HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.boomerangpudgm.A04100-1CASE NUMBER
A041 -00
PARCEL ID #
2735- 124 -49002
CASE NAME
Boomerang LP Expansion
PROJECT ADDRESS
500 W. Hopkins
PLANNER
Nick Lelack
CASE TYPE
Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use
OWNER/APPLICANT
Charles and Fonda Paterson
REPRESENTATIVE
Vann Associates LLC/ Hass Land Planning
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
LLC
7/24/00
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Ord. 20 -2000
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
Approved
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
10/20/00
BY
J. Lindt
IIII IIIIIIIIII I III VIII VIII III II 482688 i0:asa
SILVIP DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 301.00 0 0.00
i
PUD AGREEMENT FOR
THE BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1 '3 day of d , 2002, between
CHARLES G. PATERSON (the "Owner ") whose legal address is 50� West Hopkins Avenue,
Aspen CO, 81611, and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City ").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Owner owns that certain real property (the "Property") located on the
south side of West Hopkins Avenue between South Fourth Street and South Fifth Street (Parcel
Identification Number 2735 - 124 -49 -002) in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado, described as:
That part of Lots A, B, and C lying northerly of Line 7 -8 of the City and Townsite of
Aspen (According to the 1978 Resurvey by the Bureau of Land Management), except
the southerly 20 feet thereof and the north 80 feet of Lots D, E, and H the north 80
feet of Lot F, the north 75 feet of Lot G, the north 50 feet of Lot I, Block 32, City and
Townsite of Aspen, and as modified by the addition of the north 85 feet of Lots D and
E, and the north 80 feet of Lot G, Block 32, City and Townsite of Aspen through quit
claim deed executed on August 14, 2000, and recorded with the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder as Reception Number 446337; and,
WHEREAS, the Property is being developed by the Owners as follows, where said
development is hereinafter referred to as the "Project':
❖ The Property will be developed with six (6) detached structures, including four (4)
freestanding chalets with three bedrooms each, one (1) freestanding cottage with one-
bedroom, and a freestanding building (the "west end building ") to include two (2)
two - bedroom lodge units, two (2) studio affordable housing units, guest storage,
common space, lockers, bathrooms, and spa facilities. In total, there will be
seventeen (17) lodging bedrooms amongst seven (7) units, and two (2) affordable
housing bedrooms amongst two (2) units. All seven (7) lodging units will be sold in a
fractional share /interval ownership arrangement as further discussed herein. An
outdoor swimming pool will be developed between the westernmost chalet, the
cottage and the west end building. In addition, a total of seven (7) parking spaces will
be located on -site.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1 of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2000 ( "the Original
Ordinance "), the City granted Rezoning from Moderate- Density Residential (R -15) to Moderate -
Density Residential with Planned Unit Development and Lodge Preservation Overlays (R-
15/PUD /LP); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2 of the Original Ordinance, the City granted Minor
Planned Unit Development approval with conditions; and,
IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII IIII IIII IIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 082688010 1:39A
SI
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 41, Series of 2001 ( "the Ordinance "), the City
granted approval of a Substantial Amendment to the Planned Unit Development approval of the
Original Ordinance, as well as Conditional Use and Subdivision for Timeshare, subject to certain
conditions that supercede those of the Original Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the Owner wish to enter into a PUD Agreement for the
Project; and,
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation, a
final plat for the Project (the "Plat ") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat
at Owner's expense on the agreement of the Owner to the matters described herein, subject to the
provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code "), the Ordinance, and other
applicable rules and regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the Owners are willing to enter into such agreement with the City and to
provide assurances to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and
the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as
follows:
1. Description of Project. Refer to the second "Whereas" statement, above.
2. PUD Dimensional Requirements. As set forth in Condition 13, Section 2 of the Ordinance,
the following dimensional requirements were approved by the City as part of the Project, are
shown on the Final PUD Development Plans, and shall be printed on all final building permit
plan sets:
a. Minimum Lot Size: 15,000 square feet.
b. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: No requirement.
c. Maximum Allowable Density: One lodge or residential bedroom per 1,000 square feet of
lot area.
d. Minimum Lot Width: 75 feet.
e. Minimum Front Yard: 10 foot.
f Minimum Side Yard: 8 feet, except a 5 foot setback shall be permitted for the
easternmost courtyard.
g. Minimum Rear Yard: 1 foot.
h. Maximum Site Coverage: 35 percent.
i. Maximum Height: 25 feet.
j. Minimum Distance Between Buildings: 6 feet.
k. Minimum Percent Open Space: 40 percent.
1. Trash Access Area: to be located at the northeast corner of the property, on Fourth Street
and Hopkins Avenue.
m. Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.75:1.
n. Minimum Off - Street Parking Spaces: 7 on -site spaces.
3. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the City agrees
Boomerang Lodge Expansion PUD Agreement
Page 3 of 10
i IIIIII VIII IIIIII Ilii�l IIII IIII IIIIIII III IIII IIII IIII Page: 3 8 of 10:398
----- - ----- .00
to approve and execute the Final Plat for the Project
- . which conforms to the plat requirements
of the Code and the Ordinance. The City agrees to accept such Plat for recording in the
office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon Owner's payment of the recordation
fee. The City has further required the submission and recording of PUD Development Plans
which are attached hereto at a reduced size as Exhibit ".Ja" If the approved PUD
Development Plans change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of revised plans shall
be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review,
evaluation, and recordation.
4. Development Requirements. The following development requirements will be satisfied by
the Owner pursuant to Ordinance No. 41, Series of 2001.
a. Affordable Housine. The Project shall include two (2) studio apartments for affordable
housing and employee generation mitigation purposes, where each studio unit provides
credit for housing 1.25 full -time equivalent employees. The entire development requires
housing of 1.911 full -time equivalent employees. Both units will be of the rental variety
(i.e., not for sale) and available first to employees of the Project. If not rented to
employees of the Project, Owner retains the right to rent the unit(s) to a qualified renter
under the terms of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ( APCHA) Guidelines (the
"Guidelines "). In either event, the unit(s) must be rented to a qualified renter.
Construction of the two(2) affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months
after the completion of the three (3) easternmost chalets. If construction does not begin
on the two (2) affordable housing units within said timeframe, Owner shall be required to
mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to whatever is built in the
initial phase by temporarily deed restricting a two - bedroom unit at their 1020 Waters
Avenue property or other acceptable property. Temporary deed restriction of a two -
bedroom unit would provide housing for 2.25 full -time equivalent employees and would,
therefore, be more than adequate to mitigate any incremental employee generation
impacts attributable to a partial build -out of the Project.
If a temporary deed restriction is necessitated, the temporary deed restriction shall be
permanently dissolved and rendered null and void upon issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the two (2) affordable housing units provided for in the Project. If, after
36 months, a second phase of development to include construction of the on -site
affordable housing is not initiated, Owner shall have the option of either converting the
temporary deed restriction to a permanent deed restriction, or paying to the APCHA cash -
in -lieu of housing at the then current rate for 0.88 of a full -time equivalent employee
generated by construction of the three (3) chalets.
With regard to either permanent or temporary mitigation, if an affordable housing unit is
to be rented by an employee of the Project itself, APCHA income and asset restrictions
shall be waived. However, if a deed restricted unit is to be rented to a qualified renter
who is not employed by the Project, standard terms and restrictions of the APCHA
Guidelines shall apply.
Page 5 Boomerang OLodge Expansion PUD Agreement I A 11111111111111111111111111 4s?688 30:39F
R 301.00 D 0.00
the utility provider. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing utility lines, systems - - -J
and /or facilities attributable to the Project will be bome by the Owner. Owner will use
good faith efforts to not disrupt utility service to adjacent properties during construction.
Owner shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with 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. The
only exception to the provisions of this paragraph may include necessary changes to or
easements for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) sewer line that was
erroneously installed by ACSD on the Property without an easement, when said line
should have been installed in the public right -of -way; Owner will make good faith
efforts to work with ACSD to coordinate a mutually acceptable arrangement with regard
to avoidance of, easements for, and costs associated with the sewer line.
d. Fire Protection. Owner shall install an approved fire sprinkler system and alarm system
to the extent required by the Aspen Fire Marshal.
e. Dust and Mud Control. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, Owner shall obtain
from the City Environmental Health Department approval of a Fugitive Dust Control
Plan. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan will include, as a minimum, plans for fencing,
watering of dirt roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to
remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to
prevent windblown dust from crossing the property lines or causing a nuisance. A
washed rock or other style mud rack shall be installed during construction as a
requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department.
Construction Management Plans. There shall be no storage of construction materials in
or on the public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the City
Streets Department. A set of construction management plans will be submitted by the
Owner to the City as part of the building permit application and said management plan
will include, noise, dust control, and construction traffic management plans.
Construction is prohibited on Sundays and between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
on all other days.
g. Heated Sidewalks. If Owner chooses to heat the new sidewalks for snow and ice melting
purposes, there shall be no use of Glycol and the City shall not be required to replace or
repair the heating system if the City ever has to cause damage to said system en route to
completion of necessary work in the right -of -way.
h. Exterior Lighting and Streetlights. Any and all outdoor lighting shall comply with the
applicable portions of Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Aspen Land Use
Code.
i. Trees, Protection, Removal Permits, and Planting Plans. In the event required and prior
to building permit application, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks
Department for any tree(s) that is /are to be removed or relocated.
I VIII VIII II III IIIIII IIII I I IIIIII III VIII III) III 8s
P 6 an0 0 g o 05/14/2003 1:398
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 101.00 D 0.00
i. Parking and Traffic Mitigation. Seven (7) parking spaces shall be provided on -site. Two
(2) of the seven (7) spaces may be stacked one behind the other along the Property's
westerly boundary. The other five (5) spaces shall be located in a one -way, looped drive
access from West Hopkins Avenue. No parking spaces in the Fourth Street right -of -way
will be designated for use by the Project. The following traffic mitigation measure will
mitigate PM -10 emissions and vehicular trip generation: (1) limiting the number of
available parking spaces; (2) providing secure bicycle storage; (3) providing a free
bicycle fleet consisting of at least five bicycles available for use by guests and employees
of the lodge; and, (4) providing a courtesy shuttle /van for guest trips to and from the
airport and other local destinations.
k. Building Permit Plan Requirements. In addition to such requirements enumerated above
and otherwise required by the City of Aspen Building Department, the following
information shall be submitted as part of the building permit application: a construction
dust and noise mitigation plan; a list of all conditions of approval associated with the
Project; a completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District; a site improvement survey prepared by a licensed professional surveyor where
said survey includes, as a minimum, monuments, setback lines, utility lines, pedestals and
poles, easements, existing features (irrigation ditches, sidewalks, driveways, buildings,
trees, etc.), and the surveyor's seal dated within twelve (12) months of the submittal;
and, plans for all improvements, snow storage, and utility pedestals.
1. Contractor Knowledge of Conditions. The building permit application shall include a
signed letter from the primary contractor stating that the conditions of the development
order as specified in the Ordinance and construction management plan have been read
and understood.
m. Fees. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all applicable tap fees, impact fees and
building permit fees shall be paid. Cash in lieu of school land dedication shall be paid at
the time of building permit issuance at the then current rate, and said payments shall be
made on a proportional basis to the net number of bedrooms being constructed under the
particular building permit. Park development impact fees are due and payable to the City
of Aspen at the time of building permit issuance at the then current rate, and said
payments shall be made on a proportional basis to the net number of bedrooms being
constructed under the particular building permit. If an alternative agreement to delay
payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be
payable according to the agreement.
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). As soon as construction of the Project
allows, Owner shall submit the Project to a plan for condominiumization created pursuant to
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) in order to facilitate the conveyance of
an ownership interest in the employee housing units to the APCHA and the conveyance of
fractional /interval ownership interests in the lodge units pursuant to the timeshare approval
granted under the Ordinance. The City agrees to process for approval and for recordation a
condominium map or similar prepared in accordance with the Code and CCIOA. As the
Owners have provided employee housing pursuant to the Code, the Project is exempt from
Boomerang Lodge Expansion P oAgreement
Page 1 I IIIIII VIII I�IIII II�III IIII III IIII�I� III VIII IIII IIII g
Page: 0
paying the Affordable Housing Impact fe : 1:398
LIA
DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 101.00 D 0.00
Fractional /interval owners will be subject to a reservation schedule whereby all such owners
are required to reserve use of a unit on or before October I" for use in the winter season and
on or before May 1 s` for use in the summer season. If such share owner reservations have not
been confirmed by these dates, any remaining unreserved times in the units shall be made
available for rental to the general public on a short-term basis.
6. Timeshare. In addition to other representations made herein and in the application approved
pursuant to the Ordinance, Owner shall provide the City with all documents and financial
assurances required pursuant to Sections 26.590.010(0)(1) and 26.590.010(C)(20) of the
2001 Aspen Land Use Code. The $20,000.00 letter of credit required pursuant to Section
25.590.010(C)(1), Marketing and Sale of Timeshare, of the Code is to ensure that Owner
conforms to the marketing plan contained in the disclosure statement required pursuant to
26.590.010(C)(20). The letter of credit shall be provided to the City as part of the building
permit application for the first lodging unit(s), and the City shall release the letter of credit
once all shares in all units have been sold for the first time. The requirements of this
paragraph shall remain in full force and effect unless the cited Code Section(s) is /are repealed
or replaced with more permissive requirements in which case the Project may benefit from
such Land Use Code amendment(s).
Recordation. Pursuant to Section 27.480.070(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code, once fully
executed, this Agreement and the Final Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the Owner to record the plat within one-
hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid
and reconsideration and approval of the plat by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council will be required before its acceptance and recording, unless an extension or
waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. The subdivision plat shall
also be submitted in a digital format acceptable to the Community Development Department,
for incorporation into the City /County GIS system. The one - hundred eighty (180) day
recordation requirement contained herein shall not apply to the recording of condominium or
similar maps, or declarations or any other documents required to be recorded to accomplish a
condominiumization or similar in the City of Aspen.
8. Financial Security for Public Improvements. In order to secure the performance of the
construction and installation of improvements in the public R.O.W., the Owner shall provide
a letter of credit, cash or other guarantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney prior to
the issuance of any building permits for the project. As estimated in Exhibit "A ", the
amount of the financial security for public improvements in the R.O.W. is $23,565. The
guarantee documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal
default by the Owners in its obligations to complete the public improvements, to withdraw
funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such public
improvements, or to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for
installation for such public improvements. If the improvements have not been completed to
the satisfaction of the City within one year, the City may require the Owner to adjust the
amount of the financial security for inflation.
Boomerang go�Lodge Expansion PUD Agreement 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Page: S6S013:39R
As portions of the improvements are completed, the City shall inspect them, and upon
approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for that
portion of the improvements, except that ten percent of the estimated costs of the
improvements shall be withheld for the benefit of the City until (i) all of the improvements
have been inspected and accepted by the City, (ii) a two -year maintenance bond has been
provided by the Contractor, and (iii) as- builts provided (if required).
In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during Project
construction, on the request of the City Engineer, a bond or other suitable security for the
repair of the improvements shall be provided by the Owner to the City.
9. Financial Security for Landscape Improvements in the R.O.W. In order to secure the
performance of landscape improvements in the public R.O.W., the Owner shall provide a
letter of credit, cash or other guarantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney prior the
issuance of any building permits for the project. The amount of the required financial
security shall be 125% of the estimated cost of the landscape improvements. As estimated in
Exhibit "A ", the amount of the financial security shall be $3,310. The guarantee documents
shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owners
in its obligations to complete the landscaping improvements, to withdraw funds against such
security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such improvements, or to withdraw
funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation for such
improvements. If the landscaping improvements have not been completed to the satisfaction
of the City within one year, the City may require the Owner to adjust the amount of the
financial security for inflation.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City shall inspect them, and
upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for
that portion of the improvements, except for thirty -five percent (35 %) of the estimated costs
of the improvements. Of this thirty -five percent, ten percent (10 %) shall be released by the
City after (i) all of the landscaping improvements have been inspected and accepted by the
City, and (iii) as- builts provided (if required). The remaining twenty -five percent (25 %) of
the financial security shall be retained by the City until the landscaping improvements have
been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years.
10. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail to the addresses
set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing.
To the Owner: Mr. Charles G. Paterson
c/o The Boomerang Lodge
500 West Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
To City of Aspen: City Manger
130 South Galena Street
IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII IIII IIII illllll III VIII IIII IIII 05132 988 10:396
,SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO .__...T__. R 101.00 D 0.00
City of Aspen
Financial Securities for Improvements in the R.O.W.
Project: Boomerang PUD Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: John Niewoehner, City Com -Dev Engineer Dater 12/06702
Note: Separate financial securities should be submitted for Public Improvements in the
ROW and Landscaping Improvements in the ROW
Public Improvements in ROW (excluding landscaping):
Description of Work
Unit
Unit Price
Quantit y
Cost
Mobilization /De- mobilization
LS
2000
1
2000
Clearing & Grubbing (ROW area
between street and property line
SY
5
0
0
Site Cleanup and Restoration (5 -6 %
total cost
LS
1500
1
1200
4" Thick Concrete Sidewalks 237 LF
SY
70
132
9240
Curb and Gutter 305 LF)
LF
25
305
7625
6" Thick Reinforced Drive Ramps (35
SY)
SY
100
35
3500
25% Contingency
660
TOTAL AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FINANCIAL
SECURITY
23565
LS= Lump Sum
Landscaping Improvements in the ROW:
Description of Work
Unit
Unit Price
Quantity
Cost
2" Caliper Cottonwoods
each
280
5
1400
Seeding not sod
LS
50
1
50
Irrigation
LS
1200
1
1200
Sub -Total
2650
25% Contingency
660
TOTAL AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
FINANCIAL SECURITY
3310
/plat- review /boomerang#9
Boomerang Lodge Expansion PUD Agreement
Page 9 of 10
With Copy To:
Aspen, CO 81611
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
11. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on
the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the
Owners' and the City's successors, personal representatives and assigns.
12. Amendment. The Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument
executed by the parties.
13. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall
not affect the remaining provisions hereof.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation
Kathryn S Vch, City Clerk Helen Klande , ayo`
APPROVED AS TO FORM: iIIIIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII COUNTY IIIIIII III IIIIII III IIII age: 10 of 31039Fi
R 101.00 D 0.00
orcester, City Attorney
OWNER: CHARLES G. PATERSON
Charles G. Paterson
Boomerang Lodge Expansion PUD Agreement
Page 10 of 10 •� *,�
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss. NOTARYPITBIdC
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) cnloxn OF orb
The foregoing instrument was aclrnowledge * day of nti Q
2003 by Helen Klanderud, Mayor, and Kathryn S. Koc , erk.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
`6 Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) _ .. .
The foregoing instrume$s acknow]
203 by Charles G. Paterson, as
w �= iK
C
before me this2k*ay of ,
;rtv.
Witness my hand and official se--a T'-
My commission expires: d„-� L 1-- ol o o fi
otary Public
c:\documents \city applications\Boomerang PUD A,----
IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII IIII IIII I�IIIII III IIIIII III IIII 482688
Page: 13 of 20
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO 05/34/2003 11:398
_. _ R 101.00 D 0.00
MXl
L
l7
L
D
m
V
c
Y)
L
0
F
7 �
zz
m
O Q y L
L J L y L L
lu
> V I- V-i-Am
pwwwuFFt-
F
v2�i�a�a�
Q
m
n
Im~�
ono
()D
" N O
cc) v
m.
6 e m
_ rc
0
r
Z
J
U
a
O
V
ya •
`0
`i
Q •f'V
0
J
of
L
I
E
V
7
I
L
LLL
J'
�I
FI
2
v
w
a.
3
� J
o �
Y
R B
n
o =O,n
J
�Z � 3
i ba m m
J N
m
g, 0
x °i26:
V
L uo
F
V � Q
�O
n
0
p�gv
06<
a4
.1
0
0
0
r
Q
L
N
L
L
k-
J N Q g
)
Ro
of
L
I
E
V
7
I
L
LLL
J'
�I
FI
2
v
w
a.
3
� J
o �
Y
R B
n
o =O,n
J
�Z � 3
i ba m m
J N
m
g, 0
x °i26:
V
L uo
F
V � Q
�O
n
0
p�gv
06<
a4
.1
0
0
0
r
Q
g
f
�d
IIC
i
K
3
E
€
63m
U s
9
S a
i
3
uu3
, iu
2 >3
S i
g
f
�d
IIC
z8
zuz
ggnu
p
0
z
Ww
2�R m
af^
a�a
o[ {Y
� g�t
yg �Q� I ghj
0 of
Y iwi�
3 f ?m i
r
u
O
3
E
uu3
, iu
2 >3
S i
Q1F ioR
3r^
1$ }
iLi
o elt
l 69
O= 9i^
�v�a
z8
zuz
ggnu
p
0
z
Ww
2�R m
af^
a�a
o[ {Y
� g�t
yg �Q� I ghj
0 of
Y iwi�
3 f ?m i
r
u
O
odV?JO'10D `lJ3dSV x.•,vauow
"�n� S{JI>Ido+1 "M `Z£ 7170"19 iouwow ya.m �roa _•
9n"17 t7M/21�W009 ?J3FJ�IS�d iJOS?J�,l.Vd S3"12Nf-I� :�n�n�,.,y •�
' yNN L }F e�)LLb O
� m
Eu}"���.n�i � Ei�iL O
04-LA l� `4ti L �
OD j
OD
"a a ut V��a -yL gaa
O M m �xO[- $'Lijp �FE�u�l
.-: N O O�OKV tyy�yy L ���Y CL LO�p
N LY•iV
Mee
QwF.r uminve{ <32 mlU
C
0
U
F
-
o
U
8��_ °kugSS� i
�O °UV G
C{
2
LL
kg �� P
YF 0 /
J>
NIP 1
Z
a
i
0
a
I ! _
0
k�
of
'a
`o
01
4, IN
yq�f
i/
tu
flu
0
i
� 1
f
m
C�Sryy
�SYUh
OV e
F '
�yy
191
a-wf f -L/
�. f ♦ 1 9 -
y {
b3toya { m
'�' h/JItllIT9
U
0
�o
K
x Jzw .�/ i
. y i
Si:
yJ4yJ
fl
k�
V �y
\
ac
n $�
i
1 `
1, :O_9
Y
�i � i
r•
u
/y
O�!?JOiO7 'W�dSd wwm�u r:�Ma�a
kVdbtJOHJ 09LI- LZ6- oL6- 459tB'OJ'e<iewmoug.puoy �avp 9evwmeuq OpL�
�InV SWNIdog'A Zf N3019 i >uunw•aaAa�roa
Qnl = >WV?J-:IWOO9 213W =IfSad WOS?I3lVd 53-1W4.0 :u -I A—V"jy
ZO -61 -II ,an9�!
'i
co
in'V 1 V
i 1
' O
•1 I F
i y
I F I F
Y 1 I
I
W vmm ° 3
_
MGM
- --
3
d
--�
UJ
n
ILI
# .0
ai
V
1
Fj
v
x
V
L
0
y
nI
lu
lu
luNF
C
0
a
- A
U =
J
i
D��O1O7 •u��� XVMJ.4�O�U OCL i-LV6.6LG-pSM9'O�'eaowmouS _peoy Msr�)a.awmo�§ppL N
1�>11NJaY'LYJVY +JnOd
anv sui 'AdoH'm •z¢ )490
9t 1 -ig r)wN ;L1009 21�I IYJtS2d NOS2l� L Jd S�72NH�
# o
tea-
T
' v
t � ,
J
l
1
I
i
Q
C
i
14 -
,kr a
T Q
F
Ili
x
1
Q
'N' a
F
BS
x
v
t
0
F
F
E
P�WMq.J'M1�me�Q
OdY?JD'107 'IJ3dSY xvsnuwu oau- GU -otb - rsale'o� •«owmo�s - veov a = =» =wwme,.s �tl
131LIJrJaY'a2Wa zJnpa
gn-19 YjWN- :;W009 N;IWVIG; ;dWOGN-�UVJS3"!W149
ao-61-0 :ansal
T
a v
1 1
v
a �
m
0.0
�-- -P
00 3
CF
moo ..i s f 7 \I �� - ---
I �
1� I
U � -
}
:
o _ ________ ___
V '
�
I
:
i
t
J i
J I �
u
'r
it
�Ia
Iz
r
gd
f '
I I
i
w
C 1
—
V
V
1
odvNo"lol-) •uadsv kVddNp dOAL1 L16- OL6- ¢S91B'07'mmow p Wino r;� a d
mou5 _ pnmy �...� m.mu.mmug oAL�
•Vn+✓ suNdoH •m •zs 51=7(9
l�uxna✓•azwa+�noa
gni:) 49wvN3Woo9 213FJ+7IS3d FJOS?J�1 dd S3 I?1J+17 : p�
ZO -61 -11 asn¢¢�
81
0
F m
S
lu
m t F
N ..
w � 8
0"
!I
�I
t a
— K
3
t
� y
J
t
��1roa o
V
V —
v
1
_ y
F
H
d -
v
0
L
,t
•
rte,;
'�%a
��1roa o
V
V —
v
1
_ y
F
H
d -
v
0
L
0dVN0 -707
2AV 19WNJOWAN *ZC >490-79
Qnls �Wvwvwoog
o"'Ah
WIM
a
a
4
co
co
C4
w
W
moo
rc
O
Iz
>
� I •
I W L ..
OILI NMI
—ax I
I'
NAL
� I •
I W L ..
OILI NMI
—ax I
I'
06VNO101 -*? V av� Doti- GZ6 -0<1- ramw'o�•mmw.mmus- P�++Nmq.l !'vmoad
pova �I'+e» acmwmmu6 opL
•31AV Gw>wOH'M'Z£>I�Olq i�uw�w as va anon
-VNVNawooe Vau4919.�o uosa��avd sa�a�v��
W
m
M
N �
OD
w o
00
N ao
�a
00 rn�
�7'amm
�m
0
U
T
F-
Z
J
- U
Y
�a
w
0
a
J
N
L
it
t-
N
3
L
O
91
t
8
t
ID
L
F-
Tj
fU
3
L
O
Id
H
W
3
6
lu,.1
7
F-
lu
,
a�N
tl
Q
a
m
W
to
^ 3"-aa< Y a w a
.Y8 °g § °k q V i °Y Q �S ? Q "gs a O � F- y
W Q o
a oo »W` 3:ya« w 7w g d8jg3 .6 #.; o a ak w
EWx: xW s e W "s »,"k: »ai; $a w =�
"63a 5s ? v god¢W v €y w §�� a xx- $ x w 'y o -g
gkik$ ` 3 cn W .g tl�� P :w��'3E JR i V C -Y.tl �.;J 8� k W > g W LLJ LLI
oox$4� eg w e�,ss :�'W LL) �a a g� a z zY, a 'a:i`ja s ass ° s' ° �` a a z -8 ~ 'I a 3°
=I as w 9.�K.S c k, v �a w W a c<o v - I w °" z ` I<
X38 Y kW W p x': Y
zg k x e8 is J `8 '°"•� €S k .�-.'^
game a� s 1 o Yx - a 'e a ^x:d o eowWO 2g W 'sea
o :"s 6s �o° .a :sxg $ :s: " a ;s u 3M-lip
U Y?;8
a —
m
o� o
N w
00
Z. CD NNm / o W
W
O CN
fi�+t H OD
!161 ` x Wi z v8
Z 04
a / b
E' n
z ��N
9
�' � Caw �•
OwZ \ \/q
M `j
�y W
- � 2
1 O
0 0
I I�
9S g
e w
s boa J
8' u (L�FFt °Yg -�P a a5 ^ys
l2EL _
J. - u -{� ° 6® ti n_ 3 : rk: -a
s a�.. �$ , j� _ u)
pt+ y 12 xak
� 30 yJ Eep 6 °, a vw a iR
OJ co nwr -� z
B- &6;
°a a� iek �v : gg � •'x k
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
of the
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section
26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ",
of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific
development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein.
The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three -year vested
property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third
anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a, building permit is approved
pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a
revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of
vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any
growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject
to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific
development plan as described below.
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
Planned Unit Development Approval
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan
City Council Ordinance 920 -2000
Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
August 5 2000
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration
and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code.)
Issued this 5th day of August, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community
Woods, Community Development Director
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the
City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: Lots A -I, Block 32, of the City and Townsite of Aspen, by
ordinance of the City Council numbered 20, series of 2000. For further information
contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 S.
Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920 -5090.
s /City of Aspen
Publish in The Aspen Times on August 5, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
'visa
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director J
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner 1 """
RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion — Rezoning & Minor Planned Unit
Development — 2nd Reading/Public Hearing
DATE: July 24, 2000
Main St.
.. • � *'r�,,.:.. �.e �sa*�.. � ""gym,..- amix' ',d. ��` . -
Expansion of WE
:�•
Boomer _ Lodge Ell
:rt
,�.�" , -r �,�.., s 1�, °• � ` iii
APPLICANT:
SUMMARY:
Charles & Fonda Patterson
The purpose of this application is to expand the Boomerang
Lodge across W. Hopkins to a vacant lot. Specifically, the
REPRESENTATIVE:
Applicant proposes to add five (5) chalets, two 1- bedroom lodge
Sunny Vann
rooms, two 1- bedroom affordable housing units, and a
Mitch Haas
bathhouse. On June 6, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 5 -0 to approve the project with conditions.
LOT SIZE: CURRENT LAND USE:
CURRENT ZONING:
R -15
19,287 sq. ft. Vacant
PROPOSED ZONING:
R -15 with PUD & Lodge
PROPOSED FAR: PROPOSED LAND USE:
Preservation Overlay Zone
12,060 sq. ft. Lodge & AH
Districts
1
i
REVIEW PROCEDURE, REQUEST, & ACTION
• Rezoning & Minor Planned Unit Development Revie ws: The Planning and Zoning
Commission shall by resolution recommend City Council approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the rezoning and Minor Planned Unit Development requests.
Requests:
(1) Rezoning from Moderate Density Residential, R -15, to R -15 with Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlays.
(2) Minor Planned Unit Development to establish dimensional and parking
requirements for the site.
Action:
City Council unanimously approved the rezoning and PUD requests on First Reading
with the recommendation that the Applicant provide on -site parking spaces. The
Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend City Council approve the
rezoning and PUD requests with the recommendation that five (5) on -site parking
spaces be provided, and that two (2) of the 5 spaces be designated for the AH units.
GMQS Exemptions — Lodge Preservation & Affordable Housing: The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for
GMQS Exemptions for a lodge preservation application and/or an affordable housing
application after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority on lodge preservation applications.
Request:
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemptions from scoring and
competition for two (2) affordable housing allotments, and seven (7) Lodge
Preservation — Tourist Accommodations allotments.
Action:
On April 19, the Housing Authority recommended the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the exemptions. On June 6, the Commission approved GMQS
exemptions for lodge preservation and AH by a vote of 5 -0. Council should be
aware that the Housing Authority recommended, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved in its resolution, a condition that the construction of the
affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the
completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. Council
can review the project's proposed phasing under the PUD criteria, if they have
concerns over this issue.
Conditional Use: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve,
approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for a conditional use.
Request:
The Lodge Preservation Overlay District allows affordable housing for employees of
the lodge; conditional use is required to allow non -lodge workers to live in the
affordable housing units.
Action:
The Commission voted 5 -0 to approve the Conditional Use.
2
STAFF COMMENTS:
Charles and Fonda Patterson (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann
Associates, LLC, and Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC, have submitted an
application to expand the Boomerang Lodge across West Hopkins Avenue to a vacant
parcel. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting approval to construct six structures on
the lot to include:
1. Five (5) chalets. Each
chalet would consist of 3
bedrooms 3.5 bathrooms,
and approximately 2,180
square feet of total area
(1,610 square feet of floor
area).
2. Two (2) 1- bedroom lodge
units. Each unit would be
about 960 square feet.
3. Two (2) affordable
housing units. Each unit
would consist of about 700
square feet.
4. A bathhouse for guest use.
The 1- bedroom lodge units,
affordable housing units, and
bathhouse would be constructed in one building. In total, the project would add 17 lodge
bedrooms in seven (7) lodge units, and two (2) affordable housing units.
Community Development Staff believes the spirit and intent of the proposed project
meets the goals of the lodge preservation and affordable housing programs. The Aspen
Area Community Plan calls for increasing the lodge accommodations and affordable
housing units in town. Staff also appreciates the proposal to maintain the site in its
natural condition to the greatest extent possible, to connect each chalet to a new sidewalk
with a pedestrian path, as well as to limit the measured height to 23 feet for the chalets,
and 25 feet for the lodge/bathhouse /AH building.
In addition, Staff supports the proposed PUD dimensions, including density, floor area
ratio, setbacks, open space, height, etc. Staff believes the proposed lodge expansion and
affordable housing units are appropriate for this lot in this neighborhood.
Since the First Reading, the Applicant has revised his site plan again to address the
parking issue. In his latest proposal, the Applicant proposes to provide a 10 -12 -car
underground parking garage beneath the second phase affordable housing and 1- bedroom
lodge units building. In addition, he is suggesting that the proposed parking along 4'
Street be eliminated, but continues to provide three (3) head -in parking spaces along West
Hopkins. Staff agrees that the parking garage will address all of the lodge's parking
needs into the future. However, this proposal is part of phase 2. Staff is pleased to see
the elimination of the 4s' Street parking, which could have impaired access to the
trailhead. We continue to be concerned about parking along West Hopkins Avenue.
Staff recommends as an alternative, and the Applicant agrees, a temporary, on -site
surface parking area be located where the affordable housing units will be located in the
future. This would eliminate the need for all except one curb cut along West Hopkins.
Staff recommends and the Applicant agrees that this temporary parking area will be
screened by landscaping. When phase 2 begins, parking could temporarily be shifted
across the street or provided on -street until the garage is completed.
The following discussion addresses issues related to the streetscape, GMQS Exemptions,
the phasing of development and covenants placed on the property by the previous owner.
1) Streetscape
Staff recommends the streetscape along the front of the subject property be developed
similar to the traditional Aspen street improvement pattern. Specifically, this includes
a curb and gutter next to the edge of the existing pavement, a green strip to include
street trees approved by the Parks Department (which would also serve as snow
storage), and a separated sidewalk/concrete path along the front of the Applicant's
property. Staff recommends that this development occur in phase 1.
2) Building Placement
Staff continues to recommend that the chalet units have a consistent building line and
that they should parallel West Hopkins Avenue. It should be noted that the Planning
and Zoning Commission did not indicate any concerns over the proposed building
orientation of the chalets.
3) GMQS Exemptions
Applications to increase the number of lodge units and the number of affordable housing
units are subject to employee housing mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470
of the Land Use Code pertaining to lodge preservation and affordable housing
exemptions. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with determining
whether an applicant is proposing to provide adequate employee housing to mitigate for
the increased number of workers generated by a lodge preservation development — in this
case an expansion — after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority.
The Commission approved the provision of two (2) 1- bedroom affordable housing units,
which would provide affordable housing mitigation for 3.5 employees (1.75 per unit).
On April 19, the Housing Authority recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission
approve this level of mitigation for the lodge expansion. Detailed Housing Authority and
Staff referral comments are included in Exhibit B.
Due to the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision on the Telluride case, Staff is
concerned that the rental caps proposed may be unenforceable, thus not ensuring
perpetual affordable units. This issue was not discussed during the Planning and Zoning
rNN
Commission public hearing as Staff was not fully aware of the Court decision at that
time.
However, Staff and the Applicant have agreed, subject to City Council's approval, that
the Applicant shall grant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority a fractional
interest in the property on the condition that the Authority be indemnified and held
harmless from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an
interest in the property. This provision is included in the Ordinance as Conditions 17-
18.
3) Phasing of Development
Two phases of the development are proposed. Phase one is proposed to consist of
building the three chalets at the easterly portion of the lot — next to the 4`" Street stub.
Phase two is proposed to consist of the other two chalets and lodge/bathhouse /AH
building. The reason for the separate phases is critical for the Applicant to finance the
project. The Housing Authority recommended a condition of approval that the affordable
housing units must be started no later than 36 months after the completion of Phase 1.
Staff is concerned that there is no financial security guaranteeing the two affordable
housing units will ever be built. Staff proposes Condition 16 to address this issue,
which states:
Construction of the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months
after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot.
Pursuant to Section 26.445.050(J) Planned Unit Development — Phasing of
Development Plan, prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase,
the Applicant shall provide a cash -in -lieu payment to the City for the fractional
employee generated by the first phase at the Category 3 level at the then current
Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, subject to refund upon
complete provision of on -site mitigation for phase 2. All conditions in this
ordinance shall be memorialized in the Final Plat and Planned Unit Development
Agreement.
4) Covenants
During the First Reading on the proposed development, John Batty, representing Mary
Hugh Scott, the previous owner of the subject property, argued that the project does not
comply with covenants she placed on the property as part of the contract to sell the lot to
the Applicant. Staff requested a copy of the covenants from the Applicant to help City
Council better understand the history of the property. The Applicant declined to provide
the covenants to Staff, stating that the Applicant will be prepared to answer any questions
from Council on this matter during the public hearing. The Applicant does not want the
private real estate contract to become part of the public record.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes the Applicant has made an effort to better address the parking
concerns. Although Staff continues to believe the buildings should be sited parallel
to West Hopkins Avenue, the proposed layout without head -in parking can work,
provided a temporary parking area is provided on -site. Staff recommends approval
of the project with conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. Series of 2000."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments (I K C- IT —r ":_u= 6,
Exhibit C -- Letters
Exhibit D -- Code Interpretation — Definitions for the term "general public" as it
relates to lodges
Exhibit E -- Revised Site Plan
Q \home \nickl\Active Cases \Boomerang \Boomerang CC public hearing.doc
0
ORDINANCE N0. _ZO
(SERIES OF 2000)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
BOOMERANG LODGE MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, REZONING
TO R -15, MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AND LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONEDISTRICTS,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN `COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735- 124 -66 -001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Charles and Fonda Patterson, owners, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann
Associates, LLC, and Haas Land Planning, LLC, for Conditional Use approval for
affordable housing, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions for lodge
preservation and affordable housing, a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Rezoning to Moderate Density Residential, R -15, with Planned Unit Development and
Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone Districts for a property consisting of portions of Lots
A -I, Block 32, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 19,287 square feet, and is
located in the R -15 Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310 of the Land Use Code, the City Council
may approve Amendments to the Official Zone District Map, during a duly noticed
public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and
recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Planned Unit Development; during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and
considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning
and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of
the Minor PUD, finding that the site design better addresses on -site parking and
neighborhood compatibility; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2000, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 29, Series of 2000, by a five to zero
(5 -0) vote, approving a conditional use for affordable housing and GMQS Exemptions for
lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommending City Council approve the
Boomerang Lodge Minor PUD and Rezoning to R- I5/PUD/LP; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.100.104 - Definitions, the definition of a lodge
is the following: "Same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation Overlay
t
District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis
for at least six months of each calendar year, and may have kitchens within individual lodge
rooms'; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department issued
a Land Use Code Interpretation of the term "general public" as used in the definition of
lodge, which states that the term does not allow for an owner of a lodge unit to perpetually
occupy the unit; and that the requirements for a lodge apply uniformly to all lodge units
within a lodge and each lodge must conform to the lodge provisions, unless the use of that
specific unit has been appropriately approved for another land use; and,
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing, City Council
upheld this Land Use Code Interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant voluntarily desires to deed restrict the two (2)
affordable housing units to restrict the amount of rent that can be charged consistent with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Housing Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court in the case entitled Town of Telluride
v. Lot Thirty -Four Venture L.L.C. (case No. 98 -5C -547, decided June 5, 2000) held that
Section 38 -12 -301, C.R.S., prohibits the enactment of an ordinance that imposes rent
controls; and,
WHEREAS, Section 38 -12 -301, C.R.S., states that the rent control statute is not
intended to impair the right of a municipality to manage and control any property in
which it has an interest through a housing authority; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant desires to grant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority an interest in the property; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has consented to
accepting an interest in the property on conditions that it be indemnified and held
harmless from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an
interest in the property; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council 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 Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board, the Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council 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 City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Boomerang Lodge property, Parcel Number 2735 - 124 -66 -001, shall be rezoned from
R -15 to R -15 with Planned Unit Development and Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone
Districts.
Section 2
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Boomerang Lodge Minor PUD is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City
Council and shall include the following:
a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section
26.445.070(C).
2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by
City Council and shall include:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing
easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for
physical improvements, and location of utility pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
d. A drawing showing the phase 2 under ground parking garage location, and a plan
showing a temporary on -site parking area for three (3) automobiles screened on
all sides except the access by landscaping approved by the Parks Department and
eliminate all other on -site parking. Because the below grade parking garage
extends to the lot lines beyond the building footprints, the plan shall show
landscaping in the space between the buildings and the lot lines.
3. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a
building permit, the applicant shall record a PUD Agreement and the Final PUD
Plans with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder binding this property to this
development approval. This agreement shall reference the applicant's desire to
convey to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority interest in the property and
that such conveyance shall take place on or before the application for building
permits. Failure to affirm the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority interest in the
property shall render the approval null and void. The agreement shall indemnify and
hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority from any claims, liability,
fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the property.
4. The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and shall be
printed on the Final Illustrative Plan:
a. Minimum Lot Size.
b. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling.
c. Maximum Allowable Density.
d.. Minimum Lot Width.
e. Minimum Front Yard.
f. Minimum Side Yard.
g. Minimum Rear Yard.
h. Maximum Site Coverage.
i. Maximum Height.
j. Minimum Distance Between Buildings.
k. Minimum Percent Open Space.
I. Trash Access Area.
m. Allowable Floor Area Ratio.
n. Minimum Off - Street Parking.
5. The building permit application shall include:
15,000 square feet.
No requirement
1 lodge or dwelling bedroom per
1,000 square feet of lot area.
75 feet.
10 feet.
10 feet.
As shown on Final PUD Plans.
35 percent.
23 feet for the west end building, and
25 feet for the chalets.
14 feet.
55 percent.
As shown on Final PUD Plans.
12,060 square feet.
5 spaces, 2 of which shall be
designated for the affordable housing
units.
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P &Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District.
d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval
from the Parks Department Director for off -site replacement or mitigation of
removed trees.
e. A completed curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement, if necessary.
f A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the
purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way.
e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado
licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and
after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation
report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency
should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
5. The building permit plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire sprinkler system and
alarm system for the new buildings.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development
Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative
agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized,
those fees shall be payable according to the agreement.
c. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community
Development Department showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all
existing and planned native vegetation on the site. The landscape plan shall show:
1) The size, species, quantity and location of planned vegetation surrounding the
temporary parking area.
2) The size, species, quantity and location of vegetation between the affordable
housing and lodge condominium building and the lot line above the sub -grade
parking garage.
3) The curb and gutter next to the edge of the existing pavement on West
Hopkins Avenue, a green strip to include street trees, and a separated
sidewalk/concrete path along the front of the Applicant's property.
The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Community Development
Director after considering a recommendation by the Parks Department and City
Engineer. The Applicant shall contact the City Forester regarding the correct seed
mix for replanting disturbed areas with native species.
7. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of
the approved building envelope and access envelope.
8. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not
within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department.
9. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
10. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
11. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to
utilities.
12. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
13. A fugitive dust control permit will be required during construction.
14. Slope stabilization, erosion control, and sediment control measures need to be
implemented before, during, and after construction.
15. The Parks Department shall approve the location of the proposed sidewalk to ensure
that it does not conflict with future trail plans in the area.
16. Construction of the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after
the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. Pursuant to
Section 26.445.050(7) Planned Unit Development — Phasing of Development Plan,
prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase, the Applicant shall
provide a cash -in -lieu payment to the City for the fractional employee generated by
the first phase at the Category 3 level at the then current Aspen/Pitkin County
Affordable Housing Guidelines, subject to refund upon complete provision of on -site
mitigation for phase 2. All conditions in this ordinance shall be memorialized in the
Final Plat and Planned Unit Development Agreement.
17. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest in the ownership of the
two affordable housing units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the
purposes of complying with the recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision regarding
rent control legislation. The Applicant may submit an alternative option to satisfy the
rent control issue acceptable to the City Attorney.
18. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related
to ownership of an interest in the property.
19. Prior to phase 2 and prior to the building permit being issued, the Applicant shall
record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units, and grant the undivided
fractional interest in the ownership of the affordable housing units to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
20. Each Boomerang lodge unit shall conform to the provisions of Section 26.100.104 —
Defrnitions, Lodge, and any change in the lodge's operations must be reviewed,
approved, and mitigated for (employee generation) pursuant to the then current Land
Use Code and Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Section 3:
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 or City Council, 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 4•
This Ordinance shall not effect 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 5:
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
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12`" day of June, 2000.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Rachel Richards, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 24`h day of July, 2000.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Worcestor, City Attorney
CAhome\nickl\Active CmeABoomerm,Ordina ce.doc
Rachel Richards, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.310.020, Standards Applicable to Amendments to the Official Zone
District Map
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding:
This application requests to rezone from R -15, Moderate Density Residential, to R -15
with Planned Unit Development and Lodge Preservation Overlays. Rezoning is required
to allow the lodge use on the site and the PUD allows the Applicant to establish
dimensional requirements for the new lodge and affordable housing units on the site.
Staff does not believe rezoning this parcel would be in conflict with any portions of this
title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes rezoning the parcel will not conflict with the AACP. The AACP
encourages maintaining the community's lodging base, increasing the number of
affordable housing units, and locating development within the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary and close to transit. Rezoning this parcel to include PUD and LP Overlays will
allow the Boomerang Lodge to expand its operations and provide affordable housing to
its employees or qualified local workers, thereby fulfilling several AACP goals and
objectives.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses. The site is located across the street from the existing Boomerang Lodge, and
near the Christiania Lodge, L'Auberge (lodge), detached single family homes, duplexes
and multi - family residential buildings, recreation areas, and Main Street. Zone districts
within about a three -block radius include R-6, R -15, Park, LP Overlay, PUD Overlay,
and Office.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:
Rezoning the property would increase the intensity of the uses allowed from one single
family residence to multiple lodge and affordable housing units. If developed as proposed
under the R- 15/LP/PUD, traffic generation will increase in the neighborhood as well as
road safety issues. A single family residence in Aspen generates between 5 and 10
automobile trips per day.
According to the application, Jay Hammond, P.E. evaluated potential traffic generation
caused by the Boomerang expansion. Mr. Hammond believes that the developed site
under the proposed zoning could generate up to fifty -three (53) automobile trips per day.
However, the lodge's location and shuttle service should help reduce traffic generation
from the site. Staff believes that road safety would be improved if parking were
provided on -site, thereby removing parked cars from the street and out of
pedestrian and bicyclists way.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this application
and reported the ability to serve this project. A condition of approval shall be that the
owner(s) mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to
utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. School, park, water, sanitation, and
other impact fees will be due prior to the issuance of building permits.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
Rezoning the property will not itself create adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Rezoning the property would increase the potential use of the property from residential to
lodge and affordable housing. Combining the rezoning with a PUD will increase the
intensity of uses on the site which could adversely impact the natural environment to a
greater extent than the development of one single family home. However, the Applicant
has represented that as much of the natural vegetation and terrain will be maintained as
possible, and Staff has every reason to believe this to be the case because the Applicant
has a vested interest in the neighborhood.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding.
Staff believes rezoning the property is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen, particularly because rezoning the parcel will allow for
lodging and affordable housing uses — both of which are important to maintaining the
community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff_ Find
The community has lost more than 300 lodge units over the past decade due to
redevelopments, and the increasing service demands by Aspen's visitors, residents, and
second homeowners continues to create a need for workers and affordable housing in
town. In addition, two consecutive slow ski seasons has hurt the local economy.
Increasing the lodging base and number of affordable housing units in town are
convincing reasons for supporting the rezoning.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not believe the proposed rezoning would be in conflict with the public interest
and believes it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Again,
rezoning the property would benefit the City from gaining lodging and affordable
housing.
26.445.050 Review Standards: Minor PUD
A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and
Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements.
Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible
for Minor PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden
shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development
application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and
this title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the proposed PUD is consistent with the AACP. The AACP encourages
maintaining the community's lodging base, increasing the number of affordable housing
units, and locating development within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and
close to transit. Rezoning this parcel to include PUD and LP Overlays will allow the
Boomerang Lodge to expand its operations and provide affordable housing to its
employees or qualified local workers, thereby fulfilling several AACP goals and
objectives.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposed development would be consistent with the character of existing land use in
the surrounding area, which include lodge; residential — detached single family, duplex,
and multi - family; park; offices; and trails.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the proposed development would adversely affect future
development of the surrounding area. The surrounding area, with the exception of a large
vacant lot immediately to the west, is mostly built out, consists of trails, or is in the
county and would be subject to county land use code regulations which severely restrict
development on steep slopes and in wildfire areas.
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
The Applicant is requesting seven (7) LP tourist accommodations allotments and two
(2) affordable housing unit allotments for this development. The lodge and
affordable housing units are exempt from the GMQS scoring and competition
requirements. The LP tourist accommodations allotments are available, and the
affordable housing units ceiling level of allotments are also available. The Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5 -0 to approve the GMQS allotments.
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
4
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.
b) Natural or man -made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding
area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant
vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property
and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and compatible for
the proposed lodge and affordable housing units proposed for the site. There are no
natural or man-made hazards or existing natural characteristics of the property that would
make the proposed development unsuitable for the parcel. The site is relatively flat and
avoids natural hazard areas. The dimensions appear to be compatible with existing and
potential developments in the neighborhood. The lodge and affordable housing units
would impact the neighborhood more intensely than would a single family residence or
duplex under current zoning. However, Staff does not believe the increased impacts
would be significant considering the multi - family dwellings and other lodges in the
immediate area.
Staff believes a temporary parking area shielded from view by landscaping and the
proposed sub -grade parking garage adequately addresses the lodge's current and future
parking needs. The garage and temporary parking area reduces the impact of traffic,
noise, and parking on the surrounding area. Removing head -in parking off of West
Hopkins Avenue and the 4`h Street stub also minimizes any impacts on pedestrian
circulation in the area.
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
The proposed scale and massing appear compatible with the surrounding area. Site
coverage is proposed to be 35% and open space is proposed to be 55 %. The measured
height of the chalets is proposed to be 23 feet, which is 2 feet below the R -15 height
limit. The sixth building — AH and lodge units, and bathhouse - is proposed to be 25
feet. Overall, the dimensional requirements appear appropriate for the property given its
location at the base of Shadow Mountain.
I 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 non - residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core
and general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is proposing 10 -12 on -site parking spaces off of West Hopkins
Avenue in a sub -grade parking garage. Staff believes this is an adequate number of
parking spaces for current and future lodge needs. A temporary parking area on -site
for three (3) automobiles for phase 1 is also an appropriate number of off - street
parking spaces.
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:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or
other utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow
removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
There are no infrastructure capacity issues that would prohibit the amount of
development being considered. Staff does not recommend any reductions in the
development being proposed.
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-
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of
ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or
avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the
natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and
consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air
quality in the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road,
driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible
with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural
features of the site.
Staff Finding
Staff does not recommend reducing the allowable density within the PUD because
no natural hazards or critical natural site features exist on the parcel.
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.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional
density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the
site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can
be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing
and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Finding
The applicant is not requesting an increase in density beyond what is allowed within the
PUD.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent
public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference, to the past, or contribute to
the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate
manner.
Staff Finding
The proposed development complies with the natural features of the site to the greatest
extent possible. The notable natural site feature is the dense vegetation. No historic
structures or other unique features exist on the property, though the site does abut the
Midland Railroad right -of -way which is currently used for trail purposes.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant
open spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
The structures are spread out across the lot, which is the length of one city block.
The only open space remaining on the lot will be the 14 -16 feet between the
structures, the spaces within the setbacks, and small pockets in front of or behind
four (4) of the proposed chalets. Vistas would be preserved by limiting height to 25
feet, which is allowed in the R -15 Zone District.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to
the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual
interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
Although Staff does not believe the chalets are appropriately oriented toward W. Hopkins
Avenue, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not did not indicate any issues
regarding building orientation. The structures are oriented toward the mountain in a
manner similar to one section of the existing lodge and the duplex across 4`' Street to the
east. Even though these units are not subject to the Residential Design Standards, Staff
believes it is important that the chalets address the street in a manner that creates a
consistent facade line.
Structures in this area are primarily parallel and square to the street, and located close to
the street in front of any parked automobiles. If the chalets were located along the front
of this property in a manner that created a consistent facade line, Staff believes the units
would significantly contribute to the context of the neighborhood and provide visual
interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow
emergency and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
Access to the property is from West Hopkins Avenue and 4`h Street by pedestrians,
cyclists, and automobiles; pedestrians and cyclists may also access the property from
the rear through dense vegetation.
The Aspen Fire Marshall has reserved comment on the access until the City has
received a building permit application. A condition of approval is that the Aspen
Fire Marshall shall approve emergency access to the property prior to the issuance of
a building permit. A second, related condition of approval is that the buildings be
sprinkled.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
Pedestrian and handicapped access will be provided via a proposed new sidewalk
along W. Hopkins Avenue. The ground floor lodge room in the building near the
corner of W. Hopkins and 5"' Street is proposed to be handicapped accessible and in
compliance with the UBC and ADA.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a
practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact
surrounding properties.
Staff Finding
A condition of approval is that a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan,
prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-
site during and after construction, be approved by the City's Engineering Department
prior to the issuance of building permits. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil
percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency
should be used in designing any drainage improvements. The City drainage criteria
needs to be implemented.
The Applicant is proposing to accommodate drainage on site through the use of roof
drains, downspouts, and dry wells to maintain the site's historic runoff and drainage
patterns.
If a parking structure in phase 2, then an oil /sand separator will likely be required by the
Aspen Consolidated Sand District.
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are
appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions
associated with the use.
Staff Finding
Although the primary use of the property would be lodging, no programmatic functions
are proposed.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and
with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an
ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for
the Aspen area climate.
t'^a
2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which
provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or
enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other
landscape features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
Staff supports the Applicant's proposal to preserve and use as much of the native
vegetation on site as possible for landscaping. The Parks Department recommends that
the Applicant contact the City Forester regarding correct seed mix for replanting
disturbed areas with native species. Another recommendation is that the planting of
cottonwoods in the buffer zone between the road and the Applicant's structure would be
the most beneficial
E. Architectural Character.
It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest,
variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and
within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility
of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale,
orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other
attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed
development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan
an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of
the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development
shall:
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the
property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the
intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and
cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by
taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation
and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe
and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the architectural character of the proposed buildings will enhance the visual
character of the City, appropriately relate to the existing architecture of the Boomerang
Lodge, and represent a character suitable for the location at the base of the mountain. It
is difficult for the property to incorporate any natural heating because of its location at
the base of Shadow Mountain; similarly, natural cooling is accomplished by the shade
provided by the mountain.
Roof overhangs to the entry of each unit would accommodate the storage and shedding of
snow and ice; the roof pitches will also shed snow away from the entrance and walkways.
Storage of snow from the proposed sidewalk along W. Hopkins Avenue can be
accommodated through shoveling snow into the 10 -foot setbacks.
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will
be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and
general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate
manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements,
and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited
for residential development.
Staff Finding
All new lighting for the proposed residence must be in compliance with the City's
lighting code adopted in November 1999 and Uniform Building Code for safety. The
new lighting shall be designed to minimize glare onto adjacent properties.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or
recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed
PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open
space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed
development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural
landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's
built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses
and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation
areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or
dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar
manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for
the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas,
�*,
and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future
residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
No common park or dedicated open space is included in this application for this lot.
However, the Applicant proposes that 55 % of the site will serve as required open space.
In addition, Applicant plans to maintain the native vegetation and to replant disturbed
areas with native species. Common areas are located in front of or behind four of the
chalets in the center of the property.
K Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose
an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public
does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and
public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the
following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this application
and reported the ability to serve this project.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
Staff recommends a condition of approval be that the owner(s) mitigate any public
impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary
sewer and water lines.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for
the additional improvement.
Staff Finding
No oversized utility stubs were requested to be installed with this development.
L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD
applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily
accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network,
provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and
minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation
of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access
to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
Access to the lodge and affordable housing units would be provided via a proposed new
sidewalk along W. Hopkins Avenue. Specifically, each chalet, lodge unit, and affordable
housing unit would have access to the public street via a paved path from the front door
to the street. Vehicular access to the property would from West Hopkins Avenue to a
temporary parking area during phase 1 and a sub -grade parking area after phase 2.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding
the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the temporary parking area and permanent sub -grade parking garage
would minimize impacts on traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed
development.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD
applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do
not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property
owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If
phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined
in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall
comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as
a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent
phases.
Staff Finding
Two phases of the development are proposed. Phase one is proposed to consist of
building the three chalets at the easterly portion of the lot — next to the 4h Street stub.
Phase two is proposed to consist of the other two chalets and lodge/bathhouse /AH
building with a parking garage underneath. The reason for the separate phases is critical
for the Applicant to finance the project. The Housing Authority recommended a
condition of approval that the affordable housing units must be started no later than 36
months after the completion of Phase 1.
Staff is concerned that there is no financial security guaranteeing the two affordable
housing units will ever be built. Staff proposes Condition 16 to address this issue,
which states:
Construction of the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after
the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. If the project
is built in phases, prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase, the
Applicant shall provide a financial guarantee acceptable to the City for the employees
generated by the total project at the Category 3 level at the then current Aspen/Pitkin
County Affordable Housing Guidelines.
In the event that a building permit is not issued for the affordable housing units
within 36 months of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the first
phase buildings, the City shall have the right to obtain complete payment for the
fractional employee generated by the first phase at the then current Aspen/Pitkin
County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The Applicant would be relieved of the
financial obligation for the affordable housing mitigation for the employees
generated by phase 2. All conditions in this ordinance shall be memorialized in
the Final Plat and Planned Unit Development Agreement.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later
phases.
Staff Finding
The physical distances between the two phases will be fourteen (14) feet, which is
the distance between the two chalets in the middle of the property. The Applicant
will notify owners of the eastern chalets prior to the start of construction of Phase
two. Alternative parking will be provided for phase 1 users while phase 2
construction begins.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-
lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the
PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any
mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the
respective impacts associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
Please see number 1 above in this section.
Joyce Ohlson
Tom Bracewell
Becca Schickling
Memorandum
TO: Nick Lelack, Community Development
FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director
DATE: May 25, 2000
RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion
John Krueger, Patrick Duffield and myself did a site visit to the lot and have the following
concerns and comments. The proposed on street parking for the project presents a few
complications for future trail plans for the Shadow Mountain Trail. One alternative for the
Shadow Mountain trail is to extend the trail at its terminus at 4" Street and bring it down on
to the South side of Hopkins Street in the right -of -way (ROW). An eight to ten foot trail
along Hopkins would be in conflict with the proposed parking for the Lodge and
Condominiums. This may also present a problem along 4' Street as well. If the trail were to
stay behind the Boomerang lot, then access to the property would need to be from Hopkins or
4t' Street. The trail may continue along the alley and old Midland ROW and then extend up
the mountain. The Parks Department could support their request to adjust the lot line along
Lot G, however, an adjustment to include in their property boundary the southerly portions of
Lots DA E would severely encroach upon the trail.
m
To:
Chris Bendon, Planner
MEMORANDUM
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: April 11, 2000
Re: Boomerang Lodge Expansion
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Boomerang Lodge Expansion
application at their April 5, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible.
The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from
the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to
"issuance of building permit."
2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way,
the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license
requirements.
Site Review
1. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the
application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff
design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a and a requirement that, prior
to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"06" size plan sheet or on
the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim
Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and
containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site
drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of
this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to
function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine
maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance.
Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation
22
drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site,
and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage
may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the
percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm.
Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance.
Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects
may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
2. Community Development — Information — The following request was provided
by the Planning Department:
NO INFORMATION AT THIS TIME
3. Fire Protection District - Information — The following information has been
provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District:
NO INFORMATION AT THIS TIME
4. Streets Department — Requirement - As of the request of the Streets Department
revisions need to be made as follows:
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
5. Parks — Information — The following information has been provided by the
Parks Department:
a. Since the applicant wants to have the natural look for the landscaping, then Steve
Ellsperman, the City Forester, should be contacted for the correct seed mix to use
in the disturbed areas.
b. The Midland Trail would be most effective if it is extended behind the property
location. This may require a trail easement.
c. The planting of cottonwoods in the buffer zone between the potential Trail and the
applicant's structures would be most beneficial.
6. Engineering — Requirement — The following requirements have been provided by
the Engineering Department:
a. ROW permits and Encroachment licenses will be required during construction
if applicable.
b. A Fugitive dust control permit will be required during construction.
23
C. Drainage and soils problems in the project location may require the
installation of curb and gutter. If not during the construction, then a curb,
gutter, and sidewalk agreement will be made.
d. A full soils report and drainage report are needed before the issuance of the
building permit. Presenting it in a timely manner is beneficial to the applicant
as well as the reviewer.
e. The south elevation of the building has a few open doors and windows that
can be subject to mud and debris flow. It is not a requirement of the City of
Aspen Engineering Department to control design for this at this point. But,
one must be prepared for the possibility of structural and aesthetic damage if a
debris flow would occur.
Engineering — Information — The following information has been provided by the
Engineering Department:
a. The parking design for the project is somewhat inadequate. One suggestion is to
do a geometric design to the west half of 4' St. to allow for parking along that
area.
b. Another parking consideration is to allow parking in the front of each building via
the planned sidewalk locations.
c. A final parking consideration would be to allow parking access from the south
end of the property.
7. Utilities: A utility plan needs to be submitted before any real comments and
conclusions can be drawn by the utility companies.
- Water:
City Water Department - Requirement — The following information was given by
the City of Aspen Water Department:
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water
System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8
(Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen
Municipal code as they pertain to utilities.
b. A distinction during the design phase will need to be made as to whether
there will be separate or shared service lines
- Wastewater:
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Information - As a request of the
Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. A set of drainage plans needs to be provided to Peg at ACSD so that an
estimate of fees can be processed.
24
- Electric:
b. Each proposed building will need a separate tap or they will be subject to a
shared service agreement.
c. An 8 inch PVC sewer line runs through the middle of the property and
needs to have an easement. In worse case it may need to be moved.
a. Currently the City wants to extend the electrical service to that property
and other property in the neighborhood.
b. There needs to be a lighting agreement similar to the sidewalk, curb, and
gutter agreement to insure that the lighting will be the same for the
neighborhood.
Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement - Given the continuous problems
of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private
property, we advise the applicant as follows:
Approvals
1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department
(920 -5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage,
transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public
right of way.
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-
5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets,
and alleyways.
4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street
cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Phil Overynder Applicant's Representative: Sunny Vanh
Chris Bendon Mitch Haas
Ben Ludlow
Nick Adeh
25
APR.25.2000 2:21PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.59e P.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bandon or Nick Lelsck
FROM: Cindy Christensen
DATE: April 19, 2000
RE: REQUEST FOR BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting rezoning, GMQS exemptions, conditional use, and a
minor planned unit development (PUD) approval for the expansion of the Boomerang
Lodge.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct on a vacant lot six freestanding
structures, five of which will be used solely as additional, individual chalet lodging units.
The sixth building is proposed to Include two one - bedroom affordable housing units, a
common area for all guests of the project, including a bathhouse with whirlpool,
bathrooms and dressing rooms, and two one - bedroom guest units. The five chalet units
will consist of three bedrooms and three and one -half baths. With the two additional
guest units, the proposed project will add a total of 17 bedrooms,
There are three major issues that the Housing Board has to discuss and make a
recommendation to the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission. The first revolves around
mitigation requirements of the additional employees generated by the expansion. The
second revolves around the phasing of the project and when the affordable housing units
are to be completed. The third relates to the size, livability and management of the
proposed affordable housing units, The mitigation requirements will be discussed first.
Mitigation:
There is no set policy on how to mitigate for employees for Lodges. In calculating the
mitigation requirements for this expansion, the applicant used a study that was provided
by Chris Bandon in the Community Development Department, attached as Exhibit 'K.
The study was only a study and was not formerly adopted to use to calculate employees,
The study calculated employees by units, by pillows and by square footage, and shows a
wide variety of employee generation. By using the study, the mitigation requirements
would be as follows:
APR.25.2000 2 :22PM
By Units:
7
x.267
1.869
ASPEN HOUSING OFC
NO. 598 P.2
By Pillows:
•BV Scuere Feet:
34
1,680
X.098
x.021
3.332
35.28
*This is by lodge unit only and relates to only one lodge unit.
The study provides a very broad framework for mitigation requirements: anywhere from
1.869 FTE's to over 35.28 FTE's.` The 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan recommended
housing 60% of the workforce from Aspen Village upvalley. The updated Aspen Area
Community Plan does not stipulate any percentage, just a number. If the 60% figure was
used, this would relate to an FTE amount of 1.12 to 21.17. The applicant proposes using
a different methodology, noting that the 21.17 mitigation number is unreasonable, since
they believe that existing employees will service the expansion, thus generating few new
employees.
The applicant states that the proposal involves a 21% Increase over the number of
existing lodge units (7 Is 20.58% of 34), and that 18 FTE's service the existing 34 units.
The application concluded that if 18 FTE's service the existing 34 units, then a 21%
increase could generate 3.78 additional FTE's (18x21% =3.78). At the 60% rate, the
mitigation rate would be 3.78 x 60% = 2.268 FTE's. Another method would be to use the
employee base for the existing units. Previously, the Housing Office has been using an
average of .1 to .4 employees per lodge room. The survey concluded that on the
average, each lodge unit creates approximately 0.245 employees, which was used in
calculating the additional lodge units proposed for the St. Moritz. However, the seven
chalet units are not your typical lodge*pe unit. Most lodge units range in size from 600
square feet to 800 square feet. The chalet units being proposed are 1,680 square feet,
twice the size of an average lodge unit. Due to the size of the units being proposed at the
Boomerang, which five of them average to be at least twice the size of regular lodge
units, staff is recommending m18gation as follows:
5 units X 2 for size s 10 X.245 w 2.45 new employees
2 units X.24 =.49 new employees
Total mitigation requirement would be 2.45 +.49 ■ 2.94. The 2.94 figure is not taking into
consideration 60% of new employees, but 100% of new employees.
Due to the nature of the lodging business in the Aspen area, the higher level of service
that Is being required by the clientele, the addition of a bathhouse and common area, and
the size of each lodge unit, in order to maintain at least the some level of employee
support, the mitigation for this project would be 2.94 employees as calculated above.
i
APR.25.2000 2 22PM BEN HOUSING OFC N0.59e P.3
The Lodge Is currently 17,400 square feet and is adding 15,350 square feet (11,800
square feet is actually counted by Code definition).
The applicant is proposing to provide two one - bedroom units, which is 2 X 1.75
employees , 3.5 employees.
The applicant does stipulate that they own a 4,240 square foot triplex at 1020 Waters
Avenue. The triplex contains three apartments of three bedrooms each. One of the three
apartments has traditionally been rented to Aspen employees or summer students of the
Music School, but Is currently rented to schoolteachers. The other two apartments are
used by the applicant for housing for Boomerang employees. The units In the triplex are
not deed restricted, but function as de facto employee housing under the applicant's
ownership. Although the applicant should be commanded for providing this housing, this
Is not a guarantee that these will always be affordable rentals for employees, so should
not be considered In reviewing this application.
Phasing.,
The applicant is proposing two separate phases to complete the development of the
PUD. The first phase will consist of the three easterly chalets, and the second phase will
include the remainder of the PUD (two more chalets and the west end building, which
includes the affordable housing portion). By phasing the effordable housing units last,
there Is a possibility that they will not be completed. If the calculation of .245 FTE's per
unit is used, then the three chalet units (six regular type lodge units) created In the first
phase would generate: .245 X 6 e 1.47 FTE's required for mitigation.
Pmoosed AH Units:
There are some issues concerning the affordable housing units that must be addressed;
1. The applicant is proposing to Include in one of the chalet buildings two one -
bedroom, Category 3, units. The unit sizes are approximately 700 square feet
each, with 360 square feet perfloor. The floor plans do not show a kitchen, which
Is required for an employee - housing unit.
2. There is no on -site parking br the affordable housing units. This is an inAown site
with a private shuttle van service. Currently, the application does not stipulate
whether any employees would have access to the private shuttle van. The lack of
on -site parking would not create a problem as long as the employees would have
access to this private shuttle van service.
APR.25.2000 2 :22PM `ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.59e P.4
3. The affordable housing units would have to be fully dead restricted under the
Category 3 guidelines, which require a minimum six-month lease.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board met on this Issue April 19, 2000, Since there
is not an established methodology for calculating FTE's for lodge units, staff used the
required mitigation of 2.94 FTE's. However, these lodge units are not your typical lodge -
type units, since they are stand -alone and not connected to the main structure, The
Housing Board, however, did recommend approval of the application under the following
conditions:
1. Using the formula stated above, the applicant needs to provide mitigatlon for 2.94
FTE's, which Is under what is being proposed for mitigation.
2. Due to the phasing of the project, the affordable housing unit is not scheduled to
be constructed until Phase 2 of the project, therefore, the Board recommended
that the affordable housing unit must be started no later than 36 months after
completion of Phase 1.
3. The affordable housing units should Include kitchens and an interior design plan
should be provided to the Housing Office that shows how the living space will
functionally work with furnishings.
4. The tenants of the affordable housing units be permitted to use the shuttle service
at any time, and that the tenants be Issued a City of Aspen parking permit and
guest permit for on -street parking,
5. The deed restriction for the unit shall be recorded PRIOR to approval of the
building permit for Phase 1.
/wadroremaUboom ®nngahmlt doo
a]
JUN. 7.2000 12:09PM ASPEN HOUSING OF'C'_---^ N0:342 I'.
r
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 19, 2000
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
EXECUTIVE SESSION, Tom made a motion to go into an executive session to obtain
legal advice on a potential litigation matter regarding a cittzen's compkird; Tim seconded
the motion. All were in favor. Mick made a motion to move out of Executive session; Tom
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The Board came out of the Executive session at
7:00 P.M.
II, Jackie Kosabach, Chairperson, called the regular meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. The
April 19, 2000 meeting was held in the Plaza1 Meeting Room, Courthouse Plaza. Board
members In attendance were Jackle Kasabech, Carl Britton, Tim Samrau, Mick Inland,
and Tom McCabe. Staff members present were May Roberts, Executive Director; Bill
Vitany, Assistant Director; Lee Novak, Project Manager, and Cindy Christensen,
Operations Manager.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tim made a motion to approve the April 5, 2000 meeting is
submitted; Tom seconded the motion All were in favor. Motion passed.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
V. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS: Roberts distributed a letter from Mary Ellen
Shembri regarding a possible discrepancy with the lottery system where there seems to be
groupings of last names. Kassbach suggested reverting to the ping pong bail system until
the software handling the lottery can be analyzed and/or a new one Instigated. Ireland
stated that a new lottery software program still may not guarantee a perfect pogram.
VI. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' ,COMMENTS: Ireland updated the Board on the failure of
,Mouse BIII 101, which could have created affordable housing In the vailey. Ireland advised .
the Board as to why the County is readdressing the growth management and mitigalon
issue.
McCabe stated that he had a discussion with Ben Nlghthorse Campbell regarding the
Forest Service parcel, and asked if he could look into moving this exchange along.
VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS;
A. r and Main Update: Novak updated the Board on the progress of this project,
B. Truscott Expansion Update: Novak updated the Board on the progress of this
project, Conceptual approval was received from the Planning a Zoning
Commission. Council has already had 1" reading and 2 1d readini1a Monday
night. It will be about six to eight weeks for final application, If all goei according
to plan, staff will be going back to Council In early October for final approval.
AspeMPlildn County Housing Autho ty Minutes
April 10, 2000 page 1
JUN. 7.2000 12:09PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC N9.342 P.3
Roberts stated that a Request for Proposal has been completed to possibly
combine construction management with other projects that the City la doing, This
could save money In the long run,
VIII, ACTION ITEMS:
A. Draco Affordable Housing Project, Stoney Davis was present as the applicant
and Mick Haas was present representing Mr. Davis. Roberta stated that the
Board met in the fall of 1999 at Mr, Davis' request on this project, The Planning &
Zoning Commission approved the project and now Mr. Davis is requesting formal
approval by the Housing Board, The proposal Is to build three one - bedroom units
and three two- bedroom units, for a total of nine bedrooms. Mr. Davis is
recommending that the units be deed restricted under the Category 3 guidelines.
Staff believes that this Is an excellent infiil -type project and would recommend
approval, This project is not being proposed for mitigation and will not be used
for any type of mitigation in•the future.
Ireland made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of this
project as submitted; McCabe seconded the motion. Roll Cell Vote:
Ireland, Britton, eemrau, Kasabach, and McCabe voted yes. Motion passed.
B, Boomerang Lodge Expansion; Charles and Fonda Patterson were present as
the applicants and Mitch Haas was present representing the • applicants,
Christensen stated that the applicants arm proposing to construct six additional
chalet type units to be located on the vacant lot adjacent to the Boomerang
Lodge, Christensen stated that there are three issues that need to be discussed,
The first revolves around the calculation of the required mitigation; the second
revolves around the construction phasing of the affordable housing units; and the
third issue revolves around the affordable housing units themselves. Christensen
stated that there has not been any specific way to Calculate the required
mitigation for lodge units, Chris Bandon, City Planner in the Community
Development Department, had developed a concept using information provided
by other lodges in the community. After reviewing the different scenarios for
calculating the required mitigation, staff recommended that 2.94 employees need
to be mitigated. The applicant is proposing to mitigate for 3,5 employees by
providing two one- bedroom units, Christensen had a concern with the units since
they are not your typical lodge -type units. The plans for the affordable housing
units also do not show If kitchens are Included.
Haas stated that the units will have kitchens and that the shuttle van service will
be available to the tenants of these units, Haas stated that the phasing of the
Program is proposed, with the affordable housing units being built last, due to the
financial aspects of the project. Christensen stated that staff had recommended
deed restricting one of their existing units until the affordable housitp units are
completed. The Patterson's felt that this was unnecessary, Fonda Patterson
stated that the bank sees the existing units as free market and allows them to
borrow for the construction of the proposed project.
APAI fg, 2000 b �n����
PeNPI&in Coon Housing Author Peg® a
JUN. 7.2000 12 :10PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.342 P.4
Britton asked how large the lodge units are proposed. Haas stated that they are
proposed to be 3- bedroom, 3 -1/2 bath units, with each containing about 1,680
square feet. Haas stated that the current staff is under worked and the additional
units will allow the existing staff to work a 40 -hour work week.
Ireland suggested a time limit to provide the affordable housing units, say within a
36 -month period.
Ireland made a motion to recommend approval-to City Council to accept the
requirement for 1,84 FTi which will be mitigated by the two one- bedroom
units, and that the one - bedroom employee units shall be built within 36
months after completion of the first phase; Britton seconded the motion.
McCabe stated that the FTE requirement probably would not be approved by City
Council. McCabe stated that these five units are not your typical lodge unit.
These are five standalone units,
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ireland, Britton, Semrau, Kasabach and McCabe voted
yes. Motion pasted.
IX. WORK SESSION; The Board moved the Guideline discussion to a special worksassion
to be scheduled for April 28, 2000, 4:30 p.m.
There was a motion to adjourn and it was seconded. The Board adjourned Its regular meeting at
8:10 p.m.
THE ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
MIN
� ^M
A®PeNPltW County Housing Al Minutes
April 1g, 2000 Page a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council, Nick Lelack, Charlie Paterson FROM: Stephen Goldenberg
SUBJECT: Boomerang Lodge Rezoning & Expansion DATE: June 19, 2000
L Inapplicability of "Lodge Preservation/GMQS Exception" for New "Time Share" Construction
The applicant has stated that he intends to sell seven "time shares" in each of the five "chalets" for from
$300,00 - $400,000 per share. That works out to 10-14 million dollars, plus the sales price of the 2 employee
units and the value of the 2 lodging units. If this is still his intention, the Lodge Preservation Regulations
( "for moderately priced adjacent lodging ") do not apply and the application should be withdrawn or denied.
If the applicant has changed his mind and there is no longer such intention, the property should be
contractually deed restricted so that it cannot be sold off or separated from the existing Boomerang
Lodge in case he changes his mind again after the project is completed. The intention to time share the
project was stated to me twice, and on different occasions to Cheryl, Renee Marcus, Tom Cleary, Martha
Madsen and others and appears in a written memo in exhibit #2 of the "Lodge Preservation" application, a
copy of which is attached. P &Z was not aware of the applicants intention to "time share" the chalets
when they approved the application. They would reconsider the application if it were put back on
their agenda by city staff.
2. Rezoning from 1 Private Home to 5 "Private Homes" plus .2 Employee Units and .2 Lodging Units
There is little or no public benefit derived from up zoning this property. Each of the five "chalets" will
contain 2,100 square feet of living space with 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, a full kitchen, dining room and study.
If not time shared, they will rent for more than $2,000 per night. Even without the 2 lodge and 2 employee
units, this represents 3 or 4 times the density all in the underlying R -15 zone. That is why the site plan
looks so packed and why there is no room for the required off street parking. The requested FAR is more
than 12,000 sq. ft. instead of the zoned 5,000 sq. ft., the requested number of bedrooms is 19 as opposed to
5 and the buildings will be set back only I Oft. instead of the required 25 ft.
3. Ignoring the Onsite Parking Requirements on New Construction
Nineteen bedrooms require approximately 14 off street parking spaces. The Boomerang van does not
generally pick up or drop off at the airport. People paying $300,000+ for a 1 /7`h timeshare or $2,000+ per
night are likely to rent a car even if they don't use it every day. That's actually worse because the unused
cars will sit on Hopkins Ave. all day and all night. All the more reason to keep them off the street and out
of sight. There should be at least 10 on site garages or parking spaces. There should be no street parking
for the "new residences" or the old Boomerang. The present neighbors park in their required
garages to keep Hopkins Avenue uncluttered for pedestrian use in the summer, to assist with snow
removal in the winter and for esthetic reason all year round. There was no parking in the proposal
because there are too many buildings proposed for that site.
4. Impact on Natural Environment
The six proposed buildings will certainly have a more adverse environmental impact than one single house
with one ADU or even a duplex. The building footprints are several times greater than the allowed single
family or duplex and the resulting open space is considerably less. They are also asking that the front yard
setback be reduced from 25 ft. to 10 ft. That will put the buildings much closer to the street and the winter
shadows right on the street further aggravating street icing conditions.
5. Phasing of Construction
The project as proposed is very "rich" financially and could easily be financed and built in one shot. The
application is phased so that the profits from the sale of the Phase I "times shares" can pay for the
construction of Phase 11. The public benefit of the two affordable units should come earlier rather
than later.
6. Traffic, Road Safety Service and Emergency Vehicle Access
A residential unit generates 5 -10 auto trips per day. For a pedestrian street, that's a lot more traffic. The
neighbors and the present Boomerang guests exit and enter from the alley, to 4"' and then on to Main.
Guests of the new Boomerang residences will have no choice but to use Hopkins coming and going.
Adults and children using the old Boomerang pool will have to run across Hopkins and back, as will
the cleaning, maintainance and other staff all year round. An unobstructed street and a striped
pedestrian cross walk will be necessary to minimize accidents and provide somewhat better access for
service and emergency vehicles. No lettered parking permits should be issued to any Boomerang
guests.
7. Employee Mitigation
The employee mitigation calculations appear to be understated. 17 additional bedrooms in 6 additional
buildings would likely require 5 -7 additional employees. Only 2 additional affordable units are provided.
8. SS
The very high density of the project, as proposed, causes all of the above problems. Reducing the number
of "chalets" to 2 or 3 would reduce the density, traffic, environmental impact, and safety problems, leaving
room for open space and garages to keep the autos off the street and out of sight, and allow the entire
project to be built profitably in one phase. Less density would also permit the buildings to be setback
further from the street as required in an R -15 zone.
PLANNER:
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
DESCRIPTION:
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Chris Bendon, 920.5072
DATE: 12.16.99
Boomerang Expansion
Sunny Vann
Charles and Fonda Patterson
2 step. Rezoning, Minor PUD, LP Expansion and AH GMQS exemption.
Applicant is seeking to expand the Boomerang Lodge to a vacant parcel across Hopkins
Avenue from the existing Iodge...The proposal includes 6 new detached lodge units and an
emplovee housing structure to include one or two units and parking. The property is
currently Zoned R -15 and would need to be rezoned with an LP Overlay to allow the lodge
use. The Minor PUD process will be used to define the dimensional requirements for the
new development including parking. Planner suggests the Special Review for AH Parking
be combined, pursuant to 26.304.060(B), with the PUD review.
No development is proposed on the existing dimensions
di
lodg nly de
e and the PUD will ofine
on the new parcel. The applicant should, however, include the existing lodge fine di
application to describe operational, employment, and parking characteristics of the existing
situation compared to the expected conditions after develnZ
The creation of Lodge units does not automatically constitute a Subdivision.
is contemplating an interval ownershin of tk. e...
determine the requirements for this style of ownership, if any, and
that are necessary.
Renee Marcus
432 W. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
TO: Aspen City Council
RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion
My family and I came to Aspen 32 years ago; and we have lived opposite the Boomerang
Lodge for the past 22 years. I realized that the property across the street from us would not
remain vacant forever, but 'hoped that future development would preserve the character of
West Hopkins Avenue.
West Hopkins Avenue is a beautiful pedestrian / bicycle street with an eclectic mix of
Victorian homes, duplexes, employee housing, lodging and open space.
I am not opposed to additional lodging. The Boomerang was here long before I arrived;
and has provided much needed and appreciated moderate priced rooms with the old charm
we all cherish.
The "Boomerang Lodge Expansion" proposed, however is NOT an expansion of the
Boomerang Lodge as we know it, but anew and separate development of 5 3 bedroom 3
1/2 bath single family homes and 2 additional lodge rooms.
This proposed project with 19 additional bedrooms and no off street parking would be on a
building lot more appropriate for a single family home or duplex with a garage. The duplex
where I live has a two car garage plus additional off street parking for each unit which are
the same size as the proposed "chalets ".
Mr. Paterson told me that he intends to sell 7 fractional ownerships for each "chalet" at
approximately $300,000.00 ... ($10,500,000.00).
AT LEAST 9 off street parking spaces are absolutely necessary to control a potentially ugly
and congested situation!
By reducing the number of "chalets" to 3 and including garages for these homes and off
street parking for the employee units, the Patersons would still be making a huge profit on
their investment, while helping to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
West Hopkins Avenue is the only remaining street in the city that is a reminder of why we
originally moved to Aspen. Please preserve the charm and beauty of this street for the
enjoyment of its residents and visitors.
M fully, �lf
Cheryl Goldenberg
430 West Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
June 17, 2000
Dear Mayor and Aspen City Council:
I've lived across the street from the Boomerang Lodge for the past 13 years. I'm writing because I'm
concerned that the new project being proposed as an extension of the Boomerang will cause an
inappropriate and excessive number of cars to be parked on West Hopkins Avenue — the pedestrian/ bike
way.
The five individual chalets which will probably be sold as time shares or as individual homes to be
managed by the Boomerang are all larger than my home. We live in a duplex on a 9,000 sq ft. lot (less
than half the size of the property to be developed) and by zoning law each half of the duplex is required
to have a two car garage and an individual space off the street. The parking space and garage are in the
back in the alley and out of sight of the pedestrian/bike way. We think that the developer of our
property also fought for fewer spaces but we're thankful now that the city prevailed and the street looks
more beautiful because the cars are put away out of sight.
I don't believe that the Lodge Preservation rezoning is appropriate as the Boomerang is not adding
moderately priced small lodging — this is ver Wensive high priced housing or lodging.
Charlie Paterson says that time shares would probably sell for $300,000 - $400,000 for 1/7 of a chalet.
It's logical that the people who stay in these chalets will find the price of a car rental inconsequential. If
the chalets are used by owners they may be eligible for resident passes and leave their cars on the street
all the time - even when they're not here. Smaller sized and much less expensive units like The Gant
(largest unit is 1600 sq. ft, and rents for $300 to $1,000 per night) and Aspen Meadows provide a lot of
on site parking for their guests and they are both hidden away and not on the ped/bike way. Even Aspen
Square, North of Nell, The Little Nell and The St. Regis, which are all right in town and where guests
could easily walk and take buses, have underground garage parking for their guests. Also tourists who
are paying these high prices are likely to demand more services than the Boomerang currently provides
and that will create more traffic on W. Hopkins. The question is "is this expansion really providing the
small lodge experience that the zoning is trying to protect?".
If the project was less dense there would be room for parking and still plenty of room for profit as each
chalet could eventually sell for close to $3 mil each. Less density and a garage is necessary here not only
for the chalets but also for the employee units, and not just for the people using this property but for
those of us who walk, bike, jog, roller blade, etc, into town and want to continue enjoying the relatively
quiet beauty of Shadow Mountain and West Hopkins Avenue.
Thanks for your time and attention.
Sinc erel ,
Cheryl Gol nberg
X
Thomas Cleary
217 So. Third, Box 2701
Aspen, CO. 81612
June 19, 2000
Aspen City Council & Mayor
City Hall
Aspen, CO. 81611
Subject: Boomerang Expansion
Dear Members and Mayor:
I own a duplex in Block 39 with two off street parking spaces pea • unit. My
property is one block East of the Boomerang Project, which I obi ect to, because it
is much too dense and should offer off street parking.
The ariel view or plan view shows six buildings tightly spread a: ross the property,
however a north elevation would show a solid row of buildings with no space to
see through to the base of Shadow Mountain. Therefore I would suggest that three
buildings be allowed with proper spacing and necessary off stre,; ; parking.
The developers have advised me that each unit will be fully self ; ufficient iwth
kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom and bathrooms whi,,, i will be sold on a
time -share bases. The two lodge units are really insignificant an the employee
housing is a very low trade off for the project. /
The time -share basis for the project establishes a very good retu-i on investment
with three buildings instead of the six buildings.
This project is located on the city - county line and not in the city core where
density is more acceptable.
I hope the council and planners will review the project with as niach scrutiny as
they did with the Draco project in the City Center.
431 West Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81612
June 16, 2000
Mr. Nick Lelaok
Asp=Titkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re:
Dear W. Lelack:
Boomerang writing to share some comments and concerns that I have regarding the proposed
ang ge Expansion. I own a residence at 431 West Hopkins whioh is diagonally
across the street from the Boomerang Lodge, and I am personally acquainted with ago Charles
Patterson, the owner of the Lodge.
First let me say that I endorse all of the comments made by the various
reviewed the project, In particular, I think that it is critical for the agencies that have
maintenance of the West
Hopkins bike and walkway that there be no on street parking for this proposed project.
Also, I think it is important that the record be clarified as to the type of project which is
being Proposed. It is my understanding that this is not an expansion of the Boomerang Lodge
but is instead a time sharing arrangement whereby the multiple owners of the chalets would have
access to the Boomerang Lodge facilities and services which lie across West Hopkins from the
site in question. I question whether or not the proposed use complies with the letter or the intent
of the Lodge Preservation Rules and Regulations.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to share some of my thoughts about this
project with you,
jh
Street
1
Aspen k�onsolidated sanitation District
Sy Kelly Chairman John Keleher
Paul Smith' Treas Frantz Loushin
Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr
April 18, 2000
Chris Bendon RECEIVE!,)
Community Development APR 0 2000
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN /P1rKIN OOMU
Re: Boomerang Lodge Expansion
Dear Chris:
The Boomerang lodge is currently served by the public system. The District currently has
sufficient capacity to serve the additional development proposed. There are downstream
constraints that will be eliminated through a system of additional proportionate fees Additional
fees will be involved for the Kaplin line extension and I st street impact fees.
The proposed location of buildings 1, 3, and 5 may be a problem due to their proposed proximity
to the public line. The location shown appears to encroach into the District's sewer line easement:
I'd encourage the applicant's engineer to contact our line superintendent for more information.
No clear water connections (surface run -off, roof drains, foundation drains, etc) are allowed to
the public system. Dry-wells are proposed for the project.
The comments made by the applicant's engineer in exhibit 7 regarding sanitary sewer are
accurate. We have not however received a site plan or the detailed information needed to
complete a tap permit and estimate fees. The total connection fees must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit_ As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District's
rules, regulations, and specifications which are on at the District office.
Sincerely,' .:
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-360`1/ FAX (970) W5-2537
Steve, 07:55 AM 7/14/00 -0600, Points to consider with the BoomeraApplication Page 1 of 2
Reply -To: <steve @goldenberg.com>
From: "steve" <steve @aspeninfo.com>
To: "Nick Lelack" <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Points to consider with the Boomerang Application
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:55:47 -0600
X- Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
Reasons To Disapprove the Boomerang Application
"Expansion ", "Rezoning ", "Lodge Preservation ", "GMQS Exemption ", "PUD"
Setting a Precedent for Inappro riate Application of Lodge Preservation Rules
► Historic use of the vacant property has not been for lodging as required. (sec. )
► This is not an upgrade of an existing lodge as required. (sec. )
► It is not "onsite or adjacent" as required. (sec. )
► A "Time Share" is not the same as a "lodge" and runs contrary to intent of L.P. (sec. )
It will draw millions out of the project up front and leave the Boomerang Lodge with the
financial responsibility of servicing the future time share users.
► The new buildings are not intimately related to the old. (sec. )
► The "expansion" should be part of the "original lodge and not separately saleable.
► L. P. expansion is for "economy and moderate lodging ", not $2,000 + /night "chalets ".(sec.
1► P &Z did not know about the timesharing when they conditionally approved the
application.
► The City probably wouldn't let a different owner put up a lodge or "chalets" on this site.
► Inadequate employee mitigation. (Addition will require more new employees than stated)
► Adults and children will have to cross Hopkins Ave. and back when using Boomerang
pool.
► Application not consistent with the underlying Residential -15 zoning.
Inappropriate Rezoni from Residential R -15
Allowed or Required
Proposed
► Number of buildings
1
7
► Number of bedrooms
5
19
► Required setback
25 feet
10 feet
► FAR
5,000 + 1- sq.ft.
12000 + /- sq.ft.
■ Principle use
Residential
Timeshare
► Added traffic on pedestrian/bikeway
5 trips /day
35 trips /day
► Off street parking spaces
14
0 or 5
► Building footprint
less than 3,000 sq.ft.
12,000 sq.ft.
Excessive Density
► Site plan too crowded to allow required off street parking.
► Can't see through from street to base of Shadow Mountain.
► Not 70% open space as stated by applicant.
► Street side areas cannot be counted as open space. (sec. )
► Decks and walkways cannot be counted as open space. (sec. )
► Parking areas cannot be counted as open space. (sec.)
Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us> 7/17/00
.i ....
steve, 07:55 AM 7/14/00 -0600, Points to consider with the Boomera Application Page 2 of 2
P ? ? ?? cannot be counted as open space. (sec. )
Setting a Precedent for Inadequate Off Street Parking
► Present Boomerang guests bring cars. (see Boomerang photos)
F Guests from Denver /Boulder, CO, UT, WY etc. usually drive to Aspen.
► $400,000 1 /7�b timeshare owners will most likely have cars.
► $2,000 + /night 2,200 sq.ft. luxury 3- bedroom "chalet' renters will have cars.
► Non -lodge employees will most likely have cars.
br Regulations require 14 off street parking spaces. (see Scott photos)
Numerous curb cuts are not desirable.
Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us> 7/17/00
THE
BOOMERANG
Mrs. Mary Hugh Scott
c/o John Beatty, Attorney at Law
520 E. Cooper
Aspen, Cc 81611
July 12, 2000
Dear Mary Hugh:
We have always valued our friendship with you, which goes back over 30 years
when you first came to Aspen and stayed with Russell and the children as
guests at the Boomerang Lodge. The recent proposal of our expansion of the
Lodge to the adjacent parcel, known as block 32 took the possible concerns of
the neighborhood, and also your concern very seriously. We also took into
consideration our concern as the neighbor most seriously impacted by any
changes.
We have always felt very strongly that the transition of Shadow Mountain to
the town lay at the base, specifically on Block 32, and we were happy that Mrs.
Paepcke did not wish to sell her land during her lifetime so dt would remain as
wild grass and sagebrush with wildflowers sprinkled throughout. Unfortunately
this was not to be forever.
When we acquired the land from you, our intention was to be sensitive to the
land and neighborhood. In our planning we feel we have accomplished this.
One remark that I recall from you was that you did not wish to see a solid wall
of buildings, or ,a solid planting of pine trees, fronting the street.
When I thought of the design of our project, I had some serious constraints in
mind:Any building should have the mass broken up and recede into
the landscape.There should be open space to allow the natural vegetation to
continue behind and between the buildings. The buildings should be oriented to
the view and the sun, be low in scale and as unobtrusive as possible. We feel
this has been accomplished.
In fact, we carefully followed the official guidelines published by the City of
Aspen for the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. Furthermore, the buildings total
footprint occupy only 30% of the land. The remaining 70% will be open space.
In addition, the roof height is actually lower than what is allowed by code.
At our meeting with Planning and Zoning, we had a 5 to 0 approval with high
marks for a sensitive design.
500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611.5
970- 925 -3416 • 800- 992.8852
FACSIMILE 970-925-3314
THE
BOOMERANG
We were deeply disturbed and hurt by the caustic and negative comments made
by your representative at the City Council hearing on June 26th. We deserved
better than that!
I called your secretary this spring to discuss our plans. We were told that you
were unavailable. In the end, I thought you would be in touch with us at your
convenience. This void in communicating directly with you, even now, has
contributed to the present misunderstanding and bitterness. My hope is that
when this letter reaches you it will alleviate some of your concerns.
Fonda joins me in wishing you kind regards.
Sincerely,
C =4
Charles Paterson
c.c. Russell Scott M & Cc LLC
Michael HoiTinan, Attorney at Law
Mayor Rachel Richards and City Council
Sunny Vann and Mitch Haas, Landplanners
Nick Lelack and Julie Anne Woods, City Development Dept.
500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE M
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 x
970- 925 -3416 • 800.992 -8852 ; p
FACSIMILE 970- 925 -3314 eY
W
DOREMUS
&COMPANY
REALTORS
June 26, 2000
Honorable Mayor & City Council
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Lady and Gentleman:
Hand Delivered
It has come to our attention that there has been some objection expressed, recently, regarding the
proposal of the Boomerang Lodge's modest expansion.
We would like to submit to you that the Boomerang Lodge is, perhaps, the finest remaining
example of a true lodge experience in Aspen - something which we all have been sorry to see
slowly disappearing. Charlie and Fonda Paterson have worked exceedingly hard, over more
years than most of us have been here to make it a fine hostelry of which this community can be
proud.
We have looked at their plans and believe their low- density (with 70% open space) addition to
the lodge is a perfect use of the space and, furthermore, respects the environment.
Finally, as we have stated above, small lodges are struggling today and Aspen is in danger of
loosing this once strong segment of accommodations. The Paterson are simply responding by
expanding the bed base, allowing them to keep their lodge a viable operation.
S re
J Doremus and Pamela Toon
822 West Smuggler St,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 970 /925 -6866
Facsimile: 970/925-5843
/�✓ ✓gym.
E77.�Ai91T— C.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council, Nick Lelack, Charlie Paterson FROM: Stephen Goldenberg
SUBJECT: Boomerang Lodge Rezoning& Expansion DATE: June 19. 2000
1. Inapplicability of "Lodge Preservation/GMOS Exception" for New "Time Share" Construction
The applicant has stated that he intends to sell seven "time shares" in each of the five "chalets" for from
$300,00 - $400,000 per share. That works out to 10 -14 million dollars, plus the sales price of the 2 employee
units and the value of the 2 lodging units. If this is still his intention, the Lodge Preservation Regulations
( "for moderately priced adjacent lodging ") do not apply and the application should be withdrawn or denied.
If the applicant has changed his mind and there is no longer such intention, the property should be
contractually deed restricted so that it cannot be sold off or separated from the existing Boomerang
Lodge in case he changes his mind again after the project is completed. The intention to time share the
project was stated to me twice, and on different occasions to Cheryl, Renee Marcus, Tom Cleary; Martha
Madsen and others and appears in a written memo in exhibit 42 of the "Lodge Preservation" application, a
copy of which is attached. P &Z was not aware of the applicants intention to "time share" the chalets
when they approved the application. They would reconsider the application if it were put back on
their agenda by city staff.
2. Rezoning from 1 Private Home to 5 "Private Homes" plus 2 Employee Units and 2 Lodging Units
There is little or no public benefit derived from up zoning this property. Each of the five "chalets "will
contain 2,100 square feet of living space with 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, a full kitchen, dining room and study.
If not time shared, they will rent for more than $2,000 per night. Even without the 2 lodge and 2 employee
units, this represents 3 or 4 times the density allowed in the underlying R -15 zone. That is why the site plan
looks so packed and why there is no room for the required off street parking. The requested FAR is more
than 12,000 sq. $. instead of the zoned 5,000 sq. ft., the requested number of bedrooms is 19 as opposed to
5 and the buildings will be set back only I Oft. instead of the required 25 ft.
3. Ignoring the Onsite Parking Requirements on New Construction
Nineteen bedrooms require approximately 14 off street parking spaces. The Boomerang van does not
generally pick up or drop off at the airport. People paying $300,000+ for a 1/7b timeshare or $2,000+ per
night are likely to rent a car even if they don't use it every day. That's actually worse because the unused
cars will sit on Hopkins Ave. all day and all night. All the more reason to keep them off the street and out
of sight. There should be at least 10 on site garages or parking spaces. There should be no street parking
for the "new residences" or the old Boomerang. The present neighbors park in their required
garages to keep Hopkins Avenue uncluttered for pedestrian use in the summer, to assist with snow
removal in the winter and for esthetic reason all year round. There was no parking in the proposal
because there are too many buildings proposed for that site.
4. Impact on Natural Environment
The six proposed buildings will certainly have a more adverse environmental impact than one single house
with one ADU or even a duplex. The building footprints are several times greater than the allowed single
family or duplex and the resulting open space is considerably less. They are also asking that the front yard
setback be reduced from 25 ft. to 10 ft. That will put the buildings much closer to the street and the winter
shadows right on the street further aggravating street icing conditions.
5. Phasing of Construction
The project as proposed is very "rich" financially and could easily be financed and built in one shot. The
application is phased so that the profits from the sale of the Phase I "times shares" can pay ibr the
construction of Phase 11. The public benefit of the two affordable units should come earlier rather
than later.