The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20010717AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF 4:30 PM GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING (5:00 PM) TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001 SISTER CITIES ROOM I• COMMENTS A. Commissioners B . Public II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS III. ... . A. 1490 RED BUTTE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW & DRAC VARIANCES, � STEVE CLAY, CONTINUED FROM 7/.10 — RESO. #325 2001APMWU BISIS GMQS EXEMPTION ( GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION), . �` CHRIS BENDON — RESO. #25 2001 C. 302 E. HOPKINS GMQS EXEMPTION (GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION), CHRIS BENDON — RESO. #3, 2001 D . 1210 RED BUTTESTREAM MARGIN REVIEW, STEVE CLAY — RESO. #33, 2001 Y PU E. MOORE FAMIL D AMENDMENT- BUS BARN LANE HEIGHT. STEVE CLAY — RESO. #3472001 '� F. BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT, FRED JARMAN — RESO. 935, 2001 IV. ADJOURN C i -M Robert I. Blaich, 319 N. 4th St. Aspen, Colo. 81611 email: Jasmine Tygre, Chair P.O. Box 1459 Aspen, Colo. 81612 email: Roger Haneman 1009 Vine Aspen, Colo. 81611 email: Steven Buettow 29 Gray Talon Ct. Aspen, Colo. 81611 Ron Erickson 800 S. Monarch St. Aspen, Colo. 81611 email: PLANNING AND ZONING home: 925-7545 work: 920-9276 fax: 920-3433 blaich@sopris.net Eric Cohen, Vice -chair P.O. Box 2341 Aspen, Colo. 81611 email: work: 925-2811 home: 925-5428 fax: 925-9182 jasminetygre@usa.net home: 920-9379 work: fax: rogerhaneman@hotmail.com work: work fax: home: 925-1693 home: 925-6366 fax: 925-9014 work: 925-4772 aresorta@aspeninfo.com home: 920-2891 work: 925-6688 Fax: 925-1711 echomes@rof.net Cell: 948-3288 Bert Myrin home: 300 Puppy Smith St. #203-101 Aspen, Colo. 81611 work: email fax: 925-2691 COMU 9a Peter Martin, Chair work: 963-1088 0102 Firehouse Rd fax: 963-9185 Redstone, CO 81623 email: pmartin@rof.net Steve Whipple 920-4428 - W 121 S. Galena#203 925-2295 - H Aspen, CO 81611 email: whipples@rof.net Sheri Sanzone work: 925-8354 120 East Main St fax: 920-1378 Aspen, CO 81611 emial: ssanzone@designworkshop.com Peter Thomas work: 544-0898 616 E Hyman#102 fax: 544-0916 Aspen,CO 81611 email: pete@rof.net Paul Rudnick 923-3407 -Box 385 fax: 923-1854 Woody Creek, CO 81656 email: paul.rudnick@piperrudnick.com John Howard, alt work: 23 -34 4 Ext. 16 Box 7045_ fax. 9 Snowmass Village, CO 81623 email: willoe@rof.net 925-8645 Bert@Myrin.com 562-268-9628 : 925-8925 Ruth Kruger, alt. home925_2122 834 W. Main work: Colo 81611 Michael Augello, alt work: 9 97 0 9 307-L AABC fax. 9 79 Aspen, CO 81611 email: aspen@wodehousebuilders.com Aspen, year terms for 7 regular members and 2 year term for the 1 alternate 1 st and 3rd tuesday meetings - 4 ye + packets) ne clerk, 2-comdev., original to planners, James one extra(16 attorney, 12005 Jasmine Tygre apt. 8-1980 exp.- apt. 2-1994 exp. 2-2002 Robert Blaich apt. 6-1994 exp. 6-2002 Steve Buettow Ruth Kruger - apt. 7-2001 exp. 7-2003 7/13/01 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Steve Clay, Planner gx RE: 1490 Red Butte Stream Margin Review & Variance to Residential Design , Series of 2001. —PUBLIC HEARING. Standards, Resolution No DATE: July 17, 2001 APPLICANT: Mark Brown & Steve Brint REPRESENTATIVE: Galambos Architects inc. PARCEL ID: 2735-013-02-004 ADDRESS: 1490 Red Butte Dr. ZONING: R-30, Low Density Residential CURRENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUESTED ACTION: 1. Stream Margin Review 2. Variance from the Residential Design Standards SUMMARY ion of the e 's a demolitxisting single family residential home and the The applicant 1 proposing ' on of a new single family residential home located in an Environmentally Sensitive constructs Area at 1490 Red Butte Drive on the Roaring Fork River. esi n the a licant is requesting the following variances from In order to accomplish the desired d g pp the Residential Design Standards: 1. Inflection 2. Double -wide garage door 3. Windows between 9-12 feet The Planng in and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Commi he may gra nt relief from the Residential Design Standards during a public hearing for one o following three reasons: property possesses an irregularity in which a waiver is clearly necessary for 1)Theproyp reasons of fairness; 2) The proposed design represents a more effective manner to address the particular issue in which the standard is intended; or, 3) The proposed design yields greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan than would result with application of the particular standard. Residential Design Standards 1.) Inflection 26.410.040 (E) (2)(a) Residential design standard regarding inflection t or over: The following standard must be met for parcels that are 6,000 square f If a one (1) story building exists directly adja- cent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along their common lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the appli- cant may choose the side towards which to inflect. if... Then. 2 A one. story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a strucleast r 12 of a structure where th, ere is only one floor of fully rt' n lly usable living space, at feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing aone story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street front and one story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one story. ➢ Staff Finding; home as roposed, appears to meet the inflection requirement when viewed from The P the rout, or street side. It is only due to the natural slope of the hill, east to Side that d from the back, or raver f es a one-story to two-story element wizen viewe, treat y ' a an inflection problem with the home located on the west side of the parcel. I creating .� the str ucture is constructed to meet the inflection standard, a substantial amount of in P slo a disturbance could occur. The slope disturbance will have more negative inflection impacts relation with the river and surrounding neighbors then not meeting th standard. Disturbing the grade to meet the criteria for inflection is not a desirable solution for this situation. See Plan Noll Staff supports the request for the inflection variance finding that; 1 The property possesses an irregularity in which a waiver is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness. esents a more effective manner to address the 2 The proposed design repr particular issue in which the standard is intended. 2.) Doublewide Garage Doors 26.410.040 0 Residential design standard states: The garage doors shall be single stall doors 91 ➢ Staff Finding: The garage will be side loaded with respect to the street and will not be seen when viewed directly from the street faVade. Furthermore, the doublewide garage door has been designed as to appear as two single stall garage doors. There will be very little negative aesthetic impact, if any, should approval of this variance be granted. See Plan No.]]&14 Staff supports the request for the doublewide garage door variance finding that; 1) The proposed design represents a more effective manner to address the particular issue in which the standard is intended. 3.) Windows located in the 9'-12' "No window zone" 26.410.040 (D) 3a Residential design standard regarding windows states: Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measure- ment will be made from the first land- ing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. "No. window Zone" 12 - ➢ Staff Findings: The request for the variance is only for the purpose of design. This is a newly constructed design; the applicant should be able to alter the plans and adhere to this standard as required See Plan No.11 Staff does not support the variance for the windows that are located between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet finding that: 1) The property does not possess an irregularity in which a waiver is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness. 2) The proposed design does not represent a more effective manner to address the particular issue in which the standard is intended. 3) The proposed design yields greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan than would result with application of the particular standard. M Stream Margin Review These are areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one -hundred -year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded now of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. 26.435.040 C Stream Margin Review Standards states. - No development shall be permitted within the Stream Margin unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: l . It can be demonstrated that any proposed development, which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area, will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and ➢ Staff Finding: There will not be any development in the floodway for the proposed development.' 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and, ➢ Staff Finding Staff does not foresee any impacts regarding this requirement. The Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan recommendations are being met and implemented to the greatest extent possible and a fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement, "per conditions of approval, unless one already exists. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building'envelope shall be designated 5 by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; and ➢ Staff Finding Per the submitted plans, there will not be any disturbance of vegetation outside of the building envelope. The building envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and ➢ Staff Finding The proposed development shall not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction and a silt fence shall be placed along the -riverside of the building envelope. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the ,engineering Department for review, and approval, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. No construction is proposed for the stream banks. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and ➢ Staff Finding The alteration or relocation of any portion of the watercourse is not proposed: 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and ➢ Staff Finding This requirement does not apply to the proposed development because no watercourse will be altered or relocated. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one -hundred -year floodplain; and ➢ Staff Finding The will be no development in the one -hundred yearfloodplain. R 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability; and ➢ Staff Finding There is no development being proposed within the required 1 S feet from the top of slope. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020; and ➢ Staff Finding All development is outside the 15-foot setback from the top of slope and does not exceed the height delineated by a line drawn at a 45-degree angle from the ground level at the top of slope per the submitted plan. 10. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and ➢ Staff Finding A landscape plan was submitted and staff does not foresee any problems related to the plan, however the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Parks Department for review prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit or a Building Permit 11. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150; and ➢ Staff Finding The applicant shall comply with all exterior lighting and all design criteria and submit a lighting plan with the Building Permit application. 12. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; and ➢ Staff Finding Site sections were submitted as drawn by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. that shows all existing and proposed site elements. 13. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. h ➢ Staff Finding; There are no wetlands located on the parcel. Staff Recommendations A. Stream Margin Review: 1. Staff recommends approval for the Stream Margin Review for the proposed demolition and construction of a new single family residential structure located at 1490 Red Butte Drive; Lot 2, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision finding that the criteria per 26.435.040 C, Stream Margin Review Standards have been met, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. While not required staff strongly suggests the applicant provide a "fisherman's easement" granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course. B. Variance regarding Residential Design Standards: Staff recommends approval for Inflection variance, 2) Doublewide garage door variance, finding that; 1) The property possesses an irregularity in which a waiver is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness. 2) The proposed design represents a more effective manner to address the particular issue in which the standard is intended. Staff is recommending denial of the variance for the windows located in the 9'-12' "No window zone"; finding that; none of the criteria are met. Recommended Motions " I move to approve Resolution No. , (Series of 2001) for a Stream Margin Review and Variances from the Residential Design Standards for Inflection, Doublewide Garage Doors, for a property located at 1490 Red Butte Drive, Lot 2, Blockl, Red Butte Subdivision". ATTACHMENT: Galambos/Muir Architects design drawings o Plan sheets 1-16 E'1 Planning and Zoning Meeting July 17, 2001 Additional Conditions Requested from the Engineering Department 1. All foundations must be constructed above the water table; therefore the level of the water table, on the riverside, shall be determined and shown on the survey plat. 2. A statement shall be provided from a Colorado Licensed Engineer stating that the proposed development will not cause flooding in adjacent or downstream properties. RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR a) INFLECTION b) DOUBLE -WIDE GARAGE DOORS AND c) WINDOWS LOCATED IN THE 9'-12', "NO WINDOW ZONE" FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1490 RED BUTTE DRIVE; LOT 2, BLOCK 1, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION Parcel ID: 2 735-013-02-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Applicant, Mark Brown & Steve Brint, represented by Galambos Architects, requesting a Stream Margin Review approval, and variances from the Residential Design Standards for the residence located at 1490 Red Butte Dr. Aspen, CO; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 26.212, the Planning and Zoning Commission may review and approve the Stream Margin Review Application and acting in the capacity of Design Review Appeals Committee may approve the variances from the Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval for 1) Stream Margin Review, and 2) Variances from the Residential Design Standards for Inflection and Double -wide garage doors, and recommends denial for the variance from the Residential Design Standards for the windows located in the 9'-12', "No window zone"; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal for Stream Margin Review under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the Variance requests from the Residential Design Standards recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee, has reviewed and considered the Variance requests from the Residential Design Standards and may approve the variance request for 1) Inflection 2) Double -wide garage doors and 3) Windows located in the 9%12', "No window zone", finding that the criteria are met; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a vote of to ( ) for 1) Stream Margin Review and 2) Variances from the Residential Design Standards. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for thepromotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 10" DAY OF JULY, 2001, THAT: 4eetion 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 1) Stream Margin Review and 2) Variances from the Residential Design Standards for Inflection, Double wide garage doors and, the windows located in the 9'-12', "No Window Zone" subject to the following conditions: 1. No vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; and 2. The proposed development shall not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction and a silt fence shall be placed along the riverside of the building envelope. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review prior to construction. 3. A written notice shall be given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and a copy of said notice shall be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 4. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Parks Department for review. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the riverside to native riparian vegetation. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150. 6. A lighting plan shall be submitted with the Building Permit application. Section 2 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 17th, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk pov I I — 13) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director, City of Aspen Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director, City of Aspen �� FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner, City of Aspen jw�) PROJECT: Isis Theater Retail Conversion REQUEST: GMQS Exemption Conversion from Theater use to Retail use PUBLIC HEARING: Yes DATE: July 17, 2001 PROCESS: GMQS Exemption: Final at Growth Management Commission RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions SUMMARY: The Isis Theater LLC has applied to convert either a portion or all of the ground floor of the Isis Building to retail use. Presently the building contains five theaters, two are on the ground floor and three are in the basement. The applicant is not proposing alternate uses for the basement. The applicant has proposed two retail scenarios for the ground floor: 1) 3,000 square feet of net leasable retail space and maintain one theater on the ground floor (plus the three theaters in the basement); or, 2) 6,000 square feet of net leasable retail space and maintain only the three basement theaters. The Growth Management approvals granted in 1995 were specific to the continued use of the building as a theater. The approvals deviated from the standards of the Land Use Code to accommodate the unique (lesser) employee generation trends of a theater and with the understanding that the applicant would mitigate for over 100% of the presumed theater employee generation. A conversion to retail use was envisioned during the redevelopment and a "re-evaluation" was required as a condition of approval to adjust housing mitigation figures. Staff is recommending the theater use not be part of the re-evaluation. The applicant is intending to maintain either three or four theaters and staff believes the staffing necessary will remain similar to the five -screen theater. Staff is recommending continuation of the employee audit to ensure the theater employee assumptions from the prior review are justified. Staff is also recommending that the housing mitigation associated with the theaters remain exclusive to the theater use and that no credit from the theater housing mitigation be applied to the new retail space. Staff is recommending a rate of 3.5 employees per 1,000 square feet (Commercial Core range is 3.5 to 5.25) be used to calculate employee generation for this project. BACKGROUND: Original Redevelopment Application: The Isis Theater was a one -screen theater. The redevelopment application proposed a four -screen theater to replace the one -screen theater in a new basement and an expansion of the building's footprint. The net leasable square footage of the building was proposed to be expanded by 5,449 square feet to accommodate the new theaters. Based on the employee generation rates of the Land Use Code, 3.5 to 5.25 employees are generated for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable commercial space in the Commercial Core Zone District. This rate suggested employee generation between 19.1 and 34.7 employees. The 60% minimum mitigation requirement of the Land Use Code suggested housing 11.4 to 20.8 employees. The review of the redevelopment application concluded that the theater would generate five (5) employees, subject to an employee audit after two years of operation and further mitigation if necessary. This was largely based on the theater operation in El Jebel and substantial representation that the deviation from the Land Use Code was only for the theater use. A condition of the approval required a "re-evaluation" of the employee generation for future, non -theater uses. Amendment to Original: Subsequent to final approvals being granted for the redevelopment of the theater, the application requested a change to allow five screens. The number of seats (880) remained the same although the net leasable area increased by another 4,455 square feet over the four -screen scenario. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the amendment and concluded that no additional impacts would occur with the reconfiguration. MAIN ISSUES: "Re-evaluation" of project: The approvals granted to the theater redevelopment project were conditioned upon the use remaining a theater and required a re-evaluation for future, non -theater, uses. The proposal to convert a portion of the building into retail space triggers this re- evaluation. There are three ways to approach this re-evaluation: 1. Re-evaluate whole project: This includes both retail and theater uses and could result in no longer deviating from the Land Use Code generation rates for the theater use. 2. Theater is mitigated, evaluate retail only: This would consider the theater mitigation discussion concluded. The deviation from the Land Use Code would not be challenged, but the applicant could not apply credit for mitigating in excess of the minimum to the new retail use. 2 3. Apply theater mitigation credit to retail: This evaluation would not reconsider the assumptions made about the theater generating only 5 employees, but would allow the theater mitigation beyond the minimum to be applied to the new retail use regardless of the representations made during the original review. This is the method suggested by the applicant and the Housing Board. The original review of the redevelopment application recognized a unique operating characteristic of a theater and justified a deviation from the standards of the Land Use Code. The applicant also represented that housing would be provided in excess of the minimum requirement. Staff believes these substantive representations made during the original review were material representations and contributed to the judgment and approval of the project. Staff also believes that a "re -review" does not lessen the importance of the representations. Staff is recommending the "re-evaluation" be limited to the new retail space with no credit from the theater mitigation (option #2). Attached as Exhibit "A" are a series of spreadsheets reflecting the background of the Isis project and the three re-evaluation methods described above with respect to -employee housing mitigation. Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Recommendation: The original application proposed employee housing mitigation on -site with the provision of two three -bedroom units. Housing mitigation that is required of this "re- evaluation" cannot feasibly be provided on -site due to zoning constraints. The applicant has proposed cash -in -lieu be paid to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The Housing Authority Board has recommended the provision of either off -site employee housing units or cash -in -lieu. The Housing Board has recommended the units be restricted or cash paid at the time of issuance of a building permit for the retail space. The Housing Board has recommended the use of 3.5 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable retail space. The figure is the low -point of the range suggested in the Land Use Code (3.5 to 5.25 employees per 1,000 s.f.). The range exists to allow flexibility with respect to proposed uses with varying degrees of employee generation. The Housing Board suggested this low -point be used, subject to an audit on the whole proj ect. The Housing Board has also recommended credit of three employees be applied to the retail operation from excess mitigation provided by the theater operation. APPLICANT: Isis, LLC. Sam Houston, Manager. Represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, and Charles Cuniffe Architects. 3 LOCATION: Isis, Building, 408 East Hopkins Avenue. (a.k.a.406 East Hopkins Avenue) Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: Commercial Core CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: Five -Screen theater to be converted to a three or four -screen theater and either 3,000 or 6,000 square feet of general retail. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Growth Management Commission has not previously considered this application. A brief history of the redevelopment hearing is included in the application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for use as commercial development. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Growth Management Commission shall, by Resolution, approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. STAFF COMMENTS: A series of spreadsheets has been included as Exhibit "A" and describe housing mitigation requirements under various re-evaluation methods. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been included as Exhibit "C." The recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is explained under "Main Issues." A written referral from APCHA was not available for this packet and will be distributed during the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Growth Management Commission approve the ground -floor retail conversion of the Isis Building, 408 East Hopkins Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Resolution No. , Series of 2001. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Growth Management Commission Resolution 0 1 - approving the ground floor conversion to retail of the Isis Building, with conditions." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Housing Mitigation Spreadsheets Exhibit B -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit C -- Development Application Exhibit D -- Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Recommendation (to be distributed at meeting) F. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION APPROVING A RE-EVALUATION AND EXEMPTION FROM THE SCORING AND COMPETITION PROCEDURES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE ISIS BUILDING TO RETAIL USE, 408 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS L, M, AND N, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Parcel No. 2737.073.30.006 Resolution No. Series of 2001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Isis, LLC, for a re-evaluation of employee housing mitigation, as required under Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 36, Series of 1995, to convert a portion or all of the ground floor of the Isis Building to retail use; and, WHEREAS, the current five -screen theater is proposed to be converted to either a four -screen theater with approximately 3,000 net leasable square feet or a three -screen theater with approximately 6,000 net leasable square feet; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is located at 408 East Hopkins Avenue and is also referred to as 406 East Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.470.070(D)(3)(b) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, land use applications requesting an exemption from the scoring and competition procedures of growth management for expansions of Historic Landmark buildings increasing both Floor Area and net leasable square footage may be approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission at =a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director; and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 17, 2001, the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the recommendation of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors, and testimony offered by the general public, and approved, by a to L-�) vote, the re-evaluation for mitigation purposes and conversion of the ground floor of the Isis building to retail use, subject to the conditions of approval listed herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission that the re-evaluation for mitigation purposes and conversion of the ground floor of the Isis Building is hereby exempted from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, subject to the following conditions of approval: l . The Isis Building retail conversion was represented by the applicant to consist of either a four -screen theater and 3,000 net leasable square feet of retail space or a three -screen theater and 6,000 net leasable square feet of retail space. The actual number of theater screens and net leasable square footage shall be determined at the time of building permit review by the Zoning Officer. The employee housing mitigation requirement shall be calculated according to the following formula: Net Leasable Square Feet x 3.5 employees x 60% = employees to be mitigated 1,000 square feet Substantial variation from the represented scenarios will require a re-evaluation of the Growth Management Exemption for employee generation and mitigation purposes. The retail conversion may be accommodated in phases by using the above formula. Maintaining the five -screen theater shall not require any further review. "Retail use" shall allow for the uses within the Commercial Core Zone District, as amended from time to time, some of which require conditional use approval. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Isis retail conversion, the applicant shall provide employee housing mitigation as determined by the above formula by either providing the necessary off -site housing units, providing the equivalent cash -in lieu payment, or a combination thereof. Any off -site employee housing mitigation shall be deed restricted to Category 3 price and income requirements and be approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Cash -in -lieu payment amount shall be based upon Category 3 employee mitigation requirements. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines in effect within the City of Aspen at the time of Building Permit application shall be used to determine the required price restrictions and/or cash -in -lieu payment. 3. The applicant shall provide an employee audit to the Aspen Community Development Department for the theater use after two years of reopening the theater operation. The purpose of the audit shall be to determine if the five full- time equivalent employee assumption for theater employee generation employees was justified and if further employee mitigation is necessary. If the audit determines more full-time equivalent theater employees than the six mitigated on - site, a re-evaluation by the Growth Management Commission shall be required to determine further required employee mitigation. 4. The applicant shall provide an employee audit to the Aspen Community Development Department for the retail use two years after a certificate of occupancy is issued. The purpose of the audit shall be to determine if the 3.5 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space assumption was justified and if further employee mitigation is necessary. If the audit determines a higher rate of retail employees, further employee mitigation shall be required at the then current standard. 5 . The project shall conform with all other applicable development regulations including, but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, use square footage (store size) limitations, open space regulations, and all representations concerning the project not specifically amended herein. 6. Before application for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record this Growth Management Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. APPROVED by the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission at its regular meeting on July 17, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair ISIS Theater 1997 Expansion:, Employee Mitigation using 3�5 employees per .000 net leasable square feet . . Net Leasable Square Employee 60% Mi ,mu m ga ion M ti t Hcusmg Provided .Footage ;Generahon requir ement. Increase over3 5 empl Pera Erriploye�s to Tokal, _pet. rcentage of otal one: screen,400 s<f, of net be�mi6gated Ernployees �.:.Haused mPQyees':' .....`:...theatec:�leasable .:' .... .:.'. housed :4 One Screen it it s57it 67 it Theater.`.' Original .it i it ;wtftiit Applicati6n.{4... 1.1,216 5,449.::.,......:: 1.9:_�.......:: ....._ '.:..��..::...... :. s.::D ....._ >.. 31 5°C°..:, screens) Amended Application 05 15,671 9,904 34 7 :.. 20 8 6 0 17 3% .. _ screens) lSl5 Theater 1.997 Expansion '"Employee Mitigation using 5:25 employees peg 1,000'net leasable square;feet x ble qu Net LeasaSare Employee 60% Minimum Footage Generation Mitigation Housing'Provided requirement. : Increase osier 5;25 empl ..per: ' Employees to Total percen#age 'of Total one -screen �,000 s,f of netmplo,yees bem itig, = Employees theater::' leasable „ Housed housed One -Screen 5767 Theater . ; . Original `.,it Application 11,216 .5.449 t28 screens) ,. Amended.. Application (5 15,671 . 9,904 52 0 31 2 screens) Background Exhibit A - page 1 X i ) 4 S s ' IISIS--ThibAt6r Retail ;ConV,.gr on. Reevaluate Whole Pro Em p to yee' Em to ee ?Em to ee Generation Generation for INIItr atlon 9 . Footage r�vided be Mt +dated g P for Theater #. Retail .. FeQuiremert [ncrease over 3 5 empl, per 4 375 per 1,000 s Total- .,.1 Square Uri e screen 1,000 s f ofi , s f of ne# 60 Minrrtrr� mEm to ` eel.,_vt- feet p Y theater net leasable leasable -...:.._ . h l-loused cit Defi Remaining:. Theater 12,671 6,904 24 2 '14 5 6 U 8 5 (4 screens) Retail 3000 3,000' 13 1 7'9 0 0 7 9 O..peration 37.3.: Total ........ _.15 6.71 9 904...... ::......,........: 22.4 ........ 6.0 1.6.4:. _ ......' #1 Re -Evaluate Whole Project: Exhibit A - page 2 #2 Theater is mitigated, evaluate retail only Exhibit A - page 3 #3 Apply theater mitigation credit to retail Exhibit A - page 4 Exhibit B Review Criteria Increase in FAR and net leasable square footage. The enlargement of an historic landmark to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage or the enlargement of an historic landmark for mixed -use as a commercial or office development and which adds a residential dwelling unit, which increases the building's or parcel's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage. Review of this exemption is by the Growth Management Commission. The applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed by the standards set forth at sub -Section 5, below. 5. Standards for certain historic landmark exemptions. To be eligible for the historic landmark exemptions of sub -Sections (2)(b), (3)(b) and (4) above, the applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the proj ect's community impacts will be addressed as follows: (a) Affordable housing. (1) For an enlargement to the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at one hundred (100) percent of the level that would meet the threshold required in Section 26.470.080(C)(5) for the applicable use. For each one percent reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by one percent. Staff Finding: The existing building already exceeds the Floor Area for the parcel (exclusive of Floor Area permitted through Special Review). The housing mitigation requirement is therefore 60 % of the employees generated by the expansion (100 % of 60 %) . The re- evaluation requirement of Resolution 36 of 1995 suggests the employee housing mitigation requirement be recalculated for a non -theater use of the building. There appears to be three ways in which this re-evaluation could be approached. Those approaches are summarized under the Main Issues section of the memorandum and tabulated in Exhibit A of the memorandum. (2) The applicant shall place a restriction on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall provide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Staff Finding: The applicant has represented amenability to a condition to this effect. Staff has not included this as a condition of approval. This standard requires that future changes be in accordance with the Land Use Code in effect at the time, which is a requirement of any property in Aspen. The additional deed restriction would serve no practical purpose. (3) Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's Category 3 price and income guidelines, as set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Staff Finding: The applicant has represented amenability to a condition to this effect. (4) Any affordable housing shall comply with the standards for affordable housing set forth at Section 26.520.020. Staff Finding: The applicant has represented that any affordable housing provided will comply with the requirement of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. (b) Parking. Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Chapter 26.515, if the Historical Preservation Commission determines that parking can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards. of Chapter 26.415, if applicable. Any parking that cannot be located on -site and that would therefore be required to be provided via a cash -in -lieu. payment shall be waived. Staff Finding: The review of this project by the Historic Preservation Commission during the redevelopment concluded that no additional on -site parking could be provided.. Parking is not required to be provided on Historic Landmark properties when such a determination is made by the HPC. (c) Off site impacts. The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Growth Management Commission. Staff Finding: The impacts have been mitigated and staff does not foresee any impacts that could arise as a result of the ground -floor theaters being reconfigured for retail use. In fact,. the retail use may have substantially less impacts on these noted infrastructures. (d) Compatibility. The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area. Staff Finding: The building is not proposed to change in its general aesthetic. The building was found to be in compliance with this standard during the redevelopment and no amendments to open space, landscaping, or character of the building is proposed. The service area is properly located on the alley and is sufficient to serve the proposed retail space. JYL. r P t' TO: r. r; z` FROM: I" THRU: DATE: RE: HSHEN HOU5ING OFC MEMORANDUM Dousing Board Cindy Christensen Mary Roberts July 17, 2001 X51'S 6MQ5 APPLICATION NO.002 P.2 . T rSSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to remodel the Isis. fN=: Currently, the Isis contains f ive theaters. Three theaters are rotated in the lower level and two theaters are located on the main level. The a hoer+ �� rA posing two alternatives for the upper level, The first alternative is to pp � p n9 Pp 7i maintc�l.. theater in the main level and convert 3,000 square feet into retail space, The second alternative is to remove both theaters on the main level and convert 6,000 square feet into retail space. When the applicant first approached City Council to convert the one theater into five theaters, the review hinged on the property staying a theater. The applicant was given approval due to the certain items stated in the previous application. The f applicant also stated that the theaters would generate only f ive employees and that they were willing to mitigate for 100% of those employees. The applicant provided � two three -bedroom units located above the Isis, These two units mitigate for 100% of the employees that the applicant stated would be employed. t The Land Use Code states that in this zone district, mitigation should be supplied between 3.5 to 5,25 FTE's per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space. At the time P �--ofh #she,-,dpProvo 1, the Housing Board approved 5 FTE's, per the request of the 4 applicant, with an audit to be completed two years after Certificate of Occupancy, The I� -e did not remain open for two years after Certificate of Occupancy, there1= L , u n audit was not completed, P- JTL..17.2001 2:00PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.002 P.3 E. The application states that maintaining either three of four theaters will require the some level of staffing as the original five theaters. Due to the nature of the request, Staff sees this application as a request for 3,000 P. to 6,000 square feet of retails mitigated and will, ace. The theaters have been q P therefore, be taken out of the equation, Since the mitigation accepted in the original application was for 100% of actual employees, but no audit was completed, Staff feels that the original mitigation supplied should remain associated exclusively with the +tipaters. Therefore, the use of the two three -bedroom units should not r, be uses: cny credit for mitigation of the 3,000 to 6,000 square feet of retail space, Under this assumption, the applicant would have to mitigate for the following: 3 $000 sq. f t. + 1,000 = 3 X 3.5 = 10.5 FTE's X 60% = 6.3 to 3,000 sq, f t. 1,000 : 3 X 5.25 = 15.75 FTE's X 600/a = 9.45 or if the average is used f 3,000 sq. ft. + 1,000 ; 3 X 4,375 - 13,125 FTE's X 60% = 7,875 i. 6,000 sq. f t. ze 1,000 = 6 X 3.5 = 21 FTFs X 60% ^ 12.6 to r 6,000 sq. ft, + 1,000 = 6 X 5.25 = 31.5 FTE's X 60% - 18.9 or if the average is used r, 6,000 sq. f t, =1,000 = 6 X 4,375 = 26.25 FTE's X 60% = 15.75 • Under the calculations show in the Land Use Code, the applicant would be required to =rnit(#ate'etween 6.3 to 18,9 FTE's, The "«►iN.„tion proposes using the lowest employee generation rate of 3.5 FTE for the re , ;,ace and mitigating for 60% of the f ive "actual" theater employees, They propose tnitigating for 11.3 in the 3,000 square foot alternative and 17,6 for the 6,000 square foot alternative. In each case, they then subtract the existing 6 mitigatidh bedrooms for a total amount of mitigation required to be 5.3 for the 3,000 sq � f t. alternative or 11.6 for the 6,000 square foot alternative. 602M�l�NDA7'7ON: The Housing Board met on this issue on Tuly 11, 2001, and recommended the following: 17.2001 2: 00PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO. Idld� t'" 4 ;i T(tw.. licant shall mitigate for 5.3 FTE's for the 4-screen, 3,000 square foot �p � 9 �. retail space, or 11.6 FTE's for the 3-screen, 6,000 square foot retail space, This takes into consideration the six credits from the existing three -bedroom 3: units. 2. The three credits are allowed as long as the use is straight retail. Should the space be used for any other retail, additional mitigation may be required, 3. An audit of the entire building.sholl be completed two years after certificate of occupancy, If it is found that the FTE's is higher than approved, the owner shall be required to mitigate for the additional FTE's. r 4. The mitigation shall be satisfied by either off -site, buydown "for -sale" type y units approved by the Housing Office, or a payment -in�lieu fee calculated at pp the average of Category 2 and 3 rate and as stated in the Guidelines in effect at the, time of building permit approval. 4 f Awd►OrmlAft6mkdoo . E: 5i �l (ni �R 1 li 3 Zs: S other applicable rules and e contained in Title IX of the and to prosecute violations Grantor and its successors in the record ownership of roperty shall have the right ation) at any time to prose - may be necessary or appro- I covenants and use restric- rules and regulations by images action or otherwise, in Grantee as a defendant if :form its covenants or its .ons hereunder. The prevail - private enforcement action an award of its reasonable fees incurred in connection .or or it successors and J ownership of the underly- ncurs any maintenance or :casioned by a violation of ense Agreement by Grantee general public, Grantee eimburse Grantor or its suc- all such costs. -lations to Defend, Hold ire. The parties expressly .ie Public Trail Licenses are :reational purpose" under 11-101, et. seq., and that `o the benefits, protections ability afforded by Colorado eational licenses, including iid Section 33-41-101, et. seq. olic Trail Licenses, Grantor ition tr, -- ",ir, clear or oth- area ie Public Trail ire o fy Grantee or .jury,,, damage to any i, whether alleged to have It of use of the Public Trail nonmotorized travel or oth- ,he condition of the public e Public Trail Licenses grant - hereby agrees to defend ale attorneys' fees) and hold and its successors and rd ownership of the underly- raversed by the Public Trail trt thereof, to the full extent ;)rado law, from and against demands, causes of action, Abilities, costs and expenses re (including those involving iry or property damage) aris- A in any way in connection Public Trail Licenses or any ]rantee by anyone, including eneral public, excepting any ses which may arise directly ad grossly negligent acts of vents or employees, or other :ed in C.R.S. Section 33A1- rther agrees to add Grantor rs and assigns in the owner- :ying real property traversed Licenses, or any part thereof) A Insureds on its comprehen- lity insurance policy, which maintained by the Grantee to against liability from claims ie use of the Public Trail surance shall be carried in ;han the liability limits spect- :on 24-10114(1), as it may be lie to time, and shall provide mccessors and assigns with lvance written notice prior to •minat► tee shall, upon ierefo irantor or any ign, p Certificate of ification _ compliance with s. In the event the Interpreta- mt of this License Agreement )me the subject of litigation or Its successors and assigns iership of the underlying real J by the Public Trail Licenses, of) and Grantee, the substan- )arty shall be entitled to an ,iable costs and attorneys' fees 25'50'24" E 2408.51 FEET. IT RIO GRANDE TRAIL NO.2 AND QWEST FIBER EASEMENT A 15.00 FOOT WiDE STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUN- TY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID EASEMENT LYING 7.50 FEET TO EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER -CORNER OF SECTION 21; THENCE N 27'16'02" W 2406.87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY OF THE 60' ELAM ROAD EASEMENT SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 24 AT PAGE 62 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXIST- ING RIO GRANDE TRAIL. THE POINT OF BEGIN- NING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY ALONG SAID.CE.NTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET .AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68-31-10", A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 77_15'40- W 67.55 FEET); THENCE N 43'00'05" W A DISTANCE OF 115.28 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29'57'12". A DISTANCE OF 39.21 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 57'58'41" W 38.76 FEET); THENCE N 72'57' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 32.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILROAD PER BOOK 312 AT PAGE 560 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21 BEARS S30'01'08" E 2620.05 FEET. IT RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO. 3 SITUATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERID- IAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID EASEMENT LYiNG. 7.50 FEET TO EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWi`iG DESCRIBED CENTER- LINE: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21; THENCE S 06'36'41" W 1962.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING RIO-GRANDE TRAIL, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAiD CENTER- LINE N 00'01'37" E A DISTANCE OF 52.15 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.49 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67'31'35", A DISTANCE OF 167.93 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 33'47'25" E 158.38 FEET); THENCE N 67'33'12" E A DISTANCE OF 12.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO GRANDE TRAIL EASE -VENT, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21 BEARS N 04'06'39" E 1765.33 FEET. IT RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO.4 SITUATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERID- IAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN. STATE OF COLORADO; SAID EASEMENT LYING. 7.50 FEET TO EACH SiDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER- LINE: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21; THENCE S 02°22'26" E 1662.28 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING RIO GRANDE TRAIT., SAiD POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAS77ERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAID CENTER- LINE N 44*16'11" E A DLSTANCE OF 184.32 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55'01'14", A DISTANCE OF 24.01 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 16"45'34" E 23.10 FEET); TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE PROPOSED 30' SANITATION DISTRICT EASEMENT, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 10°52'10" W A DISTANCE OF 183.69 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO-GRANDE TRAIL _.. — —._ _...... . 11 mi,r r. acT SaturdaySundO,"Jti to 30Ju.lyl,'2001 '• TU AVeh�7'ithes r =C Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Palomino Barth Architects requesting a Stream Margin Review for the property located at 1210 Red Butte Dr., Aspen Co. The property is described as Lot 5, Gaylord Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County CO. For further information, contact Steve Clay at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, stephenc@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on .tune 30, 2001. (76163) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE-GROWTI-I MAN- AGEMENT EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 at a meet- ing to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Growth Management Commission, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by MSJ Properties, requesting a growth management exemption and approving the on -site affordable housing unit proposed to mitigate the new net leasable square footag being created at the property located at 302 E Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. This project has 'recently received final design approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair and Peter Martin, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76160) PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL i PUBLIC: That on June 13, 2001 the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, adopted Resolution No 109-2001 approving the Two Mile Ranch GMQS Exemptions, Special Review, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Historic Designation. The subject property is also described as Lots 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in Section 23, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, a portion of the SEl/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 24,' 9 South, Range, 85 West and HES 210 in a portion of Sections 24, Township 9 South, Range 85 West and a portion of Sections 19 and 30, Township 9 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. This approval of a site specific devel- opment plan includes a vested property right for TEN (10) YEARS pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, CRS. Jeanette Jones Deputy County Clerk Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76164) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BOOMERANG SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17th, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider a request for 1) a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, 2) Two (2) Lodge Preservation Allotments, 3) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and 4) Growth Management Quota System Exemptions for Lodge Preservation Allotments and Affordable Housing for the Boomerang Lodge Expansion to be locat- ed across West Hopkins from ' the existing Boomerang Lodge. For further Information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 92" 102. s/Robert Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76161) PUBLIC NOTICE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 2001 BUDGET Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Detailed records of the environmental analysis are available for public review at the Aspen Ranger District, White River National Forest, 816 W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 81611. For further information on this decision, or to obtain a copy of the decision, contact the Aspen District Ranger at the above address or phone (970) 925- 3445. If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five (5) business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date of appeals disposition. Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76253) PUBLIC NOTICE The Silver Queen Gondola will be running in the evening for private parties at the Sundeck and/or Aspen Nitn. Club on the following dates: July 9, 12, 14, 27, 28; August 11, 13, 21, 2001. Published in The Aspen Times June 30, 2001. (76155) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ISiS THEATER, 408 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR RETAIL CONVERSION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at a meet- ing to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission, City Hall, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Isis, L.L.C., requesting a re-evaluation of the growth management exemption to allow for unrestricted retail use of either a portion of all of the ground -level floor of the Isis Building. The property located at 408 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, & N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, and is more commonly known as the Isis Theater. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Robert Blaich, Chair Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission. Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76162) PUBLIC NOTICE OF A WAREHOUSEMAN'S SALE Notice Is hereby given that under and pursuant to the statues of the State of Colorado giving warehousemen a lien on goods deposited with them for all lawful charges and expenses in rela- tion to said goods and In accordance with the terms of a notice given to each of the following named person, the same being the respective owners or person on which accounts the goods mentioned are held or who claim an interest in said goods the undersigned COLUMBINE STOR- AGE CENTER, INC. to satisfy the claims for which it has a warehousemen's lien against in said goods will, beginning at the hour of 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, July 14, 2001 at the Columbine Storage Center, Inc. warehouse located at 411 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, ASPEN, CO sell by auction for cash the following described goods to Wit: Lot# ALTERNATIVE INTERIORS, Amy Quigley, P.O. Box 8194, Aspen, Co 81612.2 Love seats, grey sofa, 2 wood end table, six drawer dresser, 4 single box springs, 2 quilted single head- boards, 2 quilted bed bases, 2 dressers, sleeper sofa, round table and leaf, nitestand, 2 mattress- es, headboard, 2 nitestands, headboard and bed base, 6 drawers, 2 headboards, table, dresser and chair. Lot# AUSIIIN John Austin, c/o International Investment, 75-5629 Kuakini Hwy., #R-684, Kallua-Kona, HI 96740.7 wardrobe cartons, 6 4.5 cartons, 10 small i cartons, 2 dish pak, 6 medium cartons, 2 dish paks, 6 medium cartons, 2 mirror cartons, wooden wine rack, 12 pair of skis, 2 ski bags and poles. Lot# BOEDER Lawrence Boeder, 455 East Wisconsin Ave., Lake Forest, IL 60045.3 cartons, 2 chests and cocktail table. Lot# CHAPEL Jennifer Chapel, P.O. Box 18327, .. - nn otc,)n )q small cartnnc 9 mwiinm car- I:a:: C.) MEMORANDUM TO: Joint Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue- GMQS Exemption for the expansion of a historic landmark DATE: July 17, 2001 SUMMARY: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue is a designated historic landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicants are seeking approval to add new net leasable area and to mitigate for that new space by providing an on -site deed restricted unit. APPLICANT: MSJ Properties, represented by Philos International. LOCATION: 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. Commercial Core zone district. ZONING: "CC," Commercial Core. LOT SIZE: 3,000 square feet. CURRENT LAND USE: Office space and one free market apartment. PROPOSED LAND USE: Office space, one free market apartment, and one deed restricted affordable housing unit. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Historic Preservation Commission recently granted final design approval for this project. Initially, the proposal was to make a 3-4 story addition to the historic house. The HPC found this to be inappropriate and worked with the applicant to come to a compromise; a two story addition placed along the alley, totally detached from the original structures. As part of their review, HPC also granted a parking waiver and allowed, with the support of the Engineering Department and the Environmental Ranger, a reduction in the size of the utility/trash storage area. Staff finds that this project will be a preservation success story in the downtown. The development is at 58% of the maximum allowed FAR, and is completely detached from the historic house and shed. 1 PROCEDURE: GMQS Exemption The Aspen Municipal Code provides certain Growth Management exemptions for Historic Landmarks. The code language relevant to this application, and the staff evaluation, are as follows. Section 26.470.070(D)(4). Enlargements for mixed -use development. The enlargement of an historic landmark for mixed -use as a commercial, office or lodge development and that adds a residential dwelling unit, that increases the building's or parcel's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage shall be exempt. This exemption is not deducted from annual allotments or from Aspen Metro Area ceilings. Review is by Growth Management Commission. The applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed by the standards set forth at sub -Section 5, below. Section 26.470.070(D)(5). Standards for certain historic landmark exemptions. To be eligible for the historic landmark exemptions of sub -Sections (2)(b), (3)(b) and (4) above, the applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed as follows: (a) Affordable housing. (1) For an enlargement to the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at one hundred (100) percent of the level that would meet the threshold required in Section 26.470.080(C)(5) for the applicable use. For each one percent reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by one percent. Staff Response: The project is approximately 42% below the maximum allowable floor area and the mitigation requirement is to be adjusted accordingly. According to the referral from the Housing Office (Exhibit A), the Housing Guidelines state that mitigation for new net leasable space must be done at a rate of 3.5 to 5.5 employees per 1,000 square feet. This application creates 1,340 square feet of new net leasable space, which is 134% of 1,000 SF. 1.34% multiplied by the recommended 4.375 employees yields 5.8625 employees. Therefore, if the minimum threshold of 60% is multiplied by the 5.8625 employees, a number of 3.52 employees is attained. This number of employees should be reduced by 42% because the project is under the floor area restriction. Thus, the number of employees mitigated for should be 2.04 employees. Since the applicant is proposing to deed restrict a one -bedroom unit, the number of employees that the applicant would be required to pay cash -in -lieu for would be reduced 4 by 1.75 employees. Therefore, 2.04 employees — 1.75 employees yields .29 employees. .29 employees x $104,757.89 (the payment in lieu fee per employee) _ $305547.40. The applicant has elected, however, to expand and then deed restrict an existing on -site apartment to satisfy the housing requirement. The unit will be a 730 square feet, one bedroom, basement level apartment. The Housing Office finds it to be satisfactory mitigation, and their suggested conditions of approval are listed in the recommended motion. (2) The applicant shall place a restriction on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional. floor area is requested, the owner shall provide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Staff response: This will be a condition of approval. The unit being provided in this application exceeds the code requirement and the applicant has a small "cushion" which might be used to cover any future mitigation. Any future development on the site will also require the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. (3) Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's Category 3 price and income guidelines, as set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Staff response: This will be a condition of approval. (4) Any affordable housing shall comply with the standards for affordable housing set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Staff response: This will be a condition of approval. (b) Parking. Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Chapter 26.515, if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that parking can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Chapter 26.415, if applicable. Any parking that cannot be located on -site and that would therefore be required to be provided via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be waived. Staff response: The goal of this project, from the HPC's perspective, has been to put all new development on the alley, and to limit the height of the new development. One or the other of those goals could not be accomplished if on -site parking is required. As a result, the HPC has waived the parking requirement, which is consistent with the treatment of numerous other recent historic preservation projects in the downtown. 3 (c) Off site impacts. The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Growth Management Commission. Staff response: All utilities are available in the alley, immediately behind the new structure. The applicant has been in touch with utility departments. (d) Compatibility. The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area. Staff response: The design of this project has been discussed at length, with significant public involvement, before the Historic Preservation Commission. There is open space preserved along Hopkins and Monarch, leaving the building in very much the setting that exists today. - This is very unusual in the Commercial Core and the applicant is to be commended for leaving the property, and the historic structures, as intact as they will be. The property is served by an alley, allowing easy access to deliveries and other services. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Growth Management Commission finds the review standards have been met and approves a GMQS exemption for the development proposed for 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, with the following conditions: l . A deed restriction for the affordable unit must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 2. The unit shall be deed restricted at no higher than .Category 3. 3. Language approved by the City Attorney's office shall be incorporated into the deed restriction to guarantee the rent control for this unit. 4. A site visit shall be conducted to inspect the deed restricted unit for compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Requirements prior to issuance of a "Certificate of Occupancy." RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution # , Series of 2001." IQ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Housing Office referral comments Exhibit B - Application 4 i MEMORANDUM z TO; Chris Rendon, Community Iaevelopment Department i FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: July 12, 2001 RE: 5HEPPARD HOUSE PROJECT; 302 E. Hopkins Avenue Parcel ID No, i z.S�VE: The project involves demolishing a W-historic addition to the existing building, relocating ,the existing shed on site, and building a new commercial/residential structure on the rest of the lot. The commercial portion will increase by 1,340 square feet; a new free market residential unit will be constructed on the top f loor of the structure; and an existing subgrade one -bedroom unit is proposed to be expanded and deed restricted for mitigation purposes.: t Ad i i nal Commer tg�, Space; According to my previous memo, the s; calcula ivr►$ for the additional square footage of net leasable commercial space is inaccurate, According to the Land Use Code, under the Commercial Core zone district, mitigation is required between 3.5 to 5.25 employees/1,000 net leasable square feet. Therefore, the correct calculation for the additional 1,340 under the minimum threshold of 60% is as follows. f 11340 + 1,000 = 1.34 X 3.5 = 4.69 X 60% = 2,814 up to 1,340 + 1,000 = 1,34 X 5.25 = 7,035 X 60% = 4.2z1 i Staff is recommending that the average between 3.5 to 5.25 be used for the calculation. This would require mitigation at 4,375 employees/1,000 net leasable square feet. Therefore, the required mitigation needed to satisfy this addition at the minimum threshold of 60% is.,as follows; 1,340 + 1,000 = 1.34 X 4.375 = 5.8625 X 60% = 3.52 The applicant is proposing to deed restrict a one -bedroom unit, which would mitigate for j: 1,75 FTF' therefore, additional mitigation of 1.77 would be required. This would require deed riling another one -bedroom unit and satisfy the remainder .OZ as payment -in -lieu, i or satisfy the additional 1,77 FTE under the payment -in -lieu fso of 1,77 X $104,757.89 ' $185,421,47, There may be a f urther reduction for being under the maximum FAR as stated in' the land Use Code, RECOMM%DATIQN: The proposed 730 square foot unit does not meet the mitigation requirement for the expansion of the commercial space. staff would recommend approval of this request under the following conditions: 1. The one -bedroom unit must adhere to the following: a. Since it is located subgrade, all UDC requirements mot be adhered to. b. The deed restriction shall be recorded prior to building permit approval, c. The unit shall be deed restricted at no higher than a Category 3. d, Language approved by the City Attorney's Off ice shall be incorporated into the deed restriction to guarantee the rent control for this unit, 41 e, A site visit shall be conducted on the employee unit prior to Certificate of Occupancy. i� •l 2. ...*i;ional mitigation of 1.77 is required, This can be satisfied by providing another one -bedroom unit and provide a payment -in -lieu fee of ,02, or provide the Payment -in -lieu f ee at the 1,77 FTE additional requirement, dofMwiduefbtralehepper0til�x t .1 RTR . 24.2001 � j . 29AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.441 P.1 I . ff� 1' TO: Amy Guthrie, Community Development bepartment FROM: Cindy Christensen, Mousing Office is i, bATE . April 24, 2001 i RE: SHEPPARD HOUSE PROJECT; 302 E, Hopkins Avenue tParcel ID No. i The project involves demolishing a non -historic addition to the existing building, relocating the existing shed on site, and building a new commercial/residential structure on the rest r the lot. The commercial portion will increase by 1,340 square feet; a new free market residential unit will be constructed on the top f loor of the structure; and an existing subgrade 'studio unit is proposed to be expanded and deed restricted for mitigation purposes.; i Miti, �� I for AAd_ tionc l ggmmerc al Space: According to the request, the applicant is proposing to add an additional 1,340 net leasable square feet. The Housing Guidelines states that for every 3,000 square feet of new FAR, the applicant will be required to mitigate for one employee at $104,757,89. Proportional mitigation will be allowed. The payment -in -lieu fee required for this increase would be as follows; 10340 � 3,000 X $104,757.89 c $46,791-.86 I The applicant would prefer to provide a deed -restricted unit instead of paying the payment- ih-lieu fee. The applicant Is proposing to expand an existing studio unit into a one -bedroom, 730 .square foot unit. This unit will satisfy the mitigation requirement for the expansion of the comin 'rcial space, : The proposed 730 square foot unit does meet the mitigation requires; for the expansion of the commercial space, Staff would recommend approval of this unit for mitigation purposes qs long as the following conditions are met: 1. The unit is located subgrade; therefore, all UBC requirements must be adhered to. 2. The deed restriction shall be recorded prior to building permit approval. 3. The unit shall be deed restricted at no higher than a Category 3. 4, Language approved by the City Attorneys Office shall be incorporated into the deed restriction to guarantee the rent control for this unit, 5. A site visit shall be conducted on the employee unit prior to Certificate of Occupancy. j � da�,voial�ItiRanenepPaidmRdoc s LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Location: �3cz No�l<tt�`�, ��' K 00 , -t c WT-A -5 tTl= (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: T04f,� T--)AN l -!5 Address:o }30� �'(o(o ��L CO g(Co 2 1 Phone #: c1',-��'L �Z�' • `TJoo REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 1;�Pc�— Address: +AVet S *Q i Phone�-�— TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that applv): a Conditional Use Conceptual PUD . Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal [] Conceptual SPA Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption Subdivision Historic Designation ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream [ Subdivision Exemption (includes Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane Lot Split Temporary Use Other: I —I Lot Line Adjustment Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) >1 FIZO ACT fft 5�p PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) F/- +9 \ ii4,_ i?Q0L 1 T 1 Qh� OF TM� `}`lam'i'rts-TC;S'L 67D2IT 101A -JZ',�7LQG4TE + -T c, 4 f_xt,r-o-T iN 0JA7-13WLV N� SEW AA t k�a u5� s-- -r u A Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S Pre -Application Conference Summary Attachment 91, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #?, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment 93, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment 94, Specific Submission Contents 7 Response to Attachment 95, Review Standards for Your Application 17, - - - - - - m -t x L? W 0 'l, 0 m�; u 1 i J. S; J 12 — & J 'A c c ZF 0 2 -o o c c Z Z E Z; i6 b = , . & , 3: � :� � o 3:.9 - -U- 4 5 S-S 2 E-; 0 :?.e 'z 'o S zz 6 E S'i -5 c Z'z z z 0 m`nA 9.- 5 0 " - -C ir T o eL cc m� o: vc X m m It c cr w w n C' j% c c o g 1? h A tf b '-:t T , m - 1q -? 7 T - 'I Lt, .9 to , T Z n- 'l, L9 ? 't' 7 7 '? T r T �q T "? Z 7 r� " o I I - I m 7 - to 'r T L.H 0 x -x; 7; x 00 in: Ix 13 a o cc e Ln c c o o o u u 'oo o u n c " .12 r 3: 3: c c m Ln IS t c In E c -6 o tn E c 'n c c L gl-.2= o o o o E a c c 6.5 a 'o e u U u u u Go :2 z 1 14 44 Hu'M o . . . . . . . o o 2 i :E 2 2 2 Lurwl r Ln Jo M uc tr (A" L.0 IF N c rr I lice Cj b N 4k ge Out.. at cir Ln Cl A C' At/ 8 LJLCO A apl, ct R Ct -K r /* -01 V is -ad ps /F ib t: It Y PH lif 4:t q, all Pail is :8 i1 Irrrfl iV...�;S'"eroueen s iQ Gondola I In -.T." laud CC 4?" 1 7iz 0' < cc t py Two River 04 AG cam" CM*k Z ry LO tall It Of Pit in "Na '60 \tC6 yt Plal,uvti,7 m , U'9 �7 - - - e., -g Lit Val 1 All; . AJF I "- tr I Vp q 3 o z E I4 P-:.,s SaturddySunday, June 3ahlyl,'2d01 '•"?7z6 MfiehMthes forth herein and all other applicable rules and regulations as may be contained in Title iX of the Pitkin County Code, and to prosecute violations thereof. in addition, Grantor and its successors and assigns forever in the record ownership of the underlying real property shall have the right (but never the obligation) at any time to prose- cute any action that may be necessary or appro- priate to enforce said covenants and use restric- tions and Title IX rules and regulations by injunction and/or damages action or otherwise, which action may join Grantee as a defendant if it has failed to perform its covenants or its enforcement obligations hereunder. The prevail- ing party in any such private enforcement action shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection therewith. If Grantor or it successors and assigns in the record ownership of the underly- ing real property incurs any maintenance or restoration costs occasioned by a violation of the terms of this License Agreement by Grantee or members of the general public, Grantee agrees to promptly reimburse Grantor or its suc- cessor or assign for all such costs. 6. Grantee's Obligations to Defend, Hold Harmless and Insure. The parties expressly acknowledge that the Public Trail Licenses are granted for a "recreational purpose" under C.R.S. Section 33-41-101, et. seq., and that Grantor is entitled to the benefits, protections and limitations on liability afforded by Colorado law governing recreational licenses, including without limitation said Section 33-41-101, et. seq. By granting the Public Trail Licenses, Grantor shall have no obligation to repair, clear or oth- erwise maintain the area within the Public Trail Licenses, or to Insure or indemnify Grantee or the public for any injury, claim or damage to any person or property, whether alleged to have occurred as a result of use of the Public Trail Licenses for public nonmotorized travel or oth- •ise, or due to the condition of the public Jy accepting the Public Trail Licenses grant - I Trail herein, Grantee hereby agrees to defend -i dur- (including reasonable attorneys' fees) and hold Df the harmless Grantor and its successors and Lspen, assigns in the record ownership of the underly- ing real property traversed by the Public Trail Jones Licenses, or any part thereof, to the full extent Clerk allowed under Colorado law, from and against 1 any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses viENT AENT of any kind or nature (including those invoking tered death, personal injury or property damage) aris- ween ing from or incurred in any way in connection com- with the use of the Public Trail Licenses or any JNTY other property of Grantee by anyone, Including COL- members of the general public, excepting any olitic such claims or losses which may arise directly from the willful and grossly negligent acts of Grantor and her agents or employees, or other real claims as described in C.R.S. Section 33-41- 21ght 1040). Grantee further agrees to add Grantor le of (and Its successors and assigns In the owner- Iver; ship of the underlying real property traversed by the Public Trail Licenses, or any part thereof) trail as additional named insureds on its comprehen- "Rio sive general liability insurance policy, which ierly insurance shall be maintained by the Grantee to Fork provide protection against liability from claims arising out of the use of the Public Trail to Licenses. Such Insurance shall be carried in sire amounts not less than the liability limits specf- for fied In C.R.S. Section 24-10114(1), as it may be 'rail, amended from time to time, and shall provide lade Grantor and its successors and assigns with per- thirty (30) days advance written notice prior to rop- cancellation or termination. Grantee shall, upon Ions written request therefore from Grantor or any successor or assign, provide a Certificate of i to Insurance as verification of compliance with Ac- these requirements. Lain 7. Attorneys' Fees. in the event the Interpreta- or enforcement of this License Agreement 'd ever become the subject of litigation era. :en Grantor (or its successors and assigns set .,ie record ownership of the underlying real able Property traversed by the Public Trail Licenses, Hof . or any part thereof) and Grantee, the substan- 1 Y Prevailing party shall be entitled to an Ntot : yricu d of its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees into g, urred In connection therewith. �e .,,tile l �bi d 8 u' tc. T is License e to the Agreement of rsOnAles hereto and their respective heirs, ?� "presentatives, successors and Z _ er Including all future record own- _ ing bi11'ik41f y[ t Property traversed by 25°50'24" E 2408.51 FEET. IT RIO GRANDE TRAIL NO.2 AND QWEST FIBER EASEMENT A 15.00 FOOT WiDE STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUN- TY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID EASEMENT LYING 7.50 FEET TO EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21; THENCE N 27°16'02" W 2406.87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RiGHT- OF-WAY OF THE 60' ELAM ROAD EASEMENT SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 24 AT PAGE 62 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER' OFFICE AND THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXiST ING RIO GRANDE TRAIL, THE POINT OF BEGIN- NiNG; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY ALONG SAID.CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68'31'10", A DISTANCE OF 71.75 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 77°15'40" W 67.55 FEET); THENCE N 43'00'05" W A DISTANCE OF 115.28 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29'57'12". A DISTANCE OF 39.21 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 57'58'41" W 38.76 FEET); THENCE N 72'57' 17" W A DISTANCE OF 32.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILROAD PER BOOK 312 AT PAGE 560 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21 BEARS S30'01'08" E 2620.05 FEET. IT RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO. 3 SITUATED iN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERID- IAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; SAiD EASEMENT LYING. 7.50 FEET TO EACH SiDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER- LiNE: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21; THENCE S 06°36'41" W 1962.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING RIO-GRANDE TRAIL, SAiD POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RiO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAID CENTER- LINE N 00°01'37" E A DISTANCE OF 52.15 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.49 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67°31'35", A DISTANCE OF 167.93 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 33°47'25" E 158.38 FEET); THENCE N 67°33'12" E A DISTANCE OF 12.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21 BEARS N 04°06'39" E 1765.33 FEET. 15' RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO. 4 SITUATED iN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERID- IAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID EASEMENT LYING. 7.50 FEET TO EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER- LINE: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21; THENCE S 02°22'26" E 1662.28 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING RIO GRANDE TRAIL, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAID CENTER- LINE N 44*16'11" E A DISTANCE OF 184.32 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55°01'14", A DISTANCE OF 24.01 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 16°45'34" E 23.10 FEET); TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE PROPOSED 30' SANITATION DISTRICT EASEMENT, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 10°52'10" W A DISTANCE OF 183.69 FEET; TO A POiNT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21 BEARS N 07°1T03" W 1337.14 FEET. 15' RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO.5 SITUATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGF. R5 WFST OF T14F. RTI4 Ppwripm uppin- Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Palomino Barth Architects requesting a Stream Margin Review for the property located at 1210 Red Butte Dr., Aspen Co. The property is described as Lot 5, Gaylord Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin Countv CO. For further information, contact Steve Clay at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, stephenc@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76163) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE -GROWTH MAN- AGEMENT EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 at a meet- ing to begin at 5:00 p.m., before the Growth Management Commission, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by MSJ Properties, requesting a growth management exemption and approving the on -site affordable housing unit proposed to mitigate the new net leasable square footage being created at the property located at 302 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lot K, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. This project has recently received final design approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair and Peter Martin, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. J (76160) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC: That on June 13, 2001 the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, adopted Resolution No 109-2001 approving the Two Mile Ranch GMQS Exemptions, Special Review, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Historic Designation. The subject property is also described as Lots 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in Section 23, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, a portion of the SE1/4 and the SW1/4 of Section 24, 9 South, Range, 85 West and HES 210 In a portion of Sections 24, Township 9 South, Range 85 West and a portion of Sections 19 and 30, Township 9 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. This approval of a site specific devel- opment plan includes a vested property right for TEN (10) YEARS pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, CRS. Jeanette Jones Deputy County Clerk Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76164) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BOOMERANG SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NOTICE iS HEREBY GWEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17th, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider a request for 1) a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, 2) Two (2) Lodge Preservation Allotments, 3) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and 4) Growth Management Quota System Exemptions for - Lodge Preservation Allotments and Affordable Housing for the Boomerang Lodge Expansion to be locat- ed across West Hopkins from the existing Boomerang Lodge. For further Information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102. s/Robert Bialch, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. (76161) PUBLIC NOTICE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 2001 BUDGET FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Notice is hereby given that a supplemental appropriation to the 2001 budget has been sub- mitted to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. A PUBLIC HEARING has been erhofi„Iarl — Wnrir, —l—, r„I., t 1 7M1 ♦., 1-1— Appeals must meet content requireme CFR 215.14. Detailed records of the environmental are available for public review at th Ranger District, White River National R W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Fo information on this decision, or to obta of the decision, contact the Aspen Ranger at the above address or phone 3445. If no appeal is received, implementatic. decision may occur on, but not before business days from the close of the apF period. If an appeal is received, implerr may not occur for 15 days following th appeals disposition. Published in The Aspen Times on June (76253) PUBLIC NOTICE The Silver Queen Gondola will be runni evening for private parties at the and/or Aspen Mtn. Club on the followii July 9, 12. 14, 27, 28; August 11, 1", 21, Published in The Aspen Times June (76155) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ISiS THEATER, 408 EAST HOPKINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA EXEMPTION FOR RETAIL CONVERSION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, a ing to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Asp, County Growth Management Commiss Hall, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, to cot application submitted by Isis, L.L.C., re a re-evaluation of the growth man, exemption to allow for unrestricted reL either a portion of all of the ground-leve the Isis Building. The property located Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, & N, Block and Townsite of Aspen, and is more cc known as the Isis Theater. For further information, contact Chris B the Aspen/Pitkin Community Deve Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. 920-5072, chrisb®ci.aspen.co.us. s/Robert Blau Aspen/Pitkii Growth Management Corn Published in The Aspen Times on June (76162) PUBLIC NOTICE OF A WAREHOUSEMAN'S SALE Notice is hereby given that under and i to the statues of the State of Colorac: warehousemen a lien on goods deposi them for all lawful charges and expense. tion to said goods and in accordance terms of a notice given to each of the f named person, the same being the re owners or person on which accounts ti mentioned are held or who claim an in said goods the undersigned COLUMBiI\ AGE CENTER, INC. to satisfy the ch which it has a warehousemen's lien a; said goods will, beginning at the hour a.m, on Saturday, July 14, 2001 at the Cc Storage Center, Inc. warehouse locate. ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, AS sell by auction for cash the following d, goods to Wit: Lot# AL7ERNA77VE INTERIORS, Amy P.O. Box 8194, Aspen, Co 81612.2 Loti grey sofa, 2 wood end table, six drawer 4 single box springs, 2 quilted sing boards, 2 quilted bed bases, 2 dressers sofa, round table and leaf, nitestand, 2 r es, headboard, 2 nitestands, headboard base, 6 drawers, 2 headboards, table, and chair. Loth AUS17N John Austin, c/o Inter Investment, 75-5629 Kuaklni Hwy., Kallua-Kona, HI 96740. 7 wardrobe carte cartons, 10 small I cartons, 2 dish pak, 6 cartons, 2 dish paks, 6 medium cartons, cartons, wooden wine rack, 12 pair of s bags and poles. Loh# BOEDER Lawrence Boeder, 4 Wisconsin Ave., Lake Forest, IL 60045. 3 2 chests and cocktail table. Loh# CHAPEL Jennifer Chapel, P.O. B( Avon, CO 81620.23 small cartons, 9 meL tons, 4 large cartons, tricycle, child's plastic containers, back pack, trash c; tables, milk crate, 2 chairs, tab) , base, t step up, single mattress, sins :pox spri board and footboard. 2 sW tables, e! / MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director.. FROM: Steve Clay, Planner f RE: 1210 Red Butte Dr. Stream Margin Review, Resolution No. 5,3 , Series of 2001. —PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 17, 2001 rsrian L. riazen REPRESENTATIVE Jack Palomino/ Palomino Barth Architectes PARCEL & LEGAL ID 2735-013-16005 Lot 5, Gaylord Subdivision ADDRESS 1210 Red Butte Dr. Aspen, Co ZONING R3 0 PUD CURRENT LAND USE Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE Single Family Residential REQUESTED ACTION ➢ Stream Margin Review SUMMARY: The property is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area at 1210 Red Butte Drive along the Roaring Fork River. The applicant is requesting approval of a Stream Margin Review. The applicant is proposing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), alterations and additions to the existing single-family dwelling. See attached plans Furthermore, the applicant requests an exemption from the definition of a linked pavilion to achieve a FAR bonus for the ADU. There is no process in the Land Use Code to allow an exemption from a definition. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission not act upon this and the applicant should follow the proper procedure, which is to request an official interpretation by the Community Development Director. Floor Area Summary (Based on the applicants submittal) Total allowable FAR = 5563.65 o Maximum Allowable FAR = 5563.65 sf o Existing FAR = 3873.0 sf o Remaining FAR = 1691.0 sf o FAR Bonus for ADU *(pending approval) = 625.0 sf/2 = 312.5 sf o Total Remaining FAR w/bonus = 2003.5 sf Proposed Additions: o ADU (and Bridge): 695.0 sf o Garage Addition: 625.0 sf o Dining Room Addition: 169.0 sf o Master Sitting Room Addition: 126.0 sf o Master Closet Addition: 120.0 sf o Master Office Addition: 244.5 sf Subtotal 1979.5 sf The proposed ADU, above the garage, will be attached to the existing single-family structure by a bridge: See attachment page A3.1. The applicant states that an employee of theirs will be living in the additional dwelling unit and will need to have direct access to the existing structure. Also, the applicant is willing to make this a lock -off unit if necessary. The proposed ADU, by definition per Section 26.575.010 (7), is a linked pavilion as stated below: Linked Pavilion: Any element linking the principal structure to an accessory structure shall not be included in the calculation of floor area provided that the linking structure is no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long. Areas of linking structures in excess of ten feet in length shall be counted in floor area. The applicant requests to be exempt from the definition of a linked pavilion. Approval of that exemption, as noted above, could then make it a detached ADU allowing a Floor Area Bonus per the definition of the Detached ADU FAR Bonus, Land Use Code Section 26.575.010 (6) b as stated below: Detached ADU Floor Area Bonus Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an ADU which is detached from the primary residence by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet and which is housed in a structure with a footprint of no more than 625 square feet shall be excluded ftom the calculation of Floor Area. 2 The ADU includes a door leading to a "bridge" on the 2" floor door of the main house. Staff feels this is inappropriate because a main door to the ADU is provided via the 1 S` floor with a stairway up to the ADU. The process for a connecting door to the main house is handled by Special Review. This hearing was not legally noticed for such action. Stream Margin Review Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one -hundred -year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. 26.435.040 C Stream Martin Review Standards states: No development shall be permitted within the Stream Margin unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: l . It can be demonstrated that any proposed development, which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area, will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and ➢ Staff Finding: Per the submitted plans, there will not be any development in the floodway for the proposed development. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and, ➢ Staff Finding Per the submitted plans staff does not foresee any impacts regarding this requirement. The Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan recommendations are being met and implemented to the greatest extent possible and a fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course 3 shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement, "per the conditions of approval. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; and ➢ Staff Finding Per the submitted plans, there will not be any disturbance of vegetation outside of the building envelope. The building envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and ➢ Staff Finding The proposed development will not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary including erosion andlor sedimentation during construction and a silt fence shall be placed along the riverside of the building envelope. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review, and approval, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. - 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and ➢ Staff Finding Per the submitted plans no development is proposed that will require written notification to the Colorado water conservation board due to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and ➢ Staff Finding No development is proposed which will alter or relocate any or all existing water courses. In the extent a watercourse is altered, a guarantee is provided and applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one -hundred -year floodplain; and ➢ Staff Finding Per the submitted plans, no development is proposed which will require federal and state permits relating to work within the one -hundred year floodplain. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability; and ➢ Staff Finding Per the submitted plans there will not be any development within the required 15 feet from the top of slope. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020; and ➢ Staff Finding All development is outside the 15-foot setback from the top of slope and does not exceed the height delineated by a line drawn at a 45-degree angle from the ground level at the top of slope. 10. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and Staff Finding A landscape plan was submitted and no new plantings are proposed outside of the design noted building envelope on the riverside. 11. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150; and ➢ Staff Finding The applicant shall comply with all exterior lighting and all design criteria and submit a lighting plan with the Building Permit application. 12. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; and ➢ Staff Finding Site sections were submitted as drawn by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. that shows all existing and proposed site elements. 13. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. ➢ Staff Finding A site plan has been submitted that identifies the riparian zone. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends approval for the Stream Margin Review for the proposed alterations and additions to the existing single-family dwelling finding that the criteria per Section 26.435.040 C, Stream Margin Review Standards has been met, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Recommended Motions "I move to approve Resolution No. , (Series of 2001) for a Stream Margin Review for a property located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area at 1210 Red Butte Drive Lot 5, of the Gaylord Subdivision along the Roaring Fork River." ATTACHMENTS: PalominoBarth Architects design drawings: o A1.0 — Information sheet o ALI — Site Plan o A1.2 — Landscape Plan o FAR — Floor Area Calculation o A2.1— Proposed Lower Level Plan o A2.2 — Proposed Main Level Plan o A3.1— Exterior Elevations 0 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director j A-p FROM: Steve Clay, Planner q(!l RE: Moore Planned Unit Development Amendment — A Change in "Height Limitations" DATE: July 17, 2001 APPLICANT: Zoom Flume LLC. REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn INC. PARCEL ID: 2735-114-0207 ADDRESS: 0036 Bus Barn Lane ZONING: RI PD CURRENT LAND USE: Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUESTED ACTION: Amendment of the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Summary The applicant requests a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to amend Article VII, Section VII of the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide (PUD Guide) to change the height limitation to allow a maximum height of 17 feet, only pertaining to Lot 27e, of the Moore Family PUD Guide. Allowable maximum height is currently 16 feet. The newly built structure on Lot 27e exceeds the Moore PUD height limit by 10 3/4 inches. Building height is measured pursuant to the definition in Article VI, Section 2 of the PUD Guide. The height is measured from the finish grade to the roof midpoint line. Due to grading considerations the street was laid out in a fashion to allow for proper drainage of the street and home sites. Upon placing the houses on the sites it was discovered that the house on Lot 27e was 10 3/4 inches over the maximum allowable height of 16 feet. The house is in compliance at the rear elevation grade according to the PUD (Meadow Wood side) but as the site slopes down toward the front (street side), the house becomes non compliant with the PUD guidelines regarding the maximum allowable height. See attachment No. 3. Review Standards 26.445.050 Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD states: A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall � comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. ➢ Staff Finding: The proposed PUD amendment does not propose any new development and; 1. Is consistent with the Aspen Area, Community Plan. 2. Is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. Does not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed amendment will not have any effect regarding GMQS because the entire PUD has been provided allotments. 2 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. 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. ➢ Staff Finding: The proposed dimensions for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with four (4) influences noted above. The additional 10 3/" height of the residence on Lot27e is not discernable in the context of the Bus Barn Lane cluster of seven (7) houses. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. ➢ Staff Finding: Per the submitted plans the new 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. See comments above. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. 3 c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. ➢ Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is only requesting a change in height for the PUD specifically relating to the existing house on Lot 27e and would not have any impacts relating to the above standards 3(a-d) regarding parking. Parking is provided according to plan. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if. a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. ➢ Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not have any impacts on the existing infrastructure finding that the amendment is only a change in the PUD height. 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 mudflow, 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. GI ➢ Staff Finding: The amendment does not request any changes in the existing density and therefore the above standards S(a-d) is not applicable to this request. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development- pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. ➢ Staff Finding: The amendment does not request any changes in the existing density and therefore the above standards 6(a-c) is not applicable to this request. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in1 the underlying zone district as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective zone district or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a Final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. ➢ Staff Finding: The requested amendment is not proposing any changes in lot sizes and the requested dimensional change for the maximum height limitation in the PUD Guide will only be specific to Lot 27e within the Moore PUD. The change will appear in the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide (PUD Guide) Article VII, section VII of the PUD Guide limits as an amendment. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent 0 u 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 Findings: The proposed PUD amendment would not impact any site design elements, more specifically, finding that it: 1. Continues to enhance public spaces. 2. Is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces. 3. Ensures the public's health and safety. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well -designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. ➢ Staff Finding: The proposed PUD amendment is not proposing any new landscaping and would not impact the landscape thus ensuring compatibility with the visual 0 character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes that may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking* advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. ➢ Staff Finding: The additional height (10 31'9, of the residences in the subject property does not alter the architectural character of the structure or negatively impact the neighborhood F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. 7 ➢ Staff Finding: No new lighting is proposed for this PUD amendment. The standards stated above are not applicable. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: l . The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. ➢ Staff Finding: The proposed development does not include a common park, open space, or recreation area therefore is not required to meet the standards G 1-4 as stated above. .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 Finding: The house height change will not impact public infrastructure. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 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 recreational 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 expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the -extent practical. ➢ Staff Finding: The requirement to meet the Access and Circulation standards are not relevant pertaining to the requested PUD amendment. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from 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, 0 construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Findings: The requirement to meet the Phasing and Development standards are not relevant pertaining to the requested PUD amendment. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to amend Article VII, Section VII of the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide (PUD Guide) to change the height limitation allowing a maximum height of 17 feet, that will only pertain to Lot 27e, finding that the criteria per Section 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD have been met or is not applicable, subject to the recommended conditions of approval." Recommended Motions "I move to approve Resolution NcP_, (Series of 2001) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to amend Article VII, Section VII of the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide (PUD Guide) to change the height limitation allowing a maximum height of 17 feet, only pertaining to Lot 27e, finding that the criteria per Section 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD have been met, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1 - VICINITY MAP 2 - LETTER FROM ARCHETECT EXPLAINING WHY AND HOW THE HOUSE ON LOT 27E IS 10 3/4 INCHES OVER THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 16 FEET. 3 - BUILDING SECTION OF LOT 27E 4 - LETTER FROM ARCHITECT VERIFY THE HEIGHT OF ALL SEVEN STRUCTURES LOCATED IN THE MOORE FAMILY PUD BLOCK A 5 - LETTER VERIFYING THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES 10 July 9, 2001 Steve Clay Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 27E Bus Barn Lane Dear Steve, The "B" affordable housing units as designed for placement on Bus Barn Lane were limited in height due to the restrictions imposed by the P. U. D. The allowable height was to be a maximum of 16' as measured by the Pitkin County Land Use Code in effect as of the granting of the P. U. D. This measurement is taken at the midpoint of the roof and is combined with several other limitations as explained in the land use code. These houses were designed to be placed on seven lots and as such were designed to be approximately 6" under. the maximum allowable height allowing some flexibility as to placement on the site. The civil engineer then developed the site by designing the road, utilities, grading and placing the homes on the various lots. Due to grading considerations the street was laid out in a fashion so as to allow for proper drainage of all the home sites. and the street. Upon pr acing the houses on the sites it was discovered that all of the building heights worked within this height limitation with the exception of Lot 27e 4iq0 this house is in compliance at the rear. (Meadowwood side) elev4Wa. The site then slopes down toward the front (street) and the house is then 10 3/4" over that allowed by the P.U.D. ,I Alan Letson AUGUST RENO AIA SCOTT SMITH AIA RENO 4 SMITH A bl:CH )TECTS, L.L.C. III 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970.925.5968 FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 E-MAIL olliee0'renosmith.com 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE BASALT COLORADO 81621 970.927.6834 FACSIMILE 970.927.6840 November 16, 2000 ,'vlatt Stokes Hines Interests Highlands Base Village Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Five Trees Phase II Bus Barn Height Calculations Dear Mr. Stokes, We have calculated the roof mid point heights on all of the sites on Bus Barn Lane. These heights were derived using the ridge elevations supplied by Schmueser Gordon Meyer on October 12, 2000 via email. We then compared these elevations to the spot grades (also supplied by SGNI on November 13, 2000) as they occur under the roof mid points on the Revised Detailed Submission. In each case the most restrictive grade was used. Lots 25e, 26e, 27e, and 28e the Revised Detailed Submission is lower than finished grade so the R.D.S was used for calculation. Lots 29e, 30e and 3 l e the R.D.S. grade is equal to the finished grade. 6" of top soil will be added to the construction grade to arrive at the finished grade. The following are the roof midpoint heights and height above Revised Detailed Submission as these houses were placed on the building sites by the contractor under the direction of Schmueser Gordon Meyer (all heights were calculated at the worst case condition as required by code): ite: Lot 25e Lot 26e Lot 27e Lot 28e Lot 29e Lot 30e Lot 31 e R ctfully Aucu It . R Encl: Ridge ht.: Mid pt. ht.: Ht. Above Rev. Dev. Sub.: 8016.96' 8011.96' 15'-11 1/2" 8014.36' 8009.36' 15'-10 1/4" 8011.19, 8006.91' 16'-10 3/4" 8004.04' 7999.04' 15'-0 1/2" — 16'-0 1/2" 8008.74' 8003.74' 15'-2 7/8" 8014.21' 8009.377' 15'-10 1/2" 8015.26' 8010.26' 15'-9 1/8" Lot 25e section w/ roof height calculations Lot 26e section w/ roof height calculations Lot 27e section w/ roof height calculations — Lot 28e section w/ roof height calculations Lot 29e section wi roof height calculations Lot 30e section w/ roof height calculations Lot 31 e section w/ roof height calculations AUGUST G. R E 1\J O o ctions C_'a �'?? D A% ATTAcMENT 3 AUGU! T RC�I0 AI.A S C OTT SMITH AIA I .I I RENO - SMITH 210 E. HYMA,v v" 202 ASI'Ev COLORADO Mall 970.925.5908 FACSIMILE 970.925.50e3 E-NAAIL o1ficci(I rcnosmlch.com 0371 SOUTHSIDE DI:IV1 MSALT COLORADO SI(,21 1)70.9271.683-4 FACSI N1ILE )70.927.08 40 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-5090 AT ACCM ENT Mr. Bob Daniel c/o Zoom Flume LLC P.O. Box 5115- As'pen, CO 81612 Re: Bus Barn Lane Community. Dear Bob: This letter shall certify that I, Joanna Schaffner, Pitkin County Zoning Officer, have reviewed the building heights for the six affordable housing units built on Bus Barn Lane on Lots 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 31 (Block A) in the Moore Family PUD/Subdivision. I hereby verify that the building height of these individual units does not exceed 16 feet as measured pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code in effect on June 1993, which governs their approval. The height of the homes is in compliance with both the Pitkin County Land Use Code and the PUD Guide for measuring height in the Moore Family PUD/Subdivision. Very truly yours, ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT //'I,. Joann.d Schaffner ZoniA'g Officer 2725518_1.00c IF) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner .0 RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion — Planned Unit Development Amendment DATE: July 17, 2001 SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to amend a previous approval (via Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000) for the expansion of the Boomerang Lodge across W. Hopkins to a vacant lot. APPLICANT & REPRESENTATIVE Charles & Fonda Patterson, represented by Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LOCATION: South of 500 W. Hopkins (Across from the existing Boomerang Lodge) CURRENT ZONING: R-15 PUD LP STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue this PUD Amendment request until the Applicant can provide a site plan showing the provision of at least 6 to 9 "on -site" parking spaces and continue the Conditional Use request for Time share until the Applicant can provide 6 months (26 weeks) of time available to the general public. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 1 BACKGROUND Charles and Fonda Patterson (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas, have submitted an application to amend the approved Boomerang Lodge Expansion. The Applicant received approval from City Council via Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000 for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Rezoning to R-15 LP PUD, GMQS Exemptions for Affordable Housing and Lodge Preservation, and Conditional Use for the provision of Affordable Housing to expand the Boomerang across the street on a vacant parcel at 500 West Hopkins Avenue. Specifically, Ordinance No. 20 granted land use approvals for the addition of (7) lodge units (for a total of 17 lodge bedrooms), two (2) affordable housing units, and a ten space on -site sub -grade parking garage. The Applicant, upon realizing an incorrect scale was used in designing the 10-space sub - grade garage, requests to amend the approved PUD. Additionally, the Applicant is also requesting new land use approvals to add two more lodge units and for the ability to sell the new lodge units in a "fractional ownership" type arrangement similar to the City's Timeshare program. AMENDMENT REQUESTS Specifically, the Applicant proposes to amend the previous approval by the following actions: 1) Eliminate the 10-space sub=grade parking garage and propose seven "off -site" parking spaces in the 4"' Street right-of-way stub to the east of the property and 2 .spaces for the affordable housing units on the existing Boomerang Lodge site in Plan "A" or place 5 on -site parking spaces in Plan "B"; 2) Reduce one 3-bedroom Chalet to a 1-bedroom cottage 3) Add two (2) additional 1-bedroom lodge units to the west end structure; and 4) Request Conditional Use approval for "Timeshare" plan to allow the sale of fractional interests for the lodge units in the expansion. In order to accomplish these amendments, the following land use actions are requested: A. Substantial PUD Amendment B . Two additional LP Allotments C. GMQS Exemptions for LP and Affordable Housing D. Conditional Use for "Timeshare" (fractional ownership) E. Subdivision REVIEW .PROCEDURE As a matter of process, the requested land use approvals are handled in the following manner as shown in Table 1.0 on the following page: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 2 Table 1.0 Substantial PUD Amendment Recommendation to City Council Lodge Preservation Allotments Final Decision Maker GMQS Exemptions for LP and AH Final Decision Maker Conditional Use for Timeshare Recommendation to City Council Subdivision Recommendation to City Council STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Staff believes the spirit and intent of the proposed amendment meets the goals of the lodge preservation and affordable housing programs. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) calls for increasing the lodge accommodations and affordable housing units in town. Staff also appreciates the proposal to maintain the site in its natural condition to the greatest extent possible, as well as limiting the measured height to 23 feet for the chalets and 25 feet for the lodge/batl-l-iouse/AH building for a total peak height of 28 feet for all buildings which is already allowed under the current zoning. However, Staff has two concerns about the proposed expansion: Parking and Timeshare, which are addressed below. Parking City Council _ approved a site design that included a sub -grade garage containing 10 spaces. It has become apparent, that the applicant used an incorrect scale in designing the sub -grade garage and now contends that the garage cannot fit as proposed. Due to this error, the applicant is proposing two plans. Plan "A" is to eliminate the sub -grade parking garage and propose 9 parking spaces: 7 spaces to be located entirely in the 4`'' Street right-of-way stub and two (2) spaces to be located at the existing Boomerang Lodge along the 5"' Street side of the existing Boomerang. As a result, the Applicant is proposing no on -site parking whatsoever. Plan "B" includes the provision of 5 on -site spaces, 4 spaces to be located in the 4"' Street right-of-way stub, and two (2) spaces to be located at the existing Boomerang Lodge for the AH units. This plan, while still providing less than required or Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment recommended, detracts aesthetically from the site design as well as presents a safety issue for occupants of the units due to the backing out motion required getting onto West Hopkins Avenue. In addition, as curb cuts are created off of West Hopkins to accommodate Plan "B", on -street public spaces are eliminated. Again, Staff finds that there are a myriad of alternative designs that could accommodate parking without significantly impacting aesthetics, safety, or eliminating public parking spaces. While other lodge expansions have recently occurred in Aspen without completely meeting the required parking standards, those lodges were already built out physically on their lots with little or no room to expand outward; instead, these lodges expanded upward and have further agreed to provide a variety of alternative transportation methods for their guests and employees to mitigate for the lack of parking. In this case, the Boomerang Lodge expansion is proposed on a vacant property of 19,287 square feet (which is slightly less then a half city block) as stated in the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district. Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet or even exceed the City's parking ,requirement. Moreover, Staff finds that the request to develop this site with no on -site parking essentially pushes the parking impacts generated by this development into the immediate neighborhood, further burdening the City's ability to provide adequate public parking. As more projects develop within the City without absorbing their associated parking impacts, the City will continue to be seriously impacted by having to mitigate for undue impacts generated by private development. Currently, the existing Boomerang operates a shuttle service for its guests on an as needed basis with an SUV and is exploring the addition of a shuttle -van. The lodge is located within walking and biking distance to town, recreation areas, and RFTA bus stops on Main Street. Required Number of Parking Spaces The Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district requires 0.7 spaces per bedroom, or establishing the number of spaces pursuant to a PUD. If the 0.7 space per bedroom standard were imposed, the 17 new lodge rooms would require 11.9 on -site parking spaces, and the two affordable housing units would require one space per unit, for a total of 13.9 on site parking spaces. As part of the original submission (prior to the sub -grade garage proposal), Staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Applicant should be required to provide between 5 and 7 on -site parking spaces due to the lodge's location and existing parking spaces which was significantly less than the requirement. In this proposed amendment, the Applicant is increasing the number of lodge bedrooms by 2 rooms, which equates to an additional 1.4 spaces. Therefore, in keeping with Staff s original recommendation of requiring 5 to 7 spaces (combined with this additional 1.4 spaces), Staff strongly recommends that the Applicant should be required to provide 6 to 9 on -site parking spaces (less than half of the required) for the following reasons: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 4 ➢ First, visitors and tenants will likely park along W. Hopkins Avenue because it is closer to the chalets, new lodge units or affordable housing than parking across the street on the existing lodge site. Staff strongly believes that parking can be accommodated on this vacant lot rather than on the street; ➢ Second, W. Hopkins Avenue already experiences a high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic; this street is a designated pedestrian and bicycle corridor during the summer months. In addition, the Parks Department is concerned about parking along W. Hopkins Avenue in front of this property as well as any potential for parking in the 4"' Street stub because of the potential for complications for future trail plans for the Shadow Mountain Trail. One alternative for the Shadow Mountain trail is to extend the trail at its terminus at 4"' Street and bring it down on to the South side of Hopkins Street in the right-of- way. An eight to ten foot trail along Hopkins. would be in conflict with the proposed parking for the new lodge. ➢ Third, the Application states that fire access to the property would be from W. Hopkins Avenue. Staff is concerned that. this right-of-way is being designated for too many uses — lodge parking, fire access, and a public trail. Providing 6 to 9 parking spaces "on site" would alleviate the need for parking on the street, leaving the street primarily available for public use — people using the pedestrian and bicycle corridor, trail users, and fire access for this property. ➢ Finally, the existing Boomerang Lodge provides very few "on -site" parking spaces. Most of the spaces are located on City property in the public right-of- way. The Applicant proposes to take away two of those for the AH for the expansion. Therefore, Staff does not believe the proposed parking meets the PUD dimensional requirements criteria B (3) : The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability 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 also does not believe the proposed parking meets the Lodge Preservation GMQS Exemption criteria 4: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 5 Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment. Chalet Redesign Originally, the Applicant received approval to construct 5 Chalet style 3-bedroom lodges. In this amendment, the Applicant proposes four 3-bedroom Chalet style lodges, one 1-bedroom cottage style unit, and four 1-bedroom lodge units and two 1- bedroom affordable housing units in the large west end structure. This redesign / amendment is primarily sought as the result of the Applicant not being able to provide the 10-space sub -grade garage and therefore must reconfigure the chalet units, the interior of the west end building, and provide parking. These changes are substantial enough to warrant a full review by both the planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Staff has provided a set of the approved plans as well as the proposed plans for your comparison. Lodge Preservation Allotments The Applicant received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 29, Series, 2000 for seven (7) lodge preservation (LP) allotments. The Applicant is requesting an additional (2) two LP allotments as a result of a site redesign that reduces one 3-bedroom Chalet to a one -bedroom cottage and adds the newly requested lodge units (allotments) to the main lodge building at the west end of the site. This request, if approved, will essentially amend the aforementioned resolution to reflect a total of nine (9) LP allotments that have been awarded to the Boomerang Lodge expansion. Currently, the LP Growth Summary (as of June 25, 2001) indicates that there are 16 available allotments. Therefore, there are plenty of allotments to satisfy this request. Again, the Planning and Zoning Commission .is the final authority regarding 'the provision of LP allotments on a first -come / first -served basis. Timeshare The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval for a "Timeshare" plan to allow the sale of fractional interests for the lodge units in the expansion. Timeshare is permitted as a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district. The Land Use Code defines a "lodge" as the same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year. Indeed, the Boomerang Lodge maintains a Lodge Preservation Overlay and is, therefore, required to adhere to this definition by providing overnight lodging to the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year. More specifically, the Land Use Code defines "short term" as the occupancy of a Hotel or Lodge unit for a rental time period not exceeding one (1) month in duration. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 6 In this case, the Applicant is proposing a fractional ownership program for the nine lodging units that includes the following: 1) 7"' fractional shares for each of the nine (9) units; 2) Each owner gets 7 weeks (this includes two weeks in the summer and two weeks in the winter peak times); 3) In total, owners use 49 weeks out of 52 for the year (leaving only three weeks); 4) The remaining three weeks will be reserved by management for rental or maintenance and repair; 5) The fractional ownership program is set up so that each unit will be available to the general public for 24 weeks a year; 6) All lodge units in the existing Boomerang (34 in total) will remain available to the general public on a short term basis; 7) When viewed as a total lodge, the Boomerang Lodge expansion will add 9 new fractionalized units, which represents 21 % of the total lodge units. Table 2.0 shows the breakdown of number of units and their associated fractional shares. Table 2.0 Units Shares Tota(: "Time Owned" . ; ._ Ownners (Each owner:gets 7_ weeks ,per year) �; 4 Chalet Units 7 each 28 49 Weeks 4 lodge room units 7 each 28 49 Weeks 1 Cottage lodge unit 7 each 7 49 Weeks 2 AH Units (excluded) N/A NIA N/A Total 63 Owners 49 Weeks The Applicant indicates that this arrangement discussed above meets the intent or "spirit" of the City's lodge definition where lodges are to be available to the general public on a short-term basis for at least six months (or 26 weeks) of each calendar year. In fact, the Applicant is proposing a "unit availability time" of 24 weeks per year, which is two weeks less than the 26 that is required. While the timeshare concept has been around for many years in Aspen, fractional share ownership is a new concept for Aspen as well as many other resorts in Colorado. Staff has been exploring what this new type of ownership means for Aspen's lodging bed base in terms of "hotbeds" or beds available to the general public on a short-term basis. There are many issues yet to be fully analyzed and / or realized, as the concept of fractional ownership is relatively new. Certainly, as lodge units are "owned," the City gains no "bed tax" from short-term visitors; however, those owners that do visit may tend to spend more money in Aspen due to the notion that they are not burdened by paying a nightly lodging fee (even though they are already doing that through mortgages). In addition, it appears that fractional fee ownership programs tend to be successful by utilizing "exchange programs" where an owner of a fractional share in Boca Raton may wish to exchange their time in Boca Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 7 Raton for two weeks in Aspen and vice versa. It is clear that the Boomerang Lodge wishes to participate in an exchange program as part of the fractional share program. What does this mean for Aspen's "hotbeds?" It probably means that visitors driving into Aspen for the night without reservations will increasingly have a difficult time in finding a lodge unit. However, given today's resort climate and the high end lodging units available, visitors most likely have already planned their trip and reserved their rooms / units prior to arriving. In general, as the fraction of owners for units' increases in this type of scheme, so does the number of beds that are filled. Given all this, the question becomes: Does Aspen care who fills the units as long as the units are occupied? Aspen has seen the condominiumization of some lodges that essentially turn those once long standing lodges into second homes that must also be rented out on a six-month basis to the general public. This has been difficult at best to monitor and enforce. However, with fractional shares, these units are geared towards turning over more often, so that they are less likely to become someone's second home in Aspen and may remain more consistent with a lodge use. The Applicant is proposing to have these units available to the general public only 24 weeks out of the year, which is two weeks less than is required by the lodge definition. In addition, lodging units that are vacant will be added to the rental pool and rented on a short-term basis. Staff would like to see the Applicant slightly reduce the timeshare so that these units are indeed available to the general public for 26 weeks rather than 24 weeks. Staff finds the Applicant is already able to take advantage of the Lodge Preservation program by achieving additional allotments/ units that -are exempted from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) but now wishes to reduce the time the general public is able to use them. Staff believes that the Applicant must meet the 26-week lodging requirement in order to take advantage of the LP allotments. If the Applicant's primary use becomes residential, Staff believes they will need to compete for residential allotments instead of the LP allotments. In effect, Staff finds this to be contrary to the spirit of lodge preservation. On the one hand, the LP program provides a mechanism for Aspen's small lodges to expand and remain viable contributions to Aspen's bed base, while this proposal, on the other hand seeks to reduce the time available for the general public to use the lodge as a lodge. Again, Staff finds the Applicant must provide those additional 2 weeks to the general public in order to qualify for the LP allotments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue this PUD Amendment request until the Applicant can provide a site plan showing the provision of at least 6 to 9 "on - site" parking spaces and will clarify that the lodge will remain available for 26 weeks out of the year to the general public. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 8 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to continue Resolution No. , Series of 2001 to for consideration of the two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision to allow the Applicant time to review his site plan to accommodate 6 to 9 parking spaces on -site, and ensure the six month availability to the general public is met. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2001, approving two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, and recommending approval to City Council for. the Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision with the conditions in the resolution herein." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development Amendment Exhibit B: LP Allotments & GMQS Exemptions for LP and Affordable Housing Exhibit C: Conditional Use for Timeshare Exhibit D: Subdivision Exhibit E: Code Interpretation regarding Timesharing and Lodges Exhibit F: Letter from Neighbors Exhibit G: Development Application Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 9 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING TWO LODGE PRESERVATION ALLOTMENTS, GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR LODGE PRESERVATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel So. 2735-124-00-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Charles and Fonda Patterson, owners, represented by Mitch Haas, requesting a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review for a property consisting of portions of Lots A -I, Block 32, City and Town Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 19,287 square feet, and is located in the R-15 Zone District with Lodge Preservation and Planned Unit Development Overlays; .and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Cornrnission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, finding that the PUD dimensional requirements for on -site parking have not been met; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a request for Conditional Use, Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director, comments from the general public, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public hearing regarding the two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision to allow the Applicant time to review his site plan to accommodate 6 to 9 parking spaces on -site, and ensure the six month availability to the general public is met; and, Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.070(M), the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a GMQS Exemption for affordable housing in conjunction with a Lodge Preservation project after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; and, WHEREAS, during a duly notice public hearing on April 19, 2000, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority recommended approval of the GMQS Exemption for affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.070(M), during a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 17, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this Resolution, by a _ to _ L- j vote, approving two Lodge Preservation allotments, GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment, conditional use for timeshare, and subdivision review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: 'qPetinn 1 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves two (2) Lodge Preservation allotments, GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment, conditional use for timeshare, and Subdivision Review with the conditions herein. Section 2 That the Boomerang Lodge expansion to a real property (namely, Parcel Number 2735-124-66- 001) to include six detached buildings, including four (4) chalets, one (1) cottage, and sixth Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 11 building containing two (2) affordable housing units, four (4) 1-bedroom lodge units, and a bathhouse, is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C) of the Land Use Code. The process to amend the PUD in the future shall be addressed in the PUD agreement. 2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights -of -way, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 3. The Applicant agrees the construction on the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. If the construction does not begin on the two affordable housing units within this time frame, the applicant shall pay the cash -in -lieu fee at the then current rates to mitigate for 3.5 employees at the Category 3 level. [From the previous Approval] 4. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $2,860.58 in school land dedication fees. These fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. 5. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $25,136.00 in park development impact fees. These fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. 6. That the Applicant agrees if any private use of any City of Aspen right-of-way is to be used for parking, the Applicant is required to enter into a licensing agreement with the City of Aspen. 7. That the Applicant shall install, at the time of development, curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements which meet the City of Aspen guidelines. 8. That the Applicant shall be required to specifically indicate the dimensional requirements in this proposed PUD amendment for minimum side yard, minimum rear yard, trash access area, minimum distance between buildings, and minimum percent open space for the site prior to public hearings before City Council. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 12 �ectinn i� All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. �qPvtinn 4-- This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. �u efinn S- If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 17, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jasmine Tygre, Chair Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 13 EXHIBIT A SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT As stated earlier, 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. The Applicant shall be required to address the following standards regarding the proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the facture development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding Staff believes the spirit and intent of the proposed amendment meets the goals the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) that calls for increasing lodge accommodations and affordable housing units in town. Further, The project's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan was thoroughly demonstrated in connection with the original PUD approval, and the addition of two more lodging units do not hinder the Applicant's ability to comply with the broader goals of the AACP; in fact, it ,furthers the goal of providing more lodge accommodations. The proposed development will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area if sufficient on -site parking cannot be accommodated. In this case, the Boomerang Lodge is eligible to expand onto an adjacent. vacant property of 19,287 square feet (which is slightly less then a half city block). Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet or even exceed the City's parking requirement. Moreover, Staff finds that the request to develop this site with no on -site parking essentially pushes the parking impacts generated by this development into the immediate neighborhood, further burdening the City's ability to provide adequate public parking. As more projects develop within the City without absorbing their associated parking impacts, the City will continue to be seriously impacted by having to mitigate for undue impacts generated by private development. However, positive affects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area might also occur since any necessary utility upgrades or extensions required to be Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 14 completed by the Applicant would serve to better facilitate the re/development of the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant received approval from. the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 29, Series, 2000 for seven (7) lodge preservation (LP) allotments. The Applicant is requesting an additional (2) two LP allotments as a result of a site redesign that reduces one 3-bedroom Chalet to one -bedroom cottage and adds the newly requested lodge units (allotments) to the main lodge building at the west end of the site. This request, if approved, will essentially amend the aforementioned resolution to reflect a total of nine (9) LP allotments that have been awarded to the Boomerang Lodge. expansion. Currently, the LP Growth Summary (as of June 25, 2001) indicates that there are 16 available allotments. Therefore, there are plenty of allotments to satisfy this request. Again, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final authority regarding the provision of LP allotments on a first -come / first -served basis. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD ... 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. Staff Finding The Applicant received approval from the City Council to vary certain dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. This requested amendment would also vary six of those as well. Staff has provided a table below (Table 3.0) illustrating the requested variance from the already approved underlying zoning dimensional requirements. Table 3.0 Min4mum<La',4Uq ` 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. s 15,000 square feet for a detached MrnImum Lot Area per k residential dwelling or duplex; no No requirement No requirement Dwei(ing MI x' requirement for a bed and breakfast or x a boardinghouse Maxirnurn Allowable Regulated via minimum lot area per One lodge or residential One lodge or residential Densi dwelling unit; otherwise, not specifically bedroom per 1,000 square bedroom per 1,000 square regulated. feet of lot area. feet of lot area. mum Lot W 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet M�namum Front Yard 25 feet for residential dwellings; 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet for accessory and all other buildings. 10 feet`for buildings, 5 feet for Minimum Side Yard 10 feet. 10 feet. courtyards . Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 15 20 feet for all buildings except Minimum RearYaTd residential dwellings and accessory buildings; 10 feet for residential Per approved final PUD pP Per a approved final PUD ` dwellings; and, 5 feet for accessory development plans. development plans. buildings. Maximum site Coverage �`' Not regulated 35% 38% . Maximum Height .. .. 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance Beivreen-Buildings on a : 10 feet 14 feet exclusive of ( Per a pproved finaL.PUD Lo14 overhangs) development pl"ans Minim um -Percent Open Space Required for the Not regulated 55% Per approved, f"nal PUD " Site development plans Trash Access Area Not regulated Per approved final PUD Per approved final PUD development plans development plans The applicant shall provide . ` 4,757 square feet for a detached single an accurate floor area ratio ' family residence on the subject lot; for the purposes of 14,375 square feet for all Allowable F(oar Area 5,177 square feet for a duplex on the recording. Essentially, this structures combined; or subject lot; and, no regulation provided meant per the approved 0.73:13. for any use other than single family final PUD development . detached or duplex. plans, with a ratio to be calculated. Per approved final PUD Two (2) spaces per residential unit of development plans (nine- W"erntun ®fftreet two or more bedrooms and one (1) Per approved final PUD spaces consisting of: two (for Parkin "S aces g` P space per residential studio or one- development plans (not less the employee units) on the bedroom unit; established via Special than 10 spaces). present Boomerang Lodge Review for all other uses. site, and seven spaces in fhe Fourth Street right -of --way). 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 and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical. resources. Staff Finding In general, Staff believes the proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are minimal; however, the absolute lack of any on -site parking does dictate a certain site design. If the Applicant is required to provide between 6 and 9 on -site parking spaces, the site plan will change to accommodate them, which may in turn require further changes to the dimensional requirements as a result. There are no known natural or Ivan -made hazards affecting the project site. Existing vegetation on the project site is sparse, consisting mainly of wild grasses and sagebrush. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 16 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The highest open space requirement of any City zone district is twenty-five percent and a requirement of "per the approved final PUD plans" will exceed twenty-five percent; the Applicant proposes thirty-eight percent leaving 62% for open space. In addition, all residential zone districts permit a twenty-five foot maximum building height, and since the proposed development is located in proximity to residential developments, the proposed twenty-five foot maximum height limitation is appropriate. The massing and scale of the proposed development is consistent with that of the surrounding neighborhood. The chalet structures will include two stories above grade and pitched roofs with a peak/ridge height of approximately twenty-eight feet and a measured height of approximately twenty-three feet. Taller structures exist across. the street. The detached structures have been somewhat uniformly spaced to provide a consistent rhythm of building -to -open area along the streetscape. The proposed FAR will accommodate the development, but will not permit buildings of a size that would be out of character with those structures found in the surrounding area. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding Staff s finding regarding parking has been amply discussed in the Staff Comments portion of this Memorandum. In this case, the Boomerang Lodge is eligible to expand onto an adjacent vacant property of 19,287 square feet (which is slightly less then a half city block) as stated in the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district. Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet or even exceed the City's parking requirement. Moreover, Staff finds that the request to develop this site with no on -site parking essentially pushes the parking impacts generated by this development into the immediate neighborhood, further burdening the City's ability to provide adequate public parking. As more projects develop within the City without absorbing their associated parking impacts, the City will continue to be seriously impacted by having to mitigate for undue impacts generated by private development. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 17 The Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district requires 0.7 spaces per bedroom, or establishing the number of spaces pursuant to a PUD. If the 0.7 space per bedroom standard were imposed, the 17 new lodge rooms would require 11.9 on -site parking spaces, and the two affordable housing .units would require one space per unit, for a total of 13.9 on site parking spaces. As part of the original submission (prior to the sub -grade garage proposal), Staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Applicant should be required to provide between 5 and 7 on -site parking spaces due to the lodge's location and existing parking spaces which was significantly less than the requirement. In this proposed amendment, the Applicant is increasing the number of lodge bedrooms by 2 rooms, which equates to an additional 1.4 spaces. Therefore, in keeping with Staff's original recommendation of requiring 5 to 7 spaces (combined with this additional 1.4 spaces), Staff strongly recommends that the Applicant should be required to provide 6 to 9 on -site parking spaces. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ens tire fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to -serve the proposed development and, therefore, no density reductions were necessary. This amendment increases the unit count by two lodge units, which are incorporated in the larger west end building which will not be apparently different as seen from the street. Further, it does not change the number of units substantially enough to affect the ability to service the development. All utilities are available to the site and the existing capacities are adequate to accommodate the proposed density.. West Hopkins Avenue is a City of Aspen public right- of-way, which is maintained by the City of Aspen. The Aspen Fire District station is seven blocks from the project site, which is served with ample existing hydrants and is already within the fire protection district. S. 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 mudflow, rockfalls 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. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 18 d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding Staff finds the existing conditions of the property have not changed since the granting of the previous approvals. Further the Applicant's response to this standard amply demonstrates the project's compliance. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and S, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding In this amendment, the Applicant is requesting two (2) additional LP allotments (or units) which increase the density of the site. These units are absorbed in the west end building, which exists in the current approvals. This is in accordance with the AACP, which supports the notion of increasing Aspen's lodge bed base. These additional units will not further compromise the sites capabilities to handle the density. C. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 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. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 19 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. S. 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 Finding Staff finds that the site does not contain any unique natural or man-made features that provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past. The Applicant wishes, to the extent possible, to leave the undeveloped portions of the site as they currently exist in an effort to preserve the natural character of the area surrounding the site, including Shadow Mountain, Little Cloud Park, and the Midland Trail. Since there are no significant open spaces or vistas worthy of preservation, the structures have been appropriately spaced. The site plan does not obscure views of Shadow Mountain from surrounding properties. The proposed heights of the various structures will enable continued visibility of Shadow Mountain from the street and the existing Boomerang Lodge. The previously approved building layout and building orientations are not affected by the proposed amendment. The chalets and the eastern wing of the west end building are oriented to match the orientation of the existing Boomerang Lodge at the corner of 4th Street and West Hopkins Avenue. The site is surrounded on three of its four sides by public rights -of -way (4" Street to the east, West Hopkins Avenue to the North, and 5"' Street to the west). Emergency vehicle access will be primarily from West Hopkins Avenue, and secondarily from the 4th and 5th Street rights -of -way. At its deepest part, the site has a depth of approximately eighty-five feet, making even the furthest set back structures accessible for fire protection. Service and delivery vehicles will, for the most part, work through the existing front desk/offices area of the Boomerang Lodge across the street. Otherwise, West Hopkins Avenue will provide adequate access for all needs. A fenced trash enclosure will be located at the northwest corner of the property. A detached, four foot wide, ADA compliant sidewalk will be installed along the length of the project's West Hopkins Avenue frontage. Each unit will have a concrete walkway leading from the sidewalk to its front door. One of the ground floor lodge rooms in the west end building will be handicapped accessible in accord with UBC and ADA requirements. The walkway leading to the handicapped accessible unit will also meet ADA specifications. The project will employ roof drains, downspouts, and dry wells to maintain the site's historic runoff/drainage rates after development. No drainage related impacts will be felt on surrounding properties. Further, Staff is requiring the Applicant to install a curb, gutter, and sidewalk at the time of development. All programmatic uses will be enclosed within the west end building. D. Landscape Plan: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 20 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 designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding Staff finds the existing state of the site does not significantly contribute to the identity or visual character of the city. Its frontage has currently served as a parking space for large heavy construction machinery. The Applicant intends to leave the undeveloped portions of the site as they currently exist in an effort to preserve, to the extent possible, the natural character of the area surrounding the site, including Shadow Mountain, Little Cloud Park, and the Midland Trail. The only new landscaping additions proposed include the planting of roughly nine Aspen trees (see site plan), and ten to fourteen honeysuckle bushes along the West Hopkins Avenue right-of-way frontage. Consistent with the existing Boomerang Lodge property, the Applicant intends to plant honeysuckle bushes in the proposed landscaping to complement those located across the street. 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 resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which -adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non - or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding Staff finds that the previously approved architectural character is maintained in the proposed amendment. Given the location of the site along the toe of Shadow Mountain, only morning and late afternoon sun will shine on the property in the winter. The property's location Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 21 makes natural heating difficult but almost guarantees a degree of natural cooling. The angle of solar access will result in shadows cast almost exclusively on the property itself, with very little shadowing on the public right-of-way, thereby helping to minimize the development's impacts relative to icing of the sidewalk and street. The distance between the property line and the edge of pavement on West Hopkins Avenue is approximately twenty feet. The four foot wide sidewalk to be installed will directly abut the property line, leaving sixteen feet between the sidewalk and the .edge of the street. Sixteen feet is more than enough buffer room to absorb the impacts of street plowing while still accommodating parallel parking. Snow removal from the site will occur only along the walkways leading from the sidewalks to the front door of each unit. This snow removal will be handled via shoveling and there is room alongside these walks to store the shoveled snow without any need for removal. Roof overhangs will provide snow shielding for the entryway to each unit, and the angle of inclination for the pitch of these roofs will ensure that snow sheds to the sides (not onto the entryway). E 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 king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding Staff finds that the Applicant shall comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Regulations, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(E), Non -Residential Lighting Standards (including mixed use projects). G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through 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. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 22 Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing no designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas as part of this PUD. Recreation areas are already provided on the grounds of the existing Boomerang Lodge property including a swimming pool and spa. Open space is provided in Little Cloud Park just south of the project site and the Marolt Open Space -just a few blocks to the west, and City parks are available for use within easy walking distance. The Boomerang Lodge anticipates managing all aspects of the proposed development through and after completion. No common park or recreation areas are proposed. Maintenance provisions will be addressed as part of the Final PUD Agreement. The requirement of a "deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development" is not applicable since no common open spaces or recreation areas are proposed. H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any 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 Finding Please refer to the report prepared by Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers contained in the original PUD submission. In addition, Staff is requirincr the Applicant to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements at the time of development of the project. Impacts on parks and schools will be minimal as most of the development is comprised of tourist accommodations. Given the size of the studio affordable housing units, it is not at all likely that school age children will be living on site. Park lands are plentiful in the neighborhood, with Little Cloud adjacent.to .the south, Koch Park just a few blocks to the southeast, Paepke Park just four blocks to the east, and the Marolt Open Space just a few blocks to the west. These parks all maintain more than enough capacity to adequately serve the proposed development. The roads serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located on a public street, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. The proposed amendment's addition of two new lodging units will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure' are anticipated, the Applicant shall bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions. Pursuant to Section 26.610.020 of the Code,.park development impact fees for the new lodge bedrooms (but not the affordable housing bedrooms) will be due at the time of building permit issuance. Staff does not believe that any over -sizing of utilities will be necessary, but if such should be required, the Applicant will be glad to be reimbursed. In the event that Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 23 utilities have been oversized in connection with other developments in the area and an agreement for reimbursement is in place, the applicants will pay their proportionate reimbursement fees for connection to such facilities. I. Access and Circulation (Only standards I & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and 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. Staff Finding As proposed, each structure and unit of the proposed PUD will have direct access to the adjacent street of West Hopkins Avenue via a concrete walkway from the front door to the sidewalk. Access to the parking spaces proposed in the 4th Street right-of-way will be via West Hopkins Avenue and/or 4th Street, both of which are public streets. The issues of vehicular access, parking, and traffic have been discussed earlier in this memo. The property is surrounded by public rights -of -way on three of its four sides, where 4th and 5th Streets function only as driveways. Only West Hopkins Avenue functions as a road. The proposed parking plan provides essentially one driveway intersection with West Hopkins Avenue, represented by the 4th Street right-of-way. This is a street intersection where the impacts will be limited only to that potentially attributable to seven parking spaces. This proposal will not detract from the ability of West Hopkins Avenue to continue functioning jointly as a street and bicycle/pedestrian corridor. Again, due to the nature of the site, Staff finds that the Applicant should be able to, and provide, at a minimum, between 6 and 9 on -site parking spaces so as to not overburden the City's ability to provide public parking. Staff further believes there are many creative ways to accomplish this lessened requirement so that additional curb cuts are not made onto West Hopkins Avenue. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated. adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from 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 Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 24 affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding Staff finds that the previously approved PUD was to be developed over two distinct phases, with the employee dwelling units being built in phase two. Under the current plan, all units will be built in one phase. If, however, financial considerations force the development to occur over two phases, the Applicant has offered a contingency plan regarding mitigation for employee generation. Also, should a phasing plan become necessary due to financial or other unforeseen reasons, the Applicant requests that such a plan be subject only to administrative review and approval as an insubstantial PUD amendment. In order to ensure that the employee. generation impacts of phase one would be mitigated, the original approval included a condition requiring that a temporary Deed of Trust be provided to the City until such time as a certificate of occupancy is issued on the employee units. Under the current plan, all units will be built in one phase. If, however, financial considerations or other unforeseen circumstances force the development to occur over two or more phases, the applicant would like to .offer the following contingency plan with regard to mitigation of employee generation. The applicants own a roughly 4,240 square foot triplex at 1020 Waters Avenue. The triplex contains three apartments. The units in the triplex are not deed restricted, but function as de facto employee housing under the applicant's ownership. If, and only if, the proposed development is not completed in a single phase of construction, the applicant is prepared to mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to whatever is built in the initial phase by temporarily deed restricting a two -bedroom unit on the Waters Avenue' property. Given that the entire development requires housing of just 1.911 employees and 'a two - bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 employees, the - suggested temporary mitigation will be more than enough to satisfy any requirement that could potentially be attributed to a partial build -out of the lodge expansion. Should the above -described, temporary mitigation become necessary, it is proposed that the two -bedroom unit at 1020 Waters Avenue be deed restricted in a manner whereby the category designation would "float" to accommodate the salary level of the Boomerang Lodge employee needing to be housed. The temporary deed restriction would have to carry a caveat making it clear that the deed restriction would be permanently dissolved when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the on -site housing to be developed as part of the Boomerang Lodge expansion. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 25 EXHIBIT B LP ALLOTMENTS & EXEMPTION FOR LP AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING 26.470.070(M) Lodge Preservation Program. Development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the number of affordable housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be exempted from the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that the following criteria are met: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff does not believe this project will conflict with the AACP. The AACP encourages maintaining the community's lodging base, increasing the number of affordable housing units, and locating development within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and close to transit. This parcel already maintains a zoning designation that includes PUD and LP Overlays which allows the Boomerang Lodge to expand its operations and provide affordable housing to its employees or qualified local workers, thereby fulfilling several AACP goals and objectives. 2. The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. Staff Finding City Council found the previously approved PUD to be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the LP Overlay zone district. The proposed amendment maintains the same uses as previously approved, only, two lodging units have been added. Staff believes the proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. The site is located across the street from the existing Boomerang Lodge, and within two blocks of both the Christiania Lodge and L'Auberge Chalets; residential uses are also abundant in the immediate vicinity, as are recreation areas to the south on the mountain and commercial uses to the north on Main Street. Staff also believes the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone district, which is: "to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically .operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties." The goal of this application is a replica of the purpose of this zone district. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 27 3. Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the demolition of multi family housing, as required by section 26.530. This shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee generation and the incremental impact between the existing development and the proposed development. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding Applications to increase the number of lodge units and the number of affordable housing units are subject to employee housing mitigation requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with determining whether an applicant is proposing to provide adequate employee housing to mitigate for the increased number of workers generated by a development — in this case an expansion - after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. On April 19, 2000, the Housing Authority recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this level of mitigation for the lodge expansion. In approving the previous version of this PUD, the Housing Office used a generation factor of 0.245 employees per lodge room to evaluate the expected employee housing needs, and requiring that 60% of the employees generated be provided with deed restricted affordable housing. The following shows how employee generation and mitigation requirements were determined as part of the previous approval. Due to the larger (approximately double) size than normally encountered in lodging units, each chalet was considered two units for purposes of determining employee generation. The calculations were accomplished and approved as follows: [(5 chalets) x (2 for size)] + (2 one -bedroom units) = 12 units (12 units) x (0.245 FTEs/unit) = 2.94 FTEs (2.94 FTEs) x (60%) = 1.76 employees to be housed Since the proposed amendment eliminates one large chalet and includes five relatively standard size lodging units, the amended employee mitigation calculations are as follows: [(4 chalets) x (2 for size)] + (5 one -bedroom units) = 13 units (13 units) x (0.245 FTEs/unit) = 3.185 FTEs (3.185 FTEs) x (60%) 1.911 employees to be housed Under the previous approval, the project included two (2) one -bedroom affordable housing units which, at 1.75 FTEs/unit, provided credit for housing 3.5 FTEs (approximately double the requirement). The proposed amendment provides two (2) studio affordable housing units which, at 1.25 FTEs/unit, provide credit for housing 2.5 FTEs (approximately 131 % of the requirement). Although the previously approved PUD further exceeded the housing requirements than does the amended plan, the fact remains that the proposed amendment exceeds the required amount of housing by more than 30%. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 28 Given their location on the lodge property and the proximity to customers, the units will in no case be sold to employees for fear that the buyer could then resign from working for the lodge but still own an apartment therein. This is consistent with the recent approvals granted to the Hotel Aspen. In addition, the applicant has obtained conditional use approval to rent the deed restricted units to qualified persons who are not employees of the Boomerang Lodge in the event than no Boomerang employees desire to rent the unit(s). As shown on the floor plans, the studio units will each contain approximately 455 net livable square feet. Based on size, the Housing Guidelines would typically require that these units be deed restricted to the so-called "lower -price" Category 3 level (half way between Categories 2 and 3). Such a limited restriction would be too confining if the unit(s) were to be rented to employees of the Boomerang Lodge. Instead, the category designation for each of these units will need to accommodate the salary levels of the Boomerang employees who need to be housed. The Applicant requests that it have the ability to, from time to time, adjust the categories as necessary to accommodate the income levels of the employees to be housed. In the alternative, perhaps the units can be deed restricted to the "lower -priced" Category 3 level with the caveat that, if rented by employees of the lodge, the income and asset restrictions be waived. If one or both of the units are to be rented to qualified persons who are not employees of the Boomerang, then a "lower -priced" Category 3 lease will be acceptable to the applicant. If rented to employees of the lodge, the applicant would like to retain some flexibility with regard to requirements addressing the minimum length of leases. If rented to persons not employed by the lodge, rental of the units will comply with the APCHA minimum lease requirements. Given the issues regarding the Telluride case, the Applicant proposes the following options in order to guarantee that the proposed rental units will maintain pricing in accord with the limits indicated in the Housing Guidelines. First, since the applicant intends to divide the redeveloped property by means of condominium or planned community map after construction is substantially complete, the Applicant will be willing to grant the Housing Authority an option to purchase for $10.00 an undivided 0.01 % interest in the ownership of the units of the property containing the deed restricted units. Staff finds this to be acceptable upon language that is deemed appropriate from the City Attorneys office prior to the application of building permits. 4. Adequate. parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe adequate on -site parking is included in the site plan for the expanded lodge. Despite the lodge and affordable housing units' location to transit, town, and recreation areas, many visitors and tenants will continue to need a place to park their cars. This is a vacant lot and Staff believes parking can be accommodated on the site rather than on the street. The Parks Department is also concerned about parking along the W. Hopkins Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 29 Avenue because of the potential for a trail in this area. Providing 6 to 9 on -site parking spaces would likely change the proposed dimensional requirements on the site. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a site plan with on -site parking, and then the dimensional requirements can be more appropriately analyzed for the parcel and neighborhood. 5. There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.050. Staff Finding Approximately 16 Lodge Preservation — tourist accommodation allotments exist, which is more than adequate for the two (2) requested additional allotments required for this application. It should be very clear, that the Applicant must allow the lodge to be available to the general public for 6 months out of the calendar year, or the project will be considered residential in use and will be required to compete for residential GMQS allotments B. Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]." Review is by City Council. The section goes on to state that, The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Staff Finding The City is certainly in need of affordable housing, not only to mitigate the proposed development, but to help meet the shortfall of affordable housing available throughout the community. The proposed development complies with the "Aspen/Pitkin County 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines." Two studio units are proposed on the project site described in the foregoing. Each unit will contain approximately 455 square feet of net livable area, and be deed restricted as "lower -priced" Category 3 rental units. The Category 3 currently represents a maximum monthly rent cap of $783.00 under the Guidelines, which may be amended from time to time. The applicants desire to maintain the first right of rental on the proposed units every time one or both of the units should become available so they may use the unit(s) to house qualified employees of their lodge, if needed. If the applicants do not need the unit(s) when they become available, then the units will be available to qualified Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 30 renters though the Housing Office. This type of arrangement is allowed for under the Section 8, Table IV notes of the 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 31 EXHIBIT C CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE The LP Overlay zone district allows "timesharing" as a conditional use. The proposed fractional share program requires conditional use approval as a timeshare. The following section, as proposed by the Applicant, describes the proposed fractional share program and provides responses to the standards applicable to a conditional use. The subsequent section of this application responds to the applicable criteria of the Code for timeshares. Finally, timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision pursuant to the Code definition of "subdivision" and, therefore, requires approval of a subdivision addressed in Exhibit D. [It should be .noted, that because a "timeshare " application requires review against three sections of the Code (conditional use, timeshare, and subdivision), and that subdivision reviews require approval by the City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requests these reviews be combined. Therefore, the Applicant -could like all decision making authority on these three requests to lie with City Council.] Ordinance Number 20, Series of 2000 contains two specific conditions (21 and 23) that this conditional use application seeks to amend or respond to, as applicable. Condition number 21: Each Boomerang lodge unit shall conform to the provisions of Section 26.100.104 — Definitions, Lodge, and any change in the lodge's operations must be reviewed, approved, and mitigated for (employee generation) pursuant to the- then current Land Use Code and Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Condition 23: (in part) Nothing herein shall preclude the Applicant from applying for condominiumization or the sale of fractional interests in the property. The Applicant, through Conditional Use approval seeks to sell fractional interests in the Boomerang Lodge expansion units. If this conditional use approval is granted, the applicant intends to condominiumize the property after it is built in order to facilitate the sale of fractional interests in each unit. (Please see the Application portion discussing Time share for a complete description of the proposed program. Basically, the program, as proposed, involves the following: 1) Creating seven fractional share owners for each of the nine units; 2) Each owner purchases seven weeks of ownership per year, where they each get two weeks of use in the winter high season and two weeks of use in the summer high season; Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 32 3) At a minimum, the remaining three weeks of ownership are required by covenant to be available to the general public for rental or maintenance. Each owner's share will rotate forward every year by two weeks in both high seasons; 4) So, with seven owners each owning seven weeks, forty-nine weeks of the year are spoken for and the remaining three weeks will be retained by management for rental or maintenance and repair; and 5) In total, there will be sixty-three owners (twenty-eight for the four chalet units at seven apiece, twenty-eight for the four one -bedroom apartments at seven apiece, and seven for the one -bedroom cottage). Standards for Conditional Use The Applicant is required to comply with Section 26.425.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. Further, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether the following standards are met: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located; and Staff Finding The. LP zoning and the AACP stress the importance of finding ways to make small lodges and the expansion of small lodges viable in Aspen. This conditional use is proposed solely as a means of making the Boomerang Lodge and its expansion economically viable. Staff finds that the fractional interest program, as proposed by the applicant, ensures that every unit in the expansion will be available to the general public for rental on a short-term basis for at least twenty-four weeks worth of each year. This is two weeks less than the required 26 weeks that the lodge is available to the general public, which is two weeks less than is required by the lodge definition. In addition, lodging units that are vacant will be added to the rental pool and rented on a short-term basis. In order to remain eligible for the LP allotments, the Applicant shall be required to ensure that these units are indeed available to the general public for 26 weeks rather than 24 weeks. Staff finds the Applicant is already able to take advantage of the Lodge Preservation, program by achieving additional allotments/ units that are exempted from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) but now wishes to reduce the time the general public is able to use them. Staff finds this to be contrary to the spirit of lodge preservation. On the one hand, the LP program provides a mechanism for Aspen's small lodges to expand and remain viable contributions to Aspen's bed base, while this proposal, on the other hand seeks to reduce the time available for the general public to use the lodge as a lodge, and would, in fact be considered residential units. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 33 Staff Finding Staff finds that the compatibility of the proposed development (zoning, site design, scale and massing of structures, density, dimensional requirements etc.) has been adequately demonstrated throughout the former PUD. The slight reduction of one Chalet unit to a 1 bedroom cottage are compatible with the site and neighborhood. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed conditional use will not affect the location, size, design, or operating characteristics of the Boomerang Lodge PUD. Due to the relatively high number of shares, the lodge will look and feel like a lodge with the turnover. As part of the fractional share program, the management will retain 50% of all rental fees to offset total expenses. Management will also own the grounds, the two employee dwelling units, the common area/meeting room, the laundry facilities, the storage space for use by the owners, and the spa, dressing, and exercise areas. In addition, management will retain three weeks per year of ownership in each unit to allow for maintenance/repair and rental. As compared with traditional lodge operations, the fractional share program will have no increased affects on visual impacts, circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations or odor. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and Staff Finding Staff believes this standard has been adequately addressed in relation to the entire development. A fractional share program as compared with traditional lodge operation does not have any additional affects on public facilities and services. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Staff Finding Staff finds the conditional use does not generate additional employees beyond that expected from a traditional lodge operation. Employee generation will be mitigated with the development of two deed -restricted studio apartments, or deed restricting the 2 bedroom unit on Waters Avenue. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on. it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and by all'other applicable requirements of'this Title. Staff Finding Please refer to the Planned Unit Development section of this Memorandum in Exhibit A. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 34 Timeshares As explained above, the fractional share program requires review as a timeshare pursuant to Section 26.590.010(C) of the Code. The Applicant has indicated that since the review standards applicable to a timeshare application are very long and many are either antiquated or do not apply in this case, there is no textual response to each standard. Further, the Applicant believes that many of the standards were written with 1970s variety timeshares and marketing in mind. Since this application has very little in common with the typical timeshare of the 1970s and many of the standards are rendered inapplicable, the Applicant has simply provided an overview and narrative describing the proposed fractional share program as well as an attempt to respond to the intent of each regulation to the extent possible. Fractional Ownership Program Overview The Applicant seeks approval to sell fractional interests in the nine Boomerang Lodge expansion units. The applicant intends to file a condominium or planned community map after the units are built in order to facilitate the sale of fractional interests in each unit. The specific description in detail is provided in the Application submitted to the Community Development Department and attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit E. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 35 EXHIBIT E SUBDIVISION Timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision pursuant to the Code definition of "subdivision" and, therefore, requires approval of a subdivision pursuant to Section 26.480.050, Review Standards, of the Code. Accordingly, Section 26.480.050 states that a development .application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. b. 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. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 36 Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. 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 Finding Staff finds that the Applicant intends to provide all improvements set forth in Chapter 26.580, as applicable. The improvements will comply with the design standards also contained in said Chapter. 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 Finding Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program does not apply to this application. The applicable standards of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, have been addressed above in reference to the GMQS exemptions. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding Staff finds that this section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. The Applicant has opted to provide a payment of cash -in -lieu since the subject property is only 19,737 square feet in size and is located within the original Aspen townsite. These payments shall be made to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwelling units based on calculations to be performed by staff of the Community Development Department in accordance with the formula provided in the Code. Subdivision /School Land Dedication Timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision; therefore, the Applicant is_ required to comply with the City's school land dedication. School land dedications standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen, which contain residential units. The Applicant shall make a payment of cash in -lieu of a land dedication to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential / lodge dwelling units. The formula to determine the amount of cash -in - Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 37 lieu payment for each residential / lodge dwelling unit (totaling 19 units) is calculated in Table 4.0 below. Table 4.0 Uhi fiype (Proportionate to total land value} X Land Dediicat on an gar X 0,33 dash -in -Lieu } 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X '0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (AH) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (AH) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 n Total Cash m lieu Payment - ... $2,8605 8 As a result of the analysis above and based on a current market value of $2,250,000 the Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $2,860.58 in school land dedication fees at time of building permits. Park Development Impact Fee (26.610.020) Park development impact fees shall be assessed upon all development in the City of Aspen which creates additional bedrooms in residential dwellings, lodges, hotels, bed and breakfasts, boardinghouses, roominghouses or dormitories and on all development which creates additional commercial or office space. Park development impact fees shall not be assessed Affordable housing subject to Affordable Housing Guidelines. The park development impact fee shall be assessed according to the following schedule: Studio $ 1,520.00 $ 5 One -bedroom $ 2,120.00 $ 10,600.00 Two -bedroom $ 2,725.00 $ 4 Three -bedroom or larger .$ 3,634.00 $ 14,536.00 Total 1 $ 25,136.00 Boomerang Lodge substantial PUD Amendment 38 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspeh APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.100.104 - Defin tiffs Tort EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2000 WRITTEN BY: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner APPROVED BY: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director SUMMARY: This interpretation of the Land Use Code determines that the term "general public" (as used in the provision that lodges remain available for use by the general public) does not allow for an owner of a lodge unit to perpetually occupy the unit. The requirements for a lodge apply uniformly to all lodge units within a lodge and each lodge unit must conform to the lodge provisions, unless the use of that specific unit has been appropriately approved for another land use. And, the manner in which land is owned does not grant the land owner(s) the ability to circumvent any other provisions of the land use code, including zone district regulations, definitions, the change -in -use provision, or the timeshare regulations. BACKGROUND: Sunny Vann requested an interpretation of the Land Use Code to determine if the term "general public," as used in the definition of Hotel and Lodge, allows for units to be perpetually occupied by owners in an interval ownership arrangement. DISCUSSION: Lodge units within an LP lodge may be individually owned through a condominium form of ownership. This is practiced in several of the lodges and hotels in town and is specifically stated in Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999. The purpose for this "whereas" clause was to ensure lodge owners understood they were not losing their right to condominiumize their lodges as this term was removed as a land use in the LP Zone District. The six-month provision came about as an incentive to LP lodge operators who, on occasion, provided lodging to groups staying for longer periods of time. The example of Music Festival students was used throughout this discussion as many of the small lodge operators master leased their lodge to the Festival .for the entire summer season. This traditional style of operation was not in keeping with the Hotel definition, in which the Lodge definition was based, hence the amendment. It was resolved, however, that lodges must remain available to the general public for at least half of the year on -a short-term basis to ensure the use of the land remains lodging, not residential. In other words, the form of ownership does not allow a lodge owner to circumvent the zoning of the property or to convert to another land use. There may be some confusion in the terminology being discussed. The act of condorniniumizing property describes ownership of space for the purpose of sale. This is typically done in multi -family structures to allow individual units to be conveyed separately. Interval ownership, however, describes the manner in which many owners of one property have agreed to divide their interest. This has been most cornmon in sales of planes and yachts, where several owners agree on the manner in which the right to use the interest is divided. The application of this form of ownership in real estate has been described as a Timeshare. The acts are mutually exclusive. This is consistent with the manner in which the Land Use Code currently treats Condominium ization and Timesharing — one act dividing an interest spatially and the other act dividing the interest time -wise. Neither of these acts grant a land owner the ability to change the nature of his land use, especially when the use is not allowed in the zoning. The term "general public," as used in the definitions of Hotel and Lodge, refers to people with no proprietary interest. Although; as proposed, the units could be sold on an open market, an exclusive right to perpetually occupy a unit excludes everyone except the owner. In principal, what differentiates a lodge from a residence is the fact that a lodge is open to the general public, whereas a house is not. In fact, inquiring about the availability of a room in a hotel is different than if a stranger walked up to one's house and inquired about an overnight stay. Examples of this difference can also be found in comparing a restaurant to one's personal dining room, or a taxi to one's personal automobile. The Land Use Code regulations regarding land use and change -in -use apply equally to all parcels, structures, buildings and divisions -thereof. For example, an owner of a multi -family building does not have the right to convert one unit to a commercial use unless the use is allowed in the zone district and the appropriate change -in -use approvals are achieved, regardless of the relatively small percentage of the building the commercial use may represent. This philosophy also applies to lodges. Each lodge unit within an LP lodge must be available to the general public at least six months of each year. To not make a lodge unit available in this manner would effect a change -in -use and would require the appropriate .approvals for that specific unit.. The majority of Mr. Vann's letter seems to concentrate on the relative merits of changing the land use code to allow perpetual owner occupancy as a means of financing LP development. While the points are understood, it is not the purpose of the Interpretation section to amend the Land Use Code, regardless of one's desire for the Director to think "outside the box." It is the responsibility of the Planning Director to make interpretations of the Land Use Code where ambiguity may exist. The Land Use Code provides a process in which land use regulations may, be amended. Staff suggests Mr. Vann direct his energy in this manner. Appeal of Decision As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director, you have the ability to appeat the decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda item. cc: John Worcester, City Attorney Chris Bendon, Senior Planner HERBERT S. KLEIN MILLARD J. ZIMET' MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI 'also admitted in New York 11r,44:11i'milvilml PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 11, 2001 The Honorable Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Boomerang Lodge Expansion Amendment Dear Commission Members: 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL (970) 925-8700 FAX: (970) 925-3977 This letter is submitted on behalf of John C. Staton Jr, Sue G. Staton, Renee Marcus, Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Martha Madsen, Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Brafman and Tom Cleary, all, neighbors of the Boomerang Lodge. We wish to express our strenuous opposition to the Amendment to the prior approval for the Boomerang expansion which is presently before you. The primary objection is to the elimination of the 10 required on -site parking spaces and the previously approved underground parking facility and its proposed replacement with only 9 spaces, two of which already exist at the Boomerang Lodge and seven of which are proposed off -site, right on Fourth Street. A summary of our objections is as follows, with more. detailed discussion later in this letter. 1. All of the on -site parking mitigation previously required is eliminated. 2. Fewer parking spaces are proposed, all of which are off -site. 3. Seven "private" off -site spaces are proposed for the City right of way at a public trail head. 4. Two proposed new spaces are not really new. 5. The proposed change in unit mix requires more, not less parking. 6. `Vest Hopkins Street constraints warrant t* on -site und%ergrotMd parking as appru :'ed: 7. No justification for the parking amendment, in fact, the amendment provides a windfall. 8. Amendment does not meet the intent of the Lodge Preservation Ordinance. 1. Elimination of On -Site Parking Mitigation. When this project was previously processed, many neighbors objected because it did not provide adequate on -site parking. A few days before the final City Council hearing, the application was amended to include the underground parking structure. It was this amendment that gained neighborhood support for the expansion and the approval of City Council. Now, having gotten his foot in the door with the prior approval, the Applicant seeks to amend the prior approval to eliminate its single most important impact mitigation feature. The Honorable Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 11, 2001 Page 2 2. Less Parking - Off -Site at Trail Head. The Amendment proposes a total of nine (9) parking spaces instead of the ten (10) required. Seven (7) of these are now proposed to be located in the city right-of-way along an extension of Fourth Street which, in fact, is the portal to a public trail. This trail is accessed by pedestrian and bicyclists, not by people driving their cars. The presence of a parking lot at this trail head is inappropriate and diminishes the experience of those using the trail. 3. Shell Came. The other two (2; spaces that are proposed are actually located=;ithin the existing Boomerang property in an area that is already being used. The applicant is simply designating this area for parking for its new lodge units. We do not believe this parking will be effective for two reasons: 1) it is presently utilized by existing Boomerang guests; and 2) it is across the street and removed from the new units to which these spaces are allocated. The applicant is simply playing a shell game and is not really creating these two spaces for its new units. 4. Change in Unit Mix Requires More, Not Less Parking. Although the change in the unit mix proposed by the Amendment increases the demand for parking, the applicant proposes fewer parking spaces. The original application proposed 17 bedrooms in five 3-bedroom chalets and two 1-bedroom lodge units. In addition, two 1-bedroom affordable housing units were proposed. The Amendment seeks approval for four 3-bedroom chalets, ,a 1-bedroom chalet and four 1-bedroom lodge rooms. The affordable housing proposed appears -to be the same. An increase in parking demand results, however, from the change in unit type. One would expect that the visitors to a 3- bedroom chalet would use one car. One would also expect that each lodge unit is likely to have a car. Therefore, by reducing the number of 3-bedroom chalets and increasing the number of lodge rooms, greater parking requirements result. Nevertheless, the Amendment proposes to reduce the parking from 10 spaces to 9 spaces. We believe that the code would require between 15 and 16 spaces to support this density. While we understand the value of the lodge expansion program, and have some willingness to compromise on the total number of spaces provided, these spaces must be located on -site and underground as previously approved. 5. West Hopkins Trail/Traffic Constraints. West Hopkins street is not your typical downtown street. It is marked and barricaded for pedestrian uses and local traffic only. The driving and parking surface is narrow and severely compromised by the barricades. West Hopkins street does not have uniform sidewalks and parking is often disorganized and frequently interferes with pedestrian and local vehicular uses. The additional traffic from the lodge expansion will have a significant effect on this street .and may adversely affect its use as a pedestrian corridor. These unsafe. conditions will be exacerbated by the inadequacy of on -site parking. The Honorable Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 11, 2001 Page 3 6. No Reason to Reduce On -Site Parking Requirement. The applicant has offered no valid reason to eliminate the parking as previously approved. The land is presently vacant so there are no physical restrictions or limitations that would prevent building the previously approved underground garage. In fact, the Amendment also seeks time-share approval which will certainly result in a financial windfall to the owner if this aspect of the Amendment is approved. Therefore, there can certainly be no financial justification for eliminating the on -site underground parking. 7. Amendment Does Not Meet Intent of Lodge Preservation Ordinance. In conclusion, we believe a few com rents concerning the intent of the lodge preservation ordinance and the previous approval are warranted in light of the Amendment now proposed. The original application stretched the limits of the lodge preservation ordinance in several respects, including the rezoning and inclusion within the LP overlay of property which is not adjacent to the lodge (it is separated by W. Hopkins Street) nor which has historically ever been used for lodging purposes. This does not meet the criteria of the lodge preservation ordinance which specifically states that its purpose is: "to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations and to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses." While this was pointed out to the Council at the time of the prior approval, because the parking was mitigated on -site and underground, there was enough mitigation of adverse 'impacts for the neighbors to accept the re -zoning. However, since this Amendment reduces the number of spaces proposed for mitigation and entirely eliminates both on -site mitigation and the underground parking garage, we believe it is appropriate to revisit the entire approval process and re -zoning and once again ask whether or not this project satisfies the intent of the lodge preservation ordinance. As proposed by the Amendment, this project simply does not pass muster under the re -zoning criteria for the lodge preservation overlay district. This Amendment should not be approved without specifically requiring that parking be mitigated on -site and underground as previously approved. We thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFES"AL CORPORATION r Y• Herbert S. Klein sg\boomerang\pz.ltl