HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20140812 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, August 12, 2014
SPECIAL MEETING: 4:30pm. City Council Chambers
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
A. June 17, 2014
B. August 15, 2014
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) 500 W Hopkins Ave — Boomerang Lodge —PUD Amendment,
GMQS Review (Continued from June 17' and July 1St, 2014)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 1-3
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
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 5,2014
Stan Gibbs,Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Ryan
Watlerscheid, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode and Jason Elliot present.
Also present from City staff, Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Jonathan Hayden.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms.Tygre noted she had observed the new pits located at the Gondola Plaza intersection and urged the
other commissioners to also take a look at them.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan asked the commissioners to consider scheduling meeting on Tuesday,September
9th, 2014 in the Rio Grande meeting room for the possible u f the Sky Hotel Review.The
room has been reserved at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES - July 1, 2014
Ms.Tygre moved to approve the July 1, 2 in conded .Goode. All in favor, motion
carried.
MINUTES - July 014
Mr. McNellis asked for a catio age 15 to ify his statement regarding the barriers at the
end of the Iliot m e July 014 minutes with the modification, seconded
by Mr.W favo ion ca
DECLA ON OF C IC NTEREST
There were n
Public Hearing 0 pkins, Boomerang Lodge, PUD Amendment,
GMQS Revie
Mr. Gibbs opened the public ring.
Ms. Quinn reviewed the affidavits of public notice and they are appropriate. They affidavits will be
included as exhibit E in the final file.
Mr. Hayden provided the background and summary of the applicant's request including existing height
of exterior wall sections and the materials proposed for the exterior walls. Staff is concerned with the
consistency of the materials applied since only select facades of the building will have the new siding.
They do not want a bunch of different styles for the building.
1
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 5,2014
Mr. Gibbs asked if there were any questions for staff, which there were none.
Mr. Gibbs turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Michael Hassig is representing the applicant. He stated the owner wants to make minor exterior
changes including removing the copper wainscot, painting all facades, including the top area of the
building, with a color and installing new siding panels on the prominent walls of the building. He
reviewed the areas to be changed shown on Exhibit 1(a).
Mr. Gibbs asked if there were any questions for the Mr. Hassig.
Ms.Tygre asked what color will be used. Mr. Hassig stated the p ' or will be a neutral dark green
and the final selection will be made to match the new siding
Mr. Gibbs asked if they had considered replacing the co pp f o e entrance of the building. Mr.
Hassig stated the project only considered the walls of uilding an he roof.
Mr. Gibbs then asked for any public comment.T as no comment.
Mr. Gibbs asked staff for any rebuttal or clarification a applic 's presentat here was none.
Mr. Gibbs opened the discussion betty mmissioners.
Ms.Tygre stated she did not agree with orted th osed minor exterior upgrades to
the building.
The commissioners the a follows dditi esol below#1 under the
paragraph beginning ow, fore..."
2. The exterior pain gn will lude a ne nochromatic color scheme.
3. The co r roof re a nstalle
4. T woo g t ass n in exhibit 1(a).
Mr. W cheid moved rove lution#1 , ies 2014 approving the Final Commercial Design
Review i g the additio ntifie ve. Mr. Goode seconded. Roll call vote; Mr. Gibbs,yes; Ms.
Tygre,yes; atlerscheid,y r. Mc yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Elliot,yes. All in favor, motion
carried.
Mr. Gibbs then adjo the me
Cindy Klob
City Clerk's Office, Records Manager
2
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission - - - June 17,2014
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 Klob
Records Manager
1
P1
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 and July
1St.
MEETING DATE: August 12, 2014
APPLICANT/OWNER: 41,315 so. The free market residential component is
Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC significantly increased from 5 units to 14 units and
from a floor area of 13,508 sf to 22,325 sf. Lodge
REPRESENTATIVE: floor area is reduced from 29,653 sf to 15,357 sf.
Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht, Lodge unit density is increased from 47 to 54
P.C.; James DeFrancia, Lowe (including 10 lock-offs) and the average unit size is
Enterprises; and Charles Cunniffe proposed to be decreased from 501 sf to 253 sf. The
Architects floor area and density of the affordable housing units
is increased to mitigate for the new free market
LOCATION: residential units. At}revised proposal was submitted
500 W. Hopkins Avenue, between for the August 12 hearing that restricts owner
Fourth and Fifth Streets. occupancy of 8 of the 14 free market residential
units. In addition the height of the four story lodge
CURRENT ZONING: wing was reduced and 2 lodge units were removed.
R-6 (Medium Density Residential) and The project is vested under the December 2005 Land
Lodge Preservation Overlay, Planned Use Code until October 20, 2015.
Unit Development(PUD) Overlay
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
SUMMARY: Staff finds that the review criteria are not met for an
The Applicant requests approval to amendment to the PUD and recommends denial of
amend the 2006 PUD approval, to the requested amendment.
amend the Subdivision approval, to
amend Growth Management, and
Commercial Design Review. The
proposed project increases the overall
density of the project (from 54 total
units to 63 total units) and decreases the < n
overall floor area(from 44,915 sf to _ -
�. mow, _.
Photo: Historic wing of the Boomerang Lodge.
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 1 of I 1
P2
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.
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 2ofII
P3
MU
r r
-Y
V.
t`
Figure 1: Zone District Map of subject parcel and surrounding neighborhood.
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.
u. 1 � 1 '
Figure 2: Recorded Elevation(Hopkins Ave.)for the approved Boomerang Lodge(2006)
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 3 of I 1
P4
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—AUGUST 12,2014: During the July 1 St meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission raised the following concerns (Draft minutes from the meeting are attached as
Exhibit H):
1). Not a lodge project: there is too much free market residential in comparison to the lodge
component. Explore a rental restriction for free market residential units. Questions about
the limited amount of back of house areas for the lodge component.
2) Out of scale with the neighborhood context.
The applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns by committing 8 of the 14 free
market residential units to have an owner occupancy restriction (owner can use the unit no more
than 6 months out of the year) and a mandatory requirement that the unit be in the rental pool the
remainder of the time. This is similar to the "vacation residence" program proposed as part of the
Lodge Incentive program. The 2005 Land Use Code does not recognize these rental restricted
units as lodge units; however the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may
incorporate these units and the required restriction as part of the PUD approvals.
The Commission raised questions about the operation of the lodge and the very limited back of
house area (only a small laundry room, office, and storage area are proposed). The applicant
represents that an offsite management company is proposed to operate the lodge and
condominiums. Staff is concerned about the sustainability of this proposal and the absence of
onsite lodge operation spaces for future management changes.
In response to the concerns about neighborhood context, the applicant reduced the height of the
four story lodge wing by about 3 feet. The maximum height of the four story building is now
39'10" measured from the pool deck. The floor to ceiling heights of the lodge rooms are
proposed to be 7'6".
The lodge unit numbers have been reduced by 2 units for a total of 44 lodge units with 10 lock
offs (total of 54 lodge keys). The updated parking requirement is provided below:
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 4 of 11
P5
Lodge:
44 lodge units+ 10 lock offs= 54 lodge units
54 proposed units—34 lodge unit credit=20 lodge units requiring parking
20 lodge units/0.5 space per unit= 10 lodge parking spaces
Residential:
14 free market residential units+ 5 affordable housing units= 19 residential units
19 residential units/1 space per unit= 19 residential parking spaces
19 space+ 10 spaces =29 required parking spaces and 33 onsite spaces provided
Members of the public raised questions about the right of way parking represented on the site
plan. The applicant has a revocable encroachment license for the 12 head in spaces in front of
the historic wing. The Parking Department and the Engineering Department are not supportive
of maintaining the head in parking spaces along Fourth Street.
Staff response: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to commit 8 units to the rental
market for half of the year. However, Staff remains concerned that the project does not contain
enough lodge and rental restricted free market units to warrant the requested variances and to
meet the review criteria for a PUD amendment.
The height reduction of only the lodge component of the project shrinks the lodge units, which
already average 243 sf in size, to an uncomfortable floor to ceiling height of 7'6". Staff
recognizes that these are intended to be economy lodge unit, but the further reduction of these
units does not support the lodging component. Staff does not support the reduction of 2 lodge
units from the project: Staff finds that the number of lodge units should be maintained as
proposed or increased without increasing the mass of the project. Staff recommends that a
reduction of height, mass and,scale be across the entire project, not just the lodge component
which was reduced in height, to meet the review criteria and relate to the neighborhood.
Staff recommends that the project contain 2 and 3 story elements with a maximum of 28' to 32'
in height (similar to the Lodge zone district requirements) and a combination of only lodge,
affordable housing and rental restricted free market units to fit into the neighborhood and to
meet the intent of the Lodge Preservation Overlay. Staff recognizes that the applicant requests a
portion of the project have a free market residential component, in which case Staff recommends
that the project be greatly reduced in size to meet the review criteria. Staff has communicated
these options to the applicant. Both scenarios require more onsite back of house operational
spaces for the lodge.
Staff is supportive of a lodge on the historic Boomerang site and would like to see the restoration
of the lodge use in the landmark wing; however Staff does not support the proposed mass and
scale considering the ratio of uses. The commitment of 8 free market units to the rental market
for half of the year is appreciated, but does not go far enough to meet the review criteria. Staff
finds that the proposed variances and ratio of uses do not meet the review criteria and
recommends denial of the project.
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 5 of I 1
P6
UPDATED PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
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 August 12' Hotel Aspen
ro osal 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%)
44 (with 10 lock
Lodge Density 47 45 offs) = 54
54 units total
FMR Density 5 16 14 3
42.5' for 4 story 42.5' for 4 story 39.5' for 4 story 28' for lodge
Maximum lodge building lodge building lodge building building
height 36.5' for free 36.5' for free avg. 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 August 12th 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 44 (+10 lock offs) = 54 units
total
Average Lodge Unit Size 501 sf 253 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
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 6 of 11
P7
Average Free Market Unit Size 2,147 sf 1,444 sf
Affordable Housing Floor Area 1,384 sf 3,633 sf
Affordable Housing Units 2 5
Overall Floor Area 44,915 sf 41,315 sf
Overall Densiq 54 units 63 units
Parking 31 garage spaces 33 garage spaces (29 spaces
are required)
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
39'6" 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 is required to provide 29 parking spaces and the project proposes 33
parking spaces onsite. Surface parking spaces, most of which are in the right of way (ROW), are
represented on the site plan and are subject to Engineering and Parking Department approval
through an encroachment license. A current encroachment license exists for the 12 spaces along
Fourth Street, however, the Parking Department is not supportive of privatizing the surface
parking spaces in the right of way and the license is subject to revocation upon redevelopment of
the property.
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.
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 7of11
P8
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' S' 5' 2'
(Hopkins Ave.
Minimum side yards- 15' S' 5' 3'
Minimum rear yard 10' 5' S' 0'
Maximum height 25' 28' As per PUD roof As per PUD roof
plan- max height plan — no significant
between approx. 34' change from 2006
6"—42' 6" approval
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 sf 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 253 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 31 onsite spaces 33 onsite spaces
parking spaces for single family/ and 1 space per
duplex residential unit
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
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 proposes 1 lodge unit per 500 sf of lot area.
To detennine the R-6 zone district floor area, Staff assumed a lot split that divided the property into 4 lots, I 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
8/12/14
Page 8 of 11
P9
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. Staff finds that restricting 8 of the 14 free market residential units as
rentals for 6 months of the year is a positive step forward for the project, but does not go far
enough to meet the review criteria. The proposed height is more than 10 feet taller than that
allowed in the R-6 zone district and the proposed mass and scale are out of character with the
mostly 2 story neighborhood.
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 finds that the GMQS review criteria are not met.
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 sf) 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
residential), was appropriate at the time to allow the height and floor area that was approved.
500 W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 9ofII
P10
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. Placing a rental requirement on 8 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 and the neighborhood context. 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: Staff finds that the review criteria are met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission either
deny the requested Growth Management allotments.
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."
Attachments:
Exhibit A—Staff Findings, GMQS Review Criteria revised 8/12/2014
Exhibit B—Staff Findings, PUD Review Criteria revised 8/12/2014
Exhibit C—Staff Findings, Subdivision Review Criteria revised 8/12/2014
Exhibit D— Staff Findings, Commercial Design Review Criteria revised 8/12/2014
Exhibit E—Development Review Committee Comments revised 7/1/2014
500.W. Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 10 of 11
Pil
Exhibit F—Application provided on 6/17/2014, revised on 7/1/2014, and revised on 8/12/2014
Exhibit G—Public comment provided on 7/1/2014
Exhibit H—Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT meeting minutes dated 7/1/2014
500 W.Hopkins Ave.—Boomerang Lodge
Staff Memo
8/12/14
Page 11 of 11
P12
RESOLUTION N0._
(SERIES OF 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DENYING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 54 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: 273512449002
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, which was continued to August 12, 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)
P13
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, specifically review criteria 26.470.040.C.3 (b) and
26.470.040.C.7(b); 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 12th day of
August, 2014.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
.Page 2 of 2
P&Z Resolution No.—(2014)
P14
Exhibit A- Growth Management Review—Substantial amendment (2005 Land Use Code)
26.470.080.13 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.C.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 approved 2006 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 2005 PUD "other" amendment review standard 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.
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 8/12/14
Page 1 of 6
P15
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."
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. The applicant commits 8 of the 14 free market residential units to be
deed restricted with an owner occupancy limit of no more than 6 months per year. This is a
positive change, however Staff finds that it does not go far enough to create a long term
sustainable economy with the proposed ratio of uses.
2012 AACP:
Managing Growth—
Chapter IV. Lodging Sector
IV.I "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:
® Create certainty in land development.
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 8/12/14
Page 2 of 6
P16
0 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
I11.1. "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 I 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 lodge rooms with an average size of
about 253 sf. Staff is concerned that the proposed project, specifically the free market
residential floor area, does not meet the adopted policy 1111. 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 which is proposed to be 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.C.2 — Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use
Development
Staff response: The revised application proposes I lodge unit per 500 square feet of Lot Area
(27,000 sf of lot area/54 lodge units = 500) . 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:
i. Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Carriage House for each
residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 8/12/14
Page 3 of 6
P17
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 Response: 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. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
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.
Staff Response: The historic Boomerang lodge had 34 lodge rooms, which is applied as
a credit to the proposed project. The applicant proposes 44 + 10 lock offs = 54 lodge
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 8/12/14
Page 4 of 6
P18
rooms which means mitigation is required for 20 units (54-34 = 20). The Code states an
employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom: (20*0.3 = 6 FTEs). The Code
requires mitigation of 30% of the employees generated by the additional lodge which
equals 1.8 FTEs (6 *30% =1.8 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.
26.470.040.0.7 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 I of this
exhibit). Staff finds this criterion is not met.
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.
Staff Response: A recommendation from APCHA is included in the DRC comments.
APCHA is supportive of the proposed units. APCHA and Staff recommend that 5 parking
Exhibit A-GMQS
Boomerang
Revised 8/12/14
Page 5 of 6
P19
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. Staff
finds this criterion is met with conditions.
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. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
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 8/12/14
Page 6 of 6
P20
Exhibit B—PUD Other Amendment (2005 Land Use Code)
26.445.100.13 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. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 1 of 12
P21
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
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 2of12
P22
Maximum Allowable 0.5:1 or 1.5:1 or 1.66:1 or 1.53:1 or
floor area 13,720 se 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 253 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 31 underground 33 underground
parking spaces for single family/ lodge unit and 1 and 12 surface spaces
duplex space/ residential spaces in the
units right of way
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 is concerned that there is very limited back of house space to operate
the lodge independent of an off-site management company which limits future
operations. 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 253 sf on the
four floors of the lodge with a total of 10 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/
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 54 lodge
I 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.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 12
P23
rooms do not represent a range of unit sizes that are attractive to broad segment of
the potential guests.
The applicant commits an owner usage restriction for 8 of the 14 free market
residential units to no more than 6 months per year with a commitment that the units
will be in the rental pool when not used by the owner. Staff finds this criterion is not
met and recommends that the free market residential component be reduced in size,
and that more of the free market units have owner usage restriction.
3. The extent of additional lodge units being added to the inventory.
Staff response: The project proposes to add 20 new lodge units (54 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. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
4. The number and average size of lodging units being provided.
Staff response: 54 lodge units that average 253 square feet are proposed.
5. Any legal or physical limitations of the property such that additional incentive is
necessary to develop guest accommodations.
Staff response: Staff is not aware of any legal or physical limitation of the property
that requires a free market residential floor area that is 50% more than the lodge
floor area. Staff appreciates the 8 owner restricted units, but finds that the amount of
free market floor area does not warrant the requested variances. 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. While this is the
current proposal, there is little flexibility in the operational aspects of the building
design to support an independently operated lodge. Staff is concerned that there is
not enough back of house operation space to support the lodge to operate
independent of a private management company.
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
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 4of12
P24
free market residential use; however the majority of the lodge units 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.
The applicant represents that 8 of the 14 free market residential units will have owner
occupancy restrictions — owner may use the unit for up to 6 months a year, the
remainder of the year unit is in the rental pool. 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 and the mass 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. Staff
finds this criterion is not met.
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
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
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 offree market residential floor area. Stafffinds this criterion is not
met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from
GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 5 of 12
P25
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. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
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 residential component that was accessory to the primary lodge 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:
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 6 of 12
P26
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.
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:
20 new lodge units @ 0.5 space/unit = 10 spaces
19 new units for the residential component( 14 FMR and 5 AH) @ 1 space/unit =19
spaces
Total of 10 + 19 =29 spaces required and 33 Mara,-es 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. A Wecycle station is proposed to be incorporated onsite.
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 land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail
in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes
harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 7 of 12
P27
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
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. Staff finds this criterion is met.
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 vehicle 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.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 8 of 12
P28
D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with
existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff response: The applicant proposes simple landscaping in the right of way that
follows a new 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. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
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
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
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
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 9 of 12
P29
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.
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.
Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
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.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities
together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial
development.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to restore the historic courtyard and pool area
adjacent to the historic landmark wing. The common area is proposed for use by free market
and lodge occupants. Staff recommends that the common areas be available for use by the
affordable housing units as well. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 10 of 12
P30
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
necessary upgrades and requirements to be mitigated by the developer. Staff finds this
criterion to be met with conditions.
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.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expression for the PUD, or for lots
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.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page l 1 of 12
P31
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.
Staff response: No phasing is proposed at this time. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Exhibit B-PUD review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 12 of 12
P32.
Exhibit C—Subdivision Amendment(2005 Land Use Code)
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. Staff
finds this criterion is not met.
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
character of the existing land uses in the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be
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. Stafffnds this criterion is not
met.
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. Staff
finds this criterion is met with conditions.
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,
Exhibit C—Subdivision review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page l of 3
P33
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.
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. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds this criterion is met with conditions.
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. Stafffinds this criterion is met.
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.
Stafffinds this criterion is met with conditions.
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
Exhibit C—Subdivision review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 2 of 3
P34
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.
Staff re,s onse: GMQS is being processed concurrently with the PUD and Subdivision
amendments. Allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
Exhibit C—Subdivision review criteria
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 3
P35
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Standards (2005 Land Use Code)
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 of the adjoining sidewalk, or right of way if no sidewalk 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 finds 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
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 1 of 4
P36
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 26.575.030.17 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. Staff finds this criteria is met.
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
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 2 of 4
P37
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. Staff finds this criteria is met.
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.
3. Above grade parking garages in commercial districts shall incorporate ground
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 from the alley. Some surface
parking spaces are requested along the street which are subject to review and approval by
the Engineering Department. Staff finds this criteria is met with conditions.
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.
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Review
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 4
P38
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
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 with
conditions.
Exhibit D—Commercial Design Review
8/12/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 4 of 4
P39
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 permit.
Exhibit E—DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Pagel of 5
P40
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
P41
Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage
Principals:
/.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.
Updated Engineering comments: 8112/14-
Engineering Staff reviewed the site plan during a site visit and is concerned that the use of
head-in parking will severely limit the pedestrian walking width of the sidewalk. The distance
from the existing edge of the sidewalk to the inner edge of the drainage plan (property side) is
less than 18 ft. During the last DRC, Josh Rice stated that vehicle overhang onto the sidewalk
was a concern. The site visit has only strengthened the Department's opinion that head-in
parking is not a viable option. It is the Department's opinion that either diagonal parking or
parallel parking should be utilized to minimize the effect parking will have on the effective
sidewalk width. A more detailed site plan should be provided to better exhibit the interaction of
the parking area with the sidewalk.
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
walking surface due to vehicle overhang. The head-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.
Exhibit E—DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 3 of 5
P42
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.
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 4t" & Hopkins. All
Exhibit E—DRC
7/1/2014
Boomerang Lodge
Page 4 of 5
P43
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.
Parking:
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.
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
P4'Re2ular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 1,2014
U Erspamer,Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs,Jasmine Tygre,
Brian McNellis, Keith Goode and 011ie 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 P45
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 S6 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 V 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
P46Regular 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 P47
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
P4 8Regular 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 staffs 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 P49
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
P50
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 Pavicek 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
P51
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. Pavicek 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. Pavicek reviewed slides of the amenity spaces including the pool, pool deck,spa, lounge, laundry
facility, public restrooms and Patterson room including the fireplace.
Mr. Pavicek 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 zooms_Itslodging_
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
P52
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 P53
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 4`h 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
P54
ReEular MeetinL PlanninE& 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 51h 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 P55
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
P56
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
P57
Regular Meeting Plannin!& Zoning Commission July 1,2014
Cindy Klob
City Clerk's Office, Records Manager
14
P58
Sara Adams
From: Chris Bendon
Sent: Tuesday,August 05, 2014 3:49 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: FW:from Allyn Harvey, Comment on Boomerang redevelopment proposal
Cheers, Chris.
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: Allyn Harvey [mailto:scoopharvey @yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday, August 05, 2014 3:02 PM
To: Steve Skadron; Adam Frisch; Chris Bendon; Art Daily; Ann Mullins; Dwayne Romero
Subject: from Allyn Harvey, Comment on Boomerang redevelopment proposal
August 5, 2014
Dear City Council,
It appears to me that developers of the Boomerang Lodge property on W. Hopkins Ave. in the Shadow Mountain
neighborhood are for a third time attempting to gain City Council approval for a large and out-of-scale development
with a revised proposal that only appears to line up with community needs. This latest proposal, like the previous
two, is an attempt to maximize the scale and mass of the development.
If this development is approved, with hotel rooms and condos, presumably including two or three penthouses that
are not available for rent, the result will be an inappropriately large building in what is otherwise a low-rise
neighborhood. The impacts will be real and detrimental to neighbors along and around Hopkins between Third and
Seventh Streets, who have absorbed over the years a fair share of community-oriented development, including the
large and arguably too-tall Jewish Community Center, and two significant affordable housing complexes. I urge City
Council and city staff to remain mindful of the current residents and the impacts that such a large development
and commercial operation would have on their lives. If the developer were simply asking for the condominiums
requested, plus the required affordable housing, the lot would be fully impacted. Add a hotel and the necessary
commercial space (front desk, laundry, offices, maintenance) to that total and you've got a potentially gargantuan
project.
The history this property should provoke caution on your part. Under the administration of Mayor Helen
Klanderud, the developer proposed and received approval for a high-end condominium lodge, which fit in with
1
development approvals at the time. Once Mayor Mick Ireland was elected, the city's focus turned to affordable P59
housing, and the developers came in and received a revised approval for a large affordable housing complex that
was initially envisioned to cover every square inch of the lot and force parking impacts onto the streets of the
surrounding neighborhood.The compromise that was approved by the City Council under Mayor Ireland was not
enough to prevent neighbors from filing a lawsuit. Now, with a new council, the developer appears to have stuck
their finger in the air and determined that the current climate in Aspen's community development department and
on City Council favors hotel rooms. They're seeking new approvals that have the appearance of fitting into the city's
overall needs, but at the expense of the neighborhood and other community values.
The West Hopkins Avenue bike-and-ped-way, for instance, is a refuge for locals and visitors alike, safely connecting
the commercial core to Shadow Mountain, the Marolt Open Space, the Holden-Marolt historic area, and the
Midland Trail. Does it make sense to allow a block-long three- to four-story building with commercial operations to
irrevocably impact this valuable community. asset? Beyond the immediate block, what impact will the cars
associated with 60-100 guests and 17 condominiums have on West Hopkins? Is the city ready to give up a three-
block section of the pedestrian and cyclist byway in order to accommodate this developer? I fear that West Hopkins,
from Sixth Street through Third Street will look much more like Hopkins Avenue between Paepcke Park and Francis
Whittaker Park, filled with parked cars all the time, and much less pedestrian and cyclist friendly.
Furthermore, I hope that you'll question the viability of their plan. The nearby St. Moritz Hotel offers similarly
affordable accommodations and often advertises vacancies during busy summer and winter weeks. Creating a
similarly priced hotel without the charm or long-term ownership seems to be risky at best.
The section of land between Shadow Mountain and Main Street is narrow and diverse. This neighborhood has
shown resilience over the decades with its ability to absorb different types of development— single family homes,
small apartment buildings, duplexes, and small lodges, like the original Boomerang. By approving a development
that is significantly out of scale with this neighborhood, one that belongs closer to the core, City Council may well
end up ruining this area of town.
For the record, I own no property and have no investments in this part of town. I've never lived there. But as
someone who grew up in Aspen, and currently does business and recreates in town, I am concerned about how
development impacts neighborhoods. From Carbondale, where I live, and as fellow elected official, it appears to me
that this developer is really seeking a condominium development but is using the promise of hotbeds as an
enticement for Council. This is a particularly aggressive proposal, in terms of maximizing the development's
footprint, and it comes at the expense of the neighborhood, so I urge you to be equally aggressive in protecting
community interests with your review and not be a afraid to say no.
Respectfully,
Allyn Harvey
Carbondale
(970) 618-2342
Allyn Harvey
Allyn Harvey Communications,LLC
scoopharvey&-ahoo.com
970-618-2342
2
�04
ASPEN OFI
601 East Hyman Avenue GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C.
Aspen,Colorado 81611
Telephone(970)925-1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Facsimile(970)925-3008 Since 1975
www.gatfieldhecht.com ,rr
E. Michael Hoffman
an
com
Direct Phone: (970) 544-3442
July 28, 2014
Ms. Sara Adams
Senior Planner
Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Additional Use and Design Changes in Boomerang Lodge and Condominiums
Application
Dear Sara:
Thanks to you and the Planning and Zoning Commission for the opportunity we had on July 1,
2014, to make an initial presentation of our application to build the Boomerang Lodge and
Condominiums. In the course of that meeting the Commissioners commented on our proposal.
Their comments are summarized as follows:
1. The location is a good one for an economy lodge and condominium project. The fact that
the Boomerang Lodge existed on the site for over 55 years is important, as is the reality that the
entire half-block area is available for this project. There are few such sites available in Aspen for
lodging use.
2. The Commissioners want assurance that some of the free market condominium units will
be consistently available to the public for short-term lodging use.
3. The height of the new lodge wing should be reduced to better relate to the historically-
designated "East Wing."
We have modified our proposal in response to the Commissioner's comments to the application
as outlined below.
Ms. Sara Adams
July 28, 2014
Page 2
A. Commitment of Eight Condominiums to Lodging Use.
By this letter, the applicant hereby commits to record a covenant applicable to eight of the 14
proposed condominium units which will limit the owner's use of the unit to no more than six
months per year and require that it be included the project's rental pool for short-term occupancy
when not in use by the owner. This short-term rental requirement is consistent with the
"Vacation Residence" program now being considered by City Council. The applicant's
commitment to record this covenant is independent of any decisions made by City Council
regarding the ordinance now under review. We will work with the City Attorney to draft
language which meets the terms of the applicant's commitment.
The eight "Vacation Residence" units are shown on the floor plans submitted with this letter.
They will be located in the project's central building and in the building adjacent to Fifth Street.
An equal number of three- and two-bedroom units will be "Vacation Residences." The total floor
area of the Vacation Residence units is 11,716 square feet.
When the floor area of the Vacation Residences is included with the floor area of the hotel units,
the lodging character of the project is clearly dominant.
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Percentage Percentage
July 1 Proposal of Total Current Proposal of Total
Non-Unit Floor Area 4,531 4,531
Lodging Floor Area 13,681 13,681
Vacation Residence Floor
Area 0 11,716
Total Lodge, Vacation 18,212 44% 29,928 72%
Residence and Non-Unit
Free-Market Residential 19,878 48% 8,162 20%
Floor Area(sq. ft.)
Affordable Housing Floor 3,225 8% 3,225 8%
Area(sq. ft.)
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 41,315 100% 41,315 100%
As currently proposed, 25,397 square feet, or 61% of the project's total floor area of 41,315
square feet, is now committed to specific lodging use. The majority of the "Non-Unit Floor
Area" listed above is attributable to amenities available to lodge, Vacation Residence and free
market residential users of the project. When that floor area is added in the other lodging-related
calculation,the total lodging-related square footage is 29,928, or 72% of the project.
The free market residential units made up about 24% of the floor area of the project approved by
the City in 2006. As shown above, the free market residential condominium units (not subject to
Ms. Sara Adams
July 28, 2014
Page 3
the Vacation Residences use restriction) make up only 20% of the floor area in the proposed
project.
The point of the above elaboration is to demonstrate that the proposed Boomerang Lodge and
Condominiums is a lodge project.
B. The Character of the New Lodge Wing has been Changed to Create a Better Relationship
with the Historically-Designated Structure.
At the July 1 meeting the Commission commented that the new lodge wing should better relate
to the historically-designated structure located on the eastern side of the property. In response to
that comment the architecture of the new lodge wing has been modified to be more compatible
with and deferential to the designated structure while maintaining separation from it. The new
construction will still be recognized as the product of its own time.
The floor-to-ceiling height of the lodge rooms in the historically-designated East Wing is seven
feet, six inches. To improve the relationship with the East Wing, the floor-to-ceiling height of
rooms in the new lodge wing have now also been set to seven feet, six inches. Even though we
have retained the four-story design of the new lodge wing, the total height of the structure is 34
feet, four inches. This represents a reduction in building height of nearly three feet. The building
height of the new lodge wing is now slightly lower than that of the adjacent three-story central
building.
C. An Unencumbered Free Market Residential Component is Necessary to Fund An y Lodge
Project.
The City's Community Development Department recently commissioned a study of the
economic feasibility of building and operating a hotel in Aspen. The results of that study, carried
out by Travis Coggin, Development Director of Triumph Development, were received on July
14, 2014. A copy of Mr. Coggin's summary report (the "Feasibility Study") is attached to this
supplemental application as Exhibit A.
Triumph considered three different sets of assumptions in the Feasibility Study. Under the first
set ("Set 1"), a project the size of The Limelight was conceived which offered only hotel rooms,
was three stories in height and paid all of the City's mitigation and impact fees. The second set
of assumptions ("Set 2") utilized the same hypothetical project, but increased the height to four
stories and proportionately increased the total floor area of the project, and allocated 50% of the
hotel floor area to free market residential use. In the final assumption set ("Set 3"), Triumph
utilized the hypothetical project of Set 2, but reduced the affordable housing mitigation
requirement by 60% and used the resulting space for more hotel and free market residential
space.
The results of the Triumph study are highly relevant to the Boomerang Lodge and
Condominiums application. Triumph found that "a pure hotel that fits the current City of Aspen
zoning requirements [as described in Set 1] is not a feasible project."
Ms. Sara Adams
July 28, 2014
Page 4
Triumph also found Set 2 to be infeasible -- a four-story, two-thirds lodge, one-third free market
residential project cannot be financially justified in Aspen. Under the scenarios evaluated by
Triumph, only Set 3 delivered a project which was economically feasible. To achieve financial
viability under the consultant's model, it was necessary to build a four-story 166,512 square foot
project in which 60% of the affordable housing mitigation requirement had been waived.
Triumph found that there are two ways for the City to encourage lodge development in Aspen.
One is to reduce the costs of the project by lowering fees and other requirements, such as
affordable housing mitigation. Cost reduction can only go so far, however. "Reductions in fees
and affordable housing requirements are beneficial, but those reductions alone are not substantial
enough to deliver a feasible project."
The other method of encouraging lodge development in the City, according to the consultant, is
"to allow for the construction of free market residential units where the revenue from the sales is
used to pay down the cost of the project to a point where the hotel can service the debt." A
comprehensive solution "will require a combination of increased height, allowed FAR, and free
market residential, as well as decreased fees and affordable housing mitigation to create a
feasible hotel."
While the Boomerang project includes certain of the factors suggested in the Feasibility Study, it
calls for even fewer of the suggested mitigations. The height of the proposal is reasonable and
lower than the project approved by the City in 2006. Total floor area has also been reduced in
the current proposal from 44,915 square feet (approved in 2006) to 41,315 square feet. As
discussed above,the unencumbered free market component of the current project represents only
20% of its total floor area. "Pure" hotel and Vacation Residence space make up 72% of the
proposed floor area. Finally, the applicant has not requested any decrease in affordable housing
mitigation required in the project.
D. Relevance of LP Overlay and R-6 Zoning to the Boomerang Site.
The Boomerang site was granted PUD overlay zoning in the 2006 approval for a
condominiumized lodge. In addition to the PUD, the site carries two other zone designations --
R-6, Medium-Density Residential, and LP, Lodge Preservation Overlay. The existence of these
two additional designations is an artifact of the rich history of Aspen and the Boomerang Lodge.
That history was succinctly recounted by Jennifer Phelan in a staff memorandum dated
December 14, 2012, related to a prior land use application submitted by the property owner. It is
reprinted below. (In reviewing Ms. Phelan's narrative it is important to remember that the
Boomerang Lodge operated on this site from 1950 to 2007, when the old hotel was largely
demolished to make way for the newly approved condominiumized lodge. That project did not
proceed due to fallout of the "Great Recession.")
Ms. Sara Adams
July 28,2014
Page 5
Additional Information on the 'downzoning' of the Shadow Mountain
neighborhood.
Staff researched past zone district maps and comprehensive plans to provide the
following information on zoning changes over time in the neighborhood. The
planning and zoning history of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood shows that it
was originally zoned "Tourist" (T) in the 1950s, the same as the Aspen Alps,
Waters,Ute neighborhood on the east side of Aspen Mountain.
The name of the zone district changed to "Accommodations/Recreation" (A/R) in
the 1960s, but the purpose remained the same, according to the 1966 General
Plan: "A broad designation developed to cover several specific groupings of
accommodations, related commercial facilities and recreation areas, which are the
planning area's basic economy."
However, as growth reached double-digit annual levels in the early 1970s, City
government used downzoning to slow down development on both the Shadow
Mountain neighborhood and the Alps/Water Street/Ute area of town.
The 1973 Land Use Plan designated both areas as " Residential/Mixed," and both
were rezoned to a mixture of R-6, R-15, some R/MF and PUDs. The 1973 Land
Use Plan called for "a mix of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts of
professional office and visitor accommodation uses in areas where these
conditions presently exist."
The intent to limit a further proliferation of lodges was clearly stated: "Only
existing lodges should be considered for expansion in order to provide appropriate
guest rooms . . ."
Just one example of downzoning in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood occurred
when 700 West Hopkins was annexed into the City in 1975, and was zoned R-6
(single-family or duplex) despite the presence of nine multi-family units on the
property.
These sweeping downzonings were partially undone in 1982, when the City
recognized that existing lodges should not be so out of conformity with their
underlying zoning. A study identified existing lodges -- including the Boomerang
--and rezoned them from residential districts to lodging districts.
The first purpose of the Lodge Preservation(LP) Overlay zone district, as described in the 2005 Land
Use Code "is to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge
Ms. Sara Adams
July 28, 2014
Page 6
accommodations."' The Boomerang Lodge operated as a lodge on this site for longer than most of
the surrounding neighborhood has existed. The majority of the historic hotel was demolished after
the 2006 condominiumized lodge approval was granted by the City but that approval still represents a
vested right of the applicant and restoration of the remaining wing continues to be a major element of
the proposed project.
As discussed at our first meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and as outlined in our
application, as supplemented, the applicant's proposed redevelopment of the site is compatible with
the neighborhood, consistent with the dimensional requirements of surrounding zone districts and
quite similar to the manner in which the historic Boomerang Lodge was operated. Each of these
elements is important to the achievement of another purpose of LP overlay zoning as stated in the
Code, that is "to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent
properties.i2 That goal has been,and remains, an important objective identified in all versions of the
Aspen Area Community Plan because it is essential to the civic and financial vitality of the City.
Sincerely,
E. Michael Hoffman
' Section 26.710.320 A.
2 id.
Exhibit A
Triumph Devetopment
,ww triumphdev.com
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director, City of Aspen
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner, City of Aspen
From: Travis Coggin, Development Director, Triumph Development
Date: July 14, 2014
Subject: Aspen Hotel Feasibility Study
Overview
Earlier this year the City of Aspen Community Development Department approached Triumph
Development and presented the challenge the City of Aspen was facing with understanding
the feasibility of developing new hotel products in Aspen. The following parameters were
provided as a target for zoning constraints and type of hotel the City was interested in
investigating feasibility given existing code requirements and a potential lodge incentive
program:
Zoning & Lot Area:
• 40,000 square foot lot — this is similar in size to the lot areas of the Limelight Hotel, the
Lift One Lodge parcel, The Sky Hotel Parcel, The Lift One Townhomes parcel.
• The parcel is zoned "Lodge" and has the associated zoning requirements related to
height, setbacks, density, FAR, etc.
Target Hotel Type
• Similar to the Limelight Hotel
• This is used for room size, occupancy, and Average Daily Rate (ADR)
assumptions in the model
■ The Average Daily Rate is the Total Room Revenue divided by the Total
Rooms Sold
• This also helps understand the finish level, amenity requirements, commercial /
restaurant spaces, etc.
STAR Report Summary
• Hotels Included:
o Limelight Lodge; The Sky Hotel; Aspen Meadows Resort; Snowmass Mountain
Chalet
• Metrics
• Reported Average Occupancy: 59%
• Reported Average Daily Rate: $258
P.970.479.9990 12 Vail Road,Suite 700
F.970.479.0619 Vail,CO 81657
Disclaimer: This exercise is dependent on numerous assumptions that we believe to be
realistic but cannot be relied upon as "fixed" for all scenarios. As with any "model" it is highly
probable that assumptions can fluctuate either in a positive or negative manner very quickly.
However, at this time we believe that the assumptions in this model are strong approximations
of cost and revenue based on developer, contractor, and operator information. The
programmatic elements of the hotel are based on existing hotel design prototypes from
Marriott that resembles a Limelight-like product.
When determining feasibility, the financial hurdles we used in this exercise would be the same
that we would use when evaluating a project and are standard to the industry when evaluating
real estate development deals. If someone were to present us the scenario described in Model
3 (described later in the memo) we would spend the time and money to pursue it.
Background on Triumph Development
Founded in 2002, Triumph Development is a boutique developer that has offices in Vail, CO
and Bethesda, MD. We have experience across numerous real estate types including office,
retail, commercial, industrial, mixed use, hotel, medical and residential. Additionally, we own a
property management company, a luxury vacation rental company, and a Sotheby's brokerage
office in Vail, CO.
We are currently involved in the development of $30M of single family homes in Vail, a medical
facility in Pennsylvania and are under planning review for a new hotel in Breckenridge, CO.
The hotel we're developing in Breckenridge is a partnership with Urgo Hotels. Urgo is based in
Bethesda, MD and they currently own and operate hotels around the United States.
Process
• Triumph ordered a Smith Travel Research (STAR) Report that provided information
related to rate and occupancy for the Limelight Hotel and comparable hotels in Aspen
and Snowmass Village.
• Triumph developed a model for a hotel similar to the Limelight Hotel and then spoke
with several local developers, contractors, lenders, and our hotel partners about the
assumptions.
o Where appropriate we adjusted our assumptions to account for local construction
prices, entitlement expense and local market factors.
• Triumph reviewed the assumptions and model with the Community Development
Department to present the feasibility / unfeasibility of the hotel and options for bridging
the feasibility gap.
• Triumph analyzed several iterations of the models that changed multiple assumptions
before presenting the final three models.
2
There was also significant discussion related to how to address any deviations from current
city requirements including fees, affordable housing, height and free market residential.
Ultimately a decision was made to finalize three models:
Model 1
• Conforms with all current zoning requirements including 3 story height limit
• Pays full weight of city mitigation including fees and affordable housing
• Is "pure" hotel, meaning no free-market residential component is included
Model 2
• Allows for a 4th floor and uses all the SQFT on that 4th floor
• Allows for free market residential square footage to be equal to 50% of the hotel rooms
square footage.
• No city fee reductions; no affordable housing mitigation reductions
Model 3
• Took Model 2 and adjusted it the following ways:
• Reduced the Affordable Housing Mitigation requirement by 60%
• Filled that space in the building that was formerly affordable housing with hotel
rooms and free market residential units
Hotel feasibility was determined based on financial returns standard to the real estate
development industry and the product type.
Summary
Model 1
While it was made clear that the city was most interested in encouraging a hotel that is similar
to the Limelight Hotel because of it's lower price point and ability to cater to a broad range of
guests, a new hotel with no free market component and an ADR similar to the Limelight's failed
to achieve the required return. Based on the information in the STAR Report we modeled our
similar hotel to have an initial ADR of$270 and occupancy of 56%.
Pursuing the idea and feasibility of a pure hotel with no free market residential or deviations
from city requirements, we wanted to understand at what ADR a pure hotel becomes feasible.
As we increased the ADR we also had to increase several items including room size,
restaurant size, construction costs and finish allowances to account for someone paying a
significantly higher room rate. Additionally, we ordered a second STAR Report of luxury hotels
in Aspen and Vail so we could have a benchmark for our ADR and occupancy. Those
benchmark hotels included:
• The Little Nell; The St. Regis; The Arrabelle; The Lodge at Vail; The Sonnenalp Hotel
• Key STAR Report Metrics:
3
• Reported Average Occupancy: 51%
• Reported Average Daily Rate: $495
In order to deliver a feasible hotel that only generates revenues from hotel rooms, we had to
achieve an ADR of$875 and occupancy of 48%. Compared to the luxury competitive set which
achieved an ADR $495 and an occupancy of 51%, our ADR is astronomically higher and
unachievable. This equates to an ADR more than triple the Limelight's comp set as shown in
the STAR Report and nearly double the ADR of the STAR Report's luxury hotels. No
developer, equity investor or lender would pursue a project with those assumptions.
Model 2
In this iteration we returned to the rate and occupancy assumptions based off the STAR
Report we generated for the Limelight and it's competitive set. We added free market
residential at a rate of 50% of the hotel room square footage. There was no reduction in city
fees or mitigation requirements. For the sales aspect of the model, we reached out to the city's
real estate broker, Andrew Ernemann, for his thoughts on what new condos would sell for. This
model also increased the building's height from 3 to 4 stories.
This model also failed to deliver the returns necessary to attract equity and debt investors.
Model 3
The final iteration of the analysis took Model 2 and made the following adjustments:
• Reduced the affordable housing mitigation requirement by 60%
o This opened up 10,700 square feet in the building
• Capped mitigation once the reduction was in place so that any new hotel rooms or
residential square feet would not generate any new affordable housing requirement
• Backfilled the 10,700 square feet with new hotel rooms and free market residential
The ADR and occupancy remained the same and there was no reduction in city fees.
This version delivers a return that makes this a feasible project and it would be a project that
our development team would seriously consider pursuing if it were to pass across our desk.
Conclusions / Challenges to Feasibility / Observations
A pure hotel that fits within the current City of Aspen zoning requirements is not a feasible
project. However, should the community be willing to deviate from its height, free market and
affordable housing requirements there is the opportunity to close the feasibility gap.
w
4
Feasibility is purely a function of revenue and expense. As a pure hotel, the revenue is not
substantial enough to cover the expenses and provide a return to the equity investor and to
pay the annual debt expense.
Since there is a limit to how much you can raise the revenue through rate and occupancy
increases — as we see in the STAR Reports - the focus turns to reducing costs. There are
several ways to reduce the cost of the project. One way is to reduce the fees, and other
requirements like affordable housing. The other is to allow for the construction of free market
residential units where the revenue from the sales is used to pay down the cost of the project
to a point where the hotel can service the debt.
Reductions in fees and affordable housing requirements are beneficial, but those reductions
alone are not substantial enough to deliver a feasible project. It will require a combination of
increased height, allowed FAR, and free market residential, as well as decreased fees and
affordable housing mitigation to create a feasible hotel.
A few observations stuck out to us as we analyzed the challenge the city faces:
Land Price - This is a significant barrier to entry and is the same cost regardless of what is
developed.
City Fees & Entitlement Uncertainty - Several of these fees seem to be disproportionate with
the actual impact on the city. The parking fee / encroachment fee is one example. Just during
this exercise the parking fee was doubled from $25 per day to $50 per day for the duration of
the project. Additionally, having a solid understanding from the outset of the timing for city
approvals is critical to estimate cost and attract capital. The more uncertain the project is from
the outset, the higher the return the equity investor will require.
Parcel Size - The parcel size that we modeled applies to a small number of existing sites. It
could be extremely difficult, and expensive, to assemble a parcel of this size in the future.
Employee Generation - The generation and mitigation seem disproportionate to what may
actually be. Commercial uses vary widely and so do the employees they require. Additionally,
the generation and mitigation requirements for a free market residential unit that is within a
hotel development seem high. Hotel employees would certainly have more than enough
capacity to handle any maintenance, housekeeping, management, and service requests of the
free market units therefore this mitigation seems like something to be evaluated.
Summary Table of Models 1-3 on the following page.
5
w w
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3:
Pure Hotel Limelight Style— Limelight Style -
No Reductions Modified
Hotel Rooms 109 126 144
Hotel Sqft 49,050 50,400 57,600
Condo Units - 17 20
Condo SQFT - 25,200 28,800
Affordable Housing SQFT 12,000 18,500 7,800
Affordable Housing
Reduction 0% 0% 60%
ADR $875.00 $270.00 $270.00
Occupancy 48% 56% 56%
Allowed FAR in Zone District 110,000 110,000 110,000
Building Footprint 32,851 32,851 32,851
Stories 3 4 4
Height -Approximate 34.5 46.0 46.0
Total SQFT based on
footprint 98,553 131,404 131,404
Building SQFT-Above Grade 98,074 131,328 131,442
Parking- Below Grade 22,575 34,930 35,070
Total - Above + Below 120,649 166,258 166,512
6
RECEIVED
1 JUL 2 8 2014
CITY OF ASPEN
OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
www.cunniffe.corn
TRANSFORMER AND TRASH AND RECYLE ALLEY BLOCK 31 -
UTIUTES FOR RE5IDENGES
TRASH AND RECYCLE
AREA FOR LODbE
TYP.
is—o"
O" O•
_. -._.. ...._. ..._.—_. .PROPERTY �/J
... ........ ..... . /L/�
O.
BIKE PATIO p
RACK
O aa' 5NONMELTED /� .. ._.....
.__ X
u
PATIO T06PltAbE P¢DFCSED
RAMP DOWV
IL Iy
xISTINbI N
t PATIO ATIO ATO PATIO - 3 A
{ h PW; W
LL
x v°. .41U9 ON FIRST FLOOR t., / jb 3 .�
s o f "IQ X1 yy 1S-2 ,spy w
PATIO (
w �
PAIIG F4 �` .? - ' t _ 7 €� .. > cHAIRUFT J
Alli4l", N- 12F
\ o a
S , *
STA _
, 3 �.a.'•^ *pc ^� ,� ;� IRS
b R
NTERICR cCRRIDGR W
UUUU W
RACK 9 Z
-€ -- EASTMb POOL W
F W o
- PATIO
SPA % o W
BIKE
15"RETAINM6 HALL 5T AIR5 • O
w O
��.
U
io
LLJ
PATIO
n FROP RYY UNE .
\ LL
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
GOTTOh r+�D
..__... .,
co
I
l , O
STREET PARKINb k
_. _.. —..I ..... ..... .._... ._ ...... .__. _.... .... .. _—__..... DRAWING:
- _._. _..... _.... �� EObE OF PAVEMENT /RGHfIFLTU¢AL 9r1E PLN1
ISSUE: DATE:
270-01 Fl1D AMENOMBIT 094I1/14
YE5T HOPKINS AVENUE
JOB N0.1378
SHEET N0.
SITE PLAN SORTM A1 .1
3/32"=1'-0"
k
c�aMauwff�w.�.x�m
w .cunniffe.com
n
5 O'
�t
°
w
O �
U °
W X
LL
MEGHPNIGAL = °
TORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAbE STORAGE
r4OMEN5 HENS ,
BATHROOM 6AT.iROO�'.
^ u
W -
IADGE • —
• 'p STORAGE
s Z a
g LAUNDRY U
• 32 31 SO 29 2b 21 26 25 24 25 22 U w
a •-O. m-O. q-O• • W w
LO NGE J <
I
Q
5 T S
1'` r
V
4
SITTING
p FOOL C
==3 ° d
O B 9 10 it 12 13 14 13 ib PI 18 19 20 21 I O
W o
5TORAGEMEGH I W
' 5TCRA.GE:'MEGH 57ORA6E 57ORAGE 570RAbE 570RA3E STORAGE STORAGE 5TORAGE TOR.-,SE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE 5TORASE 5TORA5E 57, AGE , O
.: ... ,... W 0
O /LyL
Z
ELl
EL
Z co
Q
CW
C
O
MO
co
DRAWING:
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1 ISSUE: DATE:
3/32"=1'-0" nro.welorvielr oarzina
J08 N0.1318
SHEET NO.
A2.1A
R
rartcwwFS awsrsE.xcMrtc.s
r
m
m
r
N
r
O
O
r
D
Z
I . . - - - . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - I
BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
D A
m m � n
mi z z F
N o
z m c
c? �
y a
W m
ASPEN.COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557 3
r
m
m
r-
0
O
r
D
Z
1
i
i
_o.
i
i
I . . _ . . - - - - - - _ . . . . . _ . . — . . . . . . . .
D y a z BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT
fV o m �
D ASPEN,COLORADO
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
610 EAST HYMAN AYEIASPEN,CO 81611 1 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557
m
n
3
ri
1116,
r
m
m
r
r-
0
O
r
D
Z
m z Q BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
> g$� p�
IV o o gm 0
V'
ASPEN,COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVE(ASPEN,CO 916111 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557
"a
F
n
m
n
3
METAL BRISE-SOLEIL
--
METAL FASCIA-TYP. HORIZ.AND VERT. WINDOWS STEEL STOREFRONT HORIZ.AND VfftT.
—STONE VENEER CHIMNEY STAINED WOOD STAINED WOOD 5DMG .
STAINED WOOD 51VMG SDMG STEEL AND WOOD HORIZ.METAL 51DMG
WOOD GLAD RAILMG5
METAL 5DMG WMDOW5 STONE VENEER C4411-MEY
— PAN W M
TED WOOD 5DG
METAL BRSE-50LEIL
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF '
" ...„ . . « ..-. - ------ wo0D CLAD WMDO01 TO EXISTING APPROVAL`"""""`-`- MATCH EXSTMG LODGE" F
/ CANTED WOOD GUARD RAIL TO
T 8 m MATCH EX5TING LODGE
EXISTING BOOMERANG LODGE RESTORED TO
O HISTORIC MAT13tIAL PALATE
T.O.F.F.•3R0 LEVE - ...I
127-0' II Sul':
www.cunniffe.com
p
T.O.F.F.0 2N -
111'-O" SECOND LEVEL
_4
T.O.F .0 GROUND_ ----- l�l - --- __ GROUND LEVEL 0 LODGE
__ r
__
OPEN LINK BO�N�MK PROPOSED -- --------- -----.- 98'-i" !94.66')FMV
BUDS LMBG+S LODGE AND FMU LODGE WING EXISTING BOOMERANG LODGE - -- ---- (n m
U
W X
3 HOPKINS AVENUE ELEVATION �—_
METAL 5DMG METAL BPFF-50LEIL U n
--HORM AND VERT. STEEL 5TOREFRONT � o
STAINED WOOD 51DMG WINDOWS Q
STEEL AND WOOD LLJ
WOOD GLAD WMDOY`5 RAILINGS LL Li
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF UILDING OUTLINE Pffc LL
„.. .».. PREVIOUS APPROVAL Z m
EXISTING APPROVAL----------------- ----_"--__ - ". __„_•_. (BAC4C64ROUND)
Z o
U
W 134'-b” LLDMG OUTLINE P@R � a
/ PREVIOUS APPROVAL U) rn
h (FOREGROUND) w
LLJ >
J a
NN z
T.O.F.F.O 3RD LEVE_ - - - - - - - - - - - L.L 4
- _ - - <
FM
U
w
T.O.F.F.!2ND.LEVEL'g m
4
F.F.®GROUND--��—_ — — -- ----- --- — . . — - W
FIFTH STREET ELEVATION :2 a-
3/32"=1'-0" O
i
LLJ p
LLI
W O U
/� Z
NORM.AND VERT. - - METAL BRISE-SOLEIL V W
STAINED WOOD 51VING
STEEL STOREFRONT METAL FASCIA-TYP. Z U)
GLAD WOOD WINDOWS WINDOWS HORIZ.AND VERT. STONE VENEER CHIMNEY Q
STAINED WOOD METAL 5DING
HORIZ.METAL 5DING -- STEEL AND WOOD SIDING STAINED WOOD SDMG
STAINED WOOD 5DMG RAILINGS GLAD WOOD \ W
5TARWELL STONE VENEER CHIMNEY WINDOWS
CLAD wooDwNDOWSro __ .___ _____ _ _ ...... MAXIMUMHEIGKiOF
MATCH EXI5TING LODGE .,.,..,,... _ _......,_ _.........................__..... _...- _ ... ..._.... „._ „.......,........_.",..,.._..... ...., OO
---- - EXISTING APPROVAL
WOOD SLAT5 OVER PAINTED WOOD 5DMG -� — - — - m
Q DRAWING.
EX5TING BCOI"'I�ANG LODGE RESTORED TO c n E -- --FDs
HISTORIC MATERIAL PALATE m ISSUE: DATE:
� � 4
a
X08 N0, 1318
EXST 0?SECOND LEVEL — _ — _ - _0 - Q SHEET NO
- _ ------ ----------- -- A31
EXST'MG GROUND ———— -
95' —— —— OPEN LINK
———
_T —— PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON FIRST FLOOR BET y EEN
EXSTING BOOMERANG LODGE LODGE FREE MARKET UNITS ABOVE BUIDLINGS
ADDITION
ALLEY ELEVATION MffE n
- -
m
m
r
m
D
O
Z
s m m a BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT
D
ASPEN,COLORADO
2
O
u
z
U)
m
r
m
D
O
Z
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,00 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557
3
O
C
cn
m
m
r
m
D
O
z
D
r
r
m
m
r
m
D
O
z
m m a BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
Z
E D �
m ASPEN,COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557 3
m
m
O
2
O
Z
U)
r-
0
O
Z
O
Z
9
m
n
X
O
2
O
Z
r-
0
O
Z
O
m
D
07
m m BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT
Z y
o z
W o m
W D
ASPER COLORADO
m
n
O
O
0
cn
r-
0
O
T
Z
O
m
cn
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
n
c
N
n ►
610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557 j
August 8, 2014 EXHIBIT.
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Aspen City Council 4
SUBJECT: Lodging Ordinance
Thank you for your hard work on the Lodge Ordinance. I commend you and ComDev for your efforts
but want to point out a few short comings I have learned from serving over 7 years on the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the City of Aspen relieves an abundance of mitigation charges from a Lodge Developer then someone
else will eventually have to pay for the consequences. These costs do not disappear. They are delayed
or transferred to the rest of the Community. Housing and Parking are the main issues.
If you are going to allow less employee housing mitigation then you must tell the voters who will pay for
the new demand that is created by any new development at this time. Where are these employees
going to live? We went through this in the 80's for those that remember and it created huge problems.
The AACP states there should be reasonable mitigation for employee housing demand. Having the
community make up this cost is unreasonable. A small amount shared by everyone would be
reasonable. A 60% reduction in employee housing mitigation is not reasonable.
Something more alarming is the removal of parking requirements. If a Lodge Developer doesn't have to
provide parking then where will the guests park? There has been a false premise without evidence that
if you remove parking people will not drive cars. This is absolutely false as stated during the Ideas Fest
by a Mr. Speck who is an expert on Walkability in Communities. Less parking creates more traffic
circulation according to his documented and valid research.
If you are going to eliminate the parking requirement then you owe it to the Citizens of Aspen to tell
them where the Lodge Guests are going to park. If you give a Lodge up to 100 street parking permits
then they will be parking in the residential areas away from the Lodge. This is unacceptable and would
create tremendous problems in the residential areas which is already plainly visible. Keep the daily rate
at$3 and don't reduce it as this is such a small amount.
These 100 free spaces add up to the tune of about$2,000,000 in windfall savings for a developer and
will create a myriad of problems in the residential areas. This is not a solution it is a catastrophe.
If the City truly wants to solve problems then the City should pay for the parking garage and take title to
it. The City can then expand the mall and move the displaced parking over to the large Lodge
basement. This is a great opportunity to stop the traffic circulation in downtown.
If nothing is done then the City of Aspen will eventually have to deal with building another huge parking
garage in town. Where will you put this garage? Take care of it now and put the garage underground
and out of sight.
The real estate market is picking up again and there is no safeguard in the Ordinance to protect the
citizens of Aspen from over compensating benefits to a developer.
I believe the City hired a firm to do some research that is from Vail. This should raise a red flag in itself.
Did we really have to go to Vail to find out how to create a Lodge Ordinance for the City of Aspen? The
firm of Triumph Development even stated they would be glad to develop a project in Aspen if Item#3 in
their packet crossed their desk. You should dismiss this document as nothing more than a comment by
an organization that could very possibly have financial gains from this Ordinance. Please be cautious as
to avoid creating a frenzy of development by an overzealous ordinance that could create a tremendous
profit at the expense of the rest of the Community.
Is this Lodge Ordinance going to be a Vailization of Aspen? Vail has a front range component of their
visitor base that does not work for Aspen. Yes they are a destination resort also but their visitor base is
different than Aspen. We do not want Aspen to look like Vail. We have distinguished ourselves to be
quite different as Aspen is an established small mountain community and we need to remain an
individual entity apart from the rest of the destination resorts.
This document from Vail should be disregarded in its entirety.
What started out to create an ordinance to save the small lodges has morphed into a bailout package for
large lodges that already have been approved. These large lodges have a right to amend their
application to the current code and still keep their vested interest from the old code.
The Aspen residents are the ones who will pay for this with future tax increases to compensate for
increased parking needs as well as housing for any employee generation.
Please do not compartmentalize this issue but look at the broader consequences that will have a
profound effect on our community.
We need an Ordinance that preserves the small lodges. Please focus on that issue and for these small
lodges we can forgive some mitigation that is reasonable. But this Ordinance as proposed is
exponentially in favor of large lodges.
We must maintain our community character and we can only accomplish this with careful adoption of a
Lodge Ordinance that benefits everyone rather than a few at the cost of the rest of us.
U Erspamer
Aspen, CO
Cindy Mob i la
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:02 PM
To: Brian McNellis;Jasmine Tygre;Jason Elliott; Keith Goode; U Erspamer; 011ie Nieuwland-
Zlotnicki; Ryan Waltersheid; Stan Gibbs (stan @kr7c.net)
Cc: Cindy Klob
Subject: FW: Boomerang Lodge
Letter from the public for meeting tomorrow.
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: noelle gunn [mailto:noellegunn @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 12:57 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Boomerang Lodge
Hello Sara,
My name is Noelle Gunn, and I currently reside at Ullr Commons#15. 1 am concerned about the redevelopment
proposal of the Boomerang Lodge.
My main concerns are:
• Height-4 stories is absolutely too high. The district zoning is 25' vs the proposed 39'10', which is not even
close.
• Parking-Where is there going to be enough parking for a Lodge this size? Parking is difficult even now, I
can only imagine if this gets approved.
• Aesthetically speaking,the proportions of the structure would be unsightly.
Thank you very much for your time, and consideration of my objections to this redevelopment.
Sincerely,
Noelle Gunn
i
Cindy Klob
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday,August 12, 2014 8:26 AM
To: Steve Stunda (sstunda @aol.com); mhoffman @garfieldhecht.com; DeFrancia,Jim
(JDeFrancia @loweenterprises.com)
Cc: Cindy Klob
Subject: FW: Boomerang Redevelopment
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: Michael Bauer [mailto:michael_bauer @live.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:06 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Boomerang Redevelopment
August 11,2014
To: Senior City Planner Sara Adams
Regarding: Boomerang Redevelopment
Hello Sara,
I am writing regarding the Boomerang redevelopment proposal that was recently submitted to the City of
Aspen. I'm a tenant at the Ullr Condominiums, located directly across Main Street from the proposed
redevelopment. I am extremely concerned about the negative effects that this project will undoubtedly create for
myself and my neighbors.
The current submission is a monstrosity which exceeds every current regulation on size. For an almost 40 ft tall
building to be approved when the zone district is capped at 25 ft. is unacceptable. I live on the first floor of the
Ullr, in apartment#13, and I can currently enjoy views of Shadow Mountain from my living room. This colossal
structure would take away from my current quality of living and it would certainly do so for other neighbors
nearby. Allowing such extreme variances to the current building codes would also set a dangerous precedent for
development, and it would reflect negatively on the values of our city. I am also concerned about the increase of
traffic in the area and the lack of corresponding parking for the Boomerang. The lack of parking could create a
terrible environment for the locals who live nearby. I don't want to possibly walk several blocks from my car
because the developers didn't take parking into account. It will be even worse for my neighbors with vehicles who
i
live across the street. The developers are asking for far too many variances with the current proposal. I will
strongly ask that you reject the current Boomerang redevelopment proposal.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns.
Best regards,
Michael Bauer
520 West Main St.
Apt. 13
Aspen, CO 81611
2
Cindy Mob
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:27 AM
To: Brian McNellis;Jasmine Tygre;Jason Elliott; Keith Goode; U Erspamer; 011ie Nieuwland-
Zlotnicki; Ryan Waltersheid; Stan Gibbs (stan @kr7c.net)
Cc: Cindy Klob
Subject: FW: Hello
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: DANIEL SANTANA [mailto:adansan92 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:33 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Hello
o8/11/2014
to: Sara Adams
Senior City Planner
Hello,
my name is Daniel Santana, and I am a ULLR resident at 520 West Main Street Apt. 18. 1 would like
to express my concerns about the Boomerang project. The West side of Aspen is a beautiful
neighborhood and I very much enjoy living here. I do not think this project fits amongst the buildings
that exist today. Because of its size, I know that the parking needs will create havoc on our quaint
neighborhood. This project is exceptionally larger and taller than it ought to be and I truly hope you
will deny this project.
The applicant does not have the support of the city staff, the neighborhood, or the business
community. You will stand alone, should you approve this project.
Sincerely,
Daniel Santana
1
Cindy Mob
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:59 AM
To: Steve Stunda (sstunda @aol.com); mhoffman @garfieldhecht.com; DeFrancia, Jim
(JDeFrancia @loweenterprises.com)
Cc: Cindy Klob
Subject: FW: At the P&Z meeting this afternoon, could you kindly...
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: U Erspamer [mailto:walkabout @sopris.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:31 AM
To: Sara Adams
Cc: 'Steve Goldenberg'
Subject: FW: At the P&Z meeting this afternoon, could you kindly...
Sara,
I just returned to Aspen late yesterday and will attend the meeting tonight.
Could you forward this email from Steve Goldenberg to all P&Z Commissioners and also make sure it is
part of the public record.
Thanks Sara.
I CC'd Steve on this email also.
Thanks Steve for your input.
U
From: Steve Goldenberg [mailto•steve @goldenberg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:50 AM
To: U Erspamer
Subject: U: At the P&Z meeting this afternoon, could you kindly...
...ask the P&Z members to explain why they would allow the applicant
to practically eliminate the setbacks:
i
R-6 2006 Approval Present Application
Hopkins Ave 10' S' 2'
Fourth Street 15' S' 3'
Fifth Street 15' S' 3'
Alley 10' 5' 0'
Steve Goldenberg .... steve@goldenberg.com
430 W. Hopkins Ave. .... phone &fax 970-925-1294
Aspen, CO 81611 .... cell 970-379-9778
Ham radio call sign .... WOSRG
2
Cindy Klob
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday,August 12, 2014 10:14 AM
To: mhoff man @garfieldhecht.com; DeFrancia, Jim (JDeFrancia @loweenterprises.com); Steve
Stunda (sstunda @aol.com)
Cc: Cindy Klob
Subject: FW: Boomerang ( please read my e-mail)
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: Andy Smith [mailto:andy595 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:03 AM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Boomerang ( please read my e-mail)
Hi Sara,
My name is Andrew Smith and I live in unit C-102 , 501 West Main St. ( Christiana
Complex),
and I would like to object to the updated proposal for the Boomerang Lodge.
One of the reasons we purchased the property was to have a beautiful view of Shadow
Mountain.
The new proposal would have the building at 40ft high , block our view, and literally be in
the dark most of the day.
But the main reason is that is does not conform with current land use codes and would
negatively impact the residents surrounding it.
With the new Jewish Community center across the street , I think parking will be a
nightmare , even in our small 28 unit complex , we have a hard time finding a place to
park some nights now.
If you could just look at our complex and approve something similar , I think that would
work for all parties involved.
PLEASE consider my request for the benefit of the city , residents and the neighborhood.
With regards,
Andy Smith
Cindy Mob
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday,August 12, 2014 10:38 AM
To: mhoffman @garfieldhecht.com; DeFrancia, Jim (JDeFrancia @loweenterprises.com); Steve
Stunda (sstunda @aol.com)
Cc: Cindy Klob
Subject: FW: Boomerang Development
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: Donna Guerra [mailto:donna @dgainteriors.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Boomerang Development
Dear Sara
As an owner at the Christiana Lodge, I would like to express my concern with the new proposed development of the
Boomerang Lot.As much as I would like to see something other than a unruly vacant lot, I would be more disturbed to have
a looming 39'+structure in my view plane.As it is this neighborhood is referred to as Shadow Mountain,this new
development will cause the shadow to be a constant 24 hours for all units facing this direction. Not only will the scale and
density greatly impact a small neighborhood, the entire "quaint town" perspective will be lost as you enter into Aspen.This
is a neighborhood not the core of Aspen.
I am all for development of this lot, but it should be done in the spirit of Aspen (nature conscious) and the scale of
neighborhood (historic conscious). Last week proved the density theory as the Jewish Center was in full swing, parking was
out of control, people parking anywhere they desired, narrowing the alley access down to barely a car width. I can only fear
that this will be an ongoing problem for the people that have resided here for many years.The developers have sat on this
land for many years and have tried numerous ways to develop the lot. Unfortunately they have not listened or learned from
previous zoning meetings-the impact constantly results with more negative than positive.
Please advocate for less structure and less impact—resulting in a more nature conservancy and preservation-what Aspen is
all about. It only takes one structure of this nature to open the flood gates to build similar projects in other parts of town.
Thank you for your time on this matter. If you have time, it would help if you could walk the neighborhood and physically
see what this would actually do to the views,the dynamics, and the perception of Aspen.
Sincerely,
Donna G.Smith
501 W. Main Unit C102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
1
Cindy Mob
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Tuesday,August 12, 2014 3:28 PM
To: Brian McNellis;Jasmine Tygre;Jason Elliott; Keith Goode; U Erspamer; 011ie Nieuwland-
Zlotnicki; Ryan Waltersheid; Stan Gibbs (stan @kr7c.net)
Cc: Cindy Klob
Subject: FW:
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: ARA [mailto:ron @aspenreservations.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:27 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject:
Sara,
I am writing you in support of the Boomerang project. As a neighbor who has lived across the street from this property for the
past eight years, I have followed closely the many iterations of the three projects that have been proposed for this site. While I
and my neighbors in Little Ajax have been favorably impressed with the submissions, some of our NIMBY neighbors have
objected and tried to halt these projects. Now, we have the current proposal which is smaller in mass and bulk to the previous
proposals that received both P&Z and Council approval, so we support it. I have a long personal history with the Boomerang
Lodge thru my ex-wife who was hired by Charlie Paterson to be an assistant manager direct from Austria. As such the
Pattersons and the Boomerang has played a significant role in my life. Unfortunately I have had to watch the property slowly
deteriorate over the years due to government bureaucracy and neighbor's selfishness.
We now have an opportunity to restore one of Aspen's iconic lodges into a new, better and more economical lodge. I highly
recommend that P&Z approve this project and move it on to City Council
Ron Erickson
Little Ajax 211
605 West Hopkins Ave.
1
� M
m
---i
4.
.(1
m
m
r-
m
0
z
i
II
m
m
r-
m
0
z
11 O
> BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
0
> zq
0. z
ASPEN,COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557
m
z
m
m
r-
m
0
z
ql
rl
> BOOMERANG REDEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
0
> zq
0. z
ASPEN,COLORADO 610 EAST HYMAN AVEIASPEN,CO 816111 TEL:970.925.5590 IFAX:970.920.4557