feet of four feet (4') wide concrete valley pan along 4 Street. • Construction of approximately 430 linear feet of new curb and gutter along 5 Street and West Hopkins. • Placement of 697 square yards of asphalt paving to replace the alley surface. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 9: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Page 4 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 20 (2010) P1 6 Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required to be memorialized prior to development and issuance of a building permit Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Section 11: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. A. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. B. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. C. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Current locations are identified above the 15' set back and along the side yard setbacks. An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. The original tree permit, #2007 -012, is valid as long as there are no further changes to the trees being removed and final mitigation plans. Changes to these two areas will most likely trigger a new permit or an addendum to the original. Section 14: Parking and Alternative Modes of Transportation Off - Street parking includes a minimum of 31 sub -grade spaces, a handicapped space on the alley and 12 at -grade spaces in the 4` Street Right of Way, as allowed by Encroachment License #2007 -E030, recorded at Reception # 535627. Section 15: Residential Design Standards Page 5 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 20 (2010) P17 Applicant will meet Residential Design Standard Section 26.410.040(D) or obtain a variance prior to issuance of building permit. Section 16: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee - in - Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 2 " day of November, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 6 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 20 (2010) P18 Exhibit A Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposal meets the relevant elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential / Lodge Preservation / Planned Unit Development (R -6 /LP /PUD) to Residential Multi- Family / Planned Unit Development (RMF /PUD). The rezoning meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because the property is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable and bikeable, and especially because it is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Street Bike and Pedestrian way and near the Midland Trail. The Boomerang is also one block from a major public transit corridor on West Main Street. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed RMF -PUD zoning designation is compatible with the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, which includes some RMF parcels, some PUDs, some affordable housing and a large amount of R -6 and R -15 zoning. On its face, R -6 and R -15 zoning would seem incompatible with RMF zoning. However, the existence of R -6 and R -15 zoning in this neighborhood can be traced back to the P19 1970s, when a dramatic downzoning was approved for this neighborhood. The fact is that much of the existing development in this neighborhood . does not reflect the dimensional limits of R -6 and R -15 zoning, which limits development to low density single - family homes and duplexes, with relatively low Floor Area Ratios, ranging between .3:1 and .54:1. In fact, much of the existing development in the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood reflects the dimensional prescriptions allowed by RMF zoning, which allows high densities, along with Floor Area Ratios between .75:1 and 1.5:1. In addition, the adjacent Mixed Use Zone District along Main Street allows high- density residential and lodging uses, and allows Floor Area Ratios of up to 1.25:1 FAR. While there are a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: Prior to the demolition of part of the Boomerang Lodge, there were 34 lodge units on the site. The proposed rezoning would allow for 54 residential units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. A residential use generates more traffic than a lodge use, partly because a residence is more likely to be occupied 100% of the time compared to a lodge. However, the fact that the Boomerang site is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, near the Midland Trail, is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor, and is in close proximity to downtown provides a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Also, the townsite grid roadway system is designed to absorb traffic efficiently. Staff finds rezoning would not result in a significant change to traffic generation or road safety. Finally, staff's suggestion to reduce the size of the proposal by approximately 4,000 square feet, or approximately six units, would reduce traffic generation impacts. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The rezoning allows for multi - family residential uses, which is a typical use in the area, and does not significantly increased demands on public facilities. 2 P20 F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in new residential housing in the townsite, where such development is appropriate due to existing infrastructure. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: There are no recently changed conditions that would support or oppose the proposed amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest. 3 P21 Exhibit B PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposal meets and even exceeds many elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan, but falls somewhat short in one area: The current proposal is somewhat too large in mass and scale to be compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential / Lodge Preservation / Planned Unit Development (R -6 /LP /PUD) to Residential Multi - Family / Planned Unit Development (RMF/PUD). This request reflects the applicant's desire to convert the Boomerang Lodge development (approved by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006) from 47 lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of multi- family affordable housing. The production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP. Encouraging the private sector to produce affordable housing is also an important goal. The new Boomerang proposal would be one of the largest affordable housing project ever produced by the private sector in the City of Aspen, using Housing Credits as a method for financial viability, pursuant to Section 26.540.010 Purpose. The Affordable Housing Credit program, established by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010, provides Certificates of Housing Credits for developers who produce affordable housing only when such housing is not required for mitigation. The credits can then be sold to other developers who are required to provide housing mitigation. One of the major advantages of the Affordable Housing Credit program is that it often provides mitigation before, or at the same time, that development impacts occur. Another advantage is that Housing Credits reflect mitigation in the form of occupied, deed - restricted housing, rather than via cash -in -lieu or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are not required to be occupied. Another important advantage of the housing credit program is that it makes the production of affordable housing financially viable for the private sector, thereby removing the substantial burden of producing affordable housing from the public sector. The proposal also meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because it is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable and bikeable, especially because it P22 is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Street Bike and Pedestrian way. The Boomerang is also one block from a major public transit corridor on West Main Street. The proposal is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) However, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... ", staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal is somewhat excessive compared to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed 1.66:1 FAR would exceed the FARs found in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. While there are properties in this neighborhood with FARs ranging between .7:1 and 1.5:1, there are none larger than 1.5:1, and no structures with a fourth floor of any appreciable size. With regard to the following AACP standard on Affordable Housing, staff is seeking more information on the floor plans of the proposal, as well as decks and balconies to ensure the "livability" of the housing units: • "Consideration should be given to minimize the development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the appropriate density or the livability of the project." (Policies, pg 26) 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area. The Shadow Mountain neighborhood includes a mix of affordable housing, lodging and multi- family residential uses. P23 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: There are no annual Growth Management allotments necessary for affordable housing units. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal is somewhat excessive compared to the surrounding area. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District, and should not use the PUD overlay for the purpose of exceeding that limit. The current proposal requests a 1.66:1 FAR, while staff believes the mass and scale would be more compatible with the neighborhood at the RMF Zone District limit of 1.5:1. This would reflect a reduction of 4,320 square feet, or 10 %, from the applicant's request. b) Natural or man -made hazards. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding: This property has no significant natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways. There is significant vegetation in the form of mature trees that screen P24 the property from West Hopkins. The landscape plan approved by the Parks Department as part of the 2006 Boomerang Lodge approval would be carried forward, and would again be subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the close proximity to a major public transit corridor, its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. The remaining portion of the former Boomerang Lodge adjacent to 4 Street will remain as a designated historic landmark, with any future exterior changes subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. According to the land use code, a multi- family residential project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit, or 54 off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 54 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 12 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4` Street; • 8 parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins. The applicant can only achieve 54 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD showing an additional eight parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins as dedicated exclusively to the project. At this time, staff can only count 31 spaces in the garage, as approved in 2006 — and has yet to receive confirmation from the applicant and Building Department that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 12 head -in spaces in a 100- foot -long right of way on 4` Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) However, staff can't support the additional dedication of eight more spaces in the right of way on W. Hopkins for exclusive use of the housing project. It is the general policy of the Engineering Department and the Parking Department not to dedicate public right of way for the exclusive use of adjacent property owners. Future applicants could claim any range of community benefits to obtain exclusive use to a right of way, and there is P25 currently no process by which to evaluate what uses should rise above others in the use of public right of way. From staff's perspective, there is a deficit of eight (8) to ten (10) off - street parking spaces for this project, depending on whether the garage space can accommodate two more spaces. While staff has concerns about this deficit, they are significantly alleviated by the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." [Section 26.515.040A1] In addition, the City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of eight parking spaces can be absorbed by on- street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Staff acknowledges that the parking deficit would have some impact on the neighborhood, and is a matter for the P &Z to discuss under the Special Review for Parking process, pursuant to Section 26.515.040 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal is somewhat excessive compared to the surrounding area. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District, and should not use the PUD overlay for the purpose of exceeding that limit. The current proposal requests a 1.66:1 FAR, while staff believes the mass and scale would be more compatible with the neighborhood at the RMF Zone District limit of 1.5:1. This would reflect a reduction of 4,320 square feet, or 10 %, from the applicant's request. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Finding: The land use code requires one off - street parking space for every new unit. If the square footage of the proposal is reduced, as suggested by staff, it would comply with the land use code requirement for off - street parking. Also, the fact that the Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway; is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor; is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space; and is in close proximity to downtown means there are a P26 number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The project is 100% residential. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor, is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space and the downtown area means there are a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. P27 Staff Finding: There is no maximum density for multi - family dwellings in the Residential Multi - Family Zone District. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Finding: There is no maximum density for multi - family dwellings in the Residential Multi- Family Zone District. There are no negative physical characteristics of the site as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5 above, regarding infrastructure and natural hazards. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: There is no maximum density for multi- family dwellings in the Residential Multi- Family Zone District. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: There are many fully mature trees on the site that provide visual interest and will be preserved according to the Final PUD Landscape Plan. The remaining portion of the Boomerang Lodge is a designated historic landmark. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: There is one structure in this case. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed structure appropriately oriented to public streets. Staff is requesting additional information on meeting Residential Design Standards, which require one street - oriented entry for every four units in a multi - family development. P28 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Proposal has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory in this regard by the Fire Marshall. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: A new sidewalk is required on Fourth Street and Fifth Street, and sidewalk repair is required along West Hopkins. Handicapped access will be provided, as required by the Engineering and Building Department prior to issuance of building permit. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with site drainage requirements as required by the Engineering and Building Department prior to issuance of building permit. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: A landscape plan was approved as part of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006. No substantial deviation from this plan is anticipated, The Final PUD landscape Plan must be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Mature trees on the site are significant features and are preserved per the landscape plan, as reviewed and approved by the Parks Dept. prior to issuance of building permit. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. • P29 Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with Parks Department requirements prior to issuance of building permit. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: Staff's suggestion to reduce the size of the structure by 101/4 will better respect the scale and massing of the adjacent historical resource (Boomerang Lodge /East Wing). If a large portion of the fourth floor is removed, it will create a more favorable variety of heights and tend to break up the massing of the structure to better reflect the visual character of the City. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The bulk of the structure is south facing. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Applicant must meet this condition prior to issuance of a building permit. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. P30 G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to convert a pool area between the east side of the structure and 4` Street into a lawn area intended as a common element for the purposes of barbecue etc. This request is being processed in a parallel review by the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Finding: Applicant must meet this requirement prior to building permit issuance. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Finding: Applicant must meet this requirement prior to building permit issuance. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with requirements of City Utilities Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: Developer will mitigate or commit to mitigate any adverse impacts as identified by the Department Review Committee prior to issuance of building permit. P31 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: The structure has direct access to an alley and two public streets. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The net increase in development is not expected to create substantially increased traffic congestion. The site is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The Car -to -Go program has a parking space in the neighborhood. Staff suggests a condition requiring extensive bike racks at- grade. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: New sidewalks on 4` and 5 streets, and improved sidewalk on West Hopkins will contribute to improved access and use of the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. P32 Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions. J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. P33 Exhibit C Subdivision Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposal meets and even exceeds many elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan, but falls somewhat short in one area: The current proposal is somewhat too large in mass and scale to be compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential / Lodge Preservation / Planned Unit Development (R -6 /LP /PUD) to Residential Multi - Family / Planned Unit Development (RMF /PUD). This request reflects the applicant's desire to convert the Boomerang Lodge development (approved by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006) from 47 lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of multi - family affordable housing. The production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP. Encouraging the private sector to produce affordable housing is also an important goal. The new Boomerang proposal would be the largest affordable housing project ever produced by the private sector in the City of Aspen, using Housing Credits as a method for financial viability, pursuant to Section 26.540.010 Purpose. The Affordable Housing Credit program, established by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010, provides Certificates of Housing Credits for developers who produce affordable housing only when such housing is not required for mitigation. The credits can then be sold to other developers who are required to provide housing mitigation. One of the major advantages of the Affordable Housing Credit program is that it often provides mitigation before, or at the same time, that development impacts occur. Another advantage is that Housing Credits reflect mitigation in the form of occupied, deed - restricted housing, rather than via cash -in -lieu or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are not required to be occupied. In this case, due to the size of the project (generating almost 100 housing credits) and the nature of the economy — the finished product of affordable housing would very likely be occupied long before future development impacts are created, and are ultimately mitigated through housing credits generated by this proposal. Another important advantage of the housing credit program is that it makes the production of affordable housing financially viable for the private sector, thereby removing the substantial burden of producing affordable housing from the public sector. The proposal also meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because it is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable and bikeable, especially because it P34 is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Street Bike and Pedestrian way. The Boomerang is also one block from a major public transit corridor on West Main Street. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) However, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... ", staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal is somewhat excessive compared to the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to the following AACP standard on Affordable Housing, staff is seeking more information on the floor plans of the proposal, as well as decks and balconies to ensure the "livability" of the housing units: • "Consideration should be given to minimize the development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the appropriate density or the livability of the project." (Policies, pg 26) 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area. The Shadow Mountain neighborhood includes a mix of' affordable housing, lodging and multi - family residential uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 2 P35 Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The subdivision will be in compliance with all applicable requirements. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is flat; no natural hazards. Drainage plan required as part of Final PUD Plan, prior to building permit issuance. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is only one structure on the parcel. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and /or the goals of the community. Staff Finding: Applicant proposes to meet standards of Chapter 26.580. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable 3 P36 housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: This is a 100% affordable housing proposal. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with school land dedication fees, with the exception of credits for pre- existing units and exemption for designated historic structure. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § §29, 30) Staff Finding: No annual allotments are required for affordable housing. 4 P37 Exhibit D Growth Management for Affordable Housing Staff Findings Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission Applications: A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed- restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff finding: Although some unit sizes are below minimum standard, APCHA Housing Guidelines allow for this deviation if certain criteria are met. APCHA Board voted to find that the proposal meets APCHA Housing Guidelines. Please see Exhibit K for vote of APCHA Board of Directors in this case. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in- lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff finding: Not applicable. There is no mitigation requirement. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50 %) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff finding: Project exceeds this standard. All units entirely above - grade. d. The proposed units shall be deed- restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County P38 Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi - municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: All units to be processed for sale through APCHA, according to Housing Guidelines. P39 Exhibit E Growth Management for Change in Use Staff Findings Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. 2. Change in use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. No more than one (1) free - market residential unit may be created through the change -in -use. Staff Finding: No free market residential units are being established. Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi- year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Finding: No GMQS allotments required for affordable housing. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposal meets and even exceeds many elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan, but falls somewhat short in one area: The current proposal is somewhat too large in mass and scale to be compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential / Lodge Preservation / Planned Unit Development (R -6 /LP /PUD) to Residential Multi- Family / Planned Unit Development (RMF /PUD). This request reflects the applicant's desire to convert the Boomerang Lodge development (approved by Ordinance No. 26, Series of P40 2006) from 47 lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of multi - family affordable housing. The production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP. Encouraging the private sector to produce affordable housing is also an important goal. The new Boomerang proposal would be one of the largest affordable housing project ever produced by the private sector in the City of Aspen, using Housing Credits as a method for financial viability, pursuant to Section 26.540.010 Purpose. The Affordable Housing Credit program, established by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010, provides Certificates of Housing Credits for developers who produce affordable housing only when such housing is not required for mitigation. The credits can then be sold to other developers who are required to provide housing mitigation. One of the major advantages of the Affordable Housing Credit program is that it often provides mitigation before, or at the same time, that development impacts occur. Another advantage is that Housing Credits reflect mitigation in the form of occupied, deed - restricted housing, rather than via cash -in -lieu or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), which are not required to be occupied. Another important advantage of the housing credit program is that it makes the production of affordable housing financially viable for the private sector, thereby removing the substantial burden of producing affordable housing from the public sector. The proposal also meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because it is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable and bikeable, especially because it is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Street Bike and Pedestrian way. The Boomerang is also one block from a major public transit corridor on West Main Street. The proposal is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) • P41 However, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... ", staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal is somewhat excessive compared to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed 1.66:1 FAR would exceed the FARs found in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. While there are properties in this neighborhood with FARs ranging between .7:1 and 1.5:1, there are none larger than 1.5:1, and no structures with a fourth floor of any appreciable size. With regard to the following AACP standard on Affordable Housing, staff is seeking more information on the floor plans of the proposal, as well as decks and balconies to ensure the "livability" of the housing units: • "Consideration should be given to minimize the development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the appropriate density or the livability of the project." (Policies, pg 26) 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: Upon rezoning from R -6 /LP /PUD to RMF /PUD, the proposal complies with zoning requirements. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: There is a parallel process under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission to convert a pool area to a lawn. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Finding: No mitigation is required for affordable housing. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free - market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the P42 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units ") may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee /Square Footage Conversion. Staff Finding: No mitigation is required for affordable housing. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Finding: Impact fees are required for water taps, sewer, schools, transportation and stormwater infrastructure. A Drainage Plan will be required as part of the Final PUD Plan, to be approved by Engineering Dept, prior to issuance of building permit. Regarding fire /police protection and solid waste disposal, the location in the townsite, the change in use from lodging to residential and the net increase of 20 "rooms" reflects a minimal demand on public safety and sanitation services. The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the close proximity to a major public transit corridor, its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. According to the land use code, a multi - family residential project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit, or 54 off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C). The net increase in development is not expected to create traffic congestion. The site is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The Car -to -Go program has a parking space in the neighborhood. Staff is suggesting a condition to require bike racks. The townsite grid absorbs traffic efficiently. P43 Exhibit F Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits 26.540.040 Review criteria for planning and zoning commission A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to the adoption of a Resolution, if all of the following criteria are met: A. A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for affordable housing units that have been deed - restricted subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d). Staff Finding: Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits shall be issued subsequent to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Affordable Housing project, at 500 W. Hopkins. The proposal meets the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4[a -d] — please see Exhibit E. B. The affordable housing units are not for the purpose of mitigating impacts of development, or a requirement or obligation of a Development Order. Staff Finding: The proposal meets this requirement. C. A recommendation of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors has been made, establishing the number of Full- Time - Equivalents (FTEs) accommodated by the affordable housing units, pursuant to Affordable Housing Guidelines, as amended. Staff Finding: The APCHA Board has established the number of FTEs at 97.5, which reflects 97.5 Certificates of Housing Credit — please see Exhibit K. P44 Exhibit G Special Review for Off -Site Parking Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff finding: With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 54 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 12 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4` Street; • 8 parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins. The applicant can only achieve 54 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD showing an additional eight parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins as dedicated exclusively to the project. At this time, staff can only count 31 spaces in the garage, as approved in 2006 — and has yet to receive confirmation from the applicant and Building Department that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 12 head -in spaces in a 100 - foot -long right of way on 4 Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) However, staff can't support the additional dedication of eight more spaces in the right of way on W. Hopkins for exclusive use of the housing project. It is the general policy of the Engineering Department and the Parking Department not to dedicate public right of way for the exclusive use of adjacent property owners. Future applicants could claim any range of community benefits to obtain exclusive use to a right of way, and there is currently no process by which to evaluate what uses should rise above others in the use of public right of way. From staff's perspective, there is a deficit of eight (8) to ten (10) off - street parking spaces for this project, depending on whether the garage space can accommodate two more spaces. While staff has concerns about this deficit, they are significantly alleviated by the P45 adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff finding: An on -site parking solution has been substantially met. Head -in parking on West Hopkins is not a good option for this site, as backing out presents road safety issues for the pedestrian bikeway. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff finding: The City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of eight to ten parking spaces can be absorbed by on- street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." P46 Exhibit H APCHA Board Votes and Recommendations MEMORANDUM TO: Jennifer Phelan FROM: Cindy Christensen THRU: Tom McCabe DATE: October 8, 2010 RE: BOOMERANG LODGE APPLICATION FOR A PUD AMENDMENT ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval for the redevelopment of a mixed free - market project into a 100% deed - restricted housing project. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved a project in the fall of 2006 at the Boomerang Lodge that would have consisted of the following: • 47 condominiumized lodge units • 5 free - market residential units • 2 affordable housing units • related infrastructure, landscaping and parking The applicant is now requesting the use of the Affordable Housing Credit Program which the project will consist of all affordable housing units whereby the applicant will "sell" the mitigation credits. The applicant is requesting to modify the units so they conform to the size requirements for affordable housing as set by APCHA. The project will be made up entirely of "for sale" Category 3 and 4 units. There are a total of 54 units proposed for this property. Of the 54 units, 34 include less minimum square footage as stated in the Guidelines; however, all of the units are less than 20% smaller than the minimum required. The Guidelines allow for up to a 20% reduction under certain conditions: • Significant storage — additional storage outside the unit; • Above average natural light — more windows than the Code requires; • Efficient and flexible layout — limit to space used for halls and staircases; • Site amenities — pool, near to park or open space, etc.; • Location within the project — above ground versus ground level or below ground; • If the applicant can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with this variance. 1 P47 The current plan is consistent with the Guidelines as follows; • There is additional storage proposed in the parking structure. • The proposed units have a flexible layout and limit the space used for halls and staircases. • The project is close to a park and open space. • All of the units are located above ground. • The applicant can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with this variance. • The applicant has also represented that he will provide exterior balconies for most of the units. Due to the reasons stated above, Staff recommends that the 20% reduction be allowed for the 34 units that are under the minimum square footage requirements. The development will include underground parking to contain 33 parking spaces with 18 on- street parking spaces (a shortage of 3 parking spots if one was provided for each unit). The applicant will use the following strategies to reduce the demand for parking within the project: • Provide a $20,000 grant to the City's CAR TO GO Carshare program; • Dedicate one on -grade parking space to the CAR TO GO program; • Provide bicycle racks and storage in the basement of the project; • Police the use of the bike racks by removing bikes that have been abandoned; • Establish and enforce covenants to discourage ownership of cars by owners; • Implement parking passes for available parking spaces and enforce penalties for non- residents; • Investigate creating project -based "rides on demand" program; • Promote use of RFTA by publishing schedules and other actions. The existing swimming pool area in the historic portion of the property will be converted to a barbeque social area to avoid the significant costs in maintaining and monitoring a swimming pool. The result will be lower dues for each owner. There is a common room and there will be one elevator as part of the development. Each unit will be provided an allocation of storage space in the basement adjacent to the parking garage. The units are proposed as follows: Category 3 Category 4 S 1 -BR 2 -BR S 1 -BR 2 -BR 7 18 10 0 16 3 There will be 35 Category 3 and 19 Category 4 units; 7 studios, 34 one - bedrooms, and 13 two - bedrooms. Using the standard methodology stated in the Guidelines regarding the occupancy standards by type, these units would mitigate for a total of 97.5 FTE's. The project is proposed to be constructed in one phase. 2 P48 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Housing Board recommends approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. Floor plans for the units shall be reviewed and approved by the APCHA. 2. The units will be marketed through the APCHA. 3. All condominium documents will be created under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act and reviewed by the City of Aspen and APCHA. 4. A capital reserve study will be provided to the new homeowners at the time the HOA is turned over to the owners. 5. The deed restriction shall be recorded prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The number of FTE's created by this development that can be used for future mitigation under the AH Certificate Program would be 97.5 FTE's. 7. For the developer to demonstrate the use of durable, green, low maintenance materials wherever possible to further reduce long -term homeowner assessments. 8. There should be one assigned parking space per unit, either in the garage or on the site. The Board then discussed the request from the applicant to have no pets. The majority of the Board requested that pets be allowed, limit the pets to one per unit, and let the HOA decide afterwards about any additional specifics to a pet policy. 3 Eichitl —L P49 October 25, 2010 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Ben Gagnon, Special Project Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Rezoning and PUD Amendment Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: My name is John Staton. I own the house (431 W. Hopkins) at the comer of W. Hopkins and 4th Street. My house, which I bought in 1993, is diagonally across the street from the Boomerang Lodge. The proposed affordable community housing project does not meet the city standards for parking, unit size and density. Our neighborhood already has two community housing projects — South Seventh Street and West Hopkins Avenue — both of which are on the west side of Main Street and within 3 blocks of the proposed redevelopment of the Boomerang. I am not against affordable community housing. However, I am opposed to affordable housing that does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The affordable housing project on W. Hopkins is such a project. It would be appropriate for Miami Beach - not Aspen. The Planning and Zoning Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to the City and the neighborhood to see that any project meets all code requirements and that it has a minimal impact on the neighborhood. This means adequate parking — at least one space per unit. Unit sizes that conform to the code and large enough to accommodate the owners with a reasonable amount of living space. At the end of the day, any redevelopment of the Boomerang property has got to comply with all the City Code requirements and fit into the neighborhood. The project as currently designed doesn't do that. It should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, 01 ohn . 'taton, Jr. • 31 . opkins Aspen, Colorado JCS /ds P50 D. Scott & Tamara B. Stuart 400 W. Hopkins Ave. #5 Aspen, CO 81611 October 27, 2010 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Proposed Redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: After renting a duplex for several years, we purchased a small condominium in Glory Hole Park four years ago. With that purchase we started spending half the year in Aspen enjoying the skiing, the music, the hiking and all Aspen has to offer. Although extremely convenient. our little community began to remind us of our college years. It was often very noisy. There were conflicts over parking spaces. Neighbors were often engaged in verbal exchanges. All the usual excitements and drama one would expect from living in a high density area close to downtown. Although we still thoroughly enjoyed Aspen, we knew we needed a quieter neighborhood and a year ago we found a perfect location on West Hopkins Ave. Now, we understand the Boomerang Lodge is requesting a permit to build 54 units. Although we would prefer that the developers build the lodging they were previously permitted, we understand the need for affordable housing in Aspen. We have two sons that have been on the "hoping" side of something affordable! We respectfully ask the P & Z committee, however, to truly consider the size of this project in relation to our little neighborhood, 54 units on a half block may be appropriate for the downtown area, but it is an explosion to West Hopkins. To accommodate 54 units, each unit needs to be fairly small. Our condominium in Glory Hole Park is 557 square feet, which we promise is a little tight for a family year around! There are areas in Aspen that are more appropriate for young, single employees experiencing their "gap year" in a ski town. West Hopkins is much more conducive to families, thus suggesting adequate living space so a family is comfortable and chooses to remain in our town for years. There are other complexes on West Hopkins that are excellent examples. We understand there will be 31 parking spaces for 54 units. 1 guess the developers are assuming most families just have bicycles for transportation! During the summer, we spend a great deal of time on our deck which overlooks Ilopkins Ave. Dawn to dusk the road is a constant stream of bicyclers, walkers, skateboarders and four - legged critters - all in the middle of the road. Watching parents teaching their children to ride a bicycle is a true source of enjoyment. All know it is a safe route. Vehicles are restricted to driving one block, and the police are not shy about fining those that violate. The current density P51 allows on- street parking to remain minimal, which no doubt, the users of the pedestrian right -of -way appreciate. The scope of this development could seriously compromise their safety! The Planning Department has been an excellent steward of Aspen. They have had the difficult task of balancing growth and quality of life. We truly hope your committee will be able to find a balance that allows the developer success, while maintaining the character our neighborhood currently enjoys. Respectfully, D. Scott Stuart Tamara B. St ., • P52 Dear P &Z members: Stan Gibbs, Chair, L.J. Erspamer, Vice - Chair, Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre, Michael Wampler, and Jim DeFrancia, We are owners of unit C201 of The Christiana, 501 West Main Street. We are writing this letter to strongly oppose the proposed conversion of the Medium Density Boomerang Lodge to Intensive Year Round Affordable Housing. We believe that the proposed development will permanently change the character of our RG /Medium Density /Historic Lodge neighborhood. There will be serious parking problems on Fourth, Fifth and Hopkins. The already bad traffic congestion on Main Street at the west end, will become significantly worse. We believe that the financial distress of one developer should not be allowed to ruin the significant financial investments of the many homeowners in this neighborhood. Aspen is one place, a beautiful mountain town, a town known all over the world, hurting one part with an undesirable project, will damage the whole. Sincerely, Norman A. Brooks, M.D. Leslee S. Brooks nablsb @aol.com 501 West Main Street, Unit C201 Aspen, Colorado P53 Mr. Gagnon, this is in response to the 500 West Hopkins Ave change of use . I strongly object to this change . To add more affordable housing to this area is not fair to the neighborhood . There already is an affordable housing complex at Fifth St & West Hopkins Ave . I don't believe this is the right thing . The real taxes paid by the original development far exceed what would be generated by affordable housing . Again, I strongly object to this change . Respectfully, Fred Fine 503 West Main St P54 To the P &Z Members: As an Apsen resident at the Christiana Lodge, 1 strongly oppose this propsed change and development for Year Round Employee Housing for the following reasons: 1) 54 units of year round intensive Affordable Housing will chnage the character of our R6 /Medium Density /Historic Lodge neighborhood forever. 2) The special exception for building height should not be carried forward automatically to this applcattion. 3) There are not enough parking spaces...only 33 off street, not 54 required by code....this type of approval has already caused problems at 5th and Hopkins. 4) The traffic pattern that will this create coupled with Jewish Center will create a huge problem....think about all the people making U turns or using the alley when Hopkins becomes a bike route during the summer. 5) 63% of the proposed units are below minimum size required by Housing Authority. 6) 54 Lodging units will lost forever!!!! 7) AACP says we need more lodging not less 8) The developer will granted AH certificates that will be sold instead of cash payments coming to the City of Aspen. This project was originally approved for a specific use and design for lodging....the developer is trying to save their deal rather than perform on what was approved....this is not in the best long term interest of the City or the nearby residents. The P &Z should consider the all of these considerations. The developer also sent a very misleading letter attempting to; in my opinion, propose that this change would have only minor impact on the inside design. What he failed to mention are ANY of the potential consequences to the neighbors of this change. I am sorry 1 will not be able to attend the meeting but wanted to express my concerns. Please enter my email as strong opposition to the proposed change. Sincerely, J. Alan Hayman 501 West Main Street A 201 P55 From: MARTHA MADSEN Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:13 AM To: steve(agoldenberg.com Subject: Stunda project Steve - -- I will not be able to attend the P&Z meeting on Nov. 2nd as I am working the polls until! past 7:00 p.m. These are my concerns regarding the Stunda project. Firstly, I am against accomodating developers, in general, by re- zoning. My other concerns follow: 1. I would be concerned about the financing of this project to completion. 2. We have vacant employee housing now, and "unaffordable" employe housing available. 3. This project was designed with underground parking - - -. I would hope the new project still includes that. 4. The size of the project in this neighborhood as multi - family is way too dense - - -- What is the potential number of residents? I hope this is helpful input, and you will add this to the meeting. martha P56 Please be advised that I am a voting resident living at 334 West Hopkins Avenue. I have carefully examined the objections presented to the Committee and completely agree with them. This message is for the purpose of recording my objection to the proposed construction of employee housing on the Boomering guest lodge site. Stuart Brafman Email secured by Check Point • P57 Dear P&Z: I've lived at 605 W. Hopkins for a little over four years. While I'm a big fan and supporter of employee housing (particularly since I'm a current recipient of the program), I'm not a big fan of the proposal to add 54 units across the street on Hopkins. This is not born out of NIMBYism, but rather a very real concern over traffic safety. Since our stretch of Hopkins Avenue is a ped bikeway, it is a constant a struggle for motorists to negotiate their way in and around the intersection of Hopkins and 5th Street (the fact that our stretch of Hopkins is also supposed to be one -block only for motorists has absolutely no effect on the level of safety, as any frequent pedestrian, biker or driver will surely testify). This past summer alone, two cyclists were hit by motorists coming out of the Little Ajax driveway (one of the drivers hit the attached Burley of a biker, but fortunately no baby was in it at the time). Because of cars parked along Hopkins on either side of Fifth Street on the north and south sides of the street, it's nearly impossible at times to see clearly to know if a bike is about to zoom past or a pedestrian is about to walk or run past when you're crossing 5th Street to our driveway, or when crossing from our driveway to Fifth Street (or making a left or right). The stop sign on the north side of 5th Street and Hopkins makes no difference. And at one time Little Ajax had a stop sign at the edge of the driveway; that, too, made no difference. It's not careless drivers or reckless bikers that's causing the problem, it's just to large volume and congestion. Plows in the winter time pile of the snow so high and deep on either side of the Little Ajax driveway that motorists coming out of our driveway literally have to pull halfway onto Hopkins to look left and right to make sure the road is clear. In icy conditions, this can feel lethal. The snow piles easily last from early December until well into April. If the Boomerang were a hotel or lodge, there would be less of a chance that it would be fully occupied at all times, and that the occupant of every unit would have a car (never mind the 2 -3 cars that some households have), and less likely that those lodging units would keep the company of visitors with cars. However, if the Boomerang becomes a housing complex for full time residents, the likelihood of everyone having at least one car increases dramatically. That means there will be resident cars on the street, visitor cars on the street -- all increasing the chances of hitting bikers and pedestrians because drivers can't see around the parked cars, and increasing the amount of traffic, in general, on a street that's already very fragile due to the increased speed of bikers with the right -of -way who are going even faster given the downward slope when riding from west to east. If the Jewish center ever gets built on 4th and Main, I can't even imagine how atrocious the parking and traffic quagmire will become in the neighborhood. For what is designated a medium density neighborhood, that's an awful lot of density. As a resident of 605 W. Hopkins, I respectfully ask that the Boomerang Lodge remain a lodge for the safety of residents and users of W. Hopkins Avenue. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. Meredith C. Carroll (970) 319-7031 MeredithCarroll.com P58 Dear Sirs, I am writing to state my opposition to the rezoning application that has been submitted for Boomerang Lodge. I am the owner of unit 6/7 at the Scott Building, 400 West Hopkins Avenue. We purchased our unit early this year, after a lengthy review of the various neighborhoods within Aspen. We chose this location due to its proximity to town, yet being within a quiet, residential neighborhood. If the Boomerang Lodge is allowed to increase its density, the residential character of this area will change immediately and forever. Car traffic will increase, noise will increase, congestion will increase, parking will overflow onto the streets, and properties in the area will generally become less desirable. From a personal perspective, we would not have purchased a unit in this area. Although I am not fully aware of Mr. Stunda's circumstances, I suspect the reason he is requesting a change in zoning is due to the economic down turn. And while I sympathize with Mr. Stunda, I don't feel the zoning and character of a neighborhood should change due to the hardship of one individual. There are any more in the area who would be negatively affected, and it is the majority you should be considering. I understand and respect the need for Employee Housing. My son, Drew, recently applied and was accepted for a position at the Snowmass Ski Area. Drew had no problem finding reasonably priced employee housing. Based on our own recent experience, it does not appear there is a shortage of affordable employee housing in the area. I appreciate your time and consideration, and respectfully ask that you vote no to the request being submitted. • Sincerely, Kevin Kirvida P.O. Box 518 Lindstrom, MN 55045 (cell) 612.805,6416 (email) kkirvida(aaol.com P59 Daniel and Meryle Verner 432 West Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 October 25, 2010 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Board: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge into 54 year round affordable housing units. As a homeowner at 432 West Hopkins Ave., I have great concerns about the negative impact this project will have on our neighborhood. First let me state that 1 am in favor and understand the needs of affordable housing here in Aspen. That being said, I believe this proposed project needs to conform to current city statute and some common sense. I believe the real issue here is parking. Board Members first need to remember that the proposed Jewish Center at the corner of Main and 4th Street will be built in the near term as soon as their financing is secured. That project (which has all permits), has received the blessing of Aspen City Council for parking on 4 Street. If any Board Members would travel by the area Friday nights or Saturday mornings, they would see the area filled with on street parking. There are also other times of the week when due to events at the Jewish Center there are many cars parked on the streets. When the new building is completed, there will be continued day and night time activity that will continue to bring more cars to the West Hopkins and 4 Street area. Where will everyone park? This Boomerang Project as currently proposed does not have sufficient parking to meet the needs of the proposed 54 units. The project does propose to have underground parking of 33 spaces. The developer does propose on street parking for the additional 21 vehicles. However, there are questions about the exact number of these additional spaces, size and location. We also need to remember that West Hopkins is a bicycle and pedestrian way. Consideration needs to be given to the additional traffic that will be caused by these additional vehicles. Little Ajax is an adjacent year round affordable housing project. It does provide all of its required parking off street and was developed at a much lower density. If the Boomerang were to adhere to larger units creating less density this would help to alleviate the parking issues. Why should the Boomerang project be given preferential treatment and not be subjected to the same zoning regulations as a project (Little Ajax) directly across the street. P60 Verner / Boomerang Project P. 2 In closing I would like to add The Boomerang project does have merit. However, it does need to be refined to meet community standards and maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Daniel and Meryle Verner P61 I understand that the first meeting with the P &Z Commission regarding the Boomerang Lodge property will be held on 11/2/10. I am unable to attend, but want my opinion recorded. I have owned and lived in a Herron House condominium at 333 W. Main St. for nearly 30 years. Traffic and parking in this area is increasingly becoming a problem. The Jewish Center is across the street and the Boomerang property is a block to the west. Parking on third, fourth and Hopkins is already at a maximum. The proposed maximum building height is also inappropriate to the neighborhood. Construction of another 54 year -round units in this area would be nightmarish. Please deny the conversion of the medium density Boomerang Lodge to intensive year - round employee housing. Thank you. Jane Click P62 Stephen R. Goldenberg 430 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 925 -1294 October 27, 2010 Stan Gibbs, Chair LJ Erspamer, Vice Chair Bert Myrin Cliff Weiss Jasmine Tygre Michael Wampler Jim DeFrancia Ben Gagnon Background My wife and I have lived in Aspen, across from the Boomerang, for almost 25 years. From the very beginning we were friendly with Charlie and Fonda of the Boomerang, "BJ" at the Christiana and Ralph, Marian, Norman and Nancy of the old Swiss Chalet. We have always enjoyed living in this historic lodge district knowing that the neighborhood would be maxed out at Christmas/New Years and the Fourth of July, that it would be more normal the rest of the season and very quiet during the off seasons. We supported the redevelopment of the Christiana which turned out to be a great upgrade. When the Swiss Chalet/L'Auberge changed hands, we worked with the Haisfields and ended up supporting the somewhat smaller expansion that preserved the historic cabins, much more of the open space and 80% of the 50 year old lilac bushes. When the Boomerang tried to expand, we opposed it until they agreed to add an underground garage with approximately 30 parking spaces. They subsequently sold the entire block across Hopkins to a private developer. We love living in this peaceful R6 /Historic Lodge neighborhood. Rezoning an R6 Medium Density Historic Lodge to Intensive Affordable Housing The very special provisions of the Historic Lodge Preservation Code should not automatically be carried forward to a project that will permanently eliminate 54 lodging units. (AACP). Because of the proposed year round density, there are now serious parking issues, a big height variance (36.5' rather than the 25' allowed in R6 or the 32' allowed in R/MF), 34 exceptions to the required minimum unit size (63% of the units are smaller than the APCHA minimum size specifications), and other density and traffic issues all of which will adversely impact this quiet, pedestrian/biker friendly, historic mixed use neighborhood. Adding to all this will be the cumulative impact of the previously approved, but as yet unbuilt much larger Jewish Center right across Fourth Street. (see photos) Density The Christiana has 28 units, including 3 Al-! units, on 'a 27,000 square foot lot or 964 sq. ft. of land per unit. The Little Ajax affordable housing has 14 units on 26,615 square feet or 1,900 sq. ft. of land per unit. The Boomerang proposal is for 54 units on 27,000 square feet, or only 500 sq ft. of land per unit, more than double the density of the two nearest similar projects. Fifty -four P63 undersized year round AH units are too much for this lot, too much for these streets and too much for this neighborhood. Parking Solution/Restriction If each unit were to be legally limited to just one car, with no on street daytime or overnight parking allowed, the number of units approved should be limited to the actual number of useable assigned underground or truly off street parking spaces. Community Benefits We still would get 33 additional AH units, all equal or larger than the APCHA minimum size requirements, with no additional on street parking problems, no height variances, no high density issues, and much reduced traffic issues, especially in the spring, summer and fall when Hopkins is a dedicated "Pedestrian/Bikeway ". The only problems not solved or reduced are the developers own financial issues which are not in any way, the responsibility of P &Z. In addition, these 33 AH units should be designated "owner occupied" and not offered for short or long term rental, as tempting for the unit owners as that might be. Protection By P &Z We rely upon the Planning & Zoning Commissioners to protect us from developers that always want taller, more dense, more crowded projects because that's exactly how they improve their P &L. P &Z and City Council are the neighbors first and last line of defense. You must make sure that this AH development application is reduced to make it compatible with the neighborhood. Very truly yours, Steve Goldenberg Fourth St. lookin • South Fourth St. looking North F d ry 4- �, P64 October 26, 2010 Dear Members of the P & Z, The proposed redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge propertyinto 54 affordable housing units needs to be very closely examined rather thanbeing passed off as having virtually no different effect on our neighborhoodthan the previously approved condominium hotel project. The Aspen Area Community Plan encourages both "maintainingand encouraging a diverse and balanced lodging inventory" in order toensure a vibrant tourist economy and providing affordable housing for a "critical mass of local residents ". We agree with bothobjectives but only one will be built on the Boomerang property. Our immediate neighborhood has lost 2 small lodges (theBoomerang and Christiana) and another will be replaced by a place of worship(L'Auberge). The BoomerangLodge was a perfectly good operating lodge when it was torn down bydevelopers hoping that would hurryalong the issuance of a building permit. It didn't and the economy turned down (a lot of us are suffering thru thisdownturn, not just this developer) and the financial crisis has made itimpossible for them to obtain a construction loan. If there were no struggling developer, what would be thebest use of this land? Housing orlodge? From the point of view of aneighborhood, the 54 units of the lodge would be filled during high season andquiet in the off season. Theaffordable housing would be full all year round. The impact on the Shadow Mountain neighborhood of the samesize building is much more with housing than lodging. In order to be in character with the neighborhood, the AHunits need to be fewer and larger than lodge units that are built for visitorsto spend a week or two using. (34of the units have less than the minimum square footage set forth by the housingauthority.) As for neighborhood parking, when the Christiana wasrebuilt, the city council decided that the head in spaces traditionally used bythe lodge in the public right of way along Fourth St ought to be public spaces. At one point the Council even considered charging the lodge $40,000 a yearfor the 11 spaces. When the Jewish Center applied for head in parking on theirside of Fourth St. the request was denied in order to retain the spaces for thepublic. Why should the head in spacesin front of the Boomerang be private when the other developments don't havethat right? Won't this causeproblems with the parking at the Christiana which is public? P65 The Boomerang will have 33 underground parking spaces, so 33units would be the right size for that development. The Christiana on the same size property contains 25 lodgeunits with 34 bedrooms. That size would be appropriate for the Boomerang also. The exterior of the building would nothave to change but the units would be more appropriately sized for full timeoccupants (teachers, doctors, etc.) rather than for lodge occupants. The new AACP states that "the residentsof CWH and free market housing in the same neighborhood should be treatedfairly, equally and consistently regarding quality of life issues (ex.parking). Housing should emphasizequality construction and design even if that emphasis increases initialcosts and lessens production ". On the other hand the AACP also aims to prevent the furtherloss of lodging inventory . Theyalso propose amending the City and County Land Use Codes to eliminate theability to convert lodging to other uses. Maybe we wouldn't have to increase the lodging tax if we had morelodges. If the AH is considered appropriate for this property pleaseconsider retaining the zoning for a lodge in case this proposal doesn't workout. The AACP also suggestslimiting zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhoods and thecommunity. Because the developerof this project believes that "the AH Certificate may make the projecteconomically feasible in the long run" we believe that this project maybe abandoned in which case in the long run maybe another small lodge could bebuilt here some day. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Cheryl Goldenberg P66 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my opinions on the amendment request to a planned unit development at 500 W. Hopkins. I am involved in this process for two reasons. First, I work for a family who has owned property in this neighborhood since the late 80's. Secondly, I have lived in deed restricted "employee housing" for almost 28 years. While I am grateful for Affordable Housing and the benefits of ownership, I am not a supporter of the attitude "anywhere at any cost ". It has to "fit with the existing neighborhood" or the people living there will be at odds with their neighbors before they move in. It has to have beauty and taste....not just cramming in as many people as possible so that those who have taken a risk on Aspen's real estate market don't lose anything. We've all lost in the last few years; some more than others. In this particular neighborhood, parking is already tight even without the proposed project. Initially, the City had a rule that one off street parking space for every bedroom needed to be provided. When we purchased our condo, the City broke it's own rule and, after allowing additional FAR for the free market unit gave into the developer's smooth talking attorney and gave away our off street parking. TWENTY EIGHT years later, we are still parking on the street. We have lived in our condo longer than anyone in the building and we are the only ones without off street parking. In the winter, it's often a mess with snow piles everywhere and cars sometimes parked halfway into the road because the snow plow hasn't come through once the cars have been dug out. There is not enough parking for the people who LIVE in my neighborhood, let alone for the visitors. Sometimes, I have to park a block away from our building. I support an off street parking space for each bedroom. We reared our two children in a 2 bedroom, 1.5 bath condominium of 1200 sq. ft. (and that's BIG for employee housing). Even so, we have always needed an additional storage space for things such as snow tires, road tires, bicycles, skis /snowboards, seasonal clothing and gear, holiday decorations, etc. Who wins if we squeeze the people that make the town work? All this does is set up another US vs THEM and makes the employee feel like a second class citizen. Personally, I think the minimums are already too small and I do not support allowing housing that is below the minimums already established. 1 believe that the best use for the property is as originally approved. It is the perfect neighborhood for a lodge; close to town and on the bus route. As Aspen's economy continues to rebound, we will need these rooms and then our visitors can enjoy a walk into town down a quiet Hopkins Avenue. Sincerely, Patricia Kanipe P67 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in care of Ben Gagnon Re: Boomerang Lodge Application From: Al West, 634 W. Hopkins Avenue, Date: October 26, 2010 I am a resident of 634 W Hopkins since 1986 and am writing to oppose the application to convert the approved Historic Boomerang Lodge to a year round High Intensity Affordable Housing project. My reasons are: 1. Aspen needs small lodges to continue as a successful resort. 2. The special PUD was granted on that basis. (Historic Lodge Preservation). 3. This is a rezoning without the normal process. 3. There is not enough off street parking for 54 AH units even if limited to 1 car per unit. 4. The hotel room size units are too small for reasonable year round use. 5. There are too many year round units for this size property. There could be close to 100 occupants. 6. This is more than double, almost triple the density of the 14 AH units at Little Ajax. 7. There will be a lot more traffic than from a rebuilt lodge. 8. There will be cars parked all over Hopkins, Fourth and Fifth day and night. 9. There needs to be some limit on pets. 10. This will impede the nature and safety of the pedestrian /biking use of W. Hopkins Ave. 11. This is out of character for this quiet neighborhood. KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk @kcelaw net 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PC" Irc@kcelaw.net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, 111, PC jee n ccelaw net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 COREY T. ZURBUCH ctz @kcelaw.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925 -3977 EBEN P. CLARK epc @kcelaw net www.kcelaw.net MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk @kcelaw.net DAVID C. UHLIG dcu @kcelaw.net " also admitted in California October 27, 2010 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Rezoning and PUD Amendment Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: Our office represents Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, all of whom are neighbors of the Boomerang property. We are very concerned about the impact on the neighborhood of the proposed changes to the development program for the Boomerang Lodge. These changes will have significant and detrimental impacts on the quality of life in the neighborhood. This letter will focus primarily on the requested parking variance and the proposed PUD Amendment and Rezoning. Parking The initial application grossly misrepresented the request for special review approval of a parking waiver. The application indicates that the project "includes 54 units and 51 proposed parking spaces," and indicates that the applicant is seeking a waiver for only three parking spaces. See Application at page 15. The applicant recently supplemented the application by adding a Parking Plan (but still has not provided a neighborhood parking impact study) which shows parking as follows: 33 parking spaces in the garage, one handicapped space partially on -site and partially in the alley, 12 perpendicular spaces within Fourth Street, and 8 parallel spaces on Hopkins Avenue. Twenty of the 54 required parking spaces are on the street — not "off- street." The Code requires "off- street parking spaces" to be provided in the ratio of one space per dwelling unit. Code Section 26.515.030. While the applicant's proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan may be reasonable justification for a 3- space waiver, it in no way is reasonable justification for a 20 -space waiver. Instead of parking off - street, the Applicant has used all of the off -street lot area for construction of the building — that is, it has "maxed -out" the site and proposed to privitize portions of the public right of way in order to satisify its parking requirements. While this might have been approriate for a lodge with significantly less parking demand, it is completely inappropriate in this circumstance — where there are proposed to be 54 permanently occupied year -round residences, the owners of which are each likely to need at least one vehicle. The Code requires one off - street parking space per unit for multi - family residential uses and .5 parking spaces per unit for lodge uses. This is because of the G7 Planning and Zoning Commission October 27, 2010 Page 2 obvious difference in need for vehicles. In Ordinance 26, Series of 2006, which granted the Boomerang approval for the redevelopment of a lodge, the City required that the Lodge provide a fleet of five bicycles for guests and provide either a shuttle service, an electric vehicle for use of guests, secure and covered bicycle storage, or join the Transportation Options Program. Use of the 12 spaces on Fourth Street by the Lodge made some sense when the property was to be operated as a Lodge — it would only be in full use approximately two weeks at the end of the year holidays and the Fourth of July. The rest of the time parking would be available to the public along Fourth Street and it was under these circumstances that the Encroachment Licesnse was executed. The 12 spaces on Fourth Street and the handicapped space are the subject of a Revocable Encroachment License. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the Revocable Encroachment License. The Revocable Encroachment License presents multiple problems. The License states (twice) very clearly that it is "revocable at any time for any reason" by the City. The License is not exclusive. In fact, the License is "subordinate" to the City's right to use that area "for any public purposes" (presumably including parking by memebrs of the public), and the City reserves the right to grant "such additional licenses or property interests in or affecting said public property as it deems necessary." The License provides in the next -to -last paragraph that, "the following actions of Licensee or his/her agents and employees shall automatically terminate and cancel this agreement: * * * change of ownership." Therefore, the Revocable License, by its own terms, will automatically terminate every time a unit is sold. This License is in no way a permanent parking space for a unit owner and there is no guarantee of availability of these parking spaces at any time. These 12 spaces should not be counted in satisfying the Applicant's parking requirement. The Applicant has proposed 8 parallel parking spaces along Hopkins — again, intending to privitize public right of way so that the Applicant can max -out the developable area on the lot. Hopkins Ave. is a bicycle and pedestrian through -way during the spring, summer and early fall. Injecting 54 new year -round residences on this street and especially with eight paralell parking spaces will endanger those bikers and pedestrians. Since the Applicant has not provided a traffic impact study it is dangerous to assume that there will be no impacts on the neighborhood by the traffic generated by 54 units along a pedestrian and bike pathway. Even more important than the Code requirements is the practical reality on the street. Attached as Exhibit B are photographs taken by Steve Goldenberg of the parking in the neighborhood on September 22, 2010, at approximately 6:OOPM. This is early in the off - season. However, it was at a time when there was an event occuring at the Jewish Center. At the present time, this level of parking (all spaces full) on the local streets happens several times a month for part or all of one or two days, but when the recently approved synagogue is completed, the parking will be like this most Friday evenings many Saturday mornings through noon, on approximately a dozen other various Jewish holidays and numerous weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, memorial services and other special events all year long. Also, there is presently significant traffic and parking generated by after school drop off and pick up for the Hebrew School, which, of course, will also increase after the new syngogue is completed. Since the Lodge was demolished there are absolutely no parking spaces currently being occupied by users of the Boomerang property. As you can see from the pictures, the spaces the applicant desires to privitize and take credit for are already fully occupied and in use a good percentage of the time and soon will be used much more based on already existing approvals granted by the City. - 3o Planning and Zoning Commission October 27, 2010 Page 3 The specific criteria by which you are to evaluate the request for a waiver of the off - street parking requirements are provided below in italics, with our comments below in regular type. 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. The parking needs of the future residents of the Boomerang have not been met — even temporarily, much less permanently. The parking on the local streets is often full today and much of the on- street parking may be revoked at any time and will be automatically revoked on sale of a unit. Also, we have no idea what the projected traffic generation may be because no traffic study was provided by the applicant. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The only difficulty with providing on -site (off - street) parking is that the Applicant has proposed to max -out the on -site development and privitize the public right of way. It would be a very simple matter to eliminate several units and provide additional off -street parking at a rate of one space per unit. This is what the Little Ajax affordable housing project did across the street. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. The planned on -site garage does not adequately serve the needs of the residents of the proposed units because it only provides 33 of the 54 required spaces, and the on -street parking is already in use much of the time. The Jewish Center and the Christiana were not allowed to privatize the "head -in" parking on Fourth Street, and Boomerang should not be allowed to count Fourth Street as private off - street parking for its residents — especially since there is no guarantee those spaces will be available. At the APCHA Hearing, the APCHA Board suggested that there should be a deed restriction on the units which limited the units to one vehicle per unit, prohibited the unit owners from seeking an on- street parking permit from the City and prohibited the parking of RVs, boats, or similar vehicles in the parking garage. While this is helpful, it still fails to address the basic lack of off - street parking. Because the Applicant desires to max -out its development of the site and privitize the public right -of -way, its parking proposal fails to satisfy the criteria for special review approval of a waiver of the off - street parking requirements. And given the complete lack of either a traffic or parking impact study, the Commission would be remiss to grant the requested special review approval of a off - street parking waiver. Planning and Zoning Commission October 27, 2010 Page 4 PUD Amendment/Rezoning The applicant proposes to retain all of the variances it received through the PUD process while changing the underlying zoning from R -6 /LP (medium - density residential, lodge preservation) to R/MF (high density residential, multi - family). The P &Z has final authority to approve an amendment to the PUD Plan for the Boomerang Lodge and makes a recommendation to the City Council which has final authority with regard to a rezoning of the property. While these are two separate requests, they have similar issues and, for brevity, are dealt with together in this letter. Both a PUD Amendment and a Rezoning require that the applicant demonstrate consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan ( "AACP ") ( "the proposed development shall be consistent with the AACP," Code § 26.445.050.A.1.; and "whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the AACP," Code § 26.310.040.B.). The version of the AACP adoopted in 2000 is the version currently approved by the City (2000 AACP) and effective under the City Code. However, the community and P &Z have been working very hard on an update of the AACP and an updated draft is now available on the City's website (2010 AACP). Given that both a PUD Amendment and a Rezoning of property are discretionary reviews and given the fact that the 2010 AACP reflects the more current thinking of the citizens of Aspen and the P &Z, deference should be given to both the 2000 AACP and the 2010 AACP. There is no questioning that affordable community housing is a very high priority of the community and creation of additional affordable housing is discussed at length in both the 2000 AACP and the 2010 AACP. The only question is whether this is the right location - and the answer is no. What the applicant fails to acknowledge is that preservation of the City's small lodges is also a very high priority of the 2000 AACP, the 2010 AACP and the Lodge Preservation zone district. The 2000 AACP identified potential affordable housing sites to accomplish the community goal of additional housing. 2000 AACP, pg 29. The Boomerang property is not on that list. The 2000 AACP states: "Aspen's economic base is real estate, tourism, arts, and recreation, especially skiing. Retail, lodges, services, professionals, and nonprofit organizations also support and are supported by the resort economy. Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges." 2000 AACP at pg 31, emphasis added. The 2010 AACP has been updated to reflect the current economic reality and is more explicit about the subject of lodge preservation. The following several quotes are from the 2010 AACP currently on the City's website. This plan identifies the resort economy as the only sustainable economy, and identifies a range of methods to maintain, protect and enhance it. 2010 AACP at pg 2. Although past Community Plans called for a diversity of visitors, we have continued to see the loss or conversion of dozens of moderate and economy lodges, and watched the lodging inventory tilt towards luxury projects with large Planning and Zoning Commission October 27, 2010 Page 5 rooms and extensive amenities. We want to encourage a diversity of lodging choices, and preserve existing lodges rather than watch them frequently convert to other uses. 2010 AACP at Pg 2. The Lodging Sector During the last 10 -15 years, the market has favored, and the land use codes have allowed many small to mid -sized lodges to convert to other uses. This has resulted in the development of deluxe, high -end, fractional "lodge" projects and large second homes that result in excessive job generation and buildings that are inconsistent with our town's modest bulk, mass, and scale. We should formulate a strategy that favors economy /moderate priced lodges and encourages a diversity of inventory. 2010 AACP at Pg 13 Lodging Sector Policies: IV.3. Maintain and encourage a diverse and balanced lodging inventory. 2010 AACP at Pg 18. IV.4. Prevent the further loss of lodging inventory. 2010 AACP at Pg 18. Lodging Sector Action Items: IV.4.d Amend the City and County Land Use Codes to eliminate the ability to convert lodging to other uses. 2010 AACP at Pg 18. It is obvious from the 2010 AACP that the community cannot afford to continue to lose its lodges. The Loss of the Boomerand Lodge and 54 additional lodge units will be permanent. The only sustainable economic engine of this community is the tourist economy and a diverse lodging inventory is critical to that business. By virtue of its location several blocks west and a few blocks north of the the nearest ski lift, the Boomerang is not another Residences at Little Nell; instead, as long as it remains a lodge it will be moderately priced and help provide for diverse visitors. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district is to preserve and protect lodges — since the resort economy is our only sustainable economy. The community has recognized — through the draft 2010 AACP — that new moderately priced lodges will not be established and retention of historic lodge sites is critical to the sustainability of the community. I suspect the applicant will argue that the Boomerang Lodge is already "lost" or gone because they tore it down — and it is not economically viable for the applicant to re -build the lodge. This may be true. But it is not the community's or the neighborhood's obligation to rescue investors from the current economy. The property successfully operated as a lodge for many decades and its future operation as a lodge should not be prevented to save someone from a bad investment. The best interests of the community are served by the R -6 /LP overlay zoning which currently exists. In addition to consistency with the AACP, in order to justify a re- zoning the applicant must show that the proposal is consistent with the surrounding zone districts and land uses. Code §26.310.040.C. The adjacent affordable housing — Little Ajax — is zoned AH /PUD and is the only `-3 Planning and Zoning Commission October 27, 2010 Page 6 multi - family deed restricted housing in the neighborhood. Importantly, Little Ajax provides all of its required parking off - street, is developed at a much lower density than is proposed by Boomerang and is compatible with the neighborhood. The remainder of the surrounding neighborhood is zoned R -6, R- 15, and Lodge Preservation. None of the neighborhood is zoned R/MF. At the APCHA Hearing, the applicant's representative stated that the applicant was very proud it had never sought or needed any "variance" for its development proposal for the property, and that it was still not seeking any variances (other than the parking waiver). While this may be true in the sense of a "variance" granted by the Board of Adjustment, it is not true with regard to variances from the underlying zone district dimensional requirements granted through the PUD process. Both are "variances" from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The R/MF zoning itself is not compatible with this area of the City, and the applicant seeks additional variances through the PUD Process so that it can further exceed even the limitations of the R/MF zone district. These are height, floor area, side yard setback and rear yard setback. While these PUD variances may have been compatible with the neighborhood in the context of a historic lodge with an approximate 50% average occupancy rate and much less need for parking, these variances are not compatible with the neighborhood in the context of year -round permanent housing with (at least) one vehicle per unit and inadequate off - street parking. For all of the above reasons, we respectfuly request that you (1) deny the Boomerang project request for PUD Amendment and Special Review for waiver of off - street parking, and (2) recommend to the City Council that it deny the request for rezoning. Please let us know if you have any questions concerning any of this, and we look forward to discussing this with you at the hearing on November 2, 2010. Sincerely, KLEIN COTE & EDWARDS, LLC , "ri�__ it / - Joseph 3 Edwards, III R-4 I REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE • ��/ I Received L i ! eas'vt License Number. a7h7 - 4373) 3) Land Lease ees: qua re Feet x$2.50 /sq.ft. Monthly lease cccccccccccc-cccccccccc— 535627 TH FOLLOWING SECTIONS AS I UDI L " COUN R 2E.00392 1DZ0.003 :304 0 TEMPORARY; PRE - EXISTING CONDITION AND PERPETUATUAL UNTIL REVOKED BY THE CITY. This Agreement made under this license and entered into this _day of 20_, by and between the CITY OF A r EN, Pitkin ounty, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "ASPEN" and � - . s&t L - , at (02- ,;( nil�H S�.' n), i/ L,J & , (Print F ame , (Print Legal Mailing Address) daytime phone number 9i) 25- ?, , hereinafter referred to as "Licensee ", WHEREAS, Licensee is the owner of the following described properties located in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Street Address: CO s r !rat r. 6 : el) - • r 1 / Legal Address: �~ IC fire -, . . a € 3 _, _ , s' 4C / ' .A kf"; i+ -- < ..I- WHEREAS, said properties abut the following describ d public right(s) -of-way: L _ c7 o c /9-4// Afik f rvvI.) LoT C / aocI 3/ Y�9-fs s %E-/3 r rn/ y s WHEREAS, Licensee desires to encroach upon said right -of -way for the following purposes and as shown and described in Exhibit 'A ", attached to this License: Describe Exhibit "A ": • f tE. IS 9 S'„ JGi✓rtt___ WHEREAS, Section 21.04.050 of City of Aspen Municipal Code delegates the authority to the City Engineer to grant encroachment licenses, WHEREAS, ASPEN agrees to the grant of a private license of encroachment as built subject to certain conditions, THEREFORE, the consideration of the mutual agreement hereinafter contained, ASPEN and Licensee covenant and agree as follows: ,1 revocable license is hereby granted to Licensee to occupy, maintain and utilize the above described portion of public Right -of -way for the purposes described. This license is granted for a specific use and within a specified term as checked above, subject to being terminated at any time and for any reason at the sole discretion of the City Engineer of the City of Aspen. This license shall be subordinate to the right of ASPEN to use said area for any public purposes. Licensee is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the public right -of -way, together with improvements constructed therein, which ASPEN, In the exercise of its discretion, shall determine to be necessary to keep the same in a safe and clean condition. The Licensee shall obtain right -of -way and Building Permits as required by the City for any work to be performed in the public right-of-way with design approvals for such work obtained from the Engineering Department. Licensee agrees to join any improvement district formed for the purpose of constructing iipprgvements within public right -of -way. Unles a pfopery that is the subject of thls license agreement is covered by a homeowners insurance policy, Licensee shall at all times dud the term hereof, cafry public liability insurance for the benefit of the City with limits • of less than those specified by Section 24 -1 1R:9.. (cu , e 14, 99 ntly $150,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) as ma - a • • d from time to time, naming the City as IF "Ad ti ha 1 Licen r ' sh ..ain Aald public l i nsurance coverage in full force and effect during • - rm s sh the City with a m 't ceii Cate of such coverage evidencing its validity. All insurance po • -- aintaine pure 11 fymi tsb 4.r• ntain the following% orsenient: It is hereby understood and agreed that this insuran T • at sir ma not be ca e s sty (30) days after receipt by the City, by registered mail, ofa written notice of such - , - • - n� or not to rene T t i ?-- shall show proof of this insurance to'the Cit before this agreement is filed. • "'C_! Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Aspen, its officers, employ e• r .; - and - -in • : - • -, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without lim t r - e i2: ' ury from bo ' •, death, property loss or damages, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in and ' - -'- • • nett - d with thi '- • se, if such injury, loss, or damage is .caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or pa •y • _ - t omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of licensee. Licensee agrees to investigate, hen••-, respond •, -- • to provide defense - or and defend against, any such liability, claim or demands at the sole expense of the licensee or, at ' option of the City o - - -n, licensee grees to pay City of Aspen or reimburse City of Aspen for the defense costs incurred by the City of Aspen in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. The licensee also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attomey fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false or fraudulent. L City of Aspen - Engineering Department, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 fY970- 9205080 REVISEe.09/132006 ... �Kth ii A- 35 This license may be terminated by Licensee at any time and for any reason following delivery of a wdtten notice of Licensee's intent to cancel. ASPEN may terminate this license at any time and for any reason. Upon termination, Licensee shall at Licensee's expense, remove any improvements or encroachments from said property. The property shall be restored to a condition satisfactory to ASPEN. This license is subject to all state laws, the provisions of the Charter of the City of Aspen as it now exists or may hereafter be amended, and the ordinances of the City of Aspen now in effect or those which may hereafter is adopted. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent Aspen from granting such additional licenses or property Interests in or affecting salt. public property as it deems necessary. The conditions hereof imposed on the granted license of encroachment shall constitute covenants running with the life of improvements encroaching in public right of way, and binding upon Licensee. The encroachment shall terminate when the improvement has failed or out of compliance with required standards of performance or if it is revoked by the City, whichever comes sooner. In any legal action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attomey's fees. If the structure for which this license was issued is removed for any reason, Licensee shall not continue to rebuild in the public right -of -way. The public right -of -way is for the general public benefit, and it is not for occupation or construction of encroachments. The licensee waives any and all claims against the City of Aspen for Toss or damage to the improvements constructed within the encroachment area. The Licensee clearly understands the following actions of Licensee or his/her agents and employees shall automatically terminate and cancel this agreement: 1) Discontinuation of insurance coverage 2) Change of ownership or alteration of use from the original specific use in encroached area 3) Restriction of ASPEN or its agents and contractors from access to its public land under the encroached area not occupied by a previously constructed building Under these circumstances, the Licensee shall restore the right -of -way under the encroachment to its original or better conditions " mediately and in accordance with the latest Engineering Department standards for improvements of Public right of w . IN WITNE i C EREOF, the parties ex% uted this agreement at ASPEN the day and year first written. 01 ( ,/ . (Licensee sign. tore must be notarized) THE FOLLOWING SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BYA NOT4 a anor Ir. STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) ) ss 111 II III I I 0 Page: 3/21/ 27 03:30r JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / 34 Day o —, 20 b -7 , by ✓en ,e. S1zc ric% (Licensee). WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. (Print Licensee Name) Notary commission expires: Lo / i - t. ..0,---N%•., % %, i I /If Day ii / , / ' � � , IA / i i . • r cccccccccccccccccccccc— n»>»» »»»»» o & » p 0, , (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE, FOR CITY USE ONLY) t T APPROVAL CONDITIONS (List if any): ct,. opc0v " = • CI O A'.• N, •LP •DO / a'. ' � 7D. I DATE: , City of Aspen - Engineering Department, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 gr970- 920 -5080 REVISEO:09H320O6 1 5 0 "fi • II Uli II 1111 I IIIIIIIIII 9560 0 3 .301 JRNICE K NOS CAUDILL PITXIN COUNTY R 81 ° � k 3r \ e T d. Suns, Monument 411 ey Pro • washer X1 .01' 8 10 0( Right —of —Way En roaehment • ' � , . s s 7 . 5. 0 -, Of right- 31 1 —, / L , /I i . 4sp M We y / `' ` _ _ ave„ Fad. Survey Monument , stomped a 19596 / / _ at o trot Bumpy Monument PK ho9 Q washer BI _ _ _ L. I n stomped LS 21947 / °C* / / _� T.9.M Nevi 99.7' V 6 top of PK non I / 1 / / `` ° _ --IgZAy • • I l I I i v � � QJ I 500 s / / l l k a "n / r r ,, ' , 40 / J / I Av e" fr / / S 41-J 2 ~ 7 CO 0 O tO t a J I to / 11 / / �� u ' 1 5 . 09 . _ / �` v l !nt l l K 7 _ fir .. R / / '0.00• . e . xu _`_ / • Z ci p �� / / d // k � W The Survey Monument 75.004j? ' Phs k :tie n- city r igh ki t AP mbar p stomped a 25947 sys� ff Thal Survey W W. ant y 0 f �O W ue F R4/ LTry Aspen block monument 4 sAe21 Map M". 6•• ' o�0��� 0 A eyf. . i V • •j�Q Cd O • Block 32 ! � I , 1 1 I, Knot Sawy Monument b Mon. bears N f f LINE TABLE R red plastic cap f • f �` ^' r relcar • tamped LS 26947 AND < LENGTH 9 rA 411 . . N7.3 W 0 1.52 6I4Y673T1' distance of 129.7 het from U 79.46 57s1 1'T77 record ., (3 7.64 1144'47'497 44 6.69 N74•M1'19'Y <. L6 499 9lr0P•l7 L7 65.26 N7S'Ottr1' boomewy /od wxw.M+rnf k ed! C r` ■ 6 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. I 1 8 W. 6TH STREET, SUtTE.200 (970) 4 - 0 COLORADO B 1/ T (970) 951004 4- PAX (970) 945 -65-5 Exhibit 945-5946 1IL p SCHMUESER 1 GORDON 1 MEYER ASPEN, COLORADO (070) 925-8727 - `cnO,n 1 su9 v Eron CRESTED BUTTE, CO (970) 349-5355 Job No. X06 .10100210of.: 03/07/07 ILMvsn Ds soh Ire exhibit C 0 ' R- 3562 IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III 5 039/2 1 /200 7 03:30[ JPNICE K VOS CPUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 0 0.00 , O lI •-.... OQ OQ! r ifillin c : . :::::::::::: ZZ j C3 O v n 014 C a zEt Q O N� O �O o e i Block 31 . rd. Survey Monument Alley • PK nog R posher 21 01, B j°Ok ,an,.a..ble right— 3 • Cit r SU e , U E Aspe M3p Fred. surrey Monument I l stomped yellow 793 stK cop I — we Fred. Surrey Monument _ Pik nail Q posher stamped LS 739{7 de / top of PK na9 I .61_1 Eck / I I — " z ' "` A I I Soo A) � I ��, Est 021 I I i t l [ w • 1 I 4 r erlb e I / c4 F / .m e I / l I �� $ Q o / . � CO CO I tot 0 / / ta t .P / / / � 3 , " ql rt, U I tot / / i / o & I 8 / ° / / i w o = l S j'Sp97 I t qt R I / 'N 27 E i° �^^e`e -, I tot g CO I _ I I I - _ 1 j I o __ --1 Wes S „� J II'e 1 rn3 Surrey Monument �] � +1 mbar & M Most& co- 4900, Fn A. sums omen. >s ° Pkj n stamped LS 25947 syr Brass cop an oriole. cit 0, right o f Avenu " r (+J E,py of Aspen block monument y °f 9s pe e p9 "5. 66. - .. - - _ 5356. e03.30 ` ° N` t :y sr , 1 " , , JAN 3111111111111111111111111111111 OILL PITKIN COUNT CO R 25.00 • :N P • Block 32 %� 201 8 3 Survey !t end ner Monument it r ,e LINE TABLE co f r stomped IS IMF l pL BF,l41NC9f Mon. boars N]T31 o 1 1 y .� L • , �.. 12 9.46 a' 0I5 feet from . .. y, n�S_ y . rilMarrnrra record (2 ]9.6 LS .61 �9E.� L7 BB.7B L9 6.50 , L9 6.50 �s.e"'�`�� loommo 1.douns..11m1 -SS 1 6 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Exhibit 118 W. E STREET, SURE 200 71 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81001 1�! (9707 945 -1004 FAX (9701 945 -5943 Mx exhibit B • ASPEN, COLORADO (9701 9 25-072 7 .'b'6- - ,�FS[07 at; 03/07 /07 ' "LI ' SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER CRESTED BUTTE, CO (9701 349-5355 Job llo. [,r4,i+E ER9 V RVCVOP9 - ' ../ It ktfif • , . 46 ' 1 0 /i . , 1 1 \ „ \ 1 \ ; . I t ' .. , 1 IL I • '' . \ ‘ ' t tr t i, 4 %., - • . . \ \ • -, - , i I .. i' • 4' .•, -... • • ,. .„ , iiil • • , -4 . • _ i.• ,:. ..... i 4 1 . / (D -• - i. ) 1 Z 1, A :. 1 4:C i CE I i M ., • . • ..s.' CD 1 - 3 , . -n i -■ ; . . -. _ C •C•Sf • r . , ... . ' i . ' ..• .31 - 1_ . , • •••• + Th t . - • • l ti , . ' 4 VI. - it • ' i e • `.. ■ . tr 14- . • ' t , ii • ..; i i. 7 . • 4 • •1 • ..?" ■ . 't *4 I _ - , . . • - n , , - • -,,,:.-7, -i• .. 11 . 1 ,. ..., , • , , , •, - 4 • _ _ _,..., . -'44i" f •: • re :J 's : , , , i i . ) ,. .,,,.t '.,•••- • 4. • • .., -A, ,,,,,. •,...,, It . ,... )1i _ , , it% • : ' ' ' , 1 1 - i tt*. ; t 4- ' .• ' f, f - .. / A Fr R D ... 1 - .. .•••■ , . . ... _ . • 4 1 .: .- . • . • / : . I I -- . 1 .... $ 4 . . ....4, • . .. .' . . ' to ,, • . . * .._ . . . . 4 ',-;.,, 30 *.: • , r s... \ s . *,i, . ' - Ih• -- .- ''' . . ...1 ■ .. ' . • . q 4' - .. al ' . - '.- • % , 1 ' k • ' '''.."" \ - , - t,' N,... - , b V ` '''' l '''' - ' . '-• . i V ■ ,:,. i t 4 t ' • i . - k • ' ,,° 1 (/, '' 1 ok L- ? ; . '' ' ' i ' ? . . 1 : 1 i - . • - , --- - L ' 1 - . ' .,P ‘' 141 • ) i I • , , . i 1 P 1 : • '''.- 1 ' 4 i • • .... ■ - ., . 1 \ f .. . .71-....,,•,. ., • : :- ',0.4‘ ■''' -k. L ' ' :. 1 • I. i .'". r . . .... .: ''''.. , ■ a. . . . 1 ..4. , ,... • • --!.--,..- or-I'll. .. . • a . • .. - , , o` .,. ' K '"' ■ . ,.... .1. . ., • . ' . , JP . " 4. • • .■ • ....-., ---, v - , •.:?.• „ -.•1 •, ,.. ,,,,,,. . 1 -.. ,,' . . _ ...... • t ..... '-- . * 1 "1 ■,.... . lk • c ifr .1 10t . i .. . . . . .. . ' i . ■ - ',. - . 11111 411111 1 4 I I .....) 1P ,.. . • e . ' 0 _ , .. ?J AW' . 1 ;.... . . • _ . It • • . . , . 5 t . 1 , . . . . 4 1 . 4 ■ ' 1 - .3 , . ..--,... ' • ' , ;" • ..1) .. ,. . i I 1 11, , . II'• , # if , -,4 , , . i • .., t ,..._. ?..— e:-., - - - -. .. - . 1 ilifTt. . tli,.. . . ., • _.,...... , . ' - : '' - ' '', ' ..... . .. w. '"' • 41 1 4 j . ,. . 1 . _. .. • s • 0 IX ‘'..,". ' ..... . ■ .. 1 .... • . .. Vs. .. ' , ,P. +,: 7 ' • . -.... - ' ■ tiP , . • ;. 1 wit "t- -,:;,- -;...,..?,- •. , .,, • _ . • . . .., Alt ier.A.. 1 . I I . .. , , . • I i. . . •''. a0 . • k& 1 1 - -- I ',A \ ,•• ..a. W, ,■ • --- '', : -:- ' : * * .'"Ifi ' , 4 •.. 111 ■ - - 1 i . . . , •,.. 1 1 - 1 r t t El ) 1/ I i 44111116 11%* „.......... ' 4 • it ''... I"- ' - \ ..., ?. , . I t F9. - . . I N . '''', •‘. t ,. f ,-, t d i ,, - 1 - ail ......?,3-7 , „ % . - lin (iii, \• .4-, .. - . f , ......:. .......____. i 1 i 44%.......".... f 1 • / . .. ....- • !'4 j fif : . . . 7 4 -/ -.i• . — 1 .-.. . ' .."1:, A • I. '" '' 1 ! .:::''*. • ..3. ' ' ' A \ 1 ' • - 1 , I • I ' ' 8 . -, . • , p , \‘, . All 1 " . , ■ .1 I .\\\: \ \ Ja -.. . . -... ., . i . . • . .... . `.... ',..... , , .. .. .. , r — TIPP111 - .. • .. . • . I . .. __ . -:. — 9 •■ .5 . .. , _ ... .• . . • "..■ , ' r'111111 6 . . . I 0 • 1 ;n■ - - '. ; - ' .,_ .. • . ' 1 ,...: - • ;LI • ..7 -, ' X, • t ; . t .... t . .1 , I :;. V.... 1 , .4.. ,,,•••• . . • . . 4.: 0 . < 111,1 • t g . \ li 4 4 ' ''■ ...) v. \ (, . 1 ...3 ,. • . 1 . . / ..t ±.• ". , VW - - t Ai ' . : 4"-- i KA ! 1 ... ... Vill . I I** 6' NOW . -, — r • f f I .t, ` 41 I S it 4 1 • ski • R ; s • . + d .....• • d. . -- f:'*,. . * , : je 1 1 • • 4. ` T i p . i. A • y L S 1,Y. f..J,, "u x- 1 *II\ . . "\ .illi . -.t • j, rr ;, - ■ a a ASPEN OFFICE GARFIELD & HECHT P.C E. Michael Hoffman 601 East Hyman Avenue r E -Mail: mhoffman @garheldhecht.com Aspen, Colorado 81611 Voice: (970) 544-3442 Telephone (970) 925 -1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Facsimile (970) 925 -3008 Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com October 6, 2010 Mrs. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Supplement to Application for Amendment of PUD Change in Use of the Boomerang Lodge Site Dear Jennifer: On September 17, 2010, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC ( "AFA ") submitted its application (the "Mid - September Application ") for an amendment of the Final Planned Unit Development previously approved by City Council on August 28, 2006. In response to our submittal, you asked us to address two additional sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code ") — Section 26.470.070(2), Change in Use, and Section 26.470.060(3), Change in Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Those two Code provisions are addressed below. Both Code sections deal with a change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020. In the current case, the requested change is from 47 lodge units, five free - market residential units, two affordable housing units (a total of 54 units) and various appurtenant amenities to 54 affordable housing units and the same appurtenant amenities (other than a change in the area where the pool, hot tubs and spas were to be located, as described in Section 2 of this letter). AFA plans to add a balcony to many of the units, but it asks that review of those changes be handled administratively in connection with staffs review of more detailed floor plans of the units. Code Sections 26.470.070(2) and 26.470.060(3) both direct the decision maker (the P & Z for the former and the Community Development Director for the latter) to the general requirements set forth in Section 26.470.050. The requirements of that section, and AFA's response to the same, are discussed immediately below. Requirements of Code & 26.470.050 The purpose of the growth management system "is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and Mrs. Jennifer Phelan October 6, 2010 Page 2 redevelopment creates.. " The current proposal, as a result of the unique location of the Lodge, the design approved in 2006 and the change in use to affordable housing, fully mitigates the effects of the redevelopment of the property on the City. A. General Requirements of Code § 26.470.050 B. 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. There is no annual limit on the growth management allotments available for affordable housing under Code § 26.470.030 D. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the AACP, as discussed in Section IV.a. of our Mid - September Application. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Proposed zoning for the Property is RMF/PUD. A table which compares the requirements of the RMF zone district to the dimensional and other characteristics of the proposal is found on pages 3 and 4 of the Mid - September Application. As shown in the table, the proposal varies from the requirements of the RMF zone district as follows: • The existing, historically designated East Wing is located nine inches closer to the property boundary than permitted by the RMF requirement. • The second floor balcony is seven inches closer to the alley than is permitted by underlying zoning. AFA is seeking the right to add balconies to the remaining units, but those balconies would not extend beyond those previously approved on the second floor. Other than these balconies, the building footprint, including all of the ground floor area, is located outside of the setback area. • The maximum height of the structure is four feet higher than allowed under RMF zoning. • The floor area ratio of the proposal is 1.66 to 1. The applicable FAR for the RMF zone district is 1.5:1.0. As a planned unit development, the proposal is also governed by Chapter 26.445 of the Code. 1. Dimensional Modifications The first three bullet points, above, fall within the ambit of Code § 26.445.040 C., which deals with the dimensional requirements of the PUD. That section states that "the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each provision" but the actual dimensional requirements for the PUD are to be set in the fmal development plan. The dimensional 1 Code § 26.470.050 A. Mrs. Jennifer Phelan October 6, 2010 Page 3 characteristics of the Boomerang Redevelopment project are already defined in an approved final development plan. The first bullet point, the encroachment of the East Wing on the east side yard setback, was approved as a part of the existing PUD Development Plan. The building has existed in its current location for over 50 years and must be continued to maintain the integrity of the historically- designated East Wing. The seven inch encroachment of the balconies into the rear yard setback was approved as a part of the existing PUD Development Plan. It should be maintained as the balconies will add substantially to the livability of the units and will not have a materially negative effect on use of the alley or the Christiana Lodge, located on the other side of the alley. The height of the project was approved as a part of the existing PUD Development Plan. Building height was discussed at length during the 2006 review of AFA's application. The result of that discussion was to break up the massing and to eliminate a third -story addition to the East Wing and to have the highest elements in the center of the project. The maximum height of the project was reduced from 42 feet. The recorded Final Plat was included as Exhibit 2 of the Mid - September Application. Sheet 8 (recorded in Book 83 at Page 12) of the Final Plat reported the height of the various elements of the approved structure. As shown on that page, the height of the East Wing is less than 26 feet, eight inches. The height of the western wing of the approved structure is 26 feet, six inches. Only the center portion of the structure is higher than 32 feet. It is set back from the alleyway by the width of the ramp which services the underground parking garage. Neighbors of the project, including the proposed Jewish temple, the Goldenbergs, the Statins and Martha Madsen, supported the proposal, including its height, when AFA's application was processed by the City in 2006. 2. Density Modifications. Section 26.445.040 B. states that "the maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district," "unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan." The Final PUD Development Plan approved in 2006 permitted the applicant to build a total of 44,915 square feet, split between Lodging (23,547 square feet), Free - Market Residential (10,733 square feet) and Affordable Housing (1,384 square feet). The resulting floor area ratio (FAR) was 1.66:1.0. In the current proposal the entire 44,915 square feet is dedicated to affordable housing use. At a 1.5:1.0 FAR, the project would be permitted 40,500 square feet of floor area. As shown in Exhibit 8 of the Mid - September Application, the "livable" area of the units in the current project is less than that amount -- 38,332 square feet. The remaining 6,500 square feet of floor area is utilized by corridors, stairways between floors, the Common Room and other "non- unit" purposes. The spirit of the RMF zone district parameter is promoted in the current proposal. Mrs. Jennifer Phelan October 6, 2010 Page 4 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. AFA has attempted to maintain as much of the Original Approval in the current request as possible. The only changes are those absolutely necessary to accommodate a change in use to affordable housing. As discussed in the application filed in mid - September, AFA is asking the Historic Preservation Commission for a modification of that portion of the property included on the "historic inventory" to allow the pool and related spa and patio area may be converted to a lawn "picnic area." The APCHA has informed AFA that the cost of maintaining the pool will be a hardship for members of the homeowners association. In addition, the pool must be removed because it is an "attractive nuisance" and a real threat to any children living within the project. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord No. 6 — 2010, §2) Not applicable. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free- market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a City of Aspen Land Use requirement ( "voluntary units') may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26470.100 Employee /Square Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §2) Technically this section is inapplicable to the current proposal because the applicant is not seeking the right to build free - market housing. However, it is important to note that all of the units proposed here will be deed restricted to Categories 3 and 4. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure Zt Mrs. Jennifer Phelan October 6, 2010 Page 5 includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure. Please see the discussion of this topic under the Code requirements for subdivision approval found in Exhibit 10 of the Mid - September Application. Conclusion AFA's request fully satisfies all of the requirements of Code Section 26.470.050, and otherwise meets the provisions of Code Sections 26.470.070(2) and 26.470.060(3). The Change in Use proposed here is consistent with the letter and intent of these Code sections. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman ■< �w a i i vuvxie I ww1 W 10aTI I 0 M]tl]M9 OOVtlO1O3'N3dSY N p '� wwa.i mx'n 1 1 w'rian ia+mmrrmoiv 30N3A 1S3M 005 a i R j S 9 �W 1 S10311HOLItl JJdINNf10 S3 I8VHO 300010NH2l3W009 lid 1 Q ! x..401 13aa1s H lano d I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .o-s pl "I ^ I ' w l ° 'I ° I ° 0 I I' ° 9 I tr 1 ~ a�w? aeia�ov p \ 3 arr marrows I o-s ) ( tflor e o i Ill I w 7 y _t,,- I !» li 3 I z c I I trill • ..NN I I t 1 ;I 16)).64* V 222 J In I O i o IL ID I I '/ . ,J I I h = ' N _Jai f z 04 / \V lc I I \ \\ 1\ it i 0 . atis, - z I o. ' . 1 '4 'r g I i - g 46 da I GUYS - S P � in or. 410 oft o s iaaa.s M1dld 0 ' 2. (II t 1- ‘ A se" 10 IA 0, . . no. 01.KIt m .:::: r :;13 IL R A , L0, 00 .0.110131 34 1.1041.10, y H .11 0. , 00‘210100 'N3dSV .‹C 31IN3AV SNIMON 133M @EN S10311HONV 3JAINN110 9318VH3 300019M/21301008 i II 1 $ 2 (12 I Th, tu „ CI; 2-* - , . Z \ I . rcil:X, \ 11.1 to In p \ 1 FT - - \ \----\ , ---•?--- '‘ I ( i • 1 • \ .-..---"---"---:‘ \ i 1 • I ‘, , \ \ \--- ,---." • . 0 17) • ! \ \ ‘ ,--\ \ 4 % ' 1r)* i ' 1 "),,‘<=1 .r. \ \ , ,• - 14,1 \ - ,, i \ ....<''' ..-• , ,-- i 041 IN 5 ' 1 1 11/4 i f t - II ez- -, . 1 1 t ---- r ■ i: , i rry , , LI g , ' —* pti 1 .i: ___J. .131.:--:„. 1 HI I I i 1 -I - I Ail TM/2W i _C;•-- L '*.- - ', : i -' - - - Q2). i i _______ti.44/ = • ,..a r= : ,„, , ,•2 . ! ---' N. 0 I . k 'N ..,7 ". 111 ®--4 it-if, - . .-- [ , ..-. i i- § 1 -4 --- -,. -- -.. 1 1 I- „.. 111 Al) 7 n .." 0 0 i Cd) i l----1 1-4— . 1 I I V N ' I - I ' 1 I A- I .- ! C -' - - ;`• ' 1 - I -\ . t 1 < l • ■ 1 M-- : ! i 1 ---\--- \ Ili i '•1 _-__. _ • ••■4 i I I I 1 r - • ------. 1 -(lik en ! • ••••4 I I I I 4.1 .,..... - I e , c i , 4.1 i ill I i . ! i . 1 i • \ / \ ! , • , ', i y, . r- \ o k, , , , i i \ , , , , , , 4, • 1 . i L A II1 S MI ! i 1 i 1.....i i ■ 1 2-\ ..P: lr' = il : k . tzt oavatricx)*N3dSY \ • i if r i H i I I b i i 11 ?;34 li I 2 1 1 a 1 P I ' 39(10'1 9NV1131A10011 i A 0 : 1 I H I 1 I 1 1 I i * 2 LC< 1 1 • .1 Z 4 I .I L4 e ' \ l S -' \ - \ \ . j * > ,,,,,..\ It ...e \ , o z 3 III 111 N ) : ) ... *Gig At 03 . I 4 ,0 ...e % lil i I C- .... ,„ . 7. la. SP alle i ;L 1 I V \ ,• OW V ewe en ■• - 1 i MIL MI6 SSC) 1 1 k 1 a at el i '--. .....- g, . : " ' ^ I _ *, 0 n . . 1 , I on i ; n a n n i -- • - w 4 V n o o .. ft n W• Wi A VI CI .4 5 \ I w --'.• VI Z GI ; \_ warwwwww or t V i G 0 I; Z i - eV 1/4 4 w w — . 7 a .... 1 . ‘ CS 11 _ n • 4 1.1 = +a ;4 4 096[9&'0L61(Yd 1 921413 I? 00 N90. 009 M BELE 551'0.' 0100960 g 001MO100N3dSV ! E 6'0[6 %tld W6; sZ ll9060 N3d5V3dStl 100 NrvVAN 1003019 3f1•3AV SNINdOH 1S3M 00S ; i (' 2 r 4 Q I U �/ i S1O311HONN 3t3INNf1O S31aVH0 3D001 ONHN9W009 ° - du.v - 1 12x615 H12:1f1Od I I I I I f - -I I I 1 1 1N��AY _ 7// 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 4 1 " 1. 1° 1" I° y ' 1 1 a I` 1 I 1 "' s I I I I 1 I I b >I1VM 3J3aN OOO N < H ,, 6 3N114a3dbdld _ _\ y 1 U) N \ \ III III -tS m y :) . ( 21 .2 D w 7.14 Tr I K CC I 0_ I \o\ \ fI N z P W ,' < \ \Ills/ / $ I I Ix p % 111 1 1 ` U I I I I ;Illil I I d :: s : X r : I _ i -I 2 " al rc �� .,, " ie In i m CI \` w /ti ll\ ` Y o J I o a. �r;': c a) W I d I 0 z in /4hv1 I I a W r r . — 2 N z \III ` " — i ;;,/ \\11/1 �-0 a I / I \\ - II \ � / % Ill h�`� - I & 1 I r /II1\ " ° PIP** r I i . r ri m, -- O ,9 5 Y r4 IL h i n J I I AV 0, Ho o11vd o1 Q ; y': o N r�S � }. YjK � Q-;4%i1/4i,7" / o �' / �` o I a - C JINN 313aONOO 1332115 HI. IA 00331010a 'N3dsv E i itl„,i , lit. I * i Fel i ii 11;1 1 i e4 , 4 1 ,, - c.n ;: ,4 i :1 5 I * /I 1 4 ,& - ; 4 i ajA10011 60191 30 it 1 1 i g a a 4 . 1 il 1„ iacaa lig 1'1 A tft 4 icil MO % Ea .51 Ni 1 Sat L soll; 1- 15511 ifj Mill x , 1 I i 353134 d „..., .. i 4' . u, .11.5 i us es' R , GP A 12 I tl- 1 "''..." .1 • . ' ....._T- 11 04 Z 1 II. en t-.--- I i I __ - . 7-1--- % 57-mr-R"7 I ' - .LI 1 /1 1. 00 _____---- . , )T.I 7 - - - * 4. i .. , , 1 II 1 i ■ '41 , i 1 e fa il! i : ill '., . . 1 i 1 ; i:. I , liSi!' ,- \ \di i ti 1 2 ,- - - -,),.fr; -,-. „-- 1 1 r'',...l."....--.1 fr i ii in s-64 4 .7 1 1 ,, , i f t i- ::; . iit i ii t ir ii i -.. I el till] , Ri 31 s 11114.4113Vii I:I ix II 1 3 r5irilli344:!;11111 '"` 1 .1 i' ii 4- — lifiltahlecii 11 kii 1 I .. Id I if! ! ■ 1 ..4.14-,1**"41,104,11 1 . t . t .., ..f, tt.shok.:41. it ' hill I I '''- ttiall'IH-41' i'',1 i I I ;' -, lit 'til:131i,MI" I • ' - i 1 II , I 'II Ix 11; Ail- • I 1"-rikeltiVersi:',ity:".- ",. • ' lila' It ' '1=')J1‘14i.'..fiiiitctill'i*.44 1 ! l'il 1114o444-'11 ' i 1 1 1 1- ' ., t 1 1 I • A ' 1. 1 1 i - ! \ 1 - • )P;4,44;0-, iStirm f . ' • ZE'l:11.441, '' n '.: -7: - .• : P rrc- ''"'" f ' i iif irc. ' R,„ .40 -, -1;+,11.....1'..1 1,4 il 1 '. fi, “'"" :-.4 *,.. ipi li I a li ti.;1vdisit ',441:4-a .. 1 i - _____ ■ 8 ..._------- 1 1 -- - .1.1 ____ --- --- i i- \ % -- - - -- ..-# ..- ....,..,, .-. \ '• 7';-. . IP S ° • 1 44 October 28, 2010 Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Property Application for Amendment of PUD Dear Mr. Gagnon and Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: On behalf of the Christiana Aspen Condominium Owners Association, Inc., comprising 29 owners, we want to express our very strong reservations and concerns over the Application for Amendment of PUD for the Boomerang Lodge Property submitted by Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC dated September 17, 2010 (the "Application "). We understand that this matter will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 2, 2010. The Christiana is a PUD project adjacent to the Boomerang Lodge. We supported the currently existing and approved PUD. While the concessions granted the Boomerang Lodge project, such as increased height, may have been appropriate to preserve the historic Boomerang Lodge, they should not carry over to an entirely new project. The very fact that so many integral provisions of the Land Use Code are involved, suggests that the proposed Application should not be granted. The Christiana owners, as many other neighborhood property owners, are concerned about the many extremely poor precedents that will be set if the Application were to be approved: 1. In our view, the Application does not meet the standards for a zoning amendment. Approval of the Application would result in an unacceptable de- stabilization of historic and lodge preservation goals and the existing neighborhood. The Application does not meet standards of review of the following subsections of Section 26.310.040 of the Land Use Code that must be met for a change of zoning to be granted: The Application does not demonstrate changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. The fact of an economic downturn and the desire of a developer wishing to maximize profit does not meet the required standard for changed circumstances to justify a zoning district amendment. The proposed zoning amendment conflicts with the lodge preservation and historic preservation goals of the Land Use Code. The Application is not consistent with "all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan," as proposed in the "draft" 2010 Community Plan update. In particular, on page 13, in addressing the lodging sector, the draft Plan states: 1 "During the last 10 - 15 years, the market has favored, and the Land Use Codes have allowed many small to mid -sized lodges to convert to other uses. This has resulted in the development of deluxe, high end, fractional "lodge" projects and large second homes that result in excessive job generation and buildings that are inconsistent with our town's modest bulk, mass and scale. We should formulate a strategy that favors economy /moderate priced lodges and encourages a diversity of inventory." Although affordable housing is also a stated goal, converting a lodge project to employee housing is inconsistent with the lodging sector goals which should take priority in a ski town. When the economy is tourism - based, more lodge rooms and pillows are needed over time. Other inconsistencies include conflicts with Sections IV.3 maintaining and encouraging a diverse and balanced lodging inventory and IV.4 preventing the further loss of lodging inventory. Section IV.4(b) states as a goal that methods should be explored allowing the conversion of existing multi - family free market buildings to lodging uses, which goal is the antithesis of this Application. Section IV.4(d) encourages the amendment of the City and County Land Use Codes to eliminate the ability to convert lodging to other uses. A proposed multi - family affordable housing project would exacerbate, not manage, the supply of parking. The high intensity residential multi - family use is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. The high intensity of residential use carries with it adverse impacts of overcrowding and excessive traffic. The safety of the West Hopkins Street pedestrian usage will be compromised. A multi - family project will likely result in demands on public infrastructure such as sewage and water facilities that are not easily observable. The proposed amendment conflicts with the public interest and would not be in harmony with the historic preservation, lodge preservation, and neighborhood stability goals inherent in the Land Use Code and Community Plan. 2. The Application should be evaluated and processed as an entirely new application, not an amendment to an existing PUD for a different use. We do not believe that the goal of the certificate of affordable housing credit program is to precipitate the conversion of an historic lodge to multi - family housing. Planning for the historic Boomerang Lodge is entirely different from a multi - family residential project, and a multi - family project is a different animal than a lodge project. An affordable housing project can create greater impacts than a free market residential multi- family project. These should be considered in the normal course of planning process, not on an ad -hoc basis as contemplated here. 3. The City should not embrace any land use application for the purpose of helping a developer during temporary difficult economic conditions. All owners of real property in Aspen are experiencing economic loss - including the 29 owners of the Christiana. Poor economic circumstances should not serve as a "bail our to benefit a developer to the disadvantage of an established R-6 Zone District neighborhood. 2 The Planning and Zoning Commission should avoid bad precedent and recommend denial of the Application to the City Council for all of the reasons set forth above. Very truly yours, CHRISTIANA ASPEN CONDOMINIUM OWNEI • 10 IN D'W cf 1, -siden' PJT /nwe 3 o 3644 t.4 wl P4- • REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE • Received ! �P7 e L License Number: Q� Land Lease Pees: S quare Feet x $2.50 /sq.ft. Monthly lease ccccccccccG -cccccccccc_. 535627 INSTRUCTIONS: COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS AS IT APPLIES 11 Ill 03/21/2007 1 of 53:30F `` 11 �� I11� �1�i ' N f 1� �1� R (CHECK ONE ONLY) I � �� THIS LICENSE IS FOR: c++ 0 1 �� I II4ll� II111� 1 1 1 TEMPORARY; PERPETUATUAL UNTIL REVOKED BY THE CIT, JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 ❑ TEMPORARY; PRE - EXISTING CONDITION AND PERPETUATUAL UNTIL REVOKED BY THE CITY. This Agreement made under this license and entered into this day of , 20 , by and between the CITY OF A _ EN, Pitkin ounty, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "ASPE ' and �- i a' — .4 / L , at 602 ,yl y V' / / ( a/4/7 , (Print r11 ame (Print Legal Mailing Address) daytime phone number 99)72-5 - E / , hereinafter referred to as "Licensee ', WHEREAS, Licensee is the owner of the following described properties located in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Street Address: , 5-m 110--S 1 j5 l /z,,, C/ / � .d / • '01-// Legal Address: _� f4 J .'- : n � 3 �� �S /� 1 .AI .f in -i t . WHEREAS, said properties abut the following described public nght(s) -of-way: �/_ _ .S74., . 0 // -+'J( 1nrvYl.3ZoT.c / d/o4 3/ t�J?.)f!-7ti kk 4 y _5/ , WHEREAS, Licensee desires to encroach upon said right -of -way for the following purposes and as shown and described in Exhibit "A ", atched to this License. Describe Exhibit "A ": WHEREAS, Section 21.04.050 of City of Aspen Municipal Code delegates the authority to the City Engineer to grant encroachment licenses, WHEREAS, ASPEN agrees to the grant of a private license of encroachment as built subject to certain conditions, THEREFORE, the consideration of the mutual agreement hereinafter contained, ASPEN and Licensee covenant and agree as follows: A revocable license is hereby granted to Licensee to occupy, maintain and utilize the above described portion of public Right -of -way for the purposes described. This license is granted for a specific use and within a specified term as checked above, subject to being terminated at any time and for any reason at the sole discretion of the City Engineer of the City of Aspen. 1 This license shall be subordinate to the right of ASPEN to use said area for any public purposes. Licensee is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the public right -of -way, together with improvements constructed therein, which ASPEN, in the exercise of its discretion, shall determine to be necessary to keep the same in a safe and clean condition. The Licensee shall obtain right -of -way and Building Permits as required by the City for any work to be performed in the public right -of -way with design approvals for such work obtained from the Engineering Department. Licensee agrees to join any improvement district formed for the purpose of constructirfg irpprgvements within public right -of -way. i " Unles 4il3 property that is the subject of this license agreement is covered by a homeowner's insurance policy, Licensee shall at all times durirj thi3 term hereof, carry public liability insurance for the benefit of the City with limits • of less than those specified by Section 24- 1;1,.11p, V.R :S.,'jcurrently $150,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) as ma : • a•: d from time to time, naming the City as `Ad ti ha 1ff. t 1. Licen OalLinaiataik4Sild public liability insurance coverage in full force and effect during - -rm s I - r II fymish the City with a m .arniii ceeti icate of such coverage evidencing its validity. All insurance po aintaine pu t• ' =g tglt- .contain the followin6bf Ginent: '1t is hereby understood and agreed that this insuran f • - r ma not be ca e s {� rrty (30) days after receipt by the City, by registered mail, of a written notice of such - - n to • . nor not to rene T icy ,Q shall show proof of this insurance to'the City before this agreement is filed. # • • Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Aspen, its officers, employ �r -. and - -in • d a -, from and against all liability claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without lim n 1 " •. 4 + - *.i,..4 from bo• '•'ury, death, property loss or damages, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in an •..ir, • . • nett -d with thi '. - se, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or part .y 1 : - t omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of licensee, Licensee agrees to investigate, hen/I-, respond ., - - • to provide defense ' and defend against, any such liability, claim or demands at the sole expense of the licensee or, at , option of the City o - - -n, liceriseE grees to pay City of Aspen or reimburse City of Aspen for the defense costs incurred by the City of Aspen in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. The licensee also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false or fraudulent. City of Aspen - Engineering Department, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 ff 970- 920 -5080 REVISED.O /132006 This license may be terminated by Licensee at any time and for any reason following delivery of a written notice of Licensee's intent to cancel. ASPEN may terminate this license at any time and for any reason. Upon termination, Licensee shall at Licensee's expense, remove any improvements or encroachments from said property. The property shall be restored to a condition satisfactory to ASPEN. This license is subject to all state laws, the provisions of the Charter of the City of Aspen as it now exists or may hereafter be amended, and the ordinances of the City of Aspen now in effect or those which may hereafter is adopted. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent Aspen from granting such additional licenses or property interests in or affecting sai.. public property as it deems necessary. The conditions hereof imposed on the granted license of encroachment shall constitute covenants running with the life of improvements encroaching in public right of way, and binding upon Licensee. The encroachment shall terminate when the improvement has failed or out of compliance with required standards of performance or if it is revoked by the City, whichever comes sooner. In any legal action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attomey's fees. If the structure for which this license was issued is removed for any reason, Licensee shall not continue to rebuild in the public right -of -way. The public right -of -way is for the general public benefit, and it is not for occupation or construction of encroachments. The licensee waives any and all claims against the City of Aspen for loss or damage to the improvements constructed within the encroachment area. The Licensee clearly understands the following actions of Licensee or his/her agents and employees shall automatically terminate and cancel this agreement: 1) Discontinuation of insurance coverage 2) Change of ownership or alteration of use from the original specific use in encroached area 3) Restriction of ASPEN or its agents and contractors from access to its public land under the encroached area not occupied by a previously constructed building Under these circumstances, the Licensee shall restore the right -of -way under the encroachment to its original or better conditions ' mediately and in accordance with the latest Engineering Department standards for improvements of Public right of w y. IN WITNE {' EREOF, the parties ex% uted this agreement at ASPEN the day and year first written. t . (Licensee sign. ture must be notarized) THE FOLLOWING SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY NOT A V En MI rr. STATE OF COLORADO ) 111 II 7 ss. County of Pitkin ) III I ii ill III 1 I� 0p53.3„.51:,62„20.7,053,30, I I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 0 0.00 344 Day o 20 0 -7 , by ,/ ,, E. S7 yrd,4. (Licensee). WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. (Print Licensee Name) Notary commission expires: 04- zo ; / / 4 / --- r P • Y PU (Da . if � .. .. �i I'. . % . -. i %' " -� �I t ii /. , Notary no ' 1 .40.!. ' - � : 7 f� ACKIE I t - 1,+ i CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC— n��DDon npnn..mn DDDD • II. .` J f (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE, FOR CITY USE ONLY) I ' APPROVAL CONDITIONS (List if any): 4, ' F aF COI-- • CI O A • N, •L• • • DO f t DATE: 3. , 07 t I City of Aspen - Engineering Department, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 x'970- 920 -5080 REVISED.09/13/2006 I 5