The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.500 W Hopkins Ave.A044-0150Â© u) 4-0 1 6'(Â£5 N u 2-, 2735-124-49-002 A044-01 -Boomerang PUD Amendment 500 W. Hopkins 1 '-1 , I. 4 - - 2 4, 1/\1/ 1, LUâ‚¬ R k * 9 r-h O 4 r, , 1 --0 %\ 3 1/1 9\ Â·0' . 14& 3 \ h. 1 -1 4 44 4 Cr -~ .W -1 1 7 % h 4 Â¢ 3 3- A- - -1 1 th â‚¬ 4 A J= t~ 3 9-9. - 4 30 v r ./1, .1,3 7/ 2 3 3--- '0 44'Of t 0 - 46 -4 n i V 3 1 1 1 + 1 -- - .; 1 f \01 0- d -1 -4 0 ..3 9 , 1 - -4 /4 3 u t.0 - 'Ch 9 'O 1 22 4-1 1.1 1 U \ I J & iff b 4 -101 , LL \ 3 Â©4 b ~ 4 % hA -r 1 E f 24 Â»0 '7 C Aw L Fy.vh o. j Â£Â»Â·.*r, ,~I> U~8 -A-mâ€¢â€¢14& 4,~aÂ·, ~ L P kilot- w. 1- , 61 4 Of .4 City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER A044-01 PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735-124-49-002 PROJECT ADDRESS 500 W. Hpokins Ave. PLANNER Joyce Ohlson CASE DESCRIPTION Boomerang PUD Amendment REPRESENTATIVE Mitch Haas DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10'lioi CLOSED BY Amy DeVault , .. ORDINANCE NO. 41 (SERIES OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, A PROPERTY LOCATED AT BLOCK 32, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-49-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Charles and Fonda Paterson, owners, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review for a property consisting of portions of Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Town Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 19,737 square feet, and is located in the R-15 Zone District with Lodge Preservation and Planned Unit Development Overlays; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a request for Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation allotments and Affordable Housing units after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director, comments from the general public, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court in the case entitled Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture L.L.C. (case No. 98-5C-547, decided June 5,2000) held that Section 38-12-301, C.R.S., prohibits the enactment of an ordinance that imposes rent controls; and, WHEREAS, Section 38-12-301, C.R.S., states that the rent control statute is not intended to impair the right of a municipality to manage and control any property in which it has an interest through a housing authority; and, 1 lilli lilli lilli lilli 111 10/31/2001 09:21A 460247 Page: 1 of 6 SILVIA CAL:S PITKIN COUDÂ·TY CJ R 30.00 D 0.00 .. WHEREAS, the applicant desires to grant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority an interest in the affordable housing units subject to the terms and conditions contained herein; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has consented to accepting an interest in the affordable housing units on conditions that it be indemnified and held harmless from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 37, Series 2001, by a six to one (6-1) vote, approving two Lodge Preservation allotments and GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision; and 1 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Housing Authority, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a regular public hearing on October 9, 2001, and approved this Ordinance for Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision, with conditions, by a vote o f three to two (3 -2); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this request for Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the application, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Boomerang Lodge, parcel identification of 2735-124-49-002 is approved for the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision, with conditions. Section 2 That the Boomerang Lodge expansion to a real property (namely, Parcel Number 2735-124- 49-002) to include six detached buildings, including four (4) chalets, one (1) cottage, and one building containing two (2) affordable housing units, four (4) 1-bedroom lodge units, lili li l illi lili Ill lilli 1 il 1 1 10/31/2001 09:21A 460247 Page: 2 of 6 SILVIA DAFIS FI-KIA COUNTY CO R 30.00 D 0.00 .. guest storage, guest common space, lockers, bathrooms, and spa facilities, is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C) of the Land Use Code. The process to amend the PUD in the future shall be addressed in the PUD agreement. 2. A Final PUD PIan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights-of-way, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. 3. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction at the time of building permit application. 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. 4. The Applicant agrees the construction on the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. If the construction does not begin on the two affordable housing units within this time frame, the Applicant shall be required to mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to whatever is built in the initial phase by temporarily deed restricting a two-bedroom unit on their Waters Avenue property (or another two-bedroom unit that satisfies the mitigation requirement pursuant to the Housing Authority), since the entire development requires housing of just 1.911 employees and a two-bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 employees. More specifically, temporary mitigation shall be coordinated with the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority to temporarily deed restrict the two-bedroom unit at 1020 Waters Avenue in a manner to accommodate the salary level of the Boomerang Lodge employee needing to be housed in accordance with the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority. If after 36 months, a second phase of development to include construction of the on-site affordable housing mitigation is not initiated, the applicant shall have the option of either converting the temporary deed restriction to a permanent deed restriction, or paying to the APCHA cash-in-lieu of housing at the then current rate for the 0.88 of an employee generated by construction of the three (3) chalets. 111 il lili Hilll 11111 Ill Ill 10/31/2001 09:21A 460247 Page: 3 of 6 SILVIA DAVIS FITKIN COUh-Y CO R 30.00 D 0.00 .. 5. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $2,860.58 in school land dedication fees. Payment shall be made to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwelling units. [26.610.040(B)] 6. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $25,136.00 in park development impact fees. The park development impact fee shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. The Community Development Director shall transfer all funds collected to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. Such funds shall only be used for the acquisition of land for Public Park and recreation purposes, including trails, and for capital improvements to such newly acquired or existing park and recreation lands. [Section 26.610.040] 7. As a condition specific to the Conditional Use for Timeshare, the Applicant shall keep the units available to the general public for at least six months of the year on a short-term basis in keeping with the parameters o f the lodge definition. 8. That the Applicant shall include specific information regarding the fractional ownership / Condominiumization arrangement which specifies that a "share owner reservation schedule" shall require that all owners are required to reserve their units by October 1 st for use in the winter and by May 1 st for use in the summer. If such "share owner reservations" have not been made by these dates, the units shall be available to the general public. 9. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest (one tenth of 1 %) in the ownership of the affordable housing units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purposes of complying with the recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision regarding rent control legislation. The Applicant may also supply the City Attorney with an alternative option that is acceptable. 10. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the affordable housing units. 11. The Applicant shall not designate any parking spaces in the 4th street right-of-way stub for Boomerang Parking. 12. The Applicant shall install a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the property frontage on Hopkins Avenue at the time of development of this project that shall meet the City of Aspen guidelines. 13. The following dimensional requirements of the Substantial PUD Amendment are approved and shall be printed on the Amended Final Illustrative Plan: a. Minimum Lot Size. 15,000 square feet. b. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling. No requirement c. Maximum Allowable Density. 1 lodge or dwelling bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Minimum Lot Width. 75 feet. e. Minimum Front Yard. 10 feet. li li 11 l ili 11111 ililili 111111 10/31/2001 09:21A 460247 Page: 4 of 6 SILVIA DAViS Fi-KIA COUN-Y CO R 30.00 D 0.00 '13; .. f. Minimum Side Yard. 8 feet. g. Minimum Rear Yard. 1 foot. h. Maximum Site Coverage. 35 percent. i. Maximum Height. 25 feet. j. Minimum Distance Between Buildings. 6 feet. k. Minimum Percent Open Space. 40 percent. 1. Trash Access Area. To be located on the NE corner of property on 4th and Hopkins Ave. m. Allowable Floor Area Ratio. 0.75:1 n. Minimum Off-Street Parking. 7 on-site spaces. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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 o f the remining portions thereo f INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City th Council ofthe City of Aspen on this 24 day of September, 2001. 15 431Â© ttes 212Â» - --77%4=:,a-45.~, 2< ,Â®Kat~yn S./ I~0h, gity (fierk Helen Kalin K}rderud>Myor Fikith[3~Â¥Alobted, passed and approved this 9th Day Of October, 2001. Attest: 111 11 lili 1 11 lillilll lilli lill i 10/31/2001 09: 460247 Page: 5 of 6 S.LV_A DAVIS PI-K.-A COUN-Y CO R 60.00 D 0.00 '1 4 1 0 'f 0 41-4-74-3 /,04Â« - ,Â«-014.-tÂ« 2 1- 4*]Ant..IjAh, 64 Clerk Heleli'K:fli/Klal?~~-4d>Nker 2 1: L 1 .' t Â£4'87rfH as to form: 1 ''414 . <14Lt (no.It> J44~(estor, City Attorney Ill II I lilli HI Ill lilli lililll 10/31/2001 09:21A 460247 Page: 6 of 6 SILV.A DAVIS FI-KIN COUN-'r CO R 30.00 D 0.00 1 0 . f / /.1 / . 1 1 h / . / / hiN { 1. / ' . r, - 1- ' N /1 / I / / 3, al 11 t.| 0 /5~*Â· i . 4 - f la- f.-ry*!IrÂ¢ 11) Â·-, .i , .. -2*iiÂ«t 764'*6 =r=-=n-Â·Â·1-r-/' : 4.-. ~~" It-~2-fi--11#~.lf.24 A -~Â·. h h __~ ~~~ 1 k) Mf-- M N - 4 -11:-1.- -- '-r-- '- B!=Ell:-FEEPE-Â·Ezz-2-,~*e- Â·1 f --7-~ 1 1 '--Â·---~--LuÂ·Â»Â«2*-1.-re<puiL w. 11-1--1.-ILLI . ....... 1 1#i .-_1_- p- Â»211_%7.-:--_ .iLF=-r=_-Â·Â· L_*tz-=.. -7.-~~~E 7 id 9~~~~~ ~ r Ep1~7- ...[..TÂ». ,/, l -':%4<1 X . $ It ./ 11 . ...1 - . -1 1 21' . - - ,- + - - . ----- . mit Es + -.. E~"'45 .- i--I 1:zz-z.:ft ~ --Â· - 2 :.#--Â· -Â·-- - - Â· ~ -Â· -<- Â·- /{/fff 1 ~ r I 77-*- - f -w -IT n --~ --~- Lh~-1 - i -r=-= /1 i zzil I 4.'.--#--... .. I 1 Â£ LÂ« r 1-' ~~ ~.. ./2 -' a,1% M/T.=51%.&/::ill/-- Â· -Â·~~2.- !~..... ...~...L... 1.Â·Â· 9-+41. ~1, 1- r).1 1 -9.--Fl -lf- OFTJ"fl Â·1 7 1- - .-' 11 1 lili .1,1 11,1 .i. .11 F dill, ,Â· 3311 1 [3 0 Â· ~ 12 0 z Â·- 'i,0 -x 1: i. t.]QI 'JI ' Â· 'uni . e IL-11 4-4 11,i_P L.Lid, - .- . 1 --- --.- . t---21LT+-7 1 --i +I-'---71 1 - 0 . , ..1- WT-.2 -3=*,.. -_ - _J- I .. f Â·1*~i J -- Â·Â· . --447 : I--- -,I- ..'.--..2.j..1 , . r-~~---r~- ~-Â·'-- Â·--~Â·'---+T, - .-~- 1 1-- --17.-7--â€ž'.0.1.-91.-1.--7.-11 1 h { 1-1 . 1 .Â· Â·~ 1 '~ ~~~. ~~~~- -/~ ~ ~ ,~ L. . 1 i - -r LF .ail-J.f~_.~"- 1 -_---_- --=--ro_=3 quE-jif~â‚¬Â·--1.-.PrE-'-7.-,2.--'~1 1, ' | i -Â·---'" T' '' 1 .,t j I 1 1 1 11 r. d. 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 iÂ© i 0 1.2 F OURT M 5 TR. 1 1/11 1 1 i Â¥ht ..1 1 1 1 1 - E _1 2 -1--....7. ..2'.2- .EL--3-~~_r.u] ' Y N ffi NOR.714 2 LECVATH ON.S.. o F FE.L,IL-k/irq<.-i>; S 1, Bi5,6 SCALE A n = 1 l_, C > 14 l - I. 1& ZA 0 1/ 7, wk 1 1 2 01 4 \3 - V VIEÂ«/ - jr.19â€žOM W.1:4 O.rritt B.5 /44 1:ENULE 4 CHALIET~5 242 23035 â€¢ 1 COTTA GLE 163(04 GUEST STORAGE 2013.0 4--1 (BEDROOM Al>Tbe<?90* 4 \2750. GUEST''F COMMON AREE/t 9900 1 - STUDIc D S 'AFFOR DABLE "41 455 r ' 5 96: -* EXEâ‚¬ C; 2,E 12 93 L) r .* 9 0 1 , 41 - .2 9 2 1 /-41 .- - 4 -" EJ04 V --2= ,-1 r./1 1 --Â·' fY: I i / \ 1 1 bl k -- . ---- ---~---7 â€¢A 1 ,\ A---- - 4~ i ~ *----- 74/6 1-2.~U. 1 1 1 A â‚¬4* f 301_ Â©.1 1 U'' .1 4-31'il +- 9/ -\ ..14, / :.\ / / /7.4.4 /2 1\ / / / h. 1 . 1, 2/ ' 1 / / \ 1 \-,,i I / /1,0, 9Â«3 B - â‚¬ 0 60 92 F // . 1 -1 -- 1 1 I 'Â·u /9 4 fih,%_______-223,6,1. 4 TH. STEE Err , PR-O PERTy. ' r Â·'-- A--44Â·~-~9 .. 1 .1 0- -- A 4--___,___ 4', LOW'â‚¬12 CGI' RT>ARIj fc 7/ / 1 1 BDRD/\ APT' 4 '7055> ':. . 7 \.1 ---144 I , '.*.Â·.11 - 1,1,01 4) 1-- -. I w.55043 \ . - .>34*43- 'ht / , ////4 0,424 -ED G E C> i 1 .4 ..:#. h.> -\07 p-ROP E 8-T y 414 . f \ - Â£-67-1 / / /, d- - - - - A-3 27 58201\! 10 F'.4 - rÂ« 41 \ Vi / 4 1 / C \1 \ % 1 :. g, % , 1 \V - Â·Sru p,05 9900 1 ,Â«3 " ~ P -A 1 . 4/1 j \ -FOOT-PRI NT- 53 5-7 41 ./ \ \ tÂ¥L F A b.. 1/Â»44~ 11 1/ / /\ 9 A '~ 1 \Â·I .1.19/FL \ \\ 1 671 0/ 1 ; 1 1 ' -bux,rÂ©.- / 5 2.80.4,<. 007Ckeip.21)>1_.Ce ,% , , bE - --- f~------f - - E--- - 1 -N d \/ N >4 LIT_4__BLE> s_.,9226 01 \\ F--4' ~ / - l 1 1 ,/ * /TOTÂ»0 4 - 4-\ 4- -- 23 Te ) R +AtÂ· 7 90 1 TES -19. 2.0 0 , i i I / ik /1 = / v r J.' / l:.. / f 1,- 1 1/ inri) ., - ahyb '1 . N Â· 1 06/. f 1 1 t 3 ~ 1 4 - ~19~~ -z got. 4:211 'y â‚¬RD UNIb FLI~ , 1 A 1 4--U 4-f--'tr-T54 \\\\ 1 [c / // i- , 1 f.4RA froOT PRINT-1\ 6~C>'_(Â·>lt / ri- BLPG 630 w _GUEST COAÂ° MON Â£ i /1 ./0 / . - ...1/>br . ~ ~ ~94 / 4TAR#f Â·r WEL â‚¬*T<31, RlÂ» ~ AKEA \49051 :11,' A // 1 -3640 , IiI' 1 2 4 4 \\ / r- Â·. ---- -Â·Â·----Ov~ f# , x << , . ,: //6 , 1 i 2 1 A. 94 3 + 6 64 â€ž< ~ ~ r ji , 1 0 \\ 0 //7 / /4/2 1\ 11Â¢ - -1 Pf / 11 T \1 // 25 A \ h \A/KEER -MA.tA 5-- --+ F --,~ -14~4.#L 3--.; -4/, 4<+--14.1 8 1 h . 21 ; /ivi 15% o" \ NORVE H lE \19-93/, />Â¥90 1 1 \\ \J \ i 2-717 FIREE HyDRPi#qr-4/.// TR.ASH 1 -91 ;i 10.- 01% A ori. i rigy- <.i 3 + Â«t<~1~~ ~- \\--5 -1 0 . /6\ 1 IC-)-iO't/f*--3.-,Â·I A p DIP-Â·-- i i EDGE OF 'PROPERIX 1 It' o h 1 _ f- 17Â» I. 1 S tf. _. _1.6.1 ., ---1-=--S- - 1-Ll, 1 19.1 'L 111 Z,7... './ i [-9-1 . -i r , Im j \ . '1 , \ 94. 1\ , 1-0 , 5. 51126 WAL,< 6 \,f ,â€žJ--Â· Â· 5 LCOM---50/WALK 6-LÂ©H ~ / # 4 1 \ 4 44---- \ 1 / ' ~\ i I. 1 1 % I#. f 4,01-0,4 EDGE Di= PEÂ¢>P.EFT>'~j~~~- 1 - STREETSCAPE- 0 GRASS â€¢STRI G> bt -1 \0 I -517/ .:/4 67-0 te ' O . 10-011 U i 0 0 , '. 12/- ./ // j / .,// 27(Dt -FRONTAG â‚¬ Â·Â·Â·--Â·-Â·Â·Â·Â·-- Â·.Â·' 7% f >'42 \ 09% . ~.. ..1 1\ 0 H c) P \< 1 N 5 IN /124/ 2- . ~ 90%0 1, i 1 1 >11 11 \ 1 r 0 -, Pr ./ I. . 4 i 1.'ll- , Â· s - Â·Â· ic; .. REVI S E D JAN ZOO I SCALE 1 8 L CD C K 73 Lors A-I ASPEN C., CD . : _TOT/AL FA[1 14,361 0 CHAL.:ET proorPRINT- 741* i 4- -; l) 1Â« CHALL 1 - P L07 19{ in i V 3 C. i rh ,: 1 ~-- / f= A R_ 17 54 0 ~.~. t ..: h/4% ''4 .7 19737 0 T-TE. CbLD G 53050 4.075_.A-I - CHA !41 L iES PAT'E 11 5 0 34 -3 Gr- 4 i C. Al \ZI )34 ... MAY 2 o D i -- TT-LL Foor PAINT 1,4-5-5- 0 37,77,KÂ· AUG 200>1 S E PT 2.00 i .... Â£N3INd013A30 INAMÂ¢00 . -PARCEL ID: |2735-124-49002 DATE RCVD: |4/26/01 # COPIES:~ EA*E NO|A044-01 CASE NAME:|Boornerang PUD Amend~ent PLNR:~ PROJ ADDR:~500 W. Hopkins CASE TYP:|PUD Amendment STEPS] OWN/APP:~Charlie Patterson ADR~ Cls/z:1 PHNA REP:~Mitch Haas ADR:~201 N Mill St, ste 108 C/S/Z:jAspen/CO/81611 PHN1925-7819 FEES DUE:]2405 D 345 E 345 H FEES RCVD:|3095 STAT: r- 0. -m,m- REFERRALS~ REF:| BY| DUEA MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:| BY:~ DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: 13-01 10:49 FROM:BALLARD SFAHR It): F- AGE 2/4 LAW O F~Es BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP Prit:ADELPH,A. PA 1225 tyr. 57REET. SUITE 2300 CALT: MORE. MD DENVER. COLORADO 8C202-559â‚¬ CAMCCN. NJ 303 2Â·92-2400 SALT LAKE C!Â¥.f, U 1 FAX+ 303-2933936 voon#LES. N. LAWYERS@BALLARDS,0.:MR COM 9 19*6~ WASHINGTON,DC MA@THA. S. NACHMAN D:ACT DIAL: 5303.299-73,3 w 1, L. A . PERSONAL FAX: 303-3362-â€¢613 NACKMANM@SAL.LARDSPAHR,COM DecemDer 10.2(JOI VIA FACSIMILE John Worcester City Atrorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Draft PUD Agreement for The Boomerang Lodge Expansion Project (the "Project") Dear Mr. Worcester: As we briefly discussed on Monday, December 10, 200 1, we arc writing as counsel for Charles G. Paterson as Owner to obtain cer-ta-in ciariIications reearding the 601'low;no .nottoro 0 1 11.7 1/-6~4.&.- relating to the proposed Project. Capitalized terms not defined in this letter have the meanings for thorn sei forth In the PUD Agreement. i. We understand that the draft PLD Agreemen: does not include any provisions . T which would allow the zoning for The Property to revert to i TS prior zoning classification in the event Ihe Owner does not proceed with the Project. The Owner>s ability to proceed with the Project depends on numerous matters, including tile ability of the Owner to obtain fir.ancing for marketing and construction costs, and to mee: lender pre-sale requirements. Anv finarling would be secured by the Property. IIi preliminary discussions Owner's anticipated lender has indicated the PLJD Agreement should provide the Properly would revert to its prior zoning classification if construction on the Property is not commenced by a sp.ecified date. In our brief conversation, you indicated thai a separate process may be reiquir ed in order for the Property to revert to its prior zoning classification. Please advise if the present draft of the PUD Aereemenl couid be modifted to provide that the Property would revert to the prior zoning classification if development is nor commeneed by a specified date and whether there is an expedited process fur obtaining the prior zoning classification in the eveni the Project does not proceed. 2. The draft PUD Agreement seems to contemplate thai Ihe Project would be an extension of the Boomerang Lodge operations and that the ernployee housing units should first CO_DOCS-A *99396 vl DEC-13-01 10:50 FROM:BALLARD SPAHR ID. PAGE 3/4 Johii H 01-ceStÂ¢i December 13,2001 Patel be available for rental to Boomerang Lodge eau)loyces. Charles Paterson. who controls the entity which owns the Boomerang Lodge, also owns the Property, Mr. Paterson plans to trans fer the Property to a single purpose entity formed for the purpose of developing the Project. This arrangement is anticipated for a variety of legal and financial reasons. including the customary requii-ement of construcrion lenders that the developer be formed as a single purpose entity. Please confirm Mr. Paterson may make this transfer and also that there would be obstacles to a transfer of the Property to a new owner in the event it becomes necessary or appropnate for another entity to complete the Project. Please also advise whether the two employee housing units may be sold to the operators of other lodges or other employers within tile City of Aspen, subject to the restrictions that any such transferee to rent the units only to qualified renters under the terms ofthe Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority CAPCHA") Guidelines. 1 Secrion 5 of the draft PUD Agreement contemplates that each of the nine lodging units must be available for rental to Ihe general public on a short te,in basis no fewer titan six months per calendar year (the "Six Month RequiremenO. It was initially contemplated that each purchaser would acquire a fractional estate which would include periods for use by the purchaser and also periods during which the purchasens would be required to rent their units to the general public. In order to increase the likelihood of the lodging unirs actually being rented to the general public, and to avoid offering a 'security" as defined in the Securities and Exchange Commission's April 19, 1973 Release No. 33-5382, Ihe Owner now desires to divide Ike lodging units into eight fractional interesrs, (a) with seven interests of 26 days each (for a total of 182 days) sold to purchasers, and (b) with the Owner retaining the remaining 183 days: for rental to the general public. This arrangement would assure that at a minimum 183 days o f use of each lodging unit would be owned and managed as a block by an experienced lodge operator for the express purpose o frenting these days zo Ihe general public. Number Number of Interests of Days 1 0,81 Purchasers 7 26 182 Owner 1 183 183 Totals 8 365 Please confirm whether this arrangement wouid satisfy the City of Aspen's Six Month Requirement, 4. 'We understand the City of Aspen has determined thar its timeshare ordinance should be substantially revised to address fractional interest projects. Please confirm the status of thc existing ordinance and whether the City of Aspen intends to apply the existing timeshare ordinance to this fractional interest Project. We look forward to receiving your response to our inquiries. Because Mr. Paterson would like to proceed with the preparation of all appropriate materials so [hal, marketing may commence during this winter season, your pronipt response would be very much appreciated. If CO_DOCS_A #39396 91 DEC-13-01 10.50 FROM = BAI.LARD SPA.Hte ID- PAGE 4/4 . JURn \VW-CestÂ¢i- < December 13, 2001 . Page 3 you have any questions regarding this letter, nlease do not hesitate to contact Mike Clowdus or me Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Martha S. Nachman MSKimf Ce: Charles Paterson CO_DOCS_A #99396 vl John Worcester, 10:38 AM 1/7/02 -0700, Re: Patterson Page 1 of 2 .. X-Sender: johnw@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:38:09 -0700 To: Fred Jarman <fredj@ci.aspen.co.us> From: John Worcester <johnw@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Patterson X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Thanks. Come on down this am so we can give them a response today. At 10:20 AM 01/07/2002 -0700, you wrote: John, I reviewed the letter and the basic requests are as follows: 1) Due to apparent financing risk, can Charlie revert back to the lot's original zoning if the project cannot be realized and can this be stated in the Amended PUD Agreement? Response: The rezoning went from R-15 to R-15 LP PUD. The land use code PUD section outlines the following: a) The Applicant is nor required to act on the PUD approvals. He can still act on other permitted uses allowed in the underlying zoning classification as R-15. If the Applicant doesn't act on the currently approved PUD, it will expire in 3 years pursuant to vested rights provision in the land use code. Finally, the City cannot force the Applicant to act on the PUD for which he has approvals for. The PUD is an added right attained by the Applicant. See Section 26.445.110 Enforcement of PUD Development Order, it speaks directly to the issue of Release by City and Release by Residents. The bottom line is that this should not be written in the PUD Agreement because it is already codified in the land use code. 2) Can the approved and required 2 AH units be sold to another lodge owner and or employer in the City of Aspen? I need to talk with you about this one. 3) Will the proposed six month rule compliance plan work as outlined in the letter? Yes 4) Will the City apply the existing timeshare ordinance to this fractional interest project? The Applicant applied under the existing timeshare regs. on the books today and is subject to their requirements. For the purposes of the review process, the Application responded to the spirit of the timeshare ordinance; however, there are certain stipulations that the Applicant is required to adhere to such as the $20.000 bond ensuring the Applicant stick to the marketing plan and so on. Even if new timeshare regs. are adopted. they do not apply to this previously approved project. It is required to respond to the regs in-effect at the time of approvals. Let's talk about these responses. Thanks, Fred At 01 :36 PM 1 /3/02 -0700, you wrote: Printed for Fred Jarman <fredj@ci.aspen.co.us> 1/7/02 John Worcester, 10:38 AM 1/7/02 -0700, Re: Patterson Page 2 of 2 .. Did you have a chance to review that letter from Charlies folks about the boomerang? Thanks ************************************* John P. Worcester johnw@ci.aspen.co.us (970) 920-5055 ************************************* ************************************ ohn P. Worcester ohnw@ci.aspen.co.us 970) 920-5055 ************************************ Printed for Fred Jarman <fredj@ci.aspen.co.us> 1/7/02 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director (4 Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner ~*f. RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion - PUD Amendment, Timeshare & Subdivision Ordinance No. 41, Series 2001 (2nd Reading / Public Hearing) DATE: October 9, 2001 Zlkiwwr - #'. . . AH-'14 4 . 1:AL I Crfl' 2. 17 --h-C a i ; a - -r. 43 4 Main St f >D--4079*.:,lh; â€¢-81Â¥~:~S~,W 31 2 *W Existing 1 1 94 : - 22 Â·r.-- 1 4 m.*4--t~ r f-,f-7* ri Christiania Bot=g 4281*1Â· t,-I-1 ~Ef ..~ f< ':,1 Lodge ... all . V .... . . 41 #CJ, 4-4/R *601/~LitiAt 6, Proposed ~ 3 Expansion of +Al \\ --Â»-kt. 1,n Boomerang - ~ , '~1441LLE, *4-677 1~Â· -~z-*A VV. Hopkinst Lodge -- .t.1 --.. 1 P . ..,=2 Â£ ipir "-*a Avenue 7 , e t- 1 1 Ill : 1 -7''n. 4'.,4/4*2 t<*6794Â¥10' 1 -.17. 1 1141 1 r.42Â·1,2<41Â£ re , Al b-4 -U'.6 0 1/ E-netitÂ£ -â‚¬CU / j SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to amend a previous approval (via Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000) for the expansion of the Boomerang Lodge across W. Hopkins to a vacant lot. APPLICANT & REPRESENTATIVE Charles & Fonda Paterson, represented by Mitch Haas. LOCATION: South of 500 W. Hopkins (Across from the existing Boomerang Lodge) CURRENT ZONING: R-15 / PUD / LP LOT SIZE: 19,737 SQUARE FEET 1 .. BACKGROUND Charles and Fonda Paterson (Applicant) have submitted an application to amend the approved Boomerang Lodge Expansion. Originally, the Applicant received approval from City Council via Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000 for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Rezoning to R-15 LP PUD, GMQS Exemptions for Affordable Housing and Lodge Preservation (LP) units, and Conditional Use for the provision of Affordable Housing to expand the Boomerang across the street on a vacant parcel at 500 West Hopkins Avenue. Specifically, Ordinance No. 20 granted land use approvals for the addition of (7) lodge units (for a total of 17 lodge bedrooms), two (2) affordable housing units, and a ten space on-site sub-grade parking garage. The Applicant, upon realizing an incorrect scale was used in designing the 10-space sub- grade garage, requests to amend the approved PUD. Additionally, the Applicant is also requesting new land use approvals to sell the lodge units in a "fractional ownership" type arrangement similar to the City's Timeshare program. AMENDMENT REQUESTS Specifically, the Applicant proposes to amend the previous approval by the following actions: 1) Eliminate the 10-space sub-grade parking garage and provide five "on-site" parking spaces accessed off of West Ilopkins Avenue; 2) Reduce one 3-bedroom Chalet to a 1 -bedroom cottage (reducing the bedrooms by two) 3) Add two (2) additional 1-bedroom lodge units to the west end structure; and 4) Request Conditional Use approval for "Timeshare" plan to allow the sale of fractional interests for the lodge units in the expansion. STAFF COMMENTS Staff believes the spirit and intent of the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals of the lodge preservation and affordable housing programs; in that, the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) calls for increasing the lodge accommodations and affordable housing units in town. Staff also appreciates that the proposal maintains the site in its natural condition to the greatest extent possible, as well as limiting the measured height to 23 feet for the chalets and 25 feet for the lodge/bathhouse/AH building for a total peak height of 28 feet for all buildings which is already allowed under the current zoning. During the public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission for this amendment, the main issues included the proposed on-site parking and the request for timeshare proposed in a fractional ownership arrangement for the new units. In the end, the Applicant proposed a fractional ownership arrangement that complies with the lodge definition, which requires lodges to be available to the general public for at least six months out of the year on a short-term basis. 2 .. In addition, the Applicant produced a site plan that met the Staff s recommendation of providing between 5 and 7 on-site parking spaces by providing 5 on-site spaces as shown in the revised site plan with the possibility of providing a sixth on-site space along the western lot line accessed from West Hopkins. This is consistent with Staffs prior recommendation in considering Ordinance 20 for the original PUD. [It should also be noted that this was also the original recommendation of the P&Z to City Council when considering the original Ordinance 20.1 A. Lodge Preservation vs. Parking Issue The City Council has seen a large number of Lodge Preservation proj eets come before them this year due to the passage of the successful Lodge Preservation program. While the program appears to be working well, Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council are required to wrestle with the issue of promoting the physical expansion of lodge units (thus "hotbeds") balanced by the general inability to also provide the associated on-site parking required by the Land Use Code. Many projects have successfully mitigated the issue due to their current levels of parking, close proximity to mass transit, and / or the provision of additional alternative transportation methods for their guests and employees to mitigate for the lack of parking. Therefore, while other lodge expansions have recently occurred in Aspen without completely meeting the required parking standards, those lodges were already built out physically on their lots with little or no room to expand outward; instead, these lodges expanded upward and successfully mitigated the lack of parking by the methods mentioned above. In this case, this expansion is proposed on a vacant property of 19,737 square feet. Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet Staff s recommended parking requirement of providing between 5 to 7 spaces rather than the 13.9 spaces required by the Land use Code. B. Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion on Parking The 17 proposed lodge rooms require 11.9 on-site parking spaces and the two affordable housing units would require one space per unit, for a total of 13.9 on site parking spaces. During the initial Planning and Zoning Commission review for this amendment, the Commission continued the public hearing so that Staff and the Applicant could meet with other city departments to get additional feedback as well as provide the Applicant time to redesign / re-approach the parking issue. Subsequently, Staff and the Applicant met with the Streets, Parks, Engineering, and Parking Departments. It was clear that these departments felt there should be no "Boomerang" designated parking in the 4th Street Right-of-Way stub as originally proposed mainly due to the potential conflict of this area for a trail-head parking and for future trail plans for the Shadow Mountain Trail. In addition, the departments agreed that 3 .. numerous curb cuts along West Hopkins effectively reduced on-street parking and further presented a safety hazard because West Hopkins is a designated pedestrian and bicycle corridor in the summer. As a result, the Applicant produced a new site plan that includes some of the ideas generated from this meeting. This new site plan, amended from first reading, includes providing 5 on-site parking spaces with the possibility of providing a sixth space along the western lot line accessed from West Hopkins Avenue. This meets Staff' s recommendation of providing between 5 and 7 on-site spaces but falls short the Planning and Zoning Commission's final recommendation of providing 13 on-site spaces. However, the Applicant has provided a plan that better addresses the issues of fewer curb cuts and incorporates a one way drive through loop that eliminates any backing out motion onto West Hopkins in addition to furthering the goal of the lodge preservation program by providing increased lodging bed base. C. Whv Recommending a minimum of 5 Spaces As part of the original submission (for Ordinance 20, Series 2000 prior to the sub-grade garage proposal), Staff recommended that the Applicant should be required to provide between 5 and 7 on-site parking spaces due to the lodge's location and existing parking spaces, which was significantly less than the requirement. Staff believes a minimum of 5 spaces can accommodate this expansion for several reasons. First, the existing Boomerang currently operates a shuttle service for its guests on an as needed basis with an SUV and is exploring the addition of a shuttle van; and second, the lodge is located within walking and biking distance to town, recreation areas, and RFTA bus stops on Main Street. West Hopkins Avenue is a designated pedestrian and bicycle corridor during the summer months and therefore experiences a high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The Parks Department is concerned about parking along W. Hopkins Avenue in front of this property as well as any potential parking in the 4111 Street stub because of the potential for complications for future trail plans for the Shadow Mountain Trail. Providing a minimum of 5 spaces on-site in the proposed "loop drive" configuration should eliminate any backing out motion onto the street and not eliminate a large number of "on-street" spaces. Finally, fire access to the property will be from W. Hopkins Avenue. Staff is concerned that this right-of-way is being designated for too many uses - lodge parking, fire access, and a public trail. Providing a minimum of 5 parking spaces "on site" would alleviate the need for parking on the street, leaving the street primarily available for public use - people using the pedestrian and bicycle corridor, trail users, and fire access for this property. LIowever, given this discussion on parking, the City Council may require the Applicant comply with the 0.7 spaces on-site per bedroom which results in requiring 13.9 spaces or 4 .. require the Applicant to provide a lower number of spaces as set through the PUD which is still consistent with the land Use Code. D. Conditional Use: Timeshare / Fractional Ownership Plan The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval for a "Timeshare" plan to allow the sale of fractional interests for the new lodge units. The Land Use Code defines a "lodge" as the same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short- term basis for at least six month of each calendar year. E. Timeshare Discussion While the timeshare concept has been around for many years in Aspen, fractional share or "interval" ownership is a new concept for Aspen as well as many other resorts in Colorado. Staff has been exploring what this new type of ownership means for Aspen's lodging bed base in terms of"hotbeds" or beds available to the general public on a short- term basis. There are many issues yet to be fully analyzed and /or realized, as the concept of fractional ownership is relatively new. As lodge units are "owned," the City gains no "sales tax" from short-term visitors; however, those owners that do visit may tend to spend more money in Aspen, as an indirect sales benefit, due to the notion that they are not burdened by paying a nightly lodging fee (even though they may already be doing that through mortgages). In addition, it appears that fractional fee ownership programs tend to be successful by utilizing "exchange programs" where an owner of a fractional share in Boca Raton may wish to exchange their time in Boca Raton for two weeks in Aspen and vice versa. It is clear that the Boomerang Lodge wishes to participate in an exchange program as part of the fractional share program. What does this mean for Aspen' s "hotbeds?" It may mean that visitors driving into Aspen for the night without reservations will increasingly have a difficult time in finding a lodge unit. However, given today' s resort climate and the high end lodging units available, visitors most likely have already planned their trip and reserved their rooms / units prior to arriving. It appears the trend in fractional ownership accommodations operate with higher occupancies throughout the year than typical hotels. More than that, as the fraction of units' increases, for example from 1/78 to 1/208 per unit, so does the number of beds that are filled more frequently because that many more guaranteed bodies are coming to town. Ultimately, given all this, the question becomes: Does Aspen care who fills the units as long as the units are occupied? Fractional Ownership in the Context of Lodge Preservation The purpose ofthe Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone 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 5 .. 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." Given the trends in Aspen's lodging industry in recent years, this ordinance was crafted to help small lodges survive in what appears to be a market requiring very luxurious accommodations and associated amenities, which have come to quickly overshadow Aspen' s small lodges. This is clearly evident with the sharp reduction in bed-base (or pillow count loss). In response to the change in these accommodation parameters in the Aspen lodging climate, the traditional economic strategies are becoming less effective in maintaining economic viability for some smaller traditional lodges. The Land Use Code defines a lodge as the "same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year, and may have kitchens within individual lodge rooms." As a result of this definition, Aspen has seen the condominiumization of many lodges that essentially turn those once long standing lodge units into second homes that must also be rented out on a six-month basis to the general public. This has been difficult, at best, for the City of Aspen to monitor and enforce. The same "six-month rule" applies to a fractional or interval ownership arrangement. In this light, there is no difference between a condominiumization and fractional arrangement in a lodge; whether there is one owner or 21 owners, the units must still be available to the general public for the six months on a short-term basis. It can be argued that with fractional shares, these units are geared towards turning over more often, so that they are less likely to become someone's second home in Aspen and may remain more consistent with a lodge use. The Boomerang Lodge property maintains a LP Overlay and is, therefore, required to adhere to this definition by providing overnight lodging to the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year. An issue that may result from allowing lodges to be condominiumized or sold as fractional shares and taken out of the rental pool for six months is the fact that required availability to the general public generally falls in the "off-season." Most people who will purchase a share will most certainly want to experience Aspen for what Aspen has to offer: winter and summer activities. The six month rule does not require when those times are to be set for the general public and as a result the time available to the general public will most likely occur during the less desirable time to be in Aspen. 6 .. Staff finds that because the Applicant is able to take advantage of the Lodge Preservation program by achieving additional allotments/ units that are exempted from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), the Applicant must remain a "lodge" in use. Any change in that would require a change in use. The Applicant is also aware that if the primary use becomes residential, they will need to compete for residential allotments instead of the LP allotments. E. Lodge Preservation Allotments & GMOS Exemptions The Applicant received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 37, Series, 2000 for two (2) lodge preservation (LP) allotments and GMQS Exemptions for these 2 LP units. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the 2 additional LP allotments and GMOS Exemptions for the LP units and recommended approval to City Council for the Substantial PUD Amendment, Timeshare, and Subdivision requests. However, the Planning & Zoning Commission' s motion included a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant should provide 13 on-site parking spaces. PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval to City Council for the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision with the conditions in the Ordinance with the exception that the Applicant shall be required to provide 13 on-site parking spaces. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Aspen City Council approve Ordinance No. , Series of 2001, approving the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision with conditions in the Ordinance with the exception that the Applicant shall be required to provide a minimum of 5 on-site parking spaces. Staff believes that a minimum of 5 parking spaces suggested by the Applicant should adequately serve the lodge expansion. Staff has drafted the Ordinance requiring only 5 on-site parking spaces are provided. If Council agrees with the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation, they should modify the ordinance accordingly. The alternate motion would be more appropriate in this case. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 41, Series of 2001, approving a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision with conditions." ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Ordinance No. 41, Series of 2001, approving a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision with 7 .. conditions and specifically amending condition 12(n) to require 13 on-site parking ,, spaces. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment Exhibit B: Conditional Use for Timeshare Exhibit C: Subdivision Exhibit D: Site Plan adopted via Ordinance 20, Series 2000 Exhibit E: Application & Proposed Architectural Drawings 8 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. 41 (SERIES OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, A PROPERTY LOCATED AT BLOCK 32, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-49-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Charles and Fonda Paterson, owners, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review for a property consisting of portions of Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Town Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 19,737 square feet, and is located in the R-15 Zone District with Lodge Preservation and Planned Unit Development Overlays; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a request for Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation allotments and Affordable Housing units after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County LIousing Authority, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director, comments from the general public, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court in the case entitled Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture L.L.C. (case No. 98-5C-547, decided June 5,2000) held that Section 38-12-301, C.R.S., prohibits the enactment of an ordinance that imposes rent controls; and, 9 .. WHEREAS, Section 38-12-301, C.R.S., states that the rent control statute is not intended to impair the right of a municipality to manage and control any property in which it has an interest through a housing authority; and, WHEREAS, the applicant desires to grant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority an interest in the affordable housing units subject to the terms and conditions contained herein; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has consented to accepting an interest in the affordable housing units on conditions that it be indemnified and held harmless from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 37, Series 2001, by a six to one (6-1) vote, approving two Lodge Preservation allotments and GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Housing Authority, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a regular public hearing on October 9, 2001, and approved this Ordinance for Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision, with conditions, by a vote of to L - _); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this request for Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the application, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Boomerang Lodge, parcel identification of 2735-124-49-002 is approved for the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision, with conditions. 10 .. Section 2 That the Boomerang Lodge expansion to a real property (namely, Parcel Number 2735- 124-49-002) to include six detached buildings, including four (4) chalets, one (1) cottage, and one building containing two (2) affordable housing units, four (4) 1-bedroom lodge units, guest storage, guest common space, lockers, bathrooms, and spa facilities, is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C) of the Land Use Code. The process to amend the PUD in the future shall be addressed in the PUD agreement. 2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights-of-way, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. 3. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction at the time of building permit application. 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. 4. The Applicant agrees the construction on the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. If the construction does not begin on the two affordable housing units within this time frame, the Applicant shall be required to mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to whatever is built in the initial phase by temporarily deed restricting a two-bedroom unit on their Waters Avenue property, since the entire development requires housing of just 1.911 employees and a two- bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 employees. More specifically, temporary mitigation shall be coordinated with the Aspen / Pitkin County LIousing Authority to temporarily deed restrict the two-bedroom unit at 1020 Waters Avenue in a manner to accommodate the salary level of the Boomerang Lodge employee needing to be housed in accordance with the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority. If after 36 months, a second phase of development to include construction of the on-site affordable housing mitigation is not initiated, the applicant shall have 11 .. the option of either converting the temporary deed restriction to a permanent deed restriction, or paying to the APCLIA cash-in-lieu of housing at the then current rate for the 0.88 of an employee generated by construction of the three (3) chalets. 5. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $2,860.58 in school land dedication fees. Payment shall be made to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwelling units. [26.610.040(BE 6. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $25,136.00 in park development impact fees. The park development impact fee shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. The Community Development Director shall transfer all funds collected to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. Such funds shall only be used for the acquisition of land for Public Park and recreation purposes, including trails, and for capital improvements to such newly acquired or existing park and recreation lands. [Section 26.610.0401 7. As a condition specific to the Conditional Use for Timeshare, the Applicant shall keep the units available to the general public for at least six months of the year on a short-term basis in keeping with the parameters of the lodge definition. 8. That the Applicant shall include specific information regarding the fractional ownership / Condominiumization arrangement which specifies that a "share owner reservation schedule" shall require that all owners are required to reserve their units by October 1St for use in the winter and by May 1St for use in the summer. If such "share owner reservations" have not been made by these dates, the units shall be available to the general public. 9. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest (one tenth of 196) in the ownership of the affordable housing units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purposes of complying with the recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision regarding rent control legislation. The Applicant may also supply the City Attorney with an alternative option that is acceptable. 10. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the affordable housing units. 11. The Applicant shall not designate any parking spaces in the 4th street right-o f-way stub for Boomerang Parking. 12. The Applicant shall install a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the property frontage on Hopkins Avenue at the time of development of this project that shall meet the City of Aspen guidelines. 13. The following dimensional requirements of the Substantial PUD Amendment are approved and shall be printed on the Amended Final Illustrative Plan: a. Minimum Lot Size. 15,000 square feet. b. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling. No requirement 12 .. c. Maximum Allowable Density. 1 lodge or dwelling bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Minimum Lot Width. 75 feet. e. Minimum Front Yard. 10 feet. f. Minimum Side Yard. 8 feet. g. Minimum Rear Yard. 1 foot. h. Maximum Site Coverage. 35 percent. i. Maximum Height. 25 feet. j. Minimum Distance Between Buildings. 6 feet. k. Minimum Percent Open Space. 40 percent. 1. Trash Access Area. To be located on the NE corner of property on 4th and Hopkins Ave. m. Allowable Floor Area Ratio. 0.75:1 n. Minimum Off-Street Parking. 5 on-site spaces. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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 thereo f. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 24111 day of September, 2001. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor 13 .. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th Day of October, 2001. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcestor, City Attorney 14 .. EXHIBIT A SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT As stated earlier, an amendment found to be inconsistent with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Applicant shall be required to address the following standards regarding the proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding Staff believes the spirit and intent of the proposed amendment meets the goals the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) that calls for increasing lodge accommodations and affordable housing units in town. Further, The project's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan was thoroughly demonstrated in connection with the original PUD approval, and the addition of two more lodging units do not hinder the Applicant' s ability to comply with the broader goals of the AACP; in fact, it furthers the goal of providing more lodge accommodations. In this case, the Boomerang Lodge is eligible to expand onto an adjacent vacant property of 19,737 square feet (which is slightly less then a half city block). Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet or even exceed the City's parking requirement. The Applicant received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 29, Series, 2000 for seven (7) lodge preservation (LP) allotments. The Applicant was approved for an additional (2) two LP allotments as a result of a site redesign that reduces one 3-bedroom Chalet to one-bedroom cottage and adds the newly requested lodge units (allotments) to the main lodge building at the west end of the site. This approval reflects a total of nine (9) LP allotments that have been awarded to the Boomerang Lodge expansion. Currently, the LP Growth Summary (as of June 25, 2001) indicates that there are 16 available allotments. Therefore, there are plenty of allotments to satisfy this request. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for an properties within the PUD ... The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone 13 .. district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. Staff Finding The Applicant received approval from the City Council to vary certain dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. This requested amendment would also vary six of those as well. Staff has provided a table below (Table 3.0) illustrating the requested variance from the already approved underlying zoning dimensional requirements. Table 3.0 Dimensional Previously Approved for Proposed for In the R-15 zone district Requirement PUD Amendment Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 square feet for a detached Minimum Lot Area per residential dwelling or duplex; no No requirement No requirement Dwelling Unit requirement for a bed and breakfast or a boardinghouse Regulated via minimum lot area per One lodge or residential One lodge or residential Maximum Allowable dwelling unit; otherwise, not specifically bedroom per 1,000 square feet bedroom per 1,000 Density regulated. of lot area. square feet of lot area. Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 25 feet for residential dwellings; 30 feet 10 feet Minimum Front Yard 10 feet for accessory and all other buildings. Minimum Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet. 8 feet 20 feet for all buildings except residential dwellings and accessory Per approved final PUD Minimum Rear Yard buildings; 10 feet for residential 1 foot development plans. dwellings; and, 5 feet for accessory buildings. Maximum Site Coverage Not regulated 35% 35% Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings on a 10 feet 14 feet 6 feet Lot Minimum Open Space Not regulated 55% 40% To be located on NE Per approved final PUD Trash Access Area Not regulated corner of property on 4th development plans and Hopkins Avenue The applicant shall provide an 4,757 square feet for a detached single- accurate floor area ratio for the family residence on the subject lot; purposes of recording. Allowable Floor Area 5,177 square feet for a duplex on the Essentially, this meant "per the 0.75:1 subject lot; and, no regulation provided approved final PUD development : for any use other than single family plans, with a ratio to be detached or duplex. calculated. Two (2) spaces per residential unit of two or more bedrooms and one (1) Per approved final PUD Minimum Off-Street space per residential studio or one- development plans (not less than 5 on-site Spaces Parking Spaces bedroom unit; established via Special 10 spaces). Review for all other uses. 14 .. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following injluences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, tra#ic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding In general, Staff believes the proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are minimal. If the Applicant is required to provide a minimum of 5 on-site parking spaces, the site plan will change to accommodate them, which may in turn require further changes to the dimensional requirements as a result. There are no known natural or man-made hazards affecting the project site. Existing vegetation on the project site is sparse, consisting mainly of wild grasses and sagebrush. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The highest open space requirement of any City zone district is twenty-five percent and the Applicant proposes leaving 40% for open space. In addition, all residential zone districts permit a twenty-five foot maximum building height, and since the proposed development is located in proximity to residential developments, the proposed twenty-five foot maximum height limitation is appropriate. The massing and scale of the proposed development is consistent with that of the surrounding neighborhood. The chalet structures will include two stories above grade and pitched roofs with a peak/ridge height of approximately twenty-eight feet and a measured height of approximately twenty-three feet. The proposed FAR of 0.75:1 will accommodate the development, but will not permit buildings of a size that would be out of character with those structures found in the surrounding area. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed 0 The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 15 .. Staff Finding The Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district requires 0.7 spaces per bedroom, or establishing the number of spaces pursuant to a PUD. If the 0.7 space per bedroom standard were imposed, the 17 new lodge rooms would require 11.9 on-site parking spaces, and the two affordable housing units would require one space per unit, for a total of 13.9 on site parking spaces. Staff' s finding regarding parking has been amply discussed in the Staff Comments portion of this Memorandum. Therefore, in keeping with Staff' s original recommendation of requiring between 5 to 7 spaces, Staff strongly recommends that the Applicant should be required to provide at least 5 on-site parking spaces at a bare minimum. City Council could require the full 13.9 spaces. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specijically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensurefire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development and, therefore, no density reductions were necessary. This amendment increases the unit count by two lodge units, which are incorporated in the larger west end building which will not be apparently different as seen from the street. Further, it does not change the number of units substantially enough to affect the ability to service the development. All utilities are available to the site and the existing capacities are adequate to accommodate the proposed density. West Hopkins Avenue is a City of Aspen public right- of-way, which is maintained by the City of Aspen. The Aspen Fire District station is seven blocks from the project site, which is served with ample existing hydrants and is already within the fire protection district. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The landis not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 16 .. Staff Finding Staff finds the existing conditions of the property have not changed since the granting of the previous approvals. Further the Applicant's response to this standard amply demonstrates the project' s compliance. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding The P&Z approved two (2) additional LP allotments (or units) which increase the density of the site yet the bedroom count remains the same. These units are absorbed in the west end building, which exists in the current approvals. This is in accordance with the AACP, which supports the notion of increasing Aspen's lodge bed base. These additional units will not further compromise the sites capabilities to handle the density. Moreover, it is Staff' s opinion that the site could handle much more density than is proposed. C. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with tile following: 1. Existing natural or man-madefeatures of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specijic reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. 17 .. Staff Finding Staff finds that the site does not contain any unique natural or man-made features that provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past. Since there are no significant open spaces or vistas worthy of preservation, the structures have been appropriately spaced. The site plan does not significantly obscure views of Shadow Mountain from surrounding properties. The proposed heights of the various structures are consistent with the Code at 25 feet. The site is surrounded on three of its four sides by public rights-of-way (4th Street to the east West Hopkins Avenue to the North, and 5th Street to the west). Emergency vehicle access will be primarily from West Hopkins Avenue, and secondarily from the 4th and 5th Street rights-of-way. At its deepest part, the site has a depth of approximately eighty-five feet, making even the furthest set back structures accessible for fire protection. Service and delivery vehicles will, for the most part, work through the existing front desk/offices area of the Boomerang Lodge across the street. Otherwise, West Hopkins Avenue will provide adequate access for all needs. A fenced trash enclosure will be located at the northwest corner of the property. The project will use roof drains, downspouts, and dry wells to maintain the site's historic runoff/drainage rates after development. No drainage related impacts would be felt on surrounding properties. Further, Staff is requiring the Applicant to install a sidewalk at the time of development. All programmatic uses will be enclosed within the west end building. D. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing signijicant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding Staff finds the existing state of the site does not significantly contribute to the identity or visual character of the city. Its frontage has currently served as a parking space for large heavy construction machinery. The Applicant intends to leave the undeveloped portions of the site as they currently exist in an effort to preserve, to the extent possible, the natural character of the area surrounding the site, including Shadow Mountain, Little Cloud Park, and the Midland Trail. The only new landscaping additions proposed include the planting of roughly nine Aspen trees (see site plan), and ten to fourteen honeysuckle bushes along the West Hopkins Avenue right-of-way frontage. Consistent with the existing Boomerang Lodge property, the Applicant intends to plant honeysuckle bushes in the proposed landscaping to complement those located across the street. 18 .. E. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture Of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require signijicant maintenance. Staff Finding Staff finds that this standard has been adequately addressed in the Application. F. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. AH lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding Staff finds that the Applicant shall comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Regulations, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(E), Non-Residential Lighting Standards (including mixed use projects). G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 19 .. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in al common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing no designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas as part of this PUD. Recreation areas are already provided on the grounds of the existing Boomerang Lodge property including a swimming pool and spa. Open space is provided in Little Cloud Park just south of the project site and the Marolt Open Space just a few blocks to the west, and City parks are available for use within easy walking distance. The Boomerang Lodge anticipates managing all aspects of the proposed development through and after completion. No common park or recreation areas are proposed. Maintenance provisions will be addressed as part of the Final PUD Agreement. The requirement of a "deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development" is not applicable since no common open spaces or recreation areas are proposed. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $25,136.00 in park development impact fees. The park development impact fee shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. The Community Development Director shall transfer all funds collected to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. Such funds shall only be used for the acquisition of land for Public Park and recreation purposes, including trails, and for capital improvements to such newly acquired or existing park and recreation lands. [Section 26.610.040] H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified jinancial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding Please refer to the report prepared by Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers contained in the original PUD submission. In addition, Staff is requiring the Applicant to install a curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements at the time of development of the project. Impacts on parks and schools will be minimal, as most of the development is comprised of tourist accommodations. Park lands are plentiful in the neighborhood including Little Cloud, Koch Park, Paepke Park, and the Marolt Open Space. 20 .. These parks all maintain more than enough capacity to adequately serve the proposed development. The proposed amendment' s addition of two new lodging units will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the Applicant shall bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions. Pursuant to Section 26.610.020 of the Code, park development impact fees for the new lodge bedrooms (but not the affordable housing bedrooms) will be due at the time of building permit issuance. Staff does not believe that any over-sizing of utilities will be necessary, but if such should be required, the Applicant will be glad to be reimbursed. In the event that utilities have been oversized in connection with other developments in the area and an agreement for reimbursement is in place, the applicants will pay their proportionate reimbursement fees for connection to such facilities. I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding As proposed, each structure and unit of the proposed PUD will have direct access to the adjacent street of West Hopkins Avenue via a concrete walkway from the front door to the sidewalk. Access to the parking spaces proposed in the 4th Street right-of-way will be via West Hopkins Avenue and/or 4th Street, both of which are public streets. The issues of vehicular access, parking, and traffic have been discussed earlier in this memo. The property is surrounded by public rights-of-way on three of its four sides, where 4th and 5th Streets function only as driveways. Only West Hopkins Avenue functions as a road. The proposed parking plan provides essentially one driveway intersection with West Hopkins Avenue, represented by the 4th Street right-of-way. This is a street intersection where the impacts will be limited only to that potentially attributable to seven parking spaces. This proposal will not detract from the ability o f West Hopkins Avenue to continue functioning j ointly as a street and bicycle/pedestrian corridor. Again, due to the nature of the site, Staff finds that the Applicant should be able to, and provide, at a minimum, between 5 to 7 on-site parking spaces so as to not overburden the City's ability to provide public parking. Staff further believes there are many creative ways to accomplish this lessened requirement so that additional curb cuts are not made onto West Hopkins Avenue. 21 .. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shaH be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding Staff finds that the previously approved PUD was to be developed over two distinct phases, with the employee dwelling units being built in phase two. Under the current plan, all units will be built in one phase. If, however, financial considerations force the development to occur over two phases, the Applicant has offered a contingency plan regarding mitigation for employee generation. Also, should a phasing plan become necessary due to financial or other unforeseen reasons, the Applicant requests that such a plan be subject only to administrative review and approval as an insubstantial PUD amendment. In order to ensure that the employee generation impacts of phase one would be mitigated, the original approval included a condition requiring that a temporary Deed of Trust be provided to the City until such time as a certificate of occupancy is issued on the employee units. Under the current plan, all units will be built in one phase. If, however, financial considerations or other unforeseen circumstances force the development to occur over two or more phases, the applicant would like to offer the following contingency plan with regard to mitigation of employee generation. The applicants own a roughly 4,240 square foot triplex at 1020 Waters Avenue. The triplex contains three apartments. The units in the triplex are not deed restricted, but function as de facto employee housing under the applicant's ownership. If, and only if, the proposed development is not completed in a single phase of construction, the applicant is prepared to mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to whatever is built in the initial phase by temporarily deed restricting a two-bedroom unit on the Waters Avenue property. Given that the entire development requires housing of just 1.911 employees and a two- bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 employees, the suggested temporary mitigation will be more than enough to satisfy any requirement that could potentially be attributed to a partial build-out of the lodge expansion. Should the above-described, temporary mitigation become necessary, it is proposed that the two-bedroom unit at 1020 Waters Avenue be deed restricted in a manner whereby the category designation would "float" to accommodate the salary level of the Boomerang Lodge employee needing to be housed. 22 .. The specific condition required as part of the ordinance is "The Applicant agrees the construction on the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. If the construction does not begin on the two affordable housing units within this time frame, the Applicant shall be required to mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to whatever is built in the initial phase by temporarily deed restricting a two-bedroom unit on their Waters Avenue property, since the entire development requires housing of just 1.911 employees and a two-bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 employees. More specifically, temporary mitigation shall be coordinated with the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority to temporarily deed restrict the two-bedroom unit at 1020 Waters Avenue in a manner to accommodate the salary level of the Boomerang Lodge employee needing to be housed in accordance with the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority. If after 36 months, a second phase of development to include construction of the on-site affordable housing mitigation is not initiated, the applicant shall have the option of either converting the temporary deed restriction to a permanent deed restriction, or paying to the APCHA cash-in-lieu of housing at the then current rate for the 0.88 of an employee generated by construction of the three (3) chalets." 23 .. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE The LP Overlay zone district allows "timesharing" as a conditional use. The proposed fractional share program requires conditional use approval as a timeshare. The following section, as proposed by the Applicant, describes the proposed fractional share program and provides responses to the standards applicable to a conditional use. The subsequent section of this application responds to the applicable criteria of the Code for timeshares. Finally, timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision pursuant to the Code definition of "subdivision" and, therefore, requires approval of a subdivision addressed in Exhibit D. Vt should be noted, that because a "timeshare" application requires review against three sections Of the Code (conditional use, timeshare, and subdivision), and that subdivision reviews require approval by the City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requests these reviews be combined. Therefore, the Applicant would like all decision making authority on these three requests to lie with City Council.-\ The Applicant, through Conditional Use approval, seeks to sell fractional interests in the Boomerang Lodge expansion units. If this conditional use approval is granted, the applicant intends to condominiumize the property after it is built in order to facilitate the sale of fractional interests in each unit. (Please see the Application portion discussing Time share for a complete description of the proposed program.) Standards for Conditional Use The Applicant is required to comply with Section 26.425.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. Further, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether the following standards are met: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located; and Staff Finding The LP zoning and the AACP stress the importance of finding ways to make small lodges and the expansion of smalllodges viable in Aspen. This conditional use is proposed solely as a means of making the Boomerang Lodge and its expansion economically viable. Staff finds that the fractional interest program, as proposed by the applicant, ensures that every unit in the expansion will be available to the general public for rental on a short-term basis for at least twenty-six weeks worth of each year. In addition, lodging units that are vacant will be added to the rental pool and rented on a short-term basis. The Applicant has committed to a plan that keeps the units available to the general public for at least six months of the year on a short term basis. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances 24 .. the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Staff Finding Staff finds that the compatibility of the proposed development (zoning, site design, scale and massing of structures, density, dimensional requirements etc.) has been adequately demonstrated throughout the former PUD. The slight reduction of one Chalet unit to a 1- bedroom cottage is compatible with the site and neighborhood. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed conditional use will not affect the location, size, design, or operating characteristics of the Boomerang Lodge PUD. Due to the relatively high number of shares, the lodge will look and feel like a lodge with the turnover. As part of the fractional share program, the management will retain 50% of all rental fees to offset total expenses. Management will also own the grounds, the two employee dwelling units, the common area/meeting room, the laundry facilities, the storage space for use by the owners, and the spa, dressing, and exercise areas. In addition, management will retain three weeks per year of ownership in each unit to allow for maintenance/repair and rental. As compared with traditional lodge operations, the fractional share program will have no increased affects on visual impacts, circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations or odor. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, jire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and Staff Finding Staff believes this standard has been adequately addressed in relation to the entire development. A fractional share program as compared with traditional lodge operation does not appear to have any additional affects on public facilities and services. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Staff Finding Staff finds the conditional use does not generate additional employees beyond that expected from a traditional lodge operation. Employee generation will be mitigated with the development of two deed-restricted studio apartments, or deed restricting the 2-bedroom unit on Waters Avenue. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and by aN other applicable requirements of this Title. 25 .. Staff Finding Please refer to the Planned Unit Development section of this Memorandum in Exhibit A. Timeshares As explained above, the fractional share program requires review as a timeshare pursuant to Section 26.590.010(C) of the Code. The Applicant has indicated that since the review standards applicable to a timeshare application are either antiquated or do not apply in this case, there is no textual response to each standard. Further, the Applicant believes that many of the standards were written with 1970s variety timeshares and marketing in mind. Since this application has very little in common with the typical timeshare of the 1970s and many of the standards are rendered inapplicable, the Applicant has simply provided an overview and narrative describing the proposed fractional share program as well as an attempt to respond to the intent of each regulation to the extent possible. Please see Exhibit D for this information regarding the Timesharing Program as proposed by the Applicant. Fractional Ownership Program Overview The Applicant seeks approval to sell fractional interests in the nine new Boomerang Lodge expansion units while the existing Boomerang units will remain as rentals. The applicant intends to file a condominium map after the units are built in order to facilitate the sale of fractional interests in each unit. The specific description in detail is provided in the Application submitted to the Community Development Department and attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit D & E. 26 .. EXHIBIT C SUBDIVISION Timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision pursuant to the Code definition of "subdivision" and, therefore, requires approval of a subdivision pursuant to Section 26.480.050, Review Standards, of the Code. Accordingly, Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension Of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. 27 .. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested und provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding Staff finds that the Applicant intends to provide all improvements set forth in Chapter 26.580, as applicable. The improvements will comply with the design standards also contained in said Chapter. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program does not apply to this application. The applicable standards of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, have been addressed above in reference to the GMQS exemptions. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding Staff finds that this section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. The Applicant has opted to provide a payment of cash-in-lieu since the subject property is only 19,737 square feet in size and is located within the original Aspen townsite. These payments shall be made to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwelling units based on calculations to be performed by staff of the Community Development Department in accordance with the formula provided in the Code. Subdivision / School Land Dedication Timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision; therefore, the Applicant is required to comply with the City's school land dedication. School land dedications standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen, which contain residential units. The Applicant shall make a payment of cash in-lieu of a land dedication to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential / lodge dwelling units. The formula to determine the amount of cash-in-lieu payment for each 28 .. residential / lodge dwelling unit (totaling 11 units / 19 bedrooms) is calculated in Table 4.0 below. Table 4.0 (Proportionate to X Land Dedication X 0.33 Cash-in-Lieu Unit Type total land value) Standard 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (AH) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (AH) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 Total Cash-in-lieu Payment $2,860.58 As a result of the analysis above and based on a current market value of $2,250,000 the Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $2,860.58 in school land dedication fees at time of building permits. It should be noted that this amount could change if fees are increased by City Council. Park Development Impact Fee (26.610.020) Park development impact fees shall be assessed upon all development in the City of Aspen which creates additional bedrooms in residential dwellings, lodges, hotels, bed and breakfasts, boardinghouses, roominghouses or dormitories and on all development which creates additional commercial or office space. Park development impact fees shall not be assessed on Affordable housing subject to Affordable Housing Guidelines. The park development impact fee shall be assessed according to the following schedule: Residential / Lodge # of Units Unit Type Fee per Unit type Total Payment Studio $ 1,520.00 $ - 5 One-bedroom $ 2,120.00 $ 10,600.00 Two-bedroom $ 2,725.00 $ - 4 Three-bedroom or larger $ 3,634.00 $ 14,536.00 Total $ 25,136.00 29 2- Ah, 62+ 0 . 5-,P - * 2.9 40/2 2Â»02- HAR,-0 p ----UFfkagÂ·DATA END S Mrac--/ 4 6 Ai *WIDIc_A.'â‚¬â€¢ OF)40051 -FOR. 12.CAAS U............ #' 2+L&" - 1 EN#:I 0 v/-77--NI FRL 50 GAR.AG- ----- -. -,- E Dâ‚¬ FMMi Nt-h< ..A 9%. .7 . PA- H A' .9 \\,1 Â«42'11+ -1 6/ 9 10' 11 - - 1-9 , -7 'LL'r.- '' -',;1Â·W4--lili'I , L 1 1 404/WS'.*Le --7 ...../.- L â‚¬,-h 3<11<<, 1- L~ ~ ~4 3, 4 Â«Â» ic=/ 1 1 < 02 U F'flfWPK+r- - C Ke'OF LiwEr . Fumy-=P-4 El I 34141 [1 il- r ,-I-0 -~ 161 + . 4%3 d / A.Feal<,D 17 14 2~27 Â· J 4-v - 1 . 1 PRE.~f:2â€¢. / 7~ \ 2- I e =0400,4 , \\\\ (. f r P.1 i <:r. 2 , i fECI LU. 1 r F n.,Sml.L=71 i 1 1 ----. 3.- / \ 4-2 j ~3 :â€¢AuG- Op. e. ..: 1 ,<: :1 /. 1 ,\ 7.-1 FOR Â»25 I - - - / A \\ I-- ..... I.:0 \ 4 -- 1 Â£ 4Â·~p~OX 26DZ U \ 1 1 ./. - * Â£/ 21' / -\ - , 1 L 1 \\ \ gOLD. 6 |7 - 7-r.~fA -=- r- r 1 =S:FÂ·>0 8-K V/. 1 I El-.i 0/3 2 4 \\21 - Collier 4 Â· C A Â« L-= 7 1 1 4\\ / 1, \ ' .>- Â·GLANTE-:) r#ALL OP 6.,1 1 LA-FUE 50/J-/44 4-1-M. 5 . -1 I FA 41- 1. i L.1 *ER- i ' C.DUR-ty...< 3 ,-0- - - \ E:GE ./ -2/924-9 5 A 849*5 13â‚¬57%49 --7 '1 - ---: , : 1 T.=RAL, -FDGE % PkIP='Ay f =El-- A t H -- 1- 1 1 c. H .1 k LE S PATE A 5(DN : PE- s- 1 0 N E- R Ral.5/1:Jl_J_wky . AlÂ»v 9 5 .AL-Â· -'>42 - 1,-ch. 1-3 LCD <21< 32_ A -I I Â°Â·33-7 0 -- L r- =L , 11 1 -9 5 5- 0 . ._ F 61-6.-- -D-f-211MkÂ« 31 4,Â·6,4 0 l. 1 / 0 911 / //U It\-, 4 2441 l ./.&1 2_'ElEI| Ill . 21 lk. 1.1-Â»&1[1] / 1 \\~~4 VI,j411 9 0,to; 4 1 dÂ«*Il ELI*312--L--- 5:4 3 9 BA i _ Ir .,==~Mw=GÂ» -2 '.6 41 Imi [-1. *2111~ 0Li -4 1 1[JI -~IU_1 1 E]In]1 1 4 1 1 94. I.'.III :Â·Â· .-21 'r '.r~- Py=L LI:- _11 FOUR-/,4 57121 , ~ 1 '1 1 :11 1 0 ' 10' Â© 1 ~Â»2=4-=- i i .2-1 ' 1 1 1 1 NORTH ELIvA,MON.S.-OF InotLPINGS 11,3,5'T, G SCALE h ..= 1 L c>. ---Y]Ky4-. LFÂ®UM.W. 4--43 P.B LESÂ· *V ENZUE: 4- CHALETS * 13â‚¬551 . 1 (CATAGE *300 3 UEST STORAGE- 201Â·10 4-2 SEDRO,)M APrSe?90' I 127501. GlÂ®ST-l CONWAD,4 AR*\ 49/~ I let ST-WDIA?S 'AFFORIABLE"c= 45-50 â€¢ 512. * EXE<CISE- 1200 Fi 1 I -1 -_CIr - TEEL . : I FÂ·â€¢ ;" -'-~-.,,AM~Â·Â·6â€¢2-=J 4 litl~y-tr-- -Â»lf.,rf*2-4-44542-- ~<44,4-i;%~56%~i*'IN:kil 1 < ~~ < 199---t?-04.32.-*~Â·32~' ~ ~-~ x~. /*.1./t,r/3... 301-9. 1 \NÂ« 4 /// . 4517013 842-2/_1 Z.*. .-0-4 4 TH STREET- ....Eeril f\ \ b.- -1 V 0Â« , #fl,Fj-â‚¬4-trrf w - . 40 - -5-017-W - .__ i â€¢Â·'-=2 â€¢-'~ ir~::z~ I k --47,/ -- . X -I ICE- O 0 -4---Sal.&~.#333461 90~-Â«-5-ftj ;-44\~A f -33,4 ea ope Ary 493+ 4- 1 \ . 1Â»/7....t._ .Abt .*..... -- F.| 5Â·,-irouyipâ€¢'Mi:;022 -f- f I *S-fx= -- Ten:**i .'f ,Â·,f'.-4, / -m - ,*~24*6R ~ 1 _ateaiNI=3570 ~~ 1 ~ ~~Ab j* 1Â·z.:.ur=.2 -42 . A 1 j/ -.::93 -milfA:-. V 6: i 5 0/ f %*1-- _22gC 04[CL>.PElbIC S / 16 K . 4 ....... -Â· Â·Â· 'Sk - tel:ki-~ -~.. , Â«/ 4.17*409 iR'-13*41-f~----~ - ~~- 14~1~\. - 6/ -y --149*__Â·i_-__ 1 ' ~227= ' P. Pt-, 1 O /1 50 -0. - Â·re,Â».er .rÂ¢/2/WG '30( AU74 \C?'100 - Â·' --'- --Â«4./4434 Fff 4 ~3*.2-rÂ»- -i,~tiaijoi1,(MiÂ« e' RejrÂ·PR*b.Wk.t-< 4%3L_ ,-~[_-,-43-49 ,*FR~.Â·:.#' Bat,'<9 fil,1*~ I -172' 'WAr EA J..iN - =-=Â·â‚¬.1-2 -:-,.4.2 Â«99 #Â·Â»~ r:=a rt 1-54--7'r T-Â·..:.I--b.i~~4.M rem'Ir.2~Â·-Â·, ~IMÂ·Â·Â·2 4-*u -,it i??Â»V 1 1 14/WTH WLIK@H=T-4 7Jr.M~5;H .Er.U.,a:Â·- Â»Â«7/ 94<- PATY)* ,Â£ 4~, ~:~~~~~ ~ ~'ItfiÂ·~]1 ki,~,~7 # Â£ '.-~~jri~~~fr;~~R,~~1 4Â·Â·416Â°4Â« -11_ ~~ ~~~ 4 c- 11,5 55 9<v NK f M.J ( 04 -' ' 5' 616*K ~ ;0 )F I- .,46*37EJâ‚¬ ..,1&*~ ~7'~ .' tiÂ» - . ~ Et>GE " 1>PoP,agjl--Â·~f// ~~~8~/k. 6 ~r - ~.,,-, ~Â·. ; j~Â·~c r- -- 441' ,-i~Ell-bt-5~ liÂ·'E.--Â»LUf-1.- '"L -=-r-' -ZL. 1 D'/1" /IDGE '19 FAVIMI/r 0-- REVI 52 0 dAN 2001 ' BLOCK 31 LOT"S A-L ASPEN C.D 5 CA L. M.' 1 1 '-O. 1 . PLOT PLAN 6 4)43 M ETCA-14-G CLUIS CHALETS BLOG .1-6 10 S A-I . 191731 0 -IC,TAL FAA 1436 0 CidAIALEZ AuG 2 04,1 PATER.SON DESIGNE}k -MAA. 2001 FL Fck)relk,NT -7+53-0 -57,77% SEPT ./0 ' , .. Number of Number of Days for Days Total days Total days Total days Owners days Rental to Retained available for private allocated Owned by Gen. by Mgmt. to gen. ownership Each Public per public use Owner Owner 8 42 21 29 [(8 x 21) + 168 365 29] = 197 7 49 23 22 [(7 x 23) + 182 365 22] = 183 6 56 28 28 [(6 x 28) + 169 365 28] = 196 8 owners: There are 365 days in a year. Management retains 29 days for maintenance and rental to the general public, leaving a balance of 336 days. While each of the eight owners owns 42 days, they can use only 21 ofthese for themselves while the other 21 days per owner must be made available for rental to the general public; thus, 168 of the owned days (8 x 21) are made available to the general public. These 168 days plus the 29 retained by management, result in 197 days per year available to the general public. A total of 168 days are used by private owners. 7 owners: There are 365 days in a year. Management retains 22 days for maintenance and rental to the general public, leaving a balance of 343 days, While each of the seven owners owns 49 days, they can use only 26 of these for themselves while the other 23 days per owner must be made available for rental to the general public; thus, 161 of the owned days (7 x 23) are made available to the general public. These 161 days plus the 22 retained by management, result in 183 days per year available to the general public. A total of 182 days are used by private owners. 6 owners: There are 365 days in a year. Management retains 28 days for maintenance and rental to the general public, leaving a balance of 337 days. While each of the six owners owns 56 days, they can use only 28 of these for themselves while the other 28 days per owner must be made available for rental to the general public; thus, 168 ofthe owned days (6 x 28) are made available to the general public. These 168 days plus the 28 retained by management, result in 196 days per year available to the general public. A total of 169 days are used by private owners. All of these scenarios meet or exceed the "Lodge" definition requirement that each unit be made available for short-term rental by the general public for at least six months per year. This requirement will be made clear in the covenants and each contract to purchase a share will outline the parameters ofthe purchase. The attached sheets provide an example of the type o f management and rotation system that will be used. The example comes from a successful project in Sun Valley, Idaho. The Boomerang system will be similarly established with the rotation system managed in accordance with the above described limitations. f/ .. As presented, the project will have (assuming the 7 owners per unit scenario): â€¢ Four 3-bedroom chalets with 28 owners plus manhgement; â€¢ Four 1-bedroom apartments with 28 owners plus management, and, â€¢ One 1 -bedroom cottage with 7 owners plus management. â€¢ Total = 9 units, 17 bedrooms, and 63 owners plus management. â€¢ For the 6 owner program, there would be 72 owners with 8 owners per unit (plus management); â€¢ For the 7 owner program, there would be 63 owners (plus management); and, â€¢ For the 8 owner program, there would be 54 owners (plus management). How can we be sure management will always retain control over the project? Using the seven owner program as an example: Since management retains 22 days in each unit, they effectively maintain one share in each of the 9 units (9 shares), plus ownership of the two "affordable" studio apartments, the grounds, and all common areas and facilities. Management will manage the buildings, maintenance, housekeeping, reservations, finances, transportation, concierge services, and grounds, etc. from their headquarters at the Boomerang Lodge. Covenants will be structured such that, regardless of how many shares are owned by one or more parties, the management's shares (in each unit plus the ownership ofthe AlI units and common elements) will provide management with a majority vote/interest in the property. For instance, in the seven owner program there are a total of 63 owners each with one voting right, but management would retain 64 voting rights based on owning 22 days in each unit and all the other elements of the project as described above. In this way, it is guaranteed that the Boomerang Lodge management will retain control over the project, regardless of how many shares are owner by an individual. When do unused allotted times become available to the general public for reservation? This response follows the attached sheet entitled "Key Dates." After "Optional planned vacation weeks" are confirmed, any time periods that are supposed to be allotted for use by the owners but remain unreserved will become available to the general public for rental. Therefore, any unreserved allotted time periods for the winter season will be made available to the general public after November lst. and after June l St for the summer season. .. "Reservation Priority Number" means the number assigned to each owner for use in establishing priority in an instance when the number of requests for a particular week exceeds the number of residences avail- able. Reservation priority numbers rotate each year in order to provide equitable allocation of accommodations over time. Reservation Procedures. Scheduling your vacation time is a simple matter of requesting your preferred weeks and receiving confirmation. â€¢ Approximately five months before the beginning of each season (July 1 for winter season, February 1 for summer season) you will be sent a Reservation Request Form allow- ing you to request three possible dates for each "planned" and "optional planned" vacation. â€¢ Requests for planned vacations are due back within thirty (30) days. Requests for optional planned vacations are due back within ninety (90) days. â€¢ Planned vacation periods will be allocated and confirmed within another thirty (30) days, or two and one-half months before the season begins. â€¢ After all planned vacation periods have been confirmed, the optional planned vacation periods will be confirmed. â€¢ After all optional planned vacations have been confirmed you may request space available time. .. BOOMERANG CLU13 CHALETS and Apartments Rotating Priority System In the event that there are more requests for a specific week than there are residences available, the following rotating priority system will be used to allocate the space. Each of the twenty eight (28) ownership interests ofthe four 3 bedroom Chalets or one bedroom Apartments will be assigned a number 1-28, in order of purchase. These owners will then be organized in groups of four, reflecting the four residences. Group "A" is made up of owners #1 through #4, Group "B" is made up of owners # 4 through #8, Group "C" is made up of owners #8 through #12 etc. When demand for certain dates exceed lodging supply: The lower numbers will have priority on (a) the FIRST planned winter vacation, (b) the SECOND planned summer vacation and (c) WINTER optional planned vacation weeks. The higher numbers will have priority on (a) the SECOND planned winter Vacation, (b) the FIRST planned summer vacation and (c) SUMMER optional Planned vacation weeks. Each year the groups will rotate one position in priority, thereby giving all owners equitable priority as the years go by. ( See chart). The seven owners ofthe one bedroom Cottage will also be assigned a priority number in order of purchase (1 through 7 ) and Will also rotate annually in the instance of conflicting requests. Space available weeks will be allocated on a first come, first serves basis. KEY DATES Winter Season Summer Season Request forms mailed July 1 February 1 Planned vacation requests returned Augustl March 1 Planned vacation weeks confirmed September 1 ~ April 1 Optional planned vacation requests returned October 1 May 1 Optional planned vacation weeks confirmed November 1 June 1 Space available requests can be made November 1 June 1 WINTER VACATION TIMELINE . July August September October November December January February March April May June 9605*64*viatiaÂ».7,Â»912.~4*20 624#41~422 ;*20Â£)i#44 41%2:1~~1194*#CE *A#$2/4*RUMMANE""0*7---I~ _1 ~ July 1 ~ Aug 1 ~ Sept 1 ~ Oct 1 I Nov 1 Winter Vacation Period Request Planned Planned Optional Optional forni vacation vacation planned planned Late November to Mid-April mailed requests weeks vacation vacation returned confirrned requests weeks returned confirmed - 0 Nov 1 Space available requests can be made SUMMER VACATION TIMELINE Febniary March April May June July August September October November December January - i ...-â€¢. /:4 ,... 9- =â€¢t,&&65 -~.ig.â‚¬6â‚¬#Li: 4-IÂ·Â·Ut#:670.7 4/bl~**T..â‚¬66.Â·34;~f~-5%*fif#%64&-'0'Ir#XyBqVT Ofqfier&~ r~iffV)448Ka;~~ iÂ»454'62-42924*%3117.42*Mpey- 47.1927.4.'439*I'4*13*4~- *#19Â·*a*#,A274;4.rÂ·Â·92 -tr4Â· 9~10Â· =:2-2,4.-**Â·- 2-23-Â¥0*Â·,4,2.Â·i>-4~.Â·12' ~ Feb 1 ~ March 1 ~ April l ~ May 1 0 June l Summer Vacation Period Request Planned Planned Optional Optional forni vacation vacation planned planned Early June to Mid-October mailed requests weeks vacation vacation returned confirmed requests weeks returned confirmed .J une 1 Space available requests can be made RESERVATIONS PRIORITY SYSTEM EXAMPLE. GROUP "A". FIRST FOUR YEARS. YEAR ONE YEAR TWO Reservation First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional Owner Priority Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Number Groups Number Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Kieek ~ ~ 1 -11 A 1 ~ H -- H â€¢ - H B -- B â€¢ir B W ./,r 4 12-22 B 2 B G B G B G C H C H C H 9-12. 23-33 C 3 C F C F C F D G D G D G 13-16 34-44 D 4 DEDE D E E F E F E F ~~-20 45 -55 E 5 E D E D E ID F E F E FE 21-2( 56 -66 F 6 F C F C F C G D G D G D 2.5-28 67-77 G 7 G B G B G B H C H C H C 78-88 H 8 H ---H-z-HQ~B~BÂ·B 4, W YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR Reservation First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional Priority Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Number Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week 1 C B B O B D C D C D C 2 D Â· D E B E B E B e W 3EH HEHF FÂ· e ... F .18 4FG GFGGHGHGH 5 G F F G F H G H G H G 6 H E EHE F e e WF F 7 D DÂ·DBEBEBE e W 8BC CBCCDCDCD =emowman .. Steve Goldenberg 430 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611-1604 Phone and Fax: 970-925-1294 steve@goldenberg.com Mayor and City Council Tuesday, October 02, 2001 Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Boomerang Lodge Amendment A little more than a year ago the owners of the Boomerang Lodge applied to build five, 2,100+ square foot 3 bedroom, 3.5 bath, full kitchen "chalets", an additional building containing only 2 lodge units, 2 employee units and absolutely no off street parking. There were also rumors and some discussion by the applicant about "time sharing". The P&Z and staff both wanted off street parking. A few days before the second reading, the applicant revised the application and added an underground garage. At the ensuing public meeting, Charlie stated that there was absolutely no time sharing in the application and therefore, they didn't have to answer any related questions. Even though Council put aside the normal "historic use", "adjacent" and "moderate price" requirements for the property to qualify for L.P. benefits and relaxed adherence to normal development requirements, the neighbors were satisfied with the 10-12 car underground garage and Council approved the application. That was the "contract" the Boomerang made with the City (and the citizens and neighbors). Now, a year later, the applicant is coming back requesting an amendment to eliminate the underground garage, and to allow time sharing that really runs counter to the spirit and intent of the Lodge Preservation rules and regulations. P&Z reviewed the new proposed 6 space parking plan, thought that it would not work and recommended 13 spaces in their recent resolution. Although the time sharing part of the application has recently been revised to meet minimal technical compliance, it still does not meet the spirit of "Lodge Preservation" which intends for "moderate priced" "hot beds" to be available during the "on seasons", not just the off seasons. Unless these time shares are restricted primarily to buyers who request only off season weeks, winter and summer visitors will not have reasonable access to the "chalets" which will be tied up by "2nd home owners", during the busy seasons. Most of these owners will have cars to park, even if they don't have to use them after they get here. Having just barely met the technical requirements for timesharing, but not the spirit of Lodge Preservation, the applicant then asks you to also ignore the parking standards which require 13.9 on site parking spaces. (This is in addition to seeking forgiveness for not complying with L.P. zone requirements of "historic use", "adjacent property" and the longstanding R-15 zoning.) An undergroundti'arage, with a satisfactory ramp, can be built. This virgin property runs all the way from 4 to 5th Street which provides a possible run of as much as 200' to keep the ramp incline safe, or, if the applicant doesn't want to spend the money to build .. the required spaces underground, he can omit one of the chalets and put surface parking on site for 8-10 cars in it's place. It's his choice but the City's well established off street parking requirements should not be abandoned or compromised with 14 cars being dumped into the laps of citizens, neighbors and others that use West Hopkins Ave. as a Pedestrian/Bikeway or the 4~h Street stub for trail access especially since the old Boomerang Wrests are already parking their cars in the alley and in the public right of way on W. 4 Street. They should be reducing their old parking deficiency, not making the street parking situation even worse. We support true Lodge Preservation. The new timesharing element defeats Lodge Preservation. The 4 real lodge rooms and 2 employee units are just the "L.P." justification for building 5 new 2,100 square foot houses on virgin property zoned for just one home or a duplex. The up front proceeds of time sharing sales are great for the applicants but leave the Boomerang Lodge with the obligation of providing full guest services, with little or no ongoing rental income and deprives the city and county of their normai hotei room tax revenue. Removal of the previously approved underground garage, without providing enough workable off street parking, underground or otherwise is really unreasonable request that is unfair to the citizens and everyone else that had to meet these requirements in the past and sets a very bad precedent for future development applications. This application was approved when the 10 space underground garage was added. It should not be approved without it. Very truly yours, .SteÂ«e goaedete .. October 1,2001 TO: The City Council Aspen, Colorado FROM: Renee A. Marcus 432 West Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado As a resident of Aspen for 32 years and a neighbor of the Boomerang Lodge, 1 am concerned with the integrity of West Hopkins Avenue. The primary reason I have continued living here for the past 23 years is because of the charming mix ofprivate homes, condominiums and smalilodges creating an eclectic thoroughfare to hikers, bikers and families to enjoy. I am not opposed to smalllodge preservation. In fact I believe there is a tremendous need for moderate priced "hotel" rooms. The Boomerang as it stands is a perfect example of the kind of facility that needs to be preserved; but the proposed plan does NOT comply with the criterion for "Lodge Preservation". My 3 concerns are the following: 1. The 5 "Chalets" are scheduled to be built 3 years before the "additional lodge rooms" and the Employee housing. There is no guarantee that the 2nd phase of this project will ever be built . . .( especially with the economy as it is now). This would result in 4 or 5 - 2100 sq. ft., 3-bedroom fractional ownership homes, squeezed together on a lot appropriate for 1 duplex. This represents a totally new concept, not the preservation ofthe Boomerang Lodge. 2.By creating "fractional interest" homes, there will NOT be any additional "hot beds", as the owners will certainly choose to be here during the prime time. 3.The number ofbedrooms proposed requires 14 parking spaces... and the applicants are only providing 6, which will create more traffic and congestion on what currently is a street for pedestrian use. I'm sorry I can't be at the October 9th meeting. However I appreciate your time and consideration. REmectfully yours, /#*9043 i Renee A. Marcus / .. Cheryl Goldenberg 430 West Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 44139 Dear Mayor and Aspen City Council: I've lived across the street from the Boomerang Lodge for the past 13 years. I'm writing because I'm concerned that the new project being proposed as an extension of the Boomerang will cause an f inappropriate and excessive number of cars to be parked on West Hopkins Avenue - the pedestrian/ bike . way. The five individual chalets which will probably be sold as time shares or as individual homes to be managed by the Boom erinn 6 are all larryer than my home. We live in a duplex on a 9,000 sq ft. lot (less than hal f the size o f the property to be developed) and by zoning law each hal f of the duplex is required < to have a two car garage and an individual space offthe street. The parking space and garage are in the back in the alley and out of sight of the pedestrian/bike way. We think that the developer of our property also fought for fewer spaces but we're thankful now that the city prevailed and the street looks more beautiful because the cars are put away out of sight. I don't believe that the Lodge Preservation rezoning is appropriate as the Boomerang is not adding moderately priced small lodging - this is very expensive high priced housing or lodging. Charlie Paterson says that time shares would probably sell for $300,000 - $400,000 for 1/7 of a chalet. It's logical that the people who stay in these chalets will find the price of a car rental inconsequential. If the chalets are used by owners they may be eligible for resident passes and leave their cars on the street all the time - even when they're not here. Smaller sized and much less expensive units like The Gant (largest unit is 1600 sq. ft. and rents for $300 to $1,000 per night) and Aspen Meadows provide a lot of on site parking for their guests and they are both hidden away and not on the ped/bike way. Even Aspen Square, North of Nell, The Little Nell and The St. Regis, which are all right in town and where guests could easily walk and take buses, have underground garage parking for their guests. Also tourists who are paying these high prices are likely to demand more services than the Boomerang currently provides 6 and that will create more traffic on W. Hopkins. The question is "Is this expansion really providing the smalllodge experience that the zoning is trying to protect?" If the project was less dense there would be room for parking and still plenty of room for profit as each chalet could eventually sell for close to $3 mil each. Less density and a garage is necessary here not only for the chalets but also for the employee units, and not just for the people using this property but for those of us who walk, bike, jog, roller blade, etc. into town and want to continue enjoying the relatively quiet beauty of Shadow Mountain and West Hopkins Avenue. Thanks for your time and attention. Sincerely, Cheryl Goldenberg October 2,2001 TO: Mr. Fred Jarmon - Please circulate to Mayor and Council. Madame Mayor and Members of the Aspen City Council: My name is John Staton. My family and I own a home at 431 W. Hopkins Street and Fourth Street across the street from the property that Charlie Paterson, ("Applicant") owner of the Boomerang Lodge is be fore you today seeking an amendment to the zoning approval (Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000) approved last year. I know Charlie. All of us know that he is an honorable, longtime resident of Aspen. Although my family and I are not presently permanent residents, members of my immediate family have lived and worked in Aspen for over 20 years. I am unable to be here today to present my opposition and support my friends and neighbors who oppose the proposed amendment. 1. CHARLIE MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY TO GET ITS APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT LAST YEAR. (a) He voluntarily agreed to put in underground parking in order to get your approval. .. (b) There is no reason to amend that contract. Charlie can put in underground parking. Nothing has been said to show that he cannot do it. (c) The only reason cited in the application is that "an incorrect scale was used in designing the 10-space sub-grade garage." (d) The City, its citizens, and the neighborhood are being asked to bear the burden of Applicant's mistake. le) There is no showing that the underground parking cannot be constructed as proposed last year. There is plenty of land (19,000 square feet) to accommodate the sub-grade garage. 2. ALLOWING A TRASH ACCESS AREA ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY ON FOURTH AND HOPKINS AVENUEi DESTROYS THE RESIDENTIAL FEEL OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. (a) Not compatible with West Hopkins pedestrian and bike corridor. (b) Not compatible with entrance to Shadow Mountain trail. (c) There are other locations on this property where Applicant can place a trash access area that will be less intrusive on this residential neighborhood and the many uses of West Hopkins Avenue and Fourth Street by hikers, bikers, pedestrians, and neighbors. .. 3. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD REQUIRE UNDERGROUND PARKING AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. 4. THE TRASH ACCESS AREA CAN AND MUST BE MOVED TO A LESS INTRUSIVE LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY. J. TIME SHARING AS PROPOSED VIOLATES THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE LODGE PRESERVATION PROGRAM, AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO AMEND THE TIME SHARING PLAN TO ALLOW RENTALS BY NON-OWNERS DURING"PRIME" WINTER AND SUMMER MONTHS. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of these comments. John C. Staton, Jr. 431 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 544-0288 j staton@kslaw.com CC: Mr. Steve Goldenberg Mr. Charles Paterson KLEIN-ZIMET ~ PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMET* SUEE 203 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 *also admitted in New York FAX: (970) 925-3977 October 3, 2001 RECEIVED The Honorable Members of the OCT O 3 2001 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena St. - ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Boomerang Lodge Expansion Amendment Dear Council Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of John C. Staton Jr, Sue G. Staton, Renee Marcus, Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Martha Madsen, Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Brafman and Tom Cleary, all, neighbors of the Boomerang Lodge. We wish to express our strenuous opposition to the Amendment to the prior approval for the Boomerang expansion which is presently before you. The primary obj ection is to the elimination of the 10 required on-site parking spaces and the previously approved underground parking facility and its proposed replacement with 5 on-site spaces, only three of which are committed to serve the 17 new lodge bedrooms. In addition, we also object to the timeshare element of the proposal because of its non-compliance with the intent of the Lodge Preservation zone district and the criteria for a Conditional Use. A summary ofour objections is as follows, with more detailed discussion later in this letter. 1. The underground parking structure which was to have contained 10 parking spaces has been eliminated. 2. Only five (5) on-site parking spaces are proposed as of todayl vs. the 13 spaces recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z"). 3. Since two (2) spaces may be needed for the affordable housing, only three (3) new spaces are committed to the proposed 17 new lodge bedrooms. 4. West Hopkins Street constraints warrant the on-site underground parking as approved. iThe application for this amendment has had numerous changes to the number and configuration of parking spaces since it was filed with the Planning Office. This "moving target" approach tends to confuse the issues and makes a proper evaluation of the overall plan more difficult. .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen City Council October 3, 2001 Page 2 5. No justification for the parking amendment, in fact, the amendment provides a windfall. 6. The Amendment does not meet the intent of the Lodge Preservation Ordinance. 7. The timeshare component does not satisfy the criteria for a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation zone district. 1. Elimination of Underground Parking Mitigation. When this project was previously processed, many neighbors objected because it did not provide adequate on-site parking. A few days before the final City Council hearing, the application was amended to include the underground parking structure with parking for ten (10) vehicles. It was this amendment that gained neighborhood support for the expansion and the approval of City Council. Now, having gotten his foot in the door with the prior approval, the Applicant seeks to amend the prior approval to eliminate its single most important impact mitigation feature. 2. Less Parking. The Amendment now proposes a total of five (5) on-site parking spaces instead of the ten (10) previously required and the 13 recommended by the P&Z. Since two (2) spaces may be needed for the affordable housing unitst only three (3) spaces are committed to serve 17 new lodge bedrooms. This is clearly inadequate! No justification for the reduction in the number of spaces has been forthcoming. 3. Change in Unit Mix Requires More, Not Less Parking. Although the change in the unit mix proposed by the Amendment increases the demand for parking, the applicant proposes fewer parking spaces. The original application was approved for 17 bedrooms in five 3-bedroom chalets and two 1 -bedroom lodge units. In addition, two 1 -bedroom affordable housing units were proposed. The Amendment seeks approval for four 3-bedroom chalets, a 1 -bedroom chalet and four 1-bedroom lodge rooms. The affordable housing proposed appears to be the same. An increase in parking demand results, however, from the change in unit type. By reducing the number of 3- bedroom chalets and increasing the number of individual lodge rooms, greater parking requirements result. Nevertheless, the Amendment proposes to reduce the parking from 10 spaces to 5 spaces. We agree with the P&Z evaluation ofthe parking needs ofthe project and that the impact on the neighborhood warrants 13 on-site spaces to support this density. While we understand the value of the lodge expansion program, and have some willingness to compromise on the total number of spaces provided, these spaces must be located oIl-site and underground as previously approved. 4. West Hopkins Trail/Traffic Constraints. West Hopkins street is not your typical 2If the employees living in the housing units have cars, these spaces are theirs. .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen City Council October 3, 2001 Page 3 downtown street. It is marked and barricaded for pedestrian uses and local traffic only. The driving and parking surface is narrow and severely compromised by the barricades. West Hopkins street does not have uniform sidewalks and parking is often disorganized and frequently interferes with pedestrian and local vehicular uses. The additional traffic from the lodge expansion will have a significant effect on this street and may adversely affect its use as a pedestrian corridor. These unsafe conditions will be exacerbated by the inadequacy of on-site parking. 5. No Reason to Reduce On-Site Parking Requirement. The applicant has offered no valid reason to eliminate the parking as previously approved. The land is presently vacant so there are no physical restrictions or limitations that would prevent building the previously approved underground garage. In fact, the Amendment also seeks time-share approval which will certainly result in a financial windfall to the owner i f this aspect o f the Amendment is approved. Therefore, there can certainly be no financial justification for eliminating the on-site underground parking. 6. Amendment Does Not Meet the Criteria of the Lodge Preservation Ordinance. The original application stretched the limits of the lodge preservation ordinance in several respects, including the rezoning and inclusion within the LP overlay of property which is not adjacent to the lodge (it is separated by W. Hopkins Street) nor which has historically ever been used for lodging purposes. This does not meet the criteria of the lodge preservation ordinance which specifically states that its purpose is: "to provide for and protect smalllodge uses on properties historically usedfor lodge accommodations and to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses." While this was pointed out to the Council at the time ofthe prior approval, because the parking was mitigated on-site and underground, there was enough mitigation of adverse impacts for the neighbors to accept the re-zoning. However, since this Amendment reduces the number of spaces proposed for mitigation and entirely eliminates the underground parking garage, we believe it is appropriate to revisit the entire approval process and re-zoning and once again ask whether or not this project satisfies the intent ofthe lodge preservation ordinance. As proposed by the Amendment, this project simply does not pass muster under the re-zoning criteria for the lodge preservation overlay district. This Amendment should not be approved without specifically requiring that parking be mitigated on-site and underground as previously approved. 7. The timeshare component does not satisfy the criteria for a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation zone district. Section 26.590.010 ofthe Land Use Code states that Timeshare is a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation zone district. Section 26.425.040 of the Land Use Code sets forth the criteria for conditional uses. Because the proposed development has failed to supply adequate parking and results in unacceptable impacts on the neighborhood, it cannot satisfy .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen City Council October 3, 2001 Page 4 the Conditional Use criteria and the Timeshare element of the proposal should be rejected. In particular, the Conditional Use criteria which must be considered involve evaluation of the "... impacts onpedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking..." (Section 26.425.040C). The Conditional Use must be "...consistent and compatible with the character ofthe immediate vicinity ofthe parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses..."(Section 26.425.040B). Clearly, three dedicated parking spaces for 17 new lodge bedrooms will adversely impact this neighborhood. No Conditional Use should be approved which places its impacts off-site on the surrounding neighborhood. We also question whether, as required by Section 26.425.040A, timeshare use is consistent with the intent of the Lodge Preservation zone district to encourage short term lodging uses. Timeshare provides a cash windfall to the developer and leaves operations and operating expenses to the unit owners. The City loses sales taxes in exchange for smaller revenues through real estate transfer taxes. Short term lodging opportunities, especially during the high seasons are not created and the City's goal to encourage the development of"hot beds" is not satisfied. Perhaps ifthis application did not already test the limits of the LP program, this would not be a great concern to the neighbors since timeshare units tend to have less turn-over and potentially less activity in the neighborhood. However, when coupled with the proposal's disregard for mitigation of its impacts on the neighborhood, the question ofwhether the neighbors should be asked to sacrifice their legitimate expectations of regulated development in exchange for a benefit to the community at large becomes more important. We do not believe that the project as presently conceived provides sufficient benefit for the community to justify the adverse effects on the neighbors and to approve this project simply confers a special and unfair benefit on the applicant. We thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: i fferbert S. Klein sg\boomerang\council.ltl I. f #Aifi=\ la /k i / 1* / "1, <' ,. -< ' Ef]2114Mt-- ' , -7 ~ <.- -511 1-4#~7.-1-1-3-1---- ti~~--fp-- 5-IN (11#V .*Ii -2---~*~Vim~*fiI_Ji 2 d 11=itiLIE~jff_-f- -424 -~~~1[3(I~ L~:l'J-ik=41~- - 9 - - ~21--11 ICIE]I ,< 1 + FouRTH STA, 1< 1 '1 ' CÂ© 5) Xt 1 0 1 \ 11 1 XIII 1 1 1 1 ~b- -.._ - _1- _2- _7 ZZ 22 23 - ~ - - .-21 + 6 2 -2 2 -7-_7 -ul L-W-_-L ._ 1$-ri- =_ 2_- =-Â· : - -= _- u- . ----1 =- I -_- -2_ - - - .u .2- Mi# ~&. L 7b-3 NOR.TH. ELE:VAT-1'01432 -OF ZOILPINGS 11-3 f r, 6 SCALE 4 22' = ~ 1_ c ) " 71*EhiU Fly.UM W. H'OP-9--1.Â£15Â·- AN IZJNJUN 4 CHALET5 *2Â·305-1 . 1 COl-TAGIE .4300 GUEST STORAGE- 20,3'0 4--1 BEDRooM APTSeÂ£?9ou * 12750. Gl/E 5 TE COMMON ARECA 4900 2.- ST-UDIL~>s ~AFFORDABLE'<322.455~ â€¢ 9FA Â·*Ex EÂ«.CISE' 12806~ i i -8 25- f. - | gLOM 5/04 + r 1 I / , Â£ 1 7V><fI / / -11-- t % : \21\ 4 Â·Â·Â· \4 11/~~/1 --Â· Â· -Â·07'. 71 1 L *i-, ~Â· Â· / / 30'-0/ \ 7 4/ egGE Â© 7 ' \\ I /8/ / -#i;.lti/ \ 4 TH 5TREET ~ PRopiery. '~7 \ t--1 4.owea,. CouaryARD @)1 /5 / n 1X i epek er. so 6-63, \ . \ . \~--W- â‚¬T- 0.6 - ; - A.:1#,1 60,--%--3 -<26 0-Â»-C) 0 Â·2 I= -)14/ f--- ACâ‚¬ 14* . _ t,-Â« - - -~~ f ~~ ff << -294.4 #\,~ 1 4 \43 022.-443/2~~-91=3-y Â·srubic>3 -9900 ; .:,2- / A RAC. A. 10 0 1 AW- u . 9Â».7 /. 1 4//1 11 , , 4 1-,)01 -Piti klr-53570 / 3 EC?LK OUT'CR.OPPIN-Â£ 5 j '~~ / 1 ~ - ~~~ f 4 - . :fi .I <\ -1- 21/ 4 4 / 9 6.1 0 .-'\Â·~ 1Â·1Â·L FrA,lm-. ' 6-115 0/ .1 , 7-71% 1Ng - r.-7-1 ./ A JILL-f=DG' 922.2,f ' ..< I 1 ' \. 1 p*Cy\ ~ f>-9--E,%81Â· K,~*Q-1 -199>(2 91__F ~ i ..7: 1 Cl : FO~~~5'N .-2 421-1Â»7\ 2/ 1-BomtÂ»PT,sotTES r, - V ---1 . 43 -i. M/7 Â£Â· TTiL.Â»4Â·2Â»50 47-.1- i ~E 1..Â·66.4 ~ ---~~ 1,\k\3\ â‚¬ \> /9 â€¢cH.' 7 __~ DJ <rgo 46 f FLA . / ,t &0':Â·D<-~ ' 'h' 2 1 9 4 CCOEST COMMON 1 1 / /'*NSK *E. 109% 4.Ii--ib \\ / 71 V 3+4 ~ \ >t>Â·--gwl-,ip<~- 1 7 rT\, 1 4/ i -- -7-WATER MAIN L_-2- NO[*IrH E+RE Hyp~~'6 0|TMASH I 11 1342/9 / #bÂ»Â©4 4 V %1/11-6. 2 T~, - , 1 ..h 1 ,-'.2,01. ,/Â«-- 10-0. < 2042 oF PROPERTY 4Â· ~._I El 1.El tÂ°Â· 1 PtÂ»> L U. ~Â·i &21 |M [4Â§,1 - ' 19 / F 51 614.WAL ,<9 '4\ -- 9LM' SIÂ©-2Â¥IALI / f \\ 4-04 00Â»-=-44. / . Â· .1 -7, // pk EDGE DEPROPERTI?f-*--L-/7-<-3.. .14 1 Â·--1/ r./. ~ - .'1... / 10: -6 " 7 . -%0 7/ 1/ 1 13[N- . f t b. 1 0 6.'WS STRI P .1 . 1 0 : Â·-0 4,0 (Â·- ' 1 ,ETE;CAPE-Â·~ .Â© ...' .RAS 5 . 3 1 1 - 1 -Ip- 1 - 3 1 3 -1( - 41 3-- 1 -.*#7--Â·Â·Â·-Â· ~--p.2-Zr-4- Â·.--" . ~ IOL" ' ~IIREDG E-~CDF 412221. - ,>f Â· REVI sec dAN 2 C) D 1 i SCALE 342 0 1 Loâ€ž 1 13 L CDC K -32. LOTS A-1 ASPEN C CD , P L 0 7 PLANI - 3 L,)(-1 7, E. i..4,, A hi-ty CLUIE CH ALE TS aLog.i-6 -TOTAL FAB- 14,361 0 CLOT 5 A -I . !9,737 0 CHARLES PATERS C.3 N DESI GN E R MAY 20 0 3 TTL FC>or PAiNT 7,4-53-0 37,77* .AUG ftio~ SEPT ZOO I ,./ IA,-6,7 L., 0 0 09 , i AL/- .t/ .4 4 ' * b /- C N /4 ~Pe )4/> 1 +D L 0,0 ---- A HARprop *-&. -Lt'Ike.~*PAR ENDS- HEAE_w/i =229 GL A L f'FWâ€¢020 -8.3â‚¬â€¢ CE.S.Â«)(70 ./OR 11 CARS ID NDET.=KIC'JN-cy - IS' 2+LE" --*-*.Ill-Ill) E % I ENTAV -i- 1 /' . FS-C 10 GARAG< v'-TEX'+4 --- L - ine Â·c. 7-4.7,-1 ! ~--------7Â£~ 1 -1 0.-T -7-70- . i LI '--p.3 j tÂ« ~ LE Ir'-2 to'' 1 ~ 1 \ .-' C_ NoUrysucKLe - %-. $ (@ ...... - L- p0rHyp/4.r Ah.141-41! : . I~. 1Â«04~Â» 9 T 1 - -. LE Koof L.twer 1 \ \ 2 1 45 3 1 ,% 2, 116"1 .1- f 03 3 / h / 1.- ; r Aspeijor,4 R\\. %. 11 1 6 -c Fy 4 . / 1-Â¢.TES *ily V .- 0 --3 912ve G 74'Â·-4.:c'-2., / 9:2.ivtâ‚¬ID-A174=1- ": . Ofc- ~ '~ 2- 1 2=04'oM 1 1\ .... \\ 1,\ ' \.\1 . 7241:Na / 1 \ 1 F V \. A #f SES Ky 4\ /j Â·, '. Ar:=eurks-r l ~ 15Â£k. 1'94'4,;~00 r,t, ' 1, % 1 -- 2 i! 1 i \ 1 5 i FOA DHAS E 2 - - -i- <3 0,â€¢ALETE rWK .,12.6 EjL ! ~ 1 \ 70 w s ) N a . . % 1 '>24*. U b,6 .T.S 94 / 1 - 1,4/. 1/ j 1 1 //1 8 \ .1 .4-- 12 Ag,-c{>e 7430 \ 4Â»3* #4 / It \ ' \ f f U, 1 1\ U\ /'ll 724*\ f - 1 / \ / 6 i \ \ frat---007(4&., -Â· i h i \ \ 21 ~ SOLD " 1~,01 '//_ - - ~ 2- 5-:>49 \t~K \ 9 \ \9 \ 0,1 \3 4 r i-. - 7*%4.A-=- v 6. % ' 1 4 -- 1 9 1 ir-~lit I \\ \ 1 --4 4 . V 1 \ \ C'-1 A L-EVE w ). Â·Go,NTED WALL OP F O 0-0 c : N - 1 4 .. 2:~ -IM E \ LAP<,1 E BOOLDE~â‚¬ 1 ../ FA 1-2- 16 1 , h \ L t.> vvE Id 1 ~ COU R,777..ED C,-2 A - - 0 33.'NG-INES BED<(354# ' -FOGE Jâ‚¬ p R. APE- 2.Ty t \ L Â· Â£ TE,TRA-= 1 C _ -- - A D ------ / 1- 1, 30-3. 3 1 1/ H ---- --- 1 1 i - C.HAR-LES PATER~50),N: DEs-IGNER< 8-1-52-22_11_J_lay-Â»190 :ECAL=342. - 1'-Lb" 1-3 L C ) c t<: 32 A -I 1%311 0 -u-4- L =A EL ' 1 1 7 98.â‚¬7 0 - - _- F 17-6-r __ -_ _ [37_5-2.1-2._h'.1_ GZZ _ - - â€¢ an* MEMORANDUM , TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ~*g FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion - Substantial PUD Amendment DATE: August 21, 2001 (Continued Public Hearing from July 24,2001) 13 u j Zi*Liet<f#tilkiELIN : 05:>-Â¥10; 4- lk, a Â·Â· -*.42BLE Main St. Existing .0/ an-A-6 Boomerang 9 :%. - .71 Â· 4, 4 -1.--j Christiania Lodge Lodge :. 44::~ :: J ' 4:Wiam#fip firt 1 lut Â· . * .N- 44~ ir %/ Proposed . ODa # 1 4 4 - S#294/irj.116/ *#. ' 4 I' 9, LA~~ Er'r- Expansion of 45Â·Ii\< /,r =Â¥-4- I . -----,-- Boomerang ~*fL_ W. Hopkins Lodge N.&, 1 *.02 1 7=1' 06- 1 Avenue .. SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to amend a previous approval for the expansion of the Boomerang Lodge across W. Hopkins to a vacant lot. APPLICANT & REPRESENTATIVE Charles & Fonda Patterson, represented by Mitch Haas LOCATION: South of 500 W. Hopkins (Across from the existing Boomerang Lodge) PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION CONTENTS PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE ORIGINAL PACKET FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 24â„¢, 2001. REVIEW PROCEDURE As a matter of process, the Planning and Zoning Commission are the final decision makers on the 2 Lodge Preservation Allotments and GMQS Exemptions for LP and Affordable Housing and are a recommending body to City Council for the PUD Amendment, Timeshare, and Subdivision requests. Please Table 1.0 below: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 1 4 *LIN .. Table 1.0 Request Planning and Zoning Commission Action: Substantial PUD Amendment Recommendation to City Council Lodge Preservation Allotments Final Decision Maker GMQS Exemptions for LP and AH Final Decision Maker Conditional Use for Timeshare Recommendation to City Council Subdivision Recommendation to City Council ISSUES FROM LAST PUBLIC HEARING During the last public hearing, Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the hearing until the Applicant can produce a better site plan that contained between 5 to 7 on-site parking spaces and a fractional fee ownership plan that made the lodge units available to the general public for at least six months during the year. The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the hearing requesting the Applicant provide 1) a better site plan containing 7 on-site spaces and 2) additional information regarding the fractional fee ownership plan. As a result, the Applicant has agreed to amend the fractional fee ownership plan that requires the lodge units to be available to the general public for at least six months out of the year and has provided additional information regarding the plan itself as requested by the Commission. In addition, Staff and the Applicant have met with the Engineering, Streets, Parking, and Parks Departments in order to gain critical input as to other options regarding on-site and on-street parking proposals. Parking Issue As stated in the earlier Memo dated July 24, 2001, the 17 proposed lodge rooms require 11.9 on-site parking spaces and the two affordable housing units would require one space per unit, for a total of 13.9 on site parking spaces. At that hearing, the Commission felt, after reviewing the variety of site plans and discussing their associated issues, that the Applicant be required to provide 7 on-site parking spaces. The Commission continued the public hearing so that Staff and the Applicant could meet with other city departments to get additional feedback as well as provide the Applicant time to redesign / re-approach the parking issue. Subsequently, Staff and the Applicant met with the Streets, Parks, Engineering, and Parking Departments. It was clear that these departments felt there should be no "Boomerang" designated parking in the 4th Street Right-of-Way stub as originally proposed mainly due to the potential conflict for future trail plans for the Shadow Mountain Trail. In addition, the departments agreed that numerous curb cuts along West Ilopkins effectively reduced on-street parking and further presented a safety hazard because West Hopkins is a designated pedestrian and bicycle corridor in the summer. Staff feels this special meeting, arranged to collect information and provide the Applicant with better feedback, was well intentioned and produced numerous new ideas Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 2 .. and several approaches were discussed for the benefit of the Applicant and the City regarding the parking issue. Given all this, the Applicant produced a new site plan (See Exhibit A) for this hearing that includes some of the ideas generated from this meeting. This new site plan includes providing 6 on-site parking spaces which meets Staff's recommendation of providing between 5 and 7 on-site spaces but is one less than the Commission's recommendation of providing 7 on-site spaces. However, the Applicant has provided a plan that better addresses the issues of fewer curb cuts and incorporates a one way drive through loop that eliminates any backing out motion onto West Hopkins in addition to furthering the goal of the lodge preservation programs by providing increased lodging bed base. Timeshare /Fractional Ownership Plan The Commission also continued the public hearing on July 24, 2001 requesting the Applicant to return to the Commission with additional information regarding the proposed Timeshare / Fractional Ownership Plan (the "Plan") so that the Commission can better understand the specific elements of the Plan. The Applicant has included additional information in Exhibit B in response to the Commission' s request. It should also be noted, that the Applicant has agreed and redesigned a Plan that is consistent with the City's definition of lodge where all lodge units in the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year or at least 182.5 days a year. Staff finds that this compliance with the six-month rule and additional information regarding the Plan well defines the Applicant's intentions and proposed management of the new units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Resolution No. 37, Series of 2001, approving two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, and recommending approval to City Council for the Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision with the conditions in the resolution herein. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: New Site Plan Exhibit B: Fractional Fee / Timeshare Plan Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 3 .. RESOLUTION N0. 37, (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING TWO LODGE PRESERVATION ALLOTMENTS, GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR LODGE PRESERVATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-00-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Charles and Fonda Patterson, owners, represented by Mitch LIaas, requesting a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review for a property consisting of portions of Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Town Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 19,287 square feet, and is located in the R-15 Zone District with Lodge Preservation and Planned Unit Development Overlays; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, finding that the PUD dimensional requirements for on-site parking have not been met; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a request for Lodge Preservation Allotments and GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director, comments from the general public, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Resolution No. 37, Series 2001 which approves the two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, and recommends approval to City Council for the Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision; and, Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 4 .. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 19, 2000, and again through a Memorandum to the Community Development Department dated August 7,2001, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the GMQS Exemption for affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.070(M), during a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 21,2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 37, Series 2001, by a _ to _ C--) vote, approving two Lodge Preservation allotments, GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment, conditional use for timeshare, and subdivision review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves two (2) Lodge Preservation allotments, GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review with the conditions stated herein. Section 2 That the Boomerang Lodge expansion to a real property (namely, Parcel Number 2735-124-66- 001) to include six detached buildings, including four (4) chalets, one (1) cottage, and sixth building containing two (2) affordable housing units, four (4) 1-bedroom lodge units, and a bathhouse, is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. An amended PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 5 .. 9. The Applicant shall designatewo-'Ispeeified"-spacedatthe existing Boomerang Lodge forthe_tfordable-lidiiitng linitsÂ·ial!* expansion. These two spaces shall be reserved for those two units as preferred by the Aspeti77'itkin County Housing Authority. 10. The Applicant shall not destsdate any parking spaces in the 4tll street right-of-way stub for 71 Boomerang Parking. Fwtlf@$ iff*IX future request_foulipate upef anyâ‚¬ity of/Apfn 1"Â£-07 r)*ht-of-wa. is to be 11Aell ilpr *trB*gij41*30Fantshhil bw re,+giwd toNTffer into a licenslrrf agr@hmdENg*E-&4 of Agben. -â€¢ 11. The Applicant shall install a sidewalk on Hopkins Avenue at the time of development of this project. Further, the Applicant shall enter into a curb, gutter and sidewalk agreement with the City of Aspen so that if and when the City intends to install these improvements, the Applicant will bear their appropriate share of the cost of these improvements, which shall also meet the City of Aspen guidelines. 12. That the Applicant shall be required to specifically indicate the dimensional requirements in this proposed PUD amendment for minimum side yard, minimum rear yard, trash access area, minimum distance between buildings, and minimum percent open space for the site prior to public hearings before City Council. 13. The following dimensional requirements ofthe Substantial PUD Amendment are approved and shall be printed on the Amended Final Illustrative Plan: a. Minimum Lot Size. 15,000 square feet. b. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling. No requirement c. Maximum Allowable Density. 1 lodge or dwelling bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Minimum Lot Width. 75 feet. e. Minimum Front Yard. 10 feet. f. Minimum Side Yard. 10 feet. g. Minimum Rear Yard. As shown on Final PUD Plans. h. Maximum Site Coverage. 35 percent. i. Maximum Height. 25 feet. j. Minimum Distance Between Buildings. 14 feet. k. Minimum Percent Open Space. 55 percent. 1. Trash Access Area. As shown on Final PUD Plans. m. Allowable Floor Area Ratio. The Applicant shall provide an accurate floor area ratio for the purposes of recordation. n. Minimum Off-Street Parking. As shown on Final PUD Plans (not less than,0'spaces). Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 7 .. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 21,2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk H:\MY DOCUMENTS\CURRENT CASES\PUD AMENDMENT\BOOMERANG AMENDMENT\BOOMERANG PUD AMEND PZ CONTINUED MEMO.DOC 1 ' 14 Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 8 . en 4 64 6 Number of Number of Days for Days Total days Total days Total days Owners days Rental to Retained available for private allocated Owned by Gen. by Mgmt. to gen. ownership Each Public per public use Owner Owner 8 42 21 29 [(8 x 21) + 168 365 291= 197 7 49 23 22 [(7 x 23) + 182 365 22] = 183 6 56 28 28 [(6 x 28) + 169 365 28] = 196 8 owners: There are 365 days in a year. Management retains 29 days for maintenance and rental to the general public, leaving a balance of 336 days. While each of the eight owners owns 42 days, they can use only 21 of these for themselves while the other 21 days per owner must be made available for rental to the general public; thus, 168 ofthe owned days (8 x 21) are made available to the general public. These 168 days plus the 29 retained by management, result in 197 days per year available to the general public. A total of 168 days are used by private owners. 7 owners: There are 365 days in a year. Management retains 22 days for maintenance and rental to the general public, leaving a balance of 343 days. While each of the seven owners owns 49 days, they can use only 26 of these for themselves while the other 23 days per owner must be made available for rental to the general public; thus, 161 ofthe owned days (7 x 23) are made available to the general public, These 161 days plus the 22 retained by management, result in 183 days per year available to the general public. A total of 182 days are used by private owners. 6 owners: There are 365 days in a year. Management retains 28 days for maintenance and rental to the general public, leaving a balance of 337 days. While each ofthe six owners owns 56 days, they can use only 28 ofthese for themselves while the other 28 days per owner must be made available for rental to the general public; thus, 168 of the owned days (6 x 28) are made available to the general public. These 168 days plus the 28 retained by management, result in 196 days per year available to the general public. A total of 169 days are used by private owners. All of these scenarios meet or exceed the "Lodge" definition requirement that each unit be made available for short-term rental by the general public for at least six months per year. This requirement will be made clear in the covenants and each contract to purchase a share will outline the parameters ofthe purchase. The attached sheets provide an example ofthe type of management and rotation system that will be used, The example comes from a successful project in Sun Valley, Idaho. The Boomerang system will be similarly established with the rotation system managed in accordance with the above described limitations. .. As presented, the project will have (assuming the 7 owners per unit scenario) â€¢ Four 3-bedroom chalets with 28 owners plus management; â€¢ Four 1 -bedroom apartments with 28 owners plus management; and, â€¢ One 1-bedroom cottage with 7 owners plus management. â€¢ Total = 9 units, 17 bedrooms, and 63 owners plus management. â€¢ For the 6 owner program, there would be 72 owners with 8 owners per unit (plus management); â€¢ For the 7 owner program, there would be 63 owners (plus management); and, â€¢ For the 8 owner program, there would be 54 owners (plus management). How can we be sure management will always retain control over the project? Using the seven owner program as an example: Since management retains 22 days in each unit, they effectively maintain one share in each o f the 9 units (9 shares), plus ownership ofthe two "affordable" studio apartments, the grounds, and all common areas and facilities. Management will manage the buildings, maintenance, housekeeping, reservations, finances, transportation, concierge services, and grounds, etc. from their headquarters at the Boomerang Lodge. Covenants will be structured such that, regardless of how many shares are owned by one or more parties, the management's shares (in each unit plus the ownership of the AH units and common elements) will provide management with a majority vote/interest in the property. For instance, in the seven owner program there are a total of 63 owners each with one voting right, but management would retain 64 voting rights based on owning 22 days in each unit and all the other elements of the project as described above. In this way, it is guaranteed that the Boomerang Lodge management will retain control over the project, regardless of how many shares are owner by an individual When do unused allotted times become available to the general public for reservation? This response follows the attached sheet entitled "Key Dates." After "Optional planned vacation weeks" are confirmed, any time periods that are supposed to be allotted for use by the owners but remain unreserved will become available to the general public for rental. Therefore, any unreserved allotted time periods for the winter season will be made available to the general public after November lst. and after June 1St for the summer season. .. "Reservation Priority Number" means the number assigned to each owner for use in establishing priority in an instance when the number of requests for a particular week exceeds the number of residences avail- able. Reservation priority numbers rotate each year in order to provide equitable allocation of accommodations over time. Reservation Procedures. Scheduling your vacation time is a simple matter of requesting your preferred weeks and receiving confirmation. â€¢ Approximately five months before the beginning of each season (July 1 for winter season, February 1 for summer season) you will be sent a Reservation Request Form allow- ing you to request three possible dates for each "planned" and "optional planned" vacation. â€¢ Requests for planned vacations are due back within thirty (30) days. Requests for optional planned vacations are due back within ninety (90) days. â€¢ Planned vacation periods will be allocated and confirmed within another thirty (30) days, or two and one-half months before the season begins. â€¢ After all planned vacation periods have been confirmed, the optional planned vacation periods will be confirmed. â€¢ After all optional planned vacations have been confirmed you may request space available time. . .. BOOMERANG CLUB CHALETS and Apartments Rotating Priority System In the event that there are more requests for a specific week than there are residences available, the following rotating priority system will be used to allocate the space. Each ofthe twenty eight (28) ownership interests of the four 3 bedroom Chalets or one bedroom Apartments will be assigned a number 1-28, in order ofpurchase. These owners will then be organized in groups of four, reflecting the four residences. Group "A" is made up of owners #1 through #4, Group "B" is made up o f owners # 4 through #8, Group "C" is made up of owners #8 through #12 etc. When demand for certain dates exceed lodging supply: The lower numbers will have priority on (a) the FIRST planned winter vacation. (b) the SECOND planned summer vacation and (c) WINTER optional planned vacation weeks. The higher numbers will have priority on (a) the SECOND planned winter Vacation, (b) the FIRST planned summer vacation and (c) SUMMER optional Planned vacation weeks. Each year the groups will rotate one position in priority, thereby giving all owners equitable priority as the years go by. ( See chart). The seven owners ofthe one bedroom Cottage will also be assigned a priority number in order of purchase (1 through 7 ) and will also rotate annually in the instance of conflicting requests. Space available weeks will be allocated on a first come, first serves basis. KEY DATES Winter Season Summer Season Request forms mailed July 1 February 1 Planned vacation requests returned Augustl March 1 Planned vacation weeks confirmed September 1 ~ April 1 Optional planned vacation requests returned October 1 May 1 Optional planned vacation weeks confirmed November 1 June 1 Space available requests can be made November 1 June 1 WINTER VACATION TIMELINE . July August September October November December January February March April May june r-71*48 I. eÂ·- I . - .6 4- - *arnee~,7 -2Â».4~tÂ·4:- :Â·*jytÂ·.:4241~,44:-.*c.geÂ»Â·-r...~1.Â».#Ve,#144. *+42Â£241* irgeyÂ»Â»78*37 U:Â»'v-,s~~-24 4 -Â·q... 1-- ~ July 1 ~ Aug 1 ~ Sept 1 ~ Oct 1 ~ Novl Winter Vacation Period Request Planned PIanned Optional Optional forrn vacation vacation planned planned Late November to Mid-April mailed requests weeks vacation vacation returned confirmed requests weeks - returned confirmed 0 Nov 1 Space available requests can be made SUMMER VACATION TIMELINE . February March April May June July August September October November December January :2>:St/ek;Â©02&4-Â·H*â‚¬-C-fÂ· 11%1247*ty.q~Â·leÂ·i.~1(414~:- fityÂ»GA~2:5~9-=,iÂ¥43~14*'4646. 42*. Â«4,;4.Â·Â· Â·,Â·:-7. ,:..- 0-y.*Â·.aÂ·r.e.-2,<a# ~ Feb 1 ~ March 1 ~ April 1 * May 1 0 June 1 Summer Vacation Period Request Planned Planned Optional Optional forni vacation vacation planned planned Early June to Mid-October mailed requests weeks vacation vacation returned confirrned requests weeks returned confirmed 'J une 1 Space available requests can be made RESERVATIONS PRIORITY SYSTEM EXAMPLE. GROUP"A". FIRST FOUR YEARS. YEAR ONE YEAR TWO Reservation First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional Owner Priority Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer F Number Groups Number Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week ~-~ 1-11 A 1 H -,-H H - r. W 43 W /1 ., 12-22 B 2 B G B G B G H H H 1-11 23 -33 C 3 C F C F C F G G G 13-16 34 -44 D 4 D E D E D E F F F ~~-20 45 -55 IE 5 ED E D ED E IE E 21-27 56-66 F 6 F C F C F C D D D 25-28 67-77 6 7 G B G B G B C C C 78 -88 H 8 H -~ H â€¢zâ€¢ H e B B B YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR Reservation First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional First Second Optional e Priority Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Number Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week 1 B D C D C 2 EBEB e 3 H F F 0 0 4 G G H G H 5 F H G H G 6 E F F e e 7 D B E B E 8 C C D C D munwkuze m w k U Z em u munwkume CO Un WA Uze 0 0 m 91 0 ~~~a1 O 0 m flo Zâ‚¬)00 Ume= Ukwa co~= 0"mon M~Z ommon 03~2 0,1rr100 - / / , f\/ \\\\ fl ' / '7 1 \ 1 1- / 2---Â« C AD C*R-HGâ‚¬t .1 loCAmoJ) 04 1 4 (AD CHA,ME 1.1 LOCA-rioN) F.-1 1 1 J i / \ j , \1) C>C>L. \ - 1 -SITE-\ en/, I \\\* . C - . Rowk\ *tr- -1 c \ OurcROPP'1465 7-+ - t -JUI 1 11/ u.7 4\ / r 9 3 1 / -firl 1 1.1 1 1 % \ t \ Â«Rili @ \ , cp#1, e cozi (14 04 eD A Fsia fiET / 413 -rb -61â‚¬ AoR~[H *les-r) - 1 ' 0 -269 1 /1 1 /9/9.he~- Â«0 r Vt.-4 / A ~ \4-X ~6~75 /11 -3 C /2, u~l_~79 RE~16 r . 1 /A >6 843 l.) f â‚¬ TRAâ‚¬357* t- -- - - --- 1 1 - 0---- 5 WA Lk / , 1/ 0/ C S' StÂ©EWALK- . i -- i. --- - C- EVE Z 0* ( prKEET TREES ~~ of~ / 05' FAARWAY 51-2.iP WrA o \ ~ 3 4 66 -5 AVE 10Â° PR.D P UERO->/ ,-------- 0 Auâ‚¬ 3 :Lool 6 PA R Mail <St SPACE 6 c 3 hi 61 TE DC A LE=-5/30 - 1, 0 0 -- 0 0 4-1 41 E X \-3:j *b *- 1 L- . k Â£4-6,1 k ..... .. .. â€¢ 11[ y) . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director J*D FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner 1:<,~ RE: Boomerang Lodge Expansion - Planned Unit Development Amendment DATE: July 17, 2001 ~ f I 16 I " >. . 4 1- :, 02 % *44*- 44-TY U, 1 7--.46#-_ I~* 44 & ' ej--z~ Main St. Existing Jwtqi,16/ &1 re- .Ii- ---" Boomerang * p E-'./. 14 1. 1 . 21 Christiania Lodge 7'~ I -.lk- Lodge Â£ 4: 1-1 :all . ip' T. fÂ¥'A~ 'T"a-J Proposed 1 41Â», 1'1"'1 '4:,Af ~ Al Expansion of ....1 .414 -=- I: -- L.,i Boomerang h v < ti .24 *â€¢1 * 3 1 4. 4-2:1./.*- w. Hopkins Lodge , Avenue SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to amend a previous approval (via Ordinance No. 20. Series 2000) for the expansion of the Boomerang Lodge across W. Hopkins to a vacant lot. APPLICANT & REPRESENTATIVE Charles & Fonda Patterson, represented by Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LOCATION: South of 500 W. Hopkins (Across from the existing Boomerang Lodge) CURRENT ZONING: R-15 PUD LP STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue this PUD Amendment request until the Applicant can provide a site plan showing the provision of at least 6 to 9 "on-site" parking spaces and continue the Conditional Use request for Time share until the Applicant can provide 6 months (26 weeks) of time available to the general public. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 1 .. BACKGROUND Charles and Fonda Patterson (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas, have submitted an application to amend the approved Boomerang Lodge Expansion. The Applicant received approval from City Council via Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000 for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Rezoning to R-15 LP PUD, GMQS Exemptions for Affordable Housing and Lodge Preservation, and Conditional Use for the provision of Affordable Housing to expand the Boomerang across the street on a vacant parcel at 500 West Hopkins Avenue. Specifically, Ordinance No. 20 granted land use approvals for the addition of (7) lodge units (for a total of 17 lodge bedrooms), two (2) affordable housing units, and a ten space on-site sub-grade parking garage. The Applicant, upon realizing an incorrect scale was used in designing the 10-space sub- grade garage, requests to amend the approved PUD. Additionally, the Applicant is also requesting new land use approvals to add two more lodge units and for the ability to sell the new lodge units in a "fractional ownership" type arrangement similar to the City's Timeshare program. AMENDMENT REQUESTS Specifically, the Applicant proposes to amend the previous approval by the following actions: 1) Eliminate the 10-space sub-grade parking garage and propose seven "off-site" parking spaces in the 4t]1 Street right-of-way stub to the east of the property and 2 spaces for the affordable housing units on the existing Boomerang Lodge site in Plan "A" or place 5 on-site parking spaces in Plan D , 2) Reduce one 3-bedroom Chalet to a 1 -bedroom cottage 3) Add two (2) additional 1-bedroom lodge units to the west end structure; and 4) Request Conditional Use approval for "Timeshare" plan to allow the sale of fractional interests for the lodge units in the expansion. In order to accomplish these amendments, the following land use actions are requested: A. Substantial PUD Amendment 2 j /,rB, Two additional LP Allotments 4/ -2?4 GMQS Exemptions for LP and Affordable Housing h Conditional Use for "Timeshare" (fractional ownership) E. Subdivision REVIEW PROCEDURE As a matter of process, the requested land use approvals are handled in the following manner as shown in Table 1.0 on the following page: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 2 .. Table 1.0 Request Planning and Zoning Commission Action: Substantial PUD Amendment Recommendation to City Council Lodge Preservation Allotments Final Decision Maker GMQS Exemptions for LP and AH Final Decision Maker Conditional Use for Timeshare Recommendation to City Council Subdivision Recommendation to City Council STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Staff believes the spirit and intent of the proposed amendment meets the goals of the lodge preservation and affordable housing programs. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) calls for increasing the lodge accommodations and affordable housing units in town. Staff also appreciates the proposal to maintain the site in its natural condition to the greatest extent possible. as well as limiting the measured height to 23 feet for the chalets and 25 feet for the lodge/bathhouse/AH building for a total peak height of 28 feet for all buildings which is already allowed under the current zoning. However, Staff has two concerns about the proposed expansion: Parking and Timeshare, which are addressed below. 5 *i H â‚¬4 4. , A ,. 4~. t~~ , i - Parking , 1 1,1.,4.3â‚¬'......1. .: t....3,#r City Council approved a site design that included a sub-grade :,Â· Â·:Â·â‚¬71*f :litb- t. it . 'I~ 1<.0454Â·.1 46,0-1 garage containing 10 spaces. It 0 4 0&*3 has become apparent, that the '.emAC,1-7-7 . .,: 4 ... :-2-';~<cor applicant used an incorrect scale 1 > .... r I . . ... . 't .â€¢Â· 9 2 iÂ· : 6 in designing the sub-grade garage I. 1 .... Â·-- and now contends that the garage cannot fit as proposed. Due to this error, the applicant is Photo showing the stub of 4th St. with the subject property proposing two plans. Plan "A" is located to the right at the bottom of the mountain where the to eliminate the sub-grade Applicant proposes 7 spaces. The 4th St. stub serves as a parking garage and propose 9 trailhead for the trail behind the property and up the mountain. (Arrows show proposed parking) parking spaces: 7 spaces to be located entirely in the 4tll Street right-of-way stub and two (2) spaces to be located at the existing Boomerang Lodge th along the 5 Street side of the existing Boomerang. As a result, the Applicant is proposing no on-site parking whatsoever. Plan "B" includes the provision of 5 on-site spaces, 4 spaces to be located in the 4th Street right-of-way stub, and two (2) spaces to be located at the existing Boomerang Lodge for the AH units. This plan, while still providing less than required or Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 3 .. recommended, detracts aesthetically from the site design as well as presents a safety issue for occupants of the units due to the backing out motion required getting onto West Hopkins Avenue. In addition, as curb cuts are created off of West Hopkins to accommodate Plan "B", on-street public spaces are eliminated. Again, Staff finds that there are a myriad of alternative designs that could accommodate parking without significantly impacting aesthetics, safety, or eliminating public parking spaces. While other lodge expansions have recently occurred in Aspen without completely meeting the required parking standards, those lodges were already built out physically on their lots with little or no room to expand outward; instead, these lodges expanded upward and have further agreed to provide a variety of alternative transportation methods for their guests and employees to mitigate for the lack of parking. In this case, the Boomerang Lodge expansion is proposed on a vacant property of 19,287 square feet (which is slightly less then a half city block) as stated in the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district. Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet or even exceed the City's parking requirement. Moreover, Staff finds that the request to develop this site with no on-site parking essentially pushes the parking impacts generated by this development into the immediate neighborhood, further burdening the City's ability to provide adequate public parking. As more projects develop within the City without absorbing their associated parking impacts, the City will continue to be seriously impacted by having to mitigate for undue impacts generated by private development. Currently, the existing Boomerang operates a shuttle service for its guests on an as needed basis with an SUV and is exploring the addition of a shuttle van. The lodge is located within walking and biking distance to town, recreation areas, and RFTA bus stops on Main Street. Required Number of Parking Spaces The Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district requires 0.7 spaces per bedroom, or establishing the number of spaces pursuant to a PUD. If the 0.7 space per bedroom standard were imposed, the 17 new lodge rooms would require 11.9 on-site parking spaces, and the two affordable housing units would require one space per unit. for a total of 13.9 on site parking spaces. As part of the original submission (prior to the sub-grade garage proposal), Staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Applicant should be required to provide between 5 and 7 on-site parking spaces due to the lodge's location and existing parking spaces which was significantly less than the requirement. In this proposed amendment, the Applicant is increasing the number of lodge bedrooms by 2 rooms, which equates to an additional 1.4 spaces. Therefore, in keeping with Staff's original recommendation of requiring 5 to 7 spaces (combined with this additional 1.4 spaces), Staff strongly recommends that the Applicant should be required to provide 6 to 9 on-site parking spaces (less than half of the required) for the following reasons: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 4 .. 1 First, visitors and tenants will likely park along W. Hopkins Avenue because it is closer to the chalets, new lodge units or affordable housing than parking across the street on the existing lodge site. Staff strongly believes that parking can be accommodated on this vacant lot rather than on the street; > Second, W. Hopkins Avenue already experiences a high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic; this street is a designated pedestrian and bicycle corridor during the summer months. In addition, the Parks Department is concerned about parking along W. Hopkins Avenue in front of this property as well as any th potential for parking in the 4 Street stub because of the potential for complications for future trail plans for the Shadow Mountain Trail. One alternative for the Shadow Mountain trail is to extend the trail at its terminus at 4tli Street and bring it down on to the South side of Hopkins Street in the right-of- way. An eight to ten foot trail along Ilopkins would be in conflict with the proposed parking for the new lodge. 1 Third, the Application states that fire access to the property would be from W. Hopkins Avenue. Staff is concerned that this right-of-way is being designated for too many uses - lodge parking, fire access, and a public trail. Providing 6 to 9 parking spaces "on site" would alleviate the need for parking on the street, leaving the street primarily available for public use - people using the pedestrian and bicycle corridor, trail users, and fire access for this property. 7 Finally, the existing Boomerang Lodge provides very few "on-site" parking spaces. Most of the spaces are located on City property in the public right-of- way. The Applicant proposes to take away two of those for the AH for the expansion. Therefore, Staff does not believe the proposed parking meets the PUD dimensional requirements criteria B(3): The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff also does not believe the proposed parking meets the Lodge Preservation GMQS Exemption criteria 4: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 5 .. Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment. Chalet Redesign Originally, the Applicant received approval to construct 5 Chalet style 3-bedroom lodges. In this amendment, the Applicant proposes four 3-bedroom Chalet style lodges, one 1-bedroom cottage style unit, and four 1-bedroom lodge units and two 1- bedroom affordable housing units in the large west end structure. This redesign / amendment is primarily sought as the result of the Applicant not being able to provide the 10-space sub-grade garage and therefore must reconfigure the chalet units, the interior of the west end building, and provide parking. These changes are substantial enough to warrant a full review by both the planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Staff has provided a set of the approved plans as well as the proposed plans for your comparison. Lodge Preservation Allotments The Applicant received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 29, Series, 2000 for seven (7) lodge preservation (LP) allotments. The Applicant is requesting an additional (2) two LP allotments as a result of a site redesign that reduces one 3-bedroom Chalet to a one-bedroom cottage and adds the newly requested lodge units (allotments) to the main lodge building at the west end of the site. This request, if approved, will essentially amend the aforementioned resolution to reflect a total of nine (9) LP allotments that have been awarded to the Boomerang Lodge expansion. Currently, the LP Growth Summary (as of June 25, 2001) indicates that there are 16 available allotments. Therefore, there are plenty of allotments to satisfy this request. Again, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final authority regarding the provision of LP allotments on a first-come / first-served basis. Tirneshare The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval for a "Timeshare" plan to allow the sale of fractional interests for the lodge units in the expansion. Timeshare is permitted as a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district. The Land Use Code defines a "lodge" as the same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year. Indeed, the Boomerang Lodge maintains a Lodge Preservation Overlay and is, therefore. required to adhere to this definition by providing overnight lodging to the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year. More specifically, the Land Use Code defines "short term" as the occupancy of a Hotel or Lodge unit for a rental time period not exceeding one (1) month in duration. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 6 .. In this ease, the Applicant is proposing a fractional ownership program for the nine lodging units that includes the following: 1) 71" fractional shares for each of the nine (9) units; 2) Each owner gets 7 weeks (this includes two weeks in the summer and two weeks in the winter peak times); 3) In total, owners use 49 weeks out of 52 for the year (leaving only three weeks); 4) The remaining three weeks will be reserved by management for rental or maintenance and repair; 5) The fractional ownership program is set up so that each unit will be available to the general public for 24 weeks a year; 6) All lodge units in the existing Boomerang (34 in total) will remain available to the general public on a short term basis; 7) When viewed as a total lodge, the Boomerang Lodge expansion will add 9 new fractionalized units, which represents 21% of the total lodge units. Table 2.0 shows the breakdown of number of units and their associated fractional shares. Table 2.0 Total "Time Owned" Units Shares Owners (Each owner gets 7 weeks per year) 4 Chalet Units 7 each 28 49 Weeks 4 lodge room units 7 each 28 49 Weeks 1 Cottage lodge unit 7 each 7 49 Weeks 2 AH Units (excluded) N/A N/A N/A Total 63 Owners 49 Weeks The Applicant indicates that this arrangement discussed above meets the intent or "spirit" of the City' s lodge definition where lodges are to be available to the general public on a short-term basis for at least six months (or 26 weeks) of each calendar year. In fact, the Applicant is proposing a "unit availability time" of 24 weeks per year, which is two weeks less than the 26 that is required. While the timeshare concept has been around for many years in Aspen, fractional share ownership is a new concept for Aspen as well as many other resorts in Colorado. Staff has been exploring what this new type of ownership means for Aspen' s lodging bed base in terms of"hotbeds" or beds available to the general public on a short-term basis. There are many issues yet to be fully analyzed and / or realized, as the concept of fractional ownership is relatively new. Certainly, as lodge units are "owned," the City gains no "bed tax" from short-term visitors: however. those owners that do visit may tend to spend more money in Aspen due to the notion that they are not burdened by paying a nightly lodging fee (even though they are already doing that through mortgages). In addition, it appears that fraetional fee ownership programs tend to be successful by utilizing "exchange programs" where an owner of a fractional share in Boca Raton may wish to exchange their time in Boca Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 7 .. Raton for two weeks in Aspen and vice versa. It is clear that the Boomerang Lodge wishes to participate in an exchange program as part of the fractional share program. What does this mean for Aspen's "hotbeds?" It probably means that visitors driving into Aspen for the night without reservations will increasingly have a difficult time in finding a lodge unit. However, given today's resort climate and the high end lodging units available, visitors most likely have already planned their trip and reserved their rooms / units prior to arriving. In general, as the fraction of owners for units' increases in this type of scheme, so does the number of beds that are filled. Given all this, the question becomes: Does Aspen care who fills the units as long as the units are occupied? Aspen has seen the condominiumization of some lodges that essentially turn those once long standing lodges into second homes that must also be rented out on a six-month basis to the general public. This has been difficult at best to monitor and enforce. However, with fractional shares, these units are geared towards turning over more often, so that they are less likely to become someone's second home in Aspen and may remain more consistent with a lodge use. The Applicant is proposing to have these units available to the general public only 24 weeks out of the year, which is two weeks less than is required by the lodge definition. In addition, lodging units that are vacant will be added to the rental pool and rented on a short-term basis. Staff would like to see the Applicant slightly reduce the timeshare so that these units are indeed available to the general public for 26 weeks rather than 24 weeks. Staff finds the Applicant is already able to take advantage of the Lodge Preservation program by achieving additional allotments/ units that are exempted from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) but now wishes to reduce the time the general public is able to use them. Staff believes that the Applicant must meet the 26-week lodging requirement in order to take advantage of the LP allotments. If the Applicant's primary use becomes residential, Staff believes they will need to compete for residential allotments instead of the LP allotments. In effect, Staff finds this to be contrary to the spirit of lodge preservation. On the one hand, the LP program provides a mechanism for Aspen' s small lodges to expand and remain viable contributions to Aspen's bed base, while this proposal, on the other hand seeks to reduce the time available for the general public to use the lodge as a lodge. Again, Staff finds the Applicant must provide those additional 2 weeks to the general public in order to qualify for the LP allotments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission continue this PUD Amendment request until the Applicant can provide a site plan showing the provision of at least 6 to 9 "on- site" parking spaces and will clarify that the lodge will remain available for 26 weeks out of the year to the general public. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 8 0. 0 0 9 /2 \ 9 9 ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN r?VE AFF TIVE): ' "I move to continue Resolution No/>1 ' Series of 2001 to ~ J~' 1-2.y, for consideration o f the two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GIt[QS ExeMptions for Lodge L.~ Preservation and Affordable Housing, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision to allow the Applicant time to review his site plan to accommodate+tcr-91~arking spaces on-site, and ensure the six month availability to the general public is met. ZIQI *â€ž ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2001, approving two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable LIousing, and recommending approval to City Council for the Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision with the conditions in the resolution herein." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planned Unit Development Amendment Exhibit B: LP Allotments & GMQS Exemptions for LP and Affordable Housing Exhibit C: Conditional Use for Timeshare Exhibit D: Subdivision Exhibit E: Code Interpretation regarding Timesharing and Lodges Exhibit F: Letter from Neighbors Exhibit G: Development Application Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 9 .. RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING TWO LODGE PRESERVATION ALLOTMENTS, GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR LODGE PRESERVATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-00-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Charles and Fonda Patterson, owners, represented by Mitch Haas, requesting a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMOS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision Review for a property consisting of portions of Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Town Townsite o f Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 19,287 square feet, and is located in the R-15 Zone District with Lodge Preservation and Planned Unit Development Overlays; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, finding that the PUD dimensional requirements for on-site parking have not been met; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a request for Conditional Use, Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director, comments from the general public, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public hearing regarding the two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable LIousing, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare, and Subdivision to allow the Applicant time to review his site plan to accommodate 6 to 9 parking spaces on-site. and ensure the six month availability to the general public is met; and, Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 10 .. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.070(M), the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a GMQS Exemption for affordable housing in conjunction with a Lodge Preservation project after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; and, WHEREAS, during a duly notice public hearing on April 19,2000, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority recommended approval of the GMQS Exemption for affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.070(M), during a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies. and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 17,2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this Resolution, by a _ to _ C-_) vote, approving two Lodge Preservation allotments, GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment, conditional use for timeshare, and subdivision review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves two (2) Lodge Preservation allotments, GMQS Exemption for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommended City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment, conditional use for timeshare, and Subdivision Review with the conditions herein. Section 2 That the Boomerang Lodge expansion to a real property (namely, Parcel Number 2735-124-66- 001) to include six detached buildings, including four (4) chalets, one (1) cottage, and sixth Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 11 .. building containing two (2) affordable housing units, four (4) 1-bedroom lodge units, and a bathhouse, is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C) of the Land Use Code. The process to amend the PUD in the future shall be addressed in the PUD agreement. 2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights-of-way, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 3. The Applicant agrees the construction on the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. If the construction does not begin on the two affordable housing units within this time frame, the applicant shall pay the cash-in-lieu fee at the then current rates to mitigate for 3.5 employees at the Category 3 level. [From the previous Approvall 4. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $2,860.58 in school land dedication fees. These fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. 5. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $25,136.00 in park development impact fees. These fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. 6. That the Applicant agrees if any private use of any City of Aspen right-of-way is to be used for parking, the Applicant is required to enter into a licensing agreement with the City of Aspen. 7. That the Applicant shall install. at the time of development. curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements which meet the City of Aspen guidelines. 8. That the Applicant shall be required to specifically indicate the dimensional requirements in this proposed PUD amendment for minimum side yard, minimum rear yard, trash access area, minimum distance between buildings, and minimum percent open space for the site prior to public hearings before City Council. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 12 Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 17,2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 13 .. EXHIBIT A SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT As stated earlier, an amendment found to be inconsistent with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Applicant shall be required to address the following standards regarding the proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding Staff believes the spirit and intent of the proposed amendment meets the goals the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) that calls for increasing lodge accommodations and affordable housing units in town. Further, The project's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan was thoroughly demonstrated in connection with the original PUD approval, and the addition of two more lodging units do not hinder the Applicant's ability to comply with the broader goals of the AACP; in fact, it furthers the goal of providing more lodge accommodations. The proposed development will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area if sufficient on-site parking cannot be accommodated. In this case, the Boomerang Lodge is eligible to expand onto an adjacent vacant property of 19,287 square feet (which is slightly less then a half city block). Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet or even exceed the City's parking requirement. Moreover, Staff finds that the request to develop this site with no on-site parking essentially pushes the parking impacts generated by this development into the immediate neighborhood, further burdening the City's ability to provide adequate public parking. As more projects develop within the City without absorbing their associated parking impacts, the City will continue to be seriously impacted by having to mitigate for undue impacts generated by private development. However, positive affects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area might also occur since any necessary utility upgrades or extensions required to be Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 14 .. completed by the Applicant would serve to better facilitate the re/development of the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 29, Series, 2000 for seven (7) lodge preservation (LP) allotments. The Applicant is requesting an additional (2) two LP allotments as a result of a site redesign that reduces one 3-bedroom Chalet to one-bedroom cottage and adds the newly requested lodge units (allotments) to the main lodge building at the west end of the site. This request, if approved, will essentially amend the aforementioned resolution to reflect a total of nine (9) LP allotments that have been awarded to the Boomerang Lodge expansion. Currently, the LP Growth Summary (as of June 25, 2001) indicates that there are 16 available allotments. Therefore, there are plenty of allotments to satisfy this request. Again, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final authority regarding the provision of LP allotments on a first-come / first-served basis. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD ... The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. Staff Finding The Applicant received approval from the City Council to vary certain dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. This requested amendment would also vary six of those as well. Staff has provided a table below (Table 3.0) illustrating the requested variance from the already approved underlying zoning dimensional requirements. Table 3.0 Dimensional Previously Approved Proposed for In the R-15 zone district Requirement for PUD Amendment Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 square feet for a detached Minimum Lot Area per residential dwelling or duplex; no No requirement No requirement Dwelling Unit requirement for a bed and breakfast or a boardinghouse Regulated via minimum lot area per One lodge or residential One lodge or residential Maximum Allowable dwelling unit; otherwise, not specifically bedroom per 1,000 square bedroom per 1,000 square Density regulated. feet of lot area. feet of lot area. Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard 25 feet for residential dwellings: 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet for accessory and all other buildings. 10 feet for buildings, 5 feet for Minimum Side Yard 10 feet. 10 feet courtyards Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 15 .. 20 feet for all buildings except residential dwellings and accessory Per approved final PUD Per approved final PUD Minimum Rear Yard buildings; 10 feet for residential development plans. development plans. dwellings; and, 5 feet for accessory buildings. Maximum Site Coverage Not regulated 35% 38% Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance 14 feet (exclusive of Per approved final PUD Between Buildings on a 10 feet overhangs) development plans Lot Minimum Percent Open Per approved final PUD Space Required for the Not regulated 55% development plans Site Per approved final PUD Per approved final PUD Trash Access Area Not regulated development plans development plans The applicant shall provide 4,757 square feet for a detached single an accurate floor area ratio family residence on the subject lot' for the purposes of 5,177 square feet for a duplex on the recording. Essentially, this 14,375 square feet for all Allowable Floor Area structures combined, or subject lot; and, no regulation provided meant "per the approved 0.73:13. for any use other than single family final PUD development detached or duplex. plans, with a ratio to be calculated. Per approved final PUD Two (2) spaces per residential unit of development plans (nine two or more bedrooms and one (1) Per approved final PUD spaces consisting of: two (for Minimum Off-Street space per residential studio or one- development plans (not less the employee units) on the Parking Spaces bedroom unit; established via Special than 10 spaces). present Boomerang Lodge Review for all other uses. site, and seven spaces in the Fourth Street right-of-way). 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics Of the property and surrounding area such as steep stores, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding In general, Staff believes the proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are minimal; however, the absolute lack of any on-site parking does dictate a certain site design. If the Applicant is required to provide between 6 and 9 on-site parking spaces, the site plan will change to accommodate them, which may in turn require further changes to the dimensional requirements as a result. There are no known natural or man-made hazards affecting the project site. Existing vegetation on the project site is sparse, consisting mainly of wild grasses and sagebrush. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 16 .. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity Of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The highest open space requirement of any City zone district is twenty-five percent and a requirement of "per the approved final PUD plans" will exceed twenty-five percent; the Applicant proposes thirty-eight percent leaving 62% for open space. In addition, all residential zone districts permit a twenty-five foot maximum building height, and since the proposed development is located in proximity to residential developments, the proposed twenty-five foot maximum height limitation is appropriate. The massing and scale of the proposed development is consistent with that of the surrounding neighborhood. The chalet structures will include two stories above grade and pitched roofs with a peak/ridge height of approximately twenty-eight feet and a measured height of approximately twenty-three feet. Taller structures exist across the street. The detached structures have been somewhat uniformly spaced to provide a consistent rhythm of building-to-open area along the streetscape. The proposed FAR will accommodate the development, but will not permit buildings of a size that would be out of character with those structures found in the surrounding area. 3. The appropriate number of Off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods Of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding Staff' s finding regarding parking has been amply discussed in the Staff Comments portion of this Memorandum. In this ease, the Boomerang Lodge is eligible to expand onto an adjacent vacant property of 19,287 square feet (which is slightly less then a half city block) as stated in the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district. Staff believes that since this expansion is occurring as new development on virtually flat vacant ground with little to no site constraints, the Applicant has ample opportunity to meet or even exceed the City' s parking requirement. Moreover, Staff finds that the request to develop this site with no on-site parking essentially pushes the parking impacts generated by this development into the immediate neighborhood, further burdening the City's ability to provide adequate public parking. As more projects develop within the City without absorbing their associated parking impacts, the City will continue to be seriously impacted by having to mitigate for undue impacts generated by private development. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 17 .. The Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district requires 0.7 spaces per bedroom, or establishing the number of spaces pursuant to a PUD. If the 0.7 space per bedroom standard were imposed, the 17 new lodge rooms would require 11.9 on-site parking spaces, and the two affordable housing units would require one space per unit, for a total of 13.9 on site parking spaces. As part of the original submission (prior to the sub-grade garage proposal), Staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Applicant should be required to provide between 5 and 7 on-site parking spaces due to the lodge's location and existing parking spaces which was significantly less than the requirement. In this proposed amendment, the Applicant is increasing the number of lodge bedrooms by 2 rooms, which equates to an additional 1.4 spaces. Therefore, in keeping with Staff's original recommendation of requiring 5 to 7 spaces (combined with this additional 1.4 spaces), Staff strongly recommends that the Applicant should be required to provide 6 to 9 on-site parking spaces. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Speclfically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensurefire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development and, therefore, no density reductions were necessary. This amendment increases the unit count by two lodge units, which are incorporated in the larger west end building which will not be apparently different as seen from the street. Further, it does not change the number of units substantially enough to affect the ability to service the development. All utilities are available to the site and the existing capacities are adequate to accommodate the proposed density. West Hopkins Avenue is a City of Aspen public right- of-way, which is maintained by the City of Aspen. The Aspen Fire District station is seven blocks from the project site, which is served with ample existing hydrants and is already within the fire protection district. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Spectfically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The landis not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudjlow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 18 .. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding Staff finds the existing conditions of the property have not changed since the granting of the previous approvals. Further the Applicant' s response to this standard amply demonstrates the project' s compliance. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding In this amendment, the Applicant is requesting two (2) additional LP allotments (or units) which increase the density of the site. These units are absorbed in the west end building, which exists in the current approvals. This is in accordance with the AACP, which supports the notion of increasing Aspen' s lodge bed base. These additional units will not further compromise the sites capabilities to handle the density. C. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 19 .. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding Staff finds that the site does not contain any unique natural or man-made features that provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past. The Applicant wishes, to the extent possible, to leave the undeveloped portions of the site as they currently exist in an effort to preserve the natural character of the area surrounding the site, including Shadow Mountain, Little Cloud Park, and the Midland Trail. Since there are no significant open spaces or vistas worthy of preservation, the structures have been appropriately spaced. The site plan does not obscure views of Shadow Mountain from surrounding properties. The proposed heights of the various structures will enable continued visibility of Shadow Mountain from the street and the existing Boomerang Lodge. The previously approved building layout and building orientations are not affected by the proposed amendment. The ehalets and the eastern wing of the west end building are oriented to match the orientation of the existing Boomerang Lodge at the corner of 4th Street and West Hopkins Avenue. The site is surrounded on three of its four sides by public rights-of-way (4~11 Street to the east, West Hopkins Avenue to the North, and 5"i Street to the west). Emergency vehicle access will be primarily from West Hopkins Avenue, and secondarily from the 4th and 5th Street rights-of-way. At its deepest part, the site has a depth of approximately eighty-five feet, making even the furthest set back structures accessible for fire protection. Service and delivery vehicles will, for the most part, work through the existing front desk/offices area of the Boomerang Lodge across the street. Otherwise, West Hopkins Avenue will provide adequate access for all needs. A fenced trash enclosure will be located at the northwest corner of the property. A detached, four foot wide, ADA compliant sidewalk will be installed along the length of the project's West Hopkins Avenue frontage. Each unit will have a concrete walkway leading from the sidewalk to its front door. One of the ground floor lodge rooms in the west end building will be handicapped accessible in accord with UBC and ADA requirements. The walkway leading to the handicapped accessible unit will also meet ADA specifications. The project will employ roof drains, downspouts, and dry wells to maintain the site's historic runoff/drainage rates after development. No drainage related impacts will be felt on surrounding properties. Further, Staff is requiring the Applicant to install a curb, gutter, and sidewalk at the time of development. All programmatic uses will be enclosed within the west end building. D. Landscape Plan: Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 20 .. The purpose Of this standard is to ensure compatibility Of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features Of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety ofornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding Staff finds the existing state of the site does not significantly contribute to the identity or visual character of the city. Its frontage has currently served as a parking space for large heavy construction machinery. The Applicant intends to leave the undeveloped portions of the site as they currently exist in an effort to preserve, to the extent possible, the natural character of the area surrounding the site, including Shadow Mountain, Little Cloud Park, and the Midland Trail. The only new landscaping additions proposed include the planting of roughly nine Aspen trees (see site plan), and ten to fourteen honeysuckle bushes along the West Hopkins Avenue right-of-way frontage. Consistent with the existing Boomerang Lodge property, the Applicant intends to plant honeysuckle bushes in the proposed landscaping to complement those located across the street. E. Architectural Character: It is the purpose Of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability Of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character Of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character Of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative Of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use Of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding Staff finds that the previously approved architectural character is maintained in the proposed amendment. Given the location of the site along the toe of Shadow Mountain, only morning and late afternoon sun will shine on the property in the winter. The property' s location Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 21 .. makes natural heating difficult but almost guarantees a degree of natural cooling. The angle of solar access will result in shadows cast almost exclusively on the property itself, with very little shadowing on the public right-of-way, thereby helping to minimize the development's impacts relative to icing of the sidewalk and street. The distance between the property line and the edge of pavement on West Hopkins Avenue is approximately twenty feet. The four foot wide sidewalk to be installed will directly abut the property line, leaving sixteen feet between the sidewalk and the edge of the street. Sixteen feet is more than enough buffer room to absorb the impacts of street plowing while still accommodating parallel parking. Snow removal from the site will occur only along the walkways leading from the sidewalks to the front door of each unit. This snow removal will be handled via shoveling and there is room alongside these walks to store the shoveled snow without any need for removal. Roof overhangs will provide snow shielding for the entryway to each unit, and the angle of inclination for the pitch of these roofs will ensure that snow sheds to the sides (not onto the entryway). F. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. AH lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the Jinal PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding Staff finds that the Applicant shall comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Regulations, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(E), Non-Residential Lighting Standards (including mixed use projects). G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of aH development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space. or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance Of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 22 .. Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing no designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas as part of this PUD. Recreation areas are already provided on the grounds of the existing Boomerang Lodge property including a swimming pool and spa. Open space is provided in Little Cloud Park just south of the project site and the Marolt Open Space just a few blocks to the west, and City parks are available for use within easy walking distance. The Boomerang Lodge anticipates managing all aspects of the proposed development through and after completion. No common park or recreation areas are proposed. Maintenance provisions will be addressed as part of the Final PUD Agreement. The requirement of a "deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development" is not applicable since no common open spaces or recreation areas are proposed. H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding Please refer to the report prepared by Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers contained in the original PUD submission. In addition, Staff is requiring the Applicant to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements at the time of development of the project. Impacts on parks and schools will be minimal as most of the development is comprised of tourist accommodations. Given the size of the studio affordable housing units, it is not at all likely that school age children will be living on site. Park lands are plentiful in the neighborhood. with Little Cloud adjacent to the south, Koch Park just a few blocks to the southeast. Paepke Park just four blocks to the east, and the Marolt Open Space just a few blocks to the west. These parks all maintain more than enough capacity to adequately serve the proposed development. The roads serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located on a public street, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. The proposed amendment' s addition of two new lodging units will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated. the Applicant shall bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions. Pursuant to Section 26.610.020 of the Code, park development impact fees for the new lodge bedrooms (but not the affordable housing bedrooms) will be due at the time of building permit issuance. Staff does not believe that any over-sizing of utilities will be necessary. but if such should be required, the Applicant will be glad to be reimbursed. In the event that Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 23 .. utilities have been oversized in connection with other developments in the area and an agreement for reimbursement is in place, the applicants will pay their proportionate reimbursement fees for connection to such facilities. I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use Of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding As proposed, each structure and unit of the proposed PUD will have direct access to the adjacent street of West Hopkins Avenue via a concrete walkway from the front door to the sidewalk. Access to the parking spaces proposed in the 4th Street right-of-way will be via West Hopkins Avenue and/or 4th Street, both of which are public streets. The issues of vehicular access, parking, and traffic have been discussed earlier in this memo. The property is surrounded by public rights-of-way on three of its four sides, where 4th and 5th Streets function only as driveways. Only West Hopkins Avenue functions as a road. The proposed parking plan provides essentially one driveway intersection with West Hopkins Avenue, represented by the 4th Street right-of-way. This is a street intersection where the impacts will be limited only to that potentially attributable to seven parking spaces. This proposal will not detract from the ability of West Ilopkins Avenue to continue functioning jointly as a street and bicycle/pedestrian corridor. Again, due to the nature of the site, Staff finds that the Applicant should be able to, and provide, at a minimum, between 6 and 9 on-site parking spaces so as to not overburden the City's ability to provide public parking. Staff further believes there are many creative ways to accomplish this lessened requirement so that additional curb cuts are not made onto West Hopkins Avenue. 1 Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be dejined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shaN be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any .facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 24 .. ajfordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding Staff finds that the previously approved PUD was to be developed over two distinct phases, with the employee dwelling units being built in phase two. Under the current plan, all units will be built in one phase. If, however, financial considerations force the development to occur over two phases, the Applicant has offered a contingency plan regarding mitigation for employee generation. Also, should a phasing plan become necessary due to financial or other unforeseen reasons, the Applicant requests that such a plan be subject only to administrative review and approval as an insubstantial PUD amendment. In order to ensure that the employee generation impacts of phase one would be mitigated, the original approval included a condition requiring that a temporary Deed of Trust be provided to the City until such time as a certificate of occupancy is issued on the employee units. Under the current plan, all units will be built in one phase. If, however, financial considerations or other unforeseen circumstances force the development to occur over two or more phases, the applicant would like to offer the following contingency plan with regard to mitigation o f employee generation. The applicants own a roughly 4,240 square foot triplex at 1020 Waters Avenue. The triplex contains three apartments. The units in the triplex are not deed restricted, but function as de facto employee housing under the applicant's ownership. If, and only if, the proposed development is not completed in a single phase of construction, the applicant is prepared to mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to whatever is built in the initial phase by temporarily deed restricting a two-bedroom unit on the Waters Avenue property. Given that the entire development requires housing of just 1.911 employees and a two- bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 employees, the suggested temporary mitigation will be more than enough to satisfy any requirement that could potentially be attributed to a partial build-out of the lodge expansion. Should the above-described, temporary mitigation become necessary, it is proposed that the two-bedroom unit at 1020 Waters Avenue be deed restricted in a manner whereby the category designation would "float" to accommodate the salary level of the Boomerang Lodge employee needing to be housed. The temporary deed restriction would have to carry a caveat making it clear that the deed restriction would be permanently dissolved when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the on-site housing to be developed as part of the Boomerang Lodge expansion. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 25 .. EXHIBIT B LP ALLOTMENTS & EXEMPTION FOR LP AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING 26.470.070(M) Lodge Preservation Program. Development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the number of affordable housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be exempted from the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that the following criteria are met: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Pian. Staff Finding Staff does not believe this project will conflict with the AACP. The AACP encourages maintaining the community's lodging base, increasing the number of affordable housing units, and locating development within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and close to transit. This parcel already maintains a zoning designation that includes PUD and LP Overlays which allows the Boomerang Lodge to expand its operations and provide affordable housing to its employees or qualified local workers, thereby fulfilling several AACP goals and objectives. 2. The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. Staff Finding City Council found the previously approved PUD to be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the LP Overlay zone district. The proposed amendment maintains the same uses as previously approved, only two lodging units have been added. Staff believes the proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. The site is located across the street from the existing Boomerang Lodge, and within two blocks of both the Christiania Lodge and L'Auberge Chalets: residential uses are also abundant in the immediate vicinity, as are recreation areas to the south on the mountain and commercial uses to the north on Main Street. Staff also believes the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone district, which is: "to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and aj.fordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is compatible -with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties." The goal ofthis application is a replica of the purpose of this zone district. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PlJD Amendment 27 .. 3. Employee housing or cash-in-lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the demolition of multi-famity housing, as required by section 26.530. This shaN include an analysis and credit for existing employee generation and the incremental impact between the existing development and the proposed development. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding Applications to increase the number of lodge units and the number of affordable housing units are subject to employee housing mitigation requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with determining whether an applicant is proposing to provide adequate employee housing to mitigate for the increased number of workers generated by a development - in this case an expansion - after considering a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. On April 19, 2000, the Housing Authority recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this level of mitigation for the lodge expansion. In approving the previous version of this PUD, the Housing Office used a generation factor of 0.245 employees per lodge room to evaluate the expected employee housing needs, and requiring that 60% of the employees generated be provided with deed restricted affordable housing. The following shows how employee generation and mitigation requirements were determined as part of the previous approval. Due to the larger (approximately double) size than normally encountered in lodging units, each chalet was considered two units for purposes of determining employee generation. The calculations were accomplished and approved as follows: [(5 chalets) x (2 for size)1 + (2 one-bedroom units) = 12 units (12 units) x (0.245 FTEs/unit) = 2.94 FTEs (2.94 FTEs) x (60%) = 1.76 employees to be housed Since the proposed amendment eliminates one large chalet and includes five relatively standard size lodging units, the amended employee mitigation calculations are as follows: [(4 chalets) x (2 for size)] + (5 one-bedroom units) = 13 units (13 units) x (0.245 FTEs/unit) = 3.185 FTEs (3.185 FTEs) x (60%0 - 1.911 employees to be housed Under the previous approval, the project included two (2) one-bedroom affordable housing units which. at 1.75 FTEs/unit, provided credit for housing 3.5 FTEs (approximately double the requirement). The proposed amendment provides two (2) studio affordable housing units which. at 1.25 FTEs/unit, provide credit for housing 2.5 FTEs (approximately 131% of the requirement). Although the previously approved PUD further exceeded the housing requirements than does the amended plan, the fact remains that the proposed amendment exceeds the required amount of housing by more than 30%. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 28 .. Given their location on the lodge property and the proximity to customers, the units will in no ease be sold to employees for fear that the buyer could then resign from working for the lodge but still own an apartment therein. This is consistent with the recent approvals granted to the Hotel Aspen. In addition, the applicant has obtained conditional use approval to rent the deed restricted units to qualified persons who are not employees of the Boomerang Lodge in the event than no Boomerang employees desire to rent the unit(s). As shown on the floor plans, the studio units will each contain approximately 455 net livable square feet. Based on size, the Housing Guidelines would typically require that these units be deed restricted to the so-called "lower-price" Category 3 level (half way between Categories 2 and 3). Such a limited restriction would be too confining if the unit(s) were to be rented to employees of the Boomerang Lodge. Instead, the category designation for each of these units will need to accommodate the salary levels of the Boomerang employees who need to be housed. The Applicant requests that it have the ability to, from time to time, adjust the categories as necessary to accommodate the income levels of the employees to be housed. In the alternative, perhaps the units can be deed restricted to the "lower-priced" Category 3 level with the caveat that, if rented by employees of the lodge, the income and asset restrictions be waived. If one or both of the units are to be rented to qualified persons who are not employees of the Boomerang, then a "lower-priced" Category 3 lease will be acceptable to the applicant. If rented to employees of the lodge, the applicant would like to retain some flexibility with regard to requirements addressing the minimum length of leases. If rented to persons not employed by the lodge, rental of the units will comply with the APCHA minimum lease requirements. Given the issues regarding the Telluride case, the Applicant proposes the following options in order to guarantee that the proposed rental units will maintain pricing in accord with the limits indicated in the Housing Guidelines. First, since the applicant intends to divide the redeveloped property by means of condominium or planned community map after construction is substantially complete, the Applicant will be willing to grant the Housing Authority an option to purchase for $10.00 an undivided 0.01% interest in the ownership of the units of the property containing the deed restricted units. Staff finds this to be acceptable upon language that is deemed appropriate from the City Attorneys office prior to the application of building permits. 4. Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, witi be provided for the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe adequate on-site parking is included in the site plan for the expanded lodge. Despite the lodge and affordable housing units' location to transit. town, and recreation areas, many visitors and tenants will continue to need a place to park their cars. This is a vacant lot and Staff believes parking can be accommodated on the site rather than on the street. The Parks Department is also concerned about parking along the W. Hopkins Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 29 .. Avenue because of the potential for a trail in this area. Providing 6 to 9 on-site parking spaces would likely change the proposed dimensional requirements on the site. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a site plan with on-site parking, and then the dimensional requirements can be more appropriately analyzed for the parcel and neighborhood. 5. There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.050. Staff Finding Approximately 16 Lodge Preservation - tourist accommodation allotments exist. which is more than adequate for the two (2) requested additional allotments required for this application. It should be very clear, that the Applicant must allow the lodge to be available to the general public for 6 months out of the calendar year, or the project will be considered residential in use and will be required to compete for residential GMQS allotments. B. Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]Â·" Review is by City Council. The section goes on to state that, The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include a determination Of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number Of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size ofthe dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Staff Finding The City is certainly in need of affordable housing, not only to mitigate the proposed development, but to help meet the shortfall of affordable housing available throughout the community. The proposed development complies with the "Aspen/Pitkin County 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines." Two studio units are proposed on the project site described in the foregoing. Each unit will contain approximately 455 square feet of net livable area, and be deed restricted as "lower-priced" Category 3 rental units. The Category 3 currently represents a maximum monthly rent cap of $783.00 under the Guidelines, which may be amended from time to time. The applicants desire to maintain the first right of rental on the proposed units every time one or both of the units should become available so they may use the unit(s) to house qualified employees of their lodge, if needed. If the applicants do not need the unit(s) when they become available, then the units will be available to qualified Boomerang ]Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 30 .. renters though the Housing Office. This type of arrangement is allowed for under the Section 8, Table IV notes of the 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 31 .. EXHIBIT C CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE The LP Overlay zone district allows "timesharing" as a conditional use. The proposed fractional share program requires conditional use approval as a timeshare. The following section, as proposed by the Applicant, describes the proposed fractional share program and provides responses to the standards applicable to a conditional use. The subsequent section of this application responds to the applicable criteria of the Code for timeshares. Finally, timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision pursuant to the Code definition of "subdivision" and, therefore, requires approval of a subdivision addressed in Exhibit D. Ut should be noted, that because a "timeshare application requires review against three sections of the Code (conditional use, timeshare, and subdivision), and that subdivision reviews require approval by the City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requests these reviews be combined. Therefbre, the Applicant would like all decision making authority on these three requests to lie with City Councill Ordinance Number 20, Series of 2000 contains two specific conditions (21 and 23) that this conditional use application seeks to amend or respond to, as applicable. Condition number 21: Each Boomerang lodge unit shall conform to the provisions of Section 26.100.104 - Dejinitions, Lodge, and any change in the lodge's operations must be reviewed, approved, and mitigated for (employee generation) pursuant to the then current Land Use Code and Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Condition 23: (in part) Nothing herein shall preclude the Applicant from applying for condominiumization or the sale offractional interests in the property. The Applicant, through Conditional Use approval seeks to sell fractional interests in the Boomerang Lodge expansion units. I f this conditional use approval is granted, the applicant intends to condominiumize the property after it is built in order to facilitate the sale of fractional interests in each unit. (Please see the Application portion discussing Time share for a complete description of the proposed program. Basically, the program, as proposed, involves the following: 1) Creating seven fractional share owners for each of the nine units; 2) Each owner purchases seven weeks of ownership per year, where they each get two weeks of use in the winter high season and two weeks of use in the summer high season; Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 32 .. 3) At a minimum, the remaining three weeks of ownership are required by covenant to be available to the general public for rental or maintenance. Each owner's share will rotate forward every year by two weeks in both high seasons; 4) So, with seven owners each owning seven weeks, forty-nine weeks of the year are spoken for and the remaining three weeks will be retained by management for rental or maintenance and repair; and 5) In total, there will be sixty-three owners (twenty-eight for the four ehalet units at seven apiece, twenty-eight for the four one-bedroom apartments at seven apiece, and seven for the one-bedroom cottage). Standards for Conditional Use The Applicant is required to comply with Section 26.425.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. Further, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether the following standards are met: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located; and Staff Finding The LP zoning and the AACP stress the importance of finding ways to make small lodges and the expansion o f small lodges viable in Aspen. This conditional use is proposed solely as a means of making the Boomerang Lodge and its expansion economically viable. Staff finds that the fractional interest program, as proposed by the applicant, ensures that every unit iii the expansion wilI be available to the general public for rental on a short-term basis for at least twenty-four weeks worth of each year. This is two weeks less than the required 26 weeks that the lodge is available to the general public, which is two weeks less than is required by the lodge definition. In addition, lodging units that are vacant will be added to the rental pool and rented on a short-term basis. In order to remain eligible for the LP allotments, the Applicant shall be required to ensure that these units are indeed available to the general public for 26 weeks rather than 24 weeks. Staff finds the Applicant is already able to take advantage of the Lodge Preservation program by achieving additional allotments/ units that are exempted from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) but now wishes to reduce the time the general public is able to use them. Staff finds this to be contrary to the spirit of lodge preservation. On the one hand, the LP program provides a mechanism for Aspen' s small lodges to expand and remain viable contributions to Aspen's bed base, while this proposal, on the other hand seeks to reduce the time available for the general public to use the lodge as a lodge, and would, in fact be considered residential units. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity Of the parcel proposed for development; and Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 33 .. Staff Finding Staff finds that the compatibility of the proposed development (zoning, site design, scale and massing of structures, density, dimensional requirements etc.) has been adequately demonstrated throughout the former PUD. The slight reduction of one Chalet unit to a 1 bedroom cottage are compatible with the site and neighborhood. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed conditional use will not affect the location, size, design, or operating characteristics of the Boomerang Lodge PUD. Due to the relatively high number of shares, the lodge will look and feel like a lodge with the turnover. As part of the fractional share program, the management will retain 50% of all rental fees to offset total expenses. Management will also own the grounds, the two employee dwelling units, the common area/meeting room, the laundry facilities, the storage space for use by the owners, and the spa, dressing, and exercise areas. In addition, management will retain three weeks per year of ownership in each unit to allow for maintenance/repair and rental. As compared with traditional lodge operations, the fractional share program will have no increased affects on visual impacts, circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations or odor. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and Staff Finding Staff believes this standard has been adequately addressed in relation to the entire development. A fractional share program as compared with traditional lodge operation does not have any additional affects on public facilities and services. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Staff Finding Staff finds the conditional use does not generate additional employees beyond that expected from a traditional lodge operation. Employee generation will be mitigated with the development of two deed-restricted studio apartments, or deed restricting the 2 bedroom unit on Waters Avenue. F. The proposed conditional use complies with aN additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and by a/l other applicable requirements ofthis Title. Staff Finding Please refer to the Planned Unit Development section of this Memorandum in Exhibit A. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 34 .. Timeshares As explained above, the fractional share program requires review as a timeshare pursuant to Section 26.590.010(C) of the Code. The Applicant has indicated that since the review standards applicable to a timeshare application are very long and many are either antiquated or do not apply in this case, there is no textual response to each standard. Further, the Applicant believes that many of the standards were written with 1970s variety timeshares and marketing in mind. Since this application has very little in common with the typical timeshare of the 1970s and many of the standards are rendered inapplicable, the Applicant has simply provided an overview and narrative describing the proposed fractional share program as well as an attempt to respond to the intent of each regulation to the extent possible. Fractional Ownership Program Overview The Applicant seeks approval to sell fractional interests in the nine Boomerang Lodge expansion units. The applicant intends to file a condominium or planned community map after the units are built in order to facilitate the sale of fractional interests in each unit. The specific description in detail is provided in the Application submitted to the Community Development Department and attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit E. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PljD Amendment 35 .. EXHIBIT E SUBDIVISION Timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision pursuant to the Code definition of "subdivision" and, therefore, requires approval of a subdivision pursuant to Section 26.480.050, Review Standards, of the Code. Accordingly, Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. c. The proposed subdivision shal not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with al! applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. B. Suitability of Landfor Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of Jlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that wil be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause ine#iciencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities und unnecessary public costs. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 36 .. Staff Finding Please refer to Exhibits A and B for responses to this standard. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding Staff finds that the Applicant intends to provide all improvements set forth in Chapter 26.580, as applicable. The improvements will comply with the design standards also contained in said Chapter. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program does not apply to this application. The applicable standards of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, have been addressed above in reference to the GMQS exemptions. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding Staff finds that this section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. The Applicant has opted to provide a payment of cash-in-lieu since the subject property is only 19.737 square feet in size and is located within the original Aspen townsite. These payments shall be made to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwelling units based on calculations to be performed by staff of the Community Development Department in accordance with the formula provided in the Code. Subdivision / School Land Dedication Timeshare approval constitutes a type of subdivision; therefore, the Applicant is required to comply with the City' s school land dedication. School land dedications standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen, which contain residential units. The Applicant shall make a payment of cash in-lieu of a land dedication to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential / lodge dwelling units. The formula to determine the amount of cash-in- Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 37 .. lieu payment for each residential / lodge dwelling unit (totaling 19 units) is calculated in Table 4.0 below. Table 4.0 Unit Type (Proportionate tÂ° X Land Dedication X 0.33 Cash-in-Lieu total land value) Standard 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 3 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0162 X 0.33 $ 633.08 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (lodge) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (AH) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 1 bedroom (AH) $ 118,421.05 X 0.0012 X 0.33 $ 46.89 Total Cash-in-lieu Payment $2,860.58 As a result of the analysis above and based on a current market value of $2,250,000 the Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $2,860.58 in school land dedication fees at time of building permits. Park Development Impact Fee (26.610.020) Park development impact fees shall be assessed upon all development in the City of Aspen which creates additional bedrooms in residential dwellings, lodges, hotels, bed and breakfasts, boardinghouses, roominghouses or dormitories and on all development which creates additional commercial or office space. Park development impact fees shall not be assessed Affordable housing subiect to Affordable Housing Guidelines. The park development impact fee shall be assessed according to the following schedule: Residential / Lodge Total # of Units Unit Type Fee per Unit type Payment Studio $ 1,520.00 $ - 5 One-bedroom $ 2,120.00 $ 10,600.00 Two-bedroom $ 2,725.00 $ - 4 Three-bedroom or larger $ 3,634.00 $ 14536.00 Total $ 25,136.00 Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 38 .. AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF 4:30 PM GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING (5:00 PM) TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001 SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Public II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST III. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1490 RED BUTTE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW & DRAC VARIANCES, STEVE CLAY, CONTINUED FROM 7/10 - RESO. #32,2001 3 B. ISIS GMQS EXEMPTION (GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION), CHRIS BENDON - RESO. #2,2001 -3/ 1 0---9111 C. 302 E. HOPKINS GMQS EXEMPTION (GROWTH MANAGEMENT l COMMISSION), CHRIS BENDON - RESO. #3,2001 4 D. 1210 RED BUTTE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, STEVE CLAY - RESO. #33, 2001 E. MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT- BUS BARN LANE HEIGHT. STEVE CLAY - RESO. #34,2001 F. BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT, FRED JARMAN - RESO. #35, 2001 IV. ADJOURN , ORDINANCE N0. 20 (SERIES OF 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE BOOMERANG LODGE MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, REZONING TO R-15, MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICTS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-66-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Charles and Fonda Patterson, owners, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, and Haas Land Planning, LLC, for Conditional Use approval for affordable housing, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions for lodge preservation and affordable housing, a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning to Moderate Density Residential, R-15, with Planned Unit Development and Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone Districts for a property consisting of portions of Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 19,287 square feet, and is located in the R-15 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310 of the Land Use Code, the City Council may approve Amendments to the Official Zone District Map, during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Minor PUD, finding that the site design better addresses on-site parking and neighborhood compatibility; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6,2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 29, Series of 2000, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, approving a conditional use for affordable housing and GMQS Exemptions for lodge preservation and affordable housing, and recommending City Council approve the Boomerang Lodge Minor PUD and Rezoning to R.-15/PUD/LP; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.100.104 - Definitions, the definition of a lodge is the following: "Same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation Overlay 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 1 of 8 R 40.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 0 0 District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six months of each calendar year, and may have kitchens within individual lodge rooms"; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department issued a Land Use Code Interpretation of the term "general public" as used in the definition of lodge, which states that the term does not allow for an owner of a lodge unit to perpetually occupy the unit; and that the requirements for a lodge apply uniformly to all lodge units witlin a lodge and each lodge must conform to the lodge provisions, unless the use of that specific unit has been appropriately approved for another land use; and, WHEREAS, on February 14,2000, at a duly noticed public hearing, City Council upheld this Land Use Code Interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the applicant voluntarily desires to deed restrict the two (2) affordable housing units to restrict the amount of rent that can be charged consistent with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Housing Guidelines ; and, WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court in the case entitled Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture L.L.C. (case No. 98-5C-547, decided June 5,2000) held that Section 38-12-301, C.R.S., prohibits the enactment of an ordinance that imposes rent controls; and, WHEREAS, Section 38-12-301, C.R.S., states that the rent control statute is not intended to impair the right of a municipality to manage and control any property in which it has an interest through a housing authority; and, WHEREAS, the applicant desires to grant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority an interest in the property subject to the terms and conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has consented to accepting an interest in the property on conditions that it be indemnified and held harmless from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the property; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 2 of 8 R 40.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 0 f the Aspen Municipal Code, the Boomerang Lodge property, Parcel Number 2735-124-66-001, shall be rezoned from R-15 to R-15 with Planned Unit Development and Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone Districts. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Boomerang Lodge Minor PUD is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A drawing showing the phase 2 under ground parking garage location, and a plan showing a temporary on-site parking area for three (3) automobiles screened on all sides except the access by landscaping approved by the Community Development Department. The Applicant shall eliminate the three (3) on-site parking spaces proposed to be accessed from West Hopkins Avenue. Because the below grade parking garage extends to the lot lines beyond the building footprints, the plan shall show landscaping in the space between the buildings and the lot lines. 3. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record a PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder binding this property to this development approval. a. A completed curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement, if necessary. 111'111 lilli mi lilli '11'11 lilli lilli 111 lilli 1111 lili 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 3 of 8 R 40.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO .. f b. A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way. 4. The following dimensional requirements ofthe PUD are approved and shall be printed on the Final Illustrative Plan: a. Minimum Lot Size. 15,000 square feet. b. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling. No requirement c. Maximum Allowable Density. 1 lodge or dwelling bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Minimum Lot Width. 75 feet. e. Minimum Front Yard. 10 feet. f. Minimum Side Yard. 10 feet. g. Minimum Rear Yard. As shown on Final PUD Plans. h. Maximum Site Coverage. 35 percent. i. Maximum Height. 25 feet. j. Minimum Distance Between Buildings. 14 feet. k. Minimum Percent Open Space. 55 percent. 1. Trash Access Area. As shown on Final PUD Plans. m. Allowable Floor Area Ratio. The Applicant shall provide an accurate floor area ratio for the purposes of recordation. n. Minimum Off-Street Parking. As shown on Final PUD Plans (not less than 10 spaces). 5. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page o f the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 4 of 8 R 40.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO .. 6. The building permit plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system for the new buildings, in the event required by the Aspen Fire Marshal. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all existing and planned native vegetation on the site. The landscape plan shall show: 1) The size, species, quantity and location of planned vegetation surrounding the temporary parking area. 2) The size, species, quantity and location of vegetation between the affordable housing and lodge condominium building and the lot line above the sub-grade parking garage. 3) A green strip to include street trees, and a separated sidewalk/concrete path along the front of the Applicant' s property which shall be constructed at such time deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director after considering a recommendation by the Parks Department and City Engineer. The Applicant shall contact the City Forester regarding the correct seed mix for replanting disturbed areas with native species. 8. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of the approved building envelope and access envelope. 9. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. 10. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 11. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 12. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 13. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 5 of 8 R 40.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO .. 14. A fugitive dust control permit will be required during construction. 15. Slope stabilization, erosion control, and sediment control measures need to be implemented before, during, and after construction. 16. The Parks Department shall approve the location of the proposed sidewalk to ensure that it does not conflict with future trail plans in the area. 17. Construction of the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050(J) Planned Unit Development - Phasing of Development Plan, prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase, the Applicant shall provide a promissory note secured by a Deed o f Trust in the property in a form acceptable to the City Attorney to the City for .88 of an employee generated by the first phase at the Category 3 level at the then current Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, subject to termination upon complete provision of on-site mitigation for phase 2. The Deed o f Trust shall be subordinated to the existing debt and any construction loan(s). All conditions in this ordinance shall be memorialized in the Final Plat and Planned Unit Development Agreement. 18. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest in the ownership of the property to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purposes of complying with the recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision regarding rent control legislation. The Applicant may submit an alternative option to satisfy the rent control issue acceptable to the City Attorney. 19. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City o f Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the property. 20. Prior to phase 2 and prior to the building permit being issued, the Applicant shall record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units, and grant the undivided fractional interest in the ownership o f the affordable housing units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 21. Each Boomerang lodge unit shall conform to the provisions of Section 26.100.104 - Definitions, Lodge, and any change in the lodge's operations must be reviewed, approved, and mitigated for (employee generation) pursuant to the then current Land Use Code and Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. 22. Signs shall be posted inside the parking garage warning drivers to watch for pedestrian and bicycle traffic upon exiting the garage, and directing drivers to use Main Street instead of West Hopkins Avenue. 23. There shall be no sale o f the property in whole without a concurrent sale of the Boomerang Lodge to a single purchaser. Nothing herein shall preclude the Applicant 1111111111111111'l lilli 111111 lilli lilli 111 lilli lili lili 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 6 of 8 R 40.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO .. from applying for condominiumization or the sale of fractional interests in the property. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, the bulk sale of the property for estate planning purposes shall be permitted. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 12th day of June, 2000. Attest: 1 Of 4, amil . 1 Ell{ 5 41 - Kathryn S,Roch, dity Clerk ]Lchel Richards, Mayor r. C FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of July, 2000. $ Attest: 4 0& 4, Af #FA L /4 : 44Â«- 445 -61 1 f i sLiaanES.Â¥Ail, Citi, Clirk ~achel Richards, Mayor~ 9% .Â· LÂ¢:!6,7 .. .. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 7 of 8 R 40.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO . 01 3 1 r 1 i 'Or A / 1 U d 47 . 4 4 4 1 2 111111 1 b .. 1 1\ 1 / 11\ 440 \ 7 ... D 2 1 0 -341 y , 4 3 1 - f 1 RECEiVED I OCT 1 5 2001 ASPEN i Fi i NA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENt -ZI=22 - C.- .* --)-- . 04 / C0 441 -zz' . .9Â« 9- 4 ~Ff '' .1 r - . .. .. - - .- .. ~ 2=2 1 1- Â· - ja= 6:ii*Em: ... '1 tr-- -11-n 1/ 11 18 Ji Ij. 1 - mi -21/f i R - / -- / 1.1.=:=asmzEQ~z=:=a/ 1/ F' 07' 1, , jil I / 8- #4! f j {P-==a 4 1 1-1\00 - j 144 - 41*4//6 6 / 04 t 7 f .... . 0 0 Approved as to form: /1 Aoa . ) A ,+7% JohI , aty Attorney C:thorne\nicki\Active Cases\Boomerang\Ordinance.doc 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 446356 08/24/2000 09:57A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 8 of 8 R 40.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO irm"Vam.t \ N.*ful + 1 Y-- -7 1.d lilli r 11 a. .1 11\ 9 11 11 1 11 r.1 .1 - - - -; 1,14 1 11'1'In ----$24 \029 491 b Â».91 -7 f 4 " 1...4 11.....4,1:,-".~ ..'- 11*, : 1 6 1,1 00 - 1 (40 12 1,1 r '- iD!!:'iii 7 .. t~474/ ~ . 1 1 1 f... 1 . . . . i .il' 1 'If \3 l . 1. 97 ' 11 1 2, ... ... .,11 =-:'. I 1..41% L . A Â·, ELâ€¢ p , I., r< 144Â· \ AH 1 f 2.- 1 - .1.,1111.0 (t 4 ih ?11?/ .. ':911 .â€ž41 . 1 -1 . 41,21 1 14*4. 0 11 7 f IN 6. T .1,31/11~LIL'Ul 1 44 1 1 .1-=- , 1 .1, ..Â· 16Â·r'i f'..... 1.. S <9 Art ~1-t-\ ~4 , - < 1- - u IN . F.E. , 11 1 7/ t. .4,11 41 - 31 , r.t itt 2,4 4m + ' ' fl n \ 1 . ..1.111.11 - , ..6 1 1 Ii.: 1, 1 , * H - ~4 1 i:. I 1413 p. V , . '11 k. FY , f . 1 -1-17. ff ..,4 .. e. 9 1 Â·i,Â· a i r 8 1 q 1- Â· Â·H, 1 -iv Y .1 --1 . - m. . 96 1 6&9,*.I-/Â£ ' * I %.5-- ~ UV - " '- i 1 it . 2, ... ~ .1 ....t ~ ..1 I I kil,I' .~4.4.tee .%1 Fall El?m- YE TIll , ur 6.JZâ‚¬':r- 9. :1 1:11, 1 b :44*8= '111*\ C 11111~ 2 . Â·,F' D -7-47 1 .f.1#t741 ~4;~I Z 4 1-AL-3~~ -A / /1 11.. yi h f. 1 :r-/ { r. ./1- .f~â€¢~e-~r ,~ 1 941 -31 --j23-7--22- 1--u 1Â« -- L- -CANS 26/j 1 _ 0 1/-: ILÂ». , 1 - 433 . - ...I- 1 1 ~~LED h - --T~4~2ET N u,-air-11- _L' 4 fl. 0 n r--2-4 . & a u. , -CE-'.-/.7- , #- T9111 11 1 'P.=49*1- 1 -6 0-- 3Â» -1 1 ~111 m 4/1 j.-2 4 --- - - - .-FT-537;Eifl-fd-2- -- rEr 4-39 , 11 4---Ill 11 B L,&,Ii,1 __-/ 44 ,-S-7 Msepr- 1\-7-2.-1 r- _-1 4-41-fu~i~~*i:''Lyfl - '7-7 7 -3.-59 A--Ij //5350, 62-=1 v - \ Â»U2714\ *juÂ«f ju 1. .- -F- . r - j \ ..l , - /1 jill f 1 - -1-- - 6 1\ 1//'21,1.#,11Â¤0_ n . .22-1- - --- 1 1.- .-1.."- --, 1.1 - 11. 1.1 - 14â€žTi'Z 91'7~7, .,,u.---h..4.5 ..i".1. 1.. .1 /4 i. 1..... _ lie \~.#A/.0/lki ; I-- ---'I# -=----/-Â£. ---*-, Â· . i I. . . - -- -- - - 0 Ift i - . l\ ..19' / N .1 1 1 6 -/i~ mr T - Ar, . D ..lit=i:=--y.;7,7.- 7.-P~1~7~=" FlM?914:- *' Dry;'/8. p.Â· --- 3 . f 1 - . P.... 1 . il â€¢ \ . 1 , rÂ¢tt 9 ,-1 /7Â»- 304Â· ..4 :i': ~rtlrl tail' --I- , 2 Â·' '1_: ir--2 : 111.J mit.Â· Â· - i,r:, Â· 1., - 4% P!;1{)1 ]1 til- i 2 ni30 ~ f E - piti - 2 "ltr, 1~11 /,- ~~~~- r - @ j*02 1 K.I>:/ 14 1 14 11 â€¢Â·Â·. 4 ar-- -Â·wI~ A ** - -4 -L'. 11 . Â· i .F:fl . f 9 9..St, . . . C J==4- FI,01310 .Â· Â· ' Â· __, L L Jurn==: i-- Â· -- #- .xr i CH,4 4!1}j~Ir].Â·i{ Pi, 4- 7 ~' - t.f ~'i ~'Â©~;Â®.~i~~~R.4 6 --4 - .... 4 Ay.0 41 ; . 22:~0 /Â»/ %405 Â»Â»- --14'446;117'IM/1 ... I IV-- i \ -- - - NLSâ‚¬-7 -p-%31-- Â«--0 . 0. 0 ..1 0 0 Please use the following to replace Section IL, Proposed vs. Approved Development (pages 1-10),of the April, 2001, Amendment To The Boomerang Lodge Expansion application. II. PROPOSED VS. APPROVED DEVELOPMENT: City Council Ordinance Number 20, Series of 2000 (the Ordinance) granted approval to extend the Boomerang Lodge operations onto the Block 32 property located directly across West Hopkins Avenue from the existing lodge. The Ordinance granted approval to construct five freestanding, three-bedroom chalet lodging units, and a structure on the west end of the property. The structure on the west end of the property (hereinafter "west end building") was to include the following: two 1-bedroom affordable housing units, a common area for all guests of the project, including a bath house with whirlpool, bathrooms, and dressing rooms; and, two 1-bedroom guest units. The approval also included the provision of ten off-street parking spaces in a garage to be located beneath the west end building. In total, seven lodging units, two affordable housing units, and nineteen bedrooms (including two bedrooms in the affordable housing units) were approved. This application seeks to amend the approved plan as follows. The four easternmost chalets remain unchanged, but the westernmost three-bedroom chalet will be replaced with a small one-bedroom cottage. The west end building is modified such that the previously one-story eastern wing becomes two stories and the unit mix changes to include four one-bedroom lodging units and two studio affordable housing units. In addition, a basement is developed under the west end building and extends under the one- bedroom cottage structure. The basement level will include a good deal of storage space as well as a laundry facility, mechanical equipment, a spa, and an exercise room. A modest common arealmeeting room for guests will be included in the ground level. The previously approved subgrade parking garage will not be possible. In haste to provide a parking plan between continued City Council hearings, a subgrade parking garage was designed using an incorrect scale for the vehicles and subsequently got approved before the error was noticed. As a result of this error, it has been determined that the approved subgrade parking garage cannot possibly fit within the available area, nor can anywhere near ten parking spaces with room for circulation, turning, etc, -1- .. Consequently, the provision of parking (nine spaces) is now proposed in two separate locations: seven spaces alongside the east end of the property in the unused Fourth Street right-of-way; and, two existing spaces off Fifth Street on the west side of the present Boomerang Lodge structure will be designated for use by the occupants of the two employee dwelling units. The four free-standing chalets will each have a building footprint of approximately 865 square feet with nearly 1,755 square feet of FAR floor area on three floors. Each of these units will have three bedrooms and three baths, for a total of six pillows per chalet unit. Combined, the four free-standing chalets will cover roughly 3,470 square feet of the site, and have approximately 7,020 square feet of FAR floor area and twenty-four pillows amongst twelve bedrooms. These dimension have increased only modestly since the original PUD approval was granted, but there has been an accompanying elimination of one chalet. The four 1 -bedroom guest units in the building on the west end of the property will provide a total of eight pillows and will have a combined floor area of approximately 4,530 square feet. One of the guest units on the first floor will be handicap accessible, as required. The two 1-bedroom employee residences will be in a side-by-side configuration on the second floor, and will have a combined floor area of approximately 910 square feet (approximately 455 square feet each). The west end building will have a total of approximately 6,715 square feet of floor area. A total of thirty-four additional guest pillows (nine guest units), two employee units, and common guest facilities, encompassing approximately 14,310 square feet of FAR floor area, are proposed, By comparison, the same number of pillows and bedrooms are proposed as were previously approved, but the number of lodging units has increased by two. Also, approximately 2,000 square feet of additional floor area is now proposed. The approved plan included ten off-street parking spaces in a subgrade garage where the proposed plan provides two spaces across the street, and seven spaces alongside the property, in the Fourth Street right-of-way. For purposes of comparison, the dimensional requirements associated with the underlying R-15 zone district (as they would apply to the subject lot), those previously approved, and those proposed as an amendment to the approved PUD are as depicted in Table One, below. All square footages are rounded to the nearest ten square feet. -2- -- .. TABLE ONE: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON 1. Minimum Lot Size: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: 15,000 square feet. - â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: 15,000 square feet. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: 15,000 square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: 9 In the R-15 Zone: 15,000 square feet for a detached residential dwelling or duplex; no requirement for a bed and breakfast or a boardinghouse. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: No requirement. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment* No requirementl 3. Maximum Allowable Density: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: regulated via minimum lot area per dwelling unit; otherwise, not specifically regulated. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: one lodge or residential bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot areal â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: one lodge or residential bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot areal. 4. Minimum Lot Width: â€¢In the R-15 Zone: 75 feet. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: 75 feet. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: 75 feet. 5. Minimum Front Yard: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: 25 feet for residential dwellings; 30 feet for accessory and all other buildings. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD 10 feet. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: 10 feet. 6. Minimum Side Yard: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: 10 feet. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: 10 feet. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: 10 feet for buildings, 5 feet for courtyards. 7. Minimum Rear Yard: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: 20 feet for all buildings except residential dwellings and accessory buildings; 10 feet for residential dwellings; and, 5 feet for accessory buildings. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD per approved final PUD development plans. -3- 4 . â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans. 8. Maximum Site Coverage: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: not regulated. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD 35%. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: 38%2 9. Maximum Height (including view planes): â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: 25 feet. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: 25 feet. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: 25 feet. 10. Minimum Distance Between Buildings on a Lot: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: 10 feet. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: 14 feet (exclusive of overhangs). â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans. 11. Minimum Percent Open Space Required for the Site: â€¢In the R-15 Zone: no requirement â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: 55%0. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans. 12. Trash Access Area: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: not regulated. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: per approved final PUD development plans. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: per approved final PUD development plans. 13. Allowable Floor Area: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: 4,757 square feet for a detached single family residence on the subject lot; 5,177 square feet for a duplex on the subject lot; and, no regulation provided for any use other than single family detached or duplex. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: "The applicant shall provide an accurate floor area ratio for the purposes of recording." Essentially, this meant "per the approved final PUD development plans, with a ratio to be calculated. â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: 14,375 square feet for all structures combined, or 0.73:13 14. Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces: â€¢ In the R-15 Zone: two (2) spaces per residential unit of two or more bedrooms and one (1) space per residential studio or one-bedroom unit; established via Special Review for all other uses. â€¢ Previously approved for PUD: Per approved final PUD development plans (not less than 10 spaces). -4- . â€¢ Proposed for Amendment: Per approved final PUD development plans (nine spaces consisting of: two (for the employee units) on the present Boomerang Lodge site, and seven spaces in the Fourth Street right-of-way). Table One Notes: 1: The minimum lot area per dwelling unit provisions of the R-15 zone district cannot be directly applied to a property containing a mix of uses, especially when most of the uses are not residential. The proposal instead addresses the effect of such a dimensional requirement through the maximum allowable density provision. 2: It is believed that the previously approved 35% requirement will still be met with the amendment; however, a 38% limit is proposed as a means of providing a small margin of error. The previously approved site coverage and this proposed site , coverage do not include courtyard or terrace areas; thus, it may be advisable to establish the requirement as "per the approved final PUD development plans." 3: The 0.73 FAR is based on a lot area of 19,737 square feet and is proposed as a means of accommodating up to 14,375 square feet of FAR floor area. Otherwise, the requirement could be set as "per approved final PUD development plans" to allow the proposal without room for expansion unless approved as another amendment. As indicated above, the proposed amendment seeks no change in the approved dimensional requirements for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum allowable density, minimum lot width, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, maximum height, and trash access area. The requested change in the minimum side yard setback retains the previous limitation (ten feet) with respect to buildings, but allows for a single subgrade courtyard on the east side of the site to be constructed five feet from the property line. It is believed that the approved site coverage limitation o f 35% may still be complied with; however, given the possibility o f calculation errors, it is hereby requested that the allowable site coverage be modestly increased to 38%. Otherwise, the site coverage limit could be established as "per the approved final PUD development plans" to allow for the proposed site plan without the ability to expand any structures unless another PUD amendment is approved. Note that site coverage is understood to include above grade structures only without accounting for courtyards, terraces, or the similar. -5- .. Similarly, the majority of the area not covered by structures will continue to satisfy the City' s definition of "open space" since the Fourth Street right-of-way and trail corridor adjacent to the project site (to the east) allow for the south side of the site to remain visible from pedestrian level along West Hopkins Avenue. Nevertheless, precise open space-to-view calculations still have not been carried out; thus, it is proposed that the open space requirement be established as "per the approved final PUD development plans." This will still result in far more open space than otherwise required in the underlying R-15 zone district (which has no requirement at all). Again, such a requirement will allow for the proposed site plan, but will require that any attempt to reduce the amount of open space would first have to be approved as another PUD amendment. The requirement for minimum distance between detached structures was approved at fourteen feet. It is now requested that this requirement be re-established as "per the approved final PUD development plans" in order to allow as little as 7.5 feet between the one-bedroom cabin and the west end building and smaller separation distances between the one-story wing of each chalet and the adjacent structures. It is intended that the west end building and the cottage read as a single structure from the street. In addition, the smaller separation distance will help to make practical the extension of the west end building's basement space under the cottage. Given the siting of the chalets, the one-story wings will serve to break up the combined massing of each chalet and the adjacent one located further back on the site. The approved PUD did not establish an allowable FAR floor area limitation. Instead, the approval required the applicant to conduct precise calculations and note the result in the PUD Agreement and on the final PUD development plans. In essence, such a requirement established the allowable FAR floor area as "per the approved final PUD development plans." While the requested PUD amendment seeks to increase the amount of floor area previously contemplated by approximately 2,320 square feet, no change in the established FAR dimensional requirement is actually sought. It should be noted that the underlying R-15 zoning does not provide any regulation of floor area (i.e., unlimited) for bed and breakfast or boardinghouse uses, or for any other non-residential uses allowed in the zone, for that matter. Since the uses proposed are not regulated with regard to allowable floor area under the provisions of the underlying R-15 zoning, the proposed 14,375 square foot (0.73 FAR) limitation is more restrictive than might otherwise be required. For the sake of comparison, other zone districts which establish an allowable FAR for lodge uses (typically as all uses other than residential) have limitations ranging from 0.75:1 (Office zone) all the way up to 2:1 -6- .. (Commercial Lodge zone). The proposed 0.73:1 limitation falls below the range set by other City of Aspen zone districts. The approved amount of off-street parking was established to be "as shown on the final PUD plans (not less than 10 spaces)." This amendment seeks to provide nine parking spaces, albeit in a different manner than previously approved. In haste to provide a parking plan between continued City Council hearings, a subgrade parking garage was designed using an incorrect scale and subsequently got approved before the error was noticed. As a result of this error, it has been determined that the approved subgrade parking garage cannot possibly fit within the available area, nor can anywhere near ten parking spaces with room for an entrance ramp, circulation, turning, etc. Ten parking spaces were found to be ample for the seventeen lodging bedrooms and two employee dwelling units previously proposed. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a parking requirement of between just five and seven spaces. The proposed amendment maintains the same amount of lodging bedrooms (17) and two employee units as the previous approval Accordingly, the current proposal provides nine off-street parking spaces, with two of the nine designated for use by the occupants of the employee dwelling units. Thus, the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms provided in this amendment proposal has not significantly changed from that provided in the previous approval. The two spaces for the employee dwelling units are already existing on the west side ofthe current Boomerang Lodge and are accessed from Fifth Street. The other seven spaces are off-street but in the South Fourth Street right-of-way immediately adjacent to the east side of the subject property. Locating these seven spaces as such will eliminate the need for multiple curb cuts on West Hopkins Avenue and potential conflicts with the designated bicycle/pedestrian corridor in the street. It will also eliminate the need to severely detract from the site plan and aesthetic of the development by locating parking pads in what will otherwise be the various open areas along the street frontage. These proposed spaces are consistent with today's parking configuration along the South Fourth Street frontages of the Christiania Lodge and the existing portion of the Boomerang Lodge. The low percentage of site coverage, high percentage of open space, generous setbacks, and low building heights are only possible because the applicants are proposing a lack of on-site area being developed for parking. The placement of parking pads or any other type of parking area on the property would severely compromise these benefits and the site plan. -7- .. As the site plan and schematic architectural drawings illustrate. the proposed structures will complement the existing Boomerang Lodge. The existing lodge was designed by its owner, Charles Paterson, who is an architect. Mr. Paterson has designed the proposed structures and laid out the site plan such that the structures and their orientation will be fully consistent with that of the existing lodge. This goal is appropriate given that the new development will be a functional part of the Boomerang Lodge and should appear as such. Mr. Paterson's style has been described in some architectural circles as "Frank Lloyd Wright Modern," Complementary architectural styles are found up and down the West Hopkins Avenue corridor and throughout the neighborhood. Finally, the previous approval memorialized in Ordinance Number 20, Series of 2000 contained two specific conditions (21 and 23) that this application seeks to amend or respond to, as applicable. That is, condition number 21 states that, Each Boomerang lodge unit shall conform to the provisions of Section 26.100.104 - Defnitions, Lodge, and any change in the lodge's operations must be reviewed, approved, and mitigated for (employee generation) pursuant to the then current Land Use Code and Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. In addition, condition number 23 states, in relevant part, that, Nothing herein shall preclude the Applicant from applying for condominiumization or the sale offractional interests in the property. This application seeks conditional use approval to sell fractional interests in the Boomerang Lodge expansion units. The fractional interest program has been developed in a manner that will ensure the lodge' s continued compliance with the spirit of condition number 21 and the definition of"Lodge" as provided in Section 26.100.104 of the Code. If this conditional use approval is granted, the applicant intends to condominiumize the property after it is built in order to facilitate the sale of fractional interests in each unit. The program involves creating seven fractional share owners for each of the nine units. Each owner purchases seven weeks of ownership per year, where they each get two weeks of use in the winter high season and two weeks of use in the summer high season; at a minimum, the remaining three weeks of ownership are required by covenant to be available to the general public for rental. Each owner' s share will rotate forward every year by two weeks in both high seasons. -8- .. Thus, with seven owners each owning seven weeks, forty-nine weeks of the year are spoken for and the remaining three weeks will be retained by management for rental or maintenance and repair. This program ensures that every unit in the expansion will be available to the general public for rental on a short-term basis for at least twenty-four weeks worth of each year. Should an owner choose not to use an allotted time in one or both of the high seasons, that time period will be made available for to the general public for short-term rental. The thirty-four existing Boomerang Lodge units will continue to be available to the general public for short-term rental at all times As part of the fractional share program, management will retain 50% of all rental fees to offset total expenses. The remaining 50% of rental fees collected will be pooled and allocated to all the owners according to the size of their unit (which determines the daily rental price) and the time made available by them for rental. It is estimated that quarterly ownership fees will be approximately $1600 for a three-bedroom chalet and $900 for a one-bedroom cottage or apartment. It is also estimated that check-out fees will be roughly $250 for a chalet and $120 for a one-bedroom unit. Costs for a mid-week, full cleaning will run approximately $50 for a chalet and $30 for a one-bedroom unit. In total, there will be sixty-three owners (twenty-eight for the four chalet units at seven apiece, twenty-eight for the four one-bedroom apartments at seven apiece, and seven for the one-bedroom cottage). Management will retain ownership of the grounds, the two employee dwelling units, the common area/meeting room, the laundry/linen room, the storage space for use by the owners, and the spa, dressing, and exercise areas. c:/My Documents/City Applications/B-rang Amend Addendum -9- t . I .\-,r / 1-- f //334 \ , f ,/af 71-4 k.. Â· -Â·3 -r--L - Avt/-Lhfrk--- *--472 *-fal-~-ft'@*-El --445 31 fif -ft-41- :pitÂ·rp"E~qp'J. 11 - -----Â· ._ i g .Ai~~531 ~, a~q,~molqml-11*9L:*2*1*Ekt=ld@*4 1. - .1411 -_i' fi n,Nui il!2!1 011,['jj Â·Â·-- *i- <<FiL l'U Â·'Â·Â·101. -r-3-f.~~~~0' ~F~1 1 1 fÂ»41 - , .Â· IiI ' . 1 -1 1 - UÂ·Â· 1 31L LiÂ· 414 Â·4212.-==22-4 If Â· N ..,Â· ..Â· 47f Ezzi Â¥~Â»Tv'7-77--T-"r t,~ ~v~' ~ ~Â·; f~, i-7-1. 1 , 1.1. 1 .. Â¥VÂ¥VRTH -ark* . ' Â£ 1 1 1 ~ r-0 1 11 - 4 li 1 .1 4 ' -- \42-1 =-b=Â·. c.z --di- .Nf> R.TH E Lk-VA:nitu14--StÂ·ic>-E:.1.~601UP]NDG_St r,.3 , â‚¬, 6 sckLE hi"- IL-Â£>11 -1.11.*22.KEkliM.WACEP*TS--S. _AN1/KEUE- 7*CHALETÂ£4 2805GI ..M. 1 COTTAGE <65â‚¬20 -Â»UE.ST.ST-0-RAGE 20~10 4-1 -GED-RDOM API-549Â¢9420 4 12750..- 6uirsT-'5-, 1-uot@Mt* 7,@TA 9400-Â·: 2.-. STUDI.<PS 'AFFORDABLE'(2- 45-5~ 1 SPA t EÂ¢Fâ‚¬%(1 SE #2000 ..850-GIEUFF-42-*VIMIN ..up'\46â‚¬,T HOPKIN.5- AVE, 2.279' FIKDAAGE- h s'=.-cvt â‚¬"4â‚¬1.-â€ž1!fk EA c E N .Â·r, 5. â‚¬RLEEBO/a)'--I-zz-_----0, ~ // / 465 E 08- 9â€ž47* 1 - . 1 41-0 SIDEVALK 1 f Ll Eff)Â· UI "KN ~010. Dj u~ Vol 073 u 4 u #31 4 71 ~ ! - -Bfs HES- Â® FrKf Hymbrr u 1 '1 -----~ m*ey*CRL,E .M' h <gbi--7..KIORTH 5 1-40 Â«Â« 1 2 1 1 1 6- - - - -:- -- -Â»Â·Â·Â·Â· / i 23434 1 1 //A . -<111-~' *225 -F/ \:7- 4274# 1- U 4 -rÂ·Â» L Â·- 1 - 1 4-249 \ 02929;rA,~12.34 .EL X 00 4(T N <AVA ~ - 91=0- .. ~ ' ~ 5 2 \ Â® 9-77- -9 0 Â£ ' 3 GRQUMU 8.20& 1 PARK,61.62 \ 0 CrNE- SE[,Ac.<>M 01 , , ...2 ..1 30.-- 16'Low? ..1., THAEE -13EUROOF\ PALE-Â·r r -I \ 10 I \ Ly.*PEN a. 4 1 j - . -N\-~ i. '~ f~--'77 Of % il /_ c tyrrÂ»,2; / i 1 d300 8*SÂ·Â¢Â©.M. FooTPR!41Â·Â· 967 -a -VED k -,\ Â·- 52.-240â€¢ â‚¬ PA'CE.5 ~ husp j \ ~fatar'S Fc,gÂ·'11741- 3,5- \Â» 4 -12,0 7-TL 05 -2-5-5-5-* 6--:]34.Â¢:oÂ·Ny - ~ \, 1 / ' ID'%201' \ R/ki rANGâ€¢.6Â·T'fl.â€¢FA.~1 61110 4 Â« f / 1 1 1 . 'ke S / / : 41 f ,-7 /12 1 Â£ J 93TUC>toÂ¢K. Â·<t--- _ - -~< Th*C , ~\\\ - / ' 100]< C>t,mZRÂ©~P'ht,;S p * b---r Xy, + - - - _1 A \,23/ \, TERRAC E N '~~ ~ .>6' 1 / TTL QI,kid 1 . \ TERRAC.\ , 1 -9.-7...Â«4 ~ 7 .GONCi Pl-CÂ·fR [1-ff~AI E C T H, 1 -.> ;2 1 hÂ«./:, - 11>/ Â® / 1 9[24 E_ 9.E. 1 -3- Â·.*Â· 1 40 AP-Â·r:surrE 5 -PR.op/FliTY u---' ' C Â» \ /// < 0. 1 A.- P.---1 L" #Lk@.5~5Â·c>/ \. 19- 9*4 4 \ \ 30'-04.--.---_....7|' j /1 - ./ 4 13-4 9,1-(KEEST- y- loWe R COUR.Â·r>*Fl L.- Â£4_,' EDGE- Ut:' 1 1 uÂ©n ,/ /LANTGO 804Â£.D ~ S i>R \44 rÂ©-L\\ (3 , OX/>/1 /: / /: ,- --'-----~) E><15'rit* / I '} 3OL (y . 1, /4 ~ / 1 PROPERTy ' 1 \1 1 97/NE-Â» ~ / / ,<' 05Â·' WILP GRASX f :20\413- %~tflÂ·,Â·C , 1 1 RE M Al hi h \ / / I -h / , 1 Al-ONG 82- EA rat '30' -d>' ~ \ L ~Ft> .3- - ~ A-, 1 1 1// CHALET'@ MOÂ¥*S.\1 111,-ov h j 1 1 , | . q5%19 6/1.râ„¢ 7 j LCD. 23/- 1 1 , 13 JI . --22-J -REVISED JANI 2Â£>CPI 25. L COCK .32 Wors A-I ASPEN CO. -5Â¢642 962 4 11-0. I -I--f}? L---t.1-fn_-162 t....24N- I.if.~f --_13fC.:)2341).61, NG CLUES----ICHA.ll- EL---1~---8Lk-4 -I-2.--g- LZED-TALIFA&- I.,aticÂ¢ 7, Â·;NeÂ·?T . Un?:2 .Ir~itÂ· <:~Â·.~1~, Â·> Fll'(-Â·.tll'CE 1.dESLA-â‚¬Ii-LI. If?,,73.7 0 . .41Â·{ARLE S -PATE Bl SO.t4 DES IGN E A -wigvulouri-i-" --2-rre.-1Fo":0-rp-i~~~T rr,+55;0 ~1 -~~~I or /5 .... - / 41 I / /\ j / Â£ 1 T f t" 1 - /4 *---4 -GE--71 W 2 / 4-f-3 2- --T = 742 94 - / \l 12/6. f 1 - 3 9, oil 64" 1--- /3 BATH Â»4-1 g 4'rky i . / NÂ«\ , 1 41.0. Nk \ . 1 3 - -VOYECB- 11 3 -4 .-571'D>ri.( ~ -7.06=- - --1.- ft ILD., 1 L___ - AÂ· -1.[. 10 / ~- -~-1 ~0'~M~=-- ~' . n ' ----~4'-*-~' f-79 1(/ 7 \ r 1 2-7 li-lll I~' .__. 4.-1-_8â€¢.64, ----------, 1 Â·--2&-r-Pf ' / - 11125 V.T 44" 1 11 JIll. 111 r--- 1 1 1 I I - 1=21- ~ ,-1 -1 A /1 4/ I --- â„¢ *941Â©w E 5,4,4 2=~2, ,/r o T * f .6 4'-3'1 12'-04 ]ILD. ... SES:*Â¥01>MI, I \ 1--> 10'-4% -7=-p -_~-~- L 1.Cuo 1-1_! 1- 12?-6 P'. 611' i 1 01 01-21 i 1 01, 9- ~*12Â¤WN U U , 4 2-411 r-1 42 1 10.04 99 1- - -2-7340 iÂ» ---- ! It eli ' &MJL'~ L.-flit>~ 841.I 29Lql 6'_04 TEIRRACE,- pâ‚¬Â·71 4 1 i ,â€¢.cy - ---122 I ..4--- 12.-2 L. t 1.P " 1 1 . ..4. Ette- -1-3 MASTGRIJ-e>MDRODIA ~ . u 11-4 1 \0 . ~ I 1 1 ..2032.12.lic;p f.fl~ *LOL----1.+C-2. 1-1 1 - 6.0 L 4-1 rIVINLY'Â»awl L- i 4;"~ X . - /41*~~ - =-1 013 -4 - 30 7 -* t --1---- f 9--'. r,1 1 793> a t / h ./--6.-01-_--5/ Coui _.C. j -4/14' Â«41Â« PÂ«\. 44 085 3 \\M / 01-04 1-\ 1 .1 t 1 .+ -.4~b- ht \ U '-8 \ ~ 12?-6" 42 -Â»74- (LA - -7 L â€¢r- 1 1 -7 rÂ·1,~. W 446. yr. / 1 , . ...a i.. Pll-,& W A~-11-0/1\ f\ Â»24 f /1.1 16,4/r /./31\\ , 14 -rÂ«LA. 5 1 / 1 9. 0 7 '4.4. s eit 9- D #w ~x ~.fritiff ~ 11-*/f at*. =,tgrAD 12 '- 3 K.Al 1 1 / ' 8.84 Â·ge-Ed-CD.PAID FLOCS'k.- Ul -Eflk<TIFECTO R. ; -EUCaZE-fLIECE>QA._.__- Â«44 -19.-IPIC-A..INE-.,-i->.14.-~ --13 223 41.Pfi ~E[R~jk-.N _9- .4~-bl~r-*LE T-3. -1-:Ill 1;.162-....-â‚¬4_4.1-*.14.2. al '24>7. ~- rÂ«.NK.LE.5..LILPAT.E_R..-5 41-NE .DES-(G N E.le .....----i-- MAY 2.CIEOTH n : 3 3 --4 8 8 i N -9 : el 1 4 - 0 1 1 c . A .2 ~-6- 2 9 _~._. __-f %1 i Â·*EE. 1-1 4 1 Lr i 111 -.-~1 -- --tr----1-- -~ 9 --7 1 F=-1-41 4 1 ? 1'Â· 14 It? L, 1. 1 -VJI~ 1$ ; : '1 1 1 1-M / i 4 - r 1 .. 4 : --J 21 5. 1m Fl>\ XI 1,1 1 1 ' 1 4 L Â· L --/----------.' ' 0 2 . % p 41 iÂ·.' qi ~. I.li 0 m . 1 0 - k ! W i t==~1 Â· ill Â· I lilli 1~ ~ 41 1 1 11,~ h 11'~Ill Ill 1 /41 'ill Â£111 2 1 4-i J '% Â·1 N 7 3 - lÂ¢{ti ku--27-31{PRi~ Z 0 111 - q ~ - --10-1 10 ~ A 11*luill 11 1 1 /fi 1=1 p=11=41- i==:6..=..:111.-' 1., 1 111;11 !!fl r--1' rÂ» 1 4 1 // 11 11 ILl-%4411,~Â« 1 1 1 11 ' k=Im=41= . 1 1 1 1 1 MIt:Pl Int .,7...62'.% r?] 1 All'Aip'+4%11 .LL===4711 k i i iii ii iii 1. 11 17 ~ 1!11!1~]L . %\ 1 . 11 ; l i l i 11 ANV\1 Â· k42 ' 1 f. 1 I, lili '4 ii ' - - //f ~ TÂ»71 Â· 471 1 1 \ L.4 b > t Â·1.-Â· i i 1--Â¥911 4)-.- - f 1 illf ,- '6, 4- ! 1 i .~ . 01 1 1 * 1 1 Iii 1 115 9 1 1 1 11 1 1 , P 1 i 1 11 Iwn,i- i . 1.1 1 4 -Lz Ifi ..:'-Â«id 8 J 1 1 1 1. 1 1 lili lili '. . ! t . v A-*4) .1 3 Ll! B 11 1 1 --- 1 RE 1 F ; . 1 4 7-1 I 1 11 1 I , d 1 ' i./.1 ##14 1 1 1 1 '7-;CS;BE;a~ LA W 3 I?*ru,4 +2Â·8'=tÂ£ w .-. N.O11*A. 3-123 M.Al . 0 . 6 - =Cal'.1 Fk@ %4 FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. JOB NO 29 I 97C DEC. 18. 2000 . . . . 0 e SHEET. 1 OF 11 .. " 4Â·44Â«:.47 1 1.4 4 1 Â£ 1 1 **li I \ 1 1 1 .It , 1 \\11 11) lIlli .1 \ 1 1.1)\11 11 19 3, 1., ! 1. , \ .1 I.1 11 Â· 1 .i ; h ''4 I N Ft/,I .I ~ 4, . . A . ..2 , , , '\~ ~1 t. 1 1 k. 1\1 i *" 1 I ..l 1 ..\1 .1 1.4 \ .\ 1 . % 0 1 . 1. .. .0 1 0 0 ./,1 ID) ' :fl,h 0 : 1 0. . 4 , 0 ... 1 0 0 , 1 0.0 4 -0 '' 0 . 0 0 D D 0 .0 0 0 , ..... , 0 0. 0 0 0 0,0 a.. , 1 i 0 1 1 0 . . . 1, . 0 .1 1 0. . 0 1 1. 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 1,1 0 0. 0 . 0 . . 0 D , 0 00 : .0 . 0 . A 0 . .. . â€¢ A A . A 0 . 0 0 1 D .... 1 - 1 D '10: . 0 0 0 10 /0 - -- I ----- ..0 0 ... .. . 0 - 0. D 1 0 1 0 0 D . 1 0 .. 0. I 0 ... . . 4 1 0. 0 . D : ... , , /0 1 .. ..0 . . 1 1. ... D . . . .... 0. . . D 0 ' ' . 0: 4 0 0. 1: 1.0 / 0 0 . 0 ., 0 . . I . 1 34.1 . . 40 0 . . e 0.,1. . 0 . . 0 0 . 0 1 . 0 0 1, . 1 0 0 0 11 .0 1 0 .. .. I .. .. I , Â£ 0 ... . A D . ' 1, . ... . . .. 1 e : 1 . . 1 - . 0 e . 0 D .... . 1 0 0 -'./. ..0 .1 . .. D ... 1 . . . 0 *t. I . , 0 00 0 1 7.0 I ./ 1 0 , .. . . 1 1 0 1 1 0 . 1 ~ 1 4. D , 1 .. /-. 0. , 0 A...0 A r 0 . . 0 . . D . D 0 0 . . . Do -~. . 0 . 0 ..0 ... 0.1 1- . . 0 0 1 . . ..1 0 . 0 1, 1 9,-. 6/ -Villi"u'll'll'Imillual./.-- I.W............... 7 '. D., 0. , . A...0 A 0. . .0 *N . 1 . .. . 1 , 0. .. D A. . I . 00 1 .... .0 0 I. D. 0 .. A.: .. .. . 1. D. 0 . 1 0. ..... A .. ... 0 . 0 .-1.... . D. 0 D . 4 ... .. . I D 'lilli. D. 0. 0 0 1 0. 0 0 , . .0 a . 0 .0 .. 0 0 .. D 0 A . D .... D . . 4 0 .... 4 0.1 .....0 ... 1 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 . D . AD. ... . A .A 0 4 1 0. ..1 1 0 . 41. ..... . 0 I . . . . 0 0 . 1 0 0 , 0 00 0 I . 1 1, D. D . : 4 . . 1 0. . OlD . . .... 0 0 D 0 0 a ... ., . . I -. 1 ..... :I . . . .. . 1 0 0 0 : :' . .. . . . I .1 0. ID . 0.0 ... 0 10 . . .....: ... . I.. 0 . ... .... I . I . 0 .. ,. 0. . D . 1 . .. . .0 . C . . .... . .. , . 1 I. I .. . 2. .... . 1:, 1 - . ... 1, D . ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 17,2001 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 1 1210 RED BUTTE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW 1 1430 RED BUTTE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW & DRAC VARIANCES ...................................................... MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT - BUS BARN LANE - HEIGHT .........................................................e BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT 4 5 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 17,2001 Jasmine Tygre, Chair, opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners Ruth Kruger, Ron Erickson, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen, Robert Blaich and Jasmine Tygre were present. Steven Buettow and Bert Myrin were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Joyce Ohlson, Fred Jarman, Stephen Clay, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Blaich presented Jasmine Tygre with a heavy-duty gavel imported from Germany; he hand painted the item. Eric Cohen stated that he had an interview with City Council for the CCLC at 7pm. Tygre asked the commissioners for council discussion issues for the next meeting. Erickson asked staff why P&Z had to review a 101/2-inch building height variance for the Moore Family PUD Amendment; he asked why Community Development could not have just taken care of this issue. Bendon stated that sometimes these issues had to go to P&Z because o f possible a lawsuit. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger stated a conflict on the ISIS. PUBLIC MEETING: 1210 RED BUTTE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Jasmine Tygre, Chair, opened the public meeting on 1210 Red Butte Stream Margin Review. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to continue the 1210 Red Butte Stream Margin Review to 08/21/01. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING and PUBLIC MEETING (07/10/01): 1430 RED BUTTE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW & DRAC VARIANCES Jasmine Tygre, Chair, opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. David Hoefer noted that the notice met the requirements. Steve Clay, city planner, stated that the applicant proposed that the existing single family home be demolished and rebuilds a new single family home requiring a variance from the inflection standard for the double wide garage doors and a no window variance. 1 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ July 17,2001 Clay explained the criteria for the Residential Design Standards for inflection and slope disturbance would occur without this variance; 2 of the 3 criteria have been met. The double wide garage doors new design appeared to be 2 single doors even though it was one double door with side loading for less street impact. Staff supported the approval o f these 2 variances. Clay said that the proposed windows located in the 9 to 12 foot "no window" zone were not supported by staff because it was only for the purpose o f design. The Residential Design Standard could be met since this was a new house being built. John Galambos, architect, stated that he represented the owners Mark Brown and Steve Brint. He provided a model showing the property and showing the windows on the tower element, which were at 9 feet with a 1-foot gap of trim and then a 3- foot grouping of windows at 10-13 feet. He explained the vertical element (tower) as a focal point with a good counter point of the horizontal mass. Galambos said that they tried to stay within the spirit of the law by breaking up the window mass into 6 different windows with mullions and dividers in an attempt to remain within the spirit of the law. The windows brought in as much light as possible with a view of Red Butte. Galambos said that this element was designed for houses built with imposing facades on the street having a negative impact on pedestrians; this element was 150 feet back from the street and this wasn't a pedestrian street, there were no sidewalks. Roger Haneman asked for clarification on how the double door was a more effective way of addressing the standard. Galambos replied that there was a 3 car garage with 1 single door and a double door, which was for backing the owners' larger vehicles in and without an adverse effect on the street; it was set back about 90 feet. Jasmine Tygre restated what Roger Haneman requested was how the design fulfilled at least one of those criteria, regardless of it being more convenient for the owner; the commission could not make a judgment based upon that. Galambos said that the standard was intent. Clay responded that staff felt the design was a more effective way to meet the criteria with looking like 2 single garage doors with little negative effects. Bob Blaich stated that the ordinance responded to the suburbia big garage doors with minimal impacts. Ron Erickson noted that the garages did not face the street but were at 90 degrees. Eric Cohen asked for clarification on the distances between the windows. Galambos replied that the head of window 2A was 9 feet with a 1-foot trim board and then went from 10 feet to 13 feet. Bendon noted that if the window variance was granted it would be taken from the FAR. Galambos said that they were 300 feet below the FAR. 2 r ASPEN PLANNING,0MONING COMMISSION Julv 17, 2001 No public comments. Haneman stated that the residential design review standards were very clear and yet if there were custom abilities allowed to neighborhoods, then there would be a variance granted. Ron Erickson stated that the ordinance 30 revisions were on his short list of issues and he agreed with Roger. Erickson stated that when a house was built from scratch the house should be built according to the code without any variances. Cohen asked if the strict guideline were what were expected the commission to base the decision upon or the intent of the standards. David Hoefer answered that the criteria had to be followed strictly. Bendon noted that third criteria stated that it better meets the intent. Hoefer cautioned that justification from the code or Aspen Area Community Plan must be met. Blaich explained the history of the Ordinance 30 not just applying to the West End; there have been a number of variances based upon site specifics. Blaich noted that number one on his list for discussion was ordinance 30 also. Galambos said that as a designer he always has these rules come up and that was what the DRAC board was created to review these design standards. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #32, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee, the variance requests from the Residential Design Standards 1) Inflection and 2) Double-wide garage doors variance and approving the Stream Margin Review with the engineering additional conditions for the residence located at 1430 Red Butte Drive denying the window. Eric Cohen seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Kruger, yes; Erickson, yes. Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. The P&Z adjourned into the GMC from 5pm until 7:15 pm. MOTION: Eric Cohn moved to add an additional P&Z meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 for the review of the Moore Family PUD and the Boomerang PUD Amendment. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT - BUS BARN LANE - HEIGHT MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to continue the Moore Family PUD Amendment for height variance on Bus Barn Lane, P&Z Resolution #01-34, to July 24, 2001. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 6-0. 3 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION Julv 17,2001 PUBLIC HEARING: BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to continue the Boomerang PUD Amendment, P&Z Resolution#01-35, to July 24, 2001. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ji6kkjAA,ZZI,-2~4- 1 JAckie Lothian/Deputy City Clerk ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24,2001 COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS 2 MINUTES 3 MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT - BUS BARN LANE - HEIGHT ......... -, BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT .... 1 1 ASPEN PLANNIN~ZONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24, 2001 Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson, opened the special Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Bert Myrin, Eric Cohen, Ron Erickson, Bob Blaich and Roger Haneman present. Ruth Kruger and Steven Buettow were excused. Staff present were: Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon and Steve Clay, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked about parking in the public right-of-way and about the private sector putting up signs that say private parking but it really isn't private because it was in the public right-of-way. Joyce Ohlson responded that there were some lease agreements for parking in the public right-of-way and that there was a voucher program. Erickson said that for instance a lodge couldn't take credit for providing parking in the public right-of-way. Ohlson replied that those spaces were not factored into the parking equation. Erickson asked where he could find out which businesses were legally parking in the public right-of-way. Bob Blaich said that he wanted to respond to Tom McCabe's ADU article from the newspaper and provided the commission with a letter. Jasmine Tygre asked for the commissioners to comment on issues to be discussed with City Council. Eric Cohen stated that there was a discrepancy in the square footage of the ISIS retail space on the main level; he said that it was almost 12,000 square feet with the mezzanine and camera areas. Cohen asked for clarification prior to this coming back for review. Cohen asked how the mitigation was protected between the 6,000 and 12,000 square feet after the 2-year audit period. Chris Bendon answered that there would be another review for that employee generation mitigation. Jasmine Tygre stated that she had some concerns on the resolution and asked the commissioners to submit their concerns to Chris. Joyce Ohlson said that Nick Adeh, City Engineer, provided an update regarding the easements at the US Postal Service and reconfiguration of the traffic. Ohlson reported that there have been many PUD amendments over time on the Clarendon; she said that in 1992 there were significant changes. Ohlson continued that there were additions of a master bedroom to each unit, dividing of new spaces, creation o f new space and bay window on the second floor. Ohlson said the DEPP survey went out and the results will be tabulated within 7 days. She said that the reports would be distributed as soon as possible. Ohlson said that there was a House Size work session with City Council on July 31 st. 2 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24,2001 Chris Bendon stated that the civic master plan report contained issues but not the solutions. He said that the BOCC and City Council were interested in working on it more. The commissioners requested a copy of that report. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from July 10, 2001. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/17/01): MOORE FAMILY PUD AMENDMENT - BUS BARN LANE - HEIGHT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Moore Family PUD amendment for a change in the height limitations. Augie Reno, applicant provided the notice. Steve Clay explained that the change in the height limitation from 16 feet to 17 feet only pertained to Lot 27e; this was 10% inches over the maximum allowable height of 16 feet. Clay stated that there was a letter attached from the architect regarding how the error occurred. Staff reviewed the criteria and recommended approval subject to the conditions. Reno pointed out on a blueline the property location. Glenn Horn, representative for Zoom Flume, LLC, the developer, said that Ned Stokes was the project manager; Lee Lefsken and Augie Reno were the architects. Horn explained that there were 40 free-market units and 31 deed-restricted affordable housing units. Horn said that the one portion o f the PUD had a lower height limitation of 16 feet, rather than the 24 foot code limitation. Reno said that the grade interpretations were what made the error, which was a small section of the gable at 10% inches above the allowed 16 feet. Reno explained the midpoint measurement used for the height limitation. Horn said that all of the conditions were acceptable in the Resolution. Jasmine Tygre asked why this did not go to the Board of Adjustment. Joyce Ohlson replied that the variance criteria for the Board of Adjustment could not have been met through the strict legal representation o f the code. Ron Erickson said this was a minor PUD amendment and asked why this couldn't have just gone through a staff approval. Ohlson responded that there was much public input on this project and litigation; for the sake of fairness it should go through the public process of a Planning & Zoning Hearing. No public comments. 3 ASPEN PLANNIN/ ZONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24, 2001 MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-34, to amend Article VII, Section VII of the Moore Family PUD Amendment to change the height limitation allowing a maximum height limitation of 17 feet, only pertaining to Lot 27e, finding that the criteria per Section 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, and Minor PUD have been met. Subject to the recommended condition of approval. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes; Myrin, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 5-1. Discussion of motion: Tygre said that there was something wrong with this review since it could not go through the Board o f Adjustment. Erickson said that this could not fall under the criteria for the Board o f Adjustment; he understood the need for the public forum with Joyce's explanation. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/17/01): BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Boomerang. Mitch Haas, applicant planner, provided the notice. Fred Jarman stated that this was to consider a significant PUD Amendment to the Boomerang PUD approved with City Council Ordinance #20, series 2000. Jarman explained the original approvals included minor PUD, rezoning from R-15 to LP PUD, GMQS exemptions for lodge preservation allotments, conditional use approval for affordable housing in this LP zone district and 10 space sub-grade on site parking garage. Jarman said the new requests were 2 additional LP allotments and fractional ownership of the lodge units. Jarman said that the recommendation was for 5 to 7 on site parking spaces but the on-site sub-grade garage cannot be built as designed and that was the reason the applicant was back before P&Z tonight. Jarman stated that P&Z made the final decision for the 2 lodge preservation allotments and the GMQS for those allotments. Jarman said that the conditional use for the time-share, subdivision and minor PUD would go on to Council with the P&Z recommendation. Jarman noted 2 major issues of concern were the parking and the time-share. Jarman said that in lieu of not being able to do the 10-space sub-grade garage plan, the applicant proposed all parking off site with the exception o f 2 spaces on the existing Boomerang site. Jarman noted that the Boomerang was "under-parked" and most o f the parking was located in the Fourth Street right-of-way. He utilized a map to locate the project. Jarman stated that one chalet was changed from a 3- bedroom to a 1 -bedroom with the other 2 bedrooms moved into the west end unit. Jarman said that with the elimination o f the sub-grade garage there were 7 spaces 4 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ July 24,2001 placed in the Fourth Street right-of-way stub and 2 spaces on-site for the affordable housing units. Jarman noted there were 5 or 6 different parking options; there were 17 bedrooms with the code requiring 13.9 or 14 parking spaces. Staff had serious reservations about no on-site parking because it was specifically a greenfield development to lodge preservation for the viability of Aspen's smalllodges. The purpose o f the zone district allowed lodge preservation expansion but also to an adjacent parcel; this was an undeveloped lot that would provide no on-site parking. The recommendation asked for 5-7 spaces, which was nearly half of what the code required somewhere on the almost 20,000 square foot greenfield site. Jarman reviewed Plan B for parking, 5 on-site pull-in spaces with curb cuts and 4 spaces in the Forth Street right-of-way. Plans C&D showed 5 curb cuts, which eliminated the on-street parking, the impact was still there. Staff recommended continuing until the applicant could come up with a plan for 5-7 on-site parking spaces that work. Jarman noted that the time-share was a new request for conditional use to allow the units be sold in seventh fractional ownership shares (exhibit #4). Jarman stated that the timeshare plan was confusing; there were 9 units with 7 owners, owning 7 weeks in time. 4 of those weeks would be split in M between summer and winter peak times and the rest of the time would be general public rental, which would be about 21 weeks. Staff concerns were not with the time-share aspects but there has not been enough review of the time-share effects on the Aspen lodging bed base. Jarman said that this was in the LP zone district and received the allotments as exemptions not to compete because they were a lodge. The applicant was asking for an exemption from the lodge rule o f renting for less than 6 months a year to one person; they were 2 weeks shy o f that requirement. Jarman said that once the rental range was removed, the primary use changed from lodge to residential. Jarman restated that the applicant requested the exemption from LP and then the applicant said that it would be shy o f the rental requirement lowering the Aspen hotbed base. Jarman reviewed Exhibit E, which stated that an owner of a unit could not perpetually occupy a lodge unit; the manner in which land was owned did not grant the landowner the ability to circumvent any other provisions in the land use code including zone district regulation, definitions and with the change in use provision. The 6 month provision came about as an incentive to the LP lodge operators to provide groups lodging for longer periods of time but remain available to the general public for at least 14 of the year on a short term basis to insure that the use ofthe land remained lodging and not residential. 5 ASPEN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION ~ July 24, 2001 Jarman stated that even a permitted use required a change in use hearing because o f mitigation requirements. Jarman stated that the time-share issue could be worked out and the on-site parking spaces needed to be worked out prior to the continued public hearing on August 21 st. Eric Cohen asked why staff only requested 5-7 spaces on site when 12-14 were required. Jarman replied that since the LP spaces were so site constrained the number was brought down. Jarman stated that the existing Boomerang had an in- town shuttle service and because of their location in proximity to mass transit and proximity to town. Jarman said that the 5-7 was reasonable enough to handle their parking mitigation. Bob Blaich inquired about the original plan included, which 10 sub-grade parking spaces and asked how many spaces were now available. Roger Haneman asked ifthe current lodge was in line with it's parking requirements or in deficit, including what was located in the public right-of-way. Jarman replied that it was under parked. Mitch Haas stated that the parking requirement was erroneous. Haas said that the first plan showed no on-site parking and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended to City Council that 5-7 on-site parking spaces be provided. Haas stated that the plans were changed between the continued City Council meetings. perhaps in haste, using the wrong scale showing 10 parking spaces. Haas stated that they were never required to provide 10 parking spaces; he said they showed a plan with 10 and that was where that came from. Haas said it was accepted not required. Haas explained that the scale was wrong and the ramp going down to the parking garage would have been at a 40+% grade; he said to get a ramp down to the garage the way the project was designed required a 90 foot run of a ramp to clear the design for the sub grade space. Haas said that each chalet was M story below grade; another building went a full story below grade and below grade storage connecting the buildings. Haas said that every other aspect of the project would be compromised to provide a sub grade parking garage on this property. Haas said that they were not trying to get to the 10 spaces but stay with the 5-7 spaces above grade; the several different plans were provided. Haas said that the other lodges did the same thing and Fourth Street wasn't really a street but a right- of-way and a driveway to serve the one house. Haas said that people backed out of driveways all over the west end and all over the world, people look over their shoulders to do so. Haas said that the last Plan E provided 6 on site spaces with something like what the Little Nell had. He said there was a trade off taking some of the off-street parking away but that would leave at least 6 on street parking spaces. Haas said that the city might put in a parkway in the future. Plan E could work without backing out into the street, there would be a 5-bicycle fleet, a shuttle 6 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24,2001 van for drop-offs around town, which would include the permits for airport pick- ups and drop-offs, mass transit was one block away and the property was within 3 blocks o f the commercial core. Haas said that they felt that this plan addressed all the parking; the trash and recycling moved to an enclosed area on the other side. Haas stated that interpretation o f the how the lodge definition interplayed with the conditional use of the time-share was too narrow. Haas said that the lodge definition stated that the rooms had to be available for 6-month periods, anytime adding up to 6 months; that was for the growth management exemptions for lodge use. Haas said the question for this property was swinging this property from lodge to residential use for 24 to 26 weeks of rental; there wasn't a time-share lodge use in the code, which what was needed for this property. Haas said they wanted to take 6 months plus 2 weeks = 28 weeks, and sell those to 7 owners, which was more than what could be done by right through conditional use. Haas said the planning commission could establish the parameters by which the time- share was acceptable. Haas said that if it were only at 6 months then it would be the same a condominiumzing and not have to be a conditional use. Haas stated that they tried to structure it as close as they could mathematically to address the spirit o f the definition o f lodge; he said that he hoped it would be a simpler conditional use for the commission to consider. Haas said that they were very close to what the letter of the definition was fore conditional use. Haas summarized the conditional use request: the Planning & Zoning Commission was empowered for the flexibility of how far they can go from the general public 26 weeks to the private; he said that they were just asking for 2 weeks. Bob Blaich asked what happened to the first parking plan with 7 spaces on the alley. Haas replied that was still the preferred plan but it was abandoned because it became clear that staff would not support it. Jarman reiterated that there was a Greenfield site without any on-site parking; essentially the applicant asked to mitigate for the impacts in the public right-of-way, this was unacceptable. Jarman said that the corner piece was city property and the street parking spaces were taken away with one of the other scenarios. Ohlson clarified that they were taking the space out of the public parking arena for people who might want to use that trailhead. Blaich asked what the city street department's position was on all of the street cuts. Jarman responded that the city engineer stated that this number of curb cuts was unacceptable; he indicated that there should be 60 feet between curb cuts. Haas stated that he did not see that it was fair to say one way or another that the engineering department had enough time to analysis this. He said that there weren't that many curb cuts and wasn't a safety concern because they were far enough apart. Haas said that head-in parking probably wouldn't happen. 7 ASPEN PLANNIN/ ZONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24,2001 Bert Myrin asked how this project compared to Benedict Commons parking below grade. Charles Paterson said that he did not realize that he used the wrong scale of a car so there was not enough room to back up in the parking garage with a 12% grade. Paterson said that all of the underground was used and there was no more available for parking; he apologized for the error. Haas said that the Benedict Commons was built prior to the city adopting the 12% maximum. Tygre stated that there was more information needed on how underground parking worked. Erickson asked if the applicant received credit for the parking located on Fourth Street as part of the trailhead. Paul Taddune stated that with the proper understanding and Fourth Street vacated could provide parking for the trailhead and this project. Bert Myrin asked if there were leases for parking in the public right-of-way. Taddune said that vacating a street happens all the time. Ohlson stated that at the DRC meeting there was discussion Erickson asked the difference between this project and the Grand Aspen time-share project. Chris Bendon responded that one of the primary differences was that the Grand Aspen was from the residential allotment in the LTR. Erickson asked how many time-shares was each person going to be allowed to buy; what percentage of the time-shares will be single ownership; what kind of deed-restrictions will there be in the condo by-laws and declarations requiring owners to reserve their units on a timely basis and the amount of time that left those units available for rent to the open market. Erickson said the concept of usage doesn't change for either project; he asked how many units would be available for rent during the summer high season. Haas said there will be a contract and covenants which will outline the buyers rules. Erickson reiterated the question of how many shares one person would be able to buy. Paterson answered that it had not been worked out yet. Haas said that the time-share would not be the same units each time. Fonda Paterson responded that it would depend upon how the time-share owner executed their options. Haas said that the owners had 2 weeks in the summer and 2 weeks in the winter, which were fixed and rolled forward every year. Erickson asked if there was a mechanism for the time period allotments that the owners had to reserve the time or the unit would go into the rental pool. Charles Paterson replied that they did not have approvals yet so they couldn't make the rules. Erickson asked if the Commission saw this project again. Paterson replied that they did not have to see the project again; the parameters were provided o f how the system works. Paterson said he had the best fractional share lawyer to set all of it up. Tygre stated that the concerns of the commission were that they have seen various types of fractional/time-share ownership presentations with different implications in hotbed generation; the lodge preservation ordinance was to preserve lodge use. Tygre asked how close was the project proposed to a lodge use as opposed to a 8 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ July 24,2001 condominium use. Haas stated that they haven't gotten to that level of detail; had they known that level of details was needed they would have provided it. Haas said that they were 2 weeks of that level of lodge. Roger Haneman asked why it had to be 1/7 share. Charles Paterson replied that it could be whatever the marketing worked out to be. The commission requested the level of detail for the time-share that they required from the Grand Aspen project. Haas replied that the code did not require that; it was not criteria for the review. Tygre stated that the intent o f the LP zone and the creation of hotbeds were the goal o f that zone and it would be appropriate i f that encouraged or increased lodge usage as opposed to not encourage lodge usage. Haas replied that the main goal was to preserve the violability of the smalllodges; he said this project needed the revenues ofthe interval ownership sales to help maintain the viability o f the existing 34 unit Boomerang Lodge, which has been a smalllodge for 45 years in Aspen. Haas said that this was the plan to preserve that lodge. Haas said that they could live with the 6-month availability to rent to the general public. Tygre introduced the letter into the record from Klein-Zimet. Herb Klein, public, stated that he represented neighbors and their issue was the parking and were interested in the preservation of the small lodges. Klein said that the underground parking was perceived as a good plan and now it was taken away. Klein said that he was sure that an engineer could figure out a way to make the underground parking work; there was a 270-foot frontage, so 90 feet to make a parking ramp would work; it was 1/3 of that frontage. Klein provided dimensions and neighborhood background, which might work with the creative energy Charlie has or to re-configure on-site. Klein provided photos (exhibit #6) taken July 11 and 12th at the Boomerang existing parking; he said it was clear that people bring cars to lodges. Klein stated that the code designated 0.7 spaces per unit for lodges, which factored in the proximity to town with transit. Klein said that there was already a compromise at 14 spaces and the 5-7 spaces required for parking was somewhat of a travesty and unfair to the neighbors. Klein said that it was his understanding that there was only one curb cut per property allowed; plan E took parking off the street. Cheryl Goldenberg, public stated that she was a neighbor and liked the chalet and was not against the time-share. Goldenberg said that her concerns were the parking; she said that there had to be a garage for the chalets or parking on site for the luxury development. 9 ASPEN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24, 2001 Martha Madsen, public, stated concern for the increase in the number of cars on this street especially with the bike traffic. Steve Goldenberg, public, stated that that at another meeting, 3 or 4 years ago the trail came further down to the street. Steve Goldenberg said that people drive here and if they were nice citizens they take the bus but they still need parking spaces. John Bendoni, public, stated that he was an attorney representing Mary Hugh Scott. Bendoni stated his client's concern was also for parking. Bendoni stated that the underground parking was significant and that at a council meeting they agreed with staff that the parking needed to be further addressed. Bendoni stated that the reviews and goals o f the lodge preservation needed to be respected and appreciated the planning and zoning commissioners' concerns. Paul Taddune said that the photographs may be an exaggeration o f the parking problems and stated that he didn't know if they would be admissible in a trial. Haas stated that Nick Lelack, the former staff person noted in a staff memo during Food & Wine week that 1/4 of the spaces were empty. Haas said that a snapshot in time could tell you anything. Haas said there were 5 different on grade parking options. Haas said that there was on street parking available and the lodge could issue city-parking permits for a week. Haas said that traffic studies state that providing on-street parallel parking acts as a traffic calming measure that slows down vehicles and was better for a pedestrian environment. Haas stated that the 0.7 spaces per bedroom did not include the reduction for location, mass transit; that was incorrect. Haas said the underground parking garage cannot be done but they have provided several on site parking spaces. Paul Taddune stated that there was an article in the weekly newspaper showing the Boomerang in the context of what Aspen was all about; the Paterson's were here to ask the commissions for help in the lodge preservation of the Boomerang. Fonda Paterson stated that she wanted to speak o f the LP zoning, which was the intent to preserve ledges and keep a viable short-term bed base in Aspen. Fonda Paterson said that the buildings that used to serve as lodges with a front desk, served continental breakfasts and brochures for marketing were gone; these LP properties had been approved and were really now glorified condominiums. Fonda Paterson said that if they used the LP ordinance to convert to 6-month usage; it seemed ironic that their LP project, which was determined to keep it as a lodge with a front desk, office hours, a brochure and marking and that their integrity was 10 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24,2001 questioned. Fonda Paterson said that it was a short term rental (2 week packages) with which they were trying to enhance the project. Bert Myrin stated that the project was currently underparked and asked i f the parking permits were issued. Fonda Paterson replied that the parking permits weren't issued. Bob Blaich stated that he wanted the curb cut issues clarified; he said that Plan E was inappropriate. Blaich said the parking on the end where it has been used as parking maybe could be researched or leased or with less curb cuts. Blaich said that the underground parking should be studied even if it caused the buildings to rise up out o f the ground, which could be problematic. Blaich said that he favored using Fourth Street. Roger Haneman said that Plan E was as creative as it was negative; he favored option A using Fourth Street as the parking. Ron Erickson stated that he like the Fourth Street easement for parking but since they did not know i f the city was willing to go along with it, the commission couldn't approve any parking situation until the clarification was made from the city engineer. Erickson said it could be recommended but needed the clarification. Jasmine Tygre and Eric Cohen agreed with Ron about the city's role. Cohen said that the number of parking spaces needed to be determined and favored the use of the Fourth Street easement as parking for city trailhead and Boomerang parking in some sort of agreement. Cohen said that the underground parking could be accomplished with the loss of some square footage for the units. Tygre summed up the commissioners statements as the applicant pursuing the potential o f using Fourth Street or redesign and accomplish some o f the parking underground; the parking as proposed was too nebulous to approve or disapprove. Other city departments needed to provide the necessary input so the parking for this particular project didn't unduly impact the other parts of the neighborhood. Myrin stated that Fourth Street was public land and it may not be the commission's decision to turn it over to private hands and would not recommend that direction. Haneman stated that it could stay public if the applicant were to improve the area for parking. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 p.m. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 5-1. 11 ASPEN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION ~ July 24, 2001 Erickson said that the biggest flaw in the proj ect was the time-share aspect; he said that the commission has learned ill the last several months there was a lot more to time-share than just selling off shares. Erickson stated that he never questioned Fonda and Charles Paterson's integrity; they were wonderful people but once a time-share was sold you no longer own it, they own the lodge but won't own the time-shares. Erickson said that in order for this to work for the city, the objectives of the lodge preservation program must be adhered to; he suggested a work session for the necessary requirements for a proper time-share development in the city. Erickson noted that this was the last time the Planning & Zoning Commission would see this for review, there were too many unanswered questions. Erickson stated the issues were the number of shares each owner could own; when they become available for rental; percentage of the total o f timeshares that will be available to only one owner; how does an exchange program work; how will the units be reserved; will there be lock-offs for the 3-bedroom units. Blaich stated that he felt uncomfortable with the whole time-share issue until the city set up something in the code for clarification; he said the 2 extra weeks were a way out of the one problem. Blaich said that Ron raised legitimate questions, but did not know if this commission had the purview to go into the time-share details and asked for staff clarification. Tygre also wanted to hear from staff on the application for conditional use for time-share, and therefore was appropriate for Ron's questions on the conditional use. Chris Bendon replied the criteria under the conditional use, one criteria addressed the operating characteristics of the conditional use, how many intervals were all characteristics. Bendon said that the 6-month rule was to maintain the lodge use; the interval ownership could be that 6- month provision but could not be more than 6-months. Bendon stated that the commission and staff shared the same concerns o f time-share; there was a proposal for city council to review the impacts o f time-shares and those questions probably won't be answered at this point. Tygre restated that the commission does have the right to ask the questions that Ron asked regarding the time-share as clarification from the applicant. Bendon responded that was what the conditional use was for, to find out about the operating characteristics and how it affected the neighborhood. Haas recanted that the conditional use operating characteristics of the proposed use was mentioned in relation to adverse effects including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrians, vehicles, circulation parking and trash but not in the grand scope of lodge preservation. Eric Cohen said that with the regards to fractional ownership at 26 weeks, it addressed the rental concerns being available because ofthe attachment to the Boomerang Lodge for people driving into town for last minute lodging. 12 ASPEN PLANNING ~ONING COMMISSION ~ Julv 24,2001 The commission favored Lodge Preservation Allotments and the GMQS Exemption for LP and AH but had problems with the Parking and Time-share. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue Resolution #38, series 2001, the public hearing on the Boomerang Lodge Expansion to August 21, 2001 for two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemption for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing, PUD Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare and Subdivision, to allow the Applicant time to accommodate a minimum of 7 on-site parking spaces and ensure the six month unit rental availability to the general public is met. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, yes; Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Discussion ofthe motion: Erickson stated that he wanted answers to his time-share questions. Cohen said that to be fair he wasn't agreeable with the applicant coming back with only 5 parking spots; he asked for the number to start with 7 spaces. Myrin stated that one number was better than a range; he said that the higher the number the better. Tygre stated that she agree with Bert at 13.9 spaces. Erickson stated that some sort of warrant should be prepared on the time- share/fractional ownership. Paul Taddune asked for direction to the city from the commission on the Fourth Street parking solution. Four o f the commissioners felt that the Fourth Street option should be explored. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 6-0. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 13 .*. THE CITY (,F ASPEN . 6 PILANNING ANO ZONING gorvIM<153 ION ~,0..m :,st â‚¬:.. 20 I â‚¬1 . 4* 94 d. I . I 43 J k / 1 ,1 MEETING DATE: August 21,2001 (continued from previous July 24, 17) NAME OF PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Expansion - PUD Amendment CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Joyce Ohlson WITNESSES: (1) Mitch Haas (2) Charles Paterson (4) Cheryl Goldenberg (5) John Batty (6) Fonda Paterson EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (X) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice (X) (previously submitted) 3 Bluelines, site maps MOTION: Bert Myrin moved approve P&Z Resolution #37, series 2001 for two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemption and to recommend City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare and subdivision with the following changes: condition #2.d. added In conjunction with building permiti condition #3. stricken~ApliempA,yees amended to as recommended by housing; condition #4. & #5. added due and payable at building permit application per structure stricken 52,-#60.-5#; condition #7. added applicant may supply an alternative option to the city attorney that is acceptable; condition #9. deleted; condition #10. delete Further on ...City of Aspc|16 condition #13.n. (not less than 13 spaces)% add a condition to include the applicant reached an agreement with the city to provide control to the Boomerang management and meet with the city attorney to establish parameters and releasing the rooms to the public at an eartier date under six-month rule. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Haneman, no; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-1. VOTE: YES _6 NO _1 ROBERT BLAICH YES x NO JASMINE TYGRE YES x NO ROGER HANEMAN YES NO _x_ RUTH KRUGER TES x NO RON ERICKSON YES x NO ERIC COHEN YES x NO BERT MYRIN YES _x_ NO _ PZVOTE :.. Â· Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C) of the Land Use Code. The process to r \\ amend the PUD in the future shall be addressed in the PUD agreement. 2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights-of-way, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. dj,1]A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed < Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after / construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be / required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used iii < designing any drainage improvements.-lhb Coey.4+Len {00'EL leu40-Â·m~ 1~,lka) 3. The Applicant agrees the construction on the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the three (3) chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. If the construction does not begin on the two affordable housing units within this time frame, the applicant shall pay the cash-in-lieu fee at the then current rates to mitigate 063% f-~*fl ru=Â£_athe Category 3 leveL[From the previous ADDrova 11 + 3 floot R5-98:or,vm24* ed +4 174++C-ORDr, 4. The Applicant shall pay the City oi Aspea32,860.58 in school land dedication fees. These fees shall be due and payable at the ti#m.of issuance ofÂ£:~~~~l~ng permit fot the development. *LL w- 5. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspin $20,130~66 in park development impact fees. FÂ«3Â«44 These fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. 6. As a condition specific to the Conditional Use for Timeshare, the Applicant shall keep the units available to the general public for at least six months of the year on a short-term basis in keeping with the parameters o f the lodge definition. 7. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest (one tenth of 0.01%) in the ownership of the property to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purposes of complying with the rec nt Colorado Supreme Court Decisioq regardi, g rent control 8. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the property. Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 6 1 '~\ i 9. The Applicant shall designate the two "4peciffd",0.s,k~ed at the existing Boomerang ' ] Â· Lodge for the two affordable housing unit*~ flk~ hxwvsion. These two spaces shall be reserved for those two units as preferred bf 41*)UPÂ¥::17])itkin County Housing Authority. V 10. The Applicant shall not desknatpl an;, parking spaces in the 4tll street right-of-way stub for r- us d r . lic.11139~ 11. The Applicant shall install a sidewalk on Hopkins Avenue at the time of development of this project. Further, the Applicant shall enter into a curb, gutter and sidewalk agreement with the City o f Aspen so that if and when the City intends to install these improvements, the Applicant will bear their appropriate share of the cost of these improvements, which shall also meet the City of Aspen guidelines. 12. That the Applicant shall be required to specifically indicate the dimensional requirements in this proposed PUD amendment for minimum side yard, minimum rear yard, trash access area, minimum distance between buildings, and minimum percent open space for the site prior to public hearings before City Council. 13. The following dimensional requirements of the Substantial PUD Amendment are- approved and shall be printed on the Amended Final Illustrative Plan: a. Minimum Lot Size. 15,000 square feet. b. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling. No requirement c. Maximum Allowable Density. 1 lodge or dwelling bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Minimum Lot Width. 75 feet. e. Minimum Front Yard. 10 feet. f. Minimum Side Yard. 10 feet. g. Minimum Rear Yard. As shown on Final PUD Plans. h. Maximum Site Coverage. 35 percent. i. Maximum Height, 25 feet. j. Minimum Distance Between Buildings. 14 feet. k. Minimum Percent Open Space. 55 percent. 1. Trash Access Area. As shown on Final PUD Plans. m. Allowable Floor Area Ratio. The Applicant shall provide an accurate floor area ratio for the purposes of FeeÂ«r--1 n.kinimum Off-Street Parking. ( As shown on Final IÂ¥JD Plans (not less I ~ tha~3 paces). --- *) -4-6Â»'*11*L 0-Aa.- i 4. 64>010,4-' Boomerang Lodge Substantial PUD Amendment 7 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001 COMMISSIONER and STAFF COMMENTS.. .2 MINUTES. ......... . 3 629 WEST SMUGGLER LANDMARK DESIGNATION. ...3 MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT TITLE CODE AMENDMENT.. ...4 1210 RED BUTTE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW.. ..4 BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT.. ..5 1 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001 Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson, opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Ruth Kruger, Bert Myrin, Eric Cohen, Ron Erickson, Bob Blaich and Roger Haneman present. Steven Buctiow was excused. Staff present were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson and Sarah Oates, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER and STAFFCOMMENTS Bob Blaich said that he read the article about DEPP in the newspaper and asked Ron Erickson for clarification. Erickson stated that as a result of the study, another meeting was called. Erickson also attended the Brown Bag meeting with the . DEPP goals and tasks. Erickson said that there was concern about coordination between DEPP and the Civic Master Plan plus a few other things. Erickson noted that overall Council felt that the amount of money spent was not worth the results; he said that was based upon a false impression because DEPP cost $400,000. and City Streets cost $800,000. Erickson stated that there would be a learning process with Council; Chris Bendon may have a way to fund the process. Blaich asked if Council heard the point about the real costs of DEPP at $400,000. and Ed Sadler's quotes in the paper were $600,000. - $700,000. Erickson said that Ed ball parked the figures per block but it wasn't clear what that included. Blaich noted that all of the disruption was not just caused by DEPP but also the ripping up and repair of the streets. Erickson stated that there should be a DEPP meeting on August 30th regarding in-fill, funding for the streets and possible staff time. Blaich stated that the article on the Farmers Market said that crafts might be allowed and local merchants. He said that some of the suggestions in the article were very good but voiced concerns ofit becoming a 'flea market", which was just the opposite of what was intended. He said the current control was good with the first people. Eric Cohen stated that it was put forth with tight guidelines and restrictions that seemed to have worked from the consensus from the Framers Market people. CCLC would like to expand the market to include someone from ~ Carbondale or Glenwood to participate. Cohen stated that the lease for the Farmers Market was up and the question was where did they want to go with it. The commission wanted the minutes from the original meetings and the last draft provisions (provided 8/23/04 Jasmine Tygre asked if there would be any changes to the Farmers Market and i f it would come back to P&Z for review. Hoefer responded that any Ordinance change would come back through P&Z. Ohison stated that if there was an amendment to the Land Use Code then it would be back to P&Z; if there was an amendment to the vending agreement, which was between City Council and the Farmers Market Association it would not come back to P&Z. Cohen stated that CCLC was discussing a new or changes to the vending agreement. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21,2001 MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the meeting to 7:15. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 7-0. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved approve P&Z Resolution #37, series 2001 for two Lodge Preservation Allotments, GMQS Exemption and to recommend City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Conditional Use for Timeshare and Subdivision with the following changes: condition #2.d. added In conjunction with building permitÂ·, condition #3. stricken .A,F=Uempieyees amended to as recommended by housing; condition #4. & #5. added due and payable at building permit application per structure stricken 62.560.58; condition #7. added applicant may supply an alternative option to the city attorney that is acceptableÂ·, condition #9. deleted; condition #10. delete from Fuf#IeFen-~~Cie'-ef Aspend condition #13.n. amended to (not less than 13 spacesh add a condition to include the applicant reached an agreement with the city to provide control to the Boomerang Management and meet with the City Attorney to establish parameters and releasing the rooms to the public at an earlier date under the sbc-month rule Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Haneman, no; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-1. Kruger noted that there was already a parking problem in town and the solution were being sought to relieve the situation. Erickson thanked the applicant. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Eric Cohen seconded. APPROVED 7-0. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Cierk 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21,2001 association agreement to somehow include Boomerang Management control. Erickson stressed that he wanted the benefits of the Lodge Preservation Program attached to the project. Ohlson stated that the testimony ran with the land. Erickson responded that then became an enforcement issue i f it were to become a condo association, it would be a change in use. Kruger asked i f it would be a deed- restriction. Hoefer replied that it would have to be recorded. Haas said that a hotbed was defined as a 6-month availability; it was a lodge by definition and was required to maintain that 6-month availability. Erickson questioned the 29 days for maintenance purposes as part of the public rental program time allotment. Myrin stated that the city goal was hotbeds; this seemed to be the right track rather than 2 single-faniily homes on this site. Myrin stated that he shared Ron's concern for the Boomerang Management's control and majority o f the votes. Myrin stated other that that he supported the proposal. Cohen stated that he agreed with Ron in keeping it as a lodge. Haneman said that the times for rental could be altered for the summer to June 1St Haneman said that he also favored the Boomerang Management retained. Blaich said that he felt uncomfortable without the time-share ordinance from City Council. Blaich said that he was for the project with any conditions agreed upon. Kruger said that she was aligned with Bert's view that this project and that it was better than 2 single-family homes; it didn't matter to her if it was an owner or another guest staying there as long as people were brought in town to put money into the economy in off-season or on-season. Kruger stated that it was a great project; she said the more restrictive and the more difficult that it was made for owners of the small lodges would mean fewer projects would come forward; there was a need for the lodge rooms to be replaced that were lost. Hoefer said that the conditions could be generically stated to Council to meet with the attorneys to preserve the lodge management control. Tygre stated that she shared many of the concerns of the commission and felt that they needed legaleaze. Ohlson stated that the commission could make a recommendation about parking to council. Hoefer asked the applicant if they wanted to come back with another parking plan. Haas responded that this was the final parking plan to move this process forward. Ohlson noted that it was not staffs responsibility to prepare site design but rather to review or critique site design. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001 Blaich requested clarification on the rules of attendance for P&Z members; the allowed number of meetings to be excused from and what were the ramifications. Hoefer responded that i f a commissioner missed 4 regular meetings (the 1St and 3rd Tuesdays) in a row, then it would be up to council to rule but missing special meetings was listed separately. Blaich stated that did not clarify the question about excused absences. Hoefer stated that the code did not refer to excused or unexcused; the code referred to regular meetings only and subject to a Council decision. Erickson asked for some procedures of rules and procedures of the commissioners regarding attendance and what constitutes and acceptable excuse. Tygre reported that she, Roger and Ruth were at the Council work session regarding ADUs; the reposts in the paper were accurate. Tygre said that there was ~ a compromise and was pleased with the end result. The commission and staff welcomed back Sarah Oates. Chris Bendon provided the Civic Master Plan and asked when the commission wanted to do a work session. Ohlson stated that September 4th was an open meeting for that work session; the commission agreed to it. Roger Haneman asked for the results with council on that presentation. Bendon replied that nothing was taken out and the most confrontational item was moving City Hall. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the P&Z minutes from July 24 and 17, 2001 and the GMC minutes from July 17, February 27 and 20,2001. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/10/01): 629 WEST SMUGGLER LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on 629 West Smuggler. David AIIA Hoefer asked for the proofofnotice and stated that if the notice wasn't received the public hearing would have to be re-noticed. Joyce Ohlson replied that the hearing was being continued. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing for the Landmark on 629 West Smuggler to October 2nd. Eric Cohen seconded. APPROVED 7-0. 3 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT TITLE CODE AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and requested the notice. Sarah Oates stated that she would provide the notice tomorrow. David Hoefer agreed. Notice was provided on August 22, 2001 Oates explained that this was basically a zone district change in the wording of the title requested by the Smuggler Mobile Home Park. Oates explained that P&Z made a recommendation to City Council; this was just a title change only for this ~ property to R-3 density. Ron Erickson asked ifthere were any other R-3 high density Residential Zone Districts in Aspen. Oates replied this was the only one. Hoefer stated that there were no substantive changes, anything non-conforming now woujd continue to be non-conforming. Joyce Ohlson replied that there were no dimensional standards changed. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #35, series 2001, recommending that City Council approve a Code Amendment that will change the Residential Mobile Home (MHP) Park Zone District title to High Density Residential (R-3) and the associated revisions made to the code text where a reference is made to the new title finding that the standards of the review been met. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING: 1210 RED BUTTE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the continued Stream Margin Review. David Hoefer requested the public notice. Eon Erickson asked what the rule of notice was on 2 ~ continuances. David Hoefer replied that had been discussed about the period o f time for the continuances, if niore than 6 months then another notice should be provided. Joyce Ohison replied that staff looked at the effort put forth by the applicant and iii this case the applicant's survey had issues with the engineering department. Staff was working with the applicant. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the 1210 Red Butte Stream Margin Review to September 11,2001. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 7-0. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21. 2001 and prefer to see Fourth Street used. Cohen stated that he also would vote no on this parking plan; he said that he was not comfortable with bringing the number down to 7. Blaich said that the trailhead discussion has been going on for a long time and the city should take a look at that Fourth Street right-of-way for parking. Blaich said that he questioned the turning radius and did not feel that this was the best plan but would leave it up to the applicant to solve that problem; he said that he would vote for this parking plan. Myrin said that he did not support the Fourth Street right-of-way parking just because the project was located next to public land did not mean that they had the right to occupy that land for their private use; the city should have he opportunity to do what the city/community wants to do with it. Myrin stated that he was not comfortable with the reduction in the number of parking spaces; he asked about the request for more underground parking and having more research done. Myrin 3tated that lie would have to vote no on this parking plan. Erickson said that parking wasn't a major concern of his; he stated that the commissioners made good points and would probably vote no on this parking plan also. Ruth Kruger stated that she was uncomfortable with the amount of parking spaces with the configuration ofbedrooms and because of the draw that lodges bring. Kruger said that it was admit-able that they were creative with the parking but would vote against this plan. Tygre stated that she agreed with the commission and was not impressed with this non-workable parking plan for the spaces allocated on-site. Tygre stated that she shared Eric's view of compact vehicles because it seems that most vehicles in town were SUVs; these vehicles were hard to see around especially when parked on corners. Tygre agreed that she would go along with the rest of the commission on voting no on this parking plan. Tygre suggested continuing this until the applicant returned with a parking plan that would meet the commissions approval or reconiniend City Council not accept this parking plan. Erickson stated that this property had to be viewed as a Lodge Preservation Project; other projects were simply adding space or rooms within the current area but this would be in the category o f adding on more rooms with a new building. Erickson said that this was a new entity rather than the sharing of an old one; he stated that his concerns were two-fuld. Time share/fractional ownership meant giving away some of that property to someone else, which doesn't necessarily have to agree with the current management's control. The intent ofthe Preservation Program was to preserve hotbeds, short-term tourist beds in the downtown core. Erickson said that there were 3 conditions: change the reservation schedule, owner St th for the reservations be finished by August 31 for the winter season and April 30 summer season; 75% or a large number o f shares had to be sold to single owners and the condo documents guarantee that the ownership of the project remain in the Boomerang Management. Hoefer stated that a condition could include the condo 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21. 2001 doesn't feel that impact of this development on the neighborhood was not adequately mitigated in terms of parking designs and issues. Cheryl Goldenberg, public, stated that she was a neighbor and had the same concerns as the commission did regarding the unresolved parking issues. She said that it was nice that the Boomerang wanted to provide a nice experience for their guests but the neighborhood wanted to keep that same nice experience for people walking down the street. Blaich stated that John Batty brought up some parking issues and scale issues; he said that he saw some problems getting into the parking spaces. Paterson utilized a drawing to respond to the cars being able to get in and out ofthe parking spaces; he noted that there were still 11 spaces on the street. Haneman asked i f the streets department indicated if the end of Hopkins would ever be paved in the near future. Olson responded that she had not heard that but that the edge would be improved with a pathway, curbs and gutters. Ohlson stated that there was no capital improvement budget slated for this in the next 5 or more years. Ohlson stated that the proposed parking included over-hang. Ohlson noted that other parking in town was very tight, which seemed to work. 011!son said that this clustered the parking rather than spreading it out all over with more curb cuts. Ohison suggested small signs to designate the spaces. Ohlson stated that there was no underground parking shown on the plan as submitted but 6 at grade parking spaces. Cohen asked if there had been any attempts to figure out any underground parking since the last meeting. Haas replied that there had not. Blaich asked i f the time-share owners would they be allowed to keep a car on-site. Charles Paterson responded that they would not provide any long-term parking on-site. Paterson stated that underground parking was never talked about; he said that P&Z wanted the parking issue solved a year ago. Paterson stated that all ofthe underground space was utilized for storage for the guests and the chalets had sub-ground bedrooms. Tygre stated that this consideration was for an amendment to an already approved plan without underground parking. Ohlson clarified that P&Z did not see the plan with underground parking but City Council approved the plan with the underground parking. Haas stated that there was a program for on street parking in place for lodges. Haneman noted that 3 of the 4 sides of this property were controlled by the city; the trail across the back, the Hopkins pedestrian/bikeway and the Fourth Street right-of-way side. Haneman said that the proposed parking plan was creative given the limitations but he said that he was not very comfortable with it because of the turning radii. Haneman stated that he would vote no on this parking plan 8 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21,2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/17/01,07/24/01): BOOMERANG PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Boomerang. David Hoefer noted that the notice was provided at a previous meeting. Joyce Ohlson stated that this was a substantial PUD amendment; the issues to address were how the parking would work and what were the operational plans of the fractional ownership. Ohlson stated that the commission requested additional site planning to achieve an additional 7 on-site parking spaces; the applicant planned 6 on-site spaces. Ohlson aA reported that the DRC (Departmental Review Committee), staff from various departments, advise and direct major and minor developments issues. Ohlson stated that the Fourth Street right-of-way was somewhat of a sacred place for future trailhead location parking; there was much discussion and effort from the applicant on this proposal for the 6 on site parking spaces with only 2 curb cuts. Ohlson stated that the fractional ownership and time-share was more informational for the commission under conditional use; the applicant agreed to the 6-month availability to the public. Staff recommends approval of Resolution #37. Ron Erickson asked for clarification on this commission setting conditions of approval for conditional use. Ohlson answered that the commission did have the authority to establish conditions of approval through a conditional use process. Bert Myrin noted that more information on underground parking was needed and asked if that was researched; it seemed that there were 2 rules and 1 needed to be broken; either the number of parking spaces to be mitigated or the grade from the underground. Ohlson stated that the engineering department did not want the underground parking ramp to exceed 10% grade. Ohlson stated that there has been some leniency for less parking mitigation in the Lodge Preservation, especially under a PUD, to create more units. Mitch Haas, applicant planner, stated that the parking requirement at 0.7 parking ~ spaces per bedroom generated 13.9 spaces overall for the project; he said that this also applied to lodges and hotels that included bars, restaurants and conference facilities. Haas said that since this project contained none ofthose facilities, that the parking requirement should be cut in half. Haas stated that the lodge was in town within walking distance; they had a bike fleet and shuttle to and from the airport. Haas said that there was no practical way to provide 7 on-site parking spaces; there were 6 including one compact space and the building couldn't be pushed back any further (it was on the lot line). The parking plan had only 2 curb cuts (8-10 feet each) with a one way loop drive, to prevent backing into the street and pedestrian and bike corridor. Haas stated that this plan needed to be compared 5 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21. 2001 to what could be provided by right without review, which were 2 large single- family homes without alley access and larger curb cuts. Haas explained that they have tried to address all of the time-share questions from the last meetings. There was a packet of in formation on the interval ownership program; the intention was to go with 7 owners per unit, but would like to go with 6 or 8 i f the conditions change without coming back to the commission, if this was approved. Haas explained that 183 day a year were available to the general public and 182 days maintained for private use by the interval owners. This complied with the lodge definition; the covenants will reflect the applicable contracts of sale ~ for the property. They will maintain control of the Boomerang Management; under the 7-share program, 63 shares were available to be bought, the Boomerang will maintain 64 votes in the covenants. The question of when general public time unused periods would become available was addressed with a system of how reservations were taken (Key Dates in packet). Any unreserved time would be St St made available to the general public after November 1 for the winter and June ] for the summer season. Haas said that they complied with and exceeded the definition of lodge from the code; every lodge bed was a hotbed. Ron Erickson asked if this was a fee simple ownership of the time-shares or vacation ownership with ownership of any common property. Charles Paterson replied that he thought that was a legal question that he could not answer. Erickson said that the applicant would maintain control of the property by retaining 64 of the 127 shares of the property; how would that come about. Paterson replied that most likely the Boomerang would own the common elements at this time. Haas said there would be shares and votes. Erickson restated that the members/owners would have 63 votes and the Charles Paterson would have 64 votes. Haas replied that was correct. Erickson asked what would they do with a request from the general public on th ~ August 30th for 2 weeks beginning December 20th through January 4 Paterson responded that they would be put up in the lodge. Erickson asked when the new Boomerang Lodge would be available. Haas responded that they would be put on a wait list after the owners signed up for their winter slot. Erickson stated that there was a lot oftime and work put into this and he stated that he was impressed. Blaich asked if the parking was to scale and if those were allotted spaces or cars; he asked what the surface was. Haas replied that the spaces were 8!4 by 18 feet each, with the exception of#2. Paterson answered that there were "grass rings" (plastic rings that grass grew through) as the proposed surface. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 21, 2001 Roger Hancman asked what the reason was for not putting a space in front of #3, to add a 7'h space. Paterson responded that was for aesthetic considerations; the concept was for lots o f green space rather than a parking space to make an experience for the guests rather than what they have in the city. Paterson stated that has been the premise of the Boomerang all along to make it a pleasant experience to stay. Eric Cohen asked if the employee-housing units really needed parking on site. Haas responded that was proposed on the Fifth Street side, the 2 head-in spaces. Erickson asked if these would be employees ofthe Boomerang and to look for employees without cars. Paterson stated that most of the Boomerang employees did not have cars. Erickson asked if Building #4 was on the lot line. Haas replied that was a terrace above grade on the lot line; the dotted lines were sub-grade walk- out patios. Tygre asked if there was any information on vehicles brought by guests depending upon the length of stay. Ohlson responded that they had trip generation manuals but that she couldn't quote from them at this tinie. Hoefer commented that Aspen was more of a fiight destination resort. Erickson responded that it was seasonal; there were traffic studies (DEPP) that showed use of cars in and around the Commercial Core area in winter and summer. Erickson noted that the amount of cars in the summer tripled in town. Haneman stated that it was more related to the age of the person and the size of the family rather than the length of stay; older guests were more likely to drive and have cars than younger people. Myrin noted that the Prospector had 14 spaces with 19 studios; they said that in the summer the parking was full and over-flowed into the streets. Myrin also visited the Shadow Mountain Time Share Property with 12 spaces and 12 units; they had a little over-flow in the summer. Cohen stated that unfortunately Hopkins in the summertime was the pedestrian byway; he stated that was a big conflict. John Batty, public, stated that he was an attorney for Mary Hugh Scott; he said that nothing reflected the impacts on tile neighbors. Batty noted that this was a vacant lot with a very intense development proposed; he said that he was doubtful that the area would support 2-single family or 2 town homes. Batty said that the number of parking spaces was much less that the need; he said that the hand-drawn parking plan did not seeni to scale and were not intended to be used as parking spaces. Batty stated that the parking issue should still be an issue because there was no good reason why 6-8 spaces couldn't be located underground with some re- configuration of the units. Batty applauded the time that has gone into this but 7 A-speri~onsoliclated Sanitatioil~istrict Sy Kelly * Cha irman John Keleher Paul Smith * Treas Frank Loushin Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr July 16, 2001 Fred Jarman Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re Boomerang PUD amendment Dear Fred The Boomerang Lodge is currently served by our District. The proposed improvements can be served provided the applicant complies with the District' s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Additional charges to the regular connection fees will be required in order to recover a proportionate cost of installing the line in this area and also to help eliminate the downstream collection system constraints that currently exist. All ofthe fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to approving service we will need to review and approve the drainage and landscape plans for the project. All clear water connections such as roof, foundation, and patio drains etc. are prohibited, Only one tap per building is allowed and shared service line agreements may be required. We will also need to review and approve the on-site utility plan before we commit to providing service. All below grade facilities will need to be served by a pumping system. Our main line runs through the north side ofthe parcel. The building foot prints may need to be set back in order to allow the main sewer line to remain. Relocation of the main line may be required. The applicant would be responsible for the costs involved as well as granting the necessary easements and completing standard district agreements for service. Please call ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, - x--1 0 ..,/ 1 , ~A A--1 4 Lâ€¢L---~,4 Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 AUG. 7.206. .-- ..3AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.485 P.1 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred Jarman FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: August 7,2001 RE: BOOMERANG LODGE EXPANSION PUb AMENDMENT ;*Eg: The applicant is requesting an amendment to a previous approval (Ordinance No. 20, Series "M' :or the expansion of the Boomerang Lodge. BACKGROUNJ: Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000, granted approval for seven additional lodge units, two affordable housing units, and a ten space on-site subgrade-parking garage. The applicant is requesting: 1, To eliminate the 10-space subgrade-parking garage, propose seven "off-site" parking spaces in the 4'h Street right-of-way, and two spaces for the affordable housing units on the existing Boomerang Lodge site, 2. Reduce one 3-bedroom Chalet to a 1-bedroom cottage. 3. Add 2 additional 1-bedroom lodge units to the west end structure. 4. Request conditional use approval for "Timeshare" plan to allow the sale of fractional interests for the lodge units in the expangion. The amendment is not adding any additional lodge units into the mix, therefore, ~ there would be no additional mitigation to satisfy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as long as the following cond.0' : i met: 1. The conditions stated in Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 2000) are adhered to, specifically: â€¢ Construction of the affordable housing units shall begin no later than 36 months after the completion of the chalets on the eastern portion of the lot. Pursuant to Section 26,445.050(J) Planned Unit Development - Phase of Development Plan, prior to the I issuance of building permits for the fir*t phase, the Applicant shall provide a 9 promissory note :ecured by o beed of Trust in the properly in a form acceptable to l 1 AUG. 7.2001 11:14AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.485 P.2 .. the City Attorney for .88 of an employee generated by the first phase at the Category 3 level at the then current Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, subject ~ to termination upon complete provision of on-site mitigation for phase 2. 2 -he Applicant sliall convey an undivided fractional interest in the ownership of the I r. operty (the affordable housing wnits) to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purpose of complying with the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision regarding rent control legislation. The Applicant may submit an alternative option to satisfy the rent control issue acceptable to the City Attorney. â€¢ The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmles the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and the City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the property. â€¢ Prior to phase 2 and prior to the building permit being Issue, the Applicant shall record a dad restriction for the affordable housing units, and grant the undivided fractional interest in the ownership of the affordable housing units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. â€¢ Any change in the lodge's operations must be reviewed, approved, and mitiga'red for (employee generation) pursuant to the then current Land Use Code and Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. 2. The affordable housing units should include kitchens and an interior design -' v -4ould be provided to the Housing Office that shows how the living space .... , wi,Jionally work with furnishings. 3, The parking spaces for the affordable housing units, to be located on the existing Boomerang Lodge site, shall be marked "reserved" for these specific unirts. 4. The Housing Office, prior to Certificate of Occupancy, shall conduct a site visit on the affordable housing units. i /Wo,dremimpboomerangohmit.Â®c 1 A i 2 4 .. MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman, Planner From: Richard Goulding, Project Engineer Date: August 2,2001 Re: Boomerang Parking Background: Charlie Paterson (the applicant) is proposing to construct a multi building development on the Boomerang Lot between 4th and 5th on the South side of Hopkins Avenue. The applicants initially was going to provide 10 spaces in a subgrade lot to comply with their PUD agreement with some parking being mitigated through alternative methods. The applicant then discovered that the calculations in relation to the size of each space were incorrect and deemed the subgrade parking to be impossible. . Com Development then agreed that a parking requirement of 5- 7 spaces be provided onsite. The purpose of this DRC was to find a solution to the onsite parking requirement that would be agreeable to all interested city departments and the applicant. The applicant presented 5 different designs. Design 1: Mitigate parking on city ROW at head of the trail on 401 street Engineering: 1) Unacceptable solution due to loss of city parking to private development with no effort on applicants part to provide the required onsite mitigation 2) Loss of parking to trail users Parking: 1) Unacceptable solution due to loss of city parking to private development with no effort on applicants part to provide the required onsite mitigation, when a ratio of 0.7 spaces pre bedroom would require 14 onsite spaces. Streets: 1) Concerns over maintenance of the parking area such as snow removal Parks: 1) Unacceptable due to loss of trail head parking Designs 2&3 Multiple curb cuts and two extremely large cuts, parking would be provide perpendicular to Hopkins Avenue Engineering & Parking: 1) Unacceptable due to loss of 6 on street parking spaces along Hopkins Avenue .. Parks: 1) Unacceptable because of hazard posed to both pedestrians and cyclists due to motorists that occupy these spaces backing onto Hopkins Avenue Designs 4&5 Multiple curb cuts with a rainbow type configuration This was not even considered due prior rejections by P&Z Acceptable solution to all city departments present: The aim of the city staff was to reduce curb cuts to a minimum in order to keep on street parking and to reduce the hazard for cyclists and pedestrians while getting the required number of off street parking spaces. The applicant was unwilling to change the location of the structures as he wanted to maintain the view plans and rejected all solutions that involved any such changes in position. The applicant was also unwilling to reduce the number of units as suggested by the streets department. Parks department suggested a 'leaf' type parking arrangement which would provide 6 off street space with three curb cuts. There would be 4 spaces in the 'leaf' type arrangement with one entry onto the street and 2 additional spaces would be provide with each having its own entry on to the street. This solution was acceptable to all departments present. Attendees: Staff: Applicant: Nick Adeh Mitch Haas Richard Goulding Charles Paterson Fred Jarman Joyce Ohlson Rich Ryan Jerry Nye Rebecca Schickling John Krueger 09/19/01 WED 08.17 FAX 970 925 7395 Haas, Land Planning, LLC 0002 .. AI'FIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (F), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 4 OT5 A -1 13 Lock: 32.,Aspen,co SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Mod. 4 , 2001_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS, County of Fitkin ) I. CHA RLEÂ» PAT'Gjâ‚¬ SoIC (name. please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado. hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 CE) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: -~~ Publication of notice: By the publication in Ihe 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 bearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. V"~00 Posting of nonce: By posting of notice. wltich forin 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 ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 26 day of Sepr , 200_1= to and including the date and time of rhe public heaxing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is artached hereto. _~ Mailing ofnotice By the mailing of a notice obtained from tile Community Deveiopment Department, which contains the infomiation described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public heanng, notice; was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within fliree hundred (300) feet oftheproperty subject to the development application, and. 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 any federal agency. state, county, municipal government, school. service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that OW"Ils property within Ihree hundred (300) feet of the properry subject to the development application. The names and addresses of propeity 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 agencie.9 so noticed is attached hereto (continued on next page) PUBLIC NOTICE 2, 6 DATE OcT.9.c,4 ilit TIME 5- PM f.Â·4:i:Â·lf)AFF 24'*f~ 1% t.1,4 M.2 49:* A91'EN PLACE C ITy HALL f'*ht' .4.11 PURPOSE FoR A 253*1'E *57 - 1) 6U85TANCIAL MINOR ~fY '' [' 0 P.U.D. At'IENDP\ENT- ,~~Â£6/4 *SOND. 050 FOR.TIMEÂ»RE~~~ #SUBPIVISION 24 -=' li// Fâ‚¬Â»1 Mml~R ~FOF-ATIOIL CONTACT T}â‚¬ ASPIN,PIâ„¢/ PLA-NG -.-2 130 SOUTH CALENA ASPEN CO (970>920-60@0 A .2. *470 92-4~,1-*=~~* 1 Fi E ..../. .4..4,â€žFid i/\ 4.*9 --72..1.i...2.611*fjt.&~ 09/19/01 WED 08:18 FAX 970 925 7395 Haas Land Planning, LLC ~8003 .. Rezoning or text 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 sunty 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 has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Â£52,2 2*L Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this27 1~4 of fleptdpi 62/L , 200Â£,by 0 4/les -Â®ter.sÂ©,1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: / /2642_ f PAÂ»di-ot-~-L 146iary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 09/26/01 WED 09:56 FAI 970 923 7395 Haas Land Planning, LLC 0001 .. ALH HOLDING COMPANY GUNNISON AOYAMA TETSUJ I 501 WEST MAIN LLC A COLORADO CORPORATION AOYAMA AKIKO 408 AABC #202 435 W MAIN ST 6105 NE KESWICK DR ASPEN CO 81611 SEATTLE WA 98105 ASPEN CO 81611 AOYAMATETSUJI BARTON META PACKARD BERR LLC AOYAMA AKIKO 611 WMAIN ST 6507 MONTROSE AVE 6105 NE KESWICK DR ASPEN CO 81611 BALTIMORE MD 21212 SEATTLE WA 98105-2049 BOOMERANG LTD CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN 500 W HOPKINS AVE 130 S GALENA ST 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 DUNSDON S MICHAELE CLEARY THOMAS P REV LIVING TRUST CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO INC BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 70 N STEVENS ST 2461 F 1 /4 RD 617 W MAIN ST RHINELANDER WI 5450' GRAND JUNCTION CO 81505-1203 ASPEN CO 81611-1619 HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS & GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J GRAMIGER HANS R HAISFIELD LISA YERKE 430 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 67 616 WEST HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81G11 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 HUNTINGTON TRUST CO N A TRUSTEE IGL.EHART JIM JOHNSON STANFORD C/O NATIONAL CITY BANK ATTN CE 610 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 416 WIGHTON ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 155 E BROAD ST 5TH FL COLUMBUS OH 43251 KLEIN DEBBIE JOHNSTON DANIEL R & MARGARET S KAPLAN BURTON B A COLORADO CORPORATION 2018 PHALAROPE 1997 LAKE AVE 546 MCSKIMMING RD COSTA MESA CA 92626 HIGHLAND IL 60035 ASPEN CO 81611 KOELLE ALICE MADSEN, MARTHA W MARCUS RENEE A PO BOX 2871 608 W HOPKINS AVE, APT. 9 432 W HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 MCGIL. LEGACY LTD OSULLIVAN MIKE & LISA PATERSON CHARLES G 11800 OLD 19\TY RD PO 60X 4476 500 W HOPKINS HOUSTON 13< 77079 ASPEN CO B1612 ASPEN CO 81611 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MT-N CORP RUDOLPH RICHARD E C/O RUSSELL SCOTT 111 & CO LLC C/O CATES HUGHES & KNEZEVICH P C PO BOX 3080 7000 E BELLVIEW AVE STE 120 533 E HOPKINS AVE CAREFREE AZ 85377 ENGLEWOOD CO 80111 ASPEN CO 81611 98 i .0 Â· 91 4 Â£.D Ob :/ d r -ta 8 70 8.: 0 7 393 Haas Lalia Flatilillig, LLC .0 02 .. SHERWIN KITTY P & WALTER J 8.2% - STARFORD PROPERTIES NV STASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INT KEON WILLIAM- C/O CO JOHN STATON 7017 ARANDALE RD 550 BILTMORE WAY 9TH FL 191 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 4900 BETHESDA MD 20817-4701 CORAL GABLES FL 33134 ATLANTA GA 30303-1763 THROM ROBERT & PHYLISS 1/2 INT VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST VERLEGER MARGARET B & PHILIP K JR THROM DOUGLAS 1/2 INT HALL TERESA 50% INTEREST 15 TORREY PINES LN 617 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-5139 ASPEN CO 81811 ASPEN CO 81611 WEST ALFRED P JR YOUNG PAUL 111 YOUNG DONALD L WEST LORALEE S 13355 NOEL RD LB 28 617 W MAIN ST 12 GREENBRIAR LN DALLAS TX 75240 ASPEN CO 81611 PAOLI PA 19301 .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BOOMERANG LODGE SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 9,2001, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Charles and Fonda Paterson, requesting approval of a lodge expansion application (1) for a Substantial Minor Planned Unit Development Amendment, (2) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and (3) Subdivision. The property is described as Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102. fredi@,ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on September 22, 2001. City of Aspen Account - j I ~Â· ./ 1 i 200"1 -J~i111iuilll) le'eiup'le" jq", at 3:00 P.m- belore the Aal L.U .LlkzÂ» Dy granung tne 1'1-[Dlic Fram Licenses. Grantor RECORDER'S OFFICE, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) Hall. 130 South Galena St. Aspen county Growth Management Comm# n those shall have no obligation to repair, clear or oth- THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 21 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. oif the erwise maintain the area within the Public Trail BEA=530Â°01'08" E 2620.05 FEEI s/Bob Blaich. ~nd Peter Martin, Chair application submitted by'Isis, LL'8. co ed trail Licenses, or to insure or indemnity Grantee or I Aspen Planning a~ ing Commission and exemption to allow for unrestricted rei a re-evaluation of the growth ma, ity and the public for any injury, claim or damage to any 15~RANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO. 3 Pitkin County Planrqll/,id Zoning Commission person or property, whether alleged to have Sri'M~ED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. either a portion o{ all of the ground.lev, by the occurred as a result of use of the Public Trail RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERID- (76160) the Isis Building. The property located PRkin Licenses for public nonmotorized travel or oth- TAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO: Hopkins Avenue. Lots L M, & N, Bloc' PUBLIC NOTICE and Townsite of Aspen, and is more o ept the erwise, or due to the condition of the public SAID EASEMENT LYING. 7.50 FEET TO EACH iorized NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL known as the Isis Theater. trail. SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER- PUBLIC: That on June 13,2001 the Board of For further information. contact Chris B By accepting the Public Trail Licenses grant- LINE: County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Aspen/Pitkin Community Del,â€¢Â· 11 Trail ed herein, Grantee hereby agrees to defend COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER Colorado, adopted Resolution No 109-2001 Department. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. ,n dur- (including reasonable attorneys' fees) and hold OF SECTION 21: THENCE S 06'36 41- W 1962.27 approving the Two Mile Ranch GMQS 926-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. of the harmless Grantor and its successors and FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE Exemptions, Special Review, 1041 Hazard Upen, assigns in the record ownership of the underly- EXISTING RIO-GRANDE TRAIL, SAID POINT ALSO s/Robert Blai Review. Conceptual Submission and Historic Aspen/Pitkii ing real property traversed by the Public Trail BEING ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF Designation. The subject property is also Growth Management Com Â·Jones Licenses, or any part thereof, to the full extent THE EXIS'rING PLAT'I-ED RIO-GRANDE TRAIL described as Lots 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in .Â· Clerk allowed under Colorado law, from and against EASEMENT, THE PO[NT OF BEGINNING; THENCE Section 23, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, a Published m The Aspen Times on June portion of the SEI/4 and the SW1/4 of Section 24, (76162) any and all claims. demands, causes of action, LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE T PUBLIC NOTICE damages, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAID CENTER- 9 South, Range, 85 West and HES 210 in a portion IMENT of any kind or nature (including those involving LINE N 00'01'37" E A DISTANCE OF 52.15 FEET: of Sections 24, Township 9 South, Range 85 West OF A WAREHOUSEMAN'S SALE itered death, personal injury or property darnage) aris- THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE and a portion of Sections 19 and 30, Township 9 Notice is hereby given that under and I tween ing from or incurred in any way in connection RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 142.49 FEET AND A South. Range 84 West of the Gth Principal to the statues of the State of Colorad 7 com- with the use ofthe public Trail Licenses or any CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67Â°31'350. A DISTANCE OF Meridian. This approval of a site specific devel- warehousemen a lien on goods deposit her property of Grantee by anyone.Including 167.93 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 33Â°47'25- E 158.38 opment plan includes a vested property right mlitic members of the general public. excepting any FEET): THENCE N 67Â°33'12" E A DISTANCE OF for TEN (10) YEARS pursuant to Title 24, Article them for all lawful charges and expenses such claims or losses which may arise directly 12.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY 68, CRS. tion to said goods and in accordance v from the willful and grossly negligent acts of RIGHTOF-WAY OF THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO Jeanette Jones terms of a notice given to each of the k Grantor and her agents or employees, or other GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT, THE TERMINUS, Deputy County Clerk named person, the same being the ret clainis as described in C.R.S. Section 33Â·41- WHENCE THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. owners or person on which accounts th n real toÂ«11Â· Grantee further agrees to add Grantor SECTION 21 BEARS N 04Â°06'39" E 1765.33 FEET. (76164) mentioned are held or who claim an int said goods the undersigned COLUMBINE Â· Right (and its successors and assigns in the owner- PUBLIC NOTICE AGE CENTER, INC. to satisfy the dal lde o{ ship of the underlying real property traversed 15' RIO-GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO. 4 RE: BOOMERANG SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT which it has a warehousemen's lien ag, *ver by the Public Trail Licenses, or any part thereoo SITUATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT said goods will, beginning at the hour + c trail as addttional named insureds on its comprehen- RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERID- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing a.m. on Saturday, July 14, 2001 at the Colt "Rio sive general liability insurance policy, which IAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; will be hetd on Tuesday, July 17th, 2001 at a Storage Center, Inc. warehouse located herly insurance shall be maintained by the Grantee to SAID EASEMENT LYING. 7.50 FEET TO EACH meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASP Fork provide protection against liability trom claims SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER- Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council sell by auction for cash the following des arising out of the use of the Public TraH LINE: Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Gatena St., Aspen, to goods to Wit: 0 to Ucenses. Such insurance shall be carried in COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER consider a request for 1) a Substantial Planned lot# ALTERNATIVE INTERIORS. Amy C 151Ve amounts not less than the liability limits speck OF SECTION 21; THENCE S 02'22'26" E 1662.28 Unit Development Amendment, 2) Two (2) PO. Box 8194, Aspen, Co 81612.2 Love r for fied In C.RS. Section 24-10114(1), as it may be FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE Lodge Preservation Allotments, 3) Conditional grey sola. 2 wood end table, six drawer d Irail, amended from time to time, and shall provide EXEANG RIO GRANDETRAIL, SAtD POINT ALSO Use for Timeshare. and 4) Growth Management 4 single box springs, 2 quilted single lade Grantor and its successors and assigns with BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF Quota System Exemptions for Lodge boards, 2 quitted bed bases, 2 dressers. s per- thirty (30) days advance written notice prior to THE EXISTING PLATTED RIG-GRANDE TRAIL Preservation Allotments and Affordable Housing sofa, round table and leaf, nitestand, 2 ma cancellation or termination. Grantee shall, upon EASEMENT, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE tor the Boomerang Lodge Expansion to be tocat- es, headboard, 2 nitestands, headboard af ~02 written request therefore from Grantor or any LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE ed across West Hopkins from the existing base, 6 drawers, 2 headboards, table d successor or assign, provide a Certificate of FOLLOWING COURSES ALONG SAU) CENTER- Boomerang Lodge. . and chair. ) to Insurance as verification of compliance with LINE N 44Â°16'11- E A DISTANCE OF 184.32 FEET; For further information, contact Fred Jarman at UVI AUSIIN John Austln, c/o Interna :tric- these requirements. THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE the Aspen/Pltkin Community Development Investment, 75-5629 Kuakinl Hwy.. # lain 7. Attorneyi' Fees. In the event the interpret, LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A Department, 130 S. Catena St., Aspen, CO (970) Kallua-Kona, H! 96740.7 wardrobe cartons tlon or enforcement of this License Agreement CEN1-RAL ANGLE OF 55Â°01'14; A DISTANCE OF 920-5102. cartons, 10 small l cartons, 2 dish pak, 6 m, should ever become the subject of litigation 24.01 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 16Â°45'34" E 23.10 s/Robert Blatch, Chair cartons, 2 dish paks, 6 medium cartons, 2 1 'era- between Grantor (or its successors and assigns FEET); TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF Aspen Plann[ng and Zoning Commission cartons, wooden wlne rack. 12 pair of skis ;set in the record ownership of the underlying real THE PROPOSED 30' SANITATION DISTRICT Published in The Aspen Times on June 30, 2001. bags and poles. ible property traversed by the Public Trail Licenses, EASEMENT, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERL[NE (76161) Lot# BOEDER Lawrence Boeder, 455 1 of or any part thereof) and Grantee, the substan- N 10'52'10"WA DISTANCE OF 183.69 FEET: TO A and tially prevailing party shall be entitled to an POtNT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC NOTICE Wisconsin Ave., Lake Forest, IL 60045.3 ca 2 chests and cocktail table. award of its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees THE EXISTING PLATTED RIO-6RANDE TRAIL SUPPLEMENTAL. APPROPRIATION TO Lot# CHAPEL Jennifer Chapel, P O Box 1 itor tncurred in connection therewith. EASEMENT, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE THE EAST THE 2001 BUDGET Avon, CO 81620. 23 small cartons, 9 mediur nto 8. Binding Effect. Etc. This License Agreement QUARTER CORNER OF SA[D SECTION 21 BEARS FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO tons, 4 large cartons, tricycle, child's bi the shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit o# N 07Â°17'03" W 1337.14 FEET. Notice Is hereby given that a supplemental plastic containers, back pack . trash can, . 1On- the parties hereto and their respective heirs. appropriation to the 2001 budget has been sub- tables, milk crate, 2 chairs, table base, tabl, Bd personal representatives, successors and 15'RIO--GRANDE TRAIL EASEMENT NO. 5 mitted to the Pltkin County Board of County F assigns [orever including all future record own- SRUATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, Commissioners. A PUBLIC HEARING has been step up, single mattress, single box spring, ~ N ers of the underlying real property traversed by RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDÂ· scheduled on Wednesday, July 11,2001 to begin board and footboard, 2 side tables, end ! ' the Public Trail Licenses, or any part thereof. IAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO: at 2:00 PM, or as soon as the conduct of busl- dresser, 8 plastic bags. microwave. double The benefits and burdens hereof shall also run SAID EASEMENT LYING. 7.50 FEET TO EACH ness allows, at the Plaza 1 Meeting Room, first tress, double box springs. bed base and 1th the title to the underlying real property and SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER- floor. Courthouse Annex Building, 530 East Main rajls, headboard and footboard, queen matt parts thereof traversed by the Public Trail LINE: Street. Aspen. Colorado. at which time and place 20- tv, high chair, play kitchen. toys, otto Ves. This License Agreement may only be COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER all members of the public may appear and be Ironing board, love seat. sofa. drawers and , ror carton. 'ed by a writing signed by Grantee and by OF SECTION 21: THENCE S 04Â°06'39" W 1765.33 heard. A copy of the supplemental approprla- Lot# DUTCH CRAFTER, Dutch Crafter \ record owners of the underlying real FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF -IHE tion Is filed with the Pltkin County Finance Office North Clay Street, Zelie[lowe. PA 16063. 'raversed by the Public Trail Licenses. EXISTING RIO-GRANDE TRAIL. SAID POINT ALSO on the second floor suite 201 at 530 East Main chair. EXHIBrr A BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING Street, Aspen, Colorado and is open for public Int# HELLER Peggy Heller, 20 Ocean Ave. 5 %017 ~'DE TRAIL NO. 1 AND QW'EST FIBER RIO-GRANDE TRAIL NO. 3, AND ALSO BEING ON inspection. Citizens are invited to make written Monica, CA 90402.13 small cartons. 2 dish , / THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE EXIST- or oral comments with regard to the proposed carton, 1 long carton. 3 medium cartons, t i AADE STRIP OF LAND S[TUATED iNG PLATTED RIGGRANDE TRA]L EASEMENT, budget either at the public hearing or by con- carton, 2 4.5 cartons, snowboard. white bag 1WNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE LEAVING tacting Debe Nelson, Finance Director, at 920Â· poles, ski boots, boots and black ski bag. ~TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING RIO 5229. W# NEDUN Joe and Mary Nedlin, 4280 4O~v ~ STATE OF COLORADO: GRANDE TRAIL NO. 3 THE FOLLOWING COURS SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES qÂ¢cp Â·C' .7.50 FEET TO EACH SIDE ES ALONG SAID CENTERUNE N 24058'50" E A Ocean Dr. #10-A Fort Lauderdale, FL 333086 i -23\ + tRIBED CENTERLINE DISTANCE OF 14.88 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE Here Is a summary of the cha~ ~x~"Y*~~~~nay, 22 small carton VT QUARTER CORNER ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS and expenditures by fund: isj>o '+ 6#~e 31'06141- W 1322.68 OF 90.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF General fund $2,813,290 medium cartons. 7 4.5 cartons, 5 large cartor N EASTERLY 100' 07'23'25", A DISTANCE OF 11.61 FEET (CHORD Use Tax fund 1.898,188 dish pak cartons, tv, metal table base, w; 0 table base, 2 snowboards, folding chair, skis. Â·sif â€ž4 47 NVER AND RIO BEARS N 21'17'08" E 11.60 FEET); THENCE N Road & Bridge fund 2>Xr' ..19 NOWN iN PLAT 17'35'25" E A DISTANCE OF 14.55 FEET: THENCE Social Services fund 1,478 poles, red floor lamp, black metal floor lam tefff"~ <.eil folding chairs, cat playground, small paintin TIN COUNTY ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAV- Open Space fund 4,445,617 black speakers, 12 wood crates, 6 wood boÂ· 'D THE CEN- ING A RADIUS OF 140.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL 0.5 cent Mass Transjt Sales & . M~~6 if) ~ green bag, suitcase, Hoover vacuum, red bas 4 4 14 * TRAIL, ANGLE OF 17'20'58",A DISTANCE OF 42.39 FEET Use Tax fu nd off white trunk plastic container, blue bas f/eet@ .iÂ¢ *AVING (CHOIU) BEARS N 26Â°15'54" E 42.23 FEET)Â· Pitkin County Library plastic bag, green bag, cat box, 2 brown sp, 14*,4. dÂ·ev /0466 NUNE THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE Endowment fund 588,275 VING TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1409.06 Pitkin County Library fund 38,350 ers, old trunk, green os chair, humidifier, an WO 1,554,155 black TV cabinet. .eN, '9 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01Â°32'35'% A Airport fund Lot# RISTICH Roland Ristich, 509 Elizab. j Ie *Â©A>~ 04~Fs 7 DISTANCE OF 37.95 FEET (CHORD BEARS N Solid Waste Center [und 5;12.22Q Road, Waterford, Mi 48328. 1 small carton 6,0 0, 9\10. , medium cartons, green dutile bag and black c \ 34Â°10'06" 10'06" E 37.95 FEET); THENCE ALONG $11,872,273 et @SNÂ» <1Â· .02 ~ A COMPOUND CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A NET INCREASED EXPENDITURES $11,872,273 fle bag. ree '31' Â»DIUS OF 280.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Lot# Miscellaneous: headboard, bed slats a ~~RD BEA~S N 24Â°06'16" E 90.43 FEET): By Mick Ireland, Chairperson carton, 2 medium cartons, 3 large cartons. ls' Â°35'06' A DISTANCE OF 90.82 FEET OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO rails, cabinet, counter top, 4 mirror cartons, 1 CE N 14Â°48'43" E A DISTANCE OF 40.90 Published in The Aspen Times on June 30,2001. book cartons, I flat carton, bed base, mattress eÂ«*3 '? c#> Â»e 5942*8 4. ~f-I' HAVING A RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET rolled rug, 2 long pillows. 3 short pillows, lar HENCE ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO (7616D box springs, car seat, laundry basket, arro~ .31.3/6â‚¬ /9Â»61- :.I A DIS 'ENTRAL ANGLE OF 17Â°52'10" PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Availability vase, love seat, headboard and foot board, k 24Â©,24 ~46.59 FEET): THENCE N 03Â°03'28" W w 46.78 FEET (CHORD BEARS N NOTICE OF DECISION head board and footboard, side rails, king m )4,4 .*tt>*~*~ 1,4 White River National Forest tress and box springs, wing chair, ottoman, p] 44/. 2}ir 32& '0 4,0 2% te' &F 58.95 FEET; THENCE ALONG 00 * Aspen Ranger District tic bag, rug, 2 lamps and shades, 2 small tab[ I I ' ' 0. 44 :14*444Â»Â« %RVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A Buttermilk Ski Area bear skin, buffet, small end table, futon In ~EET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE Master Development Plan Decision tress, blanket, 2 salas, small refrigerator e 10!STANCE OF 70.53 FEET On June 29, 200 1, Jim M. Upchurch, Aspen table, dresser, marble top, headboard, armoir '0'47'36" W 70.37 FEET): District Ranger for the White River National sectional sof, 9 .c ph-,f.- 9 1--- -" 1 â€¢ . f xÂ·P j6 '3" ./ Â·,3- .11Â°t:floe. 4,3..09 .Â»-..,53 'xy '* A DISTANCE OF 95.93 . â€¢Â· I Â·+ B . u \LI P41-Â·4 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BOOMERANG LODGE SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 9,2001, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Charles and Fonda Paterson, requesting approval of a lodge expansion application (1) for a Substantial Minor Planned Unit Development Amendment, (2) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and (3) Subdivision. The property is described as Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102. fredi@,ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on September 22, 2001. City of Aspen Account . c'' .9 4 2 9 ~01 4 ' 3 LUU I t,r.DFM/0~~: 'N COMMOiV 65\/1-LOPMENT .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BOOMERANG LODGE SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 9,2001, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Charles and Fonda Paterson, requesting approval of a lodge expansion application (1) for a Substantial Minor Planned Unit Development Amendment, (2) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and (3) Subdivision. The property is described as Lots A-I, Block 32, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102. fredi@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on September 22, 2001. City of Aspen Account L ,Â·; .,1 - 80 e f 4, 1 .eD 4~, 9 <02,7 4/41/ 44 001 '4' DEVELOPMENT .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -Â¢973 1,1/ HOR,Al Fl _S , Aspen, co SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 16 /9/b j , 200_ 1 11 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1, 13 64 LU â‚¬29 l.0--- LJJ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: /\ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official u 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, waterproo f 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 ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , 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 ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners o f property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text o f 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 o f, and the notice to and listing o f names and addresses o f owners o f real property in the area o f the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. OaAÂ«Q-h-42'Lat~ *0ature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this day o f , 200_, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Â·Â· PUBLIC NOTICE' ' RE: BOOMERANG LODGE SUBSTANTIAL My commission expires: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TIMESHARE, AND SUB- DIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Notary Public City CouncU, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Charles and Fonda Paterson, requesting approval of a lodge expansion apI)li- cation (1) for a Substantial Minor Planned Unit Development Amendment, (2) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and (3) Subdivision. The proper- ty is described as Lots A-1, Block 32, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) ATTACHMENTS: 920-5102. fredj@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin K}anderud,.Mayor Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times September 22, 2001. (76554) COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 0 . . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BOOMERANG SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17â„¢, 200 lata meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider a request for 1) a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, 2) Two (2) Lodge Preservation Allotments, 3) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and 4) Growth Management Quota System Exemptions for Lodge Preservation Allotments and Affordable Housing for the Boomerang Lodge Expansion to be located across West Hopkins from the existing boomerang Lodge. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5102. s/Robert Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 30,2001 City of Aspen Account .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BOOMERANG SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 17rIH , 2001 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider a request for 1) a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment, 2) Two (2) Lodge Preservation Allotments, 3) Conditional Use for Timeshare, and 4) Growth Management Quota System Exemptions for Lodge Preservation Allotments and Affordable Housing for the Boomerang Lodge Expansion to be located across West Hopkins from the existing boomerang Lodge. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5102. s/Robert Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 30,2001 City of Aspen Account View Search Article wysiwyg//body.5/http://www.aspendailynew.../view_search_article.cfm?OrderNumber=2649 .. Sunday, July 8, 2001 "2'ya.! dm t wa.t itp'Ded, ion'tletithÂ¢Z?Mn. - 517 E. HOPKINS Â® ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 * PHONE: {970]925-2220 7/3/01 Boomerang Lodge returns as fractional pioneer By Bernie Grauer/Aspen Daily News StaffWriter True to its name, the Boomerang Lodge's expansion application is returning to the Aspen Planning Commission, this time as a controversial test ofusing the Lodge Preservation Program zoning waivers to build fractional ownership units. The city planning department developed the preservation program in 1999 as an incentive to expand small city lodging properties in the face of losing Aspen rental beds to condominiums and luxury residential units, said Fred Jarman, a staff planner. Qualifying lodges would be exempted from competing for lodging-unit allotments in the city's stringent Growth Management System and would gain more flexible zoning than other properties. "Little lodges are so near and dear to the Aspen ideal that the city tries to promote them," Jarman said. "Otherwise, only the biggies, like the St. Regis, could survive." The unusual zoning benefits granted smalltodge expansions will be tested at a July 17 Planning Commission meeting to see if they apply to fractional ownership as well. Commissioners will review an amended Boomerang application requesting approval of nine fractional-ownership lodging units and elimination ofa proposed 10-vehicle, underground garage. Included in the amended application is a request for four three-bedroom chalets, a one-bedroom chalet, two affordable-housing units and four lodge units, Jarman said. The amendment calls for a total of 17 bedrooms, instead of the 15 approved bedrooms, on a currently vacant lot at Mill Street and Durant Avenue. Boomerang Lodge owner Charles Patterson told the Daily News on Tuesday that he had to eliminate the garage because he misjudged the height scales and because fractional owners need substantial year-round storage space. He said he is a trained architect and that he is designing the facilities himself. Patterson said he would be selling one-seventh shares for seven weeks in each unit. He said purchasers would be required to have the units available for rental for a little over three of their seven weeks, in order to comply with the preservation program rules that units be available for public rental for at least six months during each year. Patterson would retain three weeks out of every year on each unit for refurbishment or rental purposes. "I would be a pioneer in Aspen with this new approach," Patterson said. The only other fractional ownership proposal before the city is the redevelopment of the Grand 1 of2 7/8/0111:11 AM View Search Article wysiwyg://body.5/http://www.aspendailynew.../view_search_article.cfm?OrderNumber==2649 . Aspen Hotel into about 51 units, said Chris Bendon, the city staff planner who developed the Lodge Preservation Program. The Grand Aspen project does not qualify under the preservation program, Bendon said. Only one fractional-ownership development currently operates in the city, he said. The Ritz Carlton's Elk Horn Lodge at Aspen Highlands Village was approved through Pitkin County zoning review, prior to Aspen Highlands being annexed into the city. "Fractional ownership was a conditional use in the Lodge Preservation District, before we adopted the Lodge Preservation Program," Bendon said. "It wasn't an issue then and it didn't come up to remove the conditional use." A conditional use must gain specific approval from the Planning Commission, according to Jarman. Patterson said he openly discussed his intention to turn the new units into fractional ones in front ofthe Planning Commission, when he first gained project approval. "I didn't apply for fractional approval at that time, because it was not appropriate to apply for it at that time," he said. "Now it is." Neighbor and project critic Steve Goldenberg agrees with Patterson that the fractional ownership intent was out on the Planning Commission's table, but faults the commission and city staff for not dealing with the issue up front. "First he gained expansion approval using the Lodge Preservation Program and now he's back using the program to get the fractional units approved," Goldenberg said. "The city is just willing to deal with the issue at the time." As far as eliminating the already-approved underground parking facility, Jarman explained that is part ofthe Planned Unit Development approval process, not the preservation program. A PUD is a special zoning application in which the city can bend some of its normal zoning requirements to achieve a creative or desirable land use. City zoning code calls for the Boomerang Lodge to provide 13.9 off-street parking spaces for its 17 proposed bedrooms, Jarman said. Staff is suggesting that the Boomerang provide between six and eight on-site spaces, considering its proximity to the Rubey Park bus terminal and a patron shuttle service to the airport. Goldenberg said he had received timely notices about proposed zoning changes from the Boomerang and that his complaints to city council about not receiving notices referred to another lodge. 2 of2 7/8/01 11:11 AM View Search Article wysiwyg://body.5/http://www.aspendailynew.../view search article.cfm?OrderNumber=1608 Sunday, July 8, 2001 n gatiq Nemiew "0Â»u UM Z want itpyind, dant letit hampen. " 517 E. HOPKINS ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 * PHONE: {970)926-2220 11/1/00 Small lodge expansions won't overcome bed base loss By Kathleen Carlson/Aspen Daily News StaffWriter Even though Aspen is seeing a trend of smalllodges seeking expansions, that doesn't mean the decline in pillows will stop. At least that's the prognosis from Bill Tomcich, the president of Aspen Central Reservations, a local booking arm for the majority ofAspen lodges. "We're not playing catch-up at all," Tomcich said. "We're still on the decline." Three smalllodge expansions have been approved by the city, with another two waiting to be approved. Each project involves about a dozen or less new beds. The St. Moritz, Boomerang Lodge and Molly Gibson Lodge were approved for development and Hotel Aspen and Christiania Ski Lodge currently are seeking expansions, said James Lindt, City of Aspen planning technician. The expansions come after three lodges closed last year. Tomcich said Aspen lost 166 pillows with the closures. And in the past five years, Aspen has lost I 8 percent of its total tourist pillows. The loss will be hard to overcome, Tomcich said. "It's going to take some major recovery," he said. Though Tomcich agrees that any additions to the bed base will help the local economy, especially during peak seasons, he said, "every bed gained is one less bed lost." One benefit of the lodge expansions is the ease with which the new rooms are sold, he added. Some ofthe surviving lodge owners have been in the business for decades and still want to provide an old-fashioned ski lodge atmosphere. They are discouraged when they have to turn visitors away because of a lack ofbeds. Yasmine dePagter, co-owner ofthe Holland House, said her lodge has seen an increased business because of the three lodges that have closed in that last year. She's concerned that when she turns business away those clients go to other resorts. So she's considering an expansion as well. "I don't think we should be turning people off," dePagter said. Stan Hajenga, co-manager ofMountain Chalet Aspen, said adding beds "makes more of a 1 of2 7/8/01 11:20 AM View Search Article wysiwyg://body.5/http://www.aspendailynew.../view_search_article.elin?OrderNumber==1608 difference than if we went the J!~er way." Hajenga said the expansions would impact other businesses in town as well. "I don't know of a retailer or restaurateur who wouldn't like to have more customers," he said. St. Moritz owner Michael Behrendt said the high cost of construction, fees and employee wages hinder smaillodge owners ability to make money. Lodge owners are constantly pouring everything they have back into their property as client expectations keep rising. Behrendt said the lodge owner ends up with a huge investment but a little salary. So why does Behrendt push forward an expansion? "It's a wonderful life here. For normal mortals, living in Aspen is a sacrifice as long as psychic income isn't counted." 2 of2 7/8/01 11 :20 AM .. October 2, 2001 TO: Mr. Fred Jarmon - Please circulate to Mayor and Council. Madame Mayor and Members ofthe Aspen City Council: My name is John Staton. My family and I own a home at 431 W. Hopkins Street and Fourth Street across the street from the property that Charlie Paterson, ("Applicant") owner o f the Boomerang Lodge is be fore you today seeking an amendment to the zoning approval (Ordinance No. 20, Series 2000) approved last year. I know Charlie. All of us know that he is an honorable, longtime resident of Aspen. Although my family and I are not presently permanent residents, members of my immediate family have lived and worked in Aspen for over 20 years. I am unable to be here today to present my opposition and support my friends and neighbors who oppose the proposed amendment. 1. CHARLIE MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY TO GET ITS APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT LAST YEAR. (a) He voluntarily agreed to put in underground parking in order to get your approval. .. (b) There is no reason to amend that contract. Charlie can put in underground parking. Nothing has been said to show that he cannot do it. (c) The only reason cited in the application is that "an incorrect scale was used in designing the 10-space sub-grade garage." (d) The City, its citizens, and the neighborhood are being asked to bear the burden ofApplicant's mistake. (e) There is no showing that the underground parking cannot be constructed as proposed last year. There is plenty of land (19,000 square feet) to accommodate the sub-grade garage. 2. ALLOWING A TRASH ACCESS AREA ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY ON FOURTH AND HOPKINS AVENUE DESTROYS THE RESIDENTIAL FEEL OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. (a) Not compatible with West Hopkins pedestrian and bike corridor. (b) Not compatible with entrance to Shadow Mountain trail. (c) There are other locations on this property where Applicant can place a trash access area that will be less intrusive on this residential neighborhood and the many uses of West Hopkins Avenue and Fourth Street by hikers, bikers, pedestrians, and neighbors. .. 3. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD REQUIRE UNDERGROUND PARKING AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. 4. THE TRASH ACCESS AREA CAN AND MUST BE MOVED TO A LESS INTRUSIVE LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY. 5. TIME SHARING AS PROPOSED VIOLATES THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE LODGE PRESERVATION PROGRAM, AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO AMEND THE TIME SHARING PLAN TO ALLOW RENTALS BY NON-OWNERS DURING"PRIME" WINTER AND SUMMER MONTHS. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of these comments. John C. Staton, Jr. 431 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 544-0288 jstaton@kslaw.com ec: Mr. Steve Goldenberg Mr. Charles Paterson KLEIN-ZIMET . ' PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMET* SUITE 203 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 *also admitted in New York FAX: (970) 925-3977 October 3,2001 RECEIVED The Honorable Members of the OCT O 3 2001 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena St. - ASPEN/PITKIN Aspen, Colorado 81611 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Boomerang Lodge Expansion Amendment Dear Council Members: This letter is submitted on behalf ofJohn C. Staton Jr, Sue G. Staton, Renee Marcus, Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Martha Madsen, Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Brafman and Tom Cleary, all, neighbors of the Boomerang Lodge. We wish to express our strenuous opposition to the Amendment to the prior approval for the Boomerang expansion which is presently before you. The primary objection is to the elimination of the 10 required on-site parking spaces and the previously approved underground parking facility and its proposed replacement with 5 on-site spaces, only three of which are committed to serve the 17 new lodge bedrooms. In addition, we also object to the timeshare element of the proposal because of its non-compliance with the intent of the Lodge Preservation zone district and the criteria for a Conditional Use. A summary ofour objections is as follows, with more detailed discussion later in this letter. 1. The underground parking structure which was to have contained 10 parking spaces has been eliminated. 1 2. Only five (5) on-site parking spaces are proposed as of todayl vs. the 13 spaces recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z"). 3. Since two (2) spaces may be needed for the affordable housing, only three (3) new spaces are committed to the proposed 17 new lodge bedrooms. A. \ 4. West Hopkins Street constraints warrant the on-site underground parking as approved. 1The application for this amendment has had numerous changes to the number and configuration of parking spaces since it was filed with the Planning Office. This "moving target" approach tends to confuse the issues and makes a proper evaluation of the overall plan more difficult. .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen City Council October 3, 2001 Page 2 5. No justification for the parking amendment, in fact, the amendment provides a windfall. 6. The Amendment does not meet the intent of the Lodge Preservation Ordinance. 7. The timeshare component does not satisfy the criteria for a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation zone district. 1. Elimination of Underground Parking Mitigation. When this project was previously processed, many neighbors objected because it did notprovide adequate on-site parking. A few days before the final City Council hearing, the application was amended to include the underground parking structure with parking for ten (10) vehicles. It was this amendment that gained neighborhood support for the expansion and the approval of City Council. Now, having gotten his foot in the door with the prior approval, the Applicant seeks to amend the prior approval to eliminate its single most important impact mitigation feature. 2. Less Parking. The Amendment now proposes a total of five (5) on-site parking spaces instead of the ten (10) previously required and the 13 recommended by the P&Z. Since two (2) spaces may be needed for the affordable housing unitsi only three (3) spaces are committed to serve 17 new lodge bedrooms. This is clearly inadequate! No justification for the reduction in the number of spaces has been forthcoming. 3. Change in Unit Mix Requires More, Not Less Parking. Although the change in the unit mix proposed by the Amendment increases the demand for parking, the applicant proposes fewer parking spaces. The original application was approved for 17 bedrooms in five 3-bedroom chalets and two 1 -bedroom lodge units. In addition, two 1 -bedroom affordable housing units were proposed. The Amendment seeks approval for four 3-bedroom chalets, a 1 -bedroom chalet and four 1-bedroom lodge rooms. The affordable housing proposed appears to be the same. An increase in parking demand results, however, from the change in unit type. By reducing the number of 3- bedroom chalets and increasing the number of individual lodge rooms, greater parking requirements result. Nevertheless, the Amendment proposes to reduce the parking from 10 spaces to 5 spaces. We agree with the P&Z evaluation ofthe parking needs ofthe project and that the impact on the neighborhood warrants 13 on-site spaces to support this density. While we understand the value of the lodge expansion program, and have some willingness to compromise on the total number of spaces provided, these spaces must be located on-site and underground as previously approved. 4. West Hopkins Trail/Traffic Constraints. West Hopkins street is not your typical 2If the employees living in the housing units have cars, these spaces are theirs. .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen City Council October 3,2001 Page 3 downtown street. It is marked and barricaded for pedestrian uses and local traffic only. The driving and parking surface is narrow and severely compromised by the barricades. West Hopkins street does not have uniform sidewalks and parking is often disorganized and frequently interferes with pedestrian and local vehicular uses. The additional traffic from the lodge expansion will have a significant effect on this street and may adversely affect its use as a pedestrian corridor. These unsafe conditions will be exacerbated by the inadequacy of on-site parking. 5. No Reason to Reduce On-Site Parking Requirement. The applicant has offered no valid reason to eliminate the parking as previously approved. The land is presently vacant so there are no physical restrictions or limitations that would prevent building the previously approved underground garage. In fact, the Amendment also seeks time-share approval which will certainly result in a financial windfall to the owner ifthis aspect ofthe Amendment is approved. Therefore, there can certainly be no financial justification for eliminating the on-site underground parking. 6. Amendment Does Not Meet the Criteria of the Lodge Preservation Ordinance. The original application stretched the limits of the lodge preservation ordinance in several respects, including the rezoning and inclusion within the LP overlay of property which is not adjacent to the lodge (it is separated by W. Hopkins Street) nor which has historically ever been used for lodging purposes. This does not meet the criteria of the lodge preservation ordinance which specifically states that its purpose is: "to provide for and protect smalllodge uses on properties historically usedfor lodge accommodations and to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses." While this was pointed out to the Council at the time ofthe prior approval, because the parking was mitigated on-site and underground, there was enough mitigation ofadverse impacts for the neighbors to accept the re-zoning. However, since this Amendment reduces the number of spaces proposed for mitigation and entirely eliminates the underground parking garage, we believe it is appropriate to revisit the entire approval process and re-zoning and once again ask whether or not this project satisfies the intent of the lodge preservation ordinance. As proposed by the Amendment, this project simply does not pass muster under the re-zoning criteria for the lodge preservation overlay district. This Amendment should not be approved without specifically requiring that parking be mitigated on-site and underground as previously approved. 7. The timeshare component does not satisfy the criteria for a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation zone district. Section 26.590.010 ofthe Land Use Code states that Timeshare is a Conditional Use in the Lodge Preservation zone district. Section 26.425.040 of the Land Use Code sets forth the criteria for conditional uses. Because the proposed development has failed to supply adequate parking and results in unacceptable impacts on the neighborhood, it cannot satisfy .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen City Council October 3,2001 Page 4 the Conditional Use criteria and the Timeshare element of the proposal should be rej ected. In particular, the Conditional Use criteria which must be considered involve evaluation o f the "... impacts onpedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking..." (Section 26.425.040C). The Conditional Use must be "...consistent and compatible with the character ofthe immediate vicinity ofthe parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses..."(Section 26.425.040B). Clearly, three dedicated parking spaces for 17 new lodge bedrooms will adversely impact this neighborhood. No Conditional Use should be approved which places its impacts off-site on the surrounding neighborhood. We also question whether, as required by Section 26.425.040A, timeshare use is consistent with the intent ofthe Lodge Preservation zone district to encourage short term lodging uses. Timeshare provides a cash windfall to the developer and leaves operations and operating expenses to the unit owners. The City loses sales taxes in exchange for smaller revenues through real estate transfer taxes. Short term lodging opportunities, especially during the high seasons are not created and the City's goal to encourage the development of"hot beds" is not satisfied. Perhaps if this application did not already test the limits of the LP program, this would not be a great concern to the neighbors since timeshare units tend to have less turn-over and potentially less activity in the neighborhood. However, when coupled with the proposal's disregard for mitigation of its impacts on the neighborhood, the question ofwhether the neighbors should be asked to sacrifice their legitimate expectations of regulated development in exchange for a benefit to the community at large becomes more important. We do not believe that the project as presently conceived provides sufficient benefit for the community to justify the adverse effects on the neighbors and to approve this project simply confers a special and unfair benefit on the applicant. We thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: -7 ' Herbert S. Klein sg\boomerang\council.ltl IJ -0 KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMET* SUITE 203 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 *also admitted in New York FAX: (970) 925-3977 July 11, 2001 The Honorable Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Boomerang Lodge Expansion Amendment Dear Commission Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of John C. Staton Jr, Sue G. Staton, Renee Marcus, Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Martha Madsen, Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Brafman and Tom Cleary, all, neighbors of the Boomerang Lodge. We wish to express our strenuous opposition to the Amendment to the prior approval for the Boomerang expansion which is presently before you. The primary objection is to the elimination of the 10 required on-site parking spaces and the previously approved underground parking facility and its proposed replacement with only 9 spaces, two of which already exist at the Boomerang Lodge and seven of which are proposed off-site, right on Fourth Street. A summary ofour objections is as follows, with more detailed discussion later in this letter. 1. All o f the on-site parking mitigation previously required is eliminated. 2. Fewer parking spaces are proposed, all of which are off-site. 3. Seven "private" off-site spaces are proposed for the City right of way at a public trail head. 4. Two proposed new spaces are not really new. . The proposed change in unit mix requires more, not less parking. . West Hopkins Street constraints waniit the on-site underground parking as approved. . No justification for the parking amendment, in fact, the amendment provides a windfall. . Amendment does not meet the intent of the Lodge Preservation Ordinance. 1. Elimination of On-Site Parking Mitigation. When this project was previously processed, many neighbors objected because it did not provide adequate on-site parking. A few days before the final City Council hearing, the application was amended to include the underground parking structure. It was this amendment that gained neighborhood support for the expansion and the approval of City Council. Now, having gotten his foot in the door with the prior approval, the Applicant seeks to amend the prior approval to eliminate its single most important impact mitigation feature. 00 4064 .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 11,2001 Page 2 2. Less Parking - Off-Site at Trail Head. The Amendment proposes a total of nine (9) parking spaces instead of the ten (10) required. Seven (7) of these are now proposed to be located in the city right-of-way along an extension of Fourth Street which, in fact, is the portal to a public trail. This trail is accessed by pedestrian and bicyclists, not by people driving their cars. The presence of a parking lot at this trail head is inappropriate and diminishes the experience of those using the trail. 3. Shell Game. The other two (2) spaces that are proposed are actuallv located within the existing Boomerang property in an area that is already being used. The applicant is simply designating this area for parking for its new lodge units. We do not believe this parking will be effective for two reasons: 1) it is presently utilized by existing Boomerang guests; and 2) it is across the street and removed from the new units to which these spaces are allocated. The applicant is simply playing a shell game and is not really creating these two spaces for its new units. 4. Change in Unit Mix Requires More, Not Less Parking. Although the change in the unit mix proposed by the Amendment increases the demand for parking, the applicant proposes fewer parking spaces. The original application proposed 17 bedrooms in five 3-bedroom chalets and two 1-bedroom lodge units. In addition, two 1 -bedroom affordable housing units were proposed. The Amendment seeks approval for four 3-bedroom chalets, a 1 -bedroom chalet and four 1 -bedroom lodge rooms. The affordable housing proposed appears to be the same. An increase in parking demand results, however, from the change in unit type. One would expect that the visitors to a 3- bedroom chalet would use one ear. One would also expect that each lodge unit is likely to have a car. Therefore, by reducing the number of 3-bedroom chalets and increasing the number of lodge rooms, greater parking requirements result. Nevertheless, the Amendment proposes to reduce the parking from 10 spaces to 9 spaces. We believe that the code would require between 15 and 16 spaces to support this density. While we understand the value of the lodge expansion program, and have some willingness to compromise on the total number of spaces provided, these spaces must be located on-site and underground as previously approved. 5. West Hopkins Trail/Traffic Constraints. West Hopkins street is not your typical downtown street. It is marked and barricaded for pedestrian uses and local traffic only. The driving and parking surface is narrow and severely compromised by the barricades. West Hopkins street does not have uniform sidewalks and parking is often disorganized and frequently interferes with pedestrian and local vehicular uses. The additional traffic from the lodge expansion will have a significant effect on this street and may adversely affect its use as a pedestrian corridor. These unsafe conditions will be exacerbated by the inadequacy of on-site parking. .. The Honorable Members of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 11,2001 Page 3 6. No Reason to Reduce On-Site Parking Requirement. The applicant has offered no valid reason to eliminate the parking as previously approved. The land is presently vacant so there are no physical restrictions or limitations that would prevent building the previously approved underground garage. In fact, the Amendment also seeks time-share approval which will certainly result in a financial windfall to the owner ifthis aspect ofthe Amendment is approved. Therefore, there can certainly be no financial justification for eliminating the on-site underground parking. 7. Amendment Does Not Meet Intent ofLodge Preservation Ordinance. In conclusion, we believe a few comments concerning the intent of the lodge preservation ordinance and the previous approval are warranted in light ofthe Amendment now proposed. The original application stretched the limits of the lodge preservation ordinance in several respects, including the rezoning and inclusion within the LP overlay of property which is not adjacent to the lodge (it is separated by W. Hopkins Street) nor which has historically ever been used for lodging purposes. This does not meet the criteria of the lodge preservation ordinance which specifically states that its purpose is: "to provide for and protect small lodge uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations and to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses." While this was pointed out to the Council at the time ofthe prior approval, because the parking was mitigated on-site and underground, there was enough mitigation of adverse impacts for the neighbors to accept the re-zoning. However, since this Amendment reduces the number of spaces proposed for mitigation and entirely eliminates both on-site mitigation and the underground parking garage, we believe it is appropriate to revisit the entire approval process and re-zoning and once again ask whether or not this project satisfies the intent of the lodge preservation ordinance. As proposed by the Amendment, this project simply does not pass muster under the re-zoning criteria for the lodge preservation overlay district. This Amendment should not be approved without specifically requiring that parking be mitigated on-site and underground as previously approved. We thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: Herbert S. Klein sg\boomerang\pz.ltl KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 STEVE JARMIN Aspen Planning & Zoning Department RECEIVED , 2;t ) 1 2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY ALPER / bil,- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT