HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20170911
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 11, 2017
5:00 PM
I. Site Visit
a) 4:00 p.m - Boomerang Lodge - 500 W Hopkins Avenue - Meet at Site
II. Call to Order
III. Roll Call
IV. Scheduled Public Appearances
V. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
VI. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #121, Series of 2017 - Water Campus Backwash Pond Sediment
Removal Contract
b) Minutes - August 28 and September 5, 2017
VIII. Notice of Call-Up
IX. First Reading of Ordinances
X. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #21, Series of 2017 - 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge) - PD
Amendment
XI. Action Items
XII. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting September 25, 2017
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
· Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
· Tone and Tenor Matter
· Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P1
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Charles O. Bailey, Treatment Supervisor
Tyler Christoff, P.E., Deputy Director of Utilities
THRU: David Hornbacher, Utilities Director
DATE OF MEMO: August 30, 2017
MEETING DATE: September 11th, 2017
RE: Resolution #121, Series 2017 - Backwash Pond Sediment
Removal Contract with Veris Environmental LLC, Resolution
121 Series 2017
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council approval of the contract with Veris
Environmental LLC in the amount of $73,500.00 to perform the dredging and sediment removal
from the City of Aspen Water Department backwash pond located on the water plant site.
PREVIOUS ACTION: Minor dredging operations were performed on site by A.G. Parker in
2012 and 2014. This sediment removal operation is a reoccurring operational practice necessary
to maintain the City’s treatment facilities.
BACKGROUND: Aspen’s Water treatment plants operate continuously to provide potable
water to customers. Through the potable water filtration process, removed sediment captured in
the filters is backwashed into a pond on the water plant site. This sediment accumulates over
time reducing the pond capacity.
The backwash pond utilizes a permanent pool of water to settle out suspended solids prior to
discharge. The discharge from this pond is regulated by required permitting with the EPA
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This project is necessary
to restore volume storage and maintain full functionality of the backwash pond.
DISCUSSION: The backwash pond periodically fills with sediments and requires dewatering
and disposal of the sediment to the Pitkin County Solid waste site. Most recently this operation
was completed in 2014 to provide needed pond capacity. Based on current sediment levels and
discharge sampling staff believe that a removal operation is critical to maintaining compliance
with current discharge permitting. The proposed dredging process allows water service to the
community to remain unaffected during this work.
The City of Aspen advertised and solicited proposals through a competitive bid process. Due to
the sensitive and highly specialized nature of this type of work a single bid was received and has
P2
VII.a
Page 2 of 2
been reviewed by staff. Staff believe Veris Environmental’s experience and performance in
other communities speaks to their capability to meet the full extent of the City’s proposal.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The bid amount for the project is $73,500.00. Staff
proposes to use $34,000 of existing water treatment operating budget authority and is requesting
$40,000 in supplemental budget authority. The extent and scope of the sediment currently
contained in the water treatment backwash pond was unknown at time of 2017 budget
development. After reviewing the scope this project requires additional funding to fully
accomplish this important water utility maintenance task. Staff propose following expenditures to
fund this work.
Total Project Expenditures
Veris Environmental 2017 anticipated work scope $ 73,500.00
Total Expenditures $ 73,500.00
Total Funding
Treatment Operating Budget 2017 Funding
(acct # 421.322.32110.52199) $ 34,000.00
Supplemental Request $ 40,000.00
Total Funding $ 74,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no environmental impacts for this project. The
backwash pond sediments include a minimal level of coagulants which brings fine sediment
particles together for filtration during water treatment process. These are biodegradable and may
be disposed of at the Pitkin county landfill with prior approval. The solids cannot be used for
agricultural organic reapplication.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends award of contract to Veris Environmental
LLC in the amount of $73,500.00 to perform dredging and sediment removal from the water
treatment system backwash pond.
ALTERNATIVES: No alternatives are available currently.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # 121, Series 2017, providing for the
execution of a contract to perform dredging and sediment removal from the water treatment
system backwash pond.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Professional Services Contract – City of Aspen and Veris Environmental
P3
VII.a
RESOLUTION 121
(Series of 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND VERIS ENVIRONMENTAL LLC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Backwash Pond Sediment Removal, between the City of Aspen and Veris
Environmental LLC., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Backwash Pond Sediment Removal, between the City of Aspen and Veris
Environmental LLC., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf
of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 11th day of September, 2017.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held September 11, 2017.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P4
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 1
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
(Short Form)
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into on September 11, 2017, by and between the
CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, hereinafter called the “City”, and VERIS
ENVIRONMENTAL LLC., hereinafter called the “Contractor”.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and Contracts herein contained,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1. Construction of Project. Contractor agrees to furnish all labor,
materials, tools, machinery, equipment, temporary utilities, transportation and any other
facilities needed therefor, and to complete in a good, workmanlike and substantial
manner the Project as described in the Scope of Work and/or Proposal appended hereto
as Exhibit “A” which is incorporated herein as if fully set forth (the “Project”).
2. Plans and Specifications; Compliance with Laws. The Project is to be
constructed and completed in strict conformance with the Scope of Work and/or Proposal
appended hereto for the same approved in writing by the parties hereto. The Project shall
also be constructed and completed in strict compliance with all laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations of all applicable governmental authorities, and the City of Aspen
Procurement Code, Title 4 of the Municipal Code, including the approval requirements of
Section 4-08-040. Contractor shall apply for and obtain all required permits and licenses
and shall pay all fees therefor and all other fees required by such governmental
authorities.
3. Payments to Contractor. In consideration of the covenants and
Contracts herein contained being performed and kept by Contractor, including the
supplying of all labor, materials and services required by this Contract, and the
construction and completion of the Project, City agrees to pay Contractor a sum not to
exceed SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($73,500.00) DOLLARS
or as shown on Exhibit “A”.
4. Commencement and Completion. Contractor agrees to commence work
hereunder immediately upon execution hereof, to prosecute said work thereafter
diligently and continuously to completion, and in any and all events to substantially
complete the same not later than December 1, 2017, subject to such delays as are
permissible under the “Extension of Time for Completion” section of this Contract.
5. Payment of Bills and Charges. Contractor shall pay promptly all valid bills
and charges for material, labor, machinery, equipment or any other service or facility
used in connection with or arising out of the Project, and shall obtain periodic releases
from all subcontractors and material suppliers supplying labor or materials to the Project
concurrently with Contractor's delivering any payment to such subcontractors and
P5
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 2
material suppliers. Contractor shall indemnify and hold City and City's officers,
employees, agents, successors and assigns free and harmless against all expenses and
liability suffered or incurred in connection with the claims of any such subcontractors or
material suppliers, including but not limited to court costs and attorney's fees resulting or
arising therefrom; provided that Contractor shall be excused from this obligation to the
extent that City is in arrears in making the payments to Contractor. Should any liens or
claims of lien be filed of record against the Property, or should Contractor receive notice
of any unpaid bill or charge in connection with construction of the Project, Contractor
shall immediately either pay and discharge the same and cause the same to be released of
record, or shall furnish City with the proper indemnity either by title policy or by
corporate surety bond in the amount of 150% of the amount claimed pursuant to such
lien.
6. Releases. Contractor shall, if requested by City, before being entitled to
receive any payment due, furnish to City all releases obtained from subcontractors and
material suppliers and copies of all bills paid to such date, properly receipted and
identified, covering work done and the materials furnished to the Project and showing an
expenditure of an amount not less than the total of all previous payments made hereunder
by City to Contractor.
7. Hierarchy of Project Documents. This Contract and the Proposal or Scope
of Work appended hereto as Exhibit “A” are intended to supplement one another. In
case of conflict, however, this Contract shall control both.
8. Changes in the Work. Should the City at any time during the progress of
the work request any modifications, alterations or deviations in, additions to, or
omissions from this Contract or the Proposal/Scope of Work, it shall be at liberty to do
so, and the same shall in no way affect or make void this Contract; but the amount
thereof shall be amortized over the remaining term of this Contract and added to or
deducted, as the case may be, from the payments set forth in Paragraph 3 above by a fair
and reasonable valuation, based upon the actual cost of labor and materials. This
Contract shall be deemed to be completed when the work is finished in accordance with
the original Proposal or Scope of Work as amended or modified by such changes,
whatever may be the nature or the extent thereof. The rule of practice to be observed in
fulfillment of this paragraph shall be that, upon the demand of either City or Contractor,
the character and valuation of any or all changes, omissions or extra work shall be agreed
upon and fixed in writing, signed by City and Contractor, prior to performance.
9. Contractor's Failure to Perform. Should Contractor, at any time during
the progress of the work, refuse or fail to supply sufficient material or workmen for the
expeditious progress of said work or fail to perform any other provisions of this Contract,
City may, upon giving notice in writing to Contractor as provided herein and upon
Contractor's failure to remedy any such failure within 3 days from receipt of such notice,
terminate this Contract and provide the necessary material and workmen to finish the
work and may enter upon the Property for such purpose and complete said work. The
expense thereof shall be deducted from the payments remaining under Paragraph 3
P6
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 3
above, or if the total cost of the work to City exceeds the amount of such remaining
payments, Contractor shall pay to City upon demand the amount of such excess in
addition to any and all other damages to which City may be entitled. In the event of such
termination, City may take possession of all materials, equipment and appliances
belonging to Contractor upon or adjacent to the Property upon which said work is being
performed and may use the same in the completion of said work. Such termination shall
not prejudice or be exclusive of any other legal rights which City may have against
Contractor.
10. Extension of Time for Completion. Time is of the essence of this
Contract and Contractor shall substantially complete the work during the time provided
for herein. However, the time during which Contractor is delayed in said work by (a) the
acts of City or its agents or employees or those claiming under Contract with or
permission from City, or (b) the acts of God which Contractor could not have reasonably
foreseen and provided against, or (c) unanticipated stormy or inclement weather which
necessarily delays the work, or (d) any strikes, boycotts or obstructive actions by
employees or labor organizations and which are beyond the control of Contractor and
which it cannot reasonably overcome, or (e) the failure of City to make progress
payments promptly, shall be added to the time for completion of the work by a fair and
reasonable allowance. Contractor recognizes, however, that the site of the work is in the
Rocky Mountains at a high elevation where inclement whether conditions are common.
This fact has been considered by Contractor in preparing its Proposal and or agreeing to
the Scope of Work. Furthermore, Contractor shall have the right to stop work if any
payment, including payment for extra work, is not made to Contractor as provided in this
Contract. In the event of such nonpayment, Contractor may keep the job idle until all
payments then due are received.
11. Unforeseen Conditions. It is understood and agreed that Contractor,
before incurring any other expenses or purchasing any other materials for the Project,
shall proceed to inspect the work site and all visible conditions and that if, at the time of
inspection therefor, the Contractor finds that the proposed work is at variance with the
conditions indicated by the Proposal, Scope of Work, or information supplied by City, or
should Contractor encounter physical conditions below the surface of the ground of an
unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally
recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Contract or inherent
in a work site located in the Rocky Mountains, Contractor shall so notify City, and City
shall at that time have the right and option to immediately cancel and terminate this
Contract or to instruct Contractor to continue the work and add the additional amount
attributable to such unforeseen conditions to the payments due Contractor as set forth
above.
It is agreed that in the event of any cancellation by City in accordance with this section,
Contractor shall be paid the actual costs of the work done prior to the time of
cancellation. In computing such costs, building permit fees, insurance and such
financing and title charges as are not refundable shall be included; provided that
P7
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 4
supervision time, office overhead and profit shall not be included in such costs to be
refunded to Contractor by reason of such cancellation.
12. Acceptance by City. No payment hereunder nor occupancy of said
improvements or any part thereof shall be construed as an acceptance of any work done
up to the time of such payment or occupancy, but the entire work is to be subject to the
inspection and approval of City at the time when Contractor notifies City that the Project
has been completed.
13. Notice of Completion; Contractor's Release. City agrees to sign and file of
record within five (5) days after the substantial completion and acceptance of the Project
a Notice of Completion. If City fails to so record the Notice of Completion within said
five (5) day period, City hereby appoints Contractor as City's agent to sign and record
such Notice of Completion on City's behalf. This agency is irrevocable and is an agency
coupled with an interest. Contractor agrees upon receipt of final payment to release the
Project and property from any and all claims that may have accrued against the same by
reason of said construction. If Contractor faithfully performs the obligations of this
Contract on its part to be performed, it shall have the right to refuse to permit occupancy
of any structures by City or City's assignees or agents until the Notice of Completion has
been recorded and Contractor has received the payment, if any, due hereunder at
completion of construction, less such amounts as may be retained pursuant to mutual
Contract of City and Contractor under the provisions of Paragraph 3 above.
14. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability,
claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation
claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or
damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner
connected with this contract, to the extent and for an amount represented by the degree or
percentage such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be
caused in whole or in part by, the wrongful act, omission, error, professional error, mistake,
negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any
officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the
Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of
the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The
Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend
against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at
the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs
incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss,
or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its
officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the
judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
employees.
15. Insurance.
P8
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 5
a. The Contractor agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy
or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Contractor pursuant to the terms of this Contract. Such insurance
shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law.
The Contractor shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations
assumed pursuant to the terms of this Contract by reason of its failure to procure or maintain
insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts,
duration, or types.
b. Contractor shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of
the Contractor to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed in the
Supplemental Conditions. If the Supplemental Conditions do not set forth minimum
insurance coverage, then the minimum coverage shall be as set forth below. Such coverage
shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to City. All coverage
shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Contractor pursuant to the terms of this Contract. In the case of
any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall
be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
1. Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this
contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each
employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the
Workmen's Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and
ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be
applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for
bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket
contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy
shall include coverage for explosion, collapse, and underground hazards. The policy
shall contain a severability of interests provision.
3. Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum
combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Contractor's owned,
hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the services.
The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Contractor has no
P9
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 6
owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section 5.4.2.3 shall be met by each
employee of the Contractor providing services to the City under this contract.
c. Except for any Contractor Liability insurance that may be required, the
policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City of Aspen and the City
of Aspen's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall
be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City of Aspen, its officers or
employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City of Aspen, shall
be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Contractor. No additional
insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily
injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
d. The certificate of insurance provided to the City of Aspen shall be completed
by the Contractor's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required
coverage, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed
and approved by the City of Aspen prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of
certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the
coverage afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed
until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City of Aspen.
e. In addition, these Certificates of Insurance shall contain the following
clauses:
Underwriters and issuers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against the
City of Aspen, it being the intention of the parties that the insurance policies so
effected shall protect all parties and be primary coverage for any and all losses
covered by the above-described insurance. To the extent that the City's insurer(s)
may become liable for secondary or excess coverage, the City's underwriters and
insurers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against the Contractor.
The insurance companies issuing the policy or policies shall have no recourse against
the City of Aspen for payment of any premiums or for assessments under any form
of policy.
Any and all deductibles in the above-described insurance policies shall be assumed
by and be for the amount of, and at the sole risk of the Proposer.
Location of operations shall be: "All operations and locations at which work in
connection with the referenced project is done."
Certificates of Insurance for all renewal policies shall be delivered to the Architect at
least fifteen (15) days prior to a policy's expiration date except for any policy expiring on the
expiration date of this Contract or thereafter.
P10
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 7
e. Failure on the part of the Contractor to procure or maintain policies providing
the required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of
contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City
may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay
any and all premiums in connection therewith. All moneys so paid by City shall be repaid by
Contractor to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against moneys
due to Contractor from City.
f. City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy
and any endorsement thereto.
16. Damage or Destruction. If the Project is destroyed or damaged by any
accident or disaster, such as fire, storm, flood, landslide, earthquake, subsidence, theft or
vandalism, any work done by Contractor in rebuilding or restoring the work shall be paid
for by City as extra work under Paragraph 8 above. If, however, the estimated cost of
replacement of the work already completed by Contractor exceeds twenty (20%) percent
of the insured sum set forth in Paragraph 14 above, City shall have the option to cancel
this Contract and, in such event, Contractor shall be paid the reasonable cost, including
net profit to Contractor in the amount of ten (10%) percent, of all work performed by
Contractor before such cancellation.
17. Notices. Any notice which any party is required or may desire to give to any
other party shall be in writing and may be personally delivered or given or made by
United States mail addressed as follows:
To City:
City of Aspen
Aspen Water Treatment Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To Contractor:
Veris Environmental LLC
Robert Harlow Jr
53036 Highway 71
Limon, CO 80828
719-775-9870
subject to the right of either party to designate a different address for itself by notice
similarly given. Any notice so given, delivered or made by United States mail, shall be
deemed to have been given the same day as transmitted by email or delivered personally,
one day after consignment to overnight courier service such as Federal Express, or two
days after the deposit in the United States mail as registered or certified matter, addressed
as above provided, with postage thereon fully prepaid.
18. Inspections; Warranties.
P11
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 8
(a) Contractor shall conduct an inspection of the Project prior to final acceptance
of the work with City.
(b) Contractor shall schedule and cause to be performed all corrective activities
necessitated as a result of any deficiencies noted on the final inspection prior to
acceptance. The costs of material and/or labor incurred in connection with such
corrective activities shall not be reimbursed or otherwise paid to Contractor.
(c) Contractor shall obtain, at City's expense, third party warranty contracts (to be
entered into by City).
19. Licensure of Contractor. Contractor hereby represents and warrants to
City that Contractor is duly licensed as a general contractor in the State of Colorado, and
if applicable, in the County of Pitkin.
20. Independent Contractor. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by
the parties that nothing in this Contract shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. The Contractor shall be, and shall perform as, an independent the
Contractor who agrees to use his best efforts to provide the Work on behalf of the City. No
agent, employee, or servant of the Contractor shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the
employee, agent or servant of the City. The City is interested only in the results obtained
under the Contract Documents. The manner and means of conducting the Work are under the
sole control of the Contractor. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees
including, but not limited to, worker's compensation insurance and unemployment insurance,
are available from the City to the employees, agents or servants of the Contractor. The
Contractor shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of the
Contractor's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of the
Contract.
THE CONTRACTOR, AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, SHALL NOT BE
ENTITLED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND SHALL BE
OBLIGATED TO PAY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX ON ANY MONEYS
EARNED PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT.
21. Assignment. This Contract is for the personal services of Contractor.
Contractor shall not transfer or assign this Contract or its rights and responsibilities under
this Contract nor subcontract to others its rights and responsibilities under this Contract,
and any attempt to do so shall be void and constitute a material breach of this Contract.
22. Successors and Assigns. Subject to paragraph 22, above, this Contract
shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, City and Contractor and their
respective successors and assigns.
23. Entire Contract. This Contract contains the entire Contract between City
and Contractor respecting the matters set forth herein and supersedes all prior Contracts
between City and Contractor respecting such matters.
P12
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 9
24. Waivers. No waiver by City or Contractor of any default by the other or
of any event, circumstance or condition permitting either to terminate this Contract shall
constitute a waiver of any other default or other such event, circumstance or condition,
whether of the same or of any other nature or type and whether preceding, concurrent or
succeeding; and no failure or delay by either City or Contractor to exercise any right
arising by reason of any default by the other shall prevent the exercise of such right while
the defaulting party continues in default, and no waiver of any default shall operate as a
waiver of any other default or as a modification of this Contract.
25. Remedies Non-Exclusive. No remedy conferred on either party to this
Contract shall be exclusive of any other remedy herein or by law provided or permitted,
but each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy.
26. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any action at law or equity
shall be Pitkin County.
27. Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Contract shall institute any action
or proceeding to enforce any right, remedy or provision contained in this Contract, the
prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to receive its attorneys' fees in connection
with such action from the non-prevailing party.
28. Severability. Any provision in this Contract which is held to be
inoperative, unenforceable or invalid shall be inoperative, unenforceable or invalid
without affecting the remaining provisions, and to this end the provisions of this Contract
are declared to be severable.
29. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Contract, the
Contractor agrees as follows: The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital
status, sexual orientation, being handicapped, a disadvantaged person, or a disabled or Viet
Nam era veteran. The Contractor will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, handicapped, a
disadvantaged person, or a disabled or Viet Nam era veteran. Such action shall include, but
not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment
or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of
compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to
post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to
be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
30. Prohibited Interest. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Aspen, Pitkin County or the Town of Snowmass Village shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in this Contract or the proceeds thereof.
P13
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 10
31. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflict
of Interest:
a. The Contractor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed
or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon a Contract or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingency fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Contractor for the
purpose of securing business.
b. The Contractor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the
City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval,
disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a
purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard,
rendering of advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any
proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other
particular matter, pertaining to this Contract or to any solicitation or proposal therefor.
c. It shall be a material breach of the Contract for any payment, gratuity, or
offer of employment to be made by or on behalf of a Subcontractor under a contract to the
prime Contractor or higher tier Subcontractor or any person associated therewith, as an
inducement for the award of a Subcontract or order. The Contractor is prohibited from
inducing, by any means, any person employed under this Contract to give up any part of the
compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled. The Contractor shall comply with all
applicable local, state and federal "anti-kickback" statutes or regulations.
32. Payments Subject to Annual Appropriations. If the contract awarded
extends beyond the calendar year, nothing herein shall be construed as an obligation by the
City beyond any amounts that may be, from time to time, appropriated by the City on an
annual basis. It is understood that payment under any contract is conditional upon annual
appropriation of funds by said governing body and that before providing services, the
Contractor, if it so requests, will be advised as to the status of funds appropriated for services
or materials and shall not be obligated to provide services or materials for which funds have
not been appropriate.
33. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
a. Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature
passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023
that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal
aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions,
including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform
work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who
knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new
P14
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 11
laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language
as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been
designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
b. Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this
reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into
with the City of Aspen.
b. Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this
reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into
with the City of Aspen.
“Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification
program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded
in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the
United States Department of Homeland Security.
“Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement.
“Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or
a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than
reports that are merely incidental to the required performance.
c. By signing this document, Contractor certifies and represents that at this
time:
(i) Contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal
alien; and
(ii) Contractor has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic
Pilot Program in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens.
d. Contractor hereby certifies that:
(i) Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees
without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired
for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for
Services.
(ii) Contractor shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that
fails to confirm to the Contractor that the subcontractor shall not
knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment
eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract
for Services.
P15
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 12
(iii) Contractor has verified or has attempted to verify through
participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Contractor does not
employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the
United States; and if Contractor has not been accepted into the Federal
Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services,
Contractor shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot
Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days
of the date of the Public Contract. Contractor shall continue to apply to
participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify
same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Contractor is
accepted or the public contract for services has been completed,
whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required
or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
(iv) Contractor shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to
undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public
Contract for Services is being performed.
(v) If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor
performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly
employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien,
Contractor shall:
(1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen
within three days that Contractor has actual knowledge that the
subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal
alien; and
(2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if
within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this
section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting
with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that
Contractor shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services
with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor
provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not
knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.
(vi) Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an
investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in
Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
(vii) If Contractor violates any provision of the Public Contract for
Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102,
C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services.
P16
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 13
If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be
liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising
out of Contractor’s violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
(ix) If Contractor operates as a sole proprietor, Contractor hereby
swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Contractor (1) is a
citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United
States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of
CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of
identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of
this Agreement.
34. Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records This Agreement and
any amendments hereto may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on
the Parties, notwithstanding the possible event that all Parties may not have signed the
same counterpart. Furthermore, each Party consents to the use of electronic signatures by
either Party. The Scope of Work, and any other documents requiring a signature
hereunder, may be signed electronically in the manner agreed to by the Parties. The
Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the Agreement solely
because it is in electronic form or because an electronic record was used in its formation.
The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the Agreement in the form of an
electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic documents, or a paper copy of a
document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic record or
electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original.
P17
VII.a
P18
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 15
EXHIBIT A
Veris shall furnish the Owner two 30’ x 50’ geo-textile dewatering tubes (approximately
200-yard dewatered capacity) and sufficient liner to cover the pad where the Geo-textile
tubes are to installed (Dewatering pad shall be installed by the owner to Veris’
specifications) and one tote of polymer (265 +/- gallons). Once the materials are
delivered to the site and installed, it shall be the city’s responsibility to protect the bags
and liner from mechanical damage relating to operations of the plant and to protect the
polymer from freezing during periods of cold weather. After the first dewatering is
complete and Veris has demobilized for the winter, the polymer should be moved inside
to protect the city’s investment from freeze damage
Veris shall mobilize one dredge, a polymer injection system and provide all hose and
connections, set up the project, and dredge the bags full one time. Veris estimates three
days setup and one filling bags to accomplish the initial phase of the project. Prior to
demobilization after the initial setup and filling the bags once, the Owner shall give
notice of its intent to fill the bags another time prior to winter otherwise Veris shall
remove its dredge for winter. If Veris removes its dredge and the Owner decides at a later
date to fill the bags another time additional costs for a crane pick shall apply.
Owner shall construct a dewatering pad to Veris’s specifications and sufficient power to
operate the project. If after mobilization the Owner has not fulfilled these obligations
and Veris incurs costs due to delays in the project, additional charges of 3,000.00/day
shall apply while the City completes these obligations.
The dewatering pad shall be built large enough to accommodate two Geo-textile tubes
measuring 30’ x 50’ with an additional five feet buffer around the perimeter to walk and
lay pipe, or 40’x60’ total area per Geo-textile tube. The pad shall have 0% slope in all
three dimensions with zero sharps and compacted to a degree that will insure 0% setting
once dewatering operations commence. To insure zero sharps, the pad shall be capped
with 4” to 6” of sand once constructed. The “berms” shall be constructed of concrete road
barriers or other similar and suitable material, furnished by the owner, to limit the impact
on the total area of the dewatering pad.
Costs include downtime for the equipment to remain onsite until winter weather
conditions halt production or the Owner discontinues service.
Veris anticipates 3 to 4 weeks lead time for the manufacture of the Geo-textile tubes once
contract has been approved.
Invoices must be submitted to AP@cityofaspen.com and include the City of Aspen PO
number on the invoice. Failure to do so will result in significant delays in processing and
paying the invoice.
P19
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 16
Initial mobilization, setup and first bag fill: $73,500.00
Subsequent mobilizations and bag fills: $11,000.00
P20
VII.a
________________________________________________________________________
CC5-971.doc Page: 17
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
(To be completed if Contractor is a Corporation)
STATE OF ____________________)
) SS.
COUNTY OF __________________)
On this _______ day of ________________________________, 20____, before
me appeared
___________________________________________________, to me
personally known, who, being by me first duly sworn, did say that s/he is
___________________________________ of
_______________________________________________________ and that
the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and
that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by
authority of its board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL the day and year in this certificate
first above written.
______________________________________
Notary Public
______________________________________
Address
My commission expires: _______________________
P21
VII.a
Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 5, 2017
1
RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2017 – Ballot Language for proposed tobacco sales tax ...................... 2
P22
VII.b
Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 5, 2017
2
At 4:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Myrin,
Hauenstein and Frisch present.
RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2017 – Ballot Language for proposed tobacco sales tax
Sara Ott, assistant city manager, told the Council this resolution will place a local tobacco tax on the
ballot. Council reviewed this at work sessions August 8th and 21st. It is a three dollar per pack tax. It will
increase 10 cents per year up to a four dollar maximum. There will be a 40 percent tax on all other
tobacco products. The effective date will be January 1, 2018. The estimated year one revenue would be
325,000 dollars. Additionally, the whereas clauses state the revenue would be in the general fund. There
is a preference toward financing health and human services, education and mitigation of services.
Councilman Frisch said this is 100 percent to do with a healthier community not a money grab. Dr. Kim
Levin is spearheading a state initiative to raise the age from 18 to 21. We did this a few months ago. I
raised at that meeting that the price has a huge effect on the demand. The manufacturers have a contract
with vendors that they can only ssll at a certain price. The industry knows the more expensive the fewer
units they will sell. We have a resolution that will go to the voters and ask them to support a certain
amount of tax and my suggestion was to focus on education, prevention and drug abuse. We have all had
discussion on the gaps we have in the community. There is a slight change in the where does the money
go. I want to lock in where the money goes. If a future council wants to go to the voters to stop it, they
can. This is a nice way to commit to the public.
Ms. Ott said the resolution specifically directs the funds to amend the language to include it.
Mayor Skadron said the amendment does not require the creation of a new fund. Ms. Ott replied it does
not establish a new fund.
Councilman Myrin said to fast forward 30 years the fixed dollar amount will be an incentive for tobacco
users to all switch to cigarettes. We have built in an incentive to switch to a fixed dollar amount with a
percent amount. He will support this regardless but would like to change that. Ms. Ott stated that most
cigarettes are taxed on a per pack basis rather than percentage. It is a more effective approach as a
deterrent.
Councilman Frisch said we received some input from the tobacco use lobby and they are the ones who
made the recommendation. When it comes to cigarettes it is a per pack dollar amount everything else is a
percentage. We are asking to have approval to get to four dollars over 10 years. The cruise control is it
will go up 10 cents every year. I support the intention of what Bert is trying to do. This is a good
solution. Councilman Myrin said he wants to say if it is me I would do it because it is consistent. The
other suggestion I have is to add the amount collected to the food tax refund and administrate it to the
community.
Councilman Hauenstein said he agrees with Bert. It should be a percentage for all tobacco products. It
was becoming an administrative problem. Just for the ease of administering it the price per pack is easier
to administer. 10 years from now four dollars per pack isn’t going to be the same and we can revisit that.
I agree with the amendment on having the proceeds go towards tobacco related health issues and
addiction mitigation.
Councilwoman Mullins gave a thank you to Dr. Levin for bringing this up. I’m sure it will be supported.
The goal is to reduce the number of young smokers. We have done a really good thing. It is quite a lot of
revenue. I think it is written loosely enough to be able to direct it to new programs that arise in the best
way to prevent smoking in young people.
P23
VII.b
Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 5, 2017
3
Mayor Skadron said he concurs in the comments that have been made and support this as well.
CJ Oliver, environmental health, said this is a great move towards public health. Going to 21 to purchase
and this are both excellent moves.
Councilman Hauenstein a number of people have told me that this is a three dollar per pack tax and no
one is opposed to this.
Councilman Frisch said he is happy.
Jim True, city attorney, said to be most careful we should have someone move and second the resolution
in the packet then move to amend to add the provision for the revenue to be used for the specific purposes
of financing health and human services, tobacco related health issues and addiction and substance abuse
education and mitigation.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #122, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman
Frisch.
Councilman Frisch moved to amend Resolution #122, Series of 2017 with the above stated amendments;
seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Myrin said one thing that did not get on the ballot is city office financing. Councilman
Hauenstein agreed that he would have like to see GO bonds on the ballot.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 4:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P24
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .................................................................................................................. 2
AGENDA DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 3
BOARD REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................... 3
CONSENT CALENDAR .................................................................................................................................... 3
· Resolution #114, Series of 2017 – Renewable Energy Mitigation Program 2017/2018 Projects &
Programs Fund Authorization ....................................................................................................................... 5
· Resolution #117, Series of 2017 – Contract with Design Workshop for Aspen Mobility Lab ............... 5
· Resolution #115 &116, Series of 2017 – 540 Employee Housing Construction GMP and contingency
process for 540 E Main St ............................................................................................................................. 5
· Resolution #118, Series of 2017 – Old Powerhouse Construction change order ................................. 5
· Resolution #119, Series of 2017 – General Obligation Bond Ballot Question for financing of Woody
Creek Property .............................................................................................................................................. 5
· Minutes – August 14, 2017 ................................................................................................................... 5
NOTICE OF CALL UP ....................................................................................................................................... 5
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Residential design Standard Review, Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Setback Variances
for 210 W. Main Street, HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2017 ....................................................................... 6
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed Compliant Sign Code Updates .................................................... 7
EXECUTIVE SESSION ...................................................................................................................................... 8
P25
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Mullins,
Hauenstein, and Frisch present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Emzy Veazy III said Aspen should have a menorah for the holidays. He also said Aspen should
cut ties with Bariloche.
2. John Rigney. Aspen Ski Co. thanked the City for the support during the world cup last March.
He gave the Councilmembers signed bibs by the women’s overall champion. He also gave a
commemorative bib for the city to hang in their new building. Mayor Skadron said the event was
fantastic. The Ski Company did the heavy lifting. It is a generational event. It made Aspen look
great and we could not have been prouder to have been working beside Ski Co.
3. Peter Greeney spoke about the civic center and connectivity. Galena plaza acts as a town square.
There is one bike path connection through the super block, jail trail. His hope is to study a
connection for better pedestrian and bike movement through the site. It will also help revitalize
Obermeyer. The upper entrance to the garage is dead space and could be transform to a
pedestrian way. Vitality could be in the form of a possible café to help activate the plaza. On
architecture, does the design represent the spirit of the community.
4. Toni Kronberg said for the special meeting on September 5th to set ballot language for the tobacco
tax, she again asked council to put the civic building on the ballot as well.
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS
Councilwoman Mullins said the eclipse celebration on the plaza was spectacular. It was the nicest event
she has been to in a long time. The community picnic is September 10th and she is hoping for the same
kind of dynamic. To Peter, I owe you an email. The first idea for identifying different opportunities will
be addressed with Design Workshop. You are right on with the architecture comments. Keep
questioning. We had a great meeting with the BOCC and quite a few goals overlapped.
Councilman Myrin gave a thanks to Ward for covering the climate action meeting. On Columbus day,
Steve asked me to email staff and this year also ended in a dead end. If there is not support from Council,
this will also end in a dead end. Other communities have added a second day and some have rebranded
the existing day. Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks Denver was the first to do it. Mayor Skadron
said Council is supportive in having staff look in to this. Councilman Myrin said on the mobility lab he is
interested in the number of vehicles that start on this side of the Castle Creek bridge and end up on the
same side of it. This will be a bigger issue with the Glenwood Spring bridge. Peter’s suggestion on
Bleeker St to the garage is excellent.
Councilman Hauenstein mentioned the tragic events of Capital Peak and said to be mindful before you
go. Our hearts go out to the three that have died in the last eight days. It is not a hike. I’ve been on the
knife edge. Be careful out there.
Mayor Skadron said Capital Peak is tough. All 14ers are challenging. Saturday the 9th is the mac and
cheese event. August 30th is the Motherlode. The 31st is the pub crawl. Go to aspenhistory.org for more
information.
He also asked about the mobility lab and the benchmarks we are trying to hit and asked when will we
have a more formal presentation. Ashley Perl, environmental health, said we can do a work session.
P26
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
3
AGENDA DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS
Election of Mayor Pro Tem and committee appointments. Mayor Skadron nominated Councilwoman
Mullins for Mayor Pro Tem; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. A
work session will be scheduled to appoint Councilmembers to the other committees.
Jim True, city attorney, added to the executive session an additional water diligence case, Heinz case
16C3110.
BOARD REPORTS
Councilwoman Mullins attended the Board of Health meeting. This use to be community health services.
10 years ago the State added more requirements, emergency preparedness and disease control. It has been
split in to community health and public health. There has been a new director since January. They
discussed the preliminary budget last meeting. For more information contact Councilwoman Mullins.
The Mayor attended the CAST meeting in Silverthorne. They are working on getting housing projects
done, with and without private partners. Silverthorne is excited about a new downtown district. They
also heard from the forest manager from the white river district.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso #114 – REMP
Mona Newton, CORE, spoke about the funding request. They come here after going to the BOCC for
approval. This started in 1999. Buildings over a certain size and include snow melt, hot tubs or pools as
part of a structure require mitigation on site or by paying in to the program. CORE creates programs to
offset consumption by at least two times. They use the funds for rebates and grants throughout the valley.
They are requesting 2.3 million for the grant and rebate programs. Marty Treadway, grant manager, is
also here. He said this year the UDAL grants totaled 1.5 million in requests. Eight were recommended to
receive funding for 550,000 dollars. The Waldorf School is asking for funding for a boiler replacement
for 20,000 dollars. The City of Aspen police department is 135,000 dollars to improve the envelope and
solar. CRIMPI is 50,000 to improve a cabin to be off the grid and for irrigation. The landfill is asking for
75,000 for a PV system to offset electric use. The Roaring Fork Conversancy is requesting 50,000 dollars
for envelope upgrade and a boiler. The Roaring Fork School District Riverview School is requesting
100,000 for solar for a 100 percent offset. St. Benedict Monastery is asking for 75,000 dollars for solar.
TOSV is asking for 50,000 dollars for the discovery center. We have been working for the last few years
to get large scale solar production in the valley.
Ms. Newton reviewed the community grants. She said they allow up to 10,000 dollars and fund projects
in the works. The energy design assistance grants and REACH program has expanded to the Garfield
County line. The Net Zero program gives incentives to home owners trying to reach net zero. The
Energy Smart program included rebates. There is a new request for 100,000 for a new initiative. They
are also requesting 190,000 for administrative items.
Councilwoman Mullins said the BOCC is matching the funds, is this the first time. Ms. Newton replied
they are not matching. Councilwoman Mullins said there is a really high fund balance. Ms. Newton said
it is in order to protect some of the principal or to continue the program for two years. Councilwoman
Mullins asked for bullet points for how the programs are funded. Mr. Treadway replied energy savings,
community benefit, project stability, innovative technologies and urgent opportunity.
Councilman Myrin said Snowmass is benefiting from a 50,000 dollar grant, do they have a version of
CORE that doesn’t let people outside of Snowmass benefit. Ms. Newton replied yes. They used a good
portion of that to fund upgrades to snowmelt road. Councilman Myrin said he is concerned that we are
giving money to Snowmass and their money is not opened to the rest of us. The new initiative is very
valuable. Possible change of working towards leed certification to zero carbon. The two are very
different and conflicting.
P27
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
4
Councilman Hauenstein said one of our goals was regionalism and this is an example of that. I applaud
CORE on this.
Councilman Frisch said Mona and Marty do fabulous work. Overall from a micro standpoint I support
this. I think we should have a work session to discuss how the funds are distributed. One of the
frustrations for the county as well is seeing the funds go other places when they could be used here. It is
great work and we are lucky to have this program.
Mayor Skadron said REMP gives property owners this choice. Have those that requested in the past got
the money they requested. What percent of applicants are following through. Ms. Newton replied 9 out
of 10. They have a two year contract now with a one year extension. Most are on track.
Reso #115 & 116 – Employee housing at 540 E Main St
Councilman Hauenstein stated this is 5.4 million dollars for eight units for employee housing for City
employees. Jack Wheeler, asset, replied correct. Councilman Hauenstein said this is a philosophical
issue that City money is going for workforce housing for a small segment of the population. He is
concerned that a large amount of money is going to a special group and that special group happens to be
city employees. How many people are we paying to oversee the project. Mr. Wheeler said there are three
firms other than Shaw including Cunniffe and Ambien energy who is working on the roof, envelope and
ensuring the systems are performing to spec. NV5 does construction oversite as well as project
management. Councilman Hauenstein said there are four entities to oversee construction. Mr. Wheeler
replied that is typical. Everyone is doing what they do. It is not out of the ordinary. Councilman
Hauenstein asked if it will be a mix of bedrooms. Saul Abrahams, project manager, stated it will be two
and three bedrooms. Councilman Hauenstein asked if the employees will have to qualify under APCHA
guidelines. Barry Crook, managers office, replied they will be required to qualify under APCHA
guidelines. Mr. Wheeler said the building is 9,700 square feet. The cost is 5.58 dollars per square foot.
The hard costs are under 300 dollars per square foot.
Councilman Myrin asked if the possibility of some of the units as for sale has been raised. Mr. Crook
said it is a possibility. Councilman Myrin said the concern about selling is future council wanting to redo
that space council has to buy that space back. If there was a choice I would lean to not having them for
sale units. Councilman Hauenstein said if a person is no longer an employee do they have to sell them
back. Mr. Crook said they have six months to sell it back. The appreciation is the same as the APCHA
guidelines but the city takes 40 percent of that because we maintain the major systems.
Councilman Frisch said the decision on the makeup of rent versus sales was that tied anyway to the
consent agenda. Mr. Wheeler replied no. Right now, the lot is subdivided from the garage and the APD.
It is a determination made by the managers office and HR as well as retention.
Reso #118 – powerhouse
Councilwoman Mullins asked if HPC has seen this. Mr. Wheeler replied staff has worked closely with
Amy. It will not go before the commission because there is no exterior work. Councilwoman Mullins
asked how long is ACRA down there. Mr. Wheeler stated three to five years. Councilwoman Mullins
said looking at the money being spent what is ACRA paying for. Mr. Wheeler said they are paying for
everything that is not part of the building.
Reso #119 – GO Bonds
Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the alternative if this doesn’t pass. Don Taylor, finance, replied he
is not sure when the closing is set for but we will come back and do a lease purchase or a work out with
cash. We will likely be out of compliance with our financial policy for a period of time. Councilwoman
Mullins asked if he would look at COPs. Mr. Taylor said that is for the Council to decide. We would
give you that option with a cash scenario.
P28
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
5
Councilman Myrin made a comment on Resolution #117. He would like to focus on Castle Creek more
than Red mountain and east of town.
· Resolution #114, Series of 2017 – Renewable Energy Mitigation Program 2017/2018 Projects &
Programs Fund Authorization
· Resolution #117, Series of 2017 – Contract with Design Workshop for Aspen Mobility Lab
· Resolution #115 &116, Series of 2017 – 540 Employee Housing Construction GMP and
contingency process for 540 E Main St
· Resolution #118, Series of 2017 – Old Powerhouse Construction change order
· Resolution #119, Series of 2017 – General Obligation Bond Ballot Question for financing of
Woody Creek Property
· Minutes – August 14, 2017
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in
favor, motion carried.
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation, Floor Area Bonus, Setback and Residential Design Standards Variation for 209 E. Bleeker,
HPC Resolution #17, Series of 2017
Amy Simon – HPC granted conceptual approval. Some of you may have seen a version of this project
before. The Hayes property was purchased in 2015 after the family had owned it for 60 years. The new
owner came through HPC with a proposed redevelopment. It was approved and went to building permit
then the property changed hands again. The new purchaser came back to HPC with a fairly similar plan
except they were proposing a duplex instead of single family, restoring the original Hayes cabin and
building a new unit, completely detached behind it. HPC and staff are supportive of the design. This
house has been dramatically remodeled. As the Hayes family grew they added a second story and a front
porch. We do have good information as how to restore it. It will involve a certain amount of
reconstruction. For that reason there was some discussion at HPC about what kind of bonuses and
incentives should be offered. Staff and HPC like the massing and support the general concept. We went
back and forth about should there be a reduction in setback variance or floor area bonus. There was a
compromise reached. HPC granted a unanimous approval. A 400 square foot floor area bonus was
granted as well as a side and rear yard setback variation. After this we go to final review at HPC where
we will talk about materials, landscape, lighting and things like that.
Councilwoman Mullins said with the duplex, how much FAR is allowed and how much are they
proposing. Ms. Simon said they are proposing 3,600 square feet plus a 400 square foot bonus from HPC.
A single family home is 360 square feet less than a duplex. HPC spoke about that at length and came up
with a compromise. Councilwoman Mullins said the bonus is being reduced by 100 square feet is that
equivalent to the setback. Ms. Simon said they saw revisions to the massing that HPC thought addressed
the concerns of overburdening the site and accepted the plan with the reduced square footage.
Councilwoman Mullins said she likes the idea of having the historic resource stand alone. It will help
maintain its character. It is a good restoration.
Councilman Hauenstein asked are they asking to demolish and add on to the original Victorian and add
on to that. Ms. Simon replied what is removed is impressive and they will have to do some building to
put it back. Councilman Hauenstein said getting a bonus on a really crowded lot seems to be adding more
density. HPC has decided this is the right bonus. Ms. Simon said it was discussed at length at two
hearings. Councilwoman Mullins said you originally suggested 250. Ms. Simon said they threw out a
few different options including awarding a bonus but asking for a TDR to be sold.
P29
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
6
Councilman Frisch asked if the house can be torn down. Ms. Simon said it is not being torn down. The
non historic parts will be demolished. He asked if someone could buy the land and scrape the entire
building. She said it would have to go through a delisting process. He said staff came up with a different
bonus deal than what HPC did. It also went unanimous. Staff also had concerns with providing too much
bonus. Ms. Simon replied that staff and HPC were not on the same page. Councilman Frisch said one of
our top 10 goals is a check in with our boards. There seems to be a growing underappreciation if an
application doesn’t get every square foot. It is hard for me to want to question or challenge HPC
especially when it is unanimous. I think there is a different alignment between Council, HPC and staff. It
is starting to show in some of the approvals that are happening.
Mayor Skadron said I’m trying to understand where reasonable incentives become excessive and it start
with floor area bonus. It is a bit where Adam is going. Should the 400 not be supported what happens to
the property. If the applicant fails to get a 400 bonus and only 200 what happens. Ms. Simon said they
could redesign. They still have the right to do the duplex. We would not have had this discussion and we
support these bonuses when they do good work. Jessica Garrow, community development, said it might
be worth wile at a future work session to discuss these bonuses as a policy discussion. As staff, we own
our recommendation and did have some concerns on the total square footage going on this property.
Councilwoman Mullins said we don’t that often see a duplex on a historic lot. When you do it seems very
crowded. To add 400 square feet seems excessive. You hate to use a particular applicant as an example.
If they are doing a great job of restoration that is why we have it. It will be stand alone and maintain
historic character. It may be a discussion for council if for a duplex the bonus is available. It is hard to
argue that HPC made the wrong decision. I think we need to look at duplex development as soon as
possible.
Councilman Frisch said while I don’t want to get into policy now. Staff made a recommendation that
HPC overrode unanimously. It is a higher level of concern that we don’t have administrative backing.
I’m not sure we are fully honoring why some of these buildings were designated in the first place. The
question is from a call up process is we can have HPC question the square foot given.
Councilman Myrin said he thinks Jessica had an excellent idea. He asked for a listing of callups for the
past year and the issues with those.
Mayor Skadron said Council supports the call up.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to call up HPC Resolution #17, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Residential design Standard Review, Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Setback Variances
for 210 W. Main Street, HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2017
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council, this project involves demolition of the current
building and will build back eight affordable housing units for credit generation. It went through three
HPC meetings. The project will consist of three smaller buildings. Several variations were granted for
floor area increase, height increase, set back reductions and a parking reduction. The code allowed for
these with the special review. Staff pushed for a slopped roof for one form but HPC determined that the
context of no other historic structures and the transition point it was appropriate for the flat green roofs. It
was a unanimous vote from HPC. The next steps are growth management review and final HPC review.
Councilman Frisch asked if this was reviewed by HPC because of the district. Mr. Barker replied correct.
Councilman Hauenstein asked what is the setback. Mr. Barker stated normally 10 feet.
Councilwoman Mullins said there are requirement to replace the affordable housing if a unit has ever
been lived in by a local worker. Mr. Barker replied potentially yes. Currently there is one affordable
housing unit on site. What they are proposing would far surpass that. Councilwoman Mullins asked what
P30
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
7
is the special review process. Mr. Barker said it is an additional review for requests associated with
particular variations built into the Mixed Use zone. They are based on the context of the surrounding
zone. He gave the example of additional parking provided within the site or surrounding vicinity.
Councilman Hauenstein said for the parking reduction he generally does not like cash in lieu. He would
rather see alternate mobility. Mr. Barker said they are not paying cash, HPC just reduced the parking by
one.
Councilman Frisch said he knows the existing building and it is in need of any in Aspen. This has
basically been affordable housing just run by the free market. There is no doubt that if anyone wanted to
build a free market condo they would have a hefty bill. There is some value in wheeling and dealing a
bit. He is not sure he wants to get involved in calling this up based on the special review process.
Councilman Myrin said he does not have much to say on the box.
Mayor Skadron said he supports the HPC recommendation and is not desirous of a call up.
Councilwoman Mullins said yes we want affordable housing but it seems like through the special review
we would get a 1,500 square foot floor area increase and one foot higher and the elimination of one
parking space. It is a really big package of incentives. It is also in the Main Street historic district. She
would like to see it looked at again. Mayor Skadron said the mass and scale are in line with the
neighboring properties.
Councilman Frisch asked if the FAR has to do with the livability or did they capture more units. Mr.
Barker said there would be less units on site. Councilman Frisch said APCHA has minimum units.
Without the increase they wouldn’t meet them. Mr. Barker said there would be fewer units. The
replacement requirements make them provide 8 units in one form or another.
Ms. Garrow said this is under the old code. This is likely the last project you will see under these
parameters.
Councilman Frisch said he is fine with it as proposed.
Mayor Skadron said this will not be called up.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed Compliant Sign Code Updates
Phillip Supino, community development, stated this code amendment is a result of the Supreme Court
decision Reed versus the Town of Gilbert in 2015 requiring sign codes to be content neutral. If you have
to read the sign to determine if it complies with the code it is not content neutral. What can be regulated
includes size, material, portability, commercial vs residential, number, time restriction and things like
that. The policy goals include does it comply with the requirements of first amendment. Ensure
appropriate balance of community ascetics. Maintain public health and safety. Limit the proliferation of
excessive signs. Meet informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs.
Direction received from Council to date.
Unify construction site content. Develop concept and process for construction site screening art. Both of
these live in the Construction Management Plan and will be a subsequent discussion.
Provide options for sandwich board signs. Maintain the status quo or eliminate them. Mr. Supino
provided four options:
Eliminate sandwich boards which would result in zero.
One per 30 linear feet of building frontage: There could be a possibility of 533 or 107 at the 20 percent
participation rate.
One per building: There could be a possibility of 241 or 48 at the 20 percent participation rate.
One per second tier space tenant: There could be 1,197 or 240 at 20 percent participation rate.
P31
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
8
Ms. Garrow said in analyzing this we took public feedback from businesses that they want to be treated
fairly. Based off of that we recommend the eliminate option. It makes most sense because we can always
ramp it back up. At this point, given what we have been trying to balance, we are at option one.
Councilman Frisch said his direction is we drop the direction of sandwich boards for further study. His
preference is to put it aside for the foreseeable future while we get more community input.
Councilman Myrin asked on the Main Street banners, what happens to them at the end of the year. Ms.
Garrow said they become property just for that time. We are maintaining the status quo.
Councilman Hauenstein said for number six I think we can be flexible on the brightness on the new signs.
He is good on most of these. For construction wraps use Maroon Bells or aspen trees. For all the other
for construction make them minimal. The argument that everyone should be treated the same is a valid
argument but people in the basement don’t have a window so they aren’t being treated equal. I want
people in second tier businesses to be able to survive. I don’t want to open that can of worms at this
point. I think sandwich boards have a valuable place in the community in getting people to businesses.
We could always go back to option one.
Councilwoman Mullins asked to have a sandwich board do people pay a fee. Ms. Garrow said they pay a
sign permit. Councilwoman Mullins said she is ok with everything. The brown bag thing, I’ll go along
with Council if they want the graphics. In terms of sandwich boards, I’ve never been crazy about them
because they clutter the pedestrian way. There are several reasons why to eliminate them completely.
Now they are used as a wayfinding tool. If they are rented out they are no longer a wayfinding tool.
There is a big risk in trying to monitor the content. There are real inequality. How do you divide up the
signs for a building with multiple tenants. They have lost their original function. She supports
eliminating them. We can always review it again depending on the backlash.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Mayor Skadron said there is some support for the second tier space and some to eliminate. The prudent
thing is to follow option one and eliminate them. The issue as Ann said is it is hard to manage. He is
concerned about proliferation of signage. We could have hundreds or thousands of signs. It is easier to
allow more should we find a way to let that happen appropriately. He supports option one. There is also
a suggestion to drop them from the entire discussion and pass the ordinance without them.
Mr. True said the sandwich boards that are out there now have approval. If you eliminate them they are
grandfathered and we would say they are good for one year from approval.
Councilman Myrin said page 419 says September 28, 2018. He will support where Ann and Steve are.
Mayor Skadron said that with great sensitivity with the issues it may cause to our small businesses.
Ms. Garrow said the pieces related to construction signs will be flushed out related to construction
management plan.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2017; Seconded by Councilman Myrin.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, no; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) Conference with attorneys regarding pending
litigation, Castle and Maroon Creek Diligence cases, C.R.s. 24-6-402 (e)(i) Determining positions relative
to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations, and C.R.S. 24-6-
P32
VII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
9
402(a) the potential purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property
interest.
Mr. True recommend Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 a,b,e, conference
with attorney to discuss the Castle and Maroon Creek and Heinze diligence case.
At 8:15 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
At 9:50 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P33
VII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: 500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge) – Planned Development Amendment – Minor
Amendment to a Project Review
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21 (Series 2017) – Public Hearing
**A Site Visit is scheduled at the lodge, September 11th at 4:00 p.m.**
MEETING
DATE: September 11, 2017
APPLICANT /OWNER:
ME Aspen Ventures One LLC
Aspen FSP-ABR LLC (owner)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
LOCATION:
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Medium-Density Residential with
a Lodge Preservation and Planned
Development overlay (R-
6/LP/PD). The redevelopment of
the Boomerang Lodge was
approved in 2006 for 47 lodge
keys, 29 lodge units, 5 free market
residential units, 2 affordable
housing units, and underground
parking.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Applicant has a building permit
application submitted and under
review by the building department
for the previously described
development. The property is
under contract for purchase and
the potential buyer is proposing
changes to the approved project,
inclusive of redesign of the lodge
units and key configuration,
reconfiguring the free-market units and changing
portions of the roof form, massing, exterior
materials, and fenestration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff continues to recommend certain changes be
incorporated into the project. If, after review and
discussion, Council agrees with staff on the
changes, the application should be continued.
Existing East Wing of Boomerang Lodge (historic)
Vacant portion of the lot
P34
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 2 of 13
SPECIAL NOTE:
Staff has included the questions raised by Council at the August 14th first reading. The body of the
August 14th memo is included at the end of the update for reference with an updated recommendation.
1) Land Use Reviews. Clarify the scope of approvals being requested under each land use review.
The project is subject to two land use reviews that are under City Council’s purview: Minor
Amendment to the Project Review approval (an amendment to the Planned Development) and an
Insubstantial Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order. Project Review considers the
mass, scale, and dimensions of the project, essentially the shape and location of the building on the
site. The Growth Management review looks at any changes to the development allotments associated
with the original 2006. In this case, the allotments are staying the same and are reviewed as an
Insubstantial Amendment.
2) History of Approvals. Clarify the history of approvals associated with the Boomerang Lodge and
the ten year land use code limitation for a development order.
Vesting provides an Applicant a timeframe in which the Applicant can rely on the approvals granted in
a site specific development plan by the issuance of a Development Order without being subject to
changes in the Land Use Code. It allows the Applicant to undertake and complete the development and
use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan. Once vested,
a development plan is not required to be amended as a result of “any zoning or land use action by the
city or by an initiated measure” during the vesting period. If the vested rights expire, the development
order is still valid; however, the project will be subject to any new regulations that may impact the
approval granted.
The city has had a provision for the vesting of a site specific development plan since at least 1988,
when the entire land use code was re-codified. At that time the City had a process in place for granting
a vested property right when a site specific approval was granted for a three year vesting period. In
2000, a code amendment outlined how an applicant could request an extension of the vesting (via City
Council review). In 2010 a code amendment (Ordinance No. 4) added that a development order, which
summarizes the site specific approval granted, shall not be valid more than ten years. Specific to the
Boomerang project, the vesting history is as follows:
2006. The 2006 site specific development plan that granted redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge
was summarized in a Development Order that was issued on October 20, 2006 and granted a three-year
vested rights period until 2009.
2007. Applicant applies for and receives a demolition permit and demolishes all of the existing lodge
except for the historically designated, eastern wing of the Boomerang Lodge.
2007. Applicant applies for a buiding permit to redevelop the site with the building approved via
Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006). The permit was never issued due to the Great Recession and
became null and void.
2009. An extension of vested rights was granted during the recession. Resolution No. 58 (Series of
2009) extended the vesting of the site specific development to October 20, 2012.
P35
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 3 of 13
2011. Ordinance No. 9 (Series of 2011) approves an amendment to the Boomerang Planned
Development, allowing for a modified building that will house 40 afffordable housing units.
2011. Complaint filed in district court contesting the city approval. A decision was issued in 2013
upholding the city’s decision. That decision was appealed and the appeal was dismissed in 2014.
2011/2012. During the court proceedings, a second extension of vested rights was granted for the
original 2006 approval as the affordable housing development project was effectively stayed by a
lawsuit filed by neighbors of the property. This resolution, Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012)
extended the vesting for the lodge to October 20, 2015, one year shy of the ten year limit of the validity
of a development order.
2015. A building permit for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge was submitted with the
building department in September of 2015 and deemed complete. Once a building permit is deemed
complete, development order (or site specific approval), remains valid “subject to the applicable
limitations of the International Building Code, The International Residential Code and adopted policies
of the Chief Building Official; regarding the timely pursuit and execution of a building permit.” The
development order expired in 2016; however, the building permit application is still active and valid.
What that means is that the original 2006 project can be be built if the building permit is issued by the
city. Any changes to the project would need to be reviewed under the current code, be supported by the
City Council, and submitted as a change order to the existing building permit application under review.
2016. As part of the zoning review of the permit, Staff determined that the building’s Floor Area
exceeds the numbers included in the 2006 ordinance and that the exterior decks and balconies are
greater than the exemption permitted, although the numbers matched the drawings represented to the
Council in 2006. Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 2016) approved reconcilliation of the numbers with the
drawings that were represented.
2017. An administrative determination is granted, verifying that the allotments associated with the
project are still valid.
3) Land Use Code Changes. What changes to city standards have occurred since 2006?
Parking: The 2006 approval provides for 31 underground parking spaces and on-street parking
through an encroachment license. The parking requirements in 2006 was 1 parking space per
residential unit (or 7 parking spaces) and .5 spaces per lodge key (or 24 spaces,) for a total of 31 off-
street parking spaces. Today’s minimum parking requirement is the same although additional options
are also provided in the updated parking standards to provide mobility improvements at the property
owner’s discretion, if approved by the City. The on-site minimum parking requirement is 31 spaces,
which may be further reduced to 29 spaces with approved mobility improvements. The maximum
parking allowance is 42 spaces. The underground parking is shown at 32 spaces, which meets today’s
parking requirement.
P36
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 4 of 13
Heights and Floor Area: The R-6 zone district does not permit a lodge or multi-family residential
development, but the uses are permitted by right in the overlay. The dimensional allowances for any
use permitted in the LP overlay “shall be the dimensional requirements established for those uses in the
underlying zone district. Where no specific dimensions have been established for the use, the permitted
dimensions shall be limited to that of a single-family residence or multi-family residences where such
uses are permitted in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of the neighborhood
compatibility and the dimensional requirements of the surrounding zone districts, the dimensional
requirements may be established pursuant to Chapter 26.445 – Planned Development (PD).” On a
27,000 sq. ft. lot, the size of the Boomerang parcel, a single family residence is permitted 4,620 sq. ft.
of Floor Area and 25 feet in height. In order to develop above those allowances, the redevelopment of
the lodge needed to be reviewed as a PD and found to be compatible with the neighborhood, which
occurred with the approval of the site specific development plan. Different areas of the building were
approved with varying heights by the City Council as shown in the recorded roof plan, below. A
greater Floor Area than the underlying allowance was also approved. The code has not changed since
the 2006 approval with regard to dimensions for the subject property.
Employee Housing: In 2006, when on-site housing mitigation was provided for a mixed-use
development, the code at the time allowed the greater affordable housing requirement for the uses
proposed on-site to be the required mitigation. In this case, the proposal included a mix of free-market
and lodging units that required mitigation. A credit for the existing lodge units was provided and when
the employee generation, based on the incremental increase in lodge units, was compared to the
employee generation required by the free-market residential development, the residential development
was the greater of the two uses. Two, one bedroom units were proposed to meet the mitigation
requirement, housing 3.5 employees.
Today’s code has changed regarding the calculation of mitigation for new lodge projects or expansions
of lodge projects. The code language has not changed relative to the process for mitigation on projects
with a valid growth management approval. This means that if this were an entirely new project,
mitigation for 8 FTEs generated by the free-market component and mitigation for 2.56 FTEs for the
lodge component would be required. Because the proposal is an amendment to an existing, valid
P37
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 5 of 13
growth management approval and there are no requirements for new lodging or free-market residential
development allotments, the project is not subject to new mitigation calculations. More detail on the
review criteria is included in the staff findings in Exhibit B.
Unit Sizes. Caps in the permitted size of multi-family residential units were first adopted in 2006 in a
number of the city’s zone districts with an original cap of 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area.
Subsequently, more changes occurred limiting unit sizes in more zone districts but also allowing for
the landing of a Transferable Development Right to expand a unit’s size by 500 sq. ft.. Current caps
range in size from 1,500 to 2,000. With regard to lodging, the Commercial Core zone district limits the
maximum unit size of a lodge unit to 1,500 sq. ft..While there are no caps outlined in the LP overlay,
because this is a Planned Development that sets dimensions (see the Height and Floor Area discussion,
above), Staff suggests this unit size caps be used as a guide.
4) What board will review the Detailed Review if Council approves the proposed changes? Detailed
Review focuses on materials and fenestration of the project. Only a portion of the 27,000 sq. ft. lot is
historically designated, hence, if exterior changes are made in areas other than the original wing of the
Boomerang or the designated grounds (such as the pool area), the review would be undertaken by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Subsequent discussion with the owner’s representative seem to
indicate that changes will be proposed to the original Boomerang wing and or/ designated grounds. If
this, in fact, is the case the review will be with the Historic Preservation Commission. City Council
may include direction on the design issues as part of the Project Review, if desired. Additionally, the
project will require a Commercial Design review which is subject to Council call-up.
5) Clarify what lodge pillows, lodge keys, and lodge units are. A lodge key (or lock-off) is the smallest
configuration of standalone, rentable divisions within a lodge, while a lodge unit is the largest
combination of keys that can be combined and rented as one unit. The city limits the amount of
development that may be requested in any one year and lodge pillows are the growth management
allotment that are requested when a new or expanded lodge is proposed. Each lodging bedroom (also
known as an individual lodge key) is counted as two pillows. For this project the number of keys and
pillows are unchanged, but the number of units decreases.
6)What benefits are being requested for the project, what does the community get in return, and how
does the city ensure the property operates as approved? In 2015, the City Council adopted an
ordinance to provide benefits for small lodges with the intent of assisting those lodges in remaining
open and in operation as a lodge. In determining what is considered a small lodge, staff “used a
number of criteria to establish a list of Aspen’s small lodges, including the Assessor’s categorization,
how the lodge self-identified in terms of price point in the City’s 2012 lodging study, their zoning, and
the number of units. The commonality is the lodge is generally located in the Lodge or Lodge
Preservation Zones, and is commonly known as an economy or moderate lodge. This categorization
enabled staff to narrow the list to a total of twelve (12).” At the time, City Council made a policy
determination, following a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, that the
Boomerang be included in the list of small lodges eligible for the program.
Benefits include: small lodge planning assistance, “express lane” land use and building permit review,
free building code assessments, an energy efficiency program, building permit fee reductions, and
P38
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 6 of 13
infrastructure improvements assistance. The Applicant is requesting an expedited land use and building
permit review, building permit fee reductions and infrastructure improvements assistance. With a 25%
reduction in the building permit fee, the Applicant is agreeing to maintain the property as a lodge for
twenty years. This is essentially a deed restriction intended to ensure operation as a lodge for a set
period of time. If the property does not remain as a lodge during the twenty year time period, all fees
waived are required to be paid back to the City. To ensure compliance with lodge operation
requirements, the City has the ability to request audits of the operation. Staff proposes these be
required as part of the Planned Development review.
7) Discussion on lodge amenities, architectural, and design changes. Staff has scheduled a site visit so
that the Council can view the original wing of the Boomerang. Additional discussion on the proposed
changes will be discussed by the Applicant’s team at the public hearing. The overview will include
discussion with regard to the building being sunk further into the ground with the area of change being
five inches along the west wing.
FISRT READING STAFF MEMO (AUGUST 14, 2017)
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting approval of the
following land use requests from the City Council:
· Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval – Applicant is requesting a Minor
Amendment to a Project Review approval, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.445.110(D),
which requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or
disapprove of the amendment to the Planned Development. The City Council is the final
decision-making body.
· Insubstantial Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order – Applicant is
requesting an amendment to the growth management allotments that were granted in 2006,
pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.470 which permitted an increase of lodge units, new
free-market development, and new affordable housing for the original redevelopment project.
As a combined application, the City Council is the final decision making body.
If both requests are approved by the City Council, a final review will be undertaken by the Planning
and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission for Detailed Review (materials and
fenestration issues) as well as a consolidated Commercial Design Review. The Commercial Design
Review will be subject to Council call-up.
Because this project has had approvals and vesting for more than ten years, the Land Use Code
requires that this amendment be reviewed under the current code.
P39
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 7 of 13
Figure 1: Vicinity Map of 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (former Boomerang Lodge)
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) approved the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge. The
approved redevelopment allows for a condominiumized lodge that consists of 47 lodge keys, 29 lodge
units, 5 free-market residences and 2 affordable housing units. The project was initially reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and then was reviewed by the City Council for final approval.
The approved lodge sits on a 27,000 sq. ft. lot (a whole block face consisting of nine townsite lots) and
is located within the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district with two overlays: the Lodge
Preservation (LP) overlay and a Planned Development (PD) (formerly Planned Unit Development)
overlay.
Throughout the review process, changes were requested of the Applicant. This resulted in a resolution
passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission with project dimensions that differed from those
proposed in the initial land use application. When later reviewed by City Council, additional changes
were requested resulting in a project with dimensions that differ from both those proposed in the initial
application and those recommended in the resolution by the Commission. Overall, the project was
continually reduced in size and height when compared to the initial request.
An ordinance was adopted by the Council (Exhibit C) memorializing the dimensional requirements for
the site-specific approval and the architectural plans and elevations that were shown during the final
hearing were recorded (Exhibit D). The ordinance was approved with 31 underground and 12 surface
parking spaces (noted as partially in the r-o-w). The maximum height approved was 36’6” (on certain
P40
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 8 of 13
portions of the building) and the maximum allowed Floor Area was 44,915 sq. ft.. In January 2007, an
Insubstantial Amendment to the PD was approved, increasing the maximum height by one foot – to
37’6” – in some portions of the structure, due to Building Department requirements for minimum
ceiling height. In 2008 a staff approval allowed a specific area of the building to be 41’-7.5” due to the
proposed connection of the new middle wing to the historic wing. Figure 2, below, illustrates the
approved elevation of the lodge project.
Figure 2: Recorded Elevation for the approved Boomerang Lodge, Hopkins Ave. (2006)
The applicant obtained a demolition permit in 2007 for the middle and west wings of the existing
Boomerang Lodge, which were removed. The east wing of the original Boomerang Lodge, which
remains standing today, was retained as it was designated as historic during the entitlement process for
the lodge redevelopment. In 2007, a building permit application to redevelop the lodge was submitted;
however, the permit was never issued due to the Great Recession and became null and void.
In 2011, an application was approved to redevelop the site with affordable housing; however, litigation
brought on by neighboring property owners. Throughout this time, two extensions of the vested rights
associated with the lodge project were granted.
In September 2015, a new building permit was submitted to redevelop the lodge per the 2006 approval
as the project was still vested. During the review of the permit application, the zoning officer
determined that the architectural drawings as submitted exceeded the Floor Area permitted in the
ordinance and that the exterior decks, balconies and stairs exceeded the exemption permitted by the
Land Use Code. The Applicant worked to revise the plan set to be more in line with the allowed
dimensions outlined in the 2006 ordinance but still needed a Planned Development Amendment to
reconcile the differences between the plan set and ordinance. These differences arose due to the
omission of the basement’s Floor Area in the architectural firm’s calculations and by determining the
deck exemption based upon an incorrect maximum Floor Area assumption. Ordinance No. 15 (Series
of 2016) was granted on June 6, 2016 and increased the overall Floor Area allowance for the property
to 46,140 sq. ft. and provided an allowed deck exemption of 11,280 sq. ft. to match the 2006 drawings.
Currently, the property is under contract to be purchased by ME Aspen Ventures One LLC and the
potential buyer is interested in amending components of the existing approvals, with the exception of
the approved dimensions. The approved dimensions that the Applicant states they will continue to
P41
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 9 of 13
meet is the overall allowable Floor Area of 46,140 sq. ft., the deck exemption of 11,280 sq. ft., as well
as the height and setbacks allowances.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT:
The Applicant proposes to work within the dimensional framework approved by the City Council,
while making layout and architectural changes. These changes are broken into topics below.
· Programming/layout changes (reduction in lodge units). There are several floor plan changes;
however, the primary change is that the number of lodge units decreases, while the number of
lodge keys (lock-offs) remains the same. The 2006 approval granted approval of 29 lodge units
with 47 keys, while today’s proposal reduces the number of lodge units to 23 and maintains the 47
keys.
A key (or lock-off) is the smallest configuration of standalone, rentable divisions within a lodge, while
a lodge unit is the largest combination of keys that can be combined and rented as one unit. The
configuration of lodge units1 (and keys) in the 2006 approvals provided for an average lodge unit size
of 812 sq. ft. and an average key size of 501 sq. ft. The proposed amendment would include an average
unit size of 1,040 sq. ft. and an average key size of 509 sq. ft.. Table 1, below, provides the range in
size of both the lodge units and lodge keys. In the 2006 approvals, 43 out of the 47 keys included a
kitchen, while the current proposal provides 11 keys with full kitchens (generally in the larger unit
configuration), with a remaining mix of studio kitchens or basic amenities such as mini fridge,
microwave and coffee bar in the remaining 36 keys. The reduction in lodge units provides units with a
suite design, containing a core space for living and attached bedrooms.
Table 1: Unit and Key Size Comparison
2006 Approval 2017 Proposal Net Change
Key Unit Key Unit Key Unit
Minimum Size 346 s.f. 346 s.f. 315 s.f. 315 s.f. -31 -31
Maximum Size 902 s.f. 1,075 s.f. 838 s.f. 1,732 s.f. -64 +657
Average 501 s.f. 812 s.f. 509 s.f. 1,040 s.f. +8 +228
Additional changes include relocation of an interior stair tower, a new, interior circulation corridor on
the second floor rather than exterior circulation, removal of the Patterson room on the second floor of
the original lodge, reconfiguration of three free-market units on the third floor, changes in the footprint
of exterior balconies, and sinking of the ground floor further below grade.
· Architectural and material changes. Changes to roof forms, materials and glazing are proposed.
The west wing of the building’s roof line is proposed as a ‘butterfly’ form rather the approved flat roof.
Changes to the fenestration are also proposed, with windows enlarged in areas. The materials of the
building are proposed to be cedar siding with a profile to complement the original aesthetic of the
lodge. There will be areas of stone, with random horizontal coursing and variation in the face of the
1 The 2006 approval appears to denote sizes using Floor Area (exterior wall to exterior wall) while some calculations today
are based on Net Livable (interior wall to interior wall). For consistency, all numbers provided are in terms of Floor Area.
A Net Livable calculation would be approximately 5% smaller.
P42
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 10 of 13
stone. Windows are to be framed with thin profile bronze colored aluminum frames. Horizontal
railings and fascia will be bronze painted metal.
Figure 3: Façade Rendering
STAFF COMMENT:
Growth Management Amendment. In 2006, growth management allotments were granted for an
increase in lodging as well as new free-market and affordable housing. The request is to amend the
approvals and memorialize the new reduction in lodge units. No changes to the affordable housing
mitigation are triggered with this proposal because mitigation is based on keys and not units, and the
number of keys remains the same.
Planned Development. A Planned Development is a review process that results in a site-specific
approval and locks in the dimensions and programming of a project. The redevelopment application
submitted in 2005 was required to be reviewed as a PD due to the underlying zoning of the property.
The Boomerang Lodge is located within the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, a
primarily residential zone, with a Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) on the property. As noted in the
purpose statement of the code, the purpose of the LP overlay is to “provide for and protect small lodge
uses on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these
properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally
associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is
compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically
operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent
properties.”
The R-6 zone district does not permit a lodge or multi-family residential development, but the uses are
permitted by right in the LP overlay. The dimensional allowances for any use permitted in the LP
overlay “shall be the dimensional requirements established for those uses in the underlying zone
district. Where no specific dimensions have been established for the use, the permitted dimensions
shall be limited to that of a single-family residence or multi-family residences where such uses are
permitted in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of the neighborhood compatibility and
the dimensional requirements of the surrounding zone districts, the dimensional requirements may be
established pursuant to Chapter 26.445 – Planned Development (PD).” On a 27,000 sq. ft. lot, the size
of the Boomerang parcel, a single family residence is permitted 4,620 sq. ft. of Floor Area. In order to
develop above that allowance, the redevelopment of the lodge needed to be reviewed as a PD and
found to be compatible with the neighborhood. The Council, at the time, made this finding when they
approved the project in 2006.
P43
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 11 of 13
The 2006 approved lodge component of the project was generally designed with a standard room
layout comprised of a bathroom and sleeping/kitchen area with some rooms connected by an internal
door (Figure 4). The amendment proposes a mix of standalone lodge units and lodge units that have
more of a suite design, providing a core living/eating/sleeping space with attached, divisible bedrooms.
This new configuration increases the average lodge unit size while maintaining the overall keys as
outlined in Table 1 and detailed in Figure 5, below.
Figure 4: 2006 Floor plan layout
Figure 5: Proposed suite layout
As previously mentioned, this application is required to comply with the current Land Use Code. Since
2005, there have been a number of changes to the code that would affect the proposal. Of note, the
head-in parking along S. Fourth Street is typically no longer permitted when a property is redeveloped.
A revocable license agreement benefitting the Boomerang Lodge was issued by the city; however, both
the Parking Department and the Engineering Department are requesting that the parking be made
available to the public and that parallel parking replace the head-in condition. This requirement is
included in the ordinance. As proposed, the underground parking will meet the project’s parking
obligation based upon the current code.
P44
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 12 of 13
The approved area for trash is undersized by today’s standards and the Environmental Health
Department has requested that the trash area be upsized to meet current requirements. Roof-top
mechanical will need to meet current code with regard to height and location and staff still needs to
determine whether the mechanical will comply with today’s standards. Additionally, financial
guarantees will need to be included that meet today’s standards. A number of other items are
incorporated in the proposed ordinance including the requirement to meet current, adopted building
code to align with current city standards.
The City Council has adopted a small lodge program (2015) which provides for an expedited land use
review and building permit review as well as a discount on building permit fees in exchange for a
property operating as a lodge. The Applicant is requesting the fee discount and is willing to include an
operational requirement in an updated development agreement to maintain the property as a lodge for
twenty years. This would be the third lodge to enter into such an agreement but the first lodge that
would commit to the twenty year requirement.
The Applicant is proposing changes to the layout of the lodge units to create a lodge that is
predominately suites that have the ability to be rented as a whole unit or in smaller divisions,
purporting that the design provides the most flexibility for a lodge operator. Although the number of
keys are maintained with the proposed changes, the unit sizes increase. The suite sizes range from 800
sq. ft. to 1,732 sq. ft., which is greater than some of the size limitations instituted in other parts of town
for a lodge unit. Although staff supports lodge development, it is important that the property operate
as a lodge and that the suites, which are proposed to be condominiumized, do not default into a
different use through the ownership or management of the units. An ironclad operations agreement is
needed. Additionally, staff recommends the suites be limited to no more than 1,500 sq. ft. to match the
limits in place in other areas of town.
The improvements agreement developed after the 2006 approvals notes that the 3rd story free-market
units will be approximately 1,700 sq. ft. and the 4th story units will be 2,700 sq. ft.. The 3rd story units
are currently proposed with modified footprints. The three units range in size from 1,738 sq. ft. to
1,848 sq. ft. while the 4th story units range from 2,581 sq. ft. to 2,664 sq. ft.. Since the 2006 approval of
the Boomerang Lodge, the City has capped the size of multi-family residential units within the infill
area with a size limitation of 1,500 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. (without landing a Transferable Development
Right). Staff recommends any changes to the units come in better alignment with caps throughout the
city.
Some layout changes include non-unit space being incorporated into lodge uses as well as removal of
lodge amenities (the Patterson room) to reduce Floor Area and create a vaulted lobby. Staff is
concerned that the removal of the Patterson room reduces the amenities associated with the lodge and
should be reconsidered. The Applicant also proposes to sink the ground floor of the addition into the
ground by five inches to ensure compliance with the height allowances of the Planned Development
and increase floor to ceiling heights for some of the free-market units. Staff is concerned with the
ground level’s relationship with grade and does not support sinking the floor into the ground to ensure
height compliance. The approved building’s height will be notable in the neighborhood, once
constructed, as there are no other four story buildings within the adjacent neighborhood. Staff is
P45
X.a
500 W. Hopkins (Boomerang Lodge)
PD Amendment
September 11, 2017
Page 13 of 13
concerned that the Applicant is proposing reductions in the lodge amenities (the Patterson room) and
impacting the ground floor’s relationship with grade to keep with the overall Floor area and height
allowances rather than making more meaningful changes to the project.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
The City Engineer, Aspen Sanitation District, APCHA, Building department, Environmental Health
Department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their
requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that encouraging the redevelopment of a lodge is a benefit to
the community; however, ensuring the project functions as short term lodging once built is critical in
light of the proposed changes and incentives available through the small lodge program. Staff
continues to recommend having the following changes incorporated into the project:
· Amend the lodge unit size to not exceed 1,500 sq. ft.
· Reduce the free-market units in size or find other ways to reduce the building Floor Area rather
than removing any lodge amenity (Patterson room)
· Require an operational agreement be included as part of the lodge incentives granted.
· Update the site plan to include referral comments for 4th Street design and trash enclosure.
Staff has included a requirement in the ordinance that an operational agreement be developed and
recorded if the proposed amendment are granted.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to continue Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2017 to October 9th.”
CITY MANAGER
COMMENTS:________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: PD Review Criteria
Exhibit B: Growth Management Review Criteria
Exhibit C: Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006)
Exhibit D: Recorded Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E: Application
Exhibit F: Public Comment
Exhibit G: Site Plan
Exhibit H: Updated Architecturals
P46
X.a
Page 1 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
ORDINANCE NO. 21
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AND AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR
CHANGES TO A MIXED USE PROJECT CONTAINING LODGE, FREE-
MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS
K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273512449002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from ME Aspen Ventures One LLC on behalf of Aspen FSB-ABR LLC, represented by
Bendon Adams LLC, requesting approval to amend the authorized development within a
Planned Development (PD) and amend a Growth Management Development Order, to
develop 47 lodge keys, 23 lodge units, five free-market units and two affordable housing
units at 500 W. Hopkins Ave.; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing, common law vested right to develop
the property with 47 lodge keys, 29 lodge units, 5 free-market units, and 2 affordable
housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006), commonly known as the Boomerang
Lodge; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 500 W. Hopkins Ave. and is currently
zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6), with a Lodge Preservation (LP) overlay and
Planned Development (PD) overlay; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application, the applicable code standards,
and comments from referral departments, the Community Development Department
recommended some changes to the project; and ,
WHEREAS, first reading of the ordinance was conducted on August 14, 2017;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2017, the
City Council considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of
the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment; and,
P47
X.a
Page 2 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amended development proposal
evaluated during the September hearing meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: General Development Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves amendments to the authorized development
within a Planned Development (Minor Amendment to a Project Review) and
Insubstantial Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order to allow for
changes to a mixed-use development.
The amended development plan permits the lot to be developed with a mixed-use
building containing 23 lodge units, 47 lodge keys, 5 free-market residential units, 2
affordable housing units and 32 underground parking spaces subject to the conditions
further described herein.
A subsequent land use application (Planned Development Detailed Review) is required to
be submitted within one year of the Project Review approval. A Commercial Design
Review is also required and shall be submitted with the Detailed Review application.
Prior to submitting a land use application for Planned Development Detailed Review and
within 180 days of City Council approval of this ordinance, Applicant shall file with the
Community Development Department an approved Project Review plan set.
Section 2: Plan and Agreement
Once receiving Planned Development Detailed Review approval, the Applicant shall submit
an architectural plan and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Chapter
26.490, Approval Documents, within 180 days of Detailed Review approval. The agreement
shall specifically include a provision restricting the lodge units on the property to short term
lodging for a twenty year period, pursuant to Ordinance No 15 (Series of 2015), Small
Lodge Assistance.
Once the plan and agreement are recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, the
entitlements associated with Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) shall be considered null and
void and the entitlements associated with this ordinance shall supersede any previous
approvals. Once recorded, the Applicant shall have 90 days to submit a building permit
application for the amended project with the building department. Failure to submit a
change order shall render the approvals null and void. Additional extensions of the current
building permit beyond the 90 days following recordation as outlined above, is prohibited.
P48
X.a
Page 3 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
No Certificate of Occupancy (or letter of completion) shall be issued for the free-market
component of the project until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the lodge.
Additional conditions on issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy are outlined in Section 5 of
the is ordinance.
Section 3: Building Permit Application
The Applicant, the Applicant’s General Contractor, the Architect that produced the
construction drawings, and representatives from the Community Development
Department (Building and Planning) and any other person deemed necessary by the City
shall attend a meeting prior to the submission of any type of Building Permit for the
Subject Property. The purpose of the meeting shall be to ensure clarity relative to the
submission requirements, the requirements of this Ordinance, timeframes for processing
Building Permits, and any other issues raised by any party. The building permit
application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a) A copy of the final Ordinance No.21 (Series 2017) and any subsequent approval
granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the signed development order
issued by the Community Development Department.
b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c) Show compliance with the URMP and the City of Aspen Engineering requirements.
d) Evidence that the Applicant has complied with the Applicant’s obligations to provide
Financial Assurances, a Performance Bond, and Site Protection Funds, as described
herein.
No building permit application may be accepted by the City prior to (or in conjunction
with) payment of the unpaid fees that are associated with permit number
0052.2015.ACBK.
The building permit application is subject to the building code in effect at the time of the
application’s submission.
Section 4: Planned Unit Development
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the following approved dimensions of the project are approved for the project.
Dimensional Req. PUD Allowances
Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sq. ft
Maximum Allowable
Density
23 lodge units
47 lodge keys
5 Free-market residential units
2 Affordable housing units
Minimum Lot Width 270 feet
Minimum Front Yard Variable. Refer to the site plan call-outs for
P49
X.a
Page 4 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
Dimensional Req. PUD Allowances
site specific setbacks
Minimum Side Yard Variable. Refer to the site plan call-outs for
site specific setbacks
Minimum Rear Yard
Variable. Refer to the site plan call-outs for
site specific setbacks
Maximum Height from
finished grade
Variable. Refer to the roof plan call-outs for
site specific height allowances
Minimum Open Space Per the site plan
Allowable Floor Area 46,140 sq. ft.
Deck/stair Exemption 11,280 sq. ft.
Off-Street Parking A minimum of 31- on-site, underground
spaces or a maximum of 32
Section 5: Affordable Housing.
Two, 1-bedroom, Category 2 units are included as part of the project and satisfy the
mitigation requirements in place at the time of the original application to redevelop the
Boomerang Lodge in 2005. The size and location of the units shall meet or exceed the
size of the units represented in the application and shall be maintained in the same
locations shown. These units may be rental units in accordance with the allowances and
limitations of the APCHA guidelines. The Certificate of Occupancy for the free-market
and lodge portions of the building (or any white box/letter of completion) shall not be
issued until the Certificate of Occupancy for the deed restricted units have been executed.
All deed restrictions, provided by APCHA, shall be recorded coincident with the
recordation of the condo plat and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Additionally, the following items shall be met:
a) Two below-grade parking spaces shall be allocated and reserved for the two
employee housing units.
b) The units will be deed-restricted as rental units. At such time the APCHA deems
the units out of compliance for a period of one year or more, the management of the
units shall be turned over to APCHA and a management fee charged to the owner
based on the Guidelines in effect at the time, and as they are amended from time to
time.
c) At such time the units are found to be out of compliance any fines that have been
adopted and incorporated into the APCHA Guidelines shall be charged to the owner
until such time the units are compliant with the recorded deed restriction.
d) All tenants, whether employees of the hotel or employees within Pitkin County,
shall be approved by APCHA prior to occupancy, and shall be required to requalify
on a yearly basis.
e) Employees of the hotel will be exempt from maximum assets and maximum
income for the two on-site units; however, the tenant(s) shall not own any other
P50
X.a
Page 5 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
property within the ownership exclusion zone and must work full time as defined in
the APCHA Guidelines.
f) The units cannot be vacant for longer than 45 days, unless maintenance has been
scheduled and APCHA contacted.
g) The tenants will have access to the use of the pool and the laundry facilities (or
washer and dryers in the units).
h) All appliances shall be provided to the tenants.
Section 6: Engineering
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department. The Applicant design shall also be compliant with the Urban
Runoff Management Plan. A cost estimate and appropriate financial guarantee shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering department prior to building permit issuance
for all right of way improvements inclusive of landscape improvements.
The Applicant shall provide the following required Right-of-Way improvements and will
meet all applicable standards. Minimum required site improvements that are different
than those represented on the application’s site plan are as follows:
a) The head in parking on 4th St shall be changed to parallel parking to meet City
standards. The revocable encroachment will be revoked, and the parking will revert to
public parking.
b) The project must also provide a 6’ sidewalk and 5’ buffer on Fourth St.
Section 7: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit.
This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition,
Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section
903 and 907).
Section 8: Utilities
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements
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. All clear
water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including
P51
X.a
Page 6 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
entrances to underground parking garages. On-site drainage and landscaping plans require
approval by the district must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with
rules, regulations and specifications. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by
ACSD.
Section 10: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise
abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required, as well
as meeting the minimum size requirements adopted for by the city.
Section 11: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 12: Parks
Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. An
approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. The
original tree permit, #2007-012 has expired.
a) A new tree permit will be required as the old one has expired.
b) An existing site plan showing all trees slated for removal.
c) A proposed landscape plan with an estimate for trees included to offset any
mitigation dollars.
d) Two (2) Spruce trees by existing spa to remain.
e) Spruce and fir trees by front entry to remain.
f) Alignment of sidewalk around trees to be field located with the City Forester.
Section 13: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu
The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu
assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit
issuance with the exception of any bedroom credit associated with the former lodge and
any credit for fees already paid to redevelop the lodge.
Section 14: Financial Assurances
A. Proof of Financing. Before the issuance of a building permit for the development of
either parcel, and as a condition of such approval, owner shall provide to the City
Building Department and City Attorney for review and approval, satisfactory evidence
that owner has in place sufficient financing to accomplish and complete the construction
of the development of the project covered by the building permit and any public
improvements identified within an improvements agreement and required under this
ordinance; provided, if there is no loan with respect to development of the project, then
owner shall provide a letter from a financial institution stating that the owner has funds
available in an amount that covers the estimated cost of construction for the
development. Such financing may include without limitation, a construction loan from
an institutional lender or lenders and equity capital investments and/or donations from
P52
X.a
Page 7 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
owner or third party investors or contributors. In addition, before issuance of a building
permit for the project, owner shall provide supporting cost estimates for all improvements
covered by the requested building permit prepared by owner’s general contractor for
review and approval by the City of Aspen Building Department.
B. Cash Escrow for Site Enhancement Fund. Before the issuance of a building permit for
the project, and as a condition of such issuance, the owner will deposit with a title
company the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
NO/100THS ($250,000.00) (the “Site Enhancement Escrow Funds”) in the form of
cash or wired funds pursuant to an Escrow Agreement made and entered into between the
owner and the City which shall provide as follows:
i. In the event construction work on the development of the project shall cease for
ninety (90) days or longer, to a final inspection by the City of the work
authorized by a foundation/structural frame permit (“F/SFP”) on said parcels and
cessation of such construction work continues for a period of one hundred twenty
(120) days after notice from the City to the owner specifying the subject work in
reasonable detail, or if such breach cannot be cured reasonably within such one
hundred twenty (120) day period and owner fails to commence and proceed
diligently to cure such breach within a reasonable time period, then the City, in its
reasonable discretion, may draw upon the Site Enhancement Escrow Funds from
time to time as needed for the purposes of improving the appearance of any
construction work not already completed on the site.
ii. The Site Enhancement Escrow Funds or any remaining balance thereof shall be
returned to the owner, upon completion by the City of a final inspection and
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each parcel or when otherwise agreed
to by Owner and the City.
C. Cash Escrow for Site Protection. Before the issuance of a building permit for the
project, and as a condition of such issuance, the owner will deposit with a title company
the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO/100THS
($250,000.00)(“Escrow Funds”) in the form of cash or wired funds pursuant to an
Escrow Agreement made and entered into between the owner and the City which shall
provide as follows:
i. In the event construction work on the development of the project shall cease for
sixty (60) days or longer (“Work Stoppage”), prior to a final inspection by the
City of the work authorized by a foundation/structural frame permit (“F/SFP”) on
such lot, and cessation of such construction work continues for a period of thirty
(30) days after notice from the City to owner specifying the subject work in
reasonable detail, or if such breach cannot be cured reasonably within such thirty
(30) day period and the owner fails to commence and proceed diligently to cure
such breach within a reasonable time period, then the City in its reasonable
discretion may draw upon the Escrow Funds from time to time as needed for the
purposes of protecting and securing the construction site and improvements
P53
X.a
Page 8 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
thereon from damage by the elements and/or from trespass by unauthorized
persons, and for purposes of improving the site to a safe condition such that it
does not become an attractive nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to neighbors or
other persons.
ii. Half of the Escrow Funds shall be returned to the owner upon completion by the
City of a final inspection of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural
Frame Permit on the project. The balance of funds shall be returned to the owner
once exterior finishes to the building have been installed.
Section 15: Small Lodge Preservation Program
The applicant hereby commits to participate in the small lodge preservation program,
including:
a) A twenty year agreement to remain and operate as a small lodge. The agreement
shall include an annual audit requirement, standardized décor in all lodge units,
marketing of units through a standardized method (such as Stay Aspen Snowmass),
and maintenance of all lodge amenities.
b) Right of way reimbursement, if project receives a C.O. prior to the expiration of the
city’s program.
c) Expedited building permit review for the initial review related to the anticipated
change order outlined in section 3 of this ordinance.
d) Any additional benefit outlined in the city’s program for which the property may
qualify in the future, for the life of the program. Upon expiration of the twenty year
lodge agreement, the applicant may choose to extend it, upon agreement and review
by the city council.
Section 16:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
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 18:
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.
P54
X.a
Page 9 of 9
Ordinance No. 21 (Series of 2017)
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 19:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 11th day of September, 2017, at a meeting
of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice
of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of August, 2017.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ---th day of --------, 2017.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Exhibit A: Architectural plans
P55
X.a
Exhibit A
Project Review Standards
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 1 of 6
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The
burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application
and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying
zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional
variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review
of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies
with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff response: The proposed development is not subject to any applicable adopted regulatory
plans. Staff finds the criterion does not apply.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development
on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep,
rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide
areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable
for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed
in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff response: The property was an active lodge development, a portion of which was
demolished in 2007 as part of the initial approvals, and has an approval to restore the historic
Boomerang Hotel and construct an addition. The property is located on relatively a flat lot in
an established neighborhood without any potential natural or manmade hazards. Additionally,
the property has an active building permit (0052.2015.ACBK) that includes a construction
management plan and engineering plans that are more robust than what would be required in
the planning phase of this review. Staff finds the criterion is met.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
P56
X.a
Exhibit A
Project Review Standards
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 2 of 6
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff response: The approved site plan is not proposed to change. As part of the site plan,
Applicant shows head-in parking that other departments are requesting be modified. Staff
finds the criteria not met.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established
during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any
dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to
the following criteria:
Staff response: The Applicant requests an amendment to the existing approvals to allow for
reconfiguration of the lodge units that will make them more appealing to today’s market.
Ordinance No. 26, Series 2006, granted approval for 47 keys, 29 lodge units, five free market
units, and two affordable housing units. The request is to reduce the number of lodge units by
six units to 23 total lodge units. The keys remain the same. The Applicant does not request any
amendments to the existing dimensions including the approved height or floor area granted by
the prior approvals. Staff finds the criterion met.
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional Req. Approved Dimensions Requested Dimension Net Change
Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sq. ft 27,000 sq. ft No change
Maximum Allowable
Density
29 lodge units
47 lodge keys
5 Free-market residential
units
2 Affordable housing units
23 lodge units
47 lodge keys
5 Free-market residential
units
2 Affordable housing
units
(-) 6 lodge units
lodge keys, no
change
Free-market
residential units, no
change
Affordable housing
units, no change
Minimum Lot Width 270 feet 270 feet No change
Minimum Front Yard
(Hopkins)
5 feet 5 feet No change
Minimum Side Yard 4’3” – east
5’ – west
4’3” – east
5’ -- west
No change
Minimum Rear Yard
5’ for building
2nd floor balcony and
parking ramp projects 4’6”
5’ for building
2nd floor
balcony and
parking ramp
No change
P57
X.a
Exhibit A
Project Review Standards
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 3 of 6
Dimensional Req. Approved Dimensions Requested Dimension Net Change
into setback
projects 4’6”
into setback
Maximum Height Variable. 37’-6” (middle
wing), one area 41’ -7.5”
No Change No change
Allowable Floor Area 46,140 sq. ft. 46,140 sq. ft. No change
Minimum Off-Street Parking 43 Total
31-on-site (underground)
12 within the street r-o-w
40 Total
-3
Notes: Minimum setbacks and heights will be memorialized by a setback and height plan with call-
outs.sed Amendment
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
Staff response: The Applicant does not include any requests for a variation from the
overall dimensional requirements that were granted in the 2006 approval. As the
Medium-Density Residential zone district (R-6) did not provide dimensions for a
mixed-use development, all dimensions were granted via the Planned Development in
2006. Staff finds the criterion does not apply.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff response: The dimensional requirements were granted by Ordinance No. 26,
2006. The proposed dimensional change is limited to the number of overall lodge units
while retaining the number of keys. The project will remain a lodge and with the
proposed change, be better suited to meet current lodging demands for larger units
with more flexible configurations. The proposal has a range of lodge key sizes from
315 to 838 sq. ft., with an average key size of 508 sq. ft. In the 2006 approvals, the
average key size measurement was based on floor area. The lodge unit size proposed is
greater, in some instances, than that that allowed in another zone district for lodge
development.
The height and floor area were granted by the original approvals and there is not a
request to change these dimensions. Other uses within the project include five free
market units and two affordable housing units. These uses are not proposed to change.
Staff finds the criterion not met.
P58
X.a
Exhibit A
Project Review Standards
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 4 of 6
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
Staff Response: The Application does not include requests to the approved dimensions
or site configuration beyond the Lodge Unit configuration. Applicant proposes
amendments to update the approved 2006 design of the addition to the historic
Boomerang Lodge. These changes include updating the roof forms, enclosing exterior
egress to the lodge units, and minor amendments to the materials and fenestration. The
Applicant represents that the aesthetic changes to the project will not breach the
established dimensional requirements and the changes will comply with the
Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines. All of the roof form, materials, and
fenestration changes are subject to a Detailed Review before the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Staff finds the criterion met.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
Staff Response: The Applicant does not propose to amend the existing parking
requirement approved in Ordinance 26, Series of 2006. The Ordinance and recorded
Subdivision/PUD Agreement require 31 subgrade, garage parking spaces and 12
surface parking spaces, partially located within City of Aspen right-of-way for a total of
43 parking spaces. Today’s Code would require a total of 31 Parking Units.
Table 2. Transportation and Mobility Requirement
Use Requirement Parking Units
Hotel/Lodge 0.5 units per Key 23.5 Units
Residential Multi-Family
within a Mixed-Use
Building
1 unit per Dwelling Unit 7 Units
TOTAL - 31 (rounded up from 30.5 Units)
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for a Minor Project is required for the
proposed development. The 2006 approvals (part 3.6 of the recorded Development
Agreement) required five bicycles for use by lodging guests, with covered bike storage,
to offset trip generation impacts and PM10 generated by the project. The TIA includes
this commitment to providing bicycles in addition to participation in the City’s
Transportation Options Program required by Ordinance 26, Series of 2006, Section
6.4. Staff finds the criterion met.
P59
X.a
Exhibit A
Project Review Standards
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 5 of 6
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review.
Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 –
Amendments.
Staff Response: The Applicant is not requesting any special allowances for
dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Staff finds the
criterion does not apply.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Response: The Application contemplates the changes to materials, fenestration and
roof forms to be reviewed as part of the Detailed Review at the Planning and Zoning
Commission. City Council may exercise its right to place requirements on the architectural
character and exterior materials at Project Review. Staff finds the criteria do not apply at
this time.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: The Applicant is not pursuing an amendment to the approved covered bicycle
parking and five bike fleet approved in 2006. A traffic generation study was included in the
original application. A reduction to the number of units will not impact pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. An updated Transportation Impact Analysis for a Minor Project is
included in the application which addresses pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Staff
finds the criterion met.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
P60
X.a
Exhibit A
Project Review Standards
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 6 of 6
Staff Response: A Building Permit application has been reviewed by Engineering for
compliance with Engineering Design Standards and the URMP. The requirements for design,
mitigation, and implementation have been identified as part of the permit requirement. The
reconfiguration of the interior lodge units should not impact these requirements. Should this
amendment be approved, a change order would be submitted on the active building permit to
reflect the amendment. Staff finds the criterion met.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: A Building Permit application has been reviewed by Engineering for
compliance with Engineering Design Standards, which include review for public
infrastructure and utilities. The requirements for these improvements have been identified as
part of the permit requirement. The reconfiguration of the interior lodge units should not
impact these requirements. Should this amendment be approved, a change order would be
submitted on the active building permit to reflect the amendment. Staff finds the criterion met.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure
adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and
driveways are prohibited.
Staff Response: The subject property has direct access to both West Hopkins Avenue and
North Fourth Street. Adequate access to the property is provided and egress to the parking
garage is accessed from the alleyway. Security and privacy gates are not proposed across
access points or driveways. Staff finds the criterion met.
P61
X.a
Exhibit B
Insubstantial Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order Review Criteria
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 1 of 1
26.470.150. Amendment of a growth management development order.
A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved growth
management development order may be authorized by the Community Development Director if:
1) The change conforms to all other provisions of the Land Use Code and does not
exceed approved variations to the residential design standards, require an amendment
to the commercial design review approval or such variations or amendments have
been approved.
Staff Response: At the time of the 2006 review, a Commercial Design Review was
not required; therefore, an amendment to these standards is not required. Staff
finds the criterion met.
2) The change does not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction of the proposed
affordable housing units, or those changes have been accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
Staff Response: Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 required two Category 2
affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005.
The affordable housing requirement was fully satisfied by this obligation. The units
shall meet or exceed these depictions and may be rental units pursuant to APCHA
guidelines. The Applicant does not propose to amend this commitment. Staff finds
the criterion met.
3) The change is limited to technical or engineering considerations discovered prior to or
during actual development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review
process or any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds
has no substantial effect on the conditions and representations made during the
original project review.
Staff Response: While the code has changed regarding calculation of the number
of FTEs that need to be mitigated in a project, this project is not subject to the
calculation because it does not trigger a review for an updated calculation. The
reason for this is because the number of allotments needed for the project is
unchanged. The 2006 code and the code today have the same triggers – an
expansion or increase in the number of lodging pillows. Because the proposed
amendment does not change the number of allotments needed (due to the fact that
the project has the same number of free-market units and lodge keys), the project
qualifies as an insubstantial amendment to an existing development order. As
mentioned in the vested rights section of the memo, the project maintains its
current site specific approval even though the statutory vesting period has lapsed.
That site specific development approval includes the allotments for the new free-
market and affordable residential units, as well as the lodge pillows. Because the
allotments needed under the proposed amendment are unchanged, the project is
not subject to new mitigation calculations.
P62
X.a
Exhibit B
Insubstantial Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order Review Criteria
500 W. Hopkins Avenue (Boomerang Lodge) PD Amendment
Page 2 of 1
Furthermore, the proposed change is in response to today’s market, specifically, the
studio-style units are not desirable fractional units and would remain unsold. These
issues couldn’t have been projected back when the original approvals were granted.
Staff finds the criterion met.
P63
X.a
P64
X.a
P65
X.a
P66
X.a
P67
X.a
P68
X.a
P69
X.a
P70
X.a
P71
X.a
P72
X.a
P73
X.a
P74
X.a
P75
X.a
P76
X.a
P77
X.a
P78
X.a
P79
X.a
P80
X.a
P81
X.a
P82
X.a
P83
X.a
P84
X.a
P85
X.a
P86
X.a
P87
X.a
P88
X.a
P89
X.a
P90
X.a
P91
X.a
P92
X.a
P93
X.a
P94
X.a
P95
X.a
P96
X.a
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
June 5, 2017
Mr. Justin Barker, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Boomerang Lodge – 500 West Hopkins Avenue
Planned Development Amendment to Project Review
Mr. Barker:
Please accept this request to amend the 2006
Planned Development for the Boomerang Lodge
project (the Project). The Boomerang Lodge provided
guest accommodations for over 50 years before going
dormant 10 years ago. This application seeks to
revive the lodge, utilizing the current approvals.
The amendment requests simple modifications to the Project, relying on the “shovel-ready”
permit and not changing the inherent nature or scope of the approvals. The changes internalize
two exterior access ways, enhance common areas and on-site amenities, and reduce the number
of lodge units while maintaining the same number of lodge keys. Exterior design updates to
materials and select windows are also planned for a future design review.
This property that has sat dormant, languishing in this neighborhood for 10+ years. This
applicant, with extensive hospitality experience, is prepared to make a substantial investment in
this historic lodge property to increase Aspen’s bed base beginning in the Spring of 2018, if
approved.
ME Aspen Ventures One LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, is the contract purchaser of
the Project. ME is the applicant and has authorized BendonAdams to represent its interest.
Aspen FSP ABR LLC is the current owner of the property and has provided its consent to this
application.
P97
X.a
Boomerang Lodge
PD Amendment
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Background
Following is a summary of the land use approvals for the property starting in 2006. In short, the
statutory and regulatory vested rights for the 2006 approvals expired in October 2015. An active
building permit application, set to expire on June 9, 2017, has kept the project alive. ME Aspen
is requesting this deadline be extended through final disposition of this application, plus adequate
time to allow the Project to actually be constructed.
2006: City Council Ordinance 26-2006 grants approval for the redevelopment of the lodge in a
four-story building including 47 lodge keys, 5 free market residential units, 2 affordable
housing units, 31 subgrade parking space, 12 surface parking spaces, and landmark
designation of the historic east wing of the Boomerang lodge. A Development Agreement
and Planned Unit Development (PUD) plat were recorded documenting site plan, floor
plans, elevations and the site-specific approval (reception # 535628, Book 83, Page 3).
2007: City of Aspen grants a demolition permit. The building, with the exception of the
landmark designated east wing, is demolished in anticipation of development.
2007: A building permit to construct the 2006 approved project is submitted to the Building
Department. The Great Recession hits and the permit is never issued.
2009: An extension of vested rights is granted by City Council via Resolution 58-2009 extending
the vested rights to October 20, 2012.
2011: City Council adopted Ordinance 9-2011 granting approval for an amendment to the 2006
approvals for a 100% affordable housing project to replace the lodge project.
Ordinance 9-2011 is appealed by third parties in District Court. In 2013, the case is
concluded and the Court upholds City Council’s adoption of Ordinance 9.
A second vested rights extension to October 20, 2015 is granted by City Council via
Resolution 80-2012 while the affordable housing project proceeds through judicial review.
2015: A building permit for the original 2006 Boomerang Lodge approval is accepted by the City
(Permit #0052.2015.ACBK). During Zoning Review, errors in floor area calculations are
discovered.
2016: City Council adopted Ordinance 15 -2016 granting a Planned Development Amendment
to reconcile the floor area calculations for deck and basement space. The applicant
removes the deck approved atop the designated wing to alleviate the calculation error.
2017: Community Development Department issued an Insubstantial Amendment to the Growth
Management approval to confirm that the 2006 Growth Management allotments remain
valid and that the reconstruction rights can be carried forward into a modified project, as
represented.
P98
X.a
Boomerang Lodge
PD Amendment
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Vested Rights
The Project was submitted for building permit review and was subsequently affected by the Great
Recession. The majority of the original Boomerang Lodge was demolished in the Summer of 2007
in anticipation of the redevelopment. The building permit was administratively extended several
times in light of the economic conditions until the permit finally expired. A complete building
permit for the Project was re-submitted and accepted by the City prior to the expiration of vested
rights in October 2015. Common law vesting of the development rights continues because the
building permit is still active.
Proposal
The Project is essentially “shovel-ready” with a pending building permit ready to be issued by the
City. The modifications address some vital design and operational characteristics to enable
success while utilizing the basic engineering, structure, massing, and overall concept.
Assuming this review and the subsequent final design review occur as planned, ME Aspen intends
to officially amend the building permit and as stated earlier, is committed to proceed with
construction starting in Spring 2018. Two Roads Hospitality is a potential operator. Two Roads is
a merger between Destination Hotels and Commune Hotels & Resorts, both with extensive resort
hospitality experience including management of the Gant in Aspen.
This application requests a reduction in the number of lodge units (by creating more connecting
rooms) while maintaining the approved number of lodge keys. Similar to how many lodge
properties in Aspen function, each unit will have a central core with a small kitchen and lock-off
units that can be used with the central core or rented to an individual guest. This enables
maximum flexibility to accommodate single travelers, a couple that only needs one room, a small
family that wants the central unit plus just one bedroom, or a large family that needs the entire
unit. This flexible arrangement has a proven track record in Aspen.
Floor Level 2006 Program Proposed Program
Lodge
Units/Keys
FM Res.
Units
AH Res.
Units
Lodge
Units/Keys
FM Res.
Units
AH Res.
Units
First Floor 16/19 0 1 9/19 0 1
Second Floor 16/20 0 1 11/21 0 1
Third Floor 7/8 3 0 3/7 3 0
Fourth Floor 0/0 2 0 0/0 2 0
TOTAL 39/47 5 2 23/47 5 2
P99
X.a
Boomerang Lodge
PD Amendment
Page 4
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Modifications to the entry area and lobby are proposed
to create an inviting communal atmosphere. A casual
open seating area with ancillary food and beverage
service will support breakfast and an apre-ski
environment connected to the outdoor pool area. The
2012 Aspen Area Community Plan suggests lodging
amenities “be designed to facilitate interaction
between residents and visitors” which aligns with the
vision for this area. The image to the right highlights
the desired atmosphere. This “living room” will be
attractive to lodge guests and be open to the general
public.
Some modification to internal layouts are still being
considered by the design team, which could result in a
few of the lodge units being stacked units, with lock-off
units on a separate level than the main core unit, and
potential relocation of the affordable housing units
within the building. These potential changes, if
pursued, will not affect the Project’s program or floor
area.
An exterior access way along the alley was originally planned as access to the second and third
level units. The revised design makes this an internal hallway with units on either side. Likewise,
the new design converts some redundant circulation space to create better corner units. The
design team has balanced the floor area of these changes with other slight variations to the
building. No increase in floor area is proposed.
Final Design Review focuses on the Project’s fit with the
neighborhood and the City’s Design Guidelines. Modification to
the roof design on the western portion of the building will liven
up the design, provide visual interest, and break-up the
otherwise linear nature of the structure.
Windows will be enlarged, selectively, to increase the open
feeling of the lodge units and to capture views. Exterior
materials will be updated to current aesthetic and to provide
architectural interest.
Finally, the applicant proposes this modified Planned Development approval expressly override
and extinguish prior approvals. This will simplify land title documentation.
P100
X.a
Boomerang Lodge
PD Amendment
Page 5
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Small Lodge Incentive Program Participation.
The Boomerang Lodge property was identified in as a property eligible for the City’s “Small Lodge
Incentive Program” as established by Ordinance No. 15, Series 2015. Several prospective
purchasers examined a purely residential concept for the property, which would have abandoned
the lodging plans.
While 100% residential use is permitted, are arguable easier to develop, the applicant is
interested in pursuing the lodge project which is more-aligned with the goals outlined in the
Community Plan.
ME Aspen principals have significant expertise in hospitality projects and recognize the City’s
efforts and incentives as meaningful. They have reviewed the requirements and limitations of
the program and will pursue the incentives in exchange for guaranteeing the property remains in
the lodging inventory for the required minimum 20-year period. This obligation will be solidified
through an official agreement at a time the City suggests is appropriate.
Final Design Review – Request to Combine to HPC
The changes proposed in this application – roof form, windows, materials – will remain subject to
a final design review, the last step of the Planned Development process. The eastern third of the
property, the historic wing, is listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
while the western two-thirds is not a landmark.
This split presents a review dilemma and the potential for two review boards to not agree in final
design matters. We request the final review be consolidated to the Historic Preservation
Commission. The eastern portion is already required to be reviewed by the HPC and assigning
jurisdiction over the remaining portions of the building to HPC for the purposes of this final design
review will simplify the process and ensure clarity. This application does not seek to amend the
boundaries of the historic designation.
Building Permit Status – Request to Extend Deadline
As mentioned above, the pending building permit is set to expire June 9th. This amendment relies
on the building permit and will utilize the same engineering, structure, and overall massing of the
project. ME Aspen (the buyer) and FSP ABR (the seller) request this deadline be extended through
the final disposition of this application, including the time needed for final design review by the
HPC and adequate additional time to allow the project to actually be constructed. All parties,
including the City, have a substantial investment in the pending building permit. Extending the
deadline enables this discussion of design changes while enforcing the deadline effectively voids
any discussion.
The attached documents, drawings, and responses to review criteria address the various review
requirements and standards. We attempted to address all relevant provisions of the City’s Land
P101
X.a
Boomerang Lodge
PD Amendment
Page 6
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Use Code and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the
application. Upon request, BendonAdams will gladly provide such additional information as may
be required in the course of the review. We look forward to discussing these modifications with
City staff, referral agencies, and the City Council.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments
A
1. Planned Development Amendment Review Criteria
2. Growth Management Amendment Review Criteria
3. Transportation and Mobility Review Criteria
4. Transportation Impact Analysis
5. Existing Program Color Block Diagrams
6. Proposed Program Color Block Diagrams
7. Site Survey
8. Proposed Plans, Elevations
B
1. Land Use Application and Agree to Pay
2. Pre-application Conference Summary
3. Proof of Ownership
4. Authorization Letter
5. HOA Compliance Form
6. Vicinity Map
7. List of Property Owners within 300 Feet
C
1. P&Z Resolution No. 18, 2006
2. City Council Ordinance No. 26, 2006
3. 2007 Admin Amendment
4. 2007 Recorded PUD Agreement
5. 2007 Recorded Subdivision/PUD Plat and Plans
6. 2008 Admin Amendment
7. 2016 City Council Floor Area Amendment approval
8. 2017 GMQS Approval
P102
X.a
Exhibit A1
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A1
Planned Development
26.445.110.D Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of
Project Review approval or which otherwise represents an insubstantial change but which does not meet
established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the City Council, pursuant to 26.445.040.B.2 – Step Two. An applicant many not apply for
Detailed Review if an amendment is pending.
26.445.050 Project Review Standards
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall
rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to
the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall
be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the
development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance
granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and the City Council shall
consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable
adopted regulatory plans.
Response – The proposed development is not subject to any adopted regulatory plans.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land
unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including
flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining
activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any
other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the
community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation
techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design
Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines by defined as part
of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – The land is located in a residential neighborhood that is already developed. The subject
property is suitable for development – it is flat and was previously developed as a lodge (which has been
demolished). The property’s zoning R6-LP-PD expressly allows for a lodging development.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting
this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
P103
X.a
Exhibit A1
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 2 of 6
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep
slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to
blend in with or enhance said features.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to
the identity of the town.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service
vehicle access.
Response – The approved 2006 site plan is not proposed to change with the requested amendment. The
approved footprint of the development remains unchanged. The approved site plan orients buildings to
the street and fits into the neighborhood context of single family, duplex, multi-family and lodge
development. Buildings and access ways meet required Codes. The designated historic Boomerang wing
is preserved and will be improved to again function as guest accommodations.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project
Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title.
In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria:
Response – The requested amendment maintains the number of lodge keys approved in 2006, and seeks
approval to reduce the number of units 1 from 39 lodge units to 23 lodge units. With the exception of a
reduction of lodge units (not keys), there are no proposed changes to any other dimensional requirements
of the project.
Table 1: Approved vs. Proposed lodge room configuration
Floor Level 2006 Approval Proposed Amendment
Keys Units Keys Units
First Floor 19 16 19 9
Second Floor 20 16 21 11
Third Floor 8 7 7 3
Fourth Floor 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 47 39 47 23
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
Response - There are no variations requested with the proposed amendment. The proposal to maintain
existing keys and to reduce the number of total lodge units responds to the current market demand. The
project was approved over 10 years ago. Flexible lodging configurations through lock-offs (represented as
keys) that can be individually rented or grouped together to accommodate large families respond to
today’s marketplace and fulfill a community goal to provide a range of lodging options. The 2012 Aspen
Area Community Plan seeks to replenish the lodging base, favoring a diverse inventory. The ability to fill
1 For the purposes of this amendment, a Key is the smallest division that can be rented to a guest. Lodge unit describes the
largest aggregation of Keys into a single rentable division available for a lodge guest.
P104
X.a
Exhibit A1
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 3 of 6
a need for small rooms through the 47 keys, and the ability to address a growing demand for larger suites
through a series of lock-offs creates a viable lodging project at 500 E. Hopkins Ave.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Response – The proposed reduction of overall lodge units while maintaining the number of keys does not
change the character of the lodging project. The overall height and floor area of the project remains within
the limits of the existing approval. The Boomerang Lodge includes 2 affordable housing units and 5 free
market residential units as shown below and in the attached floor plans. Free-Market net livable
residential is not increasing. Some minor increases to lodge and affordable housing net livable may occur
through final construction drawings. No increase to floor area will occur.
Table 2: Comparison of project approval to proposal
2006 Approval Proposal Change
Lodge Units 39 23 -16
Lodge Keys 47 47 -
Lodge Floor Area 23,613 sf 24,363 sf +750 sf
Average Lodge Key Size – Floor Area 2 502 sf 512 sf +10 sf
Average Lodge Key Size – Net Livable 3 ~450-460 est. 464 sf +5-10 sf est.
Free Market Residential Units 5 5 -
Free Market Residential Net Livable Area 10,737 sf 10,737 sf -
Affordable Housing Units 2 2 -
Affordable Housing Floor Area 1,416 sf 1,416 sf -
Affordable Housing Net Livable Area 1,314 sf 1,314 sf
Deck/Balcony Area 4 11,280 sf 11,280 sf -
Total Project Floor Area 5 46,140 sf 46,140 sf -
The proposal has a range of lodge key sizes from 400 to 850 sf, with an average key size of 463.5 square
feet of net livable area. It appears that the previous average key size measurement was based on floor
area and is therefore much larger. There is sufficient back of house (shown on sheet A 3.1.0), a front desk,
lobby, and lodging amenities such as a large communal apre-ski area with ancillary food and beverage
service. Two Roads Hospitality is the potential operator. Two Roads is a merger between Destination
2 The prior project key size was based on floor area. The proposed key size is provide in floor area as an equal
comparison.
3 The prior project was not evaluated on a net livable key size. This is an estimate.
4 5 Project floor area and deck/balcony area maximums reset by Ordinance 15, Series 2016 and are not proposed to
be reduced.
P105
X.a
Exhibit A1
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 4 of 6
Hotels and Commune Hotels & Resorts, both with extensive resort hospitality experience including
management of the Gant in Aspen.
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
Response - A refresh of the architecture to reflect current design aesthetic, including some updated roof
forms and internalizing exterior hallways within the building, are proposed. The applicant understands
the changes in fenestration and materials is subject to a final design review by either the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission. The minor design changes will not breach
the established dimensional requirements for height, floor area, or setbacks, and will better relate to the
historic Boomerang wing and neighborhood context by complying with the newly adopted Commercial
Design Standards and Guidelines.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number
of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed
uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for
pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered
when establishing a parking requirement.
Response – There is no proposed change to the off-street parking approved via City Council Ordinance 26,
Series of 2006. The Ordinance and recorded Development Agreement specify 31 underground parking
spaces and 12 surface parking spaces that are partially located within the Right-of-Way for a total of 43
spaces associated with the Project.
The newly adopted Transportation and Parking Mitigation Chapter requires the following off-street
parking:
Hotel/Lodge (@ 0.5 units per Key) 47*0.5 = 23.5 units
Residential within Mixed Use (@1 unit per Dwelling) 7*1 = 7 units
Total = 30.5 units
Under the new Code, 100% of the parking requirement is permitted to be met onsite. The 30.5 required
parking units are provided onsite within the parking garage. In addition, the project is approved for 12
surface spaces that are partially located within the Right-of-Way. (However, only 11 surface spaces are
shown on the approved plan set with 32 shown in the basement.) The surface spaces are located in front
of the historic Boomerang wing. Maintaining the relationship of parking to the historic lodge lobby is
important to the history of the lodge and the auto-centric tourism trend that captured the nation in the
mid-20th century. It is important to preserve this relationship and the impact that national tourism had on
Aspen’s development as a destination.
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is included in this application. The 2006 approvals (part 3.6 of the
recorded Development Agreement) required 5 bicycles for use by lodging guests, with covered bike
P106
X.a
Exhibit A1
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 5 of 6
storage, to offset trip generation impacts and PM10 generated by the project. The TIA includes the
commitment to providing bicycles in addition to participation in the City’s Transportation Options Program
(which was included in Ordinance 26, of 2006, Section 6.4).
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for
dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject
to the amendment procedures of Section 26. 445.110- Amendments.
Response – not applicable.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual
character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter
26.410 Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter
26.415, Historic Preservation.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards,
as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during
Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to
architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Response – Design changes to better relate to the neighborhood have been internally discussed. The
applicant is interested in updating exterior aesthetics, selectively increase window sizes, and providing
some roof articulation on the western portion of the building. The applicant prefers to address the change
to unit count first to determine whether this is a viable lodging project before undertaking Final design
review to consider the architectural changes in detail. All changes will be within the approved dimensions
and the applicant understands the project will be subject to a detailed review by either the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission.
The applicant requests the ability to apply to HPC for design changes for the entire property, not just the
landmark designated portion of the property. Design review by HPC for the entire property will facilitate
a more seamless design discussion. The applicant does NOT want to extend the landmark designation to
the entire property, rather the request is for HPC to conduct Commercial Design Review for the non-
designated portion of the property concurrent with design review for the designated section.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and
improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and
implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a
Development Agreement.
Response – There are no changes to the approved bicycle parking and bike fleet approved in 2006. A traffic
generation study was included in the original application. A reduction to the number of units does not
P107
X.a
Exhibit A1
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 6 of 6
impact pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. A TIA is included in the application which addresses
pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and
mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards an the City of Aspen Urban
Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques,
and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a
Development Agreement.
Response – The proposed reduction to number of lodge units does not impact Engineering Design
standards. The approved project complies with Engineering requirements – a Building Permit application
has been reviewed by Engineering and all other applicable City departments is near ready for issuance;
however, the applicant requests that the permit review be suspended until after this amendment is
processed.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public
infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the
developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation
timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – The proposed reduction to number of lodge units does not impact Engineering Design
standards. The approved project complies with Engineering requirements – a Building Permit application
has been reviewed by Engineering and all other applicable City departments is near ready for issuance.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular
access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from
a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private
ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access.
Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited.
Response – 500 West Hopkins is an entire City block. Adequate access to the property is provided. Entrance
to the parking garage is accessed from the alleyway. Security and privacy gates are not proposed across
access points or driveways.
P108
X.a
Exhibit A2
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A2
Growth Management
26.470.150. Amendment of a growth management development order.
The amendments contemplated are to the number of “units.” The project will continue to support 47
“keys” – the smallest rentable division that can be occupied by a guest. “Units” are the largest aggregation
of keys that can be occupied by a guest.
The project was originally designed as a 39 unit, 47 key hotel. The proposed design amends the units to
23 and maintains 47 keys. The change allows units with more flexible configuration – to function as a
traditional one-room lodge unit up to a 3-bedroom unit.
A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved growth management
development order may be authorized by the Community Development Director if:
1. The change conforms to all other provisions of the Land Use Code and does not exceed approved
variations to the residential design standards, require an amendment to the commercial design
review approval or such variations or amendments have been approved.
Response – Minor changes are proposed to the layout, the most-significant being a change to the
rear façade where an external balcony is currently designed to serve as access to individual lodge
units. The access way is proposed to be internalized, brought into the building as a center hallway
serving units on either side in a more-traditional layout. Minor changes are also proposed to
fenestration, materials, and articulation of roof forms. Larger windows and updated materials
will enable the project to reflect current design trends. The roof articulation is intended to provide
visual interest and break-up the current design’s linearity. These changes are subject to the
Planned Development modification process.
2. The change does not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction of the proposed affordable
housing units, or those changes have been accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
Response – The project was originally approved with two, one-bedroom Category 2 rental units of
approximately 657 square feet of net livable space each. The approval stated these units as 708
sf each although this appears to have been a floor area figure. The units were intended to serve
as housing for employees of the lodge operation but could be sold to qualified Category 2
purchasers. The approval required a 1/10th % interest be conveyed to the City to secure the rental
rate restriction. These two units accomplished the entire affordable housing requirement for the
project.
The proposal maintains this same affordable housing commitment. These units are proposed in
their same location and configuration and will continue to be Category 2 rental units. The minimal
P109
X.a
Exhibit A2
Planned Development- Project Review
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 2 of 2
undivided interest to secure the affordable rental rate will be provided or a similar mechanism to
ensure the units maintain their affordability.
3. The change is limited to technical or engineering considerations discovered prior to or during
actual development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process or any
other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no substantial effect on
the conditions and representations made during the original project review.
Response – This finding was made just recently based on the plan and program currently being
proposed – the 2017 GMQS approval attached as Exhibit C8. The overall program and
fundamentals of the project are no different that the representations made during that review.
P110
X.a
Exhibit A3
Transportation and Mobility
500 W. Hopkins Ave.
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A3
Transportation and Mobility
26.515.060 Procedure for Review.
C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan,
which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The
Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the
project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards:
1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor, or
major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.
Response – TIA requirements for a minor project are met as shown in Exhibit A4. The 2006 approvals (part
3.6 of the recorded Development Agreement) required 5 bicycles for use by lodging guests, with covered
bike storage, to offset trip generation impacts and PM10 generated by the project. The TIA includes the
commitment to providing bicycles in addition to participation in the City’s Transportation Options Program
(which was included in Ordinance 26, of 2006, Section 6.4).
2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050.
Response – Under the new Code, 100% of the parking requirement is permitted to be met onsite. The 30.5
required parking units under the new Code are entirely met onsite within the parking garage. In addition,
the project is approved for 12 surface spaces that are partially located within the Right-of-Way. (The
recorded plat, however, shows 11 surface spaces.) The surface spaces are located in front of the historic
Boomerang wing. Maintaining the relationship of parking to the historic lodge lobby is important to the
history of the lodge and the auto-centric tourism trend that captured the nation in the mid-20th century.
It is important to preserve this relationship and the impact that national tourism had on Aspen’s
development as a destination.
Hotel/Lodge (@ 0.5 units per Key) 47 x 0.5 = 23.5 units
Residential within Mixed Use (@1 unit per Dwelling) 7 x 1 = 7 units
Total = 30.5 units
3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for
that increment of expansion.
Response – n/a.
4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless
all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.
Response – n/a.
Projects failing to meet the requirements of this section may apply for a variation to the Planning and
Zoning Commission through the Special Review process (Section 26.430 and Section 26.515.080).
P111
X.a
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 8.5 15 0.15 15.15 0.00
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202
970-925-2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
5/25/2017
Boomerang Lodge PD Amendment
500 W. Hopkins Avenue
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.
Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided.
Each response should cover the following:
1.Explain the selected measure.
2.Call out where the measure is located.
3.Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site
and reduce traffic impacts.
4.Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.
5.Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.
6.Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
The application proposes to amend the 2006 Boomerang Lodge approval. The amendment reduces the number of lodge units and maintains
the number of lodge keys (47). Two affordable housing units and five free market residential units are included in the approved project. An
underground parking garage and four stories above grade are approved for the site. There are 12 surface parking spaces, located partially in
the right of way, included in the 2006 approvals. However, 11 surface spaces are shown on the recorded plans. Eleven surface spaces are
represented on the TIA site plan.
MMLOS
In the space provided call out the effective sidewalk width and the percentage of the site which meets or exceeds the minimum standard
width. Explain the site constraints for areas which do not meet the minimum width.
The sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue and along 5th Street is proposed as an 8-foot-wide surface with a 5-foot buffer to the back of curb. This
meets/exceeds the City's requirement. We are amenable to these walkways being 5-feet wide to better align with the neighborhood if
requested by the City. The sidewalk along 4th Street is pinched by the existing head-in parking, which remains, and the historic building, also
to remain. The sidewalk in this area is 5-feet wide, representing roughly 25% of the sidewalk area.
Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes
adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps
in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points.
The lodge main entrance is along 4th Street, utilizing the historic building entrance. The directness factor os 1.19 (107 feet / 90 feet) Several
of the ground floor units also have their individual exterior access.
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Exhibit A4
P112
X.a
No additional information.
TDM
Explain below how the project plans to participate in the Transportation Options Program (TOP). The successful project will work with City
of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. Notes: This program is not typically
appropriate for employers of less than 20 employees. Grant funding from the TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation
measures until the reporting period has been successfully completed
The lodge operator will be a member of the City's TOP and employees will be eligible for its benefits.
Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should
include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative
transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational
materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities
such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day
passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.
The lodge operator will provide information to employees regarding trip reduction programs, orientation to transit services and the City's
bike share program. Guests will be oriented to the bus system, the City's bike share program, the lodge-provided bike fleet, and be provided
with bus/bike/walk maps by the lodge operator and concierge.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
None additional.
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Sidewalk Width and Buffer Width
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Bicycle Parking
The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of the
lodge operator.
Monitoring and Reporting
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Requirements of the TIA will be included in operator agreements and be made part of the performance expectations.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
P113
X.a
Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan
requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results
and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data.
The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of the
lodge operator. The owner and operator will make a good faith effort to assess compliance and effectiveness of the implemented measures,
and submit the information to the City as requested.
P114
X.a
= input
= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Market Housing (Units)5 Units 0.97 2.38 3.35 2.30 1.80 4.10
Affordable Housing (Units)2 Units 0.72 0.78 1.50 0.98 0.80 1.78
Lodging (Units)13 Units 1.85 1.40 3.25 2.10 1.93 4.03
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.54 4.56 7.78 5.37 4.54 8.52
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Is this a major or minor project?
500 W. Hopkins Avenue
Boomerang Lodge PD Amendment
Net New
Units/Square Feet of
the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied
to the trip generation.
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202
970-925-2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
5/25/2017
Instructions:
IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"
and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro
Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."
Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The
numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be
reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.
Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points
are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.
Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which
explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure
that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense
Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout
Major Development -Outside the Roundabout
Helpful Hints:
1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.
2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.
2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.
3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will
not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the
context of project location and future use.
Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA Frequently Asked Questions
P115
X.a
= input
= calculation
15
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
1
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths?
Yes 5
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?No 0
5
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
No 0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?NA 0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample
area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in
this category.
No 0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. No 0
0
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0
12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or
column?Yes 0
13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2%
or less?Yes 0
14
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from
the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new
access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street.
Yes 5
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction
with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
5
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
No 0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
0
10Pedestrian Total*
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
Subtotal
PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP116
X.a
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?No 0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?No 0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
0
Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5
5
5
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
0
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?No 0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0
0
0
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
P117
X.a
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?Yes
What percentage of employees are eligible?100%
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?No
How many employee memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No
How many memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100%
1.71%
0.00%
1.71%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
TDM Input Page
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
End of Trip Facilities
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
11
12
13
14
15
21
16
17
18
19
20
Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or
MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit
for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of
project location and future use.
P118
X.a
0 10 20
scale
north
BOOMERANG LODGE
TIA
aspen | colorado
Walking Distance: 107 �
Access Point
Pedestrian Directness Factor: 1.19
Crow Flies Distance: 90 �P119X.a
FLEXIBLE LODGE UNITS (EXISTING)1480 SF2528 SF3528SF4480SF7500 SF9500 SF11500 SF13500 SF15500 SF16500 SF14500 SF12500 SF10500 SF8500 SF6500 SF5500 SF17500 SF18320 SF19430 SF1000 SFTOTAL1000 SFTOTAL1000 SFTOTAL32547BUILDING TOTALTHIS FLOOR19 ROOMS8Exhibit A51P120X.a
FLEXIBLE LODGE UNITS (EXISTING)20430 SF19320 SF17520 SF16490 SF14650 SF12650 SF10650 SF7900 SF6500 SF5500 SF4480 SF3528 SF2528 SF1480 SF1070 SFTOTAL1070 SFTOTAL8650 SF9360 SF11360 SF60 SF60 SF13360 SF15360 SF60 SF60 SF1070 SFTOTAL1070 SFTOTAL18320 SF20 ROOMS14P121X.a
1480 SF4480 SF3528 SF2528 SFFLEXIBLE LODGE UNITS (EXISTING)8450 SF7470 SF6500 SF5500 SF11720 SF21862 SF31862 SF920 SFTOTAL8 ROOMS31P122X.a
12613 SF22680 SF2P123X.a
Exhibit A6P124X.a
P125X.a
P126X.a
P127X.a
3.21.17P128X.a
Exhibit 8P129X.a
P130X.a
FLEXIBLE LODGE UNITS (EXISTING)1480 SF2528 SF3528 SF4480 SF7500 SF9500 SF11500 SF13500 SF15500 SF16500 SF14500 SF12500 SF10500 SF8500 SF6500 SF5500 SF17500 SF18320 SF19430 SF1000 SFTOTAL1000 SFTOTAL1000 SFTOTAL31547BUILDING TOTALTHIS FLOOR19 ROOMS6P131X.a
FLEXIBLE LODGE UNITS (EXISTING)20430 SF19320 SF17520 SF16490 SF14650 SF12650 SF10650 SF7900 SF6500 SF5500 SF4480 SF3528 SF2528 SF1480 SF1070 SFTOTAL1070 SFTOTAL8650 SF9360 SF11360 SF60 SF60 SF13360 SF15360 SF60 SF60 SF1070 SFTOTAL1070 SFTOTAL18320 SF20 ROOMS14P132X.a
1480 SF4480 SF3528 SF2528 SFFLEXIBLE LODGE UNITS (EXISTING)8450 SF7470 SF6500 SF5500 SF11720 SF21862 SF31862 SF920 SFTOTAL8 ROOMS31P133X.a
12613 SF22680 SF2P134X.a
01020scalenorthBOOMERANG LODGESITE PLANaspen | coloradoP135X.a
P136X.a
P137X.a
P138X.a
P139X.a
P140X.a
P141X.a
P142X.a
P143X.a
P144X.a
P145X.a
P146X.a
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply):
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ______________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be
submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference
summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
Special Review Subdivision
Conceptual SPA
ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA
Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment)
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Conditional Use Other:
Boomerang Lodge Planned Development adn GMQS Amendment
500 West Hopkins Avenue
2735-124-49-002
BendonAdams
(970)925-2855
Lodge approved via Ordinance 26, 2006. 47 lodge keys, 5 free-market residences, 2 affordable residences
underground parking and accessory uses.
Amendments to the approved project to accommodate interior hallways, amended public spaces,
and a reduction in the number of units (39 to 23) but retaining the number of lodge keys (47). 4,550
GMQS insub. amend.
n/a
300 So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611
ME Aspen Ventures One LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company
c/o Genshaft Cramer; 420 East Main Street, Suite 200; Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.9450
Exhibit B1 P147
X.a
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and
Property Eric Witmondt, Manager, ME
Owner ("I"): Aspen Ventures One LLC
Address of
Property:
(Subject of
application)
500 West Hopkins Avenue;
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone No.: Eric.Witmondt@woodmontproperties.com
Email: 973.487.1800
Billing
Address:
(send bills here)
nc I mon
c/o Woodmont Properties
Greenbrook Executive Center
100 Passaic Avenue, Suite 240
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment
of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that
I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$. _____ flat fee for _______ _ $. _____ flat fee for ___________ _
$. _____ flat fee for _______ _ $., _____ flat fee for ___________ _
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated.
$ 4,550 deposit for 14 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$ _______ deposit for _____ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen:
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
City Use:
Fees Due: $ __ Received $ __ _
Property Owner:
Name: Eric Witmondt
Manager, ME Aspen Ventures One LLC, a
Title: Colorado Limited Liability Company
March, 2016 City of Apen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920 SOSO
P148
X.a
ASLU
Boomerang Lodge
Minor PD Amendment
Parcel ID No. 273512449002
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 5.17.2017
PROJECT: Boomerang Lodge
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, chris@bendonadams.com
DESCRIPTION:
The Boomerang Lodge was originally approved in 2006. According to Section 26.304.080.D, the vested rights for a
development order may not exceed ten (10) years. The vested rights for this project expired in October 2015. The
project currently has an active building permit that is set to expire on June 9, 2017. The project remains valid
through common law vesting through the life of the building permit.
The applicant is interested in amending the project, particularly related to the number of lodging units. There is an
amendment to the Growth Management development order that is currently being processed and is anticipated for
approval. If the proposed project is submitted prior to June 9, 2017 and consistent with that which is represented in
the Growth Management amendment, the request would qualify as an Minor Amendment to the Project Review
approval. However, since the vested rights have expired, any changes would be subject to the Land Use Code in
effect at the time of submission, including affordable housing mitigation calculations. If the proposed project is not
consistent with that represented in the amendment, it would be considered a Substantial Amendment and would
require new growth management allotments in addition to all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code
in effect at the time of submission. Additionally, changes to the number of lodge units or keys or other
programmatic aspects may impact parking requirements, which would need to be addressed. A Minor TIA should
also be submitted with the application, as compliance is required under the current code.
External changes to the project will be subject to Commercial Design Review, and the applicable Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Standards and Guidelines in the General, Pedestrian Amenity, and Small Lodge
Chapters. Any exterior changes to the project will need to address these design requirements. Design review is
typically completed by the P&Z or HPC, but may be combined with the City Council review for the non-historic
portion, if the applicant desires. Any external changes to the historic portion of the lodge shall require HPC review.
As that is not currently anticipated, it has not been included in this pre-application summary.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.412 Commercial Design Review
26.445.110.D Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval
26.470 Growth Management Quota System
26.515 Transportation and Parking Management
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710 Zone Districts (R-6 and LP)
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use Application: Land Use Application
Below is Land Use Code: Land Use Code
Exhibit B2
P149
X.a
2
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation
City Council
Public Hearing: Yes, at City Council
Planning Fees: $4,550 Deposit for 14 hours of staff time (additional planning hours are billed at a rate
of $325/hour).
Total Deposit: $4,550
Please submit one copy of the following items to the Community Development Office on the
Third Floor of City Hall:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting
of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and
encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the 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.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached)
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 and
relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the
City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code-
Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be
included with the application.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
Total deposit for review of the application.
a digital copy of all application materials provided in pdf file format.
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.
P150
X.a
420 East Main Street, Suite 200
Aspen, CO 81611
Tel: (970) 925-9450
Fax: (888) 266-0103
www.genshaftcramer.com
March 23, 2017
VIA EMAIL
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention: Ms. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Re: Boomerang Lodge, 500 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611.
Dear Jessica:
This letter is to confirm that ME Aspen Ventures One, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
is currently under contract to purchase the property in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, known
as the Boomerang Lodge and legally described as the Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/PUD, according to
the plat recorded March 21, 2007 in Plat Book 83 at Page 3.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
GENSHAFT CRAMER LLP
__________________________
By: Benjamin S. Genshaft, Esq.
cc: Chris Bendon
Facsimile:888-266-0103
www.thomasgenshaft.com
Exhibit B3
P151
X.a
P152X.a
Exhibit B4P153X.a
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applicat ions within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attomev representing the property owner.
Name: trrc Witmondt
Manager ME Asoen Ventures One LLC Property
0-Nner ("lj: Email: Eric.Witmondt@woodmontproperties.com Phone No.: 973.487.1800
Address of
Property: (subject of application)
Boomerang Lodge
500 West Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
I certify as follows: (pick one)
i;zJ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the
improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners
association or covenant beneficiary.
D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the
improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners
association or covenant benefi ciary. Evidence of approval is attached.
I understand this policy and I understand the Ci ty of Aspen does not interpret , enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document
;/i_
·s a blic doc ment.
Owner signature: --�--,....;::;'--------date;,., :J / z. '1/( 7I I
Owner printed name: _E_ri_c_W_i_tm_on_d_t _____ _Manager, ME Aspen Ventures One LLC, a
.Qt Colorado Limited Liabili ty Company
Attorney signature: ___________ date .. ·,-�---
Attorney printed name: __________ _
Exhibit B5
P154
X.a
Boomerang Lodge – Vicinity Map
500 West Hopkins Avenue
Exhibit B6
P155
X.a
Exhibit B7
P156
X.a
P157
X.a
P158
X.a
P159
X.a
P160
X.a
P161
X.a
Exhibit C1
P162
X.a
P163
X.a
P164
X.a
P165
X.a
P166
X.a
P167
X.a
P168
X.a
P169
X.a
P170
X.a
P171
X.a
Exhibit C2 P172
X.a
P173
X.a
P174
X.a
P175
X.a
P176
X.a
P177
X.a
P178
X.a
P179
X.a
P180
X.a
P181
X.a
P182
X.a
P183
X.a
P184
X.a
P185
X.a
P186
X.a
P187
X.a
P188X.a
P189X.a
Exhibit C3
P190
X.a
P191
X.a
P192
X.a
P193
X.a
P194
X.a
P195
X.a
P196
X.a
\ \II \ II \ II\ \ 11 1\ \11 111\ \\\II Ill\ \\I II �;�� ��;� :! , 31F
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 111.00 0 0.00
SUBDIVISION/PUD AGREEMENT
FOR THE
BOOMERANG LODGE SUBDIVISION/PUD
THIS SUBDIVISION/PUD AGREEMENT is made and entered into this IS 'l'--day of f:i,_,. d," , 2007, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado home rule municipality
(hereinafter referred to herein as the "City"), and ASPEN FSP-ABR, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Developer"), for the purposes recited herein.
WIT NE S S E TH:
WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the Boomerang Lodge, located at 500 West Hopkins
Avenue in Aspen, Colorado, on real property legally described as Lots K through S, Block 31, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (referred to herein as the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Developer submitted to the City an application for Final Planned Unit
Development approval (the "Application") which Application requested the approval, execution and
recordation of a Final Plat of the Property; and the approval and the recordation of a Final PUD
Development Plan and related documents ( collectively, the "Final PUD Development Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the Application, the Final Plat, the Final PUD
Development Plan, the proposed development and improvement of the Property, and the effects of
the proposed development and improvement of said property on adjoining or neighboring properties
and property owners; and has determined that the development proposal set forth in the Application
(hereinafter referred to as the "Project") meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and
that the approval of the Application, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of
the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with
its approval, execution and recordation of the Final Plat and the Final PUD Development Plan,
subject to certain limitations, conditions and requirements set forth herein, such matters being
necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public safety, health and welfare; and
WHEREAS, Developer is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and faithfully perform
the conditions and requirements imposed by the City in approving the Application, the Final Plat,
and the Final PUD Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, under the Authority of Sections 26.445.070 and 26.480.070 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the City is entitled to certain financial assurances to ensure (i) that the required
improvements to the public right-of-way are installed and (ii) that the required landscaping is
implemented and maintained, and Developer is prepared to provide such guarantees as hereinafter
set forth; and
Subdivision/Pud Agreement for the
Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/PUD
Page I
Exhibit C4
P197
X.a
P198
X.a
P199
X.a
P200
X.a
P201
X.a
P202
X.a
P203
X.a
P204
X.a
P205
X.a
P206
X.a
P207
X.a
P208
X.a
P209
X.a
P210
X.a
P211
X.a
P212
X.a
P213
X.a
P214
X.a
P215
X.a
P216
X.a
P217
X.a
P218
X.a
Exhibit C5P219X.a
P220X.a
P221X.a
P222X.a
P223X.a
P224X.a
P225X.a
P226X.a
P227X.a
P228X.a
P229X.a
P230X.a
P231X.a
P232X.a
P233X.a
Exhibit C6
P234
X.a
P235
X.a
P236
X.a
P237
X.a
Exhibit C7
P238
X.a
P239
X.a
P240
X.a
P241
X.a
Exhibit C8P242X.a
P243X.a
P244X.a
P245X.a
P246X.a
P247X.a
P248X.a
P249
X.a
P250
X.a
P251
X.a
P252
X.a
P253
X.a
P254
X.a
0 10 20
scale
north
BOOMERANG LODGE
SITE PLAN
aspen | colorado P255X.a
P256X.a
P257X.a
P258X.a
P259X.a
P260X.a
P261X.a
P262X.a
P263X.a
P264X.a
P265X.a
P266X.a
P267X.a
P268X.a
P269X.a
P270X.a
Jennifer Phelan
From: Adam Frisch
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:41 PM
To: Susan C ONeal
Cc: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: Re: Please do not approve the Boomerang Condo/Hotel monstrosity.
Susan-
Happy September.
Thank you for reaching out to us on the Boomerang. I want to acknowledge your email, but please understand as this is
a live land use application, I am prevented from commenting outside of public meetings. I am copying Jennifer Phelan to
make sure your comments become part of the public record.
Apologies for short response.
-a
From: Susan O'Neal <susaninaspen44@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM
To: Steven Skadron <steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com>, Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>, Adam
Frisch <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com>, Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@gmail.com>, Cuthbert Myrin
<bert.myrin@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Please do not approve the Boomerang Condo/Hotel monstrosity.
Dear City Council,
PLEASE DO NOT approve the Boomerang monstrosity! Aspen will be ruined by these large buildings.
Susan O'Neal
The proposed Boomerang is too big and too tall.
Much of it is 4 stories tall. It takes up the entire block on W. Hopkins between
41h and 5th streets.
The latest round of requested changes make it even more like a FREE
MARKET CONDO than a HISTORIC LODGE.
It will change this quiet neighborhood and the West Hopkins Pedestrian
Bikeway forever.
Please do NOT approve this monstrosity!
1
w�IiTs�i lef dl�YY11
in 17,W weww t
1Y.n�mr�^Iwme _. �. w
ilA�m)N..�s
}Rllv+���il�t,
,� � ;
t _ •r
�I L����+w ��t
tt rt3Y.�.O t t�_�{
... M1 '...� �.
.nrwa�............ ... .._.............a
a+Jfw�a 9mny�u�r�sn Wnl HgYN{MFMAM ASWYM
Z
K C KLEIN COTE EDWARDS CITRON LLC
EIC ATTORNEYS
HERBERT S.KLEIN' hsk@kceclaw.con, 101 SOUTH.MILL.STREET
LANCE R.COTE,.PC" cote@kceclaw.com SUITE 200
JOSEPH E.EDWARDS,111,PC" lee@kceclaw.com - ASPEN,COLORADO 81611'
KENNETH E.CITRON"* kcitroo@kceclaw.com TELEPHONE:(970)925-8700
MADHU 8.KRISHNAMURTI mbk@kceclaw.com www.liceclaw.com
-also admitted In Hawail
--also admitted in California
""also admitted in New York and Massachusetts
September 7, 2017
City of Aspen City Council
c/o Jennifer Phelan,Deputy Director
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed PD Amendment("Application");
Second Reading of proposed Ordinance 21 (Series of 201.7)("Ord 21")
Dear Mr. Mayor.and Councilors:
Our office represents Steve. Goldenberg, John Staton, and the Christiana Condominium:
Owners'.Association, all of whom are neighbors of the Boomerang property. Weare writing to
express our serious concern about the possible denial of the public's right to vote on the above-
referenced project as required by the Aspen Charter and the impact on the neighborhood of the
Boomerang Lodge.
Since obtaining a Development Order and demolishing the non-historic portion of the
Boomerang Lodge over a decade ago, the owner of the subject property has failed to exercise its
rights. Those rights have expired. This owner must now comply with the City of Aspen Land
Use Code as it exists today.'
Development Order
A "Development Order" is defined by the City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code
("Code"), as "A written authorization issued pursuant to the terms of this Title to undertake
development according to an approved site-specific development plan." Code §26.104.100. The
Code states, "Unless specifically exempted from its terms, no development of land or land use
shall be undertaken without first having been reviewed, approved and issued a development
order. consistent with the provisions of this Title." Code §26.1.04.040. Further, Code
The Staff Memo at pages 2&Tcorrectly states that the Application must comply with the current Code.
J
L
i
Aspen City Council
September 7; 2017
Page 2
§26.304.080D confirms that, "In no case shall a development order be valid more than ten (10)'
years" Thus, there is no valid development order authorizing the commencement of
development on the Boomerang site.
Vested Rights
The proposed Ord 21, in the second "Whereas" clause and the.Application on pages 2 &
3, assert that the applicant-has an existing "common law"vested right. This is simply incorrect.
There are two types of vested rights — statutory and common law. Everyone agrees (see
Application pg 2)that the statutory vested rights for the Boomerang expired on October 20, 2015
pursuant to Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012). In order to establish a common law vested right,
a developer must both (1) obtain a building permit and (2) reasonably and detrimentally take
substantial steps(more than mere preparatory work) in reliance thereon.
There is no fixed formula for determining whether or not a common law'right has
vested. See Ficarra v. Department of Regulatory Agencies, supra, 849 P.2d at 17
(the term vested right "sums up a judicial determination that the facts of the case
render it inequitable that the State impede the individual from taking certain
action"); P—W Investments, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 655 P.2d 1365
(Colo.1982) (determination depends on factual considerations such as whether a
develope'r's reliance was reasonable, made in good faith, and more than
preparatory work; absent reasonable reliance, water and sewer tap permits do not
provide basis for common law vested right). The general rule, however,provides
that a common law right to develop does not vest until the party has taken
substantial steps in reliance on a building permit. See Crawford v. McLaughlin,
172 Colo. 366; 473 P.2d 725 (1970) (right may vest based. on substantial
expenditure in reliance on initial permit despite need for additional permits);
Cline v. Boulder, 168 Colo. 112, 450 P.2d 335 (1969) (absent reliance,possession
of a building permit does not vest a property right in the owner).
Villa at Greeley, Inc. v. Hopper, 917 P.2d 350, 355-356 (Colo. App..1996).
As stated in the Application, the right to obtain a Building Permit was "live" on June 5,
2017 when the Application was filed, but was scheduled to expire four days later on June 9,
2017. Looking at the physical status of the Boomerang property today, nothing has changed
since 2007 when most of the old Boomerang Lodge was removed. The applicant fails to satisfy
both of the requirements for common law vested rights—there are simply no common law vested
rights associated with the Boomerang property.
Since the applicant has no vested rights, the staff memorandum ("Staff Memo") for the
August 14, 2017 City Council hearing on the First Reading of proposed Ord 21 correctly
confirms, this application must comply with the current Code (Staff Memo pp. 2 and 7) in
1
Aspen City Council
j September 7, 2017
Page 3
order to obtain a new Development Order and be entitled to proceed with development. The
Staff Memo also acknowledges that the current Code has changed and the applicant will have to
comply with certain site specific changes — including parking, trash enclosure, rooftop
mechanical, etc. (Staff Memo p. 7). Unfortunately, the Staff Memo fails to acknowledge that the
Code now also requires a public election to confirm the height, allowable floor area and parking
sought by the applicant. Moreover, under the ,current Code, Council must consider the
compatibility with the neighborhood, which is now eleven years older than when first considered
by Council in 2006. See Land Use Code §26.710.320 D.
Referendum 1
By Referendum, the citizens of Aspen adopted Section 13.14 of the Home Rule Charter
for the City of Aspen. This is commonly known as Referendum 1 ("Ref 1"). In relevant part,
Ref 1 states:
(a) Any land use approval granted by the City of Aspen, or an amendment to a
previous land use approval, including those granted as a result of litigation, on
land within the zone districts listed in paragraph (b), that exceeds the zoning
limitations for allowable floor area or maximum height (including height
restricted by view planes), or which reduces the requirements for the amount of
off-street parking spaces or affordable housing, shall not be effective unless
subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors voting thereon.
(b) Except as set forth herein below, the provisions of paragraph (a)shall apply to
all properties east of Castle Creekwithin the following zone districts on January
1, 2015: Commercial Core (CC) zone district, Commercial (C-1) zone district,
Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district, Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) zone district, Mixed Use (MU) zone district, Lodge (L) zone district,
Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district, Lodge Overlay (LO) zone district, Lodge
Preservation Overlay(LP) zone district.
Ref 1 was adopted and incorporated into the current Code. See Land Use Code
§26.710.320 E. This application is an amendment to a previous land use approval that"exceeds
the zoning limitations for allowable floor area or maximum height(including height restricted by
view planes)," and as such requires a submission to the voters for approval. As the Staff Memo
explains, the Boomerang Lodge was approved as a Lodge Overlay zone district Planned Unit
Development ("PUD;" now called a"PD" under the current Code) plan by Ordinance No. 26
(Series of 2006) ("Ord. 26"). Staff Memo at pg 3. That approval involved setting a height limit
of 36'6" and floor area of a maximum of 44,915 square feet. Staff Memo at pg 3. Additionally, t
a parking plan was approved that included 31 below grade parking spaces and 12 "head-in"
parking spaces on Fourth Street (partially within the right of way). Ord. 26 at pg 3.
Subsequently; there have been multiple "insubstantial amendments resulting in a current
t
1
i
i
Aspen City Council
September 7, 2017
Page 4
maximum height of 41'-7.5". Staff Memo at pg 3.. The property is within three zone districts:
R-6 (the underlying zoning), LP Overlay and a PUD Overlay. Staff Memo at Pg 1,
Ref 1 says that under the present circumstances, this land use application must be referred
to the electorate for approval.
Even if there was some viability to the expired approval, Ref. 1 also mandates submission
to the voters for approval of the proposed change in the parking requirements of this application.
"[A]n amendment to a previous land use approval *** on land within the zone districts listed ***
which reduces the requirements for the amount of off-street parking spaces *** shall not be
effective unless subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors voting thereon." At
present, Ord. 26 establishes the parking requirements for the project. This application proposes
to reduce the parking requirement, and therefore requires submission to the voters because the
current application proposes to reduce the existing parking requirement for the Boomerang.
Colorado law demands a liberal construction of any right to vote. "It is axiomatic that
`the right to vote is a fundamental right of the first order.' * * *" Bickel v. City.of Boulder, 885
P.2d 215, 225 (Colo. 1994) (citation omitted). Regarding initiative and referendum, the
Colorado Supreme Court said, "This court.has always liberally construed this fundamental right,
and, concomitantly, we have viewed with the closest scrutiny any governmental action that has
the effect of curtailing its free exercise. * * * Especially in cases where, as here, the power of
referendum is ostensibly unavailable to the people through the constitutional exemption of an
emergency clause, nothing short of jealous judicial protection of the.one remaining power of the
electorate is in order." McKee v. City of Louisville, 616 P.2d 969, 972 (Colo. 1980)(citations
omitted).
In these circumstances, a vote is required. If the City Council fails to send this
application to a vote of the citizens, then the Council is acting to deny the citizens of Aspen the
fundamental right to vote in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions and the City of
Aspen Home Rule Charter. Further,this is a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Building Permit
It is worth addressing the City's policy of extending vested rights and Development
Orders based on the existence of an accepted and complete building permit. Under the
provisions concerning Development Orders, the Code states as follows:
Expiration of development order. The development order shall not expire but
shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code, that have been adopted
since the development was approved, after the period of vested rights has expired.
Vested property rights, including allotments received pursuant to Chapter 26.470,
shall expire on the day after the third (3rd) anniversary of the effective date of the
E
Aspen City Council
September 7, 2017
Page 5
development order, unless a building permit application submittal is accepted and .
deemed complete by the Chief Building Official, pursuant to Section.26.304.075
below, or unless an exemption or extension of the approval is granted by the City
Council pursuant to Section 26.308. Once a complete building permit application
submittal has been accented, the development order shall remain valid subject to
applicable limitations of the International Building Code, the International
Residential Code and adopted policies of the Chief Building Official; regarding
the timely pursuit and execution of a building permit. In no case shall a
develoyment order be valid more than ten (10) years. Code Section 26304.080 D
(emphasis added).
There are two problems in the instant situation. Assuming the building permit for
the Boomerang remains valid (and has not yet expired of its own accord)i the above
section requires both "timely pursuit and execution" of the permit. Execution means
putting;a shovel in the ground—which has not happened. The second problem is that"in
no case" shall the development order be valid for more than 10 years and we are now in
the eleventh year. Apparently, it is the City's policy not to leave unexercised land use
approvals available indefinitely—there is finality after ten years. Also, it is impossible to
reconcile any assertion that the applicant still has vested rights with Staffs correct
determination that the applicant must comply with the current Code.
Conclusion
For the above reasons and others which will be apparent.at the Council meeting (such as
a lack of compatibility with the neighborhood), we respectfully request that you deny the request
for PD amendment of the. Boomerang property and instruct your Community Development
Director to not issue a new Development Order until such time as the Boomerang Lodge project
complies with the current Code or, if you approve it, send it to a vote of the electorate.
1
e
t
i
1
1
t
Aspen City Council
September 7, 2017
Page 6
Please let us know if you have any questions concerning any of this, and we look forward
to discussing this with you at the hearing on September 11,2017.
Very truly yours,
KLEIN COT DWARDS CITRON LLC
By:
Joseph . Edwards;III
Cc: James R. True
E. Michael Hoffman
Benjamin S. Gensha$
Christopher Bendon
f
w
fi
LAW OFFICES OF
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.C.
200 EAST MAIN STREET
P.O. Box EE
ASPEN,COLORADO 81612
TELEPHONE:(970)544-3442
FACSIMILE:(866)929-7870
E-MAIL:mhoffman o emhlaw.nct
September 8, 2017
City of Aspen City Council
c/o Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director
Aspen Community Development Director
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: . Boomerang Lodge Proposed PD Amendment (the "Application");
Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance 21 (Series of 2017).
Dear Mayor Skadron and Other Council Members:
I represent Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC (the "Owner"), the owner of the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment
site (the "Property").
A hearing is scheduled for Monday, September 11,2017, on the Application of ME Aspen Ventures One
LLC (the "Applicant"), which seeks the right to effect certain interior modifications to the
condominiumized lodge which is permitted under the currently-existing approvals for the Property.
Yesterday afternoon (at 4:36 p.m.) I received a "courtesy copy" of a letter to you from Attorney Joseph
E. Edwards, 111, in which he articulated the objections of Steve Goldenberg, John Staten and the
Chrisitiana Condominium Owners' Association (collectively, the "Objectors") to the changes requested
by the Applicant(the"Objection Letter").
My client and I have spent the day going through the Objection Letter and wish to register this response
with you now, so that you have an opportunity to consider it at the same time you review the Objection
Letter and other materials included in the Application packet.
The first issue raised in the Objection Letter is whether there is a continuing a right to build the
condominiumized lodge which is now under review by the City's Building Department. As explained in
detail below, that right exists. because (a) a complete building permit application for the
condominiumized lodge was submitted to the City prior to the expiration of statutory vesting on October
20, 2015, (b) the Owner has worked diligently with the Building Department since the building permit
application was filed to address its questions and requests for additional information, (c) the Owner has
expended considerable sums of money to address the issues raised by the Building Department, and (d)
the City's Chief Building Official (Stephen Kanipe) has granted formal extensions of his Department's
administrative review process to accommodate the review process. The latest extension encompasses the
time required to complete the City's review of the current application.
City of Aspen City Council
September 8, 2017
Page 2
Further, under the Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code") the Development Order for the project does not
expire until 2026 because City Council approved a minor amendment of the current approval in July of
last year.
The Aspen City Council approved the current development plan in 2006. A Development Order
memorializing the approval was issued on October 20, 2006. Under the Development Order the
property owner had a right to build the project through October 20, 2009.
City Council granted extensions of the owner's vested rights to build the project in 2009' and 2012.
The last of these extensions extended the vested rights period through October 20, 2015. On September
9, 2015, the Owner filed a building permit application to construct the Project in conformance with the
2006 approval. That application was subsequently deemed complete.
In an argument buried deep within the Objection letter,the Objectors identify that part of the City's Land
Use Code which has central importance to the questions at issue here. Section 26.304.080. D. provides
as follows:
Expiration of development order. The development order shall not expire but shall be
subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code, that have been adopted since the
development was approved,after the period of vested rights has expired. Vested property
rights, including allotments received pursuant to Chapter 26.470, shall expire on the day
after the third (3`d) anniversary of the effective date of the development order, unless a
building permit application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief
Building Official, pursuant to Section 26.304.075 below, or unless an exemption or
extension of the approval is granted by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.308. Once
a complete building permit application submittal has been accepted, the development
order shall remain valid subject to applicable limitations of the International Building
Code, the International Residential Code and adopted policies of the Chief Building
Official; regarding the timely pursuit and execution of a building permit. In no case shall
a development order be valid more than ten (10) years.
(Emphasis supplied.) The underlined conditions both apply to the Boomerang application. As
previously mentioned, City Council formally extended the 2006 land use approval through October 20,
2015 and the owner's current land use application was accepted and deemed complete by the City's
Chief Building Official prior to the vested rights expiration date.
Since September of 2015 the building permit application has been under review by the Building
Department.
In the fall of 2015 the Building Department discovered a discrepancy in the floor area identified in the
Resolution No. 58 (Series 2009).
2 Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2012).
City of Aspen City Council
September 8, 2017
Page 3
plans for the project approved by City Council in 2006 and as set forth in the FAR tables incorporated
in the 2006 approval ordinance. That discovery prompted the owner to file a request for approval of the
plans submitted in the 2015 building permit application. That request was considered on second reading
by the Aspen City Council on July 11, 2016. On that date Council adopted Ordinance No. 15 (Series of
2016) ("Ordinance No. 15").
Ordinance No. 15 approved a Minor Amendment to a Project Review pursuant to Code Section
26.445.110(D). The effect of the approval, among others, was to re-set the date of the Development
Order, but not the vested rights deadline established in prior ordinances. "Approved amendments to a
previously issued Development Order shall cause issuance of a revised Development Order pursuant to
Section 26.304.070.B, but shall not effect a new expiration date of the Development Order."3 The
effective date of the current Development Order should be roughly 30 days after the date on which
Ordinance 15 was approved–approximately August 11, 2016 -- prior to the ten-year anniversary of the
original approval.
The Building Department restarted its review of the building permit application once the FAR issue was
resolved. On September 14, 2016, the Chief Building Official sent a letter to the Owner of the Property
granting "a six-month administrative extension . . . until March 9, 2017 to account for the time spent in
the land use review process during your permit review period."A copy of the September 14, 2016 letter
is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit A.
During the six-month extension, the Property owner worked diligently, and spent a considerable sum of
money, to address the non-FAR questions raised by the Building Department. Prior to the March 9
deadline, the Chief Building Official sent the Owner a letter extending the administrative review period
for an additional three (3) months, to June 9, 2017;to give the Building Department time to review the
detailed information submitted by the applicant.A copy of Mr. Kanipe's March 8,2017 letter is attached
to this correspondence as Exhibit B.
The land use application which is the subject of hearing of September 11, 2017, was submitted prior to
the June 9, 2017 deadline and deemed complete on June 7, 2017. In response to the filing of the
application, the Chief Building Official wrote a letter to the Owner that included the following:
The Community Development Department recently received a land use application to
amend the Planned Development for the Boomerang Lodge (the "Application"). The
Application was deemed complete on June 07, 2017. Because the application represents
changes to the project, but is based on the existing building permit, the pending building
permit (Permit. No. 0052.2015.A CBK) and paying all costs associated therewith, is
hereby extended. The building permit application is and will remain valid through the
pendency of the City's review of the Application — including City Council review for
the Planned Development Amendments and a subsequent application for, Final Design
Review, should that be. necessary. City Council may further extend the deadline as
requested in the Application.
3 Code § 26.304.070. A.I.
City of Aspen City Council
September 8, 2017
Page 4
If the planning review for the amendments results in a denial or is withdrawn or otherwise
terminated, the building permit must be picked up within 8 weeks of such action, and all
fees shall be due at that time. If the planning review for the amendments results in
approval, the building permit must be revised and picked up within the timeframe stated
in the approvals.
A copy of Mr. Kanipe's letter of June 7, 2017, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The Owner, Applicant, Objectors and the City all agree that the statutory vesting period for the existing
Boomerang land use approval ended on October 20, 2015. Since September 9,2015,the project has been
subject to and kept vital by the building plan review process and authority of the Chief Building Official.
The Chief Building Official has granted extensions in the review process to accommodate the Building
Department's review of the application and, since June 7, 2017, to provide staff and Council the
opportunity to review the changes requested in the Application.
Because the current approvals remain vital, there are no changes requested in the current application
which would require a vote of the citizens of Aspen pursuant to "Ref 1."
We look forward to participating as necessary during your hearing on the current application, scheduled
for this coming Monday evening. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
September 14,`2016 . THE Circ oFAsraN
i
Aspen FSP—ABR LLC
c/o Steven Stunda
602 N. 4th St.
I
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Administrative extension for permit number 0052.2015.ACBK
Dear Steven:
I
i
This permit application for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was received
September 9,2015. A six-month administrative extension is granted until March 9, 2017 to
account for the time spent in the land use review process during your permit review period.
While that process resulted.in amendments to the allowed dimensions of the project to correct
discrepancies between the dimensions and drawings Ordinance No 26 (Series of 2006), it did not
extend vested rights for the project.
All the associated fees must be paid'and the permit issued on or before March 9, 2017 or,
in accordance with Resolution No. 80 (series 2012), the application becomes null and void and
the vested rights grantedby Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006) expire. A permit coordinator will
contact the applicant when the permit is approved for issuance.
Please call me at 970-429-2766 if you have any questions.
Regards,
Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official
CC: Jessica Garrow' Community Development Director
James R True, City Attorney
Jesse James, Permit Coordinator
File
{
i
i
li
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ' AEPF.N,COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5000 • FA 970.920.5197 ;
WWWaspenpitkin.cam
I4inlivlanitm'clM r'M
--------- - -- - - --
Exhtbrt B
_mss � �.�
DiE CITY of AsPr•.a
March 8, 2017
Steven R. Stunda
14310 Harbour Links Court
Fort Myers, FL 33908
Steven R. Stunda
Aspen FSP-ABR,LLC
c/o Fountain Square Properties
11921 Freedom Drive. Suite 950.
Reston;VA 20190
Re: Administrative extension for permit number 0052.2015.ACBK
Dear Steven:
This permit application for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was received
September 9, 2015 and granted a six-month administrative extension until March 9,2017.
Updated responses to comments were received prior to this deadline and is currently working its
way through the permit review. To accommodate this review, an extension of the permit can be
made for three (3)months to June 9, 2017. This does not extend'the vested rights for,the project,
which can only be extended through an act of City Council.
All the associated permit fees (estimated in November to be $82403.82, see attached)
must be paid in addition to any additional fees outlined in the approval Ordinance or determined
to be due at permit issuance (including,but not limited to water tap and sanitation fees) and the
permit issued on or before June 9, 2017 or the application becomes null and void and the vested
rights granted by Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006) expire.
Please call me at 970-429-2766 if you have any questions.
Regards,
Stephen anipe; Chief Building Official
CC: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
James R True, City Attorney
File
130 SOUTH GALENA Sraen AsrEN,COLOMBO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5000 Aix 970.920.5197
ww wpenpitkin.mm
toned onR crcl Pope
1
i
n
` Exhttitf�h
- THE CITY OF ASPEN
June 7, 2017
Steven R. Stunda
14310 Harbour Links Court
Fort Myers, FL 33908
Re: Administrative extension for permit number 0052.2015.ACBK
Dear Steve,
3
The Community Development Department recently received aland use application to
amend the Planned Development for the Boomerang Lodge(the "Application'). The
Application was deemed complete on June 07,2017. Because the application represents changes
to the project,but is based on the existing building permit, the pending building permit(Permit-
No. 0052.2015.ACBK) and paying all costs associated therewith,is hereby extended. The
building permit application is and will remain valid through the pendency of the City's review
of the Application—including City Council review for the Planned Development Amendments
and a subsequent application for.Final Design Review, should that be necessary. City Council
may further extend the deadline as requested in the Application.
It the planning review for the amendments results in a denial or is withdrawn or
otherwise terminated, the building permit must be picked up within 8 weeks of such action,
and all fees shall be due at that time. If the planning review for the amendments results in
approval, the building permit must be revised and picked up within the timeframe stated in the
approvals.
Regards,
Stephen I anipe, Chief uilduzg Official
CC: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Michael Hoffman
" r
130 SOUTH GALENA STRETO ASPEN,COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970,9205000 Fns 970.920.5197
www.aspenpi[kin.com ,
- ram.•n R,•ga.n r,r,.. - .
K C KLEIN COTE EDWARDS CITRON LLC
EIC ATTORNEYS
HERBERT S.KLEIN' hsk@kceclaw.com 101 SOUTH MILL STREET
LANCE R.COTE,PC" cote@kcecliw.com SUITE 200
JOSEPH E.EDWARDS,III,PC' )ee@kceclaw.com ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
KENNETH E.CITRON"* kcltron@kceclaw.com TELEPHONE:(970)925-8700
MADHU B.KRISHNAMURTI mbk@kcedaw.cam www.kceclaw.com
"also admitted In Hawaii
--also admitted In California
—also admitted In New Yark and Massachusetts
September 8,2017
City of Aspen City Council
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed PD Amendment ("Application");
Second Reading of proposed Ordinance 21 (Series of 2017) ("Ord 21")
Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilors:
Further to our objection letter dated September 7, 2017,please take note of the following
definitions contained in the Aspen City Code, and the conclusions drawn therefrom:
"Vested property right. The right to undertake and complete the development and use of
property under the terms and conditions of a site specific development plan." .Code Section.
26.104.100 (emphasis added).
"Site Specific Development Plan (SSDP). A development plan that has obtained final
approval from the City after review and evaluation as provided for in this Title, including notice
and public hearing and which describes with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for
a specific lot(s), parcel(s), site(s) or other area(s) of land and which incorporates all of the terms
and conditions of approval. An SSDP may include or take the form of a Planned Development,
subdivision plat, development and/or subdivision improvement agreement, a use or activity
permitted on review or such instrument or document as identified and agreed upon by the City and
landowner or developer. A license, map, variance, easement or permit shall not constitute an
SSDP." Code Section 26.104.100 (emphasis added).
"Rights conferred. A development order constitutes a site specific development plan
and subject to a vested property right." Code Section 26.308.010 (emphasis added).
"In no case shall a development order be valid more than ten(10)years."Code Section
26.304.080 D (emphasis added). In the case of the Boomerang,the development order was issued
in 2006 and expired automatically in 2016.
I
City Council
September 8, 2017
Page 2
Since the Applicant's development order has terminated by the passage of time,so too has
the site specific development plan subsumed within the development order. , Thus, there is no
existing site specific development plan to which any remaining vested rights can attach (even if
such rights still exist, which we do not concede because the prerequisites for a valid permit
contained in the Code have not been satisfied), Moreover, the existing building permit, assuming
it is valid(which we do not concede)also cannot constitute a site specific development plan giving .
rise to a right to build. There is simply nothing previously approved which may be built now and
there is no plan left to amend. The Application is therefore moot and the applicant must start over
with a completely new application consistent with the Code as it exists today.
Very truly yours,
KLEIN COTE EDWARDS CITRON LLC
By:
Joseph dwards, III
cc: James R. True
E. Michael Hoffman
Benjamin S. Genshaft
Christopher Bendon
Jennifer Phelan
From: Adam Frisch
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:13 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: FW: The Importance of Stopping the approval of the proposed new Boomerang
Condo/Hotel on the Pedestrian Bikeway on W. Hopkins in Aspen.
I think 5`h version of same email, but.........
From:Steve Goldenberg<steve@goldenberg.com>
Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:11 PM
To: Steven Skadron <skadron@comcast.net>, Steven Skadron<steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com>,Adam Frisch
<adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com>,Ann Mullins<Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>, Cuthbert Myrin
<bert.myrin@cityofaspen.com>,Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@gmail.com>;Ward Hauenstein
<wa rd.hauenstein @cityofaspen.com>
Subject: FW:The Importance of Stopping the approval of the proposed new Boomerang Condo/Hotel on the Pedestrian
Bikeway on W. Hopkins in Aspen.
The new Boomerang is too big and too tall.
Much of it is 4 stories tall. It takes up the entire block on W. Hopkins between 4th and 5tn
streets. '
The latest round of requested changes make it even more like a FREE MARKET CONDO than
a HISTORIC LODGE
AND removes 12 head in parking spaces from an already under parked project.
It will change this quiet neighborhood and the West Hopkins Pedestrian Bikeway forever.
The final approval could be granted by City Council at the Public Hearing next Monday,
9/11/17.
i
Aspen Art Museum
96 feet { •
If you think the Art Museum
is big, the proposed
Boomerang on the
West Hopkins
jin.•�1C xp•_. 'ww - >M:caaao cap: r e
Pedestrian
I:w;c Y .. • f.•.a ,l a,a¢ac. nor. *y .
Bikeway is
2 to 3 times wider.
96 feet wide
-
i
a o e
� � ■ i� itl�i�iF •����w r��l�ly —
feet
tail
7 17
Slh St.
'�
� 'u�••r ;•_� ,tl l■I H:11 �a If I{«I` I�III,j /I■= ��
�� ,p11 'III■1 4■ 11' �Illfl! 1, "11111' ■i■ ■1
-
r. q. ..��_,-,^�. �.m"I �I�I N°Ire'} r IIG■�t Irl"■;� rl lr� - !•■
.`�..n._��°"'�`��..�_��.�`-.. �°'_'Ca.Il�iryu��! ;1•I '•I �q l�}�, rllr�r-_ �j
1 feet wide
Proposed i ! t on Hopkins P
Thank you,
Steve Goldenberg
. i
v
THE CITY OF ASPEN
March 8, 2017
Steven R. Stunda
14310 Harbour Links Court
Fort Myers,FL 33908
Steven R. Stunda
Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC
c/o Fountain Square Properties
11921 Freedom Drive. Suite 950.
Reston,VA 20190
Re: Administrative extension for permit number 0052.2015.ACBK
Dear Steven:
This permit application for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was received
September 9, 2015 and granted six-month administrative extension until March 9,2017.
Updated responses to comments were received prior to this deadline and is currently working its
way through the permit review. To accommodate this review, an extension of the permit can be
made for three(3)months to June 9, 2017. This does not extend the vested rights for,the project,
which canonly be extended through an act of City Council.
All the associated permit fees (estimated:in November to be $824;863.82, see attached)
must be paid in addition to any additional fees outlined in the approval Ordinance or determined
to be due at permit issuance (including,but not limited to water tap and sanitation fees) and the
permit issued on or before June 9,2017 or the application becomes null and void and the vested
rights granted by Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006)expire.
Please call me at 970-429-2766 if you have any questions.
Regards,
Stephen ampe, Chief Building Official
CC: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
James R True, City Attorney
File
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ' AsPEN,COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5000 FAx 970.920.5197
www.aspenfOl insOrn
i
inmd.m amda P.p. -
J
THE CFrY OF.AsPEN
June 7,2017
Steven R. Stun da
14310 Harbour Links Court
Fort Myers,FL 33908
Re: Administrative extension for permit number 0052.2015.ACBK
1
Dear Steve,
The Community Development Department recently received a land use application to
amend the Planned Development for the Boomerang Lodge (the"Application'). The
Application was deemed complete on June 07,2017. Because the application represents changes
to the project,but is based on the existing building permit, the pending building permit(Permit
No. 0052.2015.ACBK) and paying all costs associated therewith,is hereby extended. The
building permit application is and will remain valid through the pendency of the City's review
Of the Application—including G ty Council review for the Planned Development Amendments
and a subsequent application for,Final Design Review, should that be necessary. City Council
may further extend the deadline as requested in the Application.
If,the planning review for the amendments results jn a denial or is withdrawn or
otherwise terminated, the building permit must be picked up within 8 weeks of such action,
and all fees shall be due at that time. If the planning review for the amendments results in
approval,the building permit must be revised and picked up within the timeframe stated in the
approvals.
Regards,
Stephen I anipe, Chief uildu1g Official
CC: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Michael Hoffman
130 SOUTH GALENA SI REM ASPEN,COLORAD087.611-1975 PwiN,970.920.5000 Fax970.920.5197
www.aspenpitkinxom ,
ray dm,a..�yda rap.
i
i
September 14; 2016 THE Czrn of AS
Aspen FSP-ABR LLC
c/o Steven Stunda.
602 N. 4th St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Administrative extension for permit number 0052.2015.ACBK j
' 1
Dear Steven:
This permit application for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was received
September 9,2015. A six-month administrative extension is granted until March 9,2017 to
account for the time spent in the land use review process during your permit review period.
While that process resulted in amendments to the allowed dimensions of the project to correct
discrepancies between the dimensions and drawings Ordinance No 26 (Series of 2006), it did not
extend vested rights for the project.
All the associated fees must be paid and the permit issued on or before March 9,2017 or,
in accordance with Resolution No. 80 (series 2012),'the application becomes null and void and
the vested rights granted by Ordinance No. 26.(series of 2006)expire. A permit coordinator will
contact the applicant when the permit is approved for issuance.
Please call me at 970-429-2766 if you have any questions.
Regards, ..
u
Stephen4anipe, Chief Building Official
CC: Jessica Galrow, Community.Development Director
James R True, City Attorney
Jesse James, Permit.Coordinator
File
130 SOurH GALENA SLREEE ASPEN,CoL mw S16n-7975 PHONE 970.920.5000- Fix 970.920.5197
wives•.Rspengoe.Com
' &mma.n Rrr11!ed Paper
STATEMENT OF STEVEN R'STUNDA
I am Steve Stunda. I live at 411 Vine Street in Aspen. I am the local partner, representing the
owner of the Boomerang Project,Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC.
The Boomerang project may be the most scrutinized project in the history of Aspen. During our
ownership of the property, it has been through three separate land use review processes. In each
case we fully resolved all the issues raised by the City's elected and appointed officials and City
staff.
The most recent of these reviews was conducted last year and the approval you granted put our
project on the path toward the issuance of a building permit. We believe the permit was ready to
be issued this past June upon payment of the requisite fees. Issues like the height, mass and scale
of the project were, of course, ancient history. Even the details of the project are now settled.
The application you are considering today seeks changes only to the interior of the project. Those
modifications reflect the demands made on small lodges today. They are very like changes you
would make to keep your home fresh and desirable.
We strongly believe that this hearing should be focused exclusively on the narrow requests for
interior modifications which constitute the application. Any discussion of the long-since decided
questions of mass, scale, height and similar issues is off-point, a distraction to the matters at
hand, and potentially prejudicial to our rights to build this small lodge project.
We strongly urge Council to approve this applicant's requests as presented today. Thank you for
your consideration.
Steve Stunda
i
• ii !
:...� , . . q. /111 ��p. � � ■ Liu _
IA
Y
; ,. . � r� ii� -
��n�ir•rr.
�iNi� Rei " l
-
. '_� '.tiayr rr as i ••
•
i
IA
.
• .■
TO
• •
E en 21
ca
..