Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.500 W Hopkins Boomerang Lodge THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0083.2011.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 12 449 002 PROJECTS ADDRESS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE PLANNER JEN PHELAN CASE DESCRIPTION ORD # 27 SERIS OF 2010 REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH EDWARDS DATE OF FINAL ACTION 1.10.11. CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 8.10.11 k Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 Bendon said yes. Councilman Skadron stated he does not support the motion, agrees with staff and that proper standards were noticed and that due process was afforded the public. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Skadron. Motion carried. Councilman Romero said he appreciates the staff efforts to stay on schedule with this development ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2010 — Code Amendment — Calculations and Measurements Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this chapter defines methods for measuring buildings for compliance with the zoning regulations, floor area, heights, and setback and how these are defined. Bendon said this section of the code has not been amended and needed more clarity for staff and for applicants. Since first reading, there have been some changes. One is the amount of slope reduction; a property's development rights will be reduced by steep slopes and that reduction has been capped at 25 %. P &Z recommended removing that cap and that floor area could be reduced to 1,000 square feet. Council questioned that at first reading and staff amended the ordinance to stay with the 25% cap. Bendon noted another issue is the use of space above a linking element. Under residential design standards, a development is required to split the massing of a structure into two pieces — a house and a garage. Those pieces can be connected through a limited connecting piece, a linking element, which is restricted to one -story in height. Bendon said the code does not allow any use of the linking element without receiving a variance. Bendon told Council staff does not have a concern about how the space is used except when it starts to look like a second story, which negates the requirements for separation of mass.. This code amendment will allow use of that space as a deck without any walls and as long as the railing is 50% transparent to maintain the look of a one -story element with a limited use. Bendon reminded Council there was a question about the director's latitude on exemptions from this code relating to energy efficiency or code compliance. Bendon added language that allows the community development director to provide exceptions from the dimensional restrictions of the code for energy efficiency or production systems and secondly for building code compliance. Bendon said these would be minimal exceptions where the code may get in the way of a well reasoned decision. This requires the director to provide notice to neighbors and that the director find the visual impact of the exemption is minimal and there is no other way to achieve the energy efficiency. Bendon noted lot area is what is used to define a property's development rights and one works with staff to come to a property's net area. The existing code reduces lot area for certain 15 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 was an opportunity to be heard on the correct standards. Mayor Ireland said the issue is whether Edwards wants to go back and argue the PUD standards in front of P &Z. Bendon reiterated that due process was served. The application was noticed as required a PUD review and a special review. Staff made a mistake and this did not require special review and still required a PUD review. At P &Z, the PUD standards were reviewed and P &Z made a decision on those. P &Z did their job according to the notice and within their jurisdiction. Edwards stated he was given a short time and focused on special review standards, which he thought were applicable. Mayor Ireland said if this is remanded to P &Z only on the issue of PUD parking standards, this should not be an imposition. Mayor Ireland suggested Council direct staff to take this back to P &Z as a 30 minute item solely on this issue as soon as possible and then it will come to Council in a regular course. Edwards disagreed that 515.030 is a fork in the road and P &Z does not have the obligation to look at the special review standards for parking waiver. Hoffman said they do not object to sending this back to P &Z with the caveat there is no additional public comment except on parking. Worcester said the basis for referring this back to P &Z is that Council believes there is a violation of due process in that people did not comment on the correct criteria. Hoffman told Council the public had the opportunity to address anything within the purview of what noticed, including PUD. Councilman Romero asked why Edwards does not agree that 26.525.030 is a fork in the road. Edwards said section 304.060(b)(1) requires a full and thorough review not that staff gets to pick which standards get eliminated. Bendon said PUD is a broader review where the city is looking as many different aspects of a development proposal, height, density, site plan as well as parking. A special review for parking focuses solely on parking. Councilman Skadron asked if a member of the public was prepared to make arguments under the PUD standards, were they not also prepared for special review because of the broad standards of the PUD. Steve Goldenberg said he attended both meetings and the things that surprised everyone, including P &Z, was that the change came at the last minute. Mayor Ireland asked if this could be scheduled in front of P &Z for an hour and have public comment limited only to parking, not other aspects of the project, and keep the project on schedule in front of Council. Mayor Ireland moved to direct that P &Z to consider the parking issue solely on the PUD standards and only the parking issue, within 30 days, both parties to submit their arguments in writing to the P &Z at least 10 days prior to the meeting and each parties be given 10 minutes to present their arguments and P &Z take public comments solely on the issue of parking on PUD standards ; seconded by Councilman Romero. Councilman Torre suggested the city granting a fee waiver to cover costs of the applicant for this additional meeting. Councilman Skadron asked if counsel for the city was at the meeting. 14 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 whether they will like it or not and what are the impacts on them. Mayor Ireland asked if counsel for the neighbors was mislead to think he would be able to argue special review to find out that was not on the table. Edwards pointed out Hoffman argues in his letter that whenever a project includes a PUD variance, only the PUD standards apply and the special review standards do not apply. Edwards stated that section in the land use code does not state that the special review standards are not applied. Edwards requested the matter be sent back to P &Z solely for consideration for standards of review for a special review approval of a parking waiver. Bendon cited 26.515.030 in the parking chapter of the land use code, "Off street parking spaces shall be provided for each use according to the schedule below. Whenever the off street parking is subject to establishment by the adoption of a planned unit development final development plan, that review shall be pursuant to Section 26.445 ", which sends one to the PUD section, "whenever the parking requirement shall be established through a special review, the standards and procedures as set forth in section 515.440 below shall apply ". Bendon said that is a fork in the road directing an applicant to the PUD section if they are subject to a PUD. Bendon said addressing special review standards in the initial application was unnecessary. Councilman Romero said there may be a deficiency in the public notice when people got to the P &Z meeting and it was PUD review, not both. Bendon stated the notice was fair and sufficient and at most advertised for a special review that was not necessary. Bendon noted this application was already in a PUD review, which addresses parking. Councilman Romero said Council could direct this back to P &Z which would cause a time delay and aggravation. Mayor Ireland asked if staff would have been mistaken if it had told neighbors this would have special review criteria when there was no requirement. Mayor Ireland asked if there is the right to rely on the misinformed requirement. Worcester said the issue is whether or not due process was granted, which is Council's decision. Worcester said the argument can be made if someone goes into a meeting thinking they can argue A and B and have prepared for one over the other and is told at the hearing you can only argue A, it may be unfair. Worcester said 26.515.030 answers the question as to what to do when one goes to P &Z with both PUD and special review requirement; if there is a PUD involved, it is reviewed under PUD standards. Worcester said if Council refers this issue back to P &Z, this section decides how it should be reviewed. Edwards said P &Z has already done that. Mike Hoffman, representing the Boomerang, told Council due process is two things; notice and opportunity to be heard. Hoffman said the public notice listed both special review for parking and PUD review. Hoffman said the opponents had an opportunity to make their PUD arguments at the P &Z meeting. Hoffman said according to the code, special review for parking does not apply and staff made that decision prior to the December 14 P &Z meeting. Hoffman said he feels staff has the right to change their mind as long as the proper standard was noticed and there 13 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 in staff's memorandum for the December 14 meeting, special review criteria for off street parking was addressed. Edwards told Council at the December 14 meeting, staff told P &Z that special review for parking was not necessary because it would be reviewed under the PUD standards. Edwards noted the resolution for P &Z's December 14` meeting was drafted to address special review for parking and staff recommended the reference to special review for parking be deleted. Edwards said the issue is whether staff was correct at the beginning of the process to require special review for parking standards be considered together with the PUD standards. Edwards opined this was correct and it was a mistake for staff to change the rules in the middle of the process, which does not leave the public with a lot of confidence. Edwards told Council there was no notice prior to the hearing that a different standard would be used. Edwards stated the code requires that both standards are applied. Mayor Ireland asked if it matters that the P &Z did not apply that standard if the final decision makers, City Council, apply that standard. Edwards said it matters because the code requires P &Z to provide a recommendation to Council on each issue. Mayor Ireland asked the reason to send this back to P &Z when Council makes the final decision. Edwards said P &Z has final review authority on special review of parking and P &Z did not consider the 3 standards in special review. Mayor Ireland asked if the solution is to agree on the additional information that should be provided, have Council review it under the special review standards. Edwards told Council staff has said the special review standards for a parking review waiver are non - applicable. Councilman Romero said Edwards is making a due process argument, that there were defects procedurally. John Worcester, city attorney, said the issue is whether or not P &Z had a requirement to review the application under both criteria, PUD and special review. Councilman Romero noted that Edwards is stating there were defects in how that was handled. Worcester said one issue is that if this goes back to P &Z whether they have final authority or not. Edwards agrees that P &Z does not but that they should review it based on the special review criteria. Bendon reread the section on combined review section and told Council his interpretation is this was to avoid the prospect of duplication of approval. The section also states that all public notice is maintained and that there is a thorough and full review of the application, which was done. Mayor Ireland said Edwards is arguing that he came prepared to argue the special review standards and was deprived of an argument he could have made to P &Z. Edwards said the section states that a "thorough and full review of the application of the proposed development as otherwise required by this title is achieved ". Edwards said applications can be processed in a way to avoid a waste of time but standards of review cannot be eliminated. Edwards stated all the standards have to be applied in order to have a full review of an application. Mayor Ireland asked what someone reading the public notices would have thought. Bendon said when the general public gets a notice about development in their neighborhood they consider 12 g Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 staff review addressed both the special review and the PUD standards. Bendon said the public hearing standards were met. Bendon said the standards of review for the appeal are denial of due process, abuse of discretion, or exceeding jurisdiction. Council must find one of those to overturn P &Z's decision. Bendon reminded Council this is a review of the record. Bendon said staff believes P &Z did their job; the review was within their jurisdiction and they used their discretion appropriately. Staff recommends Council uphold the P &Z decision. Mayor Ireland asked if Council grants this appeal, does it give P &Z final authority on parking. Bendon said that depends on how the complaint is resolved; remanding it back to P &Z to have them handle the special review, in which case the decisions would be equal. Another choice would be to grant the appeal and resolve this issue and take the authority away from P &Z. Mayor Ireland said he would like the most expeditious way to get more input on parking before making a decision, more information like what is the typical consumptive pattern for parking for an affordable housing project; also what do free market projects in this area provide for off street parking. Mayor Ireland said he would also like to know what the neighborhood capacity for parking is and if this project is allowed, what is the impact on the neighborhood. Mayor Ireland noted exhibit 1, provided by Jody Edwards, outlines use of car- to -go, which may be cheaper for the applicant to provide. Jody Edwards presented documents that were part of the record in front of P &Z and some municipal code sections, which are appropriate for Council's consideration. Edwards said he thinks Council has final authority over this issue. Edwards cited from the land use code "applicant must meet criteria for special review for partial parking waiver as well as parking criteria for PUD ". Edwards noted in his exhibit 1 in the Boomerang application, the applicant addressed special review for parking waiver and the 3 standards one has to meet. The memorandum to P &Z of November 2, 2010, stated both the standards for PUD and for special review for parking are applicable; the memo addresses both sets of standards. Edwards said parking is a concern of the neighborhood and there was a lot of discussion about it at the November 2 P &Z meeting. That P &Z meeting was continued to December 14 Edwards noted exhibit 2 is a letter from him to P &Z for the December 14` meeting where he points out because the property is 27,000 square feet and flat, it is impossible for the project to meet one of the standards in special review waiver for parking, which is that one cannot meet the parking requirement on site because it is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development. Edwards said that is for properties with steep slopes, wetlands, avalanche hazards. Edwards said if the applicant eliminates 3 ground floor units on site, they could get on parking on site rather than on streets. Bendon said that standard allows P &Z latitude to define what they see as "undesirable result" of not providing the parking waiver. Edwards said what happened next is outlined in Mike Hoffinan's letter, "at some time between November 2 " and December 14 meeting, staff reconsidered its position and correctly decided that compliance with special review provisions of the code was not necessary". Edwards noted 11 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 but it has a certificate of assurance. Councilman Romero agreed this will be a valuable program for the city when people feel it is distinguished to be part of the program. Councilman Skadron said he is comfortable with the voluntary program. Councilman Skadron said it is unlikely he would have supported an emergency ordinance had he understood its impact. Councilman Skadron said it will take time to see if there is enough heft in place to insure preservation of Aspen's historic aspects while respecting private property rights. Councilman Johnson said he feels this ordinance is positive for the community and is a fresh start in the area of historic preservation. Mayor Ireland agreed the city has not finished filling the tool box with all the incentives to bring people into the program. However, there is now a tool box. Mayor Ireland said this has been a learning process for the city. Mayor Ireland noted it does not cost a property owner anything to have their house listed, they can avail themselves of benefits and they can change their mind. Roll call vote; Torre, yes; Johnston, yes; Romero, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. BOOMERANG 500 WEST HOPKINS APPEAL OF P &Z RESOLTUION Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this is an appeal of a P &Z resolution on the Boomerang. This is a proposal for development of affordable housing at 500 West Hopkins. Bendon told Council this case is scheduled in front of Council next month. This complaint is about parking. The city code allows parking to be set, waived or lowered through special review, which is a review where P &Z is the final authority. Bendon told Council parking can also be set, waived or lowered through a planned unit development review, which is a recommendation from P &Z to Council for final review. Bendon said P &Z could approve a parking plan, which Council may change. The code recognizes that issue and allows the community development director to combine reviews. Bendon quoted from 26.304.060, review of a development application by decision making bodies and a subsection which allows for combined reviews that the community development director may determine, in consultation with the applicant, that combination would eliminate or reduce duplication and insure economy of time and expense providing that all public notice is maintained and a thorough and full review of the application is achieved. Bendon pointed out exhibit B is the pre - application conference summary, which summarizes what a particular application will need to go through, what the process looks like, fees, etc. Bendon said this identifies that there may be overlapping review, that parking review by P &Z be combined with an amendment to the PUD review; that the amount of off street parking will not be subject to P &Z but will be a recommendation to Council for final action. The application for parking was combined and the memo outlined that and it was also stated in the hearing. The 10 ti 'Q¢it Ja i0,201l i 19 6 - 1 ed.) ReVdtvcze AFA is not required to construct the project as affordable housing, it is not constructing ( `r& the project to mitigate impacts of development already approved by the City, nor is the project a requirement or obligation of an existing Development Order. C. A recommendation of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors has been made, establishing the number of Full- Time - Equivalents (FTEs) accommodated by the affordable housing units, pursuant to Affordable Housing Guidelines, as amended. The APCHA Board of Directors will meet to consider this project on October 6, 2100 to establish the number of FTEs as shown on Exhibit 8 of this application. VII. Special Review for Partial Parking Waiver. The project, as current conceived, includes 54 units and 51 proposed parking spaces. According to Code Section 26.515.030, one parking space is required for each unit. The Code permits fewer than the required number of spaces with multi - compliance to the special review standards set forth at Section 26.515.040 A. AFA proposes the adoption of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan similar to the one attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The TDM Plan is designed to address demand for parking, in particular, and to develop strategies which reduce the need for individually -owned automobiles. The three (3) space deficit proposed for this project is justified under those standards, as described below: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. As shown on the TDM plan, AFA will use the following strategies to reduce the demand for parking within the Project: • Provide a $20,000 grant to the City's CAR TO GO Carshare program for use in the purchase of a new car, administrative cost, etc. • Dedicate one on -grade parking space to the CAR TO GO program (subject to annual review to determine if the continued dedication of the space is justified by utilization of the space by program participants). Page 15 th • Provide bicycle racks and storage in the basement of the Project. Design the common areas to allow easy access to the basement by bicycle users • Police the use of bike racks by removing bikes that have been abandoned and not moved from the racks. • Establish and enforce covenants which discourage the ownership of cars by owners. • Coordinate carpooling through the Project's homeowners' association. • Implement parking passes for available parking spaces and enforce penalties for use by non - residents. • Investigate creating Project -based "rides on demand" program which would allow an owner within the Project to call for a ride home. • Promote use of RFTA by publishing schedules and other actions It has been the experience of the City's Transportation Department that one CAR TO GO "satisfies" the needs of approximately 15 people. The $20,000 contribution planned by AFA and the conditional dedication of one surface parking space should fully address the three parking space shortfall at issue here. The other strategies set forth above will further reduce demand for parking. The Project's proximity to no -cost mass transit on West Main Street, located a half block away, and its location on the West Hopkins Avenue pedestrian/bicycle corridor create intrinsic incentives which reduce the need for parking in this project. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The underground parking garage already approved for the Project will be expensive to build. Expansion of the proposed underground lot is impractical for budgetary purposes, but also because of site constraints and the need to use available subgrade space for other purposes — including storage for unit owners and to house HVAC equipment. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. For the reasons stated above, the 51 spaces to be provided within the Project will be adequate to serve the needs of unit owners within the project. VIII. Response to Subdivision, Condominiumization and Common Development Procedures Code Provisions. The Subdivision and Condominiumization provisions of the Code are not central to this application because they were considered in depth during when the City processed the existing land use approvals in 2006. For that reason AFA's responses to those sections of the Code have been moved to Exhibit 10, attached hereto. Responses to the Code's Common Development Procedures are also found in Exhibit 10. Page 16 • P68 • KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLF.IN @Iceland 201 NOM lI hill], STREET. STF. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PC Ire Jikcelaw.n.t ASPEN, COLORADO R1611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. III, PC jecdikcdaw.ncl IELEPHONE: (9701925 -B70D COREY T. ZURBUCH elScelau:ncl FACSIMILE' 1970)925-M7 EBEN P. CLARK cpci cI fMvk celac.ncl MADHU B. K R ISI INAMURTI mhbn knlaw nel DAVID C. UHLIG dru n kcclaw.nci • Jw 'dolma In California December 7, 2010 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission elo Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 8161 I RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Rezoning and PUU Amendment • Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: Our office represents Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, all of whom are neighbors of the Boomerang property. We are very concerned about the impact on the neighborhood of the proposed changes to the development program for the Boomerang Lodge. These changes will have significant and detrimental impacts on the quality of life in the neighborhood. You are being asked to approve a parking waiver for a property that does not meet the required standards for a parking waiver. You are also being asked to recommend approval of rezoning which is not compatible with the neighborhood. For these reasons you should deny the request. Parking The City Code is very clear that all developments "shall he provided with off street parking" as provided in the parking section of the Code. See Code § 26.515.010.A. The word "shall" is mandatory. Code § 26.104.080.H. The Code requires one parking space for each unit in the development. Code § 26.515.030. The Planning and Zoning Commission is allowed to grant special • review approval to waive a portion of this parking requirement "based of conformance" with specified criteria. Code § 26.515.040.A. This means that the P &Z can grant the requested approval for a waiver of the mandatory requirement if the application satisfies the listed criteria. if the application does not satisfy the criteria, then P &Z may not grant the special review approval to waive the mandatory parking requirement of one space for each unit. There are only three criteria, and the second one states: An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The property is 27,000 feet and absolutely flat — there are no steep slopes, wetlands, avalanche flow areas, stream setbacks, mud and debris flow area, or other environmental concerns which would stake practically difficult the construction of parking on-site. In response to this criterion, the City staff states: "An on-site parking solution has been substantially met." Exhibit 0 of the October 28, 2010 Staff Memorandum, Apparently. City staff counts on- street parking in this parking solution. The application provides for 33 off- street parking spaces in a below -grade parking garage and one mostly • • • P69 Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2010 Page 2 off - street handicapped space at grade level, The October 28, 2010 Staff Memorandum notes that there is some question whether the below -grade garage can accommodate 31 or 33 parking spaces. See Exhibit 0 at Paragraph A.1. Either the application provides for a total of 32 or 34 parking spaces for 46 proposed units — in either case it is not one space for each unit. The Code does not allow for "substantially" meeting the one to one Code requirement or for counting on- street spaces to meet the o -s ree r - q n - meeting the Code requirement of one parking space for each unit is difficult in any respect or results in an undesirable development scenario. The only "difficulty" is the developer's desire to place the parking on-street so that it can maximize its profits with maximum development on site and use the public right of way to satisfy its parking requirements. This is nothing more than a back -door public subsidy of the project. It would be a very simple matter to reduce the number of units developed to the number of off - street parking spaces provided. Rezoning The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R -6 /LP (medium - density residential, lodge preservation) to R/MF (high density residential, multi- family). The P &Z makes a recommendation to the City Council which has final authority with regard to a rezoning of the property. In order to justify a re- zoning of the property, the applicant must show and the Conmiission is required to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood characteristics. Code §26.310.040.C. The question is not whether affordable housing is compatible with the neighborhood — affordable housing is allowed in the R -6 zone district and is undeniably compatible with the neighborhood The question is whether R/MF level density is consistent with the surrounding zone districts, land uses, and neighborhood characteristics. Importantly, the Little Ajax development (zoned AH /PUD) provides all of its required parking off - street, is developed at a much lower density than is proposed by Boomerang (14 units for 26,000 square feet) and is compatible with the neighborhood. The remainder of the surrounding neighborhood is zoned R -6, R -15, and Lodge Preservation. None of the neighborhood is zoned RJMF. By separate letter, Steve Goldenberg convincingly demonstrates that the proposal is not (even remotely) compatible with the neighborhood. For all of the above reasons and others we previously provided, we respcctfuly request that you (1) deny the Boomerang project request for Special Review for waiver of off- street parking, and (2) recommend to the City Council that it deny the request for rezoning. Please let us know if you have any questions concerning any of this. and we look forward to discussing this with you at the hearing on December 14, 2010. Sincerely, KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC . I r 1 'X ' i J seph 1 dwards, 111 P7 • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision - making body. All of the above land use reviews are for P &Z to make findings and recommendations to City Council for final action. All the land use reviews below are for the P &Z to make the final decision. Regarding parking, the Council will still have this issue before them for discussion, as the number of off- street spaces must be specified in the proposed PUD. • Growth Management: Affordable Housing — An application for Growth Management: Affordable Housing; pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(4), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Growth Management: Change in Use — An application for Growth Management: Change in Use, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(2), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Special Review for Off - Street Parking — An application for Special Review for Off - Street parking, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.040 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. However, the number of off - street parking spaces is established in the PUD, and therefore subiect to Council review. • Issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit — An application for issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to find that the development meets defined criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. BACKGROUND: In August 2006, the applicant received City Council approval for an expansion of the Boomerang Lodge, including 47 lodge units, five free market units and two affordable housing units. The applicant obtained a demolition permit for the Middle Wing and the West Wing of the existing Boomerang Lodge, which were removed that summer. The applicant had reached an agreement with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in 2006 to retain the East Wing of the original Boomerang Lodge, which remains standing today, along 4 Street. The rest of the property is currently vacant. The agreement gives the HPC review P16 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CHANGE IN USE, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF - STREET PARKING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING, AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB -ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop 54 affordable housing units at 500 W. Hopkins Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge units, 5 free - market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006), commonly known as the Boomerang Lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 500 W. Hopkins Ave. and is currently zoned Medium - Density Residential (R -6), Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended remanding the application to applicant to reduce allowable FAR from 1:66:1 to 1.5:1, to meet the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) standard of compatibility with the neighborhood; and, Page 1 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) r Pi P17 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission took public testimony, considered the application and remanded it back to the Applicant for further consideration and amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the application by reducing the height, floor area, and unit count of the proposal; and WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _ , Series of 2010, by a vote, with conditions: and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of' the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Growth Management Approval for Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, creating 46 deed - restricted affordable housing units not required for mitigation, as reviewed by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 3 and 4. There will be 35 Category 3 and 19 Category 4 units. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process and meet APCHA guidelines. Design of the units, parking on -site and storage will be finalized with the recordation of a PUD Plat. Unit Type Number of Units Category 3 Category 4 studio 6 3 3 One bedroom 29 11 18 Two bedroom 11 8 3 Total 46 Page 2 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P1 8 Section 2: Growth Management Approval for Change in Use Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Change in Use, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the review criteria of Section 26.470.050. Section 3: Approval of Special Review for Parking Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Special Review for Off - Street Parking, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the standards of review pursuant to Section 26.510.040, and setting the Off- Street Parking requirements at 33 sub -grade parking spaces, and 14 at -grade parking spaces. The at -grade parking includes 13 head -in parking spaces on 4 Street that are in the Right of Way, allowed by a Revocable Encroachment License granted for parking in March 2007; see Pitkin County Clerk Reception #535627. Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves issuance of 97.5 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, such certificates to be granted subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, pursuant to Section 26.540.040. Unit Type Employee Housed Number of Units Certificates of AH studio 1.25 6 7.5 One bedroom 1.75 29 50.75 Two bedroom 2.25 11 24.75 Total 83 Section 5: Amendment to the Zone District Map Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby finds that the proposal to rezone the 500 W. Hopkins Ave. property from R -6 /LP/PUD to RMF /PUD meets the standards to Amend the Zone District Map, pursuant to Section 26.310.040 and recommends approval by the City Council. Section 6: Planned Unit Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision, with conditions. Dimensional Req. Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 586 sq ft Maximum Allowable Density 46 units Minimum Lot Width 270 feet Page 3 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) r.r P19 Minimum Front Yard 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" — east* 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5' 2 " floor balcony projects 4'5" into setback Maximum Site Coverage Per 2007 plat Maximum Height 32' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space Not required Allowable Floor Area 1.5:1, or 44,915 Minimum Off - Street Parking 46 33 -on -site and 13 within the 4 street r -o -w * Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 Section 7: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed/required Right -of- Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, will meet all applicable standards. Minimum required site improvements are as follows: • Construction of sidewalk in the public right -of -way along West Hopkins Ave, 4 Street and 5 Street. • Installation of two ADA sidewalk ramps at the intersection of West Hopkins and 5 and 2 ADA ramp on the intersection of 4` and Hopkins Street. • Installation of two concrete alley ramps. The alley ramp on 5 Street will include an ADA sidewalk ramp. • Construction of approximately 150 linear feet of four feet (4') wide concrete valley pan along 4 Street. • Construction of new curb and gutter along 5 th Street and West Hopkins. • Placement of approximately 697 square yards of asphalt paving to replace the alley surface. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Page 4 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. - -- (2010) P2 0 Section 9: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required to be memorialized prior to development and issuance of a building permit Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of' anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Section 11: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. A. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. B. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. C. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Current locations are identified above the 15' set back and along the side yard setbacks. An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. The original tree permit, #2007 -012, is valid as long as there are no further changes to the Page 5 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P21 trees being removed and final mitigation plans. Changes to these two areas will most likely trigger a new permit or an addendum to the original. Section 14: Parking and Alternative Modes of Transportation Off - Street parking includes a minimum of 33 sub -grade spaces, a handicapped space on the alley and 13 at -grade spaces in the 4` Street Right of Way, as allowed by Encroachment License #2007 -E030, recorded at Reception # 535627. Section 15: Residential Design Standards Applicant will meet Residential Design Standard Section 26.410.040(D) or obtain a variance prior to issuance of building permit. Section 16: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee -in -Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this day of December, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair Page 6 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. 2010) P22 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 7 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) S. Sec. 26.304.060.Review of a development application by decision - making bodies. • Review procedures and standards. Specific development review procedures and stand. •s for diffe - types of development applications are set forth in the relevant chapters of this e. They include the lowing: • Permi • Uses: Chapter 26.404 • Variances: Chapter 26.314 • Residential Desig tandards: Chapter 26.410 • Development involvin• _ Aspen Inventory . istoric Landmark Sites and Structu : or in an . , ' istoric Overlay District:Chapter 26.415 • Conditional Uses: Chapter 26.425 • Special Review: Chapter 26.430 • Development in Enviro entally Sensitive • eas: Chapter 26.435 • Specially Planned < eas (SPA): Chapter 26.440 • Planned Unit e -velopments (PUD): Chapter 26.445 • Tempor. ses: Chapter 26.450 • Gro Management Quota System (GMQS): Chapter 26.470 • : bdivision: C . • er 26.480 Amendments to Text and Zone District Map: Chapter - 0 10 B. Modification of review procedures. 1. Combined reviews. The procedures for reviewing development plans and applications where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; provided, however, that all public noticing normally associated with the subject development application(s) is maintained and that a thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as otherwise required by this Title is achieved. '. etch plan review. If the Community Development Director, in consultation wit he applica , ermines that a proposed development application may be coin. - , ave the potential for sign]; community interest, involves a public facility o — proposed project would benefit from addition. Immunity input, the Communi -velopment Director may schedule a joint meeting with the CI • _ .uncil and either • - p anning and zoning commission, the historic preservation commission or bot , • .. etch plan review. A sketch plan review may be held either before or after an applic. is s o : I itted and determined to be sufficiently complete by the director of the Com u • ity Development i ; •artment. If it is scheduled after an application is determined s plete by the Community Deve : • ent Director, the sketch plan review meeting s - .e conducted prior to any other land use relit- .roceeding required by this Code. • sketch plan review meeting shall be noticed by publica'• , mailing and postin: . e Subsection 26.304.060[E] Paragraph [3]) and the joint meeting shall .- Inducted a ..ublic meeting. The minutes of the joint meeting shall become part of the formal reel • of City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 300, Page 8 ExN/i3/ Chapter 26.515 OFF - STREET PARKING Sections: 26.515.010 General provisions 26.515.020 Characteristics of off - street parking spaces 26.515.030 Required number of off - street parking spaces 26.515.040 Special review standards 26.515.050 Cash -in -lieu for mobility enhancements 26.515.010. General provisions. A. General requirements. All development shall be provided with off - street parking as provided in this Chapter. r. Requirements for expansion /redevelopment of existing development. development shall reduce the number of existing off - street parking spaces bel. - the mini • m number of existing spaces required herein for that development, unle - expressly exemptee e this Chapter. If existing development is expanded, additional o street parking spaces shall . ; . rovided for that increment of the expansion as if it is a se. .rate development. An existing defic of parking may be maintained when a property is r- : -veloped. C. Off - street parking c • culation. All requirements for o r - street parking for residential dwellings and lodges shall be lculated based on the nu : -r of units. Requirements for off - street parking for commercial us-- shall be calculat eased on the net leasable area of the structure or use. Requirements for a other lane ses not considered residential, lodging or commercial shall be established by specia 'ew. D. Required number of spaces en fractiona -.aces computed. When any calculation of off - street parking results i . required fractional sp..- said fractional space may be paid through a cash -in -lieu p._ ent, or an entire space may be p ided on the site. E. Commerci 'arking Facilities. When a parking facility is pr. •osed to function as a commercia . arking facility, as such terms are used herein, review an. ..proval shall be accordi•• to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the review standards of Secti.• 26.515.040, Spe •.I review standards. Development of such a facility may also require con..'onal use iew in some Zone Districts. Also see definition of "Commercial parking facility," . tion 6.104.100. (Ord. No. 17 -2005, § 1) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 33 For p B , - rties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, -wer spaces may .- .rovided and /or a waiver of cash -in -lieu fees may be approve. :.rsuant to Chapter 26.430, B : ial review and according to the review criteria set for • Below. For lodging projects with flex . - unit configurations, als. . own as "lock -off units," each separate "key," or rentable division, s : constitute • . it for the purposes of this Section. For projects with parking requireme• in mu '. - categories (residential, commercial, lodging or other), the provisi.• of on -site parking be approved to satisfy the requirements for each use •.ncurrently, pursuant to Chapter - ..430, Special review and according to the revi - criteria set forth below. (For example: o'ect comprised of commercial use = .uiring five [5] parking spaces and lodging use requiring - [5] parking spaces ma .e approved to provide less than ten [10] total parking spaces.) This all not apply : parking which is provided through a payment -in -lieu. e I. No. 17- 2005, §1) 26.515.040. Special review standards. Whenever the off - street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. B. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 37 P239 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director h FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Directoe RE: Appeal of passage of Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) by the Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: January 10, 2011 APPELLANTS: Steven and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, through their attorney Jody Edwards • SUMMARY: The Appellants are appealing the recent approval of Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The resolution approves a number of land use reviews and recommends to City Council approval with conditions of certain land use reviews regarding the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Ave (the former Boomerang Lodge site). Specifically, the Appellants are appealing the determination made by the Commission concerning parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council uphold the resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. SUMMARY: Presently, the property owner of 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (site of the former Boomerang Lodge) is in the land use review and entitlement process requesting the site be approved for the development of affordable housing. On December 14 the Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) approved Resolution No. 22 (series of 2010) which approved two growth management reviews: Change in Use and Affordable Housing, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits and recommended approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision, Map Amendment (rezoning) with conditions. The Appellants, neighbors of 500 W. Hopkins Ave., are appealing passage of the resolution by the P &Z. Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedure, of the Aspen Land Use Code sets forth the applicable standard of review that Council should follow in these matters and the actions available to Council following the hearing on the appeal. 1 ..may P240 BACKGROUND: The basis of the appeal states that the off -street parking which is recommended for approval through the PUD criteria in the resolution was not approved based upon Special Review criteria (for off -street parking) and therefore the P &Z abused its discretion and acted in excess of its jurisdiction in approving the resolution. Essentially, the Appellant claims that the off -street parking should have been approved via the Special Review criteria. The adopted land use code permits off - street parking to be established in multiples ways, in the case of the subject property off - street parking can be via PUD review or Special Review. PUD permits the establishment of minimum off -street parking spaces and receives final approval by City Council while Special Review can be used "for establishing, varying, or waiving off - street parking requirements" and receives final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. When multiple development approvals are being sought simultaneously, they may be combined or modified to reduce duplication, provided "that all public noticing normally associated with the subject development applications is maintained, and that a thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as otherwise required by this title is achieved" (Section 26.304.060 (B)(1), Combined reviews). One cannot have two review bodies have final authority on the same aspect (in this case establishment of a parking requirement) of an application as it creates the potential for inconsistent determinations. As noted in the pre- application conference summary provided to the property owner of 500 W. .w+, Hopkins. (Exhibit B), the determination of the off - street parking requirement would not be a final decision by P &Z but City Council. Within the initial memo (Exhibit C) under Land Use Request and Review Procedure, discussion on the final decision making body with regard to parking was outlined under Special Review. "The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. However, the number of off -street parking spaces is established in the PUD, and therefore subject to Council review." To maintain a thorough and full review of the parking issue both Special Review standards and PUD standards were addressed by staff in the memo (Exhibit C). The resolution (Exhibit J) and record clearly established that the P &Z understood that it was making a recommendation to the City Council on the parking issues pursuant to the PUD standards. STANDARD OF REVIEW: Section 26.316.030(E), Standard of review, reads as follows: Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal [City Council] shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken [public hearing record of the P &Z]. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. �a 2 P241 The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process ", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion." Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation of the appeal: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affected a significant right of the appellant, or the administrative body Executive ve Committee violation of a constitutional rights. Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass 'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision being appealed from "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision being appealed from was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). STAFF COMMENT: 1. Due Process — The Appellants have not specifically raised this issue in its Notice of Appeal. Nonetheless, staff notes that Appellants provided public comment in the form of written letters that were included as part of the public record during the public hearing process before the P &Z. Additionally, at both public hearings that were conducted the Appellants provided verbal public comment. Having the P &Z make a recommendation to City Council with regard to parking, rather than be a final decision maker, is permitted under the land use code and bears out the procedural direction that was outlined in both the pre - application conference summary and the original staff memo. Staff's recommendation to include the establishment of parking standards via the PUD was not arbitrary and provided substantive due process. 2. Discretion — With respect to abuse of discretion, it is within the Community Development Director's discretion to permit combined reviews in order to reduce duplication of the review process. As outlined in both the pre - application conference summary and the staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission, decision on the parking was to be approved via the PUD review rather than Special Review and finalized by City Council. Both review criteria were addressed by staff to provide "a thorough and full review of the application." The recommendation with regard to parking provided by the Commission as evidenced by the record cannot "only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." 3. Jurisdiction — The Appellants do not fully explain their position as to how the Planning and Zoning Commission acted in excess of their jurisdiction. The P &Z is authorized via the land use code to make recommendations with regard to PUD applications as City 3 P242 Council is the final decision making body. A PUD may vary dimensional requirements, including off - street parking spaces and it is within the purview of the Commission to make a recommendation on the parking. The P &Z did just that. Such action was clearly within its authority. Appellants have pointed to no law that the P &Z either misconstrued or misapplied. With regard to all three considerations, the Appellants appear to be suggesting that the problem was created when the staff or the applicant allegedly changed direction by initially suggesting that the parking was going to be decided based on the Special Review criteria then making a final determination based on the PUD criteria. However, as noted above, it is clear that this matter was proceeding pursuant to PUD procedures. The matter was properly noticed and described. Appellant cannot point to how the final decision, which was to recommend to Council a particular position, denied the Appellants due process, abused discretion or exceeded jurisdiction. ACTIONS BY COUNCIL FOLLOWING APPEAL HEARING: Section 26.316.030(F) reads as follows: Action by the decision- making body hearing the appeal. The decision - making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision shall be approved by resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. RESOLUTION: Attached is one resolution affirming the action of the Planning Commission, finding that it did not abuse its discretion or acted in excess of its jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution was rendered appropriately and that the P &Z did not abuse its authority or exceed its jurisdiction. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Commission's resolution by adopting the proposed resolution affirming the passage of Resolution No. 22 (series of 2010). CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, affirming the approval of resolution Amo No.22 (Series of 2010) by the Planning and Zoning Commission." 4 P243 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Notice of Appeal, dated December 21, 2010 Exhibit B — Excerpt of land use application for 500 W: Hopkins: Pre - application conference summary dated August 8, 2010 Exhibit C — Excerpts of staff memo dated November 2, 2010: • Page 2 - Land Use Request and Review Procedures • Pages 24 -26 - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings (for parking) • Pages 44 -45 — Special Review for Off - Street Parking Exhibit D — Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, dated November 2, 2010 Exhibit E - Excerpts of staff memo dated December 14, 2010: • Pages 27 -30 - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings (for parking) • Pages 48 -49 — Special Review for Off - Street Parking Exhibit F — Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, dated Decemberl4, 2010 Exhibit G — Affidavit of notice for January 10, 2011 Appeal Exhibit H — Affidavit of notice for November 2, 2010 public hearing Exhibit I — Land Use Code chapter regarding Appeals Exhibit J - Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission Exhibit K — Letter from representative, E. Michael Hoffman, of the owner of 500 W. Hopkins dated January 3, 2011 5 ess P244 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 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, may affirm the resolution of the Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Attorney Jody Edwards representing the appellants, the Community Development Director and .y has found that the Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) including their recommendation with regard to off - street parking through Planned Unit Development standards. 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. 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 Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Page 1 of 2 P245 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 P246Vf>►1 •- o KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC I ATTORNEYS AT LAW h celaw net 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 HERBERT AIt C . TE, PC c@c ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LANCE It COTE, RD bk e jce@kcelaw.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 JOSEPH T. ZURBUCH ,III, PC jce@kcelaw.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925 -3977 COREY T. LA RBUCH epc@kcelaw.net www.kcelaw.net EBEN P. CLARK epcQkcelaw.net MADHU B. ICRISHNAMURTI mbkr@kcclaw.net RECEIVED DAVID C. UHLIG dcu@akcelaw.nct • also admitted in California • DEC 21 2010 • CITY OF ASPEN December 21, 2010 COMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT NT Chris Bendon City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., 3 Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Notice of Appeal concerning Planning and Zoning Commission Approval of Parking Variance/Waiver for the Boomerang Property Dear Chris: This letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Sections 26.316.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code. This office represents Steven and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, the owners of properties adjacent and near the Boomerang property and within 300 feet of the Boomerang property. On December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission ( "P &Z ") approved a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a parking variance through the PUD process (the "Resolution "). The section of that Resolution addressing special review of a parking variance or waiver was deleted from the final Resolution by P &Z on staff's recommendation. The Boomerang application dated September 17, 2010 seeks special review approval for a partial parking waiver — see Application at page 15. The public notice, the actual discussion at the prior P &Z hearing on November 2, 2010, and both the staff memorandum for the November 2, 2010 P &Z hearing and for the December 14, 2010 P &Z hearing all clearly state that the request for a parking waiver is to be determined pursuant to the criteria for special review pursuant to Code § 26.515.040.A. ,, „ While the parking plan had been amended, the Application was not amended in regard to the request for special review approval prior to the hearing. P247 ✓ Chris Bendon, Director City of Aspen Community Development Department December 21, 2010 Page 2 The Code standards of review for a special review waiver of a parking requirement and PUD approval of parking are different. Compare §26.515.040A and §26.445.050B.3. In a procedural slight of hand, the standards of review and applicable sections of the Code were changed at the December 14, 2010 hearing. City Staff announced at the hearing that instead of the special review criteria as discussed at the prior hearing and in all of the documentation associated with the file, the P &Z was to consider the parking waiver under the PUD provisions of the Code instead of the special review provisions of the Code. At the hearing, it was apparent that some members of the P &Z and public were confused and did not understand what was being considered. It was an abuse of discretion and in excess of the jurisdiction of the P &Z to approve the Resolution in the absence of procedural compliance with the City Code and upon standards that were not in compliance with the Special Review criteria. Enclosed is our appeal fee in the amount $735.00. If there is anything in addition to this Notice and Fee that is required in order to pursue this Appeal of these determinations or if you need additional information from me, please contact me. It is my understanding that the City will be responsible for publishing Notice of the Appeal hearing date. Sincerely, KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ti;�- Jo 4y . E. Edwards III cc: Steven & Cheryl Goldenberg Dan Verner John Staton \appeal p&z reso.doc _ P248 . L-71-1- LJ 1�� r - - FF CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Ben Gagnon, 429 -2755 DATE: 8/18/10 PROJECT: 500 W. Hopkins REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, Garfield & Hecht OWNER: Aspen FSP -ABR LLC c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North 4' Aspen 81611 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Growth Management, PUD Amendment, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, Housing Credits DESCRIPTION: The Applicant would like to change the use of the Boomerang Lodge from lodge/free market residential to affordable housing; converting existing approvals for 47 lodge units, five (5) free market units and two (2) affordable housing units to approximately 60 deed- restricted affordable housing units; and seeking al., housing credits. Applicant is also seeking Special Review for partial waiver of off-street ' °° t parking requirements. Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 1 26.515.040 Special Review for partial parking waiver* 26.470.070(4) Growth Management for Affordable Housing 26.310.020(B) Amendment to Zone District Map; Rezoning from R- 6/LP/PUD to RMF/PUD 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit 26.480.040(C) Subdivision 1 26.445.100(B) Amendment to PUD* 26.710.040 R -6 Zone District (R -6) 26.710.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) 26.710.090 Residential Multi- Family (RMF) *Note: Parking review by P&Z to be combined with Amendment to PUD review, per Chris Bendon. Amount of off - street parking will not be subject to final action of P &Z, but will be a recommendation to Council for final action. Applicant must meet criteria for Special Review for partial parking waiver, as well as parking criteria for PUD. ........ Review by: oa • Staff for completeness. • Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing for recommendation to Council on Amendment to PUD, Rezoning, Subdivision and Special P249 Review for partial waiver of off - street parking requirements; final action on Growth Management for Affordable Housing, and establishing Affordable Housing Credits. • City Council public hearing for final action on Amendment to PUD, Special Review for Parking, Rezoning and Subdivision Public Hearing: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board, pursuant to 26.540.040(C) + 26.470.070(4)a; Planning and Zoning Commission; City Council Referral Agency Fees: Housing: $410.00, Parks: $410.00 and Engineering: $410.00 Total Planning Deposit Due: $2,940 for 12 hrs. of Community Development staff time (additional hours are billed at a rate of $245 per hour) Total Deposit: $4,170.00 Total Number of Applications: 25 copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total deposit for review of the application. 2. Proof of ownership. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Completed Land Use Application, including materials required in Section 26.304.030(B) and 26.540.030. 5. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 6. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contacts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 7. An 8 ' /s" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. A site improvement survey performed by a licensed engineer. 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form describing ,how the proposed development complies with each of the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals. 11. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used (not required). 12. Site plan at 1" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed (not required). P E4evvc 250 ''° °' LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting a recommendation of approval of the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning] — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • • Amendment to the PUD — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the PUD. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision - making body. All of the above land use reviews are for P &Z to make findings and recommendations ,. to City Council for final action. All the land use reviews below are for the P &Z to make the final decision. Regarding parking, the Council will still have this issue before them for discussion, as the number of off -street spaces must be specified in the proposed PUD. • Growth Management: Affordable Housing — An application for Growth Management: Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use. Code Section 26.470.070(4), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Growth Management: Change in Use — An application for Growth Management: Change in Use, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(2), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Special Review for Off -Street Parking — An application for Special Review for Off -Street parking, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.040 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision- making body. However, the number of off -street parking • spaces is established in the PUD, and therefore subject to Council review. 2 P P,24 P251 the property from West Hopkins. The landscape plan approved by the Parks Department as part of the 2006 Boomerang Lodge approval would be carried forward, and would again be subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the and surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, p historical resources. • Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the close proximity to a major public transit corridor, its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. The remaining portion of the former Boomerang Lodge adjacent to 4 Street will remain as a designated historic landmark, with any future exterior changes subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. According to the land use code, a multi - family residential project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit, or 54 off -street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements fora Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)1 • With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 54 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 12 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street; • 8 parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins. The applicant can only achieve 54 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD showing an additional eight parallel parking spaces irr the right of way on West Hopkins as dedicated exclusively to the project. At this time, stag can only count 31 spaces in the garage, as approved in 2006 — and has yet to receive confirmation from the applicant and Building Department that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 12 head -in spaces in a 100- foot -long right of way on 4 Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) However, staff can't support the additional dedication of eight more spaces in the right of way on W. Hopkins for exclusive use of the housin g project. It is the general policy of the Engineering Department and the Parking Department not to dedicate public right of way for the exclusive use of adjacent property owners. Future applicants could claim any range of community benefits to obtain exclusive use to a right of way, and there is P252 P25 currently no process by which to evaluate what uses should rise above others in the use of public right of way. From staff's perspective, there is a deficit of eight (8) to ten (10) off - street parking spaces for this project, depending on whether the garage space can accommodate two more spaces. While staff has concerns about this deficit, they are significantly alleviated by the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." [Section 26.515.040A1.] In addition, the City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of eight parking spaces can be absorbed by on -street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Staff acknowledges that the parking deficit would have some impact on the neighborhood, and is a matter for the P &Z to discuss under the Special Review for Parking process, pursuant to Section 26.515.040 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of .,,* open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal is somewhat excessive compared to the surrounding area. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District, and should not use the PUD overlay for the purpose of exceeding that limit. The current proposal requests a 1.66:1 FAR, while staff believes the mass and scale would be more compatible with the neighborhood at the RMF Zone District limit of 1.5:1. This would reflect a reduction of 4,320 square feet, or 10 %, from the applicant's request. 3. The appropriate number of off- street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: • a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Finding: The land use code requires one off-street parking space for every new unit. If the square footage of the proposal is reduced, as suggested by staff, it would comply with the land use code requirement for off - street parking. Also, the fact that the Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Am% Bikeway; is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor; is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space; and is in close proximity to downtown mea4s there are a P253 P26 , number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The project is 100% residential. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor, is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space and the downtown area means there are a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. P254 P44 Exhibit G Special Review for Off -Site Parking Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off- street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff finding: With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 54 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 12 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street; • 8 parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins. The applicant can only achieve 54 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD showing an additional eight parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins as dedicated exclusively to the project. At this time, staff can only count 31 spaces in the garage, as approved in 2006 — and has yet to receive confirmation from the applicant and Building Department that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 12 head -in spaces in a 100- foot -long right of way on 4 Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) However, staff can't support the additional dedication of eight more spaces in the right of way on W. Hopkins for exclusive use of the housing project. It is the general policy of the Engineering Department and the Parking Department not to dedicate public right of way for the exclusive use of adjacent property owners. Future applicants could claim any range of community benefits to obtain exclusive use to a right of way, and there is currently no process by which to evaluate what uses should rise above others in the use of public right of way. From staffs perspective, there is a deficit of eight (8) to ten (10) off -street parking spaces ^+, for this project, depending on whether the garage space can accommodate two more spaces. While staff has concerns about this deficit, they are significantly alleviated by the P255 P45 adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff finding: An on -site parking solution has been substantially met. Head -in parking on West Hopkins is not a good option for this site, as backing out presents road safety issues for the pedestrian bikeway. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff finding: The City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of eight to ten parking spaces can be absorbed by on -street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of' street parking." W City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 .erni. Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, November 02, 2010 to order at 4:30pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance were John Worcester, City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Minutes The minutes of October 19 were postponed to the next meeting. Conflicts of Interest Mike Wampler stated he knew the applicant and his representative; we have not discussed this and it will not affect his judgment one way or another. Bert Myrin said that he didn't know if this was a conflict of interest but he and Jasmine reviewed this 2001. LJ Erspamer worked with Jody Edwards and Paul Taddune years ago but this will not affect his review of the project. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 W Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) — PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 500 W Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge — PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan spoke about the public hearing process; she would present the application and P &Z members could ask questions of staff and the applicant presentation followed by questions from the commissioners; public comments and back to the commission. Phelan said that the project was being proposed to contain 54 Affordable Housing Units and receive affordable housing credits as a result of the proposal. There are a number of land use approval that are required to entitle this project as proposed. Some are decided by the Planning & Zoning Commission while others receive final approval by City Council. Phelan will discuss fist the history of the property and basically how did we get to this hearing; 2 an overview of the request; 3 how the P &Z can evaluate the request; 4 key issues identified by staff associated with the proposal before the commission and concluding with a staff recommendation. Phelan said that public notice was provided in mailing, posting and publication in the newspaper. Phelan said that in 2006 City Council approved the redevelopment and expansion of the Boomerang Lodge. It approved 47 lodge units, 5 free market units and 2 affordable housing units on site. There were a total of 43 parking spaces associated with the approval; 31 underground, 12 surface parking spaces 2 Plannin & Zonin Meet — Minutes — November 02 2010 partially in the right of way along Fourth Street. The floor area ratio was 1.66 to 1 and equates to 44,820 square feet of floor area for the lodge development and it was approved as a 4 story building with varying heights in the high 30s. Phelan said the current proposal to use the exact same shell that was approved for the lodge development with regard to height, mass and size and redevelop the interior with 54 affordable housing units; a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units. Currently the applicant is proposing 33 underground parking spaces and 21 surface parking spaces that use public right of way to some extent: The applicant requested an amendment to the PUD; essentially there were 2 ways to look at this project; the mass and scale have been thoroughly vetted by past commissions and the city council and is appropriate for the neighborhood as approved. Another way to consider this application was to consider it a new application and both are valid and evaluate the mass and scale and use of the proposed application on its merits. Phelan said there was a number of reviews going to city council which were the rezoning of this property; currently it is zoned R -6 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay and a PUD for the site specific approval of the 2006 plan. The applicant is asking to rezone the property to residential multi- family and maintain the PUD Overlay on it and change the use to Multi- Family Residential. A PUD Amendment is also needed to change the entitlements to a completely residential development proposed. Subdivision is needed because of the development of multiple dwelling units on the site. Phelan said that P &Z has final review authority over growth management review for the affordable housing; growth management review with regard to a change of use because this is changing from a lodge use to a residential use and that's a change of use in the land use code and special review, which gets memorialized in the PUD for the off street parking requirements that are going to be established in this Planned Unit Development. Currently the parking requirement is one space per dwelling unit; the applicant was looking for a variation on that. The final review under P &Z is issuance of certificates of affordable housing; this was a new program passed by Council that says if a private developer wants to convert a project to all affordable housing, it can be done. Phelan said the Aspen Area Community Plan excused a number of review criteria to find compliance both in rezoning and PUD review criteria. The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan is evaluated with this application; it's not the draft that is out there because it has not been adopted by any board. The 2000 AACP's goal is located in a chapter on more affordable housing within the urban growth boundary 3 D258 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 and city limits, that the private sector should contribute to affordable housing and should be of high quality. Phelan said this application is asking that the variances that were granted to the Boomerang as a lodge be retained; keep the shell of the building and change the interior of it. Staff feels the dimensional variations granted to Boomerang as a Lodge should be weighed in light of the project being proposed as multi - residential and the multi -use fits within the character of the neighborhood but the height and floor area exceed those in the multi - family residential zone district. Staff is recommending the existing floor area associated with the lodge be reduced to the maximum permitted at 1.5 to 1 and would be 45,000 square feet and would take off approximately 10% of the size of the structure, essentially the 4 floor of the building. Staff does support the rezoning and change in use. Engineering has • asked for the traffic impact analysis. Staff would like to see floor plans for the livability of the units and to have the applicant work with the transportation department to strengthen the transportation demand management plan that they have provided. Staff recommends the application be remanded back to the applicant to make some adjustments and then come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mike Wampler asked if they go to the RMF Zoning you want them to adhere to the restrictions such as the 32 foot height and the 40,500 square foot. Phelan responded the floor area yes, the height taking off 10% would be the most natural place to take off part of the 4th floor. Bert Myrin asked if this would have been built as was approved and then the applicant was corning in to what's requested here, you would have an existing shell. Phelan said that this is hypothetical and we also have a site that has been partially demolished and the applicant is asking for the entitlements associated with a lodge to be converted to this affordable housing. John Worcester said you would be looking at the same approvals except you would have less flexibility because you would have a structure that was already there. LJ Erspamer asked what Jennifer meant by design and operational characteristics. Phelan replied as a PUD Amendment there were a number of review standards and some have to do with the design of the building and some of them have to do with height, mass and scale. Erspamer asked about the numbers for the traffic counts at peak season and peak time of day. 4 P259 City Planning & Zoninn Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs asked what the downsizing or rezoning that occurred in the 1970s was. Phelan replied RMF. Steve Stunda, applicant, said that Michael Hoffman, attorney, was distributing the revised parking plan and former parking plan (Exhibit N 4 pages). Steve Stunda said that he was the managing partner and has lived in Aspen since 1969; he said that he was sensitive to Aspen. Stunda said his partnership bought the lodge from Charlie and Fonda Paterson in June of 05 and went under contract in January and met with city officials that this was a viable prospect to develop. The process took one year involving numerous meetings with neighbors as well with city staff and worked within the rules and regulations that applied, never sought any kinds of changes or variances to it and after a year with lots of negotiation the building was finally approved in the manner in which it is currently existing. Stunda said they paid a million dollars in design fees to get it to that extent; the entitlements last through October of 12, the height, size and bulk were agreed upon and that's why he thought this use change would be rather Performa. Stunda said he didn't want to upset anyone and sent out letters to all the neighbors; knocked on doors to say the building will be as it was negotiated to be except for changes to the inside, which you are not going to see anyway. Stunda said the reason he is before P &Z now is because Community Development thought it was too big for an administrative decision. Stunda voluntary dedicated the East Wing to the historic preservation group so that people could always see a piece of old Aspen and he feels very strongly about that and in the process of developing the construction permit drawings the western portion of the lodge was demolished in April 2007. Since 2007 so many lenders left the industry and there are 12 lenders left and not one of them is interested in financing this project; the condo lodge is most impacted by the lenders because they don't know how to treat that category. Stunda said he would certainly revisit reducing the floor area by 10 %; it will be reflected in building size and the number of units and required parking. Stunda said that with respect to parking with the adjusted building size they will meet the 1 space per unit standards and conform to what staff says with the multi - family. Stunda spoke to Steve Goldenberg and some of the Christiana people and they have their feelings and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning move this onto City Council with the conditions as recommended by staff. Michael Hoffman stated he was the attorney representing the applicant, Aspen FSP -AVR LLC. Hoffman asked that the existing approvals be maintained with an expressed condition with the final approval by City Council; this request has no impact on your recommendations. John Worcester said that legally there was 5 AP211 "1,4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes – November 02, 2010 nothing wrong with conditioning approvals. Worcester said the applicant just wants to make sure that the original approvals don't go away. Hoffman said Exhibit A is the current proposed parking plan and shows 33 parking spaces with space #8 as handicapped. Exhibit B was the 2006 approved parking plan with 31 spaces. The reasons the new plan has 33 spaces because some of the mechanical for the building has been dissimilated to the units instead of a centralized system; so there are 45 spaces dedicated to the project. There were 4 more proposed.dedicated pull in spaces on Hopkins bringing the number of parking spaces up to 49. Hoffinan cited the letter from Jody Edwards that were complaints raised by a number of other parties who submitted letters. Hoffman said that there was discretion as to how many parking spaces were required. Stunda said that they do want to provide 1 space per unit dedicated. Hoffman said they have submitted a transportation demand management plan for reducing the demand for parking; there was a covenant in the condominium declaration for this project that would limit the number of cars to 1 per unit. Hoffman said APCHA made that a condition of their endorsement of the project. Hoffman said they would make a $20,000.00 contribution to the cars to go program to be used as they deem appropriate. Hoffman said they intend to promote public transportation, this property is only '/2 a block away from Main Street; they have a plan for bicycles with racks in the basement and intend to promote carpooling. Hoffman believed the Boomerang site represents a unique opportunity to the community for affordable housing; they are surprised and dismayed by the reaction of the neighbors to affordable housing use on this site. The building itself was approved by the city in 2006 and urged P &Z to vote to recommend this application because of the good it does for the community as a whole. LJ Erspamer asked if the mechanical was sub - grade. Stunda replied that it was. Erspamer asked if it was being moved to the rooftop now. Stunda responded the residential requirement was for the mechanical to be unit specific and that freed up the space in the lower level. Jasmine Tygre said the number of units was recommended by APCHA but the units are below the minimum size that's usually recommended because of the additional storage. Tygre asked if the applicant would be open to considering reducing the number of units and increasing the size of the units as part of an — approval process. Stunda said that was a difficult question for him to respond to 6 1 Ci Plannin & Zonin Meetin — Minutes — November 02 2010 just yes or no because the key driving component of this project as a private developer providing the housing is in the FTE equivalents and they are mandated by unit type. Bert Myrin asked how P &Z was supposed to make a decision tonight without knowing the unavailable numbers on units, traffic study and so on. Hoffman replied they ask P &Z to identify those things that you need and condition your recommendation of approval to Council of receipt of those. Stunda said they could give rough out lines. Myrin said that the 2000 AACP says that visitors demanding a variety of choices for accommodations including small lodges; how does converting this from a small lodge to something else fit with that direction. Stunda replied it doesn't, we tried for 3 years to get this thing going and did not succeed. Public Comments: 1. Dick Carter stated that he owned unit A204 at Christina and they knew someday something would happen at the Boomerang. The Boomerang redevelopment was approved to go up 4 stories to provide more bed space for this town; the purpose was not to provide 4 stories of affordable housing. The single most important reason for objecting to this is the ordinance passed by the City to allow a major zoning variance in this residential community was to get more bed spaces, to get more tourists and spend more to increase the tax base for the city, affordable housing doesn't do that. Yes it does satisfy an important need. Carter thought that this project would have an adverse value of surrounding properties. 2. Jody Edwards said he represented Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Vernor and John State. Edwards said the applicant would have you believe that the 2010 AACP was not relevant and only the 2000 AACP was relevant. Edwards said a PUD was a negotiated with the city and there is no entitlement to any PUD and it was totally discretionary with the city whether or not it grants approval therefore P &Z is charged with determining whether or not the offered community benefits and resulting community impacts justify the variances being requested. Edwards said the 2010 AACP reflects the community's current thinking; 2000 AACP was at a different economy. There is no doubt affordable housing is a community benefit but you need to consider at what cost. The 2010 AACP states clearly on page2 that our resort economy is the only sustainable economy that we have and needs to be protected; the community cannot afford to lose its lodging inventory especially moderately priced lodging inventory. Edwards said the proposal in front of you is directly contrary to an unambiguous goal policy and action item in the 2010 AACP. Edwards referred to page 44 of the packet with 7 P242 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 .01411/4 regard to parking with the 2nd criteria to consider if an on street off street parking solution is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario; this is a perfectly flat lot and the developer can put the parking on the lot instead of on street by making the building smaller. Edwards asked P &Z to deny the application. 3. John Olson stated that he was a contractor in town. Olson said he looked at the project and it could be done with the change of the inside of this building. Olson said from a personal perspective this project was 10 times in the best interest of this city and way better than Burlingame in terms of per unit no matter how you look at it. 4. Rustin Gudin stated he was the chairman of APCHA and Mr. Stunda came before APCHA and took the recommendations to heart. Gudin said that reducing the size 10% was great that Steve was willing to do that but he was not; it has already gone through the process. Gudin said the people living there would be paying property taxes, shopping in town and adding to the economy, maybe not the same way the tourists would be but certainly adding to the economy. Gudin said there would probably be some headaches with the parking and APCHA suggested one car per unit. Gudin said the people actually living there as employees are going to care a lot — more with what is actually going on as far as the traffic because it is their neighborhood as well. 5. Doug Allen said that there is a serious parking problem in the West end now and is supposed to be primarily low density residential; the parking problem is the biggest problem. Allen said that with the improvements to Main Street the parking was taken away. There are already 2 nice employee housing units one on 7 and Main and one behind this project. Allen said it needs to be what it was approved as or not built. 6. Ron Erickson stated that he serves on the APCHA Board and they approved this unanimously and the key is the unit size, the categories do reflect the highest need in the city; they are small units, studios, one bedroom and two bedrooms and nothing over category 4. Erickson said that he was a neighbor and lives behind them and is all in favor of this project and would build 60 units if he could and doesn't think that there is a parking problem. Erickson said for a housing project this is a terrific gift to the community. 7. Charles Cunniffe said it was a rare opportunity for this kind of housing being built in the core of town and this shouldn't be missed. Cunniffe said that a 10% reduction was not valid on this either and you have the art museum that was approved without protest and this project serves the community far more than that does and he has to protest. Cunniffee said this project should — be embraced because it is what the community desperately needs. 8 Ci Plannin & Zon Meetin — Minutes — November 02 2010 8. Torn McCabe said he was director of the housing authority and made a comment about the Aspen Area Community Plan like the Bible it says many things and contradicts those things many pages later. McCabe said the rational for the urban growth boundary concept is the city agrees to accept greater density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation of important open spaces in outlying areas and key parcels in the city. McCabe said this project presents a good opportunity when essentially nothing is happening and we have a good applicant that has talked to them about what makes a project better and work more for the tenants. 9. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she lived next door and was not against affordable housing if it fit in gently it would be fine and the Christiana was one of the densest buildings in the neighborhood but wasn't used very much so it doesn't create a lot of traffic. A nice amount of employee housing would be 34 units and then you could put parking on the property too and they could have 34 spaces in the garage and the units could be bigger and nicer for people to live in. Goldenberg was worried because after 3 years she is still looking at the hole where the Boomerang was torn down and not replaced with anything and there were buildings not completed all over town. 10.John Batey said he was the attorney for the Scott family and speaking personally he thought that this was just bad planning. Batey said the parking was a symptom of the increased density of this building; it is misleading that the outside shell is not changing because you are going from a property that is being used maybe 50% or 60% a year of maybe half of those would maybe be driving cars so it is a much more dense use of the neighborhood. Batey said the Jewish Center was around the corner and had no parking included in their development. Batey said that this project should not be approved or approved with much lower density. 11.Paul Taddune said that he was an attorney and was here on behalf of himself as an owner of 323 W Main St and on behalf of the Christiana Lodge that would be impacted by this project. Taddune said the Planning & Zoning Commission should rely on neutral principals not look at whether or not some developer tore down a building that is now in financial distress. The 2010 Community Plan recognizes that lodges should be preserved so here we have 54 units that are going to go out the window that are desperately needed in the community. 12.Steve Goldenberg said when the Boomerang wanted to expand when Charlie owned it we were against it and there was no underground parking in that plan. Goldenberg said after many meetings Charlie said that he was going to build the underground parking and we became supporters. Goldenberg said 9 ons P 241 —_. City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 As% that there were at least half the cars with a lodge. Goldenberg said he was interested in making sure that the place was livable. Goldenberg said it wasn't so much the FAR but the number of people; the standard should be 1 to I FAR. Goldenberg said this was a low density neighborhood. 13.Angela Young said she supports what Steve has said in opposition, this change of use request deserves a critical analysis and examination before you make the final consideration. 14.Rick Head said he was chairman of the board of adjustment and said he was fortunate enough to live in affordable housing for the last 16 years and if this doesn't get approved there's roughly 50 people that won't have the opportunity to have housing. Head hoped that P &Z would look favorably on this application. 15.Scott Stewart said he lived in the Scott Building and there were 5 units. Stewart agreed with reducing the density. Stewart said that he 1previpously ived in a very small unit in the Glory Hole and it was very uncomfortable. Stewart said that in the Scott Condo they have over 1400 square feet and it is very comfortable. Stewart said their area was definitely a family orientated area and they hope to maintain that. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment section of the public hearing. Erspamer asked if there was a difference in height for a lodge as opposed to multi- family. Phelan said for the RMF Zone the height is 32 feet. Phelan said what was approved was 37 feet 6 inches as a lodge. Michael Hoffman said it was pretty clear that the neighbors were upset about the proposed density and staff has said that a l0% reduction will address those concerns. Hoffman asked that P &Z give serious consideration to the staff recommendation. Jasmine Tygre said that one of the concerns for P &Z generally was the importance of preservation of lodge units, particularly smaller less expensive lodge units. Tygre said there were some flaws in the lodge program that we have had for a long time and one of the problems with lodges in residential neighborhoods was that they were either non - conforming in terms of density, in terms of size and in terms of usage and there always have been problems trying to preserve them. Tygre said one of the thing that was the incentive was allowing larger dimensions and that hasn't worked and the neighbors said that a lodge would be lower density and that .� was the opposite of what we want. Tygre said they wanted hotbeds and a lot of traffic and a lot of density in our lodges and yet everybody knows that's not 10 Ci Plannin & Loftin Meetin — Minutes — November 02 2010 happening in areas that are not really lodge areas. Tygre said this is a larger concern for P &Z which doesn't affect this project except for the fact that she never liked the dimensions of the lodge to begin with; she didn't think it was compatible with the neighborhood and she was please that the applicant was willing to do a 10% reduction in FAR. Tygre said that if you want to rezone this property to RMF use then use the RMF dimensions that means height as well as FAR; she thought that would be a good argument for saying that would be an appropriate use. Tygre that the said the dimensions for RMF should apply to this that project a d I think of the applicant has indicated his willingness to do this; density problems and she would like to make a suggestion because she understands APCHA's willingness to accept smaller units said category o and i t ts e units; should be at least the minimum size. Tygre people don't live in e stated you need to have units that people will be able to live in comfortably. reduce e the by reducing the density you will reduce the need for parking and concern of the neighborhood if we have a really nice affordable housing project. Tygre said they did not have to see detailed pictures but would like to see numbers if you created x number of units of the minimum size would that be workable and what would the overall number of units and parking spaces. Erspamer thanked everybody for being so civil; he was reluctant to vote on this tonight because he didn't want to vote on something that's going to be determined later. Erspamer voiced concern over the shuttle on demand because it would mean more trips; say if someone wants to go to the Aspen Club it would be 2 trips there and 2 trips back instead of 1. Erspamer said that the applicant has done a great job with this application especially compromising. Erspamer said that if this would come back within the dimensions that are required for that zone. Erspamer said he doesn't agree with looking at the 2010 AACP; our criteria concerns the 2000 AACP which says the housing policy should emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community not just units. Erspamer disagreed that if you take away parking people won't drive cars; however it just doesn't work in reality; in his neighborhood they built a development and reduced the parking so everybody parks in front of their neighbors houses now and they never had a parking problem before. Erspamer said he was not in favor of dedicated public parking spaces to private projects even with employee housing. Erspamer suggested continuing this to the next meeting. Phelan said a week to have the applicant come back and for staff to write a memo on any changes would be difficult and the meeting could be December 14 Erspamer said that he agreed with what Jasmine said. Mike Wampler said that he lives in employee housing his entire time and he was a proponent of employee housing and he could support this proposal and keep an open mind to go 10% back. 11 els PPCC ° - - City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 »+� Bert Myrin said that we were not building new small lodges; he noted in the 2000 AACP it stated not converting lodges into non -lodge use. Myrin agreed with Jasmine on using the residential standards for height and FAR. Myrin said the outside should look like the neighborhood. Myrin wanted clarity on the shuttle and in perpetuity for the shuttle. Myrin said that he would like to see the livability of the units. Myrin said that he was not taking into account was the financing because it wasn't relevant nor was the property value of a neighbor; what is relevant was the livability of the units and the livability of the neighborhood. Myrin said tonight he could not support this. Stan Gibbs said rather than repeat all the things the commissioners said and Jasmine in particular stated how he sees this project. Gibbs said he had a hard time keeping the shell as it was defined for a lodge and basically assuming that if you fill it in with a different use it that it doesn't have different impacts on the neighborhood. Gibbs said he understood the constraints that Steve was under but this project needs a better refinement along the lines of a 10% cut back or as a housing development as opposed to a lodge it feels too large; he was not on P &Z when the project originally came up; at the time he would have probably voted against it because it seems very large even with all of the incentives of a lodge. Gibbs said that he was a firm proponent of affordable housing and was excited about the affordable housing credit program and there have been a couple other projects have come through and it's a huge benefit to the community. Gibbs said in its current configuration; he felt it was their responsibility as a board to know what they were voting on and would like to see it continued for a couple of weeks and get a better definition of the proposal. Gibbs said that they could integrate the comments made by both the public and the commissioners; so we get a real sense of what we are voting on. Gibbs said the zoning change makes sense in this neighborhood with other affordable housing and multi - family and residences but to support the size of this project with this proposed. Wampler reminded the board that Jennifer said that P &Z had 4 items: growth management on rezoning; growth management review on change of use; special review for off - street parking and the issue of certificate of affordable housing; we need to get back on these 4 items. Gibbs responded that he heard what Mike was saying but they still have to make recommendations of the others. Gibbs said they could make recommendations that would reflect the consensus and send that off but Stan said that he would feel better with a better sense of what they were really recommending. 12 Ci Plannin & 7onin Meetin — Minutes — November 02 2010 Jasmine proposed a modified motion to start with the planning staff s recommendation with seeing a little more detail but didn't want the applicant to have to do a full detail of drawings but for the applicant to come back to P &Z with the adjustment of the floor area to 1.5 to 1 with reduction of height to that applicable in the RFM Zone without a full set of elevations but to reduce the density by increasing the size of the units and giving some idea of how that would look in rough sketches rather than full elevations. Tygre noted it was a big building and would have a big impact on the neighborhood and anybody who walks by but avoiding a full architectural rendering. Jennifer Phelan said there would be reduction in the height and massing with some reduction of square footage. Tygre said she didn't have to see the units on a floor plan but a chart would be a reasonable way for the applicant to proceed; she couldn't pass this onto Council and suggested this as a reasonable compromise. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to see a little more detail as stated above with rough sketches and a chart and reducing the height, mass and scale with a 1.5 to 1 floor area; the number of units reduced and increasing the size of the units and include the number of parking spaces and continue to December 14, 2010. Seconded by Bert Myrin with 4 in favor; 1 opposed (Wampler). Approved 4 -1. Discussion prior to the vote: LJ Erspamer requested the number of units. Jasmine Tygre said the size. Erspamer said also the parking spaces and height. Myrin said the Benedict Commons property is less surface area than this, yet is has 58 spaces below grade. Stunda replied that he couldn't do it because of the existing historic part dedicated to the street along West Hopkins. Stunda s said he thought parking would be parking o n least of these issues. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes; Bert Myrin seconded Approved. Continued discussion prior to the vote: Myrin stated that P &Z was not binding them to. Tygre responded that was not what the motion was what the motion said and she thought that there would be a difference of opinion about what's acceptable and what's not among the different members. Erspamer asked about the subsidy for the units in the building. Worcester answered some time. Erspamer s asked if he Stunda ould got the City Com Dev t discussing ask what 13 riN r260 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 would take. Worcester said that they have had discussions and he doesn't know where they have gone. Gibbs said that he agreed with Jasmine's motion; a little more information, a little bit more refinement would be helpful to him. Gibbs said it would go a long way toward getting support from the neighborhood. Gibbs said that for example just show the historical designated parking that was associated with the Boomerang Lodge and that's the extent of the on street parking he could get behind that but he thought the most important thing was to feel that some of the impacts have been addressed and some reductions have been made and at least give a sense of the impact of the neighborhood. Stunda replied that he said that at the onset; he said he wanted to be recognized that he spent a lot of money to develop an approved building and it's just been dismissed on a hand. Gibbs said the point from P &Z's respect is the change in use is not transparent and not just a simple "we will put different things in it" and that is a big difference. Stunda said he heard that loud and clear. Myrin asked the when it comes back that there was some support from the neighborhood and it was not the largest most dense project. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. ki (Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14 7`1s1`t P269 is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Street Bike and Pedestrian way. The Boomerang is also one block from a major public transit corridor on West Main Street. The proposal is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable — houstng.' (Housing Goal E_pg ___ —. ___ __ _._ —. - - - - -- • "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) compatible with the However, and character regard the AACP goal that scale of the proposal scale and character of the community • • • ", taff finds the mass and as amended for the Decemeber 12 hearing is more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed 1.5:1 FAR would be more in keeping with the FARs found in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. While there are properties in this neighborhood with FARs ranging between .7:1 and 1.5:1, able sere.are none larger than 1.5:1, and no structures with a fourth floor of any app 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. - Staff Finding: The proposed development is compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area. The Shadow Mountain neighborhood includes a mix of affordable housing, lodging and multi - family residential uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. P270 a P28 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: There are no annual Growth Management allotments necessary for affordable housing units. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the amended mass and scale of the proposal be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District as currently proposed by the applicant. b) Natural or man - made hazards. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and Iandforms. Staff Finding: This property has no significant natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways. There is significant vegetation in the form of mature trees that screen the property from West Hopkins. The landscape plan approved by the Parks Department as part of the 2006 Boomerang Lodge approval would be carried forward, and would again be subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation ^* due to the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the close proximity to a major public transit corridor, its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. The P271 P29 remaining portion of the former Boomerang Lodge adjacent to 4 Street will remain as a designated historic landmark, with any future exterior changes subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. According to the land use code, a multi - family residential project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off -street parking space per unit, or 46 off -street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as mart - of establishing - dimensional requirements fora Final PIJD — Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C) With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street via an encroachment license. The spaces can be accommodated ed parking sub-grade, and if Council ultimately application approves 33 a PUD. From staff's perspective, with the maintenance of the encroachment licenses, the tional applicant can meet the 1:1 requirement. The parking department Special ttat addi for parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood, pursuant Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Additionally, the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bike to ry Rev Midland for Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant Special Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." (Section 26.515.040A1.] provides a basis for permitting a requirement of only 33 spaces if the encroachment license is not maintained. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal compatible to the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing an allowable FAR that is established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District. 3. The appropriate number of off- street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. P272 P30 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 would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street via an encroachment license. The applicant can achieve 47 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD. From staff' s perspective, with the maintenance of the encroachment licenses, the applicant can meet the 1:1 requirement. The parking department noted that additional parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Additionally, the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." [Section 26.515.040A1.] provides a basis for permitting a requirement of only 33 spaces if the encroachment license is not maintained. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The project is 100% residential. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor, is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space and the downtown area means there are a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 0, P273 8 Exhibit G Special Review for Off -Site Parking Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on oon4ormance- with- thefollow -in criteria' 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff' finding: With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street; The applicant can achieve 47 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD permitting the continued use of the encroachment licenses as dedicated exclusively to the project. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 13 head -in spaces in a 100- foot -long right of way on 4 Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) If the encroachment licenses is not maintained, the deficit of parking (13 spaces) From can be absorbed by the neighborhood on- street parking. Any concerns about a deficit are significantly alleviated by the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff finding: An on - site parking solution has been substantially met. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. P274 `° P49 Staff finding: The City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of parking spaces can be absorbed by on- street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." v P275 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Comments 2 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 500 W Hopkins Ave PUD Amendment (Boomerang) c�►ihi� F tom. w irtivv, 1 e P276 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, November 02, 2010 to order at 4:30pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance were John Worcester, City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Minutes The minutes of October 10 were postponed to the next meeting. Conflicts of Interest Mike Wampler stated he knew the applicant and his representative; we have not discussed this and it will not affect his judgment one way or another. Bert Myrin said that he didn't know if this was a conflict of interest but he and Jasmine reviewed this 2001. LJ Erspamer worked with Jody Edwards and Paul Taddune years ago but this will not affect his review of the project. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 W Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) — PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 500 W Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge — PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan spoke about the public hearing process; she would present the application and P &Z members could ask questions of staff and the applicant presentation followed by questions from the commissioners; public comments and back to the commission. Phelan said that the project was being proposed to contain 54 Affordable Housing Units and receive affordable housing credits as a result of the proposal. There are a number of land use approval that are required to entitle this project as proposed. Some are decided by the Planning & Zoning Commission while others receive final approval by City Council. Phelan will discuss fist the history of the property and basically how did we get to this hearing; 2 an overview of the request; 3 how the P &Z can evaluate the request; 4 key issues identified by staff associated with the proposal before the commission and concluding with a staff recommendation. Phelan said that public notice was provided in mailing, posting and publication in the newspaper. Phelan said that in 2006 City Council approved the redevelopment and expansion of the Boomerang Lodge. It approved 47 lodge units, 5 free market units and 2 affordable housing units on site. There were a total of 43 parking spaces associated with the approval; 31 underground, 12 surface parking spaces 2 r^^ P277 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 partially in the right of way along Fourth Street. The floor area ratio was 1.66 to 1 and equates to 44,820 square feet of floor area for the lodge development and it was approved as a 4 story building with varying heights in the high 30s. Phelan said the current proposal to use the exact same shell that was approved for the lodge development with regard to height, mass and size and redevelop the interior with 54 affordable housing units; a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units. Currently the applicant is proposing 33 underground parking spaces and 21 surface parking spaces that use public right of way to some extent. The applicant requested an amendment to the PUD; essentially there were 2 ways to look at this project; the mass and scale have been thoroughly vetted by past commissions and the city council and is appropriate for the neighborhood as approved. Another way to consider this application was to consider it a new application and both are valid and evaluate the mass and scale and use of the proposed application on its merits. Phelan said there was a number of reviews going to city council which were the rezoning of this property; currently it is zoned R -6 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay and a PUD for the site specific approval of the 2006 plan. The applicant is asking to rezone the property to residential multi - family and maintain the PUD Overlay on it and change the use to Multi- Family Residential. A PUD Amendment is also needed to change the entitlements to a completely residential development proposed. Subdivision is needed because of the development of multiple dwelling units on the site. Phelan said that P &Z has final review authority over growth management review for the affordable housing; growth management review with regard to a change of use because this is changing from a lodge use to a residential use and that's a change of use in the land use code and special review, which gets memorialized in the PUD for the off street parking requirements that are going to be established in this Planned Unit Development. Currently the parking requirement is one space per dwelling unit; the applicant was looking for a variation on that. The final review under P &Z is issuance of certificates of affordable housing; this was a new program passed by Council that says if a private developer wants to convert a project to all affordable housing, it can be done. Phelan said the Aspen Area Community Plan excused a number of review criteria to find compliance both in rezoning and PUD review criteria. The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan is evaluated with this application; it's not the draft that is out there because it has not been adopted by any board. The 2000 AACP's goal is located in a chapter on more affordable housing within the urban growth boundary 3 P278 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 and city limits, that the private sector should contribute to affordable housing and should be of high quality. Phelan said this application is asking that the variances that were granted to the Boomerang as a lodge be retained; keep the shell of the building and change the interior of it. Staff feels the dimensional variations granted to Boomerang as a Lodge should be weighed in light of the project being proposed as multi - residential and the multi -use fits within the character of the neighborhood but the height and floor area exceed those in the multi - family residential zone district. Staff is recommending the existing floor area associated with the lodge be reduced to the maximum permitted at 1.5 to 1 and would be 45,000 square feet and would take off approximately 10% of the size of the structure, essentially the 4 floor of the building. Staff does support the rezoning and change in use. Engineering has asked for the traffic impact analysis. Staff would like to see floor plans for the livability of the units and to have the applicant work with the transportation department to strengthen the transportation demand management plan that they have provided. Staff recommends the application be remanded back to the applicant to make some adjustments and then come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. �"*^ Mike Wampler asked if they go to the RMF Zoning you want them to adhere to the restrictions such as the 32 foot height and the 40,500 square foot. Phelan responded the floor area yes, the height taking off 10% would be the most natural place to take off part of the 4 floor. Bert Myrin asked if this would have been built as was approved and then the applicant was coming in to what's requested here, you would have an existing shell. Phelan said that this is hypothetical and we also have a site that has been partially demolished and the applicant is asking for the entitlements associated with a lodge to be converted to this affordable housing. John Worcester said you would be looking at the same approvals except you would have less flexibility because you would have a structure that was already there. LJ Erspamer asked what Jennifer meant by design and operational characteristics. Phelan replied as a PUD Amendment there were a number of review standards and some have to do with the design of the building and some of them have to do with height, mass and scale. Erspamer asked about the numbers for the traffic counts at peak season and peak time of day. "^ 4 P279 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs asked what the downsizing or rezoning that occurred in the 1970s was. Phelan replied RMF. Steve Stunda, applicant, said that Michael Hoffman, attorney, was distributing the revised parking plan and former parking plan (Exhibit N 4 pages). Steve Stunda said that he was the managing partner and has lived in Aspen since 1969; he said that he was sensitive to Aspen. Stunda said his partnership bought the lodge from Charlie and Fonda Paterson in June of 05 and went under contract in January and met with city officials that this was a viable prospect to develop. The process took one year involving numerous meetings with neighbors as well with city staff and worked within the rules and regulations that applied, never sought any kinds of changes or variances to it and after a year with lots of negotiation the building was finally approved in the manner in which it is currently existing. Stunda said they paid a million dollars in design fees to get it to that extent; the entitlements last through October of 12, the height, size and bulk were agreed upon and that's why he thought this use change would be rather Performa. Stunda said he didn't want to upset anyone and sent out letters to all the neighbors; knocked on doors to say the building will be as it was negotiated to be except for changes to the inside, which you are not going to see anyway. Stunda said the reason he is before P &Z now is because Community Development thought it was too big for an administrative decision. Stunda voluntary dedicated the East Wing to the historic preservation group so that people could always see a piece of old Aspen and he feels very strongly about that and in the process of developing the construction permit drawings the western portion of the lodge was demolished in April 2007. Since 2007 so many lenders left the industry and there are 12 lenders left and not one of them is interested in financing this project; the condo lodge is most impacted by the lenders because they don't know how to treat that category. Stunda said he would certainly revisit reducing the floor area by 10 %; it will be reflected in building size and the number of units and required parking. Stunda said that with respect to parking with the adjusted building size they will meet the 1 space per unit standards and conform to what staff says with the multi - family. Stunda spoke to Steve Goldenberg and some of the Christiana people and they have their feelings and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning move this onto City Council with the conditions as recommended by staff. Michael Hoffman stated he was the attorney representing the applicant, Aspen FSP -AVR LLC. Hoffman asked that the existing approvals be maintained with an expressed condition with the final approval by City Council; this request has no impact on your recommendations. John Worcester said that legally there was 5 P280 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 nothing wrong with conditioning approvals. Worcester said the applicant just wants to make sure that the original approvals don't go away. Hoffinan said Exhibit A is the current proposed parking plan and shows 33 parking spaces with space #8 as handicapped. Exhibit B was the 2006 approved parking plan with 31 spaces. The reasons the new plan has 33 spaces because some of the mechanical for the building has been dissimilated to the units instead of a centralized system; so there are 45 spaces dedicated to the project. There were 4 more proposed dedicated pull in spaces on Hopkins bringing the number of parking spaces up to 49. Hoffman cited the letter from Jody Edwards that were complaints raised by a number of other parties who submitted letters. Hoffinan said that there was discretion as to how many parking spaces were required. Stunda said that they do want to provide 1 space per unit dedicated. Hoffman said they have submitted a transportation demand management plan for reducing the demand for parking; there was a covenant in the condominium declaration for this project that would limit the number of cars to 1 per unit. Hoffman said APCHA made that a condition of their endorsement of the project. Hoffman said they would make a ,a,,, $20,000.00 contribution to the cars to go program to be used as they deem appropriate. Hoffman said they intend to promote public transportation, this property is only 1/2 a block away from Main Street; they have a plan for bicycles with racks in the basement and intend to promote carpooling. Hoffman believed the Boomerang site represents a unique opportunity to the community for affordable housing; they are surprised and dismayed by the reaction of the neighbors to affordable housing use on this site. The building itself was approved by the city in 2006 and urged P &Z to vote to recommend this application because of the good it does for the community as a whole. LJ Erspamer asked if the mechanical was sub - grade. Stunda replied that it was. Erspamer asked if it was being moved to the rooftop now. Stunda responded the residential requirement was for the mechanical to be unit specific and that freed up the space in the lower level. Jasmine Tygre said the number of units was recommended by APCHA but the units are below the minimum size, that's usually recommended because of the additional storage. Tygre asked if the applicant would be open to considering reducing the number of units and increasing the size of the units as part of an approval process. Stunda said that was a difficult question for him to respond to 6 c P281 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 just yes or no because the key driving component of this project as a private developer providing the housing is in the FTE equivalents and they are mandated by unit type. Bert Myrin asked how P &Z was supposed to make a decision tonight without knowing the unavailable numbers on units, traffic study and so on. Hoffman replied they ask P &Z to identify those things that you need and condition your recommendation of approval to Council of receipt of those. Stunda said they could give rough out lines. Myrin said that the 2000 AACP says that visitors demanding a variety of choices for accommodations including small lodges; how does converting this from a small lodge to something else fit with that direction. Stunda replied it doesn't, we tried for 3 years to get this thing going and did not succeed. Public Comments: 1. Dick Carter stated that he owned unit A204 at Christina and they knew someday something would happen at the Boomerang. The Boomerang redevelopment was approved to go up 4 stories to provide more bed space for this town; the purpose was not to provide 4 stories of affordable housing. The single most important reason for objecting to this is the ordinance passed by the City to allow a major zoning variance in this residential community was to get more bed spaces, to get more tourists and spend more to increase the tax base for the city, affordable housing doesn't do that. Yes it does satisfy an important need. Carter thought that this project would have an adverse value of surrounding properties. 2. Jody Edwards said he represented Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Vemor and John State. Edwards said the applicant would have you believe that the 2010 AACP was not relevant and only the 2000 AACP was relevant. Edwards said a PUD was a negotiated with the city and there is no entitlement to any PUD and it was totally discretionary with the city whether or not it grants approval therefore P &Z is charged with determining whether or not the offered community benefits and resulting community impacts justify the variances being requested. Edwards said the 2010 AACP reflects the community's current thinking; 2000 AACP was at a different economy. There is no doubt affordable housing is a community benefit but you need to consider at what cost. The 2010 AACP states clearly on page2 that our resort economy is the only sustainable economy that we have and needs to be protected; the community cannot afford to lose its lodging inventory especially moderately priced lodging inventory. Edwards said the proposal in front of you is directly contrary to an unambiguous goal policy and action item in the 2010 AACP. Edwards referred to page 44 of the packet with 7 P282 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 regard to parking with the 2 criteria to consider if an on street off street parking solution is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario; this is a perfectly flat lot and the developer can put the parking on the lot instead of on street by making the building smaller. Edwards asked P &Z to deny the application. 3. John Olson stated that he was a contractor in town. Olson said he looked at the project and it could be done with the change of the inside of this building. Olson said from a personal perspective this project was 10 times in the best interest of this city and way better than Burlingame in terms of per unit no matter how you look at it. 4. Rustin Gudin stated he was the chairman of APCHA and Mr. Stunda came before APCHA and took the recommendations to heart. Gudin said that reducing the size 10% was great that Steve was willing to do that but he was not; it has already gone through the process. Gudin said the people living there would be paying property taxes, shopping in town and adding to the economy, maybe not the same way the tourists would be but certainly adding to the economy. Gudin said there would probably be some headaches with the parking and APCHA suggested one car per unit. Gudin said the people actually living there as employees are going to care a lot more with what is actually going on as far as the traffic because it is their neighborhood as well. 5. Doug Allen said that there is a serious parking problem in the West end now and is supposed to be primarily low density residential; the parking problem is the biggest problem. Allen said that with the improvements to Main Street the parking was taken away. There are already 2 nice employee housing units one on 7 and Main and one behind this project. Allen said it needs to be what it was approved as or not built. 6. Ron Erickson stated that he serves on the APCHA Board and they approved this unanimously and the key is the unit size, the categories do reflect the highest need in the city; they are small units, studios, one bedroom and two bedrooms and nothing over category 4. Erickson said that he was a neighbor and lives behind them and is all in favor of this project and would build 60 units if he could and doesn't think that there is a parking problem. Erickson said for a housing project this is a terrific gift to the community. 7. Charles Cunniffe said it was a rare opportunity for this kind of housing being built in the core of town and this shouldn't be missed. Cunniffe said that a 10% reduction was not valid on this either and you have the art museum that was approved without protest and this project serves the community far more than that does and he has to protest. Cunniffee said this project should be embraced because it is what the community desperately needs. 8 c P283 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 8. Tom McCabe said he was director of the housing authority and made a comment about the Aspen Area Community Plan like the Bible it says many things and contradicts those things many pages later. McCabe said the rational for the urban growth boundary concept is the city agrees to accept greater density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation of important open spaces in outlying areas and key parcels in the city. McCabe said this project presents a good opportunity when essentially nothing is happening and we have a good applicant that has talked to them about what makes a project better and work more for the tenants. 9. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she lived next door and was not against affordable housing if it fit in gently it would be fine and the Christiana was one of the densest buildings in the neighborhood but wasn't used very much so it doesn't create a lot of traffic. A nice amount of employee housing would be 34 units and then you could put parking on the property too and they could have 34 spaces in the garage and the units could be bigger and nicer for people to live in. Goldenberg was worried because after 3 years she is still looking at the hole where the Boomerang was tom down and not replaced with anything and there were buildings not completed all over town. 10.John Batey said he was the attorney for the Scott family and speaking personally he thought that this was just bad planning. Batey said the parking was a symptom of the increased density of this building; it is misleading that the outside shell is not changing because you are going from a property that is being used maybe 50% or 60% a year of maybe half of those would maybe be driving cars so it is a much more dense use of the neighborhood. Batey said the Jewish Center was around the corner and had no parking included in their development. Batey said that this project should not be approved or approved with much lower density. 11.Paul Taddune said that he was an attorney and was here on behalf of himself as an owner of 323 W Main St and on behalf of the Christiana Lodge that would be impacted by this project. Taddune said the Planning & Zoning Commission should rely on neutral principals not look at whether or not some developer tore down a building that is now in financial distress. The 2010 Community Plan recognizes that lodges should be preserved so here we have 54 units that are going to go out the window that are desperately needed in the community. 12.Steve Goldenberg said when the Boomerang wanted to expand when Charlie owned it we were against it and there was no underground parking in that plan. Goldenberg said after many meetings Charlie said that he was going to build the underground parking and we became supporters. Goldenberg said 9 P284 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 that there were at least half the cars with a lodge. Goldenberg said he was interested in making sure that the place was livable. Goldenberg said it wasn't so much the FAR but the number of people; the standard should be 1 to 1 FAR. Goldenberg said this was a low density neighborhood. 13.Angela Young said she supports what Steve has said in opposition, this change of use request deserves a critical analysis and examination before you make the final consideration. 14.Rick Head said he was chairman of the board of adjustment and said he was fortunate enough to live in affordable housing for the last 16 years and if this doesn't get approved there's roughly 50 people that won't have the opportunity to have housing. Head hoped that P &Z would look favorably on this application. 15. Scott Stewart said he lived in the Scott Building and there were 5 units. Stewart agreed with reducing the density. Stewart said that he 1previpously ived in a very small unit in the Glory Hole and it was very uncomfortable. Stewart said that in the Scott Condo they have over 1400 square feet and it is very comfortable. Stewart said their area was definitely a family orientated area and they hope to maintain that. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment section of the public hearing. Erspamer asked if there was a difference in height for a lodge as opposed to multi- family. Phelan said for the RMF Zone the height is 32 feet. Phelan said what was approved was 37 feet 6 inches as a lodge. Michael Hoffinan said it was pretty clear that the neighbors were upset about the proposed density and staff has said that a 10% reduction will address those concerns. Hoffman asked that P &Z give serious consideration to the staff recommendation. Jasmine Tygre said that one of the concerns for P &Z generally was the importance of preservation of lodge units, particularly smaller less expensive lodge units. Tygre said there were some flaws in the lodge program that we have had for a long time and one of the problems with lodges in residential neighborhoods was that they were either non - conforming in terms of density, in terms of size and in terms of usage and there always have been problems trying to preserve them. Tygre said one of the thing that was the incentive was allowing larger dimensions and that hasn't worked and the neighbors said that a lodge would be lower density and that was the opposite of what we want. Tygre said they wanted hotbeds and a lot of traffic and a lot of density in our lodges and yet everybody knows that's not 10 r P285 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 happening in areas that are not really lodge areas. Tygre said this is a larger concern for P &Z which doesn't affect this project except for the fact that she never liked the dimensions of the lodge to begin with; she didn't think it was compatible with the neighborhood and she was please that the applicant was willing to do a 10% reduction in FAR. Tygre said that if you want to rezone this property to RMF use then use the RMF dimensions that means height as well as FAR; she thought that would be a good argument for saying that would be an appropriate use. Tygre said the dimensions for RMF should apply to this project and I think that the applicant has indicated his willingness to do this; that will solve some of the density problems and she would like to make a suggestion because she understands APCHA's willingness to accept smaller units for category 3 and 4 units they should be at least the minimum size. Tygre said people don't live in storage units; you need to have units that people will be able to live in comfortably. Tygre stated by reducing the density you will reduce the need for parking and reduce the concern of the neighborhood if we have a really nice affordable housing project. Tygre said they did not have to see detailed pictures but would like to see numbers if you created x number of units of the minimum size would that be workable and what would the overall number of units and parking spaces. Erspamer thanked everybody for being so civil; he was reluctant to vote on this tonight because he didn't want to vote on something that's going to be determined later. Erspamer voiced concern over the shuttle on demand because it would mean more trips; say if someone wants to go to the Aspen Club it would be 2 trips there and 2 trips back instead of 1. Erspamer said that the applicant has done a great job with this application especially compromising. Erspamer said that if this would come back within the dimensions that are required for that zone. Erspamer said he doesn't agree with looking at the 2010 AACP; our criteria concerns the 2000 AACP which says the housing policy should emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community not just units. Erspamer disagreed that if you take away parking people won't drive cars; however it just doesn't work in reality; in his neighborhood they built a development and reduced the parking so everybody parks in front of their neighbors houses now and they never had a parking problem before. Erspamer said he was not in favor of dedicated public parking spaces to private projects even with employee housing. Erspamer suggested continuing this to the next meeting. Phelan said a week to have the applicant come back and for staff to write a memo on any changes would be difficult and the meeting could be December 14` Erspamer said that he agreed with what Jasmine said. Mike Wampler said that he lives in employee housing his entire time and he was a proponent of employee housing and he could support this proposal and keep an open mind to go 10% back. 11 n P286 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Bert Myrin said that we were not building new small lodges; he noted in the 2000 Ask AACP it stated not converting lodges into non -lodge use. Myrin agreed with Jasmine on using the residential standards for height and FAR. Myrin said the outside should look like the neighborhood. Myrin wanted clarity on the shuttle and in perpetuity for the shuttle. Myrin said that he would like to see the livability of the units. Myrin said that he was not taking into account was the financing because it wasn't relevant nor was the property value of a neighbor; what is relevant was the livability of the units and the livability of the neighborhood. Myrin said tonight he could not support this. Stan Gibbs said rather than repeat all the things the commissioners said and Jasmine in particular stated how he sees this project. Gibbs said he had a hard time keeping the shell as it was defined for a lodge and basically assuming that if you fill it in with a different use it that it doesn't have different impacts on the neighborhood. Gibbs said he understood the constraints that Steve was under but this project needs a better refinement along the lines of a 10% cut back or as a housing development as opposed to a lodge it feels too large; he was not on P &Z when the project originally came up; at the time he would have probably voted against it because it seems very large even with all of the incentives of a lodge. ••, Gibbs said that he was a firm proponent of affordable housing and was excited about the affordable housing credit program and there have been a couple other projects have come through and it's a huge benefit to the community. Gibbs said in its current configuration; he felt it was their responsibility as a board to know what they were voting on and would like to see it continued for a couple of weeks and get a better definition of the proposal. Gibbs said that they could integrate the comments made by both the public and the commissioners; so we get a real sense of what we are voting on. Gibbs said the zoning change makes sense in this neighborhood with other affordable housing and multi - family and residences but to support the size of this project with this use proposed. Wampler reminded the board that Jennifer said that P &Z had 4 items: growth management on rezoning; growth management review on change of use; special review for off - street parking and the issue of certificate of affordable housing; we need to get back on these 4 items. Gibbs responded that he heard what Mike was saying but they still have to make recommendations of the others. Gibbs said they could make recommendations that would reflect the consensus and send that off but Stan said that he would feel better with a better sense of what they were really recommending. 12 P287 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Jasmine proposed a modified motion to start with the planning staff's recommendation with seeing a little more detail but didn't want the applicant to have to do a full detail of drawings but for the applicant to come back to P &Z with the adjustment of the floor area to 1.5 to 1 with reduction of height to that applicable in the RFM Zone without a full set of elevations but to reduce the density by increasing the size of the units and giving some idea of how that would look in rough sketches rather than full elevations. Tygre noted it was a big building and would have a big impact on the neighborhood and anybody who walks by but avoiding a full architectural rendering. Jennifer Phelan said there would be reduction in the height and massing with some reduction of square footage. Tygre said she didn't have to see the units on a floor plan but a chart would be a reasonable way for the applicant to proceed; she couldn't pass this onto Council and suggested this as a reasonable compromise. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to see a little more detail as stated above with rough sketches and a chart and reducing the height, mass and scale with a 1.5 to 1 floor area; the number of units reduced and increasing the size of the units and include the number of parking spaces and continue to December 14, 2010. Seconded by Bert Myrin with 4 in favor; 1 opposed (Wampler). Approved 4 -1. Discussion prior to the vote: LJ Erspamer requested the number of units. Jasmine Tygre said the size. Erspamer said also the parking spaces and height. Myrin said the Benedict Commons property is less surface area than this, yet is has 58 spaces below grade. Stunda replied that he couldn't do it because of the existing historic part dedicated to the historic preservation. Myrin was concerned with taking away public parking on street along West Hopkins. Stunda said he thought that parking would be the least of these issues. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes; Bert Myrin seconded. Approved. Continued discussion prior to the vote: Myrin stated that P &Z was not binding them to. Tygre responded that was not what the motion was what the motion said and she thought that there would be a difference of opinion about what's acceptable and what's not among the different members. Erspamer asked about the subsidy for the units in the building. Worcester answered that Mr. Stunda and the City have been discussing this for some time. Erspamer asked if he could go to the City Com Dev to ask what it 13 P288 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 alto, would take. Worcester said that they have had discussions and he doesn't know where they have gone. Gibbs said that he agreed with Jasmine's motion; a little more information, a little bit more refinement would be helpful to him. Gibbs said it would go a long way toward getting support from the neighborhood. Gibbs said that for example just show the historical designated parking that was associated with the Boomerang Lodge and that's the extent of the on street parking he could get behind that but he thought the most important thing was to feel that some of the impacts have been addressed and some reductions have been made and at least give a sense of the impact of the neighborhood. Stunda replied that he said that at the onset; he said he wanted to be recognized that he spent a lot of money to develop an approved building and it's just been dismissed on a hand. Gibbs said the point from P &Z's respect is the change in use is not transparent and not just a simple "we will put different things in it" and that is a big difference. Stunda said he heard that loud and clear. Myrin asked the when it comes back that there was some support from the neighborhood and it was not the largest most dense project. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14 r P289 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 500 West Hopkins (Boomerang) PUD Amendment 2 1 P290 - City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the special P &Z meeting Tuesday, December 14, 2010 to order "^ at 4:35pm in the Council Chambers Meeting Room. Jasmine Tygre and Bert Myrin were excused. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jennifer Phelan said that Jessica Garrow asked for comments on the draft of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Phelan stated for all of the hard work and extra meetings on the Aspen Area Community Plan staff wanted to provide a one day ARC pass or 2 tickets of your choice to the upcoming film fest; please get back to Jessica if you are interested in either of those items. Emzy Vezy III, public, asked P &Z to help him brain -storm on an event for August of next year and was trying to think of possible sites that won't conflict in any way to pull off this carousal. Stan Gibbs said that it might be a good idea to run that by Council as well. Minutes MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the November 16 minutes, seconded by Mike Wampler. All in favor, APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 W Hopkins (Boomerang) PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 500 W Hopkins, the Boomerang PUD Amendment continued from November 2 "a Jennifer Phelan stated that she is the deputy planning director for the City of Aspen. Phelan provided an overview of how the public hearing process works; the typical public hearing starts with the staff presentation of the application and follows with a presentation by the applicant and the applicant's representative. Phelan said at that time the planning & zoning commission members can ask questions of either the applicant or staff. The chair will open up the hearing for public comment; then the commission will discuss and debate the application and finally make a decision on the item. Phelan said the review process in general was a two step review process, first heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission 2 Nbre P291 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 for a number of recommendations and approvals required and then be heard by City Council, which will be the second step. Phelan stated there will be additional public notice and public hearings before City Council as they are the fmal decision makers on a number of land use requests. Jennifer Phelan said there were a couple of clean up issues for the record re- number some of the exhibits in the packet; the first hearing we had an exhibit entered at the hearing as Exhibit N is really going to be Exhibit 0 (letters from the public); Exhibit 0 in the packet will be Exhibit P (transportation demand management plan); Exhibit R will now be Q (APCHA housing referral); Exhibit Q will be Exhibit R (the amended site plan) and will be entering additional comments from the public that were received after the packet went out as Exhibit S. Phelan said that Lynn Rumbaugh from our Transportation Department was here so if the commission has specific questions for her it would be great to ask her earlier in the hearing rather than later. Phelan said this was a continued public hearing and the requests before the planning & zoning commission was to amend the PUD approval that is associated with the Boomerang Lodge entitlements as well as additional land use reviews to redevelop the site with affordable housing. Phelan said the specific reviews before the commission are and amendment of the Planned Unit Development basically to amend the standards associated with the project including the parking; it's an amendment of the zone district map to rezone the property from R -6 LP PUD, which is medium density residential lodge preservation with a PUD overlay to Residential Multifamily PUD for the residential multi use of the property. Subdivision review for the multiple dwelling units and these 3 are recommendations the Planning & Zoning Commission makes to the fmal decision maker City Council. Phelan said that the Planning & Zoning Commission had final decision making on Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing; that the Affordable Housing Units meet the standards in the land use code. Growth Management Review for a change in use from a lodge that had a free market component and affordable housing component to completely multifamily residential in nature. Also a credit for a certificate for affordable housing; when a developer creates affordable housing that's not associated with mitigation therefore voluntary affordable housing they can receive credits for the employees housed and that is what the applicant is looking for with this application. Phelan said at the last public hearing the request was to use the approved shell of the building associated with the 3 P292 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Boomerang Lodge, which included in that shell 47 lodge units, 5 free market units and 2 affordable housing units and they wanted to re- develop the shell to 54 multifamily residential units that would be deed restricted as affordable housing. Phelan said that during the last public hearing P &Z recommended that the applicant reduce the mass and scale of the project and conform better with the multifamily residential zone district. Phelan said the amended proposal before the commission now shows the removal of the 4th floor, that was approved for the lodge use and so there is a reduction in the height of the project to 32 feet; there was a reduction in floor area of approximately 4500 square feet and a reduction in the number of dwelling units going down to 46 units rather than the 54 that was originally proposed. Illustrative elevations and layouts have been provided, which meet or exceed APCHA's standards for unit size also individual storage lockers are provided for every proposed unit in this current iteration in the basement of the project. The applicant is proposing 33 sub -grade parking spaces and 14 off site but on grade parking spaces along 4 Street and 1 in the alley and these are via an existing encroachment license that the applicant has for the sole use of those parking spaces. With the use of the encroachment license the parking meets the one to one ratio that's required. Phelan said overall there is a reduction in the mass and scale of the project, the height of the project now conforms better with the required parking standards, a reduction in the density of the property and staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the property to residential multifamily, the map amendment, recommendation of approval for the PUD Amendment to establish the dimensional standards for the project. The project is now a height of 32 feet, floor area of 1.5 to 1, total parking of 33 parking spaces in the underground parking garage and with the encroachment license allowing 14 at grad parking spaces within the right -of -way. Phelan included a table of surrounding buildings heights including the Christiana with a max at the gable of 34 feet, so this would be shorter than a project directly across the alley from it. Little Ajax was approved for 34 feet and is an affordable housing multifamily development across the street. As proposed staff recommended the reduction in mass and all of these features to create a building that is compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff also supports the proposed parking because the development is close to the commercial core, near a car to go station, trails and pedestrian corridor, so driving doesn't have to be one's primary mode of transportation. Staff recommends approval of the Growth Management Reviews for the Affordable Housing Credit and 4 P293 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 recommendation for approval of the PUD Amendments, Subdivision and Rezoning. Phelan said she would like to strike Section 3 of the Resolution. LJ Erspamer asked if there were any parking spots designated for the car to go program. Lynn Rumbaugh replied not at that location; the applicant offered but Transportation did not have an extra car right now and there was a car about 5 blocks away. Rumbaugh said the applicant offered a car to go but the Transportation Department does not have the backing to maintain any more cars because the most expensive part is the maintenance, insurance and gas. Erspamer asked what triggers the need for a traffic study. Rumbaugh responded that he would have to ask the Engineering Department that question. Erspamer asked about the 20% reduction in size and there was criteria for the program with APCHA. Jennifer Phelan said that 25 units were below and 20 units were at or above the required minimum for APCHA. Phelan said APCHA has a standard in their guidelines that says the overall minimum square footage required for a unit maybe reduced up to 20% if the applicant shows a number of considerations that are met; livability of the unit; close to transit. Erspamer replied that he read the 6 and was aware of that. Erspamer asked if the mechanical was still the 7 feet on the roof. Phelan replied that Community Development goes with what the land use code allows and would be finalized in the PUD process. Charles Cunniffe, architect, said there was no mechanical on the roof. Stan Gibbs asked the 2006 approved height. Phelan replied that the height was 37'6" for the lodge. Michael Hoffman, attorney for the applicant, introduced Charles Cunniffee the project architect and Steve Stunda the representative for the applicant, FSP —ABR LLC. Steve Stunda stated it's clear from the last meeting Planning & Zoning with the neighbors wanted the height and mass to conform with the Residential Multifamily Zone District. Stunda said in addition the commission members were concerned about the livability of the units and reduced the height. Stunda said there is one parking space for every unit including a handicap space. Charles Cunniffe, architect, stated they removed a story and reduced the units from 54 to 46. 5 r P294 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Public Comments: 1. John Provine said he has developed in this neighborhood . but this project was too big. 2. Rusty Scott lived down the block from this project and said it was too big for the neighborhood. 3. Daniel Verner said that when there were events at the Jewish Community Center parking would very much be impacted. 4. Andrew Smith said that he lives in the Christiana and they have 28 units. 5. Esten Nadosis said that he lived 505 W Hopkins and it was a beautiful place but there was no parking. 6. John Olson encouraged comments; it has been recommended for approval by staff and the lodge is gone and these employee units were being done voluntarily. 7. Angela Young and she and her husband live at 413 West Hopkins and she had provided a letter; a great part of the year this is a pedestrian parkway and there is an oversaturation of parking and voiced concern for safety with the cars and pedestrians. 8. Donna Guerra said that she is usually on the side of the developer but owns 2 properties in this neighborhood and talked about the alley and the trash wasn't shown and the entrance from the parking garage into the alley wasn't ^* shown. Guerra said it was one massive building that wasn't broken up and she also lives in Dallas and this will look like Dallas. 9. Cheryl Goldenberg said she lives at 430 West Hopkins and there is so much housing already and from the AACP meetings that she and her husband attended this is not modest in scale and harmonious; this was not modest in scale and doesn't fit into the neighborhood. 10. Steve Goldenberg utilized his map and disagreed with the staff conclusion that it fits in the neighborhood and is compatible. Goldenberg said there were 6 different buildings in the neighborhood that were broken up and that's the way it ought to be done. Goldenberg said by giving them the zoning change we are giving them a lot which is a big plus for the PUD and you are giving affordable housing subsidy with the affordable housing credits and the zoning; they should get one or the other but not both. Goldenberg said what will work here was a broken up building with 28 units and would eliminate the parking problem. 11. Jody Edwards, attorney for Cheryl and Steve Goldenberg; Cheryl, Steve and Dan have already spoken and John Statin who is not here. Edwards distributed a revocable encroachment license and he said his main point had to do with parking; what this has to do with is special review for a parking waiver with 3 criteria. Edwards said that the off street parking does not 6 P295 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 satisfy the code and there was nothing to prevent the applicant from putting the parking on site. Edwards said this was a city block and parking was a problem in this neighborhood and also the size, the mass and the impacts. Edwards said that this was a temporary license subject to be terminated at any time. 12. Paul Taddune, attorney, said we should listen to the people that live in the neighborhood and are impacted by a project such as this and there were competing interests the stability of the neighborhood; lodge preservation, historic preservation, scale and mass and also the notion of employee housing. Taddune asked the applicant to look at the Little Ajax buildings and Christina to reduce the scale and mass. 13. John Batey stated he was a local attorney and endorsed the comments of the 2 attorney before him; he said from the last meeting the applicant was to come back and demonstrate that the project was compatible with the neighborhood. 14. Doug Allen said that he was also an attorney but was not representing anyone other than himself. Allen said Little Ajax was a wonderful neighborhood for the project and fits in perfectly but they have a parking problem. Allen said this neighborhood has a parking problem and the building mass and scale should be broken up. 15. Tammie Stewart said that she lived at 400 West Hopkins in a 5 unit building and there were 2 parking spaces for every unit. Stewart said parking is a problem and this project would put on pressure that was already there. 16. Ron Erickson said that he was in favor of the project and a member of the Housing Board and reviewed this application and found it had merit on the following basis. (1) a large number of small units that are critically needed; (2) in town location and (3) they are producing 46 units at no subsidy to the city. Erickson said that it was amazing that the neighbors fought Little Ajax (where Ron lives) for 7 years and the city stepped into help the project to be built. 17. Martin Mata said he is an architect working here for many years and attended the meeting as a curious on looker. Mata said that the packet in front of you is skimpy for the magnitude with asking for a change in use and rezoning; any new development needs to fit into the neighborhood; the context and historical development patterns. Mata submitted another photo of a building broken up. 18. Tom McCabe said he was the director of the housing authority and they look at criteria and an important one is livability and said that Mr. Stunda has done a very good job making the representations and that was why many of the minimum square footages have been attained. McCabe said housing 7 P296 a City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 was very much in favor of the balconies and that balconies can be misused but your HOA Covenants can control that. McCabe said the underground storage was also a huge amenity. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan provided Exhibit S with additional letters from the public received after the deadline for the packet; Exhibit T photos; Exhibit U Jody Edwards encroachment license; Exhibit V Mata sketch. Phelan clarified that the Christina Lodge was approved with 10 off street parking spaces. Phelan emphasized that they were using the 2000 AACP. Phelan said that a PUD allows for the establishment of parking requirements and after conferring with the City Attorneys today; they noticed for both amendments of the PUD and Special Review for parking they would utilize the PUD for off -street parking. Phelan said that Council will decide this issue; P &Z will still be making a recommendation to City Council. Phelan recommended striking Section 3 of the Resolution and renumber subsequent sections of the resolution. Phelan , discussed with Rumbaugh the availability capacity in the neighborhood was based on occupancy counts; actual parking counts that the Parking Department has done in the neighborhood and they pulled that from files associated with the Jewish Community Center. Stan Gibbs asked how long did the 2006 approval last with the vested rights. Steve Stunda replied the extension was good until October 2012. Stunda utilized Steve Goldenberg map and when he bought the property from Charlie Paterson he agreed to keep the trees along Hopkins so if you walked down the sidewalk it would mitigate the size of the building and dedicate the east wing in perpetuity as a reminder of old Aspen. Stunda said that he will be self supportive in respects to parking. Stunda said the footprint of the building has not deviated; it was this big when Charlie had it; the spaces on Fourth Street have always been dedicated to the lodge and its use. Michael Hoffman stated he saw this application as good competing for the community; the existing approval is an example of how valuable a lodge project was in 2006 reflected by the 2006 approval. Hoffman reiterated the height has been reduced substantially; they have removed an entire floor; the mass and scale .•� has been reduced to 41,000 gross square feet. Hoffman said they have actually increased the parking. 8 neon P297 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Charles Cunniffee said that parking was the issue here and they have reduced the size of the building and increased the number of parking spaces. Cunniffee said there would be more auto trips if it were a lodge because as affordable housing people will go to work and come home. Cunniffee said this has been a rehashing of the previous meeting; the smaller units with new technology have smaller hot water heaters and they will sit in a soffit above the bathroom and hallway so it doesn't take valuable floor space away. Jim DeFrancia said the comments about mass and scale do seem to be displaced because the point of comparison is to what is proposed to what is now approved. DeFrancia said that everything that he has heard what has been approved prior is greater in height, square foot and mass. DeFrancia said that parking was the other issue that was raised quite frequently and he is sympatric with that but the issue of parking is a broader issue; if there is parking congestion already so it is a municipal problem to be solved or a bigger problem to be solved and with the approval of a lodge with less parking and the Jewish Community Center he said that he didn't understand why the parking for this project was to bear the brunt of solving all the parking problems. DeFrancia said there was 1 space per unit; the units were relatively small and if we are going to get ourselves into a less auto incentive society then we should quit accommodating the cars. Cliff Weiss said that every project had to be a good neighbor; he realized that the code says 1 parking space per unit but what happens to all of the guests of these employees, where do they park. Weiss said he agreed with the neighbors about breaking up the building; can it be less impactful. Weiss said that technically he agreed with Jim there is an application approved before this one that is even larger than this. Weiss voiced concern for the pedestrian way that he uses 4 times a day except in the winter; he did not want to see that a corridor for cars. Weiss said if this project is going to be a good neighbor it needs more than the minimum amount of parking and he said that they were moving in the right direction and he realized underground parking is expensive. Weiss said that he was not ready with this as is; he felt there were more tweaks that need to be made to make it compatible with that neighborhood. Weiss said it was one thing to put a lodge there and expect it to be compatible, this is housing. Weiss stated in order to be compatible break it up. Michael Wampler said that they do want housing within the City limits; he said that parking is the way it is. Wampler said people are still waiting for ownership units; studios, 1 and 2 bedrooms are in dire need in this town. Wampler said that if this were a lodge to be built he thought it was too far from the town and tourists don't walk which means you would constantly having some kind of van use. 9 P298 ... City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Wampler said people who do live in affordable housing do ride their bikes and they will take care of their units and they use other than cars to go up and down Hopkins. Wampler said that he was going to go with Cliff on this that the building could stand some improvement; it needs to at least look like it can be broken up. Wampler said that he would like to see that in a motion to work on the building. Wampler reminded everyone in the room that this wasn't the end of this project it was still going to City Council. LJ Erspamer voiced concerns for parking and asked if P &Z disregards the parking. Phelan replied that a PUD has standards for parking and what she was saying after discussing Special Review for the parking was to incorporate it into the dimensional standards of the PUD on page 29 & 30. Phelan said if the project gets entitled as Multifamily residential it will be developed by the applicant who cannot get any affordable credits until the Cos are issued and those units will be for sale units. Erspamer asked if we hold free - market to a higher standard than employee housing; in other words we should be a little more generous of this because it is employee housing. Phelan answered they are reviewed under the same standards that another project would be reviewed under. Erspamer asked how they judge compatibility with this project. Erspamer said that he liked the project, it wasn't bad, but the parking issue was big for him and where do the visitors park; those are the issues that hold him up right now. Erspamer said breaking up might help a little and addressing these parking issues were needed for him. Stan Gibbs tended to agree with Cliff on the impacts of a lodge compared to housing; he felt the impacts on the neighborhood would be greater with a lodge. Gibbs said that employee housing were residents and likely to take advantage of all the public transit that is available; one of the problems with guests is that they don't know that system. Gibbs said they have to differentiate between the lodge project that is already approved; we would have all rather that this application had been brand new and come to P &Z in a normal fashion without the baggage of the previous approval that we have to work into the equation. Gibbs said the encroachment was not the issue because it also exists for the lodge. Gibbs said the source of these affordable housing credits could have a huge impact on the size and scale of other projects in the city. Gibbs said this felt like a conceptual approval, at least in the last meeting we had and I still feel like the building is larger than it should be for this area but I know that the old building as you said big and the new lodge building is bigger in terms of total mass so again I have a problem with where to go with that piece of information. Gibbs said the density seems large to him and the zoning was R -6 underneath and we are taking R -6 to RMF; is that compatible with the neighborhood because that increases density; he was 10 P299 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 struggling with that. Phelan said that there were non - conforming uses in the neighborhood at this point; there were a number of multifamily projects that were non - conforming because of the rezoning. Gibbs said he appreciated that the 4 floor was gone but he wished they could go around again; the mass of the building still troubles him but he is not unwilling given to what P &Z has said and the record in place let Council make this decision but recommend they think about it hard. Gibbs said he would have liked to have seen more changes in the building between what we saw last time even though you have made huge progress it doesn't feel like quite enough. Weiss asked in the 2006 Boomerang were the condos for sale or hotel rooms. Phelan replied the form of ownership was 47 condo and lodge units, 5 free - market residential multifamily units and 2 affordable housing units. Phelan said that a person with a fractional time share unit has a 30 day limit that they can stay in their unit; if they are living there permanently, it is illegal, if they exceed the amount of time the hotel is not operating under its obligations in the city and under its approvals. Weiss said the shorter the term the more impact it will have; if people would stay more than a week and had kitchens they have to shop and take their car and things of that nature. Stunda responded that they all had kitchens, they were all for sale and about 50% presold when the meltdown occurred; the least desirable category for financing was condominium lodge, no lender wants to touch that because of the use restriction 30, 90 days maximum it was going to be run as a lodge. DeFrancia said procedurally we are recommending to the City Council. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 seconded by LJ Erspamer. All in favor, Approved. DeFrancia said P &Z was approving the Affordable Housing credits. Phelan replied for the Affordable Housing units they need the APCHA Standards and for the change in use from Lodge to Multifamily Residential; the others are recommendations they are only useful until they get their approval from City Council. Erspamer asked if they were going to break these up into each individual vote or are you going to make a motion to the whole. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved approval of Resolution #22, series 2010 approving certain growth management reviews, special review, the establishment of Affordable Housing credits and recommending approval of PUD Amendment, Subdivision and a Map Amendment with conditions delineated by staff and with an 11 P300 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 additional condition that the applicant review and present to City Council alternative on architectural reduction of the mass. Seconded by Michael Wampler. Discussion prior to the vote: Phelan said if you are going that way she had some recommendations on how that could be inserted into the resolution. Phelan said that she recommended deleting Section 3, which was Special Review for Parking, which can be included in the PUD and create a new Section 1 which would have Jim's condition and renumber the existing Section 1 in the draft to Section 2 and existing Section 2 to 3 and the rest of the motion would stay as described. Phelan said the breaking up of the mass of the building to architectural modifications. Weiss said that he still had issues with the parking because it is a PUD and wanted Council to know that he felt the parking was somewhat inadequate; so it either has to be less units with the same amount of parking or more parking to handle that many units. Weiss said the neighborhood will be impacted by this project as it is; he didn't like changing a lodge to employee housing but he felt that it was the minimum in parking. DeFrancia said it meets code. Weiss said that he would like it to say that parking is inadequate within the application and needs to be increased and it is not necessarily a recommendation. DeFrancia suggested that all of the parking meets code but we recommend additional parking. Phelan said these will be put into Section 1. Jim DeFrancia amended his motion as described above; Michael Wampler seconded. Roll call: Weiss, yes; Erspamer, no because of page 25 of the AACP and inadequate study by the City (he was not against this project); Wampler, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes given the additions and the concern about massing is real, if this application went forward as it is today, he would recommend that Council not pass it but given that is known to Council. APPROVED 4 -1. LJ Erspamer was disappointed in the City's handling of parking and it was totally inadequate and this was a very ambiguous part of the code. Erspamer suggested the City P &Z address the Area Community Plan. Adjourned at 7:25 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12 P3.01 F } December 23, 2010 Mr. Jody Edwards Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC Asrar/prrer 201 N. Mill Street Suite 203 oa'm,,,,,,r, Dm Dm r Dcremexr Aspen, CO 81611 RE: APPEAL (regarding resolution approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission) Dear Jody, As required per Section 26.316.020 D., Notice Requirements, of the land use code notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 10, 2010, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 'City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal of an action taken by the Nanning and Zoning Commission (passage of a resolution with regard to parking requirements for 500 W. Hopkins) that you submitted. _ For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2759 or by email Jennifer.Phelan@,ci.aspen.co.us. A memo will be emailed to you prior to the hearing. Regards, Jenifer Phelan Deputy Director en*. Almi P302 in -. ..? E. gg n * L' .2. , .“) .< 0 L 19 1 Z 5. I fl A A Z r4 - I ......_0 7.- s • • u) fr sal= a a 0 . ,--'' ce, - 0 ff - 3' g 3 0 o - , - _,. CD • -- CO e- (rl 00=- m 9 -• c... : , ._ ..... 0 ID •.< At r , -0 -16 CD • 7_ & 0 -. ' 0 =e, cra -•-• 6 Z 0 ..- n , .. __ ___... ... ,..2 a a § I m a s.r..: i n ma-E c _, 0 0. := 0 z. 0 ,.‹ , uj . Id4 r - cy. — 1 000f 0 0 a r rn .7- Isi ...m.. r.l. - % -. 0 M CI ..< :7 0 a • I 3 m. 5 co en 0 - = .., -- €1 0 _----- rri 2 co co o. .: - -0 ° c u. m — 0 ' 03 — " ilt M ,, — -0 ■■•■•■. c:2 - DI ■/. pe n) M. 0. : 1.1.1 ._—■----■— I OD " _‘. CD M 11. Ir. 0 USD TE 9 '. * M := E .1 a CL 0 : 17,0IDO-o .;_ 0 M : c a = In L- Ismwmi Its ...immi.■ --. til .- , r- ask c -, -. =0 a.acT n i m - so -+ 0 _ o r 0 5 .. Z5 ea 0 . 0 ca 0 t i z • .2. ir 0 33 O e a ru ,h. \ p MI .... e a 8 w I i 4 4;4 r .12: WI C V w ji ig = to i I 31 i a al riityle-t... L.1 0 0 0 A .1 att. .0 i P 5 1 ci i — E o 0 131411E7 F 3 o ha ru o 0. cn > 4) Z -0 ft -• P xt t 0 co @ 0 E D D a DD iLi.; p , 1 i F. g a kt ibiS4) N I. i F C i I a 8 2/3 ,111 ELAM; ' 1.00 P303 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: k �'T4D bd • . . Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: D ='S .o STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin .711/1q44 S f , (name, please print) being or represents g an Applicant to the Ci`f of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: f / Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26,304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the • property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) P304 `°~ _ Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to ...w., the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. . Rezoning or text amendment Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and • addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 27 day _ of D ce. 9 r7 / 0 ,@Od , by A,r" -4: 1oh a-e-eN1`CA j • \ND AND OFFICIAL SEAL A20 <lNDAY DECEMBER 26 2010 °# it, 'yo v * r r.Y h � r"9•4 'e � ,�., Min • as �` YkX t "K e 1 4.4::- �. THE CITY OF A SPEN c 2rt ,s' - I CORY J. • l ; . i i �+' i i,=-11 " i _ : LE: i , GARSKE r _ ,�„ . l%` , _ 4' ' PUBLIC N OTICE N) ''''' - ' " ; AGENCIES E APPEAL re + > E . spnes 05U92U12 ( gac resolution approved by the u Planning and Zonin Commission) "' e S TAE OWNERS NOTICE 1: NOTICE [S HEREBY GI VEN t a public hearing will t. be h e l l - o n Mond :'January 10, 2011, to begi at i 5'00, p:m.. before the As, pen City Council, City Council �' Chambers, Cty 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an appeal of an action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission (passage of a resolution with • regard to parking requirements for 500 W. Hopkins), submitted by Jody Edwards, on behalf of Steve & • Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Vemer and John Staton, 201 N. Mill eet, Suite 203, Aspen CO 81611. For further information, - contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of • • rthZiti€Eette ment epartment, .429.590, (or by e s). ,.**w s/Michael C. Ireland, Cha ir Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on December 26, 2010 1 City of Aspen Account e P305 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 1' REQUYRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 5t0 W , Aspen, CO tbpMThS SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Nov. 2 , zo1 D STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, bonnt- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: y Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15 ; -R u• o the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day ,, , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public / • •. ,23•; of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notic o#•• ed from the Codununity Development Department, which contains tr. I ` • ; , Cl in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code.. fi. 3' ia _ 5) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delive m.; t class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property wr 0) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they _ appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) (1"*"` - ale P306 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt -.,., • requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate .survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature k / U ..,. The forejgR�in "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this , day of C/6 / ,2000, ►8 e . 44 t, I., „.NI J ,:. 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SD W A H OPKINS AV • E NDYENT T;' A P LA UBDIV UNIT H, OWTH TTO EZONE DISTRICT NAP,I 7 6-...--- ',N... My My commission expires: "t `7 1 OWTN MAMA GROWTH MANAGEMENT I — - �\ e REV/ IN USE, SPE- V tig _ . � , J ■ L REVIEW FOR PARKING PUBLIC HEARING / i .1 1: VA-1 n ' ft et, pI !A /- public TICE Q -� -_ ~~ ��jjFFaa �II�� i EVE - L l 1 ' ` be held be Tn it4:3 0 November 2, 2010, pe I/ Notary Public nnI nto d to aU:9pr fl% before he spen e M e a Zo om, ay Ha S. tthe A Bis t., ,e Meebnp Room, pro Na11,190 B. Galena SL, / • oen, CO, m u.c. p Steve 9lunaa 602 No , � n FSPIABp n C d . S1. Aspen 81611. for Arrwnamantro / lannea Unrt r :1 " .1 pma[ (PUO). Amend i CO the Zone Di MMap. n SWdivl e Growth . R a a b Py.� a s s -i enagemera Review for Parking ape l Us e rope Gruoar I � 4. aaa 0N- • ,naeamenl Review for Aff of ll,e r o arty and rebid sown as for W. to the v en u e,l a d le - �'` S AS APPLICABLE: Block k 31 it o as C W. Hopkins A s and le , only ally described of the ho of A ttie TO n eTlY I r T and , m t g. oposes[o rem ne2 3 e it P 5 h erV5 0° V O ' ' ,..” ; • . .. s N . m ) / Planned RedUn Development Il to Residential s ial l Y k h �' 1,03g temi (RM it F) I ' m Un lopni °n cTir reum p 2 d 4 u AU o 2006, TOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • " �4it "o residential a d %otwo affordable ie ree- OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED L fhe ap$FCent P roposes to melee interior changes to boor x of plans, ate see ig o°ad e Fo i tur Aspen burp ry ochanges th fair ICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ES TAE OWNERS NOTICE 6. Gal ena St., Aspe p _ 9870) o 2 ¢ 2 5 (0 QUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 email a1-__ �__" Iication shale correspondence related to the app be sent to the above emmai l or physical address. Chair Aspen Planning ace Zoning Conunlssio P blished I the AS en Ti Ives (Idy ori October 11 i 56]26a1� 0 c P307 ATTACHMENT 7 - AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 2, 2010 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, E. Michael Hoffman, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: © Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 16`" day of October, 2010, to and -•� including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. © Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(EX2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the c rrent tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) .:ys prior • . - • e the public hearing. A copy of the owners and goyarnm -ntal ag- /es so no n a ed hereto. G6 fAAAIALats • ` t• . ael Hoffman The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thi: 1st day of November, 2010. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: i0/1‘i \a • blic List of Attachments _ ..--..,, 'Ise LIST OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) - --i ••• VA�� `" LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL , $k '. i, i LINDSAY 1 I. LOGAN A ......6 . 3 .6) ,/ rSsiion Env Mr Co ies 10/1612013 P308 ic t 1 � aL t.�`virp v vs. Lvo li nYEB - w .: �r31 tit .c S =r f 1 c , E Ll i _ - t it • 1.. i. 1. .^ _- .' a • ell P309 ibit 16 Exhibit 16 • List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of Boomerang Lodge 521 -523 W HOPKINS AFFORDABLE 501 WEST MAIN LLC HOUSING 501 W HOPKINS LLC 532 E HOPKINS AVE CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 8O 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1518 521 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO ASPEN, CO 81611 612 WEST LLC ALEXANDER JOAN P 604 WEST N ST 604 W MAIN ST PO BOX 4818 AS W CT ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ASPEN. , CO 8 81611 ALPINE BANK ALLEN DOUGLAS P ALPINE BANK ATTN ERIC GARDEY 403 LACET LN 600 E HOPKINS AV PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASPEN MESA STORE LLC AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC C/O ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 PO BOX 8238 605 W HOPKINS AVE #103 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BARTON META PACKARD BERR LLC c EN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC 4475 N OCEAN BLVD APT 43A 611 W MAIN ST � E COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 PEN, CO 61611 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 • CARROLL MEREDITH COHEN BRIDGE WILLIAM BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S CARROLL ARTHUR RICHARD 2075 SHERWOOD DR 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 605 W HOPKINS AVE #210 CAMBRIA, CA 93428 ENCINO, CA 91436 ASPEN, CO 81611 • CARTER RICHARD P CHAKERES JOHN B TRUST CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC 795 LAKEVIEW DR 400 E ER AVE 80202 GRE NVI E, PIKE 807 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 DENVER, CO 80202 GREENVILLE, DE 19807 CITY OF ASPEN CLEANER EXPRESS CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 3670 ATTN FINANCE DEPT - 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 , ASPEN, CO 81611 CUMMINS RICHARD DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC ^. S MI L S 1280 UTE AVE #10 610 S WEST END ST - "ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 JS S L ST #112 ASPEN, CO 81611 ° 0 P310 `- , o text] Nair •CKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FAT CITY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 ASPEN, CO 81611 • FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 412 MARINER DR PO BOX 5082 JUPITER, FL 33477 GILLETTE, WY 82717 -5082 ASPEN, CO 81611 GANT CONDO ASSC GARMISCH LODGING LLC GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J 610 S WEST END ST 110 W MAIN ST 430 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GORDON LETICIA H & H PROPERTIES LLLP GOLDMAN DIANNE L 0/0 JOE RACZAK GOLDEN HORN 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 PO BOX 516 555E DURANT AVE WINTER PARK, FL 32789 -3725 FAIRFIELD, CT . 06824 ASPEN, CO 81611 HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS HAYMAN JULES ALAN HY- MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC HAISFIELD LISA YERKE 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR 111C AABC a � °' W HOPKINS POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81611 EN, CO 81611 JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD IGLEHART JIM IGLEHART JIM OF ASPEN 610 W HALLAM ST 617 W MAIN ST 435 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM JOHNSON STANFORD H 2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 TO BOX 32102 TUCSON, AZ 85751 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ASPEN, CO 81611 KONIG DEBORAH KELSO DOUGLAS P KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST HANSON KIM 627 W MAIN ST PO BOX 518 605 W HOPKINS AVE #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 LINDSTROM, MN 55045 ASPEN, CO 81611 KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R LESTER JAMES LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 229 CHRYSTIE ST #1417 605 W HOPKINS #006 AS PEN, CO W AVE #201 NEW YORK, NY 10002 ASPEN, CO 81611 AS CO 8 816 1611 0 w. r P311 2e text] , NECHADEIM REALTY LLC NELSON TREVOR T & ROSE MARIE �0 MI RA VISTA T T PO BOX 4950 605 W HOPKINS #207 S AA 0 NTA A BARBARA, CA 93103 1710 BA VSTA AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 • NIX ROBERT JR NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC N06 3 MW L LLC #202 PO BOX 3694 200 S ASPEN ST ASPEN, LL CO 81611 #20 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 PERRY EMILY V RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 605 W HOPKINS AV P PO BOX 11071 605 W MAIN ST #002 AS W AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, , CO CO 8 8161611 RODRIGUEZ JOANN ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH S P B OX 1376 605 W MAIN ST #OOA 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 AS B ASPEN, CO 61611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHEFF JONATHAN & BUTTERWICK TU FUS CAMI CAMI LLC SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 KIMBERLY 1280 UTE AVE #7 18518 ST MORITZ DR 6450 AVENIDA CRESTA .EN, CO 81611 TARZANA, CA 91356 SAN DIEGO, CA 92037 SHADOW MTN CORP SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC RUSSELL MARY HUGH 0/0 FINSER CORP 0/0 JENNIFER SHERWIN RUSSELL ERECT C ST T E & 0 LLC 7321 N.W. 75TH STREET 1714 VISTA ST GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 542E S QUEBE MEDLEY, FL 33166 DURHAM, NC 27701 STARFORD PROPERTIES NV SLTM LLC SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G 0/0 KEON WILLIAM 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST 7321 NW 75TH ST 106 S MILL ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 . MEDLEY, FL 33166 STASPEN LLP STUART DAN SUBOTKY JULIE E KING & SPALDING PO BOX 183 • 55 WEST 14TH ST #15L 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE LOMA, CO 81524 NEW YORK, NY 10011 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 TOMS CONDO LLC THROM DOUGLAS H TODD SHANE 0/0 BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC 617 W MAIN ST PO BOX 2654 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 \SPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 • P312' . text] "IRA LINDA 50% INTEREST WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC VOSS NATALIE S C/O BILL POSS �:7,4LL TERESA 50 % INTEREST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 605 E MAIN ST 6095 LIGHT HILL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 'SNOWMASS, CO 81654 WASHBURN LYNN S WENDT ROBERT E II WERLIN LAURA B TRUST TERRELL SERENE -MARIE 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 2279 PINE ST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1607 WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S WHITNEY KURT A & JACQUELINE WINGSTONE GREENER O LC OMPANY LLC SI F 5 A LLS, METAVANTE 86 WAY YUMA, AZ 85365 E PL PAOLI, PA 19301 SIUX FLLS, SD 51 YLP WEST LLC • YOUNG DONALD L YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST PO BOX 4444 8117 PRESTON RD SUITE 300 WEST YARDLEY, PA 19067 ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75225 • Smi • «. C'ype text] DUNSDON S MICHAELE EMERICK SHELLEY W DILLON RAY IV BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 2449 5TH ST PO BOX 10543 617 W MAIN ST #D BOULDER, CO 80304 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 0 1 P314 [Type text] LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE #212 ,* 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 oak r ,4 'ype text] TUCKER LUCY LEA ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE PO BOX 1480 600 E HOPKINS #304 2577 NW 59TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 0 ) P316 Aatk ' PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 500 WEST HOPKINS AVE., AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR CHANGE IN USE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARHING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review proposals submitted by Aspen FSP -ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North Fourth St. Aspen CO 81611, for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Amendment to the Zone District Map, Subdivision, Growth Management Review for Change in Use, Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing and Special Review for Parking for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, and legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and 5, Block 31 of the City of Aspen Townsite. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential (R -6) / Lodge Preservation (LP) / Planned Unit Development to Residential Multi- Family (RMF) / Planned Unit Development (PUD). Applicant seeks to convert the Boomerang Lodge development, approved in August 2006, from 47 condominiumized lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable .m„ housing units into 54 units of affordable housing only. The applicant proposes to make interior changes to floor plans, but proposes no changes to the exterior of the building, as previously approved. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, CO (970) 429 -2755, (or by email at Ben.Gagnon@a,ci.asDen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. • s /Stan Gibbs, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on October 17, 2010 City of Aspen Account P317 Chapter 26.316 APPEALS Sections: 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. 26.316.020 Authority. 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. • The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17 -2002 § 2 (part), 2002) 26316.020 Authority. A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. B. City Council The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development application for development in an "H, ", Historic Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. C Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in accordance with Section 26.470.060(D). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 35 P318 D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority Ask ... to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless otherwise specifically stated in this title. (Ord. No. 17 -2002 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27 -2002 § 23, Ord. No. 12 -2007; 2002) 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any decision or determination. B. Effect of filing an appeal The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in writing to the chairperson of the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. auk C. Timing of appeal The decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by publication to all other affected parties. (See section 26304.060(E)). E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. F. Action by the decision- making body hearing the appeal The decision - making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with. by the appellant. The decision- making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. (Ord. No. 55 -2000, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 27 -2002 § 24, Ord. No. 12 -2007, 2002) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 300, Page 36 c �-- P 31 Eli -� RESOLUTION NO. 22 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CHANGE IN USE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING, AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB -ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop 54 affordable housing units at 500 W. Hopkins Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge units, 5 free - market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006), commonly known as the Boomerang Lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 500 W. Hopkins Ave. and is currently zoned Medium- Density Residential (R -6), Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended remanding the application to applicant to reduce allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 1:66:1 to 1.5:1, to meet the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) standard of compatibility with the neighborhood; and, RECEPTION #: 576133, 12/2212010 at 11:00:18 AM, Page 1 of 6 1 OF 6, R 536.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION P &Z Resolution No. 22 (20 i 0) Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission took public testimony, considered the application and remanded it back to the Applicant for further consideration and amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the application by reducing the height, floor area, and unit count of the proposal; and WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2010, by a 4 to 1 vote, with conditions: and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the applicant and City Council the breaking up of the mass of the building by architectural modification. Also, with 33 off - street and 14 on- street, at grade parking spaces (via an encroachment license) the 1:1 parking requirement is met; however. the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends additional parking be provided. • Section 2: Growth Management Approval for Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, creating 46 deed - restricted affordable housing units not required for mitigation, as reviewed by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 3 and 4. There will be 35 Category 3 and 19 Category 4 units. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process and meet APCHA guidelines. Design of the units, parking on -site and storage will be finalized with the recordation of a PUD Plat. Page 2of6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) 0 — P321 Unit Type Number of Units Category 3 Category 4 studio 6 3 3 One bedroom 29 11 18 Two bedroom 11 8 — 3 Total 46 Section 3: Growth Management Approval for Change in Use Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Change in Use, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the review criteria of Section 26.470.050. Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves issuance of 83 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, such certificates to be granted subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, pursuant to Section 26.540.040. Unit Type Employee Housed Number of Units Certificates of AH studio 1.25 6 7.5 One bedroom 1.75 29 50.75 Two bedroom 2.25 _ 11 24.75 Total 83 Section 5: Amendment to the Zone District Map Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby finds that the proposal to rezone the 500 W. Hopkins Ave. property from R- 6/LP/PUD to RMF/PUD meets the standards to Amend the Zone District Map, pursuant to Section 26.310.040 and recommends approval by the City Council. Section 6: Planned Unit Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision, with conditions. Dimensional Req. Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sq. fi Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 586 sq ft Maximum Allowable Density 46 units Minimum Lot Width , 270 feet Minimum Front Yard 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" – east* Page 3 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) P322 o'1 as Dimensional Req. 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5 ' 2 floor balcony projects 4'S" into setback Maximum Site Coverage Per 2007 plat Maximum Height 32' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space Not required Allowable Floor Area 1.5:1, or 44,915 _ Minimum Off - Street Parking 46 33-on -site and 13 within the 4` street r -o -w • Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 Section 7: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering 4,24, Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed/required Right -of- Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, will meet all applicable standards. Minimum required site improvements are as follows: • Construction of sidewalk in the public right-of-way along West Hopkins Ave, 4 Street and 5 Street. • Installation of two ADA sidewalk ramps at the intersection of West Hopkins and 5 and 2 ADA ramp on the intersection of 4' and Hopkins Street. • Installation of two concrete alley ramps. The alley ramp on 5` Street will - include an ADA sidewalk ramp. • Construction of approximately 150 linear feet of four feet (4') wide concrete valley pan along 4' Street. • Construction of new curb and gutter along 5` Street and West Hopkins. • Placement of approximately 697 square yards of asphalt paving to replace the alley surface. Section 8: Fire 1Vlitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. This includes approved fire access (International Fire Code (IFC), systems IFC, as amended, Section 503), d, Sect on app P 903 and 907). Section 9: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Page 4 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) P323 Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required to be memorialized prior to development and issuance of a building permit Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof. foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Section 11: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. A.. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. B. No excavation, storage of materials. storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. C. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Current locations are identified above the 15' set back and along the side yard setbacks. An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. The original tree permit, #2007 -012, is valid as long as there are no further changes to the trees being removed and final mitigation plans. Changes to these two areas will most likely trigger a new permit or an addendum to the original. Page 5 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) P324 ama Section 14: Parking and Alternative Modes of Transportation Off - Street parking includes a minimum of 33 sub -grade spaces, a handicapped space on the alley and 13 at -grade spaces in the 4 Street Right of Way, as allowed by Encroachment License #2007 -E030, recorded at Reception # 535627. Section 15: Residential Design Standards Applicant will meet Residential Design Standard Section 26.410.040(D) or obtain a variance prior to issuance of building permit. Section 16: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee -in -Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an repea ednoro action amend das herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and e concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 14th day of December, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: afrt 'City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: / IA dpilLas-e ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 6 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) 0 Bct 25 ASPEN OFFICE GARFIELD & HECHT P C. E. Michael Hoffman 601 Fast Hyman Avenue t E -Mail: mhoffman@gaheldhecht.com Aspen. Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 544 -3442 Telephone (970) 925 -1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Facsimile (970)925 -3008 Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com January 3, 2011 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Appeal Filed by Joseph E. Edwards III on Behalf of Neighbors of the Proposed Boomerang Affordable Housing Project Dear Mayor Ireland and Councilmen Johnson, Romero, Skadron and Torre: We represent the owner of the former site of the Boomerang Lodge and the applicant of the current proposal to develop the site as affordable housing, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC (the "Applicant "). As you know, on December 14, 2010, the Applicant received a conditional recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the affordable housing proposal. Mr. Edwards, on behalf of several neighbors of the project, filed an appeal of the P & Z's recommendation. For the reasons stated below, we believe Mr. Edwards' appeal is without basis and should be denied. • At issue is the parking proposed for the project. The project is currently proposed as a three - story building which will include 46 affordable units in the mix described in the attached Exhibit A. (All of the exhibits referenced in this letter and attached to it were provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and are a part of the record.) The mix of unit types shown in Exhibit A was reviewed and approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The Applicant proposes to provide 46 parking spaces to residents of the project. As shown in Exhibit B, 33 of those spaces are to be created in an underground parking- garage. The remaining parking spaces are located at ground level. As shown on Exhibit C, one parking space is located mostly on the property adjacent to the alley while the rest are head -in spaces located along Fourth Street. These are shown on the right -hand side of Exhibit C. The slight encroachment of the alleyway parking space and all of the head in spaces are made available to the project pursuant to existing Encroachment Licenses granted to the Boomerang project in 2007. The issue raised by Mr. Edwards in his appeal is whether the parking spaces made available to the project pursuant to the existing Encroachment Licenses can be counted against the demand for parking created by the project. He contends that these parking spaces cannot be counted under the special review Code provisions of the City's Land Use Code ( "Code "). He concedes P326 Aspen City Council January 3, 2011 ..++e, Page 2 that they can be counted if the decision is made under the City's PUD regulations. The City's planning staff concluded that the spaces can and should be counted under either the special review or PUD regulations. Staff stated that parking is adequate under the current proposal. In its Pre - Application Conference Summary, the planning staff stated that the application needed special review approval for parking, but that that review should be combined with the parking review required under the PUD provisions of the Code. (The relevant section of the Summary is highlighted in the attached copy of the Pre - Application Conference Summary. In both cases the P & Z would make a recommendation to City Council, which is the final decision maker for this application. In its Memorandum of October 28, 2010 for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of November 2, 2010, staff stated that a ten percent "reduction [in the size of the project] would result in the elimination of 5 -6 units, [bringing] the project so close to conformance with off - street parking requirements that staff would again find the project meets the standards of a Special Review for Parking. "' Staff found that the Applicant could satisfy the special review for parking requirements by reducing the number of units in the project to 48 or 49 units. In response to staff comments and those of the P &Z at the November 2 meeting, the Applicant reduced the size of the project by more than the number requested by staff. As proposed and approved at the December 14 meeting of the P & Z, the project is now configured with 46 units and 46 parking spaces. This one -to -one ratio was precisely the ratio described in Code Section !" 26.515.030. As staff concluded in its October 28 memorandum, the special review standards of Section 26.515.040 have been met. In its memorandum to the P & Z for its meeting of December 14, 2010, staff applied and found that the Applicant's proposal complied with the PUD parking requirements established in Section 26.445.050 B. 3. of the Code. The Applicant has reduced the density by 8 units and now proposes 46 units. With 33 parking spaces underground and an encroachment license for 14 [sic] at grade spaces, the Applicant meets the 1 space per unit standard. Staff supports the proposed parking as the property is within walking distance to the commercial core of Aspen, along a pedestrian route and close to transit and a 'Car to Go' location. All of these factors minimize the need for a resident to need a vehicle or drive one. Staff supports the proposed parking arrangement based upon "The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development" 126.445.050 B. 3. c)] and "The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City" [26.445.050 B. 3. d)]. Staff Memorandum of October 28, 2010, bottom of Page 10. 1 mss s P327 Aspen City Council January 3, 2011 Page 3 Community Development staff found that the parking proposed for the project met both the special review and PUD standards of the Code. At the time it drafted the Pre - Application Conference Summary, Staff believed that parking for the project had to comply with both Code provisions. At some time between the November 2 and December 14 meetings, staff reconsidered its position and correctly decided that compliance with the special review provisions of the Code was unnecessary. A close examination of those Code sections which deal with parking in a PUD reveals that those provisions are intended to be comprehensive and that the special review for parking section do not apply when zoning for the project is subject to a planned unit development overlay. Because zoning for the Boomerang project is subject to a planned unit development overlay, the PUD sections of the Code apply to this application and the Special Review provisions do not apply. Section 26.445.030.A. General, states that "any development within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or on land designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter." The role of the P & Z in its review of development on land designated with a PUD Overlay is to provide a recommendation to City Council concerning the application. City Council, and not the P & Z, is the final decision maker in land use applications dealing with a PUD Overlay. The chapter of the Code which deals with Off Street Parking explicitly states that it does not apply when the project is a planned unit development. "Whenever the off -street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a planned unit development final development clan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned unit development." The very next sentence of the Code states that special review applies under other circumstances, when "parking requirements shall be established through a special review." Finally, there was no confusion or procedural defect created by staff's decision to eliminate the need for the project to comply with the special review for parking section of the Code. Elimination of special review for parking did not modify the requirement that the project comply with the PUD sections of the Code. From the very beginning staff made clear that the project had to meet the Amendment to PUD sections of the Code. All of the notices for the hearings included language informing the public and the P & Z that a PUD review was necessary. A copy of the notice mailed to the neighbors is attached hereto as Exhibit E and the affidavit filed by the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the posting and mailing of notice requirements is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Amendment to a Planned Unit Development is clearly noted on both the mailed and posted notice. 2 Code § 26.445.030.C. Code, § 26.515.030. • r P328 -�- Aspen City Council January 3, 2011 Page 4 The Planning and Zoning Commission neither abused its discretion nor exceeded its jurisdiction when it granted a conditional recommendation of approval for the Boomerang affordable housing proposal. Mr. Edwards' appeal should be denied. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman Table of Exhibits Exhibit A — Unit Mix Table Exhibit B — Plan for Underground Garage Exhibit C — Surface Parking Plan Exhibit D — Pre - Application Conference Summary Exhibit E — Form of Notice Mailed to Neighbors apits Exhibit F — Affidavit of Notice P329 • tri L' � I 1 a s � m m m C x m m ml, - a c' _ C . I y C — G 1 1 T H• a O 1 O I p p D C o 4-a a 3 'm o v 3 3 K 1 1 9 9 ° -000 mo >D >D> mm c o.oxo mo> >>> »t-> mm e m m I> • I, N pp t.) own v .. 0, 000: > m INNg , 0°°00888 UO - — : °0000° GO° 88 - 0 i I 1 1 � 1'o wu: w ° fig ov a $eoom °o HN I IIIII N I - 1 x ! awl r >Iw 0:° I .Saa.! > >w o 1 >ww >�»> .Z 111 i 1 I 1 I I . I i I, I o µ m m m ^ C an • m a m o c c a K .c i B 8 o g 0 3 3 c • i°o i 3 g 0 9 m d g o d IC ° o c Go m r m aD D D D D D x L> m m 1 �N mm n m • m y 5 m c 0, c 2 m i u ° ;744 m a O °° o ° 000.00 �' Nlo Ti ;;m = 1 1 3 f- I I 1 I 1 Iw_ I , N • m O -to 1 > w w 4 4 a. > >! Y w 4 w w 4 > w 6 ' • 1 r BOOMERANG LODGE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS t��' WNW.'amniMAS11 J I � C. cm M�GY�NS AVE RV. aws c,.uw. awwarm^ n . vamQ rix rrnuc P330 I tri ? a m -i c I I r ( W r F J , t 1 _ i i y 2 — 1 w u • 1 Z 3 J H � 'v to 3 t' — 3011111k f:1 1 " , 1 1 4. W 1 r " d r F. III 1 . _, ►.. -_nu r- —5 a & zit om y) a Do m _ 5 rte - ,e . r< I /� BOOMERANG LODGE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 0 wimp cunnifie.tom ` , A 500 W HOPKINS AVE nus -womne acc Mil iamnum 1 r,omaaxn ASPEN ,COLORADO _.. aKmcwm, wurco nm Tnmrann. amnia,. _I e - -AN, P331 r FIsTs STREET I -- / I coon w.c k r-Trive,-,3:1......_..4 , b I i Irl \ . � I 1 Cr e 1 I i 1 1 1 v i 1 � k R6 1 q I • 1 lift._ I 1 , ,. '2 > c;, s a I I,. i m r Re-i i i 0 0 1 lr. 1 �� Y I n 4. 1 , 3 1 E I II i i L i 1 i Li:: An , i ='III I I 1 i \I °� i i •gym i I 1] I b !Qti .v: It. 1 I\ Z x i I\ ° . � i ` .cxEiv..�E L. _ - 1 - 1 I - M I I T 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Is O' 1- 1 - 1 -1 -1 -1 1 LO°E�� "r FOURTH STREET .e -..„ BOOMERANG LODGE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /� ^ _ `,` , CD 1 W .... D 500 W. HOPIONA neenm•....c ue. ra mn.�wenao ru�n.m P332 �. Exhibit D CITY OF ASPEN PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Ben Gagnon, 429 -2755 DATE: 8/18/10 PROJECT: 500 W. Hopkins REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, Garfield & Hecht OWNER: Aspen FSP -ABR LLC c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North 4 Aspen 81611 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Growth Management, PUD Amendment, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, Housing Credits DESCRIPTION: The Applicant would like to change the use of the Boomerang Lodge from lodge/free market residential to affordable housing; converting existing approvals for 47 lodge units, five (5) free market units and two (2) affordable housing units to approximately 60 deed - restricted affordable housing units; and seeking affordable housing credits. Applicant is also seeking Special Review for partial waiver of off - street ,w•_ parking requirements. • Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.515.040 Special Review for partial parking waiver* . 26.470.070(4) Growth Management for Affordable Housing 26.310.020(B) Amendment to Zone District Map; Rezoning from R- 6/LP/PUD to RMF/PUD 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit 26.480.040(C) Subdivision 26.445.100(B) Amendment to PUD* 26.710.040 R -6 Zone District (R -6) 26.710.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) 26.710.090 Residential Multi - Family (RMF) *Note: Parking review by P &Z to be combined with Amendment to PUD review, per Chris Bendon. Amount of off -street parking will not be subject to final action of P &Z, but will be a recommendation to Council for final action. Applicant must meet criteria for Special Review for partial parking waiver, as well as parking criteria for PUD. Review by: • Staff for completeness. • Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing for recommendation to Council on Amendment to PUD, Rezoning, Subdivision and Special ,•„ r - P333 Review for partial waiver of off - street parking requirements; final action on Growth Management for Affordable Housing, and establishing Affordable Housing Credits. • City Council public hearing for final action on Amendment to PUD, Special Review for Parking, Rezoning and Subdivision • Public Hearing: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board, pursuant to 26.540.040(C) + 26.470.0- 70(4)a; Planning and Zoning Commission; City Council Referral Agency Fees: Housing: $410.00, Parks: $410.00 and Engineering: $410.00 Total Planning Deposit Due: $2,940 for 12 hrs. of Community Development staff time (additional hours are billed at a rate of $245 per hour) Total Deposit: $4,170.00 Total Number of Applications: 25 copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total deposit for review of the application. 2. Proof of ownership. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Completed Land Use Application, including materials required in Section 26.304.030(B) and 26.540.030. 5. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 6. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 7. An 8 '/" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. A site improvement survey performed by a licensed engineer. 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form describing how the proposed development complies with each of the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals. 11. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used (not required). 12. Site plan at 1" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed (not required). P334 �-- 13. Floor plans, roof plan (roof plan not required; floor plans required if any change to prior approval). 14. Elevation Drawings (not required). 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. 16. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements; see #4 above. 17. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above). Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right. c P335 Exhibit E PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 500 WEST HOPKINS AVE., AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR CHANGE IN USE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review proposals submitted by Aspen FSP -ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North Fourth St. Aspen CO 81611, for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Amendment to the Zone District Map, Subdivision, Growth Management Review for Change in Use, Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing and Special Review for Parking for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, and legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and 5, Block 31 of the City of Aspen Townsite. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential (R -6) / Lodge Preservation (LP) / Planned Unit Development to Residential Multi- Family (RMF) / Planned Unit Development (PUD). Applicant seeks to convert the Boomerang Lodge development, approved in August 2006, from 47 condominiumized lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of affordable housing only. The applicant proposes to make interior changes to floor plans, but proposes no changes to the exterior of the building, as previously approved. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429 -2755, (or by email at Ben.Gagnon@ci.aspen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. s /Stan Gibbs, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The As. - n Times on October 17, 2010 City of Aspen Account P336 Exhibit F ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 2, 2010 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, E. Michael Hoffman, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 12 Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 16 day of October, 2010, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. .w © Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(EX2) of the Aspen .... - Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the c rrent tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) ':ys prior .. • e the public hearing. A copy of the owners and go rnm'ntal age /es so not; -. .tta ed hereto. go f ael Hoffman The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thi! X day of November, 2010. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: io /'o /I; ublic List of Attachments - 'Y'p , , PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) �4P ..., u LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 2 '•.g I. • LINDSAY � 5 C, s , LOGAN , My Commission Expires 1011612013 P338 Exhibit 16 • Exhibit 16 List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of Boomerang Lodge '" 521 -523 W HOPKINS AFFORDABLE 501 W HOPKINS LLC 501 WEST MAIN LLC HOUSING PO BOX 8769 532 E HOPKINS AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1818 521 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 . 604 WEST LLC 612 WEST LLC ALEXANDER JOAN P 604 W MAIN ST 604 W MAIN ST PO BOX 4818 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ALPINE BANK ALPINE BANK ALLEN DOUGLAS P ATTN ERIC GARDEY 403 LACET LN 600 E HOPKINS AV PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 • AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ASPEN MESA STORE LLC ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 CIO ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #103 PO BOX 8238 • ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC 44 BA 5 N O EAN BLVD PT 43A 611 MAIN ST ask RTON META PACKARD ASPEN, E COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 ASPEN, CO 81611 ,,,,„, • BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S CARROLL MEREDITH COHEN BRIDGE WILLIAM CARROLL ARTHUR RICHARD 2075 SHERWOOD DR 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 605 W HOPKINS AVE. #210 CAMBRIA, CA 93428 ENCINO, CA 91436 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARTER RICHARD P CHAKERES JOHN B TRUST CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC 400 E 3RD AVE #804 3801 KENNETT PIKE C200 795 LAKEVIEW DR DENVER, CO 80202 GREENVILLE, DE 19807 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 CITY OF ASPEN CLEANER EXPRESS CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ ATTN FINANCE DEPT 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 3670 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CORTALE ITA CUMMINS RICHARD DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC 205 S MILL ST #112 1280 UTE AVE #10 610 S WEST END ST . ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 P339 e text] DUNSDON S MICHAELE EMERICK SHELLEY W DILLON RAY IV BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 2449 5TH ST PO BOX 10543 617 W MAIN ST #D BOULDER, CO 80304 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 P34O [Type text] ask ERICKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FAT CITY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 ASPEN, CO 81611 FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 412 MARINER DR PO BOX 5082 730 E DURANT JUPITER, FL 33477 GILLETTE, WY 82717 -5082 ASPEN, CO 81611 GANT CONDO ASSC GARMISCH LODGING LLC GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J 610 S WEST END ST 110 W MAIN ST 430 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDMAN DIANNE L GORDON LETICIA H & H PROPERTIES LLLP PO BOX 518 C/O JOE RACZAK GOLDEN HORN 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 555 E DURANT AVE WINTER PARK. FL 32789 -3725 ASPEN, CO 81611 HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS HAYMAN JULES ALAN HY- MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC HAISFIELD LISA YERKE 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR 111C AABC aret*, 616 W HOPKINS POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 -. IGLEHART JIM IGLEHART JIM JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN 610 W HALLAM ST 617 W MAIN ST 435 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 JOHNSON STANFORD H JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM PO BOX 32102 2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 TUCSON, AZ 85751 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ASPEN, CO 81611 KELSO DOUGLAS P KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST KONIG DEBORAH 627 W MAIN ST PO BOX 518 605 W H P AVE #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 LINDSTROM, MN 55045 605 W ASPEN, , CO CO 81611 KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R LESTER JAMES LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #201 229 CHRYSTIE ST #1417 605 W HOPKINS #006 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10002 ASPEN, CO 81611 w ..i P341 ,e text] LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE #212 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 • • P342 [Type text] MOLLER DIANE T NECHADEIM REALTY LLC NELSON TREVOR T & ROSE MARIE ., .„ 1710 MIRA VISTA AVE PO BOX 4950 605 W HOPKINS #207 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIX ROBERT JR NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC NORTHWAY LLC PO BOX 3694 200 S ASPEN ST 106 S MILL ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 OHARROW SIOBHAN P PERRY EMILY V RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #208 PO BOX 11071 605 W MAIN ST #002 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 • • • REVA LLC • RODRIGUEZ JOANN ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH S PO BOX 1376 605 W MAIN ST #00A 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RUFUS CAMI CAMI LLC SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 SCHEFF JONATHAN & BUTTERWICK KIMBERLY 1280 UTE AVE #7 18518 ST MORITZ DR 6450 E DIEGO, CA CRESTA . ASPEN, CO 81611 TARZANA, CA 91356 , SAN DIEGO, CA 92037 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MTN CORP SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC 0/0 FINSER CORP 0/0 JENNIFER SHERWIN 5420 S QUEBEC ST #200 7321 N.W. 75TH STREET 1714 VISTA ST GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 MEDLEY, FL 33166 DURHAM, NC 27701 SLIM LLC SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G STARFORD PROPERTIES NV 106 S MILL ST #202 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST C/O KEON WILLIAM ST 7321 NW ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 ME DLEEYY 75TH ME, FL 33166 STASPEN LLP STUART DAN SUBOTKY JULIE E KING & SPALDING PO BOX 183 55 WEST 14TH ST #15L 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE LOMA, CO 81524 NEW YORK, NY 10011 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 THROM DOUGLAS H TODD SHANE TOMS CONDO LLC C/O BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC 617 W MAIN ST PO BOX 2654 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 "40 timmit P343 [. t text] TUCKER LUCY LEA ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE PO BOX 1480 600 E HOPKINS #304 2577 NW 59TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 • P344 [Type text] VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST VOSS NATALIE S WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC HALL TERESA 50% INTEREST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 C/O BILL POSS 0095 LIGHT HILL RD ASPEN, CO 81611 605 E MAIN ST SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 WASHBURN LYNN S WENDT ROBERT E II WERLIN LAURA B TRUST TERRELL SERENE -MARIE 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 2279 PINE ST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 PACIFIC PALISADES. CA 90272 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1607 WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S WHITNEY KURT A & JACQUELINE WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC 58416475 METAVANTE WAY 6448 E CRABTREE PL 12 GREENBRIAR LN SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186 YUMA, AZ 85365 PAOLI, PA 19301 YLP WEST LLC YOUNG DONALD L YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST PO BOX 4444 8117 PRESTON RD SUITE 300 WEST YARDLEY, PA 19067 ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75225 as • December 23, 2010 Mr. Jody Edwards Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC Asral /PITKIN 201 N. Mill p Street, Suite 203 Aspen, CO 01 61 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: APPEAL (regarding resolution approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission) Dear Jody, As required per Section 26.316.020 D., Notice Requirements, of the land use code notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 10, 2010, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 'City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal of an action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission (passage of a resolution with regard to parking requirements for 500 W. Hopkins) that you submitted. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2759 or by email Jennifer.Phelan@ci.aspen.co.us. A memo will be emailed to you prior to the hearing. Regards, t 66kA Jenifer Phelan Deputy Director • • 130 Scum GALENA STREEr • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5939 Printed on Recycled Paper 1118,9 ici lilto r, ill 40* i t ek; z 00 O 1 i �o 5 a A tt up Li- ¢mow , P Y6 ` a' --• O Z. n• N Q SC3 1M(1 0 0 2 , to ct 2 1 0 Vitt :4-pr i j g 1 .1-ai w m " _ El m 11: d x m d m m a rl n E 00 i 7 O m�� O 1§ M1 7 a > ° U U M 2 4!� W J o rl �. J O i. E J N 0"' a M1 JN U Xl -: y « p m ▪ 99 y� F' z - g - _ A W y� N T = W W E T.; I N '0 §$A - A 3 ed 1.+ r I 5 IL 3 J "' w 4 i y W 2 CG m • W o =� m U a o T m ▪ ? 0) /- a W E`t•'.L ;ty a ' _ �Y NQ ifli z M E _ o = � Y N ¢ CO c4 ra$¢� LL P"...... /-9 a so IT V 6 � m \--141li ° 0 H o o x w ,2 z 4. F' °y 0 M AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ,'5 (n). j,�, , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: r.I t n JD @S.• fm &o// , STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, SCOV (name, please print) being or representi hg an Applicant to the city of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names At a minimum, Su and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. Abdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidenta to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title an d enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names an d addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the publc hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me th . day • of se.. �Q D , b y ° °' S rct \ND AND OFFICIAL SEAL :z ' 26,2010 pin w � -., i •z ` ,/, gyp, t �. �. „a `n { ,ems ` . + ; r: ” r .rte r i CORYJ. s . %._ a E: y GARSKE ; a z a vy• • ...... . fr y ~- '? 1 r�V lJ ' #S. `ff'� . �rM •, GENCIES >bi Ez fires ^44-4-"a2`,..1,- mz . D 051092012 t AE OWN ERS NOTICE ..; x , � s ..., - - ? F ' # fi x ' $4th < 4 t 3 ■ '4 XA ;•t 4 o- " i .3. tar. , ' C 3 � � . 4 a,trn ' w } ^p':. 414 ' " - 14441:49.1! . £ r •.•-� as . :x RECEIVED DEC 21 2019 CITY OF A VctY ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION COMMUNITY ONE OPMFW: PROLE(: I: p�M / _a___ Name: 4ppa( e f� I y z 4G / ru rt 0 ,4 600me[ract Location: Sc> 0 LJest Hackltil S Aper.. l (Indicate street address, lot & block number, le , a1 description where appropriate) Parcel ID #(REQUIRED) Z7 12_-9 CO 2, APPLICANT: / /' ! / ,\ . // 5( [ t z Name: s ites �Y1 I.�Scr�c(en �esy� ()an t/enw 4 J kit S . IM- Address: CA Cray a^' 5/ Z l ` / xl. p 1 ;(�taci 3 , 1 Asp Phone #: /lc- - 8 70° REPRESENTATIVE: �, F�,� " a r //'' Name: e V. ev cl iy, V% /1G� 6,ie_'.` (-fte-✓a../5 !LL Address: Z-cr( M m (/ -c9 Al — Phone #: 12S -g7UU TY OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use _ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text /Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion/// ��� ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment Other: zly e. / ❑ Conditional Use ' // l EXISTING CONDII IONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) w Have you attached the followinek /{- FEES D t:E,: $13 rise ❑ Pre- Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Li Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Fonn n Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. `� "` RE DEC 21 2010 CITY UI- /NSF COMMUN DEV IH CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEN' Agreement for Payment of Cit of Aspen Development Application Fees ,,� CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and SkdC / A 1 144-4 , J !ha n ti V"- ' - 6 '^C (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1 � ( P✓?6, T tAasMbJ fitted to CITY an application for (he after, TI-I PROJ CT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and /or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior a teprnnation of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of 5 which is for 3 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT Ki OW $ ed� , u —C. By: BycLjt `2.`7�/ 4I2� Chris Bendon J Community Development Director Date: 12--(z I l/ 0 Billing Address and Telephone Number: tot /•. Nei( /ftzo5 R!b!1 % v 21 — 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 jee @kcelaw.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 COREY T. ZURBUCH ctz @kcelaw.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925 -3977 EBEN P. CLARK epc @kcelaw.net www.kcelaw.net MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk @kcelaw.net DAVID C. UHLIG dcu@kcelaw.net ^������ * also admined in Califomia K DEC 21 2010 O CITY OF TEN December 21, 2010 MU NITY DEVELOPMENT Chris Bendon City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., 3 Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Notice of Appeal concerning Planning and Zoning Commission Approval of Parking Variance/Waiver for the Boomerang Property Dear Chris: This letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Sections 26.316.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code. This office represents Steven and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, the owners of properties adjacent and near the Boomerang property and within 300 feet of the Boomerang property. On December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission ( "P &Z ") approved a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a parking variance through the PUD process (the "Resolution "). The section of that Resolution addressing special review of a parking variance or waiver was deleted from the final Resolution by P &Z on staff's recommendation. The Boomerang application dated September 17, 2010 seeks special review approval for a partial parking waiver — see Application at page 15. The public notice, the actual discussion at the prior P &Z hearing on November 2, 2010, and both the staff memorandum for the November 2, 2010 P &Z hearing and for the December 14, 2010 P &Z hearing all clearly state that the request for a parking waiver is to be determined pursuant to the criteria for special review pursuant to Code § 26.515.040.A. While the parking plan had been amended, the Application was not amended in regard to the request for special review approval prior to the hearing. Chris Bendon, Director City of Aspen Community Development Department December 21, 2010 Page 2 The Code standards of review for a special review waiver of a parking requirement and PUD approval of parking are different. Compare §26.515.040A and §26.445.050B.3. In a procedural slight of hand, the standards of review and applicable sections of the Code were changed at the December 14, 2010 hearing. City Staff announced at the hearing that instead of the special review criteria as discussed at the prior hearing and in all of the documentation associated with the file, the P &Z was to consider the parking waiver under the PUD provisions of the Code instead of the special review provisions of the Code. At the hearing, it was apparent that some members of the P &Z and public were confused and did not understand what was being considered. It was an abuse of discretion and in excess of the jurisdiction of the P &Z to approve the Resolution in the absence of procedural compliance with the City Code and upon standards that were not in compliance with the Special Review criteria. Enclosed is our appeal fee in the amount $735.00. If there is anything in addition to this Notice and Fee that is required in order to pursue this Appeal of these determinations or if you need additional information from me, please contact me. It is my understanding that the City will be responsible for publishing Notice of the Appeal hearing date. Sincerely, KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC fA Jo el E. Edwards III cc: Steven & Cheryl Goldenberg Dan Verner John Staton \appeal p &z reso.doc 7a - Q 27 s r2 Q-k-9 oo z 00 83 . 70(0 -ASC -b( Ede Edit 8xard tier Spa Egan R FerMat lab P • R riggibla F. IFNI M* 0411 &tin IAaadaartLIRa cfd )! Sae I a Ion 1 Otis 4 0 . 'Aspen Land Use r I:a 2010.ASLU .m WHOPKNSAVE SP9J 0 - ^� r 212f1010 e. APPEAL OF P81 ACTION ON BOOMERANG . V- iti 'JOSEPH EDWARDS 925 6700 I Qpd<'Running I Dos 0 Was 112/1672011 . I $14111114* I r One lest ea'GOLDENBERG I Fist nerne 'STEVE 8 CHERYL 201 N. ML 1 S203 Pone (925)670 Addnaa ASPEN C081611 I ("kart 0 New n appkant? 0 Cofactor & appkant? Last name IN, COTE 8 EDWARDS, LLC • • I Frst nwne 201 N N9LL ST 203 Phone 1(970) 925.6700 I Cust t 126956 Address ASPEN CO 81611 Lender Last name I Frst name Rhone ) - Address the. ,, lorot:addess � [�r/1tl id1 /yvtovA k $ 73 5 • (D 0 1