Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110208 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, February 8, 2011 4:30 p.m. Library Meeting Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — A. 500 West Hopkins — Boomerang — Parking Portion of PUD VI. BOARD REPORTS VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 4 • Pi MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Director /`�� "' MEETING DATE: February 8, 2011 RE: 500 W. Hopkins – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Review of PUD Parking Standards SUMMARY: The hearing is a reconsideration of the parking element of the Boomerang affordable housing project. The Planning and Zoning Commission did review this recently and forwarded a recommendation of approval to City Council. • An appeal of the P &Z recommendation was submitted by Mr. Jody Edwards. The Appellants are Steven and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton. The appeal . centered on noticing the hearing to consider the parking requirements for this project pursuant to both Special Review and PUD and then performing the review solely on the PUD standards. It was realized, just prior to the hearing, that the Special Review for parking was not needed. Council determined that using the PUD criteria to 'determine off - street parking is appropriate. However, since the Special Review standards were cited in the notice and then not used, City Council decided to remand the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission to rehear the parking recommendation solely under the PUD review criteria for parking and provide ample opportunity for the public to understand the applicable standards and be heard by the Commission. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Aspen FSP -ABR LLC Staff recommends the Planning Commission Steve Stunda, Manager forward a recommendation of . approval to City Council with regard to parking for the Boomerang REPRESENTATIVE: Affordable Housing Project. Michael Hoffman, attorney LOCATION: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue. v' CURRENT ZONING & USE c. R- 6/LP/PUD. Lodge approved for — ,,..::_ = , = 47 lodge units, 5 free mar ket units `� _ 2 affordable housing units. PROPOSED LAND USE: MI Applicant would convert the use Existing East Wing of Boomerang Lodge. to 46 affordable housing units. P2 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting a recommendation of approval of the following land use review from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • 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 review currently before the Commission is solely with regard to off - street parking. The. City Council is the final decision - making body. BACKGROUND: The Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was approved in 2006 for 47 lodge units, 5 free - market residential units and 2 affordable housing units. Via Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) a lodge redevelopment was approved with 31 underground and 12 surface (partially in the right -of -way) parking spaces. The latest proposal by the applicant is for the site to contain 46 multi - family units with a mix of studios, 1 bedrooms and 2- bedroom units. As presently proposed, the building • will contain 33 underground parking spaces. In. addition to these underground parking spaces, the Applicant currently holds encroachment licenses 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 licenses, the property has use of 47 parking spaces and meets the 1:1 ratio of parking to unit required by the City's Land Use Code. Similar to the Boomerang, many older properties were developed with head -in parking partially on -site and partially within the public right -of -way. When these properties are redeveloped, the City considers the historic parking patterns and considers formalizing (or legally recognizing) the head -in parking that is partially in the right -of -way. That has occurred with the Christiania, the Ullr affordable housing, the Hotel Aspen, and several other properties. In each case, the physical limitations and needs of the project and those of the neighborhood are weighed. Maintenance of this encroachment license will ultimately be decided by the City Council. Minimum parking requirements for new development are a constant debate. Many cities, including Aspen, have come to realize that requiring high amounts of on -site parking can challenge other goals of limiting traffic, encouraging density near the core of town, and encouraging a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. This is not to say that any of these are an "either /or," just that many cities are questioning the affect of minimum parking requirements. In fact, a few cities (not Aspen) have gone as far as to mandate maximum parking standards. Staff has reviewed some of these examples, seen projects first -hand, and talked with planners from those cities. While the approach and outcomes are 2 P3 different, a maximum parking strategy does not seem to relieve a community from arguing about parking. While Aspen has not gone to maximum parking standards, Aspen's parking requirements for in -town locations are intentionally lower than for other more - remote areas. The City requires one parking space per residence. This recognizes the availability of street parking, the desire to encourage density to occur within the townsite, the ability to walk, bike or take transit, and the potential for a less auto - reliant living situation. The parking standard does not require all of a project's parking to be on -site and the City expressly understands that parking is one of the difficult trade -offs inherent in any review of development within the townsite. Aspen's parking standard does not expect that any given resident will have only one car. And, the standard does not expect (or require) residents to change their habits or adopt a different lifestyle. The standard represents a trade -off — a balance of community goals and expectations. Like any trade -off, the standard is not imagined to be a perfect solution for every individual. The Boomerang site is located within the original Aspen townsite. It is one block to the second largest public transit system in the State, a few blocks from a successful Car -to- Go site and along a summer pedestrian route. The site is within walking and biking distance to the commercial core. If a potential resident were looking for a less auto - reliant lifestyle, this would be a good neighborhood to consider. The neighborhood streets can absorb additional on street parking. With blocks containing parallel parking and no curb cuts the City's Parking Department estimates that each side of the street can accommodate eleven (11) parking spaces or a total of twenty- two (22) per block. Following is a sample of parking counts recently taken by planning staff December 2010 through February 2011. 3 P4 Table 1: On- Street parking counts along Hopkins Ave. Hopkins Ave. % of Pictures of Hopkins Avenue street parking on Date Time 3rd -4th 4th -5th 5th -6th capacity December 28` 12/22 8:OO AM 2 5 8 23% s s -J- 12/22 5:15 PM 2 3 8 20% ��rd 12/23 7:45 AM 2 1 5 12% 12/23 5:00 PM 2 2 6 15% r .� E''ry Yr r .. 12/27 8:00 AM 3 3 8 h4 12/27 5:15 PM 3 2 7 18 % - r � 12/28 8:00 AM 3 2 8 20% 1/14 8:15 AM 1 2 6 14% 1/14 5:00 PM 2 4 8 21% .4 1/19 8:00 AM 1 3 7 17% 1/19 5:45 PM 3 4 8 23% 1/27 9:00 AM 1 2 5 12% t; 1/31 6:00 PM 1 2 8 17% 2/1 7:00 PM 2 1 7 15% 2/2 8:30 AM 2 2 7 17% Average �?m ' 'r "- g 2 2.5 7 17 %• The above counts do not take into account Saturday January 30` On this day, the special event parking lots for X -Games were full and attendees were directed to town for parking. According to neighbor reports, the neighborhood was filled with cars and virtually all existing capacity was used. Staff considers this an out -of -the- ordinary occurrence. The staff counts also do not reflect available parking on 4 5 or 6 Streets between Hopkins and Main Street. Staff did notice unused capacity in these areas but the above numbers do not reflect this condition. The purpose of the staff counts is to demonstrate the availability of street parking. The exact total capacity and the exact usage patterns can be argued. But, staff has witnessed available spaces over several different days and times. The Parking Department prefers the Fourth Street head -in parking be available to the public; however, the department recognizes that the Applicant currently possesses an 4 P5 encroachment license for the exclusive use of the parking. Parking Director Tim Ware did indicate that even if the head -in parking is available to the general public, it tends to operate as de -facto parking for the property adjacent to it. In either scenario, the head -in parking will be used by residents of this project. Counting the head -in spaces, a total of 47 spaces will be available for residents of this project. This meets the City's standard for one space per residence. As acknowledged above, some residents will park on the street. Considering the present un -used capacity, staff believes the existing street parking can accommodate any off -site parking demands from this project. An alternate way to consider this project's parking condition is on a per bedroom basis. With 47 parking spaces, this project provides .81 spaces per bedroom (47 spaces for 57 bedrooms). The Little Ajax Affordable Housing project provides .61 parking spaces per bedroom (25 spaces for 41 bedrooms). The Christiania provides .54 parking spaces per bedroom (20 spaces for 37 bedrooms). A typical house in the neighborhood has four bedrooms with .5 parking spaces per bedroom (2 spaces for 4 bedrooms). In this per - bedroom context, the Boomerang project is providing slightly higher levels of parking than similarly situated projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Development under a PUD allows for flexibility with development of land to promote "the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan." 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. The PUD standards for parking ask the reviewing body to consider "availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access" (Section 26.445.050 (B)(3)(c)). The adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit both through the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) and the Car -to -Go carshare program provides a basis for accepting a lower parking ratio for the proposed project. The location meets the following philosophy statement of the Aspen Area Community Plan (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). The location also appears to be a favorable site for affordable housing, according to the AACP. The AACP speaks to lessening one' s reliance on the auto because "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities niti to become part of to t town's social fabric" (Housing Philosophy, pg 26). The "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged ..." Staff believes this is an ideal place for affordable housing and is consistent with this directive of the community plan. 5 P6 Aspen has not yet reached the upper goal of 1,300 new units defined in the 2000 AACP. The AACP recognizes that the public cannot be responsible for all affordable housing and emphasizes "the importance of the private sector playing a greater role in the production of affordable housing." The current proposal would be one of the largest affordable housing facilities produced by the private sector. The AACP desires and welcomes this type of participation. Considering the goals and objectives of the AACP, needs of the project, location and proximity of transit and other multi -modal opportunities, as well as the capacity available with regard to on- street parking, staff supports the 33 on -site parking spaces as proposed. If Council maintains the existing encroachment license for the 14 head -in spaces, fourteen additional spaces are available for the project meeting the 1 space per unit standard. Even if the head -in license is not maintained, the spaces will likely be used by the residents of this project reducing pressure for street parking and providing the same end result — the project will have access to 47 parking spaces and additional spaces on the street, pursuant to city policies for street parking. On a per - bedroom basis, the proposal actually provides more parking than similarly situated projects. While some may argue the adequacy or rationale behind the City's one space per residence standard, this amount of parking does meet the City's standard of one space per residence. Staff has reviewed the parking proposal against the parking standards found in the City's PUD regulations and finds all standards met. Staff is recommending the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, reconunending of approval of the parking for the Boomerang project." CURRENT ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit W — PUD Review Criteria for Off Street Parking Exhibit X — Letters from Public — February 8 batch. Exhibit Y — Letter from attorney Jody Edwards PREVIOUS 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) 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 fording, Growth Management for Change in Use (provided 11/2/10 & 12/14/10) Exhibit F — Staff fording, 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) 6 P7 • Exhibit I - Letters from the public (provided 11/2/10) 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) Exhibit N — Floor plans of site submitted by the Applicant (submitted 11/2/10) Exhibit 0 - Letters from the public (provided 12/14/10) Exhibit P - Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan (provided 12/14/10) Exhibit Q — Amended Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority referral dated December 7, 2010 (provided 12/14/10) Exhibit R — Amended site plan, floor plans and elevations dated December 1, 2010 (provided 12/14/10) Exhibit S — Additional letters from the public (submitted 12/14/10) Exhibit T — Photos of neighborhood on- street parking (submitted 12/14/10) Exhibit U — Revocable Encroachment License (submitted 12/14/10) Exhibit V — neighborhood context map (submitted 12/14/10) 7 P8 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR OFF - STREET PARKING, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission approved a resolution granting certain entitlements and recommending City Council approve certain entitlements with conditions via Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) and specifically recommending establishment of dimensional requirements including off -street parking spaces through Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, neighboring property owners submitted a Notice of Appeal with regard to the approval of the resolution by the Commission, specifically, the determination by the Commission concerning parking through Planned Unit Development standards rather than Special Review standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, remanded the application back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to rehear the parking recommendation solely under the PUD review criteria for parking and provide ample opportunity for the public to be heard; and, WHEREAS, upon additional review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission support an off -street parking standard of 33 on -site underground parking spaces and continued use of 14 head -in on -street parking spaces within the right -of -way; 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, Page 1 of 3 P &Z Resolution No. _ , Series 2011 P9 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission took public testimony, considered the application and approved this Resolution by a -- to — vote; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that recommendation of approval of the parking aspect 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: Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to City Council accept and approve the Boomerang Affordable Housing project with the provision of 33 on -site underground parking spaces and continued use of 14 head -in on- street parking spaces within the right -of- way; overall making 47 parking spaces available to residents of this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council re- approve and maintain the existing encroachment license allowing the 14 head -in parking spaces to remain in their current configuration and recognize the historic use of these spaces by this property. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommends City Council investigate and encourage the applicant to investigate additional methods of reducing street parking demands on this neighborhood. Section 2: 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 3: 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. Page 2 of 3 P &Z Resolution No. _ , Series 2011 P10 Section 4: 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 February, 2011. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 3 of 3 P &Z Resolution No. _ , Series 2011 P11 Exhibit W PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings for Parking 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. Staff Note — The Commission's review is to be focused on the parking element of the proposed development. Not all PUD criteria are directly or even indirectly related the parking. Staff is citing the following PUD criteria as relevant to the parking aspect of the proposed development. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP does not state specific parking standards (this is left to the Land Use Code) but does provide some general guidance on transportation and auto - reliance issues of development. Following are excerpts from the AACP that relate to this topic: • "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) To the extent that these AACP statements relate to other PUD standards, staff has cited those in the response to those standards, below. With respect to the parking aspect of this proposed development, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the AACP that speak to parking for a project. Exhibit W — PUD Parking Criteria. P1 2 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. Parking for the project is consistent with that of the neighborhood. The area contains a mix of older and newer developments and a mix of single- family and multi - family uses — all with various levels of parking provided. The project presents 47 parking spaces available to the residents of the project made -up of 33 on -site spaces within a parking garage and an additional 14 spaces, most of which are head -in spaces that are partially within the right -of -way but which have been associated with this property for many years. Head -in parking is actually somewhat typical for this neighborhood and most of the examples include spaces that a partially within the right -of -way, some of which have encroachment licenses. This style of parking was normal during the era when these properties were originally developed. The applicant does have an existing encroachment license for these head -in spaces, but it will be a decision by City Council if that license can be maintained. Staff believes that even if the license is not maintained, the availability of the parking will continue to exist. The City has not identified this head -in parking as a problem and has no plans to remove or otherwise alter its presence. So, the project residents will have access to 47 parking spaces regardless of the license. This exceeds the City's standard of one parking space per residence. The standard itself is intentionally lower for properties such as this in recognition of available street parking, access to transit services, and the proximity to downtown. Furthermore, on a per - bedroom basis this project provides more parking than similarly situated developments. With 47 parking spaces, this project provides .81 spaces per bedroom (47 spaces for 57 bedrooms). The newly developed Little Ajax Affordable Housing project across the street provides .61 parking spaces per bedroom (25 spaces for 41 bedrooms). The Christiania Lodge, just north of the project, provides .54 parking spaces per bedroom (20 spaces for 37 bedrooms). A typical house in the neighborhood has four bedrooms with .5 parking spaces per bedroom (2 spaces for 4 bedrooms). In this per - bedroom context, the Boomerang project is providing slightly higher levels of parking than similarly situated projects. With respect to parking, staff considers the proposal to be consistent with the neighborhood. Residents will have access to parking within and proximate to the property in a very similar manner, type, number, ratio to units, and ration to bedrooms as existing developments in the neighborhood. The standards for residential parking are the same for free - market residential development and affordable housing. Staff believes the parking for this project is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the neighborhood and the character of parking for existing land uses in the neighborhood. Exhibit W — PUD Parking Criteria. Page 2 P13 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. The parking aspect of the proposal, including the design and access points, are not situated in a way that would adversely affect the developability of other properties in the area. Staff believes the parking aspect of the proposal meets this standard. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements. 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. b) 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. 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: As stated above, staff considers the proposal to be compatible and consistent with the character of the neighborhood including expected future uses. Residents will have access to parking within and proximate to the property in a very similar manner, type, number, ratio to units, and ratio to bedrooms as existing developments in the neighborhood. The standards for residential parking are the same for free -market residential development and affordable housing. Staff believes the parking for this project is consistent with the character of existing and future land uses in the neighborhood and the character of parking for existing and future land uses in the neighborhood. There are no known natural hazards affecting this property, but the property does contain significant vegetation as well as an historic resource — the entire east wing of the original Boomerang Lodge. These elements do represent limitations on the site and cause certain design decisions, or at least directives regarding the layout of the development and associated parking. The proposal addresses both the vegetation and the historic resources in an appropriate manner. The preservation plan for the east wing has been reviewd and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and the landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Parks Department. The project has been designed considering the pedestrian bikeway on Hopkins Avenue. The applicant has responded to staff s desire for this frontage to not include curb cuts and to maintain the existing configuration of the public right -of -way. Locating high- density P14 residential development, especially locally occupied units, along the pedestrian way enables more residents the opportunity to walk or bike to work and other attractions. This enhances the value and utility of this public resource. The proposal also recognizes the opportunities that existing with the proximity to transit services. This site is optimum for residents who want to rely less on an automobile (than other locations in town) without requiring any resident to subscribe to a different lifestyle or to "give -up" automobile ownership. Staff fords the parking aspect of this proposal in compliance with criteria a, b, c and d. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Finding: 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 can be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14, Minimum off -street parking spaces. As noted in the PUD section entitled Dimensional Requirements, "the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each provision." With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) 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, with the maintenance of the encroachment license, can achieve 47 parking spaces for this application if Council ultimately approves a PUD and maintains the existing encroachment license. If the encroachment license is not maintained, no change is proposed to the head -in parking is proposed and the residents of this project will have access to these spaces. Regardless of the encroachment license being maintained, 47 parking spaces will be available to residents of this project, slightly exceeding the City's one space per residence requirement. It is likely, or probable, that residents of this project will have additional cars and will avail themselves of the available street parking in the neighborhood. While this is expected, it is not illegal or counter to city policy or counter to the review standards. The City's street parking system is managed to allow residents of a neighborhood to be exempt from the 2 -hour parking limits that otherwise apply. The program has been in effect for 15 -20 years and seems to meet the needs of residents. Exhibit W — PUD Parking Criteria. Page 4 P15 The neighboring streets appear to have un -used capacity. Staff has been monitoring the street parking in the past month during different times of the day and existing capacity exists. (The staff memo contains a chart showing street parking counts.) There is no doubt that some residents of this project, like any other development within this neighborhood, will use street parking. Staff expects that they will use street parking much in the same way as current residents use it — for an oversized vehicle or an extra car, for a trailer, for guests, or for other parking purposes. This seems to be the way current residents use street parking, according to staff observation. Staff believes the residents of this project should enjoy the same allowances for street parking and have the ability to obtain and use a street parking permit. The project contains primarily small residential units — the proposed 46 units contain a total of 57 bedrooms. While the City's code for a project of this type does not specify parking requirements on a per - bedroom basis, this analysis is useful in determining an appropriate number of parking spaces. With 47 parking spaces, this project provides .81 spaces per bedroom (47 spaces for 57 bedrooms). The newly developed Little Ajax Affordable Housing project across the street provides .61 parking spaces per bedroom (25 spaces for 41 bedrooms). The Christiania Lodge, just north of the project, provides .54 parking spaces per bedroom (20 spaces for 37 bedrooms). A typical house in the neighborhood has four bedrooms with .5 parking spaces per bedroom (2 spaces for 4 bedrooms). Older developments in this neighborhood fall significantly short of the per - bedroom ratio that this project is proposing. In this per- bedroom context, the Boomerang project is providing slightly higher levels of parking than similarly situated projects. The "availability of public transit and other transportation h facilities, ng including ho West for pedestrian access" (Section 26.445.050 (B)()()) adjacent Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit both through the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) and the Car -to -Go car arshare program provides a basis for permitting only 33 off -street parking spaces on the subject site. Additionally the site's location meets the following philosophy statement of the Aspen Area Community Plan (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). Owning a car is not a necessity with multi options available and the subject site is within close proximity "to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City" (Section 26.445.050 (B)(3)(d)). Again the project's location meets a philosophy statement of the AACP with regard to lessening one's reliance on the auto because "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) If overflow parking does occur, the parking department has noted that additional parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood. All of these factors provide a basis for permitting a requirement of 33 off -street parking spaces with a recommendation that the encroachment license be maintained for the redevelopment. cyn nit W — PUD Parking Criteria. P16 b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Joint use parking is the common use of one private parking facility by two different uses. Joint use can be acceptable when the uses have very different demand profiles. For example, an office building and a church sharing one parking lot where the pattern of demand for the office building is very different from the church and one parking lot has the ability to serve both needs. The project is 100% residential and joint use parking is not proposed. 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 of the second largest transportation system in the State, and is in proximity to a Car -to -Go carshare parking space and the downtown area. As a result of the site's location there are a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Bike racks are being proposed by the Applicant as well as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. While the project residents will have access to 47 parking spaces exceeding the one space per unit requirement, these factors provide a legitimate basis for accepting a lower parking ratio for the proposed project. Staff believes the availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, the availability and access to the Hopkins pedestrian corridor, the proximity to the publicly available car -share program, and the transportation demand management techniques being proposed by the applicant render the proposed parking sufficient and meeting this criterion for PUD approval. 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. This proximity lessens the necessity for everyday use of a car as many trip can be accommodated by walking, bicycling or by transit. The location also appears to be a favorable site for affordable housing, according to the AACP. The AACP speaks to lessening one's reliance on the auto because "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). The location meets the following philosophy statement of the Aspen Area Community Plan (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). The AACP goes on to say Exhibit W — PUD Parking Criteria. Page 6 1 "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged ..." Staff believes the proximity to the commercial core, employment opportunities, recreation opportunities, and the City's activity centers lend this site an ideal place for affordable housing with the parking as proposed. The proposal is consistent with the aspirations of the community plan and in conformance with the PUD standards for parking. Exhibit W — PUD Parking Criteria. Page 7 Page l of 2 Chris Bendon 1, ‘A% h 4r From: Frank Fisher [frankf @primelending.com] /Rb tE"14 A . Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:44 AM F �� i✓ To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang Issue Primetending ! 'aA PtainsCapital Company - Frank Fisher y click to visit mmy- wvebsite Chris....Please include my email as against this project unless the # of units is reduced or the off street parking is increased to at least 70 spaces for the proposed 46 units If the city passes this as is the parking in the area will be very difficult and the increased traffic will be a safety issue. Thank You .... Frank Fisher A referral to a friend, family member, or co- worker is the greatest compliment you can give me. 5401 North Central Expressway, Suite 310 Dallas, Texas 75205 " ]IOrtga eS without Obstacles" Direct: 214.561.0137 • Toll Free: 800.308.5363 Toll Free Fax: 866.425.9768 • Cell: 817.681.5626 y'� email: ffsher ©primelending.com : r EQual Muusinp L_rIdrr STr.TIOr 9Y' STrTICINER rCENTP .L. CCIt I PlainsCapital Corporation made the following annotations The information contained in this e -mail is strictly confidential and for the intended use of the addressee only. Any disclosure, use or copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e- mail. PlainsCapital Corporation has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that any attachment to this e-mail has been checked for viruses. We accept no liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and advise you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. This email contains the views of the author and should not be interpreted as the views of PlainsCapital 1/24/2011 P19 Chris Bendon From: Alan Hayman NS [alan @hayman.comj Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:03 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: Steve Goldenberg Subject: Boomerang Project Chris, My wife and I are residents at 501 West Main Street at the Christiana. I don't think anyone realizes the parking issue, problem, and potential mayhem better than the residents who live next to the Boomerang today. We already have problems, not enough street parking, today. The previously approved expansion of the Jewish center coupled with the Boomerang will create an untenable parking situation. Is there an impact study, an analysis, or review of the parking issues that exist today while the Boomerang has been closed? are met. An employee housing project has responsibly much l current greaer impact parking than a hotel development of than equate Boomerang did when it was operating. It would be parking for the neighbors who planners r already feeling the impact today of inadequate parking a in our neighborhood due implications on to other configuration. To move forward, witho tleven needs n impact with the issue in more detail is some not, in my opinion, serving the needs and the expectations of the Aspen community and our neighborhood. Parking is a problem and the current plan for the Boomerang does not address it adequately. It should not be approved as it stands today. Sincerely, J. Alan Hayman 501 West Main Street A201 925 1604 Alan Hayman President XCO Sportslink XCO Software Email secured by Check Point P 2 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Jane Click [janeclick @q.comj Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 2:35 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: Steve Goldenberg Subject: Boomerang Lodge parking issue Due to my work schedule, I will be unable to attend the Tuesday, Feb. 8, meeting of the P &Z but wanted to express my concerns on the parking surrounding the proposed Boomerang project. I have lived in the Herron Apartments at 3rd and Main, which is a block in both directions from the Boomerang, for nearly 30 years. Obviously, many things have changed during that time, but most significant is the availability of parking spaces. The Herron has designated spaces for its tenants, but it has been increasingly difficult for guests and service people to find street parking. The management company next door takes up most of available parking. I understand the Jewish Center across the street has approval for expansion which will further compromise the parking situation. Now we have the Boomerang. While I do not personally have an objection to affordable housing, the proposed parking accommodations appear to be severely inadequate. The previously approved replacement lodge would logically require less parking as those guests would not generally be prone to all have vehicles. Please give serious consideration to the impact on the streets involved. Better now than after the horses have escaped. Sincerely, Jane Click Email secured by Check Point Page 1 of 1 P2 1 Chris Bendon From: Stuart Brafman [stuartbrafman @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:49 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang Project Approval Dear Mr. Bendon: As a taxpaying resident of Aspen, I voice my strong objection to allowing the proposed 46 units to be constructed on the Boomerang site without requiring at least 70 off street parking spaces. Anything less will further aggravate the present parking problem. As an experienced real estate owner and lender, I understand the developer's financial motive to minimize off street parking. However, it is unfair to enhance the developer's profit at the expense of taxpaying neighbors. Parking congestion can significantly reduce the value my property and neighboring residences. Therefore, requiring less than 70 off street parking places for this project is tantamount to public confiscation of private property for private interests, which is contrary to public policy and eminent domain laws. I urge the Committee not to unduly deprive the neighbors of the Boomerang project of the use and enjoyment of their property by favoring the developer with anything less than 70 off street parking spaces. Thank you. Stuart Brafinan 334 West Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO Email secured by Check Point Page 1 of 1 P22 Chris Bendon From: NABLSB @aol.com Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:32 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang parking problem To Whom It May Concern: We, as owners of unit C201 of The Christiana Aspen, are adamantly opposed to the proposed Boomerang project that will create a severe parking problem for the current residents on the west side of Aspen. It will be especially difficult for owners of the Christiana Aspen who do not have assigned parking. Sincerely, Norman and Leslee Brooks Christiana Aspen, Unit C201 Leslee Brooks Email secured by Check Point Page 1 of 2 P23 Chris Bendon From: Cheryl Goldenberg [cheryl @goldenberg.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:10 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang Parking Deficiency February 1, 2011 Dear Members of the P &Z, Please make sure that our new neighbors who will be living at the Boomerang Employee Housing development have sufficient parking. The Mayor has suggested that experience has shown that 1.5 spaces per unit is the necessary parking allotment. The nearest other employee housing at Little Ajax has 1.6 parking spaces per unit and 2 additional guest parking spaces. The Boomerang has no guest parking and less than 1 parking space per unit. Also the parking spaces are all for small cars. The width of parking spaces at Burlingame and the standard width of a parking space is 9' but the spaces at Boomerang are 8'6 ". What about the workers with trucks — how will they fit their vehicles into the tiny spaces? The parking on the west side of 4 street is divided in half with the Christiana on one side of the alley and the Boomerang on the other side. They have the exact same amount of space and the Christiana has 10 spaces where the Boomerang claims it can fit 12 spaces on its half. Also the city made the Christiana spaces public parking and is allowing the Boomerang to keep theirs private. This creates a potentially explosive situation when the people who live in the Boomerang start parking in Christiana spaces because they can. This is not good for neighborhood peace! At the last P &Z session on the Boomerang many members seemed to think the traffic from the new employee units would not be much different from the traffic generated by the old Boomerang Lodge. Having lived next door to the lodge for 20 years at least, I would like to point out that the Boomerang was actually closed for weeks at a time during the off season During the season, it's 34 units were only filled to capacity for a few weeks of the year and approximately 1/2 of the guests came with cars and 1/2 flew in and did not drive cars. How can 34 partially occupied units part of the year be compared to 46 fully occupied units full time? It seems a parking and traffic study would be imperative with all these units coming on stream and the future traffic and parking from the 134,000 sq. ft Chabad Community Center and Synagogue to be build at the same time. Thanks for taking this all into consideration. Sincerely, Cheryl Goldenberg Cheryl Goldenberg 430 W. Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 P24 Chris Bendon From: Richard Goldman [rgoldman @optonline.netj Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:08 PM To: steve©goldenberg.com; Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang parking issue As homeowners in the Christiana Condominium complex, we are seriously concerned about the provisions for parking associated with the development of the Boomerang project. At present, there is limited street parking in the neighborhood which consists of single family homes, multi -unit dwellings and commercial properties. The proposed new 46 unit complex should include at least 70 off street parking spaces to accommodate the new residents, many of whom will be part of a family with more than 1 vehicle. Without enough underground or on site parking in the plans for the Boomerang complex, the delicate balance of street parking and quality of life in our neighborhood will be severely jeopardized. Dianne Goldman Richard Goldman 501 West Main Street Unit 105 A Aspen Email secured by Check Point 1 Page 1 of 2 P25 Chris Bendon From: Emilie Kelly iekelly @campkelly.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:50 AM To: Chris Bendon Cc: 'Steve Goldenberg' Subject: Opposed! Latest Intensive Affordable Housing Proposal at former Boomerang Lodge site Dear Mr. Bendon, Please let the town board know that we are OPPOSED the current proposal for intensive affordable housing under consideration at the site of the former Boomerang. My mother, Meta Barton and I, own an apartment at 400 West Hopkins, one block from the former Boomerang. There is no way Hopkins can support the traffic increase or parking needs with 46 new units, it is a pedestrian walking zone. Turning on and off of Four and Fifth onto Main street is dangerous, with limited visibility, and the neighborhood cannot support year round use of 46 units x 2 cars per unit. And there is not enough street parking. To avoid clogging nearby streets, 46 units should have at least 70 OFF STREET parking spaces OR the number of apartment units needs to be reduced in the intensive affordable housing development. This increased density and vehicle traffic of 46 new units will definitely reduce our neighborhood property values, and should be downsized to no more than 10 units for the one block space, similar to the apartments that sit across the street on Hopkins from the Boomerang site. Please OPPOSE this proposal and vote no, until a reasonable development is designed for the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Emilie Emilie Kelly PO Box 1109, Morrison, CO 80465 USA 303.601.1064 phone :: 303.697.4172 fax No virus found in this outgoing message Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.1.0.25 - 6.14880). http: / /www.petools.com/free- antivirus/ Page 1 of 1 P26 Chris Bendon From: KKirvida@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:31 PM To: Chris Bendon; Ben Gagnon Cc: steve©goldenberg.com Subject: Boomerang Lodge Dear Sirs, I am the owner of unit 6/7 of the Scott Building, 400 West Hopkins Avenue. To be very honest, I feel like the residents who live in this area have been ignored. Although the number of resident/taxpayer's who object to the Boomerang project far out number those in favor of it, our Planning and Zoning Commission has sided in favor of the Developer. While I remain concerned for the entire project, this letter is written specifically in regards to the parking situation. The streets in and around this area are already congested. There are 46 additional living units being proposed, and it doesn't take a law degree to know that many of the living units will have two or more vehicles for each unit. It is my strong recommendation and request that you require a minimum of 70 off street parking spaces (1.5 to 1) for the project. In the alternative you should cut back the number of living spaces to coincide with the 1.5 to 1 ratio of available off street parking spaces. This is not an unreasonable request, and in fact it would be the first reasonable decision P &Z has made regarding the project. Sincerely, Kevin Kirvida Unit 6/7, Scott Building Email secured by Check Point Page 1 of 1 P27 Chris Bendon From: Darryl Schell [Dschall@aresmgmt.com] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:58 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang Lodge Property Application: Re- hearing on Parking Issues Attachments: P &Z Letter.pdf Dear Mr. Bendon, Attached please find a letter addressed to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission that we would like included for consideration in the upcoming February 8 hearing. Please contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely Darryl Darryl L. Schall Ares Management LLC 2000 Avenue of the Stars 12th floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 201 -4169 office (310) 623 -0939 cell dschall @aresmg mt. com This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient (s) is recipient, pl as notify the sender by replying to thismess message and then delete it from your y tem tended r epent, p fy Email secured by Check Point P28 January 26, 2011 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Property Application: Re- hearing on Parking Issues Dear Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: I am writing on behalf of the 29 unit owners of the Christiana Aspen Condominium Owners Association, Inc. in connection with the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 8, 2011 to consider the adequacy of parking for the Boomerang Lodge. The Christiana is located immediately adjacent to the Boomerang Lodge property. We wish to express our concerns that the proposed amended PUD, if approved, will have negative impacts on the neighborhood due to its size and inappropriate multi - family use in the existing R6 zone, particularly if all parking and traffic impacts are not mitigated. As such, strict compliance with parking standards is imperative. At a minimum, the project should be required to provide 1.5 off- street parking spaces for each proposed unit. The application proposes 46 units, so the off - street parking requirement should be no less than 70. A variance for the parking requirement should not be granted because a solution can be accomplished in one of three ways: • the project could simply provide sufficient parking; • the number of units can be decreased all together, • the number of units can be decreased by increasing the size of individual units making them more habitable and compliant We do not see any benefit to the City by granting concessions (some would use the term °bailout•) to outside developers who have a profit motive and do not mind that an established residential neighborhood will be destabilized. All adverse parking and traffic impacts should be mitigated in accordance with code requirements, particularly considering the highly intensive use of a multi -family oroiect That those who live in the neighborhood, and the City in general, might be left with negative consequences long after these Maryland -based investors recoup their losses should not go unnoticed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the City County Council, or the Planning Staff when considering this project. Thank you in advance for your consideration of the Christiana's concerns. Very truly yours, CHRISTIAN • ASPEN CO DOMINIUM OWNER • -S• • I # C. By: l //, t. Da ';R 'rent P29 Chris Bendon From: Clark Smyth [clarksmyth @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:58 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: 500 W. Hopkins Dear Sir: My wife, Shelley Emerick and I own Christiana Unit A 103 and we are greatly concemed with the potential for parking problems. Firstly, a lodge has periodic usage without everyone with a car. Second, permanent (employee) parking, in my experience as a real estate developer, needs at least one off- street space per bedroom. This would mean about 70 spaces at a minimum. Please take this into consideration at the hearing Feb.8. Respectively submitted, Clark Smyth Email secured by Check Point P30 Page 1 of2 Chris Bendon From: Andrew Smith [ASmith@charlestoncounty.org] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:37 AM To: Chris Bendon Cc: steve@goldenberg.com; Donna Guerra Subject: Boomerang Parking Aspen Planning and Zoning Board Pitkin county Library — Basement meeting room RE: Tuesday, 02/08/11 meeting, Boomerang Project Fax 970- 920 -5439 (due before 02/01/11) Chris.benton@ci.aspen.co.us Regarding the proposed development of the 46 -unit, 33 underground parking s ce (and 10 -12 above grm_a residential complex 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 33 underground parking spaces. In the City of Aspen's 2010 "Highlights of the Aspen Area Community Plan ", there are references to: "All development should " "... maintain our small -town character" I do not understand how a development of this size conforms to the Community Plan regarding the 45 parking spaces. Building a 46 unit complex on this property, and providing only 45 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 Boomerang complex would place double the amount of units on the same size lot next door, and only provide 45 parking spaces. How can the City of Aspen reconcile this development with the Community Plan? 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 in relation to the estimated 40 -50 off street parking spaces. I live at the Christiana and usually have to park 3 blocks away after returning from down valley or going to the store; the parking is overcrowded at our current resident level. Please consider having the project provide more underground parking or at the very least limit the number of units to two parking spaces per unit. Sincerely, Andrew C. Smith, CPA Unit C -102, Christiana Complex 501 West Main Street Page 1 of 1 P31 Chris Bendon From: Donna Guerra [donna @dgainteriors.comj Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 12:13 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: Steve Goldenberg; Nancy Zirbel Subject: Boomerang Letter Parking Attachments: Boomerang Letter Parking.docx Planning and Zoning Department Please find the attached letter for the upcoming P &Z meeting scheduled for Feb. 8th Thank you, Donna Guerra donna C�dea i nteriors.com Email secured by Check Point P32 DG&A interior design January 28, 2011 City of Aspen Planning. and Zoning Commission Contact: chris.bendon @ci.aspen.co.us Re: P & Z Meeting February 8, 2011 Dear P & Z Commission, Parking spaces represent different realities under different circumstances. It is a popular status symbol at a major sporting event; a competitive advantage when buying/selling a residential property; an enviable windfall on a shopping errand; and a coveted perk when it's a reserved space with your name on it. But the one reality that everyone can agree on is that parking is a hassle when it's not available. The proposed 33 spaces for underground parking appears adequate at first glance, but upon closer inspection creates more logistical problems than it solves. We all know that the majority of the vehicles in Aspen are SUVs. According to Edmonds.com, the average width of an SUV in 2007 was 78.2 inches (6 ft 7 in) and the average length was 208 inches (17 ft 3 in). We seriously doubt they have gotten smaller in the last 4 years. According to DrivewayTips.com, a website devoted to helping people design properly scaled driveways and parking spaces for vehicles under a variety of circumstances: • "If the driveway or parking space is surrounded by walls over 8" high, then 14' wide is recommended to open the car doors and exit the vehicles without damaging the doors. These specifications will accommodate all cars, large or small, as well as full size pick- up trucks & SUV's." • "As a general rule of thumb, every vehicle will fit comfortably on 10'W x 20'L parking area or 3.05m x 6.10m." • "Minimum turning radius should be 17' which is a comfortable turning radius for most vehicles." P33 No matter how you slice it, the underground parking spaces as drawn are not realistic for the majority of today's vehicles, much less the majority of the vehicles commonly used in a mountain environment. As to the quantity of spaces, according to the city's zoning, a multi - family building with 46 units would require a minimum of 69 spaces (1.5 spaces per unit). This means 36 of the spaces are planned to be above ground, forcing the layout to line all 4 sides of the dwelling. It's not only impractical (due to the alleys and trash dumpsters), it's problematic to walk all the way around the building just to get to your front door. Not having adequate parking not only causes resident frustrations, it makes the neighborhood visually unsightly. The neighborhood will now take on the look and feel of a dense urban street, impacting aesthetics, nature, and the overall desirability of the area and its values. Once again, you are telling us we must sacrifice design for density; and that the will of the majority must (once again) bend to the greater good of the minority. And that by definition makes this whole process more concession than compromise. Sincerely, /) Donna Guerra Owner at 222 West Hopkins & 501 West Main Street 970 - 920 -1678 or 214- 802-6888 P34 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: D. Scott Stuart [dsstuart@gvii.net] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:14 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang Lodge Attachments: BoomerangP &Z020811.pdf Please find attached a letter we wish to have included in the Boomerang Planning & Zoning meeting scheduled for February 8th. Although we have submitted two letters prior, these thoughts relate specifically to the Boomerang Parking issue. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, D.S. Stuart P35 D. Scott and Tamara B. Stuart 400 W. Hopkins 05 Aspen, Colorado 81611 January 26, 2011 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission cto Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Parldna Issues In Regard to the Praooeed Redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: West Hopkins has been a well known and extremely wetl used dedicated Pedestrian Bikeway for years. Its use is encouraged by advertising its location on maps, real estate offers and by bike shops. ft is . frequently used as part of an outlined course for muftiple races, many of them fundraisers for the community. Living on W. Hopkins we are daily witnesses to the benefits this passageway provides the community as a whole; music school students, mothers with strollers, bikers, not solely individual bicyclists but also whole families seeking to spend time together, cross country skiers, fathers pulling sleds, children with training wheels on their bikes, tourists with and without luggage, elderly individuals, dog owners, workers who choose to trek their way to work. All use the entire breadth of the street while talking and enjoying the scent views of Shadow Mountain, most taking the openness and safety of the street for granted. This passageway was created to provide a SAFE option for those in the community who are vulnerable to the hazards of traffic, and as a means to connect to other areas of town or other trails. As residents whose homes line this important community asset we all make every effort to park our cars off West Hopkins so that the pedestrians and bikers it was designated for are protected by having unobstructed views of intersections ahead and no worries of not being seen as cars are maneuvered in and out of parking situations, Parking, or the lack there of, has been at the forefront of our dissatisfaction with the current plan for the Boomerang Lodge. It cannot be more senply stated than to say there is significantly too litre parking for the number of units currently proposed. The current request is unrealistically low in its estimation of the volume of vehicles that will be associated wail the orooerty. and is thereby irresponsibly insufficient in the amount of off street absolutely ri unreasonable m. The WOOF/ fewest poverty l spaces alma West Hopkins is and h very pubic The importance of increasing employee housing Is not at issue, however the parking havoc that would accompany a complex of this scale will no doubt put the safety of those who use the West Hopkins Pedestrian Bikeway in harms way. What a loss for our community, surely a compromise is in order, and achievable. Thank you again for your continued attention to our concern. _ , Respectfully, C/_ D. Scott Stuart Tamara tuart P36 Chris Bendon From: Craig Navias [CJNavias @arrowtube.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:45 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: Steve Goldenberg; Donna Guerra; Esther Navias Attachments: Parking 001.jpg; Parking 002.jpg Parking 001.jpg Parking 002.jpg (139 KB) (149 KB) Dear Mr. Bendon, The attached are typical pictures of cars parked along West Hopkins in front of the now vacant Boomerang. I hope you will consider the number of cars currently parked and determine that it is not possible for the Boomerang to have any number of units without twice the number of dedicated parking spaces. Several of the cars that are typically parked in front of the Boomerang lot appear to belong to the housing units at Hopkins and fifth street, which I believe already have two dedicated parking spots per unit at their own facility. It is not fair to sell housing that does not contain adequate parking, and an already crowded West Hopkins cannot possibly accommodate that many additional parked cars. Respectfully submitted, Craig and Esther Navias Very concerned neighbors at 505 West Hopkins. Email secured by Check Point 1 .t I. '' ' _ I. 721- i . .... 3 7 • AY r i.. •{. `. . l'' : . ,...0... /I i _. .. .. .•...., . 4.• y . ". Y' .: it 1 ipi _. �% 'fir l 4 7. r 1 - \ A • , f. � irfr • d. ..9r► • a } . • ' it • • it „--• I-- . r t/f I P3 `, 4$4 . ,.. 41 4,1 ' . i , • • t , i , ‘11/ 0 •- h • 1. - .• .. W 1 J ' 1. Y r , ie. A. , .... ._. .. • re,. , • 1 r . , , .........;... ,„.., . .. .„-:., .. I . ..- • .... . .. 1. - o I II t • f . it 1 • 1 1 l . • Illitt ) , � 111111f11 v i rs•.' Ili ' 11 Y + T I` ti „Alliliki . o: 1. � r Page 1 of 1 P39 Chris Bendon From: MARTHA MADSEN [aspenmootie @msn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:52 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: parking at the Boomerang I am writing regarding the Boomerang re- development. I served on the "friends of Shadow Mountain" board for more than 5 years and know how hard we had to fight to get double the parking spaces for the 605(Little ajax) employee housing project than the city thought was adequate. Today I counted 13 cars parked on the south side of West Hopkins in front of 605. There are 14 units and we finally got 25 parking spaces and it still is not enough. Please visit family homes. ' Theeharacter of this neighbo hood is will th a threatened bymulti-family the s a of thisdevelopment.. this street, than single Sincerely, Martha Madsen owner of Madsen Chalet Apartments at 608 West Hopkins Email secured by Check Point P40 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Daniel Verner [dav2345 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:58 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang / P & Z Hearing Attachments: Boomerang Parking .doc Dear Mr. Bendon Please find my letter attached with my views regarding the proposed Boomerang Project and its parking issues. Thank you Daniel Verner Email secured by Check Point P41 Daniel Verner 432 West Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 dav2345 @gmail.com January 31, 2011 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Board: The proposed Boomerang Affordable Housing Project (BP) is now back in your court to determine the required parking issues. Let us examine the facts, the true facts as supported by what is reality here in Aspen. The New Jewish Community Center, which will be located at the corner of Main and 4 Streets has received all of their approvals to proceed with a new building that will be approximately 34,000 square feet. Once operating, it will have continual activities on a daily basis. The JCC was given their approvals with the understanding that their parking needs would be met by allowing their employees and guests to park on the street. We have in the past provided you with photographs that show what happens during these times. The streets are lined with cars. Let's be perfectly honest here and understand that when the JCC grows from the small corner structure where it currently sits into the much larger building, it will bring more cars and more parking problems. One can only imagine what the parking problems will be in that area if the BP does not provide for the proper off street parking for all of its residents least we forget where their guests will park. The majority of the current residences in and around the proposed (BP) all have off street parking for their vehicles. The parking ratio for these residences, which are made up of all types, single family homes, duplexes, townhouses, condominium and affordable housing units, is in excess of 1.5 spaces per unit overall. In fact many of them exceed 2 spaces per unit. As you know there is a relatively new affordable housing project across the street from the proposed BP. The Little Ajax has a total of 14 units and provides off street parking for 25 vehicles. This equates to 1.8 spaces per unit. Why should the BP be permitted to provide anything less? At the recent City Council Appeal Hearing, Mayor Mike Ireland was quoted as saying affordable housing projects need about 1.5 spaces per unit. As you know the Mayor does live in affordable housing and knows first hand as to the true needs of their residents. The Boomerang Developers should be held to the same parking standards as are currently found within the neighborhood. We need to make sure that this project has adequate parking that will met the needs of the residents who live there and not just the needs of the developers. History tells us it is at least 1.5 spaces per unit. Please consider the overall needs of the area and not just those of the developers so that this project once complete can be considered a success for all of us who live in the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, Daniel and Meryle Verner P42 Chris Bendon From: DICK CARTER CDCARTER ©afg- co.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:06 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang Chris, I was one of the very first owners at the Christiana Condominiums. I am very concerned about the developers request to tum the project into all employee housing. The ordinance permitting four stories was only for the development of bed space for tourists when old ski lodges were demolished for a new structure and not for the construction of only employee housing which will result in a far greater parking problem. There will be more people living in small spaces with each resident likely to have a car for each without considering guests which tourists would not have. Steve's plan will have far too many units and far too many cars for the limited on site parking that is currently planned. If you add the additional parking needs for the planned new Jewish community center, the parking limitations will be over burdened. Either they must build more parking or significantly reduce the size (height) of a new Boomerang. Please consider this. The residential neighborhood cannot handle the car traffic. I am nit against employee housing. However, the city must seriously evaluate the parking situation if the Boomerang is all employee housing. The current Christiana parking will be used by Boomerang residents and their guests. Although I have a street parking permit, that will be very limited with a building in excess of two stories. Please take this into consideration! Dick Carter Christiana Homeowner Sent from my iPhone This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. 1 Page 1 of 2 P43 Chris Bendon From: Realshore @aol.com Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:13 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: steve @goldenberg.com Subject: Boomerang development:Parking Issues Must not be ignored. To whom it may concern: As the Listing Real Estate Broker for 2 Christiana units A201, and B202, I need to say that if the affordable housing is never built there still is insufficient parking available for the Owners at the Christiana. Owners have to park in the alley etc. So with the development of the Boomerang cars will be strewn about wherever they can park as with most employee housing. Those tenants coming home late after work will have to drive all around looking for available places . Not to mention that construction of the approved new Chabad center in the next year will first draw construction vehicles and a larger school that will need parking for pick up drop off and more teacher parking. Hopkins street, the resident only driving street will be clogged on 4th street due to the congestion. Where will you put the required 70 spots? This project will violate all the issues that the city tries to mitigate. The parking issue (grossly insufficient off street parking) is one of the main problems with the 46 unit affordable housing project. The applicant needs to agree to provide enough OFF STREET parking before a variance or PUD approval is granted. To avoid clogging nearby streets, 46 units should have at least 70 OFF STREET parking spaces or the number of units needs to be reduced. The P &Z and the Mayor and the City Council are well aware of this conflict and will be listening to the neighbors. Thank you for Listening Jill Shore • JILL SHORE Joshua Co P44 RECEDE JAN 2 8 2011 CITY OF ASPEN January 26, 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Property Application: Re- hearing on Parking Issues Dear Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: I am writing on behalf of the 29 unit owners of the Christiana Aspen Condominium Owners Association, Inc. in connection with the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 8, 2011 to consider the adequacy of parking for the Boomerang Lodge. The Christiana is located immediately adjacent to the Boomerang Lodge property. We wish to express our concerns that the proposed amended PUD, if approved, will have negative impacts on the neighborhood due to its size and inappropriate multi- family use in the existing R6 zone, particularly if all parking and traffic impacts are not mitigated. As such strict compliance with parking standards is imperative. At a minimum, the project should be required to provide 1.5 off -street parking spaces for each proposed unit. The application proposes 46 units, so the off- street parking requirement should be no less than 70. . A variance for the parking requirement should not be granted because a solution can be accomplished in one of three ways: • the project could simply provide sufficient parking; • the number of units can be decreased all together; • the number of units can be decreased by increasing the size of individual units making them more habitable and compliant. We do not see any benefit to the City by granting concessions (some would use the term "bailout") to outside developers who have a profit motive and do not mind that an established residential neighborhood will be destabilized. All adverse parking and traffic impacts should be mitigated in accordance with code requirements, particularly considering the highly intensive use of a multi - family project. That those who live in the neighborhood, and the City in general, might be Ieft'with negative consequences long after these Maryland -based investors recoup their losses should not go unnoticed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the City Council, or the Community Development Staff when considering this project. Thank you in advance for your consideration of the Christiana's concerns. Very truly yours, CHR TIANA ASPEN C•,i :s' NIUM O i A -OCR •TI {- l By: t r/ i�Gi •g vr.II, r'?rident Page l of 1 P45 Chris Bendon From: Laura Werlin [laura @laurawerlin.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:59 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Letter re proposed Boomerang project Attachments: P &Z letter 1_2011.docx; ATT36031.htm; pastedGraphic.tiff; ATT36032.htm Dear Chris, Attached is a letter I would like to submit for P &Z's consideration prior to next Tuesday's meeting. It concerns the proposed Boomerang affordable housing complex. Thanks very much. Best regards, Laura Werlin Email secured by Check Point P46 January 31, 2011 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I would like to weigh in on the parking issues as they relate to the proposed affordable housing complex on Hopkins between 4th and 5th. First, as you no doubt know at this point, the developers have not designed their project to include the requisite number of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. For this reason, their project is a non - starter as it stands. Second, assuming the developers re -visit this portion of their project, the next issue that must be addressed in the context of parking is the proximity of the pedestrian/bikeway system that runs the length of the proposed project. The importance of this thoroughfare cannot be understated nor can its continued safety. For this reason, there not only must be enough parking for the proposed number of units, but those parking spaces must be underground to ensure public safety. Even that would be questionable, albeit a slightly better alternative. To underscore the need for underground parking all you need to do is look at what an increase number of vehicles parked along Hopkins would signify: • An increase in the number of cars driving on that block • An increase in the number of car doors opening on that block • An increase in the number of people pulling in and out of those parking spaces This would all but negate the inherent safety of the pedestrian/bikeway and render it downright dangerous. Simply put, high- density housing means high - density parking and traffic. This neighborhood cannot support high- density housing, affordable or otherwise. Safety also becomes another part of the equation when you consider that less street parking for current residents (and new ones) would almost certainly push parking to the south side of Main Street. This, in turn, would mean increased pedestrian traffic crossing Main. This is a dangerous street to cross under the best of circumstances, but to have more and more people doing it because they can't fmd parking closer to home seems like an unnecessary safety burden to place on those residents (and I daresay, the city). Also, while it is true that the Boomerang was once approved, that complex had an entirely different purpose than the currently proposed project. The Boomerang would not have had nearly the number of people parking and/or driving in and out because it was P47 primarily a lodging complex, not a place for year - 'round housing. This means there would have been far fewer automobiles vying for parking in the neighborhood and, of course, less risk to those using the ped/bikeway. Finally, if parking were to remain above ground, the issue of snow removal would come to the fore. I shudder to think where the snow would be moved. Other large affordable housing complexes in Aspen face this issue every year and have to pay thousands of dollars to have the snow removed rather than shifted to other people's alleys or streets. Because of the excessive size of this proposed complex and the number of cars that would be parked nearby, the snow would have to be removed entirely from premises, not piled in the alley behind the complex nor the streets that line it on the other three sides. Have the developers addressed this? One of the best things about Aspen is its user - friendliness for residents and visitors alike. People get away from the big city to come here. Why bring big -city problems - - parking issues, increased housing density -- to Aspen? It seems the antithesis of the Aspen Idea. Sincerely, Laura Werlin 501 W. Main Street #A202 970 - 544 -3802 P & Z Boomerang Hearing. Please distribute. Page 1 of 2 P48 Chris Bendon From: Alan Sirkin [alan@sirkinenterprises.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:31 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: alicia @flowerhealing.com Subject: P & Z Boomerang Hearing. Please distribute. To: Stan Gibbs, Chair, LJ Erspamer, Vice Chair February 1, 2011 Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre, Michael Wampler, Jim beFrancia, Chris Bendon RE: The P &Z Hearing on Boomerang Parking: My wife and I live in the West End and often use 4th Street to cross Main Street so as to access West Hopkins Avenue and the cross town designated bikeway. The development of 46 apartments on the Boomerang property will result in dangerous traffic on this corner. It is my understanding that the underground garage will only have space for 33 vehicles, which is less than one space per apartment. 5o where will additional vehicles park? More cars will be flooding on to the street to park and which will endanger myself and other bikers. The city has encouraged biking for tourists, but any resulting injure accidents at this corner will be detrimental to that goal. The 12 undersized existing spaces on 4th Street are a danger to pedestrians and bikers as well. We ask that you either lower the number of apartments in this project or provide for at least 1.6 spaces per apartment in the underground garage. The 12 spaces on 4th Street should be reconfigured to meet current codes for size and visibility. I would suggest that they be converted to 8 spaces with proper safeguards for pedestrians and bicyclists. Thank you. Alan Sirkin Alan Sirkin, P.E., G.C. Fellow & Life member, ASCE 2 /10011 P & Z Boomerang Hearing. Please distribute. Page 2 of 2 P49 426 W. Hallam Street Aspen, CO 81611 970- 544 -3822 305 - 989 -7447 cell alan@sirkinenterprises.com Email secured by Check Point P50 Stephen Goldenberg 430 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 925 -1294 steve®goldenberg.com January 31, 2011 Stan Gibbs, Chair, LJ Erspamer, Vice Chair Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre Michael Wampler, Jim DeFrancia, Chris Bendon RE: Boomerang AH Off Street Parking Requirements 1. The 12/10/10 P &Z Resolution was Qualified As To Parking Requirements. The P &Z resolution includes "however, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that additional parking be provided." This is the time and the place to deal with the parking issue. 2. The $10 - 25 Million AH Certificate Subsidy Provides Ample Funds To Build Off Street Parking. There is no excuse for not adequately parking this project. The site is a flat, full block and the subsidy has a value somewhere between 10 and 25 million dollars (83 certificates X $125,000 - $300,000). The Little Ajax AH project has 14 units built over 23 of its 25 (1.8:1) off - street parking spaces and that works well. 3a. 1.5 to 2.0 Parking Spaces Per Unit Is The Appropriate And Accepted Requirement. At the City Council appeal hearing, the Mayor asked "What is the typical consumptive pattern of parking for an AH project ?" He answered his own question by saying "It turns out that we use about a space and a half for each unit. What do free market projects in that area provide in the way of off -street parking? (see attached map) I don't want to cut them slack or penalize them just because it's an AH project ". Burlingame requires 2 spaces per single family home. It averages 1.6 spaces per unit overall. The attached 12/12/08 CEG report recommends a minimum of 1.6 spaces, or better, per unit. That report was approved by Steve Stunda, John Olson, Jim DeFrancia and 13 other volunteers. Centennial requires 1 off street space for each bedroom. Lone Pine requires 1 off street space for each bedroom. Burlingame requires 2 spaces per single family home and averages 1.6 spaces per unit overall. The Boomerang will have 46 units and 57 bedrooms. That equates to a minimum of either 73 off - street spaces (1.6 per unit) or 57 off street spaces (1 per bedroom) to meet the "probable number" PUD requirement in section (B.3.a). The 400 block on W. Hopkins provides 18 off street spaces for 8 units. 2.25 spaces per unit. The 401 block on W. Hopkins provides 7 off street spaces for 3 units. 2.33 spaces per unit. The 501 block on W. Hopkins provides 6 off street spaces for 3 units. 2.0 spaces per unit. The 600 block on W. Hopkins provides 19 off street spaces for 9 units. 2.11 spaces per unit. The 601 block on W. Hopkins provides 25 off street spaces for 14 units. 1.78 spaces per unit. AH The 300 block on W. Hopkins provides 16 off street spaces for 8 units. 2.0 spaces per unit. The 301 block on W. Hopkins provides 8 off street spaces for 4 units. 2.0 spaces per unit. The one nearby under- parked project is the Christiana Lodge which was approved under Historic Lodge Preservation Rules. That exception always causes problems when its occupancy is high. The Christiana shares the same alley with the Boomerang. The rational that "the Boomerang project is in town and residents won't need or have cars" is the exact opposite of what presently happens on 5 6 and 7`" streets which are overloaded with cars all day long (see attached photos). The Streets Department had to eliminate all parking on the south side of Hopkins at that end of the Bikeway. There are also people who walk to work and leave their cars or trucks parked on the streets all day. P51 3b. SUV's and Trucks Another reason the "probable number" of spaces needed is greater is that while Boomerang occupants are not likely to own large SUVs, they are very likely to have either recreational trucks or commercial trucks used for work. This already happens even at Little Ajax where there are 1.8 spaces per unit. All of the specified spaces are for very small cars. A mistake made in favor of the developer will be impossible l t o million a dollar later date. t discussed in made on beha of the neighbors would be easy to fix anytime. The above is more than enough to cover the cost of preserving off - street parking in the neighborhood. 4. Strict Neighborhood Off Street Parking Guidelines Have Been Adhered To. With the exception of the Historic Christiana Lodge, all the nearby neighbors on Hopkins have 100% off street parking. (see attached map). 5. The 10 Head -In Boomerang Spaces Are Needed For Guests, Synagogue, and Public Uses. These spaces, and there are only 10, not 12 (see photos) are needed for Boomerang guests, service vehicles, handicapped parking, normal public uses and the periodic use of synagogue visitors. 6. The Midland Trail and the Pedestrian/Bikeway Will Be Adversely Impacted. The trail and the PedBikeway feed right into W. Hopkins at the Boomerang comer. Parking and traffic on Hopkins will diminish the value of those two significant amenities. 7. Nearby Little Ajax All Is A Good Model With 1.8 Off Street Spaces Per Unit. This AH development is a much better model for all characteristics of an AH development including parking with 25 off street spaces for 14 units. 8. U.S. Postal Service Regulations Require 32' On Both Sides Of Mailboxes. This regulation is being enforced. It reduces the available parking on Hopkins by 12 spaces between 3` and 4 streets and by varying amounts depending upon the placement of mailboxes on other streets. (see attached memo dated December, 2010, from Postmaster Mike Kervin) 9. The Combined Review Process Should Be Comprehensive Not Selective. It's OK to combine the Special Review criteria with the PUD criteria for administrative simplicity but it's not OK or "comprehensive" if the Special Review criteria are totally eliminated in the process. 10. Synagogue On Street Parking Will Be Adversely Impacted If The Boomerang Is Underparked. The new synagogue has been approved. There will be many events and activities, involving lots of attendees, most of whom will drive. Afternoon and evening parking requirements will be extensive. This will cause problems for the synagogue, the existing neighbors and the new Boomerang residents. 11. Alley Traffic Between The Boomerang And The Christiana, In Season, Will Be A Mess. Christiana cars driving through or parking on the north side of the alley, combined with Boomerang cars entering and leaving the underground garage, combined with dumpsters, trash trucks, FedEx and UPS trucks etc. will create a big city style traffic mess. 12. Alley Encroachment. There should be no parking encroachment allowed in the alley. It is improper and unsafe. 13. Special Historic Lodge Preservation Approvals and PUD No Longer Apply. The underlying zoning of this property is R -6. Most of the neighborhood and the nearby properties are also R -6 or R -15. The adjacent Christiana Lodge was approved and built under the Historic Lodge P52 Preservation Process. By not rebuilding the Boomerang as a Lodge, the applicant forfeits all previous special H.L.P. and PUD approvals. 14. The Right Solution. The Boomerang should be modeled after the Little Ajax AH. If the Commission recommends even twice the density of Little Ajax, then 28 units, requiring 45 -50 off - street parking spaces would be in keeping with the neighborhood. With the resulting subsidy, that parking could be underground or under the units as at Little Ajax. That would result in a nice project that fits very well with the neighboring residences. Parking would be adequate and all the other issues practically disappear. Very truly yours, Steve Goldenberg P53 City of Aspen Staff Report on the Work of the Construction Experts Group (CEG) December 12, 2008 In May 2008, City Manager, Steve Barwick, and City Council convened a group of local construction and development experts known as the Cortstnxtion Experts Group (CEG) to study ways to minimize cost and maximize the number of units that can be built for future phases of development of affordable housing at Btrlingame Ranch as well as for ail future affordable housing developments. The CEG tea members included the following volunteers: Bob Daniel, Bruce Gentry, Dave Bellack, Howie Mallory, im DeFrancia ohn so John Serpa, John Slotkin, Marsha Cook, Mike Maple, Nate Waldron, Richard Wodehouse, Steve Resnick, Steve Stunda fom Dugan, Ward Hauenstein Purpose of the CEG: The CEG was charged with making recommendations to City Council for cost savings measures for all future phases of development of affordable housing at Burlingame Ranch as well as other future affordable housing developments. The areas of study that the group is looking at include, but are not limited to density, building architecture, unit design, finishes, construction materials and methods, business model/project delivery model, partnerships and much more. Analysis Performed: Both the Citizen's Budget Task Force Housing Subcommittee as well as members of the CEG suggested that, in addition to exploring cost savings by using alternate design and building methodologies, one of the largest potential cost saving opportunities would be to bold more affordable housing units on land that the City already owns so that the City does not later need to go out and buy more land at very high prices for future affordable housing development. The CEG looked at the original design for Burlingame Ranch phase 2/3 (part of a 236 total unit plan where 91 units had been previously provided in phase 1 including 84 multifamily units and 7 single family lots) and decided to perform a site capacity analysis. Instead of only looking at the maximum possible density that the site could possibly hold, the group wanted to see three different density options and how those site plans would look on the site. All three of the densities requested of the Poss/DHM design team were to be of higher density than the original phase 2/3 plan and were requested in a general fashion to be of medium, large and maAmum possible densities, all with livability standards as equal as possible to those established in phase 1. The Poss/DI - M design team provided ttree separate, very rough site plans with three different densities, driven by various factors: jJ Scheme 1 — 276 total units, 415 total parking, all surface parking — unit total driven by maximi surface parking l• ✓p Scheme 2 — 303 total units, 455 total parking, 75 underground parking spaces — parking count driven by unit total Scheme 3 — 330 total units, 495 total parking, 141 underground parking spaces — parking court driven by unit total In evaluating and discussing the pros and cons of each of these density schemes, it became clear to the CEG that there is a balance between building and p footprints. It was • - :•;.• •- - ••• - •••unts of underground parking to be necessary would drive cos up • - .t would be counterproductive to t group's effort. The group expressed a desire to keep the standard • 1.6 •arki • •aces per unit (if not betteri • it -t was established forphase 1. The cost of underground parking — even when compared to T •a•s o •uymg -n1 o• to — is very high in both irntiaT cost as well as in ongoing maintenance costs. For the amount of underground parking that would be required to go from the 303 unit scheme to the 330 unit scheme, it was decided that the group would not be able to justify the large initial cost as well as adding to the HOA budget the massive maintenance and operational costs that would be necessary for the proper upkeep of such significant underground parking facilities, despite some relatively small offset in snow removal costs. At the same time, John Olson led a value- engineering study of the phase 1 construction, and the group was presented with the findings of this study. With general agreement from the group, the following design principles (which are based upon the buildings constructed in phase 1 but were intended to serve as design principles for phases 2/3) were given to the Poss/DHM design team for the next round of phase 2/3 design iteration: Staff Report on the Work of the CEG 171122008 Page 1 of 46 P54 4 1S aNZ S l 1 s i J ya�� .►i a m= _ co •. O M po el `tO • w _ ; = y c a pi N N �� M n 6 m r • M • Z y N t0 Q M M M • C N b N N• 'n V e 8C M M N - m `- Y' O .c co i.,.. 9 C C >0:4 M r . ... 7 ... co N a Uf M 4.1 M . 1 • • 47 V Q Ea 7 -- � 1 0 — U H 1S aaE S O M N n CI V N N N Oa � el f q p q •• - ri N V K1 r N O R N a /' iff ., M 0 1' .i. ,r O ii Q A en 1 J IS Hit. N 1S Hit S t y o -- -f 1 � \1:1 o o co (1 ) . 43, 1 / • • CN r 2 on a i ! .7L a . Sc -..-. kr) tO r a Cn o o o' 1 •-� 4- I u7 N - -. ' v1 A N � • N \ • N \ 1S HIS N 1S H1S S 1 "Z. = o �� a I D i; N n Q N 0 ' � co 0 w ° w 0 �_�. r d ,��• o •• co 0 . .�'. • r oa I m r • � co co c0 r-1 ` 1 • cD h. O r O .— i ▪ M CO CD 1• V N to co en en co M l :5 cD t A V J ISH19N _LS H19S ` 1 o t T 1 _ I 1 1 1 . . P55 ii ,' _A . ' .,! -. .-,:_ ,•"-c• .t.'', ‘ rf 1 a� ,.. , : , 1 �A I rv. f S • _ 7 ' d'> ,f - _ : + -. ,r _ . ^ , _ • 5 _ ~ a � •` R te^ -�• i 11 L 1 p... , a -yf - y ,�� i Only 10 spaces fit in Head In area. P $6urth. St. lookin: South , z4 111411111111111S4.- _ Fourth St. looking North ,r. 4- i ■.-_- i . .,�: �. �:;: •- r0---,a -- q nPost O' P57 61011 � IJNWEDSTAT FS �i7dL SE7rV December, 2010 ATTENTION ALL POSTAL CUSTOMERS: • Please ensure that you keep all parked vehicles, snow and trash cans at lest 32 feet away in either direction of a USPS mailbox to assure that the Wier carrier can safely drive up to and leave without backing up which is mania US Postal regulations Mike Kervin Aspen Post Office 970 -925 -7523 • • P58 , ..,` • aP: .� ._ - II, Nom maw Om rte- -7 — y e • :..., • allilir . . P59 .).-F.vi --.1, .., ---.1wiiiif - ;-.,.- ', . -• . . ,. ,,•.. ,..,.i-1, -.• ‘11.7 .. 1 ...1, ).. . , .. cks `,. * C ' , . t, 's '' '111Ett •T 111 . • • 1 ' ft t A,' _ ••• 4 f 7 ,11 II • ■ rli 4 '. ...' 4 siN, • 4 .• - • - • . ' ,. ) 'c , •'% kr .- :-• , ;... : . "' '• .... . ' '' I L 4: 3.•. '''',‘ '''' "4 —' -' ... ••'' -• .''-.. ' ' 1 --I.,. ' .4.. , ' * l' ..:„ ':$•, . r t , ' • •-, sw.---,.... ..-... /_ _ ....''' - : e . '' ' i r 4 , Tr Awr ..........- - I i ...o. .1. -L. ti :-- _., -,--. ifo- .441../ .... _ -.. 1 tue • Asodllap.N4,... ;.,;:,, . ....,r,... , .. ..' . -,..; lv:' •ji, _ ' s ' t : i - , ., • V ' ); ''' . ' i p . '"..., KUMMINIMININI ....._ . .... .• .:,..` ." ' . .-... 1 ....•.-.. .,:•• . - . ''''s •,... •••..' ' • • 1. -,.. ; • . '- , , - - , r•.,094, "e 4' .. i • ri • - , , , 41. ...• . • 1. e -4" % ,..„ - . . - 'I •• tsi •,,, . • , ..„,. , - . 4 4 . 4 P',(4 , • • • • ' • • ■"'N,• fr• -• 4 IL • _ . , ' - • . 1 • ' ' s 7 • •:"...a - i • ' t , i. 3., - -. ' *, 1, --"-.. , '''• - - , •■••• , 4„ .. .• . ). . - . 1 - - : ^ • •"4 • ' , .I. , '4, . . ‘..itt••- ' -• "." 1r . ;.' ' . - - . . ,' • '- "......04 r & -: ... - , . , ,, 9 /* ' 'N • - /IA ,.., I P60 1 r. ,tI" a 11 X 1 k r ti p . 1 ,,a ,. • r. . I t -4 q�-- �,,, , R,[ L . / -: - 4 e ) • i 'V -- s . 1 1 11K - P61 PAUL YOUNG FAMILY February 1, 2011 Chris Bendon Director Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Boomerang Parking Dear Mr. Bendon: Our family lives at 413 West Hopkins Ave. United States Postal Service delivery regulations require at least 32 feet in either direction of a USPS mailbox to ensure that the letter carrier can safely drive up to and leave without backing up which is against US Postal regulations. (Mike Kervin letter attached). Because of this regulation, our family has no parking in front of our house due to the fact that our mailbox is in the center of our parcel which has 75 feet of Hopkins Street frontage. Sherwin/ Bentley's property (next door log cabin) has four vehicles that have off street head in parking limiting 64 feet of legal parallel parking of their 75 feet of ownership on Hopkins Ave. Our family has four City of Aspen parking certificates displayed in our vehicle windows that allow on street parking. However, my family and guest are required to park in front of Mr. Stanton, Mr. Scott or Mr. Goldenberg's property on a first come first serve basis. For years we have been acutely aware there has and is insufficient parking on South 3 Street. We recently submitted a formal citizen complaint form to reference illegal alley parking that resulted in damage to Bentley's roof (see enclosed picture). Being a neighborhood resident for seventeen years, I suggest the Boomerang provides 1.5 to 2 off - street parking spaces per unit plus off - street visitor /guest parking spaces. All Boomerang vehicles should be contained within their half city block. I question if 12 cars, trucks or SUV's is a realistic/ workable number of head in parking spaces located off 4 street. I would ask that project provides ample areas for snow storage and meets safety regulations established by the US Postal Service. Please protect my family from a future need to go to the US POST OFFICE building daily! Sincerely, RECEIVED FEB 0 1 2011 CITY CM- ASPEN Young COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Enclosures: Photo & Regulation 413 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 P62 ASPEN POST OFFICE 81611 UNITEDST TES POST.L SERVICE December, 2010 ATTENTION ALL POSTAL CUSTOMERS: Please ensure that you keep all parked vehicles, snow and trash cans at least 32 feet away in either direction ofa USPS mailbox to ensure that the letter carrier can safely drive up to and leave without backing up which is against US Postal regulations. Mike Kervin Aspen. Post Office 970 -925 -7523 • , ? . , . ...i1c4 • . . , " ' Wilt • ..'" . '''''''''""'"''' :- .. .11 71 • ts .. •••• , ---- — ' 6 3 . - ..." . : . - .. ... • V . 4 . ■ , 4 . - 4?...:,.... , .....,-.? .......• , 31.... . 1 111.• ... .11 11 - • ; '.. . - ---, t . • 1 •40... • i : . . 1 ' . . . - • ..:-.. - • - -Th. ...-, .. -.. "•= ti." •.... ? "•,' ...14. 1 ( . . • ■ '.. , . . 1 111 104 4. ._- ..' • 1. • 1 .. . • •■ ' ,. • ‘,.. i444-' • . ,,. I i 1 1: i • . dota. - . r 1 . 1 . 14 . v . , ..,... , .`..kf -, ` . • . I ,. • . .. • t : ... - , . its r, • Si ,,, r„ ., A , i '• - 3 • ...... ... I .• ' '2 .v . '''. -1 .,---. :Pg'- :rs 1 ".......- ' . • ' 'I A.. . ••• --0 ... ,0 .* :•• i • i • i * ..- \ . c . , . I- - ' . II, - ,,:•.:0 ' '',. i . .......-" , a . .Y I, • 1 1 : ■ 4 - e 1 '. ' .., 4 •;;,/ 7..7. ;.`,..."'•''. . ..... • .... • I •• : i 1 . ... .4• ' . 1 1 : . . , ... r, ,(. ' - '0! .. .., Z ' • . , . t• 2 . - - - - I . 1 , .././ . k i , , . ' - .• ...,.... ,. • , :,..,,,, . •,' 't ........„,_ ..___:, . . •. - b i • , , : - - ..:- - ------ 4 ../ • 1 ,i. .3 l • o 1" ■ ,` ' 4..id4 ._. - LA-. : '-'•'_ . .... -41. • ' ';'"' .. . , . . ... .., ....d; r. --,. .i ' L 4 • ..' ‘ . . . .. iii .,...., 4" ,.., .,,..... . 1.: ...... :-....t.„. . . ... ,':; •'' ,"' :40i 4 5;, 1 ,: 74 ',, ' : ' • -I, ■ - •.. - . „, • • ,... , & , - ... r $6 r , . - ,,,..1 • ' litit.) , itir. ..? ; 4: . • -. - `: ..A. - ' .. - - - - f ' ; . .: s... . - , Y . 7 • , 4 ,- 4 04 - _.4. ,.. , t1 . - ,.4 - . , . , ■ • , 1 • .. 1 .. . . , •I - 1 P64 Chris Bendon From: Patricia Kanipe [kanipes @sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:30 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang AH Proposal Attachments: Boomerang- Parking 2 -1 -11 3oomerang- Parking 2 -1 -11 (48 K... Hi Chris Here is yet another I tter addressing the parking for the Boomerang proposal. Thank you! CP Kanipe Email secured by Check Point 1 Page 1 of 2 P65 Chris Bendon From: CP Kanipe [kanipes@sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:09 AM To: Steve Goldenberg Cc: Chris Bendon Subject: Re: Boomerang - Steve and Chris I have written a NEW letter which I sent last night. I would rather use that letter if we are only able to use one as it speaks more directly to the parking issue rather than my own drama. Thank you, CP Kanipe On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Steve Goldenberg wrote: From: Patricia Kanipe <kanipes @sooris.net> Please use this if you can't properly open my attachment sent 2/1/11. Date: October 26, 2010 11:52:25 PM MDT To: Ben.Gagnon @ci.asoen.co.us Subject: Boomerang To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my opinions on the amendment request to a planned unit development at 500 W. Hopkins. I am involved in this process for two reasons. First, I work for a family who has owned property in this neighborhood since the late 80's. Secondly, I have lived in deed restricted "employee housing" for almost 28 years. While I am grateful for Affordable Housing and the benefits of ownership, I am not a supporter of the attitude "anywhere at any cost ". It has to "fit with the existing neighborhood" or the people living there will be at odds with their neighbors before they move in. It has to have beauty and taste....not just cramming in as many people as possible so that those who have taken a risk on Aspen's real estate market don't lose anything. We've all lost in the last few years; some more than others. In this particular neighborhood, parking is already tight even without the proposed project. Initially, the City had a rule that one off street parking space for every bedroom needed to be provided. When we purchased our condo, the City broke it's own rule and, after allowing additional FAR for the free market unit gave into the developer's smooth talking attorney and gave away our off street parking. TWENTY EIGHT years later, we are still parking on the street. We have lived in our condo longer than Page 2 of 2 P66 anyone in the building and we are the only ones without off street parking. In the winter, it's often a mess with snow piles everywhere and cars sometimes parked halfway into the road because the snow plow hasn't come through once the cars have been dug out. There is not enough parking for the people who LIVE in my neighborhood, let alone for the visitors. Sometimes, I have to park a block away from our building. I support 1.5 off street spaces per unit or 1 off street parking space per bedroom. Sincerely, Patricia Kanipe Steve Goldenberg steve @goldenberg.com 430 W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970 - 925 -1294 Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970 - 379 -9778 WOSRG Email secured by Check Point Page 1 of 1 P67 Chris Bendon From: Steve Goldenberg Isteve@goldenberg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:54 AM To: Chris Bendon Cc: CP Kanipe Subject: Could you read CP Kanipe's letter? Steve Goldenberg steve @goldenberg.com 430 W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970 - 925 -1294 Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970 - 379 -9778 WOSRG Email secured by Check Point Page 1 of 2 P68 Chris Bendon From: Steve Goldenberg [steve @goldenberg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:02 AM To: Chris Bendon Cc: CP Kanipe Subject: Boomerang - From: Patricia Kanipe <kanipes @sopris.net> Please use this if you can't properly open my attachment sent 2/1/11. Date: October 26, 2010 11:52:25 PM MDT To: Ben.GaQnon @ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Boomerang To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my opinions on the amendment request to a planned unit development at 500 W. Hopkins. I am involved in this process for two reasons. First, I work for a family who has owned property in this neighborhood since the late 80's. Secondly, I have lived in deed restricted "employee housing" for almost 28 years. While I am grateful for Affordable Housing and the benefits of ownership, I am not a supporter of the attitude "anywhere at any cost ". It has to "fit with the existing neighborhood" or the people living there will be at odds with their neighbors before they move in. It has to have beauty and taste....not just cramming in as many people as possible so that those who have taken a risk on Aspen's real estate market don't lose anything. We've all lost in the last few years; some more than others. In this particular neighborhood, parking is already tight even without the proposed project. Initially, the City had a rule that one off street parking space for every bedroom needed to be provided. When we purchased our condo, the City broke it's own rule and, after allowing additional FAR for the free market unit gave into the developer's smooth talking attorney and gave away our off street parking. TWENTY EIGHT years later, we are • still parking on the street. We have lived in our condo longer than anyone in the building and we are the only ones without off street parking. In the winter, it's often a mess with snow piles everywhere and cars sometimes parked halfway into the road because the snow plow hasn't come through once the cars have been dug out. There is not enough parking for the people who LIVE in my neighborhood, let alone for the visitors. Sometimes, I have to park a block away from our building. I support 1.5 off street spaces per unit or 1 off street parking space per bedroom. Sincerely, Patricia Kanipe nnnni t Page 1 of 1 P69 Chris Bendon From: david williams [david222hopkin@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:23 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang Developement Project I am writing once more to express our concern with the Boomerang development. Again, it • remains a bigger project than many want in the West End area. Issues of density, added traffic with automobiles, parking problems, all along the Pedx walk way on Hopkins seems to go directly against what has been years in the making of a user friendly street for people to walk on into town. Why do we want to disrupt that well thought out plan for Hopkins Avenue? Any added reduction in the size and scope of this development must occur now, while there is still time to reduce it. Only then, will we look back and say, thank goodness we did not over build out on Hopkins and destroy our long held ideal for a quiet low density neighborhood where people feel free to walk or bicycle on Hopkins Street to town. David and BJ Williams • Email secured by Check Point Page l of 2 P70 Chris Bendon From: Rusty Scott [Rusty @RS3CO.COM] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 5:29 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: Steve Goldenberg Scott Building Condominium Corporation Russell Scott III 133 S. 3 ST. Aspen, co 81611 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners I write you today as the president of the SBCC HOA and a member of the Scott family, who for 39 years have lived in and given of our time and finances to help make Aspen the town it is today. My parents Dr Russell and Mary Hugh Scott chose the west end of Aspen to build their home in 1972. The building design and dedicated green spaces around this property reflect their understanding of what makes a community special. To the point, the proposal to use the historic lodge preservation designation and the redevelopment approvals for the Boomerang Lodge as transferable to an affordable housing development are completely inappropriate. The issue of where are all these people going to park their cars is not to be underestimated, or assume "it will just work itself out ". A one space per unit parking ration is wholly inadequate. When combined with the already approved Jewish community Center and all of their planned day and night time planned activities, the neighborhood, for several blocks around, will be completely park up. If the review exercise is carried through thoroughly, there are many other parking demands such as: electrical, plumbing, carpentry, package delivery, cable television, visiting friends and relatives, and emergency services. People will be forced to park on the North side of main street and cross back and forth, hindering traffic flow and incurring unnecessary danger crossing main street. Maybe a traffic light should be installed to help the ingress and egress from the neighborhood and pedestrian crossings of main street? With the AN credits the developer is receiving, it seems there is plenty of compensation to redesign the project with at least a 1.5 parking spaces to unit ratio. At the Scott building we have 1 parking space per bedroom ratio (16 off street) and continually have non authorized parking in our spaces because of already tight street parking. I heard the term "not in my back yard" nimby for the first time at your meeting. Frankly I was offended. The Scott family has supported the community and employee housing in many ways. The issue, when distilled down to its essence, is one of scale. I can support affordable housing when approached in a responsible and thorough manner. This project is not being approached in any kind of responsible manner. This letter is written with the support of all the owners in the SBCC. Steve Goldenberg has written to you with a comprehensive address of the issues and we wholly support him and his communication to you on this matter. Russell "Rusty" Scott III • n/-,,nn, , Page 1 of 3 P71 Chris Bendon From: Steve Goldenberg isteve ©goldenberg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:28 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: You should have gotten this one. From: Douglas Allen Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:44 AM To: chris.bendon @ci.asoen.co.us • Page 2 of 3 P72 DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 403 LACET LANE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925 -8800 FAX: 925 -8943 EMAIL:dougc February 1, 20 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commision: RE: Proposed Boomerang Housing Project As a neighboring property owner, I continue to be gravely con( issue, lack of adequate parking. Parking is always an issue and that is minimum parking requirements in the code. This developer is now att over not only the code requirement but the practical reality of totally ( project, and thus increasing the parking impact from that previously a A good example of a similar project almost adjacent to this pro Ajax condominiums which has provided almost two parking spaces p property. Even with this much parking provided, as a neighbor I see c owners parked in the street. I have no objection to this project moving forward if it provide parking for permanent residents' use. This is not rocket science. Little reasonable requirements for parking and the Boomerang can also do s property line to property line underground garage parking plus surfac' under the building a similar result could be achieved to that of Little f huge detriment to the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors. I am developer will complain, but such a solution is easily engineered and accomplished without seriously overcrowding the neighborhood park now requests. His self created parking problems should not be shovel neighbors! Page 3 of 3 P73 Douglas Allen 403 Lacet Ln. Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925 -8800 Steve Goldenberg steve(cD.goldenberg.com 430 W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970 - 925 -1294 Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970 - 379 -9778 WOSRG P74 Chris Bendon From: CP Kanipe [kanipes @sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:56 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Re: Boomerang AH Proposal Attachments: Boomerang AH Proposal - Parking it) Boomerang AH Proposal- Parking ... Here it is in a word document. If this doesn't work, I'll fax it. I'm very illiterate when it comes to computers, so....good luck! : ) I do know how to fax! CP Kanipe On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Chris Bendon wrote: > This is not in a format that I can open. Can you resend as a word > document or a pdf. Thanks. > Cheers, > Chris > -- Original Message— ' > From: Patricia Kanipe [mailto:kanipes @sopris.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:30 PM > To: Chris Bendon > Subject: Boomerang AK Proposal > Hi Chris > Here is yet another letter addressing the parking for the Boomerang > proposal. > Thank you! > CP Kanipe > Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point 1 P75 February 1, 2011 To: Planning and Zoning Board As the property manager for two homes in the neighborhood, I wish to address the parking concerns for the Affordable Housing project being proposed at the former Boomerang Lodge site. In this neighborhood, on street parking is already tight even without the proposed project. The two houses I manage (at 6 and West Hopkins) have a large common parking area in the alley which is made available to the neighbors (and others) when the owners are not in town. It is highly utilized and now that the parking on Main Street has been eliminated, on street parking can become an issue when these spaces are not available. Even the postman claims he has no place to park. In a one - bedroom unit that houses a couple it is entirely possible that both will have a car. Depending on the kind of work they do, they may both NEED their own vehicle. By requiring adequate off street parking of 2 spaces per unit the number of allowable units will decrease which will increase the amount of square footage per unit. Laundry facilities can be included within the units with additional storage space as well.. Anyone who lives in Aspen is likely to have 2 sets of tires /car, seasonal clothes and gear (skis, bikes and outdoor equipment). Families with children will also have children's gear and toys. As far as I know, it's not the idea of Affordable Housing that is at Issue, it's the risk of it ending up looking like a low income housing project, with cars clogging the streets and "stuff' spilling out. P &Z and Aspen City Council can help protect employees and residents from this happening at the Boomerang site beginning with adequate off street parking. I believe that it is short sighted to allow any development without adequate off street parking. I strongly support a minimum of 2 off street parking spaces per unit as a condition of approval for the Boomerang site. Sincerely yours, Patricia Kanipe P76 KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk @kcelaw.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PC* Irc@kcelaw.net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III, PC jeetkceIew.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk r�jcelaw•.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925 -3977 DAVID C. UHLIG dcu @kcelaw.nel www.kcelaw.net • also admitted in California February 2, 2011 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Rezoning and PUD Amendment Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: You previously approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2010, with respect to the Boomerang Property. In Section 1 of that Resolution you stated that you recommended City Council consider the "breaking up of the mass of the building by architectural modification" and that "additional parking be provided." In essence, you told the Council the project needs much more work. The City Council remanded this application to you for further consideration of the parking issue — and, particularly, the parking standards under a PUD. This is your opportunity to take a serious look at the parking impacts and burdens. Please take the time and care necessary to study this issue carefully. In his two -page letter provided for your packet, Steve Goldenberg gave you more information about the parking in the neighborhood and in other affordable housing developments than the applicant has provided in this entire process. The applicant just wants you to approve the application in a vacuum. It is not appropriate for you to "kick the can down the mad" to the City Council because the applicant has failed to provide the information you need to properly evaluate the impacts and burdens imposed on the neighborhood by this application. You should insist that the applicant provide the information required for you to properly consider the standards and criteria for parking under the proposed PUD plan — including parking and traffic studies. Making informed decisions and recommendations is the purpose of a planning and zoning commission. At the City Council hearing on the Boomerang on January 10, 2011, Mayor Mick Ireland specifically described the type of information you need in order to make the kind of recommendation you are being asked to make. Mayor Ireland stated: The kind of information that I think I need to make the decision is what do we - -not to what we typically require, but what is the typical consumptive pattern of parking for an affordable housing project? I live in one, and myself, my neighbors have been there for seventeen years, and it turns out that we use about a space and a half each. And when we did the Burlingame project review, we were trying to persuade Burlingame — somebody -- and I'd like to see this brought forward again -- somebody did a fairly comprehensive P77 Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2011 Page 2 listing of' affordable projects and how much parking they consume. It was about one and a half. My neighborhood was in the middle. So, that's one thing that 1 think we need to have considered. The other thing that I would need to know is what do free market projects in that area provide in the way of off - street parking? Because I know there are some. And they're nice, but I don't know what they provide. To nie, equity cuts both ways. If you're gonna say affordable housing should provide a space and a half because that's what it's gonna actually use, okay. But what are other people doing? What their obligations are and how do they meet those? So, I don't know that. And the other thing I don't know is I don't know what the neighborhood capacity for parking is. If we allowed this project, what would be the impact on the neighborhood? Are there lots of empty spaces or are we like Georgetown at night, where it's every space taken? Georgetown, Washington. I don't know that. And in order to make a judgment about whether provision of parking by an applicant is adequate, I think you have to know what is available for use. The Mayor has asked precisely the questions you should be asking in order to make an informed recommendation to the City Council and in order for you to make a decision that protects the existing neighborhood. Both the neighbors and City Council deserve the benefit of your careful consideration of these issues. As is set forth in detail in the Staff Memorandum, there are certain criteria you are required to consider with regard to parking in the context of a PUD plan. Even though we do not have adequate information to properly consider the standards, I will try to address the relevant Sections of the Land Use Code. For ease of reference, I have quoted the Code Sections in italic font and our responses in standard font. 26.445.050.B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: * * * 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. On multiple occasions, we have provided pictures of the street during a Jewish Community Center event. The re- development of the JCC has been approved by the City but it has not yet been built. When the JCC has events in progress, the streets and all on -street parking spaces are completely full, including the spaces on Fourth Street adjacent the Boomerang. It will only be worse in the future after full development of already existing approvals when the JCC has regular events. There are already two under- parked developments in the neighborhood — the Christiana and the as yet un -built JCC. The neighborhood cannot absorb an additional under - parked development. b)Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and swrounding area such as steep slopes, P78 Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2011 Page 3 waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. In response to both "b" and "c" - there are no hazards on or unusual characteristics of this site — the site is perfectly flat, contains 27,000 square feet, there are a few significant trees along the Hopkins Avenue setback, and the site is more than capable of accepting off - street parking. Removal of some units on the ground floor level could easily provide significant additional off - street parking to accommodate the remaining units. This is precisely what was done across the street at the Little Ajax development. Off - street, ground -level space was used for parking instead of an attempt to maximize the unit count. Obviously, since the unit count correlates to money in the context of affordable housing certificates, the developer of' this project seeks to maximize the development of the property and push the parking off site onto public streets — in essence, an additional On addition to the value of the certificates) public subsidy of the project. The parking works at Little Ajax. The proposed parking at Boomerang will not work - but because the site has no hazards or unusual characteristics, it could be made to work if the project unit count was decreased and the off - street parking space count was increased. c)Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, ir c, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. The Hopkins Ave pedestrian - and bike -way is an important and very highly used community asset. Under - parking the Boomerang project (from a practical and "on the street" perspective) will necessarily result in the increase in traffic (people looking for parking), parking on Hopkins, and danger to pedestrians and bicyclists. We need to look at the real parking needs of the occupants of the Boomerang, and provide that parking off street. 3. The appropriate number of off- street parking spaces shall be established based 017 the following considerations: a)The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Without the appropriate back -up data, such as a parking and traffic generation study, it is impossible to address this standard. The P &Z Commission should require the applicant to provide the information necessary so that the P &Z can properly evaluate this standard. b)The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. N/A — the entire project is residential use. 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. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. In response to items "o" and "d" — the proposed development is near public transit, a pedestrian P79 Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2011 Page 4 and bicycle access -way and the commercial core. The vast majority of affordable housing developments are likewise near or adjacent these facilities. In this case the best example is the Little Ajax, directly across the street. And Little Ajax provides a reasonable model with about 1.75 off - street parking spaces per unit. Even with access to transit facilities and even being within walking distance from the commercial core, the fact is that the development needs at least 1.5 off-street parking spaces per unit, and probably more. The only evidence we have (absent a traffic generation and parking study) is the results of the Construction Experts Group (which concluded you should have at least 1.6 spaces per unit), the data provided in Steve Goldenberg's letter concerning other projects (usually 1 space per bedroom and often 2 spaces per unit) and the testimony of the Mayor at the January 10, 2011 City Council hearing (from his experience of 17 years in affordable housing, you need about 1.5 spaces per unit). In order for you to adequately address the standards you are required to address, we respectfully request that you insist the applicant provide the information you need. Absent adequate information, you should recommend the City Council deny the application for approval of a PUD plan for lack of adequate off - street parking. 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 February 8, 2011. 1 Sincerely, KLEIN, STE & EDWARDS, LLC ,.t.. ! A0 oseph% Edwards, III Page 1 of 2 P80 Chris Bendon From: Douglas Allen [doug ©douglasallen.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:44 AM To: Chris Bendon DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 403 LACET LANE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-8800 FAX: 925 -8943 EMAIL:douggd February 1, 201 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commision: RE: Proposed Boomerang Housing Project As a neighboring property owner, I continue to be gravely conce issue, lack of adequate parking. Parking is always an issue and that is v minimum parking requirements in the code. This developer is now atte over not only the code requirement but the practical reality of totally cl project, and thus increasing the parking impact from that previously ap A good example of a similar project almost adjacent to this prop Ajax condominiums which has provided almost two parking spaces pel property. Even with this much parking provided, as a neighbor I see ca owners parked in the street. 1 have no objection to this project moving forward if it provides , parking for permanent residents' use. This is not rocket science. Little . reasonable requirements for parking and. the Boomerang can also do sc property line to property line underground garage parking plus surface under the building a similar result could be achieved to that of Little A huge detriment to the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors. I am s Page 1 of 1 P 81 Chris Bendon From: Douglas Allen [doug @douglasallen.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:06 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Fwd: Boomerang request for relief from parking requirements Attachments: PropBoomerangHousingMemo02011 .doc; ATT90975.htm; PastedGraphic- 7.tiff; ATT90976.htm From: Douglas Allen <doug @douglasallen.com> Date: February 1, 2011 5:32:16 PM MST To: chris.bendon @ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Boomerang request for relief from parking requirements Email secured by Check Point P82 DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 403 LACET LANE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 9254800 FAX: 925 -8943 EMAIL:doug @douglasallen.com February 1, 2011 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commision: RE: Proposed Boomerang Housing Project As a neighboring property owner, I continue to be gravely concerned about one issue, lack of adequate parking. Parking is always an issue and that is why there are minimum parking requirements in the code. This developer is now attempting to gloss over not only the code requirement but the practical reality of totally changing the project, and thus increasing the parking impact from that previously approved. A good example of a similar project almost adjacent to this property is the Little Ajax condominiums which has provided almost two parking spaces per unit on the property. Even with this much parking provided, as a neighbor I see cars of Little Ajax owners parked in the street. I have no objection to this project moving forward if it provides adequate on -site parking for permanent residents' use. This is not rocket science. Little Ajax easily met reasonable requirements for parking and the Boomerang can also do so. By providing property line to property line underground garage parking plus surface parking tucked under the building a similar result could be achieved to that of Little Ajax and not be a huge detriment to the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors. I am sure that the developer will complain, but such a solution is easily engineered and can be accomplished without seriously overcrowding the neighborhood parking as the developer now requests. His self created parking problems should not be shoved off to his neighbors! Thank you for your consideration regarding my concerns. Very truly yours, Douglas Allen Aspen resident & property owner PropBoomerangHousinglMemo02011 1 P83 Chris Bendon From: Steve Goldenberg [steve @goldenberg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:26 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Fw: Boomerang Parking Problem I don't know if this one was sent to you. From: "Sistie Fischer' <sistief @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:09 AM To: <steve @goldenberg.com> Subject: Boomerang Parking Problem > To Chris Bendon: > Parking Problem at Boomerang > The parking issue (grossly insufficient off street parking) is one of > the main problems with a 46 unit > affordable housing project. To avoid clogging nearby streets the > applicant needs to provide at least > 70 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES or reduce the number of units. > • Sincerely, > Sistie Fischer > 442 W. Bleeker > Aspen Co. 81611 Steve Goldenberg steve @goldenberg.com 430 W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970 - 925 -1294 Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970- 379 -9778 WOSRG Email secured by Check Point 1. P84 S^CbIt t KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC t� ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk@kcelawnel 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PC* Irc@kcelaw.net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, BI, PC jee@kcelaw.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk@kcelaw•.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925 -3977 DAVID C. UHL1G dcnnkcelaw.nel www.kcelaw.net • Ws* admitted in California February 2, 2011 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Rezoning and PUD Amendment Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: You previously approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2010, with respect to the Boomerang Property. In Section 1 of that Resolution you stated that you recommended City Council consider the "breaking up of the mass of the building by architectural modification" and that "additional parking be provided." In essence, you told the Council the project needs much more work. The City Council remanded this application to you for further consideration of the parking issue — and, particularly, the parking standards under a PUD. This is your opportunity to take a serious look at the parking impacts and burdens. Please take the time and care necessary to study this issue carefully. In his two -page letter provided for your packet, Steve Goldenberg gave you more information about the parking in the neighborhood and in other affordable housing developments than the applicant has provided in this entire process. The applicant just wants you to approve the application in a vacuum. It is not appropriate for you to "kick the can down the road" to the City Council because the applicant has failed to provide the information you need to properly evaluate the impacts and burdens imposed on the neighborhood by this application. You should insist that the applicant provide the information required for you to properly consider the standards and criteria for parking under the proposed PUD plan — including parking and traffic studies. Making informed decisions and recommendations is the purpose of a planning and zoning commission. At the City Council hearing on the Boomerang on January 10, 2011, Mayor Mick Ireland specifically described the type of information you need in order to make the kind of recommendation you are being asked to make. Mayor Ireland stated: The kind of information that I think I need to make the decision is what do we- -not to what we typically require, but what is the typical consumptive pattern of parking for an affordable housing project? I live in one, and myself, my neighbors have been there for seventeen years, and it turns out that we use about a space and a half each. And when we did the Burlingame project review, we were trying to persuade Burlingame — somebody -- and I'd like to see this brought forward again -- somebody did a fairly comprehensive P 85 Planning and Zoning Commission • February 2, 2011 Page 2 listing of affordable projects and how much parking they consume. It was about one and a half. My neighborhood was in the middle. So, that's one thing that I think we need to have considered. The other thing that I would need to know is what do free market projects in that area provide in the way of off - street parking? Because I know there are some. And they're nice, but I don't know what they provide. To me, equity cuts both ways. If you're gonna say affordable housing should provide a space and a half because that's what it's gonna actually use, okay. But what are other people doing? What their obligations are and how do they meet those? So, I don't know that. And the other thing I don'! know is 1 don't know what the neighborhood capacity for parking is. If we allowed this project, what would be the impact on the neighborhood? Are there lots of empty spaces or are we like Georgetown at night, where it's every space taken? Georgetown, Washington. I don't know that. And in order to make a judgment about whether provision of parking by an applicant is adequate, I think you have to know what is available for use. The Mayor has asked precisely the questions you should be asking in order to make an informed recommendation to the City Council and in order for you to make a decision that protects the existing neighborhood. Both the neighbors and City Council deserve the benefit of your careful consideration of these issues. As is set forth in detail in the Staff Memorandum, there are certain criteria you are required to consider with regard to parking in the context of a PUD plan. Even though we do not have adequate information to properly consider the standards, I will try to address the relevant Sections of the Land Use Code. For ease of reference, I have quoted the Code Sections in italic font and our responses in standard font. 26.445.050.B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: * * * The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject properly are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a)The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected fnrture land uses in the surrounding area. On multiple occasions, we have provided pictures of the street during a Jewish Community Center event. The re- development of the JCC has been approved by the City but it has not yet been built. When the JCC has events in progress, the streets and all on- street parking spaces are completely full, including the spaces on Fourth Street adjacent the Boomerang. It will only be — worse in the future after full development of already existing approvals when the JCC has regular events. There are already two under - parked developments in the neighborhood — the Christiana and the as yet un -built JCC. The neighborhood cannot absorb an additional under - parked development. b)Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, P86 Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2011 Page 3 waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. In response to both "b" and "c" - there are no hazards on or unusual characteristics of this site – the site is perfectly flat, contains 27,000 square feet, there are a few significant trees along the Hopkins Avenue setback, and the site is more than capable of accepting off - street parking. Removal of some units on the ground floor level could easily provide significant additional off - street parking to accommodate the remaining units. This is precisely what was done across the street at the Little Ajax development. Off - street, ground -level space was used for parking instead of an attempt to maximize the unit count. Obviously, since the unit count correlates to money in the context of affordable housing certificates, the developer of this project seeks to maximize the development of the property and push the parking off site onto public streets – in essence, an additional (in addition to the value of the certificates) public subsidy of the project. The parking works at Little Ajax. The proposed parking at Boomerang will not work - but because the site has no hazards or unusual characteristics, it could be made to work if the project unit count was decreased and the off - street parking space count was increased. c)Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the :wounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. The Hopkins Ave pedestrian- and bike -way is an important and very highly used community asset. Under- parking the Boomerang project (from a practical and "on the street" perspective) will necessarily result in the increase in traffic (people looking for parking), parking on Hopkins, and danger to pedestrians and bicyclists. We need to look at the real parking needs of the occupants of the Boomerang, and provide that parking off street. 3. The appropriate manber 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. Without the appropriate back -up data, such as a parking and traffic generation study, it is impossible to address this standard. The P &Z Commission should require the applicant to provide the information necessary so that the P &Z can properly evaluate this standard. b)The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. N/A – the entire project is residential use. 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. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. In response to items "e" and "d" – the proposed development is near public transit, a pedestrian P87 Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2011 Page 4 and bicycle access -way and the commercial core. The vast majority of affordable housing developments are likewise near or adjacent these facilities. In this case the best example is the Little Ajax, directly across the street. And Little Ajax provides a reasonable model with about 1.75 off- street parking spaces per unit. Even with access to transit facilities and even being within walking distance from the commercial core, the fact is that the development needs at least 1.5 off -street parking spaces per unit, and probably more. The only evidence we have (absent a traffic generation and parking study) is the results of the Construction Experts Group (which concluded you should have at Least 1.6 spaces per unit), the data provided in Steve Goldenberg's letter concerning other projects (usually 1 space per bedroom and often 2 spaces per unit) and the testimony of the Mayor at the January 10, 2011 City Council hearing (from his experience of 17 years in affordable housing, you need about 1.5 spaces per unit). In order for you to adequately address the standards you are required to address, we respectfully request that you insist the applicant provide the information you need. Absent adequate information, you should recommend the City Council deny the application for approval of a PUD plan for lack of adequate off - street parking. 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 February 8, 2011. Sincerely, KLEIN, •TE & EDWARDS, LLC t oseph % Edwards, III y b )4 4 0 M O co W ru z tan O c ID 00 63 N O � 0 � m O V 4) cn 0 0 c). 4J O 0 '1 ' 0 , 14... l W r' . N - 1 '.$ : f, IN CIS) al.M, • MO 1 - ; ,: . • . -• 0 , - It r LI LL 6 4 0 04 .... , .... r eri---,„„A.4,,,, , ,, .,.. ,-. - i -., C • ■ ` ^ ill i 1 • 0 2 4,.......6.,...77":"". I I I . 0 o Ni Or il 1 Lim' • 3 a) a� _ 1 'f • (1) t, I Lima E 4.-) ,.'': is _ / 1 J a i ano) 1.... FFF I 121 Lim— 0 y W C A i • — x A* 0 . 1 , ,,,,,,,, 1 2 ,,„,,,.., 4,,e,, I 0 �` . - . 19 O N r -r a/ Ni i L C ice. spy, ` . E > < . c i d . _ . CL) b V n, fi• 6 F O O I LID = L. 1 f 0 2 . . , 1 1 o 4.• ,,, . . , .,. , .. , NI li al N S WIM E Li... 4.-J I a.) cry iii .. . .. V t . _c , .._.it., . 0 71 st, L4-- u— ;; . 0 1 s , V I. / � (1) .. W J_ • - IM ifin.mit ,; 1" Wit 4 • sf:t?e '41'. * m ? 1 a t. w • ., ., 0 _ nimmij r .'...,.-, 1,.,. _ .,. .. a) a.) ....., ..,, ..; , E 4,-; vi) .,,,,, .. . . G..) ,.. 4a) - .' ' Swim CI ‘4--- _ p 0 ii b.O ■ t LIMO •0 =3. 2 0 0 , it , , . ■ O M Q, > .; .4" Q ii,' , i 0 L/) , I C P , � I LI- a . , .: w i I. o 0 ., r I tan _ - 7.•rat' ~ I wilim b� 0 4. 2 J t f ' .1, ',`.:.' ' - Alb il 1 P Vil . #. i Z m ID °IMJ E a) sk... ‘ .... t , ., . . . . . ...,..„ , . , ci.) F - I qtr. -•� V �.r Iti) = . .. CD 4t , it ,,, ._ i : 4.. t-I-- 11_ . O SKI r ' v a �fi ilk � r a 4...7. Q • 0 1 ,... ..t. . 77" r 2 .,,,...- . M;'� ' 0 '� N a�yg, li (Y) • 1 E U.' or W v is e 6 7N 4 .4... Gr . I ? } r i' C 4 i 1g 4 l Qlid ) h i .--...s .--*A"' " , . W , - r 0 i .1 . X i , J E > < ,.... ,„ .... , v) 4,,.... I a) 0 ... ... ..•..... •• . , .. ..... .. ....,;,..;•,. a.) . c • -, , ti a ..„ , ...,„,... 4 , , < , Li- eiv.:!..•:,..*•.:..-.- m o O . P i 1.11 - H 1 P 7 I I . I IMilliMM I in II I in Ill' III I I 111 l s y N ,. c1 1 4...) r L. 4i CO W t i , : ‘ I f itv,, ti Ci:3 ft 0 `'' �4 aA c i , „ ,' - 2 „ , _ i , ,.., ,. „, , _ .._,. .,.,. . , N r , " Sil■ (u Ira s , .., , . . -1--J , : C 04. , •i S. ,e,, T r:, __.. 0 0 -} t ago • '71. . x±`j r C LJ j: • k .- / i 1 O : N = . ' i .,._. W 7• co C , f s. V a ... O . tv = ,. c •_ c . : , a) . > ; ., . . w ,4 , J �/ i d 0 � ` k � (Ni At i t r ' N . 4 . CU co 4) O `• ,z f 0 2 ..",„ 1 it . :._ N // N 41m1 ` i . 3 ,•- __ A __ • C fr e W �!.. ' { . ; ... "Is . . r-i C) Ni Ili (1 , . 1 • N .,,. I if >% LEM a) r R5 > ..... . ,... i (13 Minn V) • In■ .. . . , . (1. MI o a ..., to o 1 0 I 4 r ' •_ cu . > 111 1 .11 1 ? . i ' 1 '. , . P ... , IA l NI ' 1 M > - H f O •— ,... W�/ _ _ ,.. . . c y am. I _ ..., . c ! { I ; 'v M 0 h L 1 . x. ‘,...„,. 2 .,i21., ,„. :, __ . .A .• ,- W 1,.. a) , , 105 ,„ _ I n v) $ . • c co =_ _ 9 A. > { w I i T c ---1 � ; O 4' N - ells% 13 r M = > C } co > x = < ' 4 7 i • im - * j b_ 3 O ff ? - re<•`. C _ ; I a • ;z . C l 1 W