HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.500 W Hopkins Ave.0012.2016.ASLUMemorandum to Jennifer Phelan and James R. True
January 8, 2016
Page 12
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit A – Lodge Incentive Ordinance
Exhibit B – Land Use Application of December 30, 2005
Exhibit C – Code Chapter 26.445 (2005)
Exhibit D – Enlargement of Sheet G002 of Original PUD Development Plan
Exhibit E – Staff Memo of 5/1/6/06
Exhibit F – Minutes of P & Z Meeting of 5/2/06
Exhibit G - Minutes of P & Z Meeting of 6/13/06
Exhibit H - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 7/10/06
Exhibit I – Council Packet of 6/16/06
Exhibit J - Council Packet of 7/10/06
Exhibit K - Council Packet of 8/14/06
Exhibit L - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 8/14/06
Exhibit M - Council Packet of 8/28/06
Exhibit N - Minutes of City Council Meeting of 8/28/06
Exhibit O – Approval Ordinance
Exhibit P – Development Order
Exhibit Q – Recorded Final PUD and Final PUD Development Plan
Exhibit R – Three (3) Insubstantial Amendments of Approval Ordinance
Exhibit S – Sheet G004 of 2007 Demolition Permit Application
Exhibit T – Sheet G003 of July 2008 Building Permit Application
Exhibit U – Resolution No. 58 (Series of 2009)
Exhibit V – Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012)
Exhibit W – Table Calculating “Per Use” Exemption of Floor Area for Balconies, Decks and
Corridors
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
l!VI!.DU'I'O PERU!~ SU
'
PROJECT#; 2514
REVISION:
/:::,.
!:::,.
/:::,.
/:::,.
DATE: ISSUE:
0810!105 Conce~tu•ID.oi~n
1/lOS/05 CD :Prog«u
12/30105 Buildio~ :Pormi~
Date of Issue:
12122/~005 4:5? :PM
~
"" ~
0
~
~
tS
~
0
~
~
~ ~ ~ i
~ ~ 0 ! ] ~ ~ ~ 0 • u
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NEY'l BUILDING A NEY'l BUILDING B EXISTING BUILDING
iON
1' 20'-0" RENO SMITH
ARCHjjt;ECTS
"'
210 EAST HYMAN
N202
ASPEN, COLORADO
21611
(no) ~2s-s~6a
'"" (970)'25·>m
371 SOUTl!SlJ)E AVE
N:Ot
EASALT, COLORADO
Sl62J
(970)n?-6Bl4
'"' (9701 n?-!a~o .
WE~ sno
www.reo,.mHb,oom
:E:MAlLADDHSS
offio•@r•no•mith.oom
BUILDINO ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NO:
1" 20'-0" A201
SHEET 12 Of 15
Page 15
SlJ!LPlNG YER)Jl! SET
'
PROJECT#: 2:114
REVISION:
L::,
L::,
L::,
L::,
DATE: ISSUE·
08/01/Gl Conoeptuo!Desi~n
JI!Gl/05 CD Prog'""
12/30/05 Building Permit
Date of issue:
1l/22120G5 4::11 l'M
....< ~ ~
0
~
~
1j
~
0
....<
EXISTING BUll-DING NEY'l BUll-DING B NEY'l BUll-DING A r.; z ~ l il i
~ ~ ~ • ! ~
~ ' 0 ~ • 0 0 " u
0 " ~ ~ ~ <
RENO SMITH
21D BAST HYMAN
N002
ASPEN, COLORADO
&1611
(970) l25-59IS
'" (~7o) no-5993
:nl SOlJTHSlPE AVE.
N\01
EASALT, COLORADO
81621
(no)927-6il4
~AX
(no}n7-li~O
WE~ SITE
www."n"mi!h.com
EMAlLAPDRfSi
otfi"@ronoornHh.com
BUILDING ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS
TION SHEET NO:
1" 20'-0" A202
SHEET 13 OF !5
Page 16
THE
BOOMERANG LODGE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION
Page 17
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE
BOOMERANG LODGE PROPERTY
Submitted by:
Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC
c/o Fountain Square Properties
11921 Freedom Drive, Suite 950
Reston, VA 20190
(703) 773-4661
December 30, 2005
Prepared by:
VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-6958
Page 18
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
PLANNER
Sunny Vann, AICP
Vann Associates, LLC
230 East Hopkins A venue
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-6958
ARCHITECT
August G. Reno, AlA
Reno-Smith Architects, LLC
605 West Main Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-5968
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Daisuke Yoshimura
703 Euclid A venue
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 948-7560
CIVIL ENGINEER
Jay W. Hannnond, P.E.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
118 West 6th. Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-1004
i
ATTORNEY
E. Michael Hoffman, Esq.
E. Michael Hoffman, P.C.
106 South Mill Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 544-3442
SURVEYOR
John M. Horworth, P.L.S.
Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc.
210 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-3816
Page 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I.
II.
Ill.
IV.
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT SITE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A. Growth Management
B. Minor Planned Unit Development
C. Subdivision
D. Condominiumization
E. Rezoning
F. Vested Property Rights
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference
Summary
Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Commitment
Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent
Exhibit 4, Land Use Application Form
Exhibit 5, Dimensional Requirements
Form
Exhibit 6, Application Fee Agreement
ii
Page
1
2
8
31
31
37
48
54
55
58
Page 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
APPENDIX
Exhibit 7, List of Adjacent Property
Owners
B. Exhibit 1, Letter from E. Michael
Hoffman, Esq.
Exhibit 2, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Engineering Report
C. Exhibit 1, E-Mail from Aaron Reed,
Parks Department
iii
Page
Page 21
I. INTRODUCTION
The following application requests a growth management quota system ("GMQS ")
exemption for the partial demolition and reconstruction of the Boomerang Lodge, which
is located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue in the City of Aspen (see Pre-Application
Conference Summary, Exhibit l, Appendix A, attached hereto). The proposed
development will also require a lodge, a free market residential, and an affordable
housing GMQS allocation; planned unit development ("PUD"), subdivision, and
condominiumization approval; and a rezoning to designate the project site with a PUD
overlay. Vested property rights status is requested for all approvals granted pursuant to
this application.
The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.308, 26.310, 26.445, 26.470
and 26.480 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (the "Regulations") by the owner of the
property, Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant"), a Delaware limited liability
company (see Title Insurance Commitment, Exhibit 2, Appendix A). The Applicant is
a joint venture consisting of Reston, Virginia based Fountain Square Properties, LLC and
Alex Brown Realty, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland. Steve Stunda, a long-time Aspen
resident, is the managing partner of the joint venture and its local representative.
Permission for Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent the Applicant
is attached as Exhibit 3, Appendix A. A land use application form, a dimensional
requirements form, an application fee agreement, and a list of property owners located
within three hundred feet of the project site are attached as Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7,
respectively.
The application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief
introduction to the application while Section II describes the project site. Section III of
the application outlines the Applicant's development proposal while Section IV addresses
1
Page 22
the proposal's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Regulations. For the
reviewer's convenience, all pertinent documents relating to the project (e.g., title
commitment, etc.) are provided in the appendices to the application.
While the application is intended to address all relevant provisions of the Regula-
tions, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the
proposed development, questions may arise which require further information and/ or
clarification. The Applicant will provide such additional information as may be required
in the course of the application's review.
II. PROJECT SITE
As the Improvement Survey on the following page illustrates, the project site is
legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 31, of the Aspen
Townsite. The nine lots are located on the north side of West Hopkins Avenue between
South Fourth and South Fifth Streets, and are considered merged for development
purposes pursuant to Section 26.480.020.E. of the Regulations. The property contains
a total of 27,000 square feet of lot area and is zoned R-6(LP), Medium-Density
Residential, Lodge Preservation Overlay. Notwithstanding this zone district classifica-
tion, it is important to note that the property has been the location of the Boomerang
Lodge for more than fifty years. Uses permitted by right in the R-6(LP) zone district
include those uses permitted in the Lodge Preservation Overlay district (e.g., lodge, free
market multi-family residential, and affordable housing units which are accessory to a
lodging operation) in addition to the uses permitted in the underlying R-6 zone district.
Existing improvements to the property consist of three attached multi-story
structures which contain a total of thirty-four lodge units; a small cabin which is also
used as a lodge unit; an outdoor swimming pool, spa and terrace; a landscaped yard
2
Page 23
,. -20'
I FOOT CO~TOURS
• ti o· ,.
t:" £::
SPIKE TBM 100 • 7920.4 BASED ON CITY
OF MPE GIS MONUMENT NO. 7
\
24303
0
* ~
0
LEGEND AND NOTES
25947 RO"SM AND CAP OR PK A~O 01$K
MAIIHO~O
STREET liGHT
UT<LITY SOX
SURVEY CONHOL
S ~I TY MONUMENT
TITLe INFORMATION FURNISHED BY:
l~ND TITLE GUM~NTEE COMPANY
ORDER NO, 0387S06
DATED: NOVEMBER 16. 2005
SEMIIIGS BASED 0~ THE CITY MONUMENT FOR
THE NW CORNER OF BLO~K 38 AND THE NE CORNER
OF lOT G BLOCK 25 12$947 IN FENCE POSTJ
N7s·og·,r·w48195
WMER VALVE
0 CUT UTILITY POLE
'1'J FIRE HYDRANT
<>----<>---------<> FENCE
BUILDING HEMURMEIITS ~T GRADE
THIS PROPERTY LIES IN ZONE CAS PE~ FSH"-FIRM MAP FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN
COLORWO PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY PANEL 110, 0a0:43 0001 B. EFFECTIVE O~TE·
OECEHBER 4. 1985
ZONED' R·6. L.P. OVERLAY !LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY!
SETB~CKS FRONT 10" REM 10"
SIDE so· TOTAL. MINIMUM 15. ON ONE SIDE
PARKING EXTENDS INTO R.O.W. "S
BUH.DING !+EIGHT
(f) Shrub
* Evergreen Tree
® Aspen Tree
~ Coniferous Tree
CERTIFICATION
IMPROVEMENT
OF:
LOTS K. L. H. N. 0. P. 0. R. AND S
BLOCK 31
CITY AND TDWN51TE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COi.OR~OO
CONTAINING 0.620 ACRES •/·
SURVEY
PREPARED BY
ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS
210 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 8161 I
PHONE/FAX (970J 925 3816
DATE
12/05
JOB
29197f"
INC.
Page 24
abutting West Hopkins Avenue; a gazebo; and approximately thirty-one surface parking
spaces. A low masonry wall and a split-rail fence separate the property from West
Hopkins Avenue. It should be noted that portions of the wall, the fence and all but one
of the parking spaces are located partially within the adjacent street right-of-ways and/or
the alley which abuts the rear of the property. The spaces have historically been used
by the Boomerang Lodge's guests.
As discussed in the attached letter from the Applicant's attorney, E. Michael
Hoffman, Esq. (see Exhibit 1, Appendix B), the City's Historic Preservation Officer has
suggested that portions of the existing Boomerang Lodge may have some architectural
significance even though no part of the Lodge is listed on the City's Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures (the "Historic Inventory"). While neither the prior nor
current owner of the property believe that the Lodge has architectural significance, the
Applicant has nonetheless voluntarily offered to retain its east wing in connection with
the redevelopment of the property if a synergistic design solution can be achieved for the
project as a whole. In connection with that offer, a copy of the application will be
forwarded to the City's Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") for review and
comment. The HPC's non-binding referral comments will be considered by the
Applicant and the City during the review process.
The Applicant has further offered to include the renovated east wing of the
Boomerang Lodge on the Historic Inventory following the receipt of all approvals
required pursuant to this application, and the final approval of a separate application
which the Applicant has submitted for the development of a neighboring parcel which the
joint venture obtained in connection with its acquisition of the lodge property. The
parcel is located on the south side of West Hopkins A venue across from the Boomerang
Lodge, and is the subject of a rezoning and subdivision application which is presently
4
Page 25
being reviewed by the City. It is anticipated that the review of the subdivision
application for the neighboring property will be completed prior to the review of this
application for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. The HPC will have no
authority over the non-designated portion of the project site.
The existing lodge contains an entry lobby and an office/front desk area which
are located on the ground level of the east wing; a breakfast/lounge area which is located
above the lobby; and a smaller lounge/sitting area which is located on the lodge's lower
level. None of the lodge's guest amenities, however, are considered commercial uses
for growth management purposes. Existing vegetation includes numerous large
evergreens and several Aspen trees, the majority of which are located around the
periphery of the property, and various ornamental shrubs and bushes. Several additional
evergreen trees, two large cottonwood trees, and extensive shrubbery is located within
the adjacent West Hopkins Avenue right-of-way. Concrete sidewalks abut the property
along its West Hopkins Avenue and Fifth Street frontages. While the property's
topography is essentially flat, it rises approximately seven feet from east to west.
The project site is presently served by all major utilities. As the attached
engineering report from Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.,
Consulting Engineers, indicates (see Exhibit 2, Appendix B), a vitrified clay pipe sewer
with a plastic liner is located in the alley at the rear of the site. The Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (" ACSD ") has indicated that this sewer must be upgraded and that the
Applicant will be required to pay for a portion of the upgrade. The upgrade will most
likely involve the installation of a new eight inch PVC pipe from the project site to the
next downstream manhole, a distance of up to six hundred feet. As presently envisioned,
the ACSD will be responsible for replacing a portion of the existing sewer located
upstream from the property. The Applicant's replacement requirements, however, will
5
Page 26
be determined prior to building permit issuance based on the actual distance of upgraded
sewer required to provide adequate transmission capacity.
Water service is provided from an existing eight inch main located in West
Hopkins Avenue. While no improvement to the water main are believed to be required,
the existing service to the lodge will have to be abandoned at the main and a new,
possibly larger service installed to provide adequate flows for domestic and fire
protection purposes. The Water Department will also most likely require that the
proposed development's free market and affordable housing units be provided with
individual meters and shut-offs. Electric, telephone, cable TV and natural gas service
is also readily available as evidenced by various existing utility pedestals and meters
which are located within the alley. As the engineering report indicates, the proposed
development may require the installation of a new three-phase electric transformer within
the project site. A fire hydrant (#571) is conveniently located at the northeast corner of
the intersection of West Hopkins A venue and South Fifth Street.
As the Vicinity Map on the following page illustrates, existing development in the
immediate site area includes a duplex residential structure, which is located across from
the Boomerang Lodge on the east side of Fourth Street; the Little Ajax affordable
housing project, which is under construction on the south side of Hopkins Avenue; the
vacant, so-called Boomerang southside parcel, which is located immediately east of the
Little Ajax property; and the Madsen apartment building which is located on the west
side of Fifth Street. The recently renovated Christiana Lodge is located immediately
behind the property on the north side of the alley. The second phase of the Christiana
renovation is also presently under construction.
With the exception of the Christiana Lodge and the Little Ajax property, all of
the above properties are zoned R-15, Moderate-Density Residential. The Boomerang
6
Page 27
BUILDJN(! PERMIT SET
PROJECT#: 2514
REVISION:
/.:::,.
!:::,.
/.:::,.
/.:::,.
DATE: ISSUE:
OS/0!/05 Conoe?lu•lD••ign
11103/0! CD Progr"'
t2nDIO!:Sui10ing:Pomnit
Date of Issue;
1212211005 4:lHl4
...
~ ~
0
~
~
~
~
0 ...
~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ " 0 ! ~ , ' • ~ 0 ~ u
0 ~ 5
!XI ~ .!'
RENO SMITH
210 EAST HYJ,IAN
N 202
ASPEN, COLORADO
B\ill
cno)ns-m~
'" (970)925-5993
371 SOUTE~lDll AVE
N 101
aASALT, COLORAD 0
S\62\
(9/0l n?-68;~
'" (97o)n7-iB<O
WEB SITI
wwwrooo•milh.oom
EMAIL ADDUSS
offioe@rono•mitO.oom
SITE PLAN;
VICINITY MAP
VICINITY MAP
SGAL.E, 1 "•50'-0" SHEET NO;
AS 102
SHEET 4 OF 15 Page 28
southside parcel is also designated (LP)(PUD), Lodge Preservation Overlay, Planned
Unit Development As noted previously, an application to rezone the Boomerang
southside parcel to R-6, Medium Density Residential, and to subdivide the property is
presently pending before the City, If approved, the proposed rezoning/ subdivision will
permit the development of a single-family residence and a duplex on the property. The
Christiana Lodge is zoned O(LP), Office, Lodge Preservation Overlay while the Little
Ajax property is zoned AH/PUD, Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development and
C, Conservation.
Ill. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Applicant proposes to demolish the middle and west wing of the existing
Boomerang Lodge and to replace them with a mixed use lodge/free market residential
structure which has been designed to comply with the City's new L, Lodge, zone district
regulations. As the project site is presently zoned R-6(LP), the proposed development's
dimensional requirements must be established via the PUD process as provided for in
Section 26.710.320.D. of the Regulations. The east wing of the existing lodge will be
remodeled and incorporated into the new structure. The proposed development will
contain fifty-four lodge units, six free market residential units, two affordable housing
units, and various guest amenities including an entrance lobby, a lounge, a media room,
a library/sitting area, a multi-purpose room, a guest laundry, an outdoor pool and
terrace, and a rooftop deck. It is anticipated that the Applicant will operate the new
lodge for the foreseeable future.
The proposed development's fifty-four lodge rooms will range in size from
approximately 370 square feet to approximately 945 square feet All but four of the
fifty-four units will contain a small kitchen. The lodge component will contain a total
floor area of approximately 27,003 square feet which results in an average lodge unit size
8
Page 29
of approximately 500 square feet. The density of the lodge component is one unit per
500 square feet of lot area. As a result, the proposed development complies with the L,
Lodge, zone district's minimum density requirement of one unit per 500 square feet and
its maximum average size limitation of 500 square feet per unit for so-called "Incentive
Lodge Development". The relevant density and average unit size calculations are as
follows.
Density
27,000 Sq. Ft. Lot Area 7 54 Lodge Units = 1 Unit/500 Sq. Ft.
Average Unit Size
27,003 Sq. Ft. Lodge Unit Floor Area 7 54 Lodge Units =
500 Sq. Ft./Unit
Forty of the proposed fifty-four lodge units have been designed as "lock-off" units
to allow additional flexibility with respect to occupancy. For example, adjacent lodge
rooms can be occupied as either separate units or as two bedroom snites. The total key
count for the structure's lodge component, however, will be limited to fifty-four keys,
the same as its unit count. The individual lodge units will be condominiumized and
offered for sale to the general public. An owner's use of his unit, however, will be
limited to a maximum of thirty consecutive days and a total of ninety days within any
calendar year as provided for in Section 26.104.100 of the Regulations.
The new lodge's free market residential component will consist of three, two
bedroom units and three, three bedroom units which will also be condominiumized and
sold to help defray the cost of redevelopment. The two bedroom units will each contain
approximately 1, 800 square feet while the three bedroom units will contain approximately
2,500 square feet. All of the units will contain a full kitchen and a living/dining area.
The total floor area of the free market residential units will be limited to approximately
9
Page 30
square feet, which equates to twenty-five percent of the proposed development's total
floor area. As a result, the lodge's free market residential component also complies with
the applicable requirements for an Incentive Lodge Development.
The two on-site affordable housing units will each contain one bedroom and a
minimum of six hundred square feet of net livable area. The units will be credited with
housing a total of 3.5 employees or 1.75 employees per unit. As presently envisioned,
the affordable housing units will be deed restricted to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority's ("APCHA") Category 2 income and occupancy guidelines and offered for
rent to the lodge's employees. Inasmuch as the deed restriction of the units to rental
guidelines may arguably violate present State statutes, an ownership interest (e.g., an
undivided 1110 of 1 percent) will be conveyed to APCHA to address this issue. The
housing authority's ownership rights, however, will be limited to their ability to enforce
the deed restriction.
The new lodge will not contain a commercial component. No commercial GMQS
allotment, therefore, is required. The proposed lounge, media room, library, and multi-
purpose room are intended primarily for the use and benefit of the lodge's guests. These
areas, and the lodge's various administrative and back-of-house facilities (e.g., lobby,
reception desk, laundry, etc.), are considered accessory uses which are permitted by right
in the LP, Lodge Preservation Overlay, zone district.
The development rights for the proposed development's lodge component will be
derived primarily from the renovation and demolition of existing lodge units. As
discussed previously, the existing Boomerang Lodge contains thirty-four lodge units,
eight of which are to be retained and renovated. The remaining twenty-six units will be
demolished and replaced. Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.A.7. of the Regulations, the
replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from growth management and
10
Page 31
associated affordable housing mitigation requirements provided that no additional lodge
units are created. A GMQS allocation, however, will be required for the additional
twenty lodge units and the project's associated free market residential component. The
proposed development's compliance with the City's growth management regulations is
discussed in detail in Section IV.A. of this application.
As the Site Development Plan and architectural floor plans on the following pages
illustrate, the proposed development will occupy a similar footprint as the existing
Boomerang Lodge. Arriving guests will access the lodge from Fourth Street via the
existing east wing lobby which is to be retained. Off-street parking will be provided for
the project's lodge, free market residential, and affordable housing units in a new
sub grade parking garage to be constructed beneath the replacement units. Vehicular
access to the garage will be provided via the alley which is located at the rear of the
property. Unit owners and lodge guests will self park their vehicles and access their
units via two elevators which will be conveniently located at each end of the new garage.
Service and delivery vehicles will also access the proposed development via the alley.
A trash receptacle/recycling area and areas for the relocation of existing utility pedestals
and the installation of an electrical transformer will also be provided in the event
required.
The new lodge's ground floor will contain nineteen lodge rooms, three of which
are located in the portion of the existing structure which is to be retained. Fourteen of
the units will contain a connecting door which will permit them to be rented as two
bedroom suites. All but the three units in the existing east wing will contain a small
kitchen area. The proposed development's ground floor will also contain a one bedroom
affordable housing unit and, in the east wing, the lodge's renovated lobby, reception and
lounge areas. The lodge's second floor will contain a total of twenty lodge units, five
11
Page 32
f-
lU
Ul
" 1-
"' I
I-
lL
iL
LEGEND AND I'<IOTES
-Lc--0 !c.-1-tJ, N, C
1, B.-OGK :01
\ '-'1 fY Ac-D TC·f•iN·~IT? oe= ASPI"N ',
\ GOU'!T'"' ·:OF PI I '<O-N
1t"TA f:O CF ·C:.CLO"'.AD.::O
'
0
@)
p:
0
~ •
' '
OPEN SPACE 5,0<12 sq ft
S7S4'0<1'11"E 210
Y'lEg~' HOPt<ll'-lS ,<\VEN\J~\
' '\
' ' ',
' '
'
SITE DEVELOPMENT F'LAN
'i'' "30'-0"
BUILD!N(l ~BRl!o!lT SEJ:
'
PROJECT II: 25\4
REVISION:
b.
6
b.
b.
DATE: ISSUE:
Oij/01105 CGnoeptuol !J"ign
\1\03/0S Cll l'roi''"
12130105 Bui:dlr.ghrmit
Dale of Issue:
12!~21200S 4:Hl'M
.....
r-1 ~
0
~
~
t5
~
0 .....
0 z
~ ! §
~ • ~ 0 ! ~
~ ' ~ -% 0 ~ u
0 ~
,,
~ ~ ~
RENO SMITH
LL.C
210 BAST HYMA);I
);I 2~2
ASn);l, COLORADO
81611
(970)920-0918
'"' (970)92S-S993
371 SOUTl!SlDE AVB.
N 101
BASAL!, COLORADO
31021
(970) 921-68:)4
'" (97o)n7-os•o
WBJJ ~lTB
WWWtBR"rnitb.OOOl
El!U.IJ..ADDRESS
off!oo@r•nO>mith "'"
SITE PLAN:
-Site Development
SHEET NO:
AS 101
SHEET 3 OF 15
Page 33
Q
=
= = -=
1" -bO-O
O<·o-·,&O"'MO'O '"'"
""".""~'"''"'.
1"'-~ ~~ Ft
"''"'''"" 11 ~ ~<\ Ft"'""""'"'hT~·~··~·~"2~·~·~·~,~·~'"~· ·~·~~~~~~"'"'"-2 j ()~"'It
= = -= "''" """"' '"''' "'·'""''"''"~"'"-'
'"·''"''"
·~"'''' ''"''"
= """""'"""""".,""" = -= "'''"''"'"""'""
G)f-.:.f..:.A..:.:..Rc:..·..:.G::.:...R.:.:C::..)::.U.:.N:::D.:...:.L:::E::.-V.:..:;~.:.:L::._ ,-,-.,
= = -= =
GV FAR-FOURTH LEVEL.
I" -0C-0
'""""" ,.,.,,,.
FAF< AL.L.OV'IED/F<EQUIF<ED
FAR-HOTEL UNIT (SQ.FT.)
Gf<.OUD LEVEL·
SEC.OND LEVEL•
THIRD LEVEL:
FOURTH LEVEL•
SUBTOTAL:
FAR-NON-HOTEL SPACE (5G,FT.J
5EC.OND LEVEL:
THIRP LEVEL,
FOURTH LEVEL,
SUBTOTAL:
FAR-FREE MARKET UNIT5 (SQ.fT.J
THIRD LEVEL·
FOURTH LEVEL:
SUBTOTAL:
AFfORDABLE HOUSING-UNITS (SQ.FT.)
GROUP LEVEL:
SECOND L!:VEJ...,
5UEHOTAL:
BAI-C.ON'l" /PEC.K/C.ORRIPOR (SG,FT J
SECONP l-EVEL:
THIRP LEVEL'
FOURTH LE:YEI-:
SUBTOTAL:
FAR-BALC.OIW /PECK/CORRIDOR {SG.FT.}
1 2,6 <! 6-12,150 (!:lllowable dec.k/balc.ony/c.orridor)
FAR TOTAL:
G-ROSS TOTAL (above gr!:l<le):
EXISTING BASEMENT:
NEV'I BASEMENT•
c&-ROSS TOTAL (including lnu;ement),
5UMMAF<Y
.21,000 HOTEL UNITS
I'OTEL UNITS: soosq.ft./eac.h unit x s 4 21,000 FREE MARKET UNITS
FREE MARKET UNITS,
AFFORPBALE UNITS:
2S%XS1,S65 12,f>41
2 ONE BIOPROOM UNITS
(Min. 600 sq.ft.. net/eac.h)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
ON GRADE PARKING-
.
UNDER GROUND PARKING GARAGE
TOTAL FAR Al..LOV'\EP (5,1 ): 5><21,000
TOTAL DE:C.K AREA· 15% x (max. Allowablll) FAR(e 1,000)
ON G-RAOE: PARKING SPACES TO RE:MAIN:
BUILDING HE:IG-HT LIMIT:
/!11,000
12,150
11
42'MAX.
UNDER GROUND l..OC.t:::ERS
10,510
6,252
:21,005
5,114
.2,910
1,5.24
554
<1,542
1,9f>1
(6e>1net) 126
(681net) 126
(1,Sb.2 net) 1,4S2
4,155
4,41<1
545
s 1,365
f>S,S 15
.2,55.2
15,246
2-1,.2<;5
UNITS/SPACES
..
'
2
11
51
.,
:BV!L:OnfG PEl\M!T BET
'
PROJECT#: 1514
REVISION:
6.
6.
6.
6.
DATE: ISSUE:
08/0J/0~ Conceptual D•dgn
11103/05 CJJ Frog<e"
12/30/05 Buildin~ l'em>it
Dato oflssu":
11n212005 4:56PM
.....
r-1 ~
0 :;g
~
~
~
0 .....
0 z
' ~ , ~ ~ ~ 0 ! ] ' ~ ~ 0 0 = u
0 ~ i ~ ~ <
RENO SMITH
L, .C
210 EJI.ST El.'),[}I.N
N202
Ji.SPBN, COLORADO
BH11
(~70) 925-59~8
'" (970) ns-5~9l
l'll SOUTHSIDE AVE
N\01
aASJI.LT, COLOl\ADO
a 1 ~21
(970) 927-0814
'" 1)70)927-0840 .
~ll Sl'I'B
www.renOOOll!O.oom
EMJI.!LADDRESff
offj"@"""""U> oom
GENERAL:
FAR CALCULATIO
SHEET NO:
G 002
SHEET 2 OF lS
Page 34
F
2.
-----------,---,------
3
I I ---4------~--~----
b 1 I
' I
l --
0 w-
_,
~ t --
9
m
~ ·' • m
8---
~
m
8
I •I '$"'" 4 ®
NEI"' BUILDING
' !w
I
1 1 0'-10°'"'
d5
FAR'
11
I
'
1 k
I
®
13 HEGH
0
EXISTING BASEHENT AREA,
NEI"' BASEHENT AREA
1/L2
r-\
I \
I \
\
2.5 s 2 sq. ft.
15.246 sq.ft.
11.11 s sq. ft.
I 14
'
@
EXISTING BUILDING
BlJ!:.PlNO PIJUii!T SBT
'
PROJECT#: 2514
REVISION:
b.
b.
b.
b.
DATE: ISSUE:
DSm\105 c~ncoptual Dd~n
1/103/05 CD l'ro~ro"
12/)0105 Bulldin~ Porm.il
Date ofissu~:
\Un12005 4:5? PM
....<
foil
Q
0 ;g
~
1:3
Q
0
....<
0 z ~ ! ~ • ~
~ < 0 ~ ~
~ ' 0
0 ~ " " u
0 • ,.
~ ~ ~ ~
~
RENO SMITH
ARCHITECTS IJii
L,L.C.
21V EAB1 EYUAN
N 20~
ASPIN, COl.Oll."-llO
~H\1
()70) 925-Bll
l71 SOtrrEBIOE AVE
N\01
BASAL!, COLORADO
81 ~ 21
(~70)n-1-68l4
'" (~7o) n1-os4o
WEB SITE
www.rono•milh.eom
BMA!LAOOl\ESS
offico@r•oom:ilh.OOll'l
FLOOR PLAN:
PARKillG PLAN
SHEET NO:
AlOl
SHEET 6 OF 15
Page 35
' '
' ' ' '
25'-o·
' ' '
??
' '
6'-0"
' '
25'-0"
' '
' '
' '
.20'-4"
' '
20'-0"
' '
NEY'l BUIL.DING
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
.20'-0"
' '
' '
' ' ~'\
\20'-0"
' ' ' ' '
20'-4"
EX'I<STING UNITS RENOVATION,
' New HpTEL. UNITS•
TOTAl-\
'•
' AFFORD AI:\L.E UNITS,
NON-HOTEL.'uNIT SPAGE,
TOTAL.<
1 b '
' ~ ~·'v
• B'-<1112·\ 6'-0" ,,
' '
'
y
S'-<1" f
LOUNGE
-,
' -'
' ' ' ' ' '
/
,E-XlS l'ING'BUIL. DING
' 1 ,2 b B oq,ft.
B, 1 4 s sq;ft,
~AOB sq.lt,
' ' ' 120 sq,ft, '
S, 1 1 4 sq.ft,
1 S,24B sq,ft, ' '
D LEVEL
/ ~
/
l!lJlLDIN<I PERMIT SET
'
PROJECT#; -~14
REVISION;
,6,
L.
,6,
,6,
DATE: ISSUE:
08/01/0l Conoep\uol D•<igr.
liJO~IOl CD F~ogre<S
tznotos auL1d1og P<rmit
Date of Issue:
121;!212005 4ol7 PM
....l
"' ~
0
~
~
~ ~
0
....l
[.!)
~ ~ a i ~ ~ ~ 0 ! ] ' ~ ~ 0 0 ~ u
0 " ~ ~ ~ ~
RENO SMITH
'
21~ EAS'r EYMAN
N202
ASH:f, COLORADO
Bllll
(~70) 925-0918
'" (97o)n5.s9n
371 SOUTHS!ilB AVE
Nl01
~ASAL'r, COLORADO
SI62J
(970) !27-iil4
'" (970) 927-6840
WEB SITE
www.roo"mj!)l,oorn
EMAIL ADDRESS
offLce@ronoomi~h o~m
FLOOR PLAN:
GROillJD LEVEL P AN
SHEET NO:
A 102
SHEET 7 OF 15
Page 36
I I
""'"'~~ '1 ,, "~~'" '"I
25'-0" 12'~ 1 I/Y 20' 4" 20'-0"
NEV'! BUILDING
211 213
BA~CCNY
FAR•
2 '-0"
1 1 '1'-6 l.'A'
20'-0"
1'-~.,,.~·
5' "!"
EXISTING UNITS RENOVATION• 5
New HOTEL UNITS,
TOTAL•
AFFORDABLE UNITS•
NON-HOTEL UNIT SPAC:.E•
TOTAL•
DEC:.I</6ALC:.ONY•
EXTERIOR C:.ORRIDOR•
TOTAL•
15
20
2.1 B5 sq.ft.
B,5B5 sq.R
1 0.51 o sq. ft.
126 sq.ft.
2,510 sq.fL
15.666 sq.fL
1.~61 sq.ft"
2, 114 sq.ft.
4. 1 55 sq.ft"
EXISTING BUILDING
:ST.T~lllNG ~Ell.Ml! BET
"
PROJECT#: ~5\4
REVISION:
!::,.
6
!::,.
!::,.
DATE: ISSUE:
OS/01/0~ Conc•pluol o .. ign
1/103/0S CD Pcogre"
12/30/05 Buil4ing Permit
Date ofissue:
tU~7noos o:oo P;.A
...:l
lio1 ~
0
~
~
(j
~
0
...:l
0 z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ! ~
~ ' ~ ~ 0 ~ u
0 ~ i ~ ~ ~
~~
RENO SMITH
ARCHITECTS
Hll
uo
210 BAST EYMAN
N20<
ASPEN, COLORADO
81~11
(nO}n5-59!8
'"' (no)ns.sm
l71 SOlJ'H!BlDE AVE
N \0\
E.A-SALT, COLORADO
81 ~ 21
(970)92?-!814
••x
(no) n7-i840
WEE SitE
www.rono•mitn com
DU.ILADDRESS
olli"@r••••mtth.oom
FLOOR PLAN:
SECOND LEVEL PL
SHEET NO:
A 103
SHEET 9 OF 16
N
Page 37
SAL.:.ONY
20' 2 112 25'-0"
I
'jG
,f W'-'" ,1· 20' 4' 0'-0"
NEI"l BUILDING
__ ]_ __ _
I
__ l ___ _
I
310
I
' '1 ' i3P..1
20'-20'-o· ~· 20'-4"
1 1 <!'-6 l;"A
FARo EXISTING UNITS RENOVATION• 5
New HOTEL-UNITS• B
FREE MARKET UNITS• B
NON-HOTEL UNIT SPACE•
TOTAL•
DECK/BALCONY•
EXTERIOR CORRIDOR•
TOTAL•
2. 1 1 o sq.ft.
4,122 sq.ft.
6.232 sq.ft.
5.435 sq.ft.
1,524 sq.ft.
1B.1~1sq.ft.
2.288 sq.ft.
1.1q4sq.ft.
4,082 sq.ft.
EXISTING BUILDING
BUJLDING PERMIT SET
'
PROJECT#: :15\4
REVISION:
.6.
6.
.6.
.6.
DATE: ISSUE:
OB/Ot/05 Con"p\u•l O"ign
J/\03/05 CD P<ogre"
ll/30/05 lluildir.g Pormit
Date oflssuo:
121~2/2005 4:5'1 PM
....
"' ~
0
:i!\
~
~
~
0 ....
\.!)
~ 1 ~ ~ "' ~ ] :i!\ ~ ~ 0 ~ u
0 • ! !l:l ~
RENO SMITH
ARCHlJ~ECTS
"'
~10 BAST !!YMAN
N202
ASPEN, COI.ORADO
8)~\1
(970) 925·5~!2 ,.,
(~70J ns-sss'
)71 SOU1H61DE AYE
N 101
))ASALT, COLORAllO
31621
(970)927-!il4 ,.,
(970) 927-62~0
WEB SlTE
www.rono•mHh.com
EMAIL ADDRESS
olf<"@uooo•:Lith.com
FLOOR PLAN:
THIRD LEVEL PLA
SHEET NO·
A 104
SHEET 9 OF 15
Page 38
•l'----'''-'''-''·cf<O.:_" ---of--"'"'·0;<:"-.f-----''"''-''-;,Oc_" ___ ,___l'1 O;;c'-c:'c:"'-<•~------j-------j-----...l'"'f=--+-------+------+l2:B'"'·SJ.:':C"'~f;c6"'·0CC"-.f-----23~4~"-6<='12:._· ____ -.f
'
I
' DINT';. LIVING I DEG~
--,----
II
'
DECK I ---------
I
' I ... I
'
31'-0" 2S'-o" I 1 0'-~14 1"•-0 '
G5 cS'@ 0 ®
4os 1
44'-4"
NE'Y'l BUIL-DING
1406 -L------1-
1 ' , I
44'-4'
NE'Y'l HOTEL. UNITS•
FREE' MARKET UNITS•
NON-HOTEL. UNIT SPACE•
TOTAL.•
DE'CK/BAL.CONY•
EXTE'RIOR CORRIDOR•
TOTAL.•
1 •/I!<G
2
ROOF
DEGK
\
\
34'-0 ,n-
40'-6 11"-
1.3 B 1 sq.ft.
534 sq.ft.
B, 11 4 sq. ft.
2.q15 sq.ft.
1.504 sq. ft.
'"" ~y-"~:
,/
\i
' 1\ / /
i\/
'\ I \
\
' \
'
' \
X
/ \
\
ROOF
\
EXISTING BUIL-DING
\
~Ol!RTH LEVEL
==-~~m
1" = 20'-0"
\
'
BUILDINGnl\Mf!SH
PROJECT#: ZSJ4
REVISION:
[::,. ;::,
[::,.
[::,.
DATE: ISSUE:
0$/01/0S Cono<p~oolD••igr.
11103105 CD Proweo•
11./l0/05 Bui\diogP<lrmit
Date oflssue:
tUn/ZOO~ 4:Si PM
...<
l"il
~
0 ~
~
~
~
0 ...<
~ z ~ ! ~ ' ~ ~ ' ] 1l
~ ~ 0 ~ u
0 ~ ,-
I=< ~ ~ ~
~~
RENO SMITH
ARCH1 11ECTS
CCC
210 EAST HYMAN
N202
ASPEN, COLORADO
81011
l71 SO'J':'I!Sl!!E AVE
N \OJ
EAU.LT, OOLORADO
81!21
(97o)n1-isl4
'" (~70) 127-6840
WEE SITE www.ron,mi~h . .om
EMAILADDRESa
ortioa@t•no•milh.corn
FLOOR PLAN:
FOURTH LEVEL PL N
SHEET NO:
A 105
SHEET 10 OF IS
Page 39
' ' '
' '
:: '
' '
'
cp
'~,
' ' ' I
I ®---~-~ ~~~r"=r~r=-=-=--4-,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ®-----'
A
' ' ' ' ' I
I
I
' '
" 0
' ' \
\
\
' cD
' I
@/G.>
' !0
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' '
' ' ~ ' 0
' '
cr
®
' '
I
I
I,
J0
' '
N~V'l BUILDING
' ' ' '
' '
' '
RAMP BELoh
' '
' '
I
' '
' '
' '
ROOF
DEGK
\+-
\
Gf
I
130'-0"
' '
FLAT ROOF
' ' '
' ' I
,, \
' '
' ' ' ' '
I> ,,
" ~-...:/
' '' ' I
' I
I
BUJI.Dill(J PERYJT SET
PROJECT#; Z514
REVISION:
/.::,.
6.
/.::,.
/.::,.
DATE: lSS-UE:
08101105 C~noeptu,!D"ign
1110)105 CO :Progro"
12/30/05 BuiiJing P•nnit
Pate ~f h~u~:
1212212005 4;51 PM
....
"'" ~
0 ~
~
~
~
0 ....
(.!) z
~ • § ! • ~ • ~ ' ~ •
~ 1 ~ ' 0 ' ~ c
0 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
RENO SMITH
ARCHITECTS
Jill
'" -
210 EAST l!YliLUf
N 202
ASPEN, COI.Ol\AilO
S\Oll
(970)925-5968
'"' (970) 925·599>
J7\ SOUTHSJDE AVE
N!Ol
BASALT, COLOEADO
$1621
(970) 927-6$34
'" (970)927-6~40
'1/EB SITE
www.rono•mitO.oo,.
EMAIL ADD;o,ESS
ot'lho@r•nosmi~ ""'
FLOOR PLAN:
ROOF PLAN
SHEET NO:
A 106
SHEET 11 OF IS
Page 40
of which are also located in the existing east wmg. Sixteen of the units will be
configured to permit their occupancy as suites. The sixteen the units will also contain
kitchens. An additional one bedroom affordable housing unit and the multi-purpose room
are also located on this level.
The lodge's third floor will contain thirteen lodge units, five of which are to be
constructed above the existing east wing. Ten of the thirteen units will be configured to
permit their occupancy as suites. The third level will also contain three, two bedroom
free market residential units. The lodge's fourth floor will contain the remaining two
lodge units and three, three bedroom free market residential units. The proposed rooftop
deck will be located on the roof of the existing structure and will be accessed from the
lodge's fourth floor. The eight existing lodge units, the existing lobby, and the second
floor breakfast/lounge area (i.e., the new multi-purpose room) which are to be retained
will be extensively remodeled. The existing pool will also be retained and renovated.
Two new spas will be installed adjacent to the pool.
As noted previously, off-street parking for the proposed development will be
provided in a subgrade parking garage. The garage will contain a total of thirty-one
spaces which will be accessed from the alley via a single garage ramp. Based on the
requirements of Section 26.515.030 of the Regulations, ten spaces, or 0.5 spaces per
unit, are proposed to accommodate the project's twenty new lodge units. Pursuant to
Section 26.515.010.A., no off-street parking is required for the existing thirty-four lodge
units which are to be replaced. The proposed garage, however, will nonetheless contain
thirteen additional spaces which will be designated for lodge guests. The remaining eight
spaces will be reserved for the lodge's residential uses. Six spaces will be allocated to
the free market units while two spaces will be reserved for the two on-site affordable
housing units.
19
Page 41
The Applicant proposes to retain seventeen of the existing parking spaces which
are located within the Hopkins Avenue and Fourth Street rights-of-way. These spaces
have served the existing Boomerang Lodge for many years without conflict, and uo
significant public benefit would ensue from their removal. An application for an
encroachment license will be submitted to the Engineering Department if the spaces are
allowed to remain. Similar parking spaces presently serve the adjacent Christiana Lodge
and are believed to have been approved in connection with its renovation. If allowed to
remain, a total of forty-eight parking spaces will available to serve the proposed develop-
ment which significantly exceeds applicable regulatory requirements.
The proposed development's architecture is intended to complement and respect
but not replicate the Wrightian character of the Boomerang Lodge's existing east wing
which is to be retained. As the Building Elevations on the following pages illustrate, the
extensive use of wood and stone will create a rustic ambiance while the building's
floating roofs and bold glazing elements result in a unique and harmonious design for
both the existing east wing the proposed addition thereto. The materials and detailing
for the new third floor addition to the east wing are derived from the Boomerang Lodge's
existing architecture.
The proposed development will require the removal of several aspen trees and
five evergreen trees to accommodate the expanded lodge. A representative of the City's
Parks Department has inspected the property and has indicated that three of the
evergreens to be removed are diseased. The Applicant will apply for a tree removal
permit and mitigate the loss of the trees via a combination of new plantings within the
property and a cash-in-lieu payment as provided for in the Regulations. The permit will
be obtained prior to building permit application and the cash-in-lieu payment made in
connection with the issuance thereof.
20
Page 42
NEI"l BUILDING A NEI"l BUILDING B EXISTING BUIL-DING
EAST ELEVATION
1" "'20'-0"
l!lJlLDlNG PERM!T 6B:r
"
PROJECT II· 1.514
REVISION;
!::,.
6
!::,.
!::,.
DATE: ISSUE;
D3/0IIG5 Cono•plualD•<igo
1/103/05 CD Pcogress
12/SG/05 Building P=it
Date ofissue·
IU221200l 4:$1 PM
....<
roil
§
:g
~
t5
~
0
....<
0 z • ~ ! ~ ~ ~ 0 ! ~
~ • l -s 0 u
0 ~ i
~ ~ ~
~
RENO SMITH
ARCH~~~ECTS
,, 0
"
ll~ EAST HYMAN
N2Gl
ASPEN, 00~01\ADO
ijH\1
(970) ~l$·S~08
'" (970) 923-5~93
j71 SOUTIIS!llE AVE
N 101
BASALT, COLORADO
$1621
(970)927-0014
'" (no)nHa~o
WEB SlTE ..-ww.reooomjjh oom
EMA-IL ADDUSS
o!fice@"noamilh. oom
:BUILDING ELEVATION;
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NO;
A201
SHEET 14 OF 15 Page 43
EXISTING BUILDING NEI"< BUILDING B NEI"< BUILDING A
~RTH ELEVATION
1" "'20'-0"
~ V'IES T ELEVA TIO~N~~~1~, ~0~2~0~,_,~J"
l!UILP!l'G fERMlT SET
'
PROJECT#: 2514
REVISION:
L.
/'::,
L.
L.
DATE: ISSUE·
MI0\105 Concoptu'l Desi~n
\/103/05 CD l'rogr•"
121)0/05 BuiiJin~ Permit
Date oflssue:
\21;!112005 4,5? PM
....<
r-l ~
0
~
~
ts
~
0
....<
0 z
0 ~ , ~ ' 0
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~ ' 0
0 ~ 0
" u
0 • i'
~ ~ t
~
RENO SMITH
ARCHITECTS
1111
"'
0\0 EAST HYlJAN
N202
ASPEN, COLORJ..DO
~Ill\
(~70) 925.5~18
'" (970) 925-599]
)7t SOUTI!SlDE AVE
N\01
:BASALT, COLORADO
511<1
(970)927-6814
'" (970)927-6840
WEB SITE
www.reno•rnilh '""
EUAIL ADPJUSS
offioe@reoo>milh.oorn
BUILDING ELEVATION·
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NO:
A202
SHEET 15 OF 15
Page 44
The new lodge's landscaping will be confined primarily to the building's
perimeter. As the Conceptual Landscape Plan on the following page illustrates, various
deciduous and evergreen trees; ornamental shrubs; and seasonal flowering plants will be
planted in the building's setbacks and around the outdoor pool and terrace to enhance the
attractiveness of the lodge and to soften its visual impact when viewed from surrounding
streets and neighboring development. Additional trees will be planted within the adjacent
Fifth Street right-of-way to further reduce the visual impact of development and to enrich
the pedestrian experience. While general plant materials are depicted on the Conceptual
Landscape Plan, the Applicant will cooperate with the City's Parks Department to refine
the various species to be incorporated in a more detailed landscape plan which will be
submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to
building permit application.
No affordable housing mitigation is required for thirty-four of the proposed
development's fifty-four lodge units as the development rights for these units will be
derived from the demolition of thirty-four of the Boomerang Lodge's existing lodge
rooms. The new lodge's remaining twenty units, and the proposed six free market
residential units, however, are subject to the City's affordable housing mitigation
requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.3.e) of the Regulations, thirty percent
of the employees generated by the additional lodge units must be mitigated via the
provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. On-site units are required to be
one bedroom or larger and may be deed restricted to APCHA' s Category 4 income and
occupancy guidelines. Such units, however, may be deed restricted to a lower income
and occupancy Category in the Applicant's discretion.
Pursuant to Section 26.4 70.050 .A.l., new lodge units developed in the LP, Lodge
Preservation, zone district are assumed to generate 0. 3 employees per bedroom. As the
23
Page 45
PLANT LEGEND
GRAPHICALLY, THE OUTLI~E OF TR~ES INDICATES "THE DRIP UN!"' CAI-CULAT~D
BY THE FORESTER OF ASPEN CITY~ARKSANO RECREATION DEPART MONTS
EXJSTING EVERGREEN TR<OE~
EXJSTlNG D<OCIDUOU~TREES
t6 • EXJSTING ~HRUBS • ,\ D
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE~
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREES
PROPO~ED SHRUBS
PROPOSED LAWN. GRO\!NDCOVER OR MUlCH
GONGEPTUALLANDSGAPEPLAN
1" 0 30'-0"
BUILDING rERM!T BET
PROJECT#: ~S\4
REVIS.! ON:
DATE: ISSUE:
0~10\/0S Con,.ptu>l D<<ign
1/\03/05 CD ProgreH
niSOIOS Buildiog Pe.mit
Date ofhsue:
121nnaos 4<51 PM
....
iio;1
~
0 ~
~
[:5
~
0 ....
0 z • ~ ' • ~ ~ ~
~
0 ~
" 0 " ~ ~
~ • • ~
' • ~ u
i t
RENO SMITH
ARCHj 1pcrs
HO
210 ~AST Hth!.Al<
N202
ASPEN, COLORADO
8 \~it
37; SOUTHS!llE AVE
1<101
BASALT, COLORADO
81~21
(S7a) ~27-~834
''" (S70) 927-&840
WEB SITE
www.r<n,.milh.oom
EM.I,.!LADDRESS
offioe@rono•~·ilO.oom
LANDSCAPE:
-Conceptual Design
SHEET NO:
L.l
SHEET 5 OF 1S
Page 46
proposed development's twenty new lodge units will each contain one bedroom, six new
employees will theoretically be generated. Based on the thirty percent mitigation
requirement, 1. 8 employees must either be housed or otherwise mitigated via a cash-in-
lieu payment. The relevant calculations are as follows.
54 Proposed Lodge Units -34 Existing Lodge Units = 20 Lodge Units
20 Lodge Units x 0.3 Employees/Bedroom = 6 Employees Generated
6 Employees x 0.30 = 1.8 Employees
Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.3.d)ii) of the Regulations, the mitigation
requirement for the free market residential component of an incentive lodge development
may be met via the provision of on-site affordable housing units in an amount equal to
thirty percent of the free market residential units. These affordable housing units are
also required to be one-bedroom or larger, and may be deed restricted to APCHA's
Category 4 or lower income and occupancy guidelines in the Applicant's discretion. As
six free market residential units are proposed, 1. 8 affordable housing units are required,
which equates to 3.15 employees calculated as follows.
6 Free Market Units x 0.30 = 1.8 Affordable Housing Units
1.8 Affordable Housing Units x 1.75 Employee/1-Bedroom Unit = 3.15 Employees
Pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.5., when on-site affordable housing units are
provided to satisfy one mitigation requirement, the same on-site housing may be used
concurrently to satisfy any other affordable housing mitigation requirement. As a result,
the Applicant's provision of on-site affordable housing in an amount sufficient to house
the 3.15 employees generated by the proposed development's free market residential
component will also mitigate the 1.8 employees generated by the project's additional
lodge units. As discussed previously, the new lodge will contain two, one bedroom
25
Page 47
affordable housing units which will be deed restricted to APCHA' s Category 2
guidelines. Based on APCHA's housing standard of 1.75 employees housed per one
bedroom unit, the two units will be credited with housing 3.5 employees which exceeds
the proposed development's 3.15 affordable housing mitigation requirement.
Pursuant to Section 26.710.320.D. of the Regulations, the dimensional
requirements for all uses in the LP, Lodge Preservation Overlay, zone district are the
same as those of the underlying zone district unless otherwise established pursuant to the
PUD process. As the R-6 zone district does not contain a "Pedestrian Amenity" (a/k/a,
open space) requirement, and the pedestrian amenity requirements of the L, Lodge, zone
apply only to the City's downtown area, the proposed development need not comply with
a specific open space requirement. However, as the Open Space Plan on the following
page illustrates, approximately 5,092 square feet, or nineteen percent, of the project site
will nonetheless be preserved as open space.
The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of
the L, Lodge, zone district with the exception of its minimum setback provisions. While
the new Lodge zone district regulations impose a five foot setback requirement for front,
side and rear yards, the new lodge's subgrade garage and an associated access stairwell
encroach into the rear yard setback. The subgrade garage was specifically moved further
to the rear of the site at the request of the Parks Department to provide an additional
buffer area which will enhance the survival of the existing trees located along the south
side of the property (see Parks Department e-mail, Exhibit 1, Appendix C). The above
grade portion of the building, however, meets the minimum five foot rear yard setback
requirement. In addition to the garage encroachment, several units in the new lodge have
balconies and associated supporting elements which encroach into the required front and
west side yard setbacks. Finally, portions of the existing east wing encroach into the
26
Page 48
' ' '
' ' \
'
' ,_
0 • :0:
0
~ •
OPEN SPAGE, 5 ,0'4 2 sq ft
'
'
' ' ,gf---'----','
'
BUILDIN<3 PllRMIT SET
PROJECT#; 2514
REVISION:
[::,.
!;,.
[::,.
[::,.
DATE: ISSUE:
08/01105 Cone.ptualll"igo
t/lW/05 CDProgre"
tUSOIOS Jluilding Permit
Date of issue·
12/2712005 4:0~ ~M
..<
~ ~
0 ~
~
ts
~
0 ..<
0 z ' ~ ! ~ ~ ~ 0 ! ] ~
~ ~ 0 " u
0 ~ ,-
~ ~ ~ ~
RENO SMITH
L.LC
)IOBASTHYMAN
N<O<
ASPEN, COI.ORADO
81611
(nO) ns-s~~s
'"' <"OJns-sm
l71 SOUT!!Sll>EAVE.
N \01
~./>.SALT, COLORADO
31~21
(~?o) n7-0Sl4
'" (970) ~l?-08~0
WEE Sl!E
wwwnno•rnith.com
EMAIL ADDRESS
otfioe@r••o•mith.com
SITE PLAN:
-Open Space Plan
SHEET NO:
AS 103
SHEET 5 OF 16
Page 49
required east side yard setback. To address these issues, the Applicant proposes to
establish the project's required setbacks pursuant to the PUD process.
As Table 1, below, indicates, the project site exceeds the L, Lodge, district's
minimum lot size and lot width requirements. Sufficient lot area is available to meet the
district's minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement, and the new lodge complies
with the district's applicable height requirement. In addition, the proposed development's
lodge, free market residential, and affordable housing components all comply with the
Lodge district's applicable floor area limitations.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning
Existing Development
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA1
Boomerang Lodge Property
R-6(LP), Moderate-Density Residential,
Lodge Preservation Overlay
R-6(LP)(PUD), Moderate-Density Residential,
Lodge Preservation Overlay,
Planned Unit Development
34 Lodge Units
Existing Lot Size (Sq. Ft. )2 27,000
Existing Lot Width (Feet)3 270
Minimum Required Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) 3,000
7. Minimum Required Lot Area/Dwelling
8.
Unit (Sq. Ft.)
Multi-Family Residential
Lodge
Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
6 Free Market Residential Units
@ 3,000 Sq. Ft./Unit
28
3,000
No Requirement
24,000
18,000
Page 50
9.
2 Affordable Housing Units
@ 3,000 Sq. Ft./Unit
Minimum Required Lot Widtb (Feet)
10. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet)
Front Yard
Side Yards
Rear Yard
11. Proposed Setbacks (Feet)
Front Yard
East Side Yard
West Side Yard
Rear Yard
12. Maximum Allowable Height (Feet)'
13. Proposed Maximum Height (Feet)
14. Required Pedestrian Amenity Space (Percent)5
15. Proposed Open Space
Square Feet
Percent
16. Maximum Allowable Floor Area
17.
@ 3:1 (Sq. Ft.)6
Lodge Units @ 2:1
Non-Unit Space@ 0.5:1
Retail and Restaurant Uses
@ 0.25:1
Free Market Residential Units
@ 25 PercenC
Affordable Housing Units
@ 0.25:1
Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)
Lodge Units
Non-Unit Space
29
6,000
30
5
5
5
Per Site Development Plan
Per Site Development Plan
Per Site Development Plan
Per Site Development Plan
42
42
25
5,092
19
81,000
54,000
13,500
6,750
12,841
6,750
51,365
27,003
10,088
Page 51
18.
19.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Commercial Uses
Free Market Residential Units
Affordable Housing Units
Minimum Required Parking Spaces
20 Lodge Units@ 0.5 Spaces/Unit8
8 Residential Units @ 1 Space/
Unit
Proposed Parking Spaces
Lodge Units
Free Market Residential Units
Affordable Housing Units
None
12,822
1,452
18
10
8
48
40
6
2
All development data is based on the dimensional requirements of the L, Lodge,
zone district.
Per the Improvement Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc., dated
June 22, 2005.
Measured congruent with the Hopkins Avenue front yard setback line.
For incentive lodge development with flat roofs.
Pedestrian Amenity Space is not required for parcels located outside of the
downtown core.
For incentive lodge development on parcels of 27,000 square feet or less.
Free market residential floor area is limited to 25 percent of the project's total
floor area.
No off-street parking is required for the replacement of existing lodge units.
As discussed previously, all required utilities are available in the immediate site
area and are either adequate or may be easily upgraded to serve the proposed develop-
ment. All utility extensions will be located underground, and appropriate easements will
be dedicated to the various public and private utilities as may be required. Site grading
will be limited to the excavation of the project's basement and subgrade parking garage.
30
Page 52
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The proposed development is subject to various provisions of the City's growth
management quota system regulations and will require the receipt of PUD, subdivision
and condominiumization approval. Approval to designate the project site with a PUD
overlay and vested property rights status are also requested.
A. Growth Management
The replacement of the Boomerang Lodge's thirty-four existing lodge units
is exempt from growth management. The remainder of the proposed development's
lodge component and its associated free market residential and affordable housing units,
however, require a GMQS allocation. The relevant GMQS exemption and allocation
requirements are discussed below.
1 . Remodeling or Replacement of Existing Lodge Development.
Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.A. 7. of the Regulations, the remodeling or replacement
after demolition of existing lodge units is exempt from growth management and its
associated mitigation requirements provided that no additional lodge units are created.
As discussed previously, the Applicant proposes to remodel eight of the Boomerang
Lodge's existing thirty-four lodge units and demolish and reconstruct the remaining
twenty-six units. The Boomerang Lodge's existing unit count will be verified with the
City's Zoning Officer prior to demolition as required pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B.
of the Regulations.
2. Incentive Lodge Development. Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.
C. 3. of the Regulations, the development of new lodge units and associated free market
residential units within a so-called "Incentive Lodge" shall be approved by the Plamring
and Zoning Commission subject to compliance with the following criteria.
31
Page 53
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0., Annual
Development Allotments.
Sufficient growth management allotments are believed to be available as
there is no annual !imitation on the number of lodge units which may be approved. Only
thirty -seven free market residential units, however, are allocated on an annual basis. The
proposed development requests a lodge allocation of twenty units and a residential
allocation of six units. Should the free market residential allotments for 2005 be
allocated prior to this application being certified complete, the Applicant will reapply for
a 2006 allocation as may be required.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Map B: "Future Land Use Composite" of the 2000 Aspen Area
Community Plan (the "AACP") depicts the project site and the majority of the
immediate site area as "Residential". While the project site is zoned R-6, Medium-
Density Residential, it also is designated with a LP, Lodge Preservation Overlay. The
purpose of the LP Overlay is " ... to provide for and protect small lodge uses on
properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these
properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, ... and to provide an
incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties. " The
proposed development is clearly consistent with the existing use of the site and the intent
of its Lodge Preservation Overlay zoning.
The AACP's "Action Plan" recommended the creation of a sustainable
economic development task force to identify effective ways to enhance the wealth
generating capacity of the local economy. This recommendation was subsequently
implemented and a joint task force involving the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, the
32
Page 54
Aspen Institute Community Forum and the City was formed to address economic
sustainability. In 2000, the Economic Sustainability Committee identified and ranked in
order of importance the five most significant issues regarding economic sustainability.
The number one issue identified by the Committee was the deteriorating condition of
Aspen's lodging and tourist facilities and the outright loss of tourist beds. The
Committee recommended that the City actively support the development of new lodging
facilities as well as zoning changes that facilitate lodge development. The proposed
development has been designed to comply with the City's new L, Lodge, zone district
regulations. The City's approval of the new lodge will clearly help to implement the
Committee's recommendations.
The proposed development is also consistent with various goals and
policies contained in the AACP. The new lodge is a compact, mixed use development
that enables and supports travel by foot and public transportation. The lodge will help
promote a healthy and diverse economic base that supports the local economy and the
tourist industry. The lodge's affordable housing mitigation will be provided entirely by
the Applicant on-site. As a result, the proposed development will not exacerbate the
Community's current affordable housing shortfall nor require public expenditure to meet
its housing mitigation requirements.
c) The project contains a m1mmum 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.
The project site contains a lot area of 27,000 square feet. The minimum
number of lodge units which must be provided to comply with this criteria, therefore,
is fifty-four units (i.e., 27,000 sq. ft. 7 500 sq. ft./unit). The proposed development
will contain fifty-four lodge units. The average size of the proposed lodge units is
approximately 500 square feet (i.e., 27,003 sq. ft. lodge unit floor area 7 54 units).
33
Page 55
d) 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.
(ii) Providing on-site of off-site Affordable Housing Units
equal to 30 percent 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., Afford-
able Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision
of affordable mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require
approval from the 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.
The Applicant proposes to mitigate the new lodge's free market residential
component via the provision of on-site affordable housing units in an amount which
exceeds the minimum requirement of thirty percent of the free market units. As six free
market residential units are proposed, a minimum of 1. 8 affordable housing units must
be provided. To meet this requirement, the new lodge will contain two, one bedroom
units, each of which will contain a minimum of six hundred square feet of net livable
area. The units will be deed restricted to APCHA's Category 2 income and occupancy
guidelines, and will be rented to employees of the lodge. As presently envisioned, the
units will be owned by the lodge's condominium association.
e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the
additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated
34
Page 56
commercial development, according to Section 26.470.050.A., Employee
Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or
cash-in-lieu thereof.
The proposed development's twenty additional lodge units will generate
six new employees. Based on the thirty percent mitigation requirement, 1.8 employees
must either be housed or otherwise mitigated via a cash-in-lieu payment. The new
lodge's two, on-site affordable housing units more than meet this requirement as each of
the one bedroom units will be credited with housing 1. 75 employees. The proposed
development, therefore, will be credited with housing a total of 3.5 employees.
f) The project represents minimum additional demand on public
infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements
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.
All required public infrastructure is believed to be available or will
otherwise be upgraded as may be required by the Applicant in connection with the
proposed development. A more detailed discussion of the project's infrastructure
requirements is provided in Section IV.B. of this application.
3. Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7., the
development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with APCHA guidelines
shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission subject to compliance with
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.
There is presently no annual limit on the number of affordable housing
units which may be approved. A sufficient number of allotments, therefore, are
35
Page 57
available. In addition, tbe approval of tbe proposed on-site units is not expected to
exceed the City's current affordable housing development ceiling.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Compliance witb tbis review criteria is also required in connection witb
tbe Applicant's request for lodge and free market residential GMQS allocations and is
addressed in Section IV. A. 2. b) of this application.
c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
The proposed affordable housing units have been designed to comply witb
all applicable APCHA requirements.
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 Section 26.470.040.0.2.
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.
The proposed development's affordable housing mitigation requirement
will be met on-site via tbe construction of new deed restricted 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.
As discussed previously, a nominal ownership interest (i.e., an undivided
1110 of 1 percent) in tbe proposed development's two affordable housing units will be
conveyed to APCHA to address this issue. The ownership interest will specifically
36
Page 58
permit APCHA to enforce the required deed restriction. This approach has previously
been accepted by the City Attorney in connection with the City's approval of similar
rental affordable housing units.
B. Minor Planned Unit Development
The project site is presently zoned R-6(LP), Moderate-Density Residential,
Lodge Preservation Overlay. As a result, the proposed development's dimensional
requirements must be established via the PUD process as provided for in Section
26.710.320.D. of the Regulations. Pursuant to Section 26.445.030.B.3., a development
application requesting approval as a planned unit development on a parcel of land zoned
LP, Lodge Preservation, shall be processed as a "Minor" PUD. Minor PUD review is
a two-step process which requires review and approval of a final PUD development plan
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Conceptual PUD
development plan review is not required.
All property which is to be developed pursuant to the City's PUD
regulations is subject to certain general provisions which pertain to permitted land uses,
allowable density, and dimensional requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.445.040.A. of
the Regulations, the land uses which are permitted in a PUD are limited to those allowed
in the underlying zone district in which the property is located. As discussed previously,
a lodge, free market multi-family residential units, and affordable housing units which
are utilized for lodge employees are all uses permitted by right in the LP zone district
While the various dimensional requirements of a planned unit development
are established in conjunction with the adoption of the final PUD development plan, the
PUD's maximum allowable density may not exceed that which is permitted in the
underlying zone district. Pursuant to Section 26.445.040.B. of the Regulations, a
37
Page 59
reduction in allowable density is required when a PUD contains slopes in excess of
twenty percent. No such reduction, however, is required with respect to the proposed
development as the project site does not contain steep slopes.
Pursuant to Section 26.445.040 of the Regulations, an application for
minor PUD approval must also comply with certain review standards and requirements.
The various standards and requirements, and the proposed development's compliance
therewith, are discussed below.
1. General Requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050.A., the
proposed development must comply with the following general requirements.
a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Compliance with this review criteria is also required in connection with the Applicant's
request for lodge and free market residential GMQS allocations and is addressed in
Section IV.A.2.b) of this application.
b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
With the exception of the so-called Boomerang southside parcel, the area
surrounding the project site is essentially fully developed. As the Vicinity Map
illustrates, existing land uses in the innnediate site area include both residential and lodge
uses. The Christiana Lodge is located innnediately behind the project site. The Little
Ajax multi-family affordable housing project is presently under construction on the south
side of adjacent West hopkins Avenue. The Madsen apartments, a free market multi-
family project, is located across Fifth Street immediately west of the site. A residential
duplex is located across Fourth Street to the east. The surrounding area can be
characterized as a mixed use neighborhood in which lodging has historically been
38
Page 60
provided. The proposed development is therefore consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the surrounding area.
c) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
The project site, and the neighboring Boomerang southside parcel which
is earmarked for free market residential development, are believed to represent the last
significant new development opportunities in the immediate site area. As this portion of
the City is essentially fully developed, the proposed development should have little, if
any, effect on the future development potential of the surrounding area.
d) The proposed development has either been granted GMQS
allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommo-
date the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination
with, final PUD development plan review.
Sufficient GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
lodge and affordable housing units as neither of these two GMQS categories are subject
to an annual allotment limitation. In addition, a sufficient number of available allotments
are believed to remain in the 2005 free market residential category to also accommodate
the proposed development's six free market residential units. In the event the remaining
2005 free market residential allotments are allocated prior to this application being
certified complete, the Applicant will reapply for a 2006 allocation as may be required.
2. Dimensional Requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050.B.
of the Regulations, the dimensional requirements for the proposed development are to be
established in conjunction with the approval of a final PUD development plan. While
the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district are to be used as a guide,
variations are permitted provided that the proposed development is compatible with
surrounding land uses and existing development patterns. As the dimensional
39
Page 61
requirements of the R-6, Medium-Density Residential, zone district do not accommodate
either the existing Boomerang Lodge or the proposed redevelopment thereof, the project
has been designed to comply with the requirements of the City's new L, Lodge, zone
district regulations. As discussed in Section III of this application, the proposed
development complies with all of the requirements of the Lodge zone district except its
front, side and rear yard setback requirements. The Applicant's proposes to establish the
project's setback requirements via the PUD process. The proposed setbacks are depicted
on the Site Development Plan.
3. Site Design. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050.C., the proposed
development's site design must comply with the following requirements.
a} 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.
The only existing natural features of the project site which provide visual
interest are the large evergreen trees which generally flank West Hopkins Avenue, the
majority of which are to be preserved. With respect to man-made features, the City's
Historic Preservation Officer has expressed interest in having the existing Boomerang
Lodge's east wing considered for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures. While the Boomerang Lodge is not presently listed in the Historic Inventory,
the Applicant has nonetheless offered to include its east wing, as renovated pursuant to
this application, therein.
b) Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve
significant open spaces and vistas.
The proposed development consists of a single structure which essentially
occupies a similar footprint as the existing Boomerang Lodge. While clustering is not
40
Page 62
an option, the proposed development will not adversely impact any significant open
spaces or vistas when viewed from the surrounding public rights-of-way.
c) 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.
The proposed development has been appropriately oriented to West
Hopkins A venue which is consistent with the orientation of the existing Boomerang
Lodge. The east wing, which is to be retained, will continue to function as the primary
entrance to the new lodge. The proposed architecture will positively contribute to the
surrounding urban environment and will be visually engaging when viewed by passing
pedestrians and motorists.
d) Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow
emergency and service vehicle access.
The proposed development will be accessible to emergency vehicles via
the surrounding public street system and the alley which abuts the rear of the property.
All new construction will be sprinklered and fire department connections will be located
on the exterior of the buildings as may be required.
e) Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
The proposed development will comply with all applicable regulatory
requirements pertaining to handicapped access. Pedestrian access to the new lodge's
Fourth Street entrance is conveniently provided from the surrounding street system.
f) Site drainage is accommodated in a practical and reasonable
manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
The proposed development's storm water drainage system will be designed
to maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater
41
Page 63
recharge. As Schmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering report indicates, on-site drywells
will be utilized to intercept and detain runoff from building roofs and impervious areas,
and to control the rate of groundwater recharge. A detailed storm water drainage plan
will be submitted for review and approval by the City's Engineering Department with the
building permit application for the project.
g) For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are
appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated
with the use.
Tbis criteria does not apply as the proposed development consists of a
single multi-story structure which is to be utilized solely for lodge and residential
purposes.
4. Landscape Plan. Pursuantto Section 26.445.050. D. , the proposed
development's landscaping must comply with the following requirements.
a) 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.
As the Conceptual Landscape Plan illustrates, the proposed development
will be extensively landscaped. A general description of the tree and plant materials to
be used in the landscaping of the property is provided on the Plan. Additional
information with respect to proposed landscaping and plant materials will be developed
with the input of the City's Parks Department and provided in a detailed landscape plan
wbich the Applicant will submit for review and approval by the Community Development
Department prior to building permit application.
b) Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which
provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
42
Page 64
The majority of the project site's existing evergreen trees and the east wing
of the existing Boomerang Lodge will be preserved. The property's significant natural
and man-made features, therefore, will be preserved.
c) The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and
other landscape features is appropriate.
Existing vegetation to be retained will be protected in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Park's Department. The specific measures to be employed
will be memorialized in the proposed development's subdivision!PUD agreement, which
will be submitted with to the City for review and approval prior to recordation of the
subdivision plat and PUD development plan.
5. Architectural Character. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050.E., the
proposed development's architecture must comply with the following requirements.
a) Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture on 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.
The architectural character of the proposed development enhances the
visual character of the City, appropriately relates to the existing Boomerang Lodge's east
wing, and is clearly indicative of its intended use. The proposed development will have
no adverse impact on any neighboring historical or cultural resource.
b) 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.
The proposed development has been given a north/south orientation which
will allow a limited degree of solar access. Shadow Mountain to the south, however,
will significantly reduce the project's solar access during the winter months. Extensive
43
Page 65
landscaping will also provide a degree of shade. All new construction will comply with
the City's energy conservation regulations.
c) Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and
water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant mainte-
nance.
Snow fences will be utilized to protect landscape features and, where
appropriate, pedestrian entrances to the buildings. On-site snow storage will not be
required. Excess snow will be removed from the property as may be required.
6. lighting. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050.F., the proposed lodge's
exterior lighting must comply with the following requirements.
a) All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
All exterior lighting will be designed to minimize adverse impacts on
neighboring development and the surrounding street system. Exterior lighting will be
limited to such fixtures as are reasonably required to provide safe pedestrian and
vehicular access.
b) 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.
The proposed development's exterior lighting will comply with the
applicable requirements of Section 26.575 .150. E. of the Regulations. Pursuant to Section
26.575.150.D., an exterior lighting plan will be submitted for review and approval by
the Community Development Department prior to building permit application.
44
Page 66
7. Common Park, Open Space or Recreation Area. Pursuant to
Section 26.445.050.G., the proposed development must comply with the following
requirements in the event common park, open space, or recreation areas are proposed.
a) 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.
This requirement does not apply as the proposed development will not
contain common park, open space or recreational areas.
b) 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.
This requirement does not apply as the proposed development will not
contain common park, open space or recreational areas.
c) There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal
instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation
areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against further
residential. commercial, or industrial development.
This requirement does not apply as the proposed development will not
contain common park, open space or recreational areas.
8. Utilities and Public Facilities. Pursuant to Section26.445.050.H.,
the proposed development's utilities and public facilities must comply with the following
requirements.
a) Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate
the development.
45
Page 67
As Scbmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering report indicates, all required
utilities are presently located in the immediate site area and are available to serve the
proposed development. The project's utility requirements are discussed in detail in
Section IV. C. 3. of this application.
b) Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development
will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
All costs associated with improvements to the public infrastructure that are
required as a result of the proposed development will be borne by the Applicant. The
required improvements to the area's infrastructure will be memorialized in a subdivis-
ion/PUD agreement to be recorded with the project's final PUD development plan and
subdivision plat. The agreement will be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval prior to building permit submission.
c) Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are
provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for
the additional improvement.
All utility improvements will be sized in accordance with the applicable
requirements of the respective utility companies.
9. Access and Circulation. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050.1., the
proposed development must comply with the following access requirements.
a} Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has
adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private
road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Vehicular access to the proposed development's sub grade parking garage
will be provided via the alley at the rear of site and the surrounding street system. No
access easements or dedications are required.
46
Page 68
b) 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.
The proposed development will have no adverse impact on the surrounding
street system. Existing streets are believed to be more than adequate to accommodate
the limited increase in traffic which the addition of twenty new lodge units and eight
residential units is expected to generate.
c) Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improve-
ments of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and public
access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated
public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
No public trail easements or improvements are believed to be required.
d) The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and
adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the 2000 Aspen Area
Community Plan contains no recommendations with respect to recreational trails,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, or transportation which pertain to the project site.
e) Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be
retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to
ensure appropriate public and emergency access.
The proposed development does not contain internal streets.
f) Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for
the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
The proposed development will not contain security gates, guard posts or
entryway expressions. The garage entry, however, will be protected by a garage door.
47
Page 69
10. Phasing of Development. Pursuant to Section26.445.050.J., the
phasing plan must comply with the following requirements if the phasing of development
is proposed.
a) All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to
function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
The proposed development will be constructed in a single phase. No
phasing of development is anticipated.
b) The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the
extent practical, occupation of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
This requirement is not applicable as no phasing of development is
anticipated.
c) 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.
This requirement is not applicable as no phasing of development is
anticipated.
C. Subdivision
Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Regulations, land which is to be
used for condominiums, apartments or any other multiple dwelling units is by definition
a subdivision. As both multiple dwelling units and condominiumization are proposed by
the Applicant, subdivision review pursuant to Section 26.480.040.C. is required. The
various review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are
summarized below.
48
Page 70
1. General Requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.480.050.A., the
proposed development must comply with the following general requirements.
a) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Compliance with this review criteria is also required in connection with
the Applicant's request for both a lodge and free market residential GMQS allocation and
is addressed in Section IV.A.2.b) of this application.
b) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
Compliance with this criteria is also required in connection PUD review
and is addressed in Section IV.B.l.b) of this application.
c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Compliance with this criteria is also required in connection PUD review
and is addressed in Section IV.B.l.c) of this application.
d) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this title.
The proposed development has been designed to comply with the
applicable requirements of the L, Lodge zone district and all relevant provisions of the
Regulations. As Table 1 indicates, the project complies with all of the dimensional
requirements of the Lodge zone district with the exception of its front, rear and side yard
setbacks. Approval to establish the proposed development's setback requirements as
depicted on the Site Development Plan via the PUD process is requested in connection
with this application.
49
Page 71
2. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. The proposed development
must comply with the following requirements.
a) The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural
hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of
the residents in the proposed subdivision.
No natural hazards are believed to adversely affect the project site.
Consequently, no adverse impact upon the health, safety or welfare of the proposed
development's residents is anticipated.
b) 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.
No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary
public costs will occur as a result of the provision of public services to the proposed
development. All required utilities are presently available in the immediate site area.
All costs associated with the upgrading of utilities or the installation of public improve-
ments to serve the project will be borne by the Applicant.
3. Improvements. Pursuant to Section 26.480.060.C., the proposed
development must provide the various subdivision improvements set forth in Chapter
26.580 of the Regulations. The required improvements, which are described in detail
in Section 26.580.020.A.l, are addressed below.
a) Permanent Survey Monuments
No subdivision of the project site is proposed. As the Improvement
Survey indicates, all property corners have previously been monumented. No further
monumentation is believed to be required.
50
Page 72
b) Paved Streets
The proposed development does not contain internal streets. Any existing
street pavement which is adversely impacted as a result of the proposed development will
be repaired at the Applicant's expense.
c) Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks
No new sidewalk, curb and gutter is believed to be required to accommo-
date the proposed development. Any existing sidewalk, curb and gutter which is
adversely impacted as a result of the proposed development will be repaired at the
Applicant's expense.
d) Paved Alleys
The alley at the rear of the project site is presently paved. No further
improvements to the alley are believed to be required.
e) Traffic Control Signs, Signals or Devices
No traffic control signs or signals are believed to be required as a result
of the proposed development.
f) Street Lights
No street lights are believed to be required as a result of the proposed
development.
g) Street Name Signs
Street names and associated signs are not required as a result of the
proposed development.
51
Page 73
h) Street Trees
Street trees will be installed within the South Fifth Street right-of-way in
accordance with the requirements of Section 26.580.020.B.l.x. and the City's Park's
Department in the event required. The West Hopkins Avenue right-of-way is presently
extensively landscaped and no ability exists to install street trees along South Fourth
Street if the existing surface parking is retained.
i) Water Lines and Fire Hydrants
Water service will be provided from an existing eight inch main located
in West Hopkins Avenue. The Boomerang Lodge's existing service will be abandoned
at the main and a new larger service connection will be installed and sized to accommo-
date the project's combined domestic and fire flow requirements. The free market and
affordable housing units, however, will be individually metered for billing purposes. As
discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering report, sufficient water capacity is
available to serve the proposed development without additional upgrades to the City's
treatment or delivery facilities. Applicable tap fees will be paid by the Applicant as may
be required.
j) Sanitary Sewer Lines
Sewer service will be provided from a new eight inch sanitary sewer to
be installed by the Applicant in the adjacent alley. The existing tap which serves the
Boomerang Lodge will be abandoned and a new larger service line to the alley sewer will
be installed. As discussed in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering report, the Aspen
ACSD will require that the Applicant pay for the replacement of the existing alley sewer
between the project site and the next downstream manhole which will help to alleviate
various downstream constraints in the existing collection system. Sufficient treatment
52
Page 74
capacity, however, is believed to be available from the ACSD to serve the project.
Applicable tap fees will also be paid by the Applicant as may be required.
k) Storm Drainage Improvements and Storm Sewers
The proposed development's storm water drainage system will be designed
to maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater
recharge. On-site drywells will be installed in appropriate locations to intercept and
detain runoff from building roofs and impervious areas. A detailed storm water drainage
plan will be submitted for review and approval by the City's Engineering Department
with the building permit application for the project.
I) Bridges or Culverts
No bridges or culverts are required.
ml Electrical Lines
Electrical service is presently available in the alley at the rear of the
property, and will be extended as may be required to serve the proposed development.
As Schmueser Gordon Meyer's engineering report indicates, a new transformer may be
required, the cost of which will be borne by the Applicant.
n) Telephone Lines
Telephone service is presently available in the alley at the rear of the
property, and will be extended as may be required to serve the proposed development.
o J Natural Gas Lines
Natural gas service is presently available in the alley at the rear of the
property, and will be extended as may be required to serve the proposed development.
53
Page 75
p) Cable Television Lines
Cable TV service is presently available in the alley at the rear of the
property, and will be extended as may be required to serve the proposed development.
4. Affordable Housing. The proposed development will contain two,
one bedroom affordable housing units which will comply with all applicable APCHA
requirements.
5. School Land Dedication. As the proposed development will
contain residential units and is subject to subdivision review, it must comply with the
school land dedication requirements of Chapter 26.630 of the Regulations. Pursuant to
Section 26.630.030.B., an applicant may make a cash-in-lieu payment to the Aspen
School District to satisfy the school land dedication requirements. As provided for in
Section 26.630.040.B., the Applicant will make the required payment in lieu of a land
dedication prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
D. Condominiumization
Condominiumization approval will be required to sell the proposed
development's lodge and free market dwelling units. The two affordable housing units
which are required to mitigate the free market units may also have to be condominiumi-
zed to permit their conveyance to the project's condominium association. Pursuant to
Section 26.480.090.A. of the Regulations, a condominium plat must be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review and approval as a subdivision. As a
condominium plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete, this
section of the Regulations arguably requires the submission, review and approval of an
additional subdivision application at such time as condominiumization approval is
requested.
54
Page 76
All relevant subdivision review standards are addressed in Section IV.B.
of this application. Assuming that subdivision approval is granted by the City Council
for the proposed development, no significant benefit would appear to be gained by
requiring the Applicant to repeat the subdivision review process in order to condominiu-
mize the project. Consequently, the Applicant requests that further subdivision review
with respect to condominiumization be waived in connection with the approval of this
application. A condominium plat meeting the requirements of Section 26.480.090.B.,
however, will be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and
approval upon substantial completion of construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the project.
The proposed development will be condominiumized in accordance with
the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act and the Colorado Common
Interest Ownership Act as set forth in Articles 33 and 33.2, Title 38, of the Colorado
Revised Statutes, respectively. The project's condominium plat will depict the lodge
units, the free market residential units, the affordable housing units, and the limited and
common elements appurtenant thereto. A condominium declaration for the project and
the articles of incorporation and bylaws for the condominium association will be prepared
and recorded concurrently with the condominium plat.
E. Rezoning
To accommodate the proposed development, the project site must be
designated as a Planned Unit Development. PUD designation will allow the dimensional
requirement of the project to be established pursuant to the PUD process. Such requests
require that an amendment to the official zone district map be approved pursuant to
Section 26.310.020. The applicable review criteria, and the required rezoning's
compliance therewith, are summarized below.
55
Page 77
1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the proposed rezoning complies
with all applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Compliance with this review criteria is also required in connection with
the Applicant's request for lodge and free market residential GMQS allocations and is
addressed in Section IV.A.2.b) of this application.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
Compliance with this criteria is also required in connection PUD review
and is addressed in Section IV.B.l.b) of this application.
4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
The proposed development will have no adverse impact on the capacity of
the surrounding street system.
5. 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 public facilities,
including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Existing utilities and public facilities are available to serve the proposed
development. All costs for the extension and/ or improvement of utilities will be borne
by the Applicant.
56
Page 78
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
The proposed development will have no significant adverse impacts on the
natural enviromnent. While some of the project site's existing vegetation must be
removed to accommodate the proposed development, the removal will be mitigated
pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements.
7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
The designation of the project site with a PUD overlay is necessary to
accommodate the proposed development and is specifically required pursuant to Section
26.710.320.D. of the Regulations. While compatibility with Aspen's community
character is obviously a subjective criteria, both short-term accommodations and
affordable housing units are scattered throughout the City and are considered an essential
component of our tourist economy and housing inventory. The Boomerang Lodge has
been an integral part of this area of the City for over fifty years. Continued lodge use,
as requested in this application, is fully consistent and compatible with the City's
community character.
8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
The project site is located within the mapped "Aspen lnfill Area" which
has been identified as appropriate for additional development. The requested PUD
designation is required to accommodate the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge
which will contribute to the expansion of the community's short-term accommodations
bed base and help to sustain the lodge as an integral part of the Aspen experience.
57
Page 79
9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter.
Inasmuch the requested PUD designation will facilitate the development
of the proposed lodge, and the addition of such units will benefit both the lodge and the
community at large, the public interest would appear to be served.
F. Vested Property Rights
In order to preserve the land use approvals which may be obtained as a
result of this application, the Applicant hereby requests vested property rights status
pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.308.010.A. of the Regulations. It is our
understanding that the receipt of all required development approvals from the City
Council and the issuance of a Development Order by the Community Development
Department is sufficient to confer a vested property right, and that no further actions on
behalf of the Applicant are required.
58
Page 80
APPENDIX A
Page 81
EXHIBIT
I /
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: James Lindt, 429-2763 DATE: 11/30/05
PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Expansion
REPRESENTATIVE: SunnyVrum
OWNER: Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC.
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lodge Preservation Minor PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning to include a PUD Overlay, Growth
Management Review for an h1centive Lodge, Growth Management Review for AH,
Growth Management Exemption for replacement of existing lodge development,
Condominiumization
DESCRIPTION:
Notes:
The Applicant would like to expand the existing Boomerang Lodge from 34 lodge units to
54 lodge units. Additionally, the Applicant would like to construct 6 free-market
residential units, and 2 affordable housing. The Applicant would also like to construct an
underground parking garage beneath the lodge containing 31 parking spaces that is
accessed from the alleyway. Since the existing lodge is zoned R-6 with aLP overlay, the
dimensional requirements for the lodge must be established through a PUD. Land Use
Code Section 26.445.020 establishes that a PUD application in the LP zone district shall be
processed as a Minor PUD. ill association with the PUD request, the Applicant would need
to rezone the property to include a PUD overlay.
Subdivision is required to develop multi-family residential units in the lodge development.
Also, growth management reviews for the development of an incentive lodge (comprising
of both free-market residential units and lodging) and affordable housing are required (
please see note 3 below) . The replacement of existing lodge rooms is exempt from growth
management. It is also the understanding of Staff that the Applicant has volunteered to
have the Historic Preservation Commission review and provide referral comments to the
Plruming and Zoning Commission and City Council on any addition to the east wing of the
building that abuts South 4th Street even though the property is not designated to the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
1. The application should address the project's employee generation and provision of employee housing.
2. Development near trees or relocation of trees should be researched by applicant. Brian Flyun or Aaron Reed, Parks
Department, can be contacted to do a site visit. 920.5120.
3. If the free market residential development allotments for 2005 are used up before the application is submitted, the
Applicant will have to reapply for 2006 free market residential allotments on March 1, 2006. This can be done by
submitting a letter requesting that the growth management portion of the application be considered to be resubmitted
on March 1''-
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures.
26.310 Amendments to the Official Zone District Map
26.445.030(8)(3) Minor Lodge Preservation Planned Unit Development
26.470.040(A)(7) Exempt Development: Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or
26.470.040(C)(3)
26.470.040(C)(7)
26.480
26.480.090
26.610
26.630
26.710.320
lodge development
Growth Management Review: Incentive Lodge
Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing
Subdivision
Condominiumization
Park Development Impact Fee
School Lands Dedication
Lodge Preservation Zone District Overlay
Page 82
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
• Staff for completeness.
• Development review committee (DRC) for teclrnical considerations. The Housing Office
may refer the project to the Housing Board.
• Community Development Director and Staff for recommendations to applicable Boards.
• Historic Preservation Commission for referral comments on east wing additions.
• Planning and Zoning Commission for final determination on growth management requests
and recommendation on Subdivision, Rezoning, and Minor PUD requests (Public Hearing).
• City Council for fmal review of Subdivision, Rezoning, Condominium, and Minor PUD
requests (2nd Reading of Ordinance is a Public Hearing).
Yes, every Board as noted above by (PH). Applicant must post property and mail notice at least
15 days prior to the public hearing. Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing
with an affidavit at the public hearing. City will do publication of notice.
Engineering, Housing, Parks, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD, Streets, Building.
Planning Deposit Major ($2,640 fof12 hours)
Engineering Major ($365), Housing Major ($365), Environmental Health Major ($365)
$3,735 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of$220/hour)
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Total deposit for review of the application.
2. Completed Land Use Application.
3. Proof of ownership.
4. Signed fee agreement.
5. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
6. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
tl1e names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
7. An 8 1 /2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements
and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
This must be current (within one year) and signed by a surveyor.
9. Proposed Elevation Drawings.
10. Proposed Floor Plans.
11. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed. Please provide a written response to all applicable criteria.
12. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. Contact GIS Dept. at 920.5453.
13. Copies of prior approvals.
14. Additional application material as required for each specific review. (See application packet and Ordinances.)
15. 40 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; PZ = 10; CC = 7; Referral Agencies= 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 1
16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (mm1ber of copies noted above) as well as the text only
on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk.
Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal
or vested right.
Page 83
EXHIBIT
. ,. r
. Cqptmitmellt. to lnsu~e.
Att ACo~mitmeiit -t 970 R~v. .
OlD REPUBliC NATIONAl TITlE INSURANCE COMPANY. a Minnesorn co~oration. herein celed the Company, for a
valuable consideration. hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance. as identified in Schedule A in favur
ol the propn'l.OO lnsmed named in Schadu\e A. as ownm or mongaga:e ol the estalB ur imereS1 c011e1ed hereby in the hmd
described or referred to in Schedule A, upon ~ayment oi the ·premiums and charges thenrlor: alf subject to the pmvisions of
Schedule A and a-and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitmem shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policv or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Cammitmlmt or by subsequent endarsement.
lh\s Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insmance and allliahility and obligations
hereun(ler shall tease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the: po~cy or policies committed lor
shall issue, whichever first oGcurs. provided that the failure to issue such pali~y or palicies is not the fault of the Company.
CONDITIONS AND STIPUlATIONS
1. The term ''mongage", whtm used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other seCtJrity instrument.
2. 1f the proposed Insured has or atquires actual knowiB~e of any defect, lien. encumbrance. adverse claim or other
matter aHening the esmte or interest ar mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof. and shall fail to disclose such knowledge
to ths Compan~ in writing. tl\s Com\Wn~ s!\al! be relieved from liability for aov loss. nr damage resulting from an~ act nl ralianca hereM to the eX.tellt the Company is ~rll~diced
by falll!Te of the proposed Insured to so disclose such knnwledge. If thB propnscd lnsurerl shall rlisdose such knoVviedge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires
actttal knowledge of anv sut:h defect, lien, encumhrant:a, adverse claim or Dther matter. the Company at its option may amefld Schedule B af this Commitment accordingly. but
such amendmer11 shall nat relieve the Company from liability previously incuned pursuant ta paragraph 3 of th%e Conditions and Stipui&Mns.
3. liabiljty of the Company vnder this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed lnsurad and s-ur:h parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or polichts committed for and only lor actual loss incurred ·nJ feliance llereon in undertaking in good faith Ja) to
comply with the requirements hereof or !h) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B. or !~I to e:cqlire or create tile estate or interest Of mortgag-e thereon ~olJeTed by this
Commitmam. In no event shall such liability EXCeed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies ~ommined for and such liability is subject to the insuring
provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations anO the Excl\lsions fr~Jm Coverage of the form of policy or palicies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured whi~h are
hemhv inC!J(~orated bv refetew:e and ~mde a \!art of this Commitment exce~t as expressly modified herein.
4. Any actloo or actions or rights of actirm that the proposed Insured may have or may bring agains1 the Company
atising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the Status of the mortgage thereon covered by 1his Cammitment must be based on and am Sl.Jbject to tha
pmvisions of this Commitment
STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
ln addition to the matters contained in the Ccmditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above
referred til, this Commitment is also suhjer:t ta the lolklwing,
1. Rights or claims nf parties in possession nm stmwn by the public ra&ords.
2. Easements, or claims of easements. not shown by the public re~ords.
3. mscrepandes, mn1\lcts in boundal)l lines, ~;hortage in .'m:a. encroadiiMJ\t'l.. and arw hctt wrucn a cm1ect
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by tha public retonf.s.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services. labor or materia! theretofore ur hereafter furnished, imposed by law
afld rx.n shOWl'l b)' the publi~ records.
5. OB!ects, liens, entumbrances, adverse claims or other mattars. if any, created. first appearing in the pubffc mt:.ords
or attaching subsequent to the effu.ctive data nereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or inrarest or martga.ge. thereon cov11red by this
Commitment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Old Republic National Title lnsurnnte Company has caused its corpora1e narne and seal to
be hereunto affixed by its duly authorizEd ofiicers on the data shown in Sthedule A, to be valid when countersignBd by a validating officer or other author~ed sigmn[)ry.
.... '~ ...
Authorized SfUtJatQry
ORT Fotm Z5.82
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL nnE INSURANCE COMPANY
A Stock Company
400 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612/371-1111
By President
Attest Socreuuy
Page 84
Old Republic National Title lnsurauce Company
ALTA COMMITMENT
Our Order No. Q387506
Schedule A Cust. Ref.:
Property Address:
500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611
1. Effective Date: November 16, 2005 at 5:00P.M.
2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured:
11 TBD 11 Commitment
Proposed Insured:
TBD
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
ASPEN FSP-ABR, LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, AND S
BLOCK31
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
Page 85
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-1
(Requirements) Our Order No. Q387506
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
Prope-r i:nstrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED
PURSUANT HERETO.
NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE
BUYERS NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND/OR CHARGES
REFLECTED HEREIN, IF ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE
CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO.
Page 86
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-2
(Exceptions) Our Order No. Q387506
The policy or policies to be issued will contmn exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
I. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary Hnes, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and
inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and
not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or
attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for
value the· estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Aoy unpaid taxes or assessments against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. DEED OF TRUST DATED JUNE 28, 2005, FROM ASPEN FSP-ABR, LLC., A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE
USE OF BANK MIDWEST, NATO SECURE THE SUM OF $9,000,000.00 RECORDED JUNE
29, 2005, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 511778.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
RECORDED JUNE 29, 2005, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 511779.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNMENT OF ENTITLEMENT
DOCUMENTS AND CONTRACTS RECORDED JUNE 29, 2005, UNDER RECEPTION NO.
511780.
10. FINANCING STATEMENT WITH, BANK MIDWEST, NATHE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED JULY
12, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 512253.
11. RESERVATIONS AS CONTAINED IN PATENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
12. RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED IN DEEDS RECORDED JANUARY 3,
1888 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 378 AND RECORDED JULY 30, 1889 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE
Page 87
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-2
(Exceptions) Our Order No. Q387506
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
576 PROVIDING, "THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF
GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR
POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THIS DEED
IS MADE AND DECLARED TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2386 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE
UNITED STATES."
13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 2, SERIES 1997 TO REZONE
SPECIFIC PROPERTIES RECORDED SEPTEMBER 03, 1997 AT RECEPTION NO. 407979.
14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION 08, SERIES 1997 GRANTING A
VARIANCE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 AT RECEPTION NO. 408741.
Page 88
December 15, 2005
Mr. James Lindt, Planner
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Mr. Lindt:
EXHIBIT
j ~
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC,
Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application for the
redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our
behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
c: \oldc\bus\city .ltr\ltr48905 .jll
Page 89
EXHIBIT
~~
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & bloc{ number, legal desc:iption where appropriate)
UlRED)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone#:
PROJECT:
Name:
Address:
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
D Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD D Conceptual Historic Devt.
D Special Review ~Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Final Historic Development
0 Design Review Appeal D Conceptual SPA D Minor Historic Devt. ~ GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (&SPA Amendment) D Historic Demolition ~ GMQS Exemption ~ Subdivision D Historic Designation
D ESA -8040 Greenline, Stream D Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
D Lot Split D Temporary Use D Other:
D Lot Line Ad" ustment ~ Text!Ma Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: ( descri tion of existing buildin s, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
~you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 0 ;1:3 $' -
~ "('re-Application Conference Summary
j~j")~,Jtachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
l!'f..,Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
0 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards
Page 90
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
EXHIBIT
Project: ~4~~ ~~~
Applicant: ~ ~-,-tf/'SI'r, CJ:..G
Location: $? v-./~7" ~r/f/.VS 4~.
Zone District: /{ ... <:;:: cz.,-)
Lot Size: 'Z7. e.M' 19. r7.
Lot Area: Z!i~ ~ p-;r:
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: ____ ...:Proposed: ________ _
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: ________ _
Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: ________ _
Proposed% of demolition (Historic properties only): ____ _
DIMENSIONS: ,:::c::sz; ~./"ft./~ 7'/<ll'.ti../
Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: __
Buildings
Variations requested: .ot8 1"!!1' ~/z;t{7/<i!iiV
Page 91
EXHIBIT
I &.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~ ~ ... ,.tf/:J/'r C.t::.t::::=
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT nnderstands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee strnctnre for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processiog the
application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is io the ioterest of the parties that APPLICANT
make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on
a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue followiog their hearings and/or
approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments npon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY
agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recoveriog its full costs to process
APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processiog or present sufficient information to the Planniog Commission and/or City Council to enable the
Planuing Commission and/or City Council to make legally required fiodiogs for project consideration,
unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to l!. deteJ:.111\!!ation of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an iuitial
deposit in the arnonnt of~,~f"~ which is for /"Z hours of Community Development staff
time, and if actual record~d costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly
billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processiog of the application mentioned above, iocludiog
post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the ioitial deposit. Such periodic payments
shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be gronnds for suspension of processiog, and io no case will buildiog permits be issued
until all costs associated with case processiog have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:----:-,-,-::--:------------
Chris Hendon
Community Development Director
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
11/30/04
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
~red £ ~PJ--'A./ "SP '1"'e
~er~
//?'&/ ~~evv ./?~~
-=-c.pre 75°
/'f'6'~ V4 'Zt::>/'?'-'
C::::?o-:3) h:s-~t:/
Page 92
Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide
Utllisez le gabarit 5160®
501 WEST MAIN LLC
314 S GALENA ST #200
ASPEN, CO 81611-1818
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN HOUSING LLC
299 MILWAUKEE ST STE 502
DENVER, CO 80206
BARTON META PACKARD
4475 N OCEAN BLVD APT 43A
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
CARTER RICHARD P
400 E 3RD AVE #804
DENVER, CO 80202
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
--
604WEST LLC
604W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
ASPEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304
ASPEN, CO 81611-2934
ASPEN MESA STORE LLC
C/0 ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC
P 0 BOX8238
ASPEN, CO 81612
BERR LLC
611 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CHRISTIANA A-202 LLC
118 GROVE ST#4
STANFORD, CT 06901
CLEANER EXPRESS
435 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMCOWICH MARK 10%
PO BOX293
COMCOWICH SUZANNE 10%
1 2 ADAMS ST #1510
WILMOT, NH 03287
CORTALE ITA
205 S MILL ST #112
ASPEN, CO 81611
FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA
412 MARINER DR
JUPITER, FL 33477
GOLDMAN DIANNE L
PO BOX518
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
DENVER, CO 80206
DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC
610WESTENDST
ASPEN, CO 81611
FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC
520 MAIN ST #7
ASPEN, CO 81611
GRAMIGER HANS R
739 25 RD
GRAND JUCTION, CO 81505-9511
All~/\'d-09-008-L
WO)'NeAe'MMM -
ALLEN DOUGLAS
403 LACET LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
__ "_" ___ _
ASPEN FSP ABR LLC
11921 FREEDOM DR#950
RESTON, VA 20190
ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS
AS SOC
617 E COOPER AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BRIDGE WILLIAM
300 BRANNAN ST #400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
CHRYSLER JACK F & JENNIFER SHAW
1472 SNOWMASS CREEK RD
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
CLEARY THOMAS P REV TRST
70 N STEVENS ST
RHINELANDER, WI 54501
COMCOWICH WILLIAM L 70%
C/0 CHARLES CATHCART PROP MGT
PO BOX 1374
ASPEN, CO 81612
DUNSDOJiJ S MICHAELE
BORKENHAGEN DAVID A
617WMAINST #D
ASPEN, CO 81611-1619
GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J
430 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
H & H PROPERTIES LLLP
501 W MAIN ST #B102
ASPEN, CO 81611
®09LS ~l'dldW3l ~eA'lf asn
6u1~U1Jd aru~ a6 nws ue wer
Page 93
Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide
Utllisez le gabarit 516o® --www.avery.com
1-80()..60-AVERY
HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS & LISA
YERKE
616 W HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO 81611
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO NA TRUSTEE
C/0 COATES REID & WALDRON
720 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ILGEN EILEEN L & JACK 0 & ELOISE
518W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
JOHNSON STANFORD H
PO BOX32102
TUCSON, AZ. 85751
KLEIN DEBBIE
A COLORADO CORPORATION
546 MCSKIMMING RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
LEVIN WILLIAM A
86 CHAMBERS ST #201
NEW YORK, NY 10007
MOLLER DIANE T
18 RIVER RD
DURANGO, CO 81302
PREIN KATHERYN 10%
4692 ERIN CT
ANN ARBOR, Ml 48105
RODRIGUEZ JOANN
PO BOX2296
ASPEN, CO 81612
SCOTT MARY HUGH
RUSSELL SCOTT Ill & CO LLC
5420 S QUEBEC ST #200
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
HORTON OAYNA L
C/0 STIRLING HOMES
600 E MAIN ST #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
IGLEHART JIM
610 W HALLAM ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
. I INGHAM JEAN C & CAROL A
71151 COUNTRY CLUB DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST
2018 PHALAROPE
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
KOELLE ALICE
PO BOX2871
ASPEN, CO 81612
MADSEN MARTHA W
608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9
, 1 ASPEN, CO 8161.1
NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC
200 S ASPEN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC
605 W MAIN ST #002
ASPEN, CO 81611
RS FOR OMS & P INC
3915 LEMMON AVE #200
DALLAS, TX 75219
SHADOW MTN CORP
C/0 FINSER CORP
550 BILTMORE WAX SUITE 900
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134-5779
AH31\V-09-008-~
woJ·.{JaAe"MMM --
~ AVERY® S16o®
HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
110 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
IGLEHART JIM
617W MAINST
ASPEN, CO 81611
JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD
OF ASPEN
PO BOX 12099
ASPEN, CO 81612
KELSO DOUGLAS P
601 W HALLAM ST
ASPEN, C 81611
KONIG DEBORAH CASUGA
PO BOX907
ASPEN, CO 81612
MARKER STEVEN W
C/0 ANDERSON JASON
FBMM 1700 HAYES ST #3304
NASHVILLE, TN 37203
OLIVER DAMON
520 W MAIN ST #20
ASPEN, CO 81611
REVALLC
PO BOX 1376
ASPEN CO, CO 81612
SCHOEBERLEIN DEBORAH & JOSEPH
520 W MAIN ST APT 23
ASPEN, CO 81611-1656
SHERWIN JENNIFER EVE 50%
7017 ARANDALE RD
BETHESDA, MD 20817-4701
®09~5 3!'d1dll\l3! ~aAv asn
6U!~U!Jd aaJ~ a6pnws pue wer
Page 94
Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide
Utllisez le gabarit 5160® '
SHERWIN MARK 50%
1714 VISTA ST
DURHAM, NC 27701
STARFORD PROPERTIES NV
C/0 KEON WILLIAM
550 BILTMORE WY 9TH FL
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134
--
SLTM LLC
106 S MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
STASPEN LLP
C/0 JOHN STATON
www.avery.com
1-800-60-AVERY
191 PEACHTREE ST STE 4900
ATLANTA, GA 30303-1763
ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
600 E HOPKINS #304
I VANDERSCHUIT FAM TRUST
5836 WAVERLY AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE
2577 NW 59TH ST
BOCA RATON, FL 33496
WENDT ROBERT E II
350 MT HOLYOKE AVE
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
WM HOLDINGS LLC
C/0 KELLY MITCHELL
300 B AABC
ASPEN, CO 81611
YOUNG PAUL Ill FAMILY TRUST
13355 NOEL RD #28
DALLAS, TX 75240-6602
I I
I
:I
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST
HALL TERESA 50% INTEREST
605W MAINST
ASPEN, CO 81611
WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S
58416475 METAVANTE WAY
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186
WOLF BRADLEY R
3358 IRELAND RD
MORROW, OH 45152
AH31\'If·09-00S·L
WOl"NSAI!"MMM --
\j\ AVERY® 5160®
ST JOHN THOMAS
379 MEADOWVIEW LN
BASALT, CO 81621
THROM DOUGLAS H
617WMAINST
ASPEN, CO 81611
VERELLEN VIRGILE & CLAUDIA
449 E COOPER
ASPEN, CO 81611
WAGNER HOLDINGS CORPORATION
LLC
C/0 BILL POSS
605 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC
12 GREENBRIAR LN
PAOLI, PA 19301
YOUNG DONALD L
617W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
®09LS 31Vldll\l31 ~BA'If asn
6U!JU!Jd aaJ~ a6pnws pue wer
Page 95
APPENDIX B
Page 96
EXHIBIT
/
LAW OFFICE OF
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.c.
FACSIMILE
(970) 920-IOI9
Chris Benden, Director
106 SouTH MILL STREET
Sum202
AsPEN. CoLORADo 81611
E-MAIL
Mhoffinan@emhlaw-aspen.com
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Historic Preservation Concerns in the
Redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge
Dear Chris:
TELEPHONE
(970) 544-3442
November 2, 2005
Thanks for meeting with me last Thursday. As you know, I represent Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC ("the
LLC"), the owner of the Boomerang Lodge and the undeveloped land located across West Hopkins
Street from the lodge (the "southside property"). We met to discuss the City's interest in preserving
those sections of the Boomerang Lodge which have historic or architectural significance. Amy
Guthrie also attended our meeting and offered her perspective on the potential preservation of the
lodge.
Last spring you and other members of the Community Development staff met with Steve Stuftda,
the owner's local representative, to discuss potential development alternatives for both the
Boomerang and the southside property. That meeting occurred as part of the LLC's due diligence
related to its purchase ofthe project. At the meeting the City's representatives made clear that some
members of City govermnent believe that the Boomerang has historic importance even though it is
not listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures (the "Historic Inventory"). Steve
made clear that neither the LLC nor the then-current owner of the property believed that the
Boomerang Lodge had any historic significance. Steve observed that, although the east wing is the
most architecturally prominent section of the hotel, there is nothing about it which warrants
preservation. However, Steve did offer to retain the east wing as part of the redevelopment plan if
its preservation could be accomplished without harming the project as a whole.
Following his meeting with you last spring, Steve informed the ownership group of the substance
of the discussion. He was able to persuade the group that a benefit could be achieved by integrating
the east wing into the redevelopment plan, if a synergistic design solution could be achieved.
Page 97
Mr. Chris Benden
November 2, 2005
Page2
The only part of the lodge which is older than the east wing is the cabin located in the center of the
project. Even if the LLC believed it was appropriate to retain the cabin as part of the redevelopment
(which it does not), the ownership group cannot offer to retain the cabin because it is contractually
obligated to release that structure to the former owner of the property prior to construction of the
new project.
In keeping with representation he made to you last spring, Steve directed the LLC' s architects to
create a redevelopment plan for the Boomerang Lodge which preserves the east wing and the
adjacent 1950's-vintage swimming pool and recreation area. The balance of the existing
improvements on the Boomerang Lodge property are to be demolished and replaced with a new
condominiumized hotel which the LLC believes will meet the demands of current Aspen visitors.
The interior of the east wing will be substantially renovated to match the quality of the new
construction. A third floor will be added to the east wing which will house five lodge units. The
City should receive within the next few weeks the LLC's land use application for this plan.
At our meeting of October 27, 2005, I described the LLC's position as follows:
I It is not practicable to transfer development potential from the Boomerang Lodge site to the
southside property. The ownership group firmly believes that the proposal described in its
current application for the southside property represents the highest and best use for that
property. A transfer of development potential to that site from the hotel would harm both
parcels.
2 Only the east wing of the existing Boomerang Lodge has any architectural importance. The
other sections of the hotel were built in the 1960s, '70s and '80s and have no real historic
or architectural significance.
3 The LLC will preserve the exterior of the east wing of the Boomerang Lodge as well as the
swimming pool and the cement decking surrounding the pool.
4 Unfortunately the benefits offered in the Aspen Land Use Code to owners of potentially
significant structures do not outweigh the loss of revenue the LLC would suffer by the loss
of the five lodge units to be located on the third floor of the east wing. This includes
potential benefits provided through exclusions from the growth management system and
reduced employee housing requirements.
The LLC has offered to include the renovated east wing of the Boomerang Lodge on the Historic
Inventory at the time it receives final approval for both of those applications, provided the City's
Historic Preservation Commission will have no authority over any other part of the redeveloped
Boomerang Lodge. To facilitate the eventual listing of the east wing, the LLC will agree to submit
its plans for that section of the lodge for review by the HPC as part of the City's consideration of
the application for redevelopment of the hotel. HPC will have the right to review and make
Page 98
Mr. Chris Benden
November 2, 2005
Page 3
comments on the proposal as it concerns the east wing only, but will have no right to approve or
disapprove the application, or any part of the application. HPC's review would take place after
conceptual approval has been received from the City Council and before the application for fmal
approval is submitted.
Based on the support you voiced last week for the approach outlined above, the LLC will submit its
application for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge within the next few weeks. If you have
a different understanding of the outcome of our meeting of October 27, 2005, please let me know
at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.C.
E. Michael Hoffinan
cc: Steve Stunda
SunnyVann
Page 99
--l '--__ ]_
! SCHMiUESER I GORDON ! MEYER EXHIBIT
--__ :_ -------+~-~~-0~'"·-·+"~~-~~f-· -· .-; -~-~----~------
E N! G t! N E! E R S il S i.J R iV E
----'----__ _[____ : i : : z I ! 8 W. 6TH; SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 2155
GC.ENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 160 I ASPEN, CO 8161 2
970-945-1004 970-925-6727
' __ __!_ __________ _:__
! ;
FX: 970-945-5948 FX; 970-925-4157 '---....,
! ! ' ' ' : --c-i Pec::emtJer 27, 2005
---+----
'
1----
---~ : tr.i~utyVann
Varin Assqciates, LLC
230 E:. Hopkins Ave.
-Aspen;:CO
816!11
RE: Boomerang Lodge. Engineering Report
Dear Sunny,
I am writing in follow-up to our discussions regarding the proposed redevelopment of the
Boomerang Lodge at 500 West Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. This letter report
is to provide general comment regarding infrastructure availability to replace the
buildings on the site.
Introduction
The Boomerang Lodge is located in Block 31 of the Original City and Townsite of Aspen,
and is zoned R6, LP (Medium Density Residential, Lodge Preservation Overlay). The
project includes the redevelopment of the Lodge to include 54 lodging units, 6 free
market condominium units and 2 affordable housing units. The proposed structure
includes a basement-level parking garage with 31 spaces, and three aboveground levels
containing the lodge units, condominiums and affordable housing units. This letter
report is intended to address the basic infrastructure availability to construct the project
on the property.
Water Supply
Based on a brief conversation with City of Aspen Utility Director Phil Overeynder
regarding the project, water supply is available from an existing 8-inch ductile iron pipe
(DIP) in West Hopkins Avenue. The existing service will need to be abandoned at the
main and a new, possibly larger, single service line installed from the main into the
Lodge to provide adequate flow for the fire and domestic service requirements of the
proposed building. This single service line would route to a common mechanical room
within the building where individual shut-offs and meters would serve each of the
condominium and housing units. It is unlikely that the Lodge has paid any significant tap
fees for the existing service and, therefore, full tap and connection fees should be
anticipated for the entire program of the proposed structure.
Page 100
i-----------1------------;-------------·--------: -:------------.---------
! iDe~emberi27+2005 ...... · ...... t ..... MrJsu~nyV<~dn
---+-
i -----1----
;Boomerang Lodge
··· !Page 2 · · ·
From al fire proledion st<Ouidpoint, there is an existing fire hydrant (#571) located on the
isou'thw~st ¢orner of the property at the northeast corner of the intersection of West
HopkinsAvenue and South Fifth Street.
Sewer!
The Boomerang Lodge property has sewer service to an existing vitrified clay pipe
(VCP) sewermain with a 6-1/2" PEP plastic liner in the alley of Block 31. Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District Collection System Superintendent Tom Bracewell
illdi¢atesthat this main will need to be upgraded and that this project will need to pay for
a portion of the upgrade. The upgrade will likely consist of an 8" PVC pipe that runs
from the lodge property to the next downstream manhole, for a distance of up to 600
feet. The Sanitation District would replace an additional reach of main upstream from
the property. These upgrade requirements are rough estimates and should be
considered a worst-case scenario. The actual replacement requirements will depend on
the final program development and the actual distances of upgraded main required for
adequate transmission capacity.
Again, I would expect that the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge site would
require full tap fees to the ACSD since it is again unlikely that substantial prior tap fees
were paid for the existing building. For estimating purposes, the tap fees will be
approximately $1 per square foot, based on the total area of the building.
Electric
The Boomerang Lodge site is located in the City of Aspen Electric service area in
downtown Aspen. The Lodge currently shares a common transformer with the buildings
on the north side of the alley (fronting Main Street), which is a single-phase, 100 KVA
transformer that will be relocated this summer. It also appears that redevelopment is
underway for 500 West Main Street, i.e., the north side of Block 31. That development
will require the existing shared transformer plus one additional single-phase transformer.
The Boomerang Lodge currently has two single-phase services. The east (office) end of
the Lodge receives electric service from the pedestal in the middle of the south side of
the alley. The rest of the Lodge receives electric service from the pedestal at the west
end of the alley. Depending on the need for 3-phase power at the redeveloped
Boomerang Lodge and/or increased capacity needs, the Lodge may need a new
transformer located within an adequate easement on the site.
C:\Documents and Settings\jhammond\My Documents\SGM Doc's\2005\Boomerang_Lodge_ER_12-27 -05.doc Page 101
----!
· ·· · · ··· 1oecember ~7)2ods
Mr. :suonyVann
IBoqm~rang Lodge
!Page3i
!------------;---------;
Ph6ne) G~sarid Cab e TV
' ------'----------------------'
!PhoneJgasand cqble television are available from the alley on the north side of the site
basedontt1e presence of meters and phone and cable pedestals along the alley. In
geJeral,,anynecessary upgrades to gas lines will depend on the final program
(sptpcifically, any increase in BTU loads).
Access and Parking
,Vehicular access to the Boomerang Lodge building will be off of the alley of Block 31.
'The proposed project includes 31 basement-level parking spaces. For the most part,
West Hopkins Avenue does not function as a through street and serves only the
immediate neighborhood properties (although some increased use occurs in conjunction
with commuter congestion on Highway 82). Highway 82, a half-block from the proposed
lodge expansion site, serves as a major transit corridor offering convenient access to
transit service including most major routes within Aspen as well as most down-valley
destinations, i.e., service to all points served by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
(RFTA). Additionally, the Lodge is within reasonable walking distance of the downtown
core.
Drainage
Limited information exists indicating the presence of drainage structures for the existing
Lodge building. To the extent the proposed redevelopment plan results in additional
runoff from the site, the applicants would propose to install drywells on site to
accommodate detention and recharge. The feasibility of drywells on the site is tied to
site-specific soil conditions and the relationship of potential drywelllocations to the
structure.
I hope these comments will be adequate for the Boomerang Lodge property
redevelopment application. Please feel free to call me if you have any further questions.
Very Truly Yours,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
()z tu(ll_? s
~ Jay W. Hammond, P.E.
Principal, Aspen Office
C:\Documents and Settings\jhammond\My Documents\SGM Doc's\2005\Boomerang_Lodge_ER_12-27-05.doc Page 102
APPENDIX C
Page 103
From: Aaron Reed
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:20 PM
To: James Lindt
Subject: Boomerang lodge
James,
EXHIBIT
/
Brian let me know that I can simply write you to express our support for the upcoming variance request that the
Boomerang Lodge developers will be making.
This request is being made more or less on my recommendation as a means to increase the potential for
survivability of a number of large coniferous trees along Hopkins Avenue. This recommendation allows an
additional five feet of protection and root preservation, due to the size of these trees this scenario is the only one
that I would be comfortable with regarding preservation. If a variance is not permitted the amount of disturbance
to the trees on the South side of this property may be too much for mature trees like these to recover from,
additionally without this additional buffer it is clear that some of these would simply have to be removed without
question.
Please contact me if you would like a PDF of the plans or if any further considerations should be made.
Best regards,
Aaron Reed
Forester
City of Aspen Parks and Recreation
970-429-2026
970-920-5128 (Fax)
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Summary of Floor Area Calculations
(from Sheet G 002 of the Developer’s initial PUD development plan):
Page 123
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
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
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
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: Staff supports the project, but has concern about two
significant items. Staff recommends discussion of these issues and either resolution of these
or continuation.
Page 124
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2
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 11th packet and is not being
redistributed for this packet. If you no longer have the application, contact staff for
an additional copy.
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Dimension R-6 District
Requirement
Existing
Development
Proposed
Development
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f.27,000 s.f.27,000 s.f.
Minimum Lot
Width
60 ft 270 ft.2700 ft.
Minimum Front
Yard Setback
5 ft.10-70 ft.*0-5 ft.
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
5 ft.6 ft. on west*
1-5 ft. on east*
0-5 ft. on west
1-5 ft. on east
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
5 ft.0-2 ft.*0-5 ft.
Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs
(set in PUD for
Lodging)
30 ft. on alley.*
20-25 ft on east*
42 ft. for a flat roof.
Approximately 30-
35 ft. on east side.
Pedestrian
Amenity Space
0% (lot not within
PA required area)
40-50%*19%
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
space
.37:1 = 10,088s.f. **
Commercial Set in PUD N/A N/A
Free-Market
Residential
25% of total project
Floor Area
N/A .48:1 = 12,822 =
25% of total project
Page 125
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3
Affordable
Residential
No FAR limit N/A .05:1 = 1,452 s.f.
* 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.)
Page 126
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4
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
Page 127
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5
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:
“I move to approve P&Z Resolution No. ___, 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 13th agenda
(Chris will be out of town) or to an extra meeting on June 27th] 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
Page 128
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
COMMENTS 2
MINUTES 3
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 3
LODGE DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS 3
1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATED PUD 3
MOSES PROPERTY, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 8
BOOMERANG LODGE PUD 8
1 Page 129
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular City of Aspen Planning & Zoning meeting in
Sister Cities at 4:30 pm. Commissioners present were Mary Liz Wilson, Steve
Skadron, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger, Brian Speck and Jasmine
Tygre. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon,
Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy
City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Mary Liz Wilson asked if anything had come up regarding Tom Cardamone's
comments about tightening up ACES ESA. Jasmine Tygre said that most of the
members of the commission agreed that the ESA was something to be looked at
with a view toward the words matching the intentions; hoping that Tom would give
additional input for the revision of the SPA. Joyce Allgaier responded that they
can proactively include the neighbors and Tom.
Jasmine Tygre asked the status of the Zupancis property. Allgaier replied that it
was intended to be used for the parking department. James Lindt said the overall
idea was still being flushed out through the Civic Center Master Plan Discussions.
Tygre asked if the idea of providing housing was abandoned. Lindt replied that it
wasn't abandoned but it was still in discussions; the Civic Center Master Plan has
taken a back seat because of all of the projects on Community Developments' plate
right now; it was an important issue. Tygre stated that housing funds were used to
purchase that property, which doesn't necessarily mean anything because the
monies were moved around, but some people thought that would be a good place
for an infill mixed use project with housing, if not mostly housing on it. Allgaier
replied that staff has raised that point as part of an option.
Ruth Kruger wanted to look at the ADU rules and how they were written. Kruger
asked if that topic could be on a P&Z work session. The commissioners would
email lists to the Community Development Staff Kruger stated that P&Z would
like to be included in the infill work discussion.
Joyce Allgaier distributed the Moratorium Summary prepared by James Lint.
Allgaier noted that Council was initiating a discussion about potential code
amendments; they were trying to establish some ideas about what kind of citizen
participation process they will put in place to gain public input. Kruger stated it
was a conflict for council work sessions to beon the same night as P&Z. Allgaier
said that they were trying not to schedule so many extra Planning Commission
Meetings and have planning related issues when the Planning Commission can
attend Council Work Sessions.
2 Page 130
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
Steve Skadron asked if Council's decisions on code changes were sent to P&Z.
Allgaier replied the normal process for a code amendment was to start at P&Z and
forward a recommendation to City Council and Council holds the hearings and
makes the final changes.
MINUTES
Skadron requested an amendment to the minutes. Dylan Johns noted that he was
conflicted on the MotherLode. The changes will be reflected in the minutes to be
approved.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve/MOTION WITHDRAWN
The minutes will be read and approved at the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jasmine Tygre was conflicted on 1001 Ute Avenue.
PUBLIC HEARING
LODGE DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Lodge District Code
Amendments. The proof of notice was provided to the clerk.
MOTION:• Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Lodge
District Code Amendments to May 16th; Dylan Johns seconded. All in favor,
APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATED PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 1001 Ute Avenue. James
Lindt stated that notice was provided at the last hearing. The commission and staff
completed a site visit at noon.
Lindt refreshed the commission and public on the application noting the several
parcels; 2 for single family residential development and several other common
properties. The applicant proposed to subdivide 1001 Ute Avenue; move the
existing tennis courts for the Gant about 40 feet to the west; 2 single family
residential parcels; provide a common driveway to the proposed single family
residences; another common parcel and a conservation easement on the portion of
the property located in the county. The city/county boundary bisects the property;
they were proposing the conservation easement in exchange for the second
development right.
3 Page 131
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
Lindt said there were 3 discussion items. (1) The natural hazards associated with
the single family development, mine tailings and avalanche and rock fall concerns;
they have an avalanche expert and a geologist to review the sight and made
recommendations for mitigation of the avalanche and rock fall concerns. There
were conditions of approval in the proposed resolution; Section 10 regulates
avalanche and rock fall and requires a low mitigation wall or berm to be placed at
the back portion of the residences or an alternative would be to minimize the
fenestration on the back side of the houses. Section 11 regulates mine tailings in
the resolution; it requires any soils with greater than 1,000 particles per 1,000,000
particles of lead be removed from the site and the remainder of the soils to be
capped with non-hazardous dirt. (2) The allowable FAR was proposed by the
applicants to be 5,040 square feet for each of the single family residences. Staff
believed there were several justifiable options listed in the memo on page 2; staff
recommended 3,830 square feet per residential unit to be consistent with the Hoag
Subdivision however they could justify a larger FAR if there were a category 4
housing unit and the conservation unit were proposed because of the additional
community benefit. (3) The growth management request was rather confusing.
The applicant proposed a conservation easement on the upper portion in exchange
for the second development right in the subdivision. Lindt said on page 3 of the
staff memo several options relating to the growth management review were
presented. The conservation easement would provide additional protection on the
upper portion of the property; it would protect the property against future
development and any code changes in the county over time that could allow
additional development options. Lindt said the conservation easement would also
allow public use of the upper portion of the property because it would be deeded to
the city and placed in a third party conservation easement. It would allow intricate
trail connections from existing trails.
Brian Flynn stated the benefits of the conservation easement were the open space
board support because it was a tool that puts a third party in charge of protecting a
property from any unknown future uses. Flynn noted there were several properties
already under conservation easements around this one; there were benefits with
trail connections. Flynn said that Fritz's Vision was to make a circumference of
town by trails. Flynn stated this was an important connection for the trail system.
Lindt stated staff understood the benefits of the providing a conservation easement
but believe it appropriate to require mitigation for the second development right
with a category 4 employee unit.
Glen Horn introduced Allen Chosen, the prior owner of this property and with the
vision for this project.
4 Page 132
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
Horn stated that this project was Leathem's thinking to be a benefit to the
community and consistent with the land use code. Horn said they wanted to add a
category 4 house for sale subdivided and located on Ute Avenue.
Horn presented graphics depicting the 8000 elevation and 8040 greenline and
square footage of the houses in the area and a photo from Smuggler across to this
area. Horn said that they wanted to emulate the Aspen Chance Subdivision and not
the Hoag or Newfoundland. Horn prepared a landscape plan of the site with
vegetative screening and trees and for a landscape plan for the 8040 greenline
review for the specific houses when they were actually designed. Horn said that
floor area was an issue. There were photos of what the Chance looked like before
the Aspen Chance project and subdivision, which was a pile of mine tailings in the
1980s.
Peter Thomas said without the second development right the whole subdivision
unravels. Thomas said that they were deeding in fee the land to the city and in
return they were asking to build two 5,000 square foot homes in the city. Thomas
spoke of the Fox Crossing and the Hunter Valley Way conservation preservation
parcel with regards to the growth management development rights. Thomas
requested the same treatment as Fox Crossing received regarding the value of the
preservation parcel and development rights.
Lindt said on the changed application they were not far off with the addition of the
category 4 deed restricted unit and the second development right. Staff still had
concerns on the floor area and felt some additional FAR would be appropriate.
Kruger asked how staff recommended that the commission come up with that
number. Lindt said that staff felt these lots were consistent with the Hoag lots,
which average 3830 square feet of FAR each. Horn said that without the growth
management exemption by right the property could be developed with detached
duplexes and associated ADUs; there could be a 3700 square foot duplex on one
lot and on the other lot it would be comparable with one-third of the square footage
for an affordable housing unit. Horn said that the growth management exemption
entitles you to ask for 2 single family lots and some additional floor area.
John Rowland asked if the fee for the deeded conservation easement was a gift.
Lindt replied that it was a fee simple gift under a conservation easement.
Steve Skadron asked who the the owners of the adjacent conservation easements
and parcels were. Horn replied the land to the east was the owner of Hoag Lot 3
with no conservation easement; there was forest service land above that parcel and
there was unincorporated Pitkin County Land owned by the Newfoundland. Horn
5 Page 133
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes - May 02. 2006
said they were trying to band together open space land along the top, which was
called for in the Aspen Area Community Plan, private lands with preservation
value. Skadron asked ifthere were any cons to a conservation easement. Flynn
replied from Open Space there were no cons in their estimation. Skadron asked
once that property is deeded to the city what can it do with that property. Lindt
replied the purpose of their application and representation of their application is
that it would be provided to the city to be placed in a conservation easement so that
the city has one option to place in a third party conservation easement. Flynn
explained the same day that they acquire the property is the same day that the
easement is signed.
Skadron asked what benefit the applicant gains from developing and selling the
category 4 unit. Lindt replied the applicant would get the income from the sale of
the category 4 unit. Skadron asked what is cost to build the unit. Stern replied it
was over $300,000.00.
Public Comments:
Alan Chosen stated that he bought the property at 1001 Ute and owned it until this
March 22nd; they bought the property to protect their interests and the interests of
the people around them. Chosen explained that they wanted to sell the property to
the right buyer who would have the same plans as he and his family had for this
property. Chosen stated they wanted to restrict what could be built on the property
and utilize the conservation process on the county portion of the property by
deeding the 4.1 acres to the city so no one would ever have the ability to build on
that parcel.
Skadron stated that it was refreshing to hear maximizing your return wasn't always
priority number one, which was a rarity. Skadron complimented Glen and Pete for
the clear presentation. Skadron said that the motivating factor for this application
was the additional FAR; there were two 5,000 square foot houses or 10,000 square
feet, which was nearly fifty percent more. Skadron said what was important to him
was to understand what the benefit was to the city. Skadron asked if the
conservation easement and the category 4 was enough to mitigate for that; he
encouraged considering the possibility exists that another applicant similar to this
one from the owners of adjacent properties could be asking for similar things.
Kruger asked what could come up for adjacent property owners to ask for
additional FAR or development rights. Lindt responded that the neighboring
parcels have used their inherent development rights to build their single family
houses on their property; they would have to obtain additional development rights.
6Page 134
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
Mary Liz Wilson encouraged keeping the FAR for the 2 residences at 3800 or
3900 square feet and granting the conservation easement.
Brian Speck commended the applicant in stating their objectives with the
conservation easement and ADU; the proposal fills a lot of the trails system goals,
which was a plus. Speck said that he was concerned about the FAR and would like
to reduce the FAR.
Peter Thomas said that they were entitled to 5040 square feet under the R-15
zoning after the slope reduction.
Kruger asked for clarification if they were zoned for 4 houses in the city and 1 in
the county although they would be with mitigation. Lindt replied that was based
on was the minimum lot size in the R-15 zone; there would be enough lot area to
subdivide into 4 separate lots, however they would have to go through growth
management.
Dylan Johns said the affordable housing was a benefit in a small development; the
location of the lot was prime for conservation. Johns said that he saw the
comparison with the Aspen Chance subdivision house sizes and did not think it
was too much to ask for with the conservation easement and an affordable housing
unit being provided. Johns said the underlying zoning was the way to go with
respects to the FAR.
John Rowland said the application had a lot of positives to it and the FAR was the
big issue but he agreed with Dylan that the underlying zoning was the right avenue.
Steve Skadron agreed with Dylan and John; he would like to see the square footage
as in the Chance subdivision. Skadron said that he could support this if the FAR
was consistent with the Chance Subdivision.
Ruth Kruger agreed with Dylan and shared concern with Steve about the neighbors
possibly adding another house however it would be with the P&Z discretion.
Kruger said the site inspection was helpful.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #016, Series of 2006
approving with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review and recommending City
Council approve with conditions the 1001 Subdivision, Consolidated PUD, and
Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space
Parcels to divide the property at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential parcels
and four (4) separate common open space areas and to amend Section 6 to
7 Page 135
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes - May 02. 2006
required one (1) for sale category 4 unit to mitigate for the residence on Lot 2.
Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Wilson,
yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
Glen Horn stated that there would be an 8040 Green1ine review to consider the
design aspects so the Commission will see this project again. Leathem Stern
appreciated the Commissioners comments.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MOSES PROPERTY. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing.
MOTION: Mary Liz Wilson moved to continue the Moses property 8040
Greenline Review to May 16th; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor,
APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
BOOMERANGLODGEPUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Boomerang Lodge PUD. Notice
was provided. Chris Bendon stated the height and design treatment on the east
wing of the development were issues to discuss.
Sunny Vann, representative for the applicant, stated the project team was a joint
venture represented by Steve Stunda, the architect Augie Reno and attorney
Michael Hoffman. Vann said that the parcel ofland across from the Boomerang
was also owned by Charlie and Fonda Paterson; Steve Stunda became interested in
buying the property and assembled a joint venture group to put the lodge and
adjacent property under contract.
Vann said collectively they determined that an expanded project lodge unit count
would comply with the new legislation and could include a free market residential
component, which was a key to the projects feasibility. Vann said that the east
wing of the Boomerang would be retained as a way of preserving the old Aspen
without historic designation at this time. Vann stated the project complied 100%
with the lodge incentive program development provisions. Vann said there were a
setback variances but the rest of the lodge dimensional requirements were met.
There were 20 new guest rooms to the lodge; there were 6 free market residential
units (from 1800 to 2400 square feet each) within the 25% limitation imposed by
the incentive lodge provisions. 39 of the existing 42 trees will be retained on the
property; there will be 19% of the site as open space; there will be a sub-grade
8Page 136
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
garage with parking for 31 cars; there will be retained parking in front of the lodge
(much the same parking as it exists on the east side of the Christiana Lodge). Vann
said that most of the project has been discussed with neighbors (letters of support
were in the packet) however six of the twenty-four Christiana Lodge owners were
concerned with the height and affect on their views.
Vann said this lodge is in compliance with 54 lodge units at an average lodge unit
size of 500 square feet.
Augie Reno explained the location between 4th Street and 5th Street on Hopkins and
utilized drawings with shaded areas depicting the Boomerang and the Christiana.
Reno said there were roof plan drawings of the Boomerang and Christiana with 4
colors represented; every height on the Boomerang was in compliance with the
height regulations. Reno said the massing was broken up and relocated to the
center section of the building about 50 feet away from the neighbors; the parking
ramp was also located in the front of the building. Reno said they would have
moved the building even farther back but there were many large trees located
behind the building.
Reno explained the floors plans: the lowest level below grade contained the 31
space garage; a sitting area, restrooms and sauna will be kept; the main level will
be maintained on the eastern wing with 3 of the rooms, the lobby, new lounge and
renovated the pool; the second level would be maintained with hotel rooms and the
multi-purpose room; the third level is new and the eastern wing of the building has
5 rooms, 3 free market units and lodge rooms The fourth level was setback from
the perimeter of the floor below and varies anywhere from 9 to 13 feet in different
locations so it was not seen from the street; there was a roof deck, 3 free market
units and 2 lodge units.
Bendon clarified that the zoning was R-6 with an LP (lodge preservation) Overlay;
lodge preservation allows for lodges as a use and requires lodge development go
through a PUD review. Bendon said this project was in compliance with the
Lodge District with a PUD. Reno stated the desire to maintain the eastern wing
has pushed the design of the entire project because of the number of rooms; they
were only able to add 5 rooms to the design and needed to get the other rooms in
compliance with the ordinance.
Skadron asked what the FAR was compared to the allowable. Vann replied the
overall FAR under the L Zone District was 3 to 1, which was 81,000 square feet
and the proposed lodge was about 51,000 square feet.
9 Page 137
ckie Lothian,
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes — May 02, 2006
MOTION:• Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Boomerang Lodge PUD to May
16th ; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All in favor, APPROVED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:05pm.
10 Page 138
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 13, 2006
COMMENTS 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 2
CODE AMENDMENT IMPACT FEES 2
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT PUD 3
Page 139
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 13, 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the Special Planning and Zoning Meeting at 4:30 pm in the
Pitkin County Library. Commissioners Steve Skadron, Brian Speck, Mary Liz
Wilson, John Rowland, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth
Kruger and Brandon Marion were excused. Staff in attendance were Jennifer
Phelan, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
COMMENTS
Dylan Johns spoke about the June 12th City Council Meeting. Jennifer Phelan said
there was a work session scheduled the week of August 24th with P&Z and
Council.
The commissioners discussed infill projects and the moratorium.
Steve Skadron mentioned that while driving through Glenwood Springs he was
impressed by the availability of free parking and free internet service in one of
their parks; he was able to conduct his business within 15 minutes. Skadron stated
the Glenwood Springs experience was positive.
Jennifer Phelan distributed the first reading of Ordinance 23, 2006 with minor
changes to the moratorium and service award nominations.
The minutes will be voted at the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT IMPACT FEES
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Code Amendment Impact Fees.
Jennifer Phelan explained the work sessions and discussions. Resolution #23
would update the current park impact fees, the TDM air quality impact fees and
school land dedication fees. Phelan said there would be a per bedroom impact fee
charge and studios would be charged at .8 of the per bedroom fee with the basis
that there would be less people in a studio than a one bedroom unit.
Phelan said that if you were remodeling and you do not increase the number of net
bedrooms or the surface area there would not be an impact fee. Staff requested
feedback from P&Z on the current park and dedication impact fee exempts historic
landmark inventoried property. Phelan said that a historic lot split property would
not have to pay the fee but the new lot and structure would pay the impact fee.
2 Page 140
•
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — 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 PM10 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 Page 141
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - 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 Streetto 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 4th 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
4Page 142
Aspen Planning & Zoning 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.
5 Page 143
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! 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 ofthe 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th floor would lose a
6Page 144
7
ckie Lothr , Deputy City Clerk
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 façade 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
4th floor was not visible from West Hopkins then he did not have a problem with
the 4th 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.
Page 145
I __
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Julv 10. 2006
COMMUTER ALL STAR AWARDS ...............................................................................2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................. 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ...................................................................................................4
Resolution #53, 2006 - Supplemental Request - Deep Powder Cabins ................. 4
Appointment to Open Space Advisory Board - Boots Ferguson ........................... 4
Minutes - June 13,26, 2006 ...................................................................................4
Resolution #54, Series of2006, Electric Distribution Wheeling Agreement for
Burlingame Village......................................................................................................... 4
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES ..............................................................................5
Ordinance #30,2006 - Burlingame PUD Amendment ..........................................5
Ordinance #31,2006 - 100 East Bleeker Establishment of2
TDRs......................
5
Ordinance #32, 2006 - 403 West Hallam Establishment of2 TDRs ..................... 5
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2006 - 1001 Ute Consolidated PUD.............................. 6
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2006 - Code Amendment Lodge District .................... 10
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2006 - Boomerang Lodge PUD...................................
I I
1Page 146
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes;
Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2006 —1001 Ute Consolidated PUD
Councilman Tone stated he has a conflict on this as a contract employee of the Gant and
a user of the tennis courts. James Lindt, community development department, told
Council the applicant is requesting approval to construct two single-family residences
and one category 4 housing unit at 1001 Ute Avenue. Lindt showed where this 7 acres is
located on the south side of Ute Avenue, the city Ajax park to the east, the two single
family lots, the affordable housing lot, and the open space parcels. Lindt showed the
current location of the tennis courts, which are proposed to be relocated 30' to the west.
The tennis courts wills still be subject to an 80 year lease with the Gant. The applicants
propose an open space parcel to the west of the tennis courts as well as putting a
conservation easement over 4 acres located in Pitkin County. The applicants propose
floor area of 5,000 square feet for the free market units.
Lindt told Council there are several natural hazards on site that need to be mitigated,
there are mine tailings adjacent to the existing tennis courts. Staff has proposed
conditions in the ordinance to mitigate those mine tailings, requiring some removal.
There are avalanche and rock fall hazards and the mitigation would require a 4' wall on
the south side of the single-family residences. Lindt reminded Council one of the review
criteria is compatibility with the neighborhood.
Lindt told Council the Hoag subdivision located to the east has an average floor area of
3800 square feet. The Aspen Chance subdivision has an average house size of 5400. The
underlying R-15 zone district would allow 5040 square feet, which the applicant is
requesting. Staff feels 3800 square feet is more appropriate as similar to the Hoag
subdivision and visible from Ute Avenue, like Hoag subdivision. P&Z thought the floor
area of 5,040 square feet was most appropriate because it was based on the underlying
zone district.
Lindt noted the ordinance requires the single family development on lot 1 be mitigated
with an ADU or cash in lieu and the proposed development on lot 2 be mitigated with a
category 4 unit. The applicants request the conservation easement along with the
proposed category 4 unit to serve as mitigation for both single-family residences. The
applicants believe the conservation easement has benefits in preserving the upper portion
of the parcel against future development in perpetuity. Lindt recommended accepting the
conservation easement in lieu of the ADU requirement. Staff recommends approval with
a 3800 square foot limitation for the single-family residences.
Glenn Horn, representing the applicants, introduced Latham Stern the applicant, Greg
Mosian, landscape architect; Jack Miller, project architect; and Peter Thomas, attorney.
Horn showed the lower 2.7 acres of the site located in the city, the adjacent properties,
Ajax park, and the existing tennis courts, which will be relocated to allow for a driveway
access. Horn showed the proposed location of the single-family houses, slanted slightly
6 Page 147
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
so they do not read as one wall parallel to the street. Horn stated 4.1 acre of the site will
be gifted to the city, donated in fee with a conservation easement, in return for the growth
management exemption in the code for preservation of a significant open space parcel.
Horn said the issues are the neighborhood compatibility, the floor area, the importance of
the open space, and the category 4 affordable housing unit. Horn said the proposed
category 4 unit is right on Ute avenue and within walking distance of downtown. Horn
told Council the prior owner of the property, Alan Chozen, lives to the west of this
project. Horn told Council Chozen was interested in seeing this developed compatibly
with other developments along Ute avenue. Chozen also wanted a development
acceptable to the community. Horn said in working with staff, they were advised of a
code amendment providing significant open space parcels could get a growth
management exemption at discretion of Council. Horn told Council the applicants made
a presentation to the city's open space board about this parcel and the board unanimously
recommended this parcel should be preserved due to the relationship of other open space
parcels in the area and the AACP, which identified this is a significant private parcel with
open space value, and due to the relationship to other trails.
Horn presented a site vicinity map prepared by the city's GIS department, showing the
1001 site, Ajax park, the city boundary line. Horn noted the land in the county is zoned
ARF-10 and the land in the city is zoned R-15. Horn told Council staff and the applicants
agree there is one development right inherent on this property exempt from growth
management for a lot created prior to growth management. Horn showed where a house
could be located on the county portion of the property, but it would not be attractive to
the community. The city's portion of the site is zoned for 4 dwelling units so the entire
property is zoned for 5 units. Horn stated the most sensitive way to do this is do the
development in the city with 2 free market units, 50% less than what it is zoned for, and
to gift the upper parcel to the city for open space purposes.
Horn pointed out the Hoag subdivision, approved before modern subdivision regulations,
before 8040 review, before the PUD process and it shows it was created and built before
the modern code. The Newfoundland mining claim is in the county and the house is high
up on the hill with a 50 to 70' high wall behind it. The Ajax park was acquired by the
developers of Ute Place and gifted that lot to the city as part of the growth management
application of 1010 Ute. Horn noted the Ute addition and the Aspen Chance subdivision.
Horn said the proposal should have more relationship to Aspen Chance than to the
developments to the east. Horn told Council they are trying to model their subdivision
after the Aspen Chance development.
Horn presented an aerial photo showing the subject property and surrounding areas.
Horn pointed out the 8000 topo line, the building envelopes for 1001 Ute. The 8000 topo
line is at the bottom of the building envelopes and will be base elevation of the house,
which is 20' than the top of the mine tailings behind the tennis courts. Horn noted the
8040 line, the trails and the city boundary. The 8040 is above the proposed houses. Horn
said Hoag lot 3 has a base elevation of 8050, higher than these proposed houses. The
7 Page 148
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
5900 square foot house on Newfoundland is also at 8050. Horn showed the 8000 at the
Aspen Chance and a 9200 square foot house on lot 7.
Horn presented a memorandum from the then planning director about a proposed PUD
amendment for Aspen Chance dated May 1989. The memo stated that the intent of the
original PUD was to keep as much of the bulk off Ute and step the building mass toward
the mountain. Horn reiterated the average floor area in the Hoag subdivision is 3800
square feet and the average floor area in Aspen Chance is 5400 square feet and the two
upper lots are about 6500 square feet. Horn showed how the trails will connect through
the 1001 Ute project.
Horn presented a photo taken across the valley from lower Smuggler Mountain and
pointed out the Newfoundland, the 1001 Ute and the Hoag subdivision. Horn noted the
elevation for the houses on the 1001 is lower than the Newfoundland and Hoag lot 3.
Horn presented another photo with the foliage not on the trees and what can be seen from
across the valley. Horn noted there are no trees growing on the north side of the mine
tailings and the applicants propose to landscape this area. Horn showed a photo from Ute
avenue to illustrate the existing subdivisions, the tennis courts and mine tailings. There is
a computer enhancement of proposed buildings inserted into the photo of houses that are
5040 square feet set at 8000 elevation, above the tennis courts. Horn showed photos of
the Aspen Chance area before development started in the 1980s.
Horn reminded Council there was a recent code amendment dealing with preservation of
significant open space. The criteria for determining the significance of a preservation
parcel and the associated development rights may include the strategic nature of the park
to facilitate parks trail and open space development. Horn noted this proposed open
space parcel is a continuation of the open space on the mountain and helps with the trails.
'this is private land with preservation value and is being gifted in fee. It is very visible
from town. There will be a conservation easement, which will go to Aspen Valley Land
Trust. Horn said this project meets the code requirements, it is consistent with the AACP
and is consistent with the neighborhood. The project as proposed is a 50% density
reduction. There is an open space gift and trail easements, development of a category 4
three-bedroom for sale housing unit. Horn said they propose site reclamation. The only
point of disagreement is the size of the houses. P&Z recommended unanimously in favor
of the floor area at 5040 square feet.
Peter Thomas noted regarding the size of the houses, they are by right allowed to build a
duplex with 3700 square foot a side to include an ADU per side. This would result in 4
structures rather than 3 and ADUs that are not well utilized as compared to a category
housing unit.
Mayor Klanderud asked about the entry to the project. Horn said it is right across from
Ute Place and has a 12% grade, which will not work without snowmelt at the request of
the fire department. Horn said the road will sit about the height of the tennis court fence.
Mayor Klanderud said she is concerned about the visibility of the retaining wall. Horn
said the wall at the Newfoundland is higher than the house. Greg Mosian, landscape
8 Page 149
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
architect, said the wall holding up the driveway will be a terraced wall of boulders. Horn
pointed out the debris mitigation wall, which is proposed to be 4'.
Councilman Johnson asked the average size of the houses at Fox Crossing subdivision.
Lindt said they are 3500 square feet. Councilman Johnson noted the fire marshal
recommends no landscaping around the house. Horn said this is standard wildfire
mitigation with a defensible space zone around the house. Horn said one can either have
trees around the house and then a 30' defensible space. Any plan will have to be
reviewed by the fire marshal. Lindt noted this proposal will have to receive an 8040
green line approval and the wildfire mitigation will be reviewed at that time. Councilman
Johnson asked why the tennis courts have to be moved. Horn said they are sitting on the
most logical space for a driveway so 30' will be removed from the east and 30' will be
added to the west. Councilwoman Richards asked if the applicants would accept a
condition extinguishing development rights under the tennis courts. Thomas said they
would. Councilwoman Richards asked why staff is recommending a smaller FAR. Lindt
said staff feels the landscaping will not be mature and in the infancy of the subdivision,
the houses will be very visible from Ute avenue. Councilwoman Richards asked if there
is a "no dog" policy on the affordable housing unit. Stern said there will not be.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Donnie Lee, Gant manager, told Council they have been pleased with this process and
they support the development. Lee said they are satisfied with the relocation of the tennis
court. Lee said he feels this proposal is consistent with the theme of Ute Avenue.
Alan Chozen, 971 Ute Avenue, told Council he is the former owner of this property.
Chozen said he is still a resident of this neighborhood and has concerns about any
proposal for this property and its compatibility with the neighborhood. Chozen said they
did not want to see 5 units developed on this property and did not want a 7500 square
foot house. Chozen told Council he met with neighbors and worked with the potential
developer and worked on donating 178,000 square feet of open space so no one can ever
build on it. Chozen said he is comfortable that the developer will continue with his
families' wishes. Chozen said he feels the 5040 square feet is appropriate and is
compatible with the houses in Aspen Chance.
Jim DeFancia, Ute Place homeowner, told Council they are supportive of this application.
DeFrancia said they have no objections to the 5,000 square foot house, which is
commensurate with the neighborhood. DeFrancia supports the category 4 unit as adding
permanent residents to the neighborhood.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Horn listed the exhibits as the site and conceptual plan 1001 site vicinity plan photo,
Aspen Chance photo prior to development, view of existing property photo, schematic
view with conceptual homes, view of site from Smuggler Mountain avec leaves and sans
9 Page 150
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
leaves, and a chart of the land use regulations about preservations of significant open
space parcels.
Councilwoman Richards stated this proposal has a lot of merit and there is benefit to the
entire community by bringing the development off the higher slopes. Councilwoman
Richards agreed it would be better to have it developed in the city rather than the county.
Councilwoman Richards said she is struggling with the floor area issue. Councilwoman
Richards said the ratio between the free market proposed and the 1 affordable unit does
not fit. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to support staff recommendation of
a smaller size and could support houses slightly larger than the staff recommendation.
Lindt reiterated one development right is inherent with the parcel and the applicants
could construct two single family detached houses of 7400 square feet. Through a
subdivision process, they could get up to 5 lots through growth management. The tennis
court parcel is 23,340 square feet and the open space parcel to the west is 19,260 square
feet, which is private open space as a continuation of lot 2. Lindt said this is zoned R-15
with a PUD overlay.
Councilman Johnson said the project has merit and he does have some concern about the
floor area. Councilman Johnson stated he would like a site visit as he is concerned about
life safety issues. Councilman Johnson said before he could vote in favor of this, he
would like a condition that the tennis courts could never be further subdivided nor built
upon. Councilman Johnson stated he would like to see the affordable housing unit be
separate from the condominium association for the free market units. Councilman
Johnson said one of the community goals is not to contribute to global warming and not
to waste energy so he is very concerned about the snow melted driveway. The applicant
said snow melting is not their proposal; it was a requirement from the fire department.
The garage has been lowered which may lower the grade. The fire marshal considers 8%
acceptable without snow melting.
Councilman DeVilbiss agreed he would like to see smaller units and would also like a
site visit. Mayor Klanderud said she is not concerned about the proposed house size
considering the gift of open space benefit. Mayor Klanderud said she like the location of
the proposed affordable housing unit and likes that it would be exempt from the free
market homeowners association.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #24, Series of 2006, to July 24th
and to have a site visit; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2006 — Code Amendment Lodge District
Councilman Johnson noted he lives within 300 feet of Lift One condominiums; however,
this is a general code amendment so he will not recuse himself for the code amendment.
James Lindt, community development department, told Council this code amendment is a
result of a request from Lift One condominiums requesting an amendment to the lodge
10 Page 151
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
district to remove the minimum lot area for affordable housing units. Lift One is
requesting this amendment in order to legalize bandit units that have been in existence
since the 1970's. The Lift One needs this code amendment because they are over the
density requirement. The current lot area per dwelling area is 1 unit/3,000 square feet of
lot area. The ordinance proposes language to exempt affordable housing units from this
requirement. Lindt agreed the current code is a hindrance to increasing density for
affordable housing units. Staff and P&Z recommend approval.
Paul Taddune, represent the Lift One condominiums, said this code amendment was
proposed by staff earlier but was delayed as to be a part of a package of code amendment.
Taddune told Council this unit has been owned by the association and houses employees.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2006, on second
reading; seconded by Councilman Torre.
Councilman Johnson stated he is not inclined to approve any code amendment during a
moratorium, regardless of its merits. Councilman Johnson said he would prefer a
comprehensive to look at the lodge zone and include this in the discussion of the lodge
zone. Councilman DeVilbiss agreed this is a piece meal approach to amending the land
use code. Mayor Klanderud said allowing more affordable housing is a reason to support
this code amendment.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tone, yes; Johnson, no; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, no;
Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2006 — Boomerang Lodge PUD
Joyce Allgaier, community development department, stated this is a proposal for
redevelopment of the Boomerang lodge located at 500 West Hopkins.. Ms. Allgaier said
the redevelopment is for 52 units or 51,000 square feet including 6 free market units, 2
affordable housing units, 48 parking spaces of which 31 spaces are underground. Ms.
Allgaier said the existing Boomerang is 34 units and 23,000 square feet. This is located
in R-6 medium density zoning with a LP overlay. Ms. Allgaier reminded Council many
of the city's older lodges were located in the residential district and an LP overlay was
added to aid in the restoration of the lodges. The LP overlay allows for expansion and
preservation of the older lodges.
Ms. Allgaier said the free market units are proposed as whole ownership with an average
size of 1500 to 2500 square feet. The lodge units are proposed to be condominiumzed
and will be 300 to 1000 square feet. The large lodge units have a lock off so the rooms
can be rented. The condominiumized lodge units are subject to the use limitation of 30
day continuous use by the owner and 90 day maximum/year. When they are not being
used by the owner, they will be available for rental. Ms. Allgaier told Council there is a
11 Page 152
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
request for PUD rezoning in order to have a site specific development plan. There is a
request for subdivision for the 8 residential units. Ms. Allgaier noted P&Z discussed this
application several times and voted 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the proposal with
reduction of 2 units and of height in the northwest corner of the property.
The P&Z felt this was balancing community goals and goals of the Aspen Area
Community Plan, bringing about a rejuvenation of the lodges in Aspen. P&Z agreed this
is a good project in terms of using what is already there and adding new units. There was
dissent about the height of the project, especially along Hopkins street. Ms. Allgaier
pointed out on the board titled roof area the corner where the height was reduced from
39' to 30'. Ms. Allgaier said P&Z also had problems with neighborhood compatibility,
the height and massing. The neighborhood is a mix of uses, styles and heights. The
majority of P&Z felt it was a positive addition to the neighborhood and the community at
large and achieving city goals.
Ms. Allgaier said staff feels there may be too much height in this project, especially at
42' location. The applicant did reduce the height in one portion. There is a lot of mass in
the project. Ms. Allgaier said the height has been concentrated toward the middle of the
building and steps down to the east end. The design is concentrated in order to obtain the
lodge preservation incentives and to create the density and size. The design avoids the
historic east end Boomerang lodge component.
Ms. Allgaier said staff would also like to see more of the Boomerang lodge retained.
This was constructed in 1956 by Charlie Paterson, who is one of the few architects in
Aspen to study under Frank Lloyd Wright. Ms. Allgaier noted the Boomerang is not
historically designated but is an excellent representation of post war lodges built in Aspen
during the discovery of skiing. Ms. Allgaier said Council has requested staff work on
preservation of lodges with the applicants and staff met with the applicant on this project.
Ms. Allgaier said as a result, the east wing of the Boomerang is proposed to be saved.
This is a good attempt at preservation; however, staff wishes there more of the
Boomerang were being preserved. HPC also agreed it would be beneficial to save as
much as possible.
Ms. Allgaier pointed out the east wing is proposed to have a third floor added, which
changes the nature of the east wing. Ms. Allgaier reiterated this building is not listed as
historically significant; however, it was in the process to be listed. Ms. Allgaier noted
staff feels this proposed project attains positive goals, lodging bedrooms, it conserves a
portion of a lodge from the early skiing days, it provides on-site parking, meets the goals
of the AACP and of lodge preservation.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told Council the purchaser of the lodge reviewed
the lodge regulations and their impact on redevelopment of the Boomerang. Vann said it
was determined a project could be designed to expand the room count of the lodge and
also comply with the lodge incentive legislation. Vann said the ability to include free
market units is a key component to feasibility. Vann said the applicants met with staff
and discussed the concept of retaining the east wing, the most historic component of the
12 Page 153
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
structure. Vann said this project was a type envisioned under the new lodge incentive
legislation. The Boomerang lodge is not historically designated nor has the city
attempted to designate it. The owner met with HPC to solicit comments on preserving
the east wing. After all that due diligence, the property was purchased and a project fully
compliant with the new regulations was designed. Vann noted except for minor setback
variations, the project complies with the lodge district dimensional requirements. This is
a residential zone district and there are no underlying dimensional requirements so the
applicants used the lodge legislation to design the project.
Vann said the proposed design adds 18 new guest rooms, a 50% increase. These rooms
range from 325 to 1000 square feet. The largest units have two rooms, which would
allow lock out rental bedrooms. The project is only 60% of the floor area that would be
allowed in the lodge zone district. The free market component is 6 units from 1600 to
2500 square feet; 4 of the units are 2000 square feet or less. The total floor area of the
free market units is within the 25% limit imposed by the lodge incentive program and
there is no request to increase the ratio of free market.
Vann said the lodge will retain 39 of the 42 trees on the property, preserving a significant
natural feature. This will shield the lodge from the Hopkins street corridor. Vann noted
there is no open space requirement in the lodge district but this design leaves about 19%
of the project open. There is a subgrade parking garage with 31 spaces, which should
reduce the on street parking in the neighborhood. The parking on the city's rights-of-way
will be removed except for some spaces in front of the east wing. Vann told Council all
of the neighbors except those to the north of the site have submitted letters in support.
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried.
Vann said owners of the Christiana units located immediately to the north of this project
are concerned about the heights and loss of views. Vann noted the views to the east of
the Christiana are unobstructed. Vann reiterated staff's principle concerns is
neighborhood compatibility. Vann said the existing Boomerang occupies '/2 a city block
and is 2 or 3 stories. The Boomerang has been on this site for 50 years. The city's lodge
incentives anticipated structures might get larger in order to accomplish community
goals, like obtaining new lodge units, updating old properties and getting larger units.
The trees along Hopkins street obscure the existing loge and the proposed lodge from
view along Hopkins The proposed lodge will be invisible from Main street due to a
structure in between and to vegetation. The height of the Christiana will shield the
Boomerang from view. Vann noted that the height of the lodge was reduced because of
P&Z concerns. Vann stated 80% of the roof is at or below 39'. The zone requirement for
lodge zones is 42'. Vann said this project addresses community objectives; to maintain a
small lodge, to expand it to recoup lost lodge rooms and to have a minimal impact on the
neighborhood in general and in the neighborhood at large. Vann stated individual views
are not protected under the municipal code; the code does protect public views. Vann
said the Christiana is also a condominiumized lodge and the owners are limited as to
occupancy and to allow the Christiana to be used as lodge rooms. Vann pointed out the
13 Page 154
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
redevelopment of the Christiana has had adverse impact on the existing Boomerang and
views from its units.
Augie Reno, architect for the project, told Council the owner of the project had goal of
saving the trees along Hopkins street. Reno presented a photograph of the trees up to 75'
in height; these are evergreen trees and create a wall between the lodge and Hopkins.
The rooms on the south side of the building have a view of these trees. Mother goal was
to save the eastern wing. The design saves the existing lobby and the L-shape. The wing
is the most reminiscent of Wrightian architecture. The pool will be retained; there will be
a spa. The applicant also requested a design that would fit into the neighborhood and not
push the envelope. Mother goal was to get as many cars below grade. Reno showed the
proposed design keeping the masses of 3 buildings as they currently exist. The design
attempts to keep the center mass as far away from the north as possible. The last
direction was to respect the architectural significance of the Boomerang and to
compliment it with the new architecture.
Reno showed photographs of the Boomerang from different spots in the neighborhood.
Reno pointed out on photographs surrounding buildings, like Little Ajax, a view looking
to the northeast with an opening into the pool, which will be maintained. Reno showed a
photograph illustrating that a large amount of Shadow mountain will be visible. On
December 21st, it is not the buildings that cause the shadow; it is Shadow mountain.
Reno identified his board, A101, subgrade space of the proposed lodge, which will have
amenities for the guests like a library, spa, and media area. Reno said the existing lodge
has subgrade space.
The board A102 shows the ground level and the ramp into the parking garage with
elevators and storage, a hotel and a guest laundry. Reno noted there are currently 5
rooms in the L-shaped east wing. Two rooms will be turned into a lobby/lounge. The
lobby will be retained in this area. The central wing will have 10 rooms with small
kitchens. The western wing has 6 hotel rooms and a one-bedroom affordable unit. Reno
presented A103 the second level, keeping the existing rooms and multi-purposes room
with a connection on the rear balcony. Drawing A104 is the third level and is a full floor
that goes over the existing lodge with 3 of the free market units and lodge rooms in the
west wing.
The fourth level is the central wing and part of the west wing, drawing A105. The fourth
level is brought in from the alley and from the street side 5 to 10'. Reno pointed out
where the two units on the northwest corner were removed. There are 3 free market units
on this level. Reno showed the roof plan where 80% of the building is 39' or less.
Reno pointed out on the eastern edge of the Christiana, the Christiana is several feet from
the property line and the Boomerang was brought down in that area. From the street side,
the building is 15' to the roof. There are cantilevered roofs to compliment the existing
lodge; there are deep recesses. Reno went over the proposed materials, the open railings.
On the Fifth street side, the upper floor is set back 10 to 15' from the 3rd floor so it will be
difficult to see from the street, this is presented on the south and west elevations board.
14 Page 155
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
Reno showed a perspective sketch from the southeast corner with the existing lodge and
the proposed third floor. Reno said this part of the lodge was discussed with HPC who
would prefer not to have a third floor. They also discussed the material and whether to
copy or to blend with the existing building. Reno told Council a lot of the existing lodge
is in disrepair. Drawing A202 shows the north and the west elevation, the eastern wing,
the alley. Board A301 is a drawing of 2 sections cut through the site from Hopkins to the
proposed building to the Christiana. Reno noted the Christiana sits at 31-1/2 feet and the
Boomerang is a 3 story structure at 30'. At 40' from the property line, the proposed
Boomerang is 39'. There is also a section cut through the proposed Boomerang.
Drawing A302 is two other sections, showing the roof stepping back, the line of sight.
Reno noted a section from the corner unit at the eastern end of the property, the building
is at 30' and the trees break the view plane of the mountain.
Reno presented a model of the project and the surrounding neighborhood, showing how
the building will be viewed. Reno pointed out the surrounding properties in support of
this project, the proposed Jewish temple, the Goldenbergs, the Statins, from Martha
Madsen and from one owner in the Christiana.
Councilwoman Richards asked if all lodge units are condominiumized. Vann said all 52
lodge units will be available for sale. Councilwoman Richards requested the city attorney
answer how the condominium act (CCIOA) will apply to this project. Councilwoman
Richards noted the lodge incentive zone district allows 25% free market; however, this
project sounds like 100% free market as all units are being sold. This does not seem to
agree with lodge incentives. Vann said the 25% provision does not prohibit
condominiumization of lodge units. Vann said selling lodge units is one of the viable
ways to finance the project. Councilwoman Richards said she thought the 500/500 lodge
incentive was passed to get pure lodge beds. The condominiumization of this proposed
lodge sounds like fractional free markets.
Councilman Tone moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to midnight;
seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers
Johnson and DeVilbiss . Motion carried.
Reno said the trees were surveyed and in the drawings and the model are representative
of actual heights. Reno said they took the heights of the Christiana from the approvals.
Councilman Johnson asked how the Christiana was approved. Ms. Allgaier told Council
they went through lodge preservation/PUD. Councilman Johnson asked for 11 by 14
drawings GA002 of the plans for second reading.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Jeff Nathan said increasing the short term rental stock of the city is a good idea and the
city needs these units. Nathan said approving this plan is giving an extra 20,000 square
feet of buildable space. The gravy in the project is free market housing and letting
wealthy investors get units with the best views. Nathan suggested the building be
approved at two levels. More short term housing is a noble goal. The Boomerang needs
15 Page 156
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
to be upgraded. The project should be kept in scale. The proposal belongs in the
commercial core, not in a residential neighborhood. Les Hoist said this is a massive
condominium development by out of town investors with high end rentals. Hoist said
Council should see this project without the trees; the project has to stand by itself. A
project this size does not belong in this neighborhood; it is inappropriate, it is out of
scale.
Jody Edwards, representing the Christiana homeowners, said they agree small lodges are
vital to the economy of Aspen and to the sense of the community. Edwards said small
lodges do have a place in residential zones; however, this project is no longer a small
lodge. This proposal is 120% larger in terms of square footage and 30 to 50% in terms of
height. Edwards said Council should think about compatibility with the neighborhood
and the AACP requires compatibility. Edwards said this project is not compatible and
does not comply with the AACP; one reason is the 39 to 42' heights, which height does
not work in a residential neighborhood or across a 20' alley. Edwards stated this is a
massive building. The rest of the neighborhood has separations allowing light and people
to flow through it. Edwards read from the AACP that land use should be encouraged to
occur in such a way to protect and to enhance the existing natural environment. Edwards
said the existing environment is separated 2 and 3 story buildings. Edwards noted the
AACP also addresses sensitivity to scale, and compatibility in terms of sympathetic
subservient and contextual. Edwards also quoted from the AACP that the spaces between
buildings are often more important than the buildings. Edwards stated the message from
the AACP is that new structures should fit within the existing context and be compatible
with the neighborhood. Vann presented a letter to the record from Dick Carter stating
Edwards does not represent the homeowners of the Christiana. Edwards told Council he
was hired to work on behalf of the association.
George Chuchman, owner of unit under construction at the Christiana, asked what
percentage of this proposal is free market. Vann said 25% of the total floor area is the
free market residential component. Chuchman said the priority should be short term
accommodation not free market and 25% of this project will never be in a rental market.
William Bridge, Christiana resident, stated he does not see the compatibility of this
structure with the AACP. Bridge said there is a serious issue here. There are
underground bedrooms in the Christiana. Bridge said there are alternatives to reducing
the height or mass to accomplish similar goals. Bridge requested Council consider the
homeowners in the area.
James March, 300 block Hopkins, said the Boomerang is anomalous in this
neighborhood. The Boomerang has always been out of place because of where it was
built. March stated this is an all residential neighborhood. March suggested the city buy
this property as a site for employee housing. Rusty Scott, 3rd and Hopkins, said this
project is out of scale; it is out of place and is too big. Scott said the western edge of the
Scott building has a dedicated green space on the corner. Fred Fine, Christiana, said he
strongly objects to this project, which is more than doubling the square footage. It will
increase traffic. The underground parking traffic will all come through the alley, which
16 Page 157
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
will become a thoroughfare. The project is increasing in square footage but not that
many units are being gained. Fine noted there is no 4 story building in the west end.
Dane11 Shaw, Christiana owner, said the roofline of the proposed Boomerang is not in
line with the rest of the neighborhood. The Boomerang is a monolithic structure. Bailey
Dodds, resident of the neighborhood, said she supports the project. Craig Ward told
Council for 3 years this lodge was listed, there was no interest from the city to purchase
this as affordable housing. Ward said this proposal will save 1/3 of the property and the
proposal is an increase in 50% of lodge rooms available for rent to the general public.
Ward said this proposal is exactly for what the lodge incentive code amendment was
designed. Ward noted this has been a lodge in this location for 50 years. Ward said this
is a good project. Randolph Carter, Christiana, agreed the project needs to stand alone
without the trees. Carter said this project is too large for the neighborhood.
Dwayne Romero said the project attempts some balance, to show character, to
incorporate input from different groups. Romero commended incorporating affordable
housing on site, trying to work with HPC to preserve part of the structure.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Mayor Klanderud said when the Christiana went through redevelopment, neighbors
opposed that development. Mayor Klanderud said people care about their environment
and about the community. Mayor Klanderud said the city has lost lodge rooms because
lodges were down zoned to nonconforming uses. There have been attempts to bring the
lodge base back. This is an opportunity to get some lodge rental units back.. Mayor
Klanderud agreed views and open spaces should not be blocked but it is a strange concept
to build a building no one sees. Mayor Klanderud stated she is concerned about the
height and the design of the mass of the building. Mayor Klanderud said she does not
object to lodging in this neighborhood; it is important to preserve lodges. There is a way
to make lodges compatible with neighborhoods.
Councilman Tone asked if all lodge rooms were condominiumized. Vann said the
concept behind the lodge incentives was there was to be a free market residential
component, which cannot be more than 25% of the project. These can be sold as whole
ownership or fractional and the purpose is to help subsidize the project. Vann said the
lodge units may be condominiumized, fractional units or regular rental lodge units. Vann
told Council a condominiumized unit may only be occupied consecutively 30 days and
nor more than 90 days/year.
Councilman Johnson said if the 25% free market is to provide the economics to do the
rest of the project and the rest of the units are condominiumized, the whole project is an
economic engine driver. Vann said crafting the code amendment was long and
complicated. This is the first project to be reviewed under the lodge incentive code.
Vann said this is a condominiumized hotel and the city has a history of condominiumized
hotels. Vann told Council they worked with staff, P&Z and the neighbors. Vann noted
the neighbors to the north in a similar project do not like this project; other neighbors
17 Page 158
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
have supported this project. Vann said the goal is to keep this lodge in this neighborhood
in a configuration that works for the developer and affects the least number of people.
Councilman Johnson said the height and mass of this project are driven by the goal to
increase the number and size of the lodge rooms and to have an economic engine.
Councilman Johnson reiterated he does not understand the distinction in ownership; it
appears this is all a free market project. Councilman Johnson said the city went through a
process of allowing more height and density to increase the number of lodge beds and to
preserve small lodges. Councilman Johnson said this is not a small lodge preservation
project or a large increase in the number of rooms relative to the increase in height and
mass.
Councilwoman Richards stated she is concerned about the size and mass; Councilwoman
Richards said she like the architecture. Councilwoman Richards said this is not a straight
lodge incentive in the lodge zone; it is located in the R-6, residential zone and is
requesting PUD. The PUD review is required in an LP overlay zone to determine the
appropriate dimensions of a project. Councilwoman Richards said it is incumbent on
Council to make this project fit, not only for the neighborhood but also for the
community. Councilwoman Richards stated her primary concerns are the overall height
and perhaps the 4th floor should be eliminated. Councilwoman Richards said she would
not support a 3th floor on the historic east wing. Councilwoman Richards said she would
like to see the mass broken up to allow views through the buildings. Councilwoman
Richards said she likes the effort to maintain the trees and the project is working with the
natural architecture. Councilwoman Richards said she would like an analysis of how this
works with the lodge incentive code amendment and with CCIOA. Councilwoman
Richards noted the proposed lodge is .97:1 and the existing lodge is .85:1, which appears
to be a very small increase.
Councilman Johnson agreed about eliminating the new 3th floor on the existing
Boomerang east wing. Councilman Johnson said this proposal seem to lose what sets the
Boomerang apart, its size and its charm. Councilman Johnson stated he is concerned
about the size of the lodge rooms and would prefer to see more and smaller lodge rooms.
Councilman Johnson said his fear is this project is lodge preservation in name only.
Councilman Johnson said he has seen no details as how this is proposed to be run as a
lodge. Councilman Johnson stated he wants to make sure, if approved, this is a
community benefit.
Mayor Klanderud said she, too, has concerns about the 3R1 floor over the eastern wing and
would like to see an illustration to see if it fits. Mayor Klanderud commended the
applicants for being willing to preserve the eastern wing of the Boomerang. Mayor
Klanderud agreed the building feels too massive. Currently there is a wall to the north
and the openness of the existing Boomerang is internal. Councilman Johnson said he
would like a site visit. Councilman Johnson asked about the original cabin. Vann said a
condition of the sale is that the Patersons be allowed to remove the cabin from the
property.
18 Page 159
athryn S. Koch, City Clerk
I
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 10, 2006
Councilman DeVilbiss said his concerns are height and mass. Councilman DeVilbiss
said this looks like one big economic engine and there is no guarantee the city will get
any moderately priced lodge rooms, nor that they will remain moderately priced.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked about the affordable housing mitigation. Vann said they
have proposed units on site to meet the current code requirements and based on the
expansion. Vann said the affordable housing mitigation is calculated on the net increase
of new lodge rooms regardless of the form of ownership. Councilman Johnson asked if
Council could get a matrix on how the mitigation changes with more lodge rooms.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue Ordinance #26, Series of 2006, to August 14;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Councilman Torre said he has a problem with the setbacks shown as 0 to 5'. Vann told
Council there are portions of the east wing proposed to be preserved that do not comply
with the setbacks. Vann said for the next meeting they will have a diagram showing all
the setbacks. Councilman Tone said he feels lack of setbacks is an infringement.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to go into executive session at 11:15 p.m. pursuant to
C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) conference with counsel; seconded by Councilman Tone. All in
favor, motion carried.
Councilman Tone moved to come out of executive session at 12:05 a.m.; seconded by
Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Tone moved to adjourn at 12:05cim.; seconded by Councilwoman
Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
19 Page 160
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
June 26, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's Comments
b) Councilmembers' Comments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #50, 2006 - Consignment Water Service Agreement Bar/X Ranch
b) Resolution #51,2006 - Contract Aerial Boom Truck
c) Minutes - June 12, 2006
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #26,2006 - Boomerang Lodge PUD P.H. 7/10
b) Ordinance #27,2006 - Code Amendments - TDRs P.H. 7/24
c) Ordinance #28,2006 - Lift One Condominium Consolidated PUD P.H.
d) Ordinance #29,2006 - Ajax Mountain Building P.H.
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #16,2006 - Hannah Dustin Subdivision 300 S. Spring
b) Ordinance #22,2006 - Recycle Center COWOP
c) Ordinance #23, 2006 - Exemptions from the Moratorium
IX. Action Items
a) 434 East Cooper - Call up of HPC Decision
X. Information Items
Xi. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting Julv 10, 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Page 161
MEMORANDUM 1 , 8.-
TO:Mayor Klanderud and City Council
J\A
Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy DirectorFROM:
THRU:Chris Bendon, Community Development Director C>>VV7
RE:Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment - 500 West Hopkins Avenue
l't Reading of Ordinance N o.~ 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 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:
52 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: 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 1Page 162
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 REOIDREMENTS:
Dimension R-6 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. 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
These are estimates by staff and are not measured dimensions. To be finalized for 2nd
reading.
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2Page 163
NECESSARY LAND USE ApPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and
necessary for approval of this project:
I. GROWIH 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. GROWIH 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 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. SUBDMSION; 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
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 3Page 164
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/brealifast
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 gnests. 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 4Page 165
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 3m 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 huilding 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 No&, 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:
Staff Findings on Review Standards
Application
Letters received by staff
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18,2006 &
Minutes (available for 2nd reading)
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5Page 166
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.
Page 167
Ordinance No.20
SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING
APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZA TION, AND REZONING FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
ParcellD: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, Condominiurnization approval, and vested rights
for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins A venue 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 of2006 - 1-Page 168
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
m~orandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Growth Manal!:ement 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. Rezoninl!: for PUD Overlav. 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.
ro' ect shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans:
Pedestrian Amenity Space
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. <<This needs to be
more specific
19%
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Front Yard Setback
Minimum Side Yard Setback
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
Maximum Height
Floor Area:
Total 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 of2006 2 -Page 169
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/Recvclinl! 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 Housinl!
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/IOth 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.
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 PMI0 Mitil!ation Plan
In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PMIO generated by the
project, the project shall provide either: I) a shuttle service for use by the owners/gnests 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 of2006 3.Page 170
Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community
Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include:
I. The final property boundaries and disposition oflands.
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 oflandscape 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'" 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 0[2006 4-Page 171
Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Aereement
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) @$1,520perunit
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
Total
79,040
4,240
8,175
10,902
102,357
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
44,080
8,175
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.
City Council Ordinance
No._, Series of2006 5-Page 172
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 StandardsIReauirements
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, regnlations 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.
II. 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 of2006 6-Page 173
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 Meetin2
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 Mana2ement 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 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: Buildin2 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 -Page 174
2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approvrng 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.
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 -Page 175
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 Durin!!: 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
Condominiurnization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is
hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiurnization 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:
TIlls 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 26th day of June, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
City Council Ordinance
No._, Series of 2006 9-Page 176
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin K1anderud. Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
C:\home\Current Planning\CASESlBoomerang LodgeIReso.doc
City Council Ordinance
No,_, Series of2006 10-Page 177
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 exernpt 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 defmition
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.
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 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 ceilin" provides for an additional
Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 1Page 178
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.
c)
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 2Page 179
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.C2 - 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 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 (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.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 3Page 180
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.l- 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 r uired Cate 0 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 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.l - 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 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. (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 4Page 181
STAFF FINDING: 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 b these a encies, the ro' ect 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 Develonment Ceiling.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY?] 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 proiects of this nature.
c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the AspenlPitkin 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 affordabilitv 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 5Page 182
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? YES
The Affordable housin is re uired for miti ation 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 AspenIPitkin 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: T 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 6Page 183
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: 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 confi ations.
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
surroundin area. All surroundin ro erties have ade uate 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 Land for Subdivision.
a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because offlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 7Page 184
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 dan ers. No known hazards of the ro have been r orted.
b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension ofpublic facilities and unnecessary public costs.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities or
unnecess ublic 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 ro osed.
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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
No variations to the subdivision standards are re uested.
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
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 ro osed two affordable housin units.
Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 8Page 185
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 re uired at time of build in ermit.
Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 9Page 186
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 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 10Page 187
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following. influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected
future land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding
area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant
vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
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 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.
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 A venue be removed and the sidewalk continued
along this street.
Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 11Page 188
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, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
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 (AA CP) 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 12Page 189
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 13Page 190
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 14Page 191
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 15Page 192
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:
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 16Page 193
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 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 17Page 194
I. Phasing ofDevelopment 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. Ifphasing 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 18Page 195
STAFF COMMENTS: REZONING
Note: Requiredfor 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
Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 19Page 196
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 20Page 197
r~ib//:; C-
ELIZABETH "HAILEY" RODWELL DART
633 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, USA
Tel: 970 920 3874 - Fax: 970 920 2829 RC r. r: il1E'" 0Email: hailey@rof.netl.[=.V I",~ ~ '!J .
1.
i
f
f.
t
l.
I'.APR 0 6 Z006
Chris Bendon
Director of Community Planning
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
ASPEN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
l
t:
h
r,;:
i
I
L
t.,!
fr,
i
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 fmd 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 otIthis 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,
1.~
Hailey Dart
Page 198
I
Fred
Fine
Page 199
January 11, 2006
FREDRIC N FINE
1-
Il.....
r.
I
H
Ii:::
I
I
I
u
I.
I.
412 Mariner Dr Jupiter, Fl 33477
5615752728 fax 5615759196
allfines@aol.com
IAN 1 7 2006
J
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,! 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 fi-uition,you will take my letter Wider
consideration.
Very truly yours,
Ii
t
I
t
I
l.::1
1
j
i/te
Page 200
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 beina 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 Director! Community Development Dept.
City of Aspen 1130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81615
970.429.2754 I www.aspenpitkin.com
3/13/2006
Page 201
t:- Ca~ /01 ~
f{~ /c>< y
c/lLZ- . CthJ~ ~ et-
A (e Co a.. I 'tf...r. I r ~'-
IV'-'- 7 .
t::hJ, ()- --"",
VLU"""- ~
Y;;/v--( ~,
f11j u#tl- 4>1 14
V!/-K"L-S- ;4L~>c-
C-O M-Y\ &
L- >21ff
c--- / / J , -N '--f/M
s, (f)d/ rfVf:;I:;:/:':~J \.
t!-().r'V\ c0J. (>/ ~ (( MAY 01 Z006 \.
I-'.S icE !'J
M.1- C(fR/~BUiY}1nr:~J::5;ENT
I ;rI'{..1r <;;; rL v...e S if) rv b ~ f
M j2#l a{.>\~~ IEtL-,Jtf-M--( , '
j(l/r~ \. Ort- 1-
f (Ju.h) dL/
Ujl/t~ j}./ /8 y- cl+B/-s:r,-a~
I
a~ //1/ PA-r/U}-. :.
MV\ ~ - '
1 <fie fj~~0Bt":ntl
I)I,J. .P ~/ t/N~ f/u-j; I
1.. n " t-L-C-1i-T' I '
It jJl(f~"-- .... >
11 (JZ..~ /Je-o ('- tit<- l C'-'<J
B f()- A/rC ( A/ /l7 ()7-C
I/IU"~ {h<^--Io.l~-
r7l
I f.- ct1M J,-1. {',"
A-
9 /
YJ( .PfViJ/ ~
i?l
f'{AJ~R.<6 ~ 1
t?-1 ~ r-
f~/)
Page 202
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 dra~ings,~!l,*e 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 th~ 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 ofthe project as proposed.
Very Sincerely Yours,
4
970- ,s1ctf - O"G'&8
j~,n' ;.;'
f ~~,: ~~~J#
APR 1 7 2006
ASPEN
BUILO!NG DEPARTMENT
Page 203
blfll)e'r )1(oLLEL
F;j"L:e]VED tJ()..)!Vi:12.: jO 1 I/-}, /11 A IV S~)
Cf.-!J2)S17/J,VA rffSPE;U I
BUIl::~~i;::", ~ ~ t!iil'fJ ']; W~ I
U-/~JS BEVJ:XJJ
jJHI,q:?-O-3172- F
J:JJv'11,~/2I~iJ :
13'
l1/k
i
0 .i<), >.Jl'-- .tta../
i'
S3d E ;1,,/:///
5 AII,/'1ShiJ I
lU/tiU ~~I -
r ·
d t~'l/ h~ Of tit(/ ~~/.uf~ ar t/L0 ~ ~ I,
UL ~;A, it,,-,~/
J=:-~~
if;t>>j)~. t1C.-J!tM' UC; ,4tu,,&fiu~ ~ .
J1tflU}V /t~ ;!i!.d-ItV L~ ~,~ .
t~~~/i.~ttf.ltU/F~ I
A~~~dd~tft~
it~d ~a.AtCL<,l j~~/M-~ t~c:(,.- 4P~
t/Lec/(uJ:/Lru).dd0~~tP~~,M '. ,,'"
vL #.d~-,/J-41L/~ tW1L.~ /' HL-~-
tj~c I {
ll!~ 1?le.- /~[~h2~~c(---/LUc;/lc1-~/ ~'~
0j .~&M~ ' tlLL-~~vt&'7td:tuc~"He'L ~~ i
d' ,~ tki2rtdL, ffij ":1~;/ .
cJ0, -
U~~~~~ ", "
Ih~~) cd.~C#-:H I dx4<M
1./J-{~ @ aLjz~ . '.11YfJf I
d.. tl 0 f-1-1.-~ie- bhN!~ ~~:t':: a J-#~J~
e::::;:~ti~f1;~d:~~
A"J ,. "J 1', ".---I/,,/d...-- AU?PJL/--AtA.tf-W'crf"~ 7k.L-?i?:,/<Ur,lCC!.j)/L Lj. "/i';)'
7,7', I 0' "JJ
Page 204
k:c(/)~ '/la,," jJtH-li(~ k&bJ& / ",:,"',,/' A<~ i
A~~ 4!.-/ ~11ft'~z!; c:Z ,,:it~--L~~ --t1Cc-- /Uuu-~~ ffi/'yLe>t-~!
rJ - r '
f<~1
Mid; ~L_-Lj ~J ;/2tl~() !
r~I-!HX-d-// ~L~-tdtiL- ~;t& ;;u'<ot<V vaM-/L--
0ut~I1~c/ ~- ~ /J-tu-V'- 4: dM~ /
cJZ Mf;1.'..O~~ ~HL ~J-&
U2--
Zt~ v!j1#7ffl "~{r ~
a .
twwf;r .
m~ 'J/{dlLu
Page 205
April I 0, 2006 f-'
APR 1 7 2000
Mr. Chris Bendon
Director of Community Development
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
A';" ,-.,
Et/o rv ;
t..:ic ..
JfLl..l,h,G Li..,.. "";'.iEN7"if,
i
I
H
ilRE: 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
f')
Page 206
1
JUVUJ.I,;;J.a.Ul:) L..IVUl:)C H..t<U'I;;V 1;;1Vj-'lU'I;;UL
rage 1 or 1
Reminder: AOL will never ask you to send us your paSSWOrd or cred~ card number In an emall.Thls message has been scanned for known viruses,
I
From: Steve Goldenberg
To: Chris Bendon (chrisb@ci,aspen,co,us)
Subject: Boomerang Lodge Redeveiopment
Dale: Tue, 11 Apr 200623:00:42 -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 deaning up the parked cars that have been all ov~r the neighborhood lately.
The rezoning and iot 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 Oty CoundJ next Monday.Steve
Steve Goldenberg stevetlliooidenbero.com430W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970-92S-1294Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970- 379-9n8
http://r03.webmail.aol.COmlI7325/aOl/en-Uslmail/disPlay_message.aspx
I
I
4/1 )/700F.
Page 207
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 selVices 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
RabbiMendel11intz
Page 208
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 10, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Commuter All-Star Awards
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's Comments
b) Councilmembers' Comments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #53, 2006 - Supplemental Request - Deep Powder Cabins
b) Appointment to Open Space Advisory Board
c) Minutes - June 13, 26, 2006
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #30, 2006 - Burlingame PUD Amendment P.H. 7/24
b) Ordinance #31,2006 -100 East Bleeker Establishment of 2 TDRs P.H. 8/14
c) Ordinance #32,2006 - 403 West Hallam Establishment of 2 TDRs P.H. 8/14
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #24, 2006 -1001 Ute Consolidated PUD
b) Ordinance #25, 2006 - Code Amendment Lodge District
c) Ordinance #26, 2006 - Boomerang Lodge PUD
IX. Action Items
a) Resolution #54, 2006 - Electric Distribution Wheeling Agreement for Burlingame
Village
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting Julv 24. 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A IS MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Page 209
MEMORANDUM Vlt Ie
FROM:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director
TO:
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 existing Boomerang consists of:
34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet.
3 I 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 oarking soaces - 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 5T AFF REPORT PAGE 1Page 210
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:
Dimension
Minimum Lot Size
R-6 District
Requirement
6,000 s.f.
Existing
Development
27,000 s.f.
Proposed
Development
27,000 s.f.
Minimum Lot
Width
60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft.
Minimum Front
Yard Setback
5 ft. 10-70 ft.* 0-5 ft.
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
5 ft. 6 ft. on west*
1-5 ft. on east*
0-5 ft. on west
1-5 ft. on east
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
5 ft. 0-2 ft.* 0-5 ft.
Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs
(set in PUD for
Lodging)
30 ft. on alley.*
20-25 ft on east*
42 ft. for a flat roof.
Approximately 30-
35 ft. on east side.
Pedestrian
Amenity Space
0% (lot not within
PA required area)
40-50%* 19%
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
space
.351 = 9,536
Commercial Set in PUD N/A N/A
Free-Market
Residential
25% of total project
Floor Area
N/A .48:1 = 12,822 =
25% of total project
Affordable No FAR limit
Residential
N/A .05:1 = 1,452 s.f.
* These are estimates by staff and are not measured dimensions. To be finalized for 2
reading.
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 Page 211
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.
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&7.
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&7.
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 Page 212
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 oflodge 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.
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 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 meetinglbrealifast
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 occupiedfor more than 30 consecutive days.)
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4Page 213
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 3rd 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 Page 214
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 0:
Staff Findings on Review Standards
Application
Letters received by staff
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, 2006 &
Minutes
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 6Page 215
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 , V A 20190; represented by Sunny Vann ofVann 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 ofthe Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and
known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin
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 ofreview 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-Page 216
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 Manal!:ement 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. Rezoninl!: for PUD OverIav. 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 followin a roved dimensions of the ro.ect shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans:
Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sJ.
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 0[2006 - 2-Page 217
Floor Area:
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: TrashlRecvclinl!: 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 Housinl!:
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 AspenlPitkin 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 PMI0 Mitil!:ation Plan
In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PMlO generated by the
project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of
the residenceslhotel, 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-Page 218
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:
I. The final property boundaries and disposition oflands.
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:
I. 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 oflandscape 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 5th Street. The
sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property
boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the
City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking
along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. 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 of2006 - 4-Page 219
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 Aereement
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
Total
79,040
4,240
8,175
10,902
102,357
Park Fees - Credit for Existing Development:
34 Lodge Units
29-studio units @ $1,520 per unit
3 two-bedroom units @ $2725 per unit
44,080
8,175
City Council Ordinance
No. 26,Seriesof2006 5-Page 220
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/Reauirements
The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations, including the following:
I. 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,Seriesof2006 6-Page 221
10. When new service Jines are required for existing development the old service Jines
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 Meetinl!:
Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be
conducted: Developerl Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner,
Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building OfficiallPlans 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 Manal!:ement 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 of2006 - 7 -Page 222
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: Buildinl!: 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 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,Seriesof2006 8 -Page 223
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:
I. 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 Durinl!: 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 ofthis 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.
Ciiy Council Ordinance
No. 26, Series of 2006 9-Page 224
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 26th day of June, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this_day of 2006.
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 of2006 10 -Page 225
- / -
C:17k>- - - - - A-41 ---' 7 Ci i /64.4 zy.
j 'c---°' Lo ice.7-Z/V
ikttyl ,
' 7/L' ,66,1
/.
-g -e-z) - „ 6,-,;USX .24"---
--eviii „/„...
° eteL11
__Li: /,-
/
pc ,i7 c 64,,e-cr ,:
i
,
.7 Semi& e4r-tAA AZ(
----)41-6 41
r/z ?-5 i 2-/C
& ,6),;>./
/ (1_5- Page 226
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.
Page 227
Joyce Allgaier
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Helen Klanderud
Wednesday, July 05, 20062:42 PM
Joyce Allgaier
FW: Boomerang project
Joyce,
For Boomerang Public Hearing.
Helen
Original Message-----
From: Mitzi Rapkin
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 20062:34 PM
To: JE DeVilbiss Oed@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:tiggerflute@earthlink.netj
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,
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. 1 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
1Page 228
o 0
AFFliL~ATED FXNANC1AL GROUP?
MORTGAGE LENDERS
q1w/06
NC.
May 18, 2006
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 16th, lody 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 lody 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
HoneH 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.
c~re~l
1 V.V\..;
1 k Ca er
5690 DTC Boulevard' Suite 400' Greenwood Village. Colorado 80111 . Phone 303-267-0408. FAX 303-267-0413
Page 229
E,<\Ad<J' + D
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 , V A 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 1Page 230
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 following roved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans:
Dimension
Minimum Lot Size
Proposed 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 Page 231
Pedestrian Amenity Space
more specific
19%
Total
Lodging
Non-unit space
Commercial
Free-Market Residential
Affordable Residential
1.86:1 = 50,470 sJ.
97:1 = 26,210 s.f.
35: 1 = 9,536 sJ.
N/A
475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project
05:1 = 1,452 s.f.
Section 4: Trash/Recvclinl!: 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 oftrash pick-up.
Section 5: Affordable Housinl!:
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 1/1 Oth 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 PMI0 Mitil!:ation Plan
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution
No. 18, Series of 2006
Page 3Page 232
m__
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.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 oflandscape 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 5th Street. The
sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property
boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the
City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking
along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. 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 4Page 233
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
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
Total
=$79,040
= $4,240
= $8,175
= $10,902
= $102,357
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution
No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 5 Page 234
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
44,080
8,175
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 Imoacts 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.
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution
No. 18, Series of 2006
Page 6
Page 235
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 Meetinl!:
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 Manal!:ement 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:
I. 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
Page 236
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: Buildinl!: 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
Page 237
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.
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 Page 238
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: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
C:\home\Current Planning \CASES\Boomerang Lodge\Reso. doe
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution
No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 10 Page 239
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - MAY 16,2005
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
core area.
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
26.71 0.190(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 ofthis 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 (512/6):
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.
3Page 240
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - MAY 16, 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 3rd
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 AI06 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 3rd floor
4Page 241
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES — MAY 16, 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.
5 Page 242
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES — MAY 16, 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.
6 Page 243
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - MAY 16, 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 ofthe 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 ofthis 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 hearingfor the
Boomerang PUD to June 13, 2006; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All in favor,
APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
MOSES PROPERTY 8040 GREENLlNE 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
7Page 244
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — 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 PM10 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 Page 245
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006
structure saved for posterity or a reflection of the historic lodge built by Charles
Paterson. Allgaier said that the traditional type oflodge 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 4th 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
4Page 246
Aspen Planning & Zoning 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 math 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.
5 Page 247
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: 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 ofthe 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 4th 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 4th 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 ifthere 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 4th 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 4th floor would lose a
6Page 248
Asoen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: Minutes - June 13. 2006
substantial component of the economic engine and lodge rooms, which fall outside
ofthe 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
ofthe pedestrian view.
Jasmine Tygre agreed with most of the members ofthe commission and very
strongly with Dylan. Tygre said that part was a philosophical context situation;
one of the problems was redevelopment oflodges 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 fayade 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 ofthe 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
4th floor was not visible from West Hopkins then he did not have a problem with
the 4th 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
7Page 249
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 14, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I.Call to Order
II.RolI Call
III.Scheduled Public Appearances
a)Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards
IV.Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on
the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V.Special Orders of the Day
a)Mayor's Comments
b)Councilmembers' Comments
c)City Manager's Comments
d)Board Reports
VI.Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a)Resolution #60, 2006 - Allocation of REMP Funds
b)Resolution #61, 2006 - Contract Planning Services - Alan Richman
c) Resolution #62, 2006 - Contract Planning Services - Clarion Associates
d)Resolution #63, 2006 - Amendment Electric Resources Pooling Agreement MEAN
e)Appointment of Alternate Director to MEAN Board
f)Resolution #64, 2006 - Endorsement of 25 x 25 Initiative
Minutes - July 24, 2006
VII.First Reading of Ordinances
a)Ordinance #35,2006 - North Spruce Water Agreement Amendment P.H. 8/28
VlIl.Public Hearings
a)Ordinance #24, 2006 -1001 Ute Consolidated PUD
b)Ordinance #26, 2006 - Boomerang Lodge PUD
c)Ordinance #27,2006 - Code Amendments TDRs
d)Ordinance #31,2006 - 100 East Bleeker Establishment of 2 TDRs
e)Ordinance #32, 2006 - 403 West Hallam Establishment of 2 TDRs
Action Items
Information Items
Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting Auaust 28. 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Floor Area:
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/Recvclinl! 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 Housinl!
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 III0th 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.
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 PMIO Mitil!ation Plan
In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PMIO generated by the
project, the project shall provide either: I) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of
the residenceslhotel, 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 of2006 3-Page 260
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:
I. 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:
I. 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 oflandscape 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 5th Street. The
sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property
boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the
City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking
along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. 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 -Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
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:
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 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.
9Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers
DeVilbiss, Johnson, Torre and Richard present.
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS
Mayor Klanderud and Council presented outstanding employee bonus awards to Don
Pergande, finance department; Paul Kulik, recreation department; and Ben Gagnon,
Barry Crook and Mitzi Rapkin, manager's department.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Anna Zane, Twin Ridge, stated the Twin Ridge homeowners are upset with the
cell phone tower being erected. Ms. Zane showed Council photo simulations presented at
the approval meetings and presented photos of the actual tower. Ms. Zane said it is
visually awful and sticks out. Ms. Zane noted Council's approvals indicate the tower was
not to be on a ridgeline and it is on a ridge line. Ms. Zane requested the city plant shrubs
or trees to buffer the tower. Ben Gagnon, community development department, told
Council he reviewed the process with the homeowners. The tower was erected on city
property.
2. Phil Bloemsma, Twin Ridge homeowner, said he is displeased with the way the
tower looks and also they way the association was notified of the insubstantial PUD.
Bloemsma said this was a substantial change to a pristine piece of property. Bloemsma
requested the city look at this and see how it can be covered.
3. Kent Reed, director Hudson Reed ensemble, thanked the Council and the parks
department for allowing the Shakespearean series on the library park plaza. Reed said
they have had over 250 attendees to the free Shakespearean performances. Mayor
Klanderud congratulated Reed for finding a use for that area and for bringing people into
that circle.
4. Barry Gordon told Council he represented the retailers on the Aspen Chamber
Resort Association board and also started the retail merchant association with the
function to create vitality into Aspen. Gordon said the elements that make a resort town
successful are fine dining, exceptional lodging and a shopping experience. Gordon said
several years ago the shopping experience was dull and Council hired consultants to give
ideas on how to rejuvenate the shopping. Gordon said the issue of racks outside stores on
city sidewalks has arisen. Gordon said it is essential to allow sidewalks displays, which
create vitality. Gordon asked why the city is enforcing not allowing racks on public
sidewalks.
Lennie Weinglass, Boogie's Diner, told Council he has been asked by city staff to
remove his racks from the sidewalks. Weinglass said the law not to allow commercial
displays is enforced only upon complaint. Weinglass told Council he was asked to
remove his sign from the sidewalk and he walked around town since and counted 30
2Page 325
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
sidewalk signs. Weinglass noted he has lost $60,000 on the sidewalk sales and the city
has lost 8.6% of the sales tax on those sales.
Mayor Klanderud suggested staff and Council look at the existing regulations. Weinglass
said sidewalk displays are a win/win situation for tourists, businesses and city.
Weinglass said there are many businesses with signs, racks, bicycles and tables on city
property. Lily Garfield, Cos Bar, said she does not believe in putting merchandise on the
sidewalks. Ms. Garfield said the Cos Bar has been in business for 30 years and is also
located in other resort communities. Ms. Garfield said merchandise outside is not
allowed in other communities. Ms. Garfield said merchandise out on the street cheapens
the neighborhood.
Mickey Alper said the code states no commercial activity outside; however, this has not
been enforced. Alper said he would like to be included in any discussions about outdoor
merchandising. Mayor Klanderud said she would like to see staffs proposal before next
summer. Chris Bendon, community development department, noted the Frick and Beer
report recommended the city relax some of its regulations on outdoor displays. Bendon
said since that report the city has been in a period of experimentation. Most feedback
from the community has been positive. Bendon said the complaints on outdoor sales
racks have increased this summer. Bendon agreed the regulations need to be looked at
again and the retailers and CCLC should be involved in that discussion.
Bendon said this discussion cannot happen until after the retail season and after the
building moratorium. Bendon said the options are to curtail the areas with the most
complaints, like racks of sales items, and to allow for representative displays. The other
option is to let outdoor merchandizing run rampant, which staff does not support.
Bendon said retailers have been appreciative of the city's efforts to maintain a quality
standard in town while making a more exciting retail environment. Bendon stated this is
a tricky policy to implement with a wide range of opinions on what is appropriate.
Bendon told Council staff has developed an informational brochure, which describes the
intent behind the regulations and gives examples of what is and what is not allowed.
Councilman DeVilbiss agreed tasteful representative displays should be allowed until
staff and Council have a chance to review the regulations. Councilwoman Richards
agreed with that course of action; it is a delicate balance. Councilman Torre said it seems
like the code is different for different businesses. Councilman Torre asked if the retail
association has a representative to deal with the city. Bendon said Frick and Beer's
recommendation was for them to get organized so the city can have someone to contact.
Mayor Klanderud said CCLC is a valuable group to work with the retailers to come back
to Council with suggestions on the existing code and any amendments.
Mark Goodman, retailer and CCLC member, said a business improvement district would
be the best venue for this discussion. Goodman suggested one day a month allowing
racks outside as an event.
3Page 326
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
5. Marcia Goshorn said a year ago Council helped with the rent for seniors at the
Aspen Country Inn and there is now a double increase in rent. Ms. Goshorn told Council
the seniors are being asked to pay this increased rent until this topic can get in front of
Council. Steve Barwick, city manager, told Council the only rent increase going into
effect is that required by the partnership agreement. The other rent increases are put off
until Council meets with housing and discusses the budget. Ms. Goshorn said the seniors
also pay their utilities, which are being increased. Councilwoman Richards said she
intends to look for long term solutions for this project and the long term health of the
project. Councilwoman Richards said this is out of sync with the city's budget policy.
Mayor Klanderud said the increase is effective September 1 st and she recommended
discussing this at the regular meeting August 28th.
6. Toni Kronberg requested Resolutions #61 and 62 be pulled from the consent
calendar. Ms. Kronberg told Council Snowmass has built a beautiful pool complex for
900,000. Aspen will be going into design for an outside pool and should look at
Snowmass pools.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman DeVilbiss moved that Ordinance #31, Series of2006 be continued to
August 28 at the request ofthe applicant; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Mayor Klanderud noted Council received a call up notice on this property, 100 East
Bleeker, on July 26, which would expire August 26. Mayor Klanderud stated she has
questions about using both the FAR bonus and the selling of the TDRs. Mayor
Klanderud said if it is important to call up the HPC decision to address the bonus and
TDRs, she does not want to miss the call up date deadline.
All in favor, motion carried.
2. Councilman Torre requested an executive session to consult with the city
attorney.
3. Councilwoman Richards said Council considered the Bidwell building at their
July 24th meeting and Council's rules allow reconsideration of a decision at the next
regular meeting. Councilwoman Richards brought up the City's Code of Ethics, which
state in a quasi-judicial hearing Council may not hold ex parte conversations outside the
public meeting arena so that all conversations happen in Council Chambers.
Councilwoman Richards said the city conducts trainings for its board members.
Councilwoman Richards said one of the HPC board members stated "I have interviewed
virtually every tenant in that building". Councilwoman Richards said she feels this
member was trying to do due diligence but it was out of order. Councilwoman Richards
stated she feels very strongly about new development and the loss of character in Aspen's
downtown. Councilwoman Richards said it is difficult for Council to nullifY or overturn
a volunteer board's decision. Councilwoman Richards noted Council met in work
session with HPC Aprill7'h
to discuss listing on the inventory post World War II
4Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
parts of the short-term accommodations market, including the building across the alley to
the north. Vann reiterated this is a project trying to balance competing objectives. The
principal objective is to maintain a small lodge, to expand it and to make it a viable
project, while having a minimal impact on the community. Vann said this project will
have no significant impact on Hopkins avenue. The building will not increase the
shading of the street. Vann said they have support from all surrounding neighbors except
the Christiana Lodge.
Steve Stunda, applicant and local managing partner, told Council he is currently running
this lodge. Stunda said important issues to him were saving the east wing, preserving
every tree possible so as not to interfere with the serenity ofthe site, maximizing adding
rooms, and take as much parking off the streets as possible. The property will be run as a
lodge with front desk staff, full complement of housekeeping and maintenance staff.
Councilman Torre asked when the applicants would designate the east wing. Vann said
the applicants have stated they will initiate the process prior to recordation, after the land
use approval. Once the wing is designated, HPC will be able to look at the additions of
the 3'd floor and give input. Ms. Allgaier said doing it this way will allow the applicant to
know what his approvals are and then to get input from HPC. Councilman Torre said
once this wing is added onto, it will not be historic preservation. Councilman Torre said
he cannot see a preservation effort for east wing and a 3'd floor will foil any preservation
effort. Stunda said HPC felt if the 3'd floor were differentiated, they did not have a
problem with the addition ofthat floor.
Councilman Johnson asked why this needs to be rezoned. Ms. Allgaier said this property
is zoned R-6 with and LP overlay. The PUD overlay would be an amendment to the
current zoning. Councilman Johnson asked the underlying height limit in the R-6 zone.
Ms. Allgaier said 25' for residential uses; for a lodge, the height is set by PUD. Vann
said if one develops a lodge in the LP zone, one has to process it as a PUD and the code
requires one to designate the property with a PUD overlay. Councilman Johnson asked
how 2 units of affordable housing is full mitigation. Ms. Allgaier said the mitigation is
confirmed and approved by P&Z acting as the growth management commission. This
proposal meets the mitigation requirements for a growth management allotment.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Warren Klug, manager Aspen Square, told Council he supports this application because
there has been a shrinking bed base in Aspen, up to 25% in the last 8 years. Klug said
this application is counters that and the community needs it. This is a quality
development. Klug said the expansion ofthe Boomerang is in the spirit oflodge
preservation, which is to encourage redevelopment of older, smaller lodges. Klug said
this will continue a use that already exists in the neighborhood. Klug noted in the recent
core value meetings there seemed to be support for lodge renovation and preservation.
Klug told Council his property is a condominium, units are individually owned and are
generally rented. The Aspen Square and the Gant are condominium hotels. Klug said the
average owner stay/year are 14 days.
13Page 336
1.........--.. .
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to II p.m.;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
Torre and Mayor Klanderud. Motion carried.
Marcia Goshorn told Council she supports this project; this is something the town needs.
Ms. Goshorn noted the Christiana to the north was a lodge before it was turned into a
condominium, where the owner cannot stay more than 90 days/year. This is an approved
use. Greg Miller said he likes the preservation ofthe east wing and the preservation of
the trees. David Perry, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council there was a presentation of
this project to the Ski Company and the Ski Company supports it as it adds rooms to the
tourist inventory. Perry said tourist beds need to be attractive to the market and at the
same time affordable.
David Corbin, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council he has been involved in hotel
redevelopment for years. Corbin said condominiumizing this property makes sense for
the community with the addition of 19 keys. Corbin said the possibility of anyone living
in the units is very small. Jody Edwards, representing the Christiana homeowners, agreed
small lodges are an important aspect of the community and in residential neighborhoods.
Edwards said this expansion makes the Boomerang not a small lodge; it doubles the floor
area and expands the height from 25' and 30' to 37' and 39'. Edwards stated the use is
compatible with the neighborhood; however, the building is too massive for the
neighborhood. Edwards said at the last meeting, all Councilmembers expressed concern
regarding the height and several members requested the massing be broken up. Edwards
pointed out the height reductions are minimal and there is no breaking up ofthe mass.
Bill Tomcich, Stay Aspen Snowmass, supports this project. Tomcich noted the
applicants are not seeking any variances to the code. The location makes this project
unique, which makes it a challenge to demand higher prices. The Boomerang has a 56-
year history as a ski lodge in Aspen. Walt Braiman, 311 South Aspen, said he has a
concern about the precedent of allowing this height. Braiman said there is a financial
incentive for lodges to double their size and receive economic benefits. Mary Janss said
she favors this proposal. It is nostalgic and a piece of Aspen history.
Rich Wagar with the existing traffic conditions, he favors projects that bring more density
into already dense areas. It is an advantage to have more lodge rooms in town within
walking distance of the downtown. Steve Goldenberg, adjacent property owner, said the
traffic has been worse in this area. Goldenberg said without the proposed underground
parking garage, this project would be a disaster for the neighborhood and for the
pedestrian area. John Dady, representing the Scotts, who are not in favor of this project.
Dady said there is excess massing in the neighborhood, and this project is a large increase
on the lodge property.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre said this proposal is a maximization ofthe allowable heights and
density. Councilman Torre said he has problems with the east wing being offered as
14Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
Councilman Johnson said to create 2 developments rights and to send 500 square feet into
the community increases development pressure if one considers the entire town.
Councilwoman Richards agreed this does not make sense but the way the code is written
does not preclude a person from getting a TDR and other historic incentives.
Councilwoman Richards said the alternative is to leave 1000 square feet of unbuilt FAR
on this site.
Bendon stated the city uses FAR as a bonus to incentivize good historic preservation
projects and it has been a useful tool. Bendon said the more FAR a historic property has,
the more difficult it is to preserve the property true to its heritage, so the program to
remove FAR and send it to another site was developed. There are limits on the landing
sites. Only 1 TDR is allowed per site, and TDRs can only be used on non-historic
properties. Council did not want the issuance of a TDR to be seen as a penalty so a
property owner is still eligible to apply for historic bonuses and to use all historic
incentives. Bendon stated a development order remains valid considering the FAR being
sent off site.
Councilwoman Richards said the concept is that the city must make an incentive for
property owners to preserve their historic houses. Not every property owner is of
unlimited means and the city created the FAR bonus to help carry the costs of renovation.
Councilman Johnson said he does not understand the claim that this would be removing
development pressure from the city. Councilman Johnson said the 500 square foot bonus
is a process to insure good design. Councilman Johnson asked if someone else owned
this property, how much square footage could be built. Bendon stated the base FARis
2820 square feet and they could apply for a 500 square foot bonus.
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11: 15
p.m.; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, with the exception of
Councilmembers DeVilbiss and Torre. Motion carried
Mayor Klanderud said she would like a discussion of all the historic benefits and how
they mix or contradict each other. Mayor Klandel,1ld said there are historic lot splits and
bonuses and there could even be TDRs on top of that. Councilwoman Richards said the
alternatives would be to get rid of the either the 500 square foot bonus or the TDR and
not keep both of them. Councilman Torre said he is in favor of sending sites but not in
favor of receiving sites.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #32, Series of2006, to August 28;
seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
434 EAST COOPER HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Councilwoman Richards requested Council initiate the process to consider listing the
Bidwell building at 434 East Cooper on the city's historic inventory list. Amy Guthrie,
community development department, noted there is a section in the land use code, which
prohibits demolition of any building under consideration for historic designation. HPC
19Page 342
Page 343
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 28, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. RollCall
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor and Council member Comments
b) City Manager's Comments
c) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #66, 2006 - Opposing State Amendment 38, Initiative and Referendum
Procedures
b) Resolution #67, 2006 - Supporting Referendum I: The Colorado Domestic
Partnership Act
c) Minutes - August 14, 2006
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #34,2006 - Supplemental Appropriation P.H. 9/11
b) Ordinance #36, 2006 - Jewish Community Center Subdivision P.H. 9/25
c) Ordinance #37, 2006 - Dean Street Vacation P.H. 9/11
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #35, 2006 - North Spruce Water Agreement Amendment
b) Ordinance #28,2006 - Lift One Condominiums PUD - Public Hearing
c) Ordinance #26, 2006 - Boomerang Lodge PUD
d) Ordinance #31 , 2006 - 100 East Bleeker Establishment of 2 TDRs
e) Ordinance #32,2006 - 403 West Hallam Establishment of 2 TDRs
f) Resolution #69, 2006 - Appeal of Code Interpretation Section 26.425 - Sardy
House
IX. Action Items
a) Housing Rent Subsidy - Aspen Country Inn
b) Resolution #65, 2006 - Calling Special Election
c) Resolution #68, 2006 - Ballot Questions
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting September 11, 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Page 1
MEMORANDUM Vlllc.
TO:Mayor Klanderud and City Council
FROM:Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ClAW)
Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment - SOO West Hopkins Avenue
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, Planned Unit
Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision,
Condominiumizaton and Vested Rights
THRU:
RE:
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.
31 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 affordablc housing units,
48 parking spaces .- 31 underground and 17 surface (partiallv 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 redevelopmcnt 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,
StNCE THE LAST MEETING ON AUGUST 14TH, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE REVISIONS
TO TilE BOOMERANG DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND HAS RELAYED THE AREAS FOR
REVISION BY HIGHLIGHTED REVISED PLANS AND TWO SEPARATE MEMOS DESCRIBING
CHANGES AND LODGEICONDO OPERATIONS. IN GENERAL THE REVISIONS ARE AS
FOLLOWS:
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1Page 2
The lodge units have been removed from the East Wing, 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 (kevs) is now at 47, reduced by 5 lodge units since
the August 14th 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 4th 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 ofJhe 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 APPROY ALS:
Dimension R-6 District Existing Development
Requirement Development Set in PUD
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s, f, 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s,f.
Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft,
Width
Minimum Front 5 ft. 10-70 ft, (varies) 5' 2"
BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2Page 3
Yard Setback
Hopkins)
Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west 5 It. 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 LO.W) 12 @ surface
partially in LO.W,)
Floor Area Ratio/Size:
Total Set in PUD ,85 = 23,000 sJ, 1.66: 1 = 44,915 s,f,
Lodging Set in PUD ,85 = 23,000 sJ, .87:1 = 23,547 s,l,
Ave. Lodge Size Set in PUD-500 sq, 340 s,l, 501 s.f,
ft,desirable
Free-Market 25% of total project NIA ,39:1 = 10,733 =
Residential Floor Area 23% of total project
Affordable No FAR limit NIA ,05:1 = 1,384s,1.
Residential
NECESSARY LAND USE ApPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and
necessary for approval of this project:
I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM -INCENTIVE LOnGE 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 3Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
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 sJ, 1,66:1 = 44,915 sJ.
Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f. .87:1 = 26,199 s.f.
Ave. Lodge Size Set in PUD-500 sq, 340 sJ, 501 sJ,
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/Recvclin!!: 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 S: Affordable Honsin!!:
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 1/1 Oth 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 detennines
acceptable,
City Council Ordinance
No, 26, Series of 2006 3-Page 8
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 andlor
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 PMI0 Mithmtion Plan
In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PMIO generated by the
project, the project shall provide either: I) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of
the residenceslhotel, 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 thc 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 fec 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:
I, The final property boundaries and disposition oflands.
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:
I. 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 oflandscape improvements
with an irrigation plan wit~ a signature line for the City Parks Department.
City Council Ordinance
No, 26, Series of2006 4-Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio
drains), incl uding 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,
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system,
2, 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.
IS, Where additional dcvelopment 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/S]A 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 of2006 7 -Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
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 Desil!Dation of the "East Wing"
Prior to filing ofthe 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 A venue, 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 K1anderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 28th day of August, 2006.
City Council Ordinance
No, 26, Series of 2006 10-Page 15
Page 16
Ew:k\"',+ B
b1JA./O,.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Joyce Allgaier
FROM:Sunny Vann
RE:Boomerang Lodge Operations
DATE:August 22, 2006
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
Page 17
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 andlor 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
Page 18
Page 19
PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Remodel
DATE: 8121106
City Council Revision
Changes have been made:
1. Building Height:
a. Reduced the building height by another 2.5'. The highest
roof is 36.5' above the grade. The height limit is 42. This
represents 17% of roof area.
b. 83% 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:
a. Eliminated one hotel unit and one free market unit.
b. Eliminated the staircase to the roof next to the alley.
c. Reduced floor area to 5,810 SF. It was 7,951 SF. A
reduction of 27%.
3. Eliminated the third floor of East Wing:
a. Total of 47 hotel units instead of 53
b. FAR-hotel unit: 23,547 SF. (It was 26,199 SF.)
c. Average hotel unit floor area is 501 SF.
4. Reduction of free market units:
a. Reduced free market units to 5.
b. The total free market units floor area is 10, 733 SF., less
than 25% FAR (allowed).
5. Percentage of Glazing (new building): In order to create a
building with more open feeling.
a. South Elevation: 62%
b. North Elevation: 22%
c. West Elevation: 57%
Total Glazing:44%
Submitted by:
Xiangdong (Don) Shi
E)(kHo ,'+ '-
0,.
RENO' SMITH
ARC HIT Ii C T S. L. L. C. .
III
AUGUST RENO
AlA
SCOTT SMITH
ALA
605 W. MAiN ST.
N" 002
ASPEN
COLORADO
81611
970.925.5968
FACSIMILE
970.925.5993
E-MAIL
office@renosmilh.com
0371 SQUTHSIDE DRIVE
BASALT
COLORADO
81621
970.927.6834
FACSIMILE
970.927.6840
Page 20
PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge Remodel
DATE: 8/26/06
City Council Revision
Changes that have been made:
1. Building Height:
a. Reduced the building height by another 2.5'. The highest
roof is 36.5' above grade. The height limit is 42. This
area represents 17% of roof area.
b. 83% of entire roof area is at or below 34.5'
c. The ridge height of Christiana buildings is 35' above
grade.
2. Reduction of 4th Floor:
a. We eliminated one hotel unit and one free market unit.
b. We eliminated the staircase to the roof next to the alley.
c. We reduced the floor area to 5,810 SF. The floor area
was 7,951 SF. A reduction of 27%. This still represents
only 13% of the total FAR of the project.
3. Eliminated the third floor of East Wing:
a. Now there is a total of 47 hotel units instead of 53. This
represents a loss of 6 hotel units.
b. FAR-hotel unit: 23,547 SF. (It was 26,199 SF.)
c. The average hotel unit floor area is 501 SF.
4. Reduction of free market units:
a. We reduced the free market units to 5.
b. The total free market units floor area is now 10,733 SF.,
This is a reduction of 17% of the previous submission
5. The percentage of Glazing/windows
a. South Elevation: 62%
b. North Elevation: 22%
c. West Elevation: 57%
Total Glazing:44%
Submitted by:
Xiangdong (Don) Shi
8 ( 2-'3'
I "
G
RENO < SMITH
ARCHITECTS, L,L.C,'
III
AUGUST RENO
AlA
SCOTT SMITH
ALA
605 W. MAiN ST
N" 002
ASPEN
COLORADO
81611
970.925.5968
FACSIMILE
970.925.5993
E-MAIL
office@renosmith.com
0371 SOUTHS IDE DRIVE
BASALT
COLORADO
81621
970,927,6834
FACSIMILE
970.9276840
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers
DeVilbiss, Johnson, Torre and Richard present.
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS
Mayor Klanderud and Council presented outstanding employee bonus awards to Don
Pergande, finance department; Paul Kulik, recreation department; and Ben Gagnon,
Barry Crook and Mitzi Rapkin, manager's department.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Anna Zane, Twin Ridge, stated the Twin Ridge homeowners are upset with the
cell phone tower being erected. Ms. Zane showed Council photo simulations presented at
the approval meetings and presented photos of the actual tower. Ms. Zane said it is
visually awful and sticks out. Ms. Zane noted Council's approvals indicate the tower was
not to be on a ridgeline and it is on a ridge line. Ms. Zane requested the city plant shrubs
or trees to buffer the tower. Ben Gagnon, community development department, told
Council he reviewed the process with the homeowners. The tower was erected on city
property.
2. Phil Bloemsma, Twin Ridge homeowner, said he is displeased with the way the
tower looks and also they way the association was notified of the insubstantial PUD.
Bloemsma said this was a substantial change to a pristine piece of property. Bloemsma
requested the city look at this and see how it can be covered.
3. Kent Reed, director Hudson Reed ensemble, thanked the Council and the parks
department for allowing the Shakespearean series on the library park plaza. Reed said
they have had over 250 attendees to the free Shakespearean performances. Mayor
Klanderud congratulated Reed for finding a use for that area and for bringing people into
that circle.
4. Barry Gordon told Council he represented the retailers on the Aspen Chamber
Resort Association board and also started the retail merchant association with the
function to create vitality into Aspen. Gordon said the elements that make a resort town
successful are fine dining, exceptional lodging and a shopping experience. Gordon said
several years ago the shopping experience was dull and Council hired consultants to give
ideas on how to rejuvenate the shopping. Gordon said the issue of racks outside stores on
city sidewalks has arisen. Gordon said it is essential to allow sidewalks displays, which
create vitality. Gordon asked why the city is enforcing not allowing racks on public
sidewalks.
Lennie Weinglass, Boogie's Diner, told Council he has been asked by city staff to
remove his racks from the sidewalks. Weinglass said the law not to allow commercial
displays is enforced only upon complaint. Weinglass told Council he was asked to
remove his sign from the sidewalk and he walked around town since and counted 30
2
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
sidewalk signs. Weinglass noted he has lost $60,000 on the sidewalk sales and the city
has lost 8.6% of the sales tax on those sales.
Mayor Klanderud suggested staff and Council look at the existing regulations. Weinglass
said sidewalk displays are a win/win situation for tourists, businesses and city.
Weinglass said there are many businesses with signs, racks, bicycles and tables on city
property. Lily Garfield, Cos Bar, said she does not believe in putting merchandise on the
sidewalks. Ms. Garfield said the Cos Bar has been in business for 30 years and is also
located in other resort communities. Ms. Garfield said merchandise outside is not
allowed in other communities. Ms. Garfield said merchandise out on the street cheapens
the neighborhood.
Mickey Alper said the code states no commercial activity outside; however, this has not
been enforced. Alper said he would like to be included in any discussions about outdoor
merchandising. Mayor Klanderud said she would like to see staffs proposal before next
summer. Chris Bendon, community development department, noted the Frick and Beer
report recommended the city relax some of its regulations on outdoor displays. Bendon
said since that report the city has been in a period of experimentation. Most feedback
from the community has been positive. Bendon said the complaints on outdoor sales
racks have increased this summer. Bendon agreed the regulations need to be looked at
again and the retailers and CCLC should be involved in that discussion.
Bendon said this discussion cannot happen until after the retail season and after the
building moratorium. Bendon said the options are to curtail the areas with the most
complaints, like racks of sales items, and to allow for representative displays. The other
option is to let outdoor merchandizing run rampant, which staff does not support.
Bendon said retailers have been appreciative of the city's efforts to maintain a quality
standard in town while making a more exciting retail environment. Bendon stated this is
a tricky policy to implement with a wide range of opinions on what is appropriate.
Bendon told Council staff has developed an informational brochure, which describes the
intent behind the regulations and gives examples of what is and what is not allowed.
Councilman DeVilbiss agreed tasteful representative displays should be allowed until
staff and Council have a chance to review the regulations. Councilwoman Richards
agreed with that course of action; it is a delicate balance. Councilman Torre said it seems
like the code is different for different businesses. Councilman Torre asked if the retail
association has a representative to deal with the city. Bendon said Frick and Beer's
recommendation was for them to get organized so the city can have someone to contact.
Mayor Klanderud said CCLC is a valuable group to work with the retailers to come back
to Council with suggestions on the existing code and any amendments.
Mark Goodman, retailer and CCLC member, said a business improvement district would
be the best venue for this discussion. Goodman suggested one day a month allowing
racks outside as an event.
3
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
5. Marcia Goshorn said a year ago Council helped with the rent for seniors at the
Aspen Country Inn and there is now a double increase in rent. Ms. Goshorn told Council
the seniors are being asked to pay this increased rent until this topic can get in front of
Council. Steve Barwick, city manager, told Council the only rent increase going into
effect is that required by the partnership agreement. The other rent increases are put off
until Council meets with housing and discusses the budget. Ms. Goshorn said the seniors
also pay their utilities, which are being increased. Councilwoman Richards said she
intends to look for long term solutions for this project and the long term health of the
project. Councilwoman Richards said this is out of sync with the city's budget policy.
Mayor Klanderud said the increase is effective September 1 st and she recommended
discussing this at the regular meeting August 28th.
6. Toni Kronberg requested Resolutions #61 and 62 be pulled from the consent
calendar. Ms. Kronberg told Council Snowmass has built a beautiful pool complex for
900,000. Aspen will be going into design for an outside pool and should look at
Snowmass pools.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman DeVilbiss moved that Ordinance #31, Series of2006 be continued to
August 28 at the request ofthe applicant; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Mayor Klanderud noted Council received a call up notice on this property, 100 East
Bleeker, on July 26, which would expire August 26. Mayor Klanderud stated she has
questions about using both the FAR bonus and the selling of the TDRs. Mayor
Klanderud said if it is important to call up the HPC decision to address the bonus and
TDRs, she does not want to miss the call up date deadline.
All in favor, motion carried.
2. Councilman Torre requested an executive session to consult with the city
attorney.
3. Councilwoman Richards said Council considered the Bidwell building at their
July 24th meeting and Council's rules allow reconsideration of a decision at the next
regular meeting. Councilwoman Richards brought up the City's Code of Ethics, which
state in a quasi-judicial hearing Council may not hold ex parte conversations outside the
public meeting arena so that all conversations happen in Council Chambers.
Councilwoman Richards said the city conducts trainings for its board members.
Councilwoman Richards said one of the HPC board members stated "I have interviewed
virtually every tenant in that building". Councilwoman Richards said she feels this
member was trying to do due diligence but it was out of order. Councilwoman Richards
stated she feels very strongly about new development and the loss of character in Aspen's
downtown. Councilwoman Richards said it is difficult for Council to nullifY or overturn
a volunteer board's decision. Councilwoman Richards noted Council met in work
session with HPC Aprill7'h
to discuss listing on the inventory post World War II
4
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
parts of the short-term accommodations market, including the building across the alley to
the north. Vann reiterated this is a project trying to balance competing objectives. The
principal objective is to maintain a small lodge, to expand it and to make it a viable
project, while having a minimal impact on the community. Vann said this project will
have no significant impact on Hopkins avenue. The building will not increase the
shading of the street. Vann said they have support from all surrounding neighbors except
the Christiana Lodge.
Steve Stunda, applicant and local managing partner, told Council he is currently running
this lodge. Stunda said important issues to him were saving the east wing, preserving
every tree possible so as not to interfere with the serenity ofthe site, maximizing adding
rooms, and take as much parking off the streets as possible. The property will be run as a
lodge with front desk staff, full complement of housekeeping and maintenance staff.
Councilman Torre asked when the applicants would designate the east wing. Vann said
the applicants have stated they will initiate the process prior to recordation, after the land
use approval. Once the wing is designated, HPC will be able to look at the additions of
the 3'd floor and give input. Ms. Allgaier said doing it this way will allow the applicant to
know what his approvals are and then to get input from HPC. Councilman Torre said
once this wing is added onto, it will not be historic preservation. Councilman Torre said
he cannot see a preservation effort for east wing and a 3'd floor will foil any preservation
effort. Stunda said HPC felt if the 3'd floor were differentiated, they did not have a
problem with the addition ofthat floor.
Councilman Johnson asked why this needs to be rezoned. Ms. Allgaier said this property
is zoned R-6 with and LP overlay. The PUD overlay would be an amendment to the
current zoning. Councilman Johnson asked the underlying height limit in the R-6 zone.
Ms. Allgaier said 25' for residential uses; for a lodge, the height is set by PUD. Vann
said if one develops a lodge in the LP zone, one has to process it as a PUD and the code
requires one to designate the property with a PUD overlay. Councilman Johnson asked
how 2 units of affordable housing is full mitigation. Ms. Allgaier said the mitigation is
confirmed and approved by P&Z acting as the growth management commission. This
proposal meets the mitigation requirements for a growth management allotment.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Warren Klug, manager Aspen Square, told Council he supports this application because
there has been a shrinking bed base in Aspen, up to 25% in the last 8 years. Klug said
this application is counters that and the community needs it. This is a quality
development. Klug said the expansion ofthe Boomerang is in the spirit oflodge
preservation, which is to encourage redevelopment of older, smaller lodges. Klug said
this will continue a use that already exists in the neighborhood. Klug noted in the recent
core value meetings there seemed to be support for lodge renovation and preservation.
Klug told Council his property is a condominium, units are individually owned and are
generally rented. The Aspen Square and the Gant are condominium hotels. Klug said the
average owner stay/year are 14 days.
13
1.........--.. .
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to II p.m.;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
Torre and Mayor Klanderud. Motion carried.
Marcia Goshorn told Council she supports this project; this is something the town needs.
Ms. Goshorn noted the Christiana to the north was a lodge before it was turned into a
condominium, where the owner cannot stay more than 90 days/year. This is an approved
use. Greg Miller said he likes the preservation ofthe east wing and the preservation of
the trees. David Perry, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council there was a presentation of
this project to the Ski Company and the Ski Company supports it as it adds rooms to the
tourist inventory. Perry said tourist beds need to be attractive to the market and at the
same time affordable.
David Corbin, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council he has been involved in hotel
redevelopment for years. Corbin said condominiumizing this property makes sense for
the community with the addition of 19 keys. Corbin said the possibility of anyone living
in the units is very small. Jody Edwards, representing the Christiana homeowners, agreed
small lodges are an important aspect of the community and in residential neighborhoods.
Edwards said this expansion makes the Boomerang not a small lodge; it doubles the floor
area and expands the height from 25' and 30' to 37' and 39'. Edwards stated the use is
compatible with the neighborhood; however, the building is too massive for the
neighborhood. Edwards said at the last meeting, all Councilmembers expressed concern
regarding the height and several members requested the massing be broken up. Edwards
pointed out the height reductions are minimal and there is no breaking up ofthe mass.
Bill Tomcich, Stay Aspen Snowmass, supports this project. Tomcich noted the
applicants are not seeking any variances to the code. The location makes this project
unique, which makes it a challenge to demand higher prices. The Boomerang has a 56-
year history as a ski lodge in Aspen. Walt Braiman, 311 South Aspen, said he has a
concern about the precedent of allowing this height. Braiman said there is a financial
incentive for lodges to double their size and receive economic benefits. Mary Janss said
she favors this proposal. It is nostalgic and a piece of Aspen history.
Rich Wagar with the existing traffic conditions, he favors projects that bring more density
into already dense areas. It is an advantage to have more lodge rooms in town within
walking distance of the downtown. Steve Goldenberg, adjacent property owner, said the
traffic has been worse in this area. Goldenberg said without the proposed underground
parking garage, this project would be a disaster for the neighborhood and for the
pedestrian area. John Dady, representing the Scotts, who are not in favor of this project.
Dady said there is excess massing in the neighborhood, and this project is a large increase
on the lodge property.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre said this proposal is a maximization ofthe allowable heights and
density. Councilman Torre said he has problems with the east wing being offered as
14
Rel!ular Meetinl!Aspen City Council AUl!ust 14, 2006
Councilman Johnson said to create 2 developments rights and to send 500 square feet into
the community increases development pressure if one considers the entire town.
Councilwoman Richards agreed this does not make sense but the way the code is written
does not preclude a person from getting a TDR and other historic incentives.
Councilwoman Richards said the alternative is to leave 1000 square feet of unbuilt FAR
on this site.
Bendon stated the city uses FAR as a bonus to incentivize good historic preservation
projects and it has been a useful tool. Bendon said the more FAR a historic property has,
the more difficult it is to preserve the property true to its heritage, so the program to
remove FAR and send it to another site was developed. There are limits on the landing
sites. Only 1 TDR is allowed per site, and TDRs can only be used on non-historic
properties. Council did not want the issuance of a TDR to be seen as a penalty so a
property owner is still eligible to apply for historic bonuses and to use all historic
incentives. Bendon stated a development order remains valid considering the FAR being
sent off site.
Councilwoman Richards said the concept is that the city must make an incentive for
property owners to preserve their historic houses. Not every property owner is of
unlimited means and the city created the FAR bonus to help carry the costs of renovation.
Councilman Johnson said he does not understand the claim that this would be removing
development pressure from the city. Councilman Johnson said the 500 square foot bonus
is a process to insure good design. Councilman Johnson asked if someone else owned
this property, how much square footage could be built. Bendon stated the base FARis
2820 square feet and they could apply for a 500 square foot bonus.
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11: 15
p.m.; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, with the exception of
Councilmembers DeVilbiss and Torre. Motion carried
Mayor Klanderud said she would like a discussion of all the historic benefits and how
they mix or contradict each other. Mayor Klandel,1ld said there are historic lot splits and
bonuses and there could even be TDRs on top of that. Councilwoman Richards said the
alternatives would be to get rid of the either the 500 square foot bonus or the TDR and
not keep both of them. Councilman Torre said he is in favor of sending sites but not in
favor of receiving sites.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #32, Series of2006, to August 28;
seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
434 EAST COOPER HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Councilwoman Richards requested Council initiate the process to consider listing the
Bidwell building at 434 East Cooper on the city's historic inventory list. Amy Guthrie,
community development department, noted there is a section in the land use code, which
prohibits demolition of any building under consideration for historic designation. HPC
19
EFILED Document
CO Pitkin County District Court 9th JD
Filing Date: Feb 9 2012 4:51PM MST
Filing ID: 42427746
Review Clerk: Carolyn Jemison
Exhibit 1