HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20140701 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, July 1, 2014
REGULAR MEETING: 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 500 W. Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment, GMQS
Review
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: I D
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest(handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments.
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of hearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
P1
"For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change"
CITY AGENDAS
City Council-2nd and 0 Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on
Tuesdays) P/Z-1St and 3rd Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd &4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4
Week of June 23, 2014
7/1 P&Z (x)4:30 (no Ryan)
Notice: 6/9
Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment—SA (continuation if necessary)
7/15 P&Z'(x)4:30
Notice: 6/23
320 Midland Ave., RDS— SN
Rubey Park Remodel, PD - JB
8/5 P&Z 64:30 (closed)
Notice: 7/14
601 E. Hopkins Ave—JH/JP
620 E. Hyman, Com. Design Review— SN
Willis Pember project?
8/12 P&Z Potential Special Meeting, Council Chambers (a4:30 (closed)
Notice: 7/21
8/19 P&Z(x)4:30 (Closed)
Notice: 7/28
Sky Hotel Review, JG
9/2 P&Z(cD-4:30
Notice: 8/11
Midland Park, PD Amendment— JP
Sky Hotel Review, JG
P2
Community Development Update
June 2014
Project: 110 W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Sara Adams
Status: Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined
Description: The applicant proposes to increase the number of lodge rooms on the
property from 45 to 53, add 4 new free-market residential units, add on-site affordable
housing, and create an underground parking garage. The lodge rooms average less
than 300 square feet.
Update: The project's conceptual commercial design review was conducted by HPC on
January 9, February 13 and March 13 and continued their review to April 24, when the
project was approved. A hearing was scheduled for 10/15 before P&Z to review the
application for PUD and subdivision reviews. The hearing for PUD and subdivision &
rezoning reviews was continued to 11/19 before P&Z, at which time the Commission
forwarded a recommendation of denial to Council, by a vote of 3:1, with one
Commissioner abstaining from the vote. The case went before City Council for first
reading on 12/9. Second reading was scheduled for 1/13. During the continuation
hearing on February 24th Council asked the application to examine the height and size
of the free market residential units. Council approved the conceptual application during
a public hearing on March 10th. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved Growth
Management review on April 15th. Final review was scheduled before HPC on May 14tH
Next Steps: Currently a neighbor that lives within 300' of the property is appealing the
HPC's decision. The date set for the appeal is July 14th before City Council.
Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams
Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined
Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E
Cooper, commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No
residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment.
Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12th, 2012. City Council
did not call the project up.
Next Steps: The applicant received a six month extension of vested rights to their
conceptual approval, until June 2014.
Project: 219 E Durant (Dancing Bear Ped Tunnel) Contact: Hillary Seminick
Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined
Page 1 of 5
P3
Description: The applicant proposes to amend prior PD approvals for both the
Dancing Bear and Chart House to construct a subterranean pedestrian tunnel
connecting the existing Dancing Bear Hotel (311 S. Monarch) to the former Chart House
Lodge; where Dancing Bear plans to expand its lodge.
Update: The applicant submitted the Land Use Application for the PD amendment on
March 19, 2014. The Design Review Committee will meet on April 9, 2014 to discuss
any potential issues. The applicant received a recommendation for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing on May 6, 2014.
Next Steps: First Reading has been scheduled before City Council on July 14tH, and
Second Reading scheduled on August 11tH
Project: Boomerang Contact: Sara Adams
Status: Pending review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined
Description: The applicant is proposing to change the design and unit mix of the
previously approved Boomerang Lodge in order to address the current demands of
Aspen visitors for economy and mid-market lodging. The applicant is proposing
increases to the number of lodge rooms, free market residential units, and affordable
housing units.
Update: The project went before P&Z on June 17th for Design Review.
Next Steps: The case has been continued and is scheduled before P&Z on July 1St
Review by City Council will be scheduled after the P&Z recommendation is made.
Project: Red Butte Cemetery PD Amendment Contact: Justin Barker
Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined
Description: On June 23rd, City Council considered an application submitted by the
Red Butte Cemetery Association requesting a Planned Development Amendment and
GMQS review in order to allow an employee to sleep within the existing maintenance
facility.
Update: City Council continued the hearing on Second Reading.
Next Steps: This matter has been continued until July 14tH
Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring 2014
Page 2 of 5
P4
Description: One of City Council's 2012 Top Ten Goals was to "examine the
desirability and sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging
in Aspen." As part of this effort, staff conducted a great deal of background work and
stakeholder meetings to gain an understanding of Aspen's lodging sector. The
background phase was completed in early May. All the reports are available online at:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Long-Range-Planning In December, City Council identified three (3) goals to
focus on: Enabling upgrades to condominium units while maintaining those units in the
short-term rental pool, enabling upgrades to existing lodges, and enabling new lodge
product. These goals were reaffirmed at a June 25th work session. Council has
included a 2013 Top Ten Goal related to adopting a lodging incentive program. Staff
has conducted significant outreach with the lodging and condominium community, as
well as ACRA, P&Z and HPC to gain feedback on a potential incentive program. Staff
has also held public open houses.
Update: City Council affirmed the goals related to supporting condominiums, existing
lodges, and new lodges, and provided direction to move into public hearings. City
Council met in their regular May 27th meeting to review a Policy Resolution on the
proposed incentive program. The main areas identified in City studies on lodging as
needing to be included in an incentive program are: allowing fourth floors in limited area,
lowering affordable housing mitigation, and allowing free-market residential uses. First
Reading was scheduled before City Council on June 23`d
Next Steps: Second reading dates have been scheduled for 7/14, 7/28 and 8/11.
Project: SCI Zone District Code Amendment Contact: Sara Nadolny
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring 2014
Description: City Council requested staff to examine amendments to the SCI zone
district to better address the current functioning of the zone. SCI is the only zone district
that lists specific allowed uses (e.g. Coffee Roaster), rather than relying on general use
categories (e.g. Commercial Uses).
Update: Staff has met initially with business owners in the different SCI buildings, as
well as with the P&Z to gain feedback on what goals they have for the zone district.
Staff presented the findings and asked for initial Council direction at an April 23rd work
session. Staff met with two members of the Obermeyer HOA Board on April 23rd to
discuss whether they are interested in pursuing the rezoning, and again on May 29th to
address concerns and initiate a pre-application conference summary for the Obermeyer
Place HOA.
Next Steps: Staff expects to bring this before Council during a work session late
spring/early summer. Obermeyer Place is expected to come in as a separate
application, with a desire to change their zoning to SCI/NC for Obermeyer Place.
Page 3 of 5
P5
Project: ESA Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Summer 2014
Description: City Council requested staff to update the Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA) Chapter of the Land Use Code to simplify and clarify the review processes.
Update: In March staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their
feedback on potential changes. Staff is coordinating with the Parks and Engineering
Department on changes related to the Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, and 8040
Greenline reviews.
Next Steps: Due to work load in the engineering department, staff has not had an
opportunity to refine code language. Staff continues to make progress on this code
amendment, and anticipates requesting formal policy direction from City Council in the
near future.
Project: Mixed Use Zone Code Amendment Contact: Sara Adams
Status: Closed Closing Date: June 23, 2014
Description: City Council directed staff to bring forward an amendment to the Mixed
Use (MU) Zone District that allows retail/restaurant uses in all buildings within the Mixed
Use zone, not just landmarks.
Update: First Reading was scheduled before City Council on June 23rd, with Second
Reading on June 23rd. Council approved the Ordinance upon Second Reading.
Next Steps: The MU Code Amendment will go into effect 30 days from the date of
approval.
Project: Rubey Park Remodel Contact: Justin Barker
Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined
Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the existing building and property at
420 E. Durant Ave and add two new one-story structures with a roof that will connect all
three structures. The remodel will provide enhanced amenities for users, as well as a
separate office for RFTA employees.
Update: The applicant will be required to undergo Conceptual Major Development and
Conceptual Commercial Design reviews before HPC, and Planned Development and
Growth Management review before P&Z and City Council. The applicant is required to
submit an application for final design review before HPC within one year's time. This
matter was approved by HPC for Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual
Commercial Design reviews in February.
Page 4 of 5
P6
Next Steps: This matter is scheduled to go before P&Z on July 15th for Planned
Development and Growth Management Reviews. P&Z will make a recommendation to
City Council. A public hearing will then be scheduled for Planned Development and
Growth Management Reviews before City Council, and then a public hearing before
HPC for Detailed Review.
Project: TDR Code Amendment Contact: Sara Adams
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring 2014
Description: On June 9th City Council is asked to consider a policy resolution that
would increase the number of TDR's that can land on lots of specific sizes and
locations. Generally only one TDR per residence is allowed in residential zone
districts.
Update: First Reading was scheduled before City Council on June 9th
Next Steps: Second Reading will be scheduled before Council in a date to be
determined.
Page 5 of 5
Regular Meeting - -Planning& Zoning Commission - - - - June 3,2014 P 7-
U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Nieuwland-Zlotnicki,
McNellis and Elliott present.
Also present from City staff;Jim True,Jennifer Phelan,Justin Barker and Jessica Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms.Tygre commented between the striping and the construction it is difficult to get around.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES - May 20, 2014
Ms.Tygre moved to approve the May 20,2014 minutes, seconded by Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki. All in
favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none.
Public Hearing - 100 & 108 E. Francis Street- Hallam Lake Bluff Review
Mr.True reviewed the affidavits of public notice and they are appropriate. Justin Barker, community
development,told the commission the applicant is requesting a Hallam Lake Bluff Review for a project
containing two single family homes. The project includes several at grade terrace features,storm water
management features and soil stabilization. The majority of the development is greater than 30 feet
from top of slope which qualifies as exempt from the review. There are three thresholds for
development; below top of slope—no development can occur,within 15 feet of top of slope—this is
where the review will occur. The applicant is proposing below grade soil nailing on a small portion of
the east side of the lot. This will not be visible after construction and has been approved by the city
engineer. There is an existing concrete slab from when this was the Given Institute that will not be
touched. It is a non-conformity but is allowable since it existed before the review. The final
development threshold is more than 15 feet from top of slope. The only requirement is it must be
below the 45 degree line drawn from top of slope. Staff is recommending approval.
Mr. McNellis asked if the construction will affect any vegetation on the property. Mr. Barker said the
majority of the existing vegetation will remain and a few new aspen trees will be added.
Jeff Berkus,architect said the only area where the soil nailing gets to 15 feet is way back on the east side
by the path and not near the lake. They are keeping all the existing vegetation and adding aspen trees.
The applicant said that they hope this will be an exemplary project as to how to deal with water quality
management on site.
Mr. Erspamer opened the public comment. There was none. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment..
1
P 8 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission June 3,2014
Ms.Tygre stated she appreciates all the work the applicant put into the project ensuring they
conformed to the requirements.
Ms.Tygre moved to approve resolution 9, series of 2014 Hallam Lake Bluff Review for 100 and 108 E.
Francis Street;seconded by Mr. Elliott. Roll call vote; Elliott,yes; McNellis,yes; Nieuwland-Zlotnicki,yes;
Erspamer,yes;Tygre,yes. All in favor, motion carried.
Other Business—Work Program
Jessica Garrow,community development,said they are looking for ideas from P&Z that they would like
to see staff working on. Ms. Garrow said the main things they are currently working on are permit
process change, standardized zoning submission, lodging development, business start-up web site and
the Rubey Park remodel.
After discussion with the commission the top ideas were looking at the PD process, parking,free market
multi-family housing and vested rights. Ms.Garrow will send the entire list out to P&Z separately.
Mr. McNellis moved to adjourn at 5:20 pm; seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
2
Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission June 17,2014 P 9
U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with no other members present.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan.
Public Hearing- 500 W Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment,
GMQS Review
Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing and continued until July 1, 2014 based upon a request received
from the applicant per Jennifer Phelan.
Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting at 4:35 pm.
Cindy Knob
Records Manager
1
P11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: Boomerang Lodge(500 W. Hopkins Ave.)—GMQS Amendment,
Commercial Design Review,PUD Amendment, Subdivision Amendment
Resolution No. Series of 2014, continued from June 17th
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2014
APPLICANT/OWNER: component is significantly increased from 5 units to
Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC 14 units and from a floor area of 13,508 sf to 22,325
sf. Lodge floor area is reduced from 29,653 sf to
REPRESENTATIVE: sf. Lodge unit density is increased from 47 to
Michael Hoffrnan,•Garfield and Hecht, 56 and the average unit size is proposed to be
P.C.; James DeFrancia, Lowe decreased from 501 sf to 244 sf. The floor area and
Enterprises; and Charles Cunniffe density of the affordable housing units is increased
Architects to mitigate for the new free market residential units.
The project is vested under the December 2005 Land
LOCATION: Use Code until October 20, 2015.
500 W. Hopkins Avenue,between
Fourth and Fifth Streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the review criteria are not met for an
CURRENT ZONING: amendment to the PUD and recommends either:
R-6 (Medium Density Residential) and 1) Continuation of the project to amend the
Lodge Preservation Overlay, Planned project as described below, or
Unit Development(PUD) Overlay 2) Denial of the requested amendment.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests approval to
amend the 2006 PUD approval, to
amend the Subdivision approval, to
amend Growth Management, and
Commercial Design Review. A revised
proposal to the amendment was =
submitted on June 20, 2014 — the
proposed project increases the overall
density of the project (from 54 total
units to 75 total units) and decreases the
overall floor area (from 44,915 sf to photo: Historic wing of the Boomerang Lodge.
41,315 sf). The free market residential
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 1 of 9
P12
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the
following land use reviews to amend Ordinance 26, 2006 which granted approval to redevelop
the property: (please note that the project is vested under the Land Use Code in effect on
December 30, 2005).
• Growth Management Amendment: Lodge Incentive Program and Development of
Affordable Housing (Chapter 26.470, GMQS) for allotments and for affordable housing
mitigation requirements. (Planning and Zoning is the final review authority.)
• Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review) for a mixed
use project. (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.)
• PUD Amendment (Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development) to establish dimensional
requirements. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City
Council. Council is the final review authority.)
• Subdivision Amendment (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) for a mixed use project to divide
legal interests. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City
Council. Council is the final review authority.)
BACKGROUND: The property is a 27,000 square feet lot located along Hopkins Avenue between
Fourth and Fifth Streets. It is zoned R-6, Medium Density Residential with the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay. The Boomerang Lodge was constructed by Charlie Patterson in 1949
and enlarged in 1956, 1965, and 1970 (the lodge was a total of about 23,000 sf of floor area).
The property operated as a 34 room lodge until 2007 when all of the improvements located west
of the designated historic wing along Fourth Street were demolished as part of the 2006
approvals granted via Ordinance 26, Series of 2006.
i
r 'CSC I �•�S ^j 4 �x
1
i II
n _
.4'
R—IS
Figure 1: Zone District Map of subject parcel and surrounding neighborhood.
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 2 of 9
P13
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: In 2006 City Council granted approval for a lodge project that includes
47 lodge units, 5 free market residential units, and 2 affordable housing units. The floor area of
the project was about 45,000 square feet total with 30% of the floor area allotted to free market
residential use and 66% of the floor area allotted to lodge use. A PUD was adopted as part of the
2006 approval that established dimensional requirements including an average height of about
36' for the project with a maximum height of about 42.5' for the 4 story lodge addition. The
eastern corner of the property, the sunken pool, and the original Boomerang lodge wing are
designated landmarks pursuant to the 2006 approvals.
J.
,€La � F—' i
_
�
I t J. I 1__�
r�9GVTHFCVATI2]N ___
Figure 2: Recorded Elevation(Hopkins Ave.)for the approved Boomerang Lodge(2006)
A demolition permit was granted by the City and acted upon by the developer in the spring of
2007. The non-designated sections of the original Boomerang lodge were demolished in the
summer of 2007.
In 2009, City Council extended the vested rights of the project to October 20, 2015. Due to the
extension of vested rights, this project is subject to the rules and regulations in effect on
December 31, 2005 when a land use application was originally submitted.
In 2011, the applicant received approval for a 100% affordable housing project with the purpose
of participating in the affordable housing credit program. A final plat was never recorded for the
affordable housing project within the required timeframe rendering the approval void.
REVISED PROPOSAL: The applicant elected to continue the public hearing on June 17th in order
to make some revisions to the proposed project based on the Staff memo dated June 17, 2014.
Staff s main objection to the July 17th proposal was the ratio of free market residential use to
lodge use. The applicant had changed the 2006 project, of which lodge was more than 50% of
the project, to a project that included 63% free market residential floor area. The proposed
Growth Management amendment requested a variance from the lodge density standard (1
unit/500 sf of lot area)required to qualify for the Lodge Incentive Program.
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 3 of 9
P14
The applicant has revised the July 17th proposal by converting 2 free market residential units into
8 lodge units, which are between 350—440 sf in size. The additional 6 lodge units increases the
lodge density of the project to qualify for the Lodge Incentive Program without needing a density
variance. The revised numbers are as follows:
Table 1: Comparison of Boomerang iterations to Hotel Aspen approved project. Percentages
reflect the percent of the use per the whole project. (note: all of the following numbers include
the allocation of non-unit space and as such are larger than what is included in the application.)
2006 approval June 17th proposal July 1"proposal Hotel Aspen
approval
Lot Size 27,000 sf 27,000 sf 27,000 sf 27,000 sf
Overall FAR 44,915 sf(1.66:1) 40,549 sf(1.5:1) 41,315 sf(1.53:1) 35,050 sf(1.3:1)
Lodge FAR 29,653 sf(66%) 11,514 sf(28%) 15,357 sf(37%) 24,650 sf(70%)
Free Market
Residential 13,508 sf(30%) 25,473 sf(63%) 22,325 sf(54%) 8,400 sf(24%)
FAR
AH FAR 1,754 sf(4%) 3,563 sf(9%) 3,633 sf(9%) 2,000 (6%)
Lodge Density 47 45 56 54
FMR Density 5 16 14 3
42.5' for 4 story 42.5' for 4 story 42.5' for 4 story 28' for lodge
Maximum lodge building lodge building lodge building building
height 36.5' for free 36.5' for free 36.5' for free 25' for free
market residential market residential market residential market residential
The following Staff memo is updated to reflect the new July 1St proposal.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes to amend the 2006 approval to reduce the
number of lodge units and the lodge floor area, increase the number of free market residential
units and the free market residential floor area, and increase the number of affordable housing
units and the affordable housing floor area. The overall floor area for the project is proposed to
be about 3,600 square feet less than the 2006 approval. Table 2 compares the floor area and
density of the 2006 approval to the current request.
Table 2: Comparison of 2006 project to current proposal
2006 PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT
Lodging Floor Area 29,653 sf 15,357 sf
(66%of overall FAR) (37% of overall FAR)
Lodging Units 47 56
Average Lodge Unit Size 501 sf 244 sf
Free Market Floor Area 13,508 sf 22,325 sf
(30%of overall FAR) (54% of overall FAR)
Free Market Residential Units 5 14
Average Free Market Unit Size 2,147 sf 1,444 sf
Affordable Housing Floor Area 1,384 sf 3,633 sf
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 4 of 9
P15
Affordable Housing Units 2 5
Overall Floor Area 44,915 sf 41,315 sf
Overall Density 54 units 75 units
Parking 43 spaces — 31 garage and 56 spaces — 33 garage and 23
12 surface in ROW surface in ROW'
The proposed project is mostly three stories and about 36'6" tall. A 4 story building is proposed
adjacent to the 2 story landmark that is proposed to house lodge units and measures at about
42'6" at its highest point. The proposed height is consistent with the 2006 approvals.
All of the proposed uses - free market residential, affordable housing and lodge— are able to use
the pool, lounge area and Paterson room as amenities. A green roof is proposed atop the
landmark wing, which was approved in 2006. The applicant proposes to restore the original
sunken pool and underground viewing window as part of this proposal. Restoration of the
exterior of the wing and the landscape/pool area is under the purview of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
An underground parking garage and individual storage units accessed off of the alley are
proposed. The project proposes to accommodate all of the required parking onsite. The garage
accommodates the parking requirement (30 spaces are required and 33 are provided in the
garage). Surface parking spaces, most of which are in the right of way(ROW), are proposed and
are subject to Engineering and Parking Department approval through an encroachment license.
The Parking Department is not supportive of privatizing the surface parking spaces in the right of
way.
The proposed height, mass and scale are very similar, if not identical, to the 2006 approval. The
only substantial change to height is related to the building along Fifth Street: the height of the
building stepped down toward Fifth Street in the 2006 approval compared to the height of the
current proposal which does not inflect to the development across Fifth Street. Similar to the
2006 approval, setback variances are requested. A comprehensive comparison of the proposed
project to the 2006 approval, R-6 zone district, and the Lodge zone district is below. The
property is not subject to the Lodge zone district requirement: it is included for comparison only.
The Lodge zone district is located at the base of Aspen Mountain, which has a completely
different development pattern and density than a residential neighborhood such as the Hopkins
Avenue corridor at the base of Shadow Mountain.
1 Parking Department is not supportive of privatizing the spaces in the ROW for use solely by the Boomerang
Development.
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 5 of 9
P16
Table 3: Comparison of proposed project to zone districts and 2006 approval
R-6 Lodge 2006 approval Current proposal
zone district zone district
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sf, 3,000 sf 27,000 sf 27,000 sf
3,000 sf for
landmarks
Minimum Lot Width 60' 30' 270' 270'
Minimum front yard 10' 5' 5' 2'
(Hopkins Ave.
Minimum side yards 15' 5' 5' 3'
Minimum rear yard 10' 5' 5' 0'
Maximum height 25' 28' As per PUD roof As per PUD roof
plan- max height plan — no change
between approx. 34' from 2006 approval
6"—42' 6"
Minimum distance 5' 10' As per PUD As per PUD
between buildings
Trash access area n/a 10' x 20' As per PUD As per PUD,
10' x 20'
Maximum Allowable 0.5:1 or 1.5:1 or 1.66:1 or 44,915 sf 1.5 or
floor area 13,720 se 40,500 sf 41,315 sf
Maximum Lodge floor n/a 1:1 or 27,000 sf 0.87:1 or 23,547 sf 0.37 or 15,357 sf
area
Average lodge room n/a n/a 501 sf 244 sf
size
Maximum Free n/a 0.25:1 or 0.39:1 or 10,733 sf 0.54:1 or 22,325 sf
Market Residential 6,750 sf
floor area
Minimum Affordable n/a 0.25:1 or 0.05 or 0.09:1 or 3,633 sf
Housing floor area 6,750 sf 1,384 sf 5 units @Cat.2
2 units Cat.2
Minimum off-street 2 per dwelling unit .5 per lodge unit 43 spaces total- 31 56 spaces — 33
parking spaces for single family/ and 1 space per underground and 12 underground and 23
duplex residential unit surface spaces surface spaces
(including 12 spaces
in ROW subject to
encroachment
licenses)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW (EXHIBIT A): The applicant proposes to amend the Growth
Management approval from 2006. Allotments from the 2005 growth ceiling are available to
accommodate the proposed changes as described in Exhibit A. The 2006 Land Use Code
incentivizes certain types of lodge development by reducing required floor area mitigation
through the Lodge Incentive Program. The applicant has revised the proposal to meet the density
2 To determine the R-6 zone district floor area, Staff assumed a lot split that divided the property into 4
lots, 1 lot contains the historic resource and the other 3 were single family home lots of about 6,000 sf in
size to meet the minimum lot size requirement.
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 6 of 9
P17
thresholds in order to qualify for the Lodge Incentive Program, which requires a minimum of 1
lodge unit per 500 sf of lot area: the project proposed 1 lodge unit per 482 sf of lot area.
Staff response: Staff finds that the project does not meet the review criteria, specifically
compliance with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as described in Exhibit A. The
Economic Stability and Managing Growth chapters of the 2000 AACP, which is used as a
regulatory document for this review, are not met - the proposed project is mostly multi family
free market residential which does not create a long term sustainable economy: it creates units
that do not have a high level of occupancy in a neighborhood that does not allow multi family
free market residential. The free market residential floor area is roughly 1 % times more than
the lodge floor area, and the proposed height is more than 10 feet taller than that allowed in the
R-6 zone district.
The applicant is providing the appropriate number of onsite affordable housing units required
under the 2006 Land Use Code. APCHA is supportive of the housing units.
Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the amount of free market residential floor area in
order to meet the GMQS review criteria.
PUD REviEw(EXHIBIT B): The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to
encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land. The PUD process often
consists of weighing community benefits against allowing additional height, mass and/or density,
while considering impacts on the neighborhood. It is a holistic style of review, considering a
wide range of factors. For example, during the 2006 PUD review process, consideration of the
lodge use was weighed heavily as a community benefit, resulting in the granting of the
dimensional variations allowed by a PUD process, as specified in the Lodge Preservation
Overlay zone district(Section 26.710.320). As part of the 2006 review, the applicant also utilized
the Incentive Lodge Development portion of the Growth Management section, which
incentivized lodge redevelopment with smaller lodge room and higher density of lodge units.
(As part of the 2006 approval, the lodge incentives allowed housing mitigation to offset the free
market residential on a per unit basis, rather than on a square-footage basis.)
Pursuant to the Lodge Preservation Zone District, as part of the PUD approval, the amount of
associated free market residential space to be included in the project is established according to
specific review criteria (see page 4 of Exhibit B). The review criteria address the project's range
of unit sizes and configurations, number of lodge units being added to the inventory, generous
amenity space, etc.
Staff response:
Considering the proposed decrease in lodge and increase in free market residential
development, and the impact of these changes on the community, Staff is concerned that the
proposed project is out of scale with the neighborhood in terms of height and massing. The
proposed overall floor area is slightly less (by 3,600 so than the 2006 approved project;
however the 2006 approval was for a lodge project with a free market residential component.
The quality and sizes of lodging units provided in the 2006 approval, and the size of free market
residential component (30% of the project compared to the current proposal of 54%free market
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 7 of 9
P18
residential), was appropriate at the time to allow the height and floor area that was approved.
The free market residential floor area is 50%more than the lodge floor area. The proposal for a
free market residential project with a lodge component that is mostly three stories with one four
story tower does not provide a community benefit or appropriate trade-offs that warrant the
proposed dimensions. The applicant states that he "may be willing to require that 2 of the 14
free market residential units in the project be subject to limitations like those proposed for the
`vacation residence' program... " Placing a rental requirement on 2 of the 14 free market
residential units is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to change the
project from a free market residential project with an accessory lodge use.
Staff finds that the PUD review criteria are not met considering the proposed ratios of the uses
in relationship to the requested variances, and recommends that the floor area of the free market
residential component be reduced and the overall height of the project be reduced to better
relate to the neighborhood. Staff is not supportive of the requested dimensional requirements
considering the ratios of uses within the project— this is a free market residential development
that requests to capitalize on the lodge incentives. Please refer to Exhibit B for the specific
review criteria and staff response.
SUBDIVISION(EXHIBIT C):
The applicant requests subdivision, which is required for a mixed-use project with multiple
residential units. Exhibit C addresses the review criteria.
Staff response: In Staff's opinion the review criteria as listed in Exhibit C and mentioned above
are not met.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW (EXHIBIT D): The Commercial Design Standards apply to all
mixed use buildings. The review standards relate mostly to commercial aspects of a mixed use
development. The majority of the review standards are not relevant to this applicant because
there is no commercial component.
Staff response: Stafffinds that the review criteria are met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission either
deny the requested Growth Management allotments; or continue the hearing to reduce the free
market residential floor area and increase the lodge component in order to meet the Lodge
Incentive Program or meet Growth Management requirements for projects that do not meet the
Incentive Program. Should the project proceed under the non-lodge incentive growth
management review, Staff recommends that Planning and Zoning Commission direct the
applicant to reduce the proposed height and mass to better relate to the neighborhood.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to deny the requested Growth Management amendment,
Commercial Design Review, and PUD and Subdivision amendments" or"I move to continue the
public hearing."
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 8 of 9
P19
Attachments
Exhibit A— Staff Findings, GMQS Review Criteria revised 7/1/2014
Exhibit B—Staff Findings, PUD Review Criteria revised 7/1/2014
Exhibit C—Staff Findings, Subdivision Review Criteria revised 7/1/2014
Exhibit D— Staff Findings, Commercial Design Review Criteria revised 7/1/2014
Exhibit E—Development Review Committee Comments revised 7/1/2014
Exhibit F—Application provided on 6/17/2014 and revised on 7/1/2014
Exhibit G—Public comment
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
7/1/14
Page 9 of 9
P20
RESOLUTION N0._
(SERIES OF 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DENYING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 56 LODGE UNITS, 14 FREE MARKET RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, AND 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31,
ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE,
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID:2 73512449002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from.Aspen FSB-ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., an amendment to
Growth Management approvals, an amendment to a PUD plan, an amendment to
Subdivision approval, and Commercial Design Review to develop 56 lodge units, 14 free
market residential units, and 5 affordable housing units at 500 W. Hopkins Ave.; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property
with 47 lodge units, 5 free-market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance
No. 26 (series of 2006), commonly known as the Boomerang Lodge; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for amended Growth Management review under the Incentive Lodge
Program and Commercial Design Review; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval to amend the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Subdivision granted via Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006);
and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 500 W. Hopkins Ave. and is currently
zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6), Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned Unit
Development (PUD); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department found that the review criteria included in
Exhibits A, B, C of the Staff memo are not met and recommended denial of the project;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 17, 2014, the applicant
requested a continuation to July 1, 2014, at which meeting the Planning and Zoning
Commission took public testimony, considered the application,found that the review criteria
are not met, and denied the Growth Management amendment; and,
Page 1 of 2
P&Z Resolution No.—(2014)
- - - - - - - - P21
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Growth Management
The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Lodge Incentive Program review
criteria are not met; and therefore deny the requested amendment to the Growth
Management approval granted via Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18
(Series of 2006).
Section 2•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
DENIED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17th day
of June, 2014.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Page 2 of 2
P&Z Resolution No.—(2014)
P22
Exhibit A- Growth Management Review—Substantial amendment
26.470.080.11 Substantial Amendment. All other amendments to an approved growth
management development order shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this
Chapter. Allotments granted shall remain valid and applied to the amended application,
provided the amendment application is submitted prior to the expiration of vested rights.
Amendment applications requiring additional allotments, or allotments for different uses, shall
obtain those allotments pursuant to the procedures of this Chapter.
26.470.040.0.3 Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the
development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to increase the free market residential component of
the project by adding 9 new units for a total of 14 free market residential units. In 2005 P&Z
granted 6 allotments for free market residential units for the Boomerang project (5 units
were ultimately approved by City Council during PUD review). The Sky Hotel
redevelopment was granted 10 free market residential units in the same allotment year,
which were never realized; therefore, sufficient allotments exist to accommodate the
increased free market residential component from the 2005 allotment pool. There was no
annual limit to affordable housing or to lodge development in 2005. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: The project is subject to the 2000 AACP as a regulatory document. The
P&Z is authorized through the PUD "other" amendment to apply the current AACP as a
guiding document to this review. The PUD "other" amendment states (emphasis added):
"During the review of the proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that
the development will be compatible with current community circumstances. This shall
include, but not be limited to, portions of the development which have not obtained
building permits or are proposed to be amended any new community policies or
regulations which have been implemented since the original approval or changed or
changing_community circumstances as they affect the project's original representations
and commitments."
The Staff response is broken into two sections: one addresses the 2000 AACP as a regulatory
document and the other addresses the current AACP as a guiding document.
2000 AACP:
Transportation — "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking for a wide
variety of trips in the Aspen area by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and
requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals where appropriate."
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 7/1/14
Page 1 of 6
P23
Housing — "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable
housing."
Historic Preservation—"Protect all buildings and sites of historic significance."
Economic Sustainability — "Create long term sustainable economy that respects the
underpinnings of the community such as the environment and the people."
Managing Growth — "Foster a well-balanced community through integrated design that
promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of
people from different backgrounds."
Staff finds that the proposed project is located in a neighborhood that promotes walking and
bicycling. Sidewalks are proposed as part of the landscape plan. The applicant proposes .
onsite affordable housing, and has already landmark designated the historic wing of the
Boomerang during the 2006 approval process. Staff finds that the Transportation, Housing
and Historic Preservation chapters of the 2000 AACP are met with the proposed project.
Staff finds that the Economic Sustainability and Managing Growth chapter of the AACP are
not met in that the proposed project is mostly multi family free market residential which does
not create a long term sustainable economy: it creates units that do not have a high level of
occupancy in a neighborhood that does not allow multi family free market residential. The
ability to have multi family residential on this site is tied to the Lodge Preservation overlay
zone district, which allows a lodge project with some free market residential component. In
Staff's opinion, the proposal is for a multi family free market residential project with some
lodge component. The floor area for the free market residential is 54% of the entire project,
and the free market residential floor area is 50% more than the lodge floor area. The lodge
component is largely separated from the free market residential component with the
exception of the 6 newly added lodge units that are located on the alley elevation above the
parking ramp and affordable housing. Separating the uses (90% of the lodge units are
located in separate buildings) does not promote mixing diverse backgrounds. On the other
hand, the applicant proposes to mix the free market residential with the affordable housing
uses which promotes economic diversity and mixes different backgrounds. Stafffinds that the
project could go further to meet the goals of the 2000 AACP by restudying the free market
residential component to better balance the proposed uses.
2012 AACP:
Managing Growth—
Chapter IV. Lodging Sector
IV.1 "Minimize the further loss of lodging inventory."
IV.2 "Replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory
and diverse price-points."
IV.3 "Lodging amenities should be designed to facilitate interaction between visitors and
residents."
IVA "Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is
compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood, in order to:
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 7/1/14
Page 2 of 6
P24
• Create certainty in land development.
• Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
• Protect our existing lodges.
• Protect our small town community character and historical heritage.
• Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
• Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs.
• Reduce short-and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion and
demand for affordable housing."
Chapter III. Residential Sector
111.1. "Protect the visual quality and character of neighborhoods by minimizing site
coverage, mass and scale."
The 2012 AACP may be used by P&Z to reflect current community circumstances. The
project proposes to increase lodge units from the original Boomerang lodge by adding 9 new
units, which meets policy IV.1 above. Staff is supportive of the proposed economy lodge
units, but finds that there lacks a diversity of lodge room size or diverse price points as
described in policy IV.2 above. The applicant proposes 8 lodge rooms with an average size
of 400 sf and 48 lodge rooms with an average size of about 218 sf. Staff is concerned that
the proposed project, specifically the free market residential floor area, does not meet the
adopted policy III.1. The project, which is similar to the 2006 vested approval, does not
protect the visual quality of the neighborhood by minimizing site coverage, mass and scale.
The free market residential floor area is 50% more than the lodge floor area, and the
proposed height is more than 10 feet taller than that allowed in the R-6 zone district.
c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of
Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit.
These two standards (the density standard and the unit size standard) may be varied in
some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is
developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements below.) Units
developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be
required to meet the average size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which is not
being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard,
only the average unit-size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this
criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit size standard shall be reviewed
pursuant to 26.70.040.0.2 — Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use
Development
Staff response: The revised application proposes 1 lodge unit per 482 square feet of Lot Area
(27,000 sf of lot area 156 lodge units =482) . Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d) Associated free-market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district
in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the
annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable
housing mitigation by one of the following methods:
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 7/1/14
Page 3 of 6
P25
i. Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Carriage House for each
residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and
Carriage Housings. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet
this criterion.
ii. Providing on-site or off-site Affordable Housing units equal to 30% of the free-
market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be
one-bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as cash in lieu
payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to
Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate
as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City
of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section
26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower
category.
Staff Res ponse: 14 free market residential units are proposed, which equals a
requirement of 4.2 affordable housing units (14*30% = 4.8). The applicant proposes 5
onsite one-bedroom affordable housing units at Category 2 that are proposed to be rental
units associated with the lodge component. APCHA comments are included in the DRC
exhibit. APCHA is supportive of the proposed affordable housing units.
iii. Paying affordable housing cash in lieu fee normally associated with exempt
single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines.
Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free market
residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the
long term viability of the lodge. An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees
required for a lodge component of an Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a
credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free market component of the project,
pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 —Employee Generation.
e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge,
exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according to Section
26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. On-site affordable housing units shall be one
bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional
development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and
Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics of efficiencies of the proposed
operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 —
Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be restricted to Category
4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall
require approval form City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant
may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 7/1/14
Page 4 of 6
P26
Staff Response: The historic Boomerang lodge had 34 lodge rooms, which is applied as
a credit to the proposed project. The applicant proposes 56 lodge rooms (including lock
offs) which means mitigation is required for 11 units (56-34 = 22). The Code states an
employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom: (22*0.3 = 6.6 FTEs). The Code
requires mitigation of 30% of the employees generated by the additional lodge which
equals 1.98 FTEs (6.6 * 30% =1.98 FTEs). Section 26470.050.A.5 of the Code allows
onsite housing to serve multiple affordable housing requirements. The Code states that
"whenever affordable housing is provided on-site (with actual units) in order to
satisfy one requirement, the same on-site affordable housing may also be used to
satisfy any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. "
The applicant proposes 5 onsite housing units to meet the free market residential housing
mitigation requirement, which is the larger of the two mitigation requirements, as
described in (d) above. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
Staff response: The Development Review Committee provided comments regarding
necessary upgrades associated with the project. These recommendations are included in
the draft resolution. Stafffinds this criterion is met.
26.470.040.C.7 Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing deed
restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels.
Staff Response: There are no development ceiling levels for affordable housing units.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: Please see discussion above, Section 26.470.040.C.3(b) on page 1 of this
exhibit).
c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard.. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 7/1/14
Page 5 of 6
P27
Staff Res ponse: A recommendation from APCHA is included in the DRC comments.
APCHA is supportive of the proposed units. APCHA and Staff recommend that S parking
spaces in the subgrade garage be assigned to the housing units. In addition, Staff
recommends that each housing unit be assigned a storage unit in the subgrade garage.
Staff recommends that the common areas be available to the housing unit occupants
since they are available to the lodge guests and free market residential unit owners.
d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen
city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City
Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through cash in
lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable
housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff response: The affordable housing units are proposed to be onsite.
e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In the
alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, ensure permanent affordability of the units.
Staff response: The proposed units are rentals that are intended to be available to the
lodge operation, as stated in the LP overlay zone district "The City encourages the
affordable housing units required for the free market residential development to be
associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long term viability of the
lodge... " Stafffinds this criterion is met.
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 7/1/14
Page 6 of 6
P28
Exhibit B—PUD Other Amendment
26.445.100.B Other Amendment
An amendment found to be inconsistent with the approved final development plan by the
Community Development Director shall be subject to final development plan review and
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, pursuant to Section
26.445.030 (C) Step 4.
During the review of the proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the development
will be compatible with current community circumstances. This shall include, but not be limited
to, portions of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
amended, any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval, or changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the project's
original representations and commitments.
26.445.040 General Provisions
The following provisions shall apply to all property designated with a PUD Overlay on the
Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an adopted final PUD
development plan for the property.
A. Uses: The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those allowed in the
underlying zone district in which the property is located. Detached residential units may
be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-
family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone
district.
Staff Response: The proposed mixed use building — lodge, free market residential, and
affordable housing uses- are consistent with the allowed uses in the Lodge Preservation
(LP) Overlay Zone District. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Density: Unless otherwise established pursuant to a Final PUD Development Plan, the
maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone
district, considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area, as defined, and the
mandatory density reduction for steep slopes as described below.
Staff Response: The R-6 underlying zone district does not allow lodge or free market
multi family residential uses. The Lodge Preservation Overlay on the property allows
the proposed uses. Density is not specified in the LP Overlay; density is required to be
established through a PUD review. The applicant requests GMQS approval to
participate in the Lodge Incentive Program which requires a specific density to qualify (I
unit 500 sf of lot area). The amount of free market residential is established pursuant to
specific review criteria listed below in Part C(page 3 of this Exhibit).
There are no steep slopes on the property: it is a relatively flat site.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 1 of 12
P29
C. Dimensional Requirements: The following dimensional requirements shall be
established with the adoption of a final PUD development plan. The underlying zone
district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each
provision. The final development plan shall clearly define all dimensional requirements
for each lot within the PUD. In the absence of a final development plan, a single
detached or duplex residential dwelling, if listed as a permitted use in the underlying
zoning, may be developed in conformance with the provisions of the underlying zone
district.
Staff response: The underlying zone district is R-6, Medium Density Residential, with the
Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. The R-6 Zone District does not allow mixed
use as a permitted use. The LP Overlay permits lodge, multi family residential and
affordable housing uses on this parcel. The LP Overlay also requires the adoption of a PUD
plan to set dimensional requirements. Below is a comparison of the R-6 zone district, the
Lodge zone district, the 2006 approval, and the current proposal. The Lodge Zone District is
provided as information only, the project is not required to meet the Lodge requirements.
The maximum allowable floor area for Free Market Residential in the LP Overlay is
established according to the criteria addressed on the next page.
Table 1: Comparison of dimensional requirements.
R-6 Lodge 2006 approval Current
zone district zone district proposal
(7/1/14)
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sf; 3,000 ft 3,000 sf 27,000 sf 27,000 sf
for landmark
Minimum Lot Width 60' 30' 270' 270'
Minimum front yard 10' 5 5' 2'
(Hopkins Ave.)
Minimum side yards 15' 5' 5' 3'
Minimum rear yard 10' 5' 5' 0'
Maximum height 25' 28' As per PUD As per PUD roof
roof plan- max plan — no change
height between from 2006
approx. 34' 6"— approval
42' 6"
Minimum distance 5' 10' As per PUD As per PUD
between buildings
Trash access area n/a 10' x 20' As per PUD As per PUD,
10' x 20'
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 2 of 12
P30
Maximum Allowable 0.5:1 or 1.5:1 or 1.66:1 or 1.53:1 or
floor area 13,720 sfl 40,500 sf 44,915 sf 41,315 sf
Maximum Lodge n/a 1:1 or 27,000 sf 0.87:1 or 0.57:1 or 15,357
floor area 23,547 sf sf
Average lodge room n/a n/a 501 sf 244 sf
size
Maximum Free n/a 0.25:1 or 0.40:1 or 0.83:1 or 22,325
Market Residential 6,750 sf 10,733 sf sf
floor area
Minimum Affordable n/a 0.25:1 or 0.05 or 0.12:1 or 3,225
Housing floor area 6,750 sf 1,384 sf sf
2 units Cat.2 5 units Cat.2
Minimum off-street 2 per dwelling unit 0.5 spaces per 43 spaces total- 56 spaces — 33
parking spaces for single family/ lodge unit and 1 31 underground underground and
duplex space/ residential and 12 surface 23 surface
units spaces spaces (including
12 spaces in
ROW subject to
encroachment
licenses)2
Free Market Residential FAR in the LP Overlay:
The LP overlay zone district states that "as part of the PUD approval, the amount of
associated free market residential or large lodge/timeshare unit space to be included in the
project shall be established by considering the following factors:"
1. The amount of non-unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging
operation. This can include both internal and external amenities.
Staff response: The project proposes typical amenity space for the lodge component
of the project:pool, deck space, lounge area. There is no food service and no kitchen
proposed. Staff finds that the proposed amenities are standard for an economy lodge
and do not include a generous amount of amenities or services as required by this
criterion. Staff finds that the criterion is not met.
2. The project's range of unit sizes and configurations which are attractive to a broad
segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged.
Staff response: The applicant proposes an average lodge unit size of 220 sf on the
four floors of the lodge with a total of 12 lock-offs that allow the units to double in
size to about 440 sf. 8 lodge rooms that are located in the free market residential/
1 To determine the maximum allowable FAR for this parcel in R-6, Staff assumed a subdivision
occurred to create 4 separate lots, one of which is a historic landmark, and added the FAR for each lot
to total 13, 720 sf of maximum FAR.
2 The P arking Department is not supportive of privatizing the parking spaces in the ROW.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 12
P31
affordable housing building are proposed to be an average of 400 sf. Staff recognizes
that the applicant intends to propose an economy level lodge; however the 56 lodge
rooms do not represent a range of unit sizes that are attractive to broad segment of
the potential guests.
The free market residential component is not included in the consideration of a range
of unit sizes because there is no guarantee that the units will be part of the short term
rental pool. Staff finds this criterion is not met and recommends that the free market
residential component be reduced or a guarantee be put into place that ensures rental
of the free market residential component.
3. The extent of additional lodge units being added to the inventory.
Staff response: The project proposes to add 22 new lodge units (56 proposed- 34
original Boomerang units) to the inventory, which not a very significant addition of
lodge units to warrant a free market residential floor area that is 50% more than the
proposed lodge floor area.
4. The number and average size of lodging units being provided.
Staff response: 56 lodge units that average 244 square feet are proposed.
5. Any legal or physical limitations of the property such that additional incentive is
necessary to develop guest accommodations.
Sfa response: Staff is not aware of any legal-or phy-sicaIIimitataon o t e proper -
that requires a free market residential floor area that is 50% more than the lodge
floor area The property currently has an approved project - a lodge project
approved in 2006 that includes more lodge floor area than free market residential
floor area. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
6. Any system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies.
Staff response: The applicant represents that a private company will manage the
lodge and free market residential uses on the property which makes it easy for the
free market residential owners to participate in short term rentals. As stated above
the applicant does not propose a guarantee that the free market component will
participate in short term rentals. Furthermore, the proposed floor plan layout
separates the uses -free market residential on 213 of the lot and lodge use on 113 of
the lodge-which does not physically represent the project as a lodge project that has
short term occupancies throughout the property. The July 1, 2014 revision converted
2 free market residential units into 8 new lodge units. This conversion mixes some
lodge with the free market residential use; however the majority of the lodge untis are
separated in the lodge wing. Mixing free market residential uses and lodge uses
together encourages short term rentals throughout the project, not just in the lodge
sector.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 4 of 12
P32
The applicant represents that they may be willing to require 2 of the 14 free market
residential units to be rented in accordance with the vacation residence program that
is currently being developed by the City. Staff finds that this is a step in the right
direction, but finds that it does not go far enough to support the amount of free
market residential being requested.
Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD
A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements...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 title.
A. General requirements
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff response: Please refer to Exhibit A, GMQS,for a discussion of the AACP.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area.
Staff response: The property is zoned Lodge Preservation overlay, which legalized the
use of the original Boomerang lodge, and Staff finds that a lodge use is appropriate in
his location and is -consistent wad tie zoning the parsel 1 hs surrounding --
neighborhood comprises single family, duplex and multi family residential. There are
lodges located along Main Street. Staff finds that the development is consistent with the
character of the existing land uses in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff response: The development is consistent with the LP overlay zone district regarding
proposed use; however staff has concerns about the proposed height of the project and
the proposed amount of free market residential floor area.
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 response: GMQS is being processed concurrently with the PUD and Subdivision
amendments. Allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 5 of 12
P33
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements. The final PUD development plans shall
establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in
General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 above. The dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate
dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements,
compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be
emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such
as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff response: Staff is concerned that the proposed project is out of scale with the
neighborhood in terms of height and massing. The proposed overall floor area is slightly
less than the 2006 approved project; however the 2006 approval was for a lodge project
with a free market-rest end comp onen-t-Thall'Was accessoryroh e primary ooge use. —The quality and sizes of lodging units provided in the 2006 approval, and the size of free
market residential component (30% of the project compared to the current proposal of
54% of the project is free market residential), was appropriate at the time to allow the
height and floor area that was approved. The proposal for a free market residential
project with a lodge component that is mostly three stories with one four story tower does
not provide a community benefit or appropriate trade-offs that warrant the proposed
dimensions. Staff finds that this criterion is not met considering the proposed ratios of the
uses in relationship to the requested variances, and recommends that the floor area of the
free market residential component be reduced and the overall height of the project be
reduced to better relate to the neighborhood.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cares used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 6 of 12
P34
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff response: The proposed parking garage spaces meet the Code required number of
parking spaces:
22 new lodge units @ 0.5 space/unit = 11 spaces
21 spaces for the residential component(14 FMR and 5 AH) @ 1 space/unit =19 spaces
Total of 11 + 19 =30 spaces required and 33 zarazes spaces provided.
The Parking Department does not support the proposed spaces in the right of way to be
designated to the Boomerang Development. The project is located close to a RFTA bus
stop on Main Street and a short walk from downtown Aspen. Bike racks are proposed as
part of the landscape plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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 landis not suitable or e proposed deveTopmen-t -cause 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 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 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
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 7 of 12
P35
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 response: The proposed density is discussed in Exhibit A, GMQS and above in Section
B of this Exhibit. The pattern is compatible with the neighborhood regarding use which is
comprised of multi family development, but nothing in the neighborhood is comparable to
the proposed size and scale of this development. The site is physically capable of
accommodating the proposed density.
C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that PUD enhances public spaces,
is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town
are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
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.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
- - - service veTiicle access. ---- ---— -
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff response: The proposed site design is appropriate for the proposed use and is consistent
with the 2006 approval. The applicant proposes space between the buildings to break up the
mass and to provide areas for landscaping. The buildings are oriented to the street. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
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.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 8 of 12
P36
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff response: The applicant proposes simple landscaping in the right of way that follows anew
proposed sidewalk. Part of the 2006 approvals included landmark designating the existing
original Boomerang wing, which is being preserved as part of this project. All landscape and
improvements is subject to Parks and Engineering Department approval.
E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural
interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within
the City while promoting efficient use of resourced. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the
building's proposed massing, proportions, 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 propose 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 extend 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 now, ice and water in a safe and
appropri ate—in aaudoes no Ur equire signi scan main te nance. -
Staff response: The proposed architecture is very similar to the 2006 approval. The
applicant proposes to update the material palette with lighter materials such as wood rain
screens, metal panels and light stone. The architectural details are simpler, thinner, and
lighter than the 2006 approval which included thick timbers and heavy details. The
applicant proposes to separate the uses on the parcel through the material palette: the 4
story lodge component is similar in material palette to the historic Boomerang wing, and the
free market residential/affordable housing component is proposed to have metal siding, wood
rain screens and stacked light stone chimneys. Staff finds that the proposed material palette
reflects the proposed use. Staff is concerned that the 4 story lodge building dwarfs the two
story historic Boomerang wing. HPC only has purview over the area that contains the
historic wing and the historic pool. The proposed height of the project is about 10 feet over
the allowed height in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds this criteria is not met in
that that proposed project does not respect the scale and massing of the historic landmark.
The 2006 massing and architecture is largely the same as the current amendment: the only
major change is materials. As a primarily lodge project, the mass may be an appropriate
trade-off considering the benefit that economy lodge provides to the community. The current
proposal of 54% free market residential use on the property does not provide the same
benefit to the community and in turn does not warrant the same level of trade-off regarding
mass and height in the context of the landmark and the neighborhood.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 9 of 12
P37
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, structure, and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards
unless otherwise approved and note dint eh final PUD documents. Up-lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Response: The lighting plan will meet the light requirements in the Land Use Code.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Areas. 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 sues and property user 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.
ere is proposecra—nadqua a e ssu rance--if ug- a e gm strumen fo-r 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 Response: n/a.
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.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff response: The Development Review Committee referral agencies have indicated that
adequate public infrastructure exists to accommodate the development and have identified
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 10 of 12
P38
necessary upgrades and requirements to be mitigated by the developer. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
I. Access and Circulation. 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.
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.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreations trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
ecury ga es, guar pos s, or o er en ryway expression or 1e , or or o s
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff response: The proposed development accesses a parking garage off of the alleyway.
The existing surface parking along Fourth Street is proposed to be maintained. Bike racks
are incorporated into the site plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criterion 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
development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases form the construction of later phases.
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.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 11 of 12
P39
Staff response:onse: No phasing is proposed at this time.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 12 of 12
P40
Exhibit C—Subdivision Amendment
26.480.080.13 Amendment to subdivision development order—Other Amendment
Any other amendment shall be approved by the City Council, provided that the proposed change
is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved
plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat.
26.480.050 Review Standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
A. General requirements
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff response: Please refer to Exhibit A, GMQS,for a discussion of the AACP.
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area.
Staff response: The property is zoned Lodge Preservation overlay, which legalized the
use of the original Boomerang lodge, and Staff finds that a lodge use is appropriate in
this location and is consistent with the zoning of the parcel. The surrounding
neighborhood comprises single family, duplex and multi family residential. There are
lodges.located along Main Street. Staff finds that the development is consistent with the
c aracter o e exas ang an uses an - e neag or oo a an s as cra eraon o e
met.
c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff response: The development is consistent with the LP overlay zone district regarding
proposed use; however staff has concerns about the proposed height of the project and
the proposed amount of free market residential floor area.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff response: The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Land Use Code.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,
rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or
other condition that will be harmful to the health , safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
Exhibit C—Subdivision review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 1 of 3
P41
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff response: The property was already developed as a lodge. Stafffnds this criteria to
be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of
the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Staff response: The application represents that the improvements in Chapter 26.580 will
be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of
new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with
the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff response: The project proposed onsite affordable housing units to mitigate for the new
free market residential development. See exhibit A for more detailed discussion of affordable
housing.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff response: The project shall be subject to the School Land Dedication Standards.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtin such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City
Attorney.
Exhibit C—Subdivision review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 2 of 3
P42
Staff response: GMQS is being processed concurrently with the PUD and Subdivision
amendments. Allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development.
Exhibit C—Subdivision review criteria
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 3
P43
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Standards
26.412.060 Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards shall apply to
commercial, lodging, and mixed use development:
A. Building Relationship to Primary Street.
A street wall is comprised of buildings facing principal streets and public pedestrian spaces.
Consistent street walls provide a sense of a coherent district and frame and outdoor room.
Interruptions in this enclosure can lessen the quality of a commercial street. Corner buildings
are especially important, in that they are more visible and their scale and proportion affects
the street walls of two streets. Well-designed and located pedestrian open spaces can
positively affect the quality of the district, while remnant or leftover spaces can detract from
the downtown. A building's relationship to the street is entirely important to the quality of
the downtown pedestrian environment. Split-level retail and large vertical separations from
the sidewalk can disrupt the coherence of a retail district. The following standards shall
apply:
1. Building facades shall be parallel to the adjoining primary streets. Minor elements
of the building facade may be developed at irregular angles.
2. Building facades along primary streets shall be setback no more than the average
setback of adjoining buildings and no less than the minimum requirement of the
particular zone district. Exempt from this provision are building setbacks
accommodating On-Site Pedestrian Amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
3. Building facades along primary streets shall maintain a consistent setback on the
first and second story.
4. Commercial buildings shall be developed with the first floor at, or within two feet
above, the level —o the adjommg side , or rig t o way i no si ewa exists.
"Split- level" retail frontage is prohibited.
5. Commercial buildings incorporating a setback form a primary street shall not
incorporate a substantial grade change between the building fagade and the public
right of way. "Moats" surrounding buildings are prohibited.
Staff Response: The buildings are oriented to Hopkins Avenue with the exception of the
designated landmark wing at the corner of Hopkins Ave. and Fourth St. Staff find this
criteria is met.
B. Pedestrian Amenity Space.
Creative well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting, and
vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment
atmosphere. Pedestrian amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements
to public rights of way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide pedestrian amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030 —
Pedestrian Amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity.
Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the Pedestrian Amenity
shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Review
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page I of 4
P44
Commission as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following
standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site pedestrian amenity sufficiently allow for
a variety of uses and activities to occur considering any expected tenant and
future potential tenants and uses.
2. The pedestrian amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses,
shade trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with
adjacent rights of way are encouraged.
3. The pedestrian amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent
structures, rights of way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian
environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by
malls, sidewalks, or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from
the pedestrian environment.
5. Any variation to the Design and Operational Standards for Pedestrian Amenity,
Section 26.575.030.F promote the purpose of the pedestrian amenity
requirements.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission,
as applicable, may reduce the pedestrian amenity requirement by any amount,
such that no more than half the requirement is waived, as an incentive for well-
designed projects having a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment.
The resulting requirement may not be less than 10%. On-site provision shall not
be required for a reduction in the requirement. A mix of uses within the proposed
building that enliven the surrounding pedestrian environment may be considered.
Staff response: The applicant is not located in a zone district that requires public
amenity space requirements.
C. Street-Level Building Elements.
The "storefront" or street-level portion of a commercial building is perhaps the single most
important element of a commercial district building. Effective storefront design can make an
entire district inviting and pedestrian friendly. Unappealing storefront design can become a
detriment to the vitality of a commercial district. In order to be an effective facility for the
sale of goods and services,the storefront had traditionally been used as a tool to present those
goods and services to the passing pedestrian (potential customer). Because of this function,
the storefront has traditionally been as transparent as possible to allow maximum visibility to
the interior. The following standards shall apply:
1. Unarticulated, blank walls are prohibited. Fenestration or an alternate means of
fagade articulation, is require don all exterior walls.
2. Retail buildings shall incorporate, at a minimum, a 60% fenestration ration on
exterior street-level walls facing primary streets. (For example: each street-level
wall of a retail building that faces a primary street must be comprised of at least
60% fenestration penetrations and no more than 40% solid materials.) This
provision may be reduced or waived for lodging properties with no, or limited,
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Review
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 2 of 4
P45
street-level retail, office buildings with no retail component, and for
Service/Commercial/Industrial buildings.
3. Building entrances shall be well-defined and apparent.
4. Building entrances shall be designed to accommodate an internal airlock such that
temporary seasonal airlocks on the exterior of the building are unnecessary.
5. Non-traditional storefronts, such as along an alleyway, are encouraged.
Staff response.- A commercial building with storefronts is not proposed as part of this
project.
D. Parking.
Parking is a necessary component of a successful commercial district. The manner in which
parking is physically accommodated has a larger impact upon the quality of the district than
the amount of parking. Surface parking separating storefronts from the street creates a
cluttered, inhospitable pedestrian environment. A downtown retail district shaped by
buildings, well-designed storefronts, and a continuous street wall is highly preferred over a
district shaped by parking lots. Well-placed and well-designed access points to parking
garages can allow convenient parking without disrupting the retail district. The following
standards shall apply:
1. Parking shall only be accessed form alleyways, unless such access is unavailable
or an unreasonable design solution in which case access form a primary street
shall be designed in a manner hta minimizes disruption of the pedestrian
environment.
2. Surface parking shall not be located between the Street right of way and the
building fagade.
o v e gra d e par k mg garages in commercia ishicts s a incorporate groun
floor commercial uses and be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding
buildings and uses.
4. Above grade parking garages shall not reveal internal ramping on the exterior
fagade of the building.
Staff response: Parking is located below grade and is accessed f°om the alley. Some
surface parking spaces are requested along the street which are subject to review and
approval by the Engineering Department.
E. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision.
When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the
building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one
building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash
areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
1. A utility, trash, and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley
meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060
Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, unless otherwise established according to
said section.
2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the
alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Review
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 4
P46
alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary
when existing site conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such
encroachment. All encroachments shall be property licensed.
3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading
facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly
encouraged.
4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilations, shall be vented
through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the
Street as practical.
5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally
within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical
and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not
be visible form a public right of way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall
reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs.
Staff response: There are 2 trash utility areas proposed for the project at the request of
the Environmental Health Department. The proposed roof plan does not show
mechanical exhaust or garage ventilation. Venting these elements through the roof is
added as a condition of approval. Staff finds that the review criteria are met.
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Review
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 4 of 4
P47
Boomerang DRC comments:
Environmental Health:
Since waste facilities (trash&recycling) are a health and safety concern, they will be held to the
most recent code regarding space.
- This means there needs to be a 20'x10'x10' space for the lodge (see Municipal Code
12.10.040) for the lodge and at least 150 square feet for the multi-family development
(12.10.050).
- How will the residents will access the trash and recycling in its proposed location in a safe
manner?
- Considering the constraints that may be placed on the location of the waste area by the HPC,
exceptions to the space requirement could be made if the area were to be enclosed.
ACSD:
Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a
"Collection System Agreement" is required,which is an ACSD Board of Director's action
item. Once detailed utility plans are made available to the district,we can initiate CSA.
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office at the time of construction.
Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average
and peak flows from the project.
A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant.
All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including
entrances to underground parking garages.
On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate
ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications.
On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing
establishments.
Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance
facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s interceptor.
Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district.
Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude
discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant
and approval prior to building pei-rnit.
Exhibit E—DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 1 of 5
P48
When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (5)must be
excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD
requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities.
Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system.
Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to
the lot line of each development.
All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve
capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional
proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment
capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all
development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity
of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees
to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The
District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the
material cost difference for larger line).
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed
building and utility plans are available.
Engineering:
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Drainage:
SGM prepared a memo which outlined a conceptual drainage plan. The conceptual design uses
the guidelines from the Urban Runoff Management Plan (the "URMP"). Staff was not able to
determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A full review will be completed
when there is enough information to review.
A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This includes
detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses FIL, it can only be
applied to existing impervious areas all new areas will need to discharge at historic rates.
Exhibit E-DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 2 of 5
P49
Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage
Principals:
1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the
environment.
7.Use a treatment train approach.
8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in
Title 21 and Title 29.
A number of issues should be examined. This includes the following:
1. A minimum walkway width of 6 feet is required.
2. The head-in parking shown on the site plan does not allow for a clear 6 ft sidewalk
wa mg Sur ace ue 711 1 ve ice over ang. e ea -in parking shown on the site plan is
more hazardous than parallel or angled parking. It is preferable to utilized angled
parking rather than head-in. At a minimum, angled parking will be required. Angled
parking will not reduce the number of parking spots because the parking island has
been eliminated from this site plan.
3. All curb and gutter and sidewalk alignment conflicts with existing trees will need to be
vetted with both the Parks and Engineering Departments. It may be necessary to adjust
the form of the bump out to protect the large cottonwood on the SE corner of the lot.
The sidewalks may need to be floated in order to protect the root zones of particular
trees.
Construction Management—Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this
site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck
traffic.
Excavation Stabilization—Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the
excavation of the building the City may require an excavation stabilization plan at building
permit submittal.
Exhibit E—DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 5
P50
Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a
portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal
Code.
Transportation:
The Transportation Department Staff offers the following comments/questions regarding this
application:
REGULATORY COMMENTS:
1. The project will provide TDM/Air Quality Fees as required by the Land Use Code,
Section 26.610.090 Current Impact Fees. This code applies to this application due to
controlling air quality impacts is a health and safety issue.
2. Staff suggests that the development make use of the newly adopted Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines. The use of this process and the associated tool will allow
the project to establish and offset trip mitigation without the need for an extensive traffic
study.
3. The TDM/MMLOS tool can be used to offset the required number of trips by selecting
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures selected by the project are reviewed by
Engineering and Transportation staff to ensure appropriateness to project type and site.
Utilities
The Boomerang Development should plan for a Transformer location on site. As current
facilities most likely do not have the capacity to serve this scale of development.
Parks:
Removal of the dead and dying conifer trees ASAP on Hopkins Avenue, subject to a tree
removal permit by the Parks Department. Parks has concerns about the dig line along Hopkins
Avenue for the parking garage. It appears that the project will be in the drip lines of several of
the trees along that corridor that were never slated for removal. Parks requests that the actual
limits of excavation be discussed with Parks prior to an excavation permit. Some cottonwoods
and evergreens need to be preserved. There are 2 evergreen trees that need to be removed ASAP
as well as an aspen tree that has fallen onto a crabapple tree on the corner of 4th & Hopkins. All
the remaining trees on the property should have a weekly watering schedule set up to insure that
they do not continue to decline. The sidewalk proposed along Hopkins Avenue will need to be
aligned so as not to interfere with the existing trees. This more than likely will require a"floating
sidewalk"that will need to be above existing grade.
Parkin1j•
Our primary imput is simply a repeat of our past concerns regarding the head-in parking spaces
on S. 4th Street which are in the Public ROW. It appears that these parking spaces are still
being considered as exclusive use spaces for the Boomerang Lodge.
Exhibit E—DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 4 of 5
P51
Our Policy is, and always has been, that Grandfathered parking spaces in the Public ROW exist
only until such property has a change of ownership or should undergo a major renovation. The
parking spaces would then revert to Public parking.
Exhibit E—DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 5 of 5
JUN 2 4 ?_014
ASPEN FFIC
601 Fast Hyman Avenue GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C.
Aspen,Colorado 81611
1'elephone(970)925-1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Facsimile(970)925-3008 Since 1975
www.garfieldhecht.com
E. Michael Hoffman
mh offman@garfieldh ech t.com
Direct Phone: (970) 544-3442
June 20, 2014
Ms. Sara Adams
Senior Planner
Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Use and Design Changes in Boomerang Lodge Application
Dear Sara:
In response to the preliminary staff memorandum released last week,the applicant has drastically
increased the number of lodge units in the project by converting half of the second floor of the
central building to lodge use and by restoring the original plan for the fourth floor of the new
building adjacent to the historic east wing. These modifications implicated major changes in the
floor plan for the Project. The changes made to the plan are summarized here:
1. The number of free market residential units in the project has been reduced and the
number of lodging units increased. The project now includes 56 lodge units. Seventy-
five percent of the units in the project are lodge units.
2. The units located on the alley-side of the second floor of the central building have been
converted to lodge use from free market use. The project now includes 14 free market
residential units.
3. The floor plan of the fourth floor of the building adjacent to the East Wing has been
revised to coincide with the plan originally submitted. There are eight lodge rooms
located on this floor of the new lodge building.
4. No changes in the affordable housing component of the project are proposed.
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 2
Updated floor plans for the project have been submitted with this supplemental application in
11" x 14" format.
As shown on the revised floor plan, use of the alley-side of the central building has been
converted from two (2) free market residential units to eight (8) lodge units. While the average
size of lodge units included in our original submission was approximately 220 square feet, these
"new" units average just over 400 square feet. They range in size from 356 square feet to 447
square feet. The average size of all lodge units in the project is now 244 square feet. Exclusive
of the "new" hotel units, the lodge units average 218 square feet. By their very nature, these
units will be offered at economy rates.
The orientation and relative sizes of the "new" lodge units is shown in the following excerpt
from the revised floor plan:
QQX
I j4aoa
3 J _
, .
As mentioned above, the applicant has restored the eight-unit plan for the fourth floor of the
building adjacent to the east wing. The restored floor plan of the fourth floor is shown here:
r
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 3
Effect of Changes on the Regulations Applicable to the Application.
As mentioned in our original application, this project has been designed to fall within the ambit
of the "Incentive Lodge Development Program which was a part of the Aspen Land Use Code
the "Code" in December of 2005. That Code applies to this application because the applicant
( ) � ( pp � pp pP
seeks to amend the land use plan approved by the City in 2006, which was governed by the 2005
Code. The 2006 approval remains "vested" under City Council decisions made as recently as
2012.)
The Incentive Lodge Development Program required that a project meet two objective standards.
The "unit-size" standard required that lodge units within the project have an average size of no
more than 500 square feet. As mentioned above, the applicant's current proposal includes lodge
units having an average size of 244 square feet.
The second requirement of the program was a "density standard." To qualify for Incentive Lodge
Development benefits under this standard, a project had to include at one lodge unit per 500
square feet of lot area. Because the Boomerang Lodge parcel includes 27,000 square feet, the
project must have 54 lodge units to qualify (without adjustment) for the program. (The program
included "adjustment provisions" which permitted less than one unit for each 500 feet of floor
area, but City staff found that this applicant did not meet those provisions.)
With 56 lodge units, the proposal now exceeds the density standard set forth in the Incentive
Lodge Development program. As presently conceived the proposal includes one lodge unit per
482 square feet of lot area.
1. Benefits of the Incentive Lodge Development Program.
The 2005 Incentive Lodge Development Program was described in several sections of the Code.
The 2006 condominiumized lodge approval was premised on many aspects of the Incentive
Lodge Development Program which were found in Code Section 26.710.190, which establishes
permitted uses and other parameters of the Lodge (L) zone district. In the current application
Staff has taken the position that those regulations are inapplicable because the Boomerang
project is not located in the Lodge zone district. Because the site is subject to Lodge
Preservation Overlay zoning, staff has said that only the Incentive Lodge Development
regulations found in Code Section 26.710.320 are relevant to this application.
In establishing the dimensional requirements of projects subject to Lodge Preservation Overlay
zoning, both the 2005 and current Codes provide that the Planned Unit Development process
may be utilized "upon consideration of neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional
requirements of surrounding zone districts."' As discussed on pages 20 and 21 of our original
application, we believe this project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the
dimensional requirements of the surrounding zone districts. The City concurred when it
' Code, § 26.710.320 D.
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 4
approved the currently-vested project in 2006 and established the PUD-overlay which permitted
(and still permits)the construction of a much larger mixed-use project than is currently proposed.
A comparison of the dimensions of the currently-vested project to the proposed project is
attached to this supplemental application as Exhibit A. The exhibit is identical to the PUD
Parameters Table submitted with our original application as Exhibit D, but reflects the changes
proposed in this supplement.
As shown in Exhibit A, total floor area for the project has now been reduced from that approved
in 2006 by 3,600 square feet to 41,315 square feet. The projects' total floor area ratio is 1.53 to
1.00, down from 1.66 to 1.00. Most relevant to this supplemental application, however, is the
increase in lodging floor area and decrease in free market residential floor area now requested
from what was originally proposed in March of this year. That comparison is found in the
following table.
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
March Proposal Current Proposal %Change
Non-Unit Floor Area 3,752 4,531 21%
Lodging Floor Area(sq. ft.) 10,463 13,681 31%
Free-Market Residential
Floor Area(sq. ft.) 23,109 19,878 -14%
Affordable Housing Floor
Area(sq. ft.) 3,225 3,225 0%
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 40,549 41,315 2%
The project includes 31%more lodging floor area and 14% less free-market residential floor area
than was originally proposed.
2. The Free-Market Residential Units are a Key Component of the Lodging 012eration.
In its preliminary memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff was critical of the
percentage of the project committed to free-market residential use. In response to those
comments, and as discussed above, the applicant has reduced the free-market component and
increased the lodging component of the project.
Code Section 26.710.320 D., quoted below, provides guidance in the determination of the how
much free-market residential space should be permitted within a project.
As part of the PUD Approval, the amount of associated free-market residential . . . to be
included in the project shall be established by considering the following factors:
1. The amount of non-unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation.
This can include both internal and external amenities.
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 5
2. The project's range of unit sizes and configurations which are attractive to a broad
segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged.
3. The extent of additional lodge units being added to the inventory.
4. The number and average size of lodging units being provided.
5. Any legal or physical limitations of the property such that additional incentive is necessary
to develop guest accommodations.
6. Any system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies.
We discussed this section of the Code on pages 22 and 23 of the original application. However,
with the increase in the lodging component now proposed, it is worthwhile to re-examine some
of these code provisions here.
With the "conversion" of free-market units on the second floor of the central building,the project
will have eight more lodge units than was originally contemplated. Those units are larger than
those proposed in the east wing and the new building. They will permit the lodge operation to
offer a wider range of guest accommodations than would otherwise have been possible. Also,
the 56 units now proposed for the project represents almost 25% more units than were put
forward in our last iteration -- providing 11 additional affordable hotel units to a market which
sorely needs that product.
A. System or Strategy to Maximize Short-Term Rentals.
Although we believe staff has undervalued the significance of the free-market units as an
element of the lodging operations of the project (because there is no "guarantee" that these units
will be made available to the public on a short-term basis), that element is central to the mission
of the new Boomerang Lodge. A key to short-term use of the free market units in the rental pool
is the "system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies" to be used in the
project. That system has been modeled after the system used at The Gant, which has been
proven to be successful over the past 40 years.
The structure will be such that the Owners Association dues will contribute to covering a portion
of the hotel onsite services (management, front desk, and maintenance operations) as well as
other general and common area expenses. When the Association and condominium owners are
thus connected to a product that provides on-demand services (which most owners want) and the
dues contribute to those services there is a built in incentive to offset such costs with
participation in the rental program.
The Lodge element of the project will also be managed through the same operational structure,
allowing the property to maximize occupancy by being offered as The Boomerang Lodge &
Condominiums.
1. Destination Hotels & Resorts
Destination Hotels & Resorts (DH&R), as the operator of the Boomerang Lodge and
Condominiums, sets itself apart from other traditional hotel owners and operators, by focusing
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 6
on distinctive properties that are unique in their market place. DH&R recognizes that each
property occupies a specific niche within its market. Consequently, DH&R does not operate by a
set of standardized techniques, but rather builds and manages in the most appropriate manner for
each location and its range of customers.
The Boomerang Lodge and Condominiums will thus have the properly focused management for
the unique character of the property, which will contribute to maximizing occupancy.
2. DH&R Marketing Support
All Destination Hotels & Resorts (DH&R) managed properties contribute 0.5% of gross revenue
to a cooperative marketing and sales fund (CMF). DH&R spends the funds on behalf of the
contributing properties, along with additional contributions from DH&R.
The mission of the CMF is to provide sales and marketing resources, programs, preferred
partnerships, and marketing goals. This includes access to domestic and international
distribution channels; staffing and support infrastructure; professional sales and marketing
resources; guidance to individual properties; and implementation of cooperative direct sales; and
marketing initiatives that collectively support each property,
The DH&R loyalty program, Destination Delivers®, transient and group database management
through Delphi MPE and Libra OnDemand CRM; a property-based affinity sales team and direct
sales program; and a strategic public relations platform to reinforce The Boomerang property as
part of a collection of unique hospitality assets and experiences within the DH&R collection, will
all serve to most broadly market the new Lodge and condominiums.
The DH&R support team is made up of experienced hospitality professionals at the corporate
and regional level. In addition, regional directors of revenue optimization support the property
revenue management and distribution efforts. The objective of this experienced team is to
provide support through the following:
❑ Increase occupancy through improved and enhanced group and individual sales solicitation
and accountability.
❑ Work with each property to ensure that they are well represented through all appropriate
distribution channels, including the traditional as well as the direct-to-consumer Internet
channels.
• Share and implement DH&Rs success practices in the area of sales and marketing.
• Aid in the recruitment and hiring of talented sales and marketing and personnel.
❑ Continue to offer tactical sales programs to generate short-term occupancy for identified low-
demand periods.
❑ Provide ongoing educational programs and support for sales teams.
The DH&R Team is composed of regional directors of sales and marketing, each with specific
property assignments. In addition, the regional team includes two vice presidents of sales and
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 7
marketing who are based in the field and deployed to support business objectives at the
properties.
The regional team also includes: an experienced corporate staff to support the property through
direct sales; a vice president and assistant vice president of marketing focusing on integrated
marketing communications programs; an assistant vice president of e-commerce focusing on
contemporary Internet, mobile and digital marketing; and a vice president of sales responsible for
growing the national sales network, which currently includes offices in San Francisco, New
York, Chicago, Washington,D.C.,Denver and Los Angeles.
B. The Free Market Residential Component Has Been Reduced.
As shown in Exhibit A, the lodge units now represent 75%of the total number of units within the
project. Free-market residential units represent only 19% of the project, on a unit-count basis.
Free market residential floor area represents 48% of the total floor area to be constructed, down
from 57% in our original proposal. This free-market residential space is necessary because (a)
Aspen guests seek condominium units of this type for short-term occupancy, (b) it is not
economically possible to build an economy lodge in Aspen unless it includes a substantial free
market component, and (c) the size of the free-market units, their proximity to the lodge units
and the manner in which they will be sold and managed all dictate that these units will be used
primarily for short-term occupancy. As to point (b), the economics of building an economy
lodge are such that revenue from the lodge itself will not be sufficient to offset the costs of
construction,with no contribution made to the cost of the land itself.
This mix of free-market residential and lodging floor area represents the smallest possible
proportion of free-market residential space needed to establish an affordable lodge on this site in
Aspen.
3. Growth Management Allotments.
The number of free market residential units sought in the application has been reduced from 16
to 14. The number of affordable housing units requested is unchanged at five. Other than to
note the reduction in free market residential allocations sought by the applicant,2 there are no
changes in the GMQS section of the original application as it relates to free-market residential or
affordable housing allocations.
On June 13, 2006,the P&Z awarded the vested project 18 lodge growth management allotments.
The then-existing lodge included 34 hotel units. Reconstruction of those units is exempt from
growth management. The applicant currently holds growth management allotments or
exemptions for 52 (18 + 34) lodge units. The current proposal is for 56 lodge units. An
additional four lodge growth management allotments are required.
z The applicant now seeks eight free-market residential growth management allocations, down
from the 10 requested in the original application.
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 8
Code Section 26.470.040 C.3, Incentive Lodge Development, is the regulation applicable to the
applicant's request for four additional lodge allotments. That section was discussed at length in
the original application at pages 13 throughl6. Changes in the application which are relevant
exclusively to the four additional lodge growth management allotments are discussed here.
3. Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a
new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on the following criteria:
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments.
Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the four(4) additional
lodge units.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
See discussion in original application,pages 13 and 14.
c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of
Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit.
These two standards (the density standard and the unit-size standard) may be varied in
some cases according to the limitations of the- zone district in which the project is
developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed
in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet
the average-size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which is not being
demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only
the average unit-size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this
criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit-size standard shall be reviewed
pursuant to 26470.040.C.2- Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use
Development.
Both the density standard and the unit-size standard are met by the current application.
d) Associated free-market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone
district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed
to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable
housing mitigation by one of the following methods:
ii) Providing on-site or off-site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free-
market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be
one-bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash-in-lieu
payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to
Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate
as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 9
Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen
shall require approval from City Council,pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An
applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category
designation.
As this provision deals with affordable housing mitigation required as a result of free-market
residential development,the amount of affordable housing required in this project as a result of
this type of development is reduced.
e) Thirty (30)percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge,
exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section
26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. On-site affordable housing units shall be one-
bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional
development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and
Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed
operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to-Section 26.470.050.A.1 -
Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to
Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as
defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision
of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require
approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
Pursuant to Section 26.470.050 A. 1., new lodge units developed in the LP zone district are
assumed to generate 0.3 employees per bedroom. As the proposed development's 22 new lodge
units will each contain one bedroom, 6.6 new employees will theoretically be generated. Based
on the thirty percent mitigation requirement, 1.98 employees must either be housed or otherwise
mitigated via a cash-in-lieu payment. The relevant calculations are as follows:
56 Proposed Lodge Units- 34 previously-existing Lodge Units=22 Lodge Units
22 Lodge Units x 0.3 Employees/Bedroom= 6.6 Employees Generated
6.6 Employees x 0.30 = 1.98 Employees Housed
The mitigation requirement for the free market residential component of an incentive lodge
development may be met via the provision of on-site affordable housing units in an amount equal
to thirty percent of the free market residential units. In the current proposal that translates to 4.2
AH units. Five Affordable Housing units are proposed. According to both the 2005 and current
Code, one bedroom units are deemed to house 1.75 employees. The five affordable housing units
will,therefore, house 8.75 employees, for purposes of these regulations.
Pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.5., when on-site affordable housing units are provided to
satisfy one mitigation requirement, the same on-site housing may be used concurrently to satisfy
any other affordable housing mitigation requirement. As a result, the applicant's provision of on-
site affordable housing in an amount sufficient to house the 8.75 employees generated by the
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 10
proposed development's free market residential component will also mitigate the 1.98 employees
generated by the project's additional lodge units.
The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal,parking, and road and transit services.
Other than as noted in the following sentence, there is no change from the discussion of this
Code provision as found on page 16 of the original application. To minimize the impact on the
number of parking spaces available to the neighbors,the applicant will adopt an operating policy
which requires that vehicles be parked in the underground garage until the garage is full.
4. The Applicant Offers to Require that Certain Free-Market Residential Units Participate in
the Rental Pool.
In its preliminary memorandum City staff was troubled by the fact that the applicant's proposal
did not require owners of free-market residential units in the Boomerang project to make their
units available to the public for short-term occupancy. Because there was no such requirement,
staff did not give much weight to the applicant's suggestion that the project's free-market units
would, in fact, be included in a rental pool.
To address this concern, the applicant may be willing to require that two of the 14 free-market
units in the project be subject to limitations like those proposed for the "Vacation Residence"
program currently under discussion by City Council. The Vacation Residence program has been
advanced as a means of addressing the loss of Aspen's bed base since the 1990s. "Between 1995
and 2006, the city lost 27% of the bed base -- including both traditional hotels as well as
condominium rentals.i3 Through its work in crafting the Vacation Residence program, staff
learned "that basic free-market units that are not required to be in the rental pool continue to be a
critical economic engine for lodge upgrades and redevelopment."4
To motivate developers to create more lodging inventory, the Vacation Residence program aims
to provide incentives for new lodge construction and redevelopment of existing lodge properties.
One such incentive would be "Vacation Residences" which are "individual free-market
residential dwelling units within a multi-family or lodge project that allows overnight short-term
rental to the general public for a fee."5 "Occupancy by one person or entity is limited to 6
months in one calendar year, and the unit must be available for short-term rental the remainder of
the year."6
3 Memorandum of Jessica Garrow and Chris Bendon to Mayor and City Council for meeting of
June 9, 2014,p. 4 of 14.
4 Id.
5Id., p. 5 of 13.
6 Id
Ms. Sara Adams
June 20, 2014
Page 11
If this alternative is attractive to the City, the applicant is willing to consider imposing this type
of restriction on two of the free-market residential units (on the top floor of the central building,
along the alley). This restriction would have substantial impacts on the marketability of these
units and the characteristics of the units for zoning purposes, in the opinion of the applicant.
The applicant will discuss this alternative in greater detail at the hearing scheduled for July 1,
2014.
As always,thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
E. Michael Hoffman
Exhibit A
PUD Parameters
Percentage
2006 Approval Current Proposal Change
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 27,000 27,000 No Change
Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 270 270 No Change
Minimum Front Yard Setback
(Hopkins)(ft.) 5 5 No Change
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
(ft.)(See Footnote 1) 5 5 No Change
Minimum Side Yard Setback
5 No Change
(ft.)(See Footnote 2) 5
39 (roof heights
varied and were 38.5 (roof
Maximum Height(ft.) depicted on the heights vary as Reduced
Roof Plan shown shown in
on the recorded Elevations)
PUD Plan)
43 Total Spaces, 56 Total Spaces,
31 underground 33 underground,
and 12 surface 23 surface spaces
Parking spaces (12 in (including 12 in 30%
Right-of-Way Right-of-Way
pursuant to pursuant to
Encroachment Encroachment
Licenses) Licenses)
UNIT COUNTS Percentage of
Total Number of
Units
Lodging 47 56 19% 75%
Free-Market Residential 5 14 180% 19%
Affordable Housing 2 5 150% 7%
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 54 75 39% 100%
PUD Parameters
Percentage
2006 Approval Current Proposal Change
Floor Area as a
FLOOR AREA and FAR CALCULATIONS Percentage of
Total Floor Area
Non-Unit Floor Area 9,251 4,531 -51% 11%
Lodging Floor Area(sq. ft.) 23,547 13,681 -42% 33%
Free-Market Residential Floor
Area(sq. ft.) 10,733 19,878 85% 48%
Affordable Housing Floor Area
(sq. ft.) 1,384 3,225 133% 8%
------------ ------------ ------------
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 44,915 41,315 -8% 100%
Non-Unit FAR 0.34 0.17
Lodging FAR 0.87 0.51
Free-Market FAR 0.40 0.74
Affordable Housing FAR 0.05 0.12
------------ ------------
TOTAL FAR 1.66 1.53
Average Lodge Unit Size (sq.ft.) 501 244 -51%
Average Frre Market Unit Size
(sq. ft.) 2,147 1,420 -34%
Average AH Unit Size (sq. ft.) 692 645 -7%
Footnotes
1. A variance was granted for an
overhang of the balcony on the
second floor of the rear of the
central building)
27 A variance was granted in the
2006 Approval for the historic East
Wing,which is located 4 feet,three
inches from the east property
boundary. No change is requested in
this variance.
3. The Original Approval was
amended in 2008 to provide a
maximum roof height of 39 feet.
I I I I
D i
• d O •
I I
I I I
10
xm e a
ID
•
I
I
I
® �
0
\ o
D ®O
I_
o
I m
I 0
D
III � �.......
D /III\`` B._6,. O •
( I
• ri��Trn�
D z{®
7
m
< I� ;
� -
T - EXISTIN6
> e
Z
I� I
IA I o
v
•EXISTING ' Ili{
D _ ° BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
n
g IV uD � .. o ►
'n m ASPEN,COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL 970.925 5590 IFAX:970.920.4557 3
TIF
11
-mn .
O I
Illlllii••F•:: 1
I � 1
7A.
o
®a
®o
1 �
3.0 ,
e 1
I
1 3 I
a �
I �
®® ®® 2.O..
w r m ® m m
0
tim
e Ik d
am � w
r ti•
N •
r. 1
r •
Z � / TED 1
1 1
1 r
e
1 I
m N BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS f
N
D wog � Igo
^m ASPEN,COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970 925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557 3
w .cunniffe.com
. . — . . — . . — . . — — ° — - — - — — — — — — — — — .o — — — — — — — . . — . . — U)
N m
O n w W X
9' Q. 42 41 I 2
3BD FMU a5
3 BD FMU
DN DP LL
I I 1w
1L1,,—
zm
3 BD FMU xB Z O
I v w
m
� a
w w
Q !2
• 44 J '<
i ¢
Q
2
3�_D• ,� 49 I � w
Z
W
4, I o
• 30D FMU.b 2 BD FMU E6 • JW
2 BD FMU u5 I w
45
' W o
J 0
O N .➢ O J Z
O O O
• n � — — m —m � W
N
(QZ (A
LL
SW
L
O
LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN m
3/32"=1'-0"
DRAWING:
LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
ISSUE: DATE:
PJp AMB�IDMENT 03/]1/14
JOB N0. 1318
SHEET NO.
A2.4A
�aM Cww.e:axx�.�.acHrecrs
5 O., ® ®z
< gig
T1 P 0
0 1 1 1 3'-O" 2- p I+ N
O n
r
O
z
m N BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
o I G)
^!^ ASPEN,COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL 970.925.5590 IFAX'.970 920,4557 3
Jennifer Phelan
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:33 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: boomerang public comment
Sara Adams,AICP
Senior Planner I City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor
Aspen CO 81611
970/429-2778
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure
pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further,
the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable,the information and opinions
contain in the email are based on current zoning,which is subject to change in the future,and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The
opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
From: rabbimintz(a)gmail.com [mailto:rabbimintz(a)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rabbi Mendel Mintz
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:00 PM
To: Sara Adams; walkabout0sopris.net
Subject:
Dear Sara and LJ,
Planning &Zoning Commission
c/o Community Development Department
City of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Boomerang Lodge Application
Members of the Commission:
As a neighboring property owner, I wish to register my support for the Application to be heard on July 1, 2014.
The Application now before you far surpasses the previous affordable housing proposal in quality, and is a major
improvement over the existing approval that is being amended.
Importantly, it is more sensitive to the neighborhood, and commensurate with the character of the surrounding properties.
This project will contribute to the quality and diversity of the immediate neighborhood and is considered a welcome
addition to our own Chabad Jewish Community Center facility.
Your approval is encouraged, and I am certain I speak for many of my neighbors.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Mendel Mintz
-------------------
Visit us on the web at: www.jccaspen.com
i
The Jewish Community Center
Chabad Aspen
Rabbi Mendel Mintz
435 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone. 970.544.3770
rabbit ccaspen.com
2
Jennifer Phelan
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:33 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: FW: support the Boomerang
Junee's letter for boomerang.
Sara Adams,AICP
Senior Planner I City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor
Aspen CO 81611
970/429-2778
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure
pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further,
the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable,the information and opinions
contain in the email are based on current zoning,which is subject to change in the future,and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The
opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
From: Jennifer Phelan
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:16 AM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: FW: support the Boomerang
Jennifer Phelan,AICP
Deputy Planning Director
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
970-429-2759
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained
in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and
opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or
vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
From: U Erspamer [mailto:walkabout(�bsopris.net]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 5:53 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: FW: support the Boomerang
Jennifer,
1
�
I'm m�����m�c6�d ��.
Could you make sure this is part nf the public record?
71zuoka.
Li
From: Junee Kirk
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:20 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: support the Boomerang
Dear U and P&2:
I have had the opportunity to view the recent plans of the Boomerang with both Steve Stunda and Jim Defrancia. First
of all, |think it was very thoughtful of them to reach out tothe community for input, unlike the arrogance of the Brown
Bothers developing the Hotel Aspen who asked for 5 variances and got everything they wanted. Their development will
forever destroy the two historic neighborhoods of Main Street and the West End.
The Boomerang, on the other hand, has followed the codes, saved an important historic part of the Boomerang and our
lodging history, has provided adequate employee housing, has needed variation in hot-beds,,and has avery
appropriate, attractively designed building complex for the neighborhood backing up against the tall mountains.
I totally endorse this project and hope that P&Z will do as well, as the developer has tried to worked with so many
differing constituents over the years to make this a "do-able" project,that the delay has truly come forth with a
proposal which I hope all can support and see it move forward with the needed approvals.
Sincerely,
]uneeKirk
2
Sara Adams
From: U Erspamer <walkabout @sopris.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:53 AM
To: Rick Head; Sara Adams
Cc: pandz @ci.aspen.co.us
Subject: RE:
Rick,
Thank you for your input on the Boomerang application which will be before the City of Aspen P&Z at our
meeting tonight.
Sara Adams from The ComDev department shall make this email part of the public record and distribute it to the
rest of the P&Z Commissioners.
Thanks again for your comments on this issue.
LJ Erspamer
Chair,Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Rick Head [mailto•rheadCabclre.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 8:21 PM
To: walkabout sopris.net
Cc: pandz@ci.a,spen.co.us
Subject:
Dear L J,
It has come to my attention that Community Development has recommended denial of the most recent Boomerang
proposal. I am chagrined that there is not a better mechanism for giving applicants better direction and general
feedback from staff before the applicant spends serious money on architects designing projects that generally meet
code that are denied summarily. Had there been better communication regarding the aforementioned, Mr.Stunda's
team could have modified its proposal to accommodate staffs suggestions alleviating the need for a denial and
ultimately a lengthy delay in the development of a much needed moderately priced hotel. In addition to the 56
efficiency lodge rooms, and not unlike the Gant and Aspen Square,the rentable free market units will add to the " hot
bed base without the imposition of mandatory owner use restrictions. Given the current need for affordable hotel
rooms, I would hope you give strong consideration to approving the current proposal before you.
Warm Regards,
Rick Head
Rick Head,GRI
Chairman Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
Vice Chairman Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Treasurer Aspen Youth Center
Board of Director Aspen Junior Golf
Senior Broker
Aspen Snowmass Sotheby's International Realty
1
Sara Adams
From: Hailey <hailey @rof.net>
Sent: Friday,June 27, 2014 1:45 PM
To: walkabout @sopris.net
Cc: Sara Adams
Subject: The Boomerang
Dear U Erspamer, Chair, Aspen Planning and Zoning,
I understand that, for some unbelievable reason, the Aspen Community Development Department have once
again decided to make changes to the currently preposed Boomerang project. This project has been ongoing for
seven or more years. With every iteration the project appears to get smaller and smaller and, of course, already
much smaller than the original Boomerang Hotel - before the majority of the building was torn down seven plus
years ago.
I live just a block away from what's currently on the Boomerang block.
A property owner and a neighbor, I have no objection to this project and in fact I encourage the project to go
forward as soon as possible. It's been a dead duck for so many years - let's get on with it.
I've lived on Sixth and Main for almost thirteen years and have seen a pretty large amount of construction
around here. But Aspen is growing leaps and bounds and, by and large, this area has been fairly well
developed. So I really have had little objection to most of the building that has, and is, going up all the time ...
in some case mammoth building.
I wholeheartedly support this application to get the Boomerang project up and running again -this side and end
of town. Thus I encourage moving this project along as soon as possible with this latest application for free
market space (currently 12 units) and hotel rooms (currently 56). Again I urge you, Aspen Communuty
Development Department, to support this application and vote on it as soon as possible.
Let's get the Boomerang up, running and completed as soon as possible ... then move on!
Thanks - Hailey Dart
i
Sara Adams
From: rabbimintz @gmail.com on behalf of Rabbi Mendel Mintz <Rabbi @jccaspen.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:00 PM
To: Sara Adams;walkabout @sopris.net
Dear Sara and LJ,
Planning &Zoning Commission
c/o Community Development Department
City of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Boomerang Lodge Application
Members of the Commission:
As a neighboring property owner, I wish to register my support for the Application to be heard on July 1, 2014.
The Application now before you far surpasses the previous affordable housing proposal in quality, and is a major
improvement over the existing approval that is being amended.
Importantly, it is more sensitive to the neighborhood, and commensurate with the character of the surrounding properties.
This project will contribute to the quality and diversity of the immediate neighborhood and is considered a welcome
addition to our own Chabad Jewish Community Center facility.
Your approval is encouraged, and I am certain I speak for many of my neighbors.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Mendel Mintz
-------------------
Visit us on the web at: www.iccaspen.com
The Jewish Community Center
Chabad Aspen
Rabbi Mendel Mintz
435 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone. 970.544.3770
rabbi(?
Jccaspen.com
1
Sara Adams
From: Jennifer Phelan
Sent: Tuesday,June 17, 2014 8:16 AM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: FW: support the Boomerang
Jennifer Phelan, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St. - - - - - - - - - - - -
Aspen, CO 81611
970-429-2759
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained
in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and
opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or
vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
From: U Erspamer [mailto:walkabout @sopris.net]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 5:53 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: FW: support the Boomerang
Jennifer,
I'm not sure if you received this.
Could you make sure this is part of the public record?
Thanks.
Li
From: Junee Kirk [mailto:junee.kirk(d)comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:20 PM
To: walkabout(-asopris.net
Cc: sstunda @aol.com; jdefranciaC�loweenterprises.com
Subject: support the Boomerang
a -
Dear U and P&Z:
I have had the opportunity to view the recent plans of the Boomerang with both Steve Stunda and Jim Defrancia. First
of all, I think it was very thoughtful of them to reach out to the community for input, unlike the arrogance of the Brown
Bothers developing the Hotel Aspen who asked for 5 variances and got everything they wanted. Their development
will forever destroy the two historic neighborhoods of Main Street and the West End.
The Boomerang, on the other hand, has followed the codes, saved an important historic part of the Boomerang and our
lodging history, has provided adequate employee housing, has needed variation in hot-beds", and has a very
appropriate,attractively designed building complex for the neighborhood backing up against the tall mountains.
I totally endorse this project and hope that P&Z will do as well, as the developer has tried to worked with so many
differing constituents over the years to make this a "do-able" project,that the delay has truly come forth with a
proposal which I hope all can support and see it move forward with the needed approvals.
Sincerely,
Junee Kirk
2