HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20010724ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS ..... : ...... ~ ............................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 3
MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT - BUS BARN LANE - HEIGHT ......... 3
BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT ..................................................................... 4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson, opened the special Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Bert Myrin, Eric Cohen, Ron Erickson, Bob Blaich and
Roger Haneman present. Ruth Kruger and Steven Buettow were excused. Staff
present were: Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon and Steve Clay, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS
Ron Erickson asked about parking in the public right-of-way and about the private
sector putting up signs that say private parking but it really isn't private because it
was in the public right-of-way. Joyce Ohlson responded that there were some
lease agreements for parking in the public right-of-way and that there was a
voucher program. Erickson said that for instance a lodge couldn't take credit for
providing parking in the public right-of-way. Ohlson replied that those spaces
were not factored into the parking equation. Erickson asked where he could find
out which businesses were legally parking in the public right-of-way.
Bob Blaich said that he wanted to respond to Tom McCabe's ADU article from the
newspaper and provided the commission with a letter.
Jasmine Tygre asked for the commissioners to comment on issues to be discussed
with City Council.
Eric Cohen stated that there was a discrepancy in the square footage of the ISIS
retail space on the main level; he said that it was almost 12,000 square feet with the
mezzanine and camera areas. Cohen asked for clarification prior to this coming
back for review. Cohen asked how the mitigation was protected between the 6,000
and 12,000 square feet after the 2-year audit period. Chris Bendon answered that
there would be another review for that employee generation mitigation. Jasmine
Tygre stated that she had some concerns on the resolution and asked the
commissioners to submit their concerns to Chris.
Joyce Ohlson said that Nick Adeh, City Engineer, provided an update regarding
the easements at the US Postal Service and reconfiguration of the traffic.
Ohlson reported that there have been many PUD amendments over time on the
Clarendon; she said that in 1992 there were significant changes. Ohlson continued
that there were additions of a master bedroom to each unit, dividing of new spaces,
creation of new space and bay window on the second floor.
Ohlson said the DEPP survey went out and the results will be tabulated within 7
days. She said that the reports would be distributed as soon as possible. Ohlson
said that there was a House Size work session with City Council on July 31st.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
Chris Bendon stated that the civic master plan report contained issues but not the
solutions. He said that the BOCC and City Council were interested in working on
it more. The commissioners requested a copy of that report.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from July 10,
2001. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/17/01):
MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT - BUS BARN LANE - HEIGHT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Moore Family PUD
amendment for a change in the height limitations, Augie Reno, applicant provided
the notice. Steve Clay explained that the change in the height limitation from 16
feet to 17 feet only pertained to Lot 27e; this was 10~ inches over the maximum
allowable height of 16 feet.
Clay stated that there was a letter attached from the architect regarding how the
error occurred. Staff reviewed the criteria and recommended approval subject to
the conditions. Reno pointed out on ablueline the property location.
Glenn Horn, representative for Zoom Flume, LLC, the developer, said that Ned
Stokes was the project manager; Lee Lefsken and Augie Reno were the architects.
Horn explained that there were 40 free-market units and 31 deed-restricted
affordable housing units. Horn said that the one portion of the PUD had a lower
height limitation of 16 feet, rather than the 24 foot code limitation. Reno said that
the grade interpretations were what made the error, which was a small section of
the gable at 10~ inches above the allowed 16 feet. Reno explained the midpoint
measurement used for the height limitation. Horn said that all of the conditions
were acceptable in the Resolution.
Jasmine Tygre asked why this did not go to the Board of Adjustment. Joyce
Ohlson replied that the variance criteria for the Board of Adjustment could not
have been met through the strict legal representation of the code. Ron Erickson
said this was a minor PUD amendment and asked why this couldn't have just gone
through a staff approval. Ohlson responded that there was much public input on
this project and litigation; for the sake of fairness it should go through the public
process of a Planning & Zoning Hearing.
No public comments.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24~ 2001
MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-34,
to amend Article VII, Section VII of the Moore Family PUD
Amendment to change the height limitation allowing a maximum height
limitation of 17 feet, only pertaining to Lot 27e, finding that the criteria
per Section 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, and Minor
PUD have been met. Subject to the recommended condition of approval.
Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes;
Myrin, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 5-1.
Discussion of motion: Tygre said that there was something wrong with this review
since it could not go through the Board of Adjustment. Erickson said that this
could not fall under the criteria for the Board of Adjustment; he understood the
need for the public forum with Joyce's explanation.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/17/01):
BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Boomerang. Mitch
Haas, applicant planner, provided the notice. Fred Jarman stated that this was to
consider a significant PUD Amendment to the Boomerang PUD approved with
City Council Ordinance #20, series 2000.
Jarman explained the original approvals included minor PUD,'rezoning from R-15
to LP PUD, GMQS exemptions for lodge preservation allotments, conditional use
approval for affordable housing in this LP zone district and 10 space sub-grade on
site parking garage. Jarman said the new requests were 2 additional LP allotments
and fractional ownership of the lodge units. Jarman said that the recommendation
was for 5 to 7 on site parking spaces but the on-site sub-grade garage cannot be
built as designed and that was the reason the applicant was back before P&Z
tonight. Jarman stated that P&Z made the final decision for the 2 lodge
preservation allotments and the GMQS for those allotments. Jarman said that the
conditional use for the time-share, subdivision and minor PUD would go on to
Council with the P&Z recommendation.
Jarman noted 2 major issues of concern were the parking and the time-share.
Jarman said that in lieu of not being able to do the 10-space sub-grade garage plan,
the applicant proposed all parking off site with the exception of 2 spaces on the
existing Boomerang site. Jarman noted that the Boomerang was "under-parked"
and most of the parking was located in the Fourth Street right-of-way. He utilized
a map to locate the project. Jarman stated that one chalet was changed from a 3-
bedroom to a 1-bedroom with the other 2 bedrooms moved into the west end unit.
Jarman said that with the elimination of the sub-grade garage there were 7 spaces
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
placed in the Fourth Street right-of-way stub and 2 spaces on-site for the affordable
housing units. Jarman noted there were 5 or 6 different parking options; there were
17 bedrooms with the code requiring 13.9 or 14 parking spaces. Staff had serious
reservations about no on-site parking because it was specifically a greenfield
development to lodge preservation for the viability of Aspen's small lodges. The
purpose of the zone district allowed lodge preservation expansion but also to an
adjacent parcel; this was an undeveloped lot that would provide no un-site parking.
The recommendation asked for 5-7 spaces, which was nearly half of what the code
required somewhere on the almost 20,000 square foot greenfield site.
Jarman reviewed Plan B for parking, 5 on-site pull-in spaces with curb cuts and 4
spaces in the Forth Street right-of-way. Plans C&D showed 5 curb cuts, which
eliminated the on-street parking, the impact was still there. Staffrecommended
continuing until the applicant could come up with a plan for 5-7 on-site parking
spaces that work.
Jarman noted that the time-share was a new request for conditional use to allow the
units be sold in seventh fractional ownership shares (exhibit #4). Jarman stated
that the timeshare plan was confusing; there were 9 units with 7 owners, owning 7
weeks in time. 4 of those weeks would be split in ½ between sttmmer and winter
peak times and the rest of the time would be general public rental, which would be
about 21 weeks. Staff concerns were not with the time-share aspects but there has
not been enough review of the time-share effects on thc Aspen lodging bed base.
Jarman said that this was in the LP zone district and received the allotments as
exemptions not to compete because they were a lodge. The applicant was asking
for an exemption from the lodge rule of renting for less than 6 months a year to one
person; they were 2 weeks shy of that reqmrement. Jarman said that once the
rental range was removed, the primary use changed from lodge to residential.
Jarman restated that the applicant requested the exemption from LP and then the
applicant said that it would be shy of the rental requirement lowering the Aspen
hotbed base.
Jarman reviewed Exhibit E, which stated that an owner of a unit could not
perpetually occupy a lodge unit; the manner in which land was owned did not grant
the landowner the ability to circumvent any other provisions in the land use code
including zone district regulation, definitions and with the change in use provision.
The 6 month provision came about as an incentive to the LP lodge operators to
provide groups lodging for longer periods of time but remain available to the
general public for at least ½ of the year on a short term basis to insure that the use
of the land remained lodging and not residential.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
Jarman stated that even a permitted use required a change in use hearing because
of mitigation requirements. Jarman stated that the time-share issue could be
worked out and the on-site parking spaces needed to be worked out prior to the
continued public hearing on August 21st.
Eric Cohen asked why staffonly requested 5-7 spaces on site when 12-14 were
required. Jarman replied that since the LP spaces were so site constrained the
number was brought down: Jarman stated that the existing Boomerang had an in-
town shuttle service and because of their location in proximity to mass transit and
proximity to town. Jarman said that the 5-7 was reasonable enough to handle their
parking mitigation. Bob Blaich inquired about the original plan included, which
10 sub-grade parking spaces and asked how many spaces were now available.
Roger Haneman asked if the current lodge was in line with it's parking
requirements or in deficit, including what was located in the public right-of-way.
Jarman replied that it was under parked.
Mitch Haas stated that the parking requirement was erroneous. Haas said that the
first plan showed no on-site parking and the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended to City Council that 5-7 on-site parking spaces be provided. Haas
stated that the plans were changed between the continued City Council meetings.
perhaps in haste, using the wrong scale showing 10 parking spaces. Haas stated
that they were never required to provide 10 parking spaces; he said they showed a
plan with 10 and that was where that came from. Haas said it was accepted not
required. Haas explained that the scale was wrong and the ramp going down to the
parking garage would have been at a 40+% grade; he said to get a ramp down to
the garage the way the project was designed required a 90 foot run of a ramp to
clear the design for the sub grade space. Haas said that each chalet was ½ story
below grade; another building went a full story below grade and below grade
storage connecting the buildings. Haas said that every other aspect of the project
would be compromised to provide a sub grade parking garage on this property.
Haas said that they were not trying to get to the 10 spaces but stay with the 5-7
spaces above grade; the several different plans were provided. Haas said that the
other lodges did the same thing and Fourth Street wasn't really a street but a right-
of-way and a driveway to serve the one house. Haas said that people backed out of
driveways all over the west end and all over the world, people look over their
shoulders to do so. Haas said that the last Plan E provided 6 on site spaces with
something like what the Little Nell had. He said there was a trade off taking some
of the off-street parking away but that would leave at least 6 on street parking
spaces. Haas said that the city might put in a parkway in the future. Plan E could
work without backing out into the street, there would be a 5-bicycle fleet, a shuttle
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24~ 2001
van for drop-offs around town, which would include the permits for airport pick-
ups and drop-offs, mass transit was one block away and the property was within 3
blocks of the commercial core. Haas said that they felt that this plan addressed all
the parking; the trash and recycling moved to an enclosed area on the other side.
Haas stated that interpretation of the how the lodge definition interplayed with the
conditional use of the time-share was too narrow. Haas said that the lodge
definition stated that the rooms had to be available for 6-month periods, anytime
adding up to 6 months; that was for the growth management exemptions for lodge
use. Haas said the question for this property was swinging this property from
lodge to residential use for 24 to 26 weeks of rental; there wasn't a time-share
lodge use in the code, which what was needed for this property. Haas said they
wanted to take 6 months plus 2 weeks = 28 weeks, and sell those to 7 owners,
which was more than what could be done by right through conditional use. Haas
said the planning commission could establish the parameters by which the time-
share was acceptable~ Haas said that if it were only at 6 months then it would be
the same a condominiumzing and not have to be a conditional use. Haas stated
that they tried to structure it as close as they could mathematically to address the
spirit of the definition of lodge; he said that he hoped it would be a simpler
conditional use for the commission to consider. Haas said that they Were very
close to what the letter of the definition was fore conditional use. Haas
summarized the conditional use request: the Planning & Zoning Commission was
empowered for the flexibility of how far they can go from the general public 26
weeks to the private; he said that they were just asking for 2 weeks.
Bob Blaich asked what happened to the first parking plan with 7 spaces on the
alley. Haas replied that was still the preferred plan but it was abandoned because it
became clear that staff would not support it. Jarman reiterated that there was a
Greenfield site without any on-site parking; essentially the applicant asked to
mitigate for the impacts in the public right-of-way, this was unacceptable. Jarman
said that the comer piece was city property and the street parking spaces were
taken away with one of the other scenarios. Ohlson clarified that they were taking
the space out of the public parking arena for people who might want to use that
trailhead. Blaich asked what the city street department's position was on all of the
street cuts. Jarman responded that the city engineer stated that this number of curb
cuts was unacceptable; he indicated that there should be 60 feet between curb cuts.
Haas stated that he did not see that it was fair to say one way or another that the
engineering department had enough time to analysis this. He said that there
weren't that many curb cuts and wasn't a safety concern because they were far
enough apart. Haas said that head-in parking probably wouldn't happen.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
Bert Myrin asked how this project compared to Benedict Commons parking below
grade. Charles Paterson said that he did not realize that he used the wrong scale of
a car so there was not enough room to back up in the parking garage with a 12%
grade. Paterson said that all of the underground was used and there was no more
available for parking; he apologized for the error. Haas said that the Benedict
Commons was built prior to the city adopting the 12% maximum. Tygre stated
that there was more information needed on how underground parking worked.
Erickson asked if the applicant received credit for the parking located on Fourth
Street as part of the trailhead. Paul Taddune stated that with the proper
understanding and Fourth Street vacated could provide parking for the trailhead
and this project. Bert Myrin asked if there were leases for parking in the public
right-of-way. Taddune said that vacating a street happens all the time. Ohlson
stated that at the DRC meeting there was discussion
Erickson asked the difference between this project and the Grand Aspen time-share
project. Chris Bendon responded that one of the primary differences was that the
Grand AsPen was from the residential allotment in the LTR. Erickson asked how
many time-shares was each person going to be allowed to buy; what percentage of
the time-shares will be single ownership; what kind of deed-restrictions will there
be in the condo by-laws and declarations requiring owners to reserve their units on
a timely basis and the amount of time that left those units available for rent to the
open market. Erickson said the concept of usage doesn't change for either project;
he asked how many units would be available for rent during the summer high
season. Haas said there will be a contract and covenants which will outline the
buyers roles. Erickson reiterated the question of how many shares one person
would be able to buy. Paterson answered that it had not been worked out yet.
Haas said that the time-share would not be the same units each time. Fonda
Paterson responded that it would depend upon how the time-share owner executed
their options. Haas said that the owners had 2 weeks in the summer and 2 weeks in
the winter, which were fixed and rolled forward every year. Erickson asked if
there was a mechanism for the time period allotments that the owners had to
reserve the time or the unit would go into the rental pool. Charles Paterson replied
that they did not have approvals yet so they couldn't make the rules. Erickson
asked if the Commission saw this project again. Paterson replied that they did not
have to see the project again; the parameters were provided of how the system
works. Paterson said he had the best fractional share lawyer to set all of it up.
Tygre stated that the concerns of the commission were that they have seen various
types of fractional/time-share ownership presentations with different implications
in hotbed generation; the lodge preservation ordinance was to preserve lodge use.
Tygre asked how close was the project proposed to a lodge use as opposed to a
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
condominium use. Haas stated that they haven't gotten to that level of detail; had
they known that level of details was needed they woald have provided it. Haas
said that they were 2 weeks of that level of lodge. Roger Haneman asked why it
had to be 1/7 share. Charles Paterson replied that it could be whatever the
marketing worked out to be~
The commission requested the level of detail for the time-share that they required
from the Grand Aspen project. Haas replied that the code did not require that; it
was not criteria for the review. Tygre stated that the intent of the LP zone and the
creation of hotbeds were the goal of that zOne and it would be appropriate if that
encouraged or increased lodge usage as opposed to not encourage lodge usage.
Haas replied that the main goal was to preserve the violability of the small lodges;
he said this project needed the revenues of the interval ownership sales to help
maintain the viability of the existing 34 unit Boomerang Lodge, which has been a
small lodge for 45 years in Aspen. Haas said that this was the plan to preserve that
lodge. Haas said that they could live with the 6-month availability to rent to the
general public.
Tygre introduced the letter into the record from Klein-Zimet.
Herb Klein, public, stated that he represented neighbors and their issue was the
parking and were interested in the preservation of the small lodges. Klein said that
the underground parking was perceived as a good plan and now it was taken away.
Klein said that he was sure that an engineer could figure out a way to make the
underground parking work; there was a 270-foot frontage, so 90 feet to make a
parking ramp would work; it was 1/3 of that frontage. Klein provided dimensions
and neighborhood background, which might work with the creative energy Charlie
has or to re-configure on-site. Klein provided photos (exhibit #6) taken July 11
and 12th at the Boomerang existing parking; he said it was clear that people bring
cars to lodges. Klein stated that the code designated 0.7 spaces per unit for lodges,
which factored in the proximity to town with transit. Klein said that there was
already a compromise at 14 spaces and the 5-7 spaces required for parking was
somewhat of a travesty and unfair to the neighbors. Klein said that it was his
understanding that there was only one curb cut per property allowed; plan E took
parking offthe street.
Cheryl Goldenberg, public stated that she was a neighbor and liked the chalet and
was not against the time-share. Goldenberg said that her concerns were the
parking; she said that there had to be a garage for the chalets or parking on site for
the luxury development.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
Martha Madsen, public, stated concern for the increase in the number of cars on
this street especially with the bike traffic.
Steve Goldenberg, public, stated that that at another meeting, 3 or 4 years ago the
trail came further down to the street. Steve Goldenberg said that people drive here
and if they were nice citizens they take the bus but they still need parking spaces.
John Bendoni, public, stated that he was an attorney representing Mary Hugh
Scott. Bendoni stated his client's concern was also for parking. Bendoni stated
that the underground parking was significant and that at a council meeting they
agreed with staff that the parking needed to be further addressed. Bendoni stated
that the reviews and goals of the lodge preservation needed to be respected and
appreciated the planning and zoning commissioners' concerns.
Paul Taddune said that the photographs may be an exaggeration of the parking
problems and stated that he didn't know if they would be admissible in a trial.
Haas stated that Nick Lelack, the former staff person noted in a staff memo during
Food & Wine week that ½ of the spaces were empty. Haas said that a snapshot in
time could tell you anything. Haas said there were 5 different on grade parking
options. Haas said that there was on street parking available and the lodge could
issue city-parking permits for a week. Haas said that traffic studies state that
providing on-street parallel parking acts as a traffic calming measure that slows
down vehicles and was better for a pedestrian environment. Haas stated that the
0.7 spaces per bedroom did not include the reduction for location, mass transit; that
was incorrect. Haas said the underground parking garage cannot be done but they
have provided several on site parking spaces.
Paul Taddune stated that there was an article in the weekly newspaper showing the
Boomerang in the context of what Aspen was all about; the Paterson's were here to
ask the commissions for help in the lodge preservation of the Boomerang.
Fonda Paterson stated that she wanted to speak of the LP zoning, which was the
intent to preserve ledges and keep a viable short-term bed base in Aspen. Fonda
Paterson said that the buildings that used to serve as lodges with a front desk,
served continental breakfasts and brochures for marketing were gone; these LP
properties had been approved and were really now glorified condominiums. Fonda
Paterson said that if they used the LP ordinance to convert to 6-month usage; it
seemed ironic that their LP project, which was determined to keep it as a lodge
with a front desk, office hours, a brochure and marking and that their integrity was
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24, 2001
questioned. Fonda Paterson said that it was a short term rental (2 week packages)
with which they were trying to enhance the project.
Bert Myrin stated that the project was currently underparked and asked if the
parking permits were issued. Fonda Paterson replied that the parking permits
weren't issued.
Bob Blaich stated that he wanted the curb cut issues clarified; he said that Plan E
was inappropriate. Blaich said the parking on the end where it. has been used as
parking maybe could be researched or leased or with less curb cuts. Blaich said
that the underground parking should be studied even if it caused the buildings to
rise up out of the ground, which could be problematic. Blaich said that he favored
using Fourth Street.
Roger Haneman said that Plan E was as creative as it was negative; he favored
option A using Fourth Street as the parking.
Ron Erickson stated that he like the Fourth Street easement for parking but since
they did not know if the city was willing to go along with it, the commission
couldn't approve any parking situation until the clarification was made from the
city engineer. Erickson said it could be recommended but needed the clarification.
Jasmine Tygre and Eric Cohen agreed with Ron about the city's role. Cohen said
that the number of parking spaces needed to be determined and favored the use of
the Fourth Street easement as parking for city trailhead and Boomerang parking in
some sort of agreement. Cohen said that the underground parking could be
accomplished with the loss of some square footage for the units.
Tygre summed up the commissioners statements as the applicant pursuing the
potential of using Fourth Street or redesign and accomplish some of the parking
underground; the parking as proposed was too nebulous to approve or disapprove.
Other city departments needed to provide the necessary input so the parking for
this particular project didn't unduly impact the other parts of the neighborhood.
Myrin stated that Fourth Street was public land and it may not be the commission's
decision to turn it over to private hands and would not recommend that direction.
Haneman stated that it could stay public if the applicant were to improve the area
for parking.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m.
Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 5-1.
11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24~ 2001
Erickson said that the biggest flaw in the project was the time-share aspect; he said
that the commission has learned in the last several months there was a lot more to
time-share than just selling off shares. Erickson stated that he never questioned
Fonda and Charles Paterson's integrity; they were wonderful people but once a
time-share was sold you no longer own it, they own the lodge but won't own the
time-shares. Erickson said that in order for this to work for the city, the objectives
of the lodge preservation program must be adhered to; he suggested a work session
for the necessary requirements for a proper time-share development in the city.
Erickson noted that this was the last time the Planning & Zoning Commission
would see this for review, there were too many unanswered questions.
Erickson stated the issues were the number of shares each owner could own; when
they become available for rental; percentage of the total of timeshares that will be
available to only one owner; how does an exchange program work; how will the
units be reserved; will there be lock-offs for the 3-bedroom units.
Blaich stated that he felt uncomfortable with the whole time-share issue until the
city set up something in the code for clarification; he said the 2 extra weeks were a
way out of the one problem. Blaich said that Ron raised legitimate questions, but
did not know if this commission had the purview to go into the time-share details
and asked for staff clarification. Tygre also wanted to hear from staff on the
application for conditional use for time-share, and therefore was appropriate for
Ron's questions on the conditional use. Chris Bendon replied the criteria under the
conditional use, one criteria addressed the operating characteristics of the
conditional use, how many intervals were all characteristics. Bendon said that the
6-month role was to maintain the lodge use; the interval ownership could be that 6-
month provision but could not be more than 6-months. Bendon stated that the
commission and staff shared the same concerns of time-share; there was a proposal
for city council to review the impacts of time-shares and those questions probably
won't be answered at this point. Tygre restated that the commission does have the
right to ask the questions that Ron asked regarding the time-share as clarification
from the applicant. Bendon responded that was what the conditional use was for,
to find out about the operating characteristics and how it affected the
neighborhood. Haas recanted that the conditional use operating characteristics of
the proposed use was mentioned in relation to adverse effects including visual
impacts, impacts on pedestrians, vehicles, circulation parking and trash but not in
the grand scope of lodge preservation.
Eric Cohen said that with the regards to fractional ownership at 26 weeks, it
addressed the rental concerns being available because of the attachment to the
Boomerang Lodge for people driving into town for last minute lodging.
12
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 24~ 2001
The commission favored Lodge Preservation Allotments and the GMQS
Exemption for LP and AH but had problems with the Parking and Time-share.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue Resolution 938, series
2001, the public hearing on the Boomerang Lodge Expansion to August
21, 2001 for two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemption for
Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, PUD Amendment,
Conditional Use for Timeshare and Subdivision, to allow the Applicant
time to accommodate a minimum of 7 on-site parking spaces and ensure
the six month unit rental availability to the general public is met. Roger
Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, yes; Haneman, yes; Blaich,
yes; Erickson, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
Discussion of the motion: Erickson stated that he wanted answers to his time-share
questions. Cohen said that to be fair he wasn't agreeable with the applicant
coming back with only 5 parking spots; he asked for the number to start with 7
spaces. Myfin stated that one number was better than a range; he said that the
higher the number the better. Tygre stated that she agree with Bert at 13.9 spaces.
Erickson stated that some sort of warrant should be prepared on the time-
share/fractional ownership. Paul Taddune asked for direction to the city from the
commission on the Fourth Street parking solution. Four of the commissioners felt
that the Fourth Street option should be explored.
MOTION:Bob Blaich moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Roger Itaneman seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
i~ Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
13