The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.500 W Hopkins Ave.0012.2016.ASLU0012.2016.ASLU 500 W HOPKINS AVE PD AMENDMENT 2735-124-49-002 5 6 A.6 A.Ul LD# 4 â‚¬ A. 1tu A -7 P U- , 1 ji L R 1...................../.- .. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0012.2016.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 124 49 002 W PROJECT ADDRESS 500 3Q HOPKINS AVE PLANNER JENNIFER PHELAN CASE DESCRIPTION PD AMENDMENT FOR BOOMERANG LODGE REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL HOFFMAN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 07.11.2016 CLOSED BY KARLA HENRICHON .. 0012.2016.ASLU 2735-124-49-002 - -61 ij *F~~ 3%~~__~~~ '2FIE~j' 1~ : i '111 Eile Edit Becord Navigate Fgrm Reports Format Iab Help . , 2 2 6 -2-21 3 0 . @ -* 0< R k,7 43 41 - 93 49 -3 .-4 2, v : j:j j : -/ 9 51 4 1ump 1 4* i/. 0 15 | 4~ . . 2 9 4 ER f 4.- |Actions ~ Custom Fjelds Fee S ummao! ~ Main ~ Permit type aslu Aspen Land Use Permit # 0012.2016.ASLU Address 500 W HOPKINS AVE Apt/Suite City ASPEN ---- State CO Zip 81611 Permit Information I Master permit B outing queue aslul 5 Applied 02/12/2016 Prolect ~ Status pending Approved Â¥ ~ Description PD AMENDMENT - BOOMERANG LODGE Issued Closed/Final Submitted Sunny Vann Clock Running Days 0 Expires 02/06/2017 Submitted via - Owner E Last name ASPEN FSPABR LLC First name 12/0 STEVEN STUNDA 602 N FORTH ST - ASPEN CO 81611 Phone [970] 925-7819 Address Applicant [0 Owner is applicant? U Contractor is applicant? Last name ASPEN FSP-ABR LLC First name C/O STEVEN STUNDA 602 N FOPITH ST ~" ASPEN CO 81611 9 Phone (970] 925-7819 Cust# 26621 Address Email ~ Lender Last name First name Phone (] Address AspenGold5 (served robert ///// 1 oil PAI D $4550.00 Check #001304 2/12/2016 Receipt #40164 I seloN 10!nt)~ 2 xoqiool| ~EPTION#: 631446, 08/16/2016 at ~39:48 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ORDINANCE NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE (BOOMERANG LODGE), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB-ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval for a Planned Development Amendment (minor amendment to project review) to amend the Floor Area allowances for the building and the exterior decks, balconies, stairwells and corridors for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge keys, 5 free-market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006); and, WHEREAS, the ordinance grants a site specific approval for the lodge project and outlines the project dimensions for the property while plats recorded as part of the land use approval show the site plan, floor plans and architectural character of the project; and, WHEREAS, the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance and the dimensions shown on the recorded plats do not match, especially with regard to exterior decks, balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests an amendment to the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance to recognize and resolve the discrepancy between the approval documents; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended City Council solely reconcile the discrepancy between the plats and the ordinance with regard to Floor Area for the building and the exterior decks, balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2016, the City Council 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, and has taken and considered public comment; and, Page 1 of' 3 Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) .. ORDINANCE NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE (BOOMERANG LODGE), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB-ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval , for a Planned Development Amendment (minor amendment to proJect review) to amend the Floor Area allowances for the building and the exterior decks, balconies, stairwells and corridors for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang , Lodge); and, 2 WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property i with 47 lodge keys, 5 free-market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 0 26 (series of2006); and, WHEREAS, the ordinance grants a site specific approval for the lodge project and outlines the project dimensions for the property while plats recorded as part of the i land use approval show the site plan, floor plans and architectural character of the 1 project; and, WHEREAS, the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance and the dimensions shown on the recorded plats do not match, especially with regard to exterior decks, balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests an amendment to the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance to recognize and resolve the discrepancy between the approval documents; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended City Council solely reconcile the discrepancy between the plats and the ordinance with regard to Floor Area for the building and the exterior decks, balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2016, the City Council 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, and has taken and considered public comment; and, Page 1 of'3 Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) 11 .. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the PD Amendment meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: General Development Approval I Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the Planned Development that i is authorized and memorialized in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). Specifically, as part of the project's dimensions, the overall allowable dimensions are modified as follows: a) The overall, maximum allowable Floor Area of the project is increased to 46,140 sq. ft. to accommodate the non-unit space that was represented in the approved floor plans of the building and incorporates an additional 20 sq. ft. for a minor increase in the affordable housing component of the project. b) A 25% exemption is granted in the calculation of the floor area of the building's, decks, balconies, exterior stairways, terraces and similar features. This exemption shall not exceed 11,280 square feet and does not include the rooftop deck on the original wing of the Boomerang Lodge that was shown in the 2006 approvals. The owner has committed to not build the rooftop deck in order to reduce the area of exterior decks and balconies. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the 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 3: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Page 2 of 3 Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) .. Section 5: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 11th day of July, 2016, at a meeting ofthe Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 6th day ofJune, 2016, Attest: 9441 : U.17 1/ I C / V Linda Manning, City Cle,lk Steven Skadron<Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11th day of July, 2016. Attest: r>U VLfÂ«/ Linda Manning, City Cler7 Steve;i'Ska(iron, Mayor Approved as to form: ,..Miles R. True, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) . It Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council July 11, 2016 Mayor Skadron said lie wants to be confident about employee generation. He wants to be confident we are preserving the authenticity of the Byer design. Ile also wants to be sure they will agree to the audit provision. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #17. Series of2016; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor. motion carried. ORDINANCE #17 (SERIES OF 2016) i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - PROJECT REVIEW AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 845 ' MEADOWS ROAD, ASPEN MF.ADOWS RECEPTION CENTER, LOT 1 -A, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 on first reading. seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Frisch, yes: Mullins. yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes, Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #15. SERIES OF 2016 - 500 W. Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) - Planned Development Amendment Jennifer Phelan, community development, stated this ordinance will grant an amendment to the planned development. The Boomerang Lodge. was approved in 2006 by Ordinance 26 to redevelop the site which sits on a 27,000 square foot lot. It was approved for 47 lodge keys. five free market units and two affordable housing units with an underground parking garage. The ordinance and approval agreement outline the dimensions and the plat was recorded to show the floor plans and elevations. Iii 2007 a demolition permit was applied for and received. All of the existing building was demolished but the eastern wing. A building permit was submitted for but not issued. In 2009 because of the recession. a vested rights extension was applied for and granted. In 2011 Ordinance number 9 was granted by Council approving a modified building that was 100 percent affordable housing. A complaint on the City decision was filled in district court and was not resolved until 2014. Due to the court decision an extension o f the vesting rights was again extended until 2015. Once the court proceedings were resolved the applicant decided to go with the original lodge project. In September of 2015 a building permit was submitted and during the review, Staff determined that the floor area in the plans exceeded what was in the 2006 ordinance. The exemption allowed for exterior decks, balconies and stairways was also exceeded. Staff has been working with the applicant as to what can be modified to bring the application into conformance. The 2006 approval granted a certain amount of square footage for lodging, on site free market development. affordable housing component and non-unit space with a total of 44.915 square feet. The overage in floorareaisjustover 1.200 square feet. We allow exterior decks. balconies, stairs and similar features to be exempt from floor area up to 15 percent up to the maximum allowable floor area for the building. In this case, the maximum allowable floor area from 2006 is just under 45,000 square feet. A 15 percent exemption allows for just over 6.700 square feet of those types of features. The overage is just over 4,500 square feet. The question is what happened. The numbers in the ordinance do not match the drawings that were presented at City Council at the last hearing in 2006. 5 .. Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council Julv 11.2016 The August 28,2006 Council meeting approved the Boomerang. Council asked the applicant to modify the scale of the building. The plan set included elevations. floor plans, and an FAR table summary. The applicant based the 15 percent exemption on an allowable tloor area of 81,000 square feet rather than the 44,915 that was approved. The architects did not include the basement square feet when calculating the floor area. The ordinance numbers and the drawings don't reconcile. This allows an increase in the building by less than 3 percent and permits a 25 percent exemption. Staff has worked with the applicant to remove a roof top deck. There is a fair amount of decks. balconies and circulation. Councilwoman Mullins said there are two sides to this story. the architect' s error in not counting the , basement and the maximum FAR and forgetting that is what they were using. Is there something that : staff did not catch this or some change in the land use code? Ms. Phelan replied that Staff is a lot more 1 diligent in proofing numbers prior to something getting approved today. At the end of the day we do rely ' I on the expertise ofthe architects to help us with the numbers. Councilwoman Mullins said part of Staffs j : role should be to help the architects. Councilman Frisch said there is a 15 percent difference between 81,000 and 44.915 is that the difference , we are discussing. There is also a 1,200 and a 3 percent difference. Ms. Phelan said there are two ' numbers we arc talking about. The actual building and interior wall to interior wall. The 15 percentisthe exterior elements. Councilman Frisch asked if this is a scribers errors. Jim True, city attorney, said they are not arguing that. There is just a discrepancy between the two documents. Councilman Myrin asked about the decks and the floor area and if they are completely separate issues. Ms. Phelan said ifthey say no on the 1.200 square feet it needs to be chopped off somewhere and the I building won't meet the plans approved by Council. Councilman Myrin said it would be possible something smaller could be built rather than ask for more. Ms. Phelan replied that is possible. Councilman Myrin said the Staff position is on the decks and balconies it is a percentage of one oftwo different numbers that was approved rather than the 3 to 1. He asked where the 3 to 1 comes from. Ms. Phelan replied the City adopted an ordinance in 2005 that adopted changes that created additional floor , area allowances if you developed a lodge. When the applicant came in to develop the Boomerang the application said we are basing the design ofthe building on the recently passed lodge zone district standards. Mike Hoffman Steve Stunda and Ken Robertson are representing the applicant. Mr. Hoffman said the discrepancy is a result of the 2006 approval process and not a result of an error by the architect or the applicant. The 2006 lodge incentive ordinance was central to the approval. The City granted the approval in August 2006 and it remains vested. [t was memorialized in several documents. I The discrepancy has basis in the maximum building which can be built on the site pursuant to code. The : ~ I landuse regulations provide decks, balconies and similar features are exempt from the calculation of tloor area except to the extent they exceed 15 percent of the maximum allowable floor area of the building. The maximum tloor area is determined by the floor area ratio for the site. It is usually set by the zone : district. In this case the floor area ratio was provided iii the lodge incentive ordinance using the 3 to 1 ratio. Because the building on site was 27,000 square feet the maximum building size permitted on site was 81,000 square feet. To determine the square footage of exempt decks, balconies etc. the 81,000 is multiplied by 15 to arrive at 12,150 square feet. This is greater than the square footage in the current plan. We made the representation that the niaximum square footage permitted to the building was 81,000 in every step of the way in every document. We ask that you concur and allow us to move forward with 6 - .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11.2016 this plan based on that reasoning. The second part of this request deals with the floor area attributed to the underground parking garage. We were surprised when Staff brought this to our attention. It was never identified in any of the previous reviews. We agree with Staff that the 1,225 feet should be I approved now and it has to do with the functioning with the site. The project should move forward. It is a vested approval and the parking garage is an important element of the approval. It is also non-unit space. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment, 1. Toni Kronberg said in 2006/2007 we were looking for hot beds and the lodge incentive ordinance was passed. There are two documents in conflict. The plans have not changed. The developer i needs to rely on the city approving a document so they can submit it. 1,200 square feet is miniscule. They should be able to build this and I am asking for them to be able to build the roof top deck. 2. Michael Brown said to think about the precedent this sets. Any developer and architect is responsible for their drawings not staff'. The onus has and should always be on the applicant. It : is amazing staff caught the error during the process. The ordinance should govern and the applicant should have to conform in that regard. It is a case of development that today would I never get approved in its current form. It is an example of why council and commission members should strictly vote on projects not who the applicant is. Under today's codes this building would be 50 percent smaller and 50 percent shorter. Let the applicant find the floor area somewhere else. Let's not add on to a building that is already way too big for what it already is. 3. Steve Goldenberg said to either treat this as a complicated math problem or two documents that i don't agree. The applicant is responsible for both documents. People who make public comment look primarily at the FAR table and that is where the ordinance comes from. Take the lesser of , i the two. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment, Mr. Hoffman said it is important to remember we are not redoing the Boomerang application. The approval is 10 years old. Mayor Skadron asked for a comment on the notion or direction about discussing this under today's land use code. There are vested rights. Mr. True said Mr. Brown's comments are interesting and accurate but we are not considering this project under this code but under 2006. There is a discrepancy. It is simple and straight forward. You need to look at the drawings and presentation and accept that or take the ordinance and say that was the intent ofthe Council. It is discretionary at this point. It is somewhat misleading to take this at what would be approved today. Mayor Skadron asked what fundamentally changes in the building if you were to take away the square feet. Mr. Robertson replied it is 1,000 square feet. It depends on where it has to come out of. Mayor Skadron said it is not as if an entire floor comes off. Mr. Robertson said it would change how the building functions a bit and it would more than likely come out of the amenity space. Financially it is a tight project and would probably come out of non-unit space. Mayor Skadron said concessions were made to the community in exchange should Council support staffs recommendation. Ms. Phelan said the recommendation initially was to get in line with the ordinance as much as possible. The rooftop deck was something that could come off. Mayor Skadron said an effort was made on the part of the applicant. He asked about the degree to which this establishes a precedent that future architects would fudge the numbers to come back and ask for the same type of allowances. Mr. True said that would be analyzed on a case by case basis. The desire or intent to fudge to get larger puts an onus on the city to be more diligent. This is a discrepancy between two documents and 7 .. Regular Meetine Aspen City Council Julv 11, 2016 discretionary on Councils part to make a decision to go one direction or another. He does not believe this will set any type of precedent or another. Councilman Frisch said we are hearing from the applicant that 81,000 has always been the maximum box. The thing that Michael Brown did bring up that I have thought about for a while is where does the onus fall. He asked Ms. Phelan if the 81,000 was put on paper. She replied it was represented in the application. Councilman Myrin said that is what bugs him the most not the 3 to 1 number. Councilwoman Mullins stated it can be argued both ways. She is not convinced it will set a precedent, She would support the staffrecommendation in honoring the 2006 Council decision. The drawings speak more. She is guessing that Council based the decision on the drawings. There is some onus on staff. The land use code is complicated and staff should have caught this in 2006. The fact 1,200 square feet is in non-unit space. Balcony space is a tough one. A subjective way to look at it is the amount ofbalcony and outdoor on the historic space is appropriate for the building. She supports the staff recommendation. i Councilman Myrin said he feels very strongly the calculations be based on the PD than what is in the code. If the deck space needs changed from 15 we do so for everybody. The ordinance is pretty clear. He does not see how you can get to the logic that other people think you can. Councilman Frisch asked is it standard practice to use the 3 to 1 ratio or to use what some percent the project gets done on. Ms. Phelan said the representation of 3 to 1 is what the applicant made by proposing the project. This was a site specific approval. The applicant came and said the lodge zone district standards are appropriate for this site. Mr. Hoffman said they have the opposite view. Council accepted the maximum floor area for the site based on the 81,000. It was the model and the plans that were approved. Councilman Frisch asked if the 81,000 was based on the 3 to 1. Ms. Phelan replied yes. Ms. Garrow stated the decks were not included in the ordinance or the table. The applicant at the time represented the proposed tloor area and decks off of 81,000 or 3 to 1 floor area. Staff" s recommendation I is to reconcile this. Mayor Skadron said there have been five iterations of Council since this was approved. Council can stand by the ordinance or fix the ordinance to match the drawings. He believes like Ann that Councils intent was based on the drawings. He will support approval ofthe amendment thal reconciles the discrepancies. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, no; Frisch, yes: Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion . i carried. ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2016 - Smuggler Park Subdivision - Minor Amendment to Planned Development Project Review Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this property was approved as an SPA in 1982 with four parcels. The proposed amendments only apply to Parcel A. Smuggler Park is zoned R3 with 87 deed restricted lots. The request is for a minor amendment to the PD. The requests focus around the 8 . , 1 ~ r-*lÂ»0146* ci.X- Jennifer Phelan Li - From: Adam Frisch Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 8:23 AM 4Vt h To: ray peritz 1 1 U. 1 CC: Jennifer Phelan i \ A Â«7-\ Subject: Re: Boomerang Lodge Project -9/ i co Ray- Thanks for below. With a live land use application in front of Council, I am unable to say much outside of a public meeting. Please apologize for my brief reply, but I wanted to personally acknowledge your thoughts. Best, -a adam b. frisch council member the city of aspen 130 s. galena street aspen. co 81611-1975 p.970.925.5199 F. 970.920.5119 idam. frisch@.citvofaspen.com From: ray peritz <rayperitz3@hotmail.com> Date: Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:18 AM To: Steven Skadron <steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com>, Art Daily <art.daily@cityofaspen.com>, "adam b. frisch" <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com>, Bert Myrin <bert.myrin@cityofaspen.com>, Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Boomerang Lodge Project As a 30+/- year resident of Aspen I've seen a lot of developments, good and bad, change the face of our little burg. And am aware of the condo inventorythe continuesto age without renovation, offering ourguests expensive yet dated accommodations. Also, 1 read regularlyinthe newspapersthatthetown needs additional lodge/bed inventory. Its pretty clear to me its time for the Boomerang to move forward and get done! The resort needs it! As anyone who has lived here knows Aspenites will argue whether or not the sun rises in the East or the West just for the sake of argument. NIMBY is rampant regarding EVERY project or change. Please, stop the delays on this lodge. It is a good project and will benefit the community as a whole and provide needed, new, fresh inventory helping keep Aspen competitive. Thank you. 1 .. Ray Ray Peritz PO Box 2611 Aspen, CO 81612 970.319.9565 2 .. Jennifer Phelan From: Emilie Kelly <ekelly@campkelly.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 8:59 AM TO: Jennifer Phelan Subject: Please DENY - Amendment Request Change Floor Area - Boomerang Property Redeveloprnent Hello Jennifer - I own property at 400 W. Hopkins, Unit 2, Aspen CO 81611 - one block from the Boomerang Property. I wanted to voice my opinion and request the no amendments be approved and no changes allowed to the Floor Area of the proposed Boomerang Lodge redevelopment. This issue is scheduled for review and discussion in the City of Aspen Public Hearing tomorrow, July 11,2016. The development is already far too large for our small neighborhood. Thank you for you consideration of my request. Best, Emilie Emilie Kelly Rainbow Connection Properties LLC P.O. Box #1109 Morrison CO 80465 USA 303.601.1064 cell/text ekelly@campkelly.com 1 -"4uillu" ' 0 .44'le,er.... Nfe" i 60 9 14 U ,â€¢â€¢~ Al. Â·Â·iol .i â€¢i * Â·A ll./,/ Â·" U. ';...f.... *l41"itijfil uj.,12(1~~.~1 1 1.,1 2491* M' M 1, 1 .'.P=-/.4'kJ,r.,tâ€ž~7--==C'.Â».La =--- *#=-l-V*. / / 44>,â„¢Â»SUU'..i>.;2,~1Â¥A k't ~-~~~~ 7 / 'JI USAFOREVER // DUNKELBERG AMBE'1* KEVIN PO BOX 5804 SNOWMASS VILEAGE, CO 81615 l 0 q. Al Xi m 5 0 8 4 E 1 8606/23/16 C-C -r (t U M -r- n r =r : tn = 47 ; $ t ~ VÂ· L 1. NO MAIL RECEPTACL U N AB 1. F Th 6 . r.; a .. I ' = 0'4 2, L.* / D SC: 81611190230 *1979-1604 8 -03 -42 ' 8 161*16%1402 111 1 3 : 11 1 1 9 Kil:; ikpi D *01 I E j 1 1 51 940 9 i~~,1, ti tit ~ , 2 i ila ' i, ' 1, E 113 10 iA~i r 'in Li Â·lil i R 7 4 EiR *EY i / 1 iRm 3 0Â£4. 9Â·t Aire, 2Â£) 'lk 0 1 .,.Al IS.1.1.'.1.2 W. d.â€¢~r ~b' 4- 0 -1~2 ..2/4...6/ ~140941%,4,â€žâ„¢W'...'*W -,~ 4 i 11 '14.9 4 0 1 USAFOREVER ,+ Ant , fuNL C# Alli~-9--i i \'' 4/ X l/V -31> (1 - POWDERDAYSKIING LLC 9 E LOOCKERMAN ST #215--0 .~ --p: L DOVER, DE 19901< 1 NTXT- 17504 06/50/2016 2 = 7-1 1 0 ..1 , . 6- , W I. f. TO SENDER NOT DELIVD:gAC - :.,4 uLE AG ADDRESSEn UNABLE TO FORWARD SORT IN MANUAL ONLY NO AUTOMATI N EC: 56998999955 4 0 2 0 4 Â·7 -Â·7:.4 1 11 1 i, i /1! i ' ! 73 . 1 11 # 1 11% , 1 1 1 Â¢ f ; + --'-3 6993 89999 RI/,<tiâ€ž'll[!lilil/lilililill,1/11:1"18&"31'i,11'/11:111!11,1 LU O 0 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (F), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 600 A-UP\4-9 Av~ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 4~11 i r.6 e 5-: oo Prn 5 20 l 6 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, (AniaL- 10*Â«\ (name, please print) being or representiod an Applicant to the Citybf Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ' 4 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section.of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in. height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 ., to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing Of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice :was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the , property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County- as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A 'V & copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conductedÂ· prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26:304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A Copy Of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation thirt was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or tact amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. LL~ItÂ»~ Signaturd The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 7 -day of Ubvld-- , 20 ld' 3 by. '4Â·y~o, e,Â·f a Se c.~,Â·-â‚¬Â».~ , i ..0.628 4 65 2 8 2'58+6 2 Â¥ 3 2 23125:31%4 1 2 1%52-* R Mi %%* :2-* -1-1 2-2 -E-2 * 2-2 -4 2 &*ZEÂ·*Et E WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL H Exalual/05*%:1&Â£ 3 tialigs i Zo ,-O -< =C .-le=b:2 8-2 ~ 83 ,@ Â£ EF : My commission expires: al (6 1 -10 62 8 8 -- 5 8-1 &!9 2:.9 2 0.2 95,3 1 -2 2'CE Q..2 5 E S *.Â¥ 94-4-***~2 5%@*2-2** *22%-161-*23*6 â‚¬ foon 44% 84*5714- ----- p; lj#5@22@Â®62:Â·o=: â€¢1.Cligg.%13 2 NOtary Public 5 â€¢coNDE ..298 89-3 ENE imi<,2-18 0 EME E 22 55089-%22.6 cou- m-Â¤2 U- 5 2/ u. E â‚¬ 8 . c -21 L z .828915:13 HeF 3 &16 3%Â£*Â°i, 5* ' , -<2 N REED PATTERSON , NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID #19964002767 bmmis5ion Expires February 15,2020 â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 RE: 500 .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE. REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project, 500 West Hopkins, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 11.2016 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I. Peter W. Dodaro of E. Michael Hoffman. P.C.. being or representing an Applicant to the C.ity of Aspen. Colorado. hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Posting of notice. By posting of notice. which form was obtained from the Community Development Department. which was made of suitable. waterproof materials. which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high. and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height; â‚¬ Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the biliday of June. 2016. to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department. which contains the information described in Section 26,304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy ofthe owners and governmental agencies so noticed is auached hereto. 03 #' Millu 1 0 lk, Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice-' was acknowledged before me this *~_ aay ofJune. 2016. by Peter W. Dodaro. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL I NICOLE ELIZABETH WINNING NOTARY PUBUC Â· STATE OF COLORADO Notary Identif,cation #20154012550 ul cominks<*31 expires. 6<031 jAO/7 My Commission EAP,res, 3/31/2019 c<Lk& &Â«2242Â£6*\ tra-% . .. ...4 $ I ./ I .. . - . + Â·;tart ..... --I I. : ... 28.1 1 i + . 4 .4- 4 0. A 15.. t.'. .. p, tro : i r A n , E -' r 110 P: ICÂ·VIA r-3 . :* *: :* 4:*: I il A f En ; ~ J HAMD HAT APE' - 40 4, lut*$0 . 4 4 14â€¢ . 1â€¢Â· - 4 4 4.......1 0 --2:. . 2 11. ... I. .as':. .e. . .. *r â€¢ 4 t' I - r I. - 4 I./1 . 4/Jig , - Â· 2.-MiLS -211.- ..:. I. . I -- ....I- V- / ./1/.11/.d//9/i . - .. THE CITY OF AspEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: Boomerang Lodge Public Hearing: February 22, 2016, Time 5:00 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 31 of the City of Aspen Townsite) Description: The applicant is seeking to amend the Floor Area dimensions that were reviewed and approved by the City Council via Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) with the floor plans and architectural drawings approved as part of the project. The Floor Area approved in the ordinance does not match the Floor Area shown in the drawings. The approvals granted are for redevelopment of the property with 47 lodge units, five free market residential units, and two affordable housing units. Land Use Reviews Requested: Minor Amendment to a Project Review Approval Decision Making Body: City Council Applicant: Aspen FSP-ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunda, 602 N. Fourth Street, Aspen, CO 81611 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2759, iennifer.phelan@citvofaspen.com. .. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Subdivision: Boomerang Lodge on 06/01/2016 Cou IN Tr 4 Â©Otc\*) Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County ~ does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com .. ASPEN MESA STORE LLC ASPEN FSP ABR LLC YOUNG PAUL 111 FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 8238 11921 FREEDOM DR #950 413 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 RESTON, VA 20190 ASPEN, CO 816111603 SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC HAISFIELD MICHAEL D & LISA Y JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST 1714 VISTA ST 616 W HOPKINS 2018 PHALAROPE DURHAM, NC 27701 ASPEN, CO 81611 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES LLC JMW GOLDEN LLC STUART DANIEL S & TAMARA B 151 SUMMER ST #1109 533 HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 3274 MORRISON, CO 80465 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 KELSO DOUGLAS P ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION KARBANK NEIL D 627 W MAIN ST 600 E HOPKINS #304 604 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1619 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN CONNERFAMILY LLC NECHADEIM REALTY LLC 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 38 PO BOX 4950 ASPEN, CO 81611 PALISADE, CO 81526 ASPEN, CO 81612 LHG HOLDING LLC FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC HY-MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL 730 E DURANT 214 B AABC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC CLEANER EXPRESS GARMISCH LODGING LLC 617 E COOPER 435 E MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GARMISCH LODGING LLC WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC ALPINE BANK ASPEN 110 W MAIN ST 605 E MAIN ST PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 GANT CONDO ASSC ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC ULLR CONDO LLC 610 S WESTEND ST 617 E COOPER AVE 6450 AVENIDA CRESTA ASPEN, CO 816112142 ASPEN, CO 81611 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 ASPEN FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC GANT CONDO ASSOC INC CHRISTIANA A105 LLC 137 WESTVIEW DR 610 S WESTEND ST PO BOX 542 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816112142 SAN MATEO, CA 94401 .. TOMS CONDO LLC KINGEN DAVE & CHRISTINE WERLIN LAURA B TRUST 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 6500 E CHOLLA DR 2279 PINE ST BASALT, CO 81621 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ CARTER RICHARD P MONARCH 111 LLC PO BOX 3670 PO BOX 2932 PO BOX 30476 ASPEN, CO 81612 TELLURIDE, CO 81435 KANSAS CITY, MO 64112 HESSIAN ASPEN LLC FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA POWDERDAYSKIING LLC 807 W MORSE BLVD #105 412 MARINER DR 9 E LOOCKERMAN ST #215 WINTER PARK, FL 32792 JUPITER, FL 33477 DOVER, DE 19901 SCHULMAN WILLIAM PAUL KATZMAN LORI ANN TUCKER LUCY LEA 301 MERCER BLVD 301 MERCER BLVD PO BOX 1480 CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALPINE BANK RUFUS CAMI CAMI LLC MILIAS ELIZABETH A PO BOX 10000 1280 UTE AVE #7 PO BOX 4662 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BERR LLC WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC WHIPPLE JOHN TAGGART 611 W MAIN ST 2023 WAYNESBOROUGH RD 400 E HYMAN AVE #A202 ASPEN, CO 81611 PAOLI, PA 19301 ASPEN, CO 81611 STERTZER ELIANE C FELER LAURIE & CLAUDIO CORTALEITA PO BOX 9686 550 FOX RUN PO BOX 12346 ASPEN, CO 81612 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 816129237 VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S 2577 NW 59TH ST 430 W HOPKINS AVE 2023 WAYNESBOROUGH RD BOCA RATON, FL 33496 ASPEN, CO 81611 PAOLI, PA 19301 CHRISTENSEN CAROLINE CUMMINS RICHARD THROM DOUGLAS H 617 W MAIN ST #A 617 W MAIN ST #B 617 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 JAS CAPITAL LLC ALLEN DOUGLAS P JOHNSON STANFORD H 617 W MAIN ST #E 403 LACET LN PO BOX 32102 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TUCSON, AZ 85751 .. STARFORD PROPERTIES NV SHADOW MTN CORP STASPEN LLP 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA, STE 1400 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA STE 1400 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 RODRIGUEZ JOANN HAYMAX HOTELS LLC REVA LLC 605 W MAIN ST #00A 605 W MAIN ST #2 PO BOX 1376 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 UMBA ENTERPRISE LLC MADSEN MARTHA W PRIDE LLC 605 W MAIN ST #103 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 PO BOX 770196 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477 LITTLE AJAX CONDO ASSOC LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH S 605 W HOPKINS AVE 605 W HOPKINS #006 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R 605 WHOPKINSAVE#103 605 W HOPKINS #103 605 W HOPKINS AVE #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHEA LAYNE & MICHAEL GOLDSTONE JONNA A VOSS NATALIE SUSAN REV TRUST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 605 W HOPKINS AVE # 203 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WASHBURN SERENE MARIE V FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H MCCLURE KEVIN & MARY 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 605 W HOPKINS UNIT 206 605 W HOPKINS AVE #207 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLACK BENJAMIN F & ALICE M ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D CARROLL MEREDITH C & ARTHUR R 605 W HOPKINS AVE #208 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 605 W HOPKINS AVE #210 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ERICKSON A RONALD MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W R D OLSON INVESTMENTS 11 LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 605 W HOPKINS AVE #212 520 NEWPORT CENTER DR #600 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 617 MAIN ST PROF BLDG CONDO LINDAUER REBECCA F SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G 617 W MAI N ST 1115 ELM ST 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTIN, TX 78703 DALLAS, TX 75205 .. PERRY EMILY V BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC PO BOX 341 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 795 LAKEVIEW DR LOS OLIVOS, CA 93441341 ENCINO, CA 91436 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 SCHALL FAMILY TRUST PERRY IAN MICHAEL PROMISE LAND LLC 3841 HAYVENHURST DR 426 E HYMAN AVE 6412 S QUEBEC ST ENCINO, CA 91436 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 WENDT ROBERT E 11 501 WEST MAIN LLC JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF Al 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 532 E HOPKINS AVE 435 W MAIN ST PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 ASPEN, CO 81612 430 WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC SMB CONDO ASSOC NIX ROBERT JR COMMON AREA COMMON AREA PO BOX 3694 432 W HOPKINS AVE 605 W MIAN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TODD SHANE 521-523 W HOPKINS AFFORD HOUSING HOA SCOTT BUILDING CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 2654 521 WHOPKINSAVE COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 400 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT NAVIAS CRAIG & ESTHER TRUST 01037H TRUST 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL PO BOX 4390 715 N SIERRA DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 UTOPIA LIVING ASPEN LLC 604 WEST LLC HUERGO DELFINA 524 ELEVENTH ST 604 W MAIN ST 518 WMAINST#A101 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 REECE MARK LEADINGHAM CAROLINE DUNKELBERG AMBER & KEVIN 518 W MAIN ST #A-102 518 W MAIN ST #A-102 PO BOX 5804 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 MICHAEL JACE BONETTIMARYSUE PHILLIPS SHAUN E PO BOX 569 PO BOX 569 518 W MAIN ST #8105 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 OGUIN MEGAN L DJORDJEVIC VLADAN FAVORITE PRATHUAN 518 WMAIN ST#B203 PO BOX 9566 PO BOX 9566 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 .. HAVANDJIAN GASTON MATIAS FORNELL CLARITY ELISE & PETER HARRIS ANGELA 518 W MAIN ST #B205 518 W MAIN ST #B-206 518 WMAINST#C107 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816111618 MAUPIN KENNETH FORNELL CONDO ASSOC KARBANK 430 LLC 518 W MAIN ST #C-207 518 W MAIN ST 604 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 420 W MAIN LLC NORTHWAY CONDO OWNERS ASSOC 424 PARK CIR #TH5 420 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 P302 IX.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan Deputy Planning Director THRU: Jessica Garrow. Community Development Director RE: 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) - Planned Development Amendment - Minor Amendment to a Project Review Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15 (Series 2016) - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 11,2016 APPLICANT /OWNER: identified by staff. The proposed amendment will reconcile the Aspen FSP-ABR LLC. Steve discrepancy. Stunda ~TAFF RECOMMENDATION: REPRESENTATIVE: Staff recommends approval. Michael Hoffman, E. Michael Hoffman P.C. SUMMARY: Applicant requests City Council approval of the amendment to LOCATION: reconcile a discrepancy between the approved plan set and 500 W. Hopkins Ave. ordinance with regard to Floor Area. 74 CURRENT ZONING & USE m-TMO.I. Medium-Density Residential with &*39484$. a Lodge Preservation and Planned 54*2#,Â¥ Unit development overlay (R- 6/LP/PUD). The redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge was ---- approved in 2006 for 47 lodge .~.:1 : ~ ., I.-420.~ '14â€¢10 1 I i.. 4/~~~B..6Â£r keys, five free market residential -Â·i--usteras . units. and two affordable housing units r PROPOSED LAND USE: Applicant has submitted a building Existing East Wing of Boomerang Lodge. permit application for the previously described development. in reviewing the Floor Area dimensions listed in the approval ordinance compared to the approved architectural drawings a discrepancy between the drawings and the ordinance has been P303 IX.a SPECIAL NOTE: Staff has included the questions raised by City Council at the June 6th first reading by topic below. The body of the June 6th memo is included at the end of the update for reference. Historic Resources: 1)Explain -where we are in the development process? â€¢ 2006. Ordinace No. 26 (Series of 2006) aproved the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge inclusive of 47 lodging units, 5 free-market units, 2 affordable housing units and a basement level of subgrade parking. As a result of the approval, a development agreement and plat showing the floor plans and elevations of the building were recorded. â€¢ 2007. Applicant applies for and receives a demolition permit and demolishes all of the existing lodge except for the historically designated, eastern wing of the Boomerang Lodge. â€¢ 2007. Applicant applies for a buiding permit to redevelop the site with the building approved via Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). The permit was never issued due to the Great Recession and became null and void. â€¢ 2009. An extension of vested rights was granted during the recession. â€¢ 2011. Ordinance No. 9 (Series of 2011) approves an amendment to the Boomerang Planned Development, allowing for a modified building that will house 40 afffordable housing units. â€¢ 2011. Complaint filed in district court contesting the city approval. A decision was issued in 2013 upholding the city's decision. That decision was appealed and the appeal was dismissed in 2014. â€¢ 2011. During the court proceedings, a second extension of vested rights was granted for the original 2006 approval as the affordable housing development project was effectively stayed by a lawsuit filed by neighbors of the property. This resolution extended the vesting for the lodge to October 2015. â€¢ 2015. A building permit for the Boomerang Lodge is submitted with the building department in September. Staff deteremined that the building's Floor Area exceeds the numbers included in the 2006 ordinance and that the exterior decks and balconies are greater than the exemption permitted. 2) Provide clarity on why we are here and would we be here if the building were compliant. If the applicant submitted a building permit that met the dimensions listed in the 2006 ordinance and the exception for exterior decks and balconies, this would not be before City Council; however, the elevations and plans that were represented to the Council at public hearings. approved and then recorded do not correlate with the dimensions included in the 2006 ordinance. The applicant is trying to reconcile the inconsistencies between the recorded drawings and the adopted ordinance via the Planned Development Amendment process. 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 2 of 9 P304 IX.a 3) Is {here an ability to have two approvals at the same time? The land use code does not permit multiple applications to be reviewed concurrently for a lot. To ensure that there would not be two active approvals for the same lot, the 2011 ordinance noted that if a plat and agreement were filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, "the entitlements associated with Ordinance No. 26 (Series 2006) shall be considered null and void and the entitlements associated with this ordinance shall supercede any previous approvals." No filing for the 2011 affordable housing approval occurred so the 2006 lodge approval was maintained. 4) Explain the range of numbers.fi,r approval. Staff has compared the building permit application numbers with the ordinance and the recorded elevations/floor plans. To build a lodge that duplicates the drawings that were recorded. it would be 1,225 sq. ft. larger than the dimensional table in th 2006 approval ordinance. This equals the amount of subgrade area that was not included in the 2006 calculations by the original architects. In order to build the decks, balconies and exterior corridors that were originally represented. approximately 4,550 sq. ft. of additional deck allowance needs to be granted. This number was originally larger but the applicant has removed a rooftop deck that was approved on the original wing of the Boomerang. Again, al] of these features were represented to the City Council in 2006. but were not properly memorialized in the dimensional table of the ordinance. 5)What does the non-unit space include? The non-unit space that was specifically not included in the 2006 ordinance was the Floor Area associated with the parking garage and the existing, garden level of the east wing of the Boomerang. Generally speaking, non-unit space includes the common circulation and areas within the building that are integral to the basic function of the building such as mechanical rooms or parking. In the case of a lodge, one expects to see non-unit space in the form of back of house features. reception. and some common guest amenities. 6) Why is the proposed Floor Area more than what was listed in the approval ordinace Â®r both the building and decking? As noted previously, the parking/basement level was not shown to contribute towards Floor Area in the 2006 representation made by the architects. Staff believes this was an an oversight by the architects, as any subgrade level that has exposed walls in the form of a garden level or garage entry (like this project) would include a percentage of the subgrade area towrds the overall Floor Area of the building. The amount that contributes towards Floor Area for the subgrade area is detrmined by calculating a percentage of exposed wall area compared to the overall wall area of the sub-grade level and multiplying it by the proposed square feet associated with the level. The more exposed wail area, the greater the amount of Floor Area. When calculating Floor Area, the area of exterior decks. balconies, stairs. and similar features do not count towards Floor Area "unless the area of those features is greater than fifteen (15) percent of the maximum allowable floor area of the building." It is staffs position that maximum Floor Area for the site is the maximum allowable Floor Area granted via the approval (44,915 sq. ft.). The architects assumed that the maximum allowable Floor Area of the site was based on the dimensions permitted in the Lodge zone district, although the subject property is located within a residential zone district. 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 3 of 9 0 0 IX.a 7) How does the building relate to the historic resource? During the review of the redevelopment of the lodge. the applicant agreed to designate the original wing of the Boomerang Lodge. As part of the agreement, only the lodge wing and a portion of the lot were subject to HPC review. The final decision as to the scale, massing and form of the addition was granted by the City Council as the HPC did not review the addition. June 6th memo Figure l : Vicinity Map of 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (former Boomerang Lodge) I (91 AlT ....9 â‚¬ ...Oft.Le ILL1... *44'i~7-L~ di.rfflat.*.VI '"'44A = .4- r .-- . -LU-Al r - S.A. LA/r##d' 14 - L 4. f . â‚¬ 41 f 'r',1)4%: le"r,m- /- , : ..7 7.. I ~- r . ..4 -6 . 4.-grcE r./. 6 I ' Â¥.. --,5.; i *In Â· .Â· ;th. i (1 1 9 4,4 -6 -24* ..44 ..~4. 4 9:/ I Viatiditip"GU..... li GENERAL BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) approved the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. The redevelopment consists of 47 lodge keys. 30 lodge units, 5 free-market residences and two affordable housing units. The project was initially reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and then was reviewed by the City Council for final approval. Throughout the review process, changes were requested of the applicant. This resulted in a resolution passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission with project dimensions that differed from those proposed in the initial land use application. When later reviewed by City Council, additional changes were requested resulting in a project with dimensions that differ from both those proposed in the initial application and those recommended in the resolution by the Commission. Overall. the project was continually reduced in size and height when compared to the initial application. An ordinance was adopted by the Council (Exhibit B) memorializing the dimensional requirements for the site specific approval and the architectural plans and elevations that were shown during the final 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 4 of 9 P306 IX.a hearing were recorded (Exhibit C). The ordinance was approved with 31 underground and 12 surface (partially in the right-of-way) parking spaces. The total height was 366". and the total square footage was 44,915. (In January 2007, staff approved an Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD, increasing the maximum height by one foot - to 376" - in some portions of the structure. due to Building Department requirements for minimum ceiling height.) Figure 2: Recorded Elevation for the approved Boomerang Lodge. Hopkins Ave. (2006) 1.1 1 3 1-1.2=:Gr-ITIO--1â‚¬112: - i.Â© r . MI 41Â·_1$-.* ! L _.1.j_Lt-: it.i Â·Ji ki-m J-14 1 3 I j'~ I L~~2 '1 _"' I z 1 //trilierrprirl.r"'"Mrp"9'Jir.9....#tr t_ Â£ 1 10 [U ;3 JII ' I 1 Â·_ J IL_- I -LJ 5:GCHCOVAng' The applicant obtained a demolition permit in 2007 for the middle and west wings of the existing Boomerang Lodge, which were removed. The east wing of the original Boomerang Lodge, which remains standing today. was retained as it was designated during the entitlement process for the lodge redevelopment. In 2007. a building permit application to redevelop the lodge was submitted. however the permit was never issued due to the Great Recession and became null and void. In September 2015, a new building permit was submitted to redevelop the lodge per the 2006 approval as the project was still vested. During the review of the permit application. the zoning officer determined that the architectural drawings as submitted exceeded the Floor Area permitted in the ordinance and that the exterior decks, balconies and stairs exceeded the exemption permitted by the land use code. The applicant has worked to revise the plan set to be more in line with the allowed dimension in the 2006 ordinance but is requesting a Planned Development Amendment to reconcile the differences between the plan set and ordinance. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting approval of the following land use request from the City Council: â€¢ Amendment to a Planned Development - Applicant is requesting a Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.110(D), which requires the City Council. at a public hearing, to approve. approve with conditions or disapprove of the amendment. The Citv Council is the final decision-making body. 2006 ENTITLEMENT HISTORY: In May 2005. a 'lodge incentive' ordinance (Ordinance No. 9) was passed by the City Council with the intent of -developing an environment in which private sector motivation is leveraged to address community goals.'.. In this case the ordinance approved amendments to the Lodge. Commercial Lodge, Lodge Overlay. and Lodge Preservation Overlay zone districts. 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 5 of 9 0 0 IX.a The Boomerang Lodge is located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, a primarily residential zone. with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) on the property. As noted in the 'lodge incentive' ordinance, the purpose of the LP overlay is to 'provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations. to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties." The R-6 zone district does not permit a lodge or multi-family residential development. but the uses are permitted by right in the overlay. The dimensional allowances for any use permitted in the LP overlay "shall be the dimensional requirements established for those uses in the underlying zone district. Where no specific dimensions have been established for the use, the permitted dimensions shall be limited to that of a single-family residence or multi-family residences where such uses are permitted iii the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of the neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements of the surrounding zone districts. the dimensional requirements may be established pursuant to Chapter 26.445 - Planned Unit Development (PD)." On a 27.000 sq. ft. lot. the size of the Boomerang parcel. a single family residence is permitted 4,620 sq. ft. of Floor Area. Iii order to develop above that allowance. the redevelopment of the lodge needed to be reviewed as a PD and found to be compatible with the neighborhood. The land use application to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge was submitted in December 2005. In the application, when the dimensions of the project were discussed as part of the PUD criteria. the application states, "pursuant to section 26.445.050 B. of the Regulations. the dimensional requirements for the proposed development are to be established in conjunction with the approval of a final PUD development plan. While the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone are to be used as a guide. variations are permitted provided that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses and existing development patterns. As the dimensional requirements of the R-6, Medium Density ResidentiaL zone district do not accommodate either the existing Boomerang Lodge or the proposed redevelopment thereof, the project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the city s new L, Lodge zone district regulations." Although a 27.000 sq. ft. lot in the Lodge zone district allowed for up to 81,000 sq. ft. as a maximum allowable Floor Area, the ordinance approving the lodge allowed a maximum Floor Area of almost half that number. The ordinance approving the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was approved on August 28, 2006 and reflected changes over time that were incorporated into the project with direction by both the Planning Commission and City Council to reduce the scale of the project. Architectural th renderings and calculations (Exhibit D) were provided at the August 28 hearing and were the basis for the dimensional requirements in the ordinance that was approved. After the approval additional entitlement documents were recorded including a subdivision improvements agreement and a PUD plan set. The dimensions outlined in the ordinance were included in the recorded plan set. BLJILD]NG PERMIT: In September 2015. the applicant submitted a new building permit for the lodge redevelopment. In reviewing the permit application staff determined that there was a discrepancy between the ordinance and recorded plan set. Overall, the building was greater in Floor Area than permitted under the ordinance. Additionally. the exemption permitted for exterior balconies. decks and stairs was 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 6 of 9 P308 IX.a exceeded. Staff discussed the issue with the applicant and recommended the applicant review the plans to see if the plans could be revised so that they were line with the dimensions permitted in the ordinance. Changes were made and the resulting numbers are called out in Tables I and 2 in the 'April' columns. Table 1: Floor area comparison Dimensions of PUD September September April 2016 April 2016 2015 2015 Revisions Dimensions Building Dimensions Compared Permit Compared to to Approved Approved Dimensions Dimensions Lodging .87:1 = 23.547 s.f. 24,154 s.f. + 607 s.f. 23 455 s.f. - 92 s.f. Free- Market .39:1 = 10,733 s.f. 11,136 s.f. + 403 s.f. 10,732 s.f. - 1 s.f. Residential Affordable .05:1 = 1,384 s.f. 1,404.4 s.f. + 20.40 s.f. 1,404 s.f. + 20 s.f. Housing -Non-Unit* 9.251 s.f. 9.265.9**s.f. + 14.90 s.f. 10,548.9 s.f. + 1.297.9 s. f. Total 1.66:1 = 44,915 s.ti 45.960.13 s.f. + 1,045.30 46,139.9 s.f. 1.224.9 s.f. s.f. Note:* The ordinance did not have a category for non-unit space but was accounted for in the overall total. ** The original September calculations by the architect had a smaller subgrade ratio than the April revisions: hence a larger number in April for non-unit space. Table 2: Ordinance compared to recorded plan set for balconies. decks & stairs Max Floor 15% September September April 2016 April 2016 Area Exemption 2015 Building Dimensions Revisions Dimensions based on max Permit Compared to Compared to Floor Area* Deck/Balcony Approved Approved Dimensions Dimensions 44,915 s.f. 6,737.25 s.f. 11,762.50 s.f. + 5,025.25 s.f. I 1,279.5 s.f. + 4,542.5 s.f. Note:*According to the Land Use Code, -the calculation of the floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks. balconies, exterior stairways. terraces and similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen ( 15) percent of the maximum allowable floor area of the building." In summary, the current building permit calculations show 1.224.9 sq. ft. more Floor Area and 4.542.5 sq. ft. more deck/balcony area than was accounted for in the original approval ordinance. In reviewing the record, staff has identified what it believes to be the crux of the problem with regard to the Floor 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 7 of 9 P309 IX.a Area. At the last hearing before City Council on the project in 2006, a set of drawings were included as an exhibit with the staff memo (Exhibit D). The exhibit was comprised of updated plans and architectural drawings by the applicant's architectural team which responded to the City Council's request to modify the scale of the project. 1-he package of drawings also included an overall summary of the project's Floor Area on one sheet. with a second sheet that showed the Floor Area for each level of the building and a corresponding floor plan. The ordinance adopted by the City Council includes the numbers provided in the summary sheet for each component of the project; however, when one looks at the sheet that outlines the Floor Area for each floor, the basement was shown as not counting towards the Floor Area of the building. This is incorrect, as a percentage of the basement area counts towards the calculation of Floor Area when any portion of the walls are exposed above grade. A similar oversight occurred with calculating the exemption for exterior balconies, decks and stairs. The summary sheet identified the square footage associated with these features; however, in calculating the allowed exemption the architects noted the allowed Floor Area for the property at 81,000 sq. ft.. This number was the maximum allowed Floor Area for a similarly sized property located in the Lodge zone district, not a property located within the R-6 zone district or one that was in the process of creating a site specific approval via the PUD review process. The baseline assumption was incorrect. Although these features were represented in the drawings that the City Council reviewed during the public hearings, the numbers approved in the ordinance do not reconcile with the approved drawings due to these two oversights. STAFF COMMENT: The existing, historic wing of the Boomerang Lodge includes a number of exterior balconies, decks and walkways associated with the building. The approved redevelopment continues the provision of balconies and decks for the new lodge units and residences. Although these features were represented in the drawings that the City Council reviewed at the time. the numbers outlined in the ordinance, as calculated by staff, do not accurately reflect what was detailed in the drawings. Staff recognizes that there was a discrepancy in the original approvals between what was visually represented to the City Council and what was numerically represented to them. The applicant has made efforts to reconcile the design with the numbers in the ordinance, including removal of an approved rooftop deck on the original wing of the Boomerang. Currently, the numbers are slightly above the ordinance with regard to the overall allowable Floor Area with greatest discrepancy in the non-unit space. The exterior balconies, decks and corridors, although reduced from what was originally shown in 2006. is over what would be permitted based on the total allowable Floor Area identified in the ordinance. The building as represented in the hearings and shown in the recorded documents includes balconies, patios, unenclosed corridors and stairs that provide for circulation throughout the building. Of the 47 lodge keys, 35 of the rooms are provided with a balcony. All of these features either provide required circulation for the building or. in the case ofthe balconies. provide an amenity to the lodge. The applicant is requesting a PD amendment to reconcile the numbers associated with the representations made in the plan and elevations drawings with the numbers outlined in the ordinance. 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 8 of 9 P31 -1 IX.a ORDINANCE NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE (BOOMERANG LODGE), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB-ABR LLC. represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval for a Planned Development Amendment (minor amendment to project review) to amend the Floor Area allowances for the building and the exterior decks, balconies. stairwells and corridors for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge keys, 5 free-market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006); and, WHEREAS, the ordinance grants a site specific approval for the lodge project and outlines the project dimensions for the property while plats recorded as part of the land use approval show the site plan, floor plans and architectural character of the project; and, WHEREAS, the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance and the dimensions shown on the recorded plats do not match, especially with regard to exterior decks. balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests an amendment to the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance to recognize and resolve the discrepancy between the approval documents; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards. the Community Development Department recommended City Council solely reconcile the discrepancy between the plats and the ordinance with regard to Floor Area for the building and the exterior decks, balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2016, the City Council 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. and has taken and considered public comment; and. Page 1 of 3 Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) P310 IX.a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the building plans submitted are consistent with the drawings that were represented to, and approved by, the City Council in 2006. What was not documented in the ordinance was the Floor Area associated with the subgrade portion of the building and the square footage of the projects exterior patios. corridors and balconies that should have been included in the Floor Area number. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to reconcile the discrepancies. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2016." CIn' MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: PD Review Criteria Exhibit B: Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) Exhibit C: Recorded plans and elevations Exhibit D: August 28.2006 drawings Exhibit E: Application Exhibit F: Application's exhibits 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) Page 9 of 9 P312 IX.a WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the PD Amendment meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal; and. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: General Development Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the Planned Development that is authorized and memorialized in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). Specifically. as part of the project's dimensions, the overall allowable dimensions are modified as follows: a) The overall. maximum allowable Floor Area of the project is increased to 46,140 sq. ft. to accommodate the non-unit space that was represented in the approved floor plans of the building and incorporates an additional 20 sq. ft. for a minor increase in the affordable housing component of the project. b) A 25% exemption is granted in the calculation of the floor area of the building's decks. balconies, exterior stairways, terraces and similar features. This exemption shall not exceed 11,280 square feet and does not include the rooftop deck on the original wing of the Boomerang Lodge that was shown in the 2006 approvals. The owner has committed to not build the rooftop deck in order to reduce the area of exterior decks and balconies. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded. whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the 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 3: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection. sentence. clause, phrase. or portion of this ordinance 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance. to record a copy of this ordinance in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Page 2 of 3 Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) P313 IX.a Section 5: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the I lth day of July, 2016, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.ni. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City th Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 6 day of June, 2016. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11 th day of July, 2016. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) P314 Exhibit A -PD Criteria IX.a 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review. the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission. as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Response: There are no specific regulatory plans associated with this properly. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow. debris flow. fault ruptures, landslides. rock or soil creep. rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%. and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques. and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Stat.f Response: The property is located in an area suitable for development and has previously been evaluated .for any natural or man-made hazards thal may be present. Staff finds this criterion met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural. visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. P315 Exhibit A -PD Criteria IX.a Sict# Response: The site plan has been previously approved and the scope ofthe request does not change the approved site plan. Sta#jinds this criterion not applicable to the current request. D. Dimensions. All dimensions. including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns. including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. 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. and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion. may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 - Amendments. Staff Response: The request is to reconcile the numbers associated with the represemations made in the plan and elevations drawings with the numbers outlined in the ordinance .fur a project that 14'Â£1,9 approved in 2006. The applicant has reconciled the building numbers with the Floor Area numbers outlined in the ordinance so that the actual components of the building: free-market, lodge units, and affordable housing are essentially in line with the numbers in the ordinance. The non-unit number needs to be increased in order to account for the basement -- which was erroneously excludedfrom the calculations in 2006. Additionally, the ordinance needs to address.features such as balconies, exterior stairs and corridors, as well as patios. The open air corridors and stairs provide less mass to a building than enclosed space, while the provision of patios and balconies add an amenity to the lodge units and enhances hou, the building is viewed in the neighborhood. Staff.finds this criterion met. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard. the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards. including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards. and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. P316 Exhibit A -PD Criteria IX.a 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards. as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review. but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Response: No changes to the approved design and materials are requested. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle. and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts. minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs. mitigation techniques. and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: No changes to the site plan are proposed. Staff.finds this criterion is not applicable. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques. and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: No engineering requirements are proposed to be amended in this application. Staff.finds this criterion not applicable. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs. mitigation techniques. and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: No changes to the required improvements are proposed with this application. Sta#finds this criterion is not applicable. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Response: No changes to the site plan are proposed and legal access is maintained. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. P317 IX.a Ordinance No. 26 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston, VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, twenty (20) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights m '6 S 5 for the redevelopment ofthe Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin Lf) 22 G County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights-of-way. The revised development includes 47 hotel units, 5 free- market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31-space underground parking facility -2 contained within a building of approximately 44,915 square feet of floor area as defined by the City o f Aspen, and a surface parking area of 12 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments '0 as a result o f the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, City Council Ordinance No. 26. Series of 2006 -1- 0: :, 3 . <01 lilll ilimill limil LITIIITilllIfljl n 3 NIMird 11 P318 IX.a WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the August 28,2006, staff memorandum and the conditions o f approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY g %&/ COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: C] N : 0 N e 2 Section 1: Growth Management Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 - Growth Management - approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free- market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2: Approval for Subdivision, Rezoning for PUD Overlav, and PUD Final Development Plan - Pursuant to Chapter 26.480,26.310, and 26.445 - Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit 41.- Development, respectively - the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezon ing for a me,- Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development ---- Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements - listed hereinafter. - Section 3: Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions ofthe project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Dimension R-6 District Existing Development Requirement Development Set in this PUD Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10-70 ft. (varies) 5 ft, Yard Setback (Hopkins) Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west 5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1 -5 ft. on east 4 ft. 3 in. on east (existing building) : City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 -2- II 2 11~~1 lilli 1 90 '0 00 99 8 _00 A-'In00 NI>Il Id_ 11IonWD GOA 3 30 , Ntlr P319 IX.a Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0-2 ft. 5 ft. on north Yard Setback (second floor balcony overhang 4' 51') Maximum Height 25 R. pitched roofs 30 ft, on alley 36' 6" feet (set in PUD for maximum, roof 20-25 ft on east Lodging) heights vary and are set in this PUD plan Parking Set in PUD 31 surface (all but 1 31 underground and partially in r.o.w) 12 @ surface (partially in r. o.w.) ./ Floor Area Ratio/Size: ED Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. 1.66:1 = 44,915 s.f. -e Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. .87.1 = 23,547 s.f. ~rÂ·)~6 Ave. Lodge Size Set in PUD-500 sq. 340 s.f, 501 s.f. (0 : 1; ft.desirable Lf) a & Free-Market 25% of total project N/A .39:1 = 10,733 = Residential Floor Area 24% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A .05:1 = 1,384s.f. Residential Section 4: Trash/Reeveling Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost oftrash pick-up. Section 5: Affordable Housing - The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30,2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed-restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1/10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 -3- 00'99 8 00 A-,100 N I >LId 11!1080 SOA W 30INUC P320 IX.a The affordable housing units shall be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period ofmore than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. ' Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan In order to reduce the impacts o f additional trip generation and PM10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners/gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Â® m +BZÂ® Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building m.zÂ® Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The M .0 Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community g &9 10 2 Â¥ Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights-of-way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. - 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right-of-way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey - description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be - provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Oceupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.B, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -4- C j IT 90:,0 00' gg hi CD Al\[100 j'>Ilid 11Iarlej SOA N 3JINer P321 IX.a 3. A general sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5th Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the properly boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. 4. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 5. Scaled Door plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, the provisions & conditions of this ordinance, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements g within public rights-oftway with reference to their locations depicted on the CZ Subdivision Plat. s m%06Â® m Ze 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of cy, A .O improvements in the public rights-of-way, the landscape plan, and public facilities N .2 performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed U, O. 0 right-of-way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions o f the Fourth Street right-of-way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights-of-way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate ' of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be ! 12 occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $23,727 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. A The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule and is subject to ~ final calculation at the time o f PUD Agreement acceptance: Park Fees - Fees for Proposed Development: 47 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $ 1,520 per unit =$71,440 3 two-bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit = $6,360 2 three-bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit = $5,450 Total = $83,250 Park Fees - Credit for Existing Development: r#"~Â¥1Â·Â· 34 Lodge Units 29-studio units @ $1,520 per unit =$44,080 3 two-bedroom units @ $2725 per unit =$8,175 City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 -5- 00'99 8 03 kkN-05 I l Id 1?J2900 1%04 1 3. INer P322 IX.a 2 three-bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit =$7,268 Total Credit = ($59,523) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $23,727 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number o f residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash-in-lieu 8 payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted Â®e prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. (Â¥) 4- & 61 a~ 'Â° 8 0 Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the M:e Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building LD 2 8 permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. --* Section 11: Sanitation District Standards/Requirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time ofconstruction. 2. Applicant' s engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -6- 00'99 M CO Alf)0 Illid - I- 504 1 30[Ner 0 0 IX.a 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or - G right of ways to the lot line of each development. M 4- r. G m Â°ZG 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance ofa building W h 2 0 permit. N Â¥ g 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the S: Ea planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the - downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional -/> proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area > ofconcem in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre-Construction Meeting Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be - conducted: Developer/Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, . Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official/Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, , 9 identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the ~: 1 timeline for plat and PUD/SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building - Â£ permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving R a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Management Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -7- 90 ' 1,0 00* 99; 8 ' 8. 1 >74 -17 InnHO c P324 IX.a encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day-to-day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the properly line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. 0 <918Â® e co Z Â® Section 14: Building Permit Requirements Ul --O The building permit application shall include/depict: M &2 LD 4 S 1. A signed copy of the final P&Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. =lo 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. - 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. ~~4~kÂ·' 5. A right-of-way improvement plan del?icting physical improvements to the right-of-way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/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. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace/woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -8- II 90:,0 00'9 M -0 Advo' -I>41:/ 111 - C Sei >I 30-Ner 0 0 IX.a asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of-way, speed limits within and accessing the site, -* and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during A Q li Z construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as 0)0'ZO necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive N 4% dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air 13 26: Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right-of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 15. Design specifications and profiles for public right-of-way improvements. The sidewalk #5 shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards and meet with the approval ofthe City Engineer. 16. A utility plan meeting the standards ofthe City Engineer and City utility agencies. 17. A grading/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. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 18. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid, 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -9 int 11113 illu m m illi m 11111111%1 99 2 00 kiNAOD NI>(1Id 1- OO"'30A M SOINer P326 IX.a Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: Historic Landmark Designation of the "East Wing" Prior to filing of the final plat the owner shall initiate the designation of the "East Wing" of the Boomerang Lodge for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The area to be designated shall be finalized in conjunction with the Historic Preservation m o c Â® Commission but shall include that area of the structural east wing along the alley, Fourth â‚¬0=~= Street and Hopkins Avenue, also including the outdoor pool and spa area. The designation ~ ~, ~ shall not subject the remainder ofthe building to HPC review. Section 18: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 19: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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. Section 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provideÂ¢ by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 2691 day of June, 2006. cp.lx~;"0~~'-~- Heien /alin Kl~derud>Mat~- ATTEST: City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 - 10 - 90:,0 : III [I ~17-- 1 Ill I.lili li- 1 .Il. lilli- 11 0 99 3 00 Alrv 100 I>(1Id 11IOn 0 OA M 3-INer P327 ..:k i dthkt-kidd_~ IX.a f : 62*yi;Â¢. 22, Eltklerk - . .4. . I . . CO I 1Â·Â·Â· ~61 ,"Â© FIN~~Y, adopted, passed alid approved this 28th day 9,/gul '' Kathryn S..1~en, 0ty Clerk Melen Kalin KthEI~Fud;'MaÂ¥ or 1.SEAF.* 3 I ./ APPROVED A~ TO FORM: C OL?>9 41 #\1*k 6*72ey 532933 111111111111111111111'ill'llilillill'11111111111111111 01/02/2007 04:05 Page: 11 of 11 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -11- P328 1181111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ' 535392 IX.a JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36,00 D 0.00 Page: 1 of 7 03/14/2007 09:36Â¢ NOTICE OF APPROVAL For An Insubstantial Amendment to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Planned Unit Development, An Amendment to Ordinance No. 26 Series of 2006 Parcel ID No. 2735.124.49.002 APPLICANT: Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC c/o Steve Stunda, 11921 Freedom Drive #950, Reston, VA 20190 REPRESENTATIVE: Reno - Smith Architects, LLC, 605 W. Main Street No. 02 Aspen, CO 81611 SUBJECT OF Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment PUD, Ordinance AMMENDMENT: No. 26, Series of 2006 re. Height and Average Lodge Unit Size SUMMARY & STAFF EVALUATION: On behalf of Aspen FSP - ABR, LLC, Reno - Smith Architects, represented by Augie Reno, has applied for an Insubstantial Amendment to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment PUD, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 The Applicant proposes an amendment to change the allowed rnofÂ·height of a portion of the fourth floor of the lodge due to a requirement by the City of Aspen Building Department regarding the minimum ceiling height within a unit. Whereas the building code requires additional space for the ceiling height and additional insulation, the requested PUD amendment is to allow for 12" o f additional height only on a portion of the 4th floor. Staff finds this is necessary to accomplish the building code requirements. The second insubstantial PUD amendment request has to do with the average unit size of the hotel units from 501 to 521 square feet. The unit number and average size changed many times over the course of the review before the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the City Council. The third floor over the "historic" Boomerang section was eliminated and other sections of the fourth floor were eliminated which reduced density of units and average size. The City Council had found that an adjustment to the "average unit size standard" was acceptable because it met the review criteria of the Land Use Code allowing such deviation. Staff also finds consistency with the criteria that allow this amendment. They are as follows with staffs findings in italies. â€¢ The average unit-size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) â€¢ The project includes a generous amount of non-unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The 1 P329 03/14/2007 09:36 535392 Page: 2 of 7 IX.a JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN CoUNTY CO R 36,00 0 0.00 proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meeting/breakfast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room", The project includes a lounge/ library, multi-purpose room and concierge area and services,) â€¢ The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in size from 370 to 900 square feet, and include multi-room suites for families.) â€¢ There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. (The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk-in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupied for more than 30 consecutive days.) In order to amend a specific provision of the ordinance that approved the PUD originally, a PUD Amendment must be approved. Staff supports the proposed amendment because these are technical in nature and are for the purposes of clarifying and correcting the calculation of average room size, Furthermore, Staff finds that the amendments are in keeping with the overall expectations of and representations made to the City Council to the extent that the changes do not change the overall character or impacts to the neighborhood, nor do they diminish the public benefits that are achieved by the project. At the time of the City Council hearings, while there was a great deal of focus on the height of the building, the building had been set higher than the level that is now being proposed. Now, it is necessary due to building code reasons having to due with ceiling height requirements, that only certain sections of the height must be increased. The average room size changed by virtue of the removal of the once-proposed third floor over the "historic" Boomerang section and two hotel units in the northwest section of the building. Staff finds that the proposed amendment meets the criteria for an insubstantial amendment pursuant to section 26.445.100 of the City ofAspen Land Use Code. DECISION: The Community Development Director finds the Insubstantial Planned Unit Development Amendment to be consistent with the review criteria (Exhibit A) and thereby, APPROVES the amendment as specified below. This approval document shall be recorded and the final PUD plans shall reflect the amendments contained herein. The exact areas of the amended height shall be shown on the final PUD plans. APPROVED BY: 1 1 I -E lort Chill's Bendon Date Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A - Review Criteria Checklist Exhibit B - Letter of Request from Reno-Smith Architecture, dated December 4,2006 2 P330 I X.a 1111111 lilli lil li 1.111111 lilli 03/14/2007 09:36Â¢ 535392 Page' 3 of 7 JAN.CE K VOS CAUD LL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 EXHIBIT A Insubstantial PUD Amendment Checklist 26.445.100 Review Criteria All insubstantial PUD Amendments shall meet the following criteria, pursuant to Section 26.445.100, Amendment to PUD Development Order: [0'~ The proposed amendment does not change the use or character of the development. 2 The proposed amendment does not increase by greater than three (3) percent the overall coverage of structures on the land. ~ The proposed amendment does not substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. 0' The proposed amendment does not decrease the approved open space by greater than three (3) percent. I~ The proposed amendment does not reduce the off street parking and loading space by greater than one (1) percent. i The proposed amendment does not reduce required pavement widths or rights-of- way for streets and easements. IC The proposed amendment does not increase the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial building by greater than two (2) percent. 6 The proposed amendment does not increase the approved residential density o f the development by greater than one (1) percent. 3< The proposed amendment will not enact a change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project' s original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project' s approved use or dimensional requirements. 3 / Fghibit 6 P331 IX.a Al IG lIST 111 lilli 1111 111111 Ill 111111111111 03/14/2007 09:38 535392 RENO Page: 4 of 7 AIA JAR CE K VOS CHUDILL PITKIN C0UN-Y C0 R 36.00 D 0.00 SCOTT SMITH AIA December 4,2006 Mrs. Joyce Allgaier City o f Aspen ~ 2- Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RENO < SMITH ARCHITECTS. I.I.C. 111 RE: Boomerang Lodge Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD agreement 605 W MAIN STREET N 0 002 Dear Joyce, ASPEN We have two (2) issues we respectfully request be considered as an COLORADO insubstantial amendment to the PUD agreement. 81611 The first issue is a request that a portion of the fourth (48) floor 970.925.5968 roof, specifically the section that was approved at a height restriction of FAChIMILE. 34'-6", be allowed to increase by an additional 12" This would set the 970,925.5993 height restriction at 35'-6". EMA[[ Our reasons for this request are twofold. The first reason is that office@renosmith com with the current height restriction of 34'-6" we are unable to provide minimum ceiling heights of 7'-6" as required by the International Building Code. As currently designed, we have ccilings that are just below 7'-0". 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVEÂ·. The other reason for our request has to due with the required BASALT structure and insulation for the roof of the fourth (4th) floor. We allowed COLORADO for 12" of structure and insulation in our original design and come to find 81621 out that we actually need 18" for this assembly. 970.927.6834 The additional 12" in height restriction (35'-6") would allow us to EACSIM]LE comply with minimum ceiling heights and would enable us to provide the 970.927.6840 necessary structure and insulation for the fourth (4th) floor roof. 1 12 Don will get you the plans. Attached are the original and revised roofplans. DEC 1 1 2006 hot L; ihi BUILDING DE; ATTA,FNT P332 UX.a 535392 Page: 5 of 7 03/14/2007 09:36~ JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUN-Y CO R 36.00 D 0.00 The second (2nd) issue relates to the average room size for the hotel units. The approved average hotel unit size was 501. We request that this average be increased to 521 (a 4% increase) During the approval process we eliminated the proposed third (-3rd) floor at the Eastern historic section of the building. This elimination reduced the hotel unit count by five (5) units. We eliminated the stairwell at this portion o f the building. We also eliminated two (2) hotel units at the Northwest section of the building. The total hotel unit count was reduced by 7 (a 13% reduction). The associated square footage for this reduction has increased the average hotel unit size. We overlooked these issues during our rush to revise and re-submit to the City Council during the approval process. I apologize for the oversight and hope you understand. As we previously discussed these issues, please contact me with any questions you may have. Our intent is to have the PUD Agreement recorded mid-January 2007. We hope to have this insubstantial amendment request as part of the record. Thank you for your consideration and help. Respectfully Yours, August G, Reno, AIA ec: S. Stunda S. Vann T. Adams D. Shi S. Smith 770 ri,/R DEC 1 1 Â£ .;.: BUILD'NG Dr: 16SCED FullÂ· DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 535392 d23-rePâ‚¬,i?* imiogimin' 03/14/2007 09:36. ..MON Page 6 of 7 JAN'CE K. VOS CALDILL P. TKIN COJNO CO R 36 00 0 0.00 2 & 6 1 ..ECT NO: 1,14 DRAW' 0Â¥i IS CHECkID 5Â¥. AR ./. DITE; DOP~>R~GHT C RNA 21,#S 1 L....4â€ž4> 4.4" " 0 lory I J $48./.Al *OOF . .8 2 < i N - 7 Â· 8/6//9 14'l Â¥L*3 9,Caft 9 0 5 ...~ I 3,3. 36+ i 2 t 01 / 0 m -~~cwe~ S t:312653 RL.v 17111 * 1 11 I.C.'TECT' 4:L - M. ''1 4224 2>' 12 4 5. 5*09 .4 3, 5%061 i. N.9 REVISED ROOF PLAN : ...1 r /31 ic113 iliÂ¥ i~wâ€¢4.~eak,g c Â¥i:e#Nf,>5CUk H. W./.1 0-'Alt. 7 2 0..C 1 . LOUU I fr' 39 6, 1 1*5*AV SWINJOH 1,44005 â‚¬*IVNO'ICK)'WL.14*V PROFLE : I 1 - I 4 ; 8.-9 23. 112 i Ct , 4, r. C k. / i % / 5,-/6 7 64 :t Dite a aius 26 -6' ; r..................................... , Â»Â»,-#..#'./.- FELO:r:126'-8 ,~ gy' 9 4' -6 0 I 14 1 1 a . 1 1 1 ...V 3 1 9 4 Jf- .Â·408-13 saft ' Â§ I ., , 1 1 9 1 i 32:232-j 199, , \ , 1 1 1 11 1 1 ,/ t ' , ' 4 1---- + 4 1 > \ 1 1 1.1 f % 2 ..j593 oq ft 2--17-7--0.1 131?3_42 : i Â· 1 4 .-' a e . 6 I t.,% , I. . L----If- 1 3 1 '4 0 2 :Ill P I 1 1 ' ti 1 1, 1 21 1!-U 2%26 595 57 4 | f % 1 4 q â‚¬ i --1 1 1 g it ' i 31<ORE T HAN 2 30, 2 - % 1, 4/"' 74Â·4-?<E A 13 ). i. 4/ CCâ‚¬ '1, JÂ» ~1~ 911( Joe - Â» ~â€ž~ Â·,7, oK BELOA 37 -9 9 3 ROOF AREA SG?CARE FOO-ACE AREA PEâ‚¬OWN- AGE I : Â¥ V RENO SMI R.C.pE'.R 1,1 â‚¬97 b.Â¥RY Al Â·D/A-' 02Â·. '20 + 9.Ul- P- . ~VI. ~~~!##2/? /1:4 4,9:36, 535392 e I *Ah 11~*82 Â¥ - R 36.00 0 0,00 a..$9" .gy Â·,1 tul $; * 4. 00 $:SI ED.,Â· Aâ‚¬EA E ' Â·. Â·1 -10\ 3.0' - 4 43. 50 2 t '9,2. Ps,aÂ» 4, .;8 5 9 -hÂ·- .%.7 :MAID' RLy ARF A '3-EVA-'5)44 36 6 , - 4 EMA : ALD*FI' I 4 r. k." A Â£Â» I 0.2#7 :Ki 0 L INFUL = , Roof Pl- APPROVED ROOF PLAN a G 003 '94<14 73(]()03M )1:* 01 ONÂ¥1[21]ATOOH ..loth/*#....v iÂ¢ >4 Final Plat 6%3 03 Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/P.U.D. 4- 1 494- 4 Parcel of Land Situale iIi. a ~< , .. Lots K, L, Af, N, 0, P, Q, R and S. Block 31 City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 4 ..4 - t . -4 .t.2,1 1- . I A Â· UNT / N + 12 0 46 Â£5,600 U k's ple: 14 8 0.9&75#,F.4 9295:y e<men 11. <?ne ' "Id'/cle ' 'e .<}i:Â© g io r 4:50,;bed I' Â· le/c.â€¢ .~fl Â·ca :Imet ~.ve' 'Dr.... c .,Â·c,j.';-C L.Â·i,â€¢ re.-0/.Â·ent 1 Mortqogee ConsenU V . Â·Â· :Â· . C dly . Â· zes .yegentubve U Se/ificote oF Ownership Community Dsve'opmend {>.ecto.'s Approve? desc -- Â·Â· A.,14 RY W -- - --- 9 4-' AM>efi LS. AaR ic, C -I - 7 <75r ----- -- r / -- *-. s.ev w.' 9.7/weer, g .cdge 0 d 41 04 84 0, Ame- . Â·Â·Â·Â·s. AseÂ·B- Â·Â· /e~ 0, 0. * 0 .'...' ./ I . -00, ''*' Vieinity Map e - ./. 50/--_ 4 'eve'*,7 ",f 9/,eÂ¢ e Â· Â·,Ke Notes . 2/ 5-r~.*. - Â·illed 'lle, - 70:99,7:e.1. 4 Â· Â· Â·. Â· cir?en:,?9 - ge:e I ./ - I ~.-- ... City Engineers Apprevcl . 5 .=corlea c. IÂ· Â·Â·. -in 4/ Â»vu;Â·ed 99 -__ dev 6 f _ :Ill .2. 9 9 Â·n..r. viS,Â· .eed b, 45 9. .re-/ Des...F I ..ce 7 7, /809 Â· ,/fs I. I iv I /, : 9 /,a y .... 3 . 2Â·4 or 7 *s Ye o.' 412,2, Erece p Zbt;'-ce/ ...0 4!.0"' rEP-ASP L~fl I De.'c.V we ...c ./. comr.. Jetea eÂ·Â·s ___ eo,/ 0' __________..___ _. 2007 for ./ zied//PgS ~' 10 '1* #le :eurng cenveen 17%Â·rey monume# 2/0.9 '5e nori,4 '/,Â·>e Â©,r. th. ~ elint<Un 5<UC.'e 24'D@)81'92@, LLC SANK /:DWEST. N. 10/ ond waller c. shew' hea w. D S M. <7*Â© p&/ 'he 'acÂ©,5 $ f-L &-Â·4 /.- . i..,iâ‚¬/ :",;Hy com;>ely, i '17)Â·Dger I ...... yon â€¢7- '563 câ€¢B deN.iried Depow U.9,.... ' my__ ___-__ + _ y, 9 "- â€¢---, â€¢ing,0141, Pe'J' 5.'cre =,-Mf,-72 ,-sUP City Cowneit -pave' '39/ 7 08 SIUÂ».7 le,/0 i .Â· Â·pe 'Â·ur"losÂ· 50,./7 9Â· I. 5,4 ec: PCÂ·'Ce WfyÂ·.e Â·. IÂ·. .â€¢, Aspe# 6 7.4 - Â·ic,.me,<mg ./. 9..is,/1/' -40 ,5 9.Â·I)/I I 'l. 9/bl.,Il..;JO A./.m.' -Plo'.e '. 2). Â£0// 55 'ece':'00. 'Â«~ WV.~1_ STEE / . -- S 5/-~I: 305' I 2.'. See ~ ~ Ir ver Â· leÂ·- - . -eli 1 - De nciliers o. Ime. Irr 1 â€¢ . , ..7/. ...1/1/"Ill.rer -* or . 04.20,/5 -9 -'. ./ A ' .'Â·.U 'eÂ·U 7/49'4 ./ M '#22Â· a Compo. 0.- n. - 87505- . s , .. 207 Â·20 L._-:341M I. -4.. â‚¬/25A.L Worc - 4.. p . + I . 08 4. ec .Â· .cep: , 49297Â· 3 - -9 *we# sub Â· 04 pÂ¢.Â·~ Â· IV IS - V ... .,Ces W . -*.# Witness my heri: .ra off;Ir, 70 '0 ce/ f,-, *sae v 43 k.52 -e .Â·~ w. ... ..'â€¢A~.g -I ~Crn InÂ·7 I '*C. SIO' .Sur,1,0,' 'Â»' hle . 1> M. C l' I- Percree'. Ate /4 200,6 -* -OF 7,Â©0,Â· .9/,9.,79 - ~ pey. ; -Â·g ees'jutoÂ» vo 08 Sr, V '' '97 -,9 7, .rae f or 'i'eceL9 Â·. ArÂ·~ 40874 ' Thâ‚¬ SU'VeyJ- 79% . ..4 9/.c.ed . con, 5' 2 2,9 Compuny Cedi/=fe 4 'y Atâ€¢crÂ«> d.fe' 6 I ,... 'ry . ~ c le DJ.DICÂ·COP â€¢ "/ Aman" 26'b..emp' 10 48--29 a N. m,Â»srd P"UÂ»'rtlf 4/ 4 -JN tÂ» 1047'- ed AM"077 -'~' 50 / Â· ASPÂ· . cÂ· Â· te ./:> /6 - u ...2.': 2/9..... O, I. 4.,te' ...d Ar ... 71' lanal' ...5 27... i I. ...0 7,r....... a il .M Propâ€¢*ity in 2006, the Aspen City Cou:yth[ approved u â„¢Bu: a vete/neld Nall :,T NutuA.jubs' the rn. -. 4 which *an dut not 'pgutn9 Ue Vat'anci Necawe 713,se,Â«161* use ef 1'~ 1.0/ 9... 7-'.6 8Â· 7.2 Â·, A undrr .'* /an applied 2,1 thÂ®- xppwid id;Â·k:mÂ·e, M, CLI"6Â¥ Uy,U no ~4 - . 3-9.2 L oeÂ· e I, *% 9 dwes I. recordec Â·ms Re e:>1 - U t352:123%21 21,2~,MIâ„¢Â·Â·Â·Â· at thÂ® 1~ne the Pe/4 19 -deâ€¢ele,ed M , . 1 0 - - 92750â‚¬-2 -Â·t. a co- SS' *7" D.fe Ace."e Orsec'ue,Â©* 2/" 2 5 90.' red?co'' ~7,Â·Jer.~ 5/cvide fo, c: SJâ‚¬ Nest> D. 4 4/8/4 Â· 6 Â·.0/ shon ve,eo.Â·, J. -/ 8. 2.0/ .,Â·Â·Â· Â·. 4*.2â‚¬ 3 Â»Al.' 3 /2 - 09 of ~sper vq~ e,spw,j e :he 01, pip,eer 4 Â£ 6Â·uchai,c,Â· sna d,red Â£1,een?tÂ·,r /3 'AWJ Â·5 - ~ â€¢ 4 Â·g 50#Ne Â» ecord 68c,< c~d '94:-0'-ws' d:TeSS'911: 5.,94 04, tms N. ' . --- 4.6 4 Â·.~...Â·-Â·- f,.7 '- ..,6 . Ic/s :'Â·' 9/cle . ' -Â·- lom the, g,/~re 'e,- . 0: '.M '. .' . . i '9/06Â·2494* be'leen :" /SS -'sâ€¢ess.Dec louNTÂ¥ 07_ 111.- Clark and Recorder's Certificotâ‚¬:4. 1-0- Â·. ,ore'>ing 'ly' -'1 was ecknowil... ...e â€¢.il 700/ by . r-' ~ '.' ~ -- -.. 0<epted Per f.ec w, tr,e 'elce I s ........moon./. , .ode, 0/ IÂ·<. :0:.,Â·â€ž. O/,:-7.0 ./,p eet index. pi:ess my ..' ried D.lic' Sbe' 2, 9 :>Cge _1 _ . 05 5 Neer ./. 4 2 0/ 2- m-- ~ 'Wh. Count, De'le cia ...'de,- .Â·f *1/7 .'*'c : 9-I.'2. rel..... C.Derr,es n Â·â€žy e r.ur..ep ,iÂ·r.r,9,v' r;6 4/.;eu .j/';e 2bu,e ,WsÂ·e',ceu ..ens 11:11111111 1.. '.. 1 ..1 111 1 It 5.456~.~ .~ '1111,1 ,111, It SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER 1,4// 1 . 1 9/12 1 1..,0 2:6-308 002 Â£ 8 W. 6Â·. SY./.1 Suir' 200 1 ./.2 9 G. ENWOOD SPRINGS CCLOR//O 8 1501 Boomerang Lodge ~, ;, \ Final I/2cwl hy # 1 5Fet:07 (970)946 004 FAX'â€¢-1 945Â·5948 1 11/at LE:xed 56.â€žLESER | GORDON .... ASPFN 01 .Ine (97<3' 6727 Subdivision and PUD N \ oF 2 + v rn .-â€¢,Â£/ Â·U' f. P335 9 ~4'h~ W; 2 Final Plat i Â¥ i. e q Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/P.U.D. A Parcel of Land Situate in: .Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 31 City of Aspen, Pit.kÂ·in County. Colorado 41 / - . 11 b. 3 4,1 ' 4 4 2 2.3 - ... r \Ip, I 72.; j A ' 4% 1 4 1 +- f ' ' *f y* '-meiÂ·ang ./.p -k , Subdiviaion/*IrD -k 1 - i ..620 acres V , 1 1 7 %. 1 7 .5 \\ 1.1/ -- p 1/'c ' W- 11 Â« / \ / f \ b A \ A .3 -Â» 4,1,4 2\\\- 404, 2.-- f r . j: /5 ocÂ· 1 .04/ 1{/v '.461-,1,~10?iuâ€ž C r I.f'h /& Â·' Vap / 9 N.,25 i ' A6 'le,1, A.â€ž 44 f -- .+125 I .... al_ , / ilizililiwill "pu 631â€ž. ' I .4. /.-,O, % ....wr *lf I. ..70"0) SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER 17 1 -7= 1 a- 1 i * Â» 2006- J08 002 2 I !8 0Â¥ 51.4 STFqâ‚¬El. SairE 200 1 1 ~uw a sah Boonierang Lodge -L GL.ENWOO[> SPIRINGE, CC>t OIRAIX) 8 SO 1 1 1, Final 5Fe607 (97/2 /45Â· 004 FAX '970) 945-5948 I 3 1 Plat ~ SCIÂ·+MUPSER | GORDON ME,ER Asp'+ Co.0/4/e (9705 9/5-6727 Subdivision and PUD \\ 1 -- + 2 i.. Lin~ i- .i-~,Â·4'"--- CRELÂ·Â£0 86.-TE CO !970) 340-5335 , 4 P336 hir",1 0 - 03--- ' 883 99 1.1-FE EDIi' BOOMERANG LODGE SUBDIVISION/PUD FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4~ Ibit> RECORDATION SET %/Fâ‚¬ 1 W Ultta'. 0,Â· 0/ r k r. 81' + (op. R.Â· 'll ./. 'IIi. Owtiers: FOUNTAIN SQUARE PROPERTIES Drawing Index: i COL! 12241EET '1921 Freedom Drive Suite 950 Reston, VA 2019C Fl\AL PUD DE\'Fl (11'\11Â·\ f FLAN (703) 773-4662 3 PARKING.BASE%11" \11 6-VEl_ 4 FIRST LEVE r 5 SECOND 1.EVTI ]Manner: VANN ASSOCIATES, I.I.C 6 TITIRD LEVEL Pl annwig Consultanth ' 1 OL ATT I LFVUT 230 Eaot Hopkins Aver.ur S !<lxlb 7,1 AN 4 pers. 4,)810.1 9 90,9 ni &8.AST !-I F\. AI-10:XS 19701 923-6958 .\ Of< 3- i. f & '1 Hi k LE , A }'it_1 \ S !1 51-14 !).ARD L.NIT 1 !2 STANDARD L \ITZ Architect: RENO SMIT} i ARCHITECTS, LLC. L.-1.1 I ANDSCAVE PI 11 f -3 i'..-st Va,r Atree. \LIC Asper c t. 4101 : (9703 920 .'44 411 11 4?512 19 Â·A.- Â· 59 Survevig: SCI IMUESER GORDON MEYER RENO SMIr] 11 118 West 6th Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 91601 ,/Cli", f. (970) 945-1004 4,4.....1/ V. . C'â€¢! 01:Of b!/ Landscape DAISUKE YOSHIMURA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Architect: 703 Euclid Avenut .tâ€¢I .1 r.,nt>,1,lh Carbondale. CO 81623 (970) 948-7560 lk.â‚¬/ F.. 'DIll i i W ./LIT Date. Februarv 1 2,200, â„¢}ILI M)Â· 1 P337 >1:)(101 LÂ»aMILKOOH 01'*. HI )/Â·1<1/' e,St â€¢.D fÂ·Ok .INMA']C DES]GI 893 eG in ' ./. PR''llf-I,Â· Chi CD En: AR ./. 'A"Â· A--I~ 5-CO~ I USEVVEÂ·= 22 , ...... P Ii- 1.-'1 i t 612>- 9â€¢e-Â·02,t,/ 1. *3~ .%- RENO â‚¬111 TH \RCH'TErÂ·T~ -RKET 3-1 qÂ©VT... â€¢' + ~ NA_ 9.0 PEVE-OPMEN- PLAN c + IER '11 ./lf .0 2 m P338 le)(10.1 :)gvt' 'lliC)()$1 (M/1 31(116 0 Â£ NI I.INV 1 ./1' I.... 1 4.4 P339 IX.a A a L L \4 ' . I I HIC.H :AL.| ' 1-4 1 111 , till, 6 1.J 'D I / I 0 â€ž . - -i L i ' 1.' 16 1 ~ 13 *14 1 .O------1 1, 1 , I, r 2=:-- , W -4 /7/ 1 11-2 -jUl Clk 31 W T ix> Â¢ ID h.,131 : 44Â«: 11. .1 //XII 1 6 i I 1. I ..u <4 \ 4 8 el Â· .2-4 1 ': '41 1.47 1 % 7/ i U 5.iÂ©I ' , ' 5" \ 1 0 1 2 0 i E--1.[.4.-0 1 -52 HOO,11"RAN<. 1 'C)|)GE 1%: E :Rm i I 1 ,23 37! Si. 11 % 01'FF 4 161 <,R 9)0 ~ .HFMAT. DES}GI {SS'.En FOR: 2%~~0}Ojl INFU.fIC Di,n RE.\ *. PROJ./ ' '4, Â» BR #. Ilt.Ekli; 8~Â· ik ; -Arl .77--~3~, Â· 11 - .. ' fr=====11 F ../ V.--- $11 IL, A== 1 1 -- -: 2 4 '- ill 71.60/1 11 - 11 'Ul 111 ... 11..... r / 45- 7=7 43.1 b 1.- A .. - 449 1-1 1 - -- '1 4-. . '493 -2 -..'ll'll k"72 ' Â· 71- . . 7 En 93-7 ' 12 111 /1 0 Â»A:* f. 1 L.- 1 1 .5/ J Â·s :! ./ -4 01 ~ ~ ~ 5&=:=4 . " 0;' v " / 4 i ~- #- --d~. A. A-& to F, 223Â» 4- - c- -- Â«EU 244-E ~,5.' \~\' 1/1=Ji 1 ..., 1-/24 'Li.,d; 1-"-2 7- ..11 3 .-4k-. : 20--* 1: 1. i ~~~---- 3\ 11. . 1 1====J .1---1 r li --bal '_ p- '' I.11=2'1=21 1---+3 ---1 -pa==:22 4 - /2. , ---.17 2 9\, 55:2/ < 2 > e ./31Â« 1> 11- r-4 11 -â‚¬*Iii .--7 - , ==- f-ki , ===, -\ /(l -Â·fvJ Â· li - -M--n -4 4 \40=11*. 11 41 11 -- 11 - - . .If==h I -42.23 ~42:22 -up _-- v ' Â· Â·Â· '- 1 201 Ige=,-L= 1 7-21 -1- 1.1-|' _ ; , ~W- Ape- 9 1. . Â£ .- 1 + .- .- . 4 0. 1 3 g ] -LI --- . RENO SMITH \RCHj..â‚¬ NiA B.LIP NS E x S- NS EL .. 7\6 r Â·' '- ~in S .i - F.iX Â·/ M 0,5.1' <Â·mâ‚¬'$1'Do /224,2 Pt,Ip "ll,le,4 =RO XI .-EVE- 11'i",0, 1''in, /,0 4 535529 RHEE, In 4 P340 3:)(10'l :)Nry}1.liTCH)H CHIHON, i Atra -I Wl IX.a 823 99 ./r 'Ill' RE, ~blol PH~'.1}{ DR,Va I --- ' Â£ flÂ¥'ll: D IiI .Â·: - - 4@ -L=5!eÂ». /1 .....9. I., 1,4" :111 r -- A-777. -5==== d 2=122.. i 3 i -11Â·.1 /. 1 . INX 2,/1/ \ .Al .4. 11-/ 1 [1 A 1 DORI .OR 1 -0 in /00. L/0 N v 1 1 1 -f 0.-7 - . j. U El li I .52 . : .1 11.11 :hIL 1 2.4 11 .11 1 ' n =3 3.,4% \42 44' . 2.: 1 1 -:I - -,<591 48 r. 14 1 1 /' 4 4.u" i 11. 2'1 44- 9 'f~I ti=--1-! 19 + 4 4 93<Â« 11 r. r 11 M "t= 11 ~ tJA=t::th~~~B==il Il =:7 42--p . 1 4 ; 54\ - *55' \0 ...4 I r r~f=-v =' . - - 1-:U -i=-3 11 E - i..E=-'1 --t - -1 1 L -11. 1 , â€ž 111 ./ _ t.,~2 . 4 ~ L=IL -l 'tr3 7 i 1 -1 20- - J.- - 11 - 9.- ...., . --I ~: .M--- 11 -I ,Â»43 - -2 -- -5 7- - - --1 IL ; 9,4- 2 ~ 1 > M 11 2 - _7-.I ./< RI M) %,MITH NEA Bui.2 NG EX'3- Ne Uu _PINS - /10 -1 .0 9 Â·.i t' '%,N .jue, '; /;1 7.â€¢ED. I ' Â·' 1 0,031\â„¢ 110 /2-Â·oildr ':MAIL.DURE~~ 556049 -EVE- om,> 'fr.,1.ei,~.6/ - -I GE./1.RIL 535629 gIEFT .<0 5 P341 liA<)O$1 OU' HO ~ 0, P VAP ~Â»LEDPUR: 6 83 plo 'cm .' C .... . RL. ~b.~0'Â·Â· PROÂ·rECT Â· I),k,lu% BY rHE. i.r' 9'rÂ· â€¢1; r u 11 /11 --#.Ifil â€ž-- =,4 - 141 -474/3 , * ICl p 4 <C - I. ./0. L.Z)â€¢K~ 3* DEOK r-Â·Â·Â· ~-4 -4 4- 7 7 Ill ./.- : 1/03 -11 - 34- 1 5 - r Â«11 - - -0 i =ir=4 2==1 es= h E- ..4 - -~~.- - --1 ~-7 F.-Â·Â£.. _ 6 =2 U Il.- Ir-31' 1 2 2-4 1 1 . 03 :Â· n L u A- 1 - 0 -1 11 1 - 3 1 '1 2 '-M' ~ b. -1,11 ... ' a - ' L ...=-= 41 3 4.11 , 11 1 ~ a: Sâ‚¬ f -31 1 - L I - 1- - -Irs./C':Â·.25> Cr-U REM) SMITH -_ NER BUILE>ING EXE- te eu:_34Â· i. - - L-L' 8, W. 7 IT' /1 --%-24' 9-9 g."9. \12Â»- i ENS'I . Â·e I SUL..~' 'Â·*,DC ~fB,ITE E Â·ca. deÂ·*1~ ,-Â· 94Â·*3 -EVE. GE'+ R.1 "111RD f V EL . Â·I s~Â·ift Â¥-,Nifi il ll 11 111 111]111 lili 11 R.Yf 0 m P342 21:)CIO'l.)>ivilritu)011 '11 4,1,)'{:P P343 IX.a - -11 P--1--3 r U; .2 IÂ« ' 1-i ILL-g 0 13 fill 'b . (D iii Ir_._< ..:::Ji--~ 1 !1 L 11 -- F -- 1 2 11 ~ --lfÂ¥Â·-ir =- r I u .J [L : 1 6 4 ] l r 81 , Fl K-=,1 L.1[ .1,1~ f'll 1 br J~cr={I 11 0 1! -:L 1 1 11 U /0 'a L / 3 1=:Ll:~1=:i.. -FÂ· . -- -- --1 1 11 1 8.. ~ 8 - .2 11 U I J :/ ill Â· *\ /6 1 M C . .4. \ 2- 6 1 ll . 0 2 Mef ..i.- eli/: 34 1-/1 , HO<)MERANG I.()1)GE Â·- 411 1 r .12 c i Â· En{ 4 1 - UNPA. IN.# in.(}R ' tit i LI ng MEN ...'.Trs.feÂ· *,1-7, DiP Â£13/l -Â·.. / lilili P344 IX.a Â·Â· r Tr 7 r MT t-: - - -MA 1 1 1 1 1 4- L ... 11.1 1 19 - 11 11 'U 1. 4; 1 0111 1 '11 r 1. 1 11 1 1 4.-lili 1 r. 1 -.4.L t~ I, ~ il 1._L-.- 1 1,1 I J 1 It. ...= 1 / 9 111/0 4 3 11 W k,11 61 01 : 31 1 49 1; A -,uâ€¢ lili 1 1 T 1 1 11 0 1 U 4 9 0 + 11 ---j I lili (11 â€ž~ ~ 4 El 11 111 1 1 111 40 Ul' "-1 ' m" 94, i Â· r- -'p 9111 3 '11 J NI' m lilli ~,1 1 r I.L 0-77.-7-Bel l' 11 ] 111 '' i 3 1 11 :14 11 1 1, 111 'g' 11 1 1 ~1 11 1 - mt--P 1 1,{P 1 11 lili 1 Pt-* ll'---~~ ~'~ ~~ Â£' 1 lili 11 1 I ' 4 7 11Â·Â·Â·1 11 . I. G W 1 1 1 g 1 11 11 (' 1 ... ::jul r /1 i i , rn 1 I. F I \ / t .O 1 # A i: 1 4 1 0 ' f ~11 11 1 04- 'F V.1 ...6- 11 U ' il 1- 01 1 1 7 1 2 1 1 , j * 1 .;. 1\ 0. 1 11 I a / 1 - S - 4 + . . 1 = 3 . , ' a . V - 3 & i â‚¬ III -,1. eli 7 3 R 4 57 ' 4 : 1 ?c :3.:i ItC )() MERAM; LODGE 1 :'' 2 10: 7 41: '10'.fd : f -1. 4 9 8 4 77 i . 0 5 1 5 1:151,2,1 1 0/1 1 4 )11)1 + '11 " =b 1393 p . %CHE'!.AileDÂ£~ir:% [%//UN,Â« WHEMAT?/DFii S./ fâ‚¬-3 r,3 - Rn m. PRAJÂ¥(1 W :â€¢R~w'â€¢ B~ ' H...D./ Ut :4ht * JA2 L 1 1 1 - 1 T==In 1 IlL I 1 1 1_213 7 7 -1 ' 11 - 1 L I ___ 305-- E._EvA' 24 . \.r'.IK, t3t RE#O â„¢lfH b213[21] *~. ~ti Fi-[~I-TT-TT-1_ f '12.93"46. FAI W - - P_-517>---=t---4 EAS- E.EVA--]ON 2 Ali~ i' V, 5629 9 1/ .A;...j P345 7:)(|C)'1 *)iU/M,1114)OH AX'V71(1 R' 1.{K'' i>il}.DFOR 823 P19 >C}LE'A-TIC DE~IG' HFUâ€¢.1(. *.'.,I 14< A" 4 CHECkED 8'Â¥Â· ih !~St' 0 ": Ef).I'â€¢ 1~T~ % r- -Ir- r-- 1 11 11 j ==1:: LI - 2 n --7 - r. ] 7-r- 77 - 917 7-7-T - - liT - 1 --i ./ - 1 I. _ r-_ 1 -- 4 0 1 - - 1. 1 4...4 I ! - i~ Â· + C=EL= ' -I -_ LI .. Z . NOI -4 ELEVÂ«-04 949 RENO SMITH :1 /'TICTS /7 I. . alâ€¢ W........El ' Sp. ral.Oke,fl LIÂ¢Â£.2 -7-7- - 1 11 i r"- - E-1 : ' ~ ?70~92â€¢8963 n. 11 1-!..= L .1 -- 1 -3- -~Â£ = -r"6 -7 .= 183:?=27 r------~i- 0.it YH%(DE .k 1 1 1 ./ r' 1 ..., i, Ill1 L--4 . L..1- - L=- ./ -:t - =1-j- -- i EMeL UDA p AES- E.EVA-rioN 'Â·E/FEC '/F; TIE: #:fill Illl/ill/111# 0 -IT, 10 m P346 1 11+ C)()$1 1 | <â€ž"'")'ILK,&*V ' 43& 0,6 1 ?141 - Â·al. % * /45=- 1 *9) ma:- ~ (335 %3! 3. 3311 2; L â€ž ll~)CIO'l ~)AIV}f.41"(,OH Ve Ou :E ' 4 # - 2, 1 55 1*4 I L:'1< 4 6 1 8 -I 1 l 1- /1 i - 111 - = 4 - 11" 9 1 - 1 11 01 - =? i 21 === 1 '1 9 1 10' 6 Â£ 0 /9 Z lD 11 1 '11, 11 .1,2 y L-'.' 2----r - i' ... E . I 9R 12 11 101 1 6 |~ / Ill 81 1 0 1 4 111 . 1 1 W ----- 91 Z. 1 34 0r fr:. L,' 9( 1 4 IDI 91 1 Z L / 1 0 5 i. 0 - .T 1 171 1- : 4 11 in i ., j & 0 . 1 1 | 1 .IL, 1....JL 1 1 rl , / i . >I k Z Z 73 e (\ m 1 {A 1 <R 0, m 448 C i Z 4 ZIP 1 V & HI-, 11 lilli 1 111 - 1.1 e'XI it'â‚¬d HIll Pls- 1"LED Hjk }~VT .= . I...3,3 <A 11-Mib ir,WFD FOX QCH",itTk DES?A ,2 2 2 216 10> r, 1 j Re knOX n PUW. T.O: i ! BRAT, I. CHILK]LOBL g r i Â·Â·3~ 2 31â‚¬ 2 r 3 19 Ir .& 1/ /~1 -J' j X_i -J L. 1 4. j 26--1 I 1 ~ ~ F , I w.a , |-' 9=7=91 ./l - - -- < -0-EN 1/ . " Grâ€¢EN "' 40 9% \6 23.i 11 -1 m fr Eâ‚¬. 2-:Â·Â°4Â·.149 1 1 -_'â‚¬13.2 RENO Â· SMITH - .1-t -ViNG || -2 aT E-ANDAâ‚¬53 JVT-2C 9-ANDAF.3 ..ihi--25 BTANIPARIP UNIT-26 e RAE â‚¬*Â«9-9, -- Â·Â· 12 m P348 1"t'OFI :)"/M lhOOtt 11{1Â¥M 4/., A4.1'44 11 i P349 ;11 4 WAI F 1 I IX.a /3 f.3 1 j Â»ft , ' 0. 4 :44-4 /4 -O 3 E .t- 1 013 2 4 F 141.- Â° / 1 1 1 44 C iff *1~.â€ž~* 3 2 f /% 3/, Â»/// , A 92 0 ' ' 1,Â»,4 -1-1 1 1 /1\ 4 9, / 9, x V , , 1 (0 tr 'Â·o./ 1 C.t) *Tr.A,8, . '42 c r iv) n rÂ· .4 " 1 I . 7: JP (?--- ?Il /11~11,- (b C )'AVA.4 I : / 1 0 L . f u , 191 1 3 0 J .' ,C 8- 1.' 9..:''it F Â·,f,/ I 71 9 i p * r - % 1145.144 1 1/ r Â¢ ..il . 11 f 1 f qi 14hÂ·f 12 '1 -1 42 'i ic. h. / 2%Â·1111./1 (693 1 1 / 1, I --fl. 11 + 1 1 p 9 90â€¢ . . ,â€¢â€¢ 1 itK,dE .1~ 2<(11,2 ' 41. . .r# 0. ~Â·~'}'7 , 77(. a VF \ ....%5 /, i ' 1 1 1 . C I ''Aj lili W'114,40 9 1 r $ f1 49*/V 2 61 - 2 1 1 9'-Â· '. 2-Â·'Â·2'iN 4 7 I ...1 -1 Y. ..1: I lk,/ 'f ' ': 2,i. ~ toc ~~ C'/ 14>v 1 7 I. I' Â· .. . '~ S J == 589.Z.-I - l , i..:1 El /,f. .2:.:, , f 1. . C i . 0% *Il 11 ) 1 1 1 1 LI _ . 1 11 E W jO d r , PE bZ ~23 i I Boomerang Lodge Remodel 1 1 YOSHIMURA DESIGN 11 .1 1,61+ >L AININ~, I ' 1 > 1 .0.,11!(klÂ·,r., Na*DAU ro Ble,i 500 Vv- Hi,pkins Ave Aspen, CO m u 1 1 ,Â£9,0,948 ir,{31: ~lai..':ri, Ain.#:.Ii,w, IJ i i > 4,- . --GEAK) ~=-/IS- d..6 1 -2/AuGE GA-VANZEJ .'RE .AN 6 TrIL-s File Cori 4- E-4- Cori 1 /*/99 rROJECT 0 2114 ty'U'19 REVI'llÂ· a A a A GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION MI~5 C,nâ€ž,~,~1 * DATE. ISSUE ]1..' C.h,1./I, 1~3eC5 Â¢0 rrâ€¢,~iâ€¢ FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT S 21al .*mir] R....1. 1/1.8 '.2 ...1,<21 ~31,04 Ci, Ceucil ~,1.1. &24 S /2 406 011Â¢ Olluu' OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE PROPERTY - ~20~100~ 10Â·~~ - Submitted by: FOUNTAIN SQUARE PROPERTIES 11921 Freedom Drive Suite 950 Reston, VA 20190 (703) 773-4662 Date: December 30,2005 RENO SMI A R C Mi-EC T 5 City Council Revision: August 21, 2006 N.I .'W ./1, COLOR,~0 ~+0 92~Â·3*01 AX ~71 Â¢OtÂ·TH=.E 8,-T COLOR/OC . Prepared by: - VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC 9,0â€ž1761+ Im, /7/. m mE Planning Consultants EMAil 'DI.. oulâ‚¬.Ir.~01* -0/ 230 East Hopkins Avenue GENERAL Aspen, CO 81611 COVER SKEET (970) 925-6958 PHEET /O I G 001 ESZ-_211-_ 73[GO]~121 519{107 DNVMAWOOH anuJAv I~â„¢dol . 00% A,pen, Colorado 81611 y'*. (OJ,A't 3Â· S *<'t .*-I . I.' 946: I.::-...... /3 4, .---- . , .....Ore' UNIT f..,u 1 11 1 11 1 mi --alv~-n ....2 ./VE-: g,255 2 - r-ViV- -- -9- 84~ / 7777 11!111 *'1Â·=â€žimiâ€ž*4.5>--1 5.........L ' 0.3 6/ L: ~@ ~ps.UR,ly> TH Re -EY E. . 3,124 .CE. i . U m,j ~-# ir_. Y-9 -'- 0 i//9-4â€¢r f .1.k V 1...... -IA -- - .Lat 15.547 6 A 599TeÂ·râ€ž~ ti i Ijil i 1 r --t'.\ . Â»32; Cl,V FWI 9. 91/ 'i 'AI-â€¢ON-HOTEL SIAGE '342.41 I .: , --= 46=f 013.0 DA"E ..7. I.. .. . . ' 0 5./.0 LEÂ·/5.. 1---V-----------Â¥29.-- Â©*20 1 82/Bl J.ELÂ· 2305 } 'A'Ol Â·9; C-]h.~i. :2Â·*80't 0.5 *4, .... 1 ,Â·06 ...'Â§'M gÂ¥Â»Ak.-2,~3..': .Â«{ Â» )1â€¢Â«' Â· 3*3. T?$*C Â»EvEL 43/ ~ a'"Her"*0*. V. I .. 10 I "31~6 Cit, C.:Ill'i Ri, i.. ll~~-~XMÂ«/ I.I- *0*t ./. 5<5 ~ ':14* Â¢'i> i *"31 k'-1.4. I .... 32.3 ~ ./51 ...... . - - * .DICIAL: 1,20 19* 1.21 P. Â· 'AR ........5- 0 N -S (5.....) 1 TH.'-EVEL. 5.44 ~ FLOOR AfEA- BASEMENT LEVEL (Â·A =AR-GROUND -EVEL ......eli. 532 -. V 0 lie"O/*1.~ 1Â¢J,155 4 S .4 '~ . -' C. I A- *:...t //1- â€ž 5/191-1. AFFORS,~8.2 ROUSN6 .iN!"S,Sa."J r,+11 OC 03\19- 6RCUP ..EVE. '@ 4 I Met. 6 4: ~tiL_ 0~Ji ~Â°~~- r*1+49Â£ 4149&*#WHT-ttfi-:ti#*-~ 4 3 3 %4049 -8/1. '64/ret Ed' Sual./TAL 0,2.8.et) 1 3/4 /3/h 2 4 N.K,A_'. 1 1 ; 6.:U Al# w-i & 4 4* he =1191 REY I - -1 & .....9,0/4./.0.....fle'l- 1 â€¢ a H - -r 10' 8 L. i ~ Â« \ sece, .Eve- .'35 EVE-~ --./ - / 4 9 mi... -#1 1 R. Mf" 1=1 U J , -0{Re . 30~0 / r OrÂ¥'.. Ae-'51&6,4. 'eeÂ»"?R2''.â€¢S ,;ellÂ«â€žÂ».%'.:. t 'Â»4Â»" s Â· *5 3:4 q Va~544 ' 94 MW- 345-QTAL :.4.4 1 ~60~~~4â€¢. --~ i , .' - Am J. /*-BA.CONÂ¥/5>06//GORRIDOM 'SÂ©U.T.; 1 164 . 4 444 fak,W,t:, dÂ¢*'~/**CGAber'iÂ¢.p/ 0 ~ "SU~TH-ZY& . â€¢AR NOTAL 44.â€¢ :5 ......C-IL (alave grale; 54.3- 1 &32*01,9.**R / 07 &45 8/3/MfiT ....8 - 43 FAR-SECOND LEVEL ~ =AR-Thâ€¢1120 -EVEL KEK BASEME>â€¢- '4.cl~ lilli -er.â€¢. 0.,w; M@ 9.Â¢m#At;: -5./.1 RENO SMITH ?11 -~ri PAf ALLORED/REQUÂ·IKE) SUMMARÂ¥ -.TD,se'Â·Ces ! r r ./1 1 '93. I .4. 9-5 .... 3" dOd â‚¬-EL .h " . 41 1 - /07- A,-3 30054 Â·t./.aor . t . 54 29?00 *â€¢<21-54 2,Â©- 'NUR â€¢g I'Kâ€¢Â«6. 54 50*T / 1% "tIZEV-let ON,~3 .23% 0 44,4 ke. 1 42:*I '(UE %â€¢?Ast,tr .fÂ¥.3 1 3,34â€žr. f.,4*... E 0 -1 - â€¢r./.22.-3 u.73. 2 2/2 9////Il PIES AdÂ»CIP....#5 53?46 JIll . 1 Â» ~ 600 *set/Â¢*4/ p ,AO. PA..246 Â·57*_ MAR AL.CAE; a~ ..2-5/0 & sce 1 - 32, %:02 2,Â« 46 6Aug ~ 9 -4..........A 1 396 x ... I.U.-, ./. la > ./C' , 3/ NKS Snb ACE' 9/Â¢-Ne -0'0<Z~Â¢6 3 t..ir '*ria 0% 52.*SPE "AR/*?46 *ACES UC RE.*14 Z P + > R. '1 11.-9 CZVERAL 1' 4*:Im' /ea ...O NO>Â·E,Â»T LM. + U MAI FAR CALCULAI.ON ~ FAIR -FOURTH LEVI- fl ............. Ves*Â§Â§ :~*Â§ i %Â§}Â§%<:4*%â‚¬ Â». 00001-- .igi~i~F IN 47 17<]O1~M 21')(707 DNVM)11"LOOH ant,a*v m.,M' 19 995 L ged ~~ -- - A,pen, [DIOâ€ždo 81"i ..... 0, PRot:ie - . REV 5 0, a 6 1 ' 4 1 0 -â€¢ 193.3 -Â·Â·----Â·Â·Â·7 .......*....f- Â· ~ ~S ~gy- \\ *f: ' 1 08".' Nvrn l\' t ' //92 . i ..idlie.u 2 , S :(1 101% W .... 3 6 1 54 ft Â· 1- 4,223 94 ft , 2 4 26'-6 3446. 106Â£4*FI 20 -O, 7 / 1 it J 1 \/ 1 Â·%\ ,4,210 94 ft > 1 ' rl.j / c i r --3 -===1 9 1 1 , L , Z 1 i, 56 Â£ i f r~ 14 - -t * 0 1 36'+ i r , Z 0 \ : 1 1 2 1\ 9 4 1 152 9/3ft ; 1 1.393 sci 4 ! ---2 Â· L.-0-rn<& re'=â€¢Â«*'*'Â·,-*~*Â·*ej . 2 5 91 4 8 .. % .t \% HÂ¢ 1 , 1 U 1, Z 24 -6 C. 6> 2 AA .9 1 / 5 ' f 0 : 3 MORE THAN 3396 OF ROOF Aâ‚¬EA, e 1 1 M. C.'t D-Lv'Fr 22.Â·1 4/ C m 52 e.*-Ir A >â‚¬ 2. A EQUARE =COTAGE A Â« 1. A P-' E.'â‚¬4-,C:% AE .:C' % % ROOF AREA <E-EtÂ«'7 Gh 3110/428> 8 - N V RENO SM]~1 PACHifF.12.8, â‚¬'0 27 Â«*EA fE-EVAT ON 26 -6 : 5 2,02 34 ; L I / 3PLM ASPE~ COLOAâ€¢Â»C COW AAEA(ELEVAN ON 94-6 1 . 44 J. 2/G, ~t (re 'eÂ·#99> a *CH, :08 'h 2dt.t Â¢040&&30 RE.Or AREA " "4-Â·Â·th 8, â‚¬ ' , 4'+. 7 "6 * ; MAt: IDE;Fy ~S 18245 544 ./.MyÂ»* '6.6% ./NAL RoÂ©(Plia SHEET /O G 003 SEL..1 ) 04 14 ' ter,d,38161% ' ./:i ... $ 42 rÂ©TAL Â«ALL Â»11/ 5 2-31 34 ft NE-r KAL. ARE, 2 1 51 6 S<~ Ft PER.CEN TAE-E , 12 62% 0?>Â«91Â«2,6%'***. -Moâ€ž 8 6 1 1 4 7-F -1 IF 1 1 a rl4 0&, %, .. 1./1 1 'r,0, &/49 | D,Â«i== 11 -7 - 6 1* *6 k U .4 1-- -1 U 1 7.--1 7 1 1 1 i -- 0 07/ DJ-1 1 4..2 3 18 9 Soil \Dr .%<?'.a. Ami. 4 47,2 t '34 it 2296 e- * . 1 4 ,â€ž4 1 4 7 -6 1 9 '-6 1 2 1 t. r 11 h ..P .,1 1 .8*11 * ~IfF#ifti~ ~ /: IÂ« m If 1 .[1 1 11 1 , '71 I.4,7 -K.u:~-1,I 1-1 m # . mm//Immm ,#id 3 1 0 -DO o~ Ill pl -4,=A - 1 - 11=- 1. 4..51-3= 1--EP, mlimmm/?.../ 1 i:===~*46 __ _ _ 1. , i lal:441:U .2 ..... Â«*==2 7.)'Al PN/*â€ž. *KeÂ» 24'5 60, Ft ~ Â«" RENO SMITH 45-7,2.4.-AREA 1,020 60/t 51% N >20 elÂ» COLD' /* 9":63..i %1 5 .' ' 4 " 0 0:0.5.6. 2'a'. t :9*' 93> $,t> ./*% *;~! I.Y.....0 m ...'.i.tic@.le B t~ r| 7 ~ *.4. Ill I .....14 .. 1 FT - ~ .. '==19 3 8 11~ I 08 9. Uft,k i...fl 4 - <31"ing Perceiuage TOTAL SLAZING AREA: 6,137 ULN.KAL I .1 TOTAL FNALL AREA: 13,833 1*N! 1._ - PERCENTAGE OF GLAZING: 44 496 <'C ~ 4 -I- -/ 12 I 13(IOWVZ] 39â‚¬101 DA[VH , l' Pr 114 i ;i'94-1.,1,1 # - i y 0 t PRO:EC- 4 :.. 11 1=,41-1 RE'CION -4 a a 11 -1 43 /6 A 92 i CATE '.CE >JimielÂ¢*m: Ci~Z~ MWÂ¢i> Pf*F*" I ../.97.'." ..f ./-,Re.gll ./ ...t.vu. *9[ 04 C,t~ C,*=+~1 .t.~0 - Date of./le 469, 'i J V 2 124â€¢206 38.41 ~~ < FY 1 14 % : 9% 4 . 11 -Â·Ce'llÂ». r in Z (~3 SETBACK - Parkinq/easement C. - EXTe BUILDING h --*---------------- , PR SPER.'pv v NE A 1 ..... . 1 14 Frid-L-T 1 ; .%10 0=' -*-19~ 44 7 _ 77~Irt i Â¥ H i , tr B wl i *'3~41 V b Â¥ 10 . 4_ 4,1 I v 1 AMI ek 1 ' 373 i RENO SMI T~ 13= 2 i 4 i -23 5% L_br i 4 1 7 -1 .f' ... 112-1 A A r r- 4 2-U--14- - 4,1 V T /.~ k ===J Â¢L -,4, - 931* )) .2 ./.Â¢040*/. brd, ~ I f.7. L ,â€ž I (43/93".* -r==LE C r ~ 401 1 L I. - 0 y k 11;,34. SOLAA,BC 1 /1 1 \ Vt '7 4* 1_ 1 7 -1 L ' p.-,0- ... r, I} 4**' 1 r..1 I ./ %\ /, P \ 9 8,As .rP,&-4$ d-Mr> >. 4 1 â€¢11 =1; / A J A. ' '.3 :4-_.. , F +-i- , a.w TZ Lt. . -~.-2 , 2- 85 2 g revun - :'p 41=4 /. Z' R _ 3, 2, i 40 da SE-BACK - Grourd Level G 005 1:i]CION321 Af)aol Â¥*11â‚¬WOOH O**Av "5Â¥1â€¢Â¥1Â¥ 7% Pub %..'nalâ‚¬gÂ»id.V P354 . ).1 Â« Â§XJ 0, s-/ S. . .,. 4 ->0*0139 L,; - Eli 01 ..Z . ~73-7 - e ie &/ ,1 1 . / 2 -1 .3*ccâ€¢ 1 4. 1 I ....9# -- ' b ~11 1 0 1 lu P. . 9 4 --- - ,@4-0-cÂ© 11 E~g .'' 1 \0\ i \ A . V I , n'*1 1 4 -M -2 U-1 Y: 3 \\ 7 1 1 15 1.3 48â€¢---9 FiE 2% i i f*' i 1,-1 r La T PT 1 1 1 1 1 '- i ! I l;*Â¥ ;.6 1 1 1 \ - 1 -=1Â¥9"0/A ' 1 6 kai k. i. / \ HII]AS '04321 f \ .t-= 1--â€ž--- 1! ,...31% 1 1 -1- ~ 1 1-1 2..,11 1,1 U \1 1/ -31 I /45 U J -f *-~-r-=66/,PA&-tmt=t~:- AF-- 1,(1 Irr , r t-" ra-_FL-'i 17 7 r ' 1 .Â·0~~aae, 8,Â»LJ D M e 1 14__IEF 14 $ I~ k I f. i ..0 Dh - ..-/2*MOB.' 9NIC11(19 491><3 - rh 13,431 0110099 - 470*212% Lj 4 01 : 4 1 08 -1.6.; . 0 , 4.A K,Â»1 . 4 4 \ M i ..>t 0 ~Â·*2=zi,lut . &:ir f 'A. " ~ 1- i -I.J- ---6&0 . 1 9 -?9 F 9 1â€¢ \ n Th . 1 1 Â¢ 1, i 26 3 - . 2 bÂ· 02*t y * P':06 3 rev 1. I 14*7Â· o '0*'Al 'tall' 93 NI U F' i / ,- 1=F 1 ~#--7 7 -r-1 -h .... 4. 5-rt _ 73"440 * 9- * tin==7 -El=. 2 1 11 7 1 1 7 El--7 7 - 9 11 1 , 1 2 I g V :89 1 - R+24~8 121 t=J 110 -2 Â¥ 6 1 j itc i.UOEd -* 00 I,J4 + i M A --877 9. Â·..../-, 1. .. r , .M 1 m ENICI"ling '91*3 - T 1 FO REL 119tVOP"gÂ·J'ued*Â¥ ant:*r,Â¥ .1,11'de,1,1 110* 12141â‚¬)]Nit[ 39â‚¬1<)'1 f)NVM)114()0*1 - EXTS. BUILDINS P.'SPE.Â·re .>4. $ 41 4 | I -*Â· \ ' 4 % C a 1 i AL\\ ).:56.3 0--7 2 > 3.,8: Â¢5 --$.2. 6, ..CD F=V'. M.,14'.5, 1 4.r~4~ ch -re -'-th! 1 1,4.L~ \\1,0, H. .Z RE,}W - 211,06 Â¢â€¢IL-.IWIx *lt.0$ Cin ./wg: Re:,Ac --_-----_ 1 - 8 *268 4:49 ~ , lit 0 1/. r-' 4 1 '-o' 071-1 L U il-1--I| -1 41 f f .. 4 'L611 4 - 1 r -4 \ 1 6 " 4 \ Â¥ 121 - r 4 -4>- 1 /- ---- 4 11 - i r--- 491 1 2 _ H 21 1 07 1 4 1 L.=/ it 6- 'au 04 - I : 2-~4 .3 9.0997?VY'' 4>.E Â¥ r.- , U Z ~ SETBACK - Fourtr Leve 1 4 r-- EXTe BUILDING 2 1 PNE,Â»ER 9 Â»NE 1 i = f f 4 *i ' 1 = 0 4 - 41. 4 , Vt: 114 ./. 1 c # i E 94 $ - u..1-1.2.-L. 410 : RAY*'ir,Ke&72 6,1 4//. > 1 CE#j i RENO SM [Tdij M B 4 L-1 4 -- e :Â¢'1 .: . 0 5 1 L- 1 - \0 4' 1 ' 1 3 1 1, 1 ' 4 31,1 â‚¬ , 2 3 4 1 *741':, f." & 8----*----1--,- - 4 rd.1 % 1 Â« \9 4 / 2 -1 61 1 1/ 1/ 3 1 1 i i ;f, - -Ut<. ., 4'' 4 1 1 , % ..1 3 8 / 2 . 14~ : e 1 1 2,193$20Â·6.1 11 1 1 1 1,1 I $1*Zi 1 ---"--*'.-D---~j I \ .; 1 a": 1 2 4 *PRS:Â·K h 11" 1 1 ? \14 4 1 1 1 --- 'n< \\\ Â»OP\ // : / / & r..1 .ri **I -' YL. V -1 I ,3,)./. 4, 5 f~~~ ' 9 4 1 1 1 1 49 I .- Al . , p.3--L ' 10 I , 01' Â·t "t ~ ~~ I .~ â€ž s 0- 107 IX. 311 11 Flaown, 51 flao, i HWOOH P356 0% 3~'llp~......T PROJEG ' 34 REVIS[ON /\=/ 8 //f-1 4 a D/E 155(m 4:*2 CaaÂ».3 :)â€ži,. /.D):01 =/.t. rl---- i /7-1 ./. Fâ€¢410*rn- j:10/2 Go @**sit- 4,2 4,2 + 9 ./ .........i'(Il 0*(Â¢ 0(~is. &1=.iDA: I Â·./ 4 I. I. 1/3 1 \ Â£ /1--4 4-1 9 - / 5*01/ ~ L____J T T 11 4-4 i 96. /Â«i . Ui 4 1 ..,1 ~ .", i , 1 4-EV ELOCK 31 * A m d . p,41 m~ 1 1 i,.,,.F '61 0 1 .... . J .li{:Mmlillim .1,{;4~ . t: r--~ li 70' 119.. 1 =2 / E-I 52 A l ''-21/4 i 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 -0065 ' .:1 & ' '14 I : Ul W .... _ Pâ€¢Â·, , 9 I - r:-1 1 C 2 Z. 1.1 L, . t i r-,i 71 P RENO SMITH 1., -4 . / , 40'C , , { .:t , 42.3 6/5 .a Â· "' :" t 11. ' r SotuMB> t"a 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ' : a&}.4-1 Â¢0Â£2*Â©r &6 Do i . ; : # : / - AES-' *OP<145 A 42 va -0- I /"4/ =:hel ~ Red'veinpment Pan - SITE Fi:..,AN-REDEVE-OPME'N- 1 -20 - 1 A Xii) - G I ft I)1(101/UM 3:*107 ONVM?IWOOH 0223-72 77< 1 1; Pi7 t, lu-.Â·~ Vt ?~C Ecl . 4 1 RE:1110) un a i G a 49 4/" 42 -9Â»\ J 1 DATE &- U P G u,92' ./../.D 6 4% .... I Cead Rewit, &/ / I Â· Cuestil R..i~t= _/1--91 A 1] VE 3.2 of''A~â‚¬ 1Â·:609$ 1*4'X, .% L_._1_3 01 /11 4 ,3 4 11 j 1 ' 1 1 '' p, 11 ALLEÂ»' 912584 31 i ;1 , . $ 2 Â°8Â° n . &15*23,13<'3 2"02 I ,~ :. ../ , + 18'lliFFF=f i 01 A . -1 . ... 4 i J # Â§ W , 4 4 .1-Ly,~' - / â‚¬2- -5 *AeÂ©,2& --3-' . ..1 ~ 1 / 11 ./ f Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Y Â» El] 1 0 4 .' L-/1 , i 1. 1 41 1 1 :IN 1 1 Z I. /3. 1 U i I. l - 1 Â»re _ ' / 1 6 i -< 0-' 1 I 4-L ,~ \ : .Â·24 tÂ·Â·Â·13....1 - , \ 1; 16 Â£ I' -b ~ , ~ y -1 , \ \ ' 'I . i..--I 2 373. - %44 ,Â·Â· \ \ 2 RENO SMI1 , '433*G- 7.1 . 1 , ,) 81'Â»S, 40 00 : , 6237 ee< NE, 11/EAL,E 1 *8, d ..Al./. ~ SitÂ¢ D>Ivek'Ant:M /h SITE DEVELOF>,tv [ SLAN \0 1 30 OW 1 AS-101 aLL---Â·- I ICI ' VMH WOOW anâ€¢.0*Â¥ ,â€¢,1<lolÂ·, At ags trne *p,ema,> Â·telf'v M# --p * ili WDe.Â·Â·tiÂ¥>y.8!R? 140 1 1 11Â» 0.,4 11 PNOJECT â€¢ 114 *1 RE''.SM' I . 6 . + 1 111 1, 1 a 1...1% -7 1 11 1 /4.- I 1 , I DÂ¢:. 4,1 i ..1 1 - ./. R.vee I Â£),r~1$ M DÂ¥10 oftmne ' ..b . ' ; --1% 8 2.,1=U= F... .Al e#. . .* -'llllif ~~ ~ ;1,6 -+ 09 1/ I .14 irlr /1 ' ?:182.J F.*Al R.e* 7 7 5.11' U..: E 4: 1Â· - 74 + . E M + Z I W : 4 - ...... = , 2254'rEAN Y + 35+,E . 1.......-- - ' ./.4:*: yijr. 0 i g 1 + $ 4,1- ... ---*/ I Â·Â·j. 1 '+ 0 * i F m 14 - ye'.1/~44 , i -~+:-+ . * - + ... Â«*SU i ; , Mt '., 4 6 . i ' 4 - + 4. 7 --/ 4 RENO SMITH , I. I - 1~ IR/ViTF:Y: + r.;. 6 =7 2- -I ....66â€ž....1...: + b '' .%'FE' <'OCORA'PO ~ . . .0Â¥ 00*1Â¢.144 440* 1 + m 1 ..D . 9Â¥0**' # FAX i 1. , f. .' I k ' 1 r. . . I j..4. .. 1... I .1 vill 1.6'il'. .....6.1//3.... "P.......... i #ME Â£-9 :...645 -1-~ *S t.i:~448 Â»9>Â·e'N... 8*6/ :408.-- ViCIN{fl MAP . VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"â€¢50-0' 9 8 210 - 11 ~ 1-- ~ CD 13(1O1113M 35(IO1 Dhiv +41 ausl>:> I 0, L__3 1-Â«tÂ«- FROJZCT â€¢ 1 ...... A 1 4 1 Er--1 .AffS ISSUE 3. Oes Â¢9./... ... 1 0 42 V 4 J V V F - .7. Not{/le i:,0,4% 4, 't*â€ž. 3 10. C. Pr/vi.i* 731;*i ......zi&.~W. t.~1/6 C.Â·'Â¢9~U PRÂ¥5â„¢q Ck*(e.~.i,8 080<Â¢ i64% I. 1 , I .r; C V m :33:.' 1,-4'0 '. Â· ~ I W v i . 0 -- L W ummumill-4- ill.Â» 1 11-, . -1 1 9 -2 '.... - 0- *' -: 0 fi ' 2 E- . 4 : 2 U / 4 3 441 , ''' 3, /1 I i : r.. 3. 0 3 , 1 .- 47â€¢'EN SOACE. 5,144 34 ft . . 21% . . , .1, , .,1 I . 1 \ 1 =.. .:4 \\ 1 e- i %,9? 4, /7.1 1 1.1 - rÂ» 1 4-:~ 1 1 60: r UL.4 - 4 9 . 1 , '..4 ~ RENO SMITH 1=7 .4./.: S A/li I -I' ....... " 1 1 . 99 : x . 4:**: 44 # m ".Â·96, - 1-. 01." $"' 1 1 Â· . / le<Â·7#jaul .2 1000 ' ' *t cou.Ree (IA f#I Â·~x E 14~4 400&Â£*I Open Space Par, r) OPEN SFACE PLAN ' 1 i.22 4Â© : AS 103 -r _.2 221_22121-*Â·- U - ....AÂ¥ ...41.' i ....[NO PER'll.' PROJECT 0 REVIS:CI DATe. ~SSUE P.ANT LEGEND ca/Q~jo$ eâ€ž41,1,~1 D,ill 12/-0, I. 'I.li. @R-,CALLY 1Â·,to*Urble.rnEEd,OCATU-ECM~t.JIE'#$0 Il.~3/0; CD n~,rili . T,I â€¢C-.1......../*A'CH CE~'9~%'S Pe ~.,1.10. *- 4/uHai,I 8,â€¢,ilâ€¢â€¢ i" 1~. C14 Ccu~lil .vi,i~ f +1 E*18â„¢OEV~~mEN.IES (~~ PROPOKEDEVERGMEENTREES Diti or 1 ,*ue = 00~ Le 4 PM , T~~aceoue:wiT~El PMOPÂ©*ED#op.m' pa I ..OSED.-1 1% En p..OSED LAWM GROUNDCOVE. O.-utc . . 8 75009Â·11-E 270.0 . 1Â«.S '-1-1 b, 1 TOGAR~E 1 -.C.Jouii, 1 , DRIVEV~/ RAMP 611 , -le,i,h-â„¢ 1 1 12/' * |U -1 2 5 / /\1 1! 0.0, 1 1 2 31 Â¢C Â§4 -\ "-1 PARKÂ»10 - . %41Â· //~7 8 4 Pmo 1 /FA UilL f : ,=*=* - RENO SMITU. ARCHITECTS- 49.L /,<CrOAO 'r..7 Â£/ MA'' ... COLOKADD a Â»1 P- -=27129/- ,1E, g#K - .X K. .1 \/ UND '*~~ 1 . WIES"11(/KLNSAVE!*,~t ' Â· li $0././. 2 *LT COLOKADO , F I X r..1./.0 ~IB SIT' DIA,MM oil."...O.- lk a. ...SCAPE Conceptual Des~gn /0-7 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 1' -30'-0 1>< 19 ' L <14<j<] Â¥IFâ„¢ '*ET' ' ' ' I 121(01&2121 39~IO~I PhIV*IaINO 1.nIUS H SIDEWALK P361 X- PROJECT ' 941 9 f @ 9 Â¢ 9 0 09 0 0 -1071 A r 11&'-4 | 1 lai ... 1 4 8'.1- 40-7.â€¢ 32'-*1 Â¢ / /1 8 194 0 1 E | 9. a |/| | | 1' PROPERTY LINE | DATE' ISSUE 04,1/1 6.-,-I D-I I ' (91 9. 11 .1 1 1 1 I.iâ€ž-i < Â«~'IF I ~ DI ~ 1 K ! 1 1.-1 004 IM Cle Ce-.11 Rivi:- LOCKERS 002 ' H'A .T 0 2 1,Â·1".I 11juvc~ CD *= .1 06 cmce,-IR.imâ€¢ 1 1 | portÂ¢I 10'-0* 1.50 . --Crlas. I D.1 W...ue 1 .0 4. D 9 1 + 21 - r. -1 \Â»AD" f I 2.| ' - 4 O ,Â·1Â»5~\ ri '311 8-4/-"L 1 \ 005 093>f \2 1 1 ! 8 - q 10 11 11. 13 MecH / A 1 1 %3~ :Te ~1 '2*L.ARiA \ / r 003 ===1:=21 + 0: 1 C I. -' ; T 0 -7 /4 %\ 9/ 3 1 1 \ 1 Clo~.4 7 / 1 i 41/ 11 , 001 3Of FAGESâ€¢ 1 HANDI.LAP - 31 AA 1,//' 3.TT,1,6 161 1 E ' \ 1 1\ i 20 | ~ l 1 [-7- , H ..=====/ *i i 4 1 1 1 \ \\ Â· 22 23 24 25 26 : il I 28 24 30 ~ 31 1 .14\ \0 \\ POOL ABOVE *i ! i 1 \ 1\ %1 f DIA C 31 8 111 '1 1; \1 Li *A @ .. i 1- \ 1\ ,\ ./ / ' =Â§: 14 15 16 |11 |~ 18 19 | 1 , ~,4 3 1 1 | 1 1 | i *fOFETTY LINE ,/ 11 1 14 I i in I il l ' I 6 1 -0 IDâ€¢-Pl L I I I log-â€¢â€¢ 1 RENO SMITH . 19.9 66-0-. â€¢ 1, r" 6 A 4 3 , 8 00 1 / 1 4 A ARCHTECTS ' 6 9@1 4 4 @ 4 1 .O, I I le: A CA L .* CO~/AADO Â£0' 8634 0 V V Ny EXISTINe BU:LOING NEA BUILDING j r . .X FAR CALCULATION: EXTe. BASEMENT AfEA 'li SOUTH~i.5 tVE 2,488 Sqft. 0 ~,*11 NEA BASEMENT AREA. 14,9-10 91.-t 1 -7 455 58..Ct. m TOTAL (00~,17,â€žâ€ž ~EBUT' â‚¬MWAOORE' n'fiÂ¢â€¢8,-i-Il e. 9 FLOOR PLAN I PARKING PLAN -1 PARKING/BASEMENT LEVEL - SHEET NO 1 . 20-0 A 101 SHEET : 3 OF 30 ' FROPEMTÂ¥ UNE 11â‚¬[ORS**I 30 3NI-1 11Â·h'1JOW P362 / .......I: 5- j / 1 \ / 1 1 1 ..1 . 1-- ' ' PRO:ECT. .., 9 99 2 9 9 9 9 A - 4 - 4 ' (10 / (11) (1 3 , ' RE.5:CN v i v A a 1 1,1 1 1 11 1 1 '1 1 1 1 -/ . 2 t. / \ ./ .t 1 1 1 1 ~ 2 1 PROPER-r LINE | 1 1 . 1 . 1/ a 1 UTILITY - 1 U' Ill I Y RELOCATION 1 1 1 /Ul DATE ~SM ,C RELOCATION ! . ~ , 0:,~1,3 Ceâ€¢â€¢Iâ€¢â€¢Â· 0-1/ 1 1 i r--lh,/ A -| ' 11.'01 CD P.c,ii.i d~~IfCAr il"L/AFF 1 RAM ' 1 3-1 Â»E. 1 3-Grl I 111.'01 CD,4.â€ž l51 <i,--2UiLL:_31 I i UNIT i I r K -l 33 111 . 101 /~ â€ži. '** .,M i \Avh / i .r J L Â«12381 91 9 /' 1.-OBB' 13 moo, 10 41'N 1 '00 -0 -1 . ~21 110 11. 1,4 , 116 '' LOUNGE ~ 102 71 [73 11 3 ./0 3 1 0 / 11-3 2--- -121 #-1' . . -. = 48 f + ~Og /1 1 I. - r. â€¢./--- T . 12 4<18 rE Ilii 4 | I ENTRY / 1 1 ' I. 0-0.B-/./ ' U,/ gix*3 ~16Â£,M UCE -1..-0 7 -12 118 7, rf't O . 1/7 - ., VtÂ·Lf. . 1 ~, *3~ n \ %35:- , 1 .- 3 Z rX \ 0 10 -7 10' 1' 113 ' POOL i i 1 .-9 7 Â· ilr~&3,-lu ..0 i â€¢Inc ' ' -Aric r-IL --0 R I. L %141 A 31\ \ 11q 9 *i \ 1 *4 1 105 : . 61---C--5. rn .ir,1-3-L--- -c 1 7 --- -immee- .4 lei. 1 \ ,-3 ; &.0? Â»E,lium#" 1 / , PROPE~TYLINE 2 *=ZE:jg/==1 %1 1 1 11 1 1/441111\13, 1 .,tA# 42. 1 - ~Ili~WP - I ,-17 ' 6 '~l*. .V ,,Â· I i. n'' ,r RENO JSMI~ 1 , 1-22 ARCH: ECTS 70 1%7234%3~~Y Uf 14 2 ap,FIOJM#JU)(~~fl\4,~ 404)LL/, 1 -tj-- (9:91 334Â«,t'.9Â«/rttip .-. 1 . 2 N , i INE,41 BUILDING ~PE> CCMOâ€žDO V L- N *~1 Â·3*xy<-15.~ExSTINe 60114,0*6 .1,1 1 / .1. I , ....1 .1 , FAR CALS,LA-ION: 1..#.$â€žj \ 4 \ 1. S 1,2*3 Sc[ft.' .-, . hu .1,! , ~ Â©<Te. UNITS â‚¬ENDVATION ', 3 = 1 .l BOCT.!DE AVE ~....... ~~ ib 7,942 51.ft./-1 0 14 . 4 11. BASALT.COLORADO 44'U MOTEL .INTS h TO,L. 14 9.255&94-ft. I ' ' 70) 22 .â€¢46 , 642 341:1 1 EMAILADOREI, AFFORPABLE UNTS \\*,n. â€ž.0.1. ci. 1 NON-HO*E- UNIT SPACE \ 4 q qB ao.ft, .-..â€žm,â€¢,oâ€¢ , TOTAL '\ % '4,aÂ·405â‚¬.ft. ', i FinownÂ»j . i 1 GROUND LEVEL PLAN /7 6ROUND LEVEL CD - X 1 ' . 20'-O SHEE Aâ€¢ iM= I 73(I WaM 39([07 DNVMOIWOO N P363 R_ L - 0, 9 93 7 % 2 0 9 6 9 90 9 2 x 1 1 1 1 1 f- PROJECT â€¢ 2,14 1 1/13 PROPER-Y LINE | / - REÂ¥15[ON 1 13 1 1111111111111 1 1 1 - , 1 iii 4 1 4 1 h./ i F .4- CORR DOR , A . E==au I! 1!/01/DS CD he,- DATE. ISSUE 201 " L .--1 US. ~42 R.Â¥1.10, --- AF' 104,0 061 ROOM 1.Uu -; <51.Â·Â·Â·< /./ i ll'W03 Ch Provi- 7~3! 06 *Cill *m CEÂ»---I- -'25=EL_ -_ 'NIT + 11 1 11 1 .1 11 \ L.1/ 21 -1 1 - 2% 'L *SE I 1 #'. *C-in 1-,~e, - UN 4 1. 1 .ROOM n 27 ; -1 . 3,2 off'.c i . ' - / 1/20/20Â¢D WPI 1 ==/6-' I LnÂ· 11 1 - ,/ 201 268 A | *210 21N L 214 2%,2 4.,77 11 1/ P 7Â«r) c:=tz / .." 1 -0.1 m .'. 'i- / LTZA Z 2 8 , 'L 12 6 -1 - k ,/ 1 1 1 1 I I. ./ 1 Â¥1 FT 203 0 Mr- lticL_LiZE L J 11 \ 2.4 .4, 912 .IL _ DI-'4' '~~ *. rE - 3- 9, l / 8 7 -lt I j:/1 9 43 0 1 , F = 8 21.31 8 \J> ~~~* 213=-7 ifi 220 1 1"1 2091 ~ 211 213 ~ 215 5~15-1,6/oc- @h - III 24. 1/ r=r-F . -4 9/ 1 1 1 f 205 :08 n .~-OGN 0 E - r : m - 2 , .p ..H~*~ - DI 7 4-*fECI~ Of h - \\14 peg 0 / I. 11 4 :41 fs: 5 =.f!*0-11/- Dz.- 4 454 7 ' 1 '01~IR> 0,2..1- :, f Â£ 0 99Â» '-r-E- <tda#â€¢\ ASÂ·Â· 6 4 2*,ST!*,I \Un, , (3 9 1 \ O- \---r 1 / \\ 1 . 1 -/ 1.1,1... r 1 'F': Pr\. ------1 PFOPERTY UNE 1\ / 0/ bN-<1650\V) 1 V' 0 "li "' I "41\93 1 4\4*h, 4, P J/th)Â£' Fob 4,> %92%'&34tlill,>t~~&.3*1} 3VD& Â¢-9 0 15> I 4- , //41 I\\ 0 59147 9'~ ~~ 0 <523 1 NEÂ»t BUILDIN6 -X:- 4...41 <zn - I. V o' ,-ji. -1.N;Â»lk iEXIST,Na BUILDING RENO SMIT . ARCH~rc-s / 3 77 1 +1 01 4 FAR CALCULATON '39/9 / 1434 601 W *[I EXTS. UNÂ·TS RENOVATION. 5 2,142 â‚¬ft. ..2./. 4_ f , 1 ASPÂ£N COLORADO Nelu HOTEL UNITS: . 8.2 26 54Â·ft. J 1-1 f :> , fAX TOTAL 20 10.3*esq.ft. 1 11 ...DEAVE BASALL COLORADO AFFORDABLE INTS: 1 642 94 ft. ./ NON-HOTEL UNIT SPACE: 2,306 54 ft. (/0,//Â·6104 TAX AiÂ©ir i,â€¢0 TOTA_Â· 13,366 56,ft. 1.E. A:TE ... ,%*'ll B.A.LOD.. DEC,</BALCON- 1,416 1 34Â·ft. offilâ€¢*.â€¢Ailp' EXTERIOQ GORR COR 2,114 Sqft. FLOOR PLAN -OTA_: 4, ' 35 sift. SECOND LEVEL PL <N ~, SECOND LEVEL 3HEET NO A 103 SHFUT ' 5 O. E ~TA k f...... BALCON' | 15[GOING[H GISCIO'I ONÂ¥ 11"GO U *dâ€¢V P364 ~UiW(NO mIT I f {11 f q Â® 9 q 0 8 1 1 777 T FXOJECT ' :i.i 1 1 1 1 1 1 REVISION 1 ' 1 1 1 PROPEIT/LNE 1 / 8 LIi I dilii(l il r, 1 I Â»'1 , ., .1) 8 1'-=men.1 1116[ Ill .1 HEAJ*]fl , /~ r F 77 1 1 1 *==1 DATE IS5UE 01 ./: C-le.....i. 30- 7 , 1 11,]~93 COP'..... lili 1 1 1 ~ 302 0 1 - 1 6/ 47110* Ct,C-,11â€¢- / 1118/01 CDP.*- L - -L 1 1 I -I 11 1 11 1 9 -0 goof J \ ~ ,$ Cd PAZ R.nâ€žo. ' ' / /'L. C. Coll|1 1*vie, '+ 7 JECK ~ 1 GOF.RIDOck "-2 1 I=~ ~.f=tit==~- ~ ~- 1~~1006 1,~,PU 1 *Al 5. 2 11 1 / / 1 2. 2 19 M =4- -ks 81. / 0 nk 1 X . r~33 \, 1 \ r 22..6.1 Â· \ ~ .. i AA I ' 3' Lyq_ ,=*== I Â· / ,=,> V 1 ' 1'.-0 r- 4 \ 1\>-/ \ -- 77 1O~tilliEIFT#r-.-----1.!rki.Â¥4 1 1 =1/LMIW'*'Â· \*~ 305 ~ L_L 310 -7~ 311 i 1'4* 1 1 1 1 1 1 WVV I 1 6'VI" -~~ Ir' 1 \ J y 4% A | 3~ 1 - 1 I , - / \2 2 4 -8 lu., I- 307 Cl 2 08 .*OCNY IM **1 f /-\11 \ -----Ill-lu \ .t3Â£47~~ djLQÂ·~4Â·2%:1 ~ 5 -0 6 -4Â·1,0, n3\\ / A ...~C \ 1-rj ith I\~ r i rot:. 43 1 9~~ Â»*.7 411,\ 1% 1 2%311$1*- 1 ,Â»710%4 1 , PGEOPEEMÂ¥ UNIE hfu 3 - 42.Â»-a'..1_ 1 1 1 '611, ' 1/744#\94 1 . 1149> 1 " Â» 7 271 w ;09 I ~ 2~ -4*4* "11!#h.0, ~ 43Â·N RENO SMITEA Ny :104 ~2~,-,iEXISTING BUILLOING NEA BUILIDINS ARCHMECTS - FAR CALOULATiON ~7 737Â«V=_b ID'W MAIN 1 -9 .EJ Aj,6% COLORADO N 001 1,1 1,/.5 ..1 New HOTEL UNITS: 8 3,a.2494.Ft.22â€¢ U ; ' FAX 3, AL 8 m a i Il gOUTH1[I)Â£ AVE *. COLOKADO 11. FREE MARKET UNITS: 3 5,441 94-ft, .,â€ž 0...4 NON-HO-EL UNIT SPACE: 1,634 sq.ft. 1,Tg)':... TO-AL 10,14 4 sq.ft. ...f........,4,- *E. SITE EMAIL ~PDRES~ DECk/BALCONY 2035 54.f t. FLOOR PLAN EXTERIO,R CORR'POR 1,040 sq ft. THIRD LEVEL PLAN TOTAL 3,07 8 Scift. /0-\ THIRD LEVEL i..== X Aâ€¢ = I - @N!1 11813~101,21 79[(IONG[M 32(101 DNVZIVWOOR[ MM 'gd"/ M â€¢06 ..0 0.-0,â€¢,/"uad,V hli~ P365 R- I 9 3 1 9 9 9 9 9 f 9 9 9 9 Â© PROJECT 0 2., 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ / REVISION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|| PVOP=9-9 .INE 1 /~ 8 8 / / 6 2.J 11' ' i ' , I DATEÂ· ISSUE 1 1 lili I 0*ate Ca,Â«Aâ€¢1 Dâ€¢â€¢4â€¢ Il ~3~0j CD 'fove,i 1 1 , 540. .Z 1/â€¢Ii. '31* .....,1..iâ€¢= Ilijo U co 1Â·ouâ€¢â€¢â€¢ 1 1 1 11 1 L 1.J :L I J 1 -L I'll/04 Â£,4 C~...I Râ€ži- 1 --0' ' COT ROOR . 1 11 . 11 - 4 D.. 0, Il'.0 1 11 1 1 12'W W.. r -1, U .118 / 4 1 ...2 -NI...4 . MAr ; / '. lili . ' 45 - =213,1 4/1 - E~-~ c b / 1 4 1.1-0. 4 -- = - 551 L ~ X. Ill ' 1 441.1..:14 AA A N 4,VV I- 1 . ~71 1 1 6-19 1 i. 4*0 2 { , 1 Â»A 1% lu 40 Â· ~ _ '' / , 2 54 L (3 -- --12---- ---.-------.1-- - - -- 3--- /11 - 11./. -v /1~SH~ lk' 1 E mi ' 4 itt\6 1=1 1 . IJJ lili 1,1 1 - 1-g =7-,C . - 11 1 1 05 ,/1 W li 41< 11 , 11 11 Z t. I /11 1 \11. 11 1,3 9 1214-/11/ lo<36 \ \\Ll// 4,- m a: 0 :.. 0 *1 *)44\'... . U Ilribd<I <33 k, - 4/ 95 1:,4..4 1.RM:r \/3 3 \ 4 1 .B , ' ~ 9 11 , /4411%901 *26 PROPER-Y A NE , 1&44.1 i ' 1/4,4,1 M 1 ' '10*j i 41%4 ' W~ RENO SMIT~ *liliTECTS I lp 0 dfih NEM BUILDING vU LLDINe ~ Â·.ic 71 io; I MAIN FAR CALCU-ATION. i 40.-f 14/ W.N CO ....0 111~1 '9,< 4 / 0-0 FAX *.:~ !% 3'tOUTHS'EAVE BASILT.. ORIDO lilli FfEE MAâ‚¬KET UNITS: 2 5,212 54 ft, "TO),17.,3. KON-40-EL UNIT SPACE. 513 scift. "91'.*140 wÂ£8 S'TE TOTAL 5.810 94.Ft. 1... f.,m..11".. â„¢Jil.. ADDRN, *â€¢Imill -0. DECK/BALCONÂ¥ 501 %..ft. /00/PLAN EXTERIOR CORRIDOR, 1,450 54.Ft. , FO"RTH 125 EL PLO TOTAL. 2251 94fc - FOURTH LEVEL ~ SHE.No '- -20-0 A 105 1 IÂ£/ 0.1, PROPERTY KINE I 15[â‚¬109311 39{[09 DAJV P366 -62 11-6. W ' 1 A F] V V V ~1 SUI~DINOPER.11.ET RIPSE- 133Â·-6 1 91- PROJECT' ./. REV]S[ON - ~I~Al[GE- 12 q'-0 ~ ~ CHIMNEY- 1 33'-3' 1 - 71 41 ~â€ž,~, .*-...i. DATE ISSUE , ./.CD.../. Ll // , J , ' / 121/05 CD Fil.I .3. Faz -1.- /21 / Cil Co...~1 R.â€¢iii. 00 @91 4 0 0 Cp. /~0/100~ 1 O.i, orli.uc q 1 I 3 ' 1 - 1 . \ 9 9 9 1 1 1 . 1 : 1 1 / 1 1. 1 & 1 . I PROFERTY L NE 5.- h , , RAMP 235-Ort , , ''R '' / no n ../ 1 1/ n i f i J -_ .. *-1-~9 : 11 '1 -11 vt 1 -. 1 447U 9=== '' n 1 11 4 11 11 11 1 1 , W 'L- , EXIS-IN6 , 11 11 1 I " ROOFDECK Â»- 5 1 11 , , L. - ! Roof l 1 FLAT ReÂ·OP 1 6-=-1 11 ' 'AL , , 1 L 1 11 11 I 'lilli '14/ 1 f H I 1 1 4-=21 C I ' 0 l#.Â«,340~126'-k .~;': I , i lili W ~ 1 ate" 1 1 FGA 11 @ 1 1 1, 1+ , a -,r----------- ----L---4=--2 9 r /ly % - : 21 1 9 _ r-' ENT: 1, Â» 9 a 1 ' 0 / 1 1 4/1 - 1 + Al-----7 1 31* 4, -A 1 // \-1 \\ 1 -1,\ \ 11 \04 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 - '423 .----. r-------, 1 141 EXISTING \~ * ~ 1 FLA- fOO' 1 , 1 1 | = 11- ~f 1 \\144' '' , 1 â‚¬i ---M r---------. , 6 I 1 1 11 11 11 11 1 1 41 - C 1 POOL >/ 1\\ 004 \ 11 11 11 11 1 1 741 .: 1 1 1 11 11 11 1 III 1 i 11 :cOA U Â«41.#HE 1 1 f~ '1~ ~ ~ i RENO SMIT i LE r 1 4,/MITECTS 6, - I / 111 1 - 1.30111111/0/6 26,162 1 1 2 1 Â«41 41*4Â». LLC 5 41 7, 2.9 ,./.!bi:.21 f 1 1 , .1/ 66, lili AÂ« ' "r. COLO//De 'll.Â» 2, 2 ---- .i~.3 11 *In A t.- H , taz- 6 nk\-r ) ts//0 FA. '14'j' 1~ : 1 /,iÂ«'' 1 srt.Â·Â·>Â«., ~ L' k i k . ..Â·Â·mr-â€¢ 1 , 0%09EITTY ..ttE , I.Â¢1,2,9. 31-4-LE .2 -- i -- *1,< b . ...IN. IiI 5/ _- 2 -0 1 'v tte MX ---- 13@53 13Â·y~yiEN k -11 ,/ ttek.,9. 1% //99 Â»* V 67< 41/ -#C) , 4," \2.../6-Â·~ A Bki~ (32 f > \.3 1,(93 2.' 1 ALA \ f .6.-Ar' ' ' f \ / 9 , i NEPY BwILPING -zk=-St 1 .1/t'pEXISTING BUILIDING 'Dec. 7 ..kien:4 , , %.- -. . FMAlt./CD'/S 1 . FLOOR PLAN ROOF P[.AN AN. 9 1 ROOF FLAN 4-El d ' I 2X 3 0 1 1 1'Â· 1.20'.O -EEL I - PROPERTY LINE '13Â«IOWS[M OISCIO'l DNVI[ *Av~nu~ 11910"P-010.) 'u-Â¥ P367 X ./ ./i P =7 92 0 44Â» Â® il 421 A T 17 ly U 9 *FV!6 0 A 1 1 1 6 ' 1 A Ir-11 ~----FLATROOF IM. SL.*Ze,65 Â·-SK.Leâ‚¬ 1 F----------9 i $ f! 1 1----- LOFNER BUUILDING 2.5' 111_ 1 F*lillill/ r---- TÂ»/IR gillis -1.-----09---0-00-0---r 0---1-------1 1Â£,01.....I '........ %Â¥1*'. r r--- ,- REMOVE THiRD FLOOR ,// ...u44,2..4 1 - -11 , - - D*:,4.*: Â·fÂ·* I ... L P Ill.if AlIMIt t --P--EA , O 1 1.m 1 Â»-7 4 Â·Â·#-'-- ~ -*-- -* -- 1 LIllil I 1.LÂ·i . . ..1.11., --UL -f;J 1 1 Z.â€ž21. --------- -----31&Ill-1 JÂ»7- I 1: A [1-~f-D. 8 Ill c# FIA-L,%01 -11 ; 1~-~ ==tz=je - -- 1- --- ? + M I L:-IM-1 %3~11 1 ~~ CORNE* .:HDOF'(9 .............. I.'RS 4 _ 5-eNE /ENEEâ‚¬Â£:2 -- ENSÂ»46 Châ€¢l FENCE 6.-Â· POSTS -T:MEE~/AN>4,Aus - rip, I REPN EWLP!46, A NE71 BUILDING B EXISTmNe e{.ILDNS (EAST AING) /1 .... I - 1- - -- 11 -- -- ; P 1 1 it M - Â·00'2.HEN. .:NOND. /7 SOUTH ELEVATION re Â® 0) :01 /7 3 42 V K:D, - - -~ , 1% f RENO SMn H LOFNER BOULDING 2.5'- 1, 1 0 REMOVE THIRD FL.0077"f / W. JOLS.50 1Â£5" Â·:..A . â‚¬ r.-4*':azz 0 4 ... 4 WOF In" AF<EA AeÂ« .-IJ 7 Ij--p .+.IA~23*11-r[Pt- ~- ---------1- 4 b FT/30 X../1 0 7 *- 4.0.e . 6.4*11.11 1 - --1*.I/- ,. 8. .... E : 9....i 1 Ii.EVATIONS i -EXTE..9~9Â¥Ail /-\ EAST ELEVATION A 201 >Ull.1'.1 -3 W CD 00 .3 - '4@4./.ses/- -2 221 t./Â£.- 73(OK>111 21:)UOU DKVM)11*)OH 2FITI#~v *Gilda~i M oeâ‚¬ ..06.-.24 Â©*066 4444,%*sm CA A r- *iy (32 '3) 0 1 ..1 ..1/4 ' TÂ» '*0~Â¢t ' 21/ LOPNER BUCILDING~ 2.5' ...__...... < r-----------m .ME~Ee bEAMS . ~ r' .1 .-+. a m La ./.'.... a .-----U L---- ,- I V...2~NI ... DATE SWE REMOVE -HIRD FLOOR -Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· . . =1,5,~~;. i T--Â¤ 7,5' 1- L ,) Il :~I'--il 'lfilt---f'-1 -07Â»-W-WI-------puu-- ----Lt-4-- *r- -~--- 1 -- - ~=1 ~ x . / 450*7â€¢..... 1 A-3 1 e â€¢â€¢ 9 'm= ~--,u~,cr op ext .o= ROOF *i' ..20' -| -n r-1 -1-t :0 -~ -1 J 13 I . 01:. 1 r- 1 1 - ~ . J , L, 1 J 1 1 1 r. 1 0.--j -2-1 - 6.- - I -~ Â·~ _ -r=-=- , - _-4 1~= 1 - i.Â·-=:..~ - A'* ;~3=; --- 1,4--1 -4 L_Ii-1 ~ 4#*WA. ~ CO nTT' ' ~ - rl 77| -01. 1 f . 1 - 1-~Â»F=]Ul L&[Fl ![~Â· 7 Â¤11'1 9~~1~ 1~~r-,21 iIi f ill 11 U.. Â· 1.1.11 1 -- 121 i .r 'I 9 1 -11 1--t-J . - -- 1 1 il'Ll, . 2.G- - -;IM8V+99 **# 1 .0 ........3 -.......3 4 1Â¥3 ne TÂ·Mat,t HANOMÂ»il.3 - -s-ONE ....80 = 1 Â·r're ./LCCON, n/L- D/F 1 1 EXISTING BUILDING Meri BUILDING 5 NEIN BUILI>NG A . l. I ... - NORTH ELEVATION V - 20-C a 'n n 'â‚¬Â· /2, (f) 928 -f& .1 21 1 4.0 2 2 r-----*--- LOriER BUU'LIPING 2.5' r--1 RENO SMITH 9 f - Â· -â„¢DER SEAM' 7 - 0 11% 4-14 L '_ 1 1_91 211-Ii=FL 023 iÂ¢ 6/ "5.,4/' '' #/1 .m:-. .1 1.-Ll_ $â€¢1 1 1 ul. 1 1 1 --- 21 9, 2 2.-LifT] - 1 Irn r.7 0 14 -2 1/ZUR.*,1.6 "1 I.R. 4 - â€¢C;e,TS ./ *1â€¢'15EM'*ANONAL' i . 1113 /0-\ FNEST ELEVATION A202 - X -1572; 1311â‚¬) 1 1(107 :)NIV+1314Â»OH ~aÂ»*Â¥."lldetl .Â«0â€¢ ...0.-..I-Il Pt/, FSLK' V P369 R U 9 M 2-/.. %- -*1+ 3 *Â«,for, i 3 ..Stort 20 t -:ECK Â¥ 25 , A LA Â¢ , 11 1 t ~Of 1 214 '~& 4 43 f. 1 1 ? 4 'ft Ok :Â«/ 4 <-79 -1.- 9 r.= 4 , 1 21 4Â«02:57% A 5 2 5 ' re "1(S>,~4 1 *f ji 1-,fi, - 4/f, 11 â€ž 6 *3 <g.,41?*Ja~ 9.... : / 8415 :SS. 1 5 1-7 . ~.4/4Y#h f Jkt e rl r48'16--1 4 .-4' 4 1'1 jl .?Â» . & ' 314* Cil .~*wij k.,ii, 2 t.. cu./4,249.,r. c 1-'666 ~A -- L ~'.>t!, 67 /Â»Â» rl j 45 5 UNX '94/9 , b .... '.:I '2.1.7 4 0- R *4pe....Â·-r. h 41/ , 29 Z *4% 4.k, T~~figaL---- a'.4111*41 - . L > 6 fk/% 01 4,â‚¬1-~ 1 5.41, .Vier.-f 44 *90 -trib .4-z ts,< 9. v, > F-1-*Jubbvi,guL-11 * 2 Â« 2 1-jefE~-21~& - 'me,IF~ Il Â¥ 412 f M h <54 ' I 4 N . I. fi v Mr 74dl--39*)agi/LE/M#fL-li]~-Â£~Swl 4~9Â¥iÂ¥Nt*If 77-71 '777RkNf 7.01 3 46 U . Il.,4.,li* i 0 82 g fl /7 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 32 '. - OND - CI 4-r=3~22:32Â® RENO SMITH u'Ht':Ct: *i* sung $402 D/ r- , -t,64 , i~Â¢47~, : f:*~-iT-Ef~_ C . Â«21*!1~..t~*ril-lAAMR.1 . 4..,2.~.,2* "itZA_ r , 4 ki- f ?91% L h \,6-,Nâ€ž,1,:Nimin 1 - , 't 0. 52-~,6, ./ ~ Â·Â·Â· .----J I -=L. L ~ =Acer m Tv'ATION 94$7. W A 201 I â‚¬ e<:I.*I'll 7 P370 4ti 'LIL-UZZZÂ·21,1Â«47;%. 3 , 4 li i Cul 14 j 1 rn :.0~Y g -324~%~iP ' J Ca 1 1 1 14- -Ch. _.03.3 -4 - ,.5 2 .root t' i /31*fl'...art. .:2 J' 1 1 , 1Â£,ikh-FI~ 24 9.2 I fl a 2 3 0 I Z K; 'ht-1 -1 L .*.3 %.t~JLSÂ¢#Ellm, : 0 .. 1 1 1,_ ~ I /1.4 tic' 4 A l R .47 11 . W ; Ar F '~444 1'*611'ly 1 1:Al:I =11 Min, 1 F ~ ~ ~~92 .j _ |-~~4~ 1,11 :/'-3 'Â»\ i 8-10.] 1 l.- 1 1 ': ; 0 4*,92 '9 ..5 -t KI=- 17 -11 -1 % i - y 0 3' till ' 4464 â‚¬ ~t.40 12*772-24 r u.,Â·dfub 1 - 1r *Mtk~Â« 4- r. ij' - HfP -4 i 1 1 1 141 . 1... % - -i 1 % 1611 j 0 -- t ; 5 --1 ,-11 1 , Ah, Al 0 -2 r-~~i 5 ' 4 -p -li 2 1 1 L- i 17 ; # i , r 1 ...m 1 Will 11 IL 1-4 L. r- 0 1 4 ' .1 4 1 BOOMERANG LODGE REMODEL 51 65: 6 2 [>t> 3 5 3 . 3 1 322: d : %5 .- # *-2 ' 1 Â£ /&4 1 w 2- 7.r *il. 71â‚¬4'kiNA**ee ; 111:; S. .. 1 % L .....".-do .1.n .... .- N 9'XI 0 0 Â¥AG-3 NO]1VA3-13 HlhON ZOEV H LIN 0.%3M ...... 0 1 1 1 1 1 E 7-1~9=3 1 23 EDU F"-'----1 --- . I --- 1 \,/ 1 U.--Â»--1 ' : O 1 - REV~$~ON 56211 CE ID 5*IM n n [7 -14 el KITCHEN KITCHEN ~2 6 00)/03 CD./1,0 1 TUL 6 a C.ST. 11 000 DATE ISSUE 00 ..JI 0, c.....[... o... 97 - 1 1/30/5 CD 'im.... r.z ..1,01 M. Ci-Wi,112~111. SRI E--- 00 CLS- .,:. ci....., a.,- ------ 1 1 Ch--1- I.--1----I-----~ -EJ LYING .2-/ LMNG 4- D-/1-e 7 5 113 'amo - E-1 16!LGEAH 1 Li- 1 1 2- LT---211 1 11 It(23 0 =,;--'--I==I==.-1- -- 0 1 -- 0 1 1 1 2 GROSS: 500 56[ ft GROSS: 500 sql ft , GROSS. 500 M ft 1 NE-r: 471 sqft ~ NET+ 471 saft NET: 410 94 Ft ~ 1.J 1 1 1 1 6 6 0066 0 STANDARD UNIT- 1 8 STANDARD UNIT- 1 A STANDARD UNIT-1 A. 1 Z UNIT. 108 < 1 1 2 ' ' ULL=44'10[-2 0 Z Ch---- --1 -- - C 9 34 i ~ BAT, 4 Ll-4_33112_it, 1. . T 111>BATH 47 0 L. 2-11121 'IUEEZZ BR Â«lk i rn L KITCHEN 0----- --- ----------- 9 8 71 7 ---#-4 8--4 RENO SMIT~ - ARCHITECT' 11 OLS- 11 \ los Â· :NA/=1 1- 1 4,~--1 LL C ' I, I /4~~ 0 [ LYING 1~ ~&FEN COLO~ADO i97~, >23 3,'. KI-0-EN 1 E i9~0) ~23Â·~n~ 1,T W ' ~ 4~ 6 ~ KITCHEN f & '7 SOCTHS./.E 1 '70)91"B NI'l V--V U -0-213 .16â€ž 1091 1 ' F- 10 01 , ---- 0- --- -1 ---- WEB ~ITE 6*098 436 61 ft | 1 BROSS: 680 54 ft ~ d<. NETÂ· 451 94 ft I NETÂ· 446 64 ft I 503 SCI ft 1 1 6â‚¬069 532> E~'ft ~ â„¢A.L aDI!Â»S STAIDARD UNT - Standard Un"-1 3 0Â°0 0 0 0 0 0 U U STANDARINNU-_-_1 8,1 *IANDASD UNIT-18.-2 STANDARD UNIT- 1 C SHEE- ~C UNITr 05.205 4 305 UNITS 101,201 4 301 A 501 SHEET S OF 30 â€¢nulâ€¢V 'uy,doH ...OP...J'.. P372 - I Imi .V X &. ---1 i-11'fi P-FOEIS - 1.....INY-S _ VE--1'NA Cth'VaNV-LE 92--1148-2-bly@INVIG OC-liNn ChrMONÂ¥16 1 . 1 1 U bs bgo }66039 m..14 =. 1 , 5 23 be '90' 6 Â·660.21,0 19 bs g L O'. laN I 1. bs 9101 :laN I I 1, bs Cob I :-34 OCV~Â©'10' '17.Â¥. I,beygo,1 .960449 , ' '.20/.1.:/ 1 1 1 0 1, r 1 11 I.I.,t, (PL,~ i I 1 Mil. ' 7- ' 00~ele â€¢ads" - .OA 0 E- exit * 2 30 LE O -1- I.W ' S.Dii,FO'Y 0 n-; .LIWS ON:311 rm A A i 9 *NIA,1 991-Al- as L lu 3 /. A Ar-'99 7~--1 i-'89 A. 4-0 4--3 0 o o L o E 0 -2 I 7- 2Â§ W 1 ; do lon| F -1 r-20) --'a 02.- SNINIO 9NIN 000 1 P-Ill I~~ Ip 6, mi Neoll /V\ '3| % r 6 ~P7----11 -7-1 NE+402>1 L--4---Und' O 7%0 VEDÂ« C O 1 F C HlÂ¥G 6 DERLE 0 9 3 al- 1 Ad 0 44 Fl 33 / ArvÂ·g <7 Oc HI,0 (32 /9(7 33 &â‚¬ve '0 ilj \1-1 NIU It- ------ | ~---- Nfl ----- 1 L Â·ieâ€ž L ie.- lb='r 1/15 ~ =12 -0,0 '0%/Â¢:/1 -3 37 \7/ *C -4 -â€¢144 1,".0 Apo 9041' -7-=1~ .-- *.m,4-0 4'5 -'(ii i' 3. 91 = 1,â€¢,10'd .) i.wrl C -69 1 '"~'Â°'d 63 ~0 {6;11 =-INg C 'ble i .'1â€¢0 Iâ€¢â€¢Idâ€¢â€¢â€¢00 fo, to/10 ..1 :i... . i i i V L...29 - 1 9 1 1 1 1 LL 9 1 9 1-1 0 0 NOI'.3, | I '1': 0 1*0.4 1 . 1 mli-ng 719(107 DNVHOIWOOH RAMPÂ· 13 7 5 sqft LOOKERS: 1,100 eqft NE. . 1,010 94 ft 1 3 3 54 ft 11 Ill 1 I 4~6 - 31 1, 13) ~J; OUM*e 004 - -433 -64-ft - -7 \ // /.,32-2 -1 LOCKERB 002 1 1 1 J.DRY . . A .j . 005 545 eqft (* k .p.,1 1 // \\ f / 2, \ // 2 0 1 1 DOS EE=:EE - 17' LIBRAR ' \9// L -4 - \ rioâ€žel 11 // 001 SITTING -1 i 17,450 94 ft :12220' \ A . / /' \ \\ \ '7\ \ ~ ~1 MERA \ \ h/1 \ L -0 \ PARI<ING: 11,21 -1 sq ft EX,STING BU'13'.NS:2 ,483 sCI, ft NET: 10,75654ft NEIN BUILDIN6 EXISTING BUILDING I .2 . FAR CALCULATIONÂ· LEGEND: 2,433 sq.ft, EXTE BASEMENT AREA. FARKING BFACE NEFY BASEMENT AREA~ 1 4,4 10 54-ft. TOTAL: 1 1,4 5 3 94 f t. ~ FLOOR AREA- BASEMENT LEVEL IX.a P374 NON-UNiT: 4,4 q 3 sq ft AFF. UNIT:6 9 2 94 ft 646 04 FINET; 2,481 sqft CEÂ®1##r-Ff - -1- -- - -- / 7- 1,-7-Ves -C-7 \ r=-1/ 0 1 ,/ k 1 10 ~=-41 n VA v 443 94 5/le 0LA.-ER 1- --11 < 4- i LOBBY '-- 410Â§4 ft ~ 4115qft 411'sqft~ 4685,Aft JEE 112 , 14 1 Â· /-1 /t6 LturE Â»Â«% 2%0 -Al /1 1 1 GE2*91 1 2,4 5 5 515'AÂ°7 54 ft Pek 0 " ble LPLI L . Alf-k-jitu 1 1 -96\ 1 JA re'(2*e t\\\ ~ arTKY ~ NOU Â· ' 1561'll 17'm,1/9 U J h 103 ~ EE~ 4 v rbil â€¢â€¢Arlo \ 118 | ~ ~ ~ ' 485 54 ft 346 sq f 0. ~ 109 Ill r 113 115 - HOOL ~ 464 5qft~ 406 54 ft 461 54 ft~ 467 31 ft 464 34 ft , 1 \ m'-Â· Â· 9916 ect ft / W.. â€ž 105 fl L 106 1.1-11\ 4 Â».TIO hM Lrs A- - 4 , ' 6145 T 54 Â·ft -~~r- 46a 54 ft . - - 1 1/5-L*./. / 2,0 1 2 54 ft r -2- A4248. MEGâ€ž i 1,015 94 ft 2,484 sq ft EXISTING HOTEL UNIT: 1,26 3 sq ft NER BUILDING EXISTNS BUILDING ~ ~ LESENDÂ· FAR CALCULA-ION: AF=OROABLE HOUSINe UNIT New fÂ·OTEL 11'Te. 18 7,4 9 2 54.f t. EXTCS. UNITS RENOVAT'ON: 3 1,283 94 ft. HOTEL UNIT TOTAL: 1 q 5,235 94. . 11111]1 lilli 1 1 NOK-HOTEL JNIT AFFORDAB.E LINI-S: 1 642 eq.ft. NON-HOTEL UNiT SPACE. 4,9 1 3 sq.ft. | EXTERJOR CORKIPOR r 4,9 40 34Â·Ct. TO-A, cl FAR-GROUND LE / ~ 'ATIO 92â‚¬d NON-UNIT: 1,431 sqft AFF.UNIT.6 q 2 Sq ft 648 91 ft (NETT) sTA.R.210 Sq ft 1 EXTERIOR 1 1 11 CORRICOR 4 ~q, ft .~0Â»=---7 C ~ CORRIDOR 2,207 Sq ft L .1 ..._L 1 11 . /lAni -, 1 1 I 1 - AFF. 1 1- - - 1. ..a 218 m*IPO Â¢ I I UNIT I 1 8 001â„¢IDOR . 1 24. 94 ft @31 12Â·-1 k -- -- - 42'le#ft 027 211 k-~ MULTI-PURPDeeE -21*4*'-4 \ ROOM ~~ 1: Â£ 21 ~46 18 94 fl U i 0 IL--1, 20 -1 202 9~ *553*#l \ O i Â»RF> 385 54 ft . 208 A /@10 2121 214 AA 3 1 11-34(fe..1(-/''NLM ft '40 81~2.\7-/7.JiX Sci ft C Ul,A Â« r E IYL- i J ' E-~LE-Ron /-31 a -2.-6 1/ 2.18 - - 717rn 11-1 1 1 -' -1-- - ~ - 1 R //=-= --=Ati 4 348 5- it '- ~ - / .~111 V 6.V . 1 LiFy f U V -, -2 1 4 \/) - .1 1 --k -r--7--7 L.1 u .... -3 --4. i 148 54 5/001 U 14.94 ft I J \ -r 46 Â·01 204 ~ 21 113 402:1 Â· 215 7 C i F --L-Lk 44649 1,064scift 1064 eq ft 1.0645#ft LJ 1,0-75 6â‚¬ft 220 1 -0 102 scift , 6'20 94 ft 5 14 94 ft 1 205 SALCM. i | ./. 06.# 5 'UC./ 3....... n 1, 5/24 0- 1.-1~ 7 6 sqft|# 3 ' ~| 4 2 5< ft - r-ir:Ir - , 316 9 ft ' 15 3 54 Ft n ' 6-E~ DE* 774 94 A f 2,012 sq ft 1,007 94 ft BUILDING A:5,136 97 ft su:LD.Nes: 5,2 1 3 94 ft EXIETNe BUILDING 2,142 54 ft 1. NEYI BUILOING EXISTING BULDING 1 .1. LEaE>ID: pAR CALGLA-iON: EXTS. uNITe RENOVATION: 5 242 49 AFFORDABLE UOUSING UNIT New HO7EL UNITS 15 3,226 eq.ft. HOTEL UNIT TOTAu: 20 40,363 54.Ft. 1 1:~11111 11 .1 I'~,111,1 i i,11 NON-HOTEL UNIT AFFORDAB,E JNITS: 1 612 94.ft. NON-HOTEL LNI- DPACE 2,306 sq.ft. | EXTERIOR CORip.IDOR TOTAL: 1 3,366 961.4. ~6</BA*ECNY. . '81 94.-ft. EXTERIOR COâ€¢KROCR 2,:7 4 94.2 TOTAL. 4.1 95 sq.9. n FAQ-BECOND LEVEL IX.a P376 EXTER OR NON-UNITÂ· 1,224 sq ft CORRIDOR+1,040 sq ft *TAIR:2 10 94 ft ROOF DECK 354 sq ft to 0 0 0 1., :: Bo 1 / '/6.------1 44 981 541-6-1 -Â·-11-_- _-~ ---___ _____~. i--1 ROO= 1 I 1 11 11 1 CORRPOR '1 11 1 li il I Il Il F . DESK [ NIN ' 3 24494 ft -pnifi) tleA 1=== er--2i= 1%~- r f -a I - ===1 A, - LA 11 1 :4-Al , 1 ' - /1/Câ€žEl eTOWEâ€¢ - -- -- , 1.-11 ~1 - 304 ]1-no-) 5.2 m.= -2 It , 303 E J 4 FOO-1L t=== 44 4 94 ft ~~,~trf~ - ''AL - - 5..... i... I 1. . p: Ii. lIp.#*nÂ·CI -0â€¢9Â·1ZZJ'Alâ€¢Â·. 1\ /A 1 ~ 20 1 1 11A F - 4 r-Â¥--72 21 7 1/ 39 i 'c-u-1~il Fes-Vt 1 r -tl DK I r 11 123(1 Icl--11 .irt5.1. 4 , 509 L EW 90.W Wj L Fwm 306 ~~ 1,01 2 94 ft - 1 86 7 54 f f - 1,8 7 8 3,1 ft .- \ \\\ 513 54 ft 1,837 94 ft 1,8 11 94 ft 1,5 11 94 ft -1 '1 leel , 0., -, a /7Â·NG -Ar pju " /7 1 // I -2308 (=-L :' 1 TA 30% 8-=17 5~40%- R .A.Satâ€¢. 40 I./-0.- 7 6 97 ft~ ~ 502 54 ft r 211 so, ft 4 3 8 scift L.=.-4=4-4 \L / PA ' /\A 6 4 p Â«19348 // /l 2,011 sq ft 1,015 eqft eUILDING AÂ·5,148 951 ft BUILDINS B: 5,441 94 ft EX STINS BUILD 146. NEPN BUILDING EX:9-146 BUILDING ~ . I. FAR CALCULATION: LEGEND- | AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNI- New HOTEL UNITS: 8 3.924 54.ft, HOTEL UNIT 5,441 34Â·ft TOTAL: 3 3,124 SCI.ft. 1 I' lilli '~l I NON-HOTEL UNI- FREE MARKET UNTS: 3 NON-POTEL UNT SPACE 1,434 94ft. FREE MARKET LNIT TOTALÂ· 10.7 4 41 3â‚¬.ft. ~ EX-EFOR CORRIDOR DECK/BALCONÂ¥. 2,03 8 4... C, EXTE~OR CORRIPOR 1,040 eqft TOTAL: 3,07 3 sq.ft 0 FAR-T41RD LEVE ~ _ LZEd B 14 q gqft EXTERIOR NON-UNIT: 159 sq ft CORRIDOR; 1,450 sqft STAIR: 210 94 ft Â»El'13 m ~~-+ 03RRIPOR 1, 1, ====1 1 11 11 11 I! 1 11 11 1 .... 12-ID] 3 .=. ~ SCLan he.r. 1 1.../ -/. i . p... ) 0 3.- I ROOF #3 4 c. 2 rE m s.= L -- 1 t]ID -- AP Fil-5 _ .... 451? i. 1 j, 401 402 ST*-3 KITGÂ·le f--3441\ ./. Â¥1 F \ - l/ ; 94 6 1 legft f\' 0.-&V Câ€¢Â«h6 18495[ft ~ - 1 E- ir 11 4 31 1 11 k\\ ]1 11 , 2,606 sq ft 2,686 94 ft IP ~ %,0 11 2,4 9 6 sq ft 2,5918 sqft 11 auiLTINe 8:52945â‚¬ft ~ 1. NE,41 BuiLOWS , I, EXISTING BUILDING -I LEGEND FAR CALCU-A-ON. AF=ORE)ABLE HOUSING JNIT HOTEL UNIT 1 || | ||||,I ~|' |~||~ NON-HOTEL UNIT FREE MARKET UNITS. 2 5212 54.Ft. NON-HOTEL UNIT SPACE: 513 94.ft. FREE MARKET UNIT TOTAL: 5.8 10 94,ft. PECK/BALCONY BO ISO,h EX-ER OR CofROOR. 1430 eq.F t, TOTAL 2,2 31 5â‚¬.Ft ~ EAR-FOJRTW LEVEL P378 FAR-HOTEL UNIT (SaFT; AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (SaFT.) FAR ALLOPNED/REQUIRED GROUP LEVEL: 9255 6ROUD LEVEL: (646 net) 692 BITE AREA: 21.000 HOTEL UNITS: 50054.ft./each unit x 47- 23,500 SECOND LEVEL: 10,368 SECOND LEVEL: (648 net) 692 FREE MARKET UNITS: 25% x 44,415 -11,224 THIRD LEVEL: 3,424 SUBTOTAL: (1,296 net) 1,384 AFFORDSALE UNITS: 2 ONE BED'KOOM UNtTS (Min. 800 54,ft, net/each) & FOURTH LEVEL: 0 TOTAL FAR ALLORED (3: 1) SX27,00081*000 SUBTOTAL: 23,547 TOTAL DECK AREA: BALCONY/DECK/CORRIDOR (Sa FT.) 15% x (max. Allowable) FAR (5 1,000) 11,341 ~ SECOND LEVELÂ· 4,135 ON GRADE PARK;Ne SPACES TO REMAIN: 12 FAR-NON-HOTEL SPACE (Sa.FT.) *t BUILIPIN<S HEIGHT LIMIT: 42' MAX THIRD LEVEL. 3,0 7 8 SROUD LEVEL: 4,943 FOURTH LEVEL: 2.251 SECOND LEVEL: 2,306 SUBTOTAL: 9,464 THIRD LEVEL: 1,434 FOURTH LEVEL: 518 FAR-BALCONÂ¥/DECK/CORRIPOR (Sa.FT.) SUMMARY SUBTOTAL: 9,251 UNITS/SPACES 12,696 - qf464 (allowable HOTEL UNITS 41 deck/balcony/corridor) 0 HOTEL UNIT FAR AVERAGE 2.2-1 5,3 FT-/ImIT FAR-FREE MARKET UNITS (Sa.FT.) FAR TOTAL: 44,4 15 FREE MARKET UNITS 1 -- -f- AFFORDABLE HOUSINe UNITS 2 THIRD LEVEL: 5,441 GROSS TOTAL (above grade): 54,371 :4 ON eRADE PARKING ... FOURTH LEVEL: 5,2 92 UNDER GROUND PARKING 31 EXiSTING B.ASEMENT: 2,433 SUBTOTAL: 10.733 UNDER 6*OUNO -OCKERS NEA BASEMENT: 14 Â¢170 3. GROSS TOTAL (including basement) 7 1,8 31 R I P379 P380 IX.a LAWOFFICESOF E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, p.c. 200 EAST MAIN STRI<li-1 P.O. Box EE ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE: (970) 544-3442 FACSIMILE: (866) 929-7870 E-MAIL: mhoffman@emhlaw.net May 6,2016 Ms. Jennifer Phelan By Hand Delivery Community Development Deputy Director 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Request of Minor Modification of Planned Development Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project Dear Ms. Phelan. This letter constitutes the request of Aspen FSP-ABR. LLC (the -Property Owner'-). the owner of the Boomerang Lodge parcel in Aspen. for a minor amendment of the ordinance and other documents which memorialize its vested right to build a condominiumized lodge project on the parcel. The Property Owner received approval in 2006 to build 47 lodge units. five (5) free-market residential units and two (2) affordable housing units (collectively, the 'Project") in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). The vested right to build the Project was maintained through a series of subsequent approvals granted by the City of Aspen. A complete building permit application was filed with the City in early September 2015 (the "September Plans ), during the vested rights period, and remains pending before the Community Development Department. A revised set of plans (the ''April Building Plans-) was submitted on April 6,2016 in response to comments made by the Department. The Property Owner' s right to build the Project pursuant to Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) remains vested. The Property Owner does not agree that the April Building Plans require an amendment of the 2006 Approval. The September Plans replicated the building plans approved by the City's Building Department in 2008, other than changes necessitated by modifications in the Building Code. As discussed in Section 1, below, the Property Owner voluntarily reduced the unit (saleable) Floor Area shown on the approved plans by 871 square feet. The April Building Plans describe the Project precisely as approved by City Council in August of 2006, again with the exception of changes required by amendments to the Building Code. This application and the following analysis are submitted to comply with Staff's request and to amicably resolve the current impasse. They should not be considered a waiver by the Property Owner of its strongly-held belief that the 2006 Approval remains vested, subject only to changes in the Building Code which are general in nature and required to preserve public health and safety. The original approval for the Project was memorialized in a series of documents executed or reviewed by the City and subsequently recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County. These documents included, among other things. the original ordinance. a Subdivision/PUD Agreement, the Final Plat of P381 IX.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 2 the Subdivision/P.U.D.. and the Final PUD Development Plan. All of the documents which memorialize the 2006 approval. as amended. are referred to in this letter as the "2006 Approval."' 1. In Response to Staff Concerns, the Property Owner Recently Reduced the Floor Area of the Project bv Over 1.100 Square Feet. The Property Owner submitted the September Plans to accommodate changes in the City's Building Code adopted since 2008. In its review of the September Plans. the City's Community Development staff ("Staff) determined that there was a difference between the Floor Area of -unit space" granted in the 2006 Approval and what was requested in the September Plans. The Property Owner was surprised by Staffs determination because it had directed its new architects, O'Bryan Partnership ("OBP"). to draft the September Plans so as to re-create the Project approved by the Building Department in 2008. After carefully reviewing the September Plans, OBP confirmed that the September Plans described the Project precisely as had been approved by the Building Department in 2008.2 Staff acknowledged that the September Plans sought approval for the Project as had been approved in 2008. Further, Staff and the Property Owner agree that there have been no material changes in how the City calculates Floor Area during the intervening years. After thoroughly reviewing the Approval Ordinance, the 2008 building permit application plan set and the September Plans. OBP determined that the Floor Area ofthe Project had changed between 2006 and July of 2008. Those changes were made with the approval of the City's Building Department. Although it is clear that some of the changes were made in response to site conditions discovered after the northern two-thirds of the original Boomerang Lodge were demolished in 2007, it is difficult to determine. at this time, why some ofthe changes were implemented. To resolve the issue and to accommodate Staff, the Property Owner directed OBP to modify the building plans so that they fully represent the Project as approved in 2006. The April Building Plans are the result of that request. At the Property Owner's direction. Residential Floor Area was reduced by 172 square feet and Lodge Floor Area by 699 square feet. Staff and the Property Owner now agree that the April Building Plans describe the dimensions of the Project precisely as were approved bv City Council in 2006, other than modifications required to accommodate changes in the Building Code. ' The term "Planned Unit Development" and "PUD" were changed to "Planned Development" in Ordinance 36 (Series of 2013). Most references made in this letter are to approvals granted prior to 2013. and, therefore, refer to those approvals as a "PUD." 2 A building permit for the Project was finalized by the Building Department in July of 2008. That permit was never issued because the economic downturn caused the Property Owner to withhold payment of impact and other fees required to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. P382 IX.a iVIs. Jennifer Phelan May 6.2016 Page 3 2. Changes in Staffs Treatment of the Underground Garage Has Created a Difference Between Approved and Currently Requested Floor Area. Even though the April Building Plans describe the Project as was approved in 2006. Staff still asserts that a Minor PD Approval is necessary because the Non-Unit Floor Area it calculates for the current plans is different than what it believes was approved in 2006. The following table summarizes the differences in unit and Non-Unit Floor Area square footage as calculated by Staff: Approval Modified Ordinance Building Plans Differences Lodge 23,547 23.455 (92) Free Market 10,733 10.732 (1) Affordable Housing 1,384 1,404 20 Non-Unit Space 9,251 10.549 1,298 Again. in reviewing these numbers, it is important to keep in mind that Staff and the Property Owner agree that the April Building Plans and the building contemplated by the 2006 Approval represent one and the same Project. The source of the differences shown in the table is how the plans are interpreted, not in the plans themselves. And the only material difference found in the table is in Non-Unit Space.3 The Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code") defines Non-Unit Space as the 6'commonly shared" area within a lodge, hotel or mixed-use building. Exclusive ofthe underground garage. the Project's Non-Unit Space, as calculated by Staff. is unchanged since 2006. Essentially all of the increase in -Non-Unit Space is attributable to the ramp and door ofthe underground garage which are located along the alley at the back of the Project. The design of the ramp and door has not changed materially since the 2006 Approval. In the 2006 approval process. and in Staffs review of the building plans leading up to Staffs approval of the 2008 building permit application, no part of the ramp or door was counted toward above-grade Floor Area. Underground parking is a key amenity of the Project not just for patrons of the Boomerang Lodge, but for the benefit of the community as a whole. On-street parking in the West End is a valuable commodity. and the preservation ofthat commodity through use of the underground parking spaces has always been recognized by neighbors, Staff and elected officials as an important element of the Project. It may have been this policy judgment which caused the City to exclude any part of the underground garage from inclusion in Floor Area. That decision. as memorialized in the various documents which make up the 2006 Approval (including the recorded Final PUD Development Plan) remains an important part of the Property Owner's vested rights. Notwithstanding the legal status ofthe underground garage, preservation of the garage as originally approved makes sense for the Project and the neighborhood. 3 Staff has identified two potential discrepancies between the Floor Area of the April Building Plans and the 2006 Approval. The first, related to Non-Unit Space, is discussed here. The second area is related to the square footage of decks which are exempt from Floor Area. A discussion ofthat issue is found in Section 3. below. P383 IX.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 4 3. The Maximum Floor Area Permitted to the Project and the Square Footage of Exempt Decks Were Established in the 2006 PUD Process and Remain Vested Rights. In the 2006 Approval, including in Stairs review and approval of the 2008 building permit application, all of the exterior decks and corridors within the Project were excluded from Floor Area. In its review . of the April Building Plans, Staff now asserts that only 60% of the decks are exempt from Floor Area and that the Project's Floor Area must be reduced by 4,543 square feet. Again. there has been no material change in the square footage of the decks included in the Project - the only change is in Staffs treatment of the decks for purposes of calculating Floor Area. The essence ofthe regulation which exempts balconies. decks and corridors from the calculation of Floor Area is unchanged since 2005. The -calculation ofthe Floor Area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies. trellis. exterior stairways. non-Street facing porches, gazebos and similar features. unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the allowable Floor Area for the property."4 The key to determining the square footage of balconies, decks and corridors exempt from Floor Area is to identify the maximum "allowable Floor Area for the property: The maximum allowable Floor Area for this property was established in the 2006 approval process at 81,000 square feet. The square footage of exempt balconies. decks and corridors was, consequently, 12.150 square feet (81,000 * 0.15). The Property Owner s land use application was filed with the City on December 30,2005. As provided in Section 26.710.320.D. of the 2005 Code. the dimensional parameters of the Project were established in the Citv s 2006 land use review process. The original PUD Application included atable of Development Data forthe proposed Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project. Item No. 16 listed the -Maximum Allowable Floor Area @ 3:1" as 81,000 square feet. based on the -Net Lot Size of 27,000 square feet. It sought approval to build the Project, including FAR of 50,470 square feet and 12,150 square feet of exempt balconies, decks and corridors and the fully-exempt basement. The application made its way through the land use process and was finally approved on August 28.2006. At each step of the process, the proposed mass and scale of the buildings were key concerns. To gain final approval of the application. the Property Owner made a number of material concessions. including reducing the height of the building and relinquishing seven (7) lodge units and one free-market residential unit. A key element of every Planned Development proposal is the PUD Development Plan. The Plan is a three-dimensional representation of the Project. The PUD Development Plan originally submitted with this application included a notation that the total FAR allowed was '3:1,3x 27,000 -81,000 square feet" and that 12,150 square feet of balconies. decks and corridors was exempt from the calculation of Floor Area. The modified PUD Development Plan was submitted to the City each time a change was made to 4 Code, Â§ 26.575.020 D. 4. (2016). P384 IX.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6.2016 Page 5 the land use proposal. Each iteration included the same notation regarding the site's maximum FAR. In those modifications, all of the balconies, decks and corridors were shown on the plan as exempt from Floor Area. In each case the total exempt square footage of balconies. decks and corridors was less than 12.150 square feet. The final version of the PUD Development Plan. which was reviewed by Staff and approved by City Council in August of 2006, explicitly stated that the maximum Floor Area permitted on the site was 81.000 square feet, that up to 12,150 square feet of balconies. decks and corridors was exempt from FAR and that all of the balconies, decks and corridors shown on the PUD Development Plan were exempt from Floor Area. The approved PUD Development Plan constitutes a part ofthe vested rights memorialized in the 2006 Approval. 4. Citv Council Should Ratifv the Property Owner's Request to Build the 2006 Project Under the Development Standards Found in Code Section 26.445.050. As stated in the second paragraph of this application, the Property Owner does not agree that the its current building plans require an amendment of the 2006 Approval. However. to achieve a settlement of the current controversy regarding Floor Area. our analysis of the current application is shown below. Because the Project remains vested under the Code as it existed at the end of 2005. the provisions ofthat Code are applicable to the current request. Review of a request for a Minor Amendment to a Project Review Approval is to City Council pursuant to Code Section 26.445.040.B.2 - Step Two. The standards to be applied to Council's review are found in Code Section 26.445.050 and those relevant to this application are set forth below in italics. The Property Owner's response to each standard follows the statement of the standard. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement ofthis Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a signiticant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Since the 1990s. the City of Aspen has experienced a substantial loss of lodge rooms available to the public for overnight stays. To address this problem, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9 (Series of 2005) (the "Lodge Incentive Ordinance") on May 9,2005. The Lodge Incentive Ordinance sought to motivate private sector investment in the construction of new hotel rooms and -hot beds" in Aspen by permitting the developer to concurrently build -Free-Market Residential Units" within a hotel Project. It was understood that the sale of Free-Market Residential Units was necessary to provide a source of capital for the construction of low- (or no-) margin hotel rooms. To qualify for this incentive, a Project had to meet a number of narrowly-defined parameters, including the following: P385 IX.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 6 1. The Project had to include -one or more lodge units per 500 square feet of Lot Area." 2. The average size ofthe lodge units within the Project had to average 500 square feet or less. 3. The Free-Market component could not exceed -25% ofthe FAR ofthe total Project including both unit and non-unit space, but not including FAR devoted to parking." 4. The FAR permitted to each Project was *'cumulative, up to a maximum FAR of 3 : 1 for parcels of 27,000 square feet or less in size.'- 5. Lodge Unit FAR was limited to 2:1 (or 2.5:1 by Special Review). Non-Unit space could not exceed 0.5:1. Prompted in large part by the City's adoption of the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. the Property Owner purchased the Boomerang Lodge on June 28.2005. The Property Owner then submitted a land use application which fully complied with the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. The application was reviewed and eventually approved by City Council pursuant to the requirements of that ordinance. The ordinance was a direct expression of the Community's goal that more lodge units be established within the City. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitablefor and indicative ofthe primary 1/SeS of the project. The primary use of the Project is lodge or hotel use. Forty-seven lodge units are approved for the Project. It is likely that even the five (5) residential units will be put to hotel use. The ramp and entry door of the underground garage are essential elements of the design approved in 2006 which is the subject of this application. Further, the exterior decks are similarly key elements of the approved design. The decks are important to the visual appeal of the Project. Without the decks, the facades of the Hopkins Avenue and alley sides ofthe buildings are largely uninterrupted. The decks are indicative of and promote the hotel use of the Project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. The Floor Area of the Project was a focal point of the City's consideration of the application in 2006. For example. at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of May 2.2006. one commissioner "asked what the FAR was compared to the allowable. [Applicant representative Sunny] Vann replied the overall FAR under the L Zone District was 3 to 1. which was 81.000 square feet and the proposed lodge was about 51.000 square feet.-5 After the Project was approved by the P&Z, it was reviewed by City Council. On July 10,2006, Council members voiced concern about the proposed -size and mass" of the Project. Councilman Rachel Richards "said that it is incumbent on Council to make this Project fit. not only for the neighborhood but 5 Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission, Meeting of May 2. 2006. page 9. A copy of these minutes has been supplied to Staff. P386 IX.a iVIs. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 7 also for the community.'96 Mayor Helen Klanderud agreed that "the building feels too massive."7 There appeared to be consensus that the third floor proposed for the east wing of the then-existing hotel should be eliminated. Prior to the City Council meeting of August 14,2006, the Property Owner proposed a number of changes ~ in the Project to address those issues. In response to Council's concerns regarding height and massing, the Property Owner reduced the building height -from 42' to 39'7 Additionally, 'to reduce height and massing... the applicant [ 1 has reduced the number ofunits to 53 lodge units, instead ofthe originally proposed 54 lodge units."9 A revised PUD development plan was submitted by the Property Owner and considered by City Council at the meeting.'0 That plan indicated that 11.808 square feet of balconies, decks and corridors and 17,458 square feet of basementi ' were exempt from Floor Area. 12 Council members were still not persuaded that the Property Owner had done enough to reduce the Project's mass, height and density. Councilmen Torre and Rachel Richards commented on the need for a further reduction in these elements of the proposal.13 .,Mayor [Helen] Klanderud said she would not accept this proposal at 421 . . [she] said removing the 5 units on the east wing would satisfy her concerns with this Project. .,14 The third and final substantive hearing on the application occurred on August 28.2006.15 To finally address Council's massing, height and density concerns. the Property Owner submitted a revised application which eliminated the third floor of the east wing, one free-market unit and one lodge unit from the fourth floor of the new building, among other things.16 A further revised PUD development plan was submitted to memorialize these changes. 17 The plan included 44.915 square feet of Floor Area, 18 and 9,464 square feet of exempt decks. balconies and corridors, and 17.458 square feet ofexempt basement: 9 -No objections to these calculations or to the final PUD development plan were raised by Staffor members of City Council at any time during the August 28.2006 proceeding. The reductions in density and height were welcomed by City Council. Councilman Rachel Richards 6 Aspen City Council Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2006, p. 18. A copy of these minutes has been supplied to Staff. 1 Id. 8 Minutes of August 14,2006 City Council Meeting, p. 9. A copy ofthese minutes has been supplied to Staff. 9 Council Packet of August 14, 2006, Staff Memorandum. p. 5. A copy of this Packet has been supplied to Staff. '0 Pages 39 through 65 of the Council Packet of August 14.2006. 11 The 17,458 square feet of basement included 2,488 square feet of existing basement and 14,970 square feet of new basement. '2 Page 43 ofthe Council Packet of August 14.2006. The changes in the PUD development plan reduced the area ofbalconies, decks and corridors to less than 12,150 square feet, the maximum such exempt areaofthat type applicable to the development. !3 Minutes of August 14,2006 City Council Meeting, page 15. \4 Id 15 Copies of the Council Packet of August 28,2006 and minutes of that meeting have been supplied to Staff.. 16 Memorandum of Reno-Smith Architects, L.L.C., dated August 28,2006, on page 21 ofthe Council Packet of August 28, 2006. 17 pages 22 through 51 ofthe Council Packet of August 28,2006. 18 The Floor Area sum included 23,547 square feet ofhotel space, 10,733 square feet of Free Market Residential space, 1,384 square feet of affordable housing and 9,25 ! square feet ofNon-Unit Space. " Sheet G 002, FAR Calculation, on page 23 of the Council Packet of August 28.2006. P387 IX.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 8 concluded that "this revision looks as if it were trying to accomplish what Council asked for to reduce the scale and mass ofthe Project and to make it fit into the neighborhood."2Â¤ Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss "said the parties have made a good faith effort to make the Project comply with the neighborhood" and that -the advantages are taking the parking off the public right-of-way, the height has been substantially decreased. the mass of the Project has been decreased. and the Project is screened from Hopkins."2 1 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt the Ordinance approving the Project and it was approved by a unanimous vote, five-to-none.2 We agree that the Project is compatible with neighborhood. as determined by the Aspen City Council in August of 2006. 4. The number of offistreet parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. 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. and the potential Â®r.joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Strictly speaking. the Project's parking requirement is not implicated by the requests macie in this application. However. it is important to note that (a) no part ofthe underground garage was included in Floor Area during the 2006 Approval process, or iii the Building Department's review of the building permit application in 2007 and 2008, (b) construction of the underground garage was considered an important piece of the overall design of the Project, because it kept cars off of streets of the West End, and (c) underground parking is expensive to build. The Project would be substantially less expensive without the underground parking garage. 5. The Project Review' approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specilic allowances Â®r dimensional flexibility between Project Review und Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 - Amendments. Not applicable. 20 Minutes of Aspen City Council meeting of August 28.2006, page 11. 11 Id 22 /d P388 IX.a iVIs. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 9 5. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above. we urge City Council to approve the Minor Amendment of Planned Development requested here so as to (a) exempt 11.279 square feet of decks from inclusion in the calculation of Floor Area (up from 6,737 square feet), and (b) ratify the Unit and Non-Unit Floor Area identified by Staff in the April Building Plans. as shown in the following table: April Building Plans Lodge 23,455 Free Market 10,732 Affordable Housing 1.404 Non-Unit Space 10,549 Approval of this request will permit construction of the Project as approved by the City in 2006. Other than changes required by modifications ofthe City's Building Code, the construction currently requested is precisely the same as the Project approved in 2006. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 0 Itt 44/ / 9 4 E. Michael Hoffman P389 IX.a For Applicant's Exhibits, please follow below link. http://205.170,51.183 'Weklink/0/doc/248948/Pag el.aspx .. Reizular Meeting Aspen Citv Council June 6, 2016 been talking to an electric bus manufactures but they are 700-800.000 dollars each pills 300,000 for the charging stations and there are range capabilities. Right now we need to get these busses replaced. It is our view and RFTAs view this is the best alternative. Councilman Myrin asked if the grant is for those specific busses. If Council wanted to change we would have to start all over. Mr. Krueger replied we can't change. In 2018/19 that is something we could look at. Councilman Myrin said the end result of the grant money is 50%. If we were to resell does that help? Mr. Krueger said there is not much left to get a resell after 15 years. Councilman Frisch said he supports what is being asked for. He think it would be helpful how to know how RFTA makes the hierarchy of busses. Resolution 77 - citizen survey Councilwoman Mullins asked why are we only surveying 1770 citizens. Karen Harrington, manager's office. said historically response rates have been higher than they are now. Rates have been declining. We are trying to get as close to 400 responses as possible. The last couple of years we have bumped up the number of surveys. Councilman Frisch, said a lot of people have reached out to me and asked why we are not emailing the surveys. It is public record where people live. We do not have everyone's email. I do think if we can email these we would get a higher response rate. Resolution #73 - Opposing Federal Lands Transfer Councilman Frisch suggesting pulling Resolution #73 from the consent calendar for more information. â€¢ Resolution #77, Series of 2016 -Contract for Annual Citizen Survey â€¢ Minutes-May 9 and 23,2016 â€¢ Resolution #82, Series of 2016 - Aspen Recreation Center Floor Retro Plate Contract â€¢ Resolution #80, Series of 2016 - Uphill Economic Development Plan â€¢ Resolution #76, Series of 2016 - Aspen Ice Garden Window Replacement â€¢ Resolution #79. Series of 2016 - Parks Department Office Building Exterior Repairs â€¢ Resolution #63, Series of 2016 - OfficeScapes furniture contract for the Mill St annex - tenant finish for Building and Engineering Departments â€¢ Resolution #78, Series of 2016 - Development Inspection Services - Contract for Professional Services â€¢ Resolution #73, Series of2016- Opposing Federal Lands Transfer â€¢ Resolution #74, Series of 2016 - Purchase of Three Replacement Transit Buses â€¢ Resolution #81, Series of 2016 - Water Supply Availability Study 2016 Update â€¢ Resolution #75, Series of 2016 - Cozy Point Irrigation Pump System â€¢ Resolution #84, Series of 2016 -Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan - Contract for Professional Services Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the Consent Calendar minus Resolution #73; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2016 500 W. Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge), Planned Development Amendment Jennifer Phelan. community development, told the Council this is a minor amendment to the planned development. It was approved in 2006 for the redevelopment of the lot with 47 lodge keys, five free market units and two affordable housing units. It was approved via ordinance 26 in 2006. That ordinance outlined the dimensions of the project. During the public hearing there were architectural plans and 3 .. Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council June 6, 2016 elevations showing the project to Council. The plans and elevations were recorded with the ordinance and those make up the entitlement documents associated with the project. In 2007 a building permit was submitted. Part of the property was demolished and a building permit was ready for issuance but never issued. During the recession the applicant came back with a different application to turn this in to affordable housing. It went through the entitlement process but was never acted upon. In 2015 the applicant submitted a building permit to develop the original 2006 lodge. During the building permit review Staffhas seen that the numbers in the ordinance don't reconcile with the drawings that were approved in 2006. There are two areas that are problematic. The calculation for subgrade floor area was missed in the 2006 approval documents and there are areas of decks and balconies that are over what are permitted by code. This request is to reconcile these two areas of the project by changing some of the numbers in the ordinance. Staff is recommending approval on first reading with second reading on July 11 Councilman Daily stated he supports the proposal. Councilman Frisch said putting aside the subgrade balcony issue it would be helpful to explain where we are and the path forward. Ms. Phelan said there is a building permit submitted but the numbers are slightly different. Councilman Frisch asked if the difference was not there we would not be talking about this. Ms. Phelan replied correct. Councilman Myrin asked is there the ability to have two approvals at the same time. Ms. Phelan said you can't have two approvals at the same time. There is a provision in the ordinance that said they needed to record these documents within a certain time or the lodge documents would become null and void. They had a timeline to determine which approval they wanted. This was recorded and there was an extension of vested rights. They submitted the building permit in the proper timeframe. Councilman Myrin said he would like more history on the difference in the square footage and how it came about. Councilwoman Mullins asked for some elaboration on what non-unit space is. Ms. Phelan said generally common areas. Councilwoman Mullins asked why is it still 1.300 square foot more than allowable. She asked for some explanation on the balconies and why they are 4,500 square feet more than allowable. She asked for the way the building relates to the historic resource as well. Mayor Skadron said his questions are similar as to why in excess of allowed and the history. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance # 15. Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor. motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COLORADO, APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K. L, M. N, O, P, Q R, AND S, BLOCK 31. ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE (BOOMERANG LODGE), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COU-NTY, COLORADO. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes: Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. 4 P391 VI11.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) - Planned Development Amendment - Minor Amendment to a Project Review First Reading of Ordinance No. 15 (Series 2016) MEETING DATE: June 6,2016 APPLICANT /OWNER: identified by staff. The proposed amendment will Aspen FSP-ABR LLC, Steve reconcile the discrepancy. Stunda STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REPRESENTATIVE: Staff recommends approval upon first reading. Michael Hoffman, E. Michael Hoffman P.C. SUMMARÂ¥: Applicant requests City Council approval of the LOCATION: amendment to reconcile a discrepancy between the 500 W. Hopkins Ave. approved plan set and ordinance with regard to Floor Area. CURRENT ZONING & USE Medium-Density Residential with ./.-6.64 a Lodge Preservation and Planned ~ 4 Unit development overlay (R- 2.19?*14" 6/LP/PUD). The redevelopment of .. the Boomerang Lodge was approved in 2006 for 47 lodge I . ./t- 0 - I. + 4 & .1 45 keys, five free market residential ...iii 20.& + -- 99*Ir units. and two affordable housing 2- te. 14.,4 4-'.4 1 - .1 "d' units ./ . PROPOSED LAND USE: Applicant has submitted a building permit application for the Existing East Wing of Boomerang Lodge. previously described development. In reviewing the Floor Area dimensions listed in the approval ordinance compared to the approved architectural drawings a discrepancy between the drawings â€¢ and the ordinance has been P392 VI11.a Figure 1 : Vicinity Map of 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (former Boomerang Lodge) F '. le a- 14illililixiMil~gEililirizilli /:Ill<bitrilid&illylim~ilip lifize:elaillittlk ile .. 2 t. Eza 2.4.. V.1/Lri.ir . -- + + 1.- I j~~ " .0.4 . 41 . - "ve 2 *G?,F Ait - j 9 . .... . 4.. *kÂ· . 1-1.-Q*% - . r T. . 1%44Â¥ ' e *t: ~.*4.' If â€¢ 1*K' 1 1 .- &9 - GENERAL BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) approved the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. The redevelopment consists of 47 lodge keys. 30 lodge units, 5 free-market residences and two affordable housing units. The project was initially reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and then was reviewed by the City Council for final approval. Throughout the review process, changes were requested of the applicant. This resulted in a resolution passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission with project dimensions that differed from those proposed in the initial land use application. When later reviewed by City Council. additional changes were requested resulting in a project with dimensions that differ from both those proposed in the initial application and those recommended in the resolution by the Commission. Overall. the project was continually reduced in size and height when compared to the initial application. An ordinance was adopted by the Council (Exhibit B) memorializing the dimensional requirements for the site specific approval and the architectural plans and elevations that were shown during the final hearing were recorded (Exhibit C). The ordinance was approved with 31 underground and 12 surface (partially in the right-of-way) parking spaces. The total height was 36'6", and the total square footage was 44,915. (In January 2007, staff approved an Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD. increasing the maximum height by one foot - to 37'6" - in some portions of the structure, due to Building Department requirements for minimum ceiling height.) 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment June 6,2016 Page 2 of 7 P393 VI11.a Figure 2: Recorded Elevation for the approved Boomerang Lodge, Hopkins Ave. (2006) E..a . 1 ..~ ... O 7 L i ~ r Â¥= r.- 1 : .* .--- 1,rif: 7't'14.-Â· -Â·â€¢!e (:-131 'llf, fl! ~- f97~1Eilf]Tili v -v--j1* 4':-R r ,%-- - 1-1 11.-.-I- SCIT,1 ELEv A T;ON The applicant obtained a demolition permit in 2007 for the middle and west wings of the existing Boomerang Lodge, which were removed. The east wing of the original Boomerang Lodge, which remains standing today. was retained as it was designated during the entitlement process for the lodge redevelopment. In 2007, a building permit application to redevelop the lodge was submitted, however the permit was never issued due to the Great Recession and became null and void. In September 2015, a new building permit was submitted to redevelop the lodge per the 2006 approval as the project was still vested. During the review of the permit application. the zoning officer determined that the architectural drawings as submitted exceeded the Floor Area permitted in the ordinance and that the exterior decks. balconies and stairs exceeded the exemption permitted by the land use code. The applicant has worked to revise the plan set to be more in line with the allowed dimension in the 2006 ordinance but is requesting a Planned Development Amendment to reconcile the differences between the plan set and ordinance. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting approval of the following land use request from the City Council: â€¢ Amendment to a Planned Development - Applicant is requesting a Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.110(D), which requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the amendment. The Citv Council is the final decision-making body. 2006 ENTITLEMENT HISTORY: In May 2005, a 'lodge incentive' ordinance (Ordinance No. 9) was passed by the City Council with the intent of "developing an environment in which private sector motivation is leveraged to address community goals." In this case the ordinance approved amendments to the Lodge. Commercial Lodge, Lodge Overlay. and Lodge Preservation Overlay zone districts. The Boomerang Lodge is located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. a primarily residential zone, with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) on the property. As noted in the ' lodge incentive' ordinance, the purpose of the LP overlay is to 'provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment June 6,2016 Page 3 of 7 P394 VI11.a with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties." The R-6 zone district does not permit a lodge or multi-family residential development, but the uses are permitted by right iii the overlay. The dimensional allowances for any use permitted in the LP overlay "shall be the dimensional requirements established for those uses in the underlying zone district. Where no specific dimensions have been established for the use, the permitted dimensions shall be limited to that of a single-family residence or multi-family residences where such uses are permitted in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of the neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements of the surrounding zone districts, the dimensional requirements may be established pursuant to Chapter 26.445 - Planned Unit Development (PD)." On a 27.000 sq. ft. lot, the size of the Boomerang parcel. a single family residence is permitted 4,620 sq. ft. of Floor Area. In order to develop above that allowance, the redevelopment of the lodge needed to be reviewed as a PD and found to be compatible with the neighborhood. The land use application to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge was submitted in December 2005. In the application, when the dimensions of the project were discussed as part of the PUD criteria. the application states. "pursuant to section 26.445.050 B. of the Regulations, the dimensional requirements for the proposed development are to be established in conjunction with the approval of a final PUD development plan. While the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone are to be used as a guide. variations are permitted provided that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses and existing development patterns. As the dimensional requirements of the R-6. Medium Density Residential. zone district do not accommodate either the existing Boomerang Lodge or the proposed redevelopment thereof, the project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the city's new L. Lodge zone district regulations." Although a 27,000 sq. ft. lot in the Lodge zone district allowed for up to 81,000 sq. ft. as a maximum allowable Floor Area. the ordinance approving the lodge allowed a maximum Floor Area of almost half that number. The ordinance approving the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was approved on August 28,2006 and retlected changes over time that were incorporated into the project with direction by both the Planning Commission and City Council to reduce the scale of the project. Architectural renderings and calculations (Exhibit D) were provided at the August 28th hearing and were the basis for the dimensional requirements in the ordinance that was approved. After the approval, additional entitlement documents were recorded including a subdivision improvements agreement and a PUD plan set. The dimensions outlined in the ordinance were included in the recorded plan set. BUILDING PERNIIT: In September 2015, the applicant submitted a new building permit for the lodge redevelopment. In reviewing the permit application staff determined that there was a discrepancy between the ordinance and recorded plan set. Overall. the building was greater in Floor Area than permitted under the ordinance. Additionally the exemption permitted for exterior balconies, decks and stairs was exceeded. Staff discussed the issue with the applicant and recommended the applicant review the plans to see if the plans could be revised so that they were line with the dimensions permitted in the 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment June 6,2016 Page 4 of 7 P395 VI11.a ordinance. Changes were made and the resulting numbers are called out in Tables 1 and 2 in the *April' columns. Table 1: Floor area comparison Dimensions of PUD September September April 2016 April 2016 2015 2015 Revisions Dimensions Building Dimensions Compared Permit Compared to to Approved Approved Dimensions Dimensions Lodging .87:1 =23.547 s.f. 24,154 s.f. + 607 s.f. 23,455 s.f. - 92 s. f. Free- Market .39:1 = 10,733 s.f. 11,136 s.f. + 403 s.f. 10.732 s.f. - 1 s.f. Residential Affordable .05:1 = 1,384 s.f. 1.404.4 s.f. + 20.40 s.f. 1,404 s.f. + 20 s.f. Housing Non-Unit* 9,251 s.f. 9,265.9**s.f. + 14.90 s.f. 10,548.9 s.f. + 1.297.9 s.f. Total 1.66:1 = 44,915 s.f. 45.960.13 s.f. + 1,045.30 46,139.9 s.f. 1.224.9 s.f. s.f. Note:* The ordinance did not have a category for non-unit space but was accounted for iii the overall total. ** The original September calculations by the architect had a smaller subgrade ratio than the April revisions; hence a larger number in April for non-unit space. Table 2: Ordinance compared to recorded plan set for balconies, decks & stairs Max Floor 15% September September April 2016 April 2016 Area Exemption 2015 Building Dimensions ~ Revisions Dimensions based on max Permit Compared to Compared to Floor Area* Deck/Balcony Approved Approved Dimensions Dimensions 44.915 s.f. 6.737.25 s.f. 11,762.50 s.f. + 5.025.25 s.f. 11.279.5 s.f. + 4,542.5 s.f. Note:*According to the Land Use Code. "the calculation of the floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies, exterior stairways, terraces and similar features. unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen (15) percent of the maximum allowable floor area of the building." In summary, the current building permit calculations show 1,224.9 sq. ft. more Floor Area and 4,542.5 sq. ft. more deck/balcony area than was accounted for in the original approval ordinance. In reviewing the record, staff has identified what it believes to be the crux of the problem with regard to the Floor Area. At the last hearing before City Council on the proiect in 2006, a set of drawings were included as 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment June 6,2016 Page 5 of 7 P396 VI11.a an exhibit with the staff memo (Exhibit D). The exhibit was comprised of updated plans and architectural drawings by the applicant's architectural team which responded to the City Council's request to modi fy the scale of the project. The package of drawings also included an overall summary of the project's Floor Area on one sheet. with a second sheet that showed the Floor Area for each level of the building and a corresponding floor plan. The ordinance adopted by the City Council includes the numbers provided in the summary sheet for each component of the project; however, when one looks at the sheet that outlines the Floor Area for each floor, the basement was shown as not counting towards the Floor Area of the building. This is incorrect. as a percentage of the basement area counts towards the calculation of Floor Area when any portion of the walls are exposed above grade. A similar oversight occurred with calculating the exemption for exterior balconies, decks and stairs. The summary sheet identified the square footage associated with these features; however. in calculating the allowed exemption the architects noted the allowed Floor Area for the property at 81,000 sq. ft.. This number was the maximum allowed Floor Area for a similarly sized property located in the Lodge zone district, not a property located within the R-6 zone district or one that was in the process of creating a site specific approval via the PUD review process. The baseline assumption was incorrect. Although these features were represented in the drawings that the City Council reviewed during the public hearings, the numbers approved in the ordinance do not reconcile with the approved drawings due to these two oversights. STAFF COMMENT: The existing, historic wing of the Boomerang Lodge includes a number of exterior balconies. decks and walkways associated with the building. The approved redevelopment continues the provision of balconies and decks for the new lodge units and residences. Although these features were represented in the drawings that the City Council reviewed at the time. the numbers outlined in the ordinance, as calculated by staff, do not accurately reflect what was detailed in the drawings. Staff recognizes that there was a discrepancy in the original approvals between what was visually represented to the City Council and what was numerically represented to them. The applicant has made efforts to reconcile the design with the numbers in the ordinance, including removal of an approved rooftop deck on the original wing of the Boomerang. Currently. the numbers are slightly above the ordinance with regard to the overall allowable Floor Area with greatest discrepancy in the non-unit space. The exterior balconies, decks and corridors, although reduced from what was originally shown in 2006, is over what would be permitted based on the total allowable Floor Area identified in the ordinance. The building as represented in the hearings and shown in the recorded documents includes balconies. patios, unenclosed corridors and stairs that provide for circulation throughout the building. Of the 47 lodge keys, 35 of the rooms are provided with a balcony. All of these features either provide required circulation for the building or, in the case of the balconies. provide an amenity to the lodge. 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment June 6,2016 Page 6 of 7 P397 VI11.a The applicant is requesting a PD amendment to reconcile the numbers associated with the representations made in the plan and elevations drawings with the numbers outlined in the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the building plans submitted are consistent with the drawings that were represented to. and approved by, the City Council in 2006. What was not documented in the ordinance was the Floor Area associated with the subgrade portion of the building and the square footage of the project's exterior patios. corridors and balconies that should have been included in the Floor Area number. Staff recommends approval on first reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVEj: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 15. Series of 2016 on first reading and set the public hearing for July 11.2016." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: PD Review Criteria Exhibit B: Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) Exhibit C: Recorded plans and elevations Exhibit D: August 28.2006 drawings Exhibit E: Application Exhibit F: Application's exhibits 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment June 6,2016 Page 7 of 7 P398 VI11.a ORDINANCE NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE (BOOMERANG LODGE), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB-ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval for a Planned Development Amendment (minor amendment to project review) to amend the Floor Area allowances for the building and the exterior decks, balconies, stairwells and corridors for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge): and. WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge keys, 5 free-market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006): and. WHEREAS, the ordinance grants a site specific approval for the lodge project and outlines the project dimensions for the property while plats recorded as part of the land use approval show the site plan, floor plans and architectural character of the project; and, WHEREAS, the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance and the dimensions shown on the recorded plats do not match, especially with regard to exterior decks. balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests an amendment to the project's dimensions listed in the ordinance to recognize and resolve the discrepancy between the approval documents; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended City Council solely reconcile the discrepancy between the plats and the ordinance with regard to Floor Area for the building and the exterior decks, balconies, corridors and stairs; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 1 1, 2016, the City Council 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, and has taken and considered public comment: and, Page lof 3 Ordinance No. (Series of 2016) P399 VI11.a WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the PD Amendment meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval ofthe development proposal; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: General Development Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the Planned Development that is authorized and memorialized in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). Specifically, as part of the project's dimensions, the overall allowable dimensions are modified as follows: a) The overall. maximum allowable Floor Area of the project is increased to 46.140 sq. ft. to accommodate the non-unit space that was represented in the approved floor plans of the building and incorporates an additional 20 sq. ft. for a minor increase in the affordable housing component of the project. b) A 25% exemption is granted in the calculation of the tloor area of the building's decks. balconies, exterior stairways, terraces and similar features. This exemption shall not exceed 1 1,280 square feet Section 2: Al I material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the 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 3: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence. clause. phrase. or portion of this ordinance 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5: th A public hearing on this ordinance was heldonthe 11 dayof July, 2016, ata meeting ofthe Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Page 2 of 3 Ordinance No. (Series of 2016) P400 VI11.a Hall. Aspen, Colorado. a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law. by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 6th day of June. 2016. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Il th day of July, 2016. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Ordinance No. (Series of 2016) P401 Exhibit A -PD Criteria VI11.a 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review. the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Response: There are no specific regulatory plans associated with this property. Stat.f.finds this criterion not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow. debris flow. fault ruptures. landslides, rock or soil creep. rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit. avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety. or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The property is located in an area suitable fi,r development and has previously been evaluated .fbr any natural or man-made hazards that may be present. Statf finds this criterion met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic. cultural. visual. or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency. maintenance, and service vehicle access. P402 Exhibit A -PD Criteria VI11.a Sta#Response: The site plan has been previously approved and the scope of the request doe.s not change the approved site plan. Staff.finds this criterion not applicable to the current request. D. Dimensions. All dimensions. including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns. including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. 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, and the potential for .joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion. may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 - Amendments. Staff Re.sponse: The request is to reconcile the numbers associated with the representations made in the plan and elevations drawings with the numbers outlined in the ordinance for a project that 11'as approved in 2006. The applicant ha# reconciled the building numbers with the Floor Area numbers outlined in the ordinance so that the actual components of the building: free-market, lodge units, and afft,rdable housing are essentially in line with the numbers in the ordinance. The non-unit number needs to be increased in order to account .for the basement which was erroneously excluded from the calculations in 2006. Additionally, the ordinance needs to address.features such as balconies, exterior stairs and corridors, as well as patios. The open air corridors and stairs provide less mass to a building than enclosed Space, while the provision of patios and balconies add an amenity lo the lodge units and enhances how the building is viewed in the neighborhood. Stafffinds Ihi,s criterion met. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard. the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards. including those outlined in Chapter 26.410. Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415. Historic Preservation. P403 Exhibit A -PD Criteria VI11.a 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards. as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review. but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Response: No changes to the approved design and materials are requested. Staff.finds this criterion not applicable. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle. and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: No changes to the site plan are proposed. Staff.finds this criterion is not applicable. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques. and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: No engineering requirements are proposed to be amended in this application. Staff.finds this criterion not applicable. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs. mitigation techniques. and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: No changes to the required improvements are proposed with this application. Stafffinds this criterion is not applicable. 1. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Stqff Response: No changes to the site plan are proposed and legal access is maintained. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. . P404 VI11.a Ordinance No. 26 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, twenty (20) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, m &05* Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights M -ge for the redevelopment ofthe Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and 21,. No known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin m &2 County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights-of-way. The revised development includes 47 hotel units, 5 free- market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31-space underground parking facility contained within a building o f approximately 44,915 square feet of floor area as defined by the City of Aspen, and a surface parking area of 12 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Cornmunity Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards o f review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26,470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -1- U CO AiNROD NIM1 Id 111-0 0 SOA >I 301 P405 VI11.a WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the August 28,2006, staff memorandum and the conditions o f approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY m 5 r.. s m ZÂ® COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: cy) NNO Section 1: Growth Management Allotments LoaÂ®Â® The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 - Growth 1 Management - approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (61 free- ' market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. . ---0 Section 2: Approval for Subdivision, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, and PUD Final Development Plan - Pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 - Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit 44 Development, respectively - the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezoning for a L Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development 6~~- Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions ofthe project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Dimension R-6 District Existing Development Requirement Development Set in this PUD Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10-70 ft. (varies) 5 ft. Yard Setback (Hopkins) Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west 5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1-5 ft. on east 4 ft. 3 in. on east (existing building) City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -2- II 90:,0 /20/I 0'99 8 00 A.'LÂ·1 0 NI~41 Id -1-IrrlneD SOA >I 30'Ntl P406 VI11.a Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0-2 ft. 5 ft. on north Yard Setback (second floor balcony overhang 4' 5") Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley 36' 6" feet (set in PUD for maximum, roof 20-25 ft on east Lodging) heights vary and are set in this PUD plan Parking Set in PUD 31 surface (all but 1 31 underground and partially in r.o.w) 12 @ surface (partially in r.o.w.) Floor Area Ratio/Size: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. 1.66:1 = 44,915 s.f. m Â°8Â® Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. .87.1 - 23,547 s.f. C~ r) 2 Ave. Lodge Size Set in PUD-500 sq. 340 s.f. 501 s.f. m e Z ft.desirable Free-Market 25% of total project N/A .39:1 = 10,733 = Residential Floor Area 24% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A .05:1 = 1,384s.f. Residential Section 4: Trash/Reeveling Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick-up. Section 5: Affordable Housin~ The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30,2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed-restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1/10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable, City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 -3- II 90:,0 Z ...lili JN 1. I . - MI ill I 0 ' GZ0 00' M .hi 03 A.NAWN >1-I d 13 -OneS SOA >I 30'NUr P407 VI11.a The affordable housing units shall be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period o f more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. ' Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners/gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Â® Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building m e C Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The al . 2 0 Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community E E Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition o f lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights-of-way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right-of-way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to 0 the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Oceupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.B, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas an(For snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -4- C j 90.,0 ill II 00'99 W -0 Ali-I: I Wild 11Ia-' -Â· S A N 33;Ner P408 VI11.a 3. A general sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5th Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. 4. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 5. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, the provisions & conditions of this ordinance, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements g within public rights-of-way with reference to their locations depicted on the CZ Subdivision Plat. m BarsÂ® 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of W A 2 0 improvements in the public rights-of-way, the landscape plan, and public facilities m &: performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed , 0.0 right-of-way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right-of-way - for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights-of-way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $23,727 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee scheduk adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule and is subject to final calculation at the time of PUD Agreement acceptance: Park Fees - Fees for Proposed Development: 47 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit -$71,440 3 two-bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit = $6,360 2 three-bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit = $5,450 Total = $83,250 Park Fees - Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units 29-studio units @ $1,520 per unit =$44,080 3 two-bedroom units @ $2725 per unit =$8,175 City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 -5- 1 1.1-1 1 111'.111-1 1 1 Ill 00 ' 99 B 00 kiNFOO 1)III + 11 I -ne: SOA 11 30 INUr P409 VI11.a 2 three-bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit =$7,268 Total Credit = ($59,523) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $23,727 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City o f Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11: Sanitation District Standards/Requirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -6- 90,;~0~~09~~~2~~T~00|gg U C~~ *i|~|~~~ NJ)11 d 11100,10 SC' 1 30IM'lr P410 VI11.a 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or - right o f ways to the lot line of each development. (0 62 Z G 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building 0) permit. N LB 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the 10 2 8 planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the - downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area ofconcern in order to fund the improvements needed. - Section 12: Pre-Construction Meeting Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer/Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, - Cornmunity Development Engineer. City Engineer, Building Official/Plans Examiner. â€ž The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the LLI timeline for plat and PUD/SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building ~ permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving Â° a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist, Section 13: Construction Management Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing ernergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Depaitment, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 50 40 O 00'05 8 4-) Aly[.3 MI>IJI-~ 1-lia P411 VI11.a encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day-to-day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. m% m _% Section 14: Building Permit Requirements N .,2 The building permit application shall include/depict: (0 )444 Lf) 2 Z 1. A signed copy o f the final P&Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and = Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. lig 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. ' u -1 5. A right-of-way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right-of-way ~r including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/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. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace/woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 -8- II 90 :,0 00.0 0 00' 99 &| 00 AJ N- 00 N SOA Â¥ 3?INer P412 VI11.a asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- g needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of-way, speed limits within and accessing the site, -/ $ e and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during M 4-r-Â® construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as m Oze necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air E F 0 Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right-of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 15. Design specifications and profiles for public right-of-way improvements. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards and meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 16. A utility plan meeting the standards ofthe City Engineer and City utility agencies. 17. A grading/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. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 18. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. lt is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -9- lili lll' lilli 111 lilli lili 11111111111111111111111111 00' 99 H 03 A-LNOOD NI >did 1110.080 SOA W 30INBr P413 VI11.a Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City o f Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: Historic Landmark Designation of the "East Winiz" Prior to filing of the final plat the owner shall initiate the designation of the "East Wing" of the Boomerang Lodge for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 4- 0 The area to be designated shall be finalized in conjunction with the Historic Preservation M ocÂ® Commission but shall include that area of the structural east wing along the alley, Fourth (3) -CÂ¤ Street and Hopkins Avenue, also including the outdoor pool and spa area. The designation (4 W g shall not subject the remainder ofthe building to HPC review. Section 18: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 19: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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 ofthe remaining portions thereof. Section 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provideÂ¢ by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. - 501 1 , Heien illin d;idert~kM.Â¤~ ATTEST: City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 - 10 - 90:,0 2 "11 1 11111111 lilli lilli 00 '99 26 00 AINFI00 .I>(lid 170 2 SOA >~ 3 -790 P414 VI11-a ,11,~f, 4~. '41 i ,~ , * an 4,2LD A -066 f :: C~~:M.561 , 0 1, 1 1 4/ 5 . rot .....40 / FIN*tLY, adopted, passed apd approved this 28th day ~~AS~~~~~'* 17 ' < 4/11'.4132;lf/11:9*6%22<ril/_46Â£EE.+LI.....N Kathryn S..1~tn, (7ity Clerk Melen Kalin KNG#Er-ud;NIâ€¢Â¥or S E AL;3 - APPROVED AS TO FORM: 01,Ittorney 532933 1111'll lilli Ilill 111' lill'llili ll'1111111111111111111 01/02/2007 04:05 Page: 11 of 11 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 56.00 D 0.00 4-, City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -11- P415 111,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 03/14/2007 09:36 535392 Page: 1 of 7 VI11.a JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY Co R 36.00 0 0.00 NOTICE OF APPROVAL For An Insubstantial Amendment to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Planned Unit Development, An Amendment to Ordinance No. 26 Series of 2006 Parcel ID No. 2735.124.49.002 APPLICANT: Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC c/o Steve Stunda, 11921 Freedom Drive #950, Reston, VA 20190 REPRESENTATIVE: Reno - Smith Architects, LLC, 605 W. Main Street No. 02 Aspen, CO 81611 SUBJECT OF Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment PUD, Ordinance AMMENDMENT: No. 26, Series of 2006 re. Height and Average Lodge Unit Size SUMMARY & STAFF EVALUATION: On behalf of Aspen FSP - ABR, LLC, Reno - Smith Architects, represented by Augie Reno, has applied for an Insubstantial Amendment to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment PUD, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 The Applicant proposes an amendment to change the allowed roofÂ·height of a portion of the fourth floor of the lodge due to a requirement by the City of Aspen Building Department regarding the minimum ceiling height within a unit. Whereas the building code requires additional space for the ceiling height and additional insulation, the requested PUD amendment is to allow for 12" of additional height only on a portion of th the 4 floor. Staff finds this is necessary to accomplish the building code requirements. The second insubstantial PUD amendment request has to do with the average unit size of the hotel units from 501 to 521 square feet. The unit number and average size changed many times over the course of the review before the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the City Council. The third floor over the "historic" Boomerang section was eliminated and other sections of the fourth floor were eliminated which reduced density of units and average size. The City Council had found that an adjustment to the "average unit size standard" was acceptable because it met the review criteria of the Land Use Code allowing such deviation. Staff also finds consistency with the criteria that allow this amendment. They are as follows with staffs findings in italics: â€¢ The average unit-size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) â€¢ The project includes a generous amount of non-unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The 1 in## iMi//2*-1/ imvium ' P416 535392 VI11.a Page: 2 of 7 03/14/2007 09:36Â¢ JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN CQUIUY Co R 36,00 0 0.00 proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meeting/breakfast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room". The project includes a lounge/ library, multi-purpose room and concierge area and services.) â€¢ The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in sizefrom 370 to 900 squarefeet, and include multi-room suites forfamilies.) â€¢ There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies, (The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk-in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupied for more than 30 consecutive days.) In order to amend a specific provision of the ordinance that approved the PUD originally, a PUD Amendment must be approved. Staff supports the proposed amendment because these are technical in nature and are for the purposes of clarifying and correcting the calculation of average room size. Furthermore, Staff finds that the amendments are in keeping with the overall expectations of and representations made to the City Council to the extent that the changes do not change the overall character or impacts to the neighborhood, nor do they diminish the public benefits that are achieved by the project, At the time of the City Council hearings, while there was a great deal of focus on the height of the building, the building had been set higher than the level that is now being proposed. Now, it is necessary due to building code reasons having to due with ceiling height requirements, that only certain sections of the height must be increased. The average room size changed by virtue o f the removal of the once-proposed third floor over the "historic" Boomerang section and two hotel units in the northwest section of the building. Staff finds that the proposed amendment meets the criteria for an insubstantial amendment pursuant to section 26.445.100 of the City ofAspen Land Use Code. DECISION: The Community Development Director finds the Insubstantial Planned Unit Development Amendment to be consistent with the review criteria (Exhibit A) and thereby, APPROVES the amendment as specified below. This approval document shall be recorded and the final PUD plans shall reflect the amendments contained herein. The exact areas of the amended height shall be shown on the final PUD plans. APPROVED BY: Dul,+V DI,Ur- z*l ac, 41_ \ 1 I -2 l 09- ChINs Bendon Date Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A - Review Criteria Checklist Exhibit B - Letter o f Request from Reno-Smith Architecture, dated December 4,2006 2 P417 11 lilli 111111111111111111 lili m lili 03/14/2007 09:38 535392 VI11.a Page- 3 of 7 JAN.CE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COL. rÂ¥ CO R 36.00 D 0.00 EXHIBIT A Insubstantial PUD Amendment Checklist 26.445.100 Review Criteria All insubstantial PUD Amendments shall meet the following criteria, pursuant to Section 26.445.100, Amendment to PUD Development Order: 5(< The proposed amendment docs not change the use or character of the development. 6Y The proposed amendment does not increase by greater than three (3) percent the overall coverage of structures on the land. 2~ The proposed amendment does not substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. ef The proposed amendment does not decrease the approved open space by greater than three (3) percent. IM~ The proposed amendment does not reduce the off street parking and loading space by greater than one (1) percent. [9~ The proposed amendment does not reduce required pavement widths or rights-of- way for streets and easements. 61< The proposed amendment does not increase the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial building by greater than two (2) percent. t~ The proposed amendment does not increase the approved residential density o f the development by greater than one (1) percent. CY~ The proposed amendment will not enact a change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project' s original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project' s approved use or dimensional requirements. 3 /// /// Ukiert 6 P418 VI11.a AlJCrl'ST I l ili lilli Ills ]111111 111- 111111 l ili 03/14/2007 09:38 535392 RENO Page: 4 of 7 All JANICE K VOS CHUDLL PITKIN COLTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 SCOTT SMITH AIA December 4,2006 0 - 9 Mrs. Joyce Allgaier City o f Aspen .325* Community Development Department l__---1 rmo 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RENO Â· SMITH ARCHI TEC T S. LLC 111 RE: Boomerang Lodge Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD agreement 605 W. MAIN STREET NO 002 Dear Joyce, ASPEN We have two (2) issues we respectfully request be considered as an COLORADO insubstantial amendment to the PUD agreement. 81611 The first issue is a request that a portion o f the fourth (4th) floor 970-925.5968 roof, specifically the section that was approved at a height restriction of FACS! MIli 34'-6", be allowed to increase by an additional 12" This would set the 970.925.5993 height restriction at 35'-6". EMAIL Our reasons for this request are twofold. The first reason is that 0Hice@renosmith corn with the current height restriction of 34'-6" we are unable to provide minimum ceiling heights of 7'-6" as required by the International Building Code. As currently designed, we have ceilings that are just below 7'-0" 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE. The other reason for our request has to due with the required BASALT structure and insulation for the roof of the fourth (48) floor. We allowed COLOKADO for 12" of structure and insulation in our original design and come to find 81621 out that we actually need 18" for this assembly. 970.927.6834 The additional 12" in height restriction (35'-6") would allow us to FACSIMILE comply with minimum ceiling heights and would enable us to provide the 970.927.6840 necessary structure and insulation for the fourth (48) floor roof. 59. ' '-' .96. i- Â· 'lk 1 2; r. 1 r ; r. I EN! 04 I ' Don will get you the plans. Attached are the original and revised 94 roofplans. DEC 1 1 2006 hell L N Bull DINA DEF ACTA,IFNT P419 VI11.a 11-1111-111111111 lilli. fil 11111111Ill Ill 535392 Page: 5 of 7 03/14/2007 09:36# JANICE K VOS CAUD_LL PITKIN COUN-Y CO R 36.00 D 0.00 nd. The second (2 j issue relates to the average room size for the hotel units. The approved average hotel unit size was 501. We request that this average be increased to 521 (a 4% increase) During the approval process we eliminated the proposed third (33 floor at the Eastern historic section o f the building. This elimination reduced the hotel unit count by five (5) units. We eliminated the stairwell at this portion o f the building. We also eliminated two (2) hotel units at the Northwest section of the building. The total hotel unit count was reduced by 7 (a 13% reduction). The associated square footage for this reduction has increased the average hotel unit size. We overlooked these issues during our rush to revise and re-submit to the City Council during the approval process. I apologize for the oversight and hope you understand. As we previously discussed these issues, please contact me with any questions you may have. Our intent is to have the PUD Agreement recorded mid-January 2007. We hope to have this insubstantial amendment request as part of the record. Thank you for your consideration and help. Respectfully Yours, 9. R.3% August G, Reno, AIA cc: S. Stunda S. Vann T. Adams D. Shi S. Smith 'Mt/; : rl,CR 1" DEC 11 ... F.op' Q BUILD'NG R.r: '' - -=EZ = DESIGN DEVELOP & l = ...ililli g ill/Ill 111 jill lill jill 535392 ...:&494 L--- Page 6 of 7 03/14/2007 09,36. REV{/O/ JAN'CE K Â¥OS CAUDILL PI'KiN COUNTY CO 0 36.00 0 0,00 8 A & 6 PROJECINO: 1/4 DRAW?â€¢ 8Â¥ Di CHECkID D. .R 18// DITE, â‚¬'OPÂ¥ RIGHT I RNA * :4 - ./. --- Le -......' 1 ..O.7 0 IiÂ·. .Au KOOÂ¥ 1 / m . 3 -05- < â‚¬ 4 - W 2 8Â«An~Câ‚¬ ECUR: 2 m 0 2 1 0 0289> 2 ** 13 1 RENO'Â· AMITH AR'll,TFCTS feS 'FET *UN ..1 I:/1/:2 AfWVN, COLORA. 816'i '0@Â©19.1$08 1-PENO FAX f Xe TI NG B:,4. C >4 '64Â»93 ..... REVISED ROOF PLAN Ch 0,7.9 3â‚¬ FAX J.Â·$22440 it'16 tur Mt.mw~th<>i: LMAD. I=. vMÂ·>teS:inÂ®,0& ,Â©:s GENERAL -ReÂ·.(A.'s : SH. r Ng: G 003 '#34% PROE: 4 3. RIVES,0. % 8 13-1. ~-- , DATE .SUE i 6 # 1Â«1 b Il A $ , I .....â€¢I ...0 i f <N 12-11 k 5 1 â€žf,PS, F,4 ~ , Dle.f... ' *1*--==all : ** :' AM 5,067 54 ft ' ' 4,2 2 5 50, ft , , -' f I I >0 I 26 -6" , , 1 34'.' 6- 1 ' t~ 'i~ELOti 26'Â·,-ar ~4:' -ilf-. 1 1 1 ' , _,dr- -e --De*e - ---- J-~ -- 1 / 64>40? f C *Ct :L : 3 ' 1 j=-1 1 4/ \\ ,\ E 1,61 1 1 1 1, , 3 2%'-6, | 96'-6. F 1 1 1 W + 7 4 \ I % 1 \ 1,152 54 ft i Â· ; 1 2 4 53 ft \ 6.-- 1, I 1 9 1 ' : 296. 595 sqft 1 1 1 i f 1/ 0 r-f I ' AT OR BELOR 31'-0' V N * & FOOF AREA. SQUARE FOOTA<be AREA PEROEN-AGE *00, ACEALLEVAT.,ON REL:)Alâ‚¬ e" 5.031 344. 23'24 l'r - RENO SMI 1*t'Bulll#R]!ER#11111#1!111#Illl zâ€ž,i,gat z. 1 --- - lilli'ElÂ¥: ... ,d 535392 0 0,00 (,72? grn,90 â‚¬1 4 NA. .> '*/8.LumjÂ¥,0,1 K COON'rÂ¥ 55 N 36 . 00 !20<52 AREA 'E.EVA-10\ 53 / - 6 , 24 4 '9â„¢ ~3>Â·~93 BAX 4 â€¢3 : 34.t 5 . 1%': 3=. /?rY!,5(2" AÂ¥8 51-9-'OTAL ..r ..AA.00 I. 91 . Rd:4 ROOF ARP'A 'ELE:VATiON 86 ..6+Â·, 3 ' 45 54 b 3 I % r. ";E*?7Â·4*46 ,Â¥~Wi 5*AÂ·k.&4)Rk~& 1 3,245 54 ft GENERA' Rootplan APPROVED ROOF PLAN 0 EC 1 1 :tui.16 -<- â‚¬11 - 7, i rÂ¥*WI ' & * J - C -1 . I , -. Ung '4â€¢â„¢44'49/ tteÂ¢~ ~ Z)(107 DAIV}*3IWOOH Final Plat BE) 93 - F M 0-2 Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/P.U.D. i.13 9 \ .1 T *Â·L.ED 29 \t_ f A Parcel of Land Situate in: 1 i 41- 1 r~Â«4 Â» 1 Lots K, t, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 31 u-,.~ArÂ« Â»444 3 *941>Nkt" 'tzmk,fier \ City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado The purpose 04 this Fjot ,s k> estabjish utÂ·hty eosements ond con.soj,dete tbe #crous ;ots des/nbed Dem * one ecrce I order '0 fcciblte o 'pred unt oevelooment 27Â¢7625<2Â·.4 1 . ' ' --- w >\ 4 6 Mortgagee Consent 94 Ced#/cate 0/ 0~ne/shit) Bonk Mfd/est. NA, be,/9 the mortgagee of the here,r Community Development Director's *prowl The undersgrt/, O duiy outhorized repre5entctive of ij described reci property Gs ewdenced by the deeg of *NO* ALL 424 9Â¥ 'HESE PRESENT5 thil Aspen ESP-ABR. LLC, G trust Morded es Receotion No. 5~7778. ossignment of % Subdigion Plot of Soomerong Lodge Delware ;im ted Nob,jity company, De/g me 1/0,2 owner of Lots wes Ind rents recordeo as Reception No 51 1 779 Subd.v.ston/PUD *os oppro.ed by * City of Asoer 1 through S. Block 31 Cdy und Townsrte of Asper,. Atkip Sour}fy. and that tinoncing statement recorded as Reception No cOmmunity Develooment Pector on UHS _L acy of Colorado does nerby pict scid 1/ property into the Boomerang 5 12253, IN of the red property -ecords of Atkir ULL-- _, 2007 Vicinity Map .Odge Subdivesion/PUD ~cident to the devebpment thereon of c Cour.ty. Cojoide, herby consents to the recording of RvÂ· mixed use Jodge/free morket resdentid condorruntum oroiect. ong Ihis mop ond ogiees thot the deed of 'rust descrled "=2000 Â·,04-exclosive use Verof cry Grd ofi out)~ic JWity easementi thot fne, P./.0 developmerd Dion discrbed n the do kerety dedkate 4 the 0/propnote ut dir compares zor the obove sh<# be subordtrite, junior Gnd inferior b the Community Deve#opment Director Notes mcy De shown Ind noted herein subdii:ion/P U O. agreement for the Boomerang Lodge City Engincer's Approvol - 1.'/7 1/8 1 9 anuory 2007 Subd~vison(P U.O recorded os Recepton No. Eyecuted 'his ___ doy W ____-_-_-_ 2007 c/d the motters discies// Dy th,3 40cj ois Subdiws w Aot of Boomering Lodge - ~mlely DiscÂ»on A Porce; of Lond Stifle 4,: Lots K. t. 4. N. 0 P. i R en< 3, 3,<,ci~ 3'. City OWNER ./ Subdiv,sion/PUD *cs cppro,ec 5., Â·~e Lity Eng,eer 00?C 'owns,le of #e., Stote of Colorodo Aspen FSP -ABE LLC. 0 08'0*0â€¢e "mited Nobily com"ny Dated this ___ doy of __- - --__-_. 2007 t-MAL*r~ fiof:~S '__ acy of Bcs,s of Beanngs 479'09'17 'W tie Decnig Derween found monumenEs glong the r.ofth. ine of the subf/et por</ both beng G PK acd and esher os shown here on. 8 kie h renects the record, Sy ...... Square Properle., LLC BANK MBWEST. NA c Wrg,/,c imited sobdity company, its Manager sost- west bjock beor,ng 'Tor 'e G E Buchor or Vop fiom !953 es described below a - De ation //tum, 92 7 feet an cs/umed emvetior fo, the top of / PK non /nd *cs// stompec _3 # I <jurnce ev. 2'fy/Eng.neer 4 25947 cs shown hereon al le nodhest corne, of the subect porce~ /ce D,esteent. *Con< Red Esta cending Group C;ty Cound Appmal Elt.er R. St,icc. Ze.* ren Mon=w. nonneÂ· '01'8849 Monoger. Ascen Boomering Loo~â‚¬ Subc~,ision,/ POD ;s subjec' to the Subdivisp//PUD Agreement recorded or ~he '979)925- 7604 hs Subdi,~sioc Plut of Boomerong wage _'Lacy of --22.-Â£_. 2007 os *eceohor No L. 122 _ -_ _- STATE OF --1 21-1 --3 Subdivision/PUD wis Â®oroved by tte Cly Cour.ce o' 55 -ne C~~, Of ASDE- 0~ M _-_ OOY . .. Lriey ..es #ot ....ser s : be seorcn ly .& s.Â·veyor :0 le.rmine o.lersniC Or I. 0/Coll 200'/2 OCLi. Â· 2007 Dursuant to Lroincrce No 26. ecierments or 'ther en"m"""s of recom. An informan" De-c'nir,g to o.rersm" eosemen:s or SLATE cy --_ ---------) / rfrer encum&,onces of record hus Deen tcken hom the titie comm,tmen sswed by .104 Et.#e ,)SS he 'orep.ng #rument m oc*now'ecgeo before me Lorontee Company under >der No 0387506-3 0,â€¢th cm the electmve rze of Jan/0/1 8. 2007 tris 21.. coy ot __L_nin-___---,2007 ty dy ZZ<>eeâ‚¬G--~-531 COUND' OF__-21_u_____ Series of 2. He!" /!chde~~ Mayor - 'he Gly of Aspen Res*Non No 08 Seres ' 9971 recoreed o Â· Pecept,on No 40874 Â· Ate Counr/ Ac,enowfedged, s woscribed, ord sworn te me this ___ dcy 9 Bon. 11 d~es: NA AT'ES' CiTY OF ASPEN or c 2 ft, 6 n 'ear yord semoci vcr,ance c cnow for me ccistruction of In, eievctor ond ouncry _____________ 2007 5/ Steer Q Stunde. cs Deve,oomeni foc Ay 'em<w,5 r e'lee' 'heie s F eadence kit thes /ariance hos Deen rescindfed Sce /orcece 'kncger 0, Foualic Square Propertes,.LC, o trginÂ·c 4.'ted I.&5 Ty *I /0 0'ficjo, sec By .alb'113&' 14Â· comÂ·ms'or d.at>es _2_Z2__211 orseers s conflit witi +89 City 96 *sor Ora,-c"ce bi 2â‚¬ Ser es 200â‚¬j, ecs,dei Gt Decel:,cr NO :ct>,1,+7 comper,/. Monoger 0, As,)en *:SP-ABP, 6. 2 Jejcwc~e - ty Ce,je 332933, Pittor County m:ted I+ob,ty compopy. b..: Jocuments Iferencee neren. :reess ourefwise octed, cre Ycorded n the Office of Ye Clerk Gic? Nitness my hone Ine off,cia, seal 04-1 Surmor'. Certificate 'ecorde:. Ditkt' County* Colorodc Vy commiss.. exp'res. ____L_-11-_______ ..7 lub/ic . Kendrick E 4/,becke, 1 ProtessÂ·0,/ck _Crc 3.7,fe,O censed under 'he ,/* W the Slze of C/orodo, 4/,/Dy - Regam,ng Resolution No 08, Series of 1997 os recorded ot Reception No 40874! Thts surveyor :enify the in jonuory, 2007, a survey of the herein nos beer DrovÂ«ded G copy of c ietter 'rorr fie City of Aspef. Office of the C ty Attorney, Jobr e #-4.44 GUe Company Cerbloote :.... described property wos pertormed under 7 super, 5<r Worcester, City Attorney. doted 8 rebroo 7 2007 onc cd/resseo to E Mil *0/ Hoffmop, 4 pofig'Opr W"> pubmic onc direct;on, in occoeer.ce *dh Colorcoo Revrsec 4 + 9 .ond Ttle Guorintee Compony hereoy certifies that Statutes :973. Dee 38, Ar. de W and 'hot As wwo reads "The Vanince was granted to (:dinss a Test,ictun imposed M the p,opedy by I ASPEN FSP-ABR. LLS, o Delowore limdec 4ability Subdivision Pict occurct/4 ond substontiony depicts 90,0 speciAÂ© proÂ·ulsion of the Aspen lind Use Code The V{lriance was gmnted to aliOU yeasgnable --- i .7 1 1 companys the "cord 0*ner of the heretn described use of the Properly. In 2006, thE Aspen City Councu app,oved a new development #an Ar Notcr/ Dubhe survey The Contiof sumy piects;Or] .s greoter thorn the Prope,Â·ty which %an did not requvi the Vamonce Becat,Re yeasonaMe use of the Property Properly. n fee s.mpie, free cid cieor of 011 hens ond /10.000 Feet. Recorded eosements, Ights-04-way end is permitted 1.mier the plan approued 17, thâ‚¬ Approuat Or~inance. the Vaname will nu) '42. Ot/ encumbrances except the han of Deed of Trust for the ,estrictdons ore those set forth M Secte 8-2 of the Zongâ‚¬r be mquind. and tutlt terminate, at the ttme the Pmpeny ts Tedeveloped m benefit of 8/nk Midwest. NA. mided /5 9/ception No. btie commitment issued by Lond Title Gucrantee conÂ»mance w:th ae new Man" Consequent'y *e 2 5 foct setback w,crce pro.,ded for /, see Compony under Order No 0387506-2. effective ecte 3222--4-/-- Receptton No. 40874' s not #own nereon _ 04ty of Aspen Map prepared by the city engineer G.E Buchonon und doted Dece/be, 351 953 45 Januory 8. 2007 VameÂ· AUE ..tip./.1 'he source for *ecord biock and â‚¬ght-of - wcy d;mer:sions shown or, 4Ds mot Titie. -I tâ‚¬A-Â«.0. . . - A â€¢ -_-2---~22-2-_i E-U323 A 222:1_ I SLATE OF e he er,sting structures 560.r on th;s pict hove wiNE that *pe outwards from their grove reve; *ME. Neuiecker, &~ 10 DIE Dositions Meosurements of these wins reflect necr grQuid lie, cond,tions Â» re Jotonshib 5/!weeÂ·? the .55. Drofessfor,QUJ Sur.reyor~,Â¢1,*~~243~~p ipper "ri "s of these w<ms "d '" Eot N"' s "t sho,rn hereon. COUNTY OF_1111.im_----i Clerk ond Recorder s Certificote>44*â€¢r -he foregoing Istr,ment was ocknoedgec before me rhis _2Â· dcy of > I. 4 2007 by els Subdiws,on W 4 300/emng Lodge _Au,; .0...1.1 05 Sub/,vision/PUD is occepted for ming ;n le Offks of _ond Title Guorintee Compeny the gark ond Reco,der of Ditkin County, Coforido this 1-2 *of _966/-_ 2007 r Sheet index: Witness my nond Ind off,cial seoi. mot 900* 13_ ct Â°cce -4-- cs My commiswn el/sÂ· 41 ..2, Receptic~ No 1.unle, Pka.'S Sheet 'Vo Notes~ Cert,fâ‚¬ctkns ong Ac;nity Moc c. 2 Subli.sion lop 2 0,2 ByÂ·_____LULL-i . .' f'-- Pitkir, County Clerk Inc Recorder -1 0 Veto/y Pub/ic The surveyor 's ced,ficgbon opphes orgy M survey meters os depicted on the obove refe,enced sheets. 1 !111 1111,111 25629 15 ./007 03/ I :tee I -- â€¢ a- SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER NUW- BER OEMS:e, DATE . aob N. 2006-308.002 ane- laW ITH STREET, SUITE 200 Boomerang Lodge Final .gil - 1 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8160 1 (970)945-1004 FAX (970}945-5948 Dole: 5Fet 07 SCHMUESER | GORDON I MEYER ASPEN, COLORADO (970) 925Â·6727 Subdivision and PUD Plat 4,>proved x 2 CRESTED SUITE CO (970) 349-5355 2.'e Â»a,* 040~ 2 - . ~ P422 Final Plat Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/P.U.D. Â¢83 eq A Parcel of Land Situate in: Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 31 City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado F.; I ;â€¢â€¢t~% i 7/4 2 *k 1.1 I C 23 1 f.~~_ 7 - 5 2~449 -2,-4 -,9.5.' K ..1 1 . Â·42,3 Â·Â»7337~ right-r,f- - I. 1 ~-- ,, ~,_ I..*) 'jrr'" 1 ./ <.Pe, #/i'' 2Â©V 34 I '2 56.-â€ž , -TE- 4,9 I / 0- 1-2 2- 1 ..v 7 1--) 2 20 00 , 19 - '4 Boomerang kdge Subdivzsion/PUD -3,0 T 0.620 acres +j --- -2 1 - W oi ~ 0-_ ~'-3_41'l.. ,{f f / I ~ / 24 f B. 009 11. ..3-1. X 2 7,3 270 0 0 1 9/f 27***Â·5 29â€¢' -, 50, 9653,6.-2 Wes(t Hopkins Avenue 75.00' nght -of- 4. - 3114- I ... p .'I'Â·C =.7 -0 of Aspen Map Ve -3 m ../ + 52- ././. ~ fÂ·,A 2 ..r 'C. \% i 4 #te. _ _ ,_ -3191 - ...,b 11 ./Mr ... ' le &. of ./ ;RAPH]C' SEA. E . ' ~ 'â‚¬212 _ 3 7.~*oj,e ~d=.I ' 6 2 12=711 41 /2-- 4%# 1,1111411,111. 250 0. V * C./ PIll&, Mldll 1111'1111 =:J 2 .SM 0 e 0, N TE. . 5â‚¬ Â·.-~'50~97 Â· +- Â·_ _ =12#Z'Z- nci - 20 It SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER 'Z Â°"se" SCE I' ,/00 ~,0 2006-308002 118/ 6â„¢ STREET, SUITE 200 Boomerang Lodge Final 0- 9 soh GLENWOOD SPRINGS COLORADI 8160 (970) 945- 1 004 FAX (970) 945-5948 SCHMUESER GORDON I MEYER ASPEN. COLORADO (9701925-6727 Subdivision and PUD Plat 5Feb07 u.?Â£6 ED Bur-C Lu e M) 84 9-5-35 G/Jli' 1 Nt i '4.1 7 0 1 9 .,06)00 .'. w..3 il~ I lot 883 el SCHEMATIC DDIGN ISSUED,OR I BOOMERANG LODGE SUBDIVISION/PUD ( lili. .'40% Al I RE,1,10, FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN I L L RECORDATION SET PROJECTM): 1i DRAWN . CHECkFD BY tR ISM E 1] Al I 3 4 20â‚¬- Â·6 Pi COPYRiGHTC Ri t 2005, Owners: FOUNTAIN SQUARE PROPERTIES Drawing Index: 11921 Freedom Drive ~ ' Suite 950 1 COVER SHEET Reston, VA 20190 2 FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (703) 773-4662 3 PARKING/BASEMENT LEVEL U 4 FIRST LEVEL 1 I q o SECOND LEVEL Planner: VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC 6 THIRD LEVEL , 1 1 7 FOURTH LEVEL Planning Consultants Z 230 East Hopkins Avenue 8 ROOF PT Ar Aspen, LU 81611 M (970 923-6958 9 SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS 10 NORTH & WEST ELE\ AT1ON5 11 STANDARD UNIT 1 12 STANDARD UNIT 2 - .1 C 1 Architect: RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS, LLC. L-1,1 LANDSCAPE PLAN = 605 West Main Street, No.002 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5968 0 44. ~1 RE. Surveyor: SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER RENO SMITH 118 West 6th, Suite 200 'RCH/]Eâ‚¬IÂ·, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1004 . 60 WE. Mt/ 5TR[Fl ,LITFOC .PEN. I. ORADO Â§16lt ,970]925 5168 1 ./ | r'.93/:.3 Landscape DAISUKE YOSHIMURA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT .SOLTHSIDE M Architect: BA!,ALT, COLORADO 703 Euclid Avenue .t,31 Carbondale, CO 81623 ,9,1 @2'-6834 (970) 948-7560 FAk I 9'01921-6~0 ~ ER m I ,â€¢-â€¢ M.*.cu~ E.Cl. tDDRFSS omiearcnu~nul.com GE>ERAi.: I .'FUSHEET Date: February 12,2007 1 SHEET~O Il m'V}I" 1 ISSLED FOR SCHEMATIC DriG, 893 eo Cl.1*XT ~PPROvt]. RCUSIO. I PROJFCT M)Â· D.tn.+ CHFIKED B'I' AR 1%4CE DATE COPYRIGHT C Rh 405 39Â·65;4â€¢_I'lli. I >d-5~ ,~ â€¢ .,G.2 r 4 1. , 7Â· -1- 24-3,-PS&-2-/2 :A==.- . DE-Eâ‚¬w93-Câ€¢-DE)/Es= a.-0~6 5#K *I.-Et I- ./--9 /9 â€¢-./.23 I I.= A--EÂ¥ 3-CO< 3 ' -C aE â€¢E=AVEP. 4.6%Y4- ._ONS.V: - B,25.-JN~E-- ).-<525 BUJAS-Â©~AGFâ€¢REi . 42... * 1 \ 1 ..-E. 11 i Ex/-/6 3.-3/6 2,/ I .:-._- \- . i #- 1 ' .EA ./.ING '. 7-- 41 R r =1941-,0,1.0, . 1 .71--1,1 k ..9 31 47~ \ 61 - .7 -Cgs 11 ~ L.-= :-7 1-,-7 426*2 401Â« e laU,ta, J * b - )--tr:'r-ZE= RENO SMITH -- W.QI- ~- ~-- - ~7------ - #R{Â·Hl rECTSÂ· - - 1 1.E~ C.*~ ke-9 - 3.-3 Â·/_s'va-/â€¢-0 *#/~DDE~A~ 55=AA__~ ' Â· EX'-hs 5Â°#-S "A'.-V4=W,ve- AEE-471<INS AV54.E - - + - 9 - ./.'114/.IET 6 _Z>~.=e~,- % liPE.. COLORADO 816~; 97/ 925Â·5968 FAX 970%925-S993 0 0 : . 10! 3-1 SOUHS[DE I L BASALT. COLORADO I 81621 11111111'lll'wl'11111:lili 1?6:5 2: 3& q.0.7 6834 - FINAL PUP DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2Le bIT}. u~%..rnith.Â¢om EMAIL ADDRKSS DMÂ¢Â¢/ren~Â§mith.com GENERAL: n./. PI. SHKETNO: | 2 1 3:*lori 9AIV}1'41/UM)}1 culviâ‚¬,11, 1 ~,1.INV 1/3.1....'IO' SCRIIATIC DES,GY 883 P? a ......0 I REVIsio' A L PROJEC 1 .0 DRU.n .. CHECKEDBIÂ· <R ISRE DATE ~ 1 - ZOO- I IM COARIGHT C.RSA 2005, I I ; 8Â·. EW-O-EE 2..6, L - -- -- 1 / 4% -00<Efe POA' Â·0 -0 /11596 ./ 4 - 1--2 ' 6 5.- n -v# 4 X 44 G JJ.-# 01-- \41 1 4 - ... b - . â€¢A.. 6 -8/'0 -2 +3 .El- - 2L - 1 / / / // k. ; 1 L- t 90 8Â°ACEE-'â€¢ANOS*4' ~ flj' . ===2-/ r---- 20 2Â· 22 23 24 23 28 1- 26 2= 30 3 9 \ 'COL aBOVE 50 A i 9 1 ..6 RFNO SMITH 10.'41TECT' 61}SW,STMAI~STREET | St,TE 902 ~ Â·Â·PEI. COL OR ADO 'Illit 1 978~USÂ·i,ba NIA BuiLIÂ»16 EXIST NG 3.1-3146 w -. 1*.01,2-!1993 ,-1..THS[DE I} .,~.Â· r .-0[ OR,no I.....4 Â·970)92~ 6040 Ii; " Illiillt'lilli ml ?.15120?:3 03 21,200 0 J '4}-B SITE 1. 1.. D 2 00 ... *th com E'Â·L,ILADDRES. dee*ren.smj,ham GETER I PARKIXGPLA> ,Â« PARKINe/BASEMENT LEVEL SHEETNO 3 f . 1. MO 10 ) , -N 11.'/ ISSUED FOR: ~ SCHEM ATIC DE.9/i | 883 p g RB isto' 6 1 PROJFT ' M): Diton InÂ· CHECKED IÂ· 1 i 'ISSLEDATE: - COPUUGHTÂ¢RS,=005 Lv<-/6Â£ t .-_-=El.ffir&fl 0--Eq Sh - \ /=Er 4 '0 :30 0/V \ \ 4 11 --"-â€¢ 1 a /JJ 11 11 4 W. -7 OBEY I '08 ''0 Â·: 1 -6 1- -'-] -t 991 9 /7 ty-,\/ r- . 1 - 21 -CubeE LI 11 1 --lill =4-==6 , 8-I' 5 1 ' .4/ 4/7 T Lpic ]1 2401 1) 09, ft r f- 1 El 7 3 4. . jUL_I _b_Ell- fÂ»Â· - -- 410Â¢69 - 15 ,1 -1' 7- - ----- --21-=~ > EN-RÂ¥ , lili 11 1 -1-221 - L rEE-Flf--i- 1 --F 'i,/1 -- 7 =a _ 10- 8 B Â·3 . I. 1 1 1 Â·Ce .,-Â¢ I Er-11 - Â« *. ..U I P /. 4 21 C Inul ~ _ 32~ - - -- 6 T ~XS-;',6,* - ---- 1 _ RENO SMITH \R CHII Elli 111 LLC NIER BU'LD NO EX'STINe ai.3 Ne ~.,~inni 91â€¢,I....4....T ----------- - UPE~, COLOIUDO lii611 8 FAX 9'01925-599? : ,01 11 SOEHSTDi 'E 8.SAIT, COI.O.'DO \2::P, 816Z, 4/al (~'019~--fl~' ..9 "rE .u.,e.Â©,/'ih,co~. EMAIL LDDRE' -. SROUNIP LEVEL Jmce*re..mith... 1 ' GENERALÂ· GRt)C'i~D I.EVEL Pll '" ~11011 535629 1 ./2e- 03 ' ' S 02 . Be ~NÂ¥Â¥~'.0. 4 -ffjl :*10'1 DNV}1'21]AIOOH SCHEM.4TIC DESIGN 4/' 9 1- 7 Il'V..Ai ] RFUSIO' A 1--a PROJECT *-O DRA' I .Â· CHECKED. \R CO~q DOR WITDATE - - 10 4 W IL: 44 1 COP,RIGHI IRS,4 1005 - - .0 - - 2 Â· e $46, ll, u < ' A Â» 1 1 00/ DOR -7 41-- - 4.--1 MULTI-IM"092 11 ' 1 ROOM U 3-J 13Â«-2 Â«f V. 9 202 2 p 1 -5 p ,-1 v 1 C__-1,--1 .. :08,7~ : . 41 2,4 11 0 I ./.3 11 9-f GUIc-u~ -14-32 1 347 ~ fIt E=- 9 4 %:*4 01 4-# 1 2- Lk Â« -k - --1 r Â«il / Â¢\ 1 -.1 :- ,IT rEET -~ 6 1 i -1 Z D /X p -- i 'll 1 I.L~ ,- 41 1 NT r 1 4/ 0.-4 1 -- -1 Â« 1 203 11_J Il 1.72 - r.7 -1--1 - -M 2,4 %0 * 1- ~ 1 2 r + _ , .4,*(&9 I *-k 202 __ 2 2.3 42 1 5 1 16Â« 1 . '42 222 I 205 -3, 2.-se" /1 . 1~ 21 1f -F- C==~e~- 7 - 7- -1 ~ e -" =:- 311 11- U .all- 1 ....... B._.... = 3.-=.t 3.-=.1 . V D _ 1~ 1 3 LI _ 1, 2- " ff ==.=!1 ...... - --7-0244.2,7-- -2= --=+ 44Â« E-9*5 REVO SMITH NER Buli-DINS EX!ST,Nle 3 -D'NS AR.HITE.'14 & UC 5l-ITI 002 ASPEN, COLORADO 139 - 9?0, 0- 1 9,111 9... m &01-INSIDE. ivÂ·r 'â€¢ Jo I 'Â·â€¢54{.1 Colliu[KJ 4,â€¢2: -19:Â·41â€¢ (970,92- 6840 /+ 8 Â§11 F â€¢,9 rrnnintilb.* EMAil. 4DDRESS n SECOND LEVEL ~fllce*reno,m,th.,0/ U w GIERAi.: SECOVD LEVEL IIiAN 1 4.H Â§3,2t m . 3, 535629 la'. SHEETW c.,h 2 ' I. " . 2 00 1 5 3:)(IC)'I ~)NV>1:1#COOE| CHI, 21(1 10)1)'~,4,1#/ 01) IS51 ED FOR: SCHEMATIC DESIGN I 6 83 plo CITE~TAPPRO. & 1 5 & 11" a A 2 1 PROJECT Vi Dinu i . ' P --" --- t~E.1 . 1 1--- CHECKED BYÂ· 4 ISSUE [1/5 : 1 4,41j ' 3'4 2/3. 6 Dy V , C.OP3RIGHTI RS' l,j. 5 2 SC 30: -- 4 -' ROOF C L 001â„¢loct DES< a 1 2 -1 - - AST =9= 71 lap r-= zii J 1....p J U .1 .- Cl li I -s.e. --- - t,VIVE ----- - , 303 -~-- 11 0 - 1 h " / U 11 - V - (12 u 11 Ful -= a*Â« L=LEJâ‚¬31- . 0-Â« I==- - - L_..d~ 10 1 _i~ _ _ f 1 95=1= 355 M a ii F-r r= u - ~ 1 '" 1 9 Fl- 8 22 11 k IL .... "-- 4 41 - , - - - 10 3.0 77 / 1 3 1 4 ---_J 0 4 1 -11 308 7 1 -1 I- 1. 41 - Â«7 7 L lu -- - 1----In - 1 - t 350 - 5.-Il- 1 1 = 9.-SCI- I 5.-OSI- = -0 - IL Â· - 11- -1 ]L__ U U -- 4499' RENO SMITH NEn BUILDING EXISTING BuiLDING m mI,TECIS ----- Kos ~IST '41.1'1 STREIT S SLITE,01 ~~PE> ral OllADO 1 ro~quÂ·,9/ I-/92/3/3 ~'f~ iOURSIDI O I I i.,1 845411.201 011*De ~!621 970) 91? 634 FAI ~70) 914044 ~EB 5[T[ I ........ ..1 ADDRESS Â» -HIRID LEVEL ornc,*tr~m~*/ V k GEVERAT.: | r..DLE./LP:. SHFFT'iOÂ· 111111111111111111111I1~. iib)10: . 6 /1- '1. 14'.r 1 '1'-U 1 5 )AIVH'l WOOH 0 SCH81 4TICDESICA 883 ?\1 al,Vt.FRe\.2 4- 0- REv,â‚¬10) PRI.T.0: 01 tu Â· 3Â¥, CHECKED BEÂ· iR ISSLE DAI F ' COPYÂ·Ri[;H ltRS']905 C. CORRIDOR =====r=== =. ..OF, D U ROOF n <~' tly ~ -jp~~ =1130 03.46 U -- V E ,-C~2 - il FT__i) V._ ~ - \ 1 4 # -* Vt f U Â« ' -- - I 40 =02 -~- Im<-0-hi-- 1 S J \ 911% ~ 1 1 . U 5.-00" 1 / i J.-J r=7 RENO SMITH ARCHITE' 1% M liEn BUILDING EXIE-'Ne BUILDÂ·46 60f UT.--Â·,1.1, in[El - tSPEN, COLOR I. !1~61 (9'01 W.~96% FAX r.â€¢01,25Â·"93 m Sol THSI W 4' E '101 BASALT. COLOnDO Il,il 4119rl/4 n. I ./.â€¢.*0 'EB SITE m.re~Dimi:h.com EMW 4DDRESS - FOURTH LEVEL -9/mith.Â£0/ ' "1 GEVERAL: FOURTH LE% EL PLA> 0 ~BUl""0711 efaL , 20 CHKET *O. 7 51:)(10' 1 P~VM 14 #WOOH â‚¬)(1010':O,)%Â·.4.INV ISSUED FORÂ· 693 ?g CLE'...."T SCHE~ATIC D.SIG> RD 1610/ A PROJh ! e DR .W, . CHE(kiD BY: dR 1%Â§1 E DAil COP,RIGHT Â©RS, 2005' fAF EELOn -49%~,//'' L__ U -----J 1 W ROOF DECK Exjb- 46 -- E---= 2- - - 1 4 .00= 4 . > FLAIRÂ£;OF , -I ' . Â· I 35'-El -- LlÂ©BELGA-26'-26,1,- 901-, Th 4 2- 35. -=27 JUÂ« 38'ZE Â« J \-42t,0 - - 1-- 2- ' 9--1 1 Lai-- - FEA- ROOF Â¢ 2 1 -- Â· - -42.- =00- 1 _ Â·- 1 4 -- - 1 - - EX;S- 49 26'-6" ~ 1 Â·1 4:42 7 -24-AF~ RENO SMITH \REHITECI. Ili ill.In/, STREET I IiFITE 002 'â€¢PFI Â· 'OLO//DO ro ..9, NER Bull_DINe .X EX ST'Ne BUILD N,6 .191' F993 . 1~Â· 'OUTH{SIDE (VI. --- -- ri }D.%-1. t-01.294DO ..62] f) ro 91Â·Il '9'0 92-Â·Il A.91'EL mren.mith~com EMAIi ~DDREÂ» ....:r/I'lib.r~m rn 9 OOF PLAN - GENERAL ROOFPL,I SHEET >O: 11 11,1 111'11'111 111 11 RELÂ·0;5. 1 8 I t." -4 L L 111111111 1 1~1 (HA N}'1(Â» )1,1.10Â¥ 10'I DNV}INI/~C)0$1 ]Â§Â§1 ED FOR 6@3 P i3 Cl W %1 .PRO~ V RE, ISIO# 1? 1 PROJECT /1 DRA\% \ BV CHECKED BM \R ISSI F DATE _.EL _ _~_ ~ __ COP'k RIGHT C RSA 1005 n 2 ut .J _ - i=-1 11,1 1 1 -1 3 -97 -=71 '-1-- 4-11] 3 2 ' J 11 1 1 1 1 2 il E 1_1 23 - LT . =E=q / 1- -. -- - -r PUÂ«--I--7-tri i U I.-11- -1 I 1--'L '_ ' LL . --1 i.= 00 - -i Â¢17-r,10 L i L ~ i i [E- 1 1.11-41 4 ) 1 Q 1 1 7 1113, i - - ~ 1- 4 1 m @ - + 3 Z = 2 E a E C Y a & â‚¬ - SOLI--- ELEVAT ON 00 RENO SMITH ARCH]TECTS IIi 1 1 Â£ #Il'TMAI,STRE,Fl | .Lly le 2,rEN. COLOill,DC. -r lilli r _91_111 lil re'0*596@ F. :fL 925-5/3 FIJa-111 illâ€ž.kp'- 1 '-' 50LTHSIDE *4 91; 1/ ., --- -- - BtSAIT COLORâ€¢,130 ~!611 990)9Â·6834 Flk. n EAS- ELEVA--ION 2 ..0-0,Â£,0. Â·~ES Sr k EMAIL Â·,1}DRF.55 ~mce#renitinli,hcont GENERIL ELE,ATIO'â€¢~ SHEET 5 0 Ild,1 lilli 111|| ||11|| 252?... 9 ISSL-ED FORÂ· ~ 883 P N #CliEMATIC DESIGA CTIE'FRIAP~110Â¥~L REVIS[9 PROIFCT W DROn 83 CHEL,ED BÂ·, ~R 1~SSLE D,rE. COPÂ¥!UGHTCRSA!905 Jr--1 -L-- + 36 24 -1-1-30 E- fli ~29 ~-7 ~ PT-- - 1 ./ 2 -Â·01 L - -,LL {Uj ..10 -3 1 --- -- --If + I: Â»---Â·a -- ---p --- r--- > ~-[T- "-74Tn-MTÂ¢ 22 TE -Af-[ 3- - r- -r--1 * .D. S 0020 [T-=7 - 10 -- + j. 1- 11 IICI: -- Ill -I- I- - F. c. NORTH ELEVA-!ON ...3 RENO SMITH ER(HITECTS le Â·.-5 -3 2 - 605 V.....'TREET 4:.. - -Â·221-21-__-47-9-121 .--7= 11* 4 .!TI 002 SPF.,COLORADO 1 1 411 1 N1611 '9'0~ 925Â·5993 11 -- It,- -7 i ,4 ' F-4----7 EL-.D . 3-1 4011...... i ' 1-: i }La.1 -11 41 -L ---ul Li_ 1 BAhALT COLORADO ' ~102, 9./.2 /834 ' R 1 E--7 i . -1-lilli '111 - WES â€¢[TE i,-m 91-6;(e -1- â€¢~-rer'imilbcim EMAH (DDREh ..e.*ren.i.i~.ce. n INEST ELEVATION El. E~ATI(24' CEVERA].. ' ....C SHIFT No: 3.Uwniti~I~F~B# .112.1.' V"*0 10 # 0.0, U C, I ' 14 Â¢0 3 0 e. )1:)(IC)'ll :)>All'll~()O*1 CHIV.I{)'1( i ']\,IdNV 6 43 8% ~ SCHEMATIC DES[G; 6Â»~8, W. Cl IRT ~Pno' ' -F-_=#=_2 - -CIT~ -17]PE.-1 ~4- 1 I I RE~li~: 242 - n @*ZE! 1 0*4 SITEMEN KITCHEN 11 , 1 PROJEe T M): 7 Dita' In CHKKED BY: I | IqSLE DATE BR. 5R. C.3 COPYRIGHI CRS,ANDS 1 2- - --- LIVING LIVIN6 24 - 4==- 0 ~ .F KITCHEN 1-Ill =Â»n ==- 7 1 7-7 -2 .7 1 STANDARD UNIT- 1 B STANDARD UNIT- 1 A STANDARD UNIT- 1 A. 1 11 1-L B.T.. 3 1 ~26 Lf- 11<ITCHEN - CEL..NEO.Â£,c= 1 = RENO SMITH 4-4 ~RCHITEâ‚¬19 105 Oil 4 -, *ENTMAINSTREFT *O. LIVING . - 11 AS.VOLORADO NICHIEN 1 ' 11611 3 1 - - Filt- -- Fe 1/ 1 --~El==Mi ,70, )~-993 i 31 '4}t THSIDE ./ 9 - .4 ~01 - BASILI COLOR'DO 2 - _-~ _ 11~ ---- - 11:el 9-0,42Â·-604 F. 9.0]92 -/fÂ· ~IN 51TE â€¢~.â€¢ renalâ„¢114.com EM ~11. ~DDRF.5S *#/0-/com STANDARD UNIT- 1 8.1 STANDARD UNIT- 1 5.2 STANDARD UNIT- 1 C ...!ard L.-1 GErERAL ,4 -2 ' 05 205 1 BOB 3,-5 0Â· 20 Â· 4501 1 SHEET.O lim|i||| |i "luin'|il Pâ€¢. 11' 5 | 535629 I I .2./2007 I . c g m 11 '40â‚¬|Ori fÂ»~V}1'>INOOH Â¢}(1~}10'147 )'NuM P. 15'UED FORÂ· 1 NCHEM"!C DESIG> (323 P ib Cllk*RO. RE\15101 6 2 1 8 1 1 PR{IRC T NO DRAWN B't CHECKED Sh Ul - 19,1 E DATE: 4 20â‚¬- 15 PM BR Biz 311 COPYRIGHT *RSA 2005 - r 1% r /.rl -43- ~ /1 --9 2--1-41 -3 3 . 11 1= r: 11 &./ minni '- 1 F=F==3 '82-a_. 9=5=7 92.1 --~ I g) ~- 0812 <w - -21.b 1 1 11 7 9 6 - .4 1. 1 Z < -0-EN Â«4 1 'AL - - <.0-EN <,-DIEN 1 1 r Z 1 2 =-1 11 Z 1 1 Â¢ 11 .- ---1 ' 01Â»Ne - a- - -- PINING 1 1/0- / - -1 2&.1 BR. 1 ===1 .]ViN6 ..Â£46 â„¢ -I RENO SMITH ~1] -/ 4RCHITECTA H 1 Z. .IVING *......â„¢EET *ica: upy... rol.OR,De 11611 I (971)1~23-5968 F. râ€¢ 91.5893 rl SO~FHS[DEAVE, ' 10 BA'ALT. COLOROO ~1611 '.4 ':--683' F.4/ '9-0 92~0840 .... STANDARD UNIT-20 STANDARD UNiT-28 STANDARD UNIT-2A ,â€¢,Â¥ r,00.m'th com E'bi:~Il ~DDRESS *re:Â·oimh~eQÂ¥ GE,-ERAL .r jard .r NHEET NO 1111111111111111111!1111~11111~~~I1 Ffi353t i 2 3:)CIO'I :)AiVM lk<)Oil PLANT US-~ 'LANTING NOTES 8 83 Z SÂ¥'= 0-0 &3,- L '.re 2--7.-1 .e ' S.:i.6 ! .,a. CONTK-OR TO iER~. -~E -OCA-ONS DE A-- IL'ES cR,CR-0 'fM COMMENCEMENT OF LANDSCAPNG 1 ...~eÂ» 1_~1 /~3 12/Â·~./]ar , 23'T |aÂ¥-- 8&2 2 CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR A. DAMAGES To EXIS TING CONC T ON U) - 7* .en 1..35Â· 1.r- 8.8 3 CONTRACTOR SHALL MA NTA N POST IE ..AiNAGE AWAN FROM A. STRUCT.RES Pll UJ 30â„¢*eÂ·Se.,a~on Â¤ 5Â· -r B&3 4 COORD NATE LANISCA.E INS.AL.-le, W /4 INS.A_A-JON OF...01,1â‚¬.1/ I CtÂ· Â· '. Â· I -~ SO :.r-/ 1,/ A!,rC- B&5 JNDERGROUND SPR]g_ER SySTEM a I 3 Pac.. '0... '11. .G Slf-"1~=b S.r- As n r .... 38 9 5 - OCATION AND Q.A.,TY 0. ALL PLANANG 10.-ER,ALS - 3 OE AP'RC"EC 8. | I. Â·/.li.*...- Al No....e ouÂ·,r , I.%Â· B&B _ANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0Â£CORE INS TALLA-ION 2 | Ma., 0n ./ , .....Bl: , ..3- AÂ·,-0- 9,9 6 ALL -REES AND SHRUBS 3'Â·ALL 8E BACK FILLED WiTH A -OPSO'l ..... PLANT LEGEND (EXISTING) ~ ~ 1 "'" "'0~6 --Â· "da~Chckec-enâ€¢ , 3'Â·35 .As-- 3&3 MIXT'RE AT AÂ·Â· RATLI , 019.,U.'* -2 : SC 1 Thamle.rnÂ®u,Â·Pag# insir |A".F- B" 1 , L JECTCUOUS TREES SHALL BE STAKED Â¥*'T' 4 COOT IETAL POSTS 3#Wwwl.ALLÂ¥ -.OL-Â·_k I ~REESINDICATES'HE DRIO.!NEÂ·CALCuLA c. AsegrrD, Cumoac~ AG I /*.1 AmuÂ·.DI 5 -. 1./90.- 85' SWL. BE GlYED WITH 12 GAJGE GALVA,dZED vingâ‚¬ V, J POLâ€¢.pgopÂ¥-ENE 6 Z f#6 'r:7:/:'f:.~7....'-Râ„¢ENS 5/ U â€žO,7 3, a REI NCE S-S - I : U ' 1 8 ./ENNIAL PLANT NG BEDS Squ BE -Â·LLED -0 A 6Â· DEFT- AND A.E,JEC _ d ShÂ·wo, An. :PSO 1 AND COMPOSED A. A ' Â· RA-10 - 0 35 $/0.-/ 'Gcoserk~ca ~ 0 ,Ass-&9, Co- . /-3. AL...RE. 1. Al BEDS Al-- SHRED.D CEOER 8/RK - ....MIGREEÂ·. 3. 2 -/ CJ ~ Cora Bea~1, Co:*.~a~~Â· i 5 3.1 A,a--~ CoÂ·, C ALLIANTING.EDS-0.CONr-A.0./.4 .....ED'/S - ".ICE:=.. | 5 Gi t././ I. .'ll' IC' IATE..AS N ARC. IC ALI -REES 4. 2.Al!. W T.. A 2 -AYES O. Z - e Â· 'sa Â·Â£ .*20--rneÂ· 5 3~ as-- | C,1 4000 OR.....6 I - EX S-~3 DC-ON'.002 0 . 58, '2 ALL .....BED AREAS.ALL RECE VE A.TOMA- C............ 5 Ga ls.c.r Ce-Â· -0 32 NSTA..ED ACCORC NG -C VAN JFAC-URE'S SPECIACA-ON 1./9/.-32.-:.. =NE S-RUBS 54 _EE R.'GA-ED./- s~--*rr RR GA-IOA 211 ,) 302 14 ALL DS-URSED AREA S,vA_,_ 88 -E/PORALLY IRJGAJEC ER I 1 2 'EARS 5 CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE cOR MIS 9[C OUANE PES AS REQ.'RE. % Bv ~ ..I 7 \ 1 GARAGE =ARK'NG EN'RY Â« DRIVEWAY RAMP 0(090 1 TO GARAGE 1%\L-2 22 R 2 ! - 'ARK 43 4 1 366 (394 000 00Â© 3* 3 i 42 1 1 11'r 94 1 14' Â¢ ./.63- 1 TES.2 -ODGE * . 1 â‚¬+61 - 2- I %Â»\ 1 PARK %: i \ I - 10 = CE - AG - 9. DATE 300 -ebriarÂ¥ 12 2007 REV'sioâ€¢ PA-10 ~ 1 1 PA- 0 ..1 \ Fil 3 '41.07 Tree specs. f , + 11.1 /1 1 - f= - 0 1 f ~x-Â« u' _._ Ri- n 2012% -, 1 0A-o CATIC / 4 1-1 / 27 r :lUvuf)vejuu f,1,~p; 4 -U U + - +p~'- LANDSCAPE Lft(v--* 21Â» 4 ~ / PLAN '12 U/0 L//, SIDE WALK ./ - - - - - - --- SCA.E ' =19-5 A'EST 40/K NS AVENLE 2 8 4 9 I E L-1.1 Fupqvw~KA 5 P436 ININN *ofÂ»?inliJ,1,90*0004-1,4, 0947 Hke, (0/6) ' lepoluek:1 9600-16Uejauloos 00 4-ladsv GAV sulid{,1.-1 -AA 009 3 ( - 2 , 4 tit t 1 4 WAI It I - 8 2' 1 --1----I--- - REVISION r I.-F 4/ 8 ., - 6 ... I - firl, AJECU/li / I a.k ... 8 I . -=--,7~ -~ ..1~ lill - + I. - - -I -- 44+ '# + +WÂ· Â·4; 4*+ + t DATE . ..illilliliwebo,1*2./.Miialimillitellillivill/MF:*i,El,13*,fili r.r- -1 .Dt'll , /~,r.1.-0. .% I . I ./ 4.. 4 -L I 00'll.sur :. ~ ... I k ?r >e. O: ... :.,12~1 .::Fi. I-- 1, . 0 . - .4. 41.... Il-'ll : 721* . - 1 41 - . ..'./2 - 4,1 . I -1 ral. p ...W: e. 41 I 1+, afttli,t* 1,:V.,=I illimr : 4,1 I ..1.- I . 16. .1 -r. 20. . + 1% 6 1 . O + 4 ./ I. -â€ž. + 14 t. .+ 1 . U 4 + . 11, --.I...1-Il'..I--it. 1 .'al--"I.4 .4 z k = . W 4 . 2 1 1 ~ : 5 30Â·'Ele.ANG LOr'SF -ra -ill. i .. V. $\ I ' *'lle 'r O 13 . 0 *i , i./a e .. - 'le'll .*. 4; i , A.t~. I /*+ 0 + m 1 4 .. + 1 91 . + . a.li~ . 4. .. . 0 ~ -- .1 .: /:/1*&0 . 1 . 1, . 11 + . RENO SANT" . ... .RCH:TE .4. /1 ..â€ž I . I. ....... + ...6. . 4 I. - . *: .1 'WI 1. + I Â¥.t 4 â‚¬ . 4 A. I : .14" . I i .,Â·C+~:* + Â§,- .- w. dril Â©OLOkake + . A. * b., t'.3... . Â· 14. .... 6 .4* 4 M %2$.3.... 4 .. . .1 . â€¢ir f./."E > - f/01/VIPM#:Ablk .4.,4,6 : :2 4/#Ed///d////////8 . .t:,1,2 n. "/& I I '5.y ./ m.. It I /1/ + 42.4 , . . 1 *mt ..T' i : Q .:*E" E -.*.*2&26/2 1 I %:L P. 'IN VICINITY MAP VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1'â€¢50-0" ....9 AS 102 - SELE,ET I M K 11â‚¬1014321 3: - - -P446 4.J I1 -: 4 A *M' -1 -'5 - Â· 1- Â£ k NÂ¥-Id 1NSANG 1 =/4 st u ==ELIb - 1 wald 'i.'*g .ty - 1 2.Â¥1.Â· 31/ RksÂ¥6~lah 1 :11't .. g: 1/. 4/ 994 .././4 -/s Â·A ' /%3 *I .6.0.*: .leâ€žI g v / #/46 ... ' , ~t9 i *W'/9 2Â¥Â«Ul i I 99 %4....it 00 01 ke,.3/<W 1 ''(2~/32./I'.-~-+-.rs....~119-1.- 1:. 43,/'.--,-*. -,i,ft ~I.4 r',. f. ?0;~1>-t~ .-* 3.j ~4 .. : :~~t.~I {,~':...3,- ft?~'R - >Â·Â·.0.; ~0Â¢5Â·.2<GL, 7 9%4 Â«t .A &:tt, 4 % -,44 00Â·lmloc :W. C ..& ,â€¢#7(0.r W., â€ž,00â‚¬Lk 1 (-4 I . , 4-Â·. ' - -1,11 . 55322|Holl - r f ..-J- 7,~- *t .1--44: -4 4.--n , LIKS OKE[M : j , 0 % , _ - r I , hy \44 tti 1 .i iÂ« $/1 .. ./ i . .. f ) .M- 1 19 , -i--444*1 10 Â» U fi i ' 1 1 1: 5 ./.- '~ 'I I k I ./ . .. I - d 1 % 11 5 90: 1 , " 144Â« m; ; 7 P== bi, St . , ' 1. - C 1 1 )t '* r 1. ~iciÂ·,7, H ..fu 1 1 1: / /1 , ./ ' 1:1 / 7 - --v.r / I M , 1 i.1 1 h . Â»4ft wern Dia] L . ./ .1 070.= 2.1 6.0/IL 5': , . , I + .... ..... I' 55 1 i /2 I. I 63/ \\3~11~ , 1.1 r-r--1 A r.1 , 3 a.69â‚¬i tel. -9 1--1 1 1 iw/.45/I'll ~ 1 -Dâ€¢,20 ~~12 61. B .'......... Ili:. //dr<2 /:4 \UU, g ket' , A <13 /13 x~ 3/199: Â·31,1 9 Â· 07 1 V 7 V ./ â€¢103'0*d r-71/ mfn@Oh~'1$10 P445 n '4 . t 2 I. . 44~4Â·â€ž -AÂ·/0 FIFTH STREET :.*â€¢- 1- - fROJECT Â¥ M RE'â€¢:bION ja DA'le '5501 a 6 ~'mat Coâ€¢6Â«Â»â€¢t ~â€¢,2. 11 l\2 IVA + 17+ -- <17*2 Cm ~44â€¢. P*~ 11*3~* 1306 21* C-**aa 4/21;M Cily Co.sm R.â€¢i- 0., Of:ls.* g. fiXPLI' # m-gW L.-1 i .1 , , Ul V ff b *:60 1 A 4 4.-EY BLOCK 3 1 +I ,- I .li , , 41 - al Â·= Â· V - : 91 5*03.1 '. 7 1 93 r. 11 ~tittitititit i,~~~r - m : , imi 1 6/- in $ mt.2-2-41 - - .iE_=-1-L ---74 i 1 4 EMJ U, Arr i ~v.t> - q-.. V.j. i 1 $* /2 /9 ~IÂ·. 1 . 1 1 I 1 LODGE : \'ll \,ir fl:+CP .......8â„¢U~ - 4 A /544 :. $ *,fif , ' ..L 1 .'4 5 i. i /7 1 0 4 1 4'Lm--,-f -1.-1 .==Fa 0-U 1 , " ' 4 2 i.ly.. ...4 L. ls=2 S=* -/H--*. ':6 ' M i RENO SMITH f ./ 2 'f==A. *4 $ 44 ; DQS Â® NA<% . #. CO:,ORAwÂ© f.> 77* I I 8>. - I>Â·34** : :,4.33 "3% t<, . M: I . I.: / .b.' . '0--# *P;%0: m :Of..t)* Avt 0 ' ' I . ..... 0040/6/ .0 00 3 -- O/4 I .0 /6 i >NEST HOP<tiNS Av F'Nch -- I ' ' le , , - 09 4,14,â€žp...04*P I Receve}opmrat Piaa /-\ SITE PLAN ~i- REM E VE LOPMENT AS 100 11.a ane*,v..:iâ€ž3.-, on,; '13(IOW1421 39(101 SNVH'.11~C)(M] 1 *WD "P-Po'ead,V F4 t 'CUSNO+R~EUM -EXTe SUILOINS I ' - PROPEer L NE 1 1 /. 4 - 2:1 .1 1 1 2.Or.al :{Â·' RE:SON i LA-4 8 ........,4 ,3 .'EL 1 2 ; r ~, p \ a I 7-1 1 4, 46~-4 17 2 1 / I yti R.9,4 DAYE 'SCE Sk.8~Â·83 20~0~r:~â€¢~ DR,/ 1.$.1:.p:06,â„¢ 1 .Â¢$:D/*leâ€¢ --. c ~ ff-~ L -kc[ 4 I '1 24 _ 1 ... *'11,04 C. CEâ„¢4 Rew** 21 0..en- 6 10~88 9 3, '9 1 41'-0' 2,11 ,fL-1--Ij M 11 1 1 - 142- 1 P P / 2-- 2 1 1 ELL \N \ i Â¢ L - \% 6 %3 1 ' E- 11 1 u 4 4 ': 0 1 1 r i l !21 i fit I , et* I 24 09971 ' *F '~ 0 SETBACK - Fourtr Leve' . - r- EXTe. BUILDING , 4/IER 4- 245 4 4 . / 2 11 2 i ~ ~ â€ž Â«; 1 $ 'r--31 1 S t d , 1 /A-4 Â· 0-Â·Â·- , - 7 . r :1& 1,4 /7.'Â· Â·- 1 : 11 1 1 ..%/1.1. -11.mi 'r Rl , r- Â© BA . a â€¢ -:e 1 1 3 ,7 L -7 1.__trj-4-----f 1.~ i RENO SMIT ti :.......... ' *i 1- 11 1. Â· , i A RCH 'EC - 0 Â»1 0>' i I----9 L 1 m Pli . I -v ,A : jill % , ~ -~ >4â‚¬ 11 i \\ f p. 1 J : 4. 4Â¥.4.W t. A N 'SPE~ US.,01%. 0 i ' 1 '_1161 ./ 1 11 /11 : f :I 1 ' 1 ; 40'-cy ---i 4-â€žâ€ž11 Â· 4 '6 4 8 1 : A 1 41 . 4. ? 1-'1 1 :1 / 1 1 1 1 -1,3420.- 1 1 '141% .-1---------1 :r-----L 1 0 1 P , 11 44* % 1 1 3 23 --r 0 1, 1 \,1 4 ' 1 9 11 :i n a 'P 1 1, 9.Â¥r- , 4 I ~ - i Ld-C.,m VA - lan*U*: 4 r -41 4 Iii%j }f Xi ~/7~0-f ; -Diagram 3 ofl 11 i *41 E 16 -r. 3 - f.-/1 ....43 F"Â·6'~CQ" -E ~ ' r A. 1 I Â¥ 12:L Z 1 1 \ 4 1 2 \6 1.9.Ar' 121(101NAH Mt)(IO[ ONVN:45~0 *- . n â‚¬ I " )*S-Il./4-I P443 *5 /,~~ C.Â« 1 ./. - i -EXTS BUILDING - 1 . LOFFSTY ;.NE . I 1 $ I . f 0 fl'-cr. a ' i.in 1 - r{Â·4~--or rf' \ 1- ./Â£/ FROjECT# 1/ W 5-4%9,3 ty A Â¥ 6/v 1 â€žIla 1 4 :to 2 &1 ..1 7- ir <3- 4 4 4 . . 4 7 6 -Ta, ~ ~ 1 /1 1 , or~, 3Â£1 -Cha N.R -Ke.-1 4 -> De.4, I 'CD.....i * 32 LL~ 6-ji . 6 7/2 R....'ll :$ c. 0,-e .p,â€¢ .... ..Â¢2*4~:rzo~Â¢"Â®. Dect... 8,1&2= +41 - rik 11 1/ f-jf-98 ap. 1 0/3 I rÂ·p A lu--7 - -*'rj LF 1.]j-L A \ i 112== El \.A \ 1 A. p d Â« 27 1 ,- ' 7.7. * W - -1-Jl p-vr 0\ â‚¬ ~3/ 9 /.rL .... 6.. . b=,4 C 6 1 5 1 ~1 / E 11'81 4-E- < : 7 4 1 I 1-1 U R u 11.~ 4 - 0 . U , 1 121 1:~ ii i, i ! 11 vv 7 7 . 4 1 11 0 1 . , m. # W fi r -. / 1 rU~7.-2 ./0/5RTÂ¥ MNI /7 1.2 in B Z /-3 SETBACK -Second Level Â¢ 1 0 M % - EXTa. BUILDING PyROFE..7 ./S * 70 4 1 , A -- 9 3 11 00" i 1 11 -9.---=221 / ~1 1 1 . 1 fil | 9 M r..2 *Â·: Â·Â·~Â·.Â·e .Â· , -Lr- I -=Â»F 1 ~2* 2 3.11 1 2-1 3-ly.= == , 1 LI %/\ i RENO SMITH -*.1 1 : L- -A--7 1 , 7 ~g251 E 9 1 W R.4 -2. tti FO= 1 59 u-'np~[L [ 1-1 , \ 5 ./1 4 1 i \ 4/02 2 M.I ./. Â¢. A.+ \ d fl'~~'ty '46* 11*~ ' LA / , 2/ SAX p 11, *+4...... "- \/ 4 1 =EEE _ELI Cu_r.1 *Â£Y~COE'.# N %/ EiNE 1"2 ------- \\\ } @*â„¢81,~483. r 9 -Â·Â·Â·Â·4 f , 6. - 1 ) i 1 / -1 p .-F- 4-1 : . \ I flu f.9â‚¬( 109*Â£3' 1 11 . N. > ..63 . 40. . / f.* '.....: ...Arn 10 Diagru; 2 0/ 3 M k 4- I - 9 1. i i -> L -2"I"50.rÂ» j he 5 lt'Â·42> -.----1 BET e AC < - r 1 -a lt /8 0 .0 G 006 e. -4 22 ~,~Ak~}1}02*jj}jijjf'*29Â§4â‚¬4: 444>Â§& 1 191/ IPâ€¢Â¥*lel'Wed,V pJ~yele- -=-* =. =:.<m:*tky-1Â«5-/.0 -0- P442 i buk.*-Ek/'.3 *:4*Â«3092 -Â·,Â· - NE , h; 11!24â‚¬,11 in i -11 0 FROJECT ' 13â€¢ REÂ¥:SION * -- IL = a a A > 4 CATE &'SUE $ 2-Ztz=l 1 ly.%{t: :2:;:0 68;20 /2.<..Â«.i. 7.6~ C........... E U. ~.7104 ...*..'num U 3 9 - / 1 1'-g ~ i /, \17 5:3â‚¬k, --4\\ i F 4, rt W 10 * 09.OPERT... NE in U Z ' ~j SETBACK - Parking/Basement < C,/ Â·Â·-Â·-Â·Â·Â· EXTa BUILDING W PROPERTV./5 h ,% =RELIt- 9 1 1 - 1 'F=== -71- 11- 1 1 1 < .9 1. 1 ' 11 01 - 1 1. - 7---injU/T E=Zr-- 1 , - rt t1 Jl .. 1, 1 %1 L '9 â‚¬Â«Â« i RET) !41?MIT ~ 7 6 68 ----0 r, <-r R]-R---il tia YNÂ« 4 % 2 'An, ?,$â‚¬ 54. ' \' 4 9-3 .84* & f A gr/ 1 UPH Â©OLORADe 72__22*.~72- r W. V F #*M. L -1.04 3.4 .4#* #YLY- 2-* 3. iLIC 'ihtâ€¢72 %104 \ 1 NASO 25*K 0 1/ ,/MA' i .... e â€ž U 7/ 1 21. =75 6 pl.- f \4\.,2, 4) i "ims ..1 1 44 -3 ~*V ,Â¢.'* D./:â€ž 11 Â¥L U L C==3 J .91Â»- - -f / 16, t F 1 .1/ W.42 17.24,/ ,-3 i ....'taisi".1 A,/ Wl) 1 ':-:i'' L --/9 ..... 9, 2, 4. i'' 7 //72-527 40<rEâ‚¬."V ,;NE 7/ 1 =St ta //0: x bfuj,S Level Gr- '}$k<>F'C' r t king LL 73<IOkilt[ '43)(1{)1 011 am"AÂ¥ S.! 14.1 >.* 11.I qm..2 'tted,v P441 TOT AL AALL A}:EA. 5,6 3 1 50 f 1 4 - i,iT NET AALL AREA: 2,19654 R : PENELF - 2- w SLA-,w 62% .120 ECT . 2 1. * ri REV:310> a FF==Â¥ 1 -TESM#*Ii A-K - L 4,4 5 a h- t==ilili 2 9 1-1 44 5 /0 /4- 6 X'Â«M DAN I I mil nl 1, 1 .....#48.....r & .1 1.- 1 , 2.0 1 1 13 - 41 8 3. 2904 W. 41 DA<* of lis. , ~i " -9 -_ .' 1IF 3-fl 1 3 -, I -lit 1 -734 1-Â·1- -li, i - 'i r - 13'./X-, AALL .EEÂ« 5 -10 â‚¬ sÂ¢14 40-7 AALL MEM 4 4 E + 551 4 FEÂ·,4054-Aef OF 6642.46 22% 1 fl - I %*a 5 +1 ' r J .r â„¢ , - - limi L - . : Z 4:Â«*,Â»4**Â©,9--90~'**,e"Aebj . N - b *d 1 - 2Ent-1,4--.--nal ' 4 I I:*"I-- ---~' ~ -~~ -~ -- 1 -1 11 11 .mat :j bly ---1--A L_=m - T_- M ~ 1. --~"4 Â·l I f RENO SMIT" 3 FAL. AA: - :Â«EPA 2415 54 ft L./ :FTMALLARE' 5.029 54 Ft API Citilts. 19 ' en E? ...6/ 2,- 51% *082 W. It>. U.N COL**ADO .# ~ 0,4 usÂ·- I. .***es.Sg % 972 g> y,93 ' Â¥9Â·-YE*:& At't e~Â·-*U--/M..*-EEES #.41 /4/40*AÂ® m L *$61% H 1 , ./. .19/4 1 1.4," p I ./. W '9?2 DE.4*e WP,3 931{. 41 t?L t.:'.26' # 4Â£*'IR'*fL TOTAL SLAZING AREA: 6,137 W..AL > 01*2/% Per:el:tagÂ© i TOTAL MALL AREA: 19.833 it .... - y - /14> 03 E e YaL on PERCENTAGE OF 6LAZING: 44.4% iHZET NO (3 G 004 SKEE: a o. I 30(101 DNVMNWOOH P440 t ...6.ING /6/ Ef &;.Â·J PROJEC â€¢ 2,1. REV!/O/ h a Â»\ *2....Â¥2 / 4 6 1 4 L. Y 1 . .. ISSUE 1 L. 1 12 .... $ 1 V ,~#Â©d k,%.*~<.R 0. ~â€¢ C'-- I'e.>$i*, :1 5 Â£ f ' M.... % DA:. 2 1 ./. 067 54 ft ' '' "*101. ..1.11 4,223 94 ft V , .... 40-0 34~-6" t N '.BELOW 260-8(' N .2 + 1 1 1 + ' rn --/ |" \ \4,8 7 8 04 ft ' , 1 * Â£ i , ,L'\\ / LT- 4 -Â°--'7 1 1 1 /\ 56:-4. i i 38>Le i ' 1 t U % , 1 0 19 1 4 1 L.. 1.7 52 94 ftp i Lat 3 94 ft 1 - 1 \ 4--41-1 . 3 12 27 94 4 ' ' 203 34 ft ' 4 \ h .6 L__ . 4 2 8 -6'9 6 5 .4 ft 1 1 ./ * : \ 4:0/ MORE THAN 83% OF FOOF AREA ~9 ~~4Lu; --:-- AT OR BELOPY 37''40 ROOF AREA SQUARE FOOTASE. AREA PERCENTAGEÂ· 4#/4 ROOF AREA CE.EVATION DE.01426 -0 F 5 0,5- 3â‚¬Ft. 286 Ca b Â¥ I RENO SMI *ACHITEr.S Roior AREA ('ELEVATION 26- F. 5.66 2 54 4. 41 I ./. ... .0. ... Â¢Ote'll Z;S*2 *91Â» '*64 fOOF AREA (ELEVAÂ¥'ON 34 -6'; 4 6 3 1 944 24 4, ......>p> 0 39049.114:Ut An, I 8,$,1;.Â¢016&.g ROOF AREABLE vALON 36 -6 5.145 34:t 9 1 9% ~*>r 46 9Â· f S ; MAF ...... 18,245 34 ft '00% DENUAL - Roof Plen 1:-3 - 10**)11 3:)(101 DNVM3WOOG m#*IptdaM Â·34 @05 ./pen. C./.de ..1 Â¥â€¢ : I .5 I. 4%/4 â€¢AR-HOTIL UNtr (SarTJ S' :'004': - ...$ Â«4: ...0 / lili It.1 1~~--al'WRN. -1.-Ir ;ROID LEVEL .rill - THRE -EVE.. 3.12/ ./.Zel s 1. S....C LIÂ¥/L , 0...8 - - . ....V..'VE. 0 - U =3 af =1--m=kmffr 4 REV19032 5USTO-k UL T.1 i i-i ZZ16 /9107;v.IE/ 7M-*# 2$,5441 ~ 9--1 112.=9 1 , y~ I ~'Â· ~Â·> 1 ,~o <1 ~IÂ·Â·~~ 1 .Â· M â€¢AR.NON-HOTZL 2-AGE 'S/*/0 i lili 14 1 4-be ... .4 i a...U-1 " 1 -I ..~961:f 6./.0 LEVE' ' 4.""- -~--42~---' 1 luctascon*Pâ€¢,D DATE MS.rE 82/0/5 /VEL. 2,30/ *~01%93 CGA,tat-I -, 4 .1 1 1* 4 %14*05 C. F./.i 5 5 '<.- tâ‚¬R#. 3*3 *4 1 5.4~~ Ija '*2 **i.- 71+RI LEVEL 0 5.,4/: ils~ â‚¬A ~au* VMe' ./.*O$.it ....' .:' 0, C,/'tal:.t R'Yil,Â« 11 '-/V.V i . 1 ~.mp:Â»49 1 ..,h./*I'- â€¢031*1Â·vt . - a.Â«U-yel * ~20.*6 1 j 2~ PM 508/O,Al 1...1 ~~2MZ. #Aled/5/ MAâ€¢KET U/-5 1%%.Pr.) ' T.... 8.VEL 3,44 1 <~3 FLOOR AREA- BASEMENT LEVEL r-\ FAR-aROUND LEVEL '<2-Â·râ€ž IVE.Â· 5%012 St?ell/AL. t:<.115 ~â‚¬v~Â·1 ' ~3~ Sq~t 2'~~ p~2*~;t â€ž,â€žr fâ€¢~ . 1 .1 - 4-< $/I:/.0,44* -plÂ·: FEj*=:r Slacm.4 4 L'-r *0-' .- r"r-Fl-r,41 APPORDABLE ROUS:46 UNeS (Sa.MU i .Â»iÂ° Â¤134-0 S./0[2 15Â¥E- 444% .I. 6 5840.0 -2.3- (64.re': g. SUS-97/L 0.2/818') 1.M' Â§ 113 ~,~4) ~ d ~ f[El / W . e 1 ije=.=:* 2 BALCONÂ¥~02*/coRION fea.,rj 41=#a..a.Lâ€ž - 1 1 e- . -, ' SECOND /VE. 4.135 I V. - 1 man .2.,t.. 3.01 e , Â»- 1.Zi 1 3. - . lu.1,~ ~1-1 .-844&74 -7.. -0 'CORTH UZÂ·/aL. 2IS1 r x.0,Â·.Â·5 +03Â¢'Â· 2 J.S.I Â»r"6 1 8* â€¢49 Â»=<-24&~13.f: S"SO[.."Â·**Al./12K Sve-O-1-4 :464 i ... - * 4 ....0 ..'-al_OONÂ¥/226'/0.Ilt'lt)'.)'U'j - 0 -/ #..#le>xâ€¢Â». - - 1 2,6â€¢6 - 4,44>4'*DUM- 4%Â¢Â«/Da:â‚¬108,4â€¢Por; ==1 %.-V . > 3UX.tAi ' I ..2 == â€¢AR TOTAL: 1221Uu ... -" 4.4.4. 1 5 54.01 2 tÂ«-* SeÂ£355 -C"AL (Â®cya grnde; 3* 31' $46 'ASEMZNÂ¥ ..4.2 ,Â·-- U,-Â·9~1â‚¬#L/UL..Â·Â·~ FAR-SECONO LEVEL 9 ~) FAR-THIRD LEVEL NEA 8/65.54- '4.~.0 5â‚¬065 -CTIâ€ž ;17"4.99 blement); 1 '.23 1 RENO SMITH * m ----7,1 FAâ‚¬ ALLOriED/REGUREP 9,IMAR- ./.5/SPACE. 1- 7-Â»v'>=11 t . a.. ; t :i s........0 'i I"'4;> 4,/ *. 4 67'll/ .9000 -20-e ./.5 il 4. ./ /:'91: 3.' 30084 ~t./each in:t * 54 21000 40 151. UNÂ·7 0 â€¢R Al Zg/62 H 54 1 90 *T :u/V I PFUE MARKet WN,7-9 25*6 x 44.4 Â·5Â· 1 11*4 -EE ....5- 09 . 1 $ 5 1 1 ....322.-5 .4 a, : SNE 3/0,00* UNITS Arrae/*Ld MOUS '16 29 Â·rB ;' 4"/600 SQ~ft, 5/t//SON 2.. rzÂ·tm' '.2 - 1 I *mi'91 4$2~ '951~ *ADK ALLAE; 1. '. ......0 3' SCI - j *.5 \ . .1 /2/ SACUMS #A*KA<9 644/ 3, Â· ' -07" OZCK AVA 15/xen" *1;1//7334/1360/4 '34' 1:KS 8531 *1", "R,"R .~: 0F. ,\Ce/0~OuNC.00<2/5 2/.24': 08Â¥ 3/ADE"AÂ«N< 994/5 *'0 25# A,/ k.'+Wit:?.FRi 156Â·JN> Â»50*/ M!~ 42>MAX Â· .. - .... -#& I .." 81 |GENERAL - 4 ~AR CALCUL,1 Â·04 ril. MAT-FCURILIVE. - Â·m:ke NO G 002 721(1(>WJIM 39â‚¬101 fÂ»JÂ¥*12~OOU 'ElÂ»Â·Â·â€¢V Â¢";NdaH M 906 upel, Cok>:ade /1% [10[10 -- IM~j P438 6 70 File Cor, 44 .C....'....ET Elt Â£97 % /Â¥!2 /09 PROJECT 0 2114 1,1Â£41~34 REVISION A 8 A GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION MI,~$ Coai..(i.I D-,i D/E ISSUE /3/3 CD Pi,ili. IP;~05 -Fels FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT 141. .* C...il R,..... '.Z R,â€¢I.R 1,~I M C.,C,~,il Râ€ži~. OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE PROPERTY &24 8/11/09 ...20. 047 P. 0-0,11" - A W 0 Submitted by: FOUNTAIN SQUARE PROPERTIES u Z 11921 Freedom Drive w Suite 950 0 0 Reston, VA 20190 9 8 (703) 773-4662 Date: December 30,2005 RENO SMIT ARCHIJECTS "C City Council Revision: August 21, 2006 . 0 ... COLORACO 01.,1 -*m I. ~70'923Â·* m 10*â„¢SWEA. h.. CaLOMel Prepared by: VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC 11. /0.917 61: 'To,92-' -Ea -=E Planning Consultants | 6/4,0/RES! 230 East Hopkins Avenue ~ GENERAL Aspen, CO 81611 ~ COVER SHEET (970) 925-6958 1=<= 5.Ef - 1(= ' 'HEE I inu,g â€¢4/H M 11*19 OP~O1O/'n~â€¢V .CU.C....!T. i E --f 1 111 /74 pROJECT â€¢ 2, I i ......irs \1 ...... L_.1 A. 0 42 V : $1,6, gah.r... I.;06 ....'Â©:2 &,9./. I f--4 f f ~ % ....5./.gp.I DATE :SSUE A.3.'06 ~I *4â€¢*I .% C.+7Â¢Â·Â»~6 Rt... f \ ! DIC .... I 6t ' 02:m /41 - ..0 I i. 5 1./gl , 1/ 230/0 ./ / / . , 111111111411111 1 .Â«Â·'Â« r Â· i \ F A v i1 i: -. 1 b e / /41 i .34 1-1 1 4 ~*, /4 '~ __.LJ-- ./ m 52 0 *1 OPEN *PACE; 9,144 34 R N , w t 21% I i ' \.t \< 5 1 .2 5 1 4.1 1 13 ......: 4 0 L-4 2 /7-/V \ \ ./.'0 ' 1 tri . I I. ' 79 .. . 1 3.gLUTTELT. / 1 .7311.--=4 Â« P .1 .1 r.it : 6 1 ~RENO SMIT . 44 1 99=01 - I V . 1 1 ANC41Â°*r < r.]/ :. - - . %42>re':7 . - 1 43/.1. 'Â·lax'. tr> *3Â·*4* 44.1./4 <- : ----+1--+-. ---*#-=4--*.- -4--#----7-- I / , ?., solinwot '44t, 40 00 -1 , 4 m $ 8ARA'.9 2% fible ellt.â‚¬24, , , n.. r ..â‚¬gt *F~ bles *'-*d :lm Â»iht 4*REU .RE r AN Opel Spac~ Plan ~ OPEN SPACE PLAN : 1 =<4 I 1 .30 -0 YHE .. F i)3 -0 131â‚¬101#TWIM 319<IO 1 fi}NÂ¥1{2IWO ,-aAÂ¥*,r,94joil .........O' 'Â«941 "<*#*. Â£%4 I-- r_ P~OJECT 0 311 REV~SION DATE. SSUE 0,ai,0$ C,sâ€ž,0,1 Di.i,n PLANT LEGEND 11.D;~D~ CD Ic,râ€¢â€¢i IM0~0~ CÂ¤ he,~11* ~-MIC,1.1~ 1** <*MU- 0~ n~,8 ~*ATE, -n'â‚¬ CMâ€¢ JIC C~~IAA-~ 0 . 7,1 ./*11*.........<........1* PAZ ..Â¥11~. ./.6 .....IRâ€¢i,â€¢- I.1 0,-.ilâ€¢Â¥1~- CE' EXIT*GiveROREEN.1~8 4/I Dito U. '20;100' 10:41 PM O TIN.DEODUOU,r.. PMOPOSED.C......1 P EK~"NG~.uâ€ž I ~~00.08.M~. ' i PROPOSED LA- GROUNOCOVE' OR 'luu=H j , /7 10 .1, . : 875009'11.E 270.00 ~. / /25. / 1 ., . Â¥ LmÂ®11 111.7--.1 i ..L 0 =i / CRIA.Â¥ RAMP ~ TO.1-0. z 31 #-Ei ' 9/34.. \ 4 Ill'.5 1 , 1 & - Mill *=5=k- A 11 A Â· p.,o i 1 -:34=9=/0 -1 1 12 1 10.-1- L.4./. 1 P.no .~. 1 .%11- , .- 2'- 12 RENO SMITH ARCITECT' -4- 1 '.11.- < A'.elv~021-(5 '' - W %,An 1 3 1 Noit - ... Â¢.01*0 0 , - 1, :fl i M.IK -'--Ii----'1~ ~AluNG' "70)"I ".1 'A, % ,/.ALT C....ADO 1 . .UN"DE A. ~ wor'//110*v.*t t I '01 S $ 6 4 ' I , 11,11 , , f,70'.,7-6,40 â€¢Fa m EMAILADORKI' 016,n'.ioâ€¢-11,0 LANDSCAPE Conceptui! Design r; CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SKEET /0 1' -30-0 1.:L.L._. 1 73GOR321 24SGO7 ONVHVWOOH J fâ€¢â„¢â€¢r~ET' 119,9 Â°P'IiÂ°r>'Cad.V P448 BUILD}INOPEÂ»-MIT~~ PROIECT 0 9 307 9 9 2 9 1 31?99 9 0 REV15]ON a T 110-6 8 ..1 8 94 01 C i K'-| , D-Â°- E '-0.Â· 3.-4 A 4 | | | | 1 PROPER'V LINE | ' ~ - ' . DATEÂ·.3.1 Ir,~11:111!1~lw--1 1 1 1 BEE allitint,Jrml/ , 1 *61/03 C.....â€¢.1.* IIi. 1 lul K\ 1 <001~UP'-0 01 1 5% 0,4 1 4 IE/L mol='El III j--,1 6- / / 11 k\ D,Ii of ' â€žue C "4 004 LOCKERS 002 -% CIDC.*IR-1,1- Il 1 . wel i - I 4 1 1, Â»V.ON. r .20,0. 10:.,p. 11 \ 1 1 L,=r ,-.5:01 1 1<Vl 14 1 1 1--6 \ . 3 8 4 10 1116 13 T Me, : 4 2, 1 ST,~-0 I fr n\ \ 14/ 1 003 Up Â£*Â«tdA 0. 1 1 -1~ 1 9 1&111 i 1 1/ #*.An / ' 30 pPACESâ€¢ 1 HANDIDAP .31 | 1 1 --- OC,1 j. 1/ 14*% ~ k I./ 1 Y,1 1 i i ;~r-.P~ 1,1,4 \ 1 1 \Luy--EN r 1 11 20 2 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28 20 30 31 i i 1<i 1 %6 0 N \ ' | | POOL ABOVE i j T'' 1 1 1 \1 ~\ '&1 MEDIA ti 0 n ' Â· 1 1' 1 1\ i/,4 1 1 . 14 15 161 !1-1 ~ 18 19 1 1 1 : ; \ \\\ 4 1 4. IiI I , Vil--2--4 L _ _. _j r .,2'3 .6,~rÂ·j /(~ ~s= â€¢ , PROPERTY LINE ,,~ 1 11 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , i a.-01 . 1 1 ' 101-1Â· 1 L 8-9- }6-0Â·. RENO SMI ARCH TECT3 111 3 1 6 44 4 luc 112 0 6 641 4 4 4 A 4 .0, I. MAIK 48224 .2& . V .. ~.0./ EXISTING BUILANG ..., V NER BUILDING dPEN COLORADO fg70/23Â·19,1 ,â€¢70) mÂ·% FAR CALCULATION: 1- m soll,HS:08 tiE EXT-3. BASEMENT AREA. 2,438 36[.ft. 1 4 1, ./.T ..O,/00 NEn BASEMENT AREA. 14.9104"t. 1 11.:I TOTAL: 11,458 50..ft â€¢fl :JU m.*/,1... m.|: ADD~Ell lf'*/-,1-Jkh i,- 0 FLOOR PLAN - I PARKING PLAN /-\ PARKING/BASEMENT LEVEL - ~ SKI = 1 -20-0 UPL m ' PROPERTY LINE EINI1 AlÂ·alÂ©JOWd 'Ilâ‚¬[OW@[H 9,2â‚¬101 DA[V}[3WOOH I[910 .V P449 = Ii.- Ii-li , ' f ' 1 t \ ~11/ - I , J , 1 \ : 1 F , , 1 - 1 1 1 I / . 1 ./ 9 1 2/ 1 1 f f f q 4 n i f 1 9 99 1 . I mi \ / a '. ~ â€¢L- e'RAGEi 1% I pROPER-Â·r LINE | ~ -~~ ~ -~-=rer=rcm ....-t, UNLI'l Y - , /, UTILITY â€ž 01/ol~3 C~,0~,-1 5-I .L- RELOGATION DATE, ICE I:~13Â·'0; CD ~ciril, imol, eD..,... RAM' 3Â°Â·.. ,rLY:Es v' ./D..6 ' .i,0, p...... ' â‚¬Th-1,212-JIll UNIT -/06 Ci~C~...,11..i.0. 1 0 1 <1 H&& 1 J Dito of 1-e: 1 .26-41* WolloÂ·4~ I /crl M @ &1 -4 . 1 . / 6088Â¥ 7, 1771 - ~ VII I li ....1, 0. A .h /4 i <1~ 6 Fill,5., 1 i 108 110 1 1 114 116 LOUNSE â‚¬ MV-A 102 El [7=1 11 2 --- ....., 12 - 113 --- - .- -----uq- -- -- -hrt------1 === -- 1 0:~~.x LT jr li . _,00,00- ,Â·250' , 1. --' -I i ~EE) 0,7 + 1 ......... 4--661 3;a u - 1 24/ M FY h / ,1 -91134+*la - ~â€ž + 1 1 7 ENTRY ' / E.P..1 -7 Lb71 /' /(gh- - .LE 1 =- --~4 31=1~mr - e Â£'to/revith=a rl=KALITTWIN/Jigi 118 0 103 r-1 23=â„¢- EA 4 .,5 104 ~-1 kE . 'Â«f, 4 Â©Â» i ~ Lid.1- J Ui51 dKNV B i '0 I j al 11j f PooL . , 2 1 1 1 15 105 i# i Â¢6 655*1 /--,1 ' STL'-ANI) 109 1 . r 1 9 8 ' ' O , U ' W Â¥ 0 .AT= 1 .Ans --2 M timLA-_-_ ..7 -1 /7~4\ \ 1 1444$ . 11 '.- 62). 1 ..011 .-1 -19929.1- 7/ .5 rr-H -50 .-I 3 . j L#u-C j/ )009 'E 1~Lf 14 -374,Â¥ It I .*~, -- I â‚¬*241.... 3.1 r 1 .94.. Â«Ved \\ f r.0 /1(3 ; .*22 1 -*fircy?INE. -Câ€¢ , PROPERTY LINE 4\4|24 + b 4 Q RENO SMITH ,f- k -j/~: ARCH;JECTS ift:>/R':,A<t~*m,79,3.Wabh dif chy (*1Rfult*-27 4/f (30-'>i~~~~ 99(~~--Â©- 6~* ft)%03-1,334*Aft:i 116 *- 403..... V 17 ,-ck==ro>.<a-/.41Â£xiSTINe Bullt'DING #MOaADO ' 'NEPY Bult)6 .1. Ami~~1 ..g , 1 , FAR CALCULA-ION: . -, '' I : ./ ' ./ 4-2- A J ./ -6 / {,1-11â€ž1 i ~EXTe UNITS RENOVATION: 1 3 m NOCT.!De AVE , \ .1,1 BAIALT.COLORADO *w.OTEL UNITS 4 6 7,942 ect.ft.4.4 ; &7 : . 11*â€ž 4 $ , 1 ' \~ TotÂ¢L 14 9.2544.ft- .* ' . \ . ' ' ...7.4140 ....17Â·i.I ' W. 1/E , , AFFORDABLE UNITE 1 , 642 64*t , , NON-HO'*EL UNITSPACE 4,443 scl.fl E-"AOBREI' \ TOTAL 1% c 1 4,940 51.ft- ; ' ' , 1 FLOOR PL AN 1 GROUND LEVEL PLAN /-) GROUND LEVEL - 1' "20'-0 SHEET \C A 102 SHEET , 4 OF I Im~=;2-L- 13(IOWGIN 3 till Aipâ€¢n, Colonde 01.1 P450 MU/DINOâ€¢.MI".I T Tr# 99Â®T f 8 9 99 9 X f Ill notECT â€¢ mi 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 PROPER'Y L.ME | ' REVISION 1 1 1 / -1 - / Ull}ULLM' 1 --- 2 -- 1 1 - 1 22.2 1 1 ./ 1.J 8 . a imbilip=J ~ i ) G CORRIDOR | ,#~ 1%=f==- ,0,0 k 1 1 1 - /. DATE: ISSUE 111 201 !1'34/03 CD h... , OMI,Â·0; C-â€ž,-ID.01,1 L-. -1 21& 7/]I- *6U.#- trw. PAZ R.~Ii e, -_-_-L -- ' 11 1 10...0- 11 Â· 11 COF RIDOR 1 11 2/18 4 8-,1/.i.- UNIT 11 ~ + 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 \ L./LIU 211 I . 1 1 MXIL71-F'URPOBE ' u,- 4= 0+711 0-- 11~)/03 CDFrel- - ... Dal of 1/Ic I -1 202 ; 214 ~_ *:-517 34,4><?1 - 201 Q~*A | Ale 212A 4# L 1 137|- A ~11_.76* Li 11_Un_ <PA -7 ... Â» A--AL X n \/,-3\1 r X./ #9452.--_ -..-----179'i,Yr---u'------------- - ~--- -~~~--- - . 1- - - - *4_-_=___=_=____~ i 2-8 - Â· 9 I i 1 I \ 21 q '1\ 0/1 1 , j j .k< EllE) 7- 47'u> e = 97, 2 D â‚¬â€ž7.-6.0<1 211 'k " 1~ 4 :06 , 1 220 ' ---21511 1 ......Â¥ 1 lA_.O"V E.=Â¢NÂ¥ |n ..=.- R il i A . I Â»P... 4 : ij EXISTIN+I. ,\\\\ , 1 1-2 9 84 LEI = 1 2252/.-.4/.62//th \009 a C Â¥ I 23Â·',2>e 7:L.. j --- L-im 9 5.5:11~~t~9~'c 3\>993:' ' - 1-7 1 1 4 4..,. 2.1 PROPER-Â¥ L,NE \ / 1-3/ 0/0.Ne! 1 0441,0 ' 1 1 1 Full'MA>.' 1 I ARCHITECTS dih *Ex Y f ,ARÂ· RENO SMIT NEIN BUILDING V : 1-13/412.*XISTINe BUILDING 9. . I 3-F'--4 FAR CALCULATIONÂ· ER<&7 .P~.34 101 W MAIN OQ EX<6. UNITS RENOVATION: 5 2,142 947& 1 0/. .'64_,' ......CRADO 2,4 /..*f/: f "'C)â€¢1'.",1 New HOTEL UNITS; .5 8,22:26 548.Â·-, p a TOTAL. 20 10.368 sq.ft. 1~1 $0CTHIIDEAVf - 84$ALT. COLORADO AFFORDABLE LNESÂ· 1 642 34,ft. â€žâ€ž NON-HOTEL UNIT SPACE 2,306 54.ft. (970}~DÂ·&*14 rAX iiiÂ©ir i,4 TOTA- 13,366 54Â·ft. WEB lITE DECK/BALCONY 1,961 sqft. ./-4.â€¢â€¢.lihil- tMA:LA~15/ EX-ERIOR CORR 00!KÂ· 2,114 Sq.ft. FLOOR PLAN TOTA- 4,135 5â‚¬.ft. 5ECOND LEVEL PL 43 -, DECONIP LEVEL 1' â€¢ 20'-0 A- 1Eit / m E>â€¢1...Â¥ DAL,~ON. ~ TCON. BALLOM~ | EIN'-1 Alld 1.D(OXICI 73!GOWTH 39(IO7 DNVMO[W P451 M - m ?11 f Â® 1 ? f ? 7 79 7 70 PROJECT ' ./ 1 1 1 .Â· REVISION | | | ) | ~ PROPERTY LINE | . -8 c>_T--7 iiii*iLimui n rn ~. 1 1 1 I Cll 1. 1 /0 8 2342 411111lk-1. 4 G ~'01/0%-*IDÂ¢*ip Ii! 11 1 1 0 DATE ISSUE 30. r ' 302 4 lili /31| 12/WM CD F.â€žâ€ž. C /,6 PAZ R,â€¢11,00 1 1~ 44 \ I 4 1 11 1 11.-c 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 ROOF ~ 2 ~' 7/1]/06 4/4&,i,,e 1 ' 1/71'04 01Â¥ C..1,1./Ii,04 1 + 11 , COF RIOO~ 1 1 PECK 1 &' 4 1 -- - -- - 1. U \ 1 A_ D.te,fiâ€žu. 1 - 7 \ :A, - 4 1 1 -211 C \ I - m./1,â€ž â€žâ€žN - - =7m .... M 6-â€ž I T /-/ 6 1139- ./ 124--77 ~~ 11 1 1 '" I -1 \\ 4 1 309 U._.,~r.--32_ - J L.Cr:n 1 j LW. H (=cf im.IM V '\ 1 / r '1 1 0 M 4-lerk ~ &;AL == .1. Â·. 1 1 \ =54. 1, \ \ <4'2"'"5 1 1 4-0 , I -/, \ ailimk '1.-1 1 "TN=. 1111 305 41=FI--1 - 1(=3 aol 310 57 EAL.11,3 4.- 31 1 1%/ \&=A ~ 1 - - 1 , | 1 f C==\\ 41 1 1 1 1 1 -IV",6 1 1 1.1". L ' 1 7 wv.. , . 5 11 1 \ I ru'Â¤1 1-, --1 Â» 11, I / 52 -7 307 Vt -205 4 I ....... .....: ki_LA ~r A 7 0 0 1,I~- 7 Reof ' / ,/,>4.. 0 *: . I 1 -I f k '0:'. Lr- 1---r-1- 91. aa *ate~s=ze FT-KkE< 121 1 '*/'1# Pe> , , Al k ...ALJ , PROPÂ»-7 ..INE Vi#hiv 4,0 m ay I I ..~Ult /.i ' F : ' ' 2/24 251-1/-9 52Â«=9.%==k 40* RENO SMIT- ARCHITECTS NER But.DIN6 V VI : 1 1\4,4 .t-7.EXISTING BUILDING 111 --.. 3.7- ' ' ... ]C /11. . 103 Â¥ MA.W FAR CALCULATION: :2F,77. >254 ... COLOUDO ~1~Il 1*70] ~23Â·;961 Ne,u HOTEL UNITSÂ· 8 342454.Ft. 21 3 1& i , ," ," '991 "OTALÂ· 8 3.924 54.ft. m ~â„¢IDEAVE AK /10 BAIA.. :OLOKADO 116] FIKEE MARKET UNITS: 3 5.441 sq.ft. (,1" 927 61,â€¢ NON-HOTEL UNIT SPACE: 1,434 67-ft, (~70~ 917Â·6140 FA. TOTALÂ· 1 0,1 0 9 9â‚¬.ft. â€¢'Ea CE EMAIL APÂ©REIâ€¢ orfl.00,~C.~LU .1 DECK/BALCONÂ¥Â· 2,036 3q.ft. EXTERIOR CORRIDOR. 1,040 sq.ft FLOOR PLAN THIRD LEVEL PLAN TOTAL. 3.0-73 eq.ft, i -7 THIRD LEVEL - L.) SHEET No 1 ' .20.-0 A 104 MIFF.1 le OF 30 Â®ALCO*~ 1 ....0/Â¥ 1 WN:1 11.Bacl 71(IOWS[}I 2[DCIO'I SNI P452 9 91 39 9 ? f f ?99 9 0 PROJECT 0 ./â€¢ 1 1 1 1 1 lilli 1 / ' 1 111 ~' REVISION 11 1 1 ! ||| P~OPER-Â·r -INE | ./ 0------- 1 - WHHilI'll'10 h 1 f 1.---1.- 3- 1 i 1 1 1 1 ,0 6 1 1 1 lili a 1 ---Till 1 1 - DATE ISSUE O&,11'03 0-1- -4. 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ //1 ark" ....... 11~3~0! CD F~41â€¢â€¢i 1~0/M CD *m 71):/ CIC-â€¢Il R,â€¢,I. - 1. 1 .il COF Rt[JOR 11 1 11 . 11 111/. Cit, C..â€ž1.il- i llc-OÂ· 'I lili 1 11 11 1 11 1 0.14 0,111.0 1 :-61 1 5~LOA - .20~110, 1'.4, Di liuo - Â¥ -/,4 2\ \ 1 1 1 1 k . 2 * . 1 .v ' ./ / i rÂ°Â°1 ..D I 1 -2 U h 5.= 1 A ; / 1 TA 61.===:zo 1+ 1 1 24.-Cl // / 1 1 .2.-- 19-- Me 1,1 ~ 1 * C. / 41'/4 - ' b 1 -/ \/ I402 . \.-/ 0 1~P 9 . -I- 1 1 ~rs- 1 . 't;TO....W 1 1 1 1 0- -- 41 1 ; '' I '/ 1~t<b ~ F O R , ~... ' LIV~* C. 5 I JIL 13 -=If UL: I -_2< I 1 -1 1 111 1 1 1 1 \ 1 i i 1 1 LD=N~ i . I , 1 11 -- 1 . -- 11 .r--11. *=-11,4 2/Â»\\\ , * 2 1 I ./.* 1 Il li lt\/' * f- 1 11 lili 0 5 4411 1 11 f 9 8 44<-7 -~ ->....1/1. 4 1 2-1-Â· '' t*. 1 '.3 Hyri 7., i ;11-$ c 3 1 , PROPERTY LINE fn, re fÂ¢ 4 ~ Â»RENO SMIT' ARCH IT E C TS 0 iPO .4,7~14\ 111 NEn BUILDING 7 .1.1.~'~40+LExisTING BU'LIPING i sl C /1. -Alâ‚¬ 1 1. 19Â«--Ar-hut .H MADI FAR CALCU_ATIONÂ· ....C0M00 094./*79 .,â€ž,2"D" 1 FAX J..#/ i.B i %' ("O'.:'.,0" ,itIOUTHSIDEAvE 8..:OLO~~DO FREE MARKET UNITS: 2 5,292 54.ft, ....... FAX hON-HOTEL,NIT SPACE: 51 8 sq.ft- (*,0}911.. â€¢Â£8 8/E TOTAL .1 U.r V V.. , .. ...1....1'.,0. EMAI~ ADM.1 ~fri.4,....~,/:a. DECK/BALCONY aOl %. ft. FLOOR P.N EXTERIOR CORRIDOR. 1450 ec.ft. FOURTH LEVEL ?LiN TOTAL: 2,251 91, f c /-\ FOURTH LEVEL - SHE U - . 20 -0 W 'Rorm,~T' UNE Mll AlbINJOId 13[COWS[M 39(IO, DEV â€¢nuDAV IC~ /9[eopt!â€¢10/ 011Â»d,V P453 V .1. 806E- 131'-6 \4~ 9 \1/ 9 4 1 UIL -E 14Â» RIDeE- 1 33'-6 RID)62- 1353'-0~ A ~ _ PROJECT # mi / 4 REVI5ION 8 i ./uÂ£- 1 2 9'1:(.li A - 1 7, ,/1 DKIE ISVI *01/05 C~-,- D.,il ' ...3 C. I.In I I ; ' 1./.1 CD..,.. rat R.wi.~- 1,3 ./ Cl/CO,iÂ¢i, R.'ll.I 4 + f 1 4 f Â® 4 9 9 9 999 -006 !0.41 P. 11 ...1 1 1J 1 131 lai It#': / 1 1 \1 1 ...1 , 1 PROPERTY LINE 3 1 n n . , 11 11 11 , Ar ,-331-121-9 ,9 -- RAMP BE.OW , I 11 11 11 11 6/ \ / 11 4- 1 I I I Ar fo/.... ... ; li 1\ 1'' 6.- 1 1 11 1 .1. '" ~ CE 1>41 , V\ L- & 1 / 1? -! 11 11 1 11 L 11 11 4 ROOF DEOK | i EXISTING ' 1 1 11 I JI 11 4 1, 11 ~ ~ ROOF 41 i r--T , 1 1 | . ...Af..1 1 | | FLAT ROPP | 6 , & 1 1 1 1 1 /1. F 1 k 4 9 i .=6,adLOR 26'-~; >'1,24 1 1 f k# 1 i~ 41 L ' 4// '' 10 k..tollivm"ib 'M ' ~ 1 1 0 *Â£ 11 ~/ 94 0 84 1 3 4- 6,1 xÂ»i i , -** Iii '*f ~ i"IMmENF,k 1 i 1 1 i 3%-61,1 1 1 499*32 1,0. // / ' /1 1 ir,th li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /IN 7% i,4.. : *r , r------7 I L i I , FLAT ZOOF 1 1 11 L.--1 r---r-: :\' = 1- N 1 7-1 n L -r- -FP.==-1 1 /71 ExteÂ·riv6 I : - ' POOL 11 11 11 11 1 1 11 T |:1 11 1 1\XI 0 1\ 9. 11 1 UIii RENO SMIT" ./ fl=% , " 1 15 3 4 1 JI . W .- Â£~ uGEC T 5 lili' ./. I 1 1 1 0977-*.4,6'8,~~"9/~ 2$-0 dll/, 1 L , \C ; ?A\ 'Mth /' L.C 1 -rfalÂ«Â«44-Â·9% r *ter- so, v '.1, 1 .s,EN Â¢OLORADO 7911*2- 1 , 1 ' PFROFÂ°eeTÂ¥ L:NE ; 54~02 IL" flic,in ,9,i CREÂ©t FAX i % 6 *3110164.- - /1...IDE.8 1 & f -m,CO-ADO .c' iâ€ž... . fAX -%a- : ..9, f Â· ' <124 -- ' 9 1 '-114355 ;SY tEx STINe BuitioiNe ...'.~â€ž.1,11Â¢'. i i NE)41 BUILDING f .1. WEB"T, 1 1 j - .1. EMAIL ADD}lESS 1 or........ 1 FLOOR PLAN 8 1 ROOF PLAN 1. k_- 0 , , . , m \(~~ ROOF FLAA I > I e ' 1 . , 1 .20-0 SHEET 40 A 106 SWEET Â·X CE 3. PROPERTY 1-INE 72[CIOW~lI 39(107 9NIVM P454 Â· 2, .DI..' *Ate>27 L.1-1 03 Â» A A Â»f 0 9 9 - PA()}ECi N 45) 4110 n 01 53 9 ./.i:,0/ : 4 1 1 a 1 1 , 1 8 11'1 1 -*.TRO, ; Â·- fiXED SLAZIeS ,-Â·VS'CÂ¥' L:6â‚¬ r----------,Â·Â·Â·Â·, 1 ~ i i Ip / -4.-Ii-'41'J 1 F#-FLAT //c/ rÂ»,se-0:~ps - LOPHER BUUILDING 2,5' 1 - b -I A -1 - -REMOVE THiRD FLOOR . 21 /8 . , I.*.... I ; '' -T - 1-- M :* I .IN I-- C [74 4 - - -& -'- Â£--d -- 9 --: 2-6:itplte-=....r:N: 1 -- --7); 57* ZO[.}.. F....r- i -~ 1-,Â·-t 77 r - J i . - ... ,/OOPPIA* .... : , ' A l r I LS I| 5 1 'r JI 2-'+ B P I_Â·: 6.-"li 11-7 -*--0~=~.2:. .'-:......~.- -~w.*â€ž~c.g:~~~ i 1 L ET 4 L J 4 .1,1 W 1 1 - 1 9- -4 , 7'Â·iL 14 1 â€ž.--1 . 0 -r-Â¥n / -1 t 1 1, I % 11 4 11 t INÂ·Â· u , 11 4 1 1 -liC ~ ~ I 4 A- -4.- -,6 .... 7 W 25'Â» U.3 u : 1 .- 1 -4--I.A.*0/5 ; S.I. LS ......... 4 - ST<*NE vENEZIES ~ - E*/46 CMU FE?NOE C t.-'OSTI NT**IERNAMP'~ALS B-N- ./.- ... - IO/NEI a*02"1 rÂ·rp 1 NErt DUELPINe A NEA SUILDING 8 1 EXISTING BUILDING (EAST AING) 1 .4 C.- - C C i /-1 SOUTH ELEVATION . U 8 4 0 0 -, - 20 fia 7 7 - % 2 2 1 ely LOMER BUU'LOING 2.5' -,~ 1 RENO SMITH i. 1 /8/01/9.3, REMOVE THIRS) FL-OO4tt~~-L--2.-- --- - -- ........--- .! I 4/> ... C.L.... L. - 1; I/'S~-1 r,1 1 J 9,8, Rti >951 ,*m Â¥74% FAE .-4 ~Â·~'"--Â·-Â·- ..OF 52Â¢$< A'KEA L W L 216%9 Â»'Â·.La 0,â€¢f - --Tre .i 13 1-111-JU i 1 i th W j.)Â·393# - C .Â£- 6 Â·ele .3,8 Â¤~YE~#I6 *4*<fi- 9 + * Wl.#" *21.- ..'p. 1 - - - 1- I 1%0 1 .iN< 8. HY...' -Â·- D<Tâ„¢:at STAP,t EI.EVATIONS EABT ELEVATION ! .1111:... ..._./ 70 mui Crl ---Â·weavD,f~,r-Â¥ ~~. ~~. ~~4*U1212*-4*A*' ?99%Â§4*2*S?yer- u 4*0**04*4 anâ€¢OA' *.R, Â¥Sol i-, Caoi,40 816/ 0 -f = A 977 Â° 9 0 7 9 A - T @ e m.- 4 ....2 3. +04*Â¥21:MN.d< ...5 :54UE: a am bEAMS Â·Â· - - ly -IGHT ,1-0 4 :-----r----------4 --------1....... 1 REMOVE THIRD FLOOR Â· , - - OU . + 0 - _ - '. OUS Â¢5..$* W 0%&*%. u'l. i'Â·'I?/,N. .. Â¢* 5'*. dÂ¢%â€ž1,~, U .. ' j~ 24 .....*/-' n . 1 *.71 SA C.44-0%64â€¢Â·L -r aa-*a 41Â· -- u:2 -4=---4--1 -- ' 1 1 , lili.: &... [- 0420':OPE*riâ€ž5Â¥ - . 77-1.1-1 Eli.]11- '[3 ' 179-7.-= Â·rÂ»-1 1 - E ter.--+..1 1 '1 ir 1__ I=mr-11 ' .Â·1 .' 1 -E.-rs =6 --6-:m. 1--=irai -t-11 1-- r.Â·.9Â·Â·'DLL 4 --Â·4 1-37% . -_~m, A " - C. r + 1 - - - - ' , c~iÂ«==1 FROYifi z~[1_]~ LEâ‚¬-3 1*LIT[-r -1/-1Tr~- illf z-'TI-T]Â»frp- - HED Witit = ~ ===] i.-53 2 9. r---- j , .-:-'. 0- Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·ialÂ· Â·Â· Â·Â·b Â· â€¢*Â·1519.4,# 9- 1 .r jÂ£ 2 0 000 1| 'El -f - 17 4 4-I Li- 1.u-.1 12, --2 1_Jif-Ir.T-u-~ fol [-rt 9:7- ,-- ...Â·~ =EL .4.1 ,*+49*Â»~-r- 1 i 1 ./ORAL'- ./. lARS 4 L swop/'4/N//9.9 L . Me"/ // T.1/&* 146.NOM/43 ~ BALL<DN, 1,AL- r.'P l. EXIS*Ne BUILDING MER BUILDING 5 NEW BUILDING A : ~; M .Il. . ... .... 1 -\ NORTH ELEVATION 3 ll) 1 ' - 2(-C '0 * 1= 2 i 0 8 0 Â®9 1 : It .1 0 2 S. I I : LOFNER BUULDING 2.5' r------ RENO SMITH - '0~ -107%32;-Z7~ -- ---11 e xtio >9LXZ 46 - 9 4% - I.+-~ -Â»1.'1* %'.M: $:Â· I *A.. ......" I FAr 1 r-tir}Ul-I-1-1 3~'I-Â·g..N-"J Â©t 11 1 --Â·~ri] '87EtIT777= . -rs#*01 - /3'.T 50:43?;Al. 1 4 1_31 I & 1 li " EL_1: ; Hi 4~ i a i _ 1â„¢,0 ,% 'Bl ..... .. ... . 1 i ..................8 - '56Â¥6 I ~ UM!5â‚¬B .AN'/%6 u .flt , ST ELEVATION Â·KNE. r '40 1 - ZO'-J A202 4%#8884.-0. . ./ : :V%- -3,5nf,535.C- 73â‚¬1017[12[ ...&. *...de .........'.... PMM, i V P456 A.J.kt..... 5-nu 4 49 1 ..errâ€¢ w. 71-2 HEÂ¥GION' r /4 9. A 1 99 - 13Â·n.2 41 jA /VÂ«. 3.8.~..,Ng i & râ‚¬ r ...1 ./3 ID t./.i *: 49 3 4 n '143 0.-1 0..4. CAIB 'sser -O 2 ---M 9 4 6 , -rohM 4Â»<61 Â» 1 1.T:- Cileow,~iR.â€žÂ».p . - , , 1,1 < 'f , 3.~ 1 441,7. . 3 4 1 1 3// C. C-/I ..... 1,/ li ~DÂ¢/2 34 .1 j .2213. Â¢46.4 * 14,2 2 'deÂ£ . =/.14.-1,4.12 i 40 Â« iÂ»44(nA~.ffÂ« lf,61.1 ' 1 49 1- , 1 9 Y.22'N FISm&<3 IRE- E-sm}MAL 4'22& r '14 mt)-*VOTW ,.Â©U Ul~ 1 LYk,c,i~~ i 7 ~th.d 1 . TO 4 .* - $Â·.4 - hg '12 /44 . 4 _ :,t~Tl~ plÂ¢~%f~; -Â·Â·- 11 : t ' Â·-â€¢-1 r-* 4 .29 42:J 1 %11%*Strits/l*. /-\ SOUTH ELEVATION -20-5 A > 41 RENO SMITH fl .<HUIEcts :ly. 3.:Ul.:,2 1 4,7 r , 590 ..1 . / 1 'N.,13 'del' M.' -- r 4.frlit:;' I: 1 Â»i 4435:F/&17 . 1 9- irvmfi.%27, "~~~~~*,nÂ·i ) J *f#lt 1 r 4-- f 4â€¢1 1 ~~tgpL~lpAl 1 I. I $..9,4~" # ELL \1.. J 1 44 -- *w-'-Â«, ~ EAST ELEVATION 9..f T /0 A 201 ~ Â¢94**92Â»9*?*@*6****Â¢*48 Â» I . eÂ©Â· 92= 13(10*VAN >1900 1 ONVMAKOOW **V**N"Dii .*09' ..V.q/,3 '.... P457 / = .at.X yi:16Â¢ i ~f I.. ' / 2.4 .:16// a ri a ~~~~~,~,~~,~~~~~~~~,~~~ ~*~*~~~,............J -.-------~,*~~~~~, DIr 'Sbu= i rÂ»,u _ 1 -1 , -LU dfi MA .1 I ."...--"-' idE J- 1 __ _ , ~r-=- - - - -- 1 1 /*te./.lu' 1 1 *,2.Q,t: A'*â€¢~ 1,1,4 ' V j =2-~, 1 1 J -]a> 1 in - CZIm~ F. .... - NORTH ELEVATION ~;'0 ~~~ 1' . 20 -O 3 . 1 1 1 4 . r 4 ,51 .4 r % S.,-C=IeAN=k : 96. 79 14 '7 F-'-*'4 ~ - ~ RENO SMITH 6 9-1-4 I ARC'ITEâ‚¬'7$ 2 -rk %0- .~ k rÂ·~~'77~ 06Â¥ I 4 : u ! 5.8 I .Af. pul < - t~h.3 ./ '.....O -J - 2/7 4 I I " 1 .. #.4.9 1 2.==re r.. . : 6 1 . -=1 - , .0, 4% I ...lillie ;149.7,0/1 ELEVA'11(:NX e FNEST ELEVAT ON r:EFT.. ! 1 -20 -0. A202 J 73(1017:121 19(10'1 L)NVM WOOU / P458 IUU.a~UM'.7 0 1 1 1 1 1 --]tplUEEEPU E-1=1 P..CT- - 567-0 c[ 33 8*n, Fg5 ~~ 3 - da| KITCHEN KITCHEN Â»2 -- REVISION a J SLST. 11 O 0 0 Li ll,WO}CD,"..., a 00 DATE ISSUE ' 1/30/0,0 P..1, -11-- W. riz *.,â€žw. -7 BR. 51~ F 00 CLST. .I. ....., a.i... 7/11. Ill,C-,ilRI~,Ii- ------ 1 1 -El U>al<* 1-/~ 4*Ne 23- D,ic ofIinÂ¢ U;0/200' ... = ~| ISIGHAN *- l_ ii CI 2 0 0--0 E ' ' Â£ fol 01 1 1 GROSS: 500 M ft ! NET: 470 sqft 1 GROSS: 500 64 ft GROSS: 500 54 ft NET: 471 94 ft ~ NET 471 sqft j 6 6 6006 STANDARD UNIT- 1 8 STANDARD UNIT- 1 A STANDARD UNIT-1 A. 1 UNIT.108 1 0- 3-0 S 1 1 L LA+_1 '_Q_IUE-3 C *L m *2 1 1 311 LQ-~j ~ -0---- - - T - ~ ----- B,T. rÂ« L_ - *91- 7 r.) r- le.0? 1 \BATH Â«9 4 ---r---u - BR. J I i 6 KI.CHEN 1 I. CLST ----- == Ir :GE 1, 1 1 - 1 -n VV RENO SMIT 105 L.- < 1 31 -0 0 ~ LLC C ARCH'JECTS 00 Fh 1 101 t LIVINe - F A;rEN COLO*ADO 9 Vt L #tra:EN L.11 4 Y Y .1,0,Â·TH,#.Â¥E 0----- - ---- --â€ž--------k--- ~ ~ !<ITOHEN~ {1'.j,15 1â€ž; .* 71 2 %-3 04 rh L I LÂ»TH P L-POL-- ~1 â€ž*: n 1001 T 1 4--- - 0Â».- M... BASALI JOLOAADO U J - FA. GROSSÂ· 480 so. ft , NET: 50 8 94 ct I .1,10'....1.... 1--7, (,7.)12'.,1,0 GROSS: 4369qft ' | GROSS: 536 ~t ~ LWA.L AODeSS =.,no.-,Ch.am NETÂ· 451 54 Ft I NET: 446 54 ft I STANDARD UNIT 0 i - Standard Un,1-1 0000 1 000< 0 --- STANDARD UNIT- 1 5.1 SIAND-AS.2.UNITr_.1_82 STANDARD UNIT- 1 5 TRT - UNITI Â· 05 205 4 305 UNITS '01.2014 30 - Aâ€¢ I = I - 1 D[GOINSIM SISCIOT DN[VHGIW ~nuDA,/~Ul. 119[90"401000= P459 .U -: Il i FROJECT â€¢ .. RERION 0 0 0 24 1 n P = 3 G~. 2 == BR..2 L. DATE ISSUE. *01 0} CO.Â«â€¢/.1 Dâ€¢.O 103,/ CDne,r.1 11DD,01 CD *. 1 10, Paz R.,1.10. 0------7-1---4--1 - --- -lf ----- .I/06 Cny Ce~a.4 R,.1,- U./10 cl,7 C-I .Â¥/i. Dâ€¢it Â©fl,lue IC" .0,0./ I r ..... - a ST. 11 J.-11 UN ---- -- ----1 LIN Ph BATH t (I - k I) 5'IM 241 f--"m A A~BAT-Hf~- _ _ _ AMT MIN-4.-,r 0 P.*43_1 0 k bAo 0181 C OUST. -------7 r.---- ----J -L,-1 Oft 0.4-HEN rE -Ll 122 KITCHEN 0 *Cl â‚¬.CHEN - h O Q'21 UIL L -O 212] Ld' 1-Ila O 0 2 1 000 P.ININ6 DINIMB E-- C * -O 5-3 too 0 00 -OL m 8 30 3 9 m - TV I- BR.-1 L.-1 BE=1- ~v ~ Â« 22 '--V LIN/IN6 1-1 RENO SMIT ARCRi,JECTS r-i f u *_ _ 4__ ~ ~~~K COLO* m 1 1.....391. I.~p-t- '/-1- i.x I JOI - E---1 r 3 1 ..0,/1.,99; , GROSS: 1,06 4 94 Ft ' BAjALT. COLO~JO 6R0S5; q 5q sol ft 1,01 8 54 st , ~ 001 8 se. ft I ' '-. .......2 GROSS 1,064 sq ft lei NET: I q02 g n 1 1 NET: 1 NET -11 1 1 1 ./ (~10~ 027Â·6:40 3 6 6 IÂ·WAILADDRS. STANDARD UNIT-26 STANPARD. UIHIT--28 ST-AND_ARDÂ»II--2-6 .ANDARD U.,T - Standard Uni,-2 i SHEET NO A 502 -- SHuT la OF ]C , <444 11â‚¬[OW)IN 379([Ol ONVM 1191' OP-0/0..4 r4[ F.~ RAMP: 1,3 75 sqft LOOKERS: 1,100 54 ft NET: 1,010 54 ft 133 sqft 11.: I, liti.,Ul.0,- 1 ' 11111!LLLI!2!111/ - 1 41+ d ;04 1 1 1 453 sqft \ LOCKERS 002 \\ ~0.*-L.E~E~ 12'll \...~3~~Â« 7 11 7 LAUNORY /,-2710Â« '1~ MEC'. 3\ 5 4 5 94 f t El~- V.*9'' a \ // 2 003 EE=:=El r --ARÂ«Â» r 4 -4 .... 3 i F--7\ 1% / A 3 - \ i....' / 001 '' 0, \ SITTI,16 - e.2& C 1 7,4 5 esqft 0,911 1 < '...4 '. : ' # MEDIA \ \ \V/ \ \ \ 4.-2 PARKING: 11,2 17 54 ft EXISTING BUILOINGÂ·.2,48 8 sci, ft NETÂ· 10,756 sqft NEPI BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING ~ I .1-1 FAR CALCULATION LEGENDÂ· EXTe. BASEMENT AREA: 2,483 54.Ft. PARKING BPAGE NEFY BASEMENT AREA: 1 4 910 34.ft. TOTA. 1 -1,458 Stft. M1 FLOCR AREA- BA.SEM ~ EVEL LU NON-UNIT.4,4 4 3 54 ft AFF. UNIT:0 9 2 6â‚¬ ft 640 ect f:NET) 2,481 94 ft -- A----- IL,naL,41- m=IM r--- /37 1 ~ â„¢- ~ )-IR*62 I *Il 1-21:0 6111 UNIT ......< 112.-1 1 --- vk~ ~c][1 0 -1. 1 1 11 11 ,LAN.I -T=35 +*Mi- p... - - --. - r* LOBBY :' 7 4 410 97 ft 471 sift 471 sqft 411 '94 ft ~ 468 sqft 1 1 08 : 13 110 112 0 431.,t 74-3 1 114 7 116 LOUN<SE 1 'I' - _ | 120 1 Xm--f~ * -- r I 2,4 5 5 94 ft 403 54 ft L - J:7 12'OIL J L - . -~Â¥~ ~A~~~ & I 2 | 10, g : EE~7~-~~ 115 346 94 f =L lu Â«1=-17 107 4 '01 111 /' 113 115 IOOL 464 34 ft ~ 4eesq Ft 46754 ft~ 467 Sq ft 484 94 ft , 1 (=2 m 11 ' - ~ : age scift 105 aA,- U 108 - 119 ' -.. 2145 T M ft 4 6 â€¢ sq ft ~- - -re -C - ..,10 ..â€žÂ¢ L.re r--4 ...O \ rr-H 2 :n MI-'- hY/- / PÂ°9 1 Lf 2.0 A /A \ ...r;T.... \ Me) 2,012 94 ft 1,015 sq ft 2,484 94 ft EX STING HOTEL UNIT: 1,263 sqft NRA BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING ~ -11 LEGEND: FAR OALCULA-IONÂ· 1 EXTe 1.NES RENOVATION: 3 1,263 94.ft. AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT New )Â·OTEL UNITS: .e 1.qlq 2 sq.ft. ~ HO-EL UNIT 1 1 TOTAL: 4.255 94-ft. 1- l ili Hill lili 11 NON-HOTEL UNIT AFFORDABLE UNI-S: 1 ec 2 94.ft. EXTERJOR CORRIDOR NON-HOTEL UNIT SPACE. 4,q q 3 sq.ft. 14 940 51.Ft. ~ FARLROUNDLEVEL P462 NON-UNIT. 1,43 1 54 ft AFF. UNIT:0 4 2 94 ft 643 54 ft CNET) STAIR:210 sq ft / 11 11 11 Lk,11~ T 0 1 EXTERIOR 11 CORRIDOR 4 ~ ft /0 4\ I ' CORRIDOR:2,20-1 eq ft ,=== .44' 201 AFF. u -4 --- 216 i INIT ' 1 21-7 'k MULTI-PURPOSE ' 24 ~qft~-* , 246 18 54 fl H ROOM 10 64 ' Â°'Â· ..4bib 38 5 54 ft -- , ~55 9*Ft 2GB A 1 # 218 3459 t râ‚¬ 1 1 - 7*-- /j ' 903 - | 1 - - (CUL 7-cm) =75-5 - E- 41 / L I (0[7 U -=1) 214 - 1 1 204 / J lili 1 DECÂ·~ 14 sqft i 46 54 f . -1 213 144Â· 213 J ilt.T261_0Nrt&#-26 M- 41 j f 2"ING.0/ \ 1023*Aft Afrwift lIt' 477 :filft ~ 220 L 76 sq ft~ ~ 42 sq ft -64 sq ft 153 54 ft 206 aA.OON- 1 C tri f O ~ 596*qft ' 3*LOIN. 219 eqft ./.YING I. ..../ 2,012 sq ft r lA-99Â·12 DEC.~714 eqft f 1,007 54 ft BUILDING A:5,136 97 ft BUILD'46 B: 5,2 1 3 sq ft EXISTINe BUILDING:2,142 sq ft NER BUILDING EXIST N6 BUILDING .1. LEeENDÂ· 'AR CALCULATION. 1 EX--6.24[ITS RENOVATION: 5 2.' 42 34.ft, 1 ~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT New HO-EL UNITS: 1 5 8.22 6 eq.ft | HOTEL UNIT 20 10,363 94 ft, TOTAL 1 2 11~ 111111111 ill NON-HOTEL LNIT AFFORDABiE JNITS- 1 642 94.ft- o el Â§4ft. NON-HOTEL UNI- SPACE 2306 54.ft. EXTERIOR CORROOR TOTAL: 1 3,38 6 94.ft. DED</BA.-CONY EXTERIOR CORRIDOR: 2,174 9q.ft. TOTAL. 4,135 5â‚¬.ft. ~ FAR-SECOND LEÂ» ~ P463 EXTER'OR NON-UNIT 1,224 eqft CORRIDOR: 1,040 sq ft STAIR.2 10 94 ft ROOF DECK:854 94 ft 11Ul .ly-21 398,54 ft 2/3 71 4ft --- 131.41 *Eld A 1 / ,~--1 i /1 & aol ~-~~'~ 802 1 0201< /6/ 1_ _ .'n . '117/ . 9 RGO= i, i CORRIPOR 11 "r 6 -71 64 1 -3 ~ l\ 24:194 ft I ."Ef. r-- .\ mi i. .'.-4. .1..... ==. ~\.\J 1 -2 1 m,t 2| ~ 303 14111% - 304 2 :-~ J L j L 59. Z _- I --- , met- 1 1.1 At e==C - - / 1\ ' L -L 12.11' 15.11,11<rrfi1t 15,1 DK 1%11 229 Elli 11/ ce. T tiNU 15.rp, 11 ~ F= 505 ' 310 484 1 | A ~r" 511 304 3 EAL j =1 U.--W 62 L L J 306 1,8Â¢Iesqft - 1,567 sqft - - 1,87 esqft , <I'*7 5195Â¢lft 1.63751*t 1,8 11 94 f: 1,5 1 7 04 ft - 14â‚¬ 94 ft i~~-1- ~ C - ... OR -4 14 - - 41 , *-46 1 - M 11 11 ~ n ~1~9 2 01 / BOB 5...O.- 0 5-G. / - ~w.. Â· ~ M a..00'v r n -16 94 ftlt 3 F~ ,-. 211 90, ft 438 64:t L.-~ 11 // )00Â°) 1 4=2 4-n / 502 54 ft " - --- 5 //7 21 fl 2,011 94 ft 1,015 sqft BUILDING A:5,148 sqft BUILDINGS-5,441 94 ft EX 5-IN6 BUILDING: NEK BUILDING EXISTING SUILDING ~ .1. LEeEND: FAR CALCULATION: -1 | AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNI- New HOTEL UNITS: 5 3,9 24 94.ft HOTEL UNIT TOTAL: 8 30Â¢124 54.ft, 111 ~ 111111 411 11 NON-HOTEL UNIT FREE MARKET UNITSÂ· 3 5,441 42 NON-HOTEL UNT SPACE: 1,434 st f t. i FREE MARKET UNIT TOTAL: 10,744 M.ft ~ EXTERIOR CORRIPOR JECK/BALCONÂ¥ 2,03 8 sa, ft EXTERIOR CORRIDOR 1,040 sq. f t TOTAL: 3.07 3 sq.ft. ~ FAR-THIRD LEVEL â€¢r- *9*d 1449qft EXTERIOR NON-UNIT: 1 5 9 94 ft CORRIDOR. 1,450 94 ft STA R 210 sqft IlilllilllÂ®_j 1711 E-4- 7 -- i Ap .n 1 '-- DORRi6bR 11 1 11 11 11 . 11 11 1 . . ..0. It 11 :4. 9.9, '2:12 1 \ 8... . I ROOF SR.2 3., E azil S. S \ /1 -- ' | /7 v~r -1 (7 = ~ ~40 lAâ€žâ€ž 9"-Â·049 1-Ud ~S,12211 . , 0 401 402 E-fJ K -c.el- .rk*4/6 .NI- 2, -, kil r"1 - 1 1-f 1 84 sa ft. 1 E-li 611 sqft el'.0.Â¥ 1. 'INING 1-- ~7=T, Â« 34 98 I U 2,606 sq ft 2,686 97 ft r I l**2381 2,4 4 6 sq ft 2,5618 91 ft BUILDING B:5,2 9 4 64 ft NE/1 BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING ~ .1.1 LEGEND. FAR CALCULATION: ~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT ~ HOTEL UNIT 1 ~||~|||ii~||I~||'| NON-HOTEL UNIT =REE MARKET UNITS: 2 5.2 512 94.9 5. NON-HOTEL JNIT SPACE: 51 3 94-ft FREE MARKET UNIT TOTAL. 5,8 10 94.Ft. PECK/BALCONY BO Â· 31.f=. EXTEROR CORRIDOR. 4 50 4 ft < TOTALÂ· 2,2 5 1 94.ft, ~ FAR-FOJRTH LEVE ~ P465 FAR-HOTEL UNIT (Sa.FT.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (Se.FT) FAR ALLOFNED/REQUIRED GROUP LEVEL 9,255 GROUP LEVEL. (648 net) 6q2 SITE AREA: 2 7,000 HOTEL UNITS: 50054.ft.leach unit x 47- 23,500 SECOND LEVEL: 10,568 SECOND LEVEL: (648 net) 6R2 FREE MARKET UNITS: 25% x 44,4 15 -11,:224 THRD LEVEL: 3,924 SUBTOTAL: (1,296 net) 1,384 AFFORD>SALE UNITS: 2 ONE BEDROOM UNITS (Min. 800 54ft. net/each) FOURTH LEVEL: O TOTAL FAR ALLORED (3: 1): 3x27,00081:000 SUBTOTAL: 23,541 TOTAL DECK AREA: BALCONY/DECK/CORRIDOR (Sa FT.) 15% x (max. Allowable) FAR (51,000) 11,341 SECOND LEVEL: 4,135 ON SRADE PARKING SPACES TO REMAIN: 12 FAR-NON-HOTEL SPACE (SG.FT.) BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT: 42' MAX. THIRD LEVEL: 3,5 7 8 GROUD LEVEL: 4,9 9 3 FOURTH LEVEL: 2,251 SECOND LEVEL: 2,306 SUBTOTAL: 9,464 THIRD LEVEL: 1,434 FOURTH LEVEL: 518 FAR-BALCONY/DECK/CORRIDOR (Sa.FT) SUMMARY SUBTOTAL: 9,751 UNITS/SPACES 12,696 - q,464 (allowable HOTEL UNITS 41 deck/baloony/corridor) 0 HOTEL UNIT FAR AVERAGE 50.1 5*.FT./UNIT FAR-FREE MARKET UNITS (Sa.FT.) FAR TOTAL: 44,9 15 FREE MARKET UNITS 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS 2 THIRD LEVEL: 5,441 6ROSS TOTAL (above grade): 54,374 2 ON GRADE PARKING . a FOURTH LEVEL: 5,2 a 2 UNDERGROUND PARKING 3 1 EXISTINe BASEMENT: 2,488 SUBTOTAL: 10.733 NE?41 BASEMENT: . I ...... UNDER SROUNO _OCKERS 3 ' GROBS TOTAL (including basement): 7 1,8 3 1 P466 *u Â· > ~~~Â· c'Â·64.>C .+ In '4Â§,16Â§}-I'* P467 VI11.a LAW OFFICES OF E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, p.c 200 EAST MAINi STREET P.O. Box EE ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE: (970) 544-3442 FACSIMILE: (866) 929-7870 E-MAIL: mhollinan@emhlaw.net May 6.2016 Ms. Jennifer Phelan By Hand Delivery Community Development Deputy Director 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Request of Minor Modification of Planned Development Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project Dear Ms. Phelan, This letter constitutes the request of Aspen FSP-A BR, LLC (the "Property Owner"). the owner of the Boomerang Lodge parcel in Aspen, for a minor amendment of the ordinance and other documents which memorialize its vested right to build a condominiumized lodge project on the parcel. The Property Owner received approval in 2006 to build 47 lodge units, five (5) free-market residential units and two (2) affordable housing units (collectively, the "Project") in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). The vested right to build the Project was maintained through a series of subsequent approvals granted by the City of Aspen. A complete building permit application was filed with the City in early September 2015 (the "September Plans"h during the vested rights period, and remains pending before the Community Development Department. A revised set of plans (the "April Building Plans") was submitted on April 6, 2016 in response to comments made by the Department. The Property Owner' s right to build the Project pursuant to Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) remains vested. The Property Owner does not agree that the April Building Plans require an amendment of the 2006 Approval. The September Plans replicated the building plans approved by the City's Building Department in 2008, other than changes necessitated by modifications in the Building Code. As discussed in Section 1, below, the Property Owner voluntarily reduced the unit (saleable) Floor Area shown on the approved plans by 871 square feet. The April Building Plans describe the Project precisely as approved by City Council in August of 2006. again with the exception of changes required by amendments to the Building Code. This application and the following analysis are submitted to comply with Staffs request and to amicably resolve the current impasse. They should not be considered a waiver by the Property Owner of its strongly-held belief that the 2006 Approval remains vested, subject only to changes in the Building Code which are general in nature and required to preserve public health and safety. The original approval for the Project was memorialized in a series of documents executed or reviewed by the City and subsequently recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County. These documents included. among other things, the original ordinance, a Subdivision/PUD Agreement. the Final Plat of P468 VI11.a Alb. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 2 the Subdivision/P.U.D., and the Final PUD Development Plan. All of the documents which memorialize the 2006 approval. as amended. are referred to in this letter as the "2006 Approval."' 1. In Response to Staff Concerns, the Property Owner Recentlv Reduced the Floor Area of the Project by Over 1,100 Square Feet. The Property Owner submitted the September Plans to accommodate changes in the City's Building Code adopted since 2008. In its review of the September Plans. the City.s Community Development staff ("Staff") determined that there was a difference between the Floor Area of"unit space' granted in the 2006 Approval and what was requested in the September Plans. The Property Owner was surprised by Staff' s determination because it had directed its new architects O'Bryan Partnership ('OBP"h to draft the September Plans so as to re-create the Project approved by the Building Department in 2008. After carefully reviewing the September Plans. OBP confirmed that the September Plans described the Project precisely as had been approved by the Building Department in 2008.2 Staff acknowledged that the September Plans sought approval for the Project as had been approved in 2008. Further. Staff and the Property Owner agree that there have been no material changes in how the City calculates Floor Area during the intervening years. After thoroughly reviewing the Approval Ordinance, the 2008 building permit application plan set and the September Plans, OBP determined that the Floor Area of the Project had changed between 2006 and July of 2008. Those changes were made with the approval ofthe City's Building Department. Although it is clear that some of the changes were made in response to site conditions discovered after the northern two-thirds of the original Boomerang Lodge were demolished in 2007, it is difficult to determine. at this time. why some of the changes were implemented. To resolve the issue and to accommodate Staff. the Property Owner directed OBP to modify the building plans so that they fully represent the Project as approved in 2006. The April Building Plans are the result of that request. At the Property Owner's direction. Residential Floor Area was reduced by 172 square feet and Lodge Floor Area by 699 square feet. Staff and the Property Owner now agree that the April Building Plans describe the dimensions of the Project precisely as were approved bv CitY Council in 2006. other than modifications required to accommodate changes in the Building Code. ' The term "Planned Unit Development" and "PUD" were changed to "Planned Development" in Ordinance 36 (Series of 2013). Most references made in this letter are to approvals granted prior to 2013. and, therefore. refer to those approvals as a "PUD." 2 A building permit for the Project was finalized by the Building Department in July of 2008. That permit was never issued because the economic downturn caused the Property Owner to withhold payment of impact and other fees required to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. P469 VI11.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 3 2. Changes in Staffs Treatment of the Undereround Garaae Has Created a Difference Between Approved and Currentlv Requested Floor Area. Even though the April Building Plans describe the Project as was approved in 2006. Staff still asserts that a Minor PD Approval is necessary because the -Non-Unit Floor Area it calculates for the current plans is different than what it believes was approved in 2006. The following table summarizes the differences in unit and -Non-Unit Floor Area square footage as calculated by Staff: Approval Modified Ordinance Building Plans Differences Lodge 23,547 23.455 (92) Free Market 10,733 10.732 (1) Affordable Housing 1.384 1,404 20 Non-Unit Space 9,251 10.549 1.298 Again, in reviewing these numbers, it is important to keep in mind that Staff and the Property Owner agree that the April Building Plans and the building contemplated by the 2006 Approval represent one and the same Project. The source of the differences shown in the table is how the plans are interpreted, not in the plans themselves. And the only material difference found in the table is in Non-Unit Space.3 The Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code") defines Non-Unit Space as the "commonly shared" area within a lodge. hotel or mixed-use building. Exclusive ofthe underground garage, the Project's Non-Unit Space, as calculated by Staff. is unchanged since 2006. Essentially all of the increase in Non-Unit Space is attributable to the ramp and door of the underground garage which are located along the alley at the back of the Project. The design of the ramp and door has not changed materially since the 2006 Approval. In the 2006 approval process. and in Staffs review of the building plans leading up to Staffs approval of the 2008 building permit application, no part of the ramp or door was counted toward above-grade Floor Area. Underground parking is a key amenity of the Project not just for patrons of the Boomerang Lodge. but for the benefit of the community as a whole. On-street parking in the West End is a valuable commodity, and the preservation of that commodity through use of the underground parking spaces has always been recognized by neighbors, Staff and elected officials as an important element of the Project. It may have been this policy judgment which caused the City to exclude any part of the underground garage from inclusion in Floor Area. That decision, as memorialized in the various documents which make up the 2006 Approval (including the recorded Final PUD Development Plan) remains an important part of the Property Owner's vested rights. -Notwithstanding the legal status ofthe underground garage, preservation of the garage as originally approved makes sense for the Project and the neighborhood. 3 Staff has identified two potential discrepancies between the Floor Area ofthe April Building Plans and the 2006 Approval. The first. related to Non-Unit Space, is discussed here. The second area is related to the square footage of decks which are exempt from Floor Area. A discussion ofthat issue is found in Section 3, below. P470 VI11.a 1Vlb. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 4 3. The Maximum Floor Area Permitted to the Proiect and the Square Footaize of Exempt Decks Were Established in the 2006 PUD Process and Remain Vested Rights. In the 2006 Approval, including in Staff s review and approval of the 2008 building permit application, all of the exterior decks and corridors within the Project were excluded from Floor Area. In its review of the April Building Plans, Staff now asserts that only 60% of the decks are exempt from Floor Area and that the Project's Floor Area must be reduced by 4.543 square feet. Again, there has been no material change in the square footage of the decks included in the Project - the only change is in Staff' s treatment of the decks for purposes of calculating Floor Area. The essence ofthe regulation which exempts balconies, decks and corridors from the calculation of Floor Area is unchanged since 2005. The "calculation of the Floor Area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies, trellis, exterior stairways. non-Street facing porches, gazebos and similar features. unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the allowable Floor Area for the property."4 The key to determining the square footage of balconies, decks and corridors " exempt from Floor Area is to identify the maximum "allowable Floor Area for the property. The maximum allowable Floor Area for this property was established in the 2006 approval process at 81,000 square feet. The square footage of exempt balconies, decks and corridors was, consequently, 12,150 square feet (81.000 * 0.15). The Property Owner's land use application was filed with the City on December 30,2005. As provided in Section 26.710.320.D. of the 2005 Code. the dimensional parameters of the Proiect were established in the City's 2006 land use review process. The original PUD Application included a table of Development Data forthe proposed Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project. Item No. 16 listed the "Maximum Allowable Floor Area @ 3:1" as 81.000 square feet. based on the Net Lot Size of 27,000 square feet. It sought approval to build the Project. including FAR of 50,470 square feet and 12.150 square feet of exempt balconies. decks and corridors and the fully-exempt basement. The application made its way through the land use process and was finally approved on August 28.2006. At each step of the process. the proposed mass and scale of the buildings were key concerns. To gain final approval of the application. the Property Owner made a number of material concessions. including reducing the height of the building and relinquishing seven (7) lodge units and one free-market residential unit. A key element of every Planned Development proposal is the PUD Development Plan. The Plan is a three-dimensional representation ofthe Project. The PUD Development Plan originally submitted with this application included a notation that the total FAR allowed was "3: 1,3x 27.000 - 81.000 square feet" and that 12,150 square feet of balconies, decks and corridors was exempt from the calculation of Floor Area. The modified PUD Development Plan was submitted to the City each time a change was made to 4 Code, Â§ 26.575.020 D. 4. (2016) P471 VI11.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 5 the land use proposal. Each iteration included the same notation regarding the site's maximum FAR. In those modifications, all of the balconies, decks and corridors were shown on the plan as exempt from Floor Area. In each case the total exempt square footage of balconies, decks and corridors was less than 12.150 square feet. The final version ofthe PUD Development Plan. which was reviewed by Staff and approved by City Council in August of 2006, explicitly stated that the maximum Floor Area permitted on the site was 81.000 square feet. that up to 12,150 square feet of balconies. decks and corridors was exempt from FAR and that all of the balconies. decks and corridors shown on the PUD Development Plan were exempt from Floor Area. The approved PUD Development Plan constitutes a part ofthe vested rights memorialized in the 2006 Approval. 4. Citv Council Should Ratify the Propertv Owner's Request to Build the 2006 Project Under the Development Standards Found in Code Section 26.445.050. As stated in the second paragraph of this application. the Property Owner does not agree that the its current building plans require an amendment of the 2006 Approval. However. to achieve a settlement of the current controversy regarding Floor Area, our analysis of the current application is shown below. Because the Project remains vested under the Code as it existed at the end of 2005, the provisions of that Code are applicable to the current request. Review of a request for a Minor Amendment to a Project Review Approval is to City Council pursuant to Code Section 26.445.040.B.2 - Step Two. The standards to be applied to Council's review are found in Code Section 26.445.050 and those relevant to this application are set forth below in italics. The Property Owner's response to each standard follows the statement of the standard. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass. and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the.following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Since the 1990s, the City of Aspen has experienced a substantial loss of lodge rooms available to the public for overnight stays. To address this problem. City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9 (Series of 2005) (the ~'Lodge Incentive Ordinance") on May 9.2005. The Lodge Incentive Ordinance sought to motivate private sector investment in the construction of new hotel rooms and "hot beds" in Aspen by permitting the developer to concurrently build -Free-Market Residential Units" within a hotel Project. It was understood that the sale of Free-Market Residential Units was necessary to provide a source of capital for the construction of low- (or no-) margin hotel rooms. To qualify for this incentive, a Project had to meet a number of narrowly-defined parameters, including the following: P472 VI11.a Ivt). Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 6 1. The Project had to include "one or more lodge units per 500 square feet of Lot Area.- 2. The average size ofthe lodge units within the Project had to average 500 square feet or less. 3. The Free-Market component could not exceed '25% of the FAR ofthe total Project including both unit and non-unit space, but not including FAR devoted to parking." 4. The FAR permitted to each Project was =cumulative, up to a maximum FAR of 3: 1 for parcels of 27,000 square feet or less in size." 5. Lodge Unit FAR was limited to 2:1 (or 2.5:1 by Special Review). Non-Unit space could not exceed 0.5:1. Prompted in large part by the City's adoption of the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. the Property Owner purchased the Boomerang Lodge on June 28,2005. The Property Owner then submitted a land use application which fully complied with the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. The application was reviewed and eventually approved by City Council pursuant to the requirements of that ordinance. The ordinance was a direct expression ofthe Community's goal that more lodge units be established within the City. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitableÂ®r and indicative oj the primary uses ofthe project. The primary use of the Project is lodge or hotel use. Forty-seven lodge units are approved for the Project. It is likely that even the five (5) residential units will be put to hotel use. The ramp and entry door of the underground garage are essential elements of the design approved in 2006 which is the subject of this application. Further, the exterior decks are similarly key elements of the approved design. The decks are important to the visual appeal of the Project. Without the decks. the facades of the Hopkins Avenue and alley sides of the buildings are largely uninterrupted. The decks are indicative of and promote the hotel use of the Project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity ofthe neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the .scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. The Floor Area of the Project was a focal point of the City's consideration of the application in 2006. For example. at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of May 2,2006, one commissioner "asked what the FAR was compared to the allowable. [Applicant representative Sunny] Vann replied the overall FAR under the L Zone District was 3 to 1, which was 81,000 square feet and the proposed lodge was about 51,000 square feet. â€ž5 After the Project was approved by the P&Z, it was reviewed by City Council. On July 10.2006, Council members voiced concern about the proposed "size and mass" of the Project. Councilman Rachel Richards "said that it is incumbent on Council to make this Project fit. not only for the neighborhood but 5 Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission, Meeting of May 2,2006, page 9. A copy of these minutes has been supplied to Staff. P473 VI11.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 7 also for the community.'96 Mayor Helen Klanderud agreed that "the building feels too massive."7 There appeared to be consensus that the third floor proposed for the east wing ofthe then-existing hotel should be eliminated. Prior to the City Council meeting ofAugust 14,2006, the Property Owner proposed a number of changes in the Project to address those issues. In response to Council's concerns regarding height and massing. the Property Owner reduced the building height 'from 42 to 3978 Additionally, "to reduce height and massing... the applicant [1 has reduced the number of units to 53 lodge units, instead ofthe originally proposed 54 lodge units. 4 A revised PUD development plan was submitted by the Property Owner and considered by City Council at the meeting. 10 That plan indicated that 11,808 square feet of balconies, decks and corridors and 17,458 square feet of basementll were exempt from Floor Area.]2 Council members were still not persuaded that the Property Owner had done enough to reduce the Project's mass, height and density. Councilmen Torre and Rachel Richards commented on the need for a further reduction in these elements of the proposal.13 -Mayor [Helen-] Klanderud said she would not accept this proposal at 42'... [shel said removing the 5 units on the east wing would satisfy her concerns with this Project."14 The third and final substantive hearing on the application occurred on August 28,2006.15 To finally address Council's massing, height and density concerns, the Property Owner submitted a revised application which eliminated the third floor of the east wing, one free-market unit and one lodge unit from the fourth floor of the new building, among other things.~6 A further revised PUD development plan was submitted to memorialize these changes.17 The plan included 44,915 square feet of Floor Area, 18 and 9,464 square feet of exempt decks, balconies and corridors, and 17.458 square feet of exempt basement.19 No objections to these calculations or to the final PUD development plan were raised by Staff or members of City Council at any time during the August 28.2006 proceeding. The reductions in density and height were welcomed by City Council. Councilman Rachel Richards 6 Aspen City Council Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2006, p. 18. A copy of these minutes has been supplied to Staff. 7 id. 8 Minutes of August 14,2006 City Council Meeting. p. 9. A copy ofthese minutes has been supplied to Staff. ' Council Packet of August 14,2006, Staff Memorandum. p. 5. A copy ofthis Packet has been supplied to Staff. m Pages 39 through 65 of the Council Packet of August 14.2006. " The 17,458 square feet of basement included 2,488 square feet of existing basement and 14,970 square feet of new basement. u Page 43 ofthe Council Packet of August 14,2006. The changes in the PUD development plan reduced the area ofbalconies, decks and corridorsto less than 12,150 square feet. the maximum such exempt area of that type applicable to the development. 13 Minutes of August 14,2006 City Council Meeting, page 15. 14 hi :5 Copies of the Council Packet of August 28,2006 and minutes of that meeting have been supplied to Staff.. 16 Memorandum of Reno-Smith Architects, L.L.C., dated August 28.2006. on page 21 of the Council Packet of August 28, 2006. 17 Pages 22 through 51 of the Council Packet of August 28,2006. '8 The Floor Area sum included 23.547 square feet ofhotel space, 10,733 square feet of Free Market Residential space, 1,384 square feet of affordable housing and 9,251 square feet ofNon-Unit Space. " Sheet G 002, FAR Calculation, on page 23 of the Council Packet of August 28,2006. P474 VI11.a lyth. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 8 concluded that 'this revision looks as if it were trying to accomplish what Council asked for to reduce the scale and mass of the Project and to make it fit into the neighborhood."20 Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss -said the parties have made a good faith effort to make the Project comply with the neighborhood" and that "the advantages are taking the parking off the public right-of-way. the height has been substantially decreased. the mass of the Project has been decreased, and the Project is screened from Hopkins.'â€¢21 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt the Ordinance approving the Project and it was approved by a unanimous vote. five-to-none.22 We agree that the Project is compatible with neighborhood, as determined by the Aspen City Council in August of 2006. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. 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 and the potential for.joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Strictly speaking. the Project's parking requirement is not implicated by the requests made in this application. However. it is important to note that (a) no part ofthe underground garage was included in Floor Area during the 2006 Approval process. or in the Building Department's review of the building permit application in 2007 and 2008, (b) construction of the underground garage was considered an important piece of the overall design of the Project. because it kept cars off of streets of the West End, and (c) underground parking is expensive to build. The Project would be substantially less expensive without the underground parking garage. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances.for dimensional#exibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject lo the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 - Amendments. Not applicable. 20 Minutes of Aspen City Council meeting of August 28.2006. page 11. 21 Id. 22 Ici. P475 VIll.a Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6 2016 Page 9 5. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above. we urge City Council to approve the Minor Amendment of Planned Development requested here so as to (a) exempt 11,279 square feet of decks from inclusion in the calculation of Floor Area (up from 6,737 square feet). and (b) ratify the Unit and Non-Unit Floor Area identified by Staff in the April Building Plans, as shown in the following table: April Building Plans Lodge 23 455 Free Market 10.732 Affordable Housing 1.404 Non-Unit Space 10,549 Approval of this request will permit construction of the Project as approved by the City in 2006. Other than changes required by modifications ofthe City's Building Code, the construction currently requested is precisely the same as the Project approved in 2006. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 4 1 '4* ih 9 //L / f Â® #'* 6,10,Â·i.Â£+c,~f Â»h V E. Michael Hoffman P476 VI11.a For Applicant's Exhibits, please follow below link. http://205.170.51.183/WebLink/0/doc/248948/Pagel.aspx o OVE,4 A~,u,< Â·AW#*- / Â· Acl 777~,FL,it- LAW OFFICES Or e v-â‚¬- avuck -F~Vlf E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, p.c. * De13 Avol ceL- 200 EAST MAIN STRI:1.-1 . 54'14+ r P.O. Box EE ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 . 79 44*sttA--Â«7 TELEPI IONE: (970) 544-3442 FACSIMILE: (866) 929-7870 E-MAIL: mhoffmantemhlaw.net May 6.2016 Ms. Jennifer Phelan By Hand Delivery Community Development Deputy Director 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Request of Minor Modification of Planned Development Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project Dear Ms. Phelan. This letter constitutes the request of Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC (the -Property Owner 3. the owner of the Boomerang Lodge parcel in Aspen. for a minor amendment of the ordinance and other documents which memorialize its vested right to build acondominiumized lodge project on the parcel. The Property Owner received approval in 2006 to build 47 lodge units. five (5) free-market residential units and two (2) affordable housing units (collectively. the "Project") in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). The vested right to build the Project was maintained through a series of subsequent approvals granted by the City of Aspen. A complete building permit application was filed with the City in early September 2015 (the -September Plans-1 during the vested rights period, and remains pending before the Community Development Department. A revised set of plans (the -April Building Plans") was submitted on April 6. 2016 iii response to comments made by the Department. The Property Owner's right to build the Project pursuant to Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) remains vested. The Property Owner does not agree that the April Building Plans require an amendment of the 2006 Approval. The September Plans replicated the building plans approved by the City's Building Department in 2008. other than changes necessitated by modifications in the Building Code. As discussed in Section 1. below. the Property Owner voluntarily reduced the unit (saleable) Floor Area shown on the approved plans by 871 square feet. 1 he April Building Plans describe the Project precisely as approved by City Council in August of 2006. again with the exception of changes required by amendments to the Building Code. This application and the following analysis are submitted to comply with Staff' s request and to amicably resolve the current impasse. They should not be considered a waiver by the Property Owner of its strongly-held belief that the 2006 Approval remains vested. subject only to changes in the Building Code which are general in nature and required to preserve public health and safety. The original approval for the Project was memorialized iii a series of documents executed or reviewed by the City and subsequently recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County. These documents included. among other things. the original ordinance, a Subdivision/PUD Agreement. the Final Plat of .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 2 the Subdivision/P.U.D.. and the Final PUD Development Plan. All of the documents which memorialize the 2006 approval. as amended. are referred to in this letter as the -2006 Approval.'~' 1. In Response to Staff Concerns, the Property Owner Recently Reduced the Floor Area of the Project bv Over 1,100 Square Feet. The Property Owner submitted the September Plans to accommodate changes in the City.s Building Code adopted since 2008. In its review of the September Plans, the City's Community Development staff ("Staff") determined that there was a difference between the Floor Area of -unit space" granted in the 2006 Approval and what was requested in the September Plans. The Property Owner was surprised by Staffs determination because it had directed its new architects, O'Bryan Partnership (*OBP"). to draft the September Plans so as to re-create the Project approved by the Building Department in 2008. - -L After carefully reviewing the September Plans. OBP confirmed that the September Plans described the , Project precisely as had been approved by the Building Department in 2008.2 Staff acknowledged that ~ the September Plans sought approval for the Project as had been approved in 2008. Further. Staff and ~ the Property Owner agree that there have been no material changes in how the City calculates Floor Area during the intervening years. ,/' After thoroughly reviewing the Approval Ordinance, the 2008 building permit application plan set an(~~43... '-7 â‚¬Â£~/ 0; the September Plans. OBP determined that the Floor Area of the Project had changed between 2006 and \\ ~ ~_ July of 2008. Those changes were made with the approval of the Citys Building Department. Although ~/~ ' it is clear that some of the changes were made in response to site conditions discovered after the northern 4/ ~ two-thirds of the original Boomerang Lodge were demolished in 2007 it is difficult to determine. at t// U time. why some of the changes were implemented. To resolve the issue and to accommodate Staff. the Property Owner directed OBP to modify the building plans so that they fully represent the Project as approved in 2006. The April Building Plans are the result of that request. At the Property Owner's direction. Residential Floor Area was reduced by 172 square feet and Lodge Floor Area by 699 square feet. Staff and the Property Owner now agree that the April Building Plans describe the dimensions of the Project precisely as were approved by City Council in 2006, other than modifications required to accommodate changes in the Building Code. ' The term "Planned Unit Development" and "PUD were changed to -Planned Development" in Ordinance 36 (Series of 2013). Most references made in this letter are to approvals granted prior to 2013, and, therefore, refer to those approvals as a *PUD." 2 A building permit for the Project was finalized by the Building Department in July of 2008. That permit was never issued because the economic downturn caused the Property Owner to withhold payment of impact and other fees required to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. w Pes pon\4- AreTÂ»flot .7 EA- AD~- FSâ‚¬>6<-w .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6.2016 Page 3 2. Changes in Staff' s Treatment of the Underground Garage Has Created a Difference Between Approved and Currently Requested Floor Area. Even though the April Building Plans describe the Project as was approved in 2006. Staff still asserts that a Minor PD Approval is necessary because the Non-Unit Floor Area it calculates for the current plans is different than what it believes was approved in 2006. The following table summarizes the differences in unit and Non-Unit Floor Area square footage as calculated by Staff: Approval Modified Ordinance Building Plans Differences Lodge 23.547 23,455 (92) Free Market 10,733 10.732 (1) Affordable Housing 1.384 1,404 20 Non-Unit Space 9.251 10,549 1.298 Again. in reviewing these numbers, it is important to keep in mind that Staff and the Property Owner agree that the April Building Plans and the building contemplated by the 2006 Approval represent one and the same Project. The source of the differences shown in the table is how the plans are interpreted. not in the plans themselves. And the only material difference found in the table is in Non-Unit Space.3 The Aspen Land Use Code (the ~'Code") defines Non-Unit Space as the "commonly shared" area within a lodge, hotel or mixed-use building. Exclusive ofthe underground garage, the Project' s Non-Unit Space. as calculated by Staft is unchanged since 2006. Essentially all of the increase in Non-Unit Space is attributable to the ramp and door ofthe underground garage which are located along the alley at the back of the Project. The design of the ramp and door has not changed materially since the 2006 Approval. In the 2006 approval process, and in Staff s review of the building plans leading up to Staffs approval of the 2008 building permit application. no part of the ramp or door was counted toward above-grade Floor Area. Underground parking is a key amenity of the Project not just for patrons of the Boomerang Lodge, but for the benefit of the community as a whole. On-street parking in the West End is a valuable commodity, and the preservation ofthat commodity through use ofthe underground parking spaces has always been recognized by neighbors, Staff and elected officials as an important element of the Project. It may have been this policy judgment which caused the City to exclude any part of thj_Huderground_garage from ~p inclusion in Floor Area_jli-ar-decision. as memorialized in the various documents which make up the ~ ~2006 Xppi:Biia-f (inE-Efing the recorded Final PUD Development Plan) remains an_important part_of-the-J P ~-ffroperty Owner's vested_Lighb. Notwithstanding the legal status of the underground garage. preservation of the garage as originally approved makes sense for the Project and the neighborhood. 3 Staff has identified two potential discrepancies between the Floor Area ofthe April Building Plans and the 2006 Approval. The first, related to Non-Unit Space, is discussed here. The second area is related to the square footage of decks which are exempt from Floor Area. A discussion ofthat issue is found in Section 3. below. .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6.2016 Page 4 3. The Maximum Floor Area Permitted to the Proiect and the Square Footage of Exempt Decks Were Established in the 2006 PUD Process and Remain Vested Rights. in the 2006 ApprovaL including in Staffs review and approval of the 2008 building permit application, all of the exterior decks and corridors within the Project were excluded from Floor Area. In its review of the April Building Plans. Staff now asserts that only 60% of the decks are exempt from Floor Area and that the Project' s Floor Area must be reduced by 4,543 square feet. Again. there has been no material change in the square footage ofthe decks included in the Project - the only change is in Staffs treatment of the decks for purposes of calculating Floor Area. 510:hA -- 4-te ov zict> c.=~1(=_s li \11'1*484 - 41~ 24<-(3/-UÂ¥ ivi Â«2,1.ulh The essence ofthe regulation which exempts balconies. decks and corridors from the calculation of Floor Area is unchanged since 2005. The -calculation of the Floor Area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks. balconies. trellis. exterior stairways. non-Street facing porches. gazebos and similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the allowable Floor Area for the propertv."4~the-kent-dstermining the square-f-2@ge-et-=fer,reeÂ».,1=4-and corridors exempt froill Floor Area is 19pdentiffthe maximum -allowable Floor Area for the prope@73* - \C-====I-----------* The maximum allowable Floor Area for this property was established in the 2006 approval process at 81.000 square feet. The square footage of exempt balconies. decks and corridors was, consequently, 1LU.Q_square feet (81.000 * 0.15). The Propell,#-â‚¬>WMErilami use application was filed with the City on December 30, 2005. As provided in Secti#A 26.710.320.D. p?the 2005 Code. the dimensional parameters of the Proiect were established in the (NEs 206se review process. << loYL J C The original PED Application included a table of Devel-qpmentRata forthe proposed Boomerang Lodge RedevelopmerIEFroject. Item No. 16 listed-THE-~19Gkimum Allow-861-6 Floor Area @ 3: 1" as 81.000 square feet. based on the Net Lot Size of 27,000 square feet. It sought approval to build the Project. including FAR of 50,470 square feet and 12.150 square feet of exempt balconies. decks and corridors and the fully-exempt basement. The application made its way through the land use process and was finally approved on August 28.2006. At each step of the process. the proposed mass and scale of the buildings were key concerns. To gain final approval of the application. the Property Owner made a number of material concessions. including reducing the height of the building and relinquishing seven (7) lodge units and one free-market residential unit. A key element of every Planned Development proposal is the PUD Development Plan. The Plan is a three-dimensional representation of the Project. The PUD Development Plan originally submitted with this application included a notation that the total FAR allowed was -3:1.3x 27,000 -81,000 square feet" hi and that 12,150 square feet of balconies. decks and corridors was exempt from the calculation of Floor Area. The modified PUD Development Plan was submitted to the City each time a change was made to 4 Code. Â§ 26.575.020 D. 4. (2016). > AL-(Et 0 O tur 3 3\ l\JOW-\\6 .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6.2016 Page 5 the land use proposal. Each iteration included the same notation regarding the sites maximum FAR. In I those modifications, all of the balconies, decks and corridors were shown on the plan as exempt from Floor Area. In each case the total exempt square footage of balconies. decks and corridors was less than ~~59;;r 12.150 square feet. The final version of the PUD Development Plan. which was reviewed by Staff and Â£-tx\ approved by City Council in August of 2006. explicitly stated that the maximum Floor Area permitted '~ ~ on the site was 81.000 square feet. that up to 12,150 square feet of balconies. decks and corridors was 1 4\ exempt from FAR and that all of the balconies. decks and corridors shown on the PUD Development\~19/1 K Plan were exempt from Floor Area. The approved PUD Development Plan constitutes a part ofthe vested 'Â©14 rights memorialized in the 2006 Approval. 4. Citv Council Should Ratify the Property Owner's Request to Build the 2006 Project Under the Development Standards Found in Code Section 26.445.050. fl ~ As stated in the second paragraph of this application, the Property Owner does not agree that the its current building plans require an amendment of the 2006 Approval. However. to achieve a settlement of the current controversy regarding Floor Area, our analysis of the current application is shown below. U Because the Project remains vested under the Code as it existed at the end of 2005. the provisions of that Code are applicable to the current request. Review of a request for a Minor Amendment to a Project Review Approval is to City Council pursuant to Code Section 26.445.040.B.2 - Step Two. The standards to be applied to Council's review are found in Code Section 26.445.050 and those relevant to this application are set forth below in italics. The Property Owner's response to each standard follows the statement of the standard. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Pro.ject Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to thefollc,wing criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Since the 1990s. the City of Aspen has experienced a substantial loss of lodge rooms available to the public for overnight stays. To address this problem. City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9 (Series of 2005) (the -Lodge Incentive Ordinance") on May 9,2005. The Lodge Incentive Ordinance sought to motivate private sector investment in the construction of new hotel rooms and -hot beds" in Aspen by permitting the developer to concurrently build -Free-Market Residential Units" within a hotel Project. It was understood that the sale of Free-Market Residential Units was necessary to provide a source of capital for the construction of low- (or no-) margin hotel rooms. To qualify for this incentive, a Project had to meet a number of narrowly-defined parameters. including the following: .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,20]6 Page 6 " 1. I he Project had to include -one or more lodge units per 500 square feet of Lot Area. 2. The average size ofthe lodge units within the Project had to average 500 square feet or less. 3. The Free-Market component could not exceed -25% of the FAR ofthe total Project including both unit and non-unit space. but not including FAR devoted to parking: 4. The FAR permitted to each Project was "cumulative, up to a maximum FAR of 3: I for parcels of 27.000 square feet or less in size." 5. Lodge Unit FAR was limited to 2: 1 (or 2.5:1 by Special Review). Non-l-Init space could not exceed 0.5:1. Prompted in large part by the City. s adoption of the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. the Property Owner purchased the Boomerang Lodge on Julie 28.2005. The Property Owner then submitted a land use application which fully complied with the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. The application was reviewed and eventually approved by City Council pursuant to the requirements of that ordinance. The ordinance was a direct expression of the Communitys goal that more lodge units be established within the City. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable.for and indicative ofthe primary uses of the project. The primary use of the Project is lodge or hotel use. Forty-seven lodge units are approved for the Project. It is likely that even the five (5) residential units will be put to hotel use. The ramp and entry door of the underground garage are essential elements of the design approved in 2006 which is the subject of this application. Further, the exterior decks are similarly key elements of the approved design. The decks are important to the visual appeal of the Project. Without the decks. the facades of the Hopkins Avenue and alley sides of the buildings are largely uninterrupted. The decks are indicative of and promote the hotel use ofthe Project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity ofthe neighborhood and surrounding derek,pment patterns. including the scale and massing cd nearby historical or cultural resources. The Floor Area of the Project was a focal point of the City's consideration of the application iii 2006. For example. at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of May 2.2006. one commissioner -asked what the FAR was compared to the allowable. [Applicant representative Sunny] Vann replied the overall FAR under the L Zone District was 3 to I. which was 81.000 square feet and the proposed lodge was about 51,000 square feet.'.5 After the Project was approved by the P&Z. it was reviewed by City Council. On July 10.2006. Council members voiced concern about the proposed 'size and mass- of the Project. Councilman Rachel Richards -said that it is incumbent on Council to make this Project fit. not only for the neighborhood but 5 Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission, Meeting of May 2.2006. page 9, A copy of these minutes has been supplied to Staff. .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6.2016 Page 7 also for the community."6 Mayor Helen Klanderud agreed that -the building feels too massive.'7 There appeared to be consensus that the third tloor proposed for the east wing of the then-existing hotel should be eliminated. Prior to the City Council meeting of August 14,2006, the Property Owner proposed a number of changes in the Project to address those issues. In response to Councils concerns regarding height and massing, the Property Owner reduced the building height -from 42' to 3978 Additionally. -to reduce height and massing... the applicant [1 has reduced the number of units to 53 lodge units. instead ofthe originally proposed 54 lodge units."' A revised PUD development plan was submitted by the Property Owner and considered by City Council at the meeting.lo That plan indicated that 1 1.808 square feet of balconies, decks and corridors and 17,458 square feet of basementi ' were exempt from Floor Area. 12 Council members were still not persuaded that the Property Owner had done enough to reduce the Projects mass, height and density. Councilmen Torre and Rachel Richards commented on the need for a further reduction in these elements of the proposal. 13 .. Mayor [Helen] Klanderud said she would not accept this proposal at 421 . . [she] said removing the 5 units on the east wing would satisfy her concerns with this Project."14 The third and final substantive hearing on the application occurred on August 28.2006.15 To finally address Council's massing. height and density concerns. the Property Owner submitted a revised application which eliminated the third floor of the east wing. one free-market unit and one lodge unit from the fourth floor of the new building. among other things.16 A further revised PUD development plan was pubmitted to memorialize these changes. 17 The plan included,44.-915 -square feet of Floor \ Area, 18 arid 9.46434uare feet of exempt decks. balconies and corridors. ar~ 17,458 square feet of exempt / basement. 9 4 plan were raised by Staff or members of City Council at any time during the August 28.2006 proceeding. The reductions in density and height were welcomed by City Council. Councilman Rachel Richards 6 Aspen City Council Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2006, p. 18. A copy of these minutes has been supplied to Staff. 7 ld- 8 Minutes of August 14,2006 City Council Meeting, p. 9. A copy ofthese minutes has been supplied to Staff. 9 Council Packet of August 14,2006. Staff Memorandum. p. 5. A copy of this Packet has been supplied to Staff. m Pages 39 through 65 of the Council Packet of August 14.2006. " The 17,458 square feet of basement included 2.488 square feet o f existing basement and 14.970 square feet of new basement. 2 Page 43 ofthe Council Packet of August 14, 2006. The changes in the PUD development plan reduced the area ofbalconies, decks and corridors to less than 12,150 square feet, the maximum such exempt area ofthat type applicable to the development, 1.3 Minutes of August 14. 2006 City Council Meeting, page 15. 14 Id. 15 Copies of the Council Packet of August 28,2006 and minutes of that meeting have been supplied to Staff.. 16 Memorandum of Reno-Smith Architects. L.L.C.. dated August 28.2006, on page 21 of the Council Packet of August 28. 2006. 17 pages 22 through 51 ofthe Council Packet of August 28.2006. 18 The Floor Area sum included 23,547 square feet of hotel space. 10.733 square feet of Free Market Residential space. 1,384 square feet of affordable housing and 9.251 square feet of Non-Unit Space. " Sheet G 002, FAR Calculation, on page 23 of the Council Packet of August 28.2006. .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 8 concluded that -this revision looks as if it were trying to accomplish what Council asked for to reduce the scale and mass ofthe Proiect and to make it fit into the neighborhood."20 Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss "said the parties have made a good faith effort to make the Project comply with the neighborhood- and that "the advantages are taking the parking off the public right-of-way. the height has been substantially decreased. the mass of the Project has been decreased. and the Project is screened from Hopkins. ..21 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt the Ordinance approving the Project and it was approved by a unanimous vote, five-to-none.-- We agree that the Project is compatible with neighborhood. as determined by the Aspen City Council in August of 2006. 4. The number of q#-sireet parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number o.f cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature 01 the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those ji,r pedestrian access and/or Ihe commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential Â®r joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Strictly speaking. the Projects parking requirement is not implicated by the requests made in this application. However. it is important to note that (a) no part of the underground garage was included in Floor Area during the 2006 Approval process. or in the Building Departments review of the building permit application in 2007 and 2008. (b) construction of the underground garage was considered an important piece of the overall design of the Project. because it kept cars off of streets of' the West End. and (c) underground parking is expensive to build. The Project would be substantially less expensive without the underground parking garage. 5. The Project Review approval. at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 - Amendments. Not applicable. '0 Minutes of Aspen City Council meeting of August 28,2006, page 11. v Id. 22 /d .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan May 6,2016 Page 9 5. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above. we urge City Council to approve the Minor Amendment of Planned Development requested here so as to (a) exempt 11.279 square feet of decks from inclusion in the calculation of Floor Area (up from 6,737 square feet). and (b) ratify the Unit and Non-Unit Floor Area identified by Staff in the April Building Plans. as shown in the following table: April Building Plans Lodge 23,455 Free Market 10.732 Affordable Housing 1,404 Non-Unit Space 10,549 Approval of this request will permit construction of the Project as approved by the City in 2006. Other than changes required by modifications ofthe City s Building Code. the construction currently requested is precisely the same as the Project approved in 2006. A '1 Thank you for your time and consideration. 41 91 9\2(7 / 1 1 0,2,--% Sincerely, bul 6- r{Auy 4 1 4 , 1/ 4/ //2/ \CT I \ C. 62. t./.wk. ///L-$/ , m:>Â·>.9>Â»xâ€ž*>.â€ž*E ISS4Â«*2â€ž.:I-+I..:9*$ r v 0 24 E. Michael Hoffman m .. Table of Exhibits < 4 ~63 rit) Exhibit A - Lodge Incentive Ordinance Exhibit B - Land Use Application of December 30.2005 Exhibit C - Code Chapter 26.445 (2005) Exhibit D - Enlargement of Sheet G002 of Original PUD Development Plan Exhibit E - Staff Memo of 5/1/6/06 Exhibit F - Minutes of P & Z Meeting of 5/2/06 Exhibit G - Minutes of P & Z Meeting of 6/13/06 Exhibit H - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 7/10/06 Exhibit 1 - Council Packet of 6/16/06 Exhibit J - Council Packet of 7/10/06 Exhibit K - Council Packet of 8/14/06 Exhibit L - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 8/14/06 Exhibit M - Council Packet of 8/28/06 Exhibit N - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 8/28/06 Exhibit O - Approval Ordinance Exhibit P - Development Order Exhibit Q - Recorded Final PUD and Final PUD Development Plan Exhibit R - Three (3) Insubstantial Amendments of Approval Ordinance Exhibit S - Sheet G004 of 2007 Demolition Permit Application Exhibit T - Sheet G003 of July 2008 Building Permit Application Exhibit U - Resolution No. 58 (Series of 2009) Exhibit V - Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012) Exhibit W - Table Calculating "Per Use' Exemption of Floor Area for Balconies. Decks and Corridors Page 1 .. LAW OFFICES OF E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, p.c 200 EAST MAIN S'I REL.ri P.O. B()x EE ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 1-ELEPHONE: (970) 544-3442 FACSIMILE: (866) 929-7870 1{-MAIL: mhoffman@emhlaw.net January 29.2016 Ms. Jennifer Phelan By Email (ienniler.phelan@citvofaspen.com) Acting Community Development Director 130 S. Galena Aspen. Colorado 81611 Re: Request of Minor Modification of PUD Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project Dear Ms. Phelan. As you, Jim True and I discussed last Tuesday, this letter constitutes the request of Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC (the Â»'Developer') for a minor amendment of the Planned Unit Development Overlay approved for the Boomerang Lodge parcel in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) (the -Approval Ordinance"). Our request is for an amendment of the existing Approval Ordinance to allow construction of the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment project (the "ProjecO as described in the plans and specifications which constitute the building permit application submitted by the Developer and accepted by the City last September (the "Current Building Permit Application"). This application is made to resolve the disagreement which exists between the City's Community Development Department staff and the Developer concerning the proper calculation of Floor Area within the Project (the "Floor Area Disagreement"). The Developer believes the Current Building Permit Application is fully-compliant with the Approval Ordinance. This application is subject to the letter agreement between the City and Developer executed on August 28.2015 and the amendment to the letter agreement I sent you earlier this week. The penultimate paragraph of the letter agreement provided as follows: None of the City's actions described in the preceding paragraph shall be deemed or interpreted as a waiver of the right of the City or the Developer to seek a resolution of the Floor Area Disagreement. The parties will work cooperatively toward such a resolution. If no cooperative resolution is achieved, the parties will be free to seek other lawful means to decide the issue. Until the City and Developer reach an agreement concerning the Floor Area Disagreement. or other lawful resolution thereof, the Chief Building Official may refuse to issue a building permit for the Project on account of the Floor Area Disagreement. Provided the Floor Area Disagreement is the only issue preventing the issuance of the building permit. the City shall enable ample time for the parties to resolve the issue prior to making a final decision on the permit. The Developers application for a minor amendment of PUD is made in furtherance of our cooperative .. Ms. Jennifer Phelan January 29,2016 Page 2 effort to resolve the Floor Area Disagreement. Pursuant to the letter agreement, the Developer "will be free to seek other lawful means to decide the issue" if City Council does not grant our request for a PUD amendment which permits construction of the Project as described in the Current Building Permit Application. the Developer will be provided time to "seek other lawful means to decide the issue." Further, as stated in the amendment of the letter agreement I sent you earlier this week. any statute of limitations applicable to the current disagreement is stayed until 60 days after the City Council s decision and there is no modification, release or waiver of rights, obligations. claims or defenses held by either party effected by the Developers filing ofthis request for minormodification of PUD. As the Developer is submitting this application in reliance on these understandings, please let me know immediately if you disagree with the statements made in this paragraph. We will follow through with the remaining parts of the application within the next week. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely. 1 1 4 ./7 4/2 1 / /7 /1 V / E. Michael Hoffinan .. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property Owner ("1"): Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC Phone No.: cell: 410-279-0204 Email: sstunda@gmail.com Billing 0/0 E. Michael Hoffman, P.C. Address of 500 W. Hopkins Avenue Property: Address: P.O. Box EE (Subject of Aspen, CO 81611 (send bills here) Aspen. CO 81612 application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that asthe property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application, For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for $. flat fee for $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent ortotal costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. Ihave read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, 1 agree to paY additional monthly billings to the CitY to reimburse the City for the processing of mY application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 4.550 deposit for 14 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ depositfor hours of Engineering Department stafftime. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. , f*spen Fsp-AB~, LLC City of Aspen: Property OwnerF By: (3/1 1Â» Â£ AA><L Jessica Garrow, AICP 4teven R. Stunda Community Development Director Name: Local Managing Partner City Use: Title: Fees Due: $ Received $ March, 2016 City of Aoen I 130 S. Galeria St. I (970) 920 5050 râ‚¬44 4,609. K-6/ap~Plb 0 Â¥O CDr /ka<Al Â«k- - Ft CN\61 4-,6 1-l./2-/ gifaÂ© Ef> 4 Â©0 Ydo-or/:.2, MEMORANDUM To: Jennifer Phelan. Acting Community Developer Director James R. True. City Attorney From: Michael Hoffman for Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, Owner of the Boomerang Lodge Date: January 11.2016 Re: Calculation of Floor Area for the Approved Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project SUMMARY The City's Community Development Staff ("Staff) has reported that the Floor Area of the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project (the -Project") as shown on the plans submitted by Aspen FSP-ABR. LLC (the "Developer") may be greater than the Floor Area permitted to the Project by the City of Aspen ordinance which approved the Project in 2006.' Ofthe additional Floor Area questioned by Staff, most arises from -balconies. decks and corridors" which the Developer believes am exerupt_from inclusion in Floothma under the relevant-Cit_* 24%\Atb fRg!]lation.2 The diftkiencG of *proach-relatestoav-ariabkundinth_e rdiulation -the maximum Â£412 allowable floorareafor_theemnerly. Staff used--the Total Floor_AIQa-"stated in the AppiEval .6*16 ceh l,/Un Ordinance, 419 15 squafffset, as the basis for its calculations. The Developer believes that the OÂ¥\ maximum al-Gwable-hoor areaof the Project was established in the approval process at 31.000 1 evlpo<_ (1 square feet and that the balconies. decks and corridors exempt from Floor Area was establffIE[ 2--4 t<dik,Ou..,7 12.150 square feet.3 For the reasons summarized below and discussed in depth in the body of this Flock memorandum. these parameters represent vested rights of the Developer which were unaffected AN'?ca by the conditions set forth in the two City resolutions which extended those rights over the past .R ta nine years. 13*0 The City's original approval of the Project incorporated elements of a Lodge Incentive Program + filbl/L 0- . designed to motivate private developers to construct new lodge units within the City.4 To fy\; 0- f_>. L - participate in the program. a developer was required to build a certain number of lodge units per square foot of lot area and to construct lodge units of a certain size. The total number of lodge units was limited by the City's floor area ratio regulations. In addition. a defined amount of XULLF affordable housing had to be incorporated into the Project. Ifall of the requirements were met. the (4 ~h1~/otal amount of development permitted on the lot was permitted to be three times the size of the lot and one-quarter of the total development could be "Free-Market Residential" space. ~Al~ combination of Lodge, Affordable Housing. Free-Market Residential and "Non-Unit" Space. The To meet the requirements of the Lodge Incentive Program, the Developer designed the Project as ' "Floor Area," as used herein, has the meaning provided in the City of Aspen Land Use Code (Code"). The ordinance which approved the Project is known as Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) and referred to in this Memorandum as tht,LAPprexaLQrdinance." 2 Code Section j21.13.22_2.1.-L 1 Whether the current regulation actually applies to this matter is not at issue in the current controversy. 4 The terms "lodge unit." "hotel unit" and hotel rooms are interchangeable and have the same meaning. The Lodge Incentive Program was created by the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. as defined in the body of this Memorandum. 0 0 Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 2 resulting Project was submitted to the City and processed through a series of public hearings before its Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. During that process, the Developer made a number of material concessions - including the relinquishment of seven hotel units and one Free- ~-~ Market Residential Unit. The Project was approved by the Aspen City Council on August 28. " l 2006, but remains subject to the Lodge Incentive Program through the terms and conditions of the (MA#L Approval Ordinance. Among the benefits granted by the Lodge Incentive Program was the "right" 42 %0 to a maximum allowable floor area ofthree-to-one. or 81,000 square feet for the Boomerang Lodge Parcel. That right remains vested and results iti~12.150 square feet of balconies, decks and 0. 63- ~ corridors being exempt from inclusion in the Project's Floor Area. 2-K~-U-3 6 vk\VULÂ« - 90 \ c ps discussed in detail below. the Developer believes that the current Project is the Project approved in 2006 and that any variance in the calculation of Floor Area is the result of differences in the 1~<Â¥lf\~ \ Atj\computer modeling software used to make the calculation or modest changes in the Code. 1. THE BOOMERANG LODGE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE 2005 LODGE INCENTIVE ORDINANCE. In the 1980s and 90s. the City of Aspen experienced a substantial loss of lodge rooms available to the public for overnight stays. To address this problem. City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9 (Series of 2005) (the lodge Incentive Ordinance") on May 9.20052 The Lodge Incentive Ordinance sought to motivate private sector investment in the construction of new hotel rooms and -hot beds" in Aspen by permitting the developer to concurrently build -Free-Market Residential Units" within a hotel Project. It was understood that the sale of Free- Market Residential Units was necessary to provide a source of capital for the construction of low- (or no-) margin hotel rooms. To qualify for this incentive. a Project had to meet a number of parameters, including the following: 1. The Project had to include 'one or more lodge units per 500 square feet of Lot Area.-6 2. The average size of the lodge units within the Project had to average 500 square feet or less.7 3. The Free-Market component could not exceed "25% of the FAR of the total Project including both unit and non-unit space, but not including FAR devoted to parking."8 4. The FAR permitted to each Project waOGIWGIative. -UF-m-iffiEimum FAR of 3:1 for parcels of 27.000 square feet or less in size. â€ž9 Val 13(,st~or- L-- 5 A copy ofthe Lodge Incentive Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Â° Lodge incentive Ordinance, Section 1. p. 4, Â§ 26.710.190 D. 10. A. (2005). This parameter is referred to in this Memorandum as the "Lodge Density Requirement." 7/d ~ /d, Â§ 26.710.190 D. 10. A. 6. (2005). 4 Id., Â§ 26.710.190 D. 10. A. (2005). T fovu ~ El/Q'bi,4 . AF /(* 6,9-- 61Â«5 ~ 5. /f Lfâ‚¬ - 6. L. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 3 5. Lodge Unit FAR was limited to 2:1 (or 2.5.1 by Special Review). Non-Unit space could not exceed 0.5:1.'o Prompted in large part by the City's adoption of the Lodge Incentive Ordinance. the Developer purchased the Boomerang Lodge on June 28,2005. It hired Vann Associates to open discussions with the City concerning redevelopment of the historic hotel and to process a land use application on its behalf. The Developer's Growth Management Application for the Redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge Property (the "Land Use Application") was filed with the City on December 30. 2005.1 1 As described in the application the Developer proposed to demolish the middle and west wing of the [thendexisting Boomerang Lodge and to replace them with a mixed use lodge/free market residential structure which has been designed to comply with the City's new L, Lodge. zone district regulations. As the Project site is presently zoned R-6(LP). the proposed development's dimensional requirements must be established via the PUD process as provided for in Section 26.710.320.D. of the Regulations.12 - ' 213> S7~79,9 l.fy Pursuant to Section 26.445.020 of the Aspen Land Use Code (the ~'Code") as it existed in December of 2005, the owner of a parcel subject to Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zoning was specifically authorized to process a "development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) ... for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District.-13 ~ The Code mandated that the dimensional requirements of the Project "be established with the adoption of a final PUD development plan."14 6'The final PUD development plans [must] establish the dimensional requirements for ... the PUD: 15 p [ he dimensional parameters required to be 1 established in the final PUD development plan included. among others. minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit. maximum allowable density, various setback elements. Allowable Floor Area, and , "[olther dimensions determined necessary."16 The precise conditions of the Lodge Incentive Ordinance required that the Developer propose. and that the City review and approve, a comprehensive plan for the proposed redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. The PUD development plan finally accepted by the City met this requirement. 14â‚¬0(-Â«04.un <4 1 l Â£ i /aut-14 0 D,wiutiy> (f~-z,ixt-&/V\Ak r/v w \ ynb m /d, Â§Â§ 26.710.190 D. 10. A.2- 3.(2005). puP**Ak\Vt) in / 44/i * L) " A copy ofthe Land Use Application is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit B. (till J Vu 12 Land Use Application. Section III. Page 8 (emphasis supplied). '1 A copy of the Chapter 26.445 ofthe Code. as it existed in December of 2005, is attached to this Memorandum as â‚¬ <kt Exhibit C. RjAO 14 Code. Â§ 26.445.040 C. (2005). 15 Code, Â§ 26.445.050 B. (2005). '6 Code, Â§ 26.445.040 C. 15. (2005). Capitalized words used in the Code (and replicated in this Memorandum) were 2 f.3/1 usually defined in Part 100 ofthe Citys land use regulations. (90 .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 4 N The Land Use Application included a table of Development Data for the proposed Boomerang Lodge Property.17 Item No. 16 listed the Maximum Allowable Floor Area @ 3:1" as 81.000 ~square feet, based on the Net Lot Size of 27,000 square feet. -1 ~The Developer-s original Land Use Application included a proposed PUD development plan.18 ~ ~The plan, on Sheet G002. included a summary of Floor Area calculations which is enlarged on Exhibit D of this memorandum. [n the calculation of Floor Area. the summary includes the ~ following notation: <.AL FAR-Balcony/Deck/Corridor (Sq.Ft.) 12,696 -12.150 (allowable deck/balcony/ -- corridor) 546. ~|~ The 546 square feet of balconies. decks and corridors not exempt from the Floor Area calculation ~ was then included to arrive at the total FAR for the Project. 51,365 square feet. The application 1 also included 17,778 square feet of fully-exempt basement space. 2. Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission Thoroughly Vetted the Application The City's Community Development Department reviewed the application and elected to support it. subject to its -concern about two significant items" - the proposed height of the hotel and the HPC's wish to historically designate and preserve the -historic east wing.' 519 The staff memorandum agreed with the applicant-s calculation of exempt Floor Area within the Project, and the dimensional table found on pages 2 and 3 of the memo replicates the table submitted by the Developer.20 The issue of FAR came up during hearings before the P & Z. On May 2.2006. Commissioner Steve "Skadron asked what the FAR was compared to the allowable. [Applicant representative Sunny] Vann replied the overall FAR under the L Zone District was 3 to 1, which was 81,000 square feet and the proposed lodge was about 51,000 square feet. Â·Â·21 In her opening remarks at the final meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission on the application. Community Development Deputy Director Joyce Allgaier -stated the [remaining] issues were height, massing of the structure and the historic east wing.' ,22 In the Commission's discussion on the application following public comment, members were supportive. but some u Land Use Application, pages 28 through 30. 18 A copy ofthe initial PUD development plan is included in the copy of the Land Use Application which is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit B. c Sgg Staff Memorandum to Planning & Zoning Commission dated May 16,2006, a copy of which is attached to this Memoranduin as Exhibit E. 20 The only difference appears to be in the square footage of "non-unit space," which increased from 9,542 to 10.088 square feet. " Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission, Meeting of May 2,2006. page 9. A copy of these minutes are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit F. -- Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission, Meeting of June 13, 2006, page 2. A copy ofthese minutes are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit G. .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 5 expressed concern regarding the massing of the structure, including the fourth story of the proposed new building. Included in that massingwas the 12,150 square feet of exempt balconies, decks and corridors and the fully-exempt basement. each as shown on the Developer's proposed PUD development plan. In the end, the P&Z approved the Project by a vote of 4 to 2. 3. Project Massing Was Thoroughly Deliberated by City Council and the Developer. City Council's first substantive review of the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment proposal took place on July 10.2006.23 Ms. Allgaier again made the presentation on behalf of staff. The Project. as initially presented to Council. was substantially similar to the plan described in the initial Land Use Application and included total FAR of 50,470 square feet, excluding 12,150 square feet of exempt balconies. decks and corridors and the fully-exempt basement.24 Staff's concerns remained the height of certain elements of the buildings and preservation of the east wing. Council members voiced concern about the proposed -size and mass" of the Project. Councilman Rachel Richards 'said that it is incumbent on Council to make this Project fit. not only for the neighborhood but also for the community-25 Mayor Helen Klanderud agreed that -the building feels too massive.-26 There appeared to be consensus that the third floor proposed for the east win of the then-existing hotel should be eliminated. L &(f IR,-)(7Â»L~,4~13 -341 / c-00(ti â‚¬4,4 viA The Project was next considered by City Council on August 14. 2006.27 Ms. Allgaier identified 11 6 ~/ 'setbacks, height, number of units, lodge unit density and the historic east wing" as issues for ive/ discussion. Prior to the meeting. the Developer had proposed a number of changes in the Project to address those issues. In response to Council*emiterns regarding height and massing. the Developer reduced the building height -frÂ®042' to 3972? Additionally, '70 reduce height and massing... the applicant [-1 has reduced Ulâ‚¬_number ofkinits to 53 lodge units, instead of the originally proposed 54 lodge units."29 A reviseET PUD development plan was submitted by the Developer and considered by City Council at its August 14,2006 meeting.30 That plan indicated that 11.808 square feet of balconies, decks and corridors and 17.458 square feet of basement31 were exempt from the calculation of Floor Area.32 No comment on this change was made in either the staff memorandum or during the discussion of the application at the meeting. < 4 59\ FÂ·e- piREÂ» 821 -4 649 L 6 L LE- 9> Ck q,kl\6 Cir\U/9,9 23 Minutes of Aspen City Council, Meeting of July 10, 2006, are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit H. 24 Copies of the Boomerang Lodge material distributed to the members of City Council by the planning staff (the "Council Packets") in preparation for "First Reading" on June 16.2006 and Council's regular meeting of July 10. 2006. are attached hereto as Exhibits I and J, respectively. 25 Aspen City Council Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2006, p. 18. 26 ld. 27 A copy ofthe Council Packet ofAugust 14.2006 is attached hereto as Exhibit K. Minutes of that meeting are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit L. 28 Minutes of August 14.2006 City Council Meeting, p. 9. ~' Council Packet of August 14, 2006, Staff Memorandum, p. 5. w 32 Pages 39 through 65 of the Council Packet of August 14.2006, which is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 3' The 17,458 square feet of basement included 2,488 square feet of existing basement and 14,970 square feet of new basement. 32 SQQ Page 43 of the Council Packet of August 14,2006, which is attached hereto as Exhibit K. The changes in the PUD development plan reduced the area of balconies, decks and corridorsto less than 12,150 square feet. the maximum such exempt area ofthat type applicable to the development. .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 6 Council members were still not persuaded that the Developer had done enough to reduce the Project's mass, height and density. Councilmen Torre and Rachel Richards commented on the need for a further reduction in these elements of the proposal. 33 .M ayor [Helen] Klanderud said she would not accept this proposal at 42'... [she] said removing the 5 units on the east wing would satisfy her concerns with this Project:'34 The third and final substantive hearing on the Land Use Application occurred on August 28, 2006.~5 To finally address Council s massing, height and density concerns, the Developer submitted a revised application which eliminated the third floor of the east wing. one free-market ~42 >ri unit and one lodge unit from the fourth floor of the new building, among other things.36 A further ler 1 revised PUD development plan was submitted to memorialize these changes.37 The plan included 44,915 square feet of Floor Area.38 and 9.464 square feet of exempt decks. balconies and corridors. it and 17.458 square feet of exempt basenient. for a Gross Total square footage of 71.837 square feet (including the basements).39 No objections to these calculations or to the final PUD development plan were raised by staff or members of City Council at any time during the August 28,2006 proceeding. The reductions in density and height were welcomed by City Council. Councilman Rachel Richards concluded that -this revision looks as if it were trying to accomplish what Council asked for to reduce the scale and mass of the Project and to make it fit into the neighborhood: â€¢40 Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss "said the parties have made a good faith effort to make the Project comply with the neighborhood" and that "the advantages are taking the parking off the public right-of-way, the height has been substantially decreased. the mass of the Project has been decreased. and the Project is screened from Hopkins. .,41 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt the Ordinance approving the Project and it was approved by a unanimous vote. five-to-none.42 4. The Bargain Achieved with Council was incorporated into Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). City Council's approval was memorialized in Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) (the 'Approval Ordinance").43 The Floor Areas and Floor Area Ratios found in the Approval Ordinance were those provided by the Applicant in the PUD development plan found in the August 28.2006 Council Packet. 33 Minutes of August 14,2006 City Council Meeting, page 15. 34 Id 35 A copy of the Council Packet of August 28,2006 is attached hereto as Exhibit M. Minutes of that meeting are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit N. 36 See Memorandumof Reno-Smith Architects. L.L.C., dated August 28,2006, on page 21 of the Council Packet of August 28,2006. 37 See pages 22 through 51 of the Council Packet of August 28.2006. 38 The Floor Area sum included 23,547 square feet of hotel space, 10.733 square feet of Free Market Residential space, 1,384 square feet of affordable housing and 9.251 square feet of Non-Hotel Space. 1' kg Sheet G 002. FAR Calculation, on page 23 of the Council Packet of August 28,2006. 40 Minutes ofAspen City Council meeting of August 28, 2006, page 1!. 41 /~ 42 Id. 43 A copy ofthe Approval Ordinance is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit O. .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11, 2016 . Page 7 A Development Order related to the Approval Ordinance was issued on October 20,2006.44 The Development Order granted a vested right to construct the Project pursuant to the Approval Ordinance through October 20,2009. The Final Plat of Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/P.U.D. and Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/PUD Final Development Plan was recorded on March 21.2007." The Dimensional Requirements table found on Page 4 of 14 of the PUD Final Development Plan46 incorporates some ofthe information found in the PUD development plan approved by Council on August 28,2006 and in the Approval Ordinance, as shown here: Type of Floor Area Amount of Floor Area Lodging 23.547 square feet Free-Market Residential 10,733 square feet Affordable Housing 1.384 square feet Total Floor Area 44.915 square feet Although Non-Unit Space was an integral part of Total Floor Area approved by Council. that category of space was not included in the Dimensional Table. Neither was exempt space shown N on the Dimensional Requirements table. Nonetheless, the architectural plans and elevations ~~ which make up the remaining 11 pages of the recorded Final PUD Development Plan clearly f incorporate 9,251 square feet of Non-Unit Space, 9,464 square feet of exempt balconies/decks ~ and corridors, and 17,458 of basement space. 5. Three Insubstantial Amendments of the Approval Ordinance Were Required to Address Site-Specific Conditions. The Approval Ordinance was amended by a series of three insubstantial amendments.47 On January 17.2007, the Director of the City s Community Development Department, through his deputy, approved a change in the PUD development plan which (a) increased the height of a section of the fourth floor by 12 inches due to a requirement of the Building Department. and (b) acknowledged thatthe average unit size had, duringthe Developer's negotiation with City Council, increased from 501 to 521. The Community Developer Director found that both changes met the criteria for an insubstantial amendment under Section 26.445.100 of the Code. The second insubstantial amendment ofthe Approval Ordinance was granted on January 9.2008. and grew out of a meeting between members ofthe City's Community Development Department and Developer representatives. The meeting addressed issues identified by the City's Zoning Official in his review of a 2007 building permit application submitted by the Developer. The changes approved in the insubstantial amendment related to building height. the existence of a 44 A copy ofthe original Development Order is attached hereto as Exhibit P. 45 A Copy of the recorded Final Plat and Final PUD Development Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit Q. The Final Plat and Final PUD Development Plan were recorded on March 21. 2007, as a single unified document. as Reception No. 535629. 46 The page number is found on the Clerk's sticker, at the bottom right of each page. 47 Copies of the three Insubstantial Amendments are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit R. .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 1 1.2016 Page 8 stone wall on the south elevation, window placement and the need for retaining walls along the south side of the building. This insubstantial amendment necessitated a minor revision of the PUD development plan. which was approved by the City and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County. The Floor Area calculations submitted by the Developer in connection with the permit application were apparently accepted by the City. Finally, on July 15. 2008, the Community Development Director approved an insubstantial amendment which revised the January 9,2008 amendment to better address the roof height issue. 6. The City Accepted All Prior Floor Area Calculations Submitted by the Developer. A. Exempt Floor Area was Identified by the Developer and Accepted by the City in a 2007 Demolition Permit Application. Subsequent to recording of the Final Plat and Final PUD Development Plan. the Developer requested and was granted a demolition permit for all portions of the then-existing Boomerang Lodge other than the east wing.48 Sheet G004 of the architectural plans submitted by the Developer in connection with the 2007 demolition permit provided FAR/Floor Area calculations for the Project. including a calculation of exempt balcony, deck and corridor space.49 This sheet #includes information describing. among other things. "Total Floor Area Allowed (3:1): 3 x 27.000 81,000." . -Total [Exempt-] Deck Area: 15% x (max, Allowable) FAR (81,000) 12.150." and -FAR-Balcony/Deck/Corridor (Sq.Ft.) 8,870- 12,150 (allowable deck/balcony/corridor) 0... Exempt basement space was also quantified: 'Existing Basement: 2,526 New Basement 15.1667 Sheet G004 highlighted the various types of space found within the Project - including exterior corridors which were exempt from the calculation of Floor Area. In reliance on the resulting demolition permit issued by the City, the Developer razed the northern two-thirds of the lodge in the summer of 2007. B. The City Accepted the Developer*s Calculations of Floor Area in the 2008 Request for a Building Permit to Actually Construct the Project. In the spring and summer of 2008. the Developer's architects, Reno Smith Architects, L.L.C., worked closely with the City's Community Development Department toward the submission of a 48 The east wing was added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures on June 11,2007, in Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2007). 49 A COPy of Sheet G 004 from the demolition plan set is attached hereto as Exhibit S. .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 9 building permit application to build the Project in chief. As mentioned above. a final insubstantial amendment of the Approval Ordinance was required in July of 2008 to address the height of a particular part of the new building. A day or so after the insubstantial amendment was approved. the Developer filed its building permit application. Sheet G003 of the July 2008 building permit application was substantially similar to Sheet G004 of the demolition permit drawing set. with a few exceptions/1 The maximum potential FAR allowed on the site was identical to that of the prior application, as was the calculation of potentially exempt balconies. decks and corridors. The actual amount of exempt balconies. decks and corridors was slightly less than described in the earlier drawing set. The exempt new basement was 1.181 square feet greater than identified in the demolition permit request. As shown in the notes on Sheet G003, Non-Hotel Space was reduced by 1,106 square feet from what had been proposed. On its right edge Sheet G003 bears a stamp indicating that the City's Zoning Officer approved the information found on the sheet on July 28, 2008. Shortly thereafter. the building permit was approved. The permit itself was never issued because the Developer did not pay the requisite fees. 7. The Rights Established in the Approval Ordinance Remained Vested Through the Date the Current Building Permit Application was Accepted by the City. In Resolution No. 58 (Series 2009), City Council granted an extension of the vested rights - established in the Approval Ordinance through October 20,2012/1 An additional three-year extension of vested rights was granted by the City in Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012).52 Resolution No. 80 extended the vested rights period through October 20.2015. On September 9. 2015. the Developer filed its building permit application to construct the Project consistent with the PUD development plan approved in Ordinance 26. thereby meeting the vesting period established in Resolution No. 80. That application was subsequently deemed complete. Each of Resolution No. 58 (Series of 2009) and Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012) included a condition of approval which provided that the 2006 Approval Resolution, as extended. was subject to the -application of regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to. building, fire. plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. and all adopted impact fees. â€ž53 In its review of the Developers current building permit application. the Citys Community Development Department identified a question concerning the appropriate FAR treatment of 5.025.25 square feet of balconies. decks and corridors.54 The question is whether the maximum 50 A copy of Sheet G 003 from the July 2008 building permit application is attached hereto as Exhibit T. 51 A copy ofthe City's Resolution No. 58 (Series 2009) is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit U. 52 A copy ofthe City's Resolution No. 80 (Series 2012) is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit V. 53 Section 1, Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012). 54 According to staff, the square footage of exempt balconies, decks and corridors is 6,737.25 square feet. The actual square footage of these elements in the current plan is 11.762.50 square feet. Under the Approval Ordinance. and the calculations shown on the PUD development plan reviewed and approved by Council on August 28,2006, All balcony, decks and corridor space was exempt up to 12.150 square feet. Under the vested plan. all of the balcony decks and corridor space proposed in the current building permit application is exempt. .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11.2016 Page 10 potential Floor Area permitted on the Lot was defined in the Approval Ordinance itself or if that parameter was established by something not explicitly stated in the document. If the maximum potential Floor Area permitted on the site were the sum of the Lodge, Free-Market Residential, Affordable Housing. and implicit Non-Unit square footage listed in the ordinance, 44,915 square feet, then only 6.737.25 square feet of decks. balconies and corridors would be exempt.55 That approach does not recognize the vested nature of the 3:1 maximum Floor Area Ratio incorporated into the Approval Ordinance and the Final PUD Development Plan. The passage of seven years between the Developer's two building permit applications has caused memories of this Project to fade. It would have been helpful if the complete FAR information found on the 2007 demolition permit application and 2008 final building permit application had been included in the Approval Ordinance and Final PUD Development plan. The fact that they were not. however. does not affect the vested nature of the maximum FAR forthe PUD at 3:1. or that the Project is permitted 12.150 square feet of exempt balconies, decks and corridors. Although the regulation which defines exempt square footage of balconies, decks and corridors has expanded substantially since 2005. the essence of the regulation remains unchanged. The "calculation ofthe Floor Area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks. balconies, trellis. exterior stairways. non-Street facing porches. gazebos and similar features. unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the allowable Floor Area for the propertv. ,â€¢56 As relevant to the Boomerang Lodge, 6.allowable Floor Area for the property" was set at 81.000 square feet in the PUD development plan approved by City Council on August 28.2006. . and subsequently acknowledged by the City iii documents submitted in connection with the 2007 demolition permit and the 2008 building permit applications. The 'allowable Floor Area for the property" was established as a vested right in 2006 pursuant to the 2005 Lodge Incentive Ordinance and the Approval Ordinance and remains vested today. < maximum Floor Area permitted on the site prior to the establishment of a Planned Development A conversation with staff on January 5. 2015. confirmed that the City continues to look to the ~ when calculating the exempt Floor Area within a particular Proiect. The Citys Zoning Compliance Officer said that he would utilize the maximum Floor Area permitted to a particular use on a site to determine the amount of exempt balconies. decks and corridors allowed within the PD. The maximum Floor Area permitted to each use on a site is determined using the Net Lot Area of the site and the Floor Area Ratio of the relevant zone district. The table attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit W represents the Developer's calculation of ~ exempt balcony. decks and corridor space utilizing the City's current ''by use" methodology and the Floor Area Ratios acknowledged by the City in 2006 as relevant to the Land Use Application. f Pursuant to that calculation. the Project should be eligible for 12,830 square feet of exempt balconies. decks and corridors. Because 12,830 exceeds the square footage of balconies. decks and corridors found in the current building permit request (11.762.5), all balconies. decks and corridors shown in the plan should be excluded from the FAR calculations. 55 Fifteen percent of 44,915 square feet equals 6,737.25 square feet. Sgg Code Section 26.575.020 D. 4. 56 Code, Â§ 26.575.020 D. 4. (2016) (emphasis supplied). .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 11 8. Because the Current Permit Request Accurately Reflects the Approved PUD Development Plan. Minor Discrepancies in the Calculation of FAR Should Be Administratively Approved. The Community Development Department raised a second question concerning Floor Area identified in the Developer's current building permit application. this one having to do with the dimensions of the units themselves and Non-Unit Space. In April of 2007 the Developer demolished two-thirds of an operating hotel. the Boomerang Lodge, with the expectation that it would immediately thereafter begin construction of the Project. Shortly after the lodge was razed. the Developer's architects submitted to the City's Building Department its application to build the project-in-chief. The summer of 2007 was a very busy time for the Building Department and its review of those plans was substantially delayed. As mentioned previously. it wasnt until January of 2008 that the Citys Zoning Officer, the Community Development Director. his Deputy and representatives of the Developer were able to meet to discuss the height issue identified by the City. Once the City completed its review of the final ~ plans in July 2008, the market for construction loans had dried up. The Developer demolished the Boomerang Lodge in reliance on the City's acceptance of the Floor Area calculations found in the demolition permit drawings.57 If the City and Developer had not agreed on the mass of the Project at that time, the Developer would not have proceeded with demolition. The City also approved the Floor Area calculations submitted with the final building permit application.58 The following table summarizes the Floor Areas approved in the 2008 building permit request and as incorporated in the current request (all units in square feet): 1 As Approved in Change - 2008 Building Current Current v. Use of Space Permit Request 2008 Lodge 24.256 24,154 -102 Free Market 10.733 10,882 149 Affordable Housing 1,418 1,404 -14 Non-Unit 8.173 7.551 * -622 ------------ TOTAL 44.580 43,991 -589 57 The Floor Area calculations from the 2007 Demolition Permit are shown on G004 ofthe relevant drawings, which is attached hereto as Exhibit S. The demolition permit calculation for the Floor Area of Free Market Residential space, 10,877 square feet. was about the same as that found in the current application 58 The Floor Area calculations from the 2008 Building Permit application are shown on G003 ofthose drawings, which is attached hereto as Exhibit T. With the exception of Free Market Residential Space. differences between the 2007 and 2008 Floor Area calculations were nominal. .. Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11.2016 Page 12 * The Floor Area of Non-Unit Space shown here was calculated from the square footage ofthat space reported by Staff (9,266 square feet) less the square footage of the underground garage ( 1.715 square feet) which Staff required that O'Bryan Partnership. Inc. include in the current calculation. None ofthe underground garage was included in Floor Area during the 2006 approval process or during the Citys review ofthe approved demolition permit or the 2008 approved building permit. The highlighted entry for Free-Market Residential shown above is less than the amount of Floor Area originally reported for this category by O'Bryan Partnership. The architectural firm discovered that it had overstated the amount of Free-Market Residential space after Staff alerted the Developer to questions on the amount of Floor Area included in the Project. O'Bryan Partnership will supply all necessary backup information in the next few days. The technical reasons for the differences in FAR have to do with changes in methodology. not modifications in the Project itself. The differences in Lodge. Free Market and Affordable Housing Floor Area are nominal, from a realistic perspective. The current architects have affirmed that they faithfully recreated each of the units to replicate the drawings submitted and approved by the City in 2008. After they completed their work they utilized their computer screens to overlay each current unit against the same unit as approved in 2008. In each case the drawings were identical. The only explanation for any difference in the calculation of Floor Area must be in the computer- aided design programs used by the two architectural firms. The difference in Non-Unit Space as calculated by Staff against what was originally approved is 15 square feet. In an "apples-to-apples" comparison with the 2008 approved building permit application, however. the square footage of Non-Unit Space within the Project has decreased by 622 square feet. If there is a disagreement related to Non-Unit Floor Area. it relates to how much of the underground garage. and especially the ramp leading to the garage, should count toward Floor Area. None of that space was attributed to Floor Area in the 2006 review process, the 2007 approved demolition permit process or the 2008 review ofthe Developer's building permit request. None of the underground garage should count toward Floor Area in the current request. The Project represented in the current building permit application is the Project approved by the City in 2006. The differences in calculated Floor Area shown above are artifacts of modest changes in Code and the computer programs used by the Developers two architects. Those differences should not effect a diminution in the Project itself. It is inappropriate to include any part of the underground garage. including the parking garage ramp. as Floor Area. The City previously encouraged the Developer to build underground garage. That policy was incorporated into the Approval Ordinance and remains vested. 0 . Memorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True January 11,2016 Page 13 Table of Exhibits Exhibit A - Lodge Incentive Ordinance Exhibit B - Land Use Application of December 30,2005 Exhibit C - Code Chapter 26.445 (2005) Exhibit D - Entargement of Sheet G002 of Original PUD Development Plan Exhibit E - Staff Memo of 5/1/6/06 Exhibit F - Minutes of P & Z Meeting of 5/2/06 Exhibit G - Minutes of P & Z Meeting of 6/13/06 Exhibit H - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 7/10/06 Exhibit 1 - Council Packet of 6/16/06 Exhibit J - Council Packet of 7/10/06 Exhibit K - Council Packet of 8/14/06 Exhibit L - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 8/14/06 Exhibit M - Council Packet of 8/28/06 Exhibit N - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 8/28/06 Exhibit O - Approval Ordinance Exhibit P - Development Order Exhibit Q - Recorded Final PUD and Final PUD Development Plan Exhibit R - Three (3) Insubstantial Amendments of Approval Ordinance Exhibit S - Sheet G004 of 2007 Demolition Permit Application Exhibit T - Sheet G003 of July 2008 Building Permit Application Exhibit U - Resolution No. 58 (Series of 2009) Exhibit V - Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012) Exhibit W - Table Calculating "Per Use" Exemption of Floor Area for Balconies, Decks and Corridors .A . . 1.16'M â‚¬ va ~ Â£ 1:n L L f \ & 1, 0 /'N-1, L A- A L.-- (v li442 60/ '02/11/-Â»4 Â© Ao *-<,-p 4- 0 Â«-tjal -6/4 ,<94 0-4-Â·~ a,--~ Â»LI ~0 ELA- . / (,Â« 3,2 1-F> vi- .64/\3-/i) & r Cl-C 64,&,Tic*rlti\(3//16 L.~ ~65-~ 0*aA'Jgb #*v 73 4\ 093 -14 kle LE L. r D / 2- ,-Niâ‚¬ 00~ -41 01 EL.,~-C, /34 66'VVUL /96 44-0 6, -c>-4 -tu__ 3462*Ar 3 1 2-0, UL /O.1 93> \6(54-~ 0-VuUâ‚¬:6) 6#4JES - 4-Â«>43370â‚¬9-70/1 --Â©..)Â«Â«ouxt Â·-4 4-1 -PO; 0 H> e 6 4 6% // l\~ i--1134( A ACL 9 i 4 EDÂ·t--- f> 4/Obuttl 61; P# Â·tle 0 Â¥\o.9-1//(47 -1 AA E 1,Ality, 0 1 r 13-/-4- &6&(- Urk 'tle N 61 alÂ£ - /00 144-'21 uvrÂ« 5%74 ky Gvull &4 --4 A- 942 4W hu\Â·li (Iz,p,~ 4 Vt *AL Â£6 24~61/R_ 4-~ 0~L l] 60% ct.,1,0 1 - f-Â«41,049 Mt tu 01-/4 3,2~ 26Â«-4 1-147 01-- c, \ , Ir-5,4 6Â« 2--0 Â»Â» 06 '1Â»+ 80-1,1-1- , (litÂ» 1 4\- Â»it A ..06 lic E 2<ut. 0 6.- l_fogix i)Â© "30Â£-13 *al LE vviiil_ G <24<Â«i , 1 V 0 $4Â« tait t- 0-ovt,410Â©.* L vi A-_ ~~Â»11 . 4-- 6/9.1/Vcr 41(q:> 13 - 342 * 142:0 4-4 00vtuis (Cru -rgc (V/4 0 d>~04 41-r'ful-6 1)4 Â« roluvU/l'G/(- cti i l-~- 4042 r Â»U- ar<, c Â«410L-J+Gl .\ Â« C.(/4/t~ '~12(-\~a~ 60 4/l. ~Re g-Al>pt~c,in 3-(1 =fL (lux~l -804 1--~Ijitc~Ful fpL// LAUus LL ('p 41Ahttyx ABLit 47/ 6,%4U11icit~~ c~~_9Â£ 4440Â£Â£6~V2~16 Aft. Act->~Ov<j--Â·0 44 4100ittl /1 664 flo-.043 (hbLi-~f)~ CU -1 <, Hk,tiv71, 1 0 6 f:>t~ lk~~~L~1~> 3-* 4-3 - LUJ Â¢ 4-/ Â£9.43 41,06(73(taccot-7 4 14/ AAY.%465Â«06.0'Lk Y71 1 40Â«Â« 74Â«- Â«4 A- 49 5 4 0 4(-A ke> A-- 84)(<5) brAf-/SA u k,40 4 il Â«ty'l , /4 A :5h c.k~