Loading...
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.