HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.boomerangpudgm.A04100-26. Traffic, Road Safety. Service and Emergency Vehicle Access
A residentiall unit generates 5 -10 auto trips per day. Fora pedestrian street, that's a lot more traffic. The
neighbors and the present Boomerang guests exit and enter from the alley, to 4h 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. Summary
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 pen-nit the buildings to be setback
further from the street as required in an R -15 zone.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 9205072
' DATE: 12.16.99
PROJECT: Boomerang Expansion
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann
OWNER: Charles and Fonda Patterson
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 2 step. Rezoning, Minor PUD, LP Expansion and AH GMQS exemption.
DESCRIPTION: Applicant is seeking to expand the Boomerang Lodge to a vacant parcel across Hopkins
Avenue from the existing lodge.. The proposal includes 6 new detached lodge units and an
employee housing structure to include one or two units and parking. The properry 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(8), with the PUD review. `
No development is proposed on the existing lodge and the PUD will only define dimensions
on the new parcel. The applicant should, however, include the existing lodge in-the
application to describe operational, employment, and parking characteristi
situation compared to the expected conditions after development cs of the existing
_ The creation of Lodg �—
e units does not automatically wnstitute a Subdivision. The aoolicam `
is contemplating an interval ownershi of the new lodge units. A ending code
mterpretanon will determine the requirements for this style of ownership, if any, and any
e amendments that are necessary,
Renee l'vfarcus
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 / bicvcle 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
112 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 panting 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 Paterson 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.
Res ctfully,
e 2v
E'"`
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 very expensive 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.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Gol #berg
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 pci unit. My
property is one block East of the Boomerang Project, which I ob j -ct 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 -vith 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 strec : parking.
The developers have advised me that each unit will �e fully self., ufficient with
kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom and bathrooms whiait will be sold on a
-7C time -shaze bases. The two lodge units are really insignificant an d 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 ntich scrutiny as
they did with the Draco project in the City Center.
431 West Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81612
June 16,2000
Mr. Nick Lelack
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Boomerane Lod a Expansion guorling & Minor Plan Unit D� evelopment
Dear Mr. Lelack:
1 am writing to share some comments and ooncems that I have regarding the proposed
Boomerang Lodge Expansion. I own a residence at 431 West Hopkins which is diagonally
across the street from the Boomerang Lodge, and I am personally acquainted with Mr. Charles
Patterson, the owner of the Lodge.
First let me say that I endorse all of the Comments made by the various agencies that have
reviewed the project. In particular, I think that it is critical for the 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 riot 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 setvices which hie 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/PITKIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.100.104 - Definitions
EFFECTIVE DATE:
WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY:
January 12, 2000
Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
Julie Ann Woods,
Community Development Director
SUMMARY:
This interpretation of the Land Use Code determines that the term "general public" (as used
in the provision that lodges remain available for use by the general public) does not allow for
an owner of a lodge unit to perpetually occupy the unit. The requirements for a lodge apply
uniformly to all lodge units within a lodge and each lodge unit must conform to the lodge
provisions, unless the use of that specific unit has been appropriately approved for another
land use. And, the manner in which land is owned does not grant the land owner(s) the
ability to circumvent any other provisions of the land use code, including zone district
regulations, definitions, the change -in -use provision, or the timeshare regulations.
BACKGROUND:
Sunny Vann requested an interpretation of the Land Use Code to determine if the term
"general public," as used in the definition of Hotel and Lodge, allows for units to be
perpetually occupied by owners in an interval ownership arrangement.
DISCUSSION:
Lodge units within an LP lodge may be individually owned through a condominium form of
ownership. This is practiced in several of the lodges and hotels in town and is specifically
stated in Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999. The purpose for this "whereas" clause was to
ensure lodge owners understood they were not losing their right to condominiumize their
lodges as this term was removed as a land use in the LP Zone District.
The six -month provision came about as an incentive to LP lodge operators who, on occasion,
provided lodging to groups staying for longer periods of time. The example of Music
Festival students was used throughout this discussion as many of the small lodge operators
master leased their lodge to the Festival for the entire summer season. This traditional style
of operation was not in keeping with the Hotel definition, in which the Lodge definition was
based, hence the amendment. It was resolved, however, that lodges must remain available to
the general public for at least half of the year on a short-term basis to ensure the use of the
land remains lodging, not residential. In other words, the form of ownership does not allow a
lodge owner to circumvent the zoning of the property or to convert to another land use.
There may be some confusion in the terminology being discussed. The act of
condominiumizing property describes ownership of space for the purpose of sale. This is
typically done in multi - family structures to allow individual units to be conveyed separately.
Interval ownership, however, describes the manner in which many owners of one property
have agreed to divide their interest. This has been most common in sales of planes and
yachts, where several owners agree on the manner in which the right to use the interest is
divided. The application of this form of ownership in real estate has been described as a
Timeshare. The acts are mutually exclusive. This is consistent with the manner in which the
Land Use Code currently treats Condominiumization and Timesharing — one act dividing an
interest spatially and the other act dividing the interest time -wise. Neither of these acts grant
a land owner the ability to change the nature of his land use, especially when the use is not
allowed in the zoning.
The term "general public," as used in the definitions of Hotel and Lodge, refers to people
with no proprietary interest. Although, as proposed, the units could be sold on an open
market, an exclusive right to perpetually occupy a unit excludes everyone except the owner.
In principal, what differentiates a lodge from a residence is the fact that a lodge is open to the
general public, whereas a house is not. In fact, inquiring about the availability of a room in a
hotel is different than if a stranger walked up to one's house and inquired about an overnight
stay. Examples of this difference can also be found in comparing a restaurant to one's
personal dining room, or a taxi to one's personal automobile.
The Land Use Code regulations regarding land use and change -in -use apply equally to all
parcels, structures, buildings and divisions thereof. For example, an owner of a multi- family
building does not have the right to convert one unit to a commercial use unless the use is
allowed in the zone district and the appropriate change -in -use approvals are achieved,
regardless of the relatively small percentage of the building the commercial use may
represent. This philosophy also applies to lodges. Each lodge unit within an LP lodge must
be available to the general public at least six months of each year. To not make a lodge unit
available in this manner would effect a change -in -use and would require the appropriate
approvals for that specific unit.
The majority of Mr. Vann's letter seems to concentrate on the relative merits of changing the
land use code to allow perpetual owner occupancy as a means of financing LP development.
While the points are understood, it is not the purpose of the Interpretation section to amend
the Land Use Code, regardless of one's desire for the Director to think "outside the box." It
is the responsibility of the Planning Director to make interpretations of the Land Use Code
where ambiguity may exist. The Land Use Code provides a process in which land use
regulations may be amended. Staff suggests Mr. Vann direct his energy in this manner.
Appeal of Decision
As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director,
you have the ability to appeal the decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in
conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda item.
cc: John Worcester, City Attorney
Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
JUN -30 -2000 FRI 0
43 PM FAX NO. P, 03/04
Cout6ty of Pitkin ) AFFM AVIT OF NOTICE PU'RSLAtix
} ss°
State afColorado TO .ASPEN L-kn !!USE RE GU%ATyON
} SECnON26304.060 (E)
Applicant to the Ciry of -Ucen ersonall cc::f r , a ' being or represeazin2 an
P Y F tFa_t I have complie_ wita the public notice
requucments pars r to Section 26.30 4.060 (; } of dhe Asten Land L'se Rezu;a;ioas in t<he
foilowing msrWe ;
By ma"'a,& of notice, a copy of waich is arached hereto, by first - class, gory. oe oreoa d
U,S, -v[0 to all ow;ters efprope r with --`tree hundred (3 0.0) fee: of tae seb ec Z t
0 C)
prepe y, as indicated en t`: aaached lis ?, on t'ce 8 L,-,r of .l UL.Y
day's prior to the public hearir z data or 7 Zy o , ~
3. By pcsane a siryn in z ccespiruots place on 7Le bjectpe ro y (as is could be zetrz
frcm the ne2rest public way ) a :d that t to safe sign was posted and vi -ibis coatinucusIv
loon.
F.om the (O day o f _ k9 Cvf'� °r be posted for a,! ear tot (10) fu I 1
days before the hea- n7 dat!, a,
p - or s e pest. d sign is aracaed hereto.
Signctu.
Signed before Me this d,,,
of ttL, 2dom -�i
M W: i �SS'YiYRAND AN) 0 FIC
�T �I,v
ME commissicnexpires: ' 03
lyz4, 2
ME s 00 PM
�1orsv�.0 a -
C try ccx�NC LL- . _ / C z ,
To
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 4t' 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
4" 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 D & E would severely encroach upon the trail.
26
315 South 7" Street
Aspen, CO 81611
July 24, 2000
T0: Charlie Paterson, City Council
FROM. Ed Zasaoky, neighbor in Shadow Mountain neighborhood
RE: Curran development application for land across Hopkins from Boomerang Lodge
I am happy to write a letter in support of a development application, having opposed many
others. I support the Patterson because:
I ) I like the scale of the small buildings proposed
21 I am concerned that we am losing tourist accommodations at a rapid rate, and need
replacement rooms
In complexes like The Gant and the Aspen Alps, there are substantial numbers of wits that the
owners won't rent. As real estate prices increase, so does this tread.
(liven that this Land will be developed, I think this type of development will serve the town best.
Thank you for your time.
Ed Zasacky
Ebjt
Inn 711A rrrvax rv" nor• ora n)• ".r "r:nr Kim nnnu lZ: in
315 South 71" Street
Aspen, CO 81611
July 24, 2000
TO: Charlie Patterson, City Council
FROM: Ed Zasacky, neighbor in Shadow Mountain neighborhood
RE: Current development application for land across Hopkins from Boomerang Lodge
I am happy to write a letter in support of a development application, having opposed many
others. I support the Patterson because:
1) I like the scale of the small buildings proposed
2) 1 am concerned that we are losing tourist accommodations at a rapid rate, and need
replacement rooms
In complexes like The Gant and the Aspen Alps, there are substantial numbers of units that the
owners won't rent. As real estate prices increase, so does this trend.
Given that this land will be developed, I think this type of development will serve the town best.
Thank you for your time.
Ed Zasacky
EZPt
7 -ZY -woo
T00 /1000 h.L'ivau rvD 99T6 296 OL6 %dd SC :CT Nolt 000Z /CZ /Lo
odge
■ City approves
Boomerang expansion
By Janet Urquhart
Aspen Times Staff Writer
While Aspen watches its old ski
lodges — once the mainstay of its
resort accommodations disappear
one by one, at least one lodge owner is
determined to expand, not fold his
operation.
Longtime Boomerang Lodge owner
Charlie Paterson won a hard- fought
victory Monday with the Aspen City
Council's approval of his controversial
plan to expand his lodge onto a vacant
parcel at the base of Shadow Mountain.
The expansion, including five three -
bedroom chalets, two one - bedroom
lodge units, two affordable housing
units, underground parking and a bath-
gets
Wednesday, July 26,' 2000 • The Aspen 77mes 3-A
shot.. in the :arm
house for guest use will be built across
West Hopkins Avenue from the existing
Boomerang Lodge. In all, the proposal
will add 17 bedrooms to the complex.
"This is one of the first big lodge
expansions submitted under the city's
lodge preservation program," said city
planner Nick Lelack.
Aspen adopted its lodge preserva-
tion .legislation last year to protect the
viability of existing lodges and ease the
way for lodges to make upgrades. .
Paterson probably found the way
anything but easy. His plan to develop
the open land next to Shadow Mountain
sparked opposition from some neigh-
bors, including the one who sold him
the property.
And his tentative plan to sell frac-
tional ownership in the chalets further
riled opponents, who claim the units
will be pricey and hardly what is
intended by a zoning aimed at protect-
ing small lodges.
"The reality is, this is a de facto
townhome development," charged
attorney John Beatty at Monday's pub -
Iic hearing before the City Council.
Beatty represents Mary Hugh Scott.
who sold the parcel to Paterson for $2.5
million and now, apparently, regrets the
move.
Several of her representatives
claimed an expansion of the lodge was
not in the cards when she sold the land
to Paterson.
Paterson, who noted he's following
the city's recommendations in its plan-
ning guidelines for the Shadow Moun-
tain neighborhood — which call for
small, chalet -like buildings — said he
was stung by the criticism.
"I get slammed for proposing small.
■ See Boomerang on page 13 -A
n O y C 04
coo -°-' ° r7 ,� S. D —' c 3 4 ". °. o f
R
c caw E °o'y ?x��rnc`o
0 N G '-'� ❑ . 'A . ., C y C 'C m C 0. .. -i r -. �,• O TJ. S b A� ry _. C
w° S •• w m 5 v O A G ,7 N O °-' �_. �" m c Z- TVJ.'.., o E: a
°•v
o O co3
�,'�.?3`_<.o c°oo o'R y o-^ Y o m o rn ?a._•o � c n2.g � ° .a4 ° 03 rn
�^�• ^+, N R ^004 ry S =• y (n " O O a� t7 N v 5? O d C CS1 z= 00 V y .`"... ° S W
:,
(] ° N O G w no ^+ 0 y E cr E. 0 o G O y. 04 .Oy w .b N m a
P� ETyc ^of0aa�po,o nR7 °. �o._ °.o� -o ,<��?.w".� �`�.sa' Ti Z tZ •c+
v4 s
e- : g,
y'�ow <HYC�
a
° 't❑ ) ❑ , .+ .a Cj ' ^ ^ '°3 ° .�' S w `< m =• yn, < ''S R n `e '0 7 m , _ dI'q O 0 D
• ry 0
°� =n°£. °R° t= y &� moo° `nviorn x.°
n•
o �� aao.c�`om cEo ca'cso 3 .°n�.3 � 0 , � a 0 0 � 0'no" I a,-3 sDOO,o. o?0
Za�4 'D o 'Sw�. ". g-°i F ^'.�
CO
°rsw � E. co ��o� `o".��m�"^o a
GQ
N
o'va4�^ °'toolYoy w. 7.�o- �wi�cw`opa' cwQ�o'"�.yo.�... oar.
" ?�''�
� y p 3 v ° E.w � oo� 40 0
O
O
f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy DirectorJAO
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner \�/
RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion — Rezoning & Minor Planned Unit
Development — First Reading - Continued
DATE: June 26, 2000
On June 12, 2000, City Council continued the First Reading for the application
submitted by Charlie and Fonda Paterson (Applicant) to rezone and create a Planned
Unit Development for the property located across the street from the existing Boomerang
Lodge to June 26, 2000.
Please find attached a revised site plan for the Boomerang Lodge Expansion proposed by
the Applicant, and letters from neighbors concerned about the project. The revised site
plan includes five (5) on -site parking spaces. Designated parking spaces for the two (2)
affordable housing units would be located at the existing lodge, along the 5,h Street side
of the structure. Each proposed on -site parking space would require a curb -cut. It is
highly unlikely that the City Engineer will issue more than one (1) curb cut to this
property.
The proposed on -site parking would be inconsistent with the W. Hopkins Avenue
streetscape, except for the four (4) head -in parking spaces across the street near the 4`h
Street intersection. Parking along W. Hopkins Avenue is primarily either parallel or on-
site via alley access from the back of the properties. Staff believes that the Applicant can
provide on -site parking behind the chalets and lodge/bathhouse /affordable housing
building in a manner that preserves the native vegetation in the back of the property.
Locating parking behind the structures would maintain the streetscape and reduce the
presence of automobiles on W. Hopkins Avenue. Far more people — pedestrians,
bicyclists, and automobile traffic — would be exposed to the head -in parking along W.
Hopkins Avenue than would pedestrians and bicyclists using the trail behind the
property, especially since much of the mature vegetation is not on -site, but rather on City
property along the trail
Community Development Staff continues to believe that the Applicant should consider
developing a new site plan with buildings oriented toward the street and adequate on -site
parking (depending on the number of units, bedrooms, and square footage).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff continues to recommend that the Applicant revise the site plan to include at
least 5 -7 on -site parking spaces appropriately located, with the buildings oriented to
the street. Staff further recommends that City Council table this request until such
a plan is submitted to staff for further analysis.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to table Ordinance No.7"' Series of 2000, until to allow the Applicant
to revise their site plan."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. �e Series of 2000, approving the rezoning to R-
15 /Planned Unit Development/Lodge Preservation and minor PUD, with the conditions
in the ordinance." (Council will need to decide on an option related to Condition 16
regarding surety for the affordable housing units proposed in the second phase.)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Original Staff Report
Exhibit B -- Revised Site Plan
Exhibit C -- Letters
Exhibit D -- Code Interpretation of the term "Lodge"
C:\home \nick) \Aotive Cases \Boomerang \CC Ist Reading CONTD.doc
2
TO:
THRU
FROM:
131,
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
�Vlllb
Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director 41�
Nick Lelack, Planner
Boomerang Lodge Expansion — Rezoning & Minor Planned Unit
Development — First Reading
DATE: June 12, 2000
Main St.
Proposed s&
W Al 4
Expansion I..
Boo 4
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.
CURRENT ZONING:
R -15
LOT SIZE: CURRENT LAND USE:
19,287 sq. ft. Vacant
PROPOSED ZONING:
with & Lodge
PROPOSED FAR: PROPOSED LAND USE:
Pres O
Preservation O verlay Zone
12,060 sq. ft. Lodge & AH
Districts
1
REVIEW PROCEDURE, REQUEST, & ACTION
Rezoning & Minor Planned Unit Development Reviews: 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:
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.
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 the street on a vacant parcel at 500
West Hopkins Avenue. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting approval to construct six
structures on the lot to include:
I. 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.
bedrooms in seven (7) lodge units, and two (2) affordable housing units.
In total, the project would add 17 lodge
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.
However, Community Development Staff has five concerns about the proposed
expansion:
(1) no on -site parking is proposed;
(2) the GMQS Exemptions, which were granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, for lodges and affordable housing for two 1- bedroom affordable
housing units as rental units. In light of the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision
that may render the rental caps unenforceable, the exemptions may not have been
properly granted.
(3) no financial security is provided for the affordable housing units as proposed by the
applicant. The units are proposed to be constructed in Phase 2;
(4) the street- orientation of the buildings; and,
(5) the proposed location of the trash dumpsters.
1) Parking
The first and most important concern is that the site plan does not include any on -site
parking. The Applicant contends that no on -site parking is needed for several reasons.
One reason, according the
application, is that 27 parking
spaces are provided "on- site"
at the Boomerang Lodge.
Most of the spaces are located
in the public right -of -way on
4 "' Street and W. Hopkins
Avenue. Unfortunately, the
application does not include a
site improvement survey for
the existing lodge showing the
location of the 27 parking
spaces, or whether the spaces
meet the City Code of 8.5 feet
by 18 feet. Although the
existing lodge is not the
subject of this application,
Staff believes it is important
to clearly identify parking
spaces on that parcel because
the Applicant is proposing to
utilize the spaces for the new
lodge and affordable housing
units.
Staff believes expanding the
lodge is an appropriate
opportunity to bring parking
requirements into compliance
with the Municipal Code. If
approved, Staff recommends a
condition of approval that the
Boomerang Lodge lease all
spaces within the public right -
of -way from the City and that
all on -site spaces (in the alley)
be striped.
Additional reasons for not
providing on -site parking is
that the lodge operates a shuttle service for its guests on an as needed basis; the lodge is
located within walking and biking distance to town, recreation areas, and RFTA bus stops
on Main Street. The Applicant also contends that the public right -of -way along W.
Hopkins Avenue could accommodate up to 30 -34 parallel parking spaces for lodge use.
(It should be noted that W. Hopkins is signed as a pedestrian/bike path during the
summer.)
The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District requires 0.7 spaces per bedroom, or
establishing the number spaces pursuant to a PUD. If the 0.7 space per bedroom standard
were imposed, the 17 new lodge rooms would require 11.9 on -site parking spaces, and
the two affordable housing units would require one per unit, for a total of 13.9 on site
parking spaces.
Staff believes the lodge's location, shuttle service, and existing parking spaces alleviate
the need for 13.9 on -site parking spaces for the expansion. However, Staff strongly
believes that 5 -7 parking spaces should be provided on -site for the following reasons.
First, visitors and tenants will likely park along W. Hopkins Avenue because it is closer
to the chalets, new lodge units or affordable housing than parking on the existing lodge
site. Staff strongly believes that parking can be accommodated on this vacant lot rather
than on the street.
Second, the street already experiences a high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic;
this street is a designated pedestrian and bicycle corridor during the summer months. In
addition, the Parks Department is concerned about parking along W. Hopkins Avenue in
front of this property as well as any potential for parking in the 4" Street stub because of
the potential for 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. An eight to
ten foot trail along Hopkins may be in conflict with the proposed parking for the new
lodge and affordable housing units.
Third, the Application states that fire access to the property would be from W. Hopkins
Avenue. Staff is concerned that this right -of -way is being designated for too many uses —
lodge parking, fire access, and a public trail. Providing 5 -7 parking spaces on site would
alleviate the need for parking on the street, leaving the street primarily available for
public use — people using the pedestrian and bicycle corridor, trail users, and fire access
for this property.
Fourth, Staff believes it is the responsibility of developers to provide their fair share of
on -site parking for their projects, particularly in cases where vacant lots are being
developed and parking can be accommodated on -site.
Finally, the existing Boomerang Lodge provides very few "on- site" parking spaces. Most
of the spaces are located on City property in the public right -of -way.
The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly endorsed this project with the
condition that the Applicant include five (5) on -site parking spaces, with two (2) of
the spaces designated for the affordable housing units.
Staff does not believe the proposed project meets the PUD dimensional
requirements of criteria B(3): The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces
shall be established based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any non - residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c) The availability ofpublic 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.
2) 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 development — in this case an expansion —
after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
The Applicant is proposing to provide 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. On June 6, the Planning Commission
approved the lodge preservation and affordable housing exemptions.
Staff is concerned that the Colorado Supreme Court decision may render the rental caps
unenforceable, thus not ensuring perpetual affordable units. This issue was not discussed
during the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing as Staff was not fully aware
of the Court decision of that time. Staff plans to meet with the Applicants and their
representatives prior to First Reading at City Council on Monday, June 12, to work out an
agreeable solution to both parties that will provide enforceable mitigation.
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.
0
Staff is concerned that there is no financial security guaranteeing the two affordable
housing units will ever be built. Staff plans to meet with the Applicants and their
representatives to discuss this issue as well prior to First Reading at City Council.
4) Street Orientation
Staff's fourth concern is that the proposed chalets are not oriented toward the street.
Instead, they are oriented toward the mountain in a manner similar to one section of the
existing lodge and the duplex across 4`h Street to the east. Even though these units are not
subject to the Residential Design Standards, Staff believes it is important that the units
address the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line. The vast majority of
all structures in this area are parallel to the street, including the front doors and porches.
Staff does not believe the proposed site plan meets PUD site design criteria 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.
The Planning and Zoning Commission members support the proposed building
orientation.
5) Trash Dumpster
Staff s final concern is over the placement of trash dumpsters at the corners of W.
Hopkins and 4 " Streets and W. Hopkins and Fifth Streets. The Applicant has agreed to
move the dumpsters to a less prominent location on the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Applicant revise the site plan to include at least 5 -7 on-
site parking spaces, with the chalets oriented to the street. Staff further
recommends that City Council table this request until such a plan is submitted to
staff for further analysis, and to find a method to further address the GMQS issue
and phasing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to table Ordinance No. Series of 2000, until to allow the Applicant
to revise their site plan."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. �V , Series of 2000, approving the rezoning to R-
15/Planned Unit Development/Lodge Preservation and minor PUD, with the conditions
in the ordinance." (Council will need to decide on an option related to Condition 16
regarding security for the affordable housing units.)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --
Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B --
Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C --
Development Application
C: \home \nickl\Active Cases \Boomerang \CC Ist Reading.doc
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion — Rezoning, Growth Management Quota
System Exemptions, Conditional Use, Minor Planned Unit Development
DATE: June 6, 2000
Boomerang
Lodge
Proposed
Expansion of
Boomerang
Lodge
APPLICANT:
Charles & Fonda Patterson
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann
Mitch Haas
LOCATION:
South of 500 W. Hopkins
CURRENT ZONING:
R -15
PROPOSED ZONING:
R -15 with PUD Overlay &
Lodge Preservation Overlay
Main St.
Christiania
Lodge
W. Hopkins
The purpose of this application is to expand the Boomerang
Lodge across W. Hopkins to a vacant lot. Specifically, the
Applicant proposes to add five (5) chalets, two 1- bedroom
lodge rooms, two 1- bedroom affordable housing units, and a
bathhouse. The lodge rooms, AH units, and bathhouse
would be combined in one building.
LOT SIZE:
19,287 sq. ft.
PROPOSED FAR:
12,060 sq. ft.
PROPOSED PARKING:
No on -site parking
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant
PROPOSED LAND USE:
7 Lodge units (five 3-
bedroom chalets, two 1-
bedroom lodge units), & two
1- bedroom AH units
1
t"^
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning & Minor Planned Unit Development Reviews: 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.
GMQS Exemption — Lodge Preservation • The Planning and Zoning Commission shall
approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for GMQS Exemption for a
lodge preservation application after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority regarding whether employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be
provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the development.
• GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, City Council shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application fora GMQS Exemption for affordable housing after
considering are recommendation by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
• Conditional Use: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve,
approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for a conditional use.
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 the street on a vacant parcel at 500
West Hopkins Avenue. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting approval to construct:
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 rooms
in seven (7) lodge units, and two (2)
affordable housing units.
2
The application requests the following land use approvals:
L 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.
3. Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemptions from scoring and
competition for two (2) affordable housing allotments, and seven (7) Lodge
Preservation — Tourist Accommodations allotments.
4. Conditional Use to allow affordable housing on site. 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.
5. Vested property rights. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000, automatically grants
vested rights status for three years for approved developments, so this request will
be acknowledged if the project is approved.
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, as well as limiting the measured height to
23 feet for the chalets (peak height 28 feet), and 25 feet for the lodge/bathhouse /AH
building.
However, Community Development Staff has three concerns about the proposed
expansion: (1) parking, (2) street - orientation of the buildings, and (3) the proposed
location of the trash dumpster.
Parking
The first and most important concern is that the site plan does not include any on -site
parking. The Applicant contends that no on -site parking is needed for several reasons.
One reason, according the application, is that 27 parking spaces are provided "on- site" at
the Boomerang Lodge. Most of the spaces are located in the public right -of -way on 4`h
Street and W. Hopkins Avenue. Unfortunately, the application does not include a site
improvement survey for the existing lodge showing the location of the 27 parking spaces,
or whether the spaces meet the City Code of 8.5 feet by 18 feet. Although the existing
lodge is not the subject of this application, Staff believes it is important to clearly identify
parking spaces on that parcel because the Applicant is proposing to utilize the spaces for
the new lodge and affordable housing units.
Staff believes expanding the lodge is an appropriate opportunity to bring parking
requirements into compliance with the Municipal Code. If approved, Staff recommends a
condition of approval that the Boomerang Lodge lease all spaces within the public right -
of -way from the City and that all on -site spaces (in the alley) be striped.
Additional reasons for not providing on -site parking is that the lodge operates a shuttle
service for its guests on an as needed basis; the lodge is located within walking and
biking distance to town,
recreation areas, and RFTA buss
+; 1
stops on Main Street. The
Applicant also contends that thei
right
%t
public -of -way along W.
Hopkins Avenue could
accommodate up to 30 -34
p r
parallel parking spaces for lodge
11'
o
use..w.,:a�6.'.rn.
ifs
110 &
The Lodge Preservation Overlay
Zone District requires 0.7
spaces per bedroom, or
establishing the number spaces
Pursuant to a PUD. If the 0.7
space per bedroom standard
were imposed, the 17 new lodge
rooms would require 11.9 on-
site parking spaces, and the two
affordable housing units would
require one per unit, for a total
of 13.9 on site parking spaces.
Staff believes the lodge's
location and existing parking
spaces alleviate the need for
13.9 on -site parking spaces for
the expansion. However, Staff
strongly believes that 5 -7
parking spaces should be
provided on -site for the
following reasons. First,
visitors and tenants will likely
park along W. Hopkins Avenue
because it is closer to the
chalets, new lodge units or
affordable housing than parking
on the existing lodge site. Staff
strongly believes that parking
can be accommodated on this
vacant lot rather than on the
street.
Second, the street already experiences a high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic;
this street is a designated pedestrian and bicycle corridor during the summer months. In
2
addition, the Parks Department is concerned about parking along W. Hopkins Avenue in
front of this property as well as any potential for parking in the 4' Street stub because of
the potential for 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 4t' Street
and bring it down on to the South side of Hopkins Street in the right -of -way. An eight to
ten foot trail along Hopkins would be in conflict with the proposed parking for the new
lodge and affordable housing units.
Third, the Application states that fire access to the property would be from W. Hopkins
Avenue. Staff is concerned that this right -of -way is being designated for too many uses —
lodge parking, fire access, and a public trail. Providing 5 -7 parking spaces on site would
alleviate the need for parking on the street, leaving the street primarily available for
public use — people using the pedestrian and bicycle corridor, trail users, and fire access
for this property.
Finally, the existing Boomerang Lodge provides very few "on- site" parking spaces. Most
of the spaces are located on City property in the public right -of -way.
Staff does not believe the proposed parking meets the PUD dimensional requirements
criteria B(3): The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non - residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c) The availability ofpublic 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 also does not believe the proposed parking meets the Lodge Preservation GMQS
Exemption criteria 4 Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be
provided for the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An
existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment.
Street Orientation
Staff's second concern is that the proposed chalets are not oriented toward the street.
Instead, they 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 units
address the street in a manner which creates a consistent facade line. The vast majority of
all structures in this area are parallel and square to the street.
Staff does not believe the proposed site plan meets PUD site design criteria 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.
Trash Dumpster
Staff s final concern is over the placement of the trash dumpster at the corner of W.
Hopkins and 4' Streets. The Applicant has agreed to move the dumpster to a less
prominent location on the site.
Affordable Housing Mitigation
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. 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 development — in this case
an expansion — after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority.
The Applicant is proposing to provide 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission table the proposed site
plan until the Applicant provides a site plan including at least 5 -7 on -site parking
spaces, and chalets oriented to the street. If the Applicant chooses not to submit a
new site plan, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the
Boomerang Lodge expansion.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution N024 Series of 2000, approving the Conditional Use
for affordable housing and GMQS exertptions and allotments for lodge preservation and
affordable housing; and recommending City Council approve rezoning to R -15 /Planned
Unit Development/Lodge Preservation and minor PUD, with the conditions in the draft
resolution."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Development Application
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT A
BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION
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 some 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 that 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 Finding:
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 season's 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 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.
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.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements
for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section
26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district
shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD.
During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with
surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following:
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.
ire,
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.
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.
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
e) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non - residential land uses.
f) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
g) 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.
h) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core
and general activity centers in the city.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of
a PUD may be reduced if:
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.
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.
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
11
i
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
Staff does not believe adequate on -site parking is included in the site plan. Despite the lodge
and affordable housing units' location to transit, town, and recreation areas, many visitors
and tenants will continue to need a place to park their cars. This is a vacant lot and Staff
believes parking can be accommodated on the site rather than on the street. The Parks
Department is also concerned about parking along the W. Hopkins Avenue because of the
potential for a trail in this area.
Providing 5 -7 on -site parking spaces would likely change the proposed dimensional
requirements on the site. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a site plan with on -site
parking, and then the dimensional requirements can be more appropriately analyzed for the
parcel and neighborhood.
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:
I. 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.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant
open spaces and vistas.
12
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
Staff does not believe the chalets are appropriately oriented toward W. Hopkins Avenue.
Instead, the structures are oriented toward the mountain in a manner similar to one section of
the existing lodge and the duplex across 4`h 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. The vast majority of all
structures in this area are parallel and square to the street. If the chalets were oriented toward
the street, Staff believes the units would significantly contribute to the rural 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
The Aspen Fire Marshall has reserved comment on the access until a building permit
application has been received by the City. 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 the proposed 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
13
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.
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.
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 potential trail 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
14
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.
The storage and shedding of snow and ice is proposed to be accommodated by roof
overhangs to the entry of each unit; 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.
15
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, Highway 82 and Power Plant
Road.
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 open space is included in this application for this lot. However, the
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.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an
undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this application and
reported the ability to serve this project.
16
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.
I. 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 sidewalk
along W. Hopkins Avenue, and each chalet, lodge unit, and affordable housing unit would
have access to the sidewalk via a paved path from the front door to the sidewalk. The
application does not include vehicular access to the site.
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 proposed parking arrangement along W. Hopkins Avenue would create
traffic congestion on the streets surrounding the parcel because no on -site parking is
proposed. The proposed sidewalk along the avenue would provide for safe pedestrian traffic
off of the road.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD
applications)
17
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:
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 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 further recommends than the Certificates of Occupancy (CO) not be
issued for the two (2) westerly chalets or 1- bedroom lodge units until the COs are issued
for the affordable housing units.
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.
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
Staff recommends that all impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of building permits
for phase one, and that if construction of the affordable housing units does not begin
within 36 months of the completion of phase one, that 100 percent of the affordable
housing mitigation fees be paid cash -in -lieu.
m
26.425.040 Conditional Use Criteria
When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as
applicable.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with
the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located,
and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title;
and
Staff Finding
The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District permits "affordable housing for employees of
the lodge ", and "affordable housing" for the community in general as a conditional use. The
Applicant is requesting conditional use approval for affordable housing in the event that
Boomerang Lodge employees already have a place to live and do need the on -site affordable
housing unit. This approval would allow the Housing Office to fill the unit with a qualified
local worker.
Staff believes the conditional use is consistent with all aspects of the AACP as well as the
zone district and all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development; and
Staff Finding
Affordable housing is consistent with the character of the immediate area. The Christiania
Lodge contains a deed restricted affordable housing unit, and the Ullr Commons is in the
process of becoming a local employer owned affordable housing building containing 26
residential units. Other duplexes and multi- family buildings exist in the immediate area.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the
proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including
visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties; and
Staff Finding
The proposed units would be located in a building that also includes lodge rooms and a
bathhouse for lodge guests at the western end of the parcel. Staff believes the location, size,
design and operating characteristics of the conditional use and entire development would
work together in a coordinated fashion. The units would be located within walking distance
to transit, employment, shopping and recreation centers. Staff recommends a condition of
19
approval that two parking spaces be designated on -site at the expanded or existing
Boomerang Lodge for employees.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks,
police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools; and
Staff Finding
All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this application and
reported the ability to serve this project.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental
need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and
Staff Finding
This conditional use mitigates itself.
26.470.070(M) Lodge Preservation Program. Development, or redevelopment after
demolition, of properties zoned Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay to increase or decrease
the number of lodge units, the number of affordable housing units, or the amount of
accessory commercial square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be
exempted from the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided
that the Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that the
following criteria are met:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe this project will 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.
2. The proposed development is compatible with the character of
existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of
the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone
District. The site is located across the street from the existing Boomerang Lodge, and within
two blocks of both the Christiania Lodge and L'Auberge Chalets; residential uses are also
KI]
abundant in the immediate vicinity, as are recreation areas to the south on the mountain and
commercial uses to the north on Main Street.
Staff also believes the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone
district, which is to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used
for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate
lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated with
lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is compatible
with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically
operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent
properties. The goal of this application is a replica of the purpose of this zone district.
3. Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional
employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the demolition of
multi - family housing, as required by section 26.530. This shall include an
analysis and credit for existing employee generation and the incremental impact
between the existing development and the proposed development. A
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
considered for this standard.
Staff Finding
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. 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 development — in this case an expansion — after
considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
The Applicant is proposing to provide 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.
4. Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for the
development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An
existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe adequate on -site parking is included in the site plan for the expanded
lodge. Despite the lodge and affordable housing units' location to transit, town, and
recreation areas, many visitors and tenants will continue to need a place to park their cars.
This is a vacant lot and Staff believes parking can be accommodated on the site rather than
on the street. The Parks Department is also concerned about parking along the W. Hopkins
Avenue because of the potential for a trail in this area.
21
Providing 5 -7 on -site parking spaces would likely change the proposed dimensional
requirements on the site. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a site plan with on -site
parking, and then the dimensional requirements can be more appropriately analyzed for the
parcel and neighborhood.
5. There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed
development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual
Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings established
pursuant to Section 26.470.050.
Staff Finding
Approximately 36 Lodge Preservation — tourist accommodation allotments exist, which is
more than adequate for the seven (7) allotments required for this application.
22
EXHIBIT B
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: April 11, 2000
Re: Boomerang Lodge Expansion
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 "x36" 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
drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site,
23
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.
24
r +` A
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
canoe 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.
25
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.
Electric:
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 13endon Mitch Haas
Ben Ludlow
Nick Adeh
26
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`h 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`h 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
4`h 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 D & E would severely encroach upon the trail.
27
J O H N R. B E A T TfY 1
A T T O R N E Y AT L A W
Trade P3 Investment
Asset Protection
Venture Capital
Taxation
July 21, 2000
Mayor Rachel Richards & the City Council,
The City of Aspen,
130 S. Galena Street,
Aspen CO 81611
RE: BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION
Dear Mayor and Council members:
A T R A D E L A W
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SOLUTIONS
iJ
RECEIVED 520 E. Cooper, Suite 211
P.O. Box 207, Aspen, Colorado 81612
JUL 24 2000 td: 1- 970- 920 -1522
ASPEN i PITKIN fax: 1-970-920-2465
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT jbeatty ®tradelawusa.com
' www.tradelawusa.com
Sydney, Australia
COPY P.O. Box R230
Sydney, NSW 1225
tel: +61 -2 -9908 -3381
""6f021IIIIP 368p
fax: +61.2- 9974 -4896
I am writing on behalf of Mrs. Mary Hugh Scott in opposition to the above referenced
proposed rezoning, minor PUD and GMQS Exemption.
Mrs. Scott's interest in the Patersons' application is threefold: (i) she is a neighbor who is
directly affected by any development that occurs on the property; (ii) she sold the land to
Mr. Paterson and has an ongoing security interest in the property and considers the present
application to be a breach of the agreements reached in connection with the sale; (iii) as a
long time resident she is concerned about the precedent that approval of the application
may create.
It is noted that the application is being made by Charles and Fonda Paterson, and the
application further states that the applicant, Mr. & Mrs. Paterson are the owners of the
property. This representation is incorrect. Title to the property is recorded in the sole name of
Charles Paterson. Mrs. Scott holds a purchase money Deed of Trust from Mr. Paterson over the
property with a principal balance of $1,500,000 and any assignment of an interest by Mr.
Paterson would be a breach of that Deed of Trust. It is understood that title to the Boomerang
Lodge property is in the name of a corporation, and not that of the applicants nor of the
owner of the property.
SUMMARY
Mrs. Scott is strongly opposed to the proposed re- zoning and minor PUD on a number of
grounds, which may be summarized as:-
The proposed rezoning is significant and inappropriate in that it permits a density
some two and one half times or more than that permitted under existing zoning,
the proposed intensity of development on the site is excessive and is inconsistent
with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the neighborhood and the surrounding
licensed in Cdorodo, Australia (NSW) & England
July 21, 2000
Page 2
N
open space and represents an intrusion of commercial use into a quiet
neighborhood setting.
2. A Lodge Preservation overlay to the property is neither appropriate nor legally
supportable. The properties are not in the same ownership; they are not
contiguous; the proposed development is not of the same or even similar nature;
and is more in the nature of a townhome than a lodge.
3. The proposed rezoning and development sets an inappropriate precedent for
future applications.
4. We believe that the application is contrary to certain private agreements entered
into when Mrs. Scott agreed to sell the property to Mr. Paterson. That may be an
issue for private enforcement, but to better understand Mrs. Scott's postion, you
need to know the basis for the sale and terms she imposed when she sold the
property.
It is submitted that, to -date, Council has neither sufficiently considered nor appreciated the
significant neighborhood impacts of the proposal, and has been too distracted from the real
issues by the side issue of parking.
We appreciate that the Patersons are long time residents and have been active in the
community, and while it is tempting to want to help out an old time lodge owner, this should
not be at the significant cost to surrounding home owners and the community that this
proposal imposes.
There is a big difference between helping a marginal lodge operation survive in order to
preserve the existing lodge bed -base and the acquisition of a new, non - contiguous parcel in
separate ownership and rezoning it for significantly denser development that is inconsistent
with its surrounds and out of sync with the Aspen Master Plan. This is especially so when there
has been no change of circumstances that justifies the rezoning and all evidence suggests
that the existing lodge operation is, by all accounts, highly successful and is not in danger of
closure.
BACKGROUND
Mrs. Scott and Mr. Paterson are both long time Aspen residents, and Mrs. Scott during the
thirty -five or more years that she has known the Patersons, has had the pleasure of seeing the
Paterson's prosper and build their successful lodge operation. Over the years, they have had
many discussions regarding what she believed was a mutual interest in preserving the
essential nature of this particular property as a buffer to Shadow Mountain. The Patersons
now wish to intensively develop the property for their own financial gain and without regard
to the history, feelings of, or impact on, the surrounding neighbors and without respect for the
very basis of the sale of the property to Mr. Paterson.
As you are well aware, the property abuts Shadow Mountain, and has a popular hiking trail
on one side and a very popular summer bicycle and pedestrian way (Hopkins) on the other.
The property has been vacant for many years, and has wild grass, sagebrush and wildflowers.
July 21, 2000
Page 3
It is clearly a property that requires sensitivity as to its development. The Patersons claim that
they are being sensitive to the land, but building to the maximum FAR, maximum height (or
very close to) and significantly reduced setbacks that could be obtained under any scenario,
does not suggest sensitivity.
Mrs. Scott endorses Mr. Paterson's statement in his letter to her of July 12, 2000, a copy of
which Mr. Paterson copied to City Council, that "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. Paepke did not wish to sell her land during her lifetime so it would
remain as wild grass and sagebrush with wildflowers sprinkled throughout ". Mrs. Scott
acquired and held the property vacant in order to continue Mrs. Paepke's legacy, and sold it
to Mr. Paterson only because he led her to believe that he would continue to respect and
preserve the property. What Mrs. Scott strongly objects to, is the next sentence of Mr.
Paterson's letter: "Unfortunately this was not to be forever ".
Mrs. Scott acquired the property from Mrs. Paepke in early 1995 for the express purpose of
preserving the property and protecting it from intensive development. In fact, at the time
Mrs. Scott purchased the property, there were discussions between various neighbors,
including Mr. Paterson, regarding the possible joint acquisition of the property in order to
preserve it as a neighborhood amenity. Ultimately, Mrs. Scott decided to acquire the
property individually.
Mrs. Scott resides at the corner of 3rd and Hopkins, across and just down the street from the
property proposed for development, and any development on the property will directly
impact her views to the west.
ISSUES ARISING FROM THE TERMS OF SALE
In August, 1999, Mrs. Scott agreed to sell the property to Mr. Paterson specifically because
she believed that he would be sensitive to the special nature of the property and based on
his representations to her that he planned to preserve it's nature and to develop it in a
manner consistent with existing zoning, i.e., a single family residence for himself or possibly as
a low impact duplex that would permit some employee housing (in the form of one or more
ADU's) that would be available for employees of the Boomerang.
The sale to Mr. Paterson was consistent with its present zoning as a single family lot with R -15,
Moderate density residential zoning, for a price of $2.5 million. Most of the consideration was
carried in the form of a low interest installment note secured over the property.
Although the City may well regard the restrictions placed on the property in conjunction with
the sale to be a private matter, and in one sense that is true, Council should understand that
Mrs. Scott's opposition to the development is entirely consistent with the restrictions she
imposed and the representations made to her by Mr. Paterson in conjunction with the sale.
The relevant portions of the specific express contractual restrictions are:
"Buyer agrees that it shall not, nor will it allow, the Property to be improved (1) as an
employee housing project in which the primary purpose of the Property is to provide
July 21, 2000
Page 4
N
housing for individuals employed in Pitkin County or in the City of Aspen, or (2) as a
townhome project in which townhomes occupy nearly all of the open space on the
Property, as now exists at "The Fireside" project. Nothing in subsection (1) of the
preceding sentence shall, or be interpreted to, limit Buyer's right to construct one or
more affordable or employee housing units as part of a development plan, the primary
purpose of which is not to provide housing for individuals employed in Pitkin County or
the City of Aspen ".
The rationale for the covenant against an employee housing development per se was not
that Mrs. Scott doesn't believe that there is not enough employee housing in town, but that
she felt that the intensity of development and traffic that such a project would generate was
simply inappropriate for this particular parcel.
As to the second restriction, referencing The Fireside, the present proposal before Council is
just the sort of development that she sought to prevent. While perhaps Council is not the
appropriate forum for arguing the similarities or differences between the two, at the very
least, it should be readily apparent to Council that the townhome nature of the Paterson
project is quite similar to the Fireside.
While with hindsight it would seem that Mrs. Scott should have included a specific covenant
limiting development to that permitted by existing zoning (single family, possibly a duplex of
no more than 5,100 square feet), in not doing so, Mrs. Scott relied on the present zoning, as
she was clearly entitled to do under Colorado law. The sale was made, with Mr. Paterson's full
knowledge and agreement, on the basis of the current zoning.
Mr. Paterson is fully aware, that if Ms. Scott had been aware as to the Paterson's plans for the
land, she would not have contemplated making the sale. And if Mr. Paterson was, or is, at all
confused about the position, Ms. Scott is quite willing to reacquire the land from him and
refund him the money.
It is important to point out, that Ms. Scott's right to rely on existing zoning is supported by a
long line of Colorado cases. Colorado case law also make it clear that, absent a significant
change in circumstances, such as a material change in the character of the neighborhood
that requires rezoning in the public interest (which has clearly not occurred here), there is no
legal basis for special zoning treatment to be afforded to a particular piece of property (see
Clarke v City of Boulder, 146 Colo 526, 326 P.2d 160.).
In the light of the case law, it is submitted that it would inappropriate for the City to approve
what is in reality a significant spot rezoning of this property. More particularly so, because the
proposed rezoning involves a significant increase in density and the extension of commercial
use into a residential, relatively low density, neighborhood without any justifiable basis other
than economic gain of the applicants.
While ultimately the contractual issues are a private matter that will be resolved by
negotiation between the parties or by a court (Mrs. Scott is actively considering filing a
complaint in Pitkin County District Court against Mr. Paterson), it is important for the City
Council to at least understand that the issues exist, the nature of the issues, and, more
importantly, (a) that Mrs. Scott's opposition to the Paterson's proposal is consistent with the
basis and terms on which she sold the property and (b) that in framing the terms of sale, she
July 21, 2000
Page 5
t
relied on existing zoning and her belief that the City Council would not improperly consider a
spot zoning of the property without adequate justification.
INAPPROPRIATENESS OF LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY
Section 26.710.320 states that the purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) zoning is "to provide
for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations ....
to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of
the manner in which the property has historically operated and to provide an incentive for
upgrading existing lodges on -site or on to adjacent properties" (emphasis added)
It is noted that as best as can be determined, the present application appears to be the first
case involving an extension of the LP zoning to a parcel of land that is vacant and does not
already have an existing lodge on the property. City Council, should, therefore, be
particularly mindful of any precedents that their actions on this property may create.
We do not believe that rezoning of the property in this case is proper or appropriate for the
following reasons:
a. The property is not in the some ownership as the existing lodge and is not,
therefore, "an upgrade of an existing lodge ";
b. The proposed "upgrade" (if it is that) is not on -site or on to an adjacent property.
The property is separated by not only a street, but one that is a popular pedestrian
and bike path in the summer;
C. The proposal is not an "upgrade of an existing lodge ", but an entirely new
development;
d. The proposal is much more than an "upgrading of the existing lodge" - it is a
separate parcel, with a different style of units that are not of a lodge style;
e. There is no case made, or that can be made, that the granting of the application
in any way "protects" the existing lodge. There is no suggestion that the existing
lodge is uneconomic or needs this addition in order to ensure its survival or even
that this expansion will help to ensure its survival- in fact all indications are to the
contrary - that the existing lodge is successful and profitable. The proposal is, in
any event entirely separate from the existing lodge;
f. The proposal is neither compatible with the neighborhood nor "respective of the
manner in which the property (which, for the purposes of the ordinance, can only
refer to the property that is the subject of the application) has historically operated
- the property has historically been open space for many years and has effectively
open space on one side, and, other than the Boomerang across the street, is
surrounded by residential properties (see further discussion below).
In relation to the ownership issue, it is important to note that not only is there no commonality
of ownership between the existing Boomerang Lodge and the property, there is no legal tie
existing nor proposed, that would ensure that the proposed development remains in
perpetuity tied to, or integrated with, the Boomerang Lodge. There is nothing to prevent it
July 21, 2000
Page 6
N
being operated as a separate property with the attendant increases in employment
requirements and traffic.
INCONSISTENCY WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed project is clearly inconsistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. It is
recognized that one of the components of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP) is to
maintain the community's lodging base, but that is just one, not the sole, criteria for
development in the AACP. As stated above, the provisions related to the LP zoning are
expressed in quite limited terms, and it is submitted that the expansion of a commercial use
into a well established and long standing medium density residential zone on a "spot" basis is
inconsistent with the AACP when taken as a whole.
The area surrounding the project may be characterized as a strip of main street commercial
fronting Main Street, with a parallel strip of R -6 Residential running between the alleyway and
Hopkins, with The Boomerang being the only commercial intrusion into that strip, followed by
a strip of R -15 Residential between Hopkins and Shadow Mountain. This stepped zoning
provides a clearly appropriate transitioning from Main Street commercial to the open space
of Shadow Mountain. The proposal interferes significantly with this.
The extension of commercial use or even a townhome use onto this property, as is proposed
by the application, is clearly inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of the AACP. The
Boomerang is already an intrusion into the residential neighborhood, and the proposal, if
approved, would significantly extend the high density commercial intrusion even further into
the residential neighborhood and into a lower density portion of the neighorhood. There is no
justification for this intrusion and it is clearly inconsistent with the AACP.
"The fact that the property may not be used as profitably for residential purposes as for
commercial uses, furnishes no justification for special treatment thereof "I It is irrelevant that
Mr. Paterson can use the property more profitably as an expansion of the Boomerang than
for its properly zoned residential use.
It is important to note that if the application was for construction of townhomes in exactly the
same configuration as the proposal, it is extremely unlikely that the proposal would even be
considered for approval. Yet there is nothing at all to prevent the applicants or a future
owner of the property (who may or may not also own The Boomerang) coming back to the
City for approval to convert the then existing buildings into separate condominiums (or as a
time share or other fractional ownership), and in fact, the project appears to have been
clearly designed with this possibility, if not likelihood, in mind.
There is also no legal basis proposed that would require the subject development, if
approved, to continue to be operated as part of The Boomerang. Rather, the City Council
appears to have simply assumed that this will be the case, whereas in fact there are no
assurances that the new development will continue to be operated as an integrated unit
1 Clarke v City of Boulder, 146 Colo 526, 362 P. 2d 160, quoting Hoskinson v Arvada (1957, 136 Colo.
450, 319 P. 2d 1090.
July 21, 2000
Page 7
with the existing Boomerang, or indeed, that it ever will be. Once approved, the City would
have no power to prevent the property being operated as a separate unit.
Further, given that the property will remain in the R -15 zone district with an LP overlay, there
also does not appear to be any legal restriction on the townhomes, if constructed, being
leased on a long term basis rather than as short -term lodge units.
One of the significant
SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE PROJECT
Density:
The proposal seeks to increase the density on the property by over two and one half times,
when calculated on an FAR basis, and by a factor of 3 to 5, when calculated on a use basis,
i.e., The proposal contemplates some 34 guest pillows, plus the two employee housing units,
plus facilities that will presumably be used by guests accommodated in the existing
Boomerang Lodge across the street. This is an exponential increase over the use factor for a
single family or duplex residence, even with ADIJ's.
Comments were made by those supporting the application at the First Reading that seemed
to assume that under current zoning the property could be effectively covered by a huge
single family house or duplex. Yet, even if all available FAR were to be built on a single level,
over 70% of the property would remain open space, and this open space would be more
available than the fractured open spaces between buildings in the applicants' proposal.
Given that it is likely that any single family or townhome constructed would be on more than
one level, the footprint would be even less and open space increased further.
This density is clearly out of character with the neighborhood, especially when viewed in the
proper context of the south side of West Hopkins, which is, consistent with the zoning on that
side of the street, single family residential.
Orientation:
Mr. Paterson, on behalf of the applicants, stated to the City Council on the First Reading of
this proposal, that he specifically designed the proposed development as separate
townhomes "because he thought that that was what Mrs. Scott wanted" in that she had
expressed to him at the time of sale her concern that any development not end up a wall of
buildings along Hopkins.
Yet the design is such that, from Mrs. Scott's property, the development, if approved, would
constitute just such a wall of buildings. The orientation of the buildings is such that any spaces
between the buildings will be invisible from her property, and the stepped effect of the
design is such as to increase the effect of the mass of the buildings.
When this was pointed out by the writer to M. Paterson right after the meeting, Mr. Paterson's
response was that he fully recognized that this was the case, and that he had designed it
that way specifically so as to preserve the view lines from The Boomerang and to maximize
sun. This is totally at odds with the representations he had just made to the Council.
July 21, 2000
Page 8
Set back
Ordinance 26.710.320 specified that the dimensional requirements for all uses in the LP
Overlay Zone is the dimensional requirements established for the underlying zoning, in this
case, R -15. The ordinance does contemplate the possibility of variation of these pursuant to a
PUD, as the applicant has proposed. However, this is not without criteria - the criteria being
neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements regulations surrounding
districts.
The applicants seek to reduce the minimum setback requirement from the 25 feet required by
the underlying zoning to 10 feet, and then to seriously further encroach in to this setback by
having rooflines extending to 5 feet or less from the front and rear boundaries.
This setback is entirely inconsistent with, and incompatible with, both the surrounding
neighborhood and surrounding districts.
Height
Although it is recognized that the applicants claimed height for the buildings is equal to (the
building at the west end of the property) or less than, that permitted under the R -15 zoning, it
is submitted that a lower height limitation is more appropriate for the property given its
sensitive location between the pedestrian -way of Hopkins and Shadow Mountain.
Parking
Much of the discussion on the First Reading was regarding parking. The original proposal was
to provide no parking, although we understand that the latest proposal is for 10 - 12
underground parking spaces. The report from City Staff notes that the LP overlay zone district
designation requires 13.9 spaces, but goes on to suggest that the applicants should be
relieved of that, in part, on the basis that The Boomerang Lodge operates a shuttle service for
its guests. Again, this is a situation that the Council seems willing to assume will continue,
without there being any legal requirement for the operator to do so.
It is noted, however, that the parking is provided in the last phase of the development, and it
is submitted, that even if approval were to be granted, the applicants should be required to
post a substantial bond to ensure that the parking is in fact provided within a reasonable
period of time, and that on- street parking not be permitted and that adequate interim off
street parking be provided on -site.
Affordable Housing
The proposal contemplates provision of housing for 3.5 full time equivalent employees (FTE's).
While we also agree with the applicants' contention that the FTE number of 35 determined on
a square footage basis is excessive, we do submit that the FTE generated is, nevertheless,
greater than the 3.5 proposed. The applicants' calculation assumes extension of services
from the existing lodge, but given that they have not offered to in any way legaly combine
the two, this is an illusory assumption. They further claim credit based on the availability of a
tri -plex for employees of the existing lodge, yet again, it does not appear that there is any
July 21, 2000
Page 9
legal restriction on the use of the tri -plex for employee housing, and again, without such an
enforceable deed restriction, the credit is illusory.
One comment that should be made is that the FTE count of 35 based on square footage
clearly further emphasizes the density of this proposal.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Comments were made at the First Reading regarding the comparative density of
development on Mrs. Scott's property. It is important to note that Mrs. Scott's property is in a
higher density zoning that the property that is the subject of the application, and is entirely
consistent both in terms of use and density with the other properties on that side of Hopkins.
Finally, it should be noted that Mrs. Scott would have raised all of the above issues before the
Planning & Zoning Commission, but had no opportunity to do so because she did not receive
any notice that the proposal was being considered. The first notice that was received was
the day prior to the First Reading before City Council. In this context, Mrs. Scott fails to
understand how Mr. Paterson can possibly claim to be surprised by her opposition to the
proposed development of the property. Mrs. Scott has consistently made it clear to the
Patersons that she did not want such intense development, and it is disingenuous for them to
claim that they were not aware that she would not have sold the land to them if they had
indicated their intention to propose such an intense development.
In summary, it is submitted that the City Council needs to carefully examine all aspects of the
proposal before it, and if they do, they will come to understand that it is not in the best
interests of the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
We look forward to having the opportunity to further explain our position at the hearing
scheduled for Monday, and to responding to any questions any City Council member may
have.
Sincerely,
Jo n R. ea
Y
cc: Mrs. Mary Hugh Scott
Mr. & Mrs. C. Paterson
Michael Hoffman, Esq.,
City of Aspen Planning Office
r T-,
F=4
Cl
Zj
11 � LEV.
PLAN C)5
LAP
,. x
i
C i
2 Y
O
M�
m
A
O
IIZA ;
T Ny
P
I.
J
rr ,
I ON
1 a
J be
1IT '
`z
1
I
�m
m
N
r
o ,
a
In
n
i
D
P
i
1 I L1 n
D
I �
z�
c
w r m
o R
rr ,
I ON
1 a
J be
1IT '
`z
1
�m
m
N
r
o ,
a
In
1
Fl 1, I s
ti I G
J be
1IT '
`z
1
�m
ti I G
(x-21 -00
ptspe� "1 +ncs
City of Aspen -
aftanceas j
Plans to expand the Boomerang Lodge moved
ahead a step Monday night, though the Aspen City
Council directed the lodge's owners to come up with
more parking spaces.
The council adopted an ordinance, on first read-
ing, to allow Boomerang owners Charlie and Fonda
Paterson to build five chalets, two condo units and
two affordable housing units on a parcel of land
across from the Boomerang;
The original proposal called for no on -site park-
ing except for two spaces dedicated to the affordable
housing. The Patersons, according to consultant
Sunny Vann, feel their proximiy to !Main Street
buses and their provision of a shuttle service pre-
clude the need for cars, and therefore the need for
parking spaces.
But the council members said they believed the
Project might lead to added parking congestion in
the neighborhood. It wa''s pointed out that under the
city's codes, the project could be required to include
13 parking spaces.
One issue that only came up at the end of the dis-
cussion was 'whether the chalets and new lodge
condo units would be sold under" fractional owner-
ship„ arrangements.
Vann noted that, if that is ever the case, the Pater-
son" are required by city regulations to get penis-
sion from the city,
A public heating on the Boomerang proposal is
now set for July l
Z�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion — Rezoning & Minor Planned Unit
Development — First Reading - Continued
DATE: June 26, 2000
On June 12, 2000, City Council continued the First Reading for the application
submitted by Charlie and Fonda Paterson (Applicant) to rezone and create a Planned
Unit Development for the property located across the street from the existing Boomerang
Lodge to June 26, 2000.
Please find attached a revised site plan for the Boomerang Lodge Expansion proposed by
the Applicant, and letters from neighbors concerned about the project. The revised site
plan includes five (5) on -site parking spaces. Designated parking spaces for the two (2)
affordable housing units would be located at the existing lodge, along the 5' Street side
of the structure. Each proposed on -site parking space would require a curb -cut. It is
highly unlikely that the City Engineer will issue more than one (1) curb cut to this
property.
The proposed on -site parking would be inconsistent with the W. Hopkins Avenue
streetscape, except for the four (4) head -in parking spaces across the street near the 4`h
Street intersection. Parking along W. Hopkins Avenue is primarily either parallel or on-
site via alley access from the back of the pro en rties. Staff believes ttFiat the Applicant can
provide on -site parking behind the chalets and lodge/bathhouse /affordable housing
building in a manner that preserves the native vegetation in the back of the property.
Locating parking behind the structures would maintain the streetscape and reduce the
presence of automobiles on W. Hopkins Avenue. Far more people — pedestrians,
bicyclists, and automobile traffic — would be exposed to�the li a3 -in parking along W.
Hopkins Avenue than would pedestrians and bicyclists using the trail behind the
property, especially since much of the mature vegetation is not on -site, but rather on City
property along the trail.
Community Development Staff continues to believe that the Applicant should consider
developing a new site plan with buildings oriented toward the street and adequate on -site
parking (depending on the number of units, bedrooms, and square footage).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff continues to recommend that the Applicant revise the site plan to include at
least 5 -7 on -site parking spaces appropriately located, with the buildings oriented to
the street. Staff further recommends that City Council table this request until such
a plan is submitted to staff for further analysis.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to table Ordinance No. _, Series of 2000, until to allow the Applicant
to revise their site plan."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. _, Series of 2000, approving the rezoning to R-
15/Planned Unit Development/Lodge Preservation and minor PUD, with the conditions
in the ordinance." (Council will need to decide on an option related to Condition 16
regarding surety for the affordable housing units proposed in the second phase.)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Original Staff Report
Exhibit B -- Revised Site Plan
Exhibit C -- Letters
Exhibit D -- Code Interpretation of the term "Lodge"
C: \home \nickl\Active Cases \Boomerang \CC 1st Reading CONTD.doc
"=a
2
steve @goldenberg.com, 10:10 AM 6/22/00 -0500, Re: Boomerang ''Open Space"
To: <steve @goldenberg.com>
From: Nick Lelack <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Boomerang "Open Space"
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached:
There is no open space requirement for the R -15 Zone District
The application proposes to establish 55% open space as a minimum, if I remember correctly, and
he contends that 70% of the site will actually remain open space. His argument, I think, is this:
the site is 19,000+ square feet; each chalet would have a footprint of approximately 740 square
feet, which equals 3700 square feet for the five chalets (I don't have the proposed footprint for the
large sixth building immediately available); so, the aggregate of the building footprints (in terms of
square feet) would be about 30% of the site's total square footage. As a result, 70% of the site
would remain open space.
The allowed FAR for a single family residence on this site would be approximately 4750 square
feet (the Boomerang proposal is for 12,060 square feet of FAR). This property would be eligible
for an FAR exemption of up to 375 square feet for residential garage, so a residence could
actually be as large as 5,125 square feet above ground. The site might be eligible for a duplex,
meaning that the FAR could be increased to 5160 square feet of FAR with 750 square feet of
FAR exemption for the two garages, so 5910 square feet may be visible above grade on this site
under that scenario. To take this exercise one step further, each duplex could have up to a
maximum of an 800 square foot detached ADU. So it appears that the maximum FAR for this
site, if a duplex is even eligible, could be up to about 7 600 s uare F��R (the AD Us are
exempt from FAR calculations IF they are BOTH de ached an deed restricted to mandatory
occupancy).
So, with the potential FARs available under different residential scenarios compared to what
Charlie is proposing, I doubt that the duplex with ADUs scenario would actually cover more of the
site than the proposed 5 chalets and mixed -use building, unless the structures were primarily 1-
story and expanded across the lot. It is more likely that the duplex would be 2- stories above
ground like the Boomerang proposal to capture the views of Aspen Mountain (or is it Ajax ?). The
2 -story buildings - whether it be a duplex or chalets would likely result in less site - coverage
because of FAR limitations.
In addition, the Boomerang application proposes to establish setbacks of 10 -feet in the front and
si es (the rear yard setback is proposed to be "per approved pan ' which seems to be 5-
10 feet based on the locations of the chalets). The R -15 Zone District reouires 2 nt vard
set back, 10 foot side -yard setbacks, and 5 foot rear varcTsetEacks for accessory buildings and 0
ee or a rest ence. This 'gets u o the point that the Boomerang proposal e-stbTi s es iess
rLs c ive setbac s which allows for the buildings to be spread out more across the site than a
duplex or single family residence.
I could easily go on and on with this discussion, but I have to turn my attention to other cases. I
hope this information gives you some understanding of the differences between their proposal and
what current zoning allows.
Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us> 1
°�,doy, June 26, 2000 • The Aspen Times 5-A
Boomerang seeks expansion
and `fractional ownership' .
■ Proposal
before city tonight
By John Colson
Aspen Times Staff Writer
At least some of the debate
tonight over expansion of the old
Boomerang Lodge property will
deal with an unspoken but con -
troversial part of the pro -.
posal — whether or not the
new lodging should allow
project.
The proposal has received the
unanimous endorsement of the
city's Planning and Zoning Com-
mission and Housing Board, and
goes before the City Council for
the second time tonight, at a hear-
ing continued from June 12.
Included in the council mem-
bers' meeting packets are letters
"fractional ownership" "Basically, It's simply Ann Woods said Fnday that city
Boomerang owners officials, too, have some con -
Charlie and Fonda Pater - What the industry calls terns about the fractional owner -
son have applied t o the city h' 'd Sh d d
to develop a parcel of land `hot beds.' "
they recently bought, locat-
ed across West Hopkins
Avenue from the
Boomerang.
According to the appli-
cation, the Patersons want
to build five chalets, two
one - bedroom lodge units,
two one - bedroom affordable
housing units and a bathhouse on
the 19,000- square -foot parcel.
The formal application scarcely
mentions the fractional owner-
ship idea. but the Patersons' plan-
ning consultant confirmed last
week that the couple is exploring
the idea as a way to finance the
not involve actual ownership of
the property by deed, fractional
ownership does.
Critics - of the plan are con-
cerned that fractional ownership
will result in increased numbers
of visitors to the neighborhood,
resulting in added traffic and
parking congestion, environmen-
tal impacts and safety problems,
according to letters from several
neighbors and others.
And Planning Director Julie
s tp t ea. e sat crty co es
deal at some length with the
time -share concept, but fractional
Sunny Vann, or "interval" ownership is not
s ecificall addressed
planning consultant
from neighbors worried about the
Patersons' exploration of the idea
of making the chalets "fractional
ownership," which is a variant of
the time -share concept. Under
this concept, different people buy
specific time intervals throughout
the year as vacation time. But
where time - shares normally do
p Y
She said the idea of time -share
ownership has come up before,
and that one developer was con-
sidering the idea of buying a sin-
gle- family home in the West End
and converting it to fractional
ownership. If that were to hap-
pen, she said, it would likely have
considerable impact on the West
End, at least in terms of traffic
and parking.
Sunny Vann, the planning con-
sultant working on the
■ See Boomerang on page 14-A
Boomerang
! continued from page S-A
Boomerang
understanding of the issues
issues
proposal, said that
question of fractional
involved, not in, "Frankly,
own-
ership is "still up in the airif
ple single it out and they use it
enid it should make no differ-
differ
ence
as a scare tactic. Basically, it's
simply what the industry
to the city or the neighbors
calls
'hot beds,' "
whether the Boomerang remains
a traditional lodge or changes to
meaning there is an
increased likelihooi . of higher
fractional ownership, because
occupancy with fractional own-
ership .
ideally, lodge rooms are occu-
pied all the time anyway.
City planning officials also
All fractional ownership
are concerned about a lack of
off- street parking spaces to
would mean, he said is an infu-
sion
go
with the expanded facilities, and
of money right away to
finance the expansion
have asked the Patersons to
.help pro-
rework their plans to include up ,
"He was looking for adiffer-
to seven on -site parking spaces
b
ent product to supplement what
rather than have their patrons all
park on the street.
he's got there already," Vann
said of Charlie Paterson's view
Tonight is the first reading of
of the matter.
the p roposal; it is not a public
He dismissed the neighbors'
'
hearing
C The council meeting
complaints as based on 000r
starts at 5 p.m. in the basement
,F u t
FROM : Steve Goldenberg
PHONE NO. : 1 970 925 1294
Jun. 15 2000 04:37PM P1
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Coun Nick Lelac Charlie Paterson
SUBJECT: Boomerang Lodge ezoning & Expansion
FROM: Stephen Goldenberg
DATE: June 19, 2000
L AppHoability of "Lodge Preservation GMOS Exception
The applicant has stated that he intends to sell seven "time shares" in each of the 5 "chalets" for from
$300,004400,000 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
("short term') 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, and on different
occasions to Cheryl, Renee Marcus, John Staton, and Martha Madsen and appears in writing in exhibit #2
of the "Lodge Preservation" application, a copy of which is attached.
2. Rezoning from I Private Horne 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. 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 an R -15 zone. That is why the site plan looks so packed and why there is no room for the
required off street parking.
3. Ignoring the Onsite Park+ttg Reouirennents
Twenty 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"' timeshare or $2,000+ per
night are probably going to rent a car even if they don't use it often. That's actually worse because the
unused cars will sit on Hopkins Ave. all night and all day. If the guests don't use their cars, that's even
more reason to keep them off the street and out of sight. There should be at least 10 onsite garages or
Parking spaces. There should be no on street parking for the "new" or the old Boomerang. The present
neighbors always 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 is no
parking in the proposal because there are too many buildings for the site.
4. Impact on Natural Environment
The seven proposed buildings will certainly have a more adverse impact than one single house with one
ADU or even a duplex.
5. Phasing of Construction
The project as proposed is very "rich" and could easily be financed and built in one shot. The application is
Phased so that the profits from the sate of the phase I "times shares" can pay for the construction of
Phase 11. The public benefit of the two affordable units should come at the begriming rather than at the end.
6. Traffic Road Safety Service Vehicle and Emergocy Access
A residential unit generates 5 -10 auto trips per day. For a pedestrian street that's a lot more traffic. The
Present Boomerang guests and we exit and enter from the alley, to 4's and on to Main Street. Guests of the
new Boomerang will have no choice but to use Hopkins coming and going. Adults and children us
Boomerang pool will have to run across Hopkins and back, as will the cleaning, maintain ing the
it and other
staff all year round. An unobstructed street and a striped pedestrian cross walk will be necessary to
accidents and provide somewhat better access for service and emergency vehicles. No lettered
Parking permits should be issued to any Boomerang guests.
7. Employee hftigation
The employee mitigation calculations appear to be understated and have to be carefully reviewed by the
Staff. Normally, anew hotel room requires 0._ new employees. That would workout to new
employees instead of the — calculated in the application.
n n.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM:
Nick Lelack, Planner ,�4`lh '
RE:
Boomerang Lodge Site Visit
DATE:
June 14, 2000
A site visit to the property located across W. Hopkins Ave. from the existing Boomerang
Lodge is scheduled for Monday, June 19, at 1:00 pm, immediately following City
Council's brown bag session. Transportation will be provided.
John Krueger, 07:20 AM 5/30/000 -0500, Re: Fwd: Boomerang - parking on 4th right of way Page 1 of 1
X- Sender: johnk @commons
X- Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:20:15 -0500
To: Rebecca Schickling <rebeccas @ci.aspen.co.us>
From: John Krueger <johnk @ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Boomerang - parking on 4th right of way
Cc: nick) @ci.aspen. co. us
Becca,
Yes, we ned to limit them as much as possible. A trail along Hopkins with
a buffer zone is the part of many plans. It is part of a two trail
approach. A hard surface trail in this area and a soft surface back
country trail on Shadow Mountain. I would hate to lose the possiblity on
Hopkins since we face many hurdles up on the mountain.
johnk
At 05:45 PM 5/23/00 -0600, Rebecca Schickling wrote:
>John,
>What do you think? I don't think we can tell them no they can't park there
>but maybe require them to install a 5 foot sidewalk and 5 foot buffer zone.
»X- Sender: nickl @comdev
»X- Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
>>Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:12:56 -0500
>>To: Rebecca Schickling <rebeccas @ci.aspen.co.us>
>>From: Nick Lelack <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us>
>>Subject: Boomerang - parking on 4th right of way
>>Hi Becca,
>>Mitch and I have been talking about the possibility of Boomerang being
>>allowed to park on the 4th Street right -of -way beyond W.
>>Hopkins. Engineering does not have a problem with this and I need to
>>check with Parking. But Parks may have an interest because this is in the
>>undeveloped stub of 4th street basically at the base of the mountain
>>( where Boomerang wants to expand and put chalets, etc.). There is a trail
>>just above the 4th street stub. Any thoughts or official comments?
>>Thanks.
>>Nick Lelack
>>Planner, City of Aspen
»(970) 920 -5095
> Rebecca Schickling
>Assistant Parks Director
>City of Aspen
John D. Krueger
Trails Coordinator
City of Aspen
Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl @ci.aspen.co.us> 5/30/00
MEMORANDUM
TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked -off below:
A ...........
City Engineer
O ...........
Zoning Officer
...........
Housing Director
*..........
Parks Department
�...........
Aspen Fire Marshal
..........
City Water
�...........
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
O ...........
Building Department
O ...........
Environmental Health f `
O ...........
Electric Department
O ...........
Holy Cross Electric
O ...........
City Attorney
L...........
Streets Department
O ...........
Historic Preservation Officer
O ...........
Pitkin County Planning
FROM: Chris Bendon,
Planner
Community Development Department
130 So.
Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611
Phone - 920.5090 Fax- 920.5439
RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion
Hopkins Between 4' and 5`" Streets (vacant w/ no address)
Parcel ID #2735.124.66.001
DATE: March 29, 2000
REFERRAL SCHEDULE
DRC MEETING DATE (1:30 p.m. in Sister Cities):
FINAL REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER:
Thank you,
Chris.
April 5, 2000
April 21, 2000
4
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
March 27, 2000
Mr. Chris Bendon
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Boomerang Lodge Application
Dear Chris:
The attached land use application for the Boomerang Lodge Expansion
project includes all required materials. You will please note, however, that
neither the letter of authorization for Vann Associates, LLC, and Haas Land
Planning, LLC, to represent the owners/ applicants (Exhibit #4), nor the fee
agreement (Exhibit #6) have been signed.
The Patersons are currently out of town and arrangements could not be
made to obtain the necessary signatures prior to their departure. Signed copies
of these required documents will be provided upon the Paterson s return. In the
interim, it would be greatly appreciated if the application review process could
be initiated.
If you should need any additional copies of any materials or if you should
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the numbers and address
provided on the bottom of this page, or by email at mhaas@gateway.net.
Yours truly,
HAAS E NNING, LLC
Mitch Haas, AICP
Owner/ Principal
c: \my documents \administrative \boomerang letter3
•201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1
•PHONE: (970) 925 -7819 • FAX: (970) 925 -7395•
AN APPLICATION FOR EXPANSION OF
THE BOOMERANG LODGE
w
Submitted by:
Charles & Fonda Paterson ._
1104 East Waters Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Prepared by:
VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925 -6958
fax: (970) 920 -9310
and
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
Planning Consultants
r
201 North Mill Street, Suite 108
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925 -7819
fax: (970) 925 -7395
mhaas@gateway.net
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
PLANNERS
Sunny Vann, AICP
Vann Associates, LLC
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925 -6958
Mitch Haas, AICI' '
"
Haas Land Planning, LLC
201 North Mill Street, Suite 108
,.
Aspen, CO 81611
k
(970) 925 -7819
x�
ARCHITECT
Charles Paterson
.,
1104 East Waters Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925 -2875
-~
SURVEYOR
Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc.
David McBride, L.S.
210 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925 -3816
BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
• Section 26.470.070(M),
Lodge Preservation GMQS Exemption .. .............................28
", • Section 26.470.070(j),
° Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption . .............................37
C. Planned Unit Development ( PUD) .............. .............................38
• Section 26.445.040, General Provisions . .............................38
s.i
• Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Minor PUD ...............39
D. Conditional Use.. ........ ......................... .............................61
"* E. Vested Property Rights ........................... .............................63
EXHIBITS
Exhibit #1: Land Use Application Form
Exhibit #2: Pre - Application Conference Summary
Pot
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................ ..............................1
H.
PROJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
........... 2
M.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................... ..............................5
• Table One: Dimensional Requirements Comparison ......................12
IV.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ........ ......... ......... ......... ...............15
{
A. Rezoning .................
r*^,
a :
B. GMQS Exemptions ......... ......... ......... ......... ..............28
• Section 26.470.070(M),
Lodge Preservation GMQS Exemption .. .............................28
", • Section 26.470.070(j),
° Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption . .............................37
C. Planned Unit Development ( PUD) .............. .............................38
• Section 26.445.040, General Provisions . .............................38
s.i
• Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Minor PUD ...............39
D. Conditional Use.. ........ ......................... .............................61
"* E. Vested Property Rights ........................... .............................63
EXHIBITS
Exhibit #1: Land Use Application Form
Exhibit #2: Pre - Application Conference Summary
Pot
f r^
EXHIBITS CONTINUED
Exhibit #3:
Proof of Ownership /Title Commitment
Exhibit #4:
Letter of Authorization for both Vann Associates, LLC, and Haas
Land Planning, LLC, to Represent the Owner /Applicant
Exhibit #5:
List of Property Owners Within 300 Feet of the Subject Property
Exhibit #6:
Signed and Executed Fee Agreement
Exhibit #7:
Engineering Report Prepared by Mr. Jay Hammond, P.E., of
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
t
Exhibit 118:
Article from United Airlines Magazine about The Boomerang Lodge
and the Patersons