HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20010724 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001
4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Public
II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
III. MINUTES (07/10/01)
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONITINIUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT - BUS BARN HEIGHT, Steve
Clay (continued from 7/17)
B. BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT, Fred Jarman (continued from 7/17)
V. ADJOURN
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
1- Ordinance 30- should enforcement of this ordinance be restricted to certain parts of
town. Should it be revised to more clearly reflect actual conditions?
?-Lodge Conversions Requiring public rentals of 50%. Program is universally ignored.
3-Employee Mitigation Audits- Currently only done once after two years. What happens
if a business requiring a higher mitigation comes along one day after the audit? Must the
City pay for these increased impacts.
4—Time share projects and how they impact the community.
57 Intergovernmental agreements to: a)- Give the City more of a roll in developments in
the County that will either be annexed into the City at some time in the future or have a
major impact on City services(i.e.-Sundeck Redevelopment Aspen Highlands Master
Plan PUD, and Buttermilk Base Area Redevelopment. b)- Transferable Development
Rights (TDRs) and how County TDRs can be used in the City.
5-APCHA- getting out of the development business. Get Builders to Build, not planners.
6- ADU program.- Change it to insure occupancy or kill it in favor of cash-i 17-1ieu. At
least until that time when we can inforce occupancy.
7-Review of the Land Use Process. To include responsibilities of commission and
council; role of staff and how they interact between council and p&z commission.
Council's willingness to return without comment or public discussion any project that
leas received a disapproval from P&Z. With no further discussion with council until an
acceptable compromise has been worked out between P&Z and the Applicant.
8-The Public Process No agreements on annexation, development or change of process
reached outside of the current process.( i.e. Burlingame Pre -annexation Agreement
reached in executive session)
To: Tom McCabe
CC: City Council
From: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Re: AD U's
The P&Z wholeheartedly supports your position as noted in the Aspen Times.
This has been a topic of discussion in the P&Z for several years and is a
continual problem for us when the issue comes up. We have endorsed ADU's
when there is a guarantee that they will be rented to local employees, but the fact
remains that most are utilized as guest apartments.
We have brought this up many times in the past and hope that the council will
take some action.
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
TI1RU: Julie Ann Woods', Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director cep
FROM: Steve Clay, Planner q(1,11.1
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: R15 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.
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 10 314
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
➢ Staff Finding:
The amendment does not request any changes in the existing density
and therefore the above standards 5(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' in 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
5
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 3/'), 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:
l . 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
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:
l . 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,
a
i
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
placing 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 4rjq this house is in compliance at the rear. (Meadowwood side)
elev4jpjt. 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.
Alan Letson
AUGUST
RENO
AIA
SCOTT
SMITH
AIA
RENO • SMITH
A P. C 11 ) T F- C T S, ►..L.C.
III
270 E. HYMAN
N" 202
ASPEN
COLORADO
81611
970.925.5968
FACSIMILE
970.925.5993
E-MAIL
oIfice0'renosmith.com
0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE
RASA LT
COLORADO
81621
970.927.6834
FACSIMILE
970.927.6840
ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970-920-5090
:IiT/tCFWEtJT
Mr. Bob Daniel
c/o Zoom Flume LLC
P.O. Box 5115'
Aspen, 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, 3-0, 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
'1% //_111 n
JoannA Schaffner
ZoniA*c, OfficerCp
'
2725518_ I .DOC
PUBLIC NOTICE
DATEiLnl-o-t---
TIME L+ 3O N M.
ASPEN �.►1y H ^L�
PLACE130 S. GALENA ST'
PURPOSE T +7-
Ply RLjr- HEAR I NG , POD
.4"F NDM E N-' TO ',/ARy HEIGHT
LI M I T Qy 10 3t4 LOT'
'!�6N CW q TW A;.ii WTI KIN F! AN+q Of Flll.
I 31Ya1TM OM.64k AWW4 co ry._v OA, Vm)
PUBLIC NOVICE
DATE 1710E
TIMEL-i 3o p M .
PLACE l3GF5 G E N A N C%l� ST`
PURPOSE T +;
h)Rllr HEAR ING. PUD
ND M E N T TO `JARI HEIGHT
M IT for
�1 E n t=
..�.f lrlF WIN„ i � .Illil
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 26.304.060 E. of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations)
State of Colorado)
SS.
City of Aspen )
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I, Glenn Horn being or representing an applicant before City
of Aspen, personally, certify that Public Notice of the application
for the Moore PUD Amendment for 36 Bus Barn Lane (Block A, Lot 27
E) was given by mailing notice containing the information required
in Section 26.304.060 E, which mailing occurred on July 3, 2001.
Applicant:
Zoom F1 e LLC
By
Gl Horn
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and
signed before me this 17 day of July, 2001 by Glenn Horn on behalf
of Zoom Flume LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: mycowso EXP'IRESgm
NOTARY PUBLIC
Af f idavi . zoom
Y
db 3 �, f3�ti 67
N tom-.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 26.304.060 E. of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations)
State of Colorado)
SS.
City of Aspen )
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I. Glenn Horn being or representing an applicant before City
of Aspen, personally, certify that Public Notice of the application
for the Moore PUD Amendment for 36 Bus Barn Lane (Block A. Lot 27
E) was given by posting notice containing the information required
in Section 26.304.060 E, which posting occurred on July 3, 2001, in
a conspicuous place (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that said sign was posted.
Applicant:
Zoom Fl LLC
1
By
Glenn Horn
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and
signed before me this 17 day of July, 2001, by Glenn Horn on behalf
of Zoom Flume LLC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
C
NO RY PUB2TC
Af f idavi . zoom
Y
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOORE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT
HEIGHT REQUIREMENT — 36 BUS BARN LANE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17,
2001, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Davis Horn Inc, requesting approval of an
application for a PUD Amendment to change height limitations on Lot 27e. Lot 27e
exceeds the Moore PUD Guide height limit by 10 3/4 inches. The property is described as
Lot 27e of Block A (Bus Barn Lane) City of Aspen. For further information, contact
Steve Clay at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095, stephenckci.aspen.co.us
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 30, 2001.
City of Aspen Account
SUBJECT: BUS BARN LANE LOTS
LIST OF OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF SUBJECT
Thomas F. Schultze & Elizabeth Carter Walter Hampel
POB 1539 0290 Heather Lane
Aspen CO 81612-1539 Aspen CO 81611
Linda Wachner
Marshall Workman & Melinda
200 E. 65th Street
McConnell
New York NY 10021
14 Bus Barn Lane
Aspen CO 81611
Gerald & Eleanor
0165 Heather Lane
Schlomo Ben-Hamoo
Aspen CO 81611
15 Bus Barn Lane
Aspen CO 81611
Tom & Cheryl Lemons
187 Heather Lane
John & Judy Boyd
Aspen CO 81611
67 Bus Barn Lane
Aspen CO 81611
Judi Francis Trust
0201 Heather Lane
Kelley & Johann Brenninger
Aspen CO 81611
75 Bus Barn Lane
Aspen CO 81611
Perry Pollock
POB 950
Michael & Cecelia Martin
Aspen CO 81612-0950
74 Bus Barn Lane
Aspen CO 81611
Jane Jenkins
POB 4152
Michael & Lisa O'Sullivan
Aspen CO 81612-4152
66 Bus Barn Lane
Aspen CO 81611
Hugh & Mary Wise
0252 Heather Lane
Zoome Flume, Inc.
Aspen CO 81611
POB 5115
Aspen CO 81612-5115
Robert Ashley & Carolyn Bolz Glah
0270 Heather Lane
Aspen School District
Aspen CO 81611
0235 High School Road
Aspen CO 81611
Jerry Bruce Gray
0293 Heather Lane
Pitkin County
Aspen CO 81611
Open Space
530 E. Main Street, Suite 302
Aspen CO 81611
TVD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ,`p
FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner
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/bathhouse/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 4th 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 Staffs
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
#Total
. -
e O
"T>irn weed"
Owners
(Each owner gets 7 iweeks 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
N/A
N/A
Total I
1
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 Grov"7th
Management Quota System (GMQS) but now wishes to reduce the time the general
public is able to use theirs. 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 No. 2 735-124-00-003
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 Commission 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 _-� 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:
Section 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.
Rectinn 7
That the Boomerang Lodge expansion to a real property (namely, Parcel Number 273 5-124-66-
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,
encroaclunent 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
Sectinn '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.
Section 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.
Section 5-
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: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian; Deputy City Clerk
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.
I. 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
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 (Fable 3.0) illustrating the requested
variance from the already approved underlying zoning dimensional requirements.
Table 3.0
(m�nimam .� t�size 15,000 sq. ft. 115,000 sq. ft. 115,000 sq. ft.
15,000 square feet for a detached
M�mmum l.ot Area pe'r
residential dwelling or duplex; no
Dwelltng Unit ;
requirement for a bed and breakfast or
No requirement
No requirement
a boardinghouse
Maximum Ailowab(�
Regulated via minimum lot area per
One lodge or residential
One lodge or residential
Ienst
dwelling unit; otherwise, not specifically
bedroom per 1,000 square
bedroom per 1,000 square
regulated.
feet of lot area.
feet of lot area.
M�n�m+um L.ot V�tdth -
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
25 feet for residential dwellings; 30 feet
for accessory and all other buildings.
10 feet
10 feet
Minimum Sitle Ya"rd
10 feet.
10 feet.
1q feet for.buildings, 5 feet for.
courtyards..
Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 15
20 feet for all buildings except
residential dwellings and accessory
per approved final PUD
Per approved final PUD
Miniimum Rear Yard
buildings; 10 feet for residential
development plans.
development plans.
dwellings; and, 5 feet for accessory
buildings.
Maximum Siite CoVierage
Not regulated
35%
38%
Maximum Height: `
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
Minimum t�istance �`
14 feet exclusive of
(
Per a pproved final PUD_;
Between Builtlrngs"=on a,
10 feet
overhangs)
development plans
Lott
Minimum Percent ripen ;
Per approved final PUD
Space Reo , red for the :'
Not regulated
55%
.
development plans
Site
Trash.ccess rArea
Not regulated
Per approved final PUD
Per approved final PUD
development plans
development plans
The applicant shall provide
4,7.57 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
Allowaf�le Floor 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 ap proved final::PUD
Two (2) spaces per residential unit of
development plans (nine.
Minimum Off -Street
two or more bedrooms and one (1)
Per approved final PUD
spaces consisting of: two (for
Parkin S aces
9
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 the
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 man-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 rhytlun 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 andlor 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 ensure 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.
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, 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 Q 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 Amendrnent 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).
F. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted
in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic
concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting o f 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-llghting 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 cornmon 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 Sclunueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.,
Consulting Engineers contained in the original PUD submission.. In addition, Staff is
requiring 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.
L 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 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 acco»zmodations, 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 ivhich 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 nitigate 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 Count) 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 reconunendation 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 3 0%.
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 lever
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
cominunity. 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 revie1v 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 would like all decision making authority on these three requests to
lie ivith 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 condominiumlzatr.on 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
Unfit Type
{Propor#ionate #r
value
X
Land'�edication
Standard
X
� � �3
Cash�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)
$
1.18,421.05
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
'To#al}Cash in lieu Pa "ment
Y
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 $ 2020.00 $ 10,600.00
Two -bedroom $ 2,725.00 $ -
4 Three -bedroom or larger $ 31634.00 $ 14,536.00
Total 1 $ 25,136.00
Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 38
�xti,6,fF
•
E
.7
�t
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
w .
1
CODE INTERPRETATION `Q��1
JURISDICTION:
City of Aspeh , r. ;v
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.100.104 - DefinitiAs
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
condominiumizing property describes ownership of space for the purpose of sale. This is
typically done in multi -family structures to allow individual units to be conveyed separately
Interval ownership, however, describes the manner in which many owners of one property
have agreed to divide their interest. This has been most 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 Condom iniumization 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 roorn 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 uriit..
The majority of Mr. Vann's letter seems to concentrate on the relative merits of changing the
land use code to allow perpetual owner occupancy as a means of financing LP development.
While the points are understood, it is not the purpose of the Interpretation section to amend
the Land Use Code, regardless of one's desire for the Director to think "outside the box." It
is the responsibility of the Planning Director to make interpretations of the Land Use Code
where ambiguity_ may exist. The Land Use Code provides a process in which land use
regulations may be amended. Staff suggests Mr. Vann direct his energy in this manner.
Appeal of Decision
As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director,
you have the ability to appeal the decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in
conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda item.
cc: John Worcester, City Attorney
Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
HERBERT S. KLEIN
MILLARD J. ZIMET'
MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI
.also admitted in New York
CA4T0 IW4 I i
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 Streetconstraints wallart th:; on -site Un derg-tot:rid paring as appro:'
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 0 spaces that are proposed are actually located within thb
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 belie :,,e tha* 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 comments 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 PROFESSIOJNAL CORPORATION
Y •
Herbert S. Klein
sg\boomerang\pz.lt 1
Boomerang PUD Timeshare Plan
➢ 7 owners for each unit (owning 7 weeks of time)
o The owners use 2 weeks in winter and 2 weeks in summer
and are required to leave the other 3 weeks to rental to the
general public; (GP = general public)
➢ 7 x 7 weeks = 49 weeks owned out of 52 weeks (leaving 3
weeks)
➢ 7 x 3 GP weeks = 21 weeks rented to general public
➢ Add the other 3 weeks that are "not owned" to the 21 weeks = 24
weeks!
OOYYI
4/o,
Please use the following to replace Section II., Proposed vs.
Approved Development (pages 1-10), of the April, 2001,
Amendment To The Boomerang Lodge Expansion application.
H. PROPOSED VS. APPROVED DEVELOPMENT:
City Council Ordinance Number 20, Series of 2000 (the Ordinance) granted
approval to extend the Boomerang Lodge operations onto the Block 32 property located
directly across West Hopkins Avenue from the existing lodge. The Ordinance granted
approval to construct five freestanding, three -bedroom chalet lodging units, and a
structure on the west end of the property.
The structure on the west end of the property (hereinafter "west end building")
was to include the following: two 1-bedroom affordable housing units; a common area
for all guests of the project, including a bath house with whirlpool, bathrooms, and
,dressing rooms; and, two 1-bedroom guest units. The approval also included the
provision of ten off-street parking spaces in a garage to be located beneath the west end
building. In total, seven lodging units, two affordable housing units, and nineteen
bedrooms (including two bedrooms in the affordable housing units) were approved.
This application seeks to amend the approved plan as follows. The four.
easternmost chalets remain unchanged, but the westernmost three -bedroom chalet will be
replaced with a small one -bedroom cottage. The west end building is modified such that
the previously one-story eastern wing becomes two stories and the unit mix changes to
include four one -bedroom lodging units and two studio affordable housing units. In
addition, a basement is developed under the west end building and extends under the one -
bedroom cottage structure. The basement level will include a good deal of storage space
as well as a laundry facility, mechanical equipment, a spa, and an exercise room. A
modest common area/meeting room for guests will be included in the ground level.
The previously approved subgrade parking garage will not be possible. In haste
to provide a parking plan between continued City Council hearings, a subgrade parking
garage was designed using an incorrect scale for the vehicles and subsequently got
approved before the error was noticed. As a result of this error, it has been determined
that the approved subgrade parking garage cannot possibly fit within the available area,
nor can anywhere near ten parking spaces with room for circulation, turning, etc.
FDIQ
-1- F
Consequently, the provision of parking (nine spaces) is now proposed in two separate
locations: seven spaces alongside the east end of the property in the unused Fourth Street
right-of-way; and, two existing spaces off Fifth Street on the west side of the present
Boomerang Lodge structure will be designated for use by the occupants of the two
employee dwelling units.
The four free-standing chalets will each have a building footprint of
approximately 865 square feet with nearly 1,755 square feet of FAR floor area on three
floors. Each of these units will have three bedrooms and three baths, for a total of six
pillows per chalet unit. Combined, the four free-standing chalets will cover roughly
3,470 square feet of the site, and have approximately 7,020 square feet of FAR floor area
and twenty-four pillows amongst twelve bedrooms. These dimension have increased
only modestly since the original PUD approval was granted, but there has been an
accompanying elimination of one chalet.
The four 1-bedroom guest units in the building on the west end of the property
will provide a total of eight pillows and will have a combined floor area of approximately
4,530 square feet. One of the guest units on the first floor will be handicap accessible, as
required. The two 1-bedroom employee residences will be in a side -by -side
configuration on the second floor, and will have a combined floor area of approximately.
910 square feet (approximately 455 square feet each). The west end building will have a
total of approximately 6,715 square feet of floor area.
A total of thirty-four additional guest pillows (nine guest units), two employee
units, and common guest facilities, encompassing approximately 14,310 square feet of
FAR floor area, are proposed. By comparison, the same number of pillows and
bedrooms are proposed as were previously approved, but the number of lodging units has
increased by two. Also, approximately 2,000 square feet of additional floor area is now
proposed. The approved plan included ten off-street parking spaces in a subgrade garage
where the proposed plan provides two spaces across the street, and seven spaces
alongside the property, in the Fourth Street right-of-way.
For purposes of comparison, the dimensional requirements associated with the
underlying R-15 zone district (as they would apply to the subject lot), those previously
approved, and those proposed as an amendment to the approved PUD are as depicted in
Table One, below. All square footages are rounded to the nearest ten square feet.
-2-
TABLE ONE:
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON
1. Minimum Lot Size:
• In the R-15 Zone: 15,000 square feet. -
• Previously approved for PUD: 15,000 square feet.
• Proposed for Amendment: 15,000 square feet.
2. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit:
4? In the R-15 Zone: 15,000 square feet for a detached residential dwelling or duplex;
no requirement for a bed and breakfast or a boardinghouse.
• Previously approved for PUD: No requirement.
• Proposed for Amendment: No requirement'.
3. Maximum Allowable Density:
• In the R-15 Zone: regulated via minimum lot area per dwelling unit; otherwise, not
specifically regulated.
• Previously approved for PUD: one lodge or residential bedroom per 1,000 square feet
of lot area'.
• Proposed for Amendment: one lodge or residential bedroom per 1,000 square feet of
lot area'.
t
4. Minimum Lot Width:
• In the R-15 Zone: 75 feet.
• Previously approved for PUD: 75 feet.
• Proposed for Amendment: 75 feet.
5. Minimum Front Yard:
• In the R-15 Zone: 25 feet for residential dwellings; 30 feet for accessory and all
other buildings.
• Previously approved for PUD: 10 feet.
• Proposed for Amendment: 10 feet.
6. Minimum Side Yard:
• In the R-15 Zone: 10 feet.
• Previously approved for PUD: 10 feet.
• Proposed for Amendment: 10 feet for buildings, 5 feet for courtyards.
7. Minimum Rear Yard:
• In the R-15 Zone: 20 feet for all buildings except residential_, dwellings and accessory
buildings; 10 feet for residential dwellings; and, 5 feet for accessory buildings.
• Previously approved for PUD: per approved final PUD development plans.
-3-
• Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans.
8. Maximum Site Coverage:
• In the R-15 Zone: not regulated.
• Previously approved for PUD: 35%.
• Proposed for Amendment: 3 8%2.
9. Maximum Height (including view planes):
• In the R-15 Zone: 25 feet.
• Previously approved for PUD: 25 feet.
• Proposed for Amendment: 25 feet.
10. Minimum Distance Between Buildings on a Lot:
• In the R-15 Zone: 10 feet.
• Previously approved for PUD: 14 feet (exclusive of overhangs).
• Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans.
11. Minimum Percent Open Space Required for the Site:
• In the R-15 Zone: no requirement.
• Previously approved for PUD: 55%.
• Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans.
F
12. Trash Access Area:
• In the R-15 Zone: not regulated.
• Previously approved for PUD: per approved final PUD development plans.
• Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans.
13. Allowable Floor Area:
• In the R-15 Zone: 4,757 square feet for a detached single family residence on the
subject lot; 5,177 square feet for a duplex on the subject lot; and, no regulation
provided for any use other than single family detached or duplex.
• Previously approved for PUD: "The applicant shall provide an accurate floor area
ratio for the purposes of recording." Essentially, this meant "per the approved final
PUD development plans, with a ratio to be calculated.
• Proposed for Amendment: 14,375 square feet for all structures combined, or 0.73:13.
14. Minimum Off -Street Parking Spaces:
• In the R-15 Zone: two (2) spaces per residential unit of two or more bedrooms and
one (1) space per residential studio or one -bedroom unit; established via Special
Review for all other uses.
• Previously approved for PUD: Per approved final PUD development plans (not less
than 10 spaces).
-4-
• Proposed for Amendment: Per approved final PUD development plans (nine spaces
consisting of: two (for the employee units) on the present Boomerang Lodge site, and
seven spaces in the Fourth Street right-of-way).
Table One Notes:
1: The minimum lot area per dwelling unit provisions of the R-15 zone district cannot
be directly applied to a property containing a mix of uses, especially when most of
the uses are not residential. The proposal instead addresses the effect of such a
dimensional requirement through the maximum allowable density provision.
2: It is believed that the previously approved 35% requirement will still be met with
the amendment; however, a 38% limit is proposed as a means of providing a small
margin of error. The previously approved site coverage and this proposed site
coverage do not include courtyard or terrace areas; thus, it may be advisable to
establish the requirement as "per the approved final PUD development plans."
3: The 0.73 FAR is based on a lot area of 19,737 square feet and is proposed as a
means of accommodating up to 14,375 square feet of FAR floor area. Otherwise,
the requirement could be set as "per approved final PUD development plans" to
allow the proposal without room for expansion unless approved as another
amendment.
As indicated above, the proposed amendment seeks no change in the approved
dimensional requirements for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit,
maximum allowable density, minimum lot width, minimum front yard, minimum rear
yard, maximum height, and trash access area. The requested change in the minimum side
yard setback retains the previous limitation (ten feet) with respect to buildings, but allows
for a single subgrade courtyard on the east side of the site to be constructed five feet from
the property line.
It is believed that the, approved site coverage limitation of 35% may still be
complied with; however, given the possibility of calculation errors, it is hereby requested
that the allowable site coverage be modestly increased to 3 8%. Otherwise, the site
coverage limit could be established as "per the approved final PUD development plans"
to allow for the proposed site plan without the ability to expand any structures unless
another PUD amendment is approved. Note that site coverage is understood to include
above grade structures only without accounting for courtyards, terraces, or the similar.
-5-
Similarly, the majority of the area not covered by structures will continue to
satisfy the City's definition of "open space" since the Fourth Street right-of-way and trail
corridor adjacent to the project site (to the east) allow for the south side of the site to
remain visible from pedestrian level along West Hopkins Avenue. Nevertheless, precise
open space -to -view calculations still have not been carried out; thus, it is proposed that
the open space requirement be established as "per the approved final PUD development
plans." This will still result in far more open space than otherwise required in the
underlying R-15 zone district (which has no requirement at all). Again, such a
-requirement will allow for the proposed site plan, but will require that any attempt to
reduce the amount of open space would first have to be approved as another PUD
amendment.
The requirement for minimum distance between detached structures was
approved at fourteen feet. It is now requested that this requirement be re-established as
"per the approved final PUD development plans" in order to allow as little as 7.5 feet
between the one -bedroom cabin and the west end building and smaller separation
distances between the one-story wing of each chalet and the adjacent structures. It is
intended that the west end building and the cottage read as a single structure from the
street. In addition, the smaller separation distance will help to make practical the
extension of the west end building's basement space under the cottage. Given the siting
of the chalets, the one-story wings will serve to break up the combined massing of each
chalet and the adjacent one located further back on the site.
The approved PUD did not establish an allowable FAR floor area limitation.
Instead, the approval required the applicant to conduct precise calculations and note the
result in the PUD Agreement and on the final PUD development plans. In essence, such
a requirement established the allowable FAR floor area as "per the approved final PUD
development plans." While the requested PUD amendment seeks to increase the amount
of floor area previously contemplated by approximately 2,320 square feet, no change in
the established FAR dimensional requirement is actually sought.
It should be noted that the underlying R-15 zoning does not provide any
regulation of floor area (i.e., unlimited) for bed and breakfast or boardinghouse uses, or
for any other non-residential uses allowed in the zone, for that matter. Since the uses
proposed are not regulated with regard to allowable floor area under the provisions of the
underlying R-15 zoning, the proposed 14,375 square foot (0.73 FAR) limitation is more
restrictive than might otherwise be required. For the sake of comparison, other zone
districts which establish an allowable FAR for lodge uses (typically as all uses other than
residential) have limitations ranging from 0.75:1 (Office zone) all the way up to 2:1
-6-
(Commercial Lodge zone). The proposed 0.73:1 limitation falls below the range set by
other City of Aspen zone districts.
The approved amount of off-street parking was established to be "as shown on the
final PUD plans (not less than 10 spaces)." This amendment seeks to provide nine
parking spaces, albeit in a different manner than previously approved. In haste to provide
a parking plan between continued City Council hearings, a subgrade parking garage was
designed using an incorrect scale and subsequently got approved before the error was
noticed. As a result of this error, it has been determined that the approved subgrade
parking garage cannot possibly fit within the available area, nor can anywhere near ten
parking spaces with room for an entrance ramp, circulation, turning, etc.
Ten parking spaces were found to be ample for the seventeen lodging bedrooms
and two employee dwelling units previously proposed. In fact, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended a parking requirement of between just five and seven spaces.
The proposed amendment maintains the same amount of lodging bedrooms (17) and two
employee units as the previous approval. Accordingly, the current proposal provides nine
off-street parking spaces, with two of the nine designated for use by the occupants of the
employee dwelling units. Thus, the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms provided in this
amendment proposal has not significantly changed from that provided in the previous
approval. _
The two spaces for the employee dwelling units are already existing on the west
side of the current Boomerang Lodge and are accessed from Fifth Street. The other seven
spaces are off-street but in the South Fourth Street right-of-way immediately adjacent to
the east side of the subject property. Locating these seven spaces as such will eliminate
the need for multiple curb cuts on West Hopkins Avenue and potential conflicts with the
designated bicycle/pedestrian corridor in the street. It will also eliminate the need to
severely detract from the site plan and aesthetic of the development by locating parking
pads in what will otherwise be the various open areas along the street frontage. These
proposed spaces are consistent'with today's parking configuration along the South Fourth
Street frontages of the Christiania Lodge and the existing portion of the Boomerang
Lodge. The low percentage of site coverage, high percentage of open space, generous
setbacks, and low building heights are only possible because the applicants are proposing
a lack of on -site area being developed for parking. The placement of parking pads or any
other type of parking area on the property would severely compromise these benefits and
the site plan.
-7-
As the site plan and schematic architectural drawings illustrate, the proposed
structures will complement the existing Boomerang Lodge. The existing lodge was
designed by its owner, Charles Paterson, who is an architect. Mr. Paterson has designed
the proposed structures and laid out the site plan such that the structures and their
orientation will be fully consistent with that of the existing lodge. This goal is
appropriate given that the new development will be a functional part of the Boomerang
Lodge and should appear as such. Mr. Paterson's style has been described in some
architectural circles as "Frank Lloyd Wright Modern." Complementary architectural
styles are found up and down the West Hopkins Avenue corridor and throughout the
neighborhood.
Finally, the previous approval memorialized in Ordinance Number 20, Series of
2000 contained two specific conditions (21 and 23) that this application seeks to amend
or respond to, as applicable. That is, condition number 21 states that,
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.
In addition, condition number 23 states, in relevant part, that,
Nothing herein shall preclude the Applicant from applying for condominiumization
or the sale of fractional interests in the property.
This application seeks conditional use approval to sell fractional interests in the
Boomerang Lodge expansion units. The fractional interest program has been developed
in a manner that will ensure the lodge's continued compliance with the spirit of condition
number 21 and the definition of "Lodge" as provided in Section 26.100.104 of the Code.
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.
The program involves creating seven fractional share owners for each of the nine
units. 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; at a minimum, the remaining three weeks of ownership are required by covenant
to be available to the general public for rental. Each owner's share will rotate forward
every year by two weeks in both high seasons.
-8-
Thus, 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. This program 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. Should an owner choose not to use an allotted time in one or
both of the high seasons, that time period will be made available for to the general public
for short-term rental. The thirty-four existing Boomerang Lodge units will continue to be
available to the general public for short-term rental at all times.
As part of the fractional share program, management will retain 50% of all rental
fees to offset total expenses. The remaining 50% of rental fees collected will be pooled
and allocated to all the owners according to the size of their unit (which determines the
daily rental price) and the time made available by them for rental. It is estimated that
quarterly ownership fees will be approximately $1600 for a three -bedroom chalet and
$900 for a one -bedroom cottage or apartment. It is also estimated that check-out fees will
be roughly $250 for a chalet and $120 for a one -bedroom unit. Costs for a mid -week, full
cleaning will run approximately $50 for a chalet and $30 for a one -bedroom unit.
In total, there will be sixty-three owners (twenty-eight for the four chalet units at
seven apiece, twenty-eight for the four one -bedroom apartments at seven apiece, and
a
seven for the one -bedroom cottage). Management will retain ownership of the grounds,
the two employee dwelling units, the common area/meeting room, the laundry/linen
room, the storage space for use by the owners, and the spa, dressing, and exercise areas.
c:/My Documents/City Applications/B-rang Amend Addendum
-9-
_-�„- -- �s���,•, - .._��.�.1�i%�l•-�i`:�'—c�:.2�U.��.__�.:.r CC�i"Il�!2.�__�`3�?�f.T��'�.�T��'-..L?..�a�': �t�ly'�
-
-
I
,Q.E�" ern ::. r26'c7 � �; ,,-:;•. .
}
( � f% ?-A -iK- IF .._:..::_C7 V�j raT".. ;4 �_t7F? S.tCy .:_ v fir.
VAC `. F c i ,
iG
KT
-
f� IQ ..p � V�.:f' ;,� + �� - � •� � j'9 O t it i(,�C? :� � � � ...:r b, `�,.�,...,� It - i'� -
-G S-rrs 9 Qnr�CH.. f•.'��y- „s `•G.��....' VJAT'c-� �. } �i-
c Gt?LS�t'J'1?'c ..L,J'fi- / f \ "�}- _CJ .rK1N ,•j� _EL. e 'RIG ` i I :{ '
�1 ":3F ..# _ .5... _ _. , .. .. \ mot' _
O-MiXr ._ a�ln. � -- ;•
P'R(KIT B67
I
io/l•,
t j >�rn A ar: 5 U rTS _�'frF'•
rTL:�S�9C?. FC�Gr-Tfl'Rts T'• 335T — 1 .,� j (2L�'
(' �aP rc"�t � - \ I= °� ._ _ \ `----_.__ �r '�, � ,� � >j�s ` / � ack.c>utcrii+i;�Pi•�t}y�'�
TERRACE `. r-
o
j W LC?TI ; 0UPTY�i$ , -` ;7'r
�..� 4J�:5l.AA�t'F�t7
`?{) Si"
GRA 5s4cP5f3 JSH I
iei
ov
., -S-.HAS€.7 � 1�gY_�S_� i I c►
DCK
_.._ _. .... _ -- —
;r
ij
l •
1
6'_6"
= ........
i•
Li\
i
.......... . ..... M� �'' :.. 2 �� cam.[_.,. _.._..... __.._
i'
_ z
'-1 t
. _ k .A 1
l
1 u
2
t _ _
y
.y sr
} f<' I I^V
t
I
i
o
J%•:Y }} v (j 1
a
I
t vu �
i
i
i
I
,
_
a r
t I
- ,
v
t ".. . , L E` `VAT I CN- - N -C)1ZT I -I E t- C-:AT` I C) r-4.1—, zop'
_ Y.
gi
LAI
-, !t
s I
—�
Tom 01
Im
� 1
I I 2
. •-} 't. ; { :,;r. - � � > .. 1 � i i 1 I t � j �1 � � s}I..U° �i R i � t e i l F
i 1 t
1 •I i 1
11 I I
t' I•
# 3—
.i . ;�� ;•�r .1 i�
i 3
- 3
lf• t
S
I
I
c
3 -1
i ,1
<
_
,
<
1
I i•
.. .. r:, .ram:--". •.. .. ,.. �< _ ._ ._.. .___ _.,. ..."..,l."±-- __._ .. __..._... -_�. _. ._..-. .-. -.____ ...... ...
-
!
_ 21
tt..
1 -67. M- m
e F
\r
LjiQ
k
-+
7.
k..,
I
I
HOMMA" -
County of Pitkin
State of Colorado
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 26.304.060(E)
�. �� .ter
J�. L 1 01V , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following,
manner:
l . By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the 3 day of ,J UL'-I , 200 1 (which is Iil days prior to the public
hearing date of J OLD!'
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the '�. day
of A 0 Lam' , 200 1 , to the 1, & day of J U L , 200 1 . (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Signature
Eiur� 1q,z-(r1
TIME:30�,
SnaAcmem-10.
DAT
�iY N�u.,13oS�G��t sr.
PLACE s�
r
0"T+PURP SEr
�I.ANNING��UNIN
�11�S10�J TO �� REQUEST' Fc)R
I) A SU3s-F)t\.NTIAL PUP AMENDMENT
2) TWO (Z) 1—ODGF" PRESERVATION ALL0TMEN7-S
3) C.OND1T_i0NAL- USE- F-(')R TIME5HAPE:
GROWTH MAUA6EMENT i&vOTA SYSTEM '
EXEMPTIONS FU►Z LDDGE PRFSERVATIU/V
I. \LL0_rME-NT5 *AFFORDABLE yC�us ING
=(�(2 THE
EX� oCF
FOR FURTHER INFORNIX zION, CONTACT THE ASPE�1/oPITKIN PLANNING OFFICE,
130 SOUTH A. ASPEN. CO IMr�920-5090
Signed before me this
200 t . by_____),,-�
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires:
JOHN A. FOCI ;TER
Notary Public NOTARY P4,)BLIC
STATE OF C;00RAD_
�119Y p,0MMISS10N EXP1' l ��
EXHIBIT
i 1
a -M M
am
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BOOMERANG SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17" H, 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 located 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 Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 30, 2001
---------------------
City of Aspen Account
501 WEST MAIN LLC
ALH HOLDING COMPANY GUNNISON
AOYAMA TETSUJI
314 S GALENA ST #200
A COLORADO CORPORATION
AOYAMA AKIKO
ASPEN, CO 81611-1818
435 W MAIN ST
6105 NE KESWICK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
SEATTLE, WA 98105
ASPEN GK LLC
BARTON META PACKARD
BERR LLC
PO BOX 640
6507 MONTROSE AVE
611 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81612
BALTIMORE, MD 21212
ASPEN, CO 81611
BOOMERANG LTD CITY OF ASPEN CLEARY THOMAS P REV LIVING TRUST
500 W HOPKINS AVE 130 S GALENA ST 70 N STEVENS ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RHINELANDER, WI 54501
DUNSDON S MICHAELE GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J GRAMIGER HANS R
BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 430 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 67
617 W MAIN ST #D ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611- 1619
HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS & HUNTINGTON TRUST CO NA TRUSTEE
HAISFIELD LISA YERKE C/O NATIONAL CITY BANK ATTN CE IGLEHART JIM
616 WEST HOPKINS WIGHTON 617 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 155 E BROAD ST 5TH FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611
COLUMBUS, OH 43251
'NSON STANFORD H JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KAPLAN BURTON B
8OX 32102 2018 PHALAROPE 1997 LAKE AVE
OCSON, AZ 85751 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HIGHLAND, IL 60035
KLEIN DEBBIE KOELLE ALICE MADSEN MARTHA W
A COLORADO CORPORATION PO BOX 2871 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9
546 MCSKIMMING RD ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
MARCUS RENEE A OSULLIVAN MIKE & LISA PATERSON CHARLES G
432 W HOPKINS PO BOX 4476 500 W HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
PITKIN COUNTY RUDOLPH RICHARD E SCOTT MARY HUGH
530 E MAIN ST STE 302 PO BOX 3080 C/O RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611 CAREFREE, AZ 85377 38 SUNSET DR
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-4026
SHADOW MTN CORP SHERWIN JENNIFER EVE 47.9% STARFORD PROPERTIES NV
O OATES HUGHES & KNEZEVICH P C KEON WILLIAM- C/O
BETHESDASDAMD
E HOPKINS AVE 7017 , MD RD 208174701 550 BILTMORE WAY 9TH FL
,,,PEN, CO 81611 - CORAL GABLES, FL 33134
STASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
C/O JOHN STATON
THROM DOUGLAS H
VERLEGER MARGARET B & PHILIP K JR
191 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 4900
617 W MAIN ST
15 TORREY PINES LN
ATLANTA, GA 30303-1763
ASPEN, CO 81611
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-5139
VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST
WEST ALFRED P JR
HALL TERESA 50% INTEREST
WEST LORALEE S
WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC
605 W MAIN ST
12 GREENBRIAR LN
12 GREENBRIAR LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
PAOLI, PA 19301
PAOLI, PA 19301
WORTH HOLDINGS LLC
YOUNG DONALD L
YOUNG PAUL III
PO BOX 3534
617 W MAIN ST
13355 NOEL RD LB 28
AVON, CO 81620
ASPEN, CO 81611
DALLAS, TX 75240
THE CITY OF ASPEN
twit,
Izs
�,"
g�M'
Y
Nil
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2001 (continued from previous July 24,17)
NAME OF PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Expansion — PUD Amendment
CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian
STAFF:, Joyce Ohlson
WITNESSES: (1) Mitch Haas
(2)
Charles Paterson
(4)
Cheryl Goldenberg
(5)
John Batty
(6)
Fonda Paterson
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( X ) (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice ( X ) (previously submitted)
3 Bluelines, site maps
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved approve P&Z Resolution #37, series 2001 for two
Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemption and to recommend City Council
approve the PUD Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare and subdivision with
the following changes: condition #2.d. added In conjunction with building permit;
condition #3. stricken for3.5ei"loye amended to as recommended by housing;
condition #4. & #5. added due and payable at building permit application per structure
stricken $4869. ; condition #7. added applicant may supply an alternative option to
the city attorney that is acceptable; condition #9. deleted; condition #10. delete
F-upffier on ... .; condition #13.n. (not less than 13 spaces); add a
condition to include the applicant reached an agreement with the city to provide
control to the Boomerang management and meet with the city attorney to establish
parameters and releasing the rooms to the public at an earlier date under six-month
rule. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes;
Haneman, no; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-1.
VOTE: YES 6 NO 1
ROBERT BLAICH YES _x NO JASMINE TYGRE YES x NO
ROGER HANEMAN YES NO _x RUTH KRUGER TES x NO
RON ERICKSON YES _x NO ERIC COHEN YES x NO
BERT MYRIN YES x NO
PZVOTE