The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20101214 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, December 14, 2010 4:30 p.m. Special meeting— City Council Chambers CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES � i / b IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang), PUD Amendment (continued from 11/2) VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: '�� P1 MEMORANDU M TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Vigo FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Commun',�j Development Department �� MEETING DATE: December 14, 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 (continued from 11/2/10) SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report addresses the questions raised since the last hearing. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues raised from the last meeting with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant; • Staff recommendation & proposed motion; and • A revised resolution. The bulk of the November 2 " memo is provided for reference at the end of this memo. SUMMARY AND FIRST HEARING QUESTIONS: At the November 2 "d public hearing on the application to change the use of the approved Boomerang Lodge to residential multi - family, the Planning and Zoning Commission raised a number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail at the next hearing. 1) Greater conformance with the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) zone district. The Applicant has amended the proposal to bring it in better conformance with the RMF zone district. The Applicant has removed the fourth floor of the previously approved lodge building and will now meet the 32' height limit permitted in the RMF zone district and will meet the 1.5:1 Floor Area Ratio permitted in the RMF zone district. A height comparison between the approved and proposed elevations is provided in Exhibit Q. This represents a reduction in height by approximately 5' -6" feet and a reduction in Floor Area by 4,415 sq. ft. 2) Representative illustrations of the layouts of the units. Also included in Exhibit Q are floor plans for each level of the building and representative floor plans for the proposed units. With the removal of the fourth floor, the Applicant is now proposing 46 units compared to the previous iteration of 54 units. The P2 units are comprised of a mix of studios (6), one - bedroom (29) and two bedroom (11) units and almost all of the units are proposed with balconies. All 46 units are provided an underground storage unit. Of the 46 units, 21 units meet or exceed the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines for minimum net livable area, while 25 units are less than the required minimum; however, these units are within a permitted reduction allowance of 20 percent. APCHA has reviewed the updated proposal and recommends approval of these 25 units, noting that existing conditions such as additional storage in the basement, efficient and flexible layouts, site location near parks, trails and open space, all units being located above ground, and the provision of exterior balconies meet the standards to permit the reduction in unit size. 3) Parking. As proposed, the building will contain 33 underground parking spaces. In addition to these underground parking spaces, the Applicant currently holds an encroachment license for the use of 14 parking spaces: 1 ADA space that encroaches into the alley and 13 head -in parking spaces along Fourth Street. With the encroachment license, the property has the use of 47 parking spaces and meets the 1:1 ratio of parking to unit required by the city. The Applicant has been working on a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan with the Transportation Department (Exhibit 0). A few minor items still need to be finalized with Transportation and overall the document is heading in the right direction; however, Community Development has serious reservations with regard to restricting the number of cars which may be owned by resident and the suggested prohibition of city parking permits. Additionally, the site is located near public transit (see below), a few blocks from a car-, to -go site and along a summer pedestrian route. The site is within walking and biking distance to the commercial core. The Parking Department would prefer to see the Fourth Street head -in parking available to the public; however, the department recognizes that the Applicant currently possesses an encroachment license for the exclusive use of the parking. The department has stated that the neighborhood can absorb additional on street parking. Figure l a: Transit sto • locations on Main Street , 1 `, A 1 I • Westbound '-' ,� a transit stop ,,� �' '" Eastbound .1 d' ' 7 a . � . . .; ',,;' transit sto r.. * J � loi 2 P3 4) Additional Information on the ` downzoning' of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. Staff researched past zone district maps and comprehensive plans to provide the following information on zoning changes over time in the neighborhood. The planning and zoning history of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood shows that it was originally zoned "Tourist" (T) in the 1950s, the same as the Aspen Alps, Waters, Ute neighborhood on the east side of Aspen Mountain. The name of the zone district changed to "Accommodations /Recreation" (A/R) in the 1960s, but the purpose remained the same, according to the 1966 General Plan: "A broad designation developed to cover several specific groupings of accommodations, related commercial facilities and recreation areas, which are the planning area's basic economy." However, as growth reached double -digit annual levels in the early 1970s, City government used downzoning to slow down development on both the Shadow Mountain neighborhood and the Alps /Water Street/Ute area of town. The 1973 Land Use Plan designated both areas as "Residential/Mixed," and both were rezoned to a mixture of R -6, R -15, some R/MF and PUDs. The 1973 Land Use Plan called for "a mix of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts of professional office and visitor accommodation uses in areas where these conditions presently exist." The intent to limit a further proliferation of lodges -was clearly stated: "Only existing lodges should be considered for expansion in order to provide appropriate guest rooms If Just one example of downzoning in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood occurred when 700 West Hopkins was annexed into the City in 1975, and was zoned R -6 (single - family or duplex) despite the presence of nine multi - family units on the property. These sweeping downzonings were partially undone in 1982, when the City recognized that existing lodges should not be so out of conformity with their underlying zoning. A study identified existing lodges — including the Boomerang -- and rezoned them from residential districts to lodging districts. 5) Neighborhood Character. As stated in the previous memo, the Shadow Mountain neighborhood contains a mix of uses, such as lodging, multi- family residential, and commercial (along Main Street). Table 2 in the original memo provided a sampling of floor area ratios and the following Table la provides additional information. 3 P4 Table 1 a: Comparison of Neighborhood Developments Lot Size Unit Count Lot Area per Floor Area Max. (sq. ft.) Dwelling Ratio Height Unit West Hopkins 12,000 11 1 per 1,090 .79:1 1 2 stories Townhomes sq. ft. 7th and Main 9,000 12 1 per 750 sq. .96:1 30 ` ft. 700 W. 9,000 15 1 per 600 .84:1 2.5 stories Hopkins Condominiums 608 W. 9,000 7 1 per 1,285 .54:1 2 stories Hopkins 1 605 W. 26,375 15 1 per 1,758 .82:1 35' Hopkins 501 W. Main 27,000 26 1 per 770 .85:1 34' (to (Christiana) ridge) 500 W. 27,000 46 1 per 586 1.5:1 32' Hopkins (Boomerang) Figure 2a: Neighborhood Develo s ments 7 th & �' 608 W t , Main it Hopkins 501 W. aG , 4 ,4 ` •r - ' � , . ,1r Main it, { i lt s-4i14-1 t ,� �-, : : -4- . 4 A , . .. • y, t r� +a • ''�, I 4e tr. • } + + West Hopkins ; - e _ > • `Fownhomes 700 W. Hopkins r ya W Condominiums .. ,4 -- ; ` Y 5'i 605 W. i Hopkins --... - ' r � N �` i s , :�. -�� I . .E4 c 1 P5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports a rezoning to RMF, as a multi - family use of the property is compatible with surrounding "land uses considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." The existing neighborhood contains many examples of multifamily development and the proposed use of the property as multi- family is compatible with established uses in the neighborhood that include lodging, single - family, duplex, and multi - family development. With the reduction in floor area and height proposed by the Applicant, the approved fourth floor associated with the lodge development has been removed and the building is now proposed to be 2 to 3 stories in height. As proposed the building will meet the RMF zone district standards with regard to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and height. Two and three story buildings are prevalent within this neighborhood and as shown in Table la, the height of the building is similar to surrounding development. With regard to mass, the building has been reduced in size from the original approvals and will fit better into the neighborhood. The proposal maintains the historic part of the lodge. Staff believes the proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property via the PUD Amendment "are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area" The Applicant has reduced the density by 8 units and now proposes 46 units. With 33 parking spaces underground and an encroachment license for 14 at grade spaces, the Applicant meets the 1 space per unit standard. Staff supports the proposed parking as the property is within walking distance to the commercial core of Aspen, along a pedestrian route and close to transit and a `Car to Go' location. All of these factors minimize the need for a resident to need a vehicle or drive one. Staff supports the proposed parking arrangement based upon "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" and "The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City." APACHA has recommended approval of the units as meeting their guidelines. All of the units meet APCHA's size allowance guidelines and the provision of underground storage and balconies adds to the livability of the project. Street facing entries on the ground floor contribute to the streetscape, while the new roofline assists in breaking up the mass of the building and creates greater modulation of the roofline. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2010, approving certain growth management reviews, special review, the establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, and recommending approval of PUD Amendment, Subdivision and a Map Amendment with the conditions." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff findings for Rezoning (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) Exhibit B — Staff finding for PUD (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) 5 P6 Exhibit C — Staff finding for Subdivision (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) Exhibit D — Staff finding, Growth Management for Affordable Housing (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) Exhibit E — Staff finding, Growth Management for Change in Use (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) Exhibit F — Staff finding, Issuance of Certificate of Housing Credit (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) Exhibit G — Staff finding, Special Review for Off - Street Parking (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) Exhibit H — APCHA Report (provided 11/2/10) Exhibit I - Letters from the public (provided 11/2/10): 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 2, Daniel and Meryle Vemer / 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 (provided 11/2/10) Exhibit K — Revised Parking Plan (provided 11/2/10) Exhibit L — Application (provided 11/2/10) Exhibit M - Letters from the public (provided 11/2/10): Emilie Kelly/ November 1, Meta Packard Barton/ October 29, Darryl Schall/ October 28 Exhibit N - Letters from the public Exhibit 0 - Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan Exhibit P — Amended Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority referral dated December 7, 2010 Exhibit Q — Amended site plan, floor plans and elevations dated December 1, 2010 November 2 " Staff Memo 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. 6 P7 • 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. • 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 body. 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 7 P8 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. 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.) 8 P9 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 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 staffs responsibility for reviewing the current PUD application is to weigh the community benefit against dimensional variations and compatibility with the neighborhood. 9 P1 0 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 4'5" 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. 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. 10 P11 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 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. 11 P12 Figure 1: Recorded Elevation for the approved Boomerang Lodge s — . em s' - , , i _. L- 1 0 f ray • N I h Il P ` re 1 II' a � ' rrrtm ` zf�17 — I I 1 1" a T - • ft Fir... -1rg S ri 11 l --a— 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. 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." 12 P13 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 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.) 13 P14 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 staffs 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 Housing Livability — 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. 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. 14 P15 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. 15 • P1 6 RESOLUTION NO. _ (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 46 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 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P17 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission took public testimony, considered the application and remanded it back to the Applicant for further consideration and amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the application by reducing the height, floor area, and unit count of the proposal; and WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on December 14, 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 46 deed - restricted affordable housing units not required for mitigation, as reviewed by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. 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 Cate • ory 4 studio 6 3 3 One bedroom 29 11 18 Two bedroom 11 8 3 Total 46 Page 2 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P18 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. 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 14 at -grade parking spaces. The at -grade parking includes 13 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. 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 Ali studio 1.25 6 7.5 One bedroom 1.75 29 50.75 Two bedroom 2.25 11 24.75 Total 83 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 586 sq ft Maximum Allowable Density 46 units Minimum Lot Width 270 feet Page 3 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P19 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 Maximum Height 32' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space Not required Allowable Floor Area 1.5:1, or 44,915 Minimum Off - Street Parking 46 33 -on -site and 13 within the 4th street r -o -w * 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/required Right -of- Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, will meet all applicable standards. Minimum required site improvements are as follows: • Construction of sidewalk in the public right -of -way along West Hopkins Ave, 4 Street and 5 Street. • Installation of two ADA sidewalk ramps at the intersection of West Hopkins and 5` and 2 ADA ramp on the intersection of 4` and Hopkins 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 new curb and gutter along 5 Street and West Hopkins. • Placement of approximately 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). Page 4 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. - -- (2010) P2 0 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. 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 Page 5 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P21 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 33 sub -grade spaces, a handicapped space on the alley and 13 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 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 day of December, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair Page 6of7 P &Z Resolution No. 2010) P22 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 7 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P23 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 P24 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 46 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 P25 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 P26 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 bikeab]e, especially because it P27 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, p g 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 communit ... ", staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal as amended for the Decemeber l2` hearing is more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed 1.5:1 FAR would be more in keeping with 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. 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. 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. P28 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 amended mass and scale of the proposal be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District as currently proposed by the applicant. 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 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 dose proximity to a major public transit corridor, its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. The P29 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 46 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 fora Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 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; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street via an encroachment license. The applicant can achieve 47 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. From staff's perspective, with the maintenance of the encroachment licenses, the applicant can meet the 1:1 requirement. The parking department noted that additional parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Additionally, 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.] provides a basis for permitting a requirement of only 33 spaces if the encroachment license is not maintained. 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 compatible to the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing an allowable FAR that is established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District. 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. P30 - Staff Finding: According to the land use code, a multi- family residential project in the Inliill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit, or 46 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 46 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; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street via an encroachment license. The applicant can achieve 47 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. From staff's perspective, with the maintenance of the encroachment licenses, the applicant can meet the 1:1 requirement. The parking department noted that additional parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Additionally, 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.] provides a basis for permitting a requirement of only 33 spaces if the encroachment license is not maintained. 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. P31 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. 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: P32 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. 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 P33 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. 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 10% has been adhered to and the amended application better respects the scale and massing of the adjacent historical resource (Boomerang Lodge/East Wing). The proposed facade creates 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 Tess- 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. P34 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. 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. P35 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. 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 P36 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. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for Tots 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. P37 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 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 P38 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) 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. 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 2 P39 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 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 3 P4 0 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:Slo_annual allotments are required for affordable housing. 4 P41 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 P42 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. P43 Exhibit 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_fQr each tvpQQfdevelooment 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 P44 2006) from 47 lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 46 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) P45 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 26340, 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 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 ad ';`i ^ -nal demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage P4 6 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 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 46 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. P47 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 83, which reflects 83 Certificates of Housing Credit — please see Exhibit K. P48 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 confor-manc-ewith -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 46 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; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street; The applicant can achieve 47 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 permitting the continued use of the encroachment licenses as dedicated exclusively to the project. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 13 head -in spaces in a 100- foot -long right of way on 4 Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) If the encroachment licenses is not maintained, the deficit of parking (13 spaces) From can be absorbed by the neighborhood on- street parking. Any concerns about a deficit 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." 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. 3. Existing or planned on -site or otf -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. P49 Staff finding: The City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of 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." P50 Page 1 of 1 Ben Gagnon From: Craig Navias [CJNavias @arrowtube.com] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:45 PM To: Ben Gagnon Cc: Craig Navias Subject: Boomerang Project Ben, I am e- mailing you as a new and concerned homeowner at 505 West Hopkins, across from the proposed Boomerang project. My wife and I were very attracted to the neighborhood before we purchased our home because of it's quite pedestrian friendly atmosphere, which we are afraid will be greatly compromised with the development. We understand that the development has 33 dedicated underground parking spaces, but seeks to build over 45 housing units? It appears to me that there should be no more than 33 housing units, so there is one parking space per unit. Where would the other housing units park? Our street is already overcrowded with overflow parking from the housing units at 605 West Hopkins, and we hate to think that the situation will become even worse with the proposed Boomerang development. We fully support and appreciate the affordable housing policy of this wonderful town, but it appears that we already have our fair share, and that any new housing development should not overcrowd the neighborhood. Our eight and eleven year old kids love to play outside, and we hate to think that their safety may be compromised by the increased traffic that such a development would surely bring. Thank You, Craig Navias Concerned Neighbor at 505 West Hopkins. Email secured by Check Point 1 I /A /1111(1 Dec. 3. 2010 10:08AM No. 3931 P. 2 P51 RECEIVED �� 0 3 2010 Aspen Planning And Zoning Board Rio Grande Meeting Room CITY OF ASPEN RE: Tesday, 12/14/10 meeting, Boomerang Project COMMUNITY DEVELOPM Fax 970 - 920 -5439 ( due before 12/08/10) ben.gagon @ci.aspen.co.us Regarding the proposed development of a 49 to 54 -unit (5% reduction change), 33 underground • , ,', • • - • • al corn • lex In the former Boomerang property: While we realize the City of Aspen has good intentions, I have to disagree with the current proposal as to the density /scale of the development. In the City of Aspen's 2010 "Highlights of the Aspen Area Community Plan ", there are references to: 'All development should be modest in bulk, mass, and scale: "...Maintain views..." "...maintain our small -town character" I do not understand how a development of this size conforms with the Community Plan. Building a 49 to 54 -unit complex on on this property would exceed the 32 foot height limit per the RMF zone, and providing only 33 parking spaces for their residents would result in 30 -50 additional parked vehicles on our already overcrowded streets. The Christiana has 28 units on a 27,000 square foot lot; the proposal for the Boomerange complex would place double the amount of units . on the same size lot next door. How can the City of Aspen reconcile this development with the Community Plan? In my experience, low- income housing works best In smaller developments, placed In various locations of the community, Instead of one or two prominent buildings. The goal should be that all residents, from every socio - economic background, blend Into the community; therefore, the dwellings should do the same. This protect should not be larger In units per land than the largest neighborhood project — it should be dispersed as smaller developments within the community as a whole. It definitely should not be larger In size /density than the two closest developments (The Chistlana and the Little Ajax). At the very least, the units should be limited to the corresponding number of parking spaces (33) for this size lot. In the introduction to the "Aspen Area Community Plan ", under Community Workforce Housing, it states: "We want to ensure the community stays intact from the inside- out...This plan includes a focus on designing housing where livability is critically important, and new projects blend Into existing neighborhoods." The Boomerang project will not blend — it will overpower. Please follow your own plan for the community and reduce the size /scale /density of this project. Sincerely, -7 C. 6k .t"' CA/1 Andrew C. Smith,CPA Unit C-102 , Christiana Complex 501 West Main Street 12- 06 -10; 08: 32AM; P52 ; 9709256778 n , # 1/ 11 ,gyp I ` . p O i+ l f gio 1J 0( I .. �.t.. c / 1 —.., d g�,,,�' Zw LIJ VI n�ti _ ' JJ Qg "_ Tit Wl r c / -4- t K Nt S r V IT— c9 -t > 4z9 k ` cc ye 6,4c s .Q A-pc- r is kic Se./krarcia letriL o mss. 5p' . 9.04f X 5.2 cS5z9 cc afi'" c P .PCSA-C4- 1(16-e ?) - 1/ ( 4)--7 it Utak WA; M.017 c") aca b;"--> GA LL, Co` -obt t _ it _,n c Page 1 of 2 P53 Ben Gagnon From: Jane Click [janeclick @q.comj Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:18 PM To: Ben Gagnon Working and cannot attend meeting on 12/14, but here is my opinion. - I would hate to see the demise of a local, well - priced hotel. I applaud your consideration to lowering the height and capacity of affordable housing if that is the only alternative. I agree with Steve Goldenberg that more consideration should be given to parking /vs. units. Jane Click From: Steve Goldenberg Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:19 PM To: Daryl Schall ; Jody Edwards ; Paul Taddune ; Rick ; John Bear. ; Rusty Scott ; Patsy Kurkulis ; Dan Verner ; John Staton Cc: Elaine Sandler ; Chris Leverich ; Tammy Stuart ; Scott Stuart ; Angela Young ; Stuart Brafman The number of units has been reduced to 46 which is better but still way to dense in terms of people and autos since there are still only 33 off street parking spaces and this is still the most dense project in the neighborhood by far. This project is out of character with this quiet, pedestrian friendly part of town. Also the permanent loss of the lodge should be considered. Please forward this to other interested parties. Steve Dear Boomerang Neighbor, 12/2/2010 Planning & Zoning will meet at 4:30 on Tuesday, December 14, in the Rio Grande Meeting Rooni, near the Parking Garage, to consider a slightly reduced application to convert the approved lodge to a high density Affordable Housing project. P &Z has been very attentive to the concerns of the neighbors, so it is important that you attend. You should also fax or email a letter to P &Z on or before December 8th. Fax 970- 920 -5439, or email ben.gagnon @ci.aspen.co.us This project is clearly still too big for our neighborhood. The main problems are very high people density, deficiency of off street parking, no traffic study, small apartment size, lack of set backs and onsite open space, excessive building mass and the permanent loss of the 54 room lodge. My suggestion is that if there are only 33 off street parking spaces, there should be only 33 units with owners limited to 1 auto per unit and no overnight on- street parking. The existing on- street parking spaces should be available for visitors and other normal on- street uses. The height of the building has been reduced so as not to exceed the statutory 32 feet (3 stories, not 4). The individual units should be substantially enlarged so they are all at the very least, comfortable to live in and equal to or larger than the APCHA minimums. 63% were below the minimums. Please fo this to other owners or neighbors that might be interested. Thank you, 970 - 925 - 1294 Steve Gclder * steve @goldenberg.com P54 _ - - -- D. Scott and Tamara B. Stuart 400 W. Hopkins #5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 December 4, 2010 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Proposed Redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: We continue to be very concerned about the scale of the proposed redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge and the rezoning of our medium density neighborhood, and respectfully request your consideration of the following points: • Personally we have no issue with affordable employee housing, but we adamantly oppose the magnitude of this project. • The current scale of our neighborhood is a good blend of employee housing, small scale multi and single family dwellings. We have balance and a strong sense of community. Increasing the density to the concentration level that is being proposed would completely eliminate the character of the surrounding environment. • Most residents in this area have lived in their homes for many years. Unfortunately, many of the Boomerang units being proposed are extremely small, too small to encourage the longevity of its residents thus increasing the potential of creating an extremely transient population and disrupting the long standing secure feeling of the neighborhood. • The majority of the homes in this area, including other employee units allow for off street parking for at least one if not multiple cars which offers safe and • unobstructed views of traffic for the bikers, walkers, dogs and children who regularly use the pedestrian thoroughfare on West Hopkins. • Our understanding is that the developer has slightly reduced the number of units planned; however this reduction still exceeds the number of single parking spaces • P55 per unit. It does not seem unreasonable that the number of units should equate with the number of off street parking spaces. • Additionally we are concerned that the combination of this massive Boomerang proposal and the launching of the also very substantially sized Jewish Center will create an insurmountable number of problems for all concerned, spilling over m fact to Main Street. Thank you for your attention to our concern. Respectfully, Al fr D. Scott Stuart Tamara B. Stua Page 1 of 1 P56 Ben Gagnon From: Dennis Vaughn [dhvaughn @hotmail.comj Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 11:15 AM To: Ben Gagnon Subject: Boomerang application Dear Planning and Zoning Commission members - We write to oppose the present application for development of the Boomerang property. We do not oppose the project because it is one for employee housing. We oppose it because of density and mass. This would be a three story project in a two story residential neighborhood and grossly inappropriate on that ground alone. It is far too massive consisting as it does of one large building. Futher, the units are too small in size and the parking insufficient for the number of residents that can reasonably be anticipated. The answer would lie in a two story project in multiple buildings with fewer but larger units and parking spaces for each anticipated resident. We respectfully request that the application be denied. Thank you for you consideration. Linda and Dennis Vaughn. Dennis H. Vaughn 221 So. 7th Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920 -2358 13288 Chalon Rd. Los Angeles, CA 90049 (310) 889-7127 Email secured by Check Point iflicnni P57 Jennifer Phelan From: Thomas St. John [tsjmd @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:54 PM To: Jennifer Phelan; Ben Gagnon; Jackie Lothian Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, As a property owner at the Christiana Lodge, I am writing to express my dissapointment with the revised Boomerang Lodge proposal. The most recently submitted proposal requests 46 affordable housing units to be built next door to the Chris Tana. is wou • crea e a very s-n. u • r • • • • • • • • • • - - • • • •-' • • oodrit will create overcrowding, traffic problems, parking problems and disrupt the pedestrian walkway. The Boomerang proposal is too massive for this area and will disrupt the character of our neighborhood. There is currently plenty of affordable housing in our neighborhood; some of which is not being used to capacity. I do not believe that it is appropriate that the residents of our neighborhood should suffer the negative impacts that such a poorly researched and massive project will have, just so that the developer can turn a profit in this difficult economy. The historic Boomerang should remain a lodge, maintaining the integrity of our neighborhood as well as the goals of historic preservation. Sincerely yours, Thomas A. St. John, M.D. Email secured by Check Point P58 Jennifer Phelan From: Alan Hayman NS [alan @hayman.comj Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:23 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Jackie Lothian Subject: Boomerang Lodge To all members of the Aspen Planning Board: As a homeowner at the Christiana and after making a huge investment in Aspen in a solid, stable, neighborhood, next to a charming and operating lodge, I find myself wondering whether I have now made the mistake of a lifetime. Yes, I understood the risks and that the Boomerang was going to change, attended the original hearings, and even considered purchasing one of the units. Not only do I strongly object to this major change and I question how I could have misjudged how things seem to operate in Aspen. Can a developer be allowed to actually bend the rules, use the planning board to, in effect, salvage a failed real estate deal, under the guise of increasing the amount of employee housing. Soon there may not be a need for employee housing because the people, like me, might no longer buy in Aspen because they cannot be assured that their investment in Aspen cannot be made without tremendous risk on what turn a quiet neighborhood will take or what a planning board might deem as appropriate. For now, I have decided to put our unit up for sale. Once, the disposition of this matter is determined we reconsider our future in Aspen. Below are Tess emotional reasons why this modification and change should be rejected. Observations: 1. Lodge use is the preferred use for the subject property. Maintaining the historic Boomerang Lodge accomplishes important lodge preservation and historic preservation goals. Employee housing should not trump these objectives. 2. If affordable housing use is deemed appropriate the project should comply with established R -6 requirements. There are no changed circumstances to justify a zoning change in this instance that will have a negative effect on the existing neighborhood. No traffic or usage studies have been done to assess the potential negative impact to the neighborhood. The drawings that were submitted are sloppy and not drawn to scale such that no one can determine if the developer's plans conform to existing codes. 3. Bailing out a developer so that he can make a profit is not a valid reason for a zone change from R -6 to the higher density RMF zone. 4. The proposed RMF project is poor land use. It is too dense. It will not work for the residents of the project nor the residents of the neighborhood. The height and scale are too massive. An RMF project in this established zone district will result in unacceptable overcrowding, will invite increased traffic, will disrupt the successful pedestrian walkway and create parking problems. 1 P59 5. It is unfair to long term residents to shoulder them with adverse neighborhood impacts so that a developer can make a profit. 6. This project will compete with other affordable housing projects that are not fully occupied, such as the Marolt Employee Housing project where the homeless might be sheltered due to excess capacity. Sincerely, J. Alan Hayman 50-1-W-.-Main-Street Aspen, CO. Email secured by Check Point 2 P60 • Jennifer Phelan From: ALLFINES@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:50 AM To: Jennifer Phelan; Ben Gagnon; Jackie Lothian Subject: re: Boomerang Lodge Changes I strongly object to the changes requested by the owners of the Boomerang . To add more affordable housing to this area is not fair to the neighborhood. If affordable housing use is deemed appropriate the project should comply with established R -6 requirements. There are no changed circumstances to justify a zoning change in this instance, that will have a nega wee - e •- - -- -'. .. .... .- a.--.:- - •- -- - - -- ''al negative impact to the neighborhood. Bailing out a developer so that he can make a profit is not a valid reason for a zone change from R -6 to the higher density RMF zone. The proposed RMF project is poor land use. It will not work for the residents of the project nor the residents of the neighborhood. The height & scale are too massive. An RMF project in this established zone district will result in unacceptable overcrowding, will invite increased traffic, will disrupt the successful pedestrian walkway & create parking problems. I hope you will consider my comments when reviewing the requested change. Respectfully, Fred Fine 503 West Main St Email secured by Check Point 1 P61 oG� December 6, 2010 To whom it may concern: • As a 21+ year resident of Aspen I would like to voice my concern regarding th proposed structure called the Boomerang Parcel on West Hopkins. Formerly approved as lodging facility, I submit that the proposed re- purposing of this building to a 54 (46) unit affordable housing facility needs to be slowed down (at a minimum), if not reconsidered outright, for the following reasons: 1. It is not in keeping with the City's own policies. I would like to know why P & Z is not requiring the developer to submit a new PUD application. The developer is requesting both a change in use, as well as re- zoning. The fact that the previously approved building facade and /or footprint is not changing is moot. It is akin to saying there was previously a restaurant planned and now it's going to be converted on the inside into a strip club. You could argue that both have pretty girls serving food and alcohol, require the same parking, seat the same number of patrons, and keep the same hours, so it's fundamentally the same usage. And you'd be correct... but that does not make it right. Even the city's own attorney declared this should be a new application, yet the Commission seems to be ignoring their own counsel and processing it as an amendment. In addition, it appears that the P & Z Commission is also ignoring the outcomes of studies it previously commissioned such as the Traffic Study and the Marketing Lifestyle Study. There is no evidence that either one of these studies has been taken into consideration as it relates to this project. 2. It is not in keeping with current Affordable Housing policy, literally or in spirit. The original intent was to have affordable housing sprinkled through Aspen's neighborhoods. Every time someone developed a project with two or more Free Market units, they were to provide two Affordable Housing units as well. With this project, the city has elected to give the developer "credits" every time a unit sells, which he can in turn sell to other developers for an undisclosed sum of money, presumably allowing future Free Market unit developers to circumvent the current Affordable Housing policy. The value of the Boomerang project is in the credits, which is why the density is so important. The higher the density, the more credits the developer receives and the more money he will make in their resale. If the developer were not allowed to resale the credits, then what would be the value of them? The structure of this deal gives the city "free" affordable housing but there is no incentive to build a first rate product; no incentive to design units to the actual needs of the workers and /or sizes of the families; and no incentive to accommodate the surrounding homeowners in terms of site lines, traffic, design or aesthetics. I would like to know why the Commission is ignoring its own Affordable Housing dictates, literally and in spirit? ■ 5401 n. central expressway suite 305 dallas. texas 75205 214 522 6716 phone 214 522 6718 fax P62 3. It seems to be an expedient vs. thoughtful financial decision. I realize there is no risk or cost to the city in developing this parcel since the parcel owner has agreed to pay for it all. But if we could look beyond the obvious for a moment, in order for the developer to make his money the units have to sell. Starting in 2011 the city will require housing • ottery can•i•a es O • - • • -•1. " -•. -t crerno workers are going to qualify for this purchase under today's stricter lending laws. The ones most likely to qualify are dual income families, for whom the units are too small to be livable for any prolonged length of time as they are clearly designed for single lifestyles in order to increase the density and /or the credits. I fear the inability to sell the units because of the pre - qualifying restriction will eventually force the developer to convert the property to a rental and /or file a lawsuit against the city. I would like to know what steps are being taken to mitigate this highly likely scenario. 4. There seems to be no planning regarding the inevitable "scope creep." How do you review an application without looking at detailed floor plans? The plans you are basing your decisions on are leaving out important items that will come into contention at a later date and cause set back lines, height lines and /or footprints to change. For example, mechanical planning is sorely lacking: there currently is inadequate room for HVAC compressors and inadequate room for trash cans /dumpsters (which will be more than Christiana and Little Ajax, since this is 2x the amount of people). Where are these mechanical items going? On the roof and /or in the 15' alley that already has parking/traffic issues? 5. There seems to be no realistic planning regarding access and parking. 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 unit needed to be provided. In recent years it has made exceptions to this rule and I would like to know if it intends to adhere to it for this project. 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 already live in this neighborhood, the workers from the offices on Main Street, and the Synagogue, let alone for the visitors. 6. There seems to be no realistic planning regarding the livability of the units. The issue of 'livability' is mentioned, yet you want to make the units smaller than the current guidelines. I already touched on the fact that most of the people who will be able to qualify for these units will likely be dual income (e.g. larger) families... families that will not fit into the units as currently designed. I know the housing office has exemptions and they are being met, but if it is one thing affordable housing generally suffers from it is livability in terms of size and storage. It would be much better for both end -users and neighborhood if there were fewer units but each unit a bit larger in size, not smaller. Anyone living in this town knows we always have a need for more space not less, for items such as snow tires, road tires, bicycles, skis /snowboards, seasonal clothing and gear, holiday decorations, etc. And when adequate storage is lacking these items often end up on the balconies of the units as eyesores. 5401 n. teat oI expressway suite 305 clallos, texas 75205 214 522 67 16 phone 214 522 6718 fox P63 3 . DG&A .± I 7. There seems to be no consideration or planning regarding the neighborhood's architectural context. When you look at the proposed building relative to the neighborhood context, there is no other building until you are well into town that extends uninterrupted for an'entire city block. (See attached site map.) Not even Main Street has this kind of scale in this part of town. The proposed elevations show a lot of fenestration but that is nothing like having space between buildings that is properly landscaped. I realize there are new codes that make this type of development possible, but I wonder if it was intended that such a huge concentration of affordable housing be created within an existing neighborhood? I wonder what other developments in the city have 54/46 units in one large building? I will close by saying that I am for affordable housing and for the Boomerang project in principle. But I am not for how it is being handled in terms of density, architecturally and /or in terms of this Commission's review process. Respectfully, 1 Donna Guerra, A.S.I.D, Owner at 501 West Main and 222 West Hopkins 6.' 3 ' rn > 64 1x rt c' - 7 ._ ., f ,---,,,:.__. . _ 1/1 a 1 H z ^ i • ... ....,_ : ,..: I: I. , . Nn!_, I 3 , ,, • 0, ,,.. ;I.), , 1 1 , c7 . O • I ,, . , . ' '41111 ' • . • . m • Z _ J , . C.L. h.. ? ; .: ***".'' 7, .. • - _ : r • O , t ` - ''ice . / s — 7 ,...,,, • ti , r ; I I r 1 l ■ ' 7 . • I .. . , • • • . - -7 , . i fr • li; it d . - . . r - -1., 4 P65 Jennifer Phelan From: Chace Dillon [cdillon06 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:44 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: Boomerang Lodge Project Jennifer Phelan, I'm a homeowner at 507 W. Main and I do not think the proposed changes made for the Boomerang Lodge are a good idea for our neighborhood or city. Please consider the following reasons: 1. Lodge use is the preferred use for the subject property. Maintaining the historic Boomerang Lodge accomplishes important lodge preservation and historic preservation goals. Employee housing should not trump these objectives. 2. If affordable housing use is deemed appropriate the project should comply with established R -6 requirements. There are no changed circumstances to justify a zoning change in this instance that will have a negative effect on the existing neighborhood. No traffic or usage studies have been done to assess the potential negative impact to the neighborhood. The drawings that were submitted are sloppy and not drawn to scale such that no one can determine if the developer's plans conform to existing codes. 3. Bailing out a developer so that he can make a profit is not a valid reason for a zone change from R -6 to the higher density RMF zone. 4. The proposed RMF project is poor land use. It is too dense. It will not work for the residents of the project nor the residents of the neighborhood. The height and scale are too massive. An RMF project in this established zone district will result in unacceptable overcrowding, will invite increased traffic, will disrupt the successful pedestrian walkway and create parking problems. 5. It is unfair to long term residents to shoulder them with adverse neighborhood impacts so that a developer can make a profit. 6. This project will compete with other affordable housing projects that are not fully occupied, such as the Marolt Employee Housing project where the homeless might be sheltered due to excess capacity. Thank you for your time, Ray Dillon Homeowner 507 W. Main St. 1 P66 Jennifer Phelan From: DICK CARTER [DCARTER @afg- co.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:15 PM To: Jackie Lothian Cc: Jennifer Phelan; Ben Gagnon Subject: Boomerang Lodge To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission I am the owner of Unit A -204 at the Christiana Condominiums and Vice President of the Christiana HOA. I attended the November 2, 2010 regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and opposed the re- zoning of the Boomerang Lodge from lodge units to affordable housing. At the meeting, I was afforded the opportunity to address the Planning and Zoning Commission. Just because the developer has run into financial difficulties is not a proper reason to approve the change in zoning. If the original approval is no longer feasible for the developer, he should start from ground zero and make a new application for an affordable housing project that fully meets all R-6 residential housing guidelines. Initially, they wanted to keep the original footprint and height of the previously approved project and merely change its use. That is totally unacceptable, as all but one of the Commission members seemed to state, Several years ago, an ordinance was passed that encouraged owners of outdated ski lodges to develop new loge units by allowing them to re -build as high as four stories. However, that ordinance- was solely for the purpose of providing sufficient incentives so that new and increased number of new lodge beds would be built that would add tax revenue to the City and bring more tourists to Aspen. It was never ever intended to nor did the ordinance permit the development of four story employee housing units. The density of traffic and people in the area will increase substantially if employee housing units are constructed. Many tourists come to Aspen without cars, due to the ability to walk to many places and the convenience of public transportation. Employees may have multiple cars at the site, without adequate parking and will entertain friends, family and other guests, bringing in even a greater number of cars to the neighborhood, overcrowding the limited parking that is available.. The Commission must also consider the combined impact of the previously approved Jewish Community Center, when it is completed, and a new employee housing project on the Boomerang site. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the proposed units in the employee housing version of the Boomerang site would be below the minimum size prescribed by the Aspen Housing Authority. It is one thing to have a unit with limited square footage for a visitor staying for a week or less. It is another thing to permit and encourage employee housing that is substandard in terms of size. What kind of living quality does this encourage? All of the above is being proposed in a effort to bail out the developer. The developer is one exceedingly fine individual who has been adversely impacted in a significant manner by significant previous delays by the City and then the onset of the severe recession that has impacted the country in the past few years. Yes, it is sad what has happened to him, but that should not permit the kind of exception that he is requesting. The impact on the neighborhood would be horrible. In summary, the proposed project is not a good nor proper use of the subject land. Not only will it not be good for the neighborhood, but it will not be good for the employees housed in units smaller in size than permitted by the Aspen Housing Authority. In concluding, if the developer deems it necessary to convert the use to employee housing, he should be required to strictly comply with every and all R-6 residential housing requirements. Sincerely, Dick Carter 1 P67 Jennifer Phelan From DIANNE GOLDMAN [diannelgoldman@optonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:26 PM To: Jennifer Phelan; Ben Gagnon; Jackie Lothian Subject: Boomerang housing project We own a unit in the Chistiana Condominium complex and we have serious concerns regarding the proposal to develop the Boomerang Lodge property as a large affordable housing project. The neighborhood is one of individual homes an. m..• - - ' -• •• ' •. • - - • complexes. There is limited street parking. The property in question is zoned for lodging, with the purpose of providing much needed accommodations for visitors to the Aspen area during peak seasons. The historic nature of the Boomerang is an asset to the immediate neighborhood, as well as to the city of Aspen. The proposed housing project is too dense for this neighborhood and does not take into account the negative impact of traffic congestion and insufficient parking. In addition, there is already an established affordable housing project a mere 50 yards from the Boomerang. The proposed change in zoning appears directed more toward the profitability factor than toward the value of the project itself. Our concerns are that the full ramifications of this proposed development have not been studied in depth. Dianne Goldman Richard Goldman Christiana, Aspen 501 West Main Street Unit 105A Email secured by Check Point 1 P68 KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hckyikcelaw. id 2 01 NO11111 MILL STREET. STE 203 LAN('L R. COTE, PC' Ire ;,kcelaw. net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. III. PC jee:n.kwlaw,nel ILLEPHONE: (970)925 - 700 COREY T. ZURBUCH ct )Zkcelae. nel FACSIMILE' (970)925 -3977 EBEN P. CLARK cpenkceIa v.ncl wae. kcelaw.nei MADHU B_ KRISI INAMURTI nthkn'keeIai nel DAVID C. UHLIG drug; kcclaw,nct • alac admired in California December 7, 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 PUB 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. You are being asked to approve a parking waiver for a property that does not meet the required standards for a parking waiver. You are also being asked to recommend approval of rezoning which is not compatible with the neighborhood. For these reasons you should deny the request. Parkine The City Code is very clear that all developments "shall be provided with off street parking" as provided in the parking section of the Code. See Code § 26.515.010.A. The word "shall" is mandatory. Code § 26.104.080.H. The Code requires one parking space for each unit in the development. Code § 26.515.030. The Planning and Zoning Commission is allowed to grant special review approval to waive a portion of this parking requirement `based on conformance" with specified criteria. Code § 26.515.040.A. This means that the P &Z can grant the requested approval for a waiver of the mandatory requirement if the application satisfies the listed criteria. If the application does not satisfy the criteria, then P &Z may not grant the special review approval to waive the mandatory parking requirement of one space for each unit. There are only three criteria, and the second one states: An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The property is 27,000 feet and absolutely flat — there are no steep slopes, wetlands, avalanche flow areas, stream setbacks, mud and debris flow area, or other environmental concerns which would make practically difficult the construction of parking on -site. In response to this criterion, the City staff states: "An on -site parking solution has been substantially met." Exhibit 0 of the October 28, 2010 Staff Memorandum. Apparently, City staff counts on- street parking in this parking solution. The application provides for 33 off - street parking spaces in a below -grade parking garage and one mostly P69 Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2010 Page 2 off - street handicapped space at level. The October 28, 2010 Staff Memorandum notes that there is some question whether the below -grade garage can accommodate 31 or 33 parking spaces. See Exhibit G at Paragraph A.1. Either the application provides for a total of 32 or 34 parking spaces for 46 proposed units - in either case it is not one space for each unit. The Code does not allow for "substantially" meeting the one to one Code requirement or for counting on- street spaces to meet the off - street requirement. There is no evidence in the recu,d tliat an on -site (off street) parking solution meeting the Code requirement of one parking space for each unit is difficult in any respect or results in an undesirable development scenario. The only "difficulty" is the developer's desire to place the parking on- street so that it can maximize its profits with maximum development on site and use the public right of way to satisfy its parking requirements. This is nothing more than a back -door public subsidy of the project. It would be a very simple matter to reduce the number of units developed to the number of off -street parking spaces provided. Rezoning The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R -6 /LP (medium- density residential, lodge preservation) to R/MF (high density residential, multi- family). The P &Z makes a recommendation to the City Council which has final authority with regard to a rezoning of the property. In order to justify a re- zoning of the properly, the applicant must show and the Commission is required to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood characteristics. Code §26.310.040.C. The question is not whether affordable housing is compatible with the neighborhood - affordable housing is allowed in the R -6 zone district and is undeniably compatible with the neighborhood. The question is whether R/MF level density is consistent with the surrounding zone districts, land uses, and neighborhood characteristics. Importantly, the Little Ajax development (zoned AH /PUD) provides all of its required parking off - street, is developed at a much lower density than is proposed by Boomerang (14 units for 26,000 square feet) 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. By separate letter, Steve Goldenberg convincingly demonstrates that the proposal is not (even remotely) compatible with the neighborhood. For all of the above reasons and others we previously provided, we respcctfuly request that you (1) deny the Boomerang project request for 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 December 14, 2010. Sincerely, KLEIN COTE & EDWARDS, LLC .. J. seph E :dwards, 111 P70 Jennifer Phelan From: Tucker, Lea [Itucker @aspensnowmass.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 6:31 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: To: Jennifer Phelan, Planning Deputy Director, From: Lea Tucker Dear Jennifer — My name is Lea Tucker and I recently bought the Last Nickel Cabin in the Christiana complex. I have loved living of this huge construction project brings tears to my eyes; as it stands, there is very limited parking in our neighborhood and in the Christiana area. If this new project is to go through - there are only 33 spots assigned for 46 units. Most people living in these new affordable housing units will have up to two people i.e. two cars per unit. How do you account for this situation? The project remains very dense and does not fit our neighborhood, which by the way, already includes an award winning affordable housing project, the Little Ajax, which is located only 50 yards away from the Boomerang. Please note the following and take into consideration these factors: 1. the Lodge use is the preferred use for the subject property. Maintaining the historic Boomerang Lodge accomplishes important lodge preservation and historic preservation goals. Employee housing should not trump these objectives. 2. If affordable housing use is deemed appropriate the project should comply with established R -6 requirements. There are no changed circumstances to justify a zoning change in this instance that will have a negative effect on the existing neighborhood. No traffic or usage studies have been done to assess the potential negative impact to the neighborhood. The drawings that were submitted are sloppy and not drawn to scale such that no one can determine if the developer's plans conform to existing codes. 3. Bailing out a developer so that he can make a profit is not a valid reason for a zone change from R -6 to the higher density RMF zone. 4. The proposed RMF project is poor land use. It is too dense. It will not work for the residents of the project nor the residents of the neighborhood. The height and scale are too massive. An RMF project in this established zone district will result in unacceptable overcrowding, will invite increased traffic, will disrupt the successful pedestrian walkway and create parking problems. 5. It is unfair to long term residents to shoulder them with adverse neighborhood impacts so that a developer can make a profit. 6. This project will compete with other affordable housing projects that are not fully occupied, such as the Marolt Employee Housing project where the homeless might be sheltered due to excess capacity. I really appreciate your help in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Very Best, Lea Tucker Lea Tucker : International Public Relations : Aspen Skiing Company : direct 970.300.7021 : cell 303.641.4370: fax 970.300.7056 117 ABC Aspen, CO 81611: www.aspensnowmass.com Email secured by Check Point i P71 Jennifer Phelan From: Chelsea VanVleet [chelsea.vanvleet @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:01 PM To: Jackie Lothian; Ben Gagnon; Jennifer Phelan Subject: Thoughts on Proposed Boomerang Affordable Housing Dear Jackie, Ben and Jennifer, 1 I m a resident at 507 W. Main St. and I do not think the proposed changes made for the Boomerang Lodge are a good idea for our neighborhood or city. I used to live in afordable housing and think it is a great thing, I just don't think this project is a great idea that has been well thought out. The area would be so densely populated that even those living in the affordable housing units would not enjoy it. Please consider the following reasons why I do not think this project should take place in the proposed location: 1. Lodge use is the preferred use for the subject property. Maintaining the historic Boomerang Lodge accomplishes important lodge preservation and historic preservation goals. Employee housing should not trump these objectives. 2. If affordable housing use is deemed appropriate the ro'ect should comply with established R -6 requirements. There are no changed or d u g e d m project py q g circumstances to justify a zoning change in this instance that will have a negative effect on the existing neighborhood. No traffic or usage studies have been done to assess the potential negative impact to the neighborhood. The drawings that were submitted are sloppy and not drawn to scale such that no one can determine if the developer's plans conform to existing codes. 3. Bailing out a developer so that he can make a profit is not a valid reason for a zone change from R -6 to the higher density RMF zone. 4. The proposed RMF project is poor land use. It is too dense. It will not work for the residents of the project nor the residents of the neighborhood. The height and scale are too massive. An RMF project in this established zone district will result in unacceptable overcrowding, will invite increased traffic, will disrupt the successful pedestrian walkway and create parking problems. 5. It is unfair to long term residents to shoulder them with adverse neighborhood impacts so that a developer can make a profit. 6. This project will compete with other affordable housing projects that are not fully occupied, such as the Marolt Employee Housing project where the homeless might be sheltered due to excess capacity. Thank you for your time, Chelsea VanVleet Chelsea.VanVleet@gmail.com 1 P 7 2 Stephen Goldenberg 430 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 925 -1294 steve @goldenberg.com December 7, 2010 Stan Gibbs, Chair, LJ Erspamer, Vice Chair Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre Michael Wampler, Jim DeFrancia, Ben Gagnon RE: Boomerang Lodge Change of Use 1. Build the Approved Lodge 4 The property is approved under a Historic Lodge Preservation PUD and should be rebuilt as a lodge. If we allow a non -lodge use, then we are giving up on Aspen as a premiere ski resort. The only sustainable economy for Aspen is tourism, and without low to medium cost lodges we won't need any more Affordable Employee Housing. If the present owners, ABR (Alex Brown Realty, a large east coast real estate hedge fund) and Steve Stunda can't get a new lodge built, the next owner will. Building costs are much lower than two years ago and the land cost at auction will be much less. That property was operated as a successful lodge for 50 years. They should not have demolished the operating lodge if they couldn't rebuild it, and the special lodge preservation variances should not be automatically carried forward for a different use. 2. Any Alternative Proposal Should Be Compatible With The Existing Neighborhood A large, single building with 46 units is not compatible with the neighborhood. I went for a walk up and down Hopkins, checked the City's records and ordered a GIS map of the neighborhood. The 29 unit Christiana is broken up into 8 smaller buildings. The 29 units in the 700 block are 5 smaller buildings. Even the 14 unit Little Ajax is not one massive building. The following chart describes the existing neighborhood. (see maps and notes a — k) # of Av. Lot Size 27,000 sq. ft. Blocks (see notes) Units /Unit Height # of Autos On Street Boomerang as proposed 46 587 32' 14 (1 /unit) — 30 or 40 (likely) Christiana (part time) (a) 29 930 27', 31', 32' 9 700 block on Hopkins (i) 29 930 27 ? A B'erang 2X Little Ajax 28 964 32' 5 -8 601 bl. Little Ajax AH (f) 14 1,850 27' 0 600 block on Hopkins (d) 9 3,000 24' 8 400 block on Hopkins (c) 8 3,375 24', 29' 0 501 block on Hopkins (b) 5 5,000+ 27' 0 401 block on Hopkins (e) 4 6,750 27', 15' 2 300 block on Hopkins (g) 8 3,375 24' 0 301 block on Hopkins (h) 5 5,000+ 27' ? 701 block on Hopkins (j) 3 5,000+ 27' 0 200 block on Hopkins All single family - Both sides of Hopkins - 800 block on Hopkins All single family - Both sides Not only is a 46 unit project not compatible with the other neighborhood residences, it is also not compatible with the Midland Trail users, the Hopkins Avenue Pedestrian/Bikeway users and the alley it will share with the Christiana residents. The nearby Little Ajax Affordable Housing development has 14 units on a similar size lot with 25 off street parking spaces. The Little Ajax is compatible with and is a part of the neighborhood. If the Boomerang was built at a similar density and with similar parking, we would not be opposed to the change in use (even though we still believe preserving lodge rooms is better for the community as a whole). 3. Off Street Parking P 7 3 46 units means we will really have 75 to 110 occupants and 50 to 80 cars. That will flood the nearby streets (including the Hopkins pedestrian/bike -way) with traffic and parked cars unless adequate realistic off street parking is required. The Code requires one off street space per unit. The existing on street parking will be required for second cars, guests, trail users, synagogue worshipers and other normal neighborhood uses. The number of units should be limited to the number of "certified" off street spaces. One of the handicapped spaces is partially blocking the alley and the garage is likely to be encumbered with additional mechanical, storage and other uses not shown on the submission. 33 average size cars will not fit in the garage as advertised. The entire garage plan, including the one way ramp, needs to be verified by the City Building and Engineering Departments. It is absolutely possible for the developer to alter the application to provide one off street space per unit. He can increase the number of spaces and /or decrease the number of units. Little Ajax AH across the street is a perfect example. They have 1.8 off street parking spaces per unit and no 011 street parking. 4. If P &Z is going to Approve a Change of Use, the Applicant Should Provide Detailed Plans Describing All Facets of the New Proposal with Enough Lead Time for Staff and the Neighbors to Complete a Careful Review. I can't afford to pay for plans unless I first have an approval" is not a reasonable excuse. The so called plans submitted are really just sketches, and are loaded with errors and omissions (dumpsters, HVAC, elevator, and ramp snowmelt equipment, narrow parking spaces, inadequate storage for 90 bikes, temporary snow storage) and are not suitable for a careful analysis of such a dense project. 5. Historic Wing The historic wing of the old lodge has been left to rot and deteriorate. This wing needs to be repaired and sealed so that weather and animals do not further compromise the building structure. We rely upon the Planning & Zoning Commissioners to protect us from developers that always want variances for bigger, more dense, more crowded projects because that's exactly how land developers improve their Profits. P &Z and City Council should protect the existing community — you are the first and last line of defense. You must make sure that the unit count for this AH development application is significantly reduced so that it compatible and harmonious with the existing residential neighborhood and that the unit sizes are increased so the units are comfortable for families to enjoy. Just ask any owner of a Little Ajax AH unit. They are not stuffed into tiny units and they all love to live there. We would welcome another Little Ajax to the neighborhood, but the current proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood. Very truly yours, Steve Goldenberg Attachments: Neighborhood maps (2) Notes describing the character of each block My October 27, 2010 letter to P &Z P74 ``� _ l ( - -f n ` C -. uT r 4,73 . 1 S H , • i ce . ` . I; I .. , , �� , fi r ; . ...:, ( . _ ,'''. . _...' ... , -.4%....),..,. . r . o . T. . r • i � r 2 ^ � l: ' l r ,, _ ~ C) • - 77" , .. i ' al ____ .. iil -IV .: ' . . :-.) x 1 � / I : ' 1 . .) - -- • . • i 7 .. t . / tte■mi . , 4 r . . } , J,� . T 1 ` r l 1 a) The Christiana, in back of the Boomerang due north, consists of 8 separate smaller buildings. P 7 5 One duplex, one triplex, one fourplex, one sixplex, three individual cabins, and the 11 unit "Lodge ". That totals 29 units on 27,000 sq.ft. The average area per unit is 931 sq. ft., almost twice the area per unit as the Boomerang proposal. Only the fourplex is 33' tall. The other buildings are 27.5', 31' or under 32'. b) The block directly across Hopkins to the south (Shadow Mountain) is comprised of 3 single family homes, one not yet built, and one AH duplex. The tallest of the 3 buildings is 25', not 4 33'. The mass of these buildings is broken up without presenting a huge wall facing Hopkins Ave. All parking is off street with a land area of 4,000 sq. ft. per unit and a people density of about 1,333 sq. feet per resident. 100% of the parking is off street. c) To the immediate east of the Boomerang, the low density Scott block consists of 1) a duplex 24' tall on 9,000 sq ft., 2) a 5,000+ sq. ft. totally green open space and 3) a 6 unit brick condo, 29' tall on 12,000 sq. ft. This block averages 3,375 sq. ft. per unit and about 1,500 sq. ft per occupant. 100% of the parking is off street. d) To the immediate west, the low density block consists of 3 single family homes, each on 6,000 sq. ft. lots, and the 25' tall Madsen property containing 6 units on 9,000 sq. ft. or 1,500 sq. ft. per unit. e) Diagonally across Hopkins to the east is another very low density block containing 3 single family homes and David Bentley's cabin, all on 27,000 sq. ft. with none taller than 27' f) Diagonally across Hopkins to the west is the 25' tall Little Ajax AH project with 14 units on 26,000+ sq. ft. That's about 1,750 sq. ft. per unit and 600 sq. ft. per occupant. There are 25 off street parking spaces (23 covered) or 1.8 off street parking spaces per unit. g) Further east on Hopkins, (300 block) the north side contains 1) two single family homes, each on 6,000 sq ft., 2) two "A" frames each on 3,000 sq. ft., and 3) a fourplex on 9,000 sq.ft. That is 3,375 sq. ft. per unit and all parking is off street. h) Across Hopkins from there (301 block) are 5 single family homes on 27,000 sq ft. That's over 5,000 sq. ft. per unit with all parking off street. i) To the far west (700 block) are a cluster of 6 multi family buildings containing 29 units on 27,000 sq. ft. The average unit size is over 900 sq. ft., 2 -3X the space of the proposed Boomerang units. j) Across Hopkins from there (701 block), in the county, is the Cisneros property with a single family home and several outbuildings on approximately 50,000 sq. ft. k) The proposed Boomerang is not compatible with the neighborhood. It is more than twice the density of the Christiana and the Little Ajax AH. It is too massive and very tall. It will have too many units, too many undersize units and too many cars with no off street parking spaces. 1 P76 \,/ \ y, __� _. , s sr Ga.>uN cot- OCf V j i ■ o S6THST 7 cn W w ! l> W m 1 N T V .J1 ' O S T C ` N r l` ° `' , S 5TH ST . \ . N N N V N O 17 I VD 1 D z Z T -4 r n / , S 4TH ST r W r ; oo N V 6'' S 3RD ST L w Y7 -' co I.J -■ c v Al G N 2 N ( N GO n La 0 Z n A l• m O 0 , - - , S 2ND ST ' Page 1 of 1 P77 Ben Gagnon From: Richard Cummins lrcumminslaw @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:32 PM To: Ben Gagnon Subject: Boomerang Lodge - Change of Use Dear Ben: 1 have received notification of a proposal to convert the Boomerang Lodge to an affordable housing project. Let me, in the strongest possible terms, urge that this change of use not occur. We are a premier ski resort and community and the mainstay economy for this community is tourism. The very subject of employee housing becomes a moot issue if there are no tourists to support those employees. Our bed base has been diminishing steadily over the years, sometimes by conversion to employee units, and it is certainly overdue for this community to understand that we need to at lease preserve if not expand the existing tourist bed base. A substantial amount of monies have been expended to land bank property for future use as employee housing and what this community needs more than anything else are low to medium priced lodging so that we can provide accommodations to people who perhaps are not as wealthy as the mainstay tourist who visits our town. We would also be providing lodging to younger people who will be our tourist base in coming years. 1 don't believe that what we should be looking at is any conversion that would reduce our existing tourist bed base; it is imperative that we provide our tourist with a range of accommodations and to further diminish our bed base would be contrary to the best interests of our community and its employees. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Richard Cummins Cummins & Krulewitch Attorneys At Law 1280 Ute Avenue, Suite 10 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: 970- 920 -2310 Facsimile: 970 - 920 -2312 Email: rcumminslaw @aol.com PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIALJATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Richard Cummins, PC that may be confidential and /or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete the message. Email secured by Check Point P78 December 8, 2010 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Ben Gagnon, Special Project Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ben.gagnon@ci.aspen.co.us Re: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Rezoning and PUD Amendment Revised Plans Filed December 2, 2010 Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: My name is John Staton. My family and I own the house (431 W. Hopkins) at the corner of W. Hopkins and 4 Street. The house, which I bought in 1993, is diagonally across the street from the site of the Boomerang Lodge. My comments are grouped under four headings: 1. The revised plans are deficient. 2. This is a financial transaction. 3. There is a right way to do this project. There also is a wrong way to do this project. 4. Requested action by P &Z. Introduction: I will try to be as brief as possible. However, at issue is the viability of a long standing, residential neighborhood through which runs the Aspen Ped Bikeway - which is a major part of the summer visitor experience in Aspen for those bikers and hikers who use West Hopkins to access the trails running from Aspen to Glenwood Springs and points in between. The city and county have spent millions of dollars over the years perfecting this trail system. As a consequence, all the streets in and around the Boomerang are motor vehicle restricted to two (2) hour parking and Motorized Vehicles One Block Only. This is an established neighborhood composed of single family, multiple family, duplexes, condos, cabins, lodges and then affordable housing developments (two built and one under construction). If we are to have a fourth affordable housing development in the neighborhood it should be consistent with the residential neighborhood standards in size, shape, scope, density and number of units and residents. ATI. IMAN A GE- 7622361.1 P79 Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2010 Page 2 1. The revised plans are deficient in a number of respects that indicate the drawing, the scale used, or both, are incorrect, thus giving a false impression as to the actual size of the individual units. For example, all the "A" units (P1, P2, P3) measure less than 1 "xl" (with a scale of 1" = 20'). These units which measure less than 400 s/f using the 1" = 20' scale are shown on P10 to be 610 to 700 s /f, a significant difference. Moreover, the APCHA minimum square footage requirement for a single bedroom is 700 s /f, almost twice as much as is shown on drawings P1, P2 and P3. P &Z should require the developer to at least adhere to the minimum square footage requirements for the "A" units and all the other units in the project. Page P4, the proposed underground parking, a 1" = 20' scale, claims to show 33 underground parking spaces and lockers. The parking spaces measure less than 5' wide and 10' long. Yet, on Page S3 Applicant states that the parking spaces should be 8' - 6' wide. Using that dimension, there is not enough space in the lower level to provide 33 - 8'6" parking spaces. In addition to the parking spaces, the lower level has 46 storage spaces that probably are Tess than 5' x 5', or 25 s /f. Clearly not enough space for full -time residents on the premises 24 -7, 365 days a year. At the very least P &Z should require Applicant to correct the drawings and show the correct s/f of each unit and require Applicant to at least abide by APCHA minimums. 2. This is a financial transaction. The developers, Messrs. Stunda and Alex Brown Realty, are experienced developers who have appeared before countless zoning boards asking for variances, relief from zoning laws and regulations, as well as various financial incentives and abatements. This is how developers traditionally make part of their profits. In this case, because it is a residential neighborhood, they should be denied any relief from the rules and regulations that would normally apply to the this development. This is all about credits which can be sold to third parties to satisfy their affordable housing requirements. The more units that are approved the more credits that will be available. This project can stand on its own bottom. Make the developers design it so that it fits into our neighborhood. If P &Z does not grant the developers any waivers, I am sure they will find a way to make the project work. If they say they can't, then it was not a viable project from the beginning. 3. There is a right way to do this project. There is also a wrong way. P &Z doesn't have to look any further than 605 W. Hopkins, the LITTLE P80 Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2010 Page 3 AJAX Affordable Housing Project, to see how affordable housing can be developed in a residential neighborhood. LITTLE AJAX Boomerang Lot Size 26,615 21,311U Units 14 units 46 Off Street Parking 25 interior parking spaces 33 ( ?) interior parking spaces Boomerang proposes to have over three (3) times the number of units on roughly the same size lot with only 8 more interior (off street) parking spaces. It should be evident that the Boomerang project seeks to cram too many units into too little space, in a residential neighborhood. The right way to do this project is to follow the LITTLE AJAX model and limit density of units to a more reasonable number which should not exceed twice the AJAX number - 30 units. With a more limited number of units and interior parking the Boomerang proposal could fit into the neighborhood. See attached brochure on LITTLE AJAX project and its "green" features. If the Boomerang proposal is approved, there will be a minimum of 57 residents, at least 57 bicycles, 30 to 50 dogs, 57 or more cars and trucks, and a large assortment of boats, trailers, kayaks, grills and other sporting and outdoor paraphernalia all within 27,500 s /f. This will overwhelm our neighborhood 24/7 and 365 days every year. With this density, the proposed project will look a lot like the Centennial affordable housing development and will have a major negative impact on our neighborhood. 4. Requested action by P &Z. a. Deny the Boomerang requests. b. Adopt LITTLE AJAX density criteria for Boomerang project. c. Direct redrafting of plans consistent with subparagraphs a. and b. Respectfully submitted, 4 J V . Staton, Jr. 4' . Hopkins Aspen, Colorado JCS /ds P81 Affordable Housing Design Advisor Page 1 of 3 Gallery Groan Housing Projects Gallery pl liigb Quality Affordable Bowing • N99dusnan �� Uttie Ajax Affordable Housing - Aspen, CO (:rein learn re. less P summary: dna ARMYPbl• houalna M Select a GIoprMM J OWNan/YF9Illont Peter L. G•Ctznd. PateaSI:a %9m GK➢L1u • INwIo9m • NWN'A — .b $. ::5°. x;"°v cr :1 "" MrLGNtl:IrA Pafmcs. NCbdan • I.andaupe-achMW tAMOaaPn MGlnre'er 1 • • PbMpprmsn • in - CONTRACTOR • Goal SODOM w ...,, LLC aaNCabatimO rr g. l laaftg M$NDOLV WPM • pa of Aran $4.924 mato subsidy • De9eese Affordable housing bt on beenaeld tae. Gefnf1TY: 14 unasfeue Little Ajax is situated between an established neighborhood and mountains. The project consists of 14 communally-oriented affordable family units. A oevewvraeny PROFILE skewed geometry allows the building to conform to the streetscape in front rya aN,wts Su NO and the natural contours and vegetation of the slope above. A logical ma 13 ism transition is thus created between the street grid of the city and the Ya af 14 irregularity of the mountain landscape into which it terminates. The design odd: a can me equipped ese Individual rwrby rant O. integrates a dense program into a residential neighborhood by breaking the nn w sa scale down into five "house - scale" elements. Uses of color and form create T[M st 3 7 a aee..s •ne open wa a modem insertion into a neighborhood with a mix of architectural styles. nl9enO•5r1 COM Gluck and Partners acted as both architect fO $1.9aaddP C. af6: $ 4 ' 000 ' 030 ' Completed and contractor with a great deal of ambN eats community input and a subsidy from the city of Aspen. Previous mining activity on the site left a brownfield that was remediated through a voluntary state program. The site was very difficult, nearly unusable bored" of brownffeld issues {. y and a steep slope. Community opposition to affordable housing built within the Aspen city limits was also present. This was overcome through some concessions, including the elimination of the market -rate component of the project which allowed for increased open space and decreased density. The design depends upon three angled "slots" that slice through the projects' site, breaking it down into an interconnected series of buildings containing between t and 6 units. Because the "slots" divide the building into smaller elements, nine of the fourteen units have a corner location with multiple view corridors and natural cross ventilation. Two public trail connections, located separate from the parking area, were also created through this skewed courtyard geometry. A series of second floor walkways are punctuated by playful bridges and lookouts and provide multiple connections to the units. Multiple circulation routes augment fire safety and provide privacy by inuring that most units are accessed without having to pass by neighboring apartments. Tuck under parking also reduces the building footprints while creating private house-like units. Parking fees are an incentive for residents to reduce the number of vehicles per person, which is possible as Little Ajax is highly accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. Covered bike storage is located near units, and in addition to the public trail connections, the project is within one block of local bus lines. • I a u 1 M$ -1'i . - r a Sok Dedicated open spaces have been created with low- maintenance natural plants. Natural grasses and wildflowers act as drought - resistant landscaping, while all stonnwater is kept on -site using dry wells. Dual flush toilets were also installed in the units. http:// wow. designadvisor .org /green/little_ajax.htm 12/6/2010 P82 Affordable Housing Design Advisor Page 2 of 3 The building was designed to exceed the energy code by 15 %. Compact fluorescent and fluorescent lighting was used in units and public lighting is controlled by motion sensors. Continuous window walls create a high degree of daylighting. All units are served by a centralized hot water heating system, highly efficient boilers with outdoor resets, and mechanical ventilation. Notable materials used at Little Ajax include heavy gauge ,'.4.-� , -i " �r comigated metal, cement board, bamboo floors, finger-jointed , i studs, recycled content carpet and blown in cellulose insulation t I �' " , f Engineered lumber was used for some floors as well as the roof ° v s which is ventilated and has a high solar reflectance index. Indoor t 1 in 11 11 air quality was a concern: the architects specified low -VOC - aaarna: paints and finishes, pre- finished floors, and mechanical P � 1 a , ' • rain screens and an air space between the exterior envelope and - ~ , no 1•44 � ar ; waterproofing. No air conditioning systems were installed. , n g. During construction, cardboard, paper, metal and wood were -" ' `` i' III recycled. Post-construction, trash compactors reduced trips to Si the trash room and the number of pick -ups required by the trash - company. The large trash room accommodates multiple bins for recycling which are built into the cabinetry in the wits. To help ensure that the wits remain healthy and energy-efficient, the architect provided detailed operating manuals for all building occupants. They also aided in securing building maintenance contracts with the mechanical subcontractor. - - -. T. I Lessons Learned from the Architect • Being both contractor and architect was helpful to the project because green materials or systems are not necessarily more expensive, but they often require increased planning and organization which the architect was able to provide without hiring an outside contractor. Also, some systems, such as the super - insulated building envelope with a passive ventilation system, would have been difficult to get many outside contractors to do. • Bamboo flooring was a new material for the architect and they were told "miracle stories" about bow well it would work, even on a slab on grade. The architect argues that bamboo behaves like any other wood on grade and can shift when installed. • Frost Protected Shallow Foundations - In Aspen, the frost line is at 4 feet below grade. The architect wanted to use a FPSF but because of scheduling could not make the pour until November. This was too late and would have resulted in the pour sitting on top of frozen ground and becoming damaged. In the end, a hybrid system that combined elements of shallow and deep foundations was used that was shallow and which still avoided the need for deep trenching. Jury Comments • Well executed project with appealing contemporary design -works well given the adjacency to the mountains • Strong design for affordable housing • These homes are elegant and airy with strong connections to the landscape AIA Green Housing Guidelines Little Ajax Affordable Housing Previous silver mining in the late 1900s left a brownfield site that was ft-mediated ` a ` n 00°tl "` through a voluntary state program. The project is a moderate to high density 1 r 'u'nt development within 5 blocks of multiple community and township services. oen awatan uasur Within one block of public buses: 2nd floor walkways provide connections to public nun bike and walking trails. Site incorporates 2 public trail easements that connect into the city trail system and tie 2 saoman Psamoaraa• mine directly in to building circulation spines, covered bike storage near units and close to public trail points. Continuous window walls and alignment with public spaces create a high degree of interior daylighting. w gown riztioa High solar reflectance index roof. 3 bins Wells have an R value of 19. roof has an R value of 49 and slab has an R value of 10. Window frame material is thermally broken aluminum storefront - glass is 1" insulated @ ° wwww; unit with low -E coatings intermixed with 3.5" insulated panels custom integrated into storefront system. Moisture management through rain screens and air space between exterior envelope and waterproofing; ventilated roofing system. http:// www. designadvisor .org/green/little_ajax.htm 12/6/2010 P83 Affordable Housing Design Advisor Page 3 of 3 All stomiwater is kept on -site using native plants in vegetated swales and drywells. `' ^ � ^^"" 4 .a Natural grasses and wildflowers act as drought - resistant landscaping with temporary ' irrigation system only. n°^°O in axna Nninnws Dual flush toilets. Natural cross ventilation with windows on multiple exposures. Ducted system brings fresh air into space and expels air using timed exhaust fans. Building designed 15% fszv aye over the required energy code. Centralized hot water heating. Heating plants with 5 r outdoor resets. Highly efficient boilers super - insulated with mechanic ventilation. No air - conditioning systems. gyre Energy Star appliances used. Compact fluorescent and fluorescent lighting. Public .w tiara.+. ®KhGIrx on Irr0siv.i ..,ra.,I �. t srroa Cann Recycled content carpeting. insulation. and concrete. During construction, cardboard, 7 trading N+iraamaeaava paper, metal and wood were recycled. Large trash room accomodates multiple bins for P" recycl which are built into the cabinetry. 8 Eu r r'"°, iav p.,r,, w w,„sc,nyaw,asr Low -VOC paints and finishes. Pre- finished floors. http:// www. designadvisor .org /green/little_ajax.htm 12/6/2010 DEC. 8.2010 1:52PM SANDY'S NO. 9328 P. 1 P84 Y December 7, 2010 RECEIVED City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission DEC 0 7 2010 130 S. Galena St CITY OF ASPEN Aspen, CO 81611 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Boomerang (Revised) VIA. Facsimile: 970 - 920 -5439 Dear Panning & Zoning Members: The developers' modified Boomerang proposal is still too dense in terms of parking spaces since there are only 33 off street spaces for the proposed 46 units. Our neighborhood already struggles with limited parking and the resultant issues of illegal alley parking, etc Density remains an issue in terms of the individual unit size; approximately 63% of these units are below the minimum prescribed size. While the developers may benefit from more units equaling more credits ;the affordable housing owners and their neighbors will be the ultimate losers. Closer scrutiny and better planning should be given to this project with regard to general livability, neighborhood compatibility, on -site storage, trash containment placement of mechanical equipment and current neighborhood traffic issues. While we understand and appreciate the need for affordable housing in Aspen, this proposed re- classification will result in the permanent loss of employment opportunities and lodge revenue for our City. With the current economic climate and unemployment rates, this is a serious consideration. We sincerely request that this proposal be given the critical examination /analysis it deserves on a number of levels. Respectfully, Pg/fli(' 444/(1 frf Paul and Angela Young 413 West Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 DEC 08 '10 04:10PM MRCMURRRY P.2 /2 P85 1 .I i1 i� S cio n L ^Li Sw Sr. 111!r(1 1ro: - i 1 f .. ::s� Kolb .ia t' :_.1 i +rp•t:n, t.,'nll n�•u;�,r Nlrill V.S. M .,iI; 1. to 1 { r � ,.t.. V ,u; A. C'6:fn ?n. .. ! HI(9li'. 1 `- r ..ur.x'..�, i�zl,:ntii n! 1l ean ,- uiit • fl.?;i • 74.68 !qropi'. Sltji ill„ 07n • 1,1'5 • 2(1t`i r't =? • !OCN K December 7, 2010 CEN nFr 0 szoto CITY OF . Dear Planning and Zoning of Aspen: EOMMUN . AS PEN L ONENT Re: Boomerang Lodge As an Aspenite of 39 years, builder and resident of the Scott Condominium Building Pre and Hopkins), supporter of the arts, culture and healthcare in Aspen for the.[ same tine: ? ail goats disturbed by the possibility that the beloved Boomerang Lodge migi1 be used for affordable housing for employees of Aspen. The historic lodge should be preserved at all cost. - l'ru;p type . of establishment is what made Aspen what it is today. The proposed enlargement of NI Bcorr.er:ing a taw years ago, was out of place for the West End of Aspen, but was appro\rod 2J1yway. T'r: take the same approval and use it for outrageously high density for employees nou inu, Wcr,'d be a huge betrayal of your duties to the residents of the affected are=_,, namely the residents i'l te historic West End of Aspen. Since you have already approved the building of Jewish Community Center, you must take a • fresh hard look at the proposal for an affordable housing project, mere at f;• away. WI': n taken together, the two projects will completely smother and overwhelm the neighborhood with problems inducting but certainly not limited to; cars, bikes, dogs, people, 'it. :sc, cortilic , parking issues and neighborhood ingress and egress problems. if the needed and wanted operation of an historic lodge on the site of the old aocrrerang Loge finds no support among yourselves, then at least require a brand new study of all of trio issue involved with a totally new use as affordable housing and all of the ramifications 'or the neighborhood. At the Scott Condominium we have provided one parkin wade fra r_ve:y bedroom in the building end a generous green space and courtyard. This ph:tostophy was use -d in 1974 when my husband Dr. Russell Scott Jr. and I conceived of and built eur fam * ■ than time there was no pressure or reason to do so, except it was the right. thing io do for the neighborhood and Aspen. Thank you for your consideration in regards to the needs of the residents of tale West End of Aspen and the appropriateness of any future land use other than as a historic lodge, Tina neighborhood will enjoy the quality of your decisions. The residents of tar West End wit! live here long after your decisions are made. Please listen carefully to those, wait " o financial benefit at stake! Very sincerely, l Maugl "Scott ry H P86 December 6, 2010 Dear Members of the P & Z, As an immediate neighbor of the Boomerang property I have no problem with building Affordable Housing on its property if it is "modest in scale and compatible and harmonious with the neighborhood ". This is also necessary for the quality of life for our new neighbors who will be living there. Even scaled down to 46 units, the development is much larger than any other building in our neighborhood. The Christiana, its closest neighbor, has 29 units. Little Ajax an AH unit across Hopkins has 14 units. They have 23 parking spaces for those 14 units — 1.6 spaces per unit all off the street. The Boomerang should be built with similar requirements. My husband and 1 attended an AACP feedback session at the Wheeler at which it became obvious that affordable housing no longer has the high priority for Aspenites that it once held. An enormous project the size of the Boomerang is a reflection of the thinking of the old 2000 AACP adopted during a time when Aspen was "long on jobs and short on housing ". Times have changed, growth has slowed, jobs are diminishing, home and condo sales are slipping. Please make this development small so that it fits in with the neighborhood and all the units are livable and that they will be all be salable and so that traffic and parking will not be unbearable. We really do as a neighborhood rely on the P & Z members to protect us from developers who try to change zoning for their own benefit. Please keep the rest of us who are not developers in mind. You might also retain the lodging zoning as an alternative in case this project goes bust and what the community would really prefer — a moderate priced lodge- becomes feasible on this property . Respectfully submitted, Cheryl Goldenberg P87 Daniel Verner 432 West Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 December 8, 2010 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Board: into affordable housing units. As a homeowner at 432 West Hopkins, I have great concerns about the negative impact this project will have on our neighborhood. First let me state that I understand the needs for affordable housing here in Aspen. That being said, I believe this project needs to conform to current city statute and some common sense. I believe the real issue here to be one of parking. Board members first need to remember that the proposed Jewish Center at the corner of Main and 4 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 the 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 on West Hopkins and 4 Street. There are also other times of the week when due to events at the Jewish Center there are many cars parked on the roads. 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 every one park? The Boomerang Project as currently proposed does not have sufficient parking to meet the needs of the proposed 46 units. The project does show in its plans to have underground parking for 33 automobiles. The developer also proposed on street parking to meet the needs of the additional vehicles. However, there are serious questions about the exact number of these additional spaces, as well as 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 subjected to the same zoning regulations as a project (Little Ajax) across the street. 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 P88 Jennifer Phelan • From: Ben Gagnon Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 4:39 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: From Al West, 630 W. Hopkins Ave — FromT-Steve Goldenbcrg [mailto:stcvc @goidcnbcrg.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 4:19 PM To: Ben Gagnon Subject: From Al West, 630 W. Hopkins Ave. To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in care of Ben Gagnon Ben.Gagnon(a.ci.aspen.co.us Re: Boomerang Lodge Application From: Al West, 630 W. Hopkins Avenue, for more than 20 years. Date: October 26, 2010 I 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 an uncalled for rezoning without the normal process. 4. There is not enough off street parking for 46 AH units even if limited to 1 car per unit. 5. The hotel room size units are too small for reasonable year round use. 6. There are too many year round units for this size property. There could be close to 100 occupants. 7. This is more than triple the density of the 14 AH units at Little Ajax. 8. There will be a lot more traffic than from a rebuilt lodge. 9. There will be cars parked all over Hopkins, Fourth and Fifth day and night. 10. There needs to be some limit on pets. 11. This will impede the nature and safety of the pedestrian /biking use of W. Hopkins Ave. 12. This is out of character for this quiet neighborhood. Sincerely 1 Al West P89 December 8, 2010 Dear Mr. Gagnon and the Planning and Zoning Commission: I have owned a unit on the 4 Street side of the Christiana since 2007. I bought it knowing that the Boomerang Lodge was about to be redeveloped as an owner/hotel and was fine with that. The economic recession took hold, however, and that project died. Now there's a new proposal by the same developers for a 54 -unit affordable housing complex. I have grave concerns about this proposed development, which I've outlined here: • High- density housing, affordable or otherwise, is completely out of place in this neighborhood; • The proposed complex would take up an entire block of the designated pedestrian/bikeway on Hopkins, which flies in the face of that street's intended use; • Hopkins has become a low- traffic, single - family and reasonably -sized condo complex street (many of these are duplexes and four- plexes) and does not lend itself to an oversized complex; • There is a well -known over - supply of affordable housing in Aspen, so there is no demonstrated need for this project (Centennial currently has somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 available units and the new Marolt project is being considered for homeless housing because of the lack of demand for affordable housing units); • The developers have not provided remotely enough off - street parking spaces (just 33 for their proposed 54 units) • The developers have provided no details about how they might provide for trash, storage, snow removal, recycling, pets, and myriad other significant details necessary for any development whether affordable housing or otherwise; • The developers are not attempting to site their project in an appropriate location, which makes suspect their motivation for creating this in the first place. • There are already two affordable housing complexes within four blocks of the proposed ones,(one is across the street), but both of these are in keeping with the scale of the homes and condominiums in the neighborhood If a development were to go forward, however, here's what the developer could do to begin discussions: • Reduce the size from 54 units to half that many or 27 • Provide at least one off - street parking spot for every unit • Allow no pets except cats • Specify the exact snow removal plan for the complex • Specify the plan for trash and recycling including where the bins would be placed • Specify how much storage there would be an where (many affordable housing complexes in town look like veritable junk yards and/or playgrounds) • Specify the exact heights, location of parking (are they planning to put it P90 underground ?), etc. of development • Specify why they think this is an ideal spot for their project other than the fact they own the land and are looking to make good on their lost investment • Specify their particular interest in affordable housing Once again, the idea of a 54 -unit complex being built on a one -block long stretch of road along the bike /ped thoroughfare seems completely out of keeping with the neighborhood and Aspen's user - friendliness in general. This is not a high - density housing neighborhood to begin with. Why turn it into one now? Believe me, I'm all for helping people get affordable housing in Aspen and beyond, but to build a high- density complex in the middle of a mostly single - family and condo neighborhood is insensitive and wrong. And, as mentioned above, who's saying the need exists in the first place? As proposed, this project seems ill- conceived for innumerably more reasons than it does right, and I, for one, am hoping P &Z will take a good long look at it before signing off. Sincerely, Laura Werlin Owner, The Christiana, Unit A202 970 -544 -3802 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan For the Boomerang Condominiums I. Mission Statement ' .••- 'I• I- u •• •• , u 114 • . • • :••22 .1_ •• • 1 ' "Project ") is established to reduce the ownership and use of private automobiles by all groups, including owners, tenants, and visitors of the Project. It is expected that the TDM Plan will contribute positively to the City of Aspen, the West End neighborhood and the Project as a quality places to live. Its program elements are to be designed and administered in a manner that emphasizes commitment, flexibility, innovation, and leadership in transportation management among multifamily housing projects located in Aspen and Pitkin County. II. Program Goals. • Mitigate negative impacts of Project - generated travel on the surrounding community, including traffic congestion and parking spillover onto public streets other than Fourth Street, adjacent to the Project. • Significantly increase the convenience, availability, and attractiveness of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles commuting and provide for reductions of commute trips through programs that support rapid transit, bicycling and walking. • All strategies described in this plan will be in place at the time the Project first becomes operational. III. Strategies. • Parking Management. Reduce parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood by: a. Providing one parking space for each of the Project's 46 units. 33 of those spaces are located in the underground garage and 13 are surface parking spaces dedicated to the Project by existing Encroachment Licenses; b. Permanently assigning one parking space to each unit within the complex. That assignment will be memorialized in the deed for each unit and will be appurtenant to that unit so long as the project exists; Boomerang Condominiums TDM Plan Page 1 P92 c. Enforcing "ownership" of assigned parking spaces through the homeowners association. The resident manager will have authority to tow cars parked in spaces not assigned to that vehicle; • Limit the Number of Cars Owned by Residents. a. The Condominium Declaration will include a covenant which restricts to one the number of cars which may be owned by the residents of each unit. b. The Parking Department will be instructed not to issue parking permits to Project residents for use in the surrounding neighborhood. (Guest parking passes will be allowed.) • Promoting the Goals of the City's Transportation Department. a. Provide a $20,000 grant to either the City's Transportation Department or its CAR TO GO Carshare program (as determined by City Council) for use in the purchase of a new car, payment of administrative costs, or to accomplish other goals of the Transportation Department. b. Provide the first owners of each unit a free membership in CARS TO GO for one year following their purchase of the unit. (Each such owner will still need to separately qualify for membership by providing access to driving history, insurability, etc.) c. Provide free bus punch pass to each first owner of a unit within the Project. • Promote Bicycle Use Bv: a. providing outdoor bicycle racks for use during non - winter months; b. providing indoor, secure bicycle racks in the basement of the Project for winter storage; c. Designing access to basement space to ease removal of bikes to the outside. Boomerang Condominiums TDM Plan Page 2 P93 d. Each unit owner will be provided ample lockable space in the basement for storage of three or more bicycles, along with other personal property. e. The resident manager will be charged with policing the use of bike racks by removing bikes that have been abandoned and not moved from the racks. • Information and Promotion of Alternative Transportation Options. a. Provide information kiosk in interior common elements of the Project. b. Information on the kiosk will include RFTA schedules, carpool information and other data supplied by the City's Transportation Department. Boomerang Condominiums TDM Plan Page 3 P94 tt- MEMORANDUM TO: Jennifer Phelan FROM: Cindy Christensen THRU: Tom McCabe DATE: December 7, 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. Prior to meeting with the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the project consisted entirely of "for sale" Category 3 and 4 units. There were a total of 54 units proposed for this property. The Planning and Zoning Commission requested less units and more on -site parking. The current project now consists of 46 units with 47 parking spaces (33 parking spaces located in a below -grade garage and 14 spaces located street level), along with a storage space for each unit located subgrade. The project is proposed to consist of 6 studios, 29 one - bedroom units and 11 two - bedroom units of which 22 will be Category 3 and 24 will be Category 4. Twenty -five of the units are smaller than the minimum square footage 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 P95 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 the units. Due to the reasons stated above, Staff recommends that the 20% reduction be allowed for the 25 units that are under the minimum square footage requirements. Using the standard methodology stated in the Guidelines regarding the occupancy standards by type, these units would mitigate for a total of: 6 Studios X 1.25 = 7.5 29 One - Bedrooms X 1.75 = 50.75 11 Two- Bedrooms X 2.25 = 24.75 TOTAL 83.00 FTE's The proposed units are to be designated at Category 3 and 4. Although voluntary units may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, and with the approved net livable reductions, the proposed units meet the net livable requirements of Category 3 and 4; by providing a higher density of units, the developer may have been able to provide a few Category 2 units. This project would be an even better project if some of the units could have been designated as Category 2. APCHA realizes that the Category 3 and 4 units are acceptable units and the project is an excellent addition to the workforce housing inventory; however, APCHA would hope that the City will consider possibly subsidizing a few of these units to Category 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APCHA approves the current changes to the plans. APCHA was also pleased to see the swimming pool removed and in its place a lawn area, which will enable the homeowner association dues to remain lower. The conditions stated in the previous memo, will still prevail and are as follows: 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: 2 P96 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 83 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. 'I here should be one assigned parking space per unit, along with one assigned storage space for each unit. 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 666E BZL'6L6 %tld BELf'BZL'OL6131 5E6tB 03 01HOT311 00tlHO100M96C �aHJo oa �N3dSV I Q L556'6Z6'0L67Ctld 0665'SZ6'0L6.31 ll9lB 00'N3dStl 3AtlNtlWAHlSb3649 and SNINdOH M 009 • T a_ U 0 , woo•a}ouno•nnrmM S10311H02:1`d 3ddINNf10 8312IVHO 3J401 ONV31N008 1 I • G ♦♦. • 1 10 • w WI EE CD N Z o l CC . V @B U_ 1 1 e - • o 1 \ i J <I 0 o lk I 1 1 1 0 o N. S.. yr Vim' 1 — 1 IZ■ii • I L;ittij, 1 1 k4,-.t H ' c • 0 A 1 7j T k. \ .1:- \ .4:i. \ . t 1 1 oLLbJ oilid �� °1.�t/J. 111 — - < 066f'9ZL'OL6:ktld I BELE'6ZL'OL6 031 I GEM 00 301tlOT31 I 00tlNO100M66E OCPM0103 N3dSV LS56'OZ6'OLB Xtlj 10655'SZ6'O[fi a3111L94800'N3dStl13Atl NtlWAH 1SV3019 '3AV SNIHdOH 'M 009 N ■ 0 woo Mm S10311HOIb' 3ddINNfI0 S2l1b'HO 20001 ON`dIE1A1008 • z - • J • W J . • \ Q Z O o N P w • CD 1 art _........._ 4. 1 ir kz Ll y N. 1 V F T P . • • • \3I � 41 •t --ani 4 N, c:N, FF t • ..� J 1 r 4 i "-,MI Ia[ ■ 0 060E 1 OELE'0ZL'OL0: 1311 %610 00'301N011311 0tlN0100MON Odb'aOIOO �N3dSV LSSY'R OLO EOLO :Mid IEEE' Zfi'OLfi 131 I US 10 00 N3d5tl si 1 0/80100 MHE 3Ad SNI1idOH M 005 (_) (_) ` woo•ai}iuuno nnMmi 81031IHO IV 3ddINN110 S312JVHO 39001 ONV I3W009 . z a. J w > w J 0 - o 2 I— I r 1' Er i ---„, '1 --k ir , . vs- 4 A gal ‘C‘.... 71.- ■ / A • • 0h6EOZL'0L6 /NJ 1 SUES/LOGO 131 1 00'301801131 1 00tltlol00 M96 E 000100 'N3dS'd ■ 1556'OZ6OL6Xtl8 1 0696 '6Z6'OL6131 1 1019 1LO19 00'N3dSV 1 3AVNtlWAH1Stl3019 3AV SNINdOH M 009 C // �� L (_) 0 woo eipuuno MMM S 10311H0 IV BddINNf10 S312IVHO aoaoi ONV I3W008 0 0. ® z ® 114 10i. © J t 1 > ® W .. LJJ J n CC ‘e. LJJ O P N J W 1 11111 1iuk I N " J a _ T" d r4 N M s A D N N 0 i .> I r c4 N - d r N I N ..3• M N I t A i M A r A oll %._.. IC 0 • Imal tr. Asallia ti el ti‘ t IN a- r- ot i t 4 a LCSV EA L %tld 96131 59648 00'301tlN1131 OOtltl N1SV3 04'/210100 N3dSV � LSS6'6Z'OL6 Xtld 1 0655960/6131 1L191BW N3dSV13Atl WAN lSb3649 3AV SNINd01-1 M009 ^^ LL J}iuuno ' 5 10311H02IV 3 ±IINNflO S312IVH0 3040 0N`d j r .,, Yt ( \A II I - I 1 ------- i 7— [Thi IC If o Mit -o 71, m Q , , 4/ _ . 1 ...._ , ,-, 0 . ...—_, z Q allot ---111-----almilmar 6 ill 0 OA . ., -‘S\ t - ON- F n -1-151 t:1 I i : Oc i 0 D 16 i d 1 i Et I 0 sq m O B s Ei 0 I z= ,7._s --jr- 06SE'OOL6 J(tld 1 6ELEEZLOL6 1311 SEYIE 00 3OIH01111 0Otl80100M EBE OOV O10O N3dSH ■ LSS6'OMZ6OLB xvd 10655'SZ6 'OL6131 lWW 00 N3dStl 3AtlNtlWAN1Stl3049 2ndSNIHdOH M 009 CO LL S 1O311H0e1V BddINNf10 S3MVHO 30C101 ENV I2W008 z ' ' 4 > Ill � r ' i r , ( s r , > 0 _ , E 1 --._.e....^F 11„ .2 a , ti co algt tO A pr --1--- I__ * U o [] _,_,__/ H A z ° g Il 0 ' I I 40 a \ ‘I • 0 1 i O f _0 O 0 co ('"r" 0 9 LL 11 , _ N \ c i di ,-4-D: I D ' ! Wm Q f 4- - - -- - a - -- r 1 _ _ • .. t --,3 1., i or6e9zLO16 Ca 1 eeee'azz'ozsnai 1 ;MB oa'3aiamn3i 1 oavaoiwmess 00d2i0100 N3dSH IC E ■ L55ti OZ6'OLfi:IMd 0655'SZ6'OL6 a31 U9L8 oa'e3asv 3Atl NtlWAH 1SV3019 and SNIMOH M 009 N ^ LL Oo waoa}}Iuunnunrn S10311HO21V 333INNf10 5INVHO 30401 eNvelawooe ;1 1 1 Cl c 0 _ f N t 1 th , 0 -r - — - - I 0 WO 1 t 1 1 1 f il ii!..7. Z : , -4- t id r a-- \ N ria.1171"1"17117.111.7 c_„-- i I a - 0 L:3 A r I - 1 I 1 .. 0 �/ DO 2 N m �ti f 0 t iJ r � D 1 t t I I 1 I 1 I � o " t I n , NI- 1 O1 XVd I BELCWOL6131 I SE6113 00'301HO11 I OOVtlO1OOM 26E OOVe10100 I N8dSV ■ L556'Od6'O[6:Xtld OSSS'SZ6'OL6a31 ILSIB00'N3dSV I3AtlNVWAHlSb30t9 '9AVSNINdOH 'M 009 CO I a_ 0 (_) woo a}}Iuuno nnn S10311H0e1V 3ddINNf1D 8311VHO 3oa0 0Nt 13W008 0 ; .t 0 i 0 a I ° i' /P' 4 Q) v /6 erf , 0 - r .4---1. ( n z . . CD I 0 I 1 O I 0. . ' 0 E [].. i of 1 f S3' 2\ , \-- l Q E 0 g A O\ o 0 I._ CD . d CO R c 1 1 , 1 _ -_. -- - 0 il 1 , a Mi II 1 7 1 0 ii I— M • ni I 0 1 ' Or-to 1 066E'BOL6 kid o LE'BZL'oL6 :131 5E6L8 00 30N111191 I 1 I o0W01ooM96 OOP O100'N3dSV � L556'OMZfiOLfiXtld IO6SS 'SLfi'OL613111W480oN3dStl3Atl WAN 15b3 0l9 3AV SNINdOH MOOS //�� 0 0 , LL j wooa}}iuuno ANNA S10311H0�1`d 3ddINN1 Nf10 S3��Ib'H0 30001 0Nb213W008 00 , 0 o 0 a) ft m .---~ ( wAti O - o El I, I 1 z• I s T Et V t IF ' ■ ) a I 1 4. 1 may-. 1 1 En 1 1 1 E . 1 , N., wo r i( 0 \\ • 2 o Di ¶ - -r—gi N )Iire 1,ii 0 r x ~ I el 0 Mill 0 r 1 ° z ( 1.__11 1 0 \ I MC EL XVJ 1 9ELE'956 0L61211 9C148 00 301tlf11131 1 00b00100M86E OOH?:10l00 ‘ N3dSV ■ LS54'OZ6'0L6 0685'8Z6'OL6121 1 U81.8 00'N3dStl I 3M NHWAH 15tl30W 2AV SNINdOH M 009 0 I1 (.1) (.1) woo a}}Iuunownfon S 10311HO IV 3ddINNf10 S312IVHD 3Ja01 JMdH31A1008 _ 0 N en .4. M co co co co V V' V t 'd' V' co co co V a+ R U Y 0 N L N in O O co (n co O O O O V co O O O L r- V O m co W W Q) 0) W 0) co 0) O O M M (n (0 r H co r r r N. 4 r- W co co O O O 3 W N co N � a E � m J C c LL (Dm 0100(0(0000000 )n O LO )n D E Nn V N CO V' 0) 0) O O O O 10 N O N N N ( 3 t V (n (O (D m O O r r r t` W co co T O o J m N O w N t y C) 5 '0 C_ C 00 X N Y N N` @ (u o x oa o_ 0) o . w m U) m C �" woo <-2 <<<<<<O LL 0(D0 7 N CO N c- "'. - O 0 N A 0 = 3 O O v 0 'O w r a W • C C O C C WOO — 1 6 E E m E E LL • a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 O O 'O 2 r a C r a N N O "' w N N o O to m m 1- 0) m m 0 • = r N 0 t 0 0 0 0 • CO V CO CO CO CO V V' d' V 'Cr V CO CO M V y CO 7 CO CO V' - Cr V' V' V V CO C V N A R U 0 Y O 0 o 0 CO r a:, N (0 (n 00000 '40 N (n O O (n (n O O O O V O O 0 00 '0 r V co co 0) co co 0) M 0) co e r V co m N. 00 W 0) co 0) M 0) O O O 0 �' N co r N N- r N- N. W a0 .- (n F r r 1- r r r W co W 3 CO CO LL O 40 00 (n LC) 00000 0 in O (0 u0 LL O 40 N u0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ' N O O) 0) O O O O (n N- O N N N V Lo N 0) 0000010 r V (0 (0 (0 (0 (o N- N- r N - N- N - co W 0) 0) V) 0. a T C C w m < <<<<2 <O w 0Y0 r C ILm <<<<<<O LL 000 to m co (a — a `o d E E oo 0 . 0 0 0 O a 0 O O T O O T ,O 2 L.T. F L 1 9 a+ .+ = ) 9 . .+ .7 0) 0) CO C CO w m t j N m m LE = N I- r N • 066E'BZL'OL6 1 9ELE'BZL'OL6 I %KB OD '30121M131 1 00Vk10100MBHE QQ ' N]dSV LSS4'OZ6'OL6XV3 1 069S'9Z6'OL6131 I 11918 00'N3dSV I'3AVNVWAH1SV3019 and SNINdOH M 009 1— W 0 uaoo•opuuno'nru on S ±O2IIHO IV 2ddINNflO S2 IVHO 3JGO JN91181A1OO8 � . .. �I \� III.. . t t - 0 - iii -- - iii -- I. • I�1� iii XI 11i�i I� 111 ' 1 t � IA 1 ' I I . H I 1 • o i �1 w 11 \1 1.1 I i ii 11 II_ _1.____F, 1 lei , _ . __ 7 - r1 w _7,* cu i > •� -� ti--- Q i ii i � u i H ots 0 1.=; ICI_.. _ 1 I c� Z Aim—. I aim hi i > I, r :wnniill'rll . m I I' nn m. UJ I Y - I� %II p — ��' � ' ��'�':.i1.1■ • ii. I�tiall f—1 - - Iii-. J _ .. 1 0 = o N 1 ' 2 1 1 �� -- J o � `., _ • �� II ;1 N _ <- - IIML I IlMi _ :_ .+ j Ki • _ J _ Q � 1 1 f 'II , ■ = I 1 ��- _i � i � lll ;11 • I 01 ? +I ■I� �� 1 _!X111 10 11 ••l •- • MI ■— 1:1 ' 1. r■ _�IIII 1.I I! Ilij r II i V LI i • I II�II I�I'I :I fr1[i Il l, _ VINE M !I 11.1 5 1111 11111 i _ • =1-11 II ! ■^ 11-1-1 � ' �� li I� IMP 1 to • _ ■1 - . ■ _ ■ I f 1 is , ,ig, i irim_lo r ., :mi :„ . , , J 11 �I i I Willi 1211� .I�1 , i i411 li '' �7 i %i iI' f E .ii i� r i ICI • !�� ft ■ i J i .! n I . I • lI {�11 *1111 ■..I „�, r i Ie � 01� l'iy �,I. ,.1 ;:ail: 11 is 1 aI !ii • _ _ — 1 1 • 1 1 1 L,/ 11 III 11- , 066E'9ZL'OL6XVd 1 9£LE'9ZL'OL61311 SCVL900'30RIn1131 00V210100 0ad�10�00 N3dSV LSS4'OZ6'0L6:XVd 1 0659'SZ6'OL6 :131 1 L 919 03'N3d WA SV 1 '3AVNVHISV3 3AV SNINdOH M 009 N ( 0 , W woo MMM SlO21IHO:IV 2ddINNf10 S312:IVHO 39001 ONV181A1008 z i t a 1 .1 \ C m +1 0 s 1 v) I -( . c� 1 • . 1 im e ---,,t,_.,, 1 J ! ''--' 1-i>•I .. _ , .R 0 I I ,!= j .a� 1 a) 1 \I I 1 , - !! 1t I.I i t I ' ' J ' j 1 P• : ; 1 1 R ' I 'I1,' , ; - I I li :iii . - ji::: _ W - I'' Il j?'�� I�IIr.. II! {!Iil� U I —1 T T j I_._I Q 1 I - i 1 1 z il k` ; I I ' I _ u) --a3 rip r 1i l 11 r - I 1 i! 111 ` I' 1 1 :l ppa r4- I I � • , : � � i�,• � il� -- NI l � I }- 1 1 l i i ',,� , 0 1 , I W o 1 .. _ -_ -_ III rice .�►- ° t hI_ — I . 1 C,il � i 1 I t> J 4 t -- 161 �� I rr'I EI:I Q ■ a I_I — I. I . gal IMO I 11. ! 1111'1 ' ( I 1 / I 91- - -- ' i i 1; S I 1 ' 1 I I n 1 1 U--� �x I , - .� .1.0 1 1 .„ - j i EMI la 1 1H , 1 0 1 , 1 1 Fill M .L, A! r ! I • _1 i ry – I MP ftl 1 i I . X1111 . I II I �1 i mj iii 1 > 1 INN 1 r - 1 III m 0_ �_ I { 1 L I } I 1 1 • rf II.1' LIII i. 4 _ 1 .I I I' ' ' 1 'III il `�LV 1 �I� • , I — 1 , 1 I 1 A � i Il1 t 1 1 ►/ i _ � I V I o t J • S '.,' Z t Q C\ I + 066E'EL'OL6 Xtld 1 8ELE'BZL'OL6 131 1 5£118 00'3011if11131 1 00/10100 M 86E OQ� 0107 ' N3dS ii< L556'OZ6'OL6XtlJ 0655'9Z6'OL6 l31 1 11518 00'N3dSV '3AVNtlWAH1Stl3019 and SNI)Id0H M 009 T () 0 t W00'941U S102 1IH0 IV 3ddINNf1O S212:IVHO D0401 9NVJI3WOO8 up 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 J J i � N 1 4 I, I y , 1 1 ,..1. 1,, I O I,- IN I in 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ _ A ..._...._..._ ___ . , Ilr" . A I z 1 ■ C W in \ , A 1 . I �; All �, ( ' iqi ~\ 1 El I . . , 1 1111! Is + I , , ; 1 \\., 1 1,\\ girl . •� 4" /,' J I I j � Wood f 1 . tG . , . I , ; , I s, : z • 0 I f I I V I A :*.i..._,. i . • , t„... , ,,,,,,i I .., 1 ',Iv 1 -:, .-z '' I ,,,,::: - 1 � � e I . i 111F .,- :.--: ,,,,, ' 0 I i w,, I ! I I I % I I1 1 0 1 0..3. . I E 1 1 1 i' . i 1 E 1 n 1 I I . ?. . I , I ■ _I— : I litli>..44.?;;-1, <„,Le.it, Ir : o46C1REOL6xvd 1961e'6Zro16 1 MO 00 '30111111131 100aa0100MNC 00`d2A0100 `N3dS`d • L5517103'0161CVd I 0655'SZ611L6 131 I L1918 03 ■3dStl I'3nvnwVUllsvao1s '3AV SNI)id0H • 005 N r M u) woo•o}}Iuuno•nnnnnn , CI ,. SIO31IHOIV 2ddINN11O S31eIVHO 2Oa0 - 1 ONV 12W008 W m Q .. y~ ° CT) • O • o— • , ,•• . ------- h — ' I or . , . .., .,„5.4 .,,, ..,-..._:..,-, ,,,,,,,.... .. , 7 ,,...„,„ .. . ,..., , . ...,. ., P, I . ,O , 77... ...,, .-:.---",77 .: , € 4 , i t ,,, ,,,,„/". .„.,/, ,• , , :. : • ,..... ,,...... . ,t......: fil ‘ 1 1' , .„,:. ,.:, •-...„..,.... : • , . , . . . , , , .,----" .. ... . . , . • .• . ::., ,.., . • ........,.„. .. , . , , ..., „-,..- I l . -"'"°••,N.. X • R . • ,,1 , ,:. a .,, I • . • �- • I ''2 t 4# ft ■ � I ,- • ._ � • . . ' . .6): ' ' ' U r ,,, . ,. . , ,•• ..... _ _:....::„,,, , • • • .. • : N ''' • e ' ' . i Il I ; , 1 ' • I I • • • 066E'92COL6 :Xtld 1 9ELE'92COL6 :131 1 96419 00 306311131 00V30100M96E 00 N3dSb' 4 L999026'OL616Vd 10699' YUOL613111L91900 'N3dSVI'30NVWAHISV3Ole 3AVSNINdOH M004 CO VJ giuuno MMM S 10311H0?:IV add'NMI° S3 30401 0MdH3W008 f t 123e115 H±JflOd d.11 .9-. I I I I I I I I I L m 1 In I m 1 I I—J I I I )I1VM 313L2NO0 r V 0 3NI1 .11213dOTJd O P �WIl e b w I I Wm r a\ 1 - cn 0 II Jayy 'I _I �. in kn i I Cal:A I i : It I I ot, i \ \I o - s • $ • � IL I ti a t rc• 4 -- IL 1 ' 1 r t I St Q 0 I 0 .- I C lli J M I _ s W 7b. Z N .);:e , �� , W J 5 ° //IIIAv`� Q m0. I � z ci Ia I W 4 =4�� O 28 ;a=:I' 0„. _ � rs14 1 , to LI • I //4/ I \ \ / � 1 • 1 II� \ � // /II11E` • I 1 1,41, S vs it ip o -s I o I �� }��. in ' !!Lr / / / >11 3.1.320N00 �