Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.500 W Hopkins Boomerang.0107.2005 3A GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE PROPERTY Submitted by: Date: City Council Revision: Prepared by: 11921 Frei Suite 950 Reston, V. (703)773- July 31, i¢ 3w.4 t- ARE PERTIES TES, RECEIVED AUG 0 1 2006 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT �V e.C.Qi v' W I' +i---� I LCiV 1 51 �3 i>Yl �1.� 7/7-00(l, ,IAA 1 evaowo reawiT.E% C PRORCT Y: 1111 REVISION: 0 0 DAM ISSUE C-fl 111006 1:39 AN W A 5O WMF I� 'W V A Q 6 3 c =� RENO SMITH AR CH E C T5 II I I � ,P,wa�o.ADD A6PEF,C 1910)93)') %3 Fn% ls'IO)93f.)99] BAS LOHADa .163: EA% � IP,P,r3,11.P ceneRA�. COVER SHEET I I I �SHeEt p'iinnP33. 0 1 W W ot m x ® ALLEY BLOCK S 1 �- ____________ __ ____ A= vis )f aTM '�l U IY - C 1 �. — Am Uo, Y #G.L0�G2 \!,I \Q OoO �� � \ "t�.i. —j'� f' �`.�.%�" �.i1 /' � `yf �"�.r� I �„i �'^�� S ,� S %` i�.,'7 � I �� \� �5•. Q G-Y ANO TO W N51T° OF ASPFU •/ ccuNrr oP PrtKm WEST HOPKINS AVENUE TATE OF GOLORA00 Y Y 51TE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 u; AVILDINO PERMrt9¢T PROJECT Y� xfu REVISION'. DATE', 15SUE: OBgI /0) Canse00ul 0./i V 11 /OIIOf CD haM�u ILIO /Of cD M1oV.0 Lf /06 pIL RVViuee illllOfi Ciry Ceupsil Rrvl/ian Oem o(IUUa' B /1/3006 B:)9 AN YEA w w 0 z � m w d s � = u 0 3 X GQ $ 2 RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS L.L C ro +ol Pv ) +YI 93fI'll „I SDIITX6IDE AVE. BABALi VC 0; 0AAD0 mol nm cn. ro+el Pn u.a W MAIL ADDAE99 SITE PLAN. -Site Development SHEE' NO AS 101 SHEE —+ OF N VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"-50'-0' x PROJECT N'. 1 IiEV1510N: 0 OATE'. ISSUE'. oelollof Conoevrnel Deri{n 1110) /Of LD Pro{reer 13l IN CD Pto {reee Ob P6L 0.erieion 'l /)Ilob Ciry COUnsil Revr o 8l 11306 1136 AM W A O ,W Rer{ A Ol 1�E V z <e O g RENO SMITH ARCHiITECTS 4t< 605 w MAIN NII A.P COLORADO '191019)1]961 vnx 1990193f�1991 ]11 {OVTN6IDEAVE. RABALT,DCOLOIADO 816)1 19101911x996 Ax ry101931.6110 ITS www r7osmith ADDRESS e iee0��eormnS. rem [SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP SHEET NO AS 102 SHEET 8 OF 24 JLLW OPEN 5PAGE PLAN 1 ¢VLLDINO ¢ERMIT ]¢T PROJECT f, ylp REVISION: 0 DATE:ISSUE: OIIOIIOf Comarplvml Deriy D.E. d I.- Y� w A O w a w c7 A 0 a z w � ze 6 p RENO SMITH AR C H II'E CTS ^SAID) W. YPINOO FA I9lU)93]'1961 �sewl ltl • ♦v0. BAS oT ;COLORIOO S)9116p1� IA. 1910) ,ae S vvv nne m)I JErom '11 —'—O V US. vem SItE DEAN -Open Space Plan 7: To AS 103 SNE °T 9 OF ^< • .x, •. 1.100ak �^�•+ +.]+ +aft .o,:... •...— nselak +: IO.r BO pfi FLOOR AREA- BA5EMENT LEVEL 1' • e0' -O' rvnea.a 36ait ra aee,XtlaR .or.,. e1�, inreu. ,o ],11]a.t FREE MARKET UNITS: 10.566 THIRD LEVEL. 2 ONE BEDROOM UNITS 5,q A I FOURTH LEVEL: TOTAL PAR ALLOWED( S. 1): SOS Qrx..•ne�•«.a ra.... 26,1 q q i.... ce« 42' MAX. 3 FAR - SECOND LEVEL 1' •6d -O' , 11 15 lt 9 a ummwiFel ak ,.r ]10 sµ i[ .,+....,...e5. sq is n - ,xwmsxan[W 1,]B9 Cq It ®w -xm,rm .. :swnenr,uwn, oxawrt Qurentw,.wnmm bx+.eru nn r.ee x,.,wa r1 FAR- GROUND LEVEL eu:a .•S.lie sg i[ ..�� w eu..�u, al,141 a'[ wrma,u[mu].O!'I NiL 4 FAR -THIRD LEVEL 6d-O' FAR - FOURTH LEVEL 5 P .60._0. FAR ALLOWED /REQUIRED PAR -HOTEL UNIT(OWTJ &KOUD LEVEL: 21,000 .or.,. .o�..A FREE MARKET UNITS: 10.566 THIRD LEVEL. 2 ONE BEDROOM UNITS 5,q A I FOURTH LEVEL: - ,xwmsxan[W 1,]B9 Cq It ®w -xm,rm .. :swnenr,uwn, oxawrt Qurentw,.wnmm bx+.eru nn r.ee x,.,wa r1 FAR- GROUND LEVEL eu:a .•S.lie sg i[ ..�� w eu..�u, al,141 a'[ wrma,u[mu].O!'I NiL 4 FAR -THIRD LEVEL 6d-O' FAR - FOURTH LEVEL 5 P .60._0. FAR ALLOWED /REQUIRED PAR -HOTEL UNIT(OWTJ &KOUD LEVEL: 21,000 g,255 SECOND LEVEL. FREE MARKET UNITS: 10.566 THIRD LEVEL. 2 ONE BEDROOM UNITS 5,q A I FOURTH LEVEL: TOTAL PAR ALLOWED( S. 1): SOS SUBTOTAL. ON 6RADE PARKING SPACES TO 26,1 q q FAR- NON -HOTEL SPACE (60J'TJ 42' MAX. GROUP LEVEL: 4,g q S SECOND LEVEL. 2,506 THIRD LEVEL 1.401 FOURTH LEVEL: 516 SUBTOTAL: 9.246 PAR -PIKES MARKET UNITS (50.PTJ THIRD LEVEL. 5,441 FOURTH LEVEL: 6,048 SUBTOTAL: AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UNITS (SOJT.) &ROUD LEVEL: (646 net) 6R2 SECOND LEVEL: (646 net) 693 SUBTOTAL. (1.296 tut) 1.064 BALCONY /DECK /CORRIDOR (SO.FTJ SECOND LEVEL 4.155 THIRD LEVEL: 51560 FOURTH LEVEL. 5,615 SUBTOTAL: 11,606 FAR- SALCONY /DECK /CORRIDOR (SO.FTJ 12AM6- 11,606(allowable deck /balcony /corridor) 0 FAR TOTAL. 44,170 GROSS TOTAL (above grade): 60,89 EXISTING BASEMENT. 2,4480 NEVI BASEMENT: 14.970 6KOSS TOTAL (Irmiuding basement). 16.406 SITE AREA. 21,000 HOTEL UNITS. 500eq.Rlewh unit x 54 21,000 FREE MARKET UNITS: 25 %x 4g, 110• papow APPORDBALE UNITS: 2 ONE BEDROOM UNITS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (Min. 600 91 net /each) TOTAL PAR ALLOWED( S. 1): 3.21,000 61.000 TOTAL DECK AREA, 10% x(mex. Allowable) FAR (61.000) 11.641 ON 6RADE PARKING SPACES TO REMAIN. 11 BUILDIN6 HE16HT LIMIT: 42' MAX. 5UMMARY UNITS /SPACES HOTEL UNITS 53 HOTEL UNIT MR AVERA6E 4 q4.3 SO.FT. /UNIT FREE MARKET UNITS 6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS 2 ON&RAVE PARKING it UNO5R 6ROUNO PARKING 6ARAOE UNDER GROUND LOLKGR9 BVILOMO PER41i Ye} PROJECT 4: ... REVISION: 0 DATE: ISSUE DXK Bf I114e. VI /1006 II:f9 AA1 r7 Pa /-4 riTa V A �ll �h•1 V z 9 Y Z V 3 a RENO 1 SMITH AR CHIT EC TS M. PAIN n Ool Aerex, 1111 I Oo 11611 Inns Rl.lw FAX Olosvvsvll nuocrxnoe Ave. x lol eeeun caaolAnB F16i1 b101 1T.0114 FAX 111011111140 Pea 11x8 I.AIL A0DRe11 .em.6.,.o,.w...« GENERAL: FAR CALCULATIO SHEET NO G 002 SHEET 2 OF 24 1 6 5 5cl f I , I , I 28i� O' 2,369 5c{ ft r ---- -- - --- -- I I I I '------- -- - - -- I I I 1 I ; L —, I I ' 3 9' -O" I I � I I I 1 1,289 5q ft L__________ ____ _ __ i I 971 sq,ft I 3 -V-0" 6,7'12 54 ft 595 5c{ ft I I I r-------- _____'_-- n� --- J J I r- I 3 9' -0" , +A I I I -- r- J 1,393 541 ft j r_____ —___ I � 1 � 1 � MORE THAN 60% OF ROOF AREA 15 ATOP, BELOW 37' -0" ROOF AREA: ROOF AREA (ELEVATION BELOW 26-O "): ROOF AREA (ELEVATION 25' -0"): ROOF AREA (ELEVATION 37' -0"): SUBTOTAL: ROOF AREA (ELEVATION 3 9' -0 "): TOTAL: 56ZUARE FOOTAGE: 1,259 eq.ft. 6,7 13 sq.ft. 1 6 2 5q ft 1 29 5Q ft AREA PEROENTAGE: 7% 36% 6,93"1 5q.f t. 37 % 3,653 5(;.f t. 20% 16,562 5q.ft. 100% BELOW 28' -O d � . 968 5I ft \ f m \ 3,149 5c{ ft\ e"¢mxoeawlr ear x PROfBCT M: ifu R8VI8ION: (DATE: ISSUE'. KKLaf c". «viva D"uP. DPtL Of INC.; Ye,aW6 Inn AY W 0 W O W � 4 e O S V 3 RENO SMITH AR C H III E C T 8 L.LO. Pm w. aero xvK APeax. eoLOaAeo LIP11 mKPZ}fKP PA% nrK nf.PKP ]TI LOVT.M. AVL. x 101 LAPALT. COLORADO PIP]. MA) PT/4KP PA% mV)9Pb6PPP wee arts 6YAIL ADOA68P .m.. ®,...au."e. GENERAL: •Roof Plan SHEET NO: G 003 HEET3 F 2 TOTAL WALL AREA: 6, 1 44 5C{ ft NET WALL AREA: 2,26-7 SLI ft PERCENTAGE OF i Parking /Basement N,s I- , I 2 SETBACK - Ground Level N.s RVILDINO pE0.Mli BC} X El DATE: ISSUE: Date of luue: a w A O W� 04 W G9 A O .a O = m � z RENO SMITH A RC H ill E C T9 60f W. MAIN x oaf ABPEx. COLORADO 61611 Me193f f966 FA% (9f U)91f�f991 ffl¢ NBIO¢AVE. ,'a EAEALi. COLORA00 61931 (910j 9f1�66f9 FA% (910j 9I1�6690 BUILDING SETBACK: • Diagram I of 3 SHUT NO G 005 MET 5 F 25 EXTG. BUILDING _ --- -- - -___� m I I I 22a 10" 1 z I \ a n n 4 \ 1 11 -o SETBAGK - Second Level EXTG. BUILDING — - - - - - -- — — N 1 I ! 1 in = =r I Lj I 1 1 1 II II II II I 1 n I I I IF 0 t 3' 4 ! r J \ W PRQPERTY LINE —� II \ a 1 \ 1 1 1 v \ 1 I \ I - pQ I � � rl SETBAGK -Third Level � 91T5 BV6DMO P6RNR 6i x PR010CT M: r". aevlsloN: DATE: ISSUE'. ovanos c9A9.v1.•I D..ry. "11010] cD I ...... XISIXI co R.,a 613106 Ci, H...a V]1 /06 Clry Ceon.J R.ri.iw Dtl. of I"..: W O 0 z g Q x RENO SMITH A RC HIjEC TS L.L.C. <Pl A, Po AlH All.X. C.L..A.. 11611 {910)9if�1961 PAX 1919)99] -5991 )'ll POVTH9M0 AVB. 6ABALi. C10LORADO 1L.1 191019T -6115 FAX 19)o193'I.6150 N6B 91TB .HAD. A..... BUILDING SETBACK: •Diagram 2 of 3 SHEET NO: G 006 SHEET 6 OF 25 C VT I w .9 1 1 II B — 11 � II I ' 1 I , I , II II II II I l i' , II II II II 1 1 u u µ____r✓ ' 1 I IL ------ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1r.+ 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 L�l 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i — — — — — — — — 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 II II 11 - II II , II 11 II II I ''1111 II IL I 11 II ___Irr__ _T_____J II - II 11' II _ II W VI W d) (V 1 I 1 J SETBAGK - Fourth Level N,s II II II lu II IL_ 1 JL= 1 G� F == I II p \ F == I 1 ` 1 , ` 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 II 11 t \ 1 Q SETBAGK -Roof Plan � NI BV LLOINO ]BRNR 18} PROIBCT X: R... REVISION: DATE: ISSUE D.t. Or I.,.. W A O W A 0 c e O yd O x' v Z RENO SMITH ARCHIIiBCTS L11.L1I.C. 64) NAIN A 9 F8H.�OLORABO 611 (914)9]) �f 961 (9f0193f-f991 m lolnx9mx AvB. .ARAB Ca ORADO uol (91419vtae++ (91419.1 -69 +0 BYAIL All RB IB erx.. ®....Be.... BUILDING SETBACK: • Diagram 3 of 3 SHBET N0: G 007 !SHEET 7 OF 25 SITE PLAN - REDEVELOPMENT m PRO12CT M: ... REVISION. 4 DATE: ISSUE D..R D(IS.... 13006 pail AH a w A 5O F a w A O a z �a w o � � e o d RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS III t.t.c. (nip >fvs9ap ,AS 11� a00 TX]IOE A \'E. BAS III. OL 00.A 00 ]1631 FA% 19101 .,.A.,. WEB ITE E.A1L ADDRESS el .. nea....R •om SITE PLAN - Rcdevd Dpment Plan SHEET NO AS 100 SHEET it OE 'J OMPNIGLLY THE CNLINE OP nee. I....- l.11LPGLCU/. . EI M�YGIEBRR CP MIEN OTYMIMEpNp RECRFpTW OUR.., (T j IXIBTNO EVEROREFN TREES FYIBTNO DEWWOUB TREE6 OESIBP NOBNRU.. uLEV o PROPOSED EVEROREEN TREES PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREES PROPOSED SHRUB$ PROPOSEDIURP OROUNOCOVER OR MULCH GONGEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - 30' -O" BVILDIHO P¢RMIi B¢T PROJECT M: 3fla REVISION: 0 DATE: ISSUE'. ell"Lles Coeaa P..l ...iµ DUS Of hwue: a w I�I rw V E� ,a V z w � � e O a° 9 S U O 3 2 RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS L'L.C. aof v. MwIN pSPEX.0 010apV0 f91P19]f)969 EAX 19101 Y1ff99) )11 90VTXSIOE pvE. SASALTYCOLORADO (910J1911i19R EAX (91uI 91 a990 .ww.:.:...lE a(fl)er] ..0, —A em LANDSCAPE'. - Conceptual Design SHEET 50 SHEET 10 OF 24 I I t \ \ ce LAUNDRY 005 \ Ni k 5ITTit ,J i �\ LL 20 21 22 25 24 z5 26 I21 26 29 50 $1 \ \\ t / \ \ POOL ABOVE \ \ — I MEDIA 1 1 17 13 19 __ 1 1 1 1 \ I I I \ 1 —_I - -- — 4 15 16 NEW BUILDING PROPATY LINE__ 121-1, FAR 0AL0ULATION: EXTG. BA5EMENT AREA: NEW 5A5EMENT AREA: TOTAL: EXISTING BUILDING 2,4a5 eq.ft. 14,q 70 Sq.Ft. 1'7,458 eq.ft. �FARKING /E3A5EMENT LEVEL /E3A5EMENT LEVEL I n1lo" BVILUINO pE0.Mli BET PROTECT N'. vu REVISION'. DATE: ISSUE: wlovae cD I 11111.1 C...... . D Lf11: PAZ &..i.io. 101 /Oa CAI Cw..il0.rvi.iw Dete of l..ue'. a A WNO W C7 A O .a W < m me- a O = u QIL o RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS {0 MAIN Af PEN. COL OEADO al (9,9J 9zI3,a9 IA. n+ol sv.,wi , „9 �TN9�DeA.e. .a. BA9ALT VCOLO0.A00 ua FA% (9foJ 911.69,0 '91TE - HAIL ADO0.E99 o is.9...amma.aem LOOK PLAN PARKING PLAN I '1!SHE-- -� 101 SREST 1: OF 'A — — ___ I I - ]I 9 ] 6 l OI 9 10 nryu,e oyN�e I AMP p I i, LOOKER5 p02 iO4 1 DOW 10' -O" 10% S ^I'a'4' 1 1 1 1 2. u — -- r —_I ------ nE I ! 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NecN. I I I I I I I I I i 003 5 CV I I W ----- - -- - -1 — 1--- --- - - - --L — 1---- -- -- -L-- -- -- -- 1- - - - --- - — - — - — - — - I— — — — 001 30 �PAGE5. 1 HANDI¢AP - 5 1 — _ — _— _ — _ — _ 1 _ — _ — _— _ — _ 1_ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — _ — 1 — _ — _ — _ J_ _ — _ ------ 1 _ — _ I I t \ \ ce LAUNDRY 005 \ Ni k 5ITTit ,J i �\ LL 20 21 22 25 24 z5 26 I21 26 29 50 $1 \ \\ t / \ \ POOL ABOVE \ \ — I MEDIA 1 1 17 13 19 __ 1 1 1 1 \ I I I \ 1 —_I - -- — 4 15 16 NEW BUILDING PROPATY LINE__ 121-1, FAR 0AL0ULATION: EXTG. BA5EMENT AREA: NEW 5A5EMENT AREA: TOTAL: EXISTING BUILDING 2,4a5 eq.ft. 14,q 70 Sq.Ft. 1'7,458 eq.ft. �FARKING /E3A5EMENT LEVEL /E3A5EMENT LEVEL I n1lo" BVILUINO pE0.Mli BET PROTECT N'. vu REVISION'. DATE: ISSUE: wlovae cD I 11111.1 C...... . D Lf11: PAZ &..i.io. 101 /Oa CAI Cw..il0.rvi.iw Dete of l..ue'. a A WNO W C7 A O .a W < m me- a O = u QIL o RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS {0 MAIN Af PEN. COL OEADO al (9,9J 9zI3,a9 IA. n+ol sv.,wi , „9 �TN9�DeA.e. .a. BA9ALT VCOLO0.A00 ua FA% (9foJ 911.69,0 '91TE - HAIL ADO0.E99 o is.9...amma.aem LOOK PLAN PARKING PLAN I '1!SHE-- -� 101 SREST 1: OF 'A , IR 1 2 3 4 5 6 l 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 ` aevlsloN. Imo` I 6A AGE � — - - ._. PROPERT..Y UT LI�INiE U ILTT7 RELOCATION RELOCATION DATE ISSUE. I I I I f I DR 01 /DS Cene<pru.l Onixn / 11 /D) /Of CO Praxrerr N I AFF. RAMP I , /ll/06 CiIy COUprilRwiaw 1 UNIT - 1 0 L so \ I 101 I \ Dam D / R1E006!1'41 AM LOOOBO" X 1 /"\I 102 o I 10D 1 1 0 1 1 2 I 1 14 1 1 6 LOUNGE 64 _ _ _ _— ___ —_— _ ___ _____ _ _ I all ' -20 1 , 7 1 00' -O" Nx H ENTRY 1 + o 103 - - h• 104 O , \\ \\ J 101 109 111 I 115 115 I I \ POOL I ( !w $ \ O 3 / 105 0 •' 0 or, 119 �+a ijo �ysreA 1j I I 1 I I I + + 1 + \ 1 v $ \\ 1 ( 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 1 1 „�I�'' ✓ %% yy�I �j plsy� yfi'� I ��� �' % I ,' lJa �° ,'' ; RENO SMITH F C. b A %y� ARCxil3ECTs If I "`. 1�f'�Vww�fff v o 6 °F � 'Aao1 � g � Aao 1- vv INEW BUILDING `I 1 , -1c_ +t% n�X15TING BUIhDING (M'n...... II �v FAR GALGULATION: 1v - II �{ _fl ��v ry,D) Av 19g1 �v vEXTG. UNIT5 RENOVATION: `� 3 1,2 55q`ft,- „I ROVTxR1DLAVR. \ MPrW HOTEL UNITS: �b 1,9 k2 SCL.ft. a�l�l" nine e? I R "` "LT; COi ls41 ORA00 \ \ TdT-\AL: 11i\ q,25 *q.ft. FA: `\ `\ AFFORDABLE UNIT5: 1 \\ bq2 5 t. .- .- ::a•mli s`... \ ` NON- HO'FEL UNIT SPAGE: �\ 4,gg5 ggft. EMAIL ADDRESR \ \ \ .m.. ®r......th TOTAL: \ 14,9405c{.ft. `\ FLOOR PLAN: AN GROUND LEVEL 1 SHEET NO A 102 SHEET 14 OF 34 ti O O 1 0 1 D r N rn 0 z d r A /rn \ N rn r p R rnp 1 Xrn O A� r 0> AD On 00 Az O A � lU J � � A � � A p p R R R zD OT zT =0 OA 1 D cr zm �z N � DN n rn u lU O� O� O� U p A R R g. Y1� a <<, ,141 --- t- - - --rt- 5 z i i 6 � 1 — — G i i 1� IA m O O p A Ij a Ir A Im 1 1 ,r 1 \ BOOMERANG LODGE REMODEL 9W W. Hopldue Avenue Npeq Colo do 91911 " - 3 _ 5 [t9[H OPUO�oJ'uadry 2 : a anvaay ea�doN'M 005 p a dada o _ =_- � 'I3QO��x ��QO� �AiV2I�Llioog os 3NI� .11?l3dOT�d \ 1 i `\ m \ N =i o o O a _ry O I x lb z -z-4 Q J W z z F- q xcf ' \7,t' Ai, r V w v 0 ry 1 m %. o o- � v _ ry m N N n If 11 b � skY R' I m o z 1 O w F=j f Q w FZ vu 4 � 0 J f� 'p - -- - -- - - -- x -� -- -- - I -- �Y U U wz I Z3 w w z H az K 7 ku H Its \\ r \? I N — _� m r t + II •I I — m I I 1 i 1 i- �- Ci o-- - - -L- 1 � a I 1 - I I I o o � xuomoe I N N U�1 m o0 m� K O Q 00 m0 K u� W H 0w o m } Lu m m LU S d F O H O O ry _ - - Tl9TB OPUONJ'oxd+tl e - - i moantl %ogdoH'M 005 s -ooti m e°88 - a w W 121GON 3H 39GO'I OWHalNtOOg 0 '\ Q 1 °m `\ 1 1 \ 1 `\ 1 I WI �\ Z ,1 WI LL Y 0 a Ow a, , II I V I a I F� I 1 1 Q _ =_ — i N n F I 1 o- -- a 1 1 � K ,k' y "o Air, I P n o- - i- - - - - -- - - s 1 I I I I z -alvis - I i - i , II 3NI'I J.l?J3dObd b b` i g —.mom 61 6-11 i - - - - -- - - -- lol _ Q li ME 1 f I� V E •N z yr 1 1 � i F py » d a F� N n F Z K JU A Y J LLI �vu-I mo wo Z Q YW Q z LLZz W Q •, Cv. x x I y ° s N A N -4J pr�� l Q -- LL I � m w 1 Z n � I ' I 1 r, r si ri s � Q d1 d d) N m w s U) o- r w w JAI N d1 N 6 my J W w i lu N m � LL 0 0 N � d F� N n F Z K JU A Y J LLI �vu-I mo wo Z Q YW Q z LLZz W Q 0 0 N _ ea [P9[B OpuoloJ'uaday C p�'ya�U < anvaay sm \doN'M 005 w 4444 ova °s " 8 ' 21(tot i" 39GO I 9%[ViI'3wootl b h W O D -` -- - -, — 3NI-rl74 7, 1 ' _ :a a 1 \ \ o � -- x , ' F N w 0 , I I 1 I I , , Fr I K n > 1 ash v \ ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- — — V wt i �Q A iii I I �� 1 ° - -I-=t— ----- _fs -�,— u o c 0 w a u zl " 7 Y o , J p FI = p wl w d O O �/ 1 II 11 II II II 111111 1 I\ \ \ \ \1YIIfR qb ,' 10 IL Q ' V — — -I ' 1 � ` � 1 -- -- -- m - - -1r o Pi— 1' � - , / / i b I 1 I O z �O XO ww --I— — +— hL- --- -- - - - - -- , ' F N w 0 , I I 1 I I , , Fr �� 1 ° - -I-=t— ----- _fs -�,— u o c 0 w a u zl " 7 Y o , J p FI = p wl w d O O �/ 1 II 11 II II II 111111 1 I\ \ \ \ \1YIIfR qb ,' 10 IL Q ' V — — -I ' 1 � ` � 1 -- -- -- m - - -1r o Pi— 1' � - , / / i b I 1 I O z �O XO ww --I— — +— hL- --- -- - - - - -- r--- I--,I wb 1 1 � 1 r77 Z , ' F N w 0 I Fr I K n > 1 ash v \ ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- — — r--- I--,I wb 1 1 � 1 r77 Z � I S- II , I 1 i G I , � , ' F N w I I K n > 1 ash v \ 1 i �Q A iii � I S- II , I 1 i G I , � I I i J CL LL qb i qb � qb oo.,' > 1 ash 1 I I 1 1 � I I I L---------- F-- +-- 1 - - - - -� I I F = == I - - -r —t I,- -- * 4 n�I _- (11PI�1 D� I I i J CL LL qb i qb � qb oo.,' > 1 ash 1 I I i J CL LL qb i qb � qb oo.,' 8 _ _ � ¢9t8 opualo�uadey � � g� V ` anuaav .u1�daH'M 005 s 4444 0 °`Ea ° g TAGOWaH 39G011 ONVHawo08 1 1 o- � h < li W rII xl rl . 1 I 1 1 N i x V 1 — L FLj 1 1 U 1..1...x; 1 I' u. ia_.1 n �Illl�llw� ,111111I'111��'111III,,'lll 1 ; ., Ig11111I,I�IiI, IIII 111111,1., III I Ijl 1. j 1 �J 1I• ;,� _ r�: .•1/I:II�:S01111.11�u:Illari. •� li ::�III;� N 11 1 W N J~ tu 1 1 i 1 1 J g cti� m 1 1 F.1 F x 1 1 o- � h < li W rII xl rl . N x FLj pll i�i!Ijll.l I I�i�illlll.� I1114p19j11.��, 1..1...x; .rl a� I' u. ia_.1 n �Illl�llw� ,111111I'111��'111III,,'lll MIrI,,� il�'111111 „1110111 �Ii , ., Ig11111I,I�IiI, IIII 111111,1., III I Ijl 1. j 1 � 1I• ;,� _ r�: .•1/I:II�:S01111.11�u:Illari. 1 1 o- � h < li W rII xl rl . N x FLj pll i�i!Ijll.l I I�i�illlll.� I1114p19j11.��, .rl a� u.i.ial pro All u. ia_.1 n �Illl�llw� il..�l•n' 1 � 1I• ;,� _ r�: .•1/I:II�:S01111.11�u:Illari. •� li ::�III;� Y 11 N f f0 N J~ tu Z. rcNi Z 1 1 o- � h < li W rII xl rl Z Q w w O N O O M x FLj pll i�i!Ijll.l I I�i�illlll.� I1114p19j11.��, .rl a� u.i.ial pro All u. ia_.1 n �Illl�llw� il..�l•n' � 1I• ;,� _ r�: .•1/I:II�:S01111.11�u:Illari. •� li ::�III;� ,,1�•� u.Iln• 11 Z. F.1 Z Q w w O N O O M --- ZZ —:�� aa� -- -- z 0 W w w� O i O N , x Z. F.1 --- ZZ —:�� aa� -- -- z 0 W w w� O i O N , d.•Ss ling^VU I..dw t a e 3 w-- v-lnd -N'mm U m Uu�ViV =a gHQOw3H a9aoq 9mvHa ntoog I I I I 1 11 01 1 u I dl I I p 1 yl �I ZI 1 4 r W; I Yr A i2 I 1 1 • 1 Tm I I I I I II -- 1 6.J 0 1 1 a 11 .5 a o- o- Y Z Y� F J f r Iml` I I I a u K a Y U a J I O k I I I a u K a Y U (5-� -- - - - _ - Q Z Z Q J z O Z � w w 0 z h J w� T ma Ar _z Eu Q m J JF � F �\ m pNN W Z 0l~ Z Q J CD z H N W v ry I f t I W4 �U x x x m g ° •� ON z O d w w w K Q N O J F O k (5-� -- - - - _ - Q Z Z Q J z O Z � w w 0 z h J w� T ma Ar _z Eu Q m J JF � F �\ m pNN W Z 0l~ Z Q J CD z H N W v ry I f t I W4 �U x x x m g ° •� ON z O d w w w K Q N _ 5C [[9[e iPnil^J'�idiY e S Sm � i anainV iagdop At ODS 0 fi z O w w 0 U x z � I ; o 0 IF 1 I ' w � ' Q ' w � � c _I e I i ® z � I ; o ? w I ' w � ' Q ' w � � c _I e I i WIN "I" Will N a eva 11919 oP.-I-D aaav laGo an 39GO'I DNVHHWOOH a5 O O r� z O d w w z O z pC H o OZ a �s Fr mW s z O 4 w w N w K b b N 119 is oPSwI^J'nadW eu pld.H'MM LL 1 ,�YD�8 r� IG N1H �✓/ ON � Q4aQ I I I I I I O I F, , I it y zl I I �a � z tu N V dl j N Ql o 0 w d , I I I I -r u - - - - - --0 V �I z+ u u z I N Z1I N o r �/ t' tL,,'. N v d' Q W of < ILI V z LR V �I x z+ N N �I N, QL _ o r •I N� dl N QI W v z �- �! x i I i O N, •I - - - — — — — - - -- - - I din O ; N N ZI z' .- � �� ry x x W z — — I- -- I - - -- — — — - - - - - -- � I I x w I 4 = O m H O O , I �I f nI in I Z.. N N d J N QI - -- — — �Z N;,I kb I I I I I I � I I i W o ILI o F F Cfl Y Q I I i I i O N, •I - - - — — — — - - -- - - I din O ; N N ZI z' .- �� W z — — I- -- I - - -- — — — - - - - - -- — � I I I � I I I _ �f I yu _ z Zi.N N N QION 0 N IKIO I N o v v dln Q'IlO I F I Z F F J a� - - I------- i----------------- - - - - --0 b a � ez" R9[B OPaoiowadey a z j 4 m V _ a^tl eupldoN'M 005 4444 a o °„ m o m 13GOI NH:4OQOI 9NVHHNOOS I I I I I j j I I I I I I j i I I I — ' - �j0 I I I I F LL ______ z (VI lb lb 0 m I V z' Zi m m a O O I ry F i < I o I m I m K w F—I I 0 z N o _ _ I L -- -- o 0 0 - - - -- I ry I x <' I < 1 jl I w ry! N 1 = m N Y. 0 0 Z'r �I d) I 'U VI 00 �' ? Q' m I Q 0 Q,, I � o O I z \D z a' I I I I I I i I I I I I j i j I j i j — — o - - - - --0 fl' 0. -- N I rl UI ry I I N 00 Y z! I i I of � � N z' I NI 0 j rcw F, j I a w z d1'. — — F----------------- ----- I---- - - - - -- ~ j i I I x a Oa v _ v•3 -�® K9 DOO � Y I I I I I j j I I I I I I j i I I I — ' - �j0 I I I I F LL ______ z (VI lb lb 0 m I V z' Zi m m a O O I ry F i < I o I m I m K w F—I I 0 z N o _ _ I L -- -- o 0 0 - - - -- I ry I x <' I < 1 jl I w ry! N 1 = m N Y. 0 0 Z'r �I d) I 'U VI 00 �' ? Q' m I Q 0 Q,, I � o O I z \D z a' I I I I I I i I I I I I j i j I j i j — — o - - - - --0 fl' 0. -- N I rl UI ry I I N 00 Y z! I i I of � � N z' I NI 0 j rcw F, j I a w z d1'. — — F----------------- ----- I---- - - - - -- ~ j i I I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director 64w? THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment — 500 West Hopkins Avenue 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Condominiumizaton and Vested Rights DATE: August 28, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existing Boomerang consists of. • 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. • 3l parking spaces, all but one of which are partially within the city right -of -way The proposed Boomerang Lodge includes: • 47 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 49,170 square feet. • 5 free- market residential units. • 2 affordable housing units. • 48 parking spaces -- 31 underground and 17 surface (partially in 11 APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP. II STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project with conditions. P &Z RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommended that the City Council approve of the lodge redevelopment proposal by a vote of four to two (4 -2). The two dissenting votes supported the redevelopment concept in terms of bringing new lodge rooms and keeping the "old" Boomerang Lodge component in the site plan. Their issue had to do with the height along Hopkins Ave. and neighborhood compatibility. Since the time of the P &Z hearing the applicants have reduced the height by at least 3 feet and have removed some of the areas that had been 4 floors in height to 3 floors. ** *SINCE THE LAST MEETING ON AUGUST 149 °, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE REVISIONS TO THE BOOMERANG DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND HAS RELAYED THE AREAS FOR REVISION BY HIGHLIGHTED REVISED PLANS AND TWO SEPARATE MEMOS DESCRIBING CHANGES AND LODGE /CONDO OPERATIONS. IN GENERAL THE REVISIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 • The lodge units have been removed from the East Wine, leaving this wing as a two story element. The height of the existing building does not change from what is there now with this change. • One free market unit has been removed from the west end of the project allowing for a reduction in height on that component of the structure. • The number of total lodge units (keys) is now at 47, reduced by 5 lodge units since the August 14`h hearing and from 54 units originally. The average size is still around 500 square feet. • Maximum height is on two small pop -ups on the partial 4`h floor, measuring 36 feet, 6 inches (totaling 17% of the roof area). These parts of the fourth floor are reduced from 39 feet. The majority of fourth floor (83 %) is now at 34 feet, 6 inches. • The applicants have included an operational characteristics plan to address and ensure rentals outside of4he ownership use and other characteristics that make the condo ownership more like a lodge rental property. Staff will provide comment on this at the meeting as it was submitted late. SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP, is proposing to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R -6 LP — Medium - Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half -block — 27,000 square feet — and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R -6 Zone District is a single - family and duplex zone district. (The "west -end" is zoned R -6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development now consists of 47 hotel units (47 keys total), 5 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 12 surface parking spaces to remain partially within the street rights -of -way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 44,915 square feet. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS: BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 Yard Setback (Hopkins) Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west 5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1 -5 ft. on east 5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0 -2 ft. 5 ft. on north Yard Setback (second floor balcony overhang 4' 5 ") Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley 36'6" ft. maximum (set in PUD for 20 -25 ft on east roof heights vary Lodging) according to PUD plan Parking Set in PUD 31 surface (all but 1 31 underground and partially in r.o.w) 12 @ surface (partially in r.o.w.) Floor Area Ratio /Size: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. 1.66:1 = 44,915 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. .87:1 = 23,547 s.f. Ave. Lodge Size Set in PUD -500 sq. 340 s.f. 501 s.f. ft.desirable Free - Market 25% of total project N/A .39:1 = 10,733 = Residential Floor Area 23% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A .05:1 = 1,384s.f. Residential NECESSARY LAND USE APPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 18 requested in this application) and associated new free - market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. APPROVED by P &Z 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. APPROVED by P &Z BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 4. REZONING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 5. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 6. CONDOMtNIUMIZATION; Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council 7. VESTED RIGHTS: Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3 -year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3 -year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: THIS SECTION HIGHLIGHTS THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE HEARING ON JULY 10" AND AUGUST 14'" THAT REQUIRED FOLLOW -UP BY EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT Height. The neighborhood is a mix of single- family, duplex, multi- family, lodging, and mixed -use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L'Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most - recent approvals have been in the low 30 -foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type of lodge development desired by the City — small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. At both hearings conducted thus far, the council did not find the height of the building acceptable. As noted in the first paragraph of this report, significant changes have been BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 made which make the building more appropriate for the neighborhood and keep the east wing in tact. Use as Condominiumized Lodge Units. The development is proposed as ownership condominiums that function as lodge (hotel) units. As such, they will be subject to the city's occupancy provisions that do not allow any person or entity with an ownership interest in the hotel, or unit thereof, to exceed occupancy for 30 consecutive days or exceed 90 days within any calendar year. The city created this definition so that when lodges are built and sold as condominiums (can't regulate ownership) there is a definition of how the lodge can used in order to get the city closer to its goal of lodge room availability and moving away from condos that are not used much of the year by owners. The proposal's "operational plan" indicates that the units will be available for rental when not occupied by the owner or guests thereof. See Exhibit B, memo from Sunny Vann, August 22, 2006, describing operations re. rental, usage, condo association, etc. Number of Units. The development includes 47 units (ave. size 501 sq. ft.) with a maximum of 47 keys. Some of these units are designed to be combined by a connecting door to allow for a larger space, say for a larger family. Combinable units would be of an average size of around 998 sq. ft. Typically the city has evaluated impacts and parking generation based on the number of keys so that the "worst case scenario" for these types of impacts can be evaluation and /or planned for with proper amenities. Setbacks. All of the proposed new development on the site meets with setback requirements. There are two minor spots on the site that vary only slightly from the minimum setback and these are associated with keeping the base floor of the "old" east wing in tact. One is at the northeast corner of the foundation at the east wing where the existing subgrade foundation encroaches by 16 inches into the setback and the other area is on the second floor above the east wing which encroaches by 7 inches so that the external circulation corridor can wrap around the building in keeping with the existing building. Lodge Unit Density. In an effort to reduce height and massing (points of concern during the P &Z and council hearings), the applicant has now reduced the number of units to 47 lodge units, instead of the originally proposed 54 lodge units. This puts the average lodge unit density around 1 unit per 575 square feet of lot area instead of the 500 square feet. Provisions of the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district allow for an adjustment to the "density standard" and "average unit -size standard" after consideration is given to the following: • The average unit -size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) • The project includes a generous amount of non -unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meeting /breakfast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room ". BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 The project includes a lounge/ library, multi purpose room and concierge area and services.) • The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in size from 370 to 900 square feet, and include multi -room suites for families.) • There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. (The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk -in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupied for more than 30 consecutive days.) Staff is satisfied that the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge meets both the specific standards and the overall intent of the Lodge Preservation and Incentive goals. "Historic" East Wing. At the previous hearings on this case, a majority of the council did not find the 3rd floor addition to the east wing acceptable, preferring instead to see the wing kept in tact as originally constructed. The applicants have removed the originally proposed 3`d floor. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission do believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east wing of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after redevelopment is accomplished. The entire property would not be land marked. A condition of approval requires designation of the east wing along with a section of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly supports the basic concepts of the application. The proposal implements both replacement and an increase in the bed base in an area that has historically included lodging within the mix of land uses. This is important to the long -term viability of the resort aspect of the community. Also, the interspersed lodging experience inside the community is unique and an important part of Aspen's lodging offerings. The design substantially mitigates the project's parking impacts on the neighborhood and improves pedestrian infrastructure of the area. Staff believes the most recent reductions in the height (from four floors to three floors in some portions and a lower fourth floor) help the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. We also feel that the removal of the 3rd floor on the east wing helps achieve broader community goals and respects the history of the architecture. When viewing the structure from the public ways in the vicinity, Staff feels that the project is compatible with the setting, given the way the building is obscured by other buildings and trees. We do not find that major views toward Shadow Mountain are blocked in that the public way views are primarily BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 y. . established through the existing development there today. We also find that the massing of the building offers enough variety, through inflection, change of facade planes /balconies and glazing (use of windows) to mitigate the actual size of the structure. The building today is of similar massing in terms of the length dimension across the lot. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve upon second reading, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, approving with conditions the Subdivision, PUD, Vested Rights, Condominiumization and Rezoning reviews for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment." City Manager Comments: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Staff Findings on Review Standards (provided on 8/14/06) Memo from Sunny Vann, 8/22/06 Memo from Don Shi, Reno Smith, 8/21/06 BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 Ordinance No. 26 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights -of -way. The proposed development includes 47 hotel units, 5 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31 -space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 44,915 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 1 - WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4 -2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Growth Manatement Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free - market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2: Approval for Subdivision, Rezonine for PUD Overlay, and PUD Final Development Plan Pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 — Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively — the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: City Council Ordinance No, 26, Series of 2006 - 2 - Dimension R-6 District Existing Development Requirement •• Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10 -70 ft. (varies) 5'2" Yard Setback (Hopkins) Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west 5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1 -5 ft. on east 5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0 -2 ft. 5 ft. on north City Council Ordinance No, 26, Series of 2006 - 2 - v Yard Setback (second floor balcony overhang 4' 5 ") Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley 36' 6" feet (set in PUD for 20 -25 ft on east maximum, roof Lodging) heights vary and are set in this PUD plan Parking Set in PUD 31 surface (all but 1 31 underground and partially in r.o.w) 12 @ surface (partially in r.o.w.) Floor Area Ratio /Size: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. 1.66:1 = 44,915 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. .87:1 = 26,199 s.f. Ave. Lodge Size Set in PUD -500 sq. 340 s.f. 501 s.f. ft.desirable Free - Market 25% of total project N/A .39:1 = 10,733 = Residential Floor Area 23% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A 05:1 = 1,384s.f. Residential Section 4: Trash /Recycling Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick -up. Section 5: Affordable Housing The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed - restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided I /10th of I percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 3 - The affordable housing units shall be deed - restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners /guests of the residences /hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners /gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights -of -way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.13, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 4 - 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5s' Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right -of -way improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights -of -way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights -of -way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right -of -way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right -of -way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights-of-way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $23,727 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 5 - The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule and is subject to final calculation at the time of PUD Agreement acceptance: Park Fees — Fees for Proposed Development: 47 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit 3 two- bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit 2 three - bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit Park Fees — Credit for Existine Develonment: 34 Lodge Units 29- studio units @ $1,520 per unit 3 two - bedroom units @ $2725 per unit 2 three - bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit = $71,440 = $6,360 = $5,450 Total = $83,250 Total Credit Total Park Impact Fee Due = $44,080 = $8,175 = $7,268 = ($59,523) = $23,727 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one -third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11: Sanitation District Standards /Requirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 6 - 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. S. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre - Construction Meeting Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer /Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official /Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD /SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Management Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 7 - 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day -to -day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include /depict: 1. A signed copy of the final P &Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right -of -way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right -of -way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 8 - required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace /woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and /or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right -of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. City Council Ordinance No, 26, Series of 2006 - 9 - .m. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: Historic Landmark Designation of the "East Wing" Prior to filing of the final plat the owner shall initiate the designation of the "East Wing" of the Boomerang Lodge for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The area to be designated shall be finalized in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission but shall include that area of the structural east wing along the alley, Fourth Street and Hopkins Avenue, also including the outdoor pool and spa area. Section 18: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 19: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Manderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 28th day of August, 2006. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 to- Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 11 - MEMORANDUM TO: Joyce Allgaier FROM: Sunny Vann RE: Boomerang Lodge Operations DATE: August 22, 2006 Exhibit B lb/ " /ofv Summarized below is various information regarding the operational practices of the proposed Boomerang Lodge project. Hopefully, it will give the staff and City Council a better understanding of how the lodge will be run and additional assurance that it will in fact operate as a hotel property. 1. The Boomerang Lodge will operate as a hotel in much the same fashion as other condominiumized lodge properties such as the Aspen Square condomini- um hotel and the Hotel Aspen. 2. The lodge units are to be condominiumized and sold to assist in the financing of the project. 3. The Boomerang Lodge project has been designed to function as a lodge. The lodge rooms are configured as individual hotel rooms with small kitchens. They are not configured as multi- bedroom residential condominium units. While the lodge units average approximately 500 square feet in size, a signifi- cant percentage of the units are actually smaller. The lodge units will contain one or more standard furnishing packages. 4. An owner's use of his lodge unit is subject to the City's existing occupancy limitation of 30 consecutive days and no more than 90 days per year for condominiumized lodge units. These limitations are intended to preclude the occupancy of such units as residential condominiums. 5. Services, operations, budgets and accounting will be established for hotel style management with an emphasis on nightly rentals. All owners will be encour- aged to rent their units in order to support the lodge's overhead. Aspen -FSP Management Company will manage and operate the rental program. An outside property or rental management company will not be required. 6. Aspen -FSP Management will own the front desk and all public areas such as the breakfast lounge, media room, library, etc. (i.e., the Boomerang Lodge's general common elements). 1 r� 7. All condominium unit owners will become members of the Boomerang Lodge Condominium Association. All unit owners will be assessed a prorata expense charge to cover their respective share of operations, repair and maintenance costs (e.g., front desk and housekeeping personnel, supplies, utilities, advertis- ing, travel agent and credit card commissions, maintenance and repairs, etc.). 8. All lodge unit owners will be "incentivized" to use Aspen -FSP as their rental agent due to the below market fee to be charged for such services. A commis- sion will be charged for this service. Nightly rental reservations may be booked by individuals and /or through travel agents. The lodge will be listed with Stay Aspen Snowmass and walk -ins will be accommodated. 9. Lodge unit owners will be required to make and confirm reservations for the use of their units in advance pursuant to a specific set of reservation policies. Last minute owner requests will be honored to the extent feasible but con- firmed guest reservations will not be cancelled. 10. The Boomerang Lodge Condominium Association will retain Aspen -FSP to oversee the operations of the Association. All staff will be employees of Aspen -FSP. Key employees will be maintained on -site year round with additional staff added in the peak seasons as needed. The lodge's key depart- ments will include: i) Front Desk Will include all front desk and reservations staff which will provide front desk coverage approximately 12 hours a day. Hours may be increased in peak seasons and reduced in off - seasons. Today's key staff members are Steven R. Stunda, Director of Operations and Gabi Walle, General Manager. ii) Housekeeping Will include all room cleaners, the Housekeeping Manager and assis- tants who will maintain the public areas and the stock supplies, and the laundry staff. iii) Maintenance Will handle the maintenance and cleaning of mechanical systems, landscaping, the pool and hot tubs, the fire alarm system, and the overall appearance of building exteriors and the garage. The mainte- nance staff will also respond to repair needs in the individual units. 2 iv) Accounting Will handle all financial aspects of the lodge operation including ac- counts payable and receivable and preparation of monthly owner state- ments. This service is currently provided by Daggs and Associates, a SM. KO 7MiRiRIV E)cki6o+ C_ $ /Z */" PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Remodel DATE: 8/21/06 City Council Revision p�C Changes have been made: d p 1. Building Height: a. Reduced the building height by another 2.5'. The highest RENO SMITH roof is 36.5' above the grade. The height limit is 42. This . A A C H [ T E C T S. L. L. C. . represents 17% of roof area. b. 83 %D of entire roof area is at or below 34.5' c. The ridge height of Christiana buildings is 35' above the grade. 2. Reduction of 4th Floor: ADGDAIA RENO AT a. Eliminated one hotel unit and one free market unit. b. Eliminated the staircase to the roof next to the alley. SCOTT SMITH ALA c. Reduced floor area to 5,810 SF. It was 7,951 SF. A reduction of 27 %D. 3. Eliminated the third floor of East Wing a. Total of 47 hotel units instead of 53 605 W. MAiN ST. b. FAR -hotel unit: 23,547 SF. (It was 26,199 SF.) "0002 c. Average hotel unit floor area is 501 SF. ASPEN COLORADO 81611 4. Reduction of free market units: a. Reduced free market units to 5. 90.925.5968 b. The total free market units floor area is 10, 733 SF., less than 25% FAR (allowed). 9FACS FACSIMILE 5. Percentage of Glazing (new building): In order to create a E -MAIL oKce@renosmith.com building with more open feeling. a. South Elevation: 62% b. North Elevation: 22 %D c. West Elevation: 57 %D Total Glazing: 44% 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE BASALT COLORADO 81621 Submitted by: Xiangdong (Don) Shi 970927.6834 FACSIMILE 970.9276840 a PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Remodel DATE: 8/14/0 City Council Revision Changes have been made: Building Height: a. We reduced the building height by 3'. The highest roof is 39' above the grade. It was 42. This represents 20% of roof area. b. 80% of entire roof area is at or below 37' c. The ridge height of Christiana buildings is more than 35' above the grade. 2. Setback: a. Moved balconies on the West side of building back. 5' setback for all sides of building. b. With the suggestion of Park and Recreation Department, only the under grade ramp is located inside 5' setback in order to save the existing trees. c. From Hopkins Ave. 12' -6" to the edge of deck; 18' -6" to the building. 3. Openings between buildings: a. There is very little opening between existing buildings as photos indicate. b. For the proposed new design, there are openings between existing East Wing and the new building in the center. c. Between new building in the center and the new west wing, The connection has a 38' -8" setback from west wing and a 13' -2" setback from the new building in the center. Percentage of Glazing (new building): In order to create a building with more open feeling. a. South Elevation: 63% b. North Elevation: 28% c. West Elevation: 51% Total Glazing: 47% Submitted by: Xiangdonc (Don) Shi 44 RENO SMITH III AUGUST RENO AIA SCOTT SMITH ALA 605 W. MAIN ST. N' 002 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970 925.5968 FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 E -MAIL office @renosmilhcom 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE BASALT COLORADO 81621 970 927.6834 FACSIMILE 970 927.6840 A W W to O 4 tL N E- z O z_ O w d 0 w d F- w C� (n z w O K d w F- H x w x z Q m 0 k (n O p O vi 0 0 w L O d O O N z VU O co� N ry ry [0 O x O S- x w0 m O F- H x w x z Q m 0 k (n O p O x r Qr$ O r N d [0 O x O S- x w0 m O IL Q z� o 4 m N 0 N m w m O �r m LL O in p d% � > j H w.3 ao w dd tu �� � 4- w Q w H w d x N O O w d F- 0 ►d N O� m F- H x w x z Q m 0 k w r d LL tt IL �o m m w �r O � H z � r m H w d w > d i- O z 0 0 z Y z Y d a Y v O j LL Vi cv C d p Q O w 0 w O O w O x w O = w W w 0 IL ILL d z 0 z > z m r �o m w �r O � � r H LL Vi cv m O O O m O w v d) m r 0 r m w �6 c = Q O m 9 Z3 v w `�° 4 0 Q p d) L w _ w > m� ul z > a w > o w � -1 > w °v d ° �� ° z p W T 0 zz O 0 z F- O m w 5 O w m m d m m r ►- O w m d w (+a�i - 4 w O Xw wz O m dJ m a m .9 - dJ 0 — n w (n 0 w a) w w O c0 — W <Y t c0 N m W m T m -t Lo ry ? ry ry F IL ei m v � w H 4 N w tu A lu -1 w w Q -1 W w > 0 > w w J uj > I" > J d Z' J w w w J a d J Q p x O p pz J H~ O p p � ar O z � � 0 p R� ►- � p R' N In 'm a lu ? N * O m w < IL N �r N z a J ro Z F N x w 6' r � N r 5 z y Q w a z J !{1 'L L(] Q z w tY Q � d m d � 0 z n F kl) LL x W z J m K W z d d m s n c0 O m hl r IO ri v r LU w K u z d K 0 F d z - F w i d f w j W E v N ul J d N d d x w U a z w w V d U1 lb z v K d d J� z /' I / zo r Il I N m ?II1 °o o 4. 4a m Y O •- 0 w J Z o � rA� � - in m 0. Q K - N �r N z a J ro Z F N x w 6' r � N r 5 z y Q w a z J !{1 'L L(] Q z w tY Q � d m d � 0 z n F kl) LL x W z J m K W z d d m s n c0 O m hl r IO ri v r LU w K u z d K 0 F d z - F w i d f w j W E v N ul J d N d d x w U a z w w V d U1 lb z v K d d C M v- 6 to N lu w _zi IT N N v m tt) N �I ~I z �I �I d I I +� I �I N ml I H z z 0 z m N F Z 1 0 x N Z in N x w as Ll- is IS) I d" N t{) l(1 O In N Q N 0 x Q J_ w K w z Z � Z Is Is Is Is N In N N N N m Iv N n N O S1 If N U" Ir IY ry AT N v IT -- z 0 ui F- V � tll V K 1- 3 F F IL Z 0 0 w ZO z Z � Z K o � T w J w L- K d � O J v w x N p u w L O O x A x z w p w J - u� c� `man 4- IS) O N K a N F w z 7 s N T z LL R d aJ s m z z O z z a Rl N z F N X w v- Ci N N N a ITIS r, m m ry o J N Jd O N ttl z N X W a r m ,n z O z > m � z � ~ v � � d x �t- a' to m 61 4 z Q OJ ry m z ,u w J I w v N .x R 1_ N z w � J I) QILI _J ILI i o0 z O w0 - dz d dd N N N S Q 7 .o o t- z m to m 4- � 0 , u ° d w m N O X d N m z z O � m m z w � z N s r O � N O a r m ,n z O z > m � z � ~ v � � d x �t- a' to m 61 4 z Q OJ ry m z ,u w J I w v N .x R 1_ N z w � J I) QILI _J ILI i o0 z O w0 - dz d dd N N N S Q 7 .o o t- 13 F- w y, IL N In m V d F O z v Y � � O Q 2 w J J 4- � 0 , u ° d w w O O X d z ui 13 F- w y, IL N In m V d F O 10 aa- N K d F N a-+ 4- to O K� Q W � W OU ■ i m In �Y N N z z 0 Z N �9 R; z q T I- J I✓ V Z t= tL C m X m � W W s aa 4� 4- r O N z_ Q J s ro z F IS) X W 4- �' N It I U1 0 m z Y Q Q � m � W y ,4 Z s aa w N U) O 4 4-- n v 4 x z w w 0 rl w � N 5 6` Q s � z v Q J V 1 !-1 L 1 Qm N s r u� �' �6 i�y �61 I 0 z m 0 t- Q w w w IL o v n v 4 x z w w 0 rl w It 0 O v v V 1 a- O ry m w to -: 6 ry m to 0) m m z O to H- V IY O 0 tii z z o_ zN_ U 1_ w Kto �d 13 Zp m0 O � fx � �K 1 H 3 I- w O u w z �O Z I- Q1X Q ILI 1_ z 0 z m 0 t- Q w w w IL o v n v 4 x z w w L a� 4' Y u w D LL 0 O 4' 4 - t11 U1 ry d a H N d) �t K� 00 w� K wQ 1-1 F z i 0 z Im Qr N N N N m rom m v -- m m m 0 m J-a J� 4- 4 is ICY tSl to F F d z d) T V J �D U) a ry ry � 0 x = w K � _ u is 4A 4- a;_ aL- O a N ry m C Z CD w z Qr N N N N m rom m v -- m m m 0 m N N N ro m m - v tz m n- r (4 d U q z� 00 J � Qj 0 J n vF 0 u, v, � qw lu v m d m F F d z lu = V J Kw a � � 0 x = w K � wZ u N N N ro m m - v tz m n- r (4 d U q z� 00 J � Qj 0 J n vF 0 u, v, � qw J w LL m ni J d 0 z u z � f- 4_1 0 F- 4- 14 J w m ILI d C f 0 ,u r o � o n ry a x z LL Q z - Q J m Q - w -- u U1 J w LL m ni J d 0 Fi, A,, <:�!� , 5§04 49 + "90pe MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council [[AA FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Directol" THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Nw, RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment— 500 West Hopkins Avenue 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Condominiumizaton and Vested Rights. DATE: August 14, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY:. The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existin Boomerang consists of. • 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. • 3lparking spaces, all but one of which are partially The proposed Boomerang Lodge includes: • 53 hotel units and a total Floor Area of appro ' ■ 6 free -market residential units. f 2 affordable housing units. ; • 48 parking spaces — 31 underground and 17 surface (partially in r -o -w). APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project with conditions. P &Z RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommended that the City Council approve of the lodge redevelopment proposal by a vote of four to two (4 -2). The two dissenting votes supported the redevelopment concept in terms of bringing new lodge rooms and keeping the "old" Boomerang Lodge component in the site plan. Their issue had to do with the height along Hopkins Ave. and neighborhood compatibility. Since the time of the P &Z hearing the applicants have reduced the height by at least 3 feet and have removed some of the areas that had been 4 floors in height to 3 floors. ** *PLEASE NOTE THAT NEW INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL COMMENTS /QUESTIONS IS INCLUDED UNDER "STAFF COMMENTS" AND SEVERAL NEW EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED, INCLUDING A SUMMARY OF CHANGES (EXHIBIT F) FROM THE APPLICANT SINCE THE 7/10 HEARNG. * ** BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 P73 P74 © 4 SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP, is proposing to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R -6 LP — Medium - Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half -block — 27,000 square feet — and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R -6 Zone District is a single - family and duplex zone district. (The "west -end" is zoned R -6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development now consists of 53 hotel units (53 keys total), 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 12 surface parking spaces to remain partially within the street rights -of -way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 49,170 square feet. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS: Dimension Requirement Development Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10 -70 ft. (varies) 5' 2" Yard Setback (Hopkins) Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west 5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1 -5 ft. on east 5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0 -2 ft. 5 ft. on north Yard Setback (second floor balcony overhang 4' 5 ") Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley 39 ft. for a flat roof, ( set in PUD for 20 -25 ft on east roof heights vary ing to PUD according plan Parking Set in PUD 31 surface (all but 1 31 underground and partially in r.o.w) 12 @ surface (partially in r.o.w.) Floor Area Ratio /Size: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. 1.82:1 = 49,170 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. .97:1 = 26,199 s.f. Ave. Lodge Size Set in PUD -500 sq. ft.desirable 340 s.f. 494 s.f. Free - Market Residential 25% of total project Floor Area N/A .45:1 = 12,289 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential No FAR limit N/A 05:1 = 1,384s.f. P75 NECESSARY LAND USE APPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM - INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 18 requested in this application) and associated new free - market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. APPROVED by P &Z 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. APPROVED by P &Z 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 4. REZONING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 5. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 6. CONDomNnjmiZA7nm Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 rte. permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council 7. VESTED Rm m Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3 -year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3 -year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: THIS SECTION HIGHLIGHTS THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE HEARING ON JULY 10TH THAT REQUIRED FOLLOW -UP BYEITHER STAFF OR THEAPPLICANT Height. The neighborhood is a mix of single - family, duplex, multi - family, lodging, and mixed -use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L'Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most - recent approvals have been in the low 30 -foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type of lodge development desired by the City — small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. The Council should discuss this balance and how it should be struck for this site. While the application was in proceedings with the P &Z and at their urging, the applicants amended the plan by removing 2 lodge units and reducing the height of the building in the northwest corner from 42 feet to 39 feet. Now, no portion of the building exceeds 39 feet and even then, only 20% of the building is at this height at three "bump -ups" of the elevations. These highest areas are located on the Hopkins Street side of the development where numerou trees help to diminish the pact of the height on the neigh orhood. 5i C, vl s i� ��. ham' -� �i -�%�. t~ � Use as Condominiumized Lodge Units. The development is proposed as ownership condominiums that function as lodge (hotel) units. As such, they will be subject to the N city's occupancy provisions that do not allow any person or entity with an ownership interest in the hotel, or unit thereof, to exceed occupancy for 30 consecutive days or exceed 90 days within any calendar year. The city created this definition so that when lodges are built and sold as condominiums (can't regulate ownership) there is a definition of how the lodge can used in order to get the city closer to its goal of lodge room availability and moving away from condos that are not used much of the year by owners. The proposal's "operational plan" indicates that the units will be available for rental when not occupied by the owner or guests thereof. Please see Exhibit D which is a letter from E. Michael Hoffman, P.C. providing some background information and insight as to how the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) applies to this application. Staff P77 feels that Mr. Hoffman's discussion accurately reflects how the code is intended to be used in the case of whole ownership condominiums for lodge use. Number of Units. The development includes 53 units (ave. size 494 sq. ft.) with a maximum of 53 keys. Some of these units are designed to be combined by a connecting door to allow for a larger space, say for a larger family. Specifically, 32 of the units can be combined to create 16 larger units for an average size of around 998 sq, ft. Typically the city has evaluated impacts and parking generation based on the number of keys so that the "worst case scenario" for these types of impacts can be evaluation and/or planned for with proper amenities. Setbacks. All of the proposed new development on the site meets with setback requirements. There are two minor spots on the site that vary only slightly from the minimum setback and these are associated. with keeping the base floor of the `old" east wing in tact. One is at the northeast comer of the foundation at the east wing where the existing subgrade foundation encroaches by 16 inches into the setback and the other area is on the second floor above the east wing which encroaches by 7 inches so that the external circulation corridor can wrap around the building in keeping with the existing building.. Lodge Unit Density. In an effort to reduce height and massing (points of concern during the P&Z and council hearings), the applicant has now reduced the number of units to 53 lodge units, instead of the originally proposed 54 lodge units. This puts the average lodge unit size around 494 square feet instead of the 500 square feet and the density at I per 520 square feet of lot size pursuant to the Lodge Incentive program. Provisions of the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district allow for an adjustment to the "density standard" and "average unit -size standard" after consideration is given to the following: • The average unit -size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) • The project includes a generous amount of non -unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meeting/breakfast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room ". The project includes a lounge/ library, multi purpose room and concierge area and services.) • The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in size from 370 to 900 square feet, and include multi -room suites for families.) • There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. ("The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk -in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupied for more than 30 consecutive days.) BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 0 0 Staff is satisfied that the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge meets both the specific standards and the overall intent of the Lodge Preservation and Incentive goals. "Historic" East iVing. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission do believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east "wing" of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after redevelopment is accomplished. The entire property would not be landmarked. (Please see Exhibit #1 of the application.) The Applicants voluntarily gave the HPC the opportunity to review the proposed changes to the east wing. (HPC did not review the entire proposal.) Since the last council meeting, a letter from Jeffrey Halferty was submitted outlining the HPC chairperson's summary of the Boomerang/HPC work session. The letter is attached as Exhibit E. The c applicants have proposed a third floor to the east wing and have agreed to address the concerns of the HPC regarding differentiation between the 3rd floor and the below "old" floors through architectural material and style techniques. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly supports the basic concepts of the application. The proposal j implements both replacement and an increase in the bed base in an area that has historically included lodging within the mix of land uses. This is important to the long -term viability of the resort aspect of the community. Also, the interspersed lodging experience inside the community is unique and an important part of Aspen's lodging offerings. The design substantially mitigates the project's parking impacts on the neighborhood and improves pedestrian infrastructure of the area. Staff believes the most recent reduction in the height (from four floors to three floors in some portions) helped the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. When viewing the structure from the public ways in the vicinity, staff feels that the project is compatible with the getting, given the way the building is obscured by other buildings and trees. We do not find that major views toward Shadow Mountain are blocked in that the public way views are primarily established through the existing development there today. We also find that the massing of the building offers enough variety, through inflection, change of facade planes/balconies and glazing (use of windows) to mitigate the actual size of the structure. The building today is of similar massing in terms of the length dimension across the lot. Staff has included a condition requiring, as offered by the applicants, that the owner voluntarily designate the east wing as a historic landmark that would then fall under the purview of the HPC for review to ensure appropriate architectural changes. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve upon second reading, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, approving with conditions the Subdivision, PUD, Vested Rights, Condominiumization and Rezoning reviews for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment " ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Staff Findings on Review Standards Application Letters received by staff since July 10- Nicholas Samios, dated 7/7/06 Letter from E. Michael Hoffman, P.C. dated 8/2/06 Letter from Jeffrey Halferty, dated 7/30/06 Summary of Changes from Reno *Smith, dated 7/31/06 V' 40111;ow Y b W r � 1 l� k p BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 P79 p80, 0 # ,� Ullt y\1\\ Ordinance No. 26 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located it 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights -of -way. The proposed development includes 53 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31 -space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 49,170 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, City Council Ordinance WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4 -2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY k OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Growth Management Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six ee- market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, anp eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed h tnaft . Section 2• Approval for Subdivision Rezoning for PUD Overlay, and PUD Final Development Plan Pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 — Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively — the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Project Dimensions The following annroved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 2 - d NU Dimension Minimum Lot Size 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 270 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. on west 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Maximum Height 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. "This needs to be more specific Pedestrian Amenity Space 19% City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 2 - d NU a I Floor Total 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. Non -unit space .35:1 = 9,536 s.f. Commercial N/A Free - Market Residential .475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: Trash/Recvclfng Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick -up. Section 5: Affordable Housing The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed - restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as maybe amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1 /10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed - restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6• Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan In order.to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners /guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners /gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall City Council Ordinance I . i 9M join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City , Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights -of -way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.B, the Final PUD Plan s shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5a' Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right -of -way improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 4 - 3 8, A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by °a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights -of -way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights -of -way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure -the estimated costs of proposed right -of -way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right -of -way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights -of -way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $44, 354 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees — Fees for Proposed Development: 5 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit 2 one - bedroom residential units @$2,120 per unit 3 two- bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit 3 three - bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit Park Fees — Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units. 29- studio units @ $1,520 per unit 3 two - bedroom units @ $2725 per unit 2 three- bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit = $80,560 _ $4,240 _ $8,175 _ $10,902 Total = $103,877 Total Credit Total Park Impact Fee Due = $44,080 = $8,175 = $7,268 _ ($59,523) _ $44,354 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one -third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11• Sanitation District Standards/Reauirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. City Council Ordinance Nn 26 Series of 2006 - 6 - M 0 1 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre - Construction Meeting Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer /Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official/Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD /SIA. agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in, getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13• Construction Management Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day -to -day issues can be resolved without involving the City. F;M 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing; watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14• Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final P &Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right -of -way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right -of -way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace/woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. City Council Ordinance A,- 11 ce-:e _f IMA - 8 - FIR 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right -of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire gprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of (,Q V, ), the City Community Development Engineer. W� Section 17: Historic Landmark Designation of the "East Wing' Prior to filing of the final plat the owner shall initiate the designation of the "East Wing" of the Boomerang Lodge for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The area to be designated shall be finalized in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission but shall include that area of the structural east wing along the alley, Fourth p Street and Hopkins Avenue, also including the outdoor pool and spa area. o ��'tVVtiU"' Q, Section 18: �t a- Gq 7 ✓"V" \ .lwy All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the 6 development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or (ate documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby P89 incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 19: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 10' day of August, 2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk City Council Ordinance — -1 . - if) Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ••e �xh►b��- A SUBDIVISION: STAFF FINDINGS The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. 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 (AACP). STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with the AACP. The subdivision action is necessary to permit multiple residences on one parcel. There is no alteration of the existing lot lines of the property. Also see staff comments on page 3 of this exhibit. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area which operate in a similar manner — lodging, residential, and commercial in various mixed -use configurations, c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas.. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Because the subdivision proposed here is all internal to the structure, staff does not find that the subdivision will adversely impact future development of the surrounding area All surrounding properties have adequate access. d The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT UOMPLY: I I ns Assuming the project is granted the other related approvals, the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the zone district and other chapters and sections of the Land Use Code. 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 snow slide, 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' DOES IT COMPLY YES Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dangers. No known hazards of the property have been reported. 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. STAFF FINDING DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities or unnecessary public costs. 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. STAFF FINDING DOES IT COMPLY YES No variations to the subdivision standards are proposed. 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 FINDI NG DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards are requested. 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' DOES IT COMPLY YES 2 P91 P92 C•1 I The standards of Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — are applicable and have been addressed in the application. Staff finds the affordable housing requirement to be met with the proposed two affordable housing units. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. 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. STAFF FiNDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Compliance with ' the School Land Dedication Standards is required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The applicant will pay cash in lieu of a land dedication which will be required at time of building permit. P93 STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Final PUD Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Final PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. L The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with many objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see staffs response to this standard on page 3 of this section. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findine The immediate vicinity is comprised of lodging, civic, commercial, mixed use, single - family, and multi- family residential buildings. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Findine Staff does not believe that the proposed development would adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The Applicant has applied for the requisite allotments and there is sufficient allotment available to accommodate the project. 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. P94 O 0 I. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate given the character of the neighborhood and the fact that lodging has operated on this property for the last 50 years. The proposed height has been of some concern to staff however, following an additional site inspection and evaluation based on the neighborhood, existing views, existing buildings, and trees that obscure the building from full view from any vantage point, Staff finds the height to be acceptable. 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 Findine Staff believes that the a majority of the proposed dimensional requirements for the new lodge are compatible with the surrounding properties. 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 Findine The Applicant has proposed an underground parking garage to handle the parking needs of the project as well as to officially permit the parking spaces along Fourth Street. Staff prefers that the parking along Hopkins Avenue be removed and the sidewalk continued along this street. P95 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The infrastructure capabilities are sufficient to accommodate this proposal. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because ofground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. 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 Findin¢ No natural hazards or other conditions exist that would dictate such a reduction in allowable density. 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. .., 0 0 Staff Findin¢ Staff believes the proposed density is appropriate for the site and for the character of the immediate vicinity. There are not "density" requirements of the zone district, but the number of units are established through adoption of a PUD. B. 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. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved through the redevelopment. This area provides some relief to the massing and a benefit to the project. Staff considers the criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Findine other than the pool area, there is no significant open space in the proposal. However, this is an infill development site and using the site for lodging development is appropriate. 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. Staff Findine The east wing is proposed to be preserved. This element has an important relationship to Fourth Street a the primary entrance. The sidewalk along Hopkins and Fifth Street needs improvement. These sidewalks should, ideally, be redeveloped adjacent to the property line. Some conflicts with existing vegetation may arise by doing this. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding Proper emergency access will be maintained with this proposal. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided Staff Finding This criterion has been met. Compliance with accessibility regulations will be required and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. The Building Department has requested the project Architect meet with the department as soon as possible in the design development process. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The City Engineer and the applicant have reviewed drainage requirements and believe this criterion is satisfied. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Findin¢ The pool area falls within this category and staff believes this area provides benefit to the lodge and its guests as well as the aesthetics of the project. C. 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: I. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. P97 Staff Finding The proposed landscape improvements will significantly improve this site. The existing surface parking along Hopkins Avenue detracts from the streetscape and provides no pedestrian accommodation. Staff is recommending this be removed. The same could be said about the parking along Fourth Street, but staff believes this parking does serve the needs of the lodge. The sidewalk along Hopkins is in poor condition and should be replaced by the owner. It may be possible to redevelop this sidewalk adjacent to the property line. A traditional street tree pattern would improve the pedestrian experience. Similarly, the sidewalk along Fifth Street could be moved to be adjacent to the property line with a traditional street tree program. The proposed landscape treatment along Fifth Street may be over planted. 8 [Wi 0 Z 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 Findine The pool area is being preserved and staff believes this is important to the site. The applicant has agreed to work with the Parks Department on preserving vegetation in the construction phase. D. 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. I. 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. Staff Findine The architectural character of this proposal is appropriate for the proposed use and for the immediate vicinity. The proposal is similar to the east wing and minimizes the effects of height to the extent practical. 1. 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. Staff Finding The proposal does not include any special systems. The site has limited solar access during winter months due to the proximity of the property to Shadow Mountain. The vegetation along the south property line will provide shape in summer months. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. I Staff Findine The flat roofs essentially mitigate this concern. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished. 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding The applicant has indicated full compliance with the City's lighting code will be achieved. F. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: L The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the propenty'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. Staff Finding The pools area could be considered such a common amenity. Because the project does not include separate lots with individual structures and because the pool amenity is primarily for the lodging guests, staff does not believe that a common undivided interest in the pool is necessary. 10 P100 0 0 G. 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 There exists adequate infrastructure to accommodate this proposal. The applicant will be required to provide service upgrades as necessary. No City or other utility agencies have requested oversizing. H. 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. Staff Findin¢ Proper access is maintained to the parcel and the and structure with this proposal. 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 Findini: Staff does not foresee this proposal creating undue congestion on the existing road network. The underground parking is access from the alley, which is the most preferred method. No upgrades to the road system are necessary although some curb /gutter improvements may be required by the City Engineer. This can be handled as part of the platting and/or building permit review. I. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in- lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding No phasing has been proposed. 12 P101 P102 0 0 STAFF COMMENTS: REZONING Note: Required for PUD Overlay. No change to underlying R -6 Zone is proposed. Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD Overlay is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. The Lodge Preservation Overlay requires that lodging redevelopment proceed through a PUD and the additional of a PUD overlay enables the dimensions of the project to sustain a greater scrutiny. Staff believes the PUD Overlay is appropriate and desired and is recommending approval. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. . Staff Finding: Please refer to comments related to the AACP on page 3. In summary, staff believes this application is in compliance with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: No change to the underlying zoning is being proposed, only a PUD overlay. The Overlay provides for a greater discussion and involvement of neighboring property owners as to the compatibility of the proposed development. Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The PUD criteria include traffic and road safety as review standards. The addition of a PUD overlay itself does not have any impact on road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The utility and infrastructure needs for the project have been addressed in the PUD application. Because of the location of the development and existing capacities, no significant up- grades are required to accommodate this development. To the extent that upgrades to the existing systems are necessary, these will be paid for by the applicant and not by the general public. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed zoning overlay and the proposed development do not represent adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Sufficient criteria to evaluate potential impacts on the natural environment are included as PUD criteria and the overlay actually ensures the community a greater degree of scrutiny. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The overlay requires a greater degree of review than would otherwise be required and compatibility issues regarding proposed heights, FAR, setbacks, etc. use can be more thoroughly evaluated with the PUD overlay. P103 H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: A change in conditions is not a prerequisite to rezoning. This criterion only requires that any changed conditions be considered upon requests for rezoning. There is no particular change other than that the existing development is in significant need of refurbishment. The LP overlay requires that the dimensions be established through the PUD process. The addition of a PUD overlay would enable the appropriate dimensions to be determined for the redevelopment. Staff believes this criterion has been met and supports the zoning of the property to include a PUD Overlay. 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the additional review and involvement of the community required by the PUD Overlay is in conflict with the public interest. The overlay enables the project to withstand greater public scrutiny and a more - involved community decision process.. 14 I- 5403 P104 Mr. C ttr,5 $aw.Dp-n C.o M M u P 14&1 "Pgy6to PMEP T I3o U S• Gale la 51-exe+ o [(015fo Exlvl*. C - 1 2Q , k*oX- tc-,� LoC95 IN ✓, Leo wee o4- &-LY w, ivto s Y* o, c t,, I S -eeaw S a oA �,eo�- �-�'�) ✓'}l � I Z t7 � �7 earit -rat a�vl C �{ r D+�C'f" 11172 anal Da Wt .. j -h ' Sp l t cc I B"P �° Sc cal 'TO tv a A, _ cb w .�.�2 ao '-i1�e .uec �i- (tee eve, aAy- -ike a4t, c-t Q.0 Alt E►� iv l�'�' P'f 0 5 LAW OFFICE OF E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.c. FACSEYME (970) 920 -1019 106 SOUTH MILL STREET Sum 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 E -MAM Mhoffrnan @emhlaw- aspen. corn August 2, 2006 John Worcester, Esq. City Attorney, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Second Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Condominium Ownership of Boomerang Lodge Dear John: TELEPHONE (970) 544 -3442 At the City Council meeting of July 10, 2006, several members of Council raised questions regarding the legal and regulatory context of the lodge and free - market units proposed to be condominiumized in the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge ( "the Project'). This letter seeks to answer those questions on behalf of the owner of the project, Aspen FSP =ABR, LLC (the "Developer "). 1. The City May Not impose Special Restrictions on the Proiect_In Resvonse to the Proposed Condominiumization of the Lodge and Free Market Units. The Developer plans to condomimumize each of the 53 lodge units as well as the six free market units and to include them in a single condominium association. Under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act ( "CCIOA'� the conversion of property to condominium ownership is required to be "transparent" in the planning and zoning process. "In condominiums and cooperatives, no zoning, subdivision, or other real estate use law, ordinance, or regulation may prohibit the condominium or cooperative form of ownership or impose any requirement upon a condominium or cooperative which it would not impose upon a physically identical development under a different form or ownership. "' Although no Colorado case law exists which interprets the meaning of this section, some guidance can be had by examining the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, from which CCIOA was adapted. The purpose of this section is to resolve the relative roles of the state and local communities in regulating the creation of common interest communities. The 1 C.R.S. § 38- 33.3 - 106(2). 0 3 P106 3 John Worcester, Esq. August 2, 2006 Page 2 underlying concept is to make clear that the municipality has a legitimate interest in regulating the use of real estate, in accordance with long established zoning, building code, and similar practices, and that such practices continue to have equal applicability to common interest communities as they do to purely rental projects. With respect to fortes of ownership, however, this Act, as a state enactment, preempts the field and accordingly, except as provided in the Act, the municipality may not regulate the form of ownership as opposed to the use of that real estate .2 While the City is clearly empowered to regulate use of the Boomerang real property under its Land Use Code ( "the Code "), it cannot impose other restrictions on the Project in response to the proposed condominiumization of units. For the reasons set forth below, we believe this limitation on local governmental authority represents a sensible approach toward condominium ownership. We also believe there is nothing about condominiumization which diminishes the Project's positive impacts on the City as measured by the goals stated in the Aspen` Area Community Plan (the "AACP ") and the City's Lodge Incentive Program. 2. The Lodge 'Incentive Program Does Not Distinguish Between Condominiumized and Non- Condominiumized Units: The community's need to restore the many lodge rooms lost over the past ten years is clearly identified in the AACP as an important policy goal and was the impetus for the City's adoption of hicentive Lodge Program in Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2005. The Incentive Lodge Program was incorporated in the current Land Use Code, Sections 26.710.190 and 26- 710.310, which describe, respectively, the use and dimensional parameters allowed in the Lodge and Lodge Preservation Overlay zone districts, and in Section 26- 470.040.C.3, which provides an exemption from the Growth Management System for the expansion of an existing lodge or development of a new lodge. To evaluate the relationship between condominiumized units and the Incentive Lodge Program, it is necessary to first understand the definition of a "Lodge" under Section 26- 104.100 of the Code. A Lodge is the same as a "Hotel," which is defined as "[a] building or parcel containing individual units used for overnight lodging by the general public on a A"hort-term basis for a fee, with or without kitchens within individual units with or without meals provided, and which has common reservation and cleaning services, combined utilities, and on -site management and reception services." The Boomerang Lodge, as currently operated and as it will be operated in the future, provides all of the services required under this definition, and is and will be a traditional hotel. Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act § 1 -106, Comment 1(1994)(emphasis supplied). P107 v John Worcester, Fsq. August 2, 2006 Page 3 The regulatory definition of a "hotel' specifically anticipates that some hotel "units" will be condominiumized and owned by private individuals: [O]ccupancy periods of a Hotel, or unit thereof, by any one person or entity with an ownership interest in the Hotel, or unit thereof, shall not exceed 30 consecutive days or exceed 90 days within any calendar year, regardless of the form of ownership. Occupancy periods for persons or entities with no ownership interest (e.g. vacationers) shall be limited only by the 90 -days per calendar year requirement. The Code was drafted to authorize the creation of condominiumized hotel rooms. As discussed below, nothing in the Incentive Lodge Program modifies this basic approach of the Code. On June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted growth management allotmenfs for the six new free - market residences, two new affordable 'housing units and 18 new lodge rooms requested in the Project, pursuant to the Incentive Lodge Development provisions of the Code.' To qualify for growth management approval under the Incentive Lodge Development program,' the project must contain "a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit,s5 unless this parameter is varied according to the exception provided in the applicable zone district provisions of the Code. Free - market units are permitted up to the limitations established in the applicable zone district provisions, provided the affordable housing required by Code is included in thb application. If the density standard and the unit -size standard are met, a project is automatically entitled to the following benefits of the Incentive Lodge Program: a maximum height of 38 feet for sloped roofs or 42 feet for flat roofs ,6 a total maximum floor area ratio of 3:1 for parcels of 27,000 feet or less, and 2.5:1 for parcels greater than 27,000 square feet' and the right to build free - market ' Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re. solution No. _,- Series of 2006. " Code, Section 26- 470.040.C.3. 5 Code, Section 26-470.040.C.3 c. These two requirements are defined as the "density standard" and the "unit -size standard." 6 Code, Section 26- 710.190.D.7.c. 7 Code, Section 26- 710.190D.10.A. John Worcester, Esq. August 2, 2006 Page 4 0 0 residential units of up to 25% of the total FAR for the project including both unit and non -unit space.' In other words, the "economic engine" rationale behind the Incentive Lodge program is "built in" to the Code. There are no provisions which distinguish between condominiumized and non - condominiumized lodge and free - market units. Nor should there be. As discussed in Section 1, above, this approach is consistent with Colorado law and, more importantly, promotes the City's goal to encourage the construction of additional lodge rooms in Aspen. 3. Economic Factors Re&re the Condominiumization Of and Subsequent Sale of These Lodge Units. Although the Developer acknowledges that the economic factors which impact this Project are not directly within the scope of City Council's consideration of its land use application, those factors are relevant to the broader policy question of whether the Lodge Incentive program is necessary and/or beneficial to the City. Unlike other projects which have sought to utilize the benefits of the Lodge Incentive program, this Developer has not asked to expand the free - market component beyond 25% of the Project's total FAR nor has it sought any other variances.. Sale of the free - market units in this Project will not supply enough cash to pay down the construction loan to a level which can be supported by the revenue provided by a traditional hotel. Council has voiced concern that the nightly rental rate of the redeveloped Boomerang Lodge may no longer be in the "moderate" category. The_ reality is that the location of the Project will largely dictate the nightly rental rate which can be charged. New and existing lodge projects in the Commercial Core will demand a much higher "rack rate" than this Project. The design of the Project acknowledges this reality. In combination with an average occupancy rate of around 60% for Aspen hotels, this Project simply cannot afford the high land and construction costs it faces without the condominiumization and sale of both the free - market and lodge units. 4. The Project's Condominium Declaration will Promote High Occupancy and Hotel Use. The Developer understands the City's need to insure that the redeveloped Boomerang Lodge is utilized for the purposes identified in the AACP and the Incentive Lodge program. The Developer plans to promote high levels of occupancy and hotel use of both the lodge and free - market units by establishing policies and procedures which advance this goal. Unfortunately the Developer is prohibited from directly requiring the rental of units in the Project under the securities laws of the United States.' However, there is no law which prohibits a developer from ' Code, Section 26- 710.190D.10.A.6. ' Federal law defines an "investment contract" subject to federal securities regulation as "a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests money in a common enterprise and P109 John Worcester, Esq. August 2, 2006 Page 5 encouraging owners to rent their units. For example, the Developer will enforce, as the policy of the Association, a requirement that all unit owners pay, in addition to the normal association fees, their share of the front desk, reservation, maintenance, housekeeping, and all other rental operation costs. The purpose of this provision, as well as other requirements which will be developed prior to completion of the Project, is to encourage owners to consistently make their units available for short-term rental. if you need any other information concerning the issues raised by members of Council in connection with the Boomerang Lodge application, please let me know. Sincerely, E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.C. E. Michael Hoffman is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party." George K. Chamberlin, Annotation, What interests in real estate are "securities" within the meaning of § 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934? 52 A.L.R. Fed 146 (2006), summarizing Securities & Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co. 328 US 293, 90 L.Ed. 1244, 66 S.Ct. 1100 (1946). Investment contracts, as securities, are subject to the registration requirements of 'federal securities law. The cost of registration is prohibitive. Pilo e e y h a I 215 S Monarch St suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 8161 1 (970) 920.4535 (970) 925 -6035 Fax Chris Benden, AICP Director, Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Erclni 6 1 + e r t y d e s i g n July 30, 2006 Re: Comments on Historic Preservation Commission Review of Proposed Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Project This correspondence is from my recollection of HPC's response to the proposed redevelopment plan for the Boomerang Lodge which is now being considered by City Council. My impression upon seeing the Council meeting of July 10, 2006 on Grassroots Television, was that the staff report of the HPC 's consideration of the proposal was not fully consistent with my own recollection of our meeting with the developer which occurred on February 22 of this year. My recollection of the developer's presentation to the HPC and the response of the Commission is as follows: The developer was not required to make a presentation to the HPC. The Boomerang lodge has never been listed on the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, although it was proposed for inclusion during the 1999 -2000 reconsideration process. The developer's appearance before the HPC was voluntarily initiated by the developer. - The developer proposed to preserve the east wing of the Boomerang Lodge because that element of the building is the best example of Charlie Paterson's vision for the project The other wings appear to not be as strongly influenced by Mr. Paterson's experiences at Taliesin. - It was my impression that a majority of the HPC would have supported an addition to the east wing of the Lodge if the addition was detailed properly and, potentially, set back from E the existing face of the building. Preservation of the surrounding landscaping was also important to members of the Commission • The creation of a sub -grade parldng garage was seen as beneficial to the project because it would keep cars off the street where they could detract from the historic context of the Boomerang• should be on the west and north • Most of the massing of new development on the property sides, even if variances could be negotiated This orientation of additional development on the site will allow the east wing to be seen in its historic context as viewed from Fourth Street the architect should reference Mr. Paterson 5 detailing • in designing the ruction, but addition, h it from the original building by using more modem in the new construction, but distinguis building methods and materials. The BPC was interested in having the planning staff explore alternatives for the project • which would allow the developer to create more massing on the north and west sides of of property while preserving the east wing. These alternatives included the possibility increasing the height limits along the alley and Fifth Street and/or modifying the average lodge room size and lodge room density requirements of the City's lodge incentive program. Please feel free to call me if you need any additional mfomanon. Yours Truly, Jeffr Pill P1 12 Eychi b +'� RECEIVED AUG 0 1 2006 PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Remodel ASPEN DATE: 7/31/06 BUILDING DEPARTMENT City Council,Revision Changes have been made: a ° 1. Building Height: a. Reduced the building height by 3'. The highest roof is 39' RENO . SMITH above the grade. It was 42. This represents 20% of roof A Y C H I T E C T S, L.L.C. area. 10 b. 80% of entire roof area is at or below 37' c. The ridge height of Christiana buildings is more than 33' above the grade. Change of Setback: AucuAIA o a. Move balconies on the west side of building back. 5' SCOTT S setback for all sides of building. ALA SMITH b. With the suggestion of Park and Recreation Department, only the under grade ramp is located inside 5' setback in order to save the existing trees. c. From Hopkins Ave. 12' -6" to the edge of deck; 18' -6" to the building. 605 N �N ST. 3. Openings between buildings: Co OREANDO a. There is not much openings between existing buildings B1611 as photos indicated. C0a 621 b. For the proposed new design, there are openings 970.925.5968 between existing East Wing and the new building in the FACSIMILE center. FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 c. Between new building in the center and the new west wing, The connection has a 38' -8" setback from west ems' wing and a 13' -2" setback from the new building in the center. 4. Percentage of Glazing (new building): In order to create a building with more open feeling. a. South Elevation: 63% 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRNE b. North Elevation: 28% BASALT c. West Elevation: 51% C0a 621 970.927.6834 FACSIMILE 970 927.6840 Submitted by: Xiangdong (Don) Shi , MEMORANDUM co TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment — 500 West Hopkins Avenue 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Condominiumizaton and Vested Rights DATE: July 10, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existin Boomerang consists of: • 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. • 3l parking spaces, all but one of which are partially within the city right -of -way The proposed Boomerang Lodge includes: ■ 52 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 51,000 square feet. 6 free - market residential units. • 2 affordable housing units. • 48 narkine spaces — 31 underground and 17 surface. APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project, but has concern about two significant items. Staff recommends discussion of these issues and either resolution of these or continuation. P &Z RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommended that the City Council approve of the lodge redevelopment proposal by a vote of four to two (4 -2). The two dissenting votes supported the redevelopment concept in terms of bringing new lodge rooms and keeping the "old" Boomerang Lodge component in the site plan. Their dominant reason for dissenting had to do with the height along Hopkins Ave. and neighborhood compatibility. SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP, is proposing to redevelopment the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R -6 LP — Medium- Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half - block — 27,000 square feet — and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R -6 Zone District is a single - family and duplex zone district. (The "west -end" is zoned R -6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development consists of 52 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 17 surface parking spaces to remain partially within the street rights -of -way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 51,000 square feet. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Pedestrian Amenity Space Floor Area Ratio: Total Lodging Non -unit space ** Commercial Free - Market Residential Affordable Residential reading. 6,000 s.f 60 ft 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 25 ft. pitched roofs (set in PUD for Lodging) 0% (lot not within PA required area) Set in PUD Set in PUD Set in PUD Set in PUD 25% of total project Floor Area No FAR limit 27,000 s.f 270 ft. 10 -70 ft.* 6 ft. on west* 1 -5 ft. on east* 0 -2 ft.* 30 ft. on alley.* 20 -25 ft on east* 40 -50 %* .85 = 23,000 s.f.* .85 = 23,000 s.f.* Included in lodge space N/A N/A N/A 27,000 s.f. 270 ft. 0 -5 ft. 0 -5 ft. on west 1 -5 ft. on east 0 -5 ft. 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. 19% 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. .351 = 9,536 N/A .48:1 = 12,822 = 25% of total project .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Tn he finalized fnr BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 NECESSARY LAND USE APPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM — INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 18 requested in this application) and associated new free - market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 4. REzoNING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 5. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 6. CONDOMINIUMIZATION; Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council 7. VESTED RIGHTS: Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3 -year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3 -year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Height. The neighborhood is a mix of single - family, duplex, multi - family, lodging, and mixed -use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L'Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most - recent approvals have been in the low 30 -foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). The proposed four floors and 42 -foot height is potentially out of character with the neighborhood. Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type of lodge development desired by the City — small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. The Council should discuss this balance and how it should be struck for this site. While the application was in proceedings with the P &Z and at their urging, the applicants amended the plan by removing 2 lodge units and reducing the height of the building in the northwest comer from 42 feet to 39 feet. The applicant does have a neighborhood model and the heights of this project in relation to surrounding development is best understood with this model. Lodge Unit Density. In an effort to reduce height and massing (points of concern during the P &Z hearings), the applicant reduced the number of units to 52 lodge units, instead of the originally proposed 54 lodge units. This puts the average lodge unit size around 506 square feet instead of the 500 square feet and the density at 1 per 520 square feet of lot size pursuant to the Lodge Incentive program. Provisions of the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district allow for an adjustment to the "density standard" and "average unit- size standard" after consideration is given to the following: • The average unit -size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) • The project includes a generous amount of non -unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meeting/breakfast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room". The project includes a lounge/ library, multi purpose room and concierge area and services.) • The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in size from 370 to 900 square feet, and include multi -room suites for families) • There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. (The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk -in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupied for more than 30 consecutive days) BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 Staff is satisfied that the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge meets both the specific standards and the overall intent of the Lodge Preservation and Incentive goals. "Historic" East Wing. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission does believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east "wing" of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after redevelopment is accomplished. The entire property would not be landmarked. (Please see Exhibit #1 of the application.) The HPC was allowed an opportunity to review the proposed changes to the east wing. (HPC did not review the entire proposal.) Generally, the HPC does not prefer the addition of a third floor on the east wing and would like to see this portion of the project remain more true to its original (current) form and receive only minor alterations. If the east wing did incorporate an addition, the HPC suggested it be recessed and of a clearly different architectural character (not mimicking the original wing) so that old and new components could be easily identified. The HPC encouraged the applicant, staff and the P &Z to provide flexibility on the remainder of the development such that this east wing could remain unaltered. The applicants have agreed to addressing the concerns of the HPC relating to a different type of material for the 3"' floor. Staff does want to preserve the quality of this portion of the development to the extent possible. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the general height concerns staff raised above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly supports the basic concept of the application. The proposal implements both replacement and an increase in the bed base in an area that has historically included lodging within the mix of land uses. This is important to the long -term viability of the resort aspect of the community. Also, the interspersed lodging experience inside the community is unique and an important part of Aspen's lodging offerings. The design substantially mitigates the project's parking impacts on the neighborhood and, with some very minor changes, will substantially improve pedestrian infrastructure of the area. Staff believes the two issues identified above need discussion. Staff believes the reduction in the height (from four floors to three floors in some portions) helped the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. The east wing deserves discussion in relation to HPC's desire for this portion of the building to retain it's current character and massing, although the applicants have agreed to make the architectural materials different from those of the lower floors, pursuant to HPC recommendations. BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 RECOMMENDED MOTION: " I move to approve upon second reading, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, approving with conditions the Subdivision, PUD, Vested Rights, Condominiumization and Rezoning reviews for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings on Review Standards Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Letters received by staff Exhibit D: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, 2006 & Minutes BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Ordinance No. 26 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston, VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free- market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights -of -way. The proposed development includes 52 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31 -space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 51,000 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4 -2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Growth Management Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free - market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2• Approval for Subdivision Rezoning for PUD Overlay, and PUD Final Development Plan Pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 — Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively — the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Project Dimensions The followin a roved dimensions of the i1roject shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 2 - Dimension Minimum Lot Size •.• • Development 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 270 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. on west 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Maximum Height 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. "This needs to be more specific Pedestrian Amenity Space 1 19% City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 2 - Floor Total 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. Non -unit space .35:1 = 9,536 s.f. Commercial N/A Free - Market Residential .475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential 05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: Trash/Recyclin2 Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick -up. Section 5: Affordable Housing The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed - restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1 /10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed - restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners /guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners /gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 3 - join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights -of -way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.B, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5a' Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right -of -way improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 4 - 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights -of -way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights -of -way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right -of -way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right -of -way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights -of -way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $42,834 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees — Fees for Proposed Development: 52 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit 2 one - bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit 3 two - bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit 3 three- bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit Park Fees — Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units 29- studio units @ $1,520 per unit 3 two - bedroom units @ $2725 per unit City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 5 - = $79,040 = $4,240 = $8,175 = $10,902 Total = $102,357 = $44,080 = $8,175 2 three- bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit = $7,268 Total Credit = ($59,523) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $42,834 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one -third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11• Sanitation District Standards/Requirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 6 - 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre - Construction Meetin¢ Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer /Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official /Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD /SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Management Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 7 - encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day -to -day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ( CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include /depict: 1. A signed copy of the final P &Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right -of -way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right -of -way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace /woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 8 - asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and /or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right -of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 9 - Section 18• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 20• That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 260' day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this—day of , 2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -10- Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor � J v - 1 L c , r� - - ? z� - - ^ n _ n I " Cr 1s1 -a LJ, 3?69h To The Mayor and City Council: I am writing this letter in support of the Boomerang Lodge re- development. Tho the impacts on the neighborhood are many-- - the Boomerang project seems to be sensitive to them. Namely, the traffic pattern, which will not affect the PEDESTRIAN -WAY, or the TRAIL SYSTEM. The automobile will enter via the alley where the entrance to the parking garage will be. Yes, the project will be much larger than the existing lodge. I do have concerns about the construction process, which Steve tells me will be ❑staged❑. ABOVE ALL,I BEG YOU TO KEEP IN YOUR AWARENESS THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS, BY DESIGN, A PEDESTRIAN -WAY TO THE MAROLT BRIDGE. Anything that is done to comprise the beauty and safety of this throughfare is WRONG.!! Lets rename NIMBY to THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. Sincerely, Ms. Martha Madsen Owner /and resident manager MADSEN CHALET APARTMENTS 608 West Hopkins Ave. Joyce Allgaier From: Helen Klanderud Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:42 PM To: Joyce Allgaier Subject: FW: Boomerang project Joyce, For Boomerang Public Hearing. Helen - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mitzi Rapkin Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:34 PM To: JE DeVilbiss (jed @ci.aspen.co.us); Helen Klanderud (helenk @ci.aspen.co.us); Torre; Jack Johnson; Rachel Richards Subject: FW: Boomerang project - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Martha [ mailto:tiggerHute @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:32 PM To: Mitzi Rapkin Subject: Boomerang project Dear Mitzi, Thanks for offering to forward this to the appropriate powers in charge of the July 10 meeting I heard about: To whom it may concern, After just attending a Core Beliefs Focus Group meeting with several hours of discussion about development in Aspen, I also wish to put in specific feedback about the Boomerang project. I am one of apparently many residents lamenting the frenzy of construction of large, ritzy lodgings, leaving smaller, charming and unique places struggling increasingly to survive. I am strongly opposed to this and similar developments, and would not be surprised to see a day when Aspen has become overbuilt and large structures suddenly lie fallow. Meanwhile, we will have eliminated more green space, more potential land for smaller businesses, and perhaps driven out of business the few remaining places of charm and accessibility for "normal' visitors of more modest means. Sincerely, Martha Aarons Resolution No. 18 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM APPROVAL FOR LODGING, FREE - MARKET RESIDENTIAL, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLOTMENTS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free- market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights -of -way. The proposed development includes 52 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31 -space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 51,000 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page t after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4 -2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1: Growth Management Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — hereby grants to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free - market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2• Recommendation of Approval for Subdivision, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, and PUD Final Development Plan The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 — Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively — hereby recommends City Council grant Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Project Dimensions The fnllnwino nnnrnved dimensinnq of the nroiect shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 2 Dimension Minimum Lot Size • • • • Development 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 270 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. on west 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Maximum Height 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. "This needs to be Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 2 Section 4: Trash /Recycling Area The applicant is encouraged to make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick -up. Section 5: Affordable Housing The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed - restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1 /10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed - restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 3 more specific Pedestrian Amenity Space 1 Floor Total 19% 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. Non -unit space .35:1 = 9,536 s.f. Commercial N/A Free - Market Residential .475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: Trash /Recycling Area The applicant is encouraged to make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick -up. Section 5: Affordable Housing The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed - restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1 /10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed - restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 3 In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM 10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners /guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners /gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights -of -way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.13, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5`s Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right -of -way improvements. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 4 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights -of -way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights -of -way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right -of -way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right -of -way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights -of -way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $41,039 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees — Proposed Development 52 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit = $79,040 2 one - bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit = $4,240 3 two - bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit = $8,175 3 three- bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit = $10,902 Total = $102,357 Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 5 Park Fees — Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units 29- studio units @ $1,520 per unit = $44,080 3 two - bedroom units @ $2725 per unit = $8,175 2 three - bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit = $7,268 Total Credit = ($59,523) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $42,834 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one -third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW Section 11: Sanitation District Standards/Requirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 6 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre - Construction Meeting Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer /Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official /Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD /SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Mananement Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 7 Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day -to -day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include /depict: 1. A signed copy of the final P &Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right -of -way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right -of -way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace /woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 8 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall; carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and /or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right -of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building pen-nit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 9 documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: 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. Section 20: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Resolution, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on , 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jasmine Tygre, Chair C:\home \Current Planning \CASES \Boomerang Lodge \Reso.doc Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 10 - y ASPEN YIANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — MAY 169 2005 Dylan Johns asked what the thinking was behind the 3,000 square foot minimum lot size to begin with. Lindt replied that it was a carry over from the Lodge /Tourist/Residential District that was in place before the infill code amendments changed the code. Lindt said originally there was concern for too much density and that transformed over the years; in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan there were goals that look for ways to increase the density in the KIWWWWR No public comments. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #19, Series of 2006 recommending City Council approve the amendments to the land use code Section 26.710.190(D) (2A) Lodge Zone District minimum lot area per dwelling unit for affordable housing units. Seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Wilson, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion of motion: Skadron asked if other properties would be affected by this amendment. Lindt responded there was not a good record of the properties built in the 1970s or before so GIS footprint mapping was used to average the FAR of the properties which might be impacted. Lindt said there would not be expansions of buildings coming out of this change but possibly utilizing existing floor area. Johns asked how this tied into the 500 square foot room size. Lindt replied that typically it would not impact the incentive lodge developments because only 25% was allowed unless it was varied in a PUD for residential units. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (5/2/6): BOOMERANG PUD Dylan Johns opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon provided the history on Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Boomerang Lodge is currently in the R -6 Zone District with an LP Overlay. Bendon said the neighborhood surrounding the Boomerang was eclectic with a broad mix of uses from single family, duplex, affordable housing, free market multi family housing, lodging development, parks, civic use, and one block from Main Street with full transit access. There was a range of sizes of buildings. Staff supports the application with concerns. Bendon noted this was an expansion of lodging units; there were 34 existing units. Staff was concerned for the height of the building; the underlying zoning was a guide for height in a PUD and also the surrounding neighborhood. ASPEN�tANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — MAY 169 2005 Bendon said they have had the historic designation discussions with the former owner and current owner and the focus was on the east wing of the Boomerang as a kind of window of the past. The HPC had concerns for the addition of the 3`d floor on the east wing, which presents a problem for placement of that mass in a way that still meets the consistency of the neighborhood. Sunny Vann appreciated the support of staff. Vann said the code Lodge Incentive Amendment made this project viable with 25% of the floor area free market. Vann said that the underlying R -6 Zone can not be used to design a hotel; there was not enough floor area or height. Vann said this was designed with the Lodge Zone District rules. Vann stated the lodge rooms were increased by 20 and meet the incentives for the average unit size to obtain the free market portion of the project. Augie Reno addressed the height issues beginning with meeting with the Community Development Staff and neighbors. Reno said there were a large number of people in the neighborhood in support of this project, which was important to the owner Steve Stunda. Reno stated the lodge fit into the Incentive Lodge Ordinance as it stands. The building as it now stands was 33 feet to the ridgeline and other building heights would be 30 feet and 31.5 feet. Reno said they were keeping 39 out of the 42 existing trees; they tried to maintain the east wing. The building was pushed as far away from the Christiana as possible in the center section, which is 70 feet away. Drawing A106 shows the different shades of brown denoting the various heights of the project. The footprint was 27,000 square feet and the roof was about 17,200. Reno reiterated that they were keeping the pool (renovating it), keeping the lower seating area, the lobby, public rooms and meeting room. Vann stated they have the ability to minimize the adverse impact of this building on Hopkins Avenue because of the trees. Vann said they have a project that works with an applicant that wants to build it. Mary Liz Wilson asked that if the east wing was taken down then 5 rooms would be lost. Vann replied there were 5 rooms to the east wing addition. Vann said that as a condition of approval they were willing to have a change in material for the addition to the east wing. Wilson asked if the height were reduced would the rooms become smaller. Vann responded that a couple of rooms just couldn't be pulled out and still maintain the structure. Reno explained the existing east wing with 3 units remained and existing lobby had a new lounge; there were 2 extra rooms. Reno said that everything else was pretty much the same; the configuration was changed without a double loaded corridor. The 3`d floor in ASPEN rLANNING & ZONING COM1V ASION MEETING MINUTES — MAY 169 2005 contained the 5 rooms from the eastern wing, 3 free market units and lodge rooms in the west wing; the 4th level has 3 free market units and 2 lodge rooms. Steve Skadron asked if it was the applicant's intent to rent the rooms at a moderate price point. Vann replied that rents are not regulated; the size of the rooms and the location will dictate. Vann stated the problem was not having the person to rent the room as it was to have the ability to redevelop the property. Skadron asked for a visual of the shading impact with the new height onto surrounding properties for both summer and winter. Reno answered that in the summer time the shadows would be negligible and in the winter the shadows were a 30% angle coming across to the other side of the alley. Vann stated with the existing building the alley was pretty much in the shade after midday because of Shadow Mountain. Brian Speck asked why the eastern wing was so important to keep. Bendon responded that it was not designated historic but has been on the HPC radar screen for quite some time to preserve post World War II architecture especially in the lodging districts where the evolution of skiing was partnered with the evolution of buildings. Bendon noted this was also the one of the first modern architectural buildings; beyond that eastern wing there were many changes over time so the architecture was not pure enough. Vann said it was more of a desire to preserve old Aspen than an architecturally or historically significant building in context to what HPC normally regulates. Vann said that they voluntarily agreed to talk to HPC and agreed to preserve it if it could be incorporated into the overall design without being a detriment to the project as a whole. Vann said the applicant voluntarily agreed to designate the portion of the property in which the wing is setting as historic so any further changes to the wing would be subject to HPC review and approval. Speck asked about the pedestrian amenity percentage. Bendon replied this project was outside the zone that required pedestrian amenity; the numbers shown were the open space for the pool. Vann said that they were also making improvements to Hopkins to enhance pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. John Rowland asked in what year was the east wing built. Vann said that it was in 1956 beginning with the cabin in 1955. Rowland asked if there were building sections showing the street and to address the height. Mary Liz Wilson asked the size of the employee housing units. Vann replied they were category 2, one bedroom units with 650 square feet of net livable space. E ASPEN VtANNING & ZONING COMMTSSION MEETING MINUTES — MAY 169 2005 Dylan Johns asked for a walk through of the operations of visitors and deliveries. Vann replied the parking was relocated to a below grade garage with the exception of the parking in front of the east wing entrance lobby (main entrance). Reno said that small deliveries would probably come to the main entrance but larger ones would go down into the parking garage. Reno denoted the enclosed trash area off of the back alley. Johns asked if the height does become an issue how would that affect the project. Bendon replied that it would affect the unit sizes. Johns asked how many other lodges still exist that would be in an LP Overlay that still function as a lodge. Bendon answered probably 10 -15; quite a few have gone through an LP redevelopment process in the last few years. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jody Edwards, represents the Christina Homeowners Association with the exception of Diane, stated the Christiana was opposed to the mass and scale of this proposal and believe that it should be significantly smaller. Edwards said the proposal was out of scale with the neighborhood and will have negative impacts on traffic. Edwards said the objections were the lack of separation of buildings, it reads as one massive building and it was much too high. Edwards said that the Christiana was broken up in heights and varied pitched roof lines and the Christina was consistent with the neighborhood. Edwards utilized the model to show the way the other properties in the neighborhood looked with spaces between buildings that allow light to come through and people to move through; this particular proposal lacked those spaces. Edwards quoted from the AACP why he thought this project did not meet those criteria. Brian Speck asked if there was a lot of public discussion about the height, mass and bulk of the Christina and what we see is the project before getting its height and massing and what we saw with the Sky Hotel neighbors. Bendon replied that there was discussion on the north structures and along the alley massing. Mary Liz Wilson stated concern for the bulk and mass of the project in the neighborhood and would also like to see it broken up more. Wilson encouraged the applicant to bring the height down. John Rowland was sympathetic to the program since the economic driver was why it was in the shape it was in; he said that he could not vote until he saw some cross sections. Rowland requested a macro map of the neighborhood that shows other lodges that could potentially capitalize on this program. Bendon said there was a map of the LP properties. on ASPEN YLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — MAY 169 2005 Steve Skadron requested any other visuals that this project might impact like shadows cast onto the Christina. Augie Reno noted that Shadow Mountain was about 1,000 feet higher. Skadron asked if the east wing was not maintained could some of the height and massing be moved to that portion of the property. Vann replied that if you take a third of the site and restrict it to a small finger building then you could spread the building out. Dylan Johns stated that the scale was an issue but this project was better for the area; the 4 stories was an issue on the west end of the site. Johns said that there was a lot of articulation on the building. Johns said the underground parking would clean things up around the site. Johns asked if the project would fall apart if it were to fall below 54 rooms. Johns said that he really did not have a problem with the size but more of a contextual aspect of fitting into the neighborhood. Bendon said the design team needed to respond to the commission concerns. Vann said that if they went to the 600/600 formula about 5 or 6 units were lost but much more was lost from the building trying to get those 6 units out of the building; they cannot lose a whole floor. Vann said they can look at the articulation to reduce the perception of the mass. Vann noted the majority of the neighbors that were impacted were in support of this project. Vann stated this has to function as a hotel and condominium. Vann said that the commission as a whole was not concerned for the historic aspect but the applicant wanted to see it retained. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the Boomerang PUD to June 13, 2006; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: MOSES PROPERTY 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for the Moses 8040 Greenline Review. Ben Gagnon provided the notice. Gagnon explained the property was located at the end of Aspen Alps Road adjacent to the Alps 700 building. In 1987 the property was rezoned from Conservation to R -15 and approved subdivision known as the Moses Lot Split, which established Lot 1 and Lot 2 (about an acre). Gagnon said the subdivision established the floor area cap at 3800 square feet for Lot 2 (the brown building). In 1992 Council approved a subdivision of Lot 2 granting Lots 2A and 2B as open 7 Aspen Planni E & Zoning Commission Meeti i_a VMinutes — June 13, 2006 Phelan stated the park impact development fee has increased; the air quality and storm drainage fees were new as well as an appeal process. The school land dedication fee was reviewed by the number of students generated by the kind of housing, which the consultant updated. The school land dedication was only assessed through subdivision but this revision would require any bedrooms added would be assessed the fee. Lodges and commercial development were not assessed. Public Comments: Tom Dunlop, former Environmental Health Director for the City and County, stated that the PM 10 mitigation program went through a number of processes and it was a battle that went on for years. The Commission agreed with staffs' approach for the changes to the park dedication and school land dedication impact fees. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #23, Series of 2006, recommending City Council approve the proposed land use code amendments to Section 26.610 and 26.630 Park Development Impact Fee and School Land Dedication. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Wilson, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6 -0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment PUD. Tygre noted that she was not at the last Boomerang hearing and has not read the minutes but this was a revised plan. Sunny Vann responded that they had no objections to Jasmine participating. Joyce Allgaier provided the overview of the project now with 52 hotel rooms and about 50,500 square feet. There were 6 free - market units proposed with about 12,822 square feet; 2 affordable housing units; 48 parking spaces, 31 in an underground garage and 17 surface spaces. The property was zoned R -6 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay; this was a lodge incentive development. Growth Management Review included the lodge units, free - market units and affordable housing units. This was a planned unit development to set the dimensional standards for the project; rezoning for the PUD overlay; subdivision because of the 8 new residential units (6 free market and 2 affordable); and condominiumization. Allgaier stated the issues were height, massing of the structure and the historic east wing; the historic preservation commission would like to see a component of this 3 Aspen Planning & zoning Commission Meeting Ntinutes — June 13, 2006 structure saved for posterity or a reflection of the historic lodge built by Charles Paterson. Allgaier said that the traditional type of lodge was a compliment to the project. Staff supported the application. There were revisions to the resolution that reflect the floor area, height and new cross - sections. Sunny Vann stated the project was designed to comply with the City's new Lodge Incentive Program; those provisions provide an opportunity to take a run -down lodge and renovate and expand it. That made economic sense to produce a new product in a location that was historically served lodging in this community. Vann said the only objections from neighbors came from some Christiania owners located on the back of the building, which several units were impacted by the existing lodge. The current Boomerang Lodge occupies half of a city block and runs from Fourth Street to Fifth Street and has been the biggest structure in the neighborhood with the exception of the redevelopment of the Christiania and some new large homes. Vann stated there were substantial trees that would sustain the visual impact of the new taller building when viewed from the public right -of -way; the trees were large enough to screen it from the public use of Hopkins. Vann stated to reduce the impact of the lodge on the 6 adjacent Christiania units the alley parking was moved entirely below grade and the new building was set back from the alley. Vann stated the principal objectives were to maintain a small lodge; to expand it to recoup some of the lost small lodge units; to renovate and expand the. Boomerang Lodge in such a way that it has a minimal impact on the neighborhood in general and the community at large. Augie Reno, architect, presented drawings showing the existing lodge and proposed lodge footprints; the existing building was broken up into three identifiable masses and tried to follow through with the redevelopment design. Reno stated the center mass of the proposed building was moved 20 feet from the property line. Reno stated the 4`h floor plan contained 2 lodge rooms at 42 feet high, which have been removed so the 42 foot roof was 60 feet from the Christiania building being constructed. Reno stated that there were 4 roof heights and it was important to understand that the building was not all one level; adding up all the roofs that were 39 feet or less in height amounted to 89% of the entire roof. Reno utilized cross - sections to illustrate that the pedestrian view plane and shadow studies to show Shadow Mountain's affects on the area. John Rowland asked how the project was left with HPC on the use of materials. Vann replied that they did not have an obligation to be reviewed under HPC but 0 Aspen Planning & zonina Commission Meeting Minutes — June 13, 2006 Steve Stunda wanted to preserve the east wing and volunteered to place the east wing under HPC review. Vann said HPC would prefer to see different materials on the new addition to the east wing. Steve Skadron asked what the condominiumization had to do with the short term rentals. Joyce Allgaier responded the condominiumization had to do with the free - market units and affordable housing units. Vann explained that it was virtually impossible to build a lodge today and finance it in a seasonal economy, so the lodging community has gone to fractional units with multiple ownerships and making sure it stays available to the public or condominiumize it with the city imposed 30 consecutive day maximum with 90 days total per year consecutive occupancy otherwise it may remain vacant there not functioning as a lodge. Skadron asked how he was reassured that the condominiums would be used as hotbeds. Vann replied that condominiumization was not prohibited so the limitation was imposed on occupancy by an owner and enforced on a complaint basis. Mary Liz Wilson asked if the free - market units would be rentable. Vann answered that the units were sold as whole units that were smaller than most units at 1800 to about 2400 for the largest; they would be happy to rent out the units through the front desk. Wilson asked the size difference in the remodeled lodge rooms and the new lodge rooms. Reno replied that the main floor currently had 5 rooms and would be remodeled to 3 and the second level would basically remain the same. Dylan Johns asked if the pedestrian corridor was a permanent trail or a road. Allgaier replied that it was a good corridor connecting the two ends of town. Jasmine Tygre asked if there was a duplex on the other side of Hopkins approved. Allgaier answered there were 3 free - market units and an affordable housing duplex. Tygre asked if there was a contingency plan for the trees in case someone went after them. Vann replied that it would take a while for 70 foot trees to be replaced; he said the fine associated with those trees would be enormous. Stunda stated that they had a tree consultant retained to meet with the parks department on the trees. Vann said they relocated the garage to accommodate the trees; they were saving 39 out of the 42 trees on the property. Public Comments: A letter from Aspen Stay Snowmass indicating strong support of the proposed lodge expansion on behalf of the board of directors to see one of the GEMS of Aspen expand its bed base, signed by Bill Tomsich. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 13, 2006 Affiliated Financial Group, Dick Carter, questioned if Jody Edwards represents all of the owners of the Christiania and felt that Jody only represents one or two owners. Craig Ward, real estate broker, stated that he represented Charlie Paterson in the sale of the lodge; he watched Charlie build the lodge. Ward said that he was excited that the east wing was being preserved. Ward hoped the commissioners endorsed this proposal. Steve Skadron asked the traffic flow pattern of the pedestrian way. Sunny Vann responded the pedestrian way was signed and only operates during the summer. Vann said that in the winter most people arrive by plane and the summer was the only time expected to have the garage reasonably full. Skadron said that there was much community benefit to be derived from this project and complied with the city lodge code, acceptable to the neighbors, the sub grade parking, maintains the small lodge component of the city inventory and rooms were retained for the short term rental pool. Skadron said that he could support this project and was comfortable with the 0 floor because the vegetation obscures the building. John Rowland stated that there were a lot of good things about the project and appreciated the studies provided. Brain Speck thanked the applicant for their due diligence coming back with great drawings and he supported the project for the same reasons that Steve did. Mary Liz Wilson agreed and thanked the applicant for the changes and new drawings; she thought that it would be great to have a 50 room lodge in a great location. Dylan Johns found himself torn between running into problems with the 4`h story and the proximity to the pedestrian way with 4 stories on that side would raise some eyebrows even though it accomplished a lot of community goals but raises the question about context. Johns said if there were only 3 stories it would be easy to support but the 4th story in this location was difficult for him; he felt that city council would have a hard time with the 4`h story. Johns said that keeping the quaint and unique (in some respects) east side of the building was somewhat limiting to what could be done on this piece of property and did not feel that it should be a historic resource to drive one -third of the site creating the contextual issue for the rest of the project. Vann responded that without the developable program (room count, etc.) it was not a project but losing the 4 `h floor would lose a Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 13, 2006 substantial component of the economic engine and lodge rooms, which fall outside of the project. Vann said that this was a balancing act of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this project provides substantial community benefit. Johns stated concern for the way the building was perceived from the alley instead of a typical perspective, which would be from the street bringing the building into more of the pedestrian view. Jasmine Tygre agreed with most of the members of the commission and very strongly with Dylan. Tygre said that part was a philosophical context situation; one of the problems was redevelopment of lodges in residential districts in general. Tygre said there was a neighborhood context to do with height, building size and so forth. Tygre said that one of the biggest objections to infill had to do with height because height has to do with street presence, like Dylan pointed out. Tygre said that she would be much happier if the 42 foot heights were toward the alley rather than toward the street fagade because the impact to the general public would be really important. Tygre said that she became obsessed with the trees for enough screening and if the location of the 42 foot heights were located in a different portion of the building. Tygre stated that as this project is presently proposed she could not support this project. Tygre stated that this project broke up the massing well and was an attractive building; the trees were extremely helpful. Tygre said the intent of the project was exactly what they intended to have with this kind of ordinance and the overall concern was the height and location of the height. Reno stated there were only two portions on the south side that went to 42 feet. MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #18, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the growth management reviews of lodging and affordable housing and recommending that city council approve with conditions the Boomerang Lodge Subdivision /PUD to include the corrected technical language. Seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Wilson, yes; Johns, no; Rowland, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4 -2. Discussion of the motion: Dylan Johns requested the record reflect that if the 4`h floor was not visible from West Hopkins then he did not have a problem with the 4`h floor. Johns stated that he was not so concerned about the alley presence. Tygre stated the visible height on Hopkins was her deciding factor. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 U 0 J w d z w U K w w d W R' d YWy W N dl N m.D m m r O m 0 J w f0 z 0 F d w J W Q 4 R' K Q Q 0 O K K r N S S w m a m Q ra r r rti ri O O m z O d w J W Q J W d R' F Q 0 LL 0 m a m m N N N m m m m. .0 O T m z 0 F d w J W Q J W F Q 0 LL 0 N LL' m N N J�1 J�1 m m m Q m m m r. r0 ry a z 0 d w J W d .1 W O d F LL O J'i LL' ry O ry O N � N r m � m _ r ff ff F 0 J F d m O � F o d GaV30 0.3 `NTdS't' I �. � aaaa � � g " _ � �OQO'I OI�I�2i�Y1tOOg a0 Zt 20 O J rc W° �/ LL IJ� ~ a= • r ry i iV V f� N Z V d It t 4 A oaraozoa •xaasv yy m N� F 6�m 0o� 99(101 ` NVUHN009 o Q t Z b; Z 0 u J rc W° a' f aZ 4 Ry'r A 151E, I� € of io a ai u i a�rw I 't i' r y t H r X 4; 4 y w F F 4 m X 4 Q w J F F J X2 Z; §§ LU) aJ Lel ( 0 I■ e__a__ !° ■ ,■�w.§ 29no] a\vag#OQ# , f I 0 R \ } � m 0 E , f Oki |� �( (� �\ III .| . f f ! / ,) f _ / < $ i / e \ E (� Z wo Q� _SZ L Q � V J rc W° ag r M B dada a oavxozoo Wam Aoaol 9NVHAIVoog } W 2 la lei 6 r, tl� F W W J� �i WI J F- LU W LUH 2 F } -1 1 4 m �Z z _z �Z 0 _ U J � WLL I� ag C 0 0 \1�i w� >7 z� � D Z �DL PL Oz Q� w w z Q a oaruozo.-),Nzdw aoQoz oNVHHIVoog \1�i w� >7 z� � D Z �DL PL Oz Q� w w z Q o MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Joyce A. AAllgaier, Deputy Director THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director VIII 5VV? RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment — 500 West Hopkins Avenue 1" Reading of Ordinance No.W e Series of 2006, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Condominiumizaton and Vested Rights DATE: June 26, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existine Boomerang consists of: 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. 31parking spaces, all but one of which are partially within the city right -of -way The pro osed Boomerang Lodge includes: ■ 52 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 51,000 square feet. ■ 6 free- market residential units. ■ 2 affordable housing units. t =1:1 and 17 surface. APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AlCP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project, but has concern about two significant items. Staff recommends discussion of these issues and either resolution of these or continuation. P &Z RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommended that the City Council approve of the lodge redevelopment proposal by a vote of four to two (4 -2). The two dissenting votes supported the redevelopment concept in terms of bringing new lodge rooms and keeping the "old" Boomerang Lodge component in the site plan. Their dominant reason for dissenting had to do with the height along Hopkins Ave. and neighborhood compatibility. SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AlCP, is proposing to redevelopment the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R -6 LP — Medium - Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half -. block — 27,000 square feet — and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R -6 Zone District is a single - family and duplex zone district. (The "west -end" is zoned R -6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development consists of 52 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 17 surface parking spaces to remain partially within the street rights -of -way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 51,000 square feet. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10 -70 ft.* 0 -5 ft. Yard Setback Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west* 0 -5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1 -5 ft. on east* 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0 -2 ft.* 0 -5 ft. Yard Setback Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley.* 42 ft. for a flat roof. (set in PUD for 20 -25 ft on east* Approximately 30- Lodging) 35 ft. on east side. Pedestrian 0% (lot not within 40 -50 %* 19% Amenity Space PA required area) Floor Area Ratio: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f.* 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f.* .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. Non -unit space** Set in PUD Included in lodge .351 = 9,536 space Commercial Set in PUD N/A N/A Free - Market 25% of total project N/A .48:1 = 12,822 = Residential Floor Area 25% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Residential * Theae are estimates by staff and are not measured dimensions. To be finalized for 2 "d reading. BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 i NECEssARY LAND UsE APPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: GROwTH MANAGEMENT OuoTA SYSTEM - INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 18 requested in this application) and associated new free - market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. 2. GROwTH MANAGEMENT OuoTA SYSTEM — AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. PLANNED UNn DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 4. REZONING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority. City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. S. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 6. CONDOMDMJMIZATION, Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council 7. VEsTED RIGHTS: Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3 -year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3 -year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. STAFF COMN ENTS: Height The neighborhood is a mix of single - family, duplex, multi- family, lodging, and mixed -use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L'Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most - recent approvals have been in the low 30 -foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 The proposed four floors and 42 -foot height is potentially out of character with the neighborhood. Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type of lodge development desired by the City — small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. The Council should discuss this balance and how it should be struck for this site. While the application was in proceedings with the P &Z and at their urging, the applicants amended the plan by removing 2 lodge units and reducing the height of the building in the northwest comer from 42 feet to 39 feet. The applicant does have a neighborhood model and the heights of this project in relation to surrounding development is best understood with this model. Lodge Unit Density. In an effort to reduce height and massing (points of concern during the P &Z hearings), the applicant reduced the number of units to 52 lodge units, instead of the originally proposed 54 lodge units. This puts the average lodge unit size around 506 square feet instead of the 500 square feet and the density at 1 per 520 square feet of lot size pursuant to the Lodge Incentive program. Provisions of the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district allow for an adjustment to the "density standard" and "average unit- size standard" after consideration is given to the following: • The average unit -size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) • The project includes a generous amount of non -unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meetinglbreakfast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room". The project includes a lounge/ library, multi purpose room and concierge area and services). • The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in size from 370 to 900 square feet, and include multi -room suites for families.) • There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. (The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk -in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupied for more than 30 consecutive days) Staff is satisfied that the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge meets both the specific standards and the overall intent of the Lodge Preservation and Incentive goals. "Historic" East Wing. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission does believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east "wing" of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 redevelopment is accomplished. The entire property would not be landmarked. (Please see Exhibit #1 of the application.) The HPC was allowed an opportunity to review the proposed changes to the east wing. (HPC did not review the entire proposal.) Generally, the HPC does not prefer the addition of a third floor on the east wing and would like to see this portion of the project remain more true to its original (current) form and receive only minor alterations. If the east wing did incorporate an addition, the HPC suggested it be recessed and of a clearly different architectural character (not mimicking the original wing) so that old and new components could be easily identified. The HPC encouraged the applicant, staff and the P &Z to provide flexibility on the remainder of the development such that this east wing could remain unaltered. The applicants have agreed to addressing the concerns of the HPC relating to a different type of material for the Yd floor. Staff does want to preserve the quality of this portion of the development to the extent possible. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the general height concerns staff raised above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly supports the basic concept of the application. The proposal implements both replacement and an increase in the bed base in an area that has historically included lodging within the mix of land uses. This is important to the long -term viability of the resort aspect of the community. Also, the interspersed lodging experience inside the community is unique and an important part of Aspen's lodging offerings. The design substantially mitigates the project's parking impacts on the neighborhood and, with some very minor changes, will substantially improve pedestrian infrastructure of the area. Staff believes the two issues identified above need discussion. Staff believes the reduction in the height (from four floors to three floors in some portions) helped the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. The east wing deserves discussion in relation to HPC's desire for this portion of the building to retain it's current character and massing, although the applicants have agreed to make the architectural materials different from those of the lower floors, pursuant to HPC recommendations. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve upon first reading, Ordinance Nov&, Series of 2006, approving with conditions the Subdivision, PUD, Vested Rights, Condominiumization and Rezoning reviews for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings on Review Standards Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Letters received by staff Exhibit D: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, 2006 & Minutes (available for 2nd reading) BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 C ATTENTION CONTRACTORS Pitkin County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife would like to make you aware of County Ordinance 31 -2005, the Wildlife Protection Ordinance. This ordinance requires "all construction sites must have a designated container that receives refuse edible by wildlife" (food and drink products). "This container shall be either a Wildlife Proof Refuse Container, or a container that is emptied at the end of each workday and then securely stored inside a trailer or building." This ordinance is an effort to minimize human- wildlife conflicts (emphasizing bears). Once a bear finds a human food source such as trash in an open dumpster it can become food conditioned and habituated resulting in increased conflicts such as breaking into homes, cars in search of human food as well as increased human safety concerns. This ordinance was adopted to enhance public safety and protect the health and welfare of bears and other wildlife. Noncompliance may result in a violation notice and fines up to $1,000. Thank you for your cooperation. Ordinance No.2t0 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston, VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights -of -way. The proposed development includes 52 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31 -space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 51,000 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision- Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 1 - duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4 -2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Growth Management Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free - market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2: Approval for Subdivision, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, and PUD Final Development Plan Pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 — Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively — the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Proiect Dimensions The following a roved dimensions of the pmject shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 2 - Dimension Minimum Lot Size ... . Development 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 270 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. on west 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Maximum Height 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. "This needs to be more specific Pedestrian Amenity Space Floor Total 19% 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. Non -unit space .35:1 = 9,536 s.f. City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 2 - Commercial N/A Free - Market Residential .475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: Trash/Recycling Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick -up. Section 5: Affordable Housin¢ The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed- restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1AOth of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed - restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners /gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 3 - Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights -of -way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.13, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5t' Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right -of -way improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 4 - C 4 Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights -of -way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights -of -way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right -of -way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right -of -way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights -of -way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $42,834 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees — Fees for Proposed Development: 52 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit 2 one - bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit 3 two- bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit 3 three- bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit Park Fees — Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units 29- studio units @ $1,520 per unit 3 two - bedroom units @ $2725 per unit 2 three - bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit = $79,040 _ $4,240 _ $8,175 _ $10,902 Total = $102,357 Total Credit Total Park Impact Fee Due = $44,080 = $8,175 = $7,268 _ ($59,523) _ $42,834 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one -third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. City Council Ordinance No. , Series of 2006 - 5 - Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11: Sanitation District Standards/Reauirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 6 - proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre - Construction Meeting Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer /Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official/Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD /SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Management Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day -to -day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater thari one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final P &Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 7 - 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right -of -way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right -of -way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace /woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, rile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right -of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 8 - 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 18: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 20: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, byt the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26" day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor City Council Ordinance No. , Series of 2006 - 9 - C L FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\home \Current Planning \CASES\Boomerang Lodge\Reso.doc City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 -10- Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor EXMBIT A STAFF FI NDMGS STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470.040.A.7 — Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development. Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel /lodge buildings and portions thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of growth management, provided that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change -in -use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt and the expansion shall be subject to Section 26.470.040.C.2 or 3. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070, and definition of Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space, Section 26.104.100. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed redevelopment partially uses existing lodge allotments. These 34 replacement lodge units are exempt from growth management. The remaining 18 lodge allotments needed are addressed below. 26470.040.B.3. Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Thirty-seven allotments for free - market residential were available for the 2005 GMQS year. The application is a 2005 application and is requesting 6 free - market allotments. 36 allotments were applied for (including these 6). 16 have been approved so far with the remaining 18 pending in some form. There are sufficient free - market GMQS allotments available for this project. The Lodging allotment is based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on development allotments. The development ceiling for lodging allows for approximately 2,500 additional lodge pillows and this proposal (considered to be 36 pillows —18 units x 2 pillows per unit = 36) is well within the development ceiling. The affordable housing allotment is also based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on affordable housing units. The ceiling provides for an additional Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 1 686 units and this proposal for 2 units is well within the growth ceiling. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES I This property is located in the R -6 zone district with a Lodge Preservation overlay and is described as `residential" in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP. The property has functioned as lodging for the past 50 years (+ or -). The purpose of the Lodge Preservation zone district is "to provide for a protect small lodges on properties historically used for lodging accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodging and affordable housing uses, ... and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties." The property is within walking distance of Main Street, downtown, mass transit, and other common tourist destinations and attractions. The neighborhood is a mix of land uses from single - family and duplex development, to multi - family, civic, lodging, commercial, and mixed -use buildings. Staff believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is consistent with the historic use of the property and with the character of the neighborhood. The 2000 AACP Economic Sustainability section describes what is necessary for Aspen's economic base: "Essential to the long -term viability is the unique, varied, high - quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges." Staff believes this proposal is consistent with this philosophy statement. The Action Plan of the 2000 AACP called for a task force to identify ways to sustain and improve the local economy. The number one recommendation of this task force was to support the redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities. The proposal is consistent with this recommendation. The City amended much of its Land Use Code after the 2000 AACP and the Economic Sustainability Report suggested loosening the regulations to allow to reinvestment within the lodging sector. Staff believes this project is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code revisions. Staff also believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. d) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 2 square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit -size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average -size standard For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit -size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit -size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C.2 — Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project meets these two qualifiers. Minimum unit density needed is 54 lodging units and the project provides just under this number. The average unit size is around 506 square feet, not quite meeting the second qualifier, however this size can be set through the PUD and LP provisions. e) Associated free- market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods. i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADO or a Carriage House for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. ii) Providing on -site or off -site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free- market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be one - bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash -in -lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. iii) Paying an affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Notes. The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free- market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. An Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 3 efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free- market component of the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1— Employee Generation. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application proposes 2 affordable housing units. This complies with option ii, above. The proposal is to limit these units to the Category 2 level, which is more affordable than the required Category 4 level Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof. On -site affordable housing units shall be one - bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 — Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040. C. 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project's 18 generate approximately 6 new employees according to the land use code's generation tables. (18 units x .3 employees per unit = 5.4 employees). The 30% mitigation requirement results in a requirements for the project to house 1.62 employees. When accomplished on -site, this mitigation can also provide the mitigation for the free - market development noted above. (Phis is a significant incentive for on -site affordable housing mitigation.) The 2 units proposed provides housing for approximately 3.5 employees, according to the Land Use Code, and sufficiently meets this requirement. Staff believes the proposal is in compliance with g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 4 C V STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project has been reviewed by the City Engineer, Community Development Engineer, and various utility agencies. With certain conditions of approval recommended by these agencies, the project meets this standard. 26.470.040.8.7. Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C, Development Ceiling Levels. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Approximately 686 affordable housing allotments are available and this proposal's two units are accommodated within the Development Ceiling. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes the project is consistent with the AACP (see staff commentary on page 3 of this exhibit). The affordable housing units are above grade and appear to be well - designed. One - bedroom rental units are preferred by the Housing Authority when associated with projects of this nature. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project was reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority staff and Board. APCHA staff reports (verbally) that the project's affordable housing units comply with the Housing Guidelines. A written referral memo was not provided. Staff believes this criterion is met, subject to a condition of approval regarding the continual affordability of the rental units. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units Off -site units shall be provided Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 5 within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash -in -lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Affordable housing is required for mitigation and is in the form of on -site units. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Units are proposed as rental units. The application proposes to transfer a nominal interest to the APCHA to ensure the permanent affordability of the units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 6 ® 4 SUBDIVISION: STAFF FINDINGS The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. 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 (AACP). STAFF FINDING. DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed development is consistent with the AACP. The subdivision action is necessary to permit multiple residences on one parcel. There is no alteration of the existing lot lines of the property. Also see staff comments on page 3 of this exhibit. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that the subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area which operate in a similar manner — lodging, residential, and commercial in various mixed -use configurations. c- The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY ?_ I YES Because the subdivision proposed here is all internal to the structure, staff does not find that the subdivision will adversely impact future development of the surrounding area. All surrounding properties have adequate access. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY ?_ I YES Assuming the project is granted the other related approvals, the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the zone district and other chapters and sections of the Land Use Code. B. Suitability of LandforSubdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 7 mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dangers. No known hazards of the property have been reported. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities or unnecessary public costs. 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: I. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES TT COMPLY? I YES No variations to the subdivision standards are proposed. 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No variations to the subdivision standards are requested. 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The standards of Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — are applicable and have been addressed in the application. Staff finds the affordable housing requirement to be met with the proposed two affordable housing units. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 8 4 E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards is required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The applicant will pay cash in lieu of a land dedication which will be required at time of building permit. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 9 C o STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED UNTT DEVELOPMENT Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Final PUD Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Final PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. StaffFindine Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with many objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see staffs response to this standard on page 3 of this section. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area Staff Findin¢ The immediate vicinity is comprised of lodging, civic, commercial, mixed use, single - family, and multi - family residential buildings. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff does question whether the proposed height of the building — 42 feet — meets this standard. This would be significantly larger than any other building in the area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Findin¢ Staff does not believe that the proposed development would adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. StaffFindine The Applicant has applied for the requisite allotments and there is sufficient allotment available to accommodate the project. 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 Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 10 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Findin¢ Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate given the character of the neighborhood and the fact that lodging has operated on this property for the last 50 years. The proposed height is of some concern to staff. At 42 feet high, this structure would be significantly taller than surrounding structures which are typically in the 25 to 32 foot range (as measured by code at the midpoint). Staff believes this proposed height needs discussion prior to making a finding on this standard. 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 Findin¢ Staff believes that the a majority of the proposed dimensional requirements for the new lodge are compatible with the surrounding properties. Again, height is a concern as well as the proposed third floor on the east wing. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access andlor the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Findin¢ The Applicant has proposed an underground parking garage to handle the parking needs of the project as well as to officially permit the parking spaces along Fourth Street. Staff prefers that the parking along Hopkins Avenue be removed and the sidewalk continued along this street. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 11 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development Staff Findine The infrastructure capabilities are sufficient to accommodate this proposal. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because ofground instability or the possibility of mudJlow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. 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 Findine No natural hazards or other conditions exist that would dictate such a reduction in allowable density. 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. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 12 Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed density is appropriate for the site and for the character of the immediate vicinity. The resulting height to accommodate the density is of concern. There are not "density" requirements of the zone district, but the number of units are established through adoption of a PUD. B. 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. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved through the redevelopment. This area provides some relief tot eh massing and a benefit to the project. Staff considers the criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding Other than the pool area, there is no significant open space in the proposal. However, this is an infill development site and using the site for lodging development is appropriate. 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. Staff Finding The east wing is proposed to be preserved. This element has an important relationship to Fourth Street a the primary entrance. The sidewalk along Hopkins and Fifth Street needs improvement. These sidewalks should, ideally, be redeveloped adjacent to the property line. Some conflicts with existing vegetation may arise by doing this. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding Proper emergency access will be maintained with this proposal. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 13 Staff Findin¢ This criterion has been met. Compliance with accessibility regulations will be required and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. The. Building Department has requested the project Architect meet with the department as soon as possible in the design development process. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The City Engineer and the applicant have reviewed drainage requirements and believe this criterion is satisfied. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Findin¢ The pool area falls within this category and staff believes this area provides benefit to the lodge and its guests as well as the aesthetics of the project. C. 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 significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Findint The proposed landscape improvements will significantly improve this site. The existing surface parking along Hopkins Avenue detracts from the streetscape and provides no pedestrian accommodation. Staff is recommending this be removed. The same could be said about the parking along Fourth Street, but staff believes this parking does serve the needs of the lodge. It may be possible to rearrange this Fourth Street parking as parallel parking. The sidewalk along Hopkins is in poor condition. It may be possible to redevelop this sidewalk adjacent to the property line. A traditional street tree pattern would improve the pedestrian experience. Similarly, the sidewalk along Fifth Street could be moved to be adjacent to the property line with a traditional street tree program. The proposed landscape treatment along Fifth Street may be over planted. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 14 Z Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other Landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved and staff believes this is important to the site. The applicant has agreed to work with the Parks Department on preserving vegetation in the construction phase. D. 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. Staff Finding The architectural character of this proposal is appropriate for the proposed use and for the immediate vicinity. The proposal is similar to the east wing and minimizes the effects of height to the extent practical. Z 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. Staff Finding The proposal does not include any special systems. The site has limited solar access during winter months due to the proximity of the property to Shadow Mountain. The vegetation along the south property line will provide shape in summer months. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Findine The flat roofs essentially mitigate this concern. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 15 E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: L All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Findin¢ The applicant has indicated full compliance with the City's lighting code will be achieved. F. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding The pools area could be considered such a common amenity. Because the project does not include separate lots with individual structures and because the pool amenity is primarily for the lodging guests, staff does not believe that a common undivided interest in the pool is necessary. G 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 Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 16 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 There exists adequate infrastructure to accommodate this proposal. The applicant will be required to provide service upgrades as necessary. No City or other utility agencies have requested oversizing. H. Access and Circulation (Only standards I & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use Staff Finding Proper access is maintained to the parcel and the and structure with this proposal. 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 Staff does not foresee this proposal creating undue congestion on the existing road network. The underground parking is access from the alley, which is the most preferred method. No upgrades to the road system are necessary although some curb /gutter improvements may be required by the City Engineer. This can be handled as part of the platting and/or building permit review. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 17 I. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in- lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding No phasing has been proposed. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 18 0 0 STAFF Co11II zws: REZONING Note: Required for PUD Overlay. No change to underlying R -6 Zone is proposed. Section 26310.040, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD Overlay is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. The Lodge Preservation Overlay requires that lodging redevelopment proceed through a PUD and the additional of a PUD overlay enables the dimensions of the project to sustain a greater scrutiny. Staff believes the PUD Overlay is appropriate and desired and is recommending approval. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Please refer to comments related to the AACP on page 3. In summary, staff believes this application is in compliance with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: No change to the underlying zoning is being proposed, only a PUD overlay. The Overlay provides for a greater discussion and involvement of neighboring property owners as to the compatibility of the proposed development. Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The PUD criteria include traffic and road safety as review standards. The addition of a PUD overlay itself does not have any impact on road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The utility and infrastructure needs for the project have been addressed in the PUD application. Because of the location of the development and existing capacities, no significant up- grades are required to accommodate this development. To the extent that Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 19 ® 0 upgrades to the existing systems are necessary, these will be paid for by the applicant and not by the general public. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed zoning overlay and the proposed development do not represent adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Sufficient criteria to evaluate potential impacts on the natural environment are included as PUD criteria and the overlay actually ensures the community a greater degree of scrutiny. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The overlay requires a greater degree of review than would otherwise be required and compatibility issues regarding proposed heights, FAR, setbacks, etc. use can be more thoroughly evaluated with the PUD overlay. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: A change in conditions is not a prerequisite to rezoning. This criterion only requires that any changed conditions be considered upon requests for rezoning. There is no particular change other than that the existing development is in significant need of refurbishment. The LP overlay requires that the dimensions be established through the PUD process. The addition of a PUD overlay would enable the appropriate dimensions to be determined for the redevelopment. Staff believes this criterion has been met and supports the zoning of the property to include a PUD Overlay. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the additional review and involvement of the community required by the PUD Overlay is in conflict with the public interest. The overlay enables the project to withstand greater public scrutiny and a more - involved community decision process. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 20 0 ELIZABETH "HAILEY" RODWELL DART 633 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, USA Tel: 970 920 3874 - Fax: 970 920 2829 Email: hailey@rofnet RECEIVED Chris Bendon Director of Community Planning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Chris, APR 0 6 2006 AvPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 5 April 2006 I live at the South East comer of Sixth and Main and, though not directly impacted by it, I feel that the proposed new Boomerang project will be an important addition to the neighborhood while providing the city with its desired increased bed base. I have followed its plan developments over the past few months with great interest and have talked with Steve Stunda on a number of occasions. He recently showed me the latest proposed plans and model which I find to be most acceptable for this neighborhood. Setting the building back off the alley towards the south and against the existing natural tree buffer on Hopkins is an excellent and inspired solution to limiting the impact of the building mass as well as continuing the feeling of space along the alley (similar to that which we have in the 600 block between Fifth and.Sixth streets). In addition, the developer should be applauded for solving its own parking requirements with its underground (out of sight) parking garage off this alley. Indeed the larger size of the new building with its increased bed base will, I think, seem smaller than the existing old Boomerang building with its smaller size right on the alley and lower bed base. Given the above, I can't imagine anybody in the area seriously considering criticizing this project. This letter is to share with you my wholehearted support of the project as it stands now. Respectfully submitted, C P)a Hailey Dart T - 11 y- avr.rvi � 3 A// .. . k "Mo7i I ill 11 s 1, et ITT' FR.EDR.IC N FINE 412 Mariner Dr Jupiter, Fl 33477 561 5752728 fax 561 575 9196 allfines @aol.com January 11, 2006 4'A,N 1 7 2006 Joyce Allgaier City of Aspen Community Deve lopment Dept. 130 S Galena St.,Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Ms.Allgaier, Recently there was a newspaper article in the Aspen Times about the Boomerang Lodge. The article referred to the new owners wanting to replace the existing 34 room lodge with 54 rooms,6 condos & 2 affordable housing units , in a 4 story building ,plus a roof deck. As an owner of a condo in the Christiana Lodge,I strongly object to the increase in the number of rooms,as well as the height of the proposed 4 story building.The size is out of place for the neighborhood.There are no 4 story buildings in this area. In addition , one of the reasons we bought in the Christiana Lodge is for the view of the mountains.A 4 story structure will obliterate our beautiful views. Hopefully if and when this proposal comes to fruition,you will take my letter under consideration. Very truly yours, 76& /vII f Page 1 of 1 O O Chris Bendon From: Joyce Allgaier Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:20 PM To: 'allfines @aol.com' Cc: Chris Bandon Subject: Boomerang development Dear Mr. Fines, Thank you for your letter regarding the Boomerang Redevelopment proposal. The Boomerang Redevelopment proposal that is discussed in your letter is different from the "Boomerang vacant parcel proposal" which is a lot split and rezoning. The hearing set for tonight, 3/13 before the City Council, but being continued to 3/27, has to do with the vacant parcel of land associated with the Boomerang that is located across Hopkins on the south side of the street. Chris Bandon is the planner on the more major redevelopment proposal so I have forwarded your letter to him. He will introduce it into the record at the public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission and provide them with a copy prior to the hearing. The hearing on the Boomerang Redevelopment is currently scheduled for the P &Z on 4/11/06. If you are located within 300 feet of the Boomerang property you will be sent a legal notice when the hearing comes up. As noted, we will make sure that your letter is submitted for consideration. Chris' phone number is 429 -2765. Please let me know if I can assist in any way or provide additional information. Joyce Allgaier Joyce A. Allgaier, AICP Deputy Director ; Community Development Dept. City of Aspen 1130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81615 970.429.2754 1 www.aspenpitkin.com 3/13/2006 n 6attl-�p 11n Cep -X, � CiG2�`S -A C,-Z . C2g'no MAY 0 1 2006 A;CIF:,FN NT ox �,2Q•ti Clf RD`S j��-em e� ., JAI I� Al CN -� &Ins" k �C- d64- i 7ze n v `Lm 0 0 April 6, 2006 Chris Bendon Director of Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Bendon, My name is John Staton and I live at 431 W. Hopkins, diagonal from the Boomerang Lodge. I have reviewed the drawings to the architectural model with the Owner and the Architect for the Boomerang project. After review of the project I find no objection to the.project as proposed. I feel that the project as proposed will fit in nicely with the neighborhood and in my opinion is in no way out of scale within this context. The retention of the trees goes a long way to mitigating the height and mass of the structure. I am particularly pleased to see that there will be no 'additional traffic on Hopkins Ave. due to the underground parking garage. I also appreciate the developer's effort to retain a significant component of the old lodge. I strongly recommend the approval of the project as proposed. very Sincerely Yours, J t on 97°- SI�V— oz�� r APR 1 7 2006 ASPEN SUILMI 3 DEPARNI ENT CvIC14S7-11i " APR 12 2005 v 6 �-y ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Q _3 972- s' , Alt ZY O -a- t� P u W April 10, 2006 APR 17 2000 Mr. Chris Bendon 111 Av E„ n �.,,F. G . `( ENT Director of Community Development City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Development Dear Mr. Bendon: I own one of the condominiums at 605 W. Main Street and am very interested in the proposed development for the lodge. My condominium is located diagonally across the alley from the lodge. I have met with the Owner, Steve Stunda, and have reviewed the plans and the model of the development. I am very much in support of the project as proposed. The number of units, the parking, the building height and the architecture is well thought out and will be a huge improvement to this neighborhood. I also am very pleased with the proposal to retain a large majority of the existing trees located on the property. As an Aspen resident for 27 years I have observed that the neighborhood has pretty much been the Boomerang Lodge; with development occurring around the property for the last 20 years. Aspen is so lucky to have the redevelopment of lodges which in my opinion, is necessary for the survival of Aspen. I fully support the proposed Boomerang Lodge proposal. Sincerely Yours, Kimberly A. Reno - vuvuaca Haas i.vusc uc vcavytucua i rage i or r Reminder: AOL will never ask you to send us your password or credit card numbe r In an email. Fro This message has been scanned for known viruses. m: Steve Goldenberg To: Chris Bandon (,hrJsb@ci.asPen.co.us) Subject: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment i -; Date: Tue, I I Apr 2006 23:00:42 -0600 Dear Chris: We are neighbors just to the east of the Boomerang Lodge. Steve Stunda has been very attentive to the neighbors on all sides of the proposed project. While it is a very big project, the underground parking makes a huge positive difference to us. That should go a long way toward cleaning up the parked cars that have been all over the neighborhood lately. The rezoning and lot split across the street will also reduce congestion and traffic on the "Pedestrian The biggest concern I have has to do with the demolition, excavation and con see addressed. an Walkway". I'm sure Steve Stunda will address this issue with you and with the all the neighbors. traffic and noise which I would like to We are pleased to be able to support the project and hope it gets approved by the City Council next Monday. Steve — Steve Goldenberg st ve a(laolden_ bero mm 430 W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970 - 925 -1294 Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970 - 379 -9778 http: / /r03'webmail.aol. com/17325 /aol /en -us /mail /display- message.aspx Mr. Chris Bendon Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 April 4, 2006 Dear Chris, My name is Rabbi Mendel Mintz and I am the owner of L'Auberge and the house on Main and Fourth Street. My property is located catacorner from the Boomerang Lodge. I am a near neighbor. I am writing you in support of the proposed Lodge Expansion. I am quite excited about the plans for the expansion and feel it will bring new life to the neighborhood. Many of our members and visitors who attend our services and programs will be very happy to have a new, modern facility for their use in this area. I feel that this project will be a good addition to the neighborhood and highly recommend it. Sincerely yours Rabbi Mendel Mintz v 0 AUGUST RENO June 6, 2006 ALA SCOTT SMITH Sunny Vann AIA 230 E. Hopldns Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 We have revised the design by removing two lodge rooms (Room 401 and Room 402) at the Northwest comer of the fourth Floor. This brings the roof down from 42 feet to 30 feet in this area. The total number of lodge rooms has been reduced from 54 to 52, and the average lodge room size is now 504 square feet. RENO SMITH ARCHITECTS, L. L.C. The percentages of roof heights have been revised: III • Below 30' 7% 605 W. MAIN STREET • At 30' 35% NO 002 • At 39' 36% • At 42' 22% ASPEN Total: 100% COLORADO 81611 We have also included three site sections cutting through the proposed building and three buildings to the North at the Christiana Lodge. The proposed building 970.925.5968 is about 7.5 feet higher than the two buildings to the Northwest, and 5.5 feet higher than the building to the North for the highest percentage of proposed roof FACSIMILE height (39'). 970.925.5993 If you have any - questions please do not hesitate to call. EMAIL office @renosmith.com 0371 SOUTHSIDE DRIVE Reno, A. BASALT COLORADO 81621 970.927.6834 FACSIMILE 970.927.6840 LI9I8 opeau�aJ r _ : $ < anuaAV sugdoH'M 005 C/] E. O 1'LLLLoWan a ✓ll� 1 ✓XVHaWoO� a r, O U w H z W W c� z E-{ w O P4 H z W 0 a w w Q x�-w H 0 c� 0 w Q O W x H 0 w C� z W 0 0 W x w O w w 0 z E-� LO 0 N O N Q O LO N a) O C) N U V) h O U IMLo z WRI v C,� CLIOO U �Q� cnx U L� ,cq 1� CIO P-4 C-4 ` Q o rn O N 4 o >m LO o �(3.\ C A a\ � -' 4 cn vo ��P4 � LO 0 N O N Q O LO N a) O C) N U V) h O U IMLo z WRI v C,� CLIOO U �Q� cnx U L� ,cq 1� CIO P-4 C-4 ` � 29001 9NvH2moO@ � � 4 MR \\ !)!| I t § �)\ / § ■ } 4 Ili lllhi \ \/ | ¥ M, J \ \/ I. '3 \j \ ]n■n / v ;e §!K� - n != k� t_ - k� \ \�{ I. ..... � 4 MR \\ !)!| I t § �)\ / § ■ } 4 Ili lllhi \ \/ | ¥ M, J \ \/ I. '3 \j \ ]n■n / v M ]j \\ \ !\E � ;e §!K� - n != k� t_ - k� \ \�{ M ]j \\ \ !\E � x 0("O'IOa `M3d9v m = ^ 4 O a 3 �JQO'I JI�i�2I�Ni00S z ; $ 5 y - Moa.ays� 1332115 H1219D� c C a+ ' 1 I I I I 1 Y I II I I � FU I _0 I — IBC 1 II I 1 a� I I 'III I � I m 0 I � II } VI I W O' J rl I a I Ni I rl N I I 1 I 1 9. I ; I I ; L .0. >Z91 133NIG HIA-4 W Q J LU m � F- n m v 0 n z F < W n Z W Q X Y 0 T- 1-7 w Nq9 Z Q W i a d w O O i Y O r d O J o *z< O m J C < 00V11010J `NBdsv o � o ra F 39QOI 9NVH:ltv008 - - - I li u x 3_ Ell INo M,99 LI 192N.L!j� Hl-dlnOC l ° z J IL Z W iu w _____y V - - - -- 1-J x W B S Y o O � as \•� �ao I I o f I a 6 I Ito 6 I V Y 1 I W � p a j y ^l ab t .6C 1 .O-.lE o ry W O ; z m y J I 0 w I. x ul I 1 _ of I' I 43 I I I I` YV t0 ,, 9n � li paa w Z d d N + d 6 O O w a tip 0 i F O J m 0 0 0 _ v oa,'L9 133TJ15 Hl -41A . _ /jjM §� a Kau a0rl 9k�aw\o ~ . � \ \, & z < / \ < & g j L 0 06011 a z < / \ < & g j L 0 a 8 a a a a a a ff e� F$ x °eF tl o t 2A c F F S d � H n • B 3 E6 „yea e� IIOIB opeao�o,'uadstl anuantl rv^IdoH'M 005 1aaowau a ✓LLOrl ✓m tl 4a ooff a 8 a a a a a a ff e� F$ x °eF tl o t 2A c F F S d � H m `" <x "° a 5a° a: a• < a x rH .• F- ZWN 1"1 a� z Q IL 19 UJ o Q v a z A w Q z O v O E • § oavaoaoo`Haasv V z J m J z x X W t Z_ Q J m lu W Z w m N � m a N ry 1V 111 El vW Z <� o Z< W f J < J < 10 < J ,Ij m K F X W m < LL W Z Y \ ^ - 3NI� AlT13d021d \ L / / / r I W \ \ v •" Z /" KI J � V z J m J z x X W t Z_ Q J m lu W Z w m N � m a N ry 1V 111 El vW Z <� o Z< W f J < J < 10 < J ,Ij m K F X W m < LL W Z y Y � r< � g � +k ar 0 11 C+] --- - -- s —I �o wIf � JFW }S oc K wl O yi di I oa"OgO,3'N3dSV �`JQO'I'Jl�i�2I�W 008 ar L� `E W Y mm NY mm 1 ma a4 d N a r- m v N N a ry m J d Q H mm a' 0 ¢i d U1 d O F W m Z J m J F m W. R� Z I O Z N a ry m J d Q H 9 o� ] = 9 O m F qh� V✓ ME ME We] x ` o c ME i x a i I i I i i — I- I i i i o ry I � I namm ME N N Z Q F- c i 0 � tii F K w J w < ~ O � 0 LL W Z wy m n n r i r f N V W c �a FN z wz J� m J 4F po J <Z O w ww m m m mr m �ry O 9 z ltu 00 K m0 0 Wx Cl w w m N m It J c F O H z a m IT z N N � N � i m � _ N d) I i x a i I i I i i — I- I i i i o ry I � I namm ME N N Z Q F- c i 0 � tii F K w J w < ~ O � 0 LL W Z wy m n n r i r f N V W c �a FN z wz J� m J 4F po J <Z O w ww m m m mr m �ry O 9 z ltu 00 K m0 0 Wx Cl w w m N m It J c F O H !, q/ I I I i O S E 6 yy V L Y � r O-I y r� a e� �'°u E�T1OUYNO'IOJ ``Nzasv ��0� �lY�LLI aOO \l I I, i` I I \ 1 rc z O J O I �� rc rcl a R J 0 K� al i I I i �T I I N W ~ Sqq6 ` � mgtg p88 — �_ ma N my to Nr O in iOlt r - a w� L J W J d V F J m J 10 W I K < Y W < W Z ~ 4j O aOZ cl W F 1�1 �T I I m U N W J�1 O dl al ma mN aN — �_ ma N my to Nr O in iOlt r - a m U R' �4 O iOlt w� 00 ou J W J d V F J m J 10 W I K < Y W < W Z ~ 4j O aOZ cl W F • 5 e Y � C 1Il I I I I 1 WIZ JI fl al 0 �1 tl 1 I i OUtlNOIOJ `N3dSV ��QOZ Ji�i�'2I�L�toos P \ �mz c sg a I i I 1 M P Z 0 H d J d J a d LL Y L J�1 N QW 7N r m LLI U �d �m F- Z Yw KF d0 a= JU O IL Z w W Y J�1 N m n Uri n .0 N m V .D N, r IV 0 D tat 00 K m� 0 WX F () W 0 It J H IU F- "kia � 6 x OQVrio,lo3 `N3dsv IG �OQOq OI�i�'HRwo0fl J zWN< �1 Pry _ Q � I I I I 14 JI 1 I \ I I I < I WII Z q I JI > YI I dl e I O I I al I II — I I I LTA I c II P I I I I �J I �rt I I i I I � I O- i I I I P I �o £mC• s G B a W 3NI"I A1TJ3dOTJd I - � I - - Z 0 J 7 m z Z In � W I I I` paIII I n140w000 I I � I m N I Q I ICI x, wgrj PP Ph g F `s z < OQVM070�`N3dSY r p 8a > O V V k 3 �W a rA9001 f)KVHRIt1TOOg um H l W �I l9 - Y_ I r t a o- - - - -- �e Z_ 0, J m z Z H N X W m z A J m i W Z I 0 z A J ED ED W z o-- am o-- o-- l J a 0 I `Y` F � I 14P �e Z_ 0, J m z Z H N X W m z A J m i W Z I 0 z A J ED ED W z o-- am o-- o-- l J a 0 o- -- R 1` J o- -- o- -- a e OGV110700`NHA9V CA u 3 � 9Nvuawoo5 Z a J m W Z in Z Q J W W Z 0 2 J m Z F N X W � R H memo »_ �` }{ / \ 39001 o&V'HgWOOU F H s _ n _ ac . �* f o§ __ &: ! ] L11 � lj3 a 29Oorl 9N"Rwn0# ! ® � i 0 m s L � 9 OUYH070� `NBdSY C 4444 a aDQoZ 9mvHawooa C 0 C • z A J m z x m ED z A J m Z LL a z S m z m - LJ �� 0� L • �+ x Z LL a z S m z m - LJ �� 0� I t r, ou"O70J `N3dw �OQO'I ON��WOOg W Z Q J WI W Z z Q J W �I W Z COD ~ L° V O x —j A�o- n a nor P V �n iy' �>. 1 K 2 G � NW ` � - 3 R I I I u ~ c c i 8 Fm{ E 8 o Va 2 m i w x ou"O70J `N3dw �OQO'I ON��WOOg W Z Q J WI W Z z Q J W �I W Z COD ~ L° V O x —j A�o- n a nor P V �n iy' �>. 1 K 2 G � NW ` � - 3 R I I I �rE ~ s se c Fm{ E 8 o 2 m i w x �9 0 101 ) } 2 3 LU 6 } � IU # ( / IL } / § \ k } < < } ' § ) § } < | § J / } 7 2 � / � Ul / K K ` / " ® \ \\ \ \\ \ \m \ \�m \ \ 10 ) 2 3 LU 6 } � IU # ( / IL } / § \ k } < < } ' § ) § } < | § J / } 7 2 � / ./ � � � R AP �If A 9 -Wn TR If -l\\-i A T\\Tf�f AN CD(r)v7n May 18, 2006 TrN7d_'�o MORTGAGE LENDERS Chris Bendon Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Chris: It has been brought to my attention that on May 16`x', Jody Edwards indicated that he represented the Christiana Aspen Condo Owner's Association, as well as all but one of the homeowners as this condominium project which is in front of the Boomerang Lodge, a topic of discussion on May 16th. I have been the owner of Unit A -204 since the Christiana was re- developed and also serve as Vice President of the Christiana Aspen Condo Owner's Association. In the latter capacity, we decided not to retain Jody to represent the Association as not all unit owners were affected by the proposed re- development of the Boomerang Lodge. In my case, my unit faces Main Street and the swimming pool and hot tub and it will have little impact on my views. The Christiana developer and President of our Association (Greg Hills) and I decided that he would approach individual unit owners directly and see if certain ones (who's view would be adversely affected) were interested in challenging the four -story proposal or contributing to such. In addition, since not all unit owners will be adversely impacted by the Boomerang proposal, I would seriously doubt that he represents all but "one" unit owner. In all fairness, it is my feeling that the Ordinance that permits the redevelopment of lodges by allowing the construction of four story buildings should have been challenged when the ordinance was first proposed. incerel r, 1 /.cam k C er 5690 DTC Boulevard • Suite 400 • Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 • Phone 303 -267 -0408 • FAX 303- 267 -0413 I >- z Q o Z° z C Z C o JU rc W LL LINn ~ ag • z a !q 0ava010 .3'xaasv 1OQ01 NVU21WOOR N X 4 4 W 0 <IR Y J d W Q f\I j Hill 1ph t7 a W f 0 0 m z_ Y Q 0 x {v' Z �_ a z ��. Z 0 J� WLL a= 1 16 �o 0 ll' e) ,A� �1 'r it V xg gill �gt it ,rw A � R a �Yq g od"Oloa •NUST a.9uol 9mvuaw00g a �r 5 aaaa �_ a z ��. Z 0 J� WLL a= 1 16 �o 0 ll' e) ,A� �1 'r it V xg gill �gt it ,rw A � R u u a �r jj x a d d w J F u Z a� Z� N C Z C O U J � LW LL LL ~ az • CH aoaoz DNVHH ONE[ N a.� W 0. fJ i !m e �gig lah OR " x a E E? E a} m KID rA O aP z; �o J rc W LL r CL u C 1 d oav90zo.3 •xaasv F- w W c} q L � a w w K wi It J W, >- Z a� z� _z C Z C u J � NW° 1 6 0 a= W a 1 < m y omaozoa,Kmsv w� Z z� Oz 07 d N� w w z d q O m x ,T& MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission n ' FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director) RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment — 500 West Hopkins Avenue Public Hearing — Continued from May 2, 2006 Growth Management, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision DATE: May 16, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existing Boomerang consists of: • 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. • 31 parking spaces, all but one of which are partially within the city right -of -way The proposed Boomerang Lodge includes: ■ 54 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 51,000 square feet. ■ 6 free - market residential units. ■ 2 affordable housing units. • 48 parking spaces — 31 underground and 17 surface. 11 APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP. II STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project, but has concern about two significant items. Staff recommends discussion of these issues and either resolution of these or continuation. SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP, is proposing to redevelopment the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R -6 LP — Medium - Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half - block — 27,000 square feet — and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R -6 Zone District is a single - family and duplex zone district. (The "west -end" is zoned R -6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development consists of 54 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 17 surface parking spaces BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 to remain partially within the street rights -of -way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 51,000 square feet. CONTINUED HEARING: During the May 2nd public hearing, staff and the applicant were able to give a brief presentation of the project and the P &Z was able to ask preliminary questions about the project. Due to limited time, the P &Z was not able to open the public hearing or provide substantive comments on the project. For tonight's hearing, staff would like to "restart" by again giving a brief presentation and allowing the applicants an opportunity to complete their presentation. Staff has prepared a draft resolution for a vote on this application if the P &Z is so inclined. The application was distributed with the April 111h packet and is not being redistributed for this packet. If you no longer have the application, contact staff for an additional copy. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 Dimension • District Existing Proposed Requirement Development Development Minimum Lot Size 6,000 S.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 2700 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10 -70 ft.* 0 -5 ft. Yard Setback Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west* 0 -5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1 -5 ft. on east* 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0 -2 ft.* 0 -5 ft. Yard Setback Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley.* 42 ft. for a flat roof. (set in PUD for 20 -25 ft on east* Approximately 30- Lodging) 35 ft. on east side. Pedestrian 0% (lot not within 40 -50 %* 19% Amenity Space PA required area) Floor Area Ratio: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f.* 1.9:1 = 51,365 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f.* 1:1 = 27,000 s.f. Non -unit space ** Set in PUD Included in lodge .37:1 = 10,088s.f. ** space Commercial Set in PUD N/A N/A Free - Market 25% of total project N/A 48:1 = 12,822 = Residential Floor Area 25% of total project BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 4 / . 1 Affordable No FAR limit N/A 05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Residential * These are estimates by staff and are not measured dimensions. ** The limit on non -unit space is currently being proposed to be removed from the Land Use Code and the non -unit space be attributed to either the lodging FAR limit or the total project FAR limit. Final consideration of this amendment is scheduled for City Council review on April 10, 2006. NECESSARY LAND USE APPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 20 requested in this application) and associated new free - market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 4. REZONING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 5. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 6. CONDOMINIUMIZATION; Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council. (P &Z does not make a recommendation on this review.) BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 7. VESTED RIGHTS: Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3 -year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3 -year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. (P &Z does not make a recommendation on this review.) STAFF COMMENTS' Height. The neighborhood is a mix of single - family, duplex, multi - family, lodging, and mixed -use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L'Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most - recent approvals have been in the low 30 -foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). The proposed four floors and 42 -foot height is potentially out of character with the neighborhood. Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type of lodge development desired by the City — small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. The Commission should discuss this balance and how it should be struck for this site. Staff does believe the height should be reconsidered and possibly lowered to a three -story building, at least in significant portions of the site. The applicant does have a neighborhood model and the heights of this project in relation to surrounding development is best understood with this model. "Historic" East Wing. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission does believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east "wing" of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after redevelopment is accomplished. The entire property would not be landmarked. (Please see Exhibit #1 of the application.) The HPC was allowed an opportunity to review the proposed changes to the east wing. (HPC did not review the entire proposal.) Generally, the HPC does not prefer the addition of a third floor on the east wing and would like to see this portion of the project remain more true to its original (current) form and receive only minor alterations. If the east wing did incorporate an addition, the HPC suggested it be recessed and of a clearly different architectural character (not mimicking the original wing) so that old and new components could be easily identified. The HPC encouraged the applicant, staff and the BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 o., P &Z to provide flexibility on the remainder of the development such that this east wing could remain unaltered. Staff does want to preserve the quality of this portion of the development to the extent possible. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the general height concerns staff raised above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly supports the basic concept of the application. The proposal implements both replacement and an increase in the bed base in an area that has historically included lodging within the mix of land uses. This is important to the long -term viability of the resort aspect of the community. Also, the small, interspersed lodging experience is unique and an important part of Aspen's lodging offerings. The design substantially mitigates the project's parking impacts on the neighborhood and, with some very minor changes, will substantially improve pedestrian infrastructure of the area. Staff believes the two issues identified above need substantive discussion. Staff believes a reduction in the height (from four floors to three floors) would help the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. Also, the east wing deserves substantive discussion in relation to HPC's desire for this portion of the building to retain it's current character and massing. Addressing these two issues, and others that P &Z may have, may require a continuation. Staff is prepared for a vote on the project if the review progresses to such a point. RECOMMENDED MOTION: h.� "I move to approve P &Z Resolution No. 011 approving with conditions the Growth Management reviews for Lodging and Affordable Housing and recommending approval with conditions of the Subdivision and PUD reviews for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment." ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move to continue the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment to [either the June 13`h agenda (Chris will be out of town) or to an extra meeting on June 27`h] to permit the development team to respond to the comments and recommendations of the P &Z Commission." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings on Review Standards Exhibit B: Application (Distributed with the April 11, 2006, packet) Exhibit C: Letters received by staff BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 Resolution No. W (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM APPROVAL FOR LODGING, FREE - MARKET RESIDENTIAL, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLOTMENTS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free- market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, twenty (20) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights -of -way. The proposed development includes 54 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31 -space underground parking facility , and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 51,000 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. p(i Series of 2006 Page 1 after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, and continued to May 16, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free - market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, twenty (20) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a _ to_ (--_) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1: Growth Management Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — hereby grants to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free - market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and twenty (20) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2: Recommendation of Approval for Subdivision, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, and PUD Final Development Plan The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 — Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively — hereby recommends City Council grant Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Proiect Dimensions The followin a roved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Pfanninp and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 4Series of 2006 Page 2 Dimension Minimum Lot Size Proposed Development 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 2700 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. on west 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 -5 ft. Maximum Height 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. "'Thls hedde to be more speck Pfanninp and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 4Series of 2006 Page 2 Pedestrian Amenity space 1 19% Floor Total 1.9:1 = 51,365 s.f. Lodging 1:1 = 27,000 s.f. Non -unit space .37:1 = 10,088s.f. Commercial N/A Free - Market Residential .48:1 = 12,822 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: Trash/Recycling Area The applicant is encouraged to make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and the make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick -up. Section 5: Affordable Housing The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed - restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1 /10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed - restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trio Generation and PM10 Mitigation Plan In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners /guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners /gusts of the project, 3) Plannsg and Zoning Commission Resolution No. ItC�P Series of 2006 Page 3 secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall J oin the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights -of -way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.13, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5'h Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right -of -way improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. Plan�g and Zoning Commission Resolution No. Series of 2006 Page 4 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150 Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights -of -way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights -of -way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right -of -way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right -of -way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights -of -way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $41,039 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees — Proposed Development 54 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit = $82,080 2 one - bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit = $4,240 3 two - bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit = $8,175 3 three- bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit = $10,902 Total = $105,397 Park Fees — Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit = $51,680 Total Credit = ($51,680) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $53,717 Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 1Q, Series of 2006 Page 5 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one -third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11: Sanitation District Standards/Requirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution t No. b Series of 2006 Page 6 61 %h 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre - Construction Meetin¢ Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer /Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official /Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD /SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Management Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day -to -day issues can be resolved without involving the City. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. A Series of 2006 Page 7 P..,t t 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ( CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include /depict: I. A signed copy of the final P &Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right -of -way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right -of -way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace /woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or I of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. ItY� Series of 2006 Page 8 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right -of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise During Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17• All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. -, Series of 2006 Page 9 amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19• 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. Section 20: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Resolution, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on , 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair CA\home \Current Planning \CASES \Boomerang Lodge \Reso.doc Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. `DQ Series of 2006 Page 10 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470.040.A.7 — Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development. Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel /lodge buildings and portions thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of growth management, provided that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change -in -use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt and the expansion shall be subject to Section 26.470.040.C.2 or 3. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070, and definition of Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space, Section 26.104.100. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed redevelopment partially uses existing lodge allotments. These 34 replacement lodge units are exempt from growth management. The remaining 20 lodge allotments needed are addressed below. 26.470.040.B.3. Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Thirty -seven allotments for free - market residential were available for the 2005 GMQS year. The application is a 2005 application and is requesting 6 free - market allotments. 36 allotments were applied for (including these 6). 16 have been approved so far with the remaining 20 pending in some form. There are sufficient free - market GMQS allotments available for this project. The Lodging allotment is based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on development allotments. The development ceiling for lodging allows for approximately 2,500 additional lodge pillows and this proposal (considered to be 40 pillows — 20 units x 2 pillows per unit = 40) is well within the development ceiling. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 1 The affordable housing allotment is also based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on affordable housing units. The ceiling provides for an additional 686 units and this proposal for 2 units is well within the growth ceiling. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES This property is located in the R -6 zone district with a Lodge Preservation overlay and is described as "residential" in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP. The property has functioned as lodging for the past 50 years (+ or -). The purpose of the Lodge Preservation zone district is "to provide for a protect small lodges on properties historically used for lodging accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodging and affordable housing uses.... and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties." The property is within walking distance of Main Street, downtown, mass transit, and other common tourist destinations and attractions. The neighborhood is a mix of land uses from single - family and duplex development, to multi - family, civic, lodging, commercial, and mixed -use buildings. Staff believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is consistent with the historic use of the property and with the character of the neighborhood. The 2000 AACP Economic Sustainability section describes what is necessary for Aspen's economic base: "Essential to the long -term viability is the unique, varied, high - quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges." Staff believes this proposal is consistent with this philosophy statement. The Action Plan of the 2000 AACP called for a task force to identify ways to sustain and improve the local economy. The number one recommendation of this task force was to support the redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities. The proposal is consistent with this recommendation. The City amended much of its Land Use Code after the 2000 AACP and the Economic Sustainability Report suggested loosening the regulations to allow to reinvestment within the lodging sector. Staff believes this project is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code revisions. Staff also believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 2 d) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit These two standards (the density standard and the unit -size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average -size standard For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit -size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit -size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C.2 — ExpansionlNew Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project meets these two qualifiers. Minimum unit density needed is 54 lodging units and the project provides this number. The average unit size is 500 square feet, meeting the second qualifier. e) Associated free- market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the annual development allotment Each unit shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods: i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. ii) Providing on -site or off -site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free- market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be one - bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash -in -lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 3 iii) Paying an affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen✓Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required far the free- market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free- market component of the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1— Employee Generation. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The application proposes 2 affordable housing units. This complies with option ii, above. The proposal is to limit these units to the Category 2 level, which is more affordable than the required Category 4 level. f) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof. On -site affordable housing units shall be one - bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required far replacement development The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 — Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040. C. 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Exhibit A— Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 4 STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project's 20 generate approximately 6 new employees according to the land use code's generation tables. (20 units x .3 employees per unit = 6 employees). The 30% mitigation requirement results in a requirements for the project to house 1.8 employees. When accomplished on -site, this mitigation can also provide the mitigation for the free - market development noted above. (This is a significant incentive for on -site affordable housing mitigation.) The 2 units proposed provides housing for approximately 3.5 employees, according to the Land Use Code, and sufficiently meets this requirement. Staff believes the proposal is in compliance with this standard. i) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project has been reviewed by the City Engineer, Community Development Engineer, and various utility agencies. With certain conditions of approval recommended by these agencies, the project meets this standard. 26.470.040.B.7. Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C, Development Ceiling Levels. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Approximately 686 affordable housing allotments are available and this proposal's two units are accommodated within the Development Ceiling. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Exhibit A— Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 5 y-. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes the project is consistent with the AACP (see staff commentary on page 3 of this exhibit). The affordable housing units are above grade and appear to be well - designed. One - bedroom rental units are preferred by the Housing Authority when associated with projects of this nature. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project was reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority staff and Board. APCHA staff reports (verbally) that the project's affordable housing units comply with the Housing Guidelines. A written referral memo was not provided. Staff believes this criterion is met, subject to a condition of approval regarding the continual affordability of the rental units. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash -in -lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. STAFF FINDING: [ DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Affordable housing is required for mitigation and is in the form of on -site units. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. STAFF FINDING: J DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Units are proposed as rental units. The application proposes to transfer a nominal interest to the APCHA to ensure the permanent affordability of the units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 6 SUBDIVISION: STAFF FINDINGS The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. 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 (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed development is consistent with the AACP. The subdivision action is necessary to permit multiple residences on one parcel. There is no alteration of the existing lot lines of the property. Also see staff comments on page 3 of this exhibit. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that the subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area which operate in a similar manner — lodging, residential, and commercial in various mixed -use configurations. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Because the subdivision proposed here is all internal to the structure, staff does not find that the subdivision will adversely impact future development of the surrounding area. All surrounding properties have adequate access. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Assuming the project is granted the other related approvals, the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the zone district and other chapters and sections of the Land Use Code. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 8 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 snow slide, 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dangers. No known hazards of the property have been reported. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities or unnecessary public costs. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No variations to the subdivision standards are proposed. 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No variations to the subdivision standards are requested. 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. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 9 STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The standards of Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — are applicable and have been addressed in the application. Staff finds the affordable housing requirement to be met with the proposed two affordable housing units. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards is required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The applicant will pay cash in lieu of a land dedication, which will be required at time of building permit. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 10 STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Final PUD Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Final PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with many objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see staff's response to this standard on page 3 of this section. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findin¢ The immediate vicinity is comprised of lodging, civic, commercial, mixed use, single - family, and multi - family residential buildings. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff does question whether the proposed height of the building — 42 feet — meets this standard. This would be significantly larger than any other building in the area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Findin Staff does not believe that the proposed development would adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The Applicant has applied for the requisite allotments and there is sufficient allotment available to accommodate the project. 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 Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 11 dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the fallowing influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate given the character of the neighborhood and the fact that lodging has operated on this property for the last 50 years. The proposed height is of concern to staff. At 42 feet high, this structure would be significantly taller than surrounding structures which are typically in the 25 to 32 foot range (as measured by code at the midpoint). Staff believes this proposed height needs significant discussion prior to P &Z making a finding on this standard. 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 Staff believes that the a majority of the proposed dimensional requirements for the new lodge are compatible with the surrounding properties. Again, height is a concern as well as the proposed third floor on the east wing. 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 ofpublic 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. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 12 Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed an underground parking garage to handle the parking needs of the project as well as to officially permit the parking spaces along Fourth Street. Staff prefers that the parking along Hopkins Avenue be removed and the sidewalk continued along this street. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The infrastructure capabilities are sufficient to accommodate this proposal. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because ofground instability or the possibility of mudjlow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. 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 No natural hazards or other conditions exist that would dictate such a reduction in allowable density. 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 Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 13 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 Staff believes the proposed density is appropriate for the site and for the character of the immediate vicinity. The resulting height to accommodate the density is of concern. There are not "density" requirements of the zone district, but the number of units are established through adoption of a PUD. R 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. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved through the redevelopment. This area provides some relief tot eh massing and a benefit to the project. Staff considers the criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Findine Other than the pool area, there is no significant open space in the proposal. However, this is an infill development site and using the site for lodging development is appropriate. 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. Staff Finding The east wing is proposed to be preserved. This element has an important relationship to Fourth Street a the primary entrance. The sidewalk along Hopkins and Fifth Street needs improvement. These sidewalks should, ideally, be redeveloped adjacent to the property line. Some conflicts with existing vegetation may arise by doing this. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 14 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding Proper emergency access will be maintained with this proposal. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided Staff Finding This criterion has been met. Compliance with accessibility regulations will be required and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. The Building Department has requested the project Architect meet with the department as soon as possible in the design development process. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The City Engineer and the applicant have reviewed drainage requirements and believe this criterion is satisfied. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding The pool area falls within this category and staff believes this area provides benefit to the lodge and its guests as well as the aesthetics of the project. C. 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 significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding The proposed landscape improvements will significantly improve this site. The existing surface parking along Hopkins Avenue detracts from the streetscape and provides no Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 15 pedestrian accommodation. Staff is recommending this be removed. The same could be said about the parking along Fourth Street, but staff believes this parking does serve the needs of the lodge. It may be possible to rearrange this Fourth Street parking as parallel parking. The sidewalk along Hopkins is in poor condition. It may be possible to redevelop this sidewalk adjacent to the property line. A traditional street tree pattern would improve the pedestrian experience. Similarly, the sidewalk along Fifth Street could be moved to be adjacent to the property line with a traditional street tree program. The proposed landscape treatment along Fifth Street may be over planted. 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 Findin> The pool area is being preserved and staff believes this is important to the site. The applicant has agreed to work with the Parks Department on preserving vegetation in the construction phase. D. 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. Staff Findin The architectural character of this proposal is appropriate for the proposed use and for the immediate vicinity. The proposal is similar to the east wing and minimizes the effects of height to the extent practical. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 16 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. Staff Finding The proposal does not include any special systems. The site has limited solar access during winter months due to the proximity of the property to Shadow Mountain. The vegetation along the south property line will provide shape in summer months. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Findin¢ The flat roofs essentially mitigate this concern. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: L All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development Staff Findin¢ The applicant has indicated full compliance with the City's lighting code will be achieved. F. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 17 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 Findin>? The pools area could be considered such a common amenity. Because the project does not include separate lots with individual structures and because the pool amenity is primarily for the lodging guests, staff does not believe that a common undivided interest in the pool is necessary. G. 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 Findine There exists adequate infrastructure to accommodate this proposal. The applicant will be required to provide service upgrades as necessary. No City or other utility agencies have requested oversizing. H. 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 ofsecurity gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 18 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. Staff Findin¢ Proper access is maintained to the parcel and the and structure with this proposal. 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 Staff does not foresee this proposal creating undue congestion on the existing road network. The underground parking is access from the alley, which is the most preferred method. No upgrades to the road system are necessary although some curb /gutter improvements may be required by the City Engineer. This can be handled as part of the platting and/or building permit review. I. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in- lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding No phasing has been proposed. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 19 STAFF COMMENTS: REZONING Note: Required for PUD Overlay. No change to underlying R -6 Zone is proposed. Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD Overlay is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. The Lodge Preservation Overlay requires that lodging redevelopment proceed through a PUD and the additional of a PUD overlay enables the dimensions of the project to sustain a greater scrutiny. Staff believes the PUD Overlay is appropriate and desired and is recommending approval. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Please refer to comments related to the AACP on page 3. In summary, staff believes this application is in compliance with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: No change to the underlying zoning is being proposed, only a PUD overlay. The Overlay provides for a greater discussion and involvement of neighboring property owners as to the compatibility of the proposed development. Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The PUD criteria include traffic and road safety as review standards. The addition of a PUD overlay itself does not have any impact on road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 21 The utility and infrastructure needs for the project have been addressed in the PUD application. Because of the location of the development and existing capacities, no significant up- grades are required to accommodate this development. To the extent that upgrades to the existing systems are necessary, these will be paid for by the applicant and not by the general public. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed zoning overlay and the proposed development do not represent adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Sufficient criteria to evaluate potential impacts on the natural environment are included as PUD criteria and the overlay actually ensures the community a greater degree of scrutiny. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The overlay requires a greater degree of review than would otherwise be required and compatibility issues regarding proposed heights, FAR, setbacks, etc. use can be more thoroughly evaluated with the PUD overlay. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: A change in conditions is not a prerequisite to rezoning. This criterion only requires that any changed conditions be considered upon requests for rezoning. There is no particular change other than that the existing development is in significant need of refurbishment. The LP overlay requires that the dimensions be established through the PUD process. The addition of a PUD overlay would enable the appropriate dimensions to be determined for the redevelopment. Staff believes this criterion has been met and supports the zoning of the property to include a PUD Overlay. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the additional review and involvement of the community required by the PUD Overlay is in conflict with the public interest. The overlay enables the project to withstand greater public scrutiny and a more - involved community decision process. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 22 ELIZABETH "HAILEY" RODWELL DART 633 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, USA Tel: 970 920 3874 — Fax: 970 920 2829 Email: hailey @ro£net :" APR 0 6 2006 Chris Bendon BUl D!`,'. F,)EFYTTk1ENT Director of Community Planning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 5 April 2006 Dear Chris, I live at the South East corner of Sixth and Main and, though not directly impacted by it, I feel that the proposed new Boomerang project will be an important addition to the neighborhood while providing the city with its desired increased bed base. I have followed its plan developments over the past few months with great interest and have talked with Steve Stunda on a number of occasions. He recently showed me the latest proposed plans and model which I find to be most acceptable for this neighborhood. Setting the building back off the alley towards the south and against the existing natural tree buffer on Hopkins is an excellent and inspired solution to limiting the impact of the building mass as well as continuing the feeling of space along the alley (similar to that which we have in the 600 block between Fifth and Sixth streets). In addition, the developer should be applauded for solving its own parking requirements with its underground (out of sight) parking garage off this alley. Indeed the larger size of the new building with its increased bed base will, I think, seem smaller than the existing old Boomerang building with its smaller size right on the alley and lower bed base. Given the above, I can't imagine anybody in the area seriously considering criticizing this project. This letter is to share with you my wholehearted support of the project as it stands now. Respectfully submitted, Hailey Dart FREDRIC N FINE 412 Mariner Dr Jupiter, p1 33477 561 57S2728 fax 561 575 9196 allfines@aol.com aol.com January 11, 2006 Joyce Allgaier City of Aspen Community Deve lopment Dept. 130 S Galena St.,Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Ms.Allgaier, Recently there was a newspaper article in the Aspen Times about the Boomerang Lodge. The article referred to the new owners wanting to replace the existing 34 room lodge with 54 rooms,6 condos & 2 affordable housing units , in a 4 story building ,plus a roof deck. As an owner of a condo in the Christiana L.odge,I strongly object to the increase in the number of rooms,as well as the height of the proposed 4 story building.The size is out of place for the neighborhood.There are no 4 story buildings in this area. In addition , one of the reasons we bought in the Christiana Lodge is for the view of the mountains.A 4 story structure will obliterate our beaus" views. Hopefully if and when this proposal comes to fruition,you will take my letter under consideration. Very truly yours, loe A/ f Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Joyce Allgaier Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:20 PM To: 'allfines @aol.com' Cc: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang development Dear Mr. Fines, Thank you for your letter regarding the Boomerang Redevelopment proposal. The Boomerang Redevelopment proposal that is discussed in your letter is different from the "Boomerang vacant parcel proposal" which is a lot split and rezoning. The hearing set for tonight, 3/13 before the City Council, but being continued to 3/27, has to do with the vacant parcel of land associated with the Boomerang that is located across Hopkins on the south side of the street. Chris Bendon is the planner on the more major redevelopment proposal so I have forwarded your letter to him. He will introduce it into the record at the public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission and provide them with a copy prior to the hearing. The hearing on the Boomerang Redevelopment is currently scheduled for the P &Z on 4/11/06. If you are located within 300 feet of the Boomerang property you will be sent a legal notice when the hearing comes up. As noted, we will make sure that your letter is submitted for consideration. Chris' phone number is 429 -2765. Please let me know if I can assist in any way or provide additional information. Joyce Allgaier Joyce A. Allgaier, AICP Deputy D;re.c or Com minity Development Dept ,It`/ Gf �i Sze ' 2r 4 t! h G,- IlCr`,a `Street GO I r 970.429.2754 1 www.aspenpitkin.com 3/13/2006 l �� i7- et y Qq�tit Cc4 MAY © 1 2006 srolvb A. l 1 7Ze 4�Lte m e7 AV 0 0 April 6, 2006 Chris Bendon Director of Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Bendon, My name is John Staton and I live at 431 W. Hopkins, diagonal from the Boomerang Lodge. I have reviewed the drawings,and,the architectural model with the Owner and the Architect for the Boomerang project. After review of the project I find no objection to the project as proposed. I feel that the project as proposed will fit in nicely with the neighborhood and in my opinion is in no way out of scale within this context. The retention of the trees goes a long way to mitigating the height and mass of the structure. I am particularly pleased to see that there will be no additional traffic on Hopkins Ave. due to the underground parking garage. I also appreciate the developer's effort to retain a significant component of the old lodge. I strongly recommend the approval of the project as proposed. Very Sincerely Yours, J t on 970- Ski_ oz�� APR 17 2006 APR 12 2006 G� Gvf7r'G -`T� ,' J�D � 1,��, l �) Fl I X•1 SI V9,spc kl aj � nnF -l/�r5 ,t3E XJDo HJ c't� �cikPC�u jcei l/iWtf �x �' •� .� �f�! � C. L TXi t . l!1 a� Cc >`Z' CC(C�l�' ,.�C?� E l7L ✓ 2t wc LCC C. "/,� �/flLi� �� %%�' C(_ -!�i �.t✓L!sC�Q.G N� � lam/ Iz�,z �c�a,�..L2� Cl''G' �- -L � 7,Zc ll"W April 10, 2006 APR 1 7 200J Mr. Chris Bendon Director of Community Development City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Development Dear Mr. Bendon: I own one of the condominiums at 605 W. Main Street and am very interested in the proposed development for the lodge. My condominium is located diagonally across the alley from the lodge. I have met with the Owner, Steve Stunda, and have reviewed the plans and the model of the development. I am very much in support of the project as proposed. The number of units, the parking, the building height and the architecture is well thought out and will be a huge improvement to this neighborhood. I also am very pleased with the proposal to retain a large majority of the existing trees located on the property. As an Aspen resident for 27 years I have observed that the neighborhood has pretty much been the Boomerang Lodge; with development occurring around the property for the last 20 years. Aspen is so lucky to have the redevelopment of lodges which in my opinion, is necessary for the survival of Aspen. I fully support the proposed Boomerang Lodge proposal. Sincerely Yours, Kimberly A. Reno uvvaaacaaug . Vugc a�cucvcruyurcuL V rage i or i Reminder: AOL will never ask you to send us your password or credit card number in an email. This message has been scanned for known viruses. i From: Steve Goldenberg To: Chris Bandon (chdsb@cl.aspen.co.us) Subject: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:00:42 -0600 Dear Chris: We are neighbors just to the east of the Boomerang Lodge. Steve Stunda has been very attentive to the neighbors on all sides of the proposed project. While R is a very big project, the underground parking makes a huge positive difference to us. That should go a long way toward cleaning up the parked cars that have been all over the neighborhood lately. The rezoning and lot split across the street will also reduce congestion and traffic on the "Pedestrian Walkway ". The biggest concern I have has to do with the demolition, excavation and construction traffic and noise which I would like to see addressed. I'm sure Steve Stunda will address this issue with you and with the all the neighbors. We are pleased to be able to support the project and hope it gets approved by the City Council next Monday. Steve — Steve Goldenberg steve@aoldenbero.com 430 W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970 - 925 -1294 Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970 -379 -9778 http: / /r03.webmail.aol.com/ 17325 /aoi/en- us/maij/display- message.aspx 4/12/2006 Mr. Chris Bendon Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 April 4, 2006 Dear Chris, My name is Rabbi Mendel Mintz and I am the owner of L'Auberge and the house on Main and Fourth Street. My property Is located catacorner from the Boomerang Lodge. I am a near neighbor. I am writing you in support of the proposed Lodge Expansion. I am quite excited about the plans for the expansion and feel it will bring new life to the neighborhood. Many of our members and visitors who attend our services and programs will be very happy to have a new, modern facility for their use In this area. I feel that this project will be a good addition to the neighborhood and highly recommend it. Sincerely yours Rabbi Mendel Mintz � P MEMORANDUM i TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director �jIA/1 RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment — 500 West Hopkins Avenue Public Hearing — Growth Management, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision DATE: April 11, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existing Boomerang consists of: 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. 31parking spaces, all but one of which are partially within the city right -of -way The proposed Boomerang Lodge includes: • 54 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 51,000 square feet. • 6 free - market residential units. • 2 affordable housing units. • 48 parking spaces — 31 underground and 17 surface. APPLICANT: Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and continuation to May 2 "a —S1 !� SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP, is proposing to redevelopment the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R -6 LP — Medium - Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half - block — 27,000 square feet — and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R -6 Zone District is a single - family and duplex zone district. (The "west -end" is zoned R -6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development consists of 54 hotel units, 6 free - market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 17 surface parking spaces to remain partially within the street rights -of -way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 51,000 square feet. BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE t Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270Wft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10 -70 ft." 0 -5 ft. Yard Setback Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west" 0 -5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1 -5 ft. on east` 1 -5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0 -2 ft." 0 -5 ft. Yard Setback Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley.* 42 ft. for a flat roof. (set in PUD for 20 -25 ft on east" Approximately 30- Lodging) 35 ft. on east side. Pedestrian 0% (lot not within 40 -50 %" 19% Amenity Space PA required area) Floor Area Ratio: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f." 1.9:1 = 51,365 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f." 1:1 = 27,000 s.f. Non -unit space** Set in PUD Included in lodge .37:1 = 10,088s.f. space Commercial Set in PUD N/A N/A Free - Market 25% of total project N/A .48:1 = 12,822 = Residential Floor Area 25% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Residential * These are estimates by stuff and are not measured dimensions. ** The limit on non -unit space is currently being proposed to be removed from the Land Use Code and the non -unit space be attributed to either the lodging FAR limit or the total project FAR limit. Final consideration of this amendment is scheduled for City Council review on April 10, 2006. *V,9- NECESSARY LAND USE APPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 20 requested in this application) and associated new free - market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM — AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 4. REZONING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 5. SUBDIVISION, Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P &Z. 6. CONDOMINIUMIz.ATION; Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council. (P &Z does not make a recommendation on this review) VESTED RIGHTS: Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3 -year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3 -year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. (P&Z does not make a recommendation on this review.) STAFF COMMENTS' Height. The neighborhood is a mix of single - family, duplex, multi - family, lodging, and mixed -use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L'Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most - recent approvals have been in the low 30 -foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). The proposed four floors and 42 -foot height is potentially out of character with the neighborhood. Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type of lodge development desired by the BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 City — small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. The Commission should discuss this balance and how it should be struck for this site. Staff does believe the height should be reconsidered and possibly lowered to a three -story building, at least in significant portions of the site. The applicant does have a neighborhood model and the heights of this project in relation to surrounding development is best understood with this model. "Historic" East Wing. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission does believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east "wing" of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after redevelopment_is accomplished. The entire property would not be landmarked. (Please see Exhibit #1 of the application.) The HPC was allowed an opportunity to review the proposed changes to the east wing. (HPC did not review the entire proposal.) Generally, the HPC does not prefer the addition of a third floor on the east wing and would like to see this portion of the project remain more true to its original (current) form and receive only minor alterations. If the east wing did incorporate an addition, the HPC suggested it be recessed and of a clearly different architectural character (not mimicking the original wing) so that old and new components could be easily identified. The HPC encouraged the applicant, staff and the P &Z to provide flexibility on the remainder of the development such that this east wing could remain unaltered. Staff does want to preserve the quality of this portion of the development to the extent possible. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the general height concerns staff raised above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission consider presentations by both staff and the applicant, public testimony, and provide comments on the two issues raised by staff (and others of concern of the Commission). Staff recommends that the project be continued to May 2 °d for resolution of these issues and possible vote. Staff will prepare a proposed resolution for the May 2 °d meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment to May 2 °d, 2006." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings on Review Standards Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Letters received by staff BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 EXMBIT A STAFF FINDINGS STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470.040.A.7 — Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development. Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel /lodge buildings and portions thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of growth management, provided that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change -in -use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt and the expansion shall be subject to Section 26.470.040.C.2 or 3. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070, and definition of Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space, Section 26.104.100. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed redevelopment partially uses existing lodge allotments. These 34 replacement lodge units are exempt from growth management. The remaining 20 lodge allotments needed are addressed below. 26.470.040.B.3. Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Thirty-seven allotments for free - market residential were available for the 2005 GMQS year. The application is a 2005 application and is requesting 6 free - market allotments. 36 allotments were applied for (including these 6). 16 have been approved so far with the remaining 20 pending in some form. There are sufficient free - market GMQS allotments available for this project. The Lodging allotment is based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on development allotments. The development ceiling for lodging allows for approximately 2,500 additional lodge pillows and this proposal (considered to be 40 pillows — 20 units x 2 pillows per unit = 40) is well within the development ceiling. The affordable housing allotment is also based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on affordable housing units. The ceiling provides for an additional Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page t 686 units and this proposal for 2 units is well within the growth ceiling. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES This property is located in the R -6 zone district with a Lodge Preservation overlay and is described as `residential" in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP. The property has functioned as lodging for the past 50 years (+ or -). The purpose of the Lodge Preservation zone district is "to provide for a protect small lodges on properties historically used for lodging accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodging and affordable housing uses, ... and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties." The property is within walking distance of Main Street, downtown, mass transit, and other common tourist destinations and attractions. The neighborhood is a mix of land uses from single - family and duplex development, to multi - family, civic, lodging, commercial, and mixed -use buildings. Staff believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is consistent with the historic use of the property and with the character of the neighborhood. The 2000 AACP Economic Sustainability section describes what is necessary for Aspen's economic base: "Essential to the long -term viability is the unique, varied, high - quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population. They demand a lively, small -scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges." Staff believes this proposal is consistent with this philosophy statement. The Action Plan of the 2000 AACP called for a task force to identify ways to sustain and improve the local economy. The number one recommendation of this task force was to support the redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities. The proposal is consistent with this recommendation. The City amended much of its Land Use Code after the 2000 AACP and the Economic Sustainability Report suggested loosening the regulations to allow to reinvestment within the lodging sector. Staff believes this project is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code revisions. Staff also believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. d) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 2 square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit -size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average -size standard For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit -size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit -size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C.2 — Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project meets these two qualifiers. Minimum unit density needed is 54 lodging units and the project provides this number. The average unit size is 500 square feet, meeting the second qualifier. e) Associated free- market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods: i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. ii) Providing on -site or off-site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free- market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be one - bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash -in -lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26 470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. iii) Paying an affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free- market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 3 component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free- market component of the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.] — Employee Generation. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application proposes 2 affordable housing units. This complies with option ii, above. The proposal is to limit these units to the Category 2 level, which is more affordable than the required Category 4 level. Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26 470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof. On -site affordable housing units shall be one- bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 — Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project's 20 generate approximately 6 new employees according to the land use code's generation tables. (20 units x .3 employees per unit = 6 employees). The 30% mitigation requirement results in a requirements for the project to house 1.8 employees. When accomplished on -site, this mitigation can also provide the mitigation for the free - market development noted above. (This is a significant incentive for on -site affordable housing mitigation.) The 2 units proposed provides housing for approximately 3.5 employees, according to the Land Use Code, and sufficiently meets this requirement. Staff believes the proposal is in compliance with this standard. g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 4 STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project has been reviewed by the City Engineer, Community Development Engineer, and various utility agencies. With certain conditions of approval recommended by these agencies the project meets this standard. 26.470.040.8.7. Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C, Development Ceiling Levels. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Approximately 686 affordable housing allotments are available and this proposal's two units are accommodated within the Development Ceiling. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes the project is consistent with the AACP (see staff commentary on page 3 of this exhibit). The affordable housing units are above grade and appear to be well - designed. One - bedroom rental units are preferred by the Housing Authority when associated with projects of this nature. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard The Aspen✓Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose, to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project was reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority staff and Board. APCHA staff reports (verbally) that the project's affordable housing units comply with the Housing Guidelines. A written referral memo was not provided. Staff believes this criterion is met, subject to a condition of approval regarding the continual affordability of the rental units. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash -in -lieu payment shall be at Exhibit A— Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 5 the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Affordable housing is required for mitigation and is in the form of on -site units. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Units are proposed as rental units. The application proposes to transfer a nominal interest to the APCHA to ensure the permanent affordability of the units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 6 SUBDIVISION: STAFF FINDINGS The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. 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 (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with the AACP. The subdivision action is necessary to permit multiple residences on one parcel. There is no alteration of the existing lot lines of the property. Also see staff comments on page 3 of this exhibit. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that the subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area which operate in a similar manner — lodging, residential, and commercial in various mixed -use configurations. c The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Because the subdivision proposed here is all internal to the structure, staff does not find that the subdivision will adversely impact future development of the surrounding area. All surrounding properties have adequate access. d The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Assuming the project is granted the other related approvals, the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the zone district and other chapters and sections of the Land Use Code. B. Suitability of Landfor Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 7 mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dangers. No known hazards of the property have been reported. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities or unnecessary public costs. 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. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No variations to the subdivision standards are proposed. 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No variations to the subdivision standards are requested. 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The standards of Chapter 26.470 — Growth Management — are applicable and have been addressed in the application. Staff finds the affordable housing requirement to be met with the proposed two affordable housing units. Exhibit A— Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 8 E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. 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. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards is required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The applicant will pay cash in lieu of a land dedication which will be required at time of building permit. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 9 STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Final PUD Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Final PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. L The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findin¢ Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with many objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see staff's response to this standard on page 3 of this section. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding The immediate vicinity is comprised of lodging, civic, commercial, mixed use, single - family, and multi - family residential buildings. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff does question whether the proposed height of the building — 42 feet — meets this standard. This would be significantly larger than any other building in the area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed development would adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The Applicant has applied for the requisite allotments and there is sufficient allotment available to accommodate the project. 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 Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 10 W </ I. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property. a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate given the character of the neighborhood and the fact that lodging has operated on this property for the last 50 years. The proposed height is of concern to staff. At 42 feet high, this structure would be significantly taller than surrounding structures which are typically in the 25 to 32 foot range (as measured by code at the midpoint). Staff believes this proposed height needs significant discussion prior to P &Z making a finding on this standard. 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 Staff believes that the a majority of the proposed dimensional requirements for the new lodge are compatible with the surrounding properties. Again, height is a concern as well as the proposed third floor on the east wing. 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 The Applicant has proposed an underground parking garage to handle the parking needs of the project as well as to officially permit the parking spaces along Fourth Street. Staff prefers that the parking along Hopkins Avenue be removed and the sidewalk continued along this street. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 11 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The infrastructure capabilities are sufficient to accommodate this proposal. S. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudJlow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. 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 No natural hazards or other conditions exist that would dictate such a reduction in allowable density. 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. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 12 Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed density is appropriate for the site and for the character of the immediate vicinity. The resulting height to accommodate the density is of concern. There are not "density" requirements of the zone district, but the number of units are established through adoption of a PUD. B. 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: L 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. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved through the redevelopment. This area provides some relief tot eh massing and a benefit to the project. Staff considers the criterion to be met. Z Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding Other than the pool area, there is no significant open space in the proposal. However, this is an infill development site and using the site for lodging development is appropriate. 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. Staff Finding The east wing is proposed to be preserved. This element has an important relationship to Fourth Street a the primary entrance. The sidewalk along Hopkins and Fifth Street needs improvement. These sidewalks should, ideally, be redeveloped adjacent to the property line. Some conflicts with existing vegetation may arise by doing this. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding Proper emergency access will be maintained with this proposal. S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided Exhibit A— Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 13 Staff Finding This criterion has been met. Compliance with accessibility regulations will be required and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. The Building Department has requested the project Architect meet with the department as soon as possible in the design development process. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The City Engineer and the applicant have reviewed drainage requirements and believe this criterion is satisfied. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding The pool area falls within this category and staff believes this area provides benefit to the lodge and its guests as well as the aesthetics of the project. C. 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 significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding The proposed landscape improvements will significantly improve this site. The existing surface parking along Hopkins Avenue detracts from the streetscape and provides no pedestrian accommodation. Staff is recommending this be removed. The same could be said about the parking along Fourth Street, but staff believes this parking does serve the needs of the lodge. It may be possible to rearrange this Fourth Street parking as parallel parking. The sidewalk along Hopkins is in poor condition. It may be possible to redevelop this sidewalk adjacent to the property line. A traditional street tree pattern would improve the pedestrian experience. Similarly, the sidewalk along Fifth Street could be moved to be adjacent to the property line with a traditional street tree program. The proposed landscape treatment along Fifth Street may be over planted. Exhibit A— Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 14 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved and staff believes this is important to the site. The applicant has agreed to work with the Parks Department on preserving vegetation in the construction phase. D. 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. Staff Finding The architectural character of this proposal is appropriate for the proposed use and for the immediate vicinity. The proposal is similar to the east wing and minimizes the effects of height to the extent practical. 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. Staff Finding The proposal does not include any special systems. The site has limited solar access during winter months due to the proximity of the property to Shadow Mountain. The vegetation along the south property line will provide shape in summer months. 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 The flat roofs essentially mitigate this concern. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 15 E. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Z 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 The applicant has indicated full compliance with the City's lighting code will be achieved. F. 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. Z 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 Staff Finding The pools area could be considered such a common amenity. Because the project does not include separate lots with individual structures and because the pool amenity is primarily for the lodging guests, staff does not believe that a common undivided interest in the pool is necessary. G. 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 Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 16 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 There exists adequate infrastructure to accommodate this proposal. The applicant will be required to provide service upgrades as necessary. No City or other utility agencies have requested oversizing. H. 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 Staff Findin¢ Proper access is maintained to the parcel and the and structure with this proposal. 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 Findin¢ Staff does not foresee this proposal creating undue congestion on the existing road network. The underground parking is access from the alley, which is the most preferred method. No upgrades to the road system are necessary although some curb /gutter improvements may be required by the City Engineer. This can be handled as part of the platting and/or building permit review. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 17 L Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in- lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding No phasing has been proposed. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 18 STAFF COMMENTS: REZONING Note: Required for PUD Overlay. No change to underlying R -6 Zone is proposed. Section 26310.040, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD Overlay is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. The Lodge Preservation Overlay requires that lodging redevelopment proceed through a PUD and the additional of a PUD overlay enables the dimensions of the project to sustain a greater scrutiny. Staff believes the PUD Overlay is appropriate and desired and is recommending approval. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Please refer to comments related to the AACP on page 3. In summary, staff believes this application is in compliance with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: No change to the underlying zoning is being proposed, only a PUD overlay. The Overlay provides for a greater discussion and involvement of neighboring property owners as to the compatibility of the proposed development. Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The PUD criteria include traffic and road safety as review standards. The addition of a PUD overlay itself does not have any impact on road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The utility and infrastructure needs for the project have been addressed in the PUD application. Because of the location of the development and existing capacities, no significant up -grades are required to accommodate this development. To the extent that Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 19 upgrades to the existing systems are necessary, these will be paid for by the applicant and not by the general public. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed zoning overlay and the proposed development do not represent adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Sufficient criteria to evaluate potential impacts on the natural environment are included as PUD criteria and the overlay actually ensures the community a greater degree of scrutiny. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The overlay requires a greater degree of review than would otherwise be required and compatibility issues regarding proposed heights, FAR, setbacks, etc. use can be more thoroughly evaluated with the PUD overlay. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: A change in conditions is not a prerequisite to rezoning. This criterion only requires that any changed conditions be considered upon requests for rezoning. There is no particular change other than that the existing development is in significant need of refurbishment. The LP overlay requires that the dimensions be established through the PUD process. The addition of a PUD overlay would enable the appropriate dimensions to be determined for the redevelopment. Staff believes this criterion has been met and supports the zoning of the property to include a PUD Overlay. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the additional review and involvement of the community required by the PUD Overlay is in conflict with the public interest. The overlay enables the project to withstand greater public scrutiny and a more - involved community decision process. Exhibit A — Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 20