HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140701Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre,
Brian McNellis, Keith Goode and Ollie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki present.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. McNellis commented on a special event involving the Dancing Bear and the Aspen Community
School off Durant Ave. Mr. McNellis stated the event fell slightly short for a number of reasons, but one
things hindering the event involved cars parked in the special event area during the event. The event
committee paid $400-plus for the permit process and completed a traffic study done at the request of
the city to ensure the re-routing of traffic worked. Stakes were placed prior to the event stating no
parking on the day of the event, tow-away zone. On the day of the event, there were cars parked in the
no parking zone. A call was placed to the city and the city refused to tow the cars and refused to allow
the event personnel to call a private company to tow the cars. He felt this hindered the amount of
money that could have been raised for the event. He also stated if folks are required to complete the
application process, there needs to be follow-through on the behalf of the city. He was hoping there
could be correspondence between staff regarding this issue. Mr. Erspamer asked specifically where the
parking issue was located and Mr. McNellis thought it was off of Aspen St next to the construction area.
He also stated there were three cars parked in the 100 feet of the street shut down for the event. Mr.
Erspamer suggested speaking with the Chief of Police or the City Manager.
Mr. Erspamer spoke of an event he recently attended on the subject of “walkability”. He felt the speaker
was very good and plans to look into the subject more thoroughly. The speaker identified reasons for
walkability and specifically discussed parking as a solution to walkability involving circulation and cycling.
He feels this is one issue to be brought before the Aspen City Council (Council) to identify a more
comprehensive parking plan to resolve the circulation issue. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki identified the
name of the speaker as Jeff Speck. Mr. Erspamer intends to follow up with Mr. Speck.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan asked the commissioners to consider scheduling a special meeting on Tuesday, August 12th,
2014 in Council chambers for the possible continuance on tonight’s agenda item. If the special meeting
is not scheduled, the continuance for tonight’s meeting would be mid-September. Mr. Erspamer asked if
the meeting should be discussed now or at the end of the meeting. Ms. Quinn asked if there was an
additional need for a special meeting and Ms. Phelan replied no. Ms. Quinn suggested it would be best
to wait until the end of tonight’s meeting to make the decision regarding the special meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – June 3, 2014
Ms. Tygre moved to approve the June 3, 2014 minutes, seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in favor, motion
carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none.
1
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
Public Hearing – 500 W. Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment,
GMQS Review
Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms. Quinn stated the legal notice was previously approved at
the June 17, 2014 meeting when the continuance was granted.
Ms. Adams presented the project to the board for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. It is a
27,000 square foot (sf) lodge, zoned R-6 with the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay. The applicants
request is to amend the previously granted 2006 PUD approval of which they have vested rights through
October 20, 2015. They are subject to the code which was in place when they originally submitted their
application on December 31, 2005.
The Planning & Zoning Commission was asked to review four items in this hearing. The first is an
amendment to the Growth Management Review granted for the 2006 approval and the second is a
commercial design review is being requested. Both items are under the purview of the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z), so the board will be the final review for each item. The third and fourth items
are an amendment to the subdivision and an amendment to the PUD. For the third and fourth items,
P&Z is asked to make a recommendation to Council.
The proposal for amending the 2006 approval includes increasing the density of the overall project. The
2006 approval had a total of 54 units including lodge, free-market and affordable housing. The proposal
includes the following.
• Increases the total number from 54 to 70 units
• Decrease the overall project floor area by about 3,500 sf
• Increase the free market residential unit count from 5 units to 14 units and increase the floor
area of the free-market residential component from about 13,500 to 22,300 (actual numbers in
application)
• Increase the number of lodge units from 47 to 56 units, decreasing the average size of these
units from about 500 to 240 sf of net livable per unit
• Decreasing the lodge floor area from about 29,600 to 15,300 (actual numbers in application)
• Increase affordable housing from 2 to 5 units. They are meeting their affordable housing
requirements on-site
The architecture is largely the same as what was approved in 2006. It’s mostly a three story building
with a four story component for the lodge rooms. The setbacks approved in 2006 have been slightly
changed making the building a bit closer to Hopkins by a few feet. They are maintaining the parking
garage approved in 2006. The application represents 33 parking spaces in the garage. The plans identify
32 spaces. Perhaps the applicant could clarify the difference, but either way they are meeting their
parking onsite requirement of 30 spaces.
Ms. Adams provided a number of tables in the staff memo for the meeting that she reviewed with the
commissioners. These tables were described as follows:
Table 1 – Shows comparison focusing on the floor area of the uses. Compares 2006 approvals with the
values proposed by the applicant for the June 17th meeting, the values for the current July 1st meeting
and the Hotel Aspen values recently approved PUC by City Council approximately two months ago. From
the staff’s opinion, she pointed out the following:
2
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
• Percentage of lodge floor area compared to the total project:
o 2006 = About 66%
o Current proposal = About 37%
• Free Market Residential floor area compared to the total project:
o 2006 = About 30%
o Current proposal = About 54 %
Table 2 – Identifies all other pieces changed from the 2006 approval.
Table 3 – Compares the R-6 zoned district (underlying zoned district), lodge zoned district, 2006
approval and the current proposal. The lodge zoned district is included for information because the
property is zoned R-6 with the lodge preservation (LP) overlay is not subject to the lodge zone district.
Ms. Adams then discussed the Growth Management Review. Under the Growth Management
amendment being requested, the project qualifies for the 2005-2006 lodge incentive program based on
the number of lodging units per lot size of a project. She emphasized the purpose of the lodge incentive
and the lodge preservation zone district programs is to incentivize lodge development by reducing the
required affordable housing mitigation and allowing the project to go through a PUD to establish
dimensional requirements. The codes recognize the needs to be considered for a lodge project by
providing some flexibility and relief of the requirements that a typical mixed-use project would need to
meet.
The purpose of the LP overlay is to incentivize lodge development. There are very specific criteria to be
met when establishing free market residential floor area included on page 30 in the packet in Exhibit B
of the PUD review criteria of the staff memo. She pointed this out because the review criteria
determining the amount of free market space is appropriate for a project in the LP overlay. The review
criteria focus on the lodge operations, diversity of lodge units, and the quality of the lodge units. Staff
have found the review criteria do not warrant the amount of free market flooring being requested
(54%).
The project is vested under what Ms. Adams referred to as the “old code”. Based on when the project
was initially submitted, it is subject to the 2000 Area Community Plan (ACP) as a regulatory document.
The project is also subject to the 2012 ACP as a guiding document. So both ACPs are included as Exhibit
A of the packet in the Grown Management Section. Staff found policies outlined in both the 2000 ACP
and 2012 ACP are not met.
Considering the decrease of the lodge floor area and lodge use, the increase of the free market
residential floor area and residential use, and the impacts of the changes on the community, staff finds
this is no longer a lodge project. Instead, staff finds it is a free market residential condominium project
which has a lodge component. The free market residential is 50% larger than the lodge component. In
the 2006 approval, the lodge component was 100% larger than the free market component in regards to
floor area.
The project is primarily a three story with a four story component located in a two story neighborhood.
This was acceptable in 2006 because it was for a lodge project, and Ms. Adams felt the City Council and
the community felt there was enough trade off and community benefit for a lodge project in this
neighborhood to have the dimensional requirements and variances granted for the project.
There were a range of lodge rooms, it was mostly lodge, the proposed increase in free market
residential FAR and the free market residential unit numbers and the decrease in the lodge floor area
3
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
really no longer has a community benefit based on staff’s opinion to support the proposed variances to
the underlying zoned district. For example, the maximum height of the project is 17 feet taller than
what is allowed in the R6 zoned district. In the supplement to the application provided for tonight’s
meeting by the applicants, they represent the free market residential units will be rented, they provide a
lot of background and a lot of really helpful information about how the units would be rented. The
company they want to bring on to manage the rentals has a history in Aspen. However, there is no
guarantee the units will be rented. The applicant has offered two units would be possibly rented
consistent with the vacation residences program currently with council now and would become part of
the new lodge program. Staff thinks is a step in the right direction and their efforts are appreciated, but
they don’t think it is enough to guarantee the units are required to be rented as rental units. The trade-
offs considering the proposed ratio of the uses in relationship to the requested dimensions are not in
the best interest of the community. They do not meet the growth management review criteria. They do
not meet the PUD amendment review criteria or the subdivision review criteria. As previously
mentioned the staff appreciates the willingness to look into renting two of the 14 free market, but
would need to see a guarantee for more than provided.
In conclusion, staff does not support the proposed increase in the free market residential and the
decrease in the lodge uses. We recommend the P&Z commission continue this hearing with direction for
the applicant to reduce the free market component or to provide a guarantee that the free market
residential units will be rented. If the applicant is unable to reduce the free market component any
further, we would have recommend denial of the growth management review. A resolution denying the
growth management review was included in the packet. If the growth management review is not
approved, the proposal will not continue to city council for their PUD and subdivision amendments.
Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms. Adams covered the PUD review. She replied that it was included with the
growth management portion of her opinion.
Mr. Erspamer then asked if she reviewed Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) and commercial
design, at which Ms. Adams replied she did not. She stated in order the subdivision review criteria
mirrored a lot of the PUD criteria, you have to find the ACP criteria is met, which was not found as a
common thread through the growth management review criteria. Your PUD criteria and your
subdivision review criteria were not met in regards to ACP goes as a regulatory document. Commercial
design review is a formality this project has to go through because it’s required in the code for a mixed
use project. Ms. Adams stated that all applicable commercial design review were met.
Mr. Erspamer thanked Ms. Adams for her presentation and asked the commissioners if they had
questions for staff.
Ms. Tygre asked if there was a maximum residential free market floor area in a lodge project. Ms. Adams
replied there is not a maximum. She continued that the P&Z, through the PUD review is asked to do
apply specific criteria 1-6 on page 30 to determine how much free market area is appropriate. Because
this project is underlying zone of R6 with a LP overlay, R6 does not permit multi-family residential or
lodge uses in. The LP overlay permits these uses via the PUD review.
Ms. Tygre believed she heard Ms. Adams state the maximum allowable free market residential FAR was
40% at which Ms. Adams stated no. Both Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki and Mr. Gibbs found references in
the packet to other amounts, but they were not the references Ms. Tygre believed she heard. It was not
verified where Ms. Tygre believed she previously heard the reference to 40%.
4
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated there was a question to be established regarding the reasonableness of
the amount of free market residential allowed with this lodge and he thought Ms. Tygre was thinking of
a discussion that occurred in a previous session covering the density or size of the hotel rooms provided
a certain bonus. He confirmed with Ms. Adams this proposal is not subject to the lodge zone district. Mr.
Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked Ms. Adams what it would be for this proposal just as a benchmark. Ms.
Adams replied she did not know. She did point out a comparison in Table 3 on page 16 of the lodge zone
district allowances, but it does not reflect any bonuses based on density. The table does show for a free
market residential allowed per lot size. If this project was zoned as lodge district, it would be allowed to
have 6,750 sf of free market space or .25:1. The proposal requests 22,300 sf of free market space or
.83:1.
Mr. Erspamer questioned if the employee housing parking and storage areas were clearly defined in the
proposal. Ms. Adams confirmed the proposal includes one assigned parking space and storage area for
each affordable housing unit in the parking garage.
Mr. Erspamer referred to the packet on June 17th packet and asked if lock offs are part of the lodge
criteria. Ms. Adams and Mr. Erspamer concluded it would be best to have the applicant discuss the lock
offs proposed.
Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Adams to define “generous amenities”. Ms. Adams replied that it is up to the
P&Z Committee to determine what should be considered as generous amenities. Staff did not feel the
proposal did not include generous amenities. Ms. Adams explained that criteria is supposed to inform
the P&Z commission how much free market floor area is allowed.
Mr. Erspamer referred to page 9 of the June 17th packet regarding the purpose of PUD review
designation. Staff replied the information is no longer applicable because the applicant has since
changed the proposal to address staff’s concerns.
Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification regarding staff’s concerns of the height and mass of the project. Ms.
Adams replied the height and mass approved in the 2006 proposal is basically the same as what is being
currently proposed. She also stated staff feels there was no longer a community benefit to warrant the
variances granted in 2006 because the project has changed from a lodging project to a free market
residential project.
Mr. Gibbs asked if there were a list of the variances approved in 2006. Ms. Adams referred him to page
16 which compares the 2006 approval to the underlying R-6 zone district. Certain dimensional standards
adopted in the 2006 approval don’t relate to the R-6 zoned district because they are uses that were only
allowed in the R-6 zone district at that time with the LP overlay. These items include lodging floor area,
affordable housing floor area and unit density. Ms. Adams felt the relevant variances include height,
overall floor area and setbacks.
Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. James DeFrancia with Lowe Enterprises is representing the owner and applicant for this proposal.
He was joined by Mr. Michael Hoffman of Garfield and Hecht P.C., attorney for the project and Steve
Stunda, one of the partners in the ownership. He was also joined by Charles Cunniffe Architects.
Mr. DeFrancia expressed his thanks to staff for a cordial, professional working relationship over the past
few months.
5
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
Mr. DeFrancia expressed the backdrop for reviewing the proposal are the clearly expressed findings of
the city. Those findings, as published in a variety of documents including Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP), are as follows
• Experienced the loss of 27% of bed base in lodge and rental condominium units
• Rental condominium base is aging and declining (40% of bed base is condominiums)
• Present quality and diversity of the bed base is rated as low
• The price point of value for our bed base is rated as low
Mr. DeFrancia feels this brings to public focus is our longer capability to attract guest is at risk and the
number and diversity of lodging being offered needs to be increased. In short, we are losing bed base
and eroding our lodging offerings. These findings are more formally and officially addressed in the AACP.
The AACP states:
• Small and mid-size lodges have been converted to other uses
• We need to replenish the lodging base
• We need a diverse lodging inventory to server a broader demographic
• Our visitor based economy depends on remaining an accessible and affordable place
As a consequence of those considerations, a resulting public policy stating to replenish our lodging
inventory, to emphasize diverse price points and to protect or restore our existing lodges.
Mr. DeFrancia feels we need to increase both the number and the diversity of our lodging stock and
what this project is all about. The first point of conceptual disagreement with staff who states this is no
longer a lodging project, we counter propose that this in fact is all about lodging. The key to lodging is
keys. What is being proposed is an economy lodge and rental condominiums, which both offer diversity.
We are offering a total of 84 keys including 56 lodge keys and 28 rental condominium keys when you
consider each of the 14 rental condo has lock-off capacity. A lock-off capacity is defined as a unit with
more than one bedroom has the ability to lock-off a bedroom so it has direct access to the exterior and
can server as a hotel room.
Another important item is the lodge units are economy by design sized at approximately 210 sf. These
designs have been tested successfully in other markets including flat screen TVs, narrow built-in
cabinetry, hanging lamps.
The rental condos are designed as rental condos have been historically available in Aspen for decades.
The size and design of the rental condos is reflective of the applicant and the community what prevents
the condos from going into a rental pool.
The ratio of units is 56 lodge units, 14 rental condo units and five affordable housing units. The ratio is
4:1 of lodge units to condo units. Again, Mr. DeFrancia stated he wants to focus on keys and history
shows the rental of condos designed to be rental has proven itself over the past 40-50 years. He noted
the following examples of existing businesses with units available for rent by design and operation, not
imposed guarantees. They operate as hotels.
• Aspen Square is 100% free market condos in the rental pool
• Aspen Alps (around for 50+ years) has 65% of the units are in the rental pool
• The Gant (around for 40+ years) has 86% of the units are in a rental pool
6
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
The Boomerang is characterized as the Boomerang Lodge and Condominiums with a diverse mix, unified
operations, economy rooms, lock off rooms, two and three bedroom condominiums.
The rental condominiums are very much modeled after the Gant. He noted staff refers to The Gant in
their new incentive lodging code as the model of the product.
Mr. DeFrancia stated there was an offer to take a couple of the condominium units and voluntarily
impose restrictions akin to those in the new code where they would be referred to as vacation
residences where the use by a single owner would be restricted to demonstrate the capability of the
units to be rentals and to evaluate the depression of unit’s value based on the restrictions.
The diversity also includes amenity offerings shared by both the lodge and the rental condominiums.
These amenities include the historic pool, guest only lounge, the Patterson room, hot tub, pool deck.
While the staff stated the amenities were not generous, the amenities are in line with economy lodges
and the ultimate amenity is price. You can’t have an economy lodge that is rich with amenities. Their
goal is to diversify lodging offerings and the amenity package is suitable for both the condominium and
lodge.
Mr. DeFrancia feels they are restoring the Boomerang Lodge to its original use as a lodge. It had been
previously voluntarily designated as historic by the ownership and a terrific example of mid-century
modern design. Charlie Patterson was consulted with to understand the original function and his
concepts. Mr. DeFrancia feels restoring the lodge as a lodge is important to the community and to our
history which is important to our character which is important to our tourism.
In summation, the proposal is exactly what has been identified at what is needed by the community by
public policy through the public process. The AACP supports this type of proposal and the staff’s own
reports in support of the new codes. They are offering keys, diversity and historic preservation.
Mr. DeFrancia asked the architect, Charles Cunniffe, and his team to review the physical architect of the
project. He emphasized the proposal seeks to amend an existing approval including height, mass, width
and depth definitions. The proposal seeks to amend the use of the space previously defined.
Mr. Cunniffe, Marina Skiles and Rich Pavcek are representing Charles Cunniffe Architects as the architect
of the project in the proposal.
Mr. Cunniffe noted the lodge existed long before the neighborhood developed as much as it did. It
should not be compared to other projects in specific zoned districts because it was a stand-alone project
when it was built and contributes a lot of amenities to the neighborhood. Based on slides presented,
Mr. Cunniffe stated the former site plan was one solid mass and not well thought out in regards to the
structure density and the delicacy of the existing historic building. The new site plan breaks up the site
into six distinct buildings. He stated that one point, there was attempt to amend the project to make it
affordable housing. This was objected to by the neighbors even though it was approved. In taking the
project in front of council, it was heard to break up the mass. The new site plan includes walkways
allowing for light and air between the portions of the buildings. A skylight was included over the center
walkway. The roof plan includes low-pitched roofs to emulate the same low-pitch as the historic
Boomerang Lodge. The pool and spa is included as it was in the original structure. The entire proposed
design falls below the approved height. There is a small section that has four stories of the addition wing
to the historic lodge building. To be consistent with the lodge, the rooms in this section has similar
ceiling height which allows for four stories.
7
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
The amenities include the pool, spa, lounge, game room, Patterson room for breakfast, lobby,
underground parking, provision of bikes and shuttles.
Ms. Skiles reviewed slides covering the proposed materials and physical qualities of the building as they
relate to the original historic design.
Mr. Pavcek reviewed the floor plans including areas identified for affordable housing, lodge room, rental
condominiums and project amenity spaces. The lodge rooms average about 210 sf each and will be
rented as a single bed economy units. Additionally, half of these units have connecting doors so they
could be rented as tow bedroom economy units at about 420 sf. The rental condominiums appear as
three bedroom units at about 1,400 sf and two bedroom units at about 1,200 sf. These can also be
rented minus one lock off bedroom with the three bedroom reduced to two bedrooms at about 960 sf
or 800 sf and the two bedroom reduced to a one bedroom unit at about 430 sf. The eight lodge units on
the second floor of the center building along the alley will be large enough to accommodate two queen
beds or one king bed with a sitting area. Their sizes range from 365 – 445 sf.
Mr. Pavcek reviewed slides of the amenity spaces including the pool, pool deck, spa, lounge, laundry
facility, public restrooms and Patterson room including the fireplace.
Mr. Pavcek also reviewed the layout of the parking area containing 33 parking spaces and 19 storage
units.
Mr. DeFrancia asked Donnie Lee, to address the experience with projects of this nature including
operations to maximize rentals and occupancy.
Mr. Donnie Lee, General Manager of The Gant, Vice President of Destination Hotels & Resorts and
current Chair of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. Mr. Lee and Steve Stunda have spent the past
two years working with the chamber, staff and the community to culminate what is now the Lodge
Incentive Program currently in front of City Council for review.
Mr. Lee stated lodge incentive program conversations assisted with the manifestation of today’s
application which preserves the historic lodge, rehabilitates and modernizes the lodge rooms. Its lodging
incorporates both lodge and condominium units. The condominium model put forth in the proposal is
following a proven path of success with onsite amenities, services and staff for on-demand services
providing a built-in incentive for the home owners to rent as proven at The Gant, Alps, North of Nell and
Aspen Square.
Mr. Lee then discussed how The Gant is considered free market residential based on the nature of what
it is and how the code is written. It clearly operates as a hotel and the same can be said for Aspen
Square. He stated the distinctive hotel-type amenities provided in these development haven’t seen the
erosion of rental units experienced by other developments. The dues are higher and the owners want to
offset the cost of the amenities with rental activity. He considers this the model of success. The plan for
the proposed development is to be operated as one integrated property. From this aspect, Mr. Lee feels
it provides a lot to the community.
Mr. Lee discussed the background and experience Destination Hotels & Resorts (DH&R) over the past 40
plus years in both condominiums and hotels. Their model of success is to build a brand out of the
property being managed. As for The Gant, you do not see DH&R on the door. The culture they want to
bring includes warm, authentic service and the willingness to do the right thing for the property as well
as be mindful of the surroundings and engaged in the community. The Gant’s management and
8
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
leadership staff and as regional corporate resources (sales, marketing, reservations, human resources, IT
systems) will be utilized.
In closing, Mr. Lee believes this proposed development preserves and restores a historic location, puts
back into service a hotel to increase the lodging base and adds a lot for the community.
Mr. DeFrancia concluded with a point that this truly is a lodge project offering a diversity of lodging,
particularly economy lodging, which is sorely needed. It also offers a diversity of lodging in
condominiums. The applicant accepts and acknowledges there is no guarantee of those rental
condominiums renting. He feels the decades of experience with the other developments shows the
design models success and the project will be operated as a hotel.
Mr. Erspamer opened for questions from the commissioners.
Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant to confirm what the rental figures represent. The applicant responded
that 86% of the condominiums in The Gant rent and 65% of the condos in the Alps rent. The broader
bed count of the area was not included other than references from the AACP and other studies
regarding a 27% decline in bed base according to whatever base was considered for the studies.
Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicants considered the new SKICO study to which the applicant replied no.
Mr. Erspamer asked if the two condos placed in the rental pool were successful, would the other condos
be placed in the rental pool. Mr. DeFrancia replied that just by adding the two condos drops the rental
condo proportion to 38% of the project. Mr. Cunniffe replied if they were successful, then the other
condos would be rented as well. He reiterated that by design, the owners would want to rent the
condos.
Mr. Erspamer reiterated a statement by one of the applicants. “If we have a rental condo, it will have
less value if its other than a regular, privately owned condo not rented.” Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Lee in
regard to his experience at The Gant, do the rental units sell for less than one that is not rented. Mr.
DeFrancia interjected that wasn’t the statement he made. His statement was that if you have an
imposed restriction on use, which you can only use it six months of the year and then it has to be
rented, that would prospectively depress value.
Mr. Erspamer asked if the employee housing will be in a separate HOA. Mr. DeFrancia replied they
would have a separate HOA or would otherwise be exempted or capped from certain elements of the
HOA requirements for the broader project. Mr. Erspamer followed with asking if there would be an
umbrella HOA. He asked how the employee housing occupants be protected from egregious fees or
special assessments. Mr. DeFrancia suggested a cap at which Mr. Erspamer asked if a resolution would
define the cap. Both Mr. DeFrancia and Ms. Adams replied yes.
Mr. Erspamer asked if a transportation development management plan (TDM) will be included. Ms.
Adams replied it was part of the original submittal. Mr. DeFrancia noted one change as of July 1, 2014
was to include a WE-Cycle station. The TDM includes scheduled shuttle van, close bike path proximity,
and bike racks.
Mr. Erspamer asked how the light reflection from the windows would be handled at which Mr. Cunniffe
replied the actual solar studies have not been done, but the building largely faces away from the sun.
The upper portion of the windows will have a sun shading device as part of the design.
Mr. Erspamer asked staff if there is a minimum sf average in the code at which Ms. Adams replied no.
9
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant’s representative to confirm who can use the amenity spaces. Mr.
DeFrancia replied the amenity spaces are available to both lodge guests and rental condominiums
occupants and their guests.
Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant’s representative where the majority of the foot traffic would be in the
development. Mr. Cunniffe explained it would be where it’s been historically, on 4th street.
Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant’s representative how big the units where in the original Boomerang. Mr.
Cunniffe and Mr. DeFrancia did not know specifically, but they do know they were somewhat larger
because they included living rooms. Mr. Gibbs asked the applicant’s representative how big the units are
in The Gant. Mr. Lee said the two bedrooms are roughly a 1,000 sf and three bedrooms are 1,200 to
1,300 sf.
Mr. Erspamer stated Pierre Wille was showing him units at the Tyrolean when he was thinking about the
lodging ordinance. He asked the applicant’s representative if they are aware how big the units at the
Tyrolean or the St. Moritz at which Mr. DeFrancia replied he did not know. Mr. DeFrancia stated the
design reflects examples that have successful in other markets. Mr. Cunniffe stated they are designed to
be economy, efficient and not oversized.
Mr. Goode inquired if the conference room would also serve as a breakfast area. Mr. Cunniffe replied
yes, that would be in the Patterson room located on the second floor. Mr. Goode then asked if there
would be a kitchen for preparing food at which Mr. Cunniffe replied no. Mr. DeFrancia stated
traditionally the meal was served as a European cold breakfast. A microwave and toaster will be
available for use.
Mr. McNellis inquired if the historic portion of the Boomerang designated historic as part of the 2006
application? Both Mr. DeFrancia and Ms. Adams replied yes.
Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked the applicant’s representative if they knew the price point of the
condominiums. Mr. DeFrancia stated probably mid-market with sales starting around $1,200 per sf and
progressively moving up to $1,400 or $1,500 per sf over three years. Mr. Cunniffe stated they would be
lower mid-market in terms of price point.
Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked where the back of house spaces to allow for employee changing rooms,
employee bathrooms, laundry rooms are located in the design. Mr. Cunniffe explained where a laundry
room would be located, but both the rental condominiums and the hotel would be serviced by the same
company off site. Mr. Lee explained the intention is to have maintenance and housekeeping services on
site.
Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked the applicant’s representative why fractionals or something else would
ensure the units were rented was not considered or included in the proposal. Mr. DeFrancia felt the full
ownership condominiums were a better product. Mr. Cunniffe stated fractionals are better suited for a
higher end property in prime location, not for an economy location.
Mr. Gibbs asked staff to clarify their response on page 27, part e) was in regards to units available to the
public or for employees? Ms. Adams confirmed they would be available for employees of the lodge.
Mr. Erspamer asked where the TDM and the traffic study where located in the packet. Mr. Cunniffe
stated TDM was reviewed and approved by Council on the original approval. Ms. Adams stated an
update to the TDM was included in the packet.
10
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
Mr. Erspamer opened the meeting for public comment.
Ron Erickson, Chairman of the Housing Board, has over 30 years of experience with lodging in Aspen.
From APCHA perspective, this proposal meets all their qualifications and it was approved unanimously.
From a lodging perspective, he agrees they mentioned three of the most successful ones in town. He is
in favor of the condo-hotel and feels Aspen could use more. He has reviewed the project and as a future
neighbor, is real impressed with the proposal. He also stated he has reviewed the article and believes
the project meets the most important points of the lodge incentive program. He is sad to see the
Boomerang in its current condition.
Cheryl Goldenberg lives near the Boomerang. She demonstrated where she lived on the layout
displayed. She asked if the parking shown on the layout was public or private. Mr. DeFrancia state it was
public parking. Her likes the vitality of the project but is concerned about parking. She would like to have
the underground parking expanded and wanted to know if parking spaces could be sold or rented. She
also questioned the setbacks at which Ms. Phelan clarified the buildings are two feet from the property
line. Ms. Goldenberg feels owners of the condominium may park their cars permanently leaving no
space for the renters.
Michael Brown introduced himself as an owner of three hotels in Aspen (one being Hotel Aspen) and his
office is less than 100 ft. from the proposed development on 5th St. fronting Main St. He is flabbergasted
at the height of the proposal in a zoned district allowing 25 ft. He understands they are applying under
an old set of code, but feels the current entitlements are not buildable. He feels it is not a financeable
project which is why they are trying to modify it now. He referred to the ratios listed on page 14 of the
staff’s memo which reward development that provide more lodging than free market. They have triple
the amount of free market than Hotel Aspen. He stated it isn’t their decision to make the units rentable
or not, it is the decision of the unit owner. He then stated he opened his office in this area because
parking is so easy to come and go. He feels this will not be preserved. He states there are 84 keys against
33 parking spots and the project is asking for 24 from the city in the right of way. He is concerned there
will be no parking available. He said you really need to focus on the sf and how much is free market vs
how much is actual lodge.
Steve Goldenberg lives near the Boomerang. He said if they removed the top floor of every building then
there would be reasonable density and the parking would not be so bad. He is concerned the parking
identified in the basement is not adequate. Previous layouts of the same sf identified 30-31 spaces, so
he feels 33 is not right. He also pointed out the area identified for 12 spaces will only hold ten cars based
on the same sized area in front of the Christiana. He is also concerned there will be no place to park
once the synagogue opens.
Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment.
Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from staff.
Ms. Adams pointed out there were two letters from the public included in the application and there
were two emails sent out after the packet had been submitted. The letters were from Rick Head, Hailey
Dart, Rabbi Mintz and Junee Kirk. All the letters were in support of the project. These letters are
submitted as Exhibit G. Mr. Erspamer and Ms. Adams wanted to clarify a statement in Ms. Dart’s letter
regarding the City is proposing the changes, that the City is not proposing the changes.
11
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
Ms. Phelan stated the proposals for project twist the amount of floor area of free market to the lodge.
She acknowledged there are more keys, but the amount of additional sf for free market condominiums
are not guaranteed to be in the rental pool.
Ms. Adams added the applicant made a very good presentation on why we need lodge rooms and their
importance. Staff agrees with this need and stated this is the purpose of the lodge incentive program.
Supporting the lodge incentive program means the rentals are guaranteed. She stated Mr. Brown’s
comment in regards to the owner deciding if the unit is rentable is absolutely true.
Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from staff.
Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from the applicant.
Mr. Cunniffe stated this project is unique and there is nothing to compare it to. It’s not in a zoned
district specifically for lodging. The building has a lot of history to it and the proposal is partly in
response to a 2006 proposal and an affordable housing proposal subsequently approved. He feels P&Z
should evaluate the proposal on its own merits as a community benefit. In regards to parking, an
economy lodge by nature does not tend to attract cars. Less and less people come in cars. At the time of
reservation, the customer would be informed of the parking situation and the other transportation
modes including the bus, bike paths and shuttle service.
Mr. DeFrancia reinforced that the operating policy will always direct all parking first to the 33 spaces in
the garage. They will also looking restricting permanent parking by the rental condominium owners. He
thought it would be difficult to expand the parking area as suggested by Ms. Goldenberg. There will also
be a van service available on a scheduled basis. He felt the parking issues raised could be addressed to a
degree that people would not be displeased with the outcome.
Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from the applicant.
Mr. Erspamer opened for the commissioner’s comments.
Ms. Tygre stated there a lot things about the project that represents an improvement. Although she
feels the condominium hotel model is a good one based on her experience. She pointed out the studies
of visitors show that by far today’s market wants condominiums rather than lodges. She feels the
economy lodges are a good addition. However, she also agrees with staff that the project will be
imbalanced if you cannot guarantee the condominiums will be available for rental. She disagrees the
economy people will not use cars. She urged the applicant to guarantee the condominiums as rental
units.
Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Tygre for clarification regarding her stance restricting occupancy of the
condominium. She clarified her position there is limited maximum owner occupancy and it must be
rented when the owner is not using it.
Mr. Goode stated he would be in favor of Ms. Tygre’s position. He believes The Gant has year round
occupancy and this project is based off The Gant, which he feels is the most successful project in town
for many years. He does side with staff’s opinion for the project. He also agreed with Ms. Tygre’s
thoughts for improving the proposal but stated he would hate to discourage someone from living here
year round.
Mr. Erspamer likes Ms. Tygre’s position but also finds it difficult to restrict someone from living here
year round. He feels if the owners are restricted, they will stay for the peak season and make it
12
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
available for rental in the off season. He has not drawn his final conclusion, but wants to make it fair for
everyone. The other issue is parking. He feels if parking is limited, then you create a problem for people
to walk around. He thought a parking space rental may be a good idea. Parking is about $20,000 per slot.
His feeling is the economy people will be driving to Aspen. He would like to see more parking, but
understands the applicant is meeting the code. He won’t withhold because of the parking, but would
like to see it. He would also like to the buildings as three floors, not four. He would also like see to the
average over 300 sf, but understands it is not required by the code.
Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification regarding how many public parking spaces are being requested. He
thought they have 12 and are asking for more, but Mr. DeFrancia stated they are not dedicated. Ms.
Adams stated staff is not supportive of granting any privatization of the public spaces.
Mr. McNellis previously lived near the Boomerang and is saddened to see the hotel go into disrepair. He
taken back by the four stories and feels three stories is out of scale for a residential neighborhood. He
feels the mandate to make the units rentable directly opposes the parking problem. He feels it is a
perfect location for an economy type hotel. His greatest concern is preserving the original lodge unit.
The mass and scale of the new portion is overwhelming the original, historic portion and is too large for
the neighborhood.
Mr. McNellis motioned to extend the meeting until 7:20pm. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Nieuwland-Zlotnicki. Roll call vote: Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr.
Erspamer, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Gibbs no. Four in favor, two not in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Gibbs asked staff what the lodge overlay district provides beyond R-6 zoned district. Ms. Adams
stated it allows the proposed uses including the multi-family free market residential, affordable housing
and lodge.
Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki commend the applicant for choosing to preserve the Boomerang which is a
great resource to this town and community. He also appreciates the economy lodge approach. However,
he feels the dimensional increase is a dramatic departure from initially proposed. The size and number
of keys is commendable, but the ratio of free market to lodging is troubling. He concurs with staff’s
response.
Mr. Gibbs generally in agreement with the rest of the commission. He is also troubled by the fact of no
guarantee of rental condominiums. He would prefer to see more lodging the condominiums. He also
acknowledges this development will change the feel of the neighborhood. He wants to see a real,
significant attempt to say this will be a lodge. He does like the design including the diversity of sizes and
amenities, but he wants the development to stay a lodge.
Mr. Erspamer summarized the commissioner’s comments by stating the commissioners generally agree
with the staff’s response in regards to free market floor area is too much for the lodge as per the GMQS
requirement. In regards to the PUD review, the height and massing is not in concept with the
neighborhood. The affordable housing requirement has been met.
Ms. Tygre moved to continue the hearing on the Boomerang Lodge until August 12, 2014, seconded by
Mr. Goode. Roll call vote; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, yes; Mr.
Erspamer, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes. All in favor, motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm.
13
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2014
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
14